Of course, only the media believed them ...

ADDED II: As always Glenn Greenwald puts the world in perspective: The simultaneous rejection of the bailout and a corrupt ruling class
------------------------

ADDED: Actually Pelosi made a pretty good speech. She understands the problems (in more than just the economy) but she seldom follows through to ensure good legislation. She usually gives up to the Thugs and helps put through terrible Thug-backed solutions while telling us that's not what she's doing. That's what she was doing this time. And the Thugs sandbagged her, not for the first time. But remember she was helping the Thugs pass what they said they wanted, what they said they had to have to 'save the country,' only they couldn't hold their own members in line this time. And the 'protections' that Pelosi and the Dems said they got were so much hype, just like they were with FISA and everything else.
------------------------

Nancy Made Them Cry - Or Not

by Steve Soto

House Republicans are already stepping away from their ludicrous claim that Nancy Pelosi's speech cost them the Republican votes needed to pass the bailout yesterday. Several media sources this morning point out that Boehner and Blunt knew hours before the vote that they didn't have the numbers to hold up their end of the deal, but didn't tell Pelosi and Hoyer this.

Maybe we should send them all "Nancy Made Me Cry" bumper stickers.

But they claimed, in public, that Nancy Pelosi made cry babies out of them by giving a political speech. And they claimed that because Pelosi made cry babies out of them with her words they decided not to vote as they had promised to vote [another lie].

We knew it was all a lie but were still presented with the ridiculous story because the press rolled with the story without laughing in their faces, as usual.

We should make sure the shame [not that Thugs have shame, ridiculousness then] of presenting themselves as cry babies because of Pelosi's words should follow them to the grave [or at least a few minutes more].

Poor widdle Thugs ...

• The Thugs want a $700B giveaway, but their 'base' does not.
• The Thugs manipulate the stupid Dem leadership into doing the Thug giveaway [instead of looking at reasonable options].
• But the Thugs' goal is for the Dems to look like they own one of the most unpopular Congressional actions in decades and, as usual, the Dems cooperated with gusto.
• But the Dems do insist that a 'reasonable' number of Thugs must come forward and vote for the giveaway [after all, they are the real ones who caused the mess and want to turn over all money to the filthy rich]
• And the Thugs agree [away from the cameras, away from the photographers, probably in a public bathroom stall somewhere]
• But when it comes to voting in daylight, in front of the cameras, the Thugs couldn't get enough of their own to fall on their own dull swords
• Being the party of excuses, they of course blame everything on the Dems and on Pelosi in particular, who has been stupid enough to try to work with them time after time after time. Seems Nancy Pelosi hurt them with words. Hurt them so badly that they took their widdle hurt feelings and their promised votes and left the playground.

Poor, poor widdle cry babies.

I never knew Pelosi's words could be so powerful.

I'm sure they will be back asking for the Dems to give them more [all is just not enough for them] to make up for making them cry. Working with lunatics is a setup for disaster [as many of us have had repeatedly drilled into our brains the last seven plus years].

Az Reps Grijalva and Giffords vote NO on $700 B giveaway ...

Here's what the Az Daily Star reports that Dem Congress Critters Grijalva and Gifford say about their 'no' vote on the latest Bush Co money grab.

Reps. Giffords, Grijalva explain vote against bailout

[Grijalva's position appears to have been taken from the statement on his official web site]

Giffords position is reported as coming from a spokesman via e-mail:
“She [Gabrielle Giffords] believes action is needed to address the status of the financial markets but she wasn't convinced that this bill was the right one and thinks it was rushed.”

Here's Grijalva's statement as it appears on his web site:

Grijalva Votes to Defeat Bailout

Monday September 29, 2008 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva released a statement regarding his vote against the Bush-Paulson financial bill.

“I am not in disagreement that there is a financial crisis in our country. Daily the headlines deliver news of another bank in crisis.

“I am in disagreement of a proposal that is rushed and more importantly does not advocate equally for main street and strong protections for working families.

[ ... ]

Giffords web site did not connect for some reason. Here's the address: http://giffords.house.gov/

Raul Grijalva voted against the FISA abomination also. Giffords voted for the FISA abomination.

Luv Chris Floyd's imagery ...

The Resurrectionists: Beltway's Big Money Cultists Bail Out the Dead

The crisis of Wall Street's financial meltdown has demonstrated, once again, that although the Bush Faction thugs are criminals, killers, torturers, and thieves, without even the slightest competence in governing, they remain brilliant political tacticians. They may be willfully ignorant and brutally stupid in almost every other area, but when it comes to advancing their own narrow interests -- at the expense of the political opposition -- their low cunning cannot be denied.

Just look how they have made the Democratic leadership the face of the Administration's bailout plan -- which is perhaps the most virulently unpopular government action in the last 100 years. ...

And the photo! Follow the link to the article if only for the photo ...

