This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Debt Crisis Being Used as Shock Doctrine to Steal More Money from the American People to Give to the Richest .1%
- AIG
- American International Group
- Ben Bernanke
- Ben Bernanke
- Brad Sherman
- Chrysler
- Debt Ceiling
- Fat Cats
- Federal Reserve
- General Motors
- Henry Paulson
- Iraq
- John McCain
- Main Street
- Market Conditions
- Martial Law
- Matt Taibbi
- Meltdown
- Monetary Policy
- New York Times
- Paul Kanjorski
- Quantitative Easing
- SWIFT
- TARP
- White House
I noted in 2008:
The powers-that-be have used the "Shock Doctrine" to pass anti-American, fascist legislation while the public was in a state of shock.
This applies to economic shocks, as well as physical attacks like 9/11.
Indeed, right now, Paulson and Bernanke are using the shock doctrine to try to ram through legislation that would help out the fat cats at the expense of taxpayers, and give the government control over the free market.
But there is some resistance. For example, Senator Leahy and the New York Times are questioning Paulson's use of shock and awe:
- Senator Leahy said "If we learned anything from 9/11, the biggest mistake is to pass anything they ask for just because it's an emergency"
- The New York Times wrote:
"The rescue is being sold as a must-have emergency measure by an administration with a controversial record when it comes to asking Congress for special authority in time of duress."
***
Mr. Paulson has argued that the powers he seeks are necessary to chase away the wolf howling at the door: a potentially swift shredding of the American financial system. That would be catastrophic for everyone, he argues, not only banks, but also ordinary Americans who depend on their finances to buy homes and cars, and to pay for college.
Some are suspicious of Mr. Paulson’s characterizations, finding in his warnings and demands for extraordinary powers a parallel with the way the Bush administration gained authority for the war in Iraq. Then, the White House suggested that mushroom clouds could accompany Congress’s failure to act. This time, it is financial Armageddon supposedly on the doorstep.
“This is scare tactics to try to do something that’s in the private but not the public interest,” said Allan Meltzer, a former economic adviser to President Reagan, and an expert on monetary policy at the Carnegie Mellon Tepper School of Business. “It’s terrible.”
The Tarp bailouts were passed using apocalyptic - and false - threats. For example, as I've previously reported:
The New York Times wrote last year:
In retrospect, Congress felt bullied by Mr. Paulson last year. Many of them fervently believed they should not prop up the banks that had led us to this crisis — yet they were pushed by Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke into passing the $700 billion TARP, which was then used to bail out those very banks.
Indeed, Congressmen Brad Sherman and Paul Kanjorski and Senator James Inhofe all say that the government warned of martial law if Tarp wasn't passed:
That is especially interesting given that the financial crisis had actually been going on for a long time, but - instead of dealing with it - Paulson and the rest of the crew tried to cover it up and pretend it was "contained", and that it was obvious to world leaders months earlier that it was not a liquidity crisis, but a solvency crisis (and see this).
Bait And Switch
The Tarp Inspector General has said that Paulson misrepresented the big banks' health in the run-up to passage of TARP. This is no small matter, as the American public would have not been very excited about giving money to insolvent institutions.
And Paulson himself has said:
During the two weeks that Congress considered the [Tarp] legislation, market conditions worsened considerably. It was clear to me by the time the bill was signed on October 3rd that we needed to act quickly and forcefully, and that purchasing troubled assets—our initial focus—would take time to implement and would not be sufficient given the severity of the problem. In consultation with the Federal Reserve, I determined that the most timely, effective step to improve credit market conditions was to strengthen bank balance sheets quickly through direct purchases of equity in banks.
So Paulson knew "by the time the bill was signed" that it wouldn't be used for its advertised purpose - disposing of toxic assets - and would instead be used to give money directly to the big banks?
Senator McCain also says that Paulson pulled a bait-and-switch:
Sen. John McCain of Arizona ... says he was misled by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. McCain said the pair assured him that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program would focus on what was seen as the cause of the financial crisis, the housing meltdown.
