High Noon Thursday

[Jim Ostrowski]

The plutocrats are pushing their legalized heist by Friday but they are losing momentum as people learn how stupid and evil this bailout is.

I think we need a bold stroke. Under normal circumstances, contacting your congressman is an utter waste of time. I think this time it's different. It really might have an impact but only if it's a nationwide coordinated effort.

So, on Thursday at noon, I propose that we all contact our <a href="https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml">congressmen</a> and <a href="http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm">senators</a> in person, by phone, by email or by fax.

If hundreds of thousands of angry taxpayers do this, it just might be enough to stop the heist.

Call it a lobbying bomb.

Pass the word.

What do you think?

[WNYresident]

I would like to see what damage would really happen. People lose money everyday.. why should this be any different. SECOND summer home people!!! OR investment properties...

You can't bail everyone out all the time...

[cookie]

I try not to be an alarmist, but after the Iraq war thing that was rushed through as Congress was going into recess that year, this info has me a bit concerned about Bush's package:
excerpt from story on yahoo news
"What lawmakers do want is more oversight of the program than the White House has outlined so far. Many are troubled by wording in the proposal that appears to bar any review of Treasury's bailout actions by the courts or other administrative agencies."

Another thing, I know time is critical and I love most "techie" things, but I think snail mail would be much more effective for a campaign such as this. Between spam and other filters plus the ease of ignoring inboxes, I think actual mail would make a much stronger statement that would be much harder to ignore.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Digg Link

<a href="http://digg.com/business_finance/High_Noon_Thursday">http://digg.com/business_finance/High_Noon_Thursday</a>

[huh]

Yep there going to steal close to a trillon dollars. These people would get away with murder if they could. Oops they already have.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Starve the beast and it won't be able to kill as many people.

[Slim.fsp]

Starve the beast and it won't be able to kill as many people.

People have created this beast. We the people have the right to alter or abolish this beast.

The idea of a large centrally controlled government is a idea of the 1700's, we can come up with better ideas today in 2008.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Reminder, please contact your congressman at noon tomorrow.

The tide is turning against the billionaire bailout. That's why Bush spoke and McCain suspended.

Word is that almost all calls to Congress are against the plan.

[crabapples]

Reminder, please contact your congressman at noon tomorrow.

The tide is turning against the billionaire bailout. That's why Bush spoke and McCain suspended.

Word is that almost all calls to Congress are against the plan.

So what you are saying is this noon phone call isnt necessary. If the changes have been made and most of the calls already received are in the negative, what good does tying up phone lines really do?

[raoul duke]

Embrace the fascism. You know it's coming. More than enough of the people on this board have been jubilantly cheering about it.

[Jim Ostrowski]

I don't wish to tie up phone lines. I wish to maximize the impact of citizen calls.

Normally, citizens have virtually no say in these decisions. I think this is one time when an extraordinary effort could stop this bailout.

I really don't want my children to add -$10,000 to their net worth.

[Jim Ostrowski]

There have been fascist elements in the US since the New Deal which was modeled on Mussolini.

[Jim Ostrowski]

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who Is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.

H. L. Mencken : American writer & critic of American life

H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

[raoul duke]

There have been fascist elements in the US since the New Deal which was modeled on Mussolini.
But fascism is relatively amorphous with regards to policy. Fascism is a form of rule and social/civil order, not an "element". Many of America's post-New Deal policies could be compared to those of fascist regimes. But those policies are not what made those regimes fascist.

[Jim Ostrowski]

I think fascism is amorphous as to definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal_and_corporatism

[raoul duke]

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who Is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.

H. L. Mencken : American writer & critic of American life

H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
And:
"When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
This is why historians bristle at the Nazi comparison. Authoritarianism does not have specific policies or politics - though it is noticeably and demonstrably more prevalent in rightwing politics. "Goals" and agendas are nothing but unique methods of control. Control being the whole point.

[Dumbfounded]

Reminder, please contact your congressman at noon tomorrow.

The tide is turning against the billionaire bailout. That's why Bush spoke and McCain suspended.

Word is that almost all calls to Congress are against the plan.

So what you're saying in essence that for the first time in nearly eight years, Congress is actually going to listen to the wishes of the American people and vote on our behalf?;All of a sudden, Congress is going to look out for our best interests?

