Dear Member of Congress:
I am extremely outraged by Bush's attempt to defraud the American public. Please kill the Bailout. It's nothing more than a Ponzi scheme to enrich Bush's friends and backers. What cupidity-- helping "rescue” his cronies while the homeowners whose homes are being foreclosed, are left twisting in the wind.
Bush lied to us about the Iraq war. Shame on him. He is lying to us now about the need for the bail out. Shame on us if we are again gullible. It is unconscionable and immoral for Congress to replace the lost “play money” of the millionaire and billionaire investors while at the same time refusing to materially and immediately help the hard working American families keep a roof over their heads.
Not only kill the bill, but kill the idea and investigate who is really behind the plot to rob us of not billions, but trillions.
Here's a quote from your fellow Congressman:
“Elsewhere, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) said that the only information he had received about the bailout was what talking points to use on the American people and that he had been thrown out of meetings for not blindly supporting the bill.”
We don't need talking points, we need action points. Bail out home owners who are facing evictions and loss of home equities - which equities have thus far driven the US overconsumption economic engine. If you want to see a real depression in both the economic and psychological sense, just FAIL to help the home owners out of their financial mess.
The huge hedge funds, REIT's and mortgage backed security holders are investors. They can afford to lose their investments -- they took a risk in making their investments. The US Treasury is not an insurance company against risky events happening to rich investors' investments. The cries from Wall Street are way out-shouted by cries from our home owners on a scale of 100 (homeowner) to one (Wall Street). Congress needs to undo the Bear Sterns deal and recover all money and credits GIVEN the failed financial institutions at taxpayers' expense.
I want you and your fellow Congress members to take effective action in favor of the home owners and let us know by email exactly what action your took -- we don't need platitudes -- we need bills passed with money attached, to help the home owner -- not the financial institutions which knowingly took the risks.
Rep. Peter DeFazio has the solution. Congress should enact a transaction tax on each transfer of publicity traded shares on all of the exchanges. Peter suggests 0.02 percent (¼ of one percent or 25 cents on a $100 share). That money would be used to pay off our national debt. Congress should also require and fund very strong oversight regulations of the investment houses. Had such action and oversight occurred, Wall Street investors would not be shedding tears. Since lobbiests for Big Money most likely have been “successful” in defeating any meaningful regulation of the investment industry, now let them reap what they have sown.
James E. Miller, JD
jimmiller5417@yahoo.com
WHO HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE CLAIMS
THAT HAS NOW RESULTED IN THE BLAME
THAT ALLOWED AND APPLAUDED THE LAUD OF FRAUD
NONE OTHER THAN CONGRESS?
By Dwight Baker
Monday, October 06, 2008
The wheels of commerce and trade around the world today are screeching and grinding to a halt. As WE THE PEOPLE of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in the west are beset with an unjustifiable, baseless, moronic CONGRESS that has caved into the many failed and frocked with fraud BUSH BUNCH NEO-CON agendas. And in doing that the RULE of LAW in our CONSTITUTION has been held in derision when hard decisions have come along and thus CONGRESS winked at the RULE OF LAW as having no more legitimacy.
Thus in simple terms THE RULE OF LAW as it stands now in America today is just the SEE-SAW YAW of law. Hence our CONSTITUTION has no more strict substance that remains and ALL can be interpreted depending on the circumstances. Therefore those in our CONGRESS most coming from the school of LAW seem to prevail and taking what they want from WE THE PEOPLE very open handily and characteristic of their profession composed and drafted in private cherty and secretively. Thus when making claims of deeds done for WE THE PEOPLE ALL seems very hazy and reveled guardedly. The games that CONGRESS has been involved for the last several years is to deny the RULE OF LAW to which the oath they took to uphold.
Therefore the only good signal that WE THE PEOPLE can send around the world that things will change for the better in America is to demand that CONGRESS recall all that testified before CONGRESS in the frocked with fraud PAULSON and BUSH plan and after them taking oaths or if they do not agree to do so, recall the PAULSON and BUSH PLAN now as law then annul it.
Now who among us can push CONGRESS ALONG to do right not wrong for WE THE PEOPLE? Who can deny that they do not love America as it has stood as a beckon of light for the world to emulate? And who can deny that over the last forty years many vile, evil and loathsome ones have attempted to steal our rich heritage? And who can refuse to acknowledge that those many efforts of beast like savagery has been done at the will and hands of our elected political officials and judges in our UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA?
WE THE PEOPLE urge our Professional MEDIA to expose the truth as never before with statements of the EXACT FACTS comprising the TRUTH then hold CONGRESS and others to their sworn duties of recalling the witness of the PAULSON and BUSH BAILOUT PLAN then proceed rapidly to annul it. Because many that testified before CONGRESS committed fraud.