"Obviously, that didn't happen," McCain said in a meeting Thursday with The Republic's Editorial Board, recounting his decision-making during the critical initial days of the fiscal crisis. "They decided to stabilize the Wall Street institutions, bail out (insurance giant) AIG, bail out Chrysler, bail out General Motors. . . . What they figured was that if they stabilized Wall Street - I guess it was trickle-down economics - that therefore Main Street would be fine."
Even the New York Times called Paulson a liar in 2008:
“First [Paulson’s Department of Treasury] says it has to have $700 billion to buy back toxic mortgage-backed securities. Then, as Mr. Paulson divulged to The Times this week, it turns out that even before the bill passed the House, he told his staff to start drawing up a plan for capital injections. Fearing Congress’s reaction, he didn’t tell the Hill about his change of heart.
Now, he’s shifted gears again, and is directing Treasury to use the money to force bank acquisitions. Sneaking in the tax break isn’t exactly confidence-inspiring, either.”
What tax breaks is the Times talking about? The article explains:
A new tax break [pushed by Treasury], worth billions to the banking industry, that has only one purpose: to encourage bank mergers. As a tax expert, Robert Willens, put it: “It couldn’t be clearer if they had taken out an ad.”
Indeed, all of the other "emergency" economic and monetary measures - like quantitative easing - didn't help the American people, but just helped the richest .1%. And most of the bailout and "easy" money went to foreign banks (and see this, this and this).
The Same Thing Is Happening With the Debt Ceiling
The same thing is now happening with the debt ceiling.
We know that the productive actions which would reduce the debt and fix the economy are not being discussed. See this, this, this, this, this and this.
What is being discussed would just steal more money from the American people and give it to the richest 1%. For example, Congress is planning on selling off "unused federal property". Selling off and privatizing public assets and resources is a core tactic in shock doctrine schemes.
As Matt Taibbi shows, another tax holiday for big corporations is one of the main focuses of discussion in D.C.
There are numerous other giveaways to the biggest fatcats, which will be paid for by slashing social security and otherwise fleecing the elderly.
Note: As usual, it's not liberal-versus-conservative, but the top 1% versus the rest of the country, and you versus the giant corporations. See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this.
And - no - the top 1% are not using the money to create more jobs. It's being used for prostitutes and other hanky panky.
»
- advertisements -
Logical fallacy known as "The Ad Hominem Attack." Address the validity of issues in the analysis. Cato published the paper by Johan Norberg, they did not author it.
Fail.
Please, this wasn't addressed in their talking points - you'll confuse them. Dontcha wonder how he had those name ready at hand to 'discredit' the article just on the mere basis of these people are........gee what are they that discredits them?
I would more than I would trust you sir, with your obvious lack of good judgement.
I would be interested in some references to back up your use of the the word "discredited". Discredited by whom, Rush Limbaugh, the Hoover Instititution, the American Enterprise Instititute? Discredited on what basis?
discredited by reality
Be more than happy to hand over what little FRN's I do have.
Its when they start asking me to hand over my PM's is when the SHTF.
As long as the FED contiues to print without end, their paper dollars are devalued just like everyone elses. They can no more escape devaluation than any other holder of fiat.
So, in the end, they'll have vaults of worthless toliet paper thanks to the Berskank printing press.
Power isn't about who has the most money. It's about who gets to decide what will be used as money. Those who currently have this privilege will not surrender it peacefully.
Sorry, but those folks are living in a vacuum. Power doesn't revolve around money. Certainly the universe doesn't need money to run. The milky way doesn't use money to exist, and the solar system existed long before a group of monkeys climbed down from the trees and decided they were the smartest apes in the room.
If you buy into the brainwashing that they have power because of money, that doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree to that illogical construct.
Money is just a tool to exchange goods and services, not the end all, be all.
If you are ever in a position to hire people, because of your money or other people's money, you will quickly discover the power that you posses - as people will do almost anything if it means that you will hire them.
You got it. Money is actually a collective hallucination of mankind, and most likely some sort of spiritual hurdle that we must overcome in order to graduate to the next level where we are granted the ability to bend space-time.