If Congress votes against the plan, my jaw'll hit the floor.
Because they (Congress) have no credibility in my book.
The few Congressmen with their souls;Integrity intact have been treated as jokes, pariahs, smeared and ignored;They've been useless.

Idealism is useless.

Hope Congress FINALLY "bends" to the will of the people, but I can hear the spin echoing in the distant storm, the BS we'll be given that "we had no choice" or "its for the good of the nation's economy."

If what I've heard makes SENSE-
Non-violent;Economic fascism has been slowly implemented since the end of World War II,
when our corporate and political leaders realized that hitler and all would-be world conquerers that preceded him chose the method which the world rebelled against in force
whereas-
A slow creeping devious infiltration of all facets of society;Industry, politics, RE-LIGION-Its been a long, winding road requiring patience on the part of the generations of fascist planners but "the plan is coming together";Too many signs are there.

That we're the victims of economic terrorism sponsored by our own government and that most citizens have no clue to this is an example of a population who has been dumbed-down, softened up simultaneously ruled by fear and uncertainty.


The last time the govt REALLY listened to the American people was when we HAD it with Viet Nam and that was the LAST of a nation of individuals banded together protesting/supporting a worthwhile cause
because we all know that if Americans were to go ape S in the millions protesting in the streets today,
it would be a great govt excuse to implement full martial law;A police state in which the borders are closed and then the fun begins (for the side in charge of course).



I think that if Congress says "no" to this bailout I'll pass out. That or have my bi-annual glass of Jack Daniels on ice.

[mesue]

Wouldn't voting yes lead to an investigation?
Look who, in congress, will be investigated? Who, in congress actually benifitted greatly?
from:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html
the list is very long, but higherly interesting

[Jim Ostrowski]

I know the system is rigged, believe me.

But there are times when the system starts to break down and the cohesiveness of the machine starts to weaken and its members start to run like rats.

In other words, there are times when the machine starts to act like us--they start to pursue their own personal agendas.

That's why I think it is possible to defeat this evil plan.

You know they are panicking when they bring old Bush out on TV, Cheney to Congress, etc.

People are spreading the word on this. One friend of mine sent out 13000 emails!

I will be on Antiwar.com radio at noon plugging the idea.

What do you have to lose except five minutes?

[crabapples]

I know the system is rigged, believe me.

But there are times when the system starts to break down and the cohesiveness of the machine starts to weaken and its members start to run like rats.

In other words, there are times when the machine starts to act like us--they start to pursue their own personal agendas.

That's why I think it is possible to defeat this evil plan.

You know they are panicking when they bring old Bush out on TV, Cheney to Congress, etc.

People are spreading the word on this. One friend of mine sent out 13000 emails!

I will be on Antiwar.com radio at noon plugging the idea.

What do you have to lose except five minutes?

Way to call all of us rats.

Congress will vote for a bailout. Not the original one proposed but they will pass a bailout plan for sure.

If they vote for it, they will be criticized for corporate welfare. If they dont vote for it, they will be criticized for standing back and watching our economy continue to fall apart.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Don't blame your lack of reading comprehension skills on me.

They are like rats leaving a sinking ship.

We, the working class, can't seem to organize because our own personal agendas.

[crabapples]

Don't blame your lack of reading comprehension skills on me.

They are like rats leaving a sinking ship.

We, the working class, can't seem to organize because our own personal agendas.

You said:

"The machine starts to weaken and its members start to run like rats."

Then your next statement was:

"In other words, there are times when the machine starts to act like us."

So a basic level of reading comprehension stipulates that you are saying that We are like rats. Try and spin it any way you want but thats exactly what it says.

BTW, how did the Noon phone calls go? Didnt hear anything or see anything online, on the radio or on tv. Guess it was a dud like David Blaines magic act....

[Jim Ostrowski]

No, you're wrong but I don't teach reading comprehension without getting paid.

You should stick to simple ideas like goo, goo, and ga ga.

I can't waste precious time with idiots.

[crabapples]

No, you're wrong but I don't teach reading comprehension without getting paid.

You should stick to simple ideas like goo, goo, and ga ga.

I can't waste precious time with idiots.

So clearly you are wrong for if you had something you wouldnt resort to personal attacks.

