Proof - Republicans Pimp for Big Banks

If on nothing else, the Occupy Wall Street protesters and the Tea Party protesters do agree that big banks are a big problem, so what will the Tea Party say about this?

A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a leaked memo obtained by the MSNBC.

Yesterday the story broke exposing the memo by the lobbying firm with ties to House Speaker John Boehner. The memo, written by K Street firm Clark, Lytle, Geduldig, Cranford (CLGC) is a quintessential example of Wall Street interests seeking to use their money and their access to influence the outcome of elections and legislation.

CLGC’s memo proposes that the American Bankers Association (ABA) pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians.

The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.

According to the memo, if Democrats embrace Occupy Wall Street (OWS), “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bulls-eye.”

The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “The bigger concern should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”

Two of the memo’s authors, partners Sam Geduldig and Jay Cranford, previously worked for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

This will certainly be one of the "smoking guns" that I've been looking for.

The 99%’s Deficit Proposal

The disconnect between Congress and the people is vast. For decades, Congress has been passing laws that benefit the 1%, their campaign donors and big business interests, rather than creating a fair economy that serves all U.S. citizens.

With this report on how to create jobs, reduce the wealth divide and control spending, Occupy Washington DC shows that Congress is out of touch with evidence-based solutions, supported by the majority of Americans that can revive the economy, reduce the deficit and wealth divide while create millions of jobs.

"For forty years, concentrated corporate interests have acted with intent to take over government and other institutions. We seek an end to the rule of concentrated wealth and corporate power by shifting control, wealth and ownership to the people."

Now some of the protesters are "occupying the highway".

Occupy the Highway

Last week, a courageous group of people had already left the Occupy Wall Street camp in New York City and started marching to Washington, DC. Their goal was to bring the outrage and energy of the 99% directly to Capitol Hill.

They're marching to call out the congressional Super Committee, which could cut a deal before Wednesday slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - - while at the same time, protecting tax breaks for the 1%.

After marching nearly 200 miles through the winter cold, they'll cross through Baltimore and prepare for their final push into Washington on Tuesday, just before the Super Committee's deadline.

Dozens of supporters have joined the march along the way. But it's up to all the rest of us to help share their story and make sure that by the time they get to Washington, Congress and the rest of the country is expecting them.

The marchers' stories are powerful, and Congress needs to hear them before they slash programs that so many of us rely on.

MoveOn.Org met up with the marchers yesterday and filmed a short video to help spread their story. It's critical that as many people as possible see this, as the Super Committee nears its critical deadline.

ALSO READ - Mellon: The banker who rigged the U.S. tax code, and how the Republicans and bankers fleeced the American working people (and how they continue to so today) by using lobbyists on K St. who are paid by CEOs on Wall St. to redistribute all the wealth from the bottom and concentrate it all at the top.

IMF Scolds (and Praises) China for Success

Does someone usually critique or criticize someone else as to how they're doing something, especially if they're doing something much better than the one who's criticizing? Doesn't their "advice" usually end up sounding like sour grapes? Think about how the U.S. and European economies have fared over the last 30 years, and how America's middle-class has declined, and how our banks and politicians crashed our housing market, and how so many jobs went to China, and how our banks have gauged and foreclosed on American consumers, and how long and deep our recession has been over the last 3 years. Then think about how well China has done over the last 30 years, and then read this report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) scolding China's nationalized banks, but at the same time, praising China's economic success....

The I.M.F. said that state controls over the economy were partly to blame for soaring property prices, excessive bank lending and mounting local government debt, and that these were among the growing risks that threatened to undermine the country’s economic boom.

The report was the latest effort by the I.M.F. to pressure Beijing to quicken the pace of its economic reforms and adopt a more market-oriented approach to banking and finance in the country, which has the world’s second-largest economy.

“The existing configuration of financial policies fosters high savings, structurally high levels of liquidity and a high risk of capital mis-allocation and asset bubbles, particularly in real estate,” the report said. “The cost of these distortions is rising over time, posing increasing macro-financial risks.”