Ripley: They grab the colonists, they move them over there and they immobilize them to be hosts for more of these. Which would mean that there would have to be a lot of these parasites, right? One for each colonist. That's over a hundred at least.
Bishop: Yes, that follows.
Ripley: But each one of these things comes from an egg, right? So who's laying these eggs?
Bishop: I'm not sure. It must be something we haven't seen yet.
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
They (the elite) mostly come out at night...mostly.
They (the elite) mostly come out at night...mostly.
They (the elite) mostly come out at night...mostly.
The top 0.01% are not using all that money, and that is the problem. By taking and taxing the rest of us, there is just no buying. YES; They will tax us more, and pilfer the land, because money is just a way of keeping score for them. We mean nothing to them, except something to play with. They own our governments, and so we belong to them.
In an unrelated note, anything new or exciting happening over in Japan? Was away for a while and may have missed your updates.
Japanese Nuclear "Reactors Are Almost In The Same Situation They Were In The Early Days Of The Accident"
Typhoon increases level of radioactive water in Reactor No. 1 basement by 17 inches in a day — Likely to continue rising Now over 1,300 cattle suspected of radiation contamination have been shipped NHK: “High levels of radioactivity found extensively” — Japan says air 150 km from Fukushima plant is as radioactive as areas close to meltdown Japan nuclear expert warns of further radiation releases from Fukushima — Risks should be explained to nearby residents (VIDEO) Radiation dose near Tokyo higher than some locations inside 30 km evacuation zone (PHOTOS) Former official at Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission discusses radioactive contamination from “black rain” (FAIREWINDS VIDEO) Sharp rise in Iodine-131 levels at three Tokyo sewage plants (CHART) Tokyo gov’t finds iodine-131 levels up to quadruple cesium levels in water reclamation centersGW, on the nuclear fallout subject, I think many Americans in the eastern half of the country are much less worried about the radioactive fallout from Fukushima primarily because of the sheer geographical distance. However, of concern to me is the fact that California "produces nearly half of U.S.-grown fruits, nuts and vegetables. Across the nation, U.S. consumers regularly purchase several crops produced solely in California." (source: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/)
Since internal (inhaled or ingested) radioactive emitters are exponentially more dangerous than external emitters, I have become concerned about the safety of eating California produce. I would be interested to see what a researcher like yourself would find and conclude on these concerns since I haven't seen anyone discussing them. I know the lack of reliable fallout data (yes EPA, you're hiding it) would make any firm findings/conclusions difficult, but given the number of people potentially affected, I think this needs to be explored . . .
Thank you sir.
Bookmark www.enenews.com if you want daily nuclear incident updates (Fukushima, Los Alamos, Fort Calhoun, etc.) . . .
ENE News is by far the best news source on nuclear problems.
George - the king of the "this,this,.......and this"s.
Yeah, problem is the top 1% and the additional 535 assclowns in DC (of which some may be in that 1% also) that enable them to steal our money and make us think they are doing good by us. Well, actually, only the dumbest 5% would actually think the gubmit is doing good by us, but thats another discussion.......
Points well made, GW and you're absolutely correct. Question is, what can we the sheeple do about it? The ballot box doesn't seem to be working since we only get to select from "A" or "B" who are both bought and paid for by the .1%.
Sue the pricks. Death by a million cuts.
Federal Foreclosure Judge Requests Evidence. In Fact He Insists.
http://republicfortheunitedstates.org
Thanks......
+1 Great Post.
Is ZH run by JPMorgan?
Seems like they won't discuss WAMU BK here.
I dunno, they might have something against Wachovia, too. At least our government seems to like them!
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2011/05/too-big-to-do-time-fed-wrist-slap-...
Show respect. The full name is: JP Morgan - Chase Manhattan - Chemical Bank - Bank One - Bear Stearns - Washington Mutual.
Presenting the very latest in the campaign to CRASH JP MORGAN - BUY SILVER
This guy is awesome and he has the lyrics on the youtube video.
