Friday, September 26, 2008 :The turn of events at the White House summit announced Wednesday night by President Bush and held Thursday to press for bipartisan agreement on his plan for a bailout of Wall Street has underscored the cynical and reactionary role being played by the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
Bush called the meeting, bringing together Obama, Republican presidential candidate John McCain and the congressional leadership of both parties, to signal rapid passage of legislation authorizing Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to spend at least $700 billion in taxpayer money to purchase virtually worthless financial assets from banks and other financial institutions, enabling them to offload their bad debts and losses at the expense of the American people.
The meeting was called for Thursday afternoon, in the expectation that by that time the Democratic Party would have already signed off on the deal, along with the Republicans in the Senate. As for the House of Representatives, the Republican minority leader, Rep. John Boehner, had joined with the Democratic speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi, to issue a statement pledging support for a bipartisan bill that would conform to the basic provisions of the proposal first broached by Paulson the previous Friday.

Early Thursday afternoon, prior to the White House summit, the heads of the banking and finance committees of the House and Senate emerged from talks to announce that they had arrived at an agreed framework for a bailout plan which, with minor amendments, accepted the principles of the scheme proposed by Paulson.


Read More;

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No billionaire banker bailouts without regulations!

End socialism for the wealthy corporations!

Friday Sep 26th, 2008 11:19 AM

From the above wsws article text;

"This has opened the door for McCain and right-wing House Republicans to posture as opponents of Wall Street and identify themselves with massive popular opposition to the bailout. The faction of House Republicans who have denounced the measure represents right-wing libertarian elements within the party who identify social spending and government intervention in the capitalist “free market” with what they consider the ultimate evil—socialism. They base themselves on appeals primarily to middle class layers, utilizing anti-tax and nationalist demagogy as their stock in trade.

In opposing the bailout, they are, moreover, responding to bitter opposition to the windfall for Wall Street among their constituents. The media and politicians of both parties have acknowledged that there is massive popular opposition to the bailout scheme.

The Los Angeles Times on Thursday called the proposal “wildly unpopular.” The New York Times reported that the “delicate” negotiations between Paulson and congressional leaders were “complicated” by pressure on rank-and-file legislators “who were fielding torrents of complaints from constituents furious that their own money was going to be spent to clear up a mess created by high-paid financial executives.”

The newspaper gave several examples of lawmakers who have been inundated with hostile emails and phone calls over the past week. “Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California,” it noted, “has received nearly 17,000 email messages, nearly all opposed to the bailout, her office said. More than 2,000 constituents called Ms. Boxer’s California office on Tuesday alone; just 40 favored the bailout. Her Washington office received 918 calls. Just one supported the rescue plan.

“Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, said he had been getting 2,000 email messages and telephone calls a day, roughly 85 percent opposed.”

What neither the media nor the politicians have pointed out is the brazen violation of any conception of democracy, even by the eviscerated and restricted standards of the American two-party system, represented by the enactment of such a momentous measure, which will impose massive burdens on the American people for decades to come, on the eve of a national election by a lame duck president and a Congress nearing the end of its tenure.

The Democrats’ rush to pass the bailout is driven by the most cynical calculations. They want the decision to be taken before the November elections, so that in the event they win, an Obama administration, with an increased Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, can claim that its hands are tied and it has no alternative but to pursue a right-wing policy of austerity, including savage cuts in social spending.

The Socialist Equality Party completely rejects the bailout of Wall Street and the entire framework within which the Bush administration and the Democratic Party seek to deal with the financial crisis. Our opposition has nothing in common with that of some of the most right-wing sections of the Republican Party.

The responsibility for the economic crisis rests with the capitalist system. The near-collapse of the American banking system has exposed not only the economic bankruptcy of the profit system, but also the fundamentally unrepresentative character of its political system.

This crisis is the product of the unbridled greed and criminality of the financial elite. More fundamentally, it is the outcome of the long-term decline and decay of American capitalism.

There is no progressive or democratic solution within the framework of this system. If the resources of the country must be mobilized to resolve the economic crisis and prevent a catastrophe, then they must be taken out of the hands of the financial parasites and placed under the democratic control of the working people.

The working class must be mobilized as an independent political force, in opposition to both parties of Wall Street, to establish a workers’ government and carry out the socialist nationalization, without compensation, of the banks and finance industry, so that the financial resources of the country can be allocated to meet to social needs of the people, rather than the money-mad strivings of a financial aristocracy.

Only on this basis can the urgent need be met for decent-paying jobs, retirement security, education, health care and high-quality housing for all.

This is the program of the SEP and our candidates for president and vice president, Jerry White and Bill Van Auken. We call on all those who agree on the need for a socialist alternative to support our election campaign and join the SEP."


