Bush's October surprise = 700 Bi dollars bailout of Wall Street

Bush unveilled the expected October surprise: $ 700 Billion - $ 1 Trillion


Bush and Co planned this shock and awe surprise for months (This is part of the shock doctrine, see Naomi Klein)


Bush's seretary Paulsen was one of top officers from Goldman $ Sachs, having collected bonus over 30 million dollars and own $620+ million dollars in stock from Goldman.


Bush's administration does not deserve any bailout with american tax payers

I suggest everybody to contact their senators and congress people to vote against this bailout

and vote for Obama to save US from John McInsane and Sarah Palin

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man | AlterNet

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man | AlterNet

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

By David Sirota, Creators Syndicate. Posted April 4, 2008.

"I'll admit it: I used to admire John McCain."

Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
3 COMMENTS

Share and save this post:

Also by David Sirota

The Fed Packages Corruption as Sound Public Policy
Once again, the Fed is using a crisis to enrich corporate interests.
Mar 21, 2008

Remembering What Nixon Learned
Conservatives are ignoring history's teachings and resurrecting Nixon's failed strategy of going after working people.
Mar 14, 2008

Hope in the Time of NAFTA
This epoch of globalization has become an era of media-driven insouciance.
Mar 7, 2008

More stories by David Sirota

David Sirota RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

Advertisement

I'll admit it: I used to admire John McCain.

To paraphrase the UFO poster from "The X Files," I wanted to believe.

Specifically, I wanted to believe the guy talking tough about campaign finance reform was committed to getting money out of politics. This was the Arizona senator who in 2002 taped a radio ad praising his state's "clean elections" system. It provides public money to candidates so they don't have to finance campaigns with corporate contributions -- the kind given in exchange for legislative favors. McCain's support for clean elections, I thought, proved he wanted to end corruption.

But by the time the senator showed up here in Colorado last week for a fundraiser at Denver's Petroleum Club, I knew I had been duped.

As The Washington Post reports, McCain is now "assiduously courting both lobbyists and their wealthy clients, offering them private audiences as part of his fundraising." He has more lobbyists as fundraisers than any other White House contender, and he allows lobbyists to simultaneously work in his campaign and represent business clients. In fact, the Post reported that his chief adviser "said he does a lot of his [lobbying] work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus."

Such antics have run that "Straight Talk Express" into the ditch of hypocrisy. Just look at McCain's actions on two huge issues: energy and campaign finance reform.

While McCain prepared his presidential run in 2005, a bill came up to permit drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). McCain -- the "maverick" who voted to prevent ANWR drilling in 2003 -- sided with the oil industry and reversed his vote. He has since signed on more than a dozen staffers and fundraisers who have represented energy interests, while his presidential campaign has been rewarded with $393,000 from the oil and gas industry.

Likewise, Democrats in 2006 authored legislation to implement a version of Arizona's clean elections system at the federal level. McCain, who previously told PBS the system could be a national model, "dismissed the proposal with a flat 'no,'" according to The Hill newspaper. As the nonpartisan Public Campaign Action Fund reports, McCain is the only current presidential candidate refusing to support public financing of elections.

Then again, McCain's flip-flopping is likely the re-emergence of the real McCain -- the longtime corporate crony.

For example, before voting against Arctic drilling in 2003, McCain voted to support such drilling in 1995 (yes, the "straight talker" was first for it, then against it, then for it again).

Additionally, McCain may have presented himself in 2000 as the crusader against corruption and in 2002 as a champion of clean elections, but he was originally a member of the Keating Five -- the senators involved in an influence-peddling scheme during the savings and loan meltdown of the 1980s.

Now, rushing to build a war chest, McCain is doing everything short of putting a For Sale sign on his forehead. During a nationwide fundraising tour, he was showered with big donations after defending the lobbyist-written trade policies that have driven down wages. He is sure to raise even more cash as he shows his Keating Five roots when shilling for the financial industry. Last week, approaching the 21st anniversary of that scandal, McCain followed the advice of banking executive-turned-campaign-adviser Phil Gramm and demanded Congress oppose new Wall Street regulations in the wake of the credit crisis.

Indeed, this reversion to form is McCain's catharsis of corruption, proving the senator is just another hired gun. In so publicly embracing Big Money, his message has become a series of embarrassing admissions -- a campaign version of the book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." There is just one difference: This Arizona hit man expresses absolutely no remorse.

Bush says Congress putting US in danger

February 15th, 2008 6:40 pm
Bush says Congress putting US in danger

By Pamela Hess / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - With a government eavesdropping law about to expire, Washington is awash in accusations over who's to blame. President Bush said Friday that "our country is in more danger of an attack" because of Congress' failure to adopt a Senate bill that would have renewed a law that made it easier for the government to spy on foreign phone calls and e-mails that pass through the United States.

