Should Obama let the Republicans become the opposition party to the bankers?

[JackRiddler]

Poll question: Should Obama let the Republicans become the opposition party to the bankers?

Opinion: To hand more trillions to the banking class would be disastrous policy. To let the Republicans step in and play the opposition to the bailouts would be a political disaster. Obama should suspend all further payments to what FDR called "the banksters," and use the trillions for a national recovery bank.

Please discuss.

[stray cat]

1. Frame them as the opposition party to middle class American workers The populist is angry at bankers

[JackRiddler]

3. My point: The Republicans are about to frame themselves as the opposition to the bankers...

and Obama as the friend to the bankers.

There is nothing fair in this. There is nothing right about it. The Republicans and Democrats both were the faithful party of the bankers, the last one to fight them was FDR. The Republicans in power are of course utterly faithful to the banking class.

But this is NOW.

With nothing left for them to do, the Republicans will opportunistically frame themselves as the opposition to the next bailout. And if Obama and the Democrats support it (as they are likely to do: see Geithner appointment), the Republicans will be able to stage their come-back.

There's a higher principle: We must not hand another trillion to the fraud-practicing class as a reward for ripping everyone off, going bankrupt, and making threats that the world will end if they're not bailed out. Quite the contrary, the world will be worse off if they are allowed to keep burning it for their profit. The privateers have got to go. An alternative way of issuing capital must be established. That is the role of the state: to set up a national bank, not to give away its remaining resources to those who wittingly caused the crisis.

[stillcool]

2. I think we should do nothing..

and let the whole thing fall down and collapse all around us. If businesses need banks for credit, they shouldn't be in business. If banks hold bad loans and lack capital, they shouldn't be in business either. What's a few more thousand/million of job losses?

[JackRiddler]

4. Can the sophistry.

The crisis costing these millions of jobs is a direct result of government serving the banking class. Giving more to BoA, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup et al. will not even delay the inevitable crash of a corrupt, unsustainable system. It just gives them more of a real-money haul in exchange for fictional values that should be written down to zero, and then the crash happens anyway because the whole world can't pay off the derivatives fantasies.

Nationalization is coming, one way or another. The primary causes are capitalism and its banking system acting in an inherent, inevitable fashion.

So, contrary to your sarcastic strawman, I think "we" -- if "we the people" are in any way the government -- should do something: provide credit or money in an intelligent fashion to productive activity for an economic recovery. Bypass the banks.

[stillcool]

5. well pardon me..

that I dare think the solution is not a one size fits all one, or that the possible consequences to any actions have to be examined fully. I do not believe it is just the global financial industry that is parasitic, but also the multi-national corporations that as the banking industry have no allegiance to any country, and make demands of government to ensure a little prosperity by way of the employment for a people. I am thrilled however that you have all the answers.

[JackRiddler]

6. Nice little attempt to reframe.

Yes, we agree the multinational corporations are a problem generally - that's not the immediate question is it? Banks are the ones pressuring for more bailout right now.

You're either for continuing the current bailout strategy or for ending it. Or you have an alternative. What's your answer?

Now your second trick of pure rhetoric was to falsely make it seem I'm claiming to have all the answers. Am I to take it you have no answers at all?

[stillcool]

12. You are correct in assuming that..

I do not have the answers. I think there is much more to the bail-outs than some CEO's bilking the government. When I read economists voice their opinion...like Paul Krugman, it reinforces my belief that I do not know much. I'd like to understand more about how the global financial system, the IMF, the World Bank, and our debt.. plays into the decision making process, but I won't be up to speed in time to call for a nationalization of the banks. Bummer. Yes, I am in favor of continuing what has worked, while avoiding what has not.

[leftstreet]

7. Harry Reid was more comfortable as Minority Leader anyway

It was easier to wring his hands in helplessness over his dry powder.

:D

You ask some interesting questions.
Hard to say if the Republican party will get smart enough, fast enough, to turn this on the Dems.
Obama's political capital can only last so long.

[JackRiddler]

8. What have the Republicans got to lose?

Please don't ever think they're stupid when it comes to strategies for winning, that's a deadly decaeption. And it's already incipient, there's nothing for them to figure out. The House Republicans voted against the bailouts. They'll be a solid front against whenever another vote for this nonsense comes up. Funny thing is, I doubt it will hurt their standing among their rich sponsors, who will understand it to be tactical. The Republican propaganda will also try to associate the bailouts -- guaranteed to fail, since their function is not to succeed but to secure more plunder for the banks -- with the stimulus plan.

And if Obama also keeps up the imperial bellicosity in Pakistan, the left will have two choices: a) stay home or b) get on the street. In recent history, they've always picked a), disastrously. I hope to finally see b: building a front that demands the change Obama has promised.

[leftstreet]

10. They got drunk on God Guns and Gays

They went with an easy formula for so long, they'll need to do an extreme about face and go economic populist.

But you're right, they're not stupid. It'll just be tricky for them because, as you say, they'll need to convince their overlords that it's only a tactic.

[Runcible Spoon]

9. I agree 100%.

Obama had better muzzle his Chicago School boys well.

[JackRiddler]

11. kick

[JackRiddler]

13. post steeler bowl kick

my, that was close

[leftchick]

14. I agree more than less

k&R

[Better Believe It]

15. K & R