Jonathan Fiechter, one of the authors of the I.M.F. report, said China had made remarkable progress over the last three decades, but that the country’s integration into the global economy made it more urgent for its banks to operate according to market forces.

“Take the training wheels off and let the banking system work,” Mr. Fiechter said.

Take the training wheels off? Let the banking system work?

China’s central bank responded by saying "the suggestions regarding the time frame and prioritization of some reform measures lack a thorough understanding of China’s reality.”

The Chinese government’s control over the economy has become a sore point in China’s relations with the United States and the European Union over the last few years.

Only two weeks ago, in a report to Congress, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission criticized China for pursuing “state capitalism” — policies that give big state-owned companies a competitive advantage over foreign companies doing business in China.

The Chinese Communist Party “has not expressed an interest in becoming a bastion of free market capitalism,” the Congressional report said, noting that state companies account for about 50 percent of China’s economic output. “It is pursuing socialism with Chinese characteristics, which mandates a prominent role for state ownership.”

In the I.M.F. report, China’s banking and financial system is portrayed as huge, complex and flawed, with state bank lending favoring state companies over private corporations and the financial system creating distortions that affect a wide range of factors, including interest rates, property prices and the exchange rate.

The I.M.F. said, for instance, that despite the nation’s spectacular growth, the quality of that growth had become increasingly inefficient. It now takes about $5 worth of investment to create $1 of gross domestic product — about 40 percent more than it takes in Japan or South Korea, the report said.

The IMF suggested that China "give banks more control over lending and risk management and expanding the authority of the nation’s central bank."

Ms. Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF emphasized the important role of Asia, and especially China, in achieving global economic recovery.

“The rise of Asia in the global economy is really the defining economic success story of modern times. And so today, it is no surprise that Asia is propelling the global recovery,” she said in a speech at the International Finance Forum in Beijing.

She noted in particular the achievements of China in growing by an average 10 percent a year and pulling half a billion people out of poverty over the past three decades. “No wonder that when I visit this region, I feel that I am filled with hope and optimism about the future.”

Ms. Lagarde also commented that she believed China is on the right path--as laid out in its comprehensive 12th five-year plan, in terms of reducing domestic vulnerabilities and reorienting the economy towards domestic consumption.

Ms. Lagarde also stressed the importance of IMF governance reforms in giving a greater voice to emerging markets and developing countries, noting that “One result of these governance reforms is that China is in our top three shareholders. So China is a very important member of the IMF—which is only fitting, given its very important role in the global economy.”

“China has once again taken the global central stage and plays a crucial role—today and into the future,” she said.

I do believe thou does protest (and praise) to much!

The Greek Debt Crisis - Why You Should Care

Because on the horizon, it could mean another banking scam in the form of another taxpayer bailout.

If you're not invested in the stock market, but an American multi-national corporation is invested in Greece, and could take losses on those investments if the government of Greece defaulted on their loans to banks, why should you be concerned? Will the taxpayers have to bail out another corporation so THEY don't default on loans to their banks?

Why is it always the banks that never have to worry about defaulting to anyone (to a higher power), or taking losses, or having their corporate officers making any personal sacrifices? Why does it always fall upon the masses, even if they had no part in the wicked dealings or financial shenanigans?

Why don't governments ("the people"), who owe money to private commercial banks (just a handful of old men that wear suits), tell them to kiss their collective asses, and then just nationalize the banks? Shouldn't every country's monetary system be managed by the people, instead of being manipulated by a very few -- for guaranteed profits? (See: Banking from 2000 B.C. to the Present).

Besides just the millions of foreclosed homes and lost jobs, haven't the American people suffered enough already? And has one single banker suffered at all? NO!

Did one single banker, politician or hedge fund manager lose their home and commit suicide to escape the horrific consequences of being homeless while trying to survive on the streets? Did any of them lose their healthcare? Did any of them go hungry? Did any one of them ever go to jail for their crimes against humanity? NO!