Hard to believe, but some 'progressive' blogs have fallen for BushCo hype ...

How many times can BushCo cry wolf before people don't listen? Evidently, they can cry wolf forever and most everyone will hop to and turn over their wallets:

So yes, it might become a political trap for Dems. But what else to do? Play the same game as the Republicans and watch the economy go down? This isn’t just about big numbers, it’s about people’s lives. Even if the people who would all be affected don’t quite get that, no matter how unpleasant it is to save the fat-cats asses, the fat-cats have put us in the position where it’s unavoidable if we’re to save our own asses too. The bailout may not work - there are many who say it won’t - but in the meantime, Dems will have tried to shield common folk from the massive social and lifestyle fallout of a crash. That’s worth doing, in my view, even at this horrendous price tag.

No hearings. No investigation outside the administration's hacks. No time for thought, study, reflection. But even progressive voices are suggesting this money transfer to the filthy rich has to take place 'to protect us all.' And it has to happen right now, right this minute, before the sky falls in.

And it might not work. Of course it won't work. It's not supposed to 'work.' It's supposed to transfer everything into the hands of the wealthy and powerful to ensure it doesn't get used for unimportant things like health care, education, the real economy, jobs, environment, infrastructure.

God, what a country of buffoons. And that includes Obama.

"With the debate on, the stakes finally are getting serious"

Is the author, Steven Thomma, implying that the stakes would NOT be serious if McCain refused to show up for the debate as he attempted to do?

Is this another silly case of the media looking at the 'stakes' only from their two-fighters-in-a-ring perspective?

What is at stake is the future of the United States. Though the Democratic nominee is no progressive, he is at least mature, intelligent, thoughtful, coherent and concerned. All qualities that McCain does not possess.

Ah, yes. Don't let the public think they can decide ...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html?iref=topnews



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.analysis/index.html?iref=topnews

Who says there should be a 'knockout' blow. The press. Who gets to judge such a blow. The media. I really shouldn't refer to them as 'the press' or as reporters or as journalists or as news media. They obviously don't think of themselves as such. Based on their output they must think of themselves as 'the deciders' and/or public opinion manipulators.

How long before the continual media propaganda undos what the public saw before their very eyes?

"Walk away Democrats."

Walk away Democrats. You just were handed a two-fer: you now can't be blamed for a Wall Street crash nor for handing out taxpayer money to paper over the GOP scam of the last eight years.

Steve Soto's right. Come on Dems, do something right for a change ...

----------------------
ADDED: from C&L

So let’s get this straight: A general framework was agreed upon before Senator McCain decided to “suspend” his campaign, and now that he’s in Washington to “help,” it appears all those agreements have fallen through. What leadership!

This is all classic Republican political gamesmanship. The bailout is widely unpopular and House Republicans — being the unserious, petty people that they are — are trying to link all the fallout to Bush and the Democrats in order to boost their electoral prospects. We ought to call their bluff and refuse to pass a bill until a solid majority of them are on board. The inevitable market hit will then be laid at their doorstep. Let them take responsibility for tomorrow’s 200 point hit.

We are only talking about bailing the 'market' out for the sake of the rich who caused the problem in the first place. The bailout is for the thieves, the charlatans, the thugs. That's who the Dems who are mindlessly supporting this disaster are aligning themselves with. And the thugs are planning on leaving the Dems holding hands with Bush while they pretend they're agin' it. Where have we seen this scenario play out before?

----------------
The following quote is from a post that is not about the US economy (but rather one of our other disasters, Iraq). However it's so vividly expressed that I include it here:

While the world is mesmerized by the bait-and-switch going in Washington -- where the ramshackle, post-Republic triumvirate of Bush, McCain and Obama held an "historic" meeting on Thursday to demonstrate their bipartisan concern for the welfare of the filthy rich ...

Congress critters just believe whatever BushCo tells them. After all that's what they think their job is, doing the president's laundry ...

Is the bailout needed? Many economists say it's not
by Kevin G. Hall, McClatchy Newspapers

A funny thing happened in the drafting of the largest-ever U.S. government intervention in the financial system. Lawmakers of all stripes mostly fell in line, but many of the nation's brightest economic minds are warning that the Wall Street bailout's a dangerous rush job.

President Bush and his Treasury secretary, former Goldman Sachs chief executive Henry Paulson, have warned of imminent economic collapse and another Great Depression if their rescue plan isn't passed immediately.

Is that true?

"It's more hype than real risk," said James K. Galbraith, a University of Texas economist and son of the late economic historian John Kenneth Galbraith. "A nasty recession is possible, but the bailout will not cure that. So it's mainly relevant to the financial industry."

In other words, another money give away to rich people. The rich have a socialized right to be rich, after all. It's just so obvious. After all they are rich so they should be rich. And since they are rich and should be rich it's everyone else's responsibility (not theirs, mind you) to make sure they remain rich. That's all the Bushies are doing. Just passing out the money to the rich before they leave office.