Why didnt you answer any of the questions and statements I made about the bailout? Of thats right, Big Jim is always right and anyone who calls him on his ridiculous statements is just an idiot.

If your time is soooo precious, then why do you associate yourself with idiots?

[Jim Ostrowski]

First, I answered your point, then I simply noted that you lacked the intelligence to grasp my rebuttal.

[crabapples]

First, I answered your point, then I simply noted that you lacked the intelligence to grasp my rebuttal.

You failed to address my comments that politicians will be criticized either way on the bailout plan.

You failed to answer how the phone call surge went. I havent seen anything in the media about it.

And finally, if anyone else reads what you wrote they will more than likely agree with my synopsis of your words.

[WNYresident]

First, I answered your point, then I simply noted that you lacked the intelligence to grasp my rebuttal.

I didn't grasp what you meant either.

[nickelcityhomes]

Crabby, you have a serious chubby for Jim. Have you spoken to your therapist about this issue? Maybe you should just call him and ask if he is interested in spending a couple of hours in your roach motel room instead of acting like an 8th grade boy who overtly criticizes the person he truly loves.

There are 12 step programs available for people in your condition. The first step is to find the tallest building available...and take a step. The other 11 steps are all downhill from that point. You might find the entire experience refreshing.

[raoul duke]

I think fascism is amorphous as to definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Deal_and_corporatism
I missed this reply. Sorry, Jim.

You're completely right about fascism's amorphous definition. But anything related to the New Deal is hard to call fascist. For only one simple reason - the New Deal created the middle-class a lot of us would have never enjoyed if it weren't for the reforms and regulations signed and sometimes dubiously imposed by FDR as he navigated the Great Depression. There's a very good argument to be made some of the New Deal policies were socialist in nature. Fascist, however? Bunk. Especially when you consider the major difference between socialism and fascism: the benefactors. Fascism, in every instance, unjustly rewards an elite ruling/power. Socialism, as professed, is supposed to aid everyone.

But the current state of things, especially economic, fit the mold enough to warrant a serious discussion about fascism. It's not new to the American political scene. Our government is about to hand over a trillion dollars (at least) to prop up the businesses of the wealthiest contingent of society at the direct expense of anything that might benefit, ya know, most of us. Never mind that this is money the Federal government DOES NOT HAVE. How much bigger of a transfer of wealth do you need to realize this is not about the economy or the free-market?

[300miles]

I'm very curious about the timeline of the bailout. What exactly triggered the flurry of meetings 6 days ago...and why the push to have the money by Friday?

You know I don't agree with most of you on the conspiracy / fascism / illuminati crap (:)) But I think they have specific financial information or warnings that they are not sharing with us yet. Something more dire than we've been told. I hope I'm wrong.

[raoul duke]

I'm very curious about the timeline of the bailout. What exactly triggered the flurry of meetings 6 days ago...and why the push to have the money by Friday?

You know I don't agree with most of you on the conspiracy / fascism / illuminati crap (:)) But I think they have specific financial information or warnings that they are not sharing with us yet. Something more dire than we've been told. I hope I'm wrong.
Just like Iraq was a "dire" situation in late 2002/early 2003.

[300miles]

Just like Iraq was a "dire" situation in late 2002/early 2003.
Not really. The buildup to war with Iraq took quite a while... a year? .... not one week. And the verbage behind the drive to war with Iraq was never as dire as stating the US economy is about to collapse beyond repair.

But I agree that the administration is running low on credibility.

[raoul duke]

You don't remember the "mushroom clouds", 16 words and duct tape? Linearly, it was a longer process because it involved the mass mobilization of over a hundred thousand soldiers, but the fear-factor was the same. Wall Street, just like Saddam, is gonna ruin your life and security unless we hand over, with few questions asked, at least a trillion dollars - that we don't actually have - to the wealthiest 5% of American society RIGHT NOW!!!

What I cannot figure out is whether the Bush Administration is trying to help or derail the McCain campaign. I seriously wonder if the Republican leaders are "doggin' it".

[Jim Ostrowski]

"I didn't grasp what you meant either."

What I meant is what I said:

But there are times when the system starts to break down and the cohesiveness of the machine starts to weaken and its members start to run like rats.

In other words, there are times when the machine starts to act like us--they start to pursue their own personal agendas.

So, what I meant is what I said.

Pursuing your own agenda is the genus. That is the same for both.

