Here are videos of the last two speeches by Representative Marcy Kaptur (Den - Ohio) to Congress on the proposed bailout. I promise you will not hear better, more hearfelt or thorough demolitions of what Poulson and Bernanke (With Shrub's full support) are proposing. Not that it will make any difference.

http://tinyurl.com/3vcw8j

http://tinyurl.com/3t3xkz

It's a copy-&-paste job I'm afraid. Proper links needed!

Here are videos of the last two speeches by Representative Marcy Kaptur (Den - Ohio) to Congress on the proposed bailout. I promise you will not hear better, more hearfelt or thorough demolitions of what Poulson and Bernanke (With Shrub's full support) are proposing. Not that it will make any difference.

http://tinyurl.com/3vcw8j

http://tinyurl.com/3t3xkz

It's a copy-&-paste job I'm afraid. Proper links needed!

Here's a couple of more links of another dissenting voice on the proposed bill to bailout the bankers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv6rQ0U01Yc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlgByE1jDRA

If only their voices were loud enough to penetrate the 'consensus trance' that is instilled by mainstream media. We need more Ron Paul's. Actually I'm surprised that he got his opinion across without interruption in that Fox broadcast.

We are warned by Paulson and the like that Financial Armageddon will result if they don't get their way. This is probably very true, as the cynic in me says that he and his buddies have it in their power to engineer such an event by further throttling the supply of credit into the markets through the federal reserve.

"We are warned by Paulson and the like that Financial Armageddon will result if they don't get their way."

The way they are using this crisis to bounce through extraordinary measures, claiming there is no time to give them careful consideration, is an exact replica of the tactics used over & over again by the neocons, as dissected and described by Naomi Klein in her excellent book, The Shock Doctrine.

It's daylight robbery of a mindblowing amount of money.

New lamps for old! New lamps for old!

The 700 billion is just the start of the handout to ensure 'capitalisms' survival, and it may not work, yet Paulson is ensuring that what's left of the treasury's resources will go to compensate the financial aristocracy's loses. And when he returns for more it'll be difficult to argue against throwing more good money after bad, because that would imply that the current handout was a waste and a failure. Once one goes down this path it'll be difficult to return.

But why not handout 700 billion to the millions of ordinary Americans who risk losing their homes and their jobs? Why give the handout to the rich? It's because the 'free market' is a gigantic confidence trick designed to diguise the 'class war' that's at it's heart.

Personally I believe the 'bailout' is too little too late and we're going to have ringside seats for the collapse of capitalism was we know it, but to be replaced by what exactly? That's the really interesting question.

Raah!!!

Well said. I'll get my top hat.

Ok. I have sobered up enough to try and write a serious comment, scratch my last please.

All of this seems not dissimilar at all to the point in time shortly after the misfated Falkland War. Just before the Argentinian Junta relinquished their power they decided to absolve more or less the whole of the Argentinean business elite of their debts. The resulting state debt crippled the new democratically elected government so much that they felt compelled to follow the Washington consensus and buy into the neo-liberal imperatives of the junta.

In a similar way the US will be so thoroughly in debt by the time that the 20th of January comes round that there will be no money left for anything, other than further privatization and please for loans from the IMF and the World Bank -- please spare your irony.

Re: my fellow americans.

Anyone for snake-oil?

If it was Bush and Paulson's $700bn blank cheque to the banks that congress had voted down and people were opposing i'd agree with you Craig.

It's not though - and the trouble is many Americans don't know it's not. Democratic Party congressional leaders (including Obama) actually rejected Bush and Paulson's proposal from the start of negotiations. The bill that they agreed to present to congress was effectively for a loan that would only be given out in stages if necessary and if the banks met the conditions it required. It would have to be repaid in full, plus interest. The conditions include :

Washington takes stake in firms helped so taxpayers share any profits.

• Congressional panel set up to have oversight of programme.

• Bar on excessive pay and"golden parachutes"for top executives.

• Federal government may stall foreclosure on home loans purchased.

• Treasury to devise plan for any government loss to eventually be recouped in tax from firms concerned. · Treasury to conceive alternative plan for government mortgage insurance paid by participating firms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/29/wallstreet.useconomy

The latest Rasmussen poll shows that 33% of Americans back the bail-out and 32% oppose it - and that among those who don't know the bail-out bill is for a loan to be repaid two thirds oppose it, but among people who do know it's a loan to be repaid two-thirds support it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/opposition_to_bailout_plan_falls_dramatically

This isn't allowing bankers or the wealthy to blackmail anyone or get off with massive irresponsibility. It's making them pay back everything with interest, accept regulation, limit executive pay and protect people with mortgages.

Not going ahead with this conditional loan bill risks another Great Depression. The free market extremist economists of 1929 told governments not to intervene and to let the market fix itself after the 1929 Crash. The Great Depression was the result - and it affected many millions of ordinary people and caused unemployment, poverty, hunger and loss of homes for them.

So why risk that in order to punish the bankers when, by supporting the bill Obama got a deal with Bush on, ordinary Americans could avoid that risk and get their money back plus interest in the long term?