Anarcho-libertarian response to wsws article;

Why would socialists say they have "nothing in common" with the "far right libertarian" opposition to the GW bush billionaire bailout plan? The reasoning of the libertarians being that socialism for wealthy corporations is part the problem, and this is exactly what the GW bush billions in bailout plan proposes by rescuing Wall Street banking corporations..

Lack of effective regulation of the banking, lending, mortgage and other Wall Street corporations is the initial source of the current financial crisis, yet currently no regulatory provisions exist to safeguard from the same collapse happening again and then tacking on another 700 billion of taxpayer dollars to the losses. Greed and unbridled lust for short term profit on the part of the banking CEOs and other Wall Street corporate players added fuel to the fire started by deregulation. Adding more fuel in the form of 700 billion in taxpayer dollars will only result in an inferno..

Why not have the government spend 700 billion on local schools, community colleges and other needed infrastructure repairs? Why not support locally based credit unions that reinvest money into their communities instead of large corporate banks that drain their communities? What about a bailout for struggling small organic farmers who resist the larger conventional pesticide dependent agribusiness corporations who are subsidized many times more? Now taxpayers are expected to subsidize irresponsible banking/lending/mortgage corporations in addition to so many other blank checks issued to other corporations of all sorts? Why not question the logic of government subsidies to irresponsible corporations (socialism for the rich), as libertarians like Ron Paul have suggested??

We're not even talking about government welfare and food stamp programs to lower income individuals and families, the subject of government subsidies to large corporations of all sorts (agribusiness, fast food chains, military weapons manufacturers, etc...) is never included in the dialogue of why the economy is struggling! Now the wealthiest most powerful banks and lending institutions are getting rewarded for ripping off the U.S. taxpayers by the most crooked, criminal and deceitful Presidental administration ever under GW bush!!

Am ashamed in the Democrats who quickly bit into the fishhook dangled in front of them by GW Bush regime in the form of this 700 billion to billionaires bailout. Did we learn nothing from juimping headfirst into Iraq at the urging of the GW Bush regime? Once again the "far right libertarians" and the "far left socialists" are the only ones awake here, yet these two groups remain polarized in opposition based upon differences in reasons for their opposition!

To suggest that socialism is the only alternative to the current capitalist crisis isn't really accurate either, and that opens up the discussion of what a "really free and fair market" would look like if the factor of government subsidies to large corporations (banks, agribusiness, etc...) were instead redirected to support smaller farmers, community efforts (rec. centers, parks, farmers markets, etc...) and helping establish local credit unions that are not as vulnerable to greed and corruption as are the larger Wall Street corporate banks/lenders/etc...

Fair housing and banking are interrelated, and having more local influence on money and homes will improve accountability of corporations. The days of big federal government and their corporate parasites are ending, and neither state owned socialism nor capitalism under bloodsucking corporations will be effective unless regional locally based governments can have a say in their own affairs. The vision of a trade and barter anarchist tribalism accepts neither state socialism nor corporate capitalism, we want localized economies without any police state government from afar telling communities what to do or how to live their lives!!

People would be better off if all the large corporate banks/lenders/etc... would go belly up into bankruptcy and be replaced by regionally based credit unions and lending coopertives that could be held accountable to local citizen government review panels. Time for the drug (money) addicted Wall Street banking corporations to take their medicine (rehab with no cash flow) and bite the dust (dry up and get another job elsewhere). Local credit unions will be able to replace these dinosaurs with better options for being monitored and regulated by their region's community government.

No more bailout "drug money" for Wall Street's greed addicted corporations without any regulations!!

Libertarians, socialists, greens and others can all agree that the GW bush billionaire bailout plan is a failure at best, and theft of taxpayer dollars at worst. We can put aside our differences to join in the common ground that the war criminal GW bush regime needs to stop stealing money from the U.S. people to subsidize their wealthy banker buddies on Wall Street!!

wsws article link;
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/bail-s26.shtml

Out of fairness, here is a link featuring libertarian reasons for opposition to the Bush bailout bait;

http://www.libertariansforpaul.com

Bailout Bill Is Unconstitutional Delegation

“Constitutional experts have concluded that that the $700 billion bailout bill is an unconstitutional delegation of power, in violation of constitutional separation-of-powers safeguards. I earlier reached the same conclusion in pronouncing the bill “dangerous, inflationary, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.” One of the experts calling its constitutionality into question is Civil Rights Commissioner and Heritage Foundation scholar Todd Gaziano, a separation-of-powers expert who, as a Justice Department lawyer in the Clinton and Bush administrations, “developed the argument adopted by the Supreme Court in Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1993) to uphold the constitutionality of judges detailed to hear cases in the military court system.” Gaziano and Andrew Grossman argue that the bill is likely unconstitutional because it lacks meaningful standards and bars judicial review.”