McCain, of course, more than approves and, I think, enjoys playing the games for fun and profit. After all he (or his wife) is very rich and he knows he deserves it and so should we'uns.

And the Democrats are just so blind that they are unable to even ask an intelligent question nor look into the problem on their own. Except for a couple individuals, the democratic mass acts like acceptance of the administration's statement of the problem is a given. Even Obama can't muster a decent question or two and is preparing us for another capitulation like FISA.

And that would be a surprise?

I can’t find any use of the term [price discovery], or even a hint of the argument, until yesterday’s Senate hearings.

One possible explanation. It wasn’t until yesterday that they realized that it would actually be necessary to explain themselves.

But there’s another possible explanation, which I find terrifyingly plausible: the plan came first, and all this stuff about price discovery is an after-the-fact rationalization, invented when people started asking questions.

It has seemed very strange to me that such a supposedly crucial economic program would be based on such an exotic argument. My sneaking suspicion is that they started with a determination to throw money at the financial industry, and everything else is just an excuse.

It really is frustrating watching repeat disasters created by cretins and Thugs. Anyone notice how Obama has his role down pat. He will roll over (no more hoping on my part) just like all the other elected Dems. Just like cute little bunny wabbits following the buzzards over the cliff.

There is no hope for the US other than an uprising by the populace and at present there certainly is no hope for such action (certainly not from me). The only revolution that the US is going to get is being perpetrated right before our eyes by the Thugs.

Obama will make no difference. If elected, he may (or not) slow the process down. In the long run, who's to know if a roller-coaster decline under McCain and Ms. Christianist or a possibly slower demise under Obama will be any better.

Would it have been any different if Americans hadn't been so willing to line up at airports for Bush imposed ritual humiliations?

Poor lil' Dems, they fight so hard from the unfair position of majority ...

Democrats battling to add restrictions to $700 billion bailout

By David Lightman and Margaret Talev | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats inched close to agreement Monday on the terms of a $700 billion rescue package to stabilize shaky financial markets, but continued to encounter White House resistance to key points.

The Dems, who have a majority in the House, are the ones who 'fight' for the slightly more 'reasonable.' Then they roll over for the Thugs, or is it the lobbyists, in the end anyway.

This time, the election being so close and all, and the Thugs are worried, or is that petrified, that a Dem might have some say in the disbursement of $700 B of the taxpayers funds --funds that could never be considered for use for healthcare, or infrastructure, or justice, or the environment.

So some of the Thugs are not on boards for this particular fleecing of the US.

Well, well. Still wayward Thugs have been snapped in line before and the Dems always roll over in the end after making downright fools of themselves first. I won't believe it will be different this time until at least two years after such a momentous event actually transpires.

Let the sacking of the US begin, uh, I mean continue 'til the end ...

On his way out the Bush destroyers plan to take it with them:

Thinking the bailout through

And the Democrats are assisting their Republican masters as usual:

Excess of responsibility

So what's new? Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer. Pissants all. I do believe (or perhaps only hope) that Obama is a little more intelligent that the average Republican and Democrat taking the publics money, but when, exactly, is he going to start behaving like he's any different? You know that 'change' thingy. He can't actually cause change if he behaves like the rest of them. Waiting for a new president to be elected is not a solution. And it hasn't been for the last 2, 6, 8 years.

So, Obama. How about starting that change now. Instead of promising it sometime in the future.

It might, actually, have something to do with whether I bother to vote or not. And that's not a threat. When the Dems do whatever the Thugs want them to do --and they do so time, after time, after time-- there really is no difference. Scary references to who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court hack just don't cut it.
------------------
What Glenn Greenwald says: Growing right-wing opposition to the Paulson plan

So they're worried that Democrats might end up handing out that $700 B, so now they want a little control? oversight? what? Afraid it won't go to the 'right' people? Pissants all.

Is there a politician today who actually thinks they work for the country, the public, the voters? Don't answer that ...

Abortion is not the goal. The goal is our right to make our own choices ...

That right can only be taken from us by force, deception, indoctrination, betrayal.

The right to bear children, for them, against the grain of a society that does not want them or their children to exist at all, may be as important as the right to reject bearing them.

Yesterday's QUOTES ...

And Let The Money Flow....
How does it go? Privatize the benefits, socialize the costs? Or "communism for the rich, capitalism for the poor"? In any case, note that the $85 billion loan has as collateral the very reason why the loan was given. It's so circular it makes my head turn a full 360 degrees.

... The overriding attribute of the [not anything like a] Liberal Media is a deep and abiding fear of angering the Right.

... So what you find to be a violation of traditional values is a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards; it’s the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies, to create a new feudal-type elite.

It was like a million ants scurrying around the city, passing back bits of information that formed themselves into a whole in a completely decentralized manner. Its very nature defied efforts to control and spin and propagandize.

It was the anti-Fox News.