In 1999, shortly before relocating to London, I had a lung infection and spent ten days in the local (US) hospital getting tests and bills that totaled well over $60,000 — and not even a diagnosis. I tell that story whenever I hear bitching about the NHS. Jaws drop. What people complain about, incidentally, is never the socialist side of it, but the effect of New Labour's privatizing moves. Doctors are still just interested in healing people, not writing invoices or pushing drugs; neighborhood pharmacies are helpful too. Imagine — free health care for all, funded by a modest tax on income. How is this possible?
The NHS accepts that people are not immortal, and people who are dying are less immortal than others. A million pounds spent dragging out a painful cancer death for another two months is not a good investment. Endless tests and treatments to deal with a condition that'll go away on its own, or never amount to much, are not a good investment. Hypochondriacs are not indulged, except with gentle good humor, friendly concern, and respectful explanations. Midwives handle most births. By holding back on the frills and excesses, the NHS manages to provide the necessities — most of them anyway, almost always, sooner or later. Less than perfect? Life isn't perfect; we all die regardless of medical care. How well the NHS works can be seen in how it's treated by politicians — even free-market Tories know the NHS is sacred in public opinion, perhaps more than the church or the royal family ever were. Even New Labour's own cabinet ministers join the picket lines when the government tries to shut down a hospital; his "reforms" of the NHS perhaps did as much as Iraq to turn the public off Blair.
Probably the greatest single threat to all this are the always-overpriced and often-unhelpful drugs promoted by these questionable patients' advocacy groups.
A cousin of mine attended JHU and spoke of it with enthusiasm bordering on reverence. As I recall, the place built its reputation on seeking and defining Truth in the grand tradition of Socrates, Plato, et al. Questioning how an apparent truth has been arrived at is the key; through constant challenges, students are taught to dig deeper and deeper into things, and look from all angles at how they look at things. But, as I wrote the head of JHU after seeing this news item on the ABC website, he has about a week to decide whether all that was just hot air and a bad joke. As we've seen in Louisiana and Burma, it's not the size of the initial storm that counts as much as whether and how the authorities deal with it. (I suggested the NY Times response to made-up news features offered a good parallel — everybody involved got fired, right up to Howell Raines.) No reply of course — nor from the Baltimore Sun editors and JHU department heads I cc'ed my message to. Now that Harpers is running the story — http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003642 — it will have to be discussed at academic dinner parties at least.
why the drug chains don't want to give up tobacco. People coming in for cigs -- who can't help coming in for cigs -- are a significant percentage of these stores' foot traffic, so they stand to sell fewer toy cars and Easter bunnies as well as no cigs.
What are you trying to do, wreck the whole economy? ;-)
In 1999, shortly before relocating to London, I had a lung infection and spent ten days in the local (US) hospital getting tests and bills that totaled well over $60,000 — and not even a diagnosis. I tell that story whenever I hear bitching about the NHS. Jaws drop. What people complain about, incidentally, is never the socialist side of it, but the effect of New Labour's privatizing moves. Doctors are still just interested in healing people, not writing invoices or pushing drugs; neighborhood pharmacies are helpful too. Imagine — free health care for all, funded by a modest tax on income. How is this possible?
The NHS accepts that people are not immortal, and people who are dying are less immortal than others. A million pounds spent dragging out a painful cancer death for another two months is not a good investment. Endless tests and treatments to deal with a condition that'll go away on its own, or never amount to much, are not a good investment. Hypochondriacs are not indulged, except with gentle good humor, friendly concern, and respectful explanations. Midwives handle most births. By holding back on the frills and excesses, the NHS manages to provide the necessities — most of them anyway, almost always, sooner or later. Less than perfect? Life isn't perfect; we all die regardless of medical care. How well the NHS works can be seen in how it's treated by politicians — even free-market Tories know the NHS is sacred in public opinion, perhaps more than the church or the royal family ever were. Even New Labour's own cabinet ministers join the picket lines when the government tries to shut down a hospital; his "reforms" of the NHS perhaps did as much as Iraq to turn the public off Blair.
Probably the greatest single threat to all this are the always-overpriced and often-unhelpful drugs promoted by these questionable patients' advocacy groups.
A cousin of mine attended JHU and spoke of it with enthusiasm bordering on reverence. As I recall, the place built its reputation on seeking and defining Truth in the grand tradition of Socrates, Plato, et al. Questioning how an apparent truth has been arrived at is the key; through constant challenges, students are taught to dig deeper and deeper into things, and look from all angles at how they look at things. But, as I wrote the head of JHU after seeing this news item on the ABC website, he has about a week to decide whether all that was just hot air and a bad joke. As we've seen in Louisiana and Burma, it's not the size of the initial storm that counts as much as whether and how the authorities deal with it. (I suggested the NY Times response to made-up news features offered a good parallel — everybody involved got fired, right up to Howell Raines.) No reply of course — nor from the Baltimore Sun editors and JHU department heads I cc'ed my message to. Now that Harpers is running the story — http://harpers.org/archive/2008/10/hbc-90003642 — it will have to be discussed at academic dinner parties at least.
Pages