The specific example of this differs for each group. In the case of the tax revolt, everyone pursued their own vision of change so we could not get our acts together. For example, I had lots of problems with folks who thought Free Buffalo was just another conservative organ when in fact I believe conservatism is a massive failure insofar as it purports to be for limited government. Those people didn't read the plan and simply superimposed their personal vision on it and claimed they were misled. That caused problems.

Similarly, the political machine in DC usually acts in lockstep to beat us but now they are looking out for No. 1.

Perhaps it's a complex thought but sometimes you have to think things through.

***********

As far as the success of High Noon Thursday, I really don't know.

HNT was merely a formalization of work that we have been doing for about a week to stop the bailout. The opposition has been led by LewRockwell.com where I have been blogging like crazy, Mises.org., Ron Paul himself and the Free New York Blog. This massive effort to get people to call in appears to have been successful in that the House Republicans have not signed on to the billionaire bailout.

Yesterday, I was on Antiwar.com radio at noon urging people to call in. I then went to my three congressmen's offices personally to lobby against the bailout. One friend of mine sent out 13,000 emails plugging HNT.

I did what I could do in the midst of a very busy day job schedule. What others did only they can answer.

[Jim Ostrowski]

The Austrian School and the Meltdown

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul481.html

by Ron Paul

The financial meltdown the economists of the Austrian School predicted has arrived.

We are in this crisis because of an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our economy – all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment – and prevent the market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other assets.

Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd only be repeating what I've been saying over and over – not just for the past several days, but for years and even decades.

Still, at least a few observations are necessary.

The president assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even mentioned?

We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments – investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability, that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed with by the Fed.

Not a word about any of that, of course, because Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).

Speaking about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk."

Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe, government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who "believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact correct?

Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.

It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.

The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating which one wears a larger flag pin, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.

F.A. Hayek won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being pursued in his day – and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our own:

Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion….

To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we want to create further misdirection – a procedure that can only lead to a much more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end…. It is probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of the depression.

The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is that we do not learn from history.

The very people who have spent the past several years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before his expert status is called into question?

Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the American people.

The very people who with somber faces tell us of their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.

I continue to urge you to contact your representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure also to educate yourselves on these subjects – the Campaign for Liberty blog is an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment section, and learn.

H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we have.

[Jim Ostrowski]

Bush the Socialist and Destroyer

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/bush-socialist-destroyer.html

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Anyone who has read a good economics book would be quickly reduced to laughter and tears by George Bush's ridiculous economic address to the nation. He put on his 9-11 suit and tried to warn Americans about the impending disaster: that their access to an infinite stream of paper money might be imperiled if they don't cough up hundreds of billions immediately. It is very tempting to go line by line and shout back.

"I'm a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business."

And this is why he nationalized airport security, created huge new bureaucracies, spent more than any president in American history, centralized control of education, put up more protectionist barriers than Clinton and his father combined, bailed out airlines, presided over the Sarbanes-Oxley reign of terror, unleashed anti-trust regulators, intensified health-care controls, and pretty much used every headline as an excuse to demand more money and power?

"The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit, and this will not change."

But the penny itself has lost 94% of its value in those 75 years precisely because of institutions such as the FDIC and the Fed. Does he really think we are that foolish?

Here is my favorite:

"The problems we're witnessing today developed over a long period of time. For more than a decade, a massive amount of money flowed into the United States from investors abroad because our country is an attractive and secure place to do business."

So those nasty foreigners did it to us, huh? Maybe it was Bin Laden who sneakily tried to create a credit bubble by investing in U.S. stocks!

And here is his description of the grave calamity we face:

"As uncertainty has grown, many banks have restricted lending, credit markets have frozen, and families and businesses have found it harder to borrow money."

Imagine that! We might have to live within our means for a bit. That would actually be a wonderful thing. Maybe a recession would last a year or 18 months, and then we would be back on solid footing again. He very nearly admits that too much credit is what created this mess. So he proposes more credit so that we can continue to live on too much credit. And then what happens next time? Ever more credit? This path ends in Weimer-level inflation and total destruction.