That bill also would have shielded from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government wiretap U.S. computer and phone lines after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks without clearance from a secret court that was established specifically to oversee such activities. In its competing version of the legislation, the House intentionally left out that feature.

"American citizens must understand, clearly understand that there's still a threat on the homeland. There's still an enemy which would like to do us harm," Bush said. "We've got to give our professionals the tools they need, to be able to figure out what the enemy is up to so we can stop it."

"By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack," he said.

Democrats, in turn, accused Bush of fear-mongering and misrepresenting the facts.

"This is not about protecting Americans. The president just wants to protect American telephone companies," Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, head of the House Democratic Caucus, said Friday.

Beyond the rhetoric, the central issue is what the government can and can't do come midnight Saturday, when a temporary eavesdropping law adopted by Congress last August expires.

That law let the government initiate wiretaps for up to one year against a wide range of targets. It also explicitly compelled telecommunications companies to comply with the orders, and protected them from civil lawsuits that may be filed against them for doing so.

But while the wiretaps can go on after the law expires, the compliance orders and the liability protections disappear. That's because of a quirk in the way the law was written, says Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.

"There is no longer a way to compel the private sector to help us," he said in an Associated Press interview.

Democrats dispute that assertion. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said that even when the law expires, existing wiretapping orders would continue to protect telecom companies.

Regardless of who's right about that point, the government can eavesdrop after the law expires. It would simply have to go back to its old procedures, getting orders approved by the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

McConnell rejects that option. He says the process of getting court orders is cumbersome and ties intelligence agents up in red tape.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires the court to approve wiretaps inside the United States, a process meant to protect U.S. citizens from potential government abuses of authority. But changes in technology since then mean most of the world's computer and phone traffic passes through the United States, much of it on fiber-optic cable. Successive court cases say court orders are needed to listen in on any of them, McConnell said.

To get a court order, intelligence agents have to prove they have "probable cause" to believe a target is a foreign agent or terrorist before being allowed to tap a line inside the United States, even if the communication originates and ends in a foreign country.

It is difficult for intelligence agents piecing together shreds of information to get enough to merit probable cause, McConnell said. By the time they can amass enough information to do that, the phone number they wanted to track might already be obsolete, he said.

"More than likely we would miss the very information we need to prevent some horrendous act from taking place in the United States," he said.

The FISA law does make provisions for emergencies — instances where there is no time to fill out the paperwork. Within a few days, though, the paperwork must be completed and probable cause must be proved to get an order approved.

House Democrats had sought to extend the current law temporarily to buy time to work out a longer-term compromise. The White House objected, and the attempt failed as Republicans were joined by conservative Democrats to defeat the move. McConnell acknowledged that the administration's opposition was intended to pressure Congress to do what Bush wants.

McConnell says an extension would fail to address a central problem: delaying legal immunity for companies that help in the warrantless wiretapping program could lead phone companies to challenge wiretapping orders in court as a way to insulate themselves from future lawsuits.

Already, he says the roughly 40 lawsuits filed against telecom companies nationwide have chilled the private sector's willingness to help the intelligence agencies in ways unrelated to electronic surveillance. Exactly how is classified, and he won't elaborate.

"I'm talking about the things they've done to help us track terrorists," said McConnell. "They did lawful things at the request of the government under the conditions they've done it for 50 years."

But that help has waned over the last two years, he said. "Your country is at risk if we can't get the private sector to help us, and that is atrophying all the time," he said.

Lawmakers left town Thursday for a 12-day recess but both sides are working behind the scenes. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney met with Republican congressional leaders in the Oval Office to discuss the impasse with the Democratic-led House. House and Senate Democratic leaders met in Hoyer's office to hammer out plans for a conference in which Republicans will be asked to join, Hoyer said. Republicans say they won't participate.

Cost of one day in the ER room !

Costly Vacation:

My sister in law from overseas was visiting us here in Palo Alto , CA (Home of Stanford University) , about 35 miles south of San Francisco.

To make the story short she fell sick one day (She suffers from Migraines and was feeling some heart arrhythmia) about 8 am . We call 911 and the Ambulance with the Firetruck came in. They took her to the Stanford Hospital Emergency Room, which is about three miles from our condo.

So she was medicated, had some exams taken and stayed overnight (About 24 hrs total). She went home two days later (I strongly recommended her to watch Michael Moore's movie "Sicko" in her country).

Today we received an email from her with her hospital bill:

About $22,000 for one day at Stanford Hospital

plus

3 miles Ambulance (Palo Alto Fire Dept) = $1, 175

Total = $ 23, 175 !!!! (Twenty - three thousand dollars)

I really do not know how she is going to pay for this bill !!!



The only solution for the US HeathCare Crisis is to have an Universal Free HealthCare Program like Canada, Europe, Australia, Brazil, etc