Come on everyone... sing along... Men Without Scruples
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gbuJpPknFk
I really don't think you should be allowed to mention 9/11 unless you've at least spent $100,000 to obtain your Masters Degree in Homeland Security from Pace University.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3Wm8JQpx8w
Put a Trident through their eye.
Every 10K worth of theft is a another eye and testicle.
You had me until you mentioned hookers.
I'm so tired of this asinine, repeated reference to the use of prostitutes. What does this have to do anything? Is it an attempt to evoke some sort of American puritanical moral outrage along with the fact TRILLIONS of dollars are being stolen?
We don't need anything else to be outraged about, and frankly I could care less if the wealthiest one percent is into BDSM and goat-fucking. It has nothing to do with the central issue of our time.
Leave the moralist, Christian bullshit at home, and let consenting adults do whatever they want.
FUCK YOU POPO!!!!
Consenting adults? What, did you get your opinion of prostitution from TV, or are you 10?
Girls just ballin' to get beamers, right?
Fucking moron.
Hope you end up sucking dicks at the bus station.
Leave the amoral, "free-market" slavery shit at home, dipshit.
Agreed...although to be fair, goat-fucking has been getting a bum rap as of late.
+1
PoPo,
I think it was the fact our $$$$$$$$$ was being used for the hookers.
Now,that do piss me off.Nothing to do with religion.
I call bullshit.
The money was used on everything from a new Lexus, to a fat villa in the south of France, to fake boobs for the wifey, to a new Gulfstream for daddy and new iPads and ponies for the kids.
But we repeatedly hear about the hookers.
Why? We are clearly not bitching about the theft of our money anymore. ...We're bitching about something else. Christian morality? Maybe. I don't know, but it's hardly the issue.
Piggybacking moralist, fundamentalist issues on top of real political / financial ones is how countless movements have been co-opted and killed. (In fact, it's the entire methodology for dividing America into the pseudo left/right schism -- which distracts from the uber-issues of wealth distribution, war and political power with idiotic petty sideshows like abortion and gays in the military).
Tacking morality onto arguments this vital is an extremely bad idea.
Here's the relevant passage from my older post which the "prostitutes and other hanky panky" links to ...
The bailout money is just going to line the pockets of the wealthy, instead of helping to stabilize the economy or even the companies receiving the bailouts:
GW, please, stick to one group.
The difference between the top 0.1% and the top 1% (measured in income) is greater than the difference between the top 1% and the top 10%, etc. etc..
The top 0.1%? You can rant forever, they are untouchable. You might even think to give them the greatest tax break of all time, something like "nobody has ever to pay more taxes then ... for argument's sake let's say 10m bucks".
Tax laws? Gimme a break. Laws were written down in Rome for the first time because the plebs revolted since they wanted to know what the law actually is. Following this argument, you can have too much written law and have again the case where the plebs is clueless again. Unless the plebs revolts again and asks for a TAX CODE THE PLEBS CAN UNDERSTAND.
The current US, German, etc. tax code is just this: a scam. Written for the corps and individuals that can hire legions of tax lawyers and accountants. The BIG Corporations & Individuals against the SMALL Corporations & Individuals.
End of Flat Tax Rant
Wow! The junk monster must be out tonight. Everybody's got one and I bet I'm next . . .
----------
Yes, exactly ... I have nothing at all against professional ladies. I'm a libertarian on prostitution, drugs and other consensual acts. Here's a great book on that topic.
Excellent article GW, and excellent reference to Kouri's study. See also "The Science of Evil" by Simon Baron-Cohen (yes, his cousin!!). A look at the neuropsychology of empathy. He regards it as the most important trait for human survival, and I'm inclined to agree.
who mentioned hookers? i missed that part and i'm usually pretty good at spotting anything to do with pimpin'.
How about McD's Hamburger Uni? McD's had more applications for admission then Harvard this year...tougher admissions requirments.
...and more practical life skills.
Hahaha, heard an ad for this on the radio. They were advertising that you didn't need to take the GMATS!!
@GW.
Nice read, as usual.