Just the opposite. If anything, they were rewarded with multi-billion-dollar bailouts and multi-million-dollar "golden parachutes". Rather than "take personal responsibility for their own actions", they pointed their fingers at their victims and blamed the jobless and the homeless for being unemployed and homeless. Some even cruelly mocked them!

Of those who lost jobs in the U.S. during the Great Recession, but might have been lucky enough to eventually be re-hired, they now average about HALF of what they once earned as an annual income -- down from $43,700 to $23,000 a year -- or about what the government defines as "poverty wages" for a family of four. As of last year, 50% of all American workers earned less than $27,000 a year. These are VERY grim statistics for a once-middle-class in America.

These people ("the working poor"), and the unemployed (about 21 million who will have no income at all after January 1, 2012), are the people that the Republicans are trying to force into even more austerity measures. And the Republicans are trying to make it more difficult for these same people to vote in next year's elections (voter suppression).

At the same time, we also have Republicans like Paul Ryan waging a class war with food stamps (trying force austerity on them like they're doing in Greece). And we also have an illegal Super Committee that's going to decide their fates regarding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -- leaving them hanging out to dry - forcing them into even more "austerity measures", just like they're doing with the people in Greece.

The Republicans are forcing the once-middle-class Americans into open revolt, just like they're doing in Greece.

From the New York Times today - First, stop destroying jobs: "For the last three decades the government has pursued a variety of policies that had the effect of undermining the living standard of the middle class and redistributing income upward. As a result, the middle class has experienced stagnant income and growing insecurity. The key to rebuilding the middle class is reversing these polices."

Does anyone seriously think this is possible? NO! Especially if there's even ONE REPUBLICAN in congress, while the politicians are allowing all the bankers to avoid jail. The banks run this country, not our elected officials, and certainly not THE PEOPLE. (The Republicans are the minions of the bankers, and the bankers are the minions of Lucifer.)

From an article that Kevin Drum wrote for Mother Jones regarding the Greek debt crisis:

Are the Greeks crazy?

No, they're just at the end of their tether. Europe is asking them to adopt more austerity than they're willing to bear.

Okay, but they're spending too much money. Surely they know they have to cut back?

Sure, but the deals on offer are pretty unattractive. Europe wants to forgive half of Greece's debt and put them on a brutal austerity plan. The problem is that this is unrealistic. Greece would be broke even if all its debt were forgiven, and if their economy tanks they'll be even broker.

But that's the prospect they're being offered: a little bit of debt forgiveness and a lot of austerity.

Well, them's the breaks.

But it puts Greece into a death spiral. They can't pay their debts, so they cut back, which hurts their economy, which makes them even broker, so they cut back some more, rinse and repeat. There's virtually no hope that they'll recover anytime in the near future. It's just endless pain. What they need is total debt forgiveness and lots of aid going forward.

That doesn't sound like a very attractive option for the rest of Europe.

No, it's not.

So maybe they should just let Greece default and wash their hands of them.

Here's the thing, though: Greek debt is largely held by German banks that made the loans. If Greece has been irresponsible, so were the German banks that happily loaned out the money. So if Greece defaults, the banks go kablooey. But they're too big to fail, which means the German government would be forced to bail them out. And guess where the bailout money comes from? Tax dollars.

This means that German taxpayers have a bleak choice. They can shovel lots of money to Greece to keep them from defaulting, or they can refuse, and then shovel lots of money into German banks to keep them from collapsing. Either way, German taxpayers are going to foot the bill. They just haven't quite accepted this in their gut yet, and it's hard to blame them. They're pretty badly screwed no matter what.

Hmmm. Given that choice, they might decide they'd rather give their money to German banks than to Greek civil servants. What happens then?

Greece defaults. And that almost certainly means that Greece exits the euro.

Why?

It's the growth thing again. If Greece defaults, nobody will loan them any money. That means huge cutbacks, which means the economy will tank, which means even more cutbacks, etc. The traditional way out of this spiral is a massive devaluation of your currency. But Greece doesn't have a currency. It has the euro.

So if they want their economy to grow again, they have to (a) default, (b) exit the euro and readopt the drachma, and (c) devalue the