What is striking here is the level of public opposition. It is somewhere between 55 and 90 percent, depending on the way the question is worded. Also, it is wide and deep opposition. It is made up of Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, rich, poor, men, women – just about everyone, with no systematic bias among the polled groups. In other words, we have here a wonderful thing: a clash of group interests, as Mises would say. It is the state and its friends vs. the American people.

That doesn't mean that Congress won't pass something or other. The administration is prepared to pay off every member. And yet the proximity to the election complicates matters. A lost election means no payoff, no matter what. If public anger is intense enough, these guys might balk in the end.

This would be a glorious result. The "credit crisis," as Bush describes it, is nothing more than the kind of crisis a college kid faces when his parents cut back on the deposits to his checking account. It means less high living, a few more nights moping in the dorm rather than going out with his drinking friends. It does not mean the end of the world.

The market is working now to make things right, to eliminate bad debt and get us back on a sound economic footing. The government can help by legalizing alternative monies, cutting regulations, cutting spending and taxing and wars (as Ron Paul says), but otherwise by doing absolutely nothing. Lehman failed on its own and yet life goes on. The same should happen to Goldman, Morgan, Bear, GM, and all the rest.

Free enterprise is a profit and loss system. This is a time of losses, stemming from an overinflated credit sector, one that the Austrian economists have warned about for many years. Listen to the Austrians now and permit the failures to occur.

By the way, since when has it been an article of our national religion that the economy must never, ever, under any circumstances, be permitted to fall into recession, even slightly? This is completely insane.

The books you need to get to your congressman and staff now are America's Great Depression and The Mystery of Banking. The first explains that it was credit expansion and the attempt to keep prices high that prolonged the Depression which would otherwise have ended by 1931 or 1932. On this point Bernanke is all wet.

The second book explains how money and banking work in a free market, as opposed to a subsidized, fiat-money, centralized system. These are the two most essential books of our time, because they completely overthrow the prevailing theory behind the bailout.

Our choice is this. We can buckle down for a year-long recession and then get on the path to financial and economic soundness. Or we can set off a calamity that will last a decade or more, and perhaps even wreck civilization as we know it. That's our choice.

September 26, 2008

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.

[crabapples]

Crabby, you have a serious chubby for Jim. Have you spoken to your therapist about this issue? Maybe you should just call him and ask if he is interested in spending a couple of hours in your roach motel room instead of acting like an 8th grade boy who overtly criticizes the person he truly loves.

There are 12 step programs available for people in your condition. The first step is to find the tallest building available...and take a step. The other 11 steps are all downhill from that point. You might find the entire experience refreshing.

Wow NickelCity,

You want to call me an 8th grader in love with Jim O and act all petty while criticizing me for being petty? I guess you are a bigger hypocrite than I thought.

I made one small comment on Jims words and asked him a couple of questions. Like you, he took it to a personal level. He finally answered some of my statements and thoughts above. For that I thank him.

Jim,

Wouldnt you agree that the politicians are going to be criticized if they pass a bailout for giving out corporate welfare but they will also be criticized if they dont do anything?

[Jim Ostrowski]

I just posted this on LRC:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023107.html

If the lack of funds for capital investment is the problem, the obvious solution is to cut bloated government government spending on all levels.

That would free up funds that would end up in bank deposits available for loans.

Here's my <a href="http://mises.org/story/633">plan</a> for cutting the federal budget.

New York State's spending itself could be cut by <strong>$50 billion</strong> and that would merely require matching PA's and Ohio's per capital spending. Should I point out that Wall Street funds NY's corrupt politicians?

[citymouse]

What I cannot figure out is whether the Bush Administration is trying to help or derail the McCain campaign. I seriously wonder if the Republican leaders are "doggin' it".

It hit me this morning.
There was a deal yesterday. McCain arrived at the last minute faster than aspeeding bullet, his consultations with the the neo-cons, his new found friends, was more powerful than a locomotive, he leaped to the White house in a single bound, and the deal was no deal. Now they are saying that the conservatives in the house don't support it.
It seems like what is going on here is that they are going to prop McCain up more to the Republican base by alleging that at the last minute he "Saved America from the Horrors of the socialist road it seemed to be heading down, making him the champion of free enterprize, the hero of the free market economy and the, protector of truth, justice and the American way.
So the sense of urgency that Bush tried to convey the other night seems to be gone. Once again the welfare of the taxpayer, the little guy, you and me, is lost and of no concern and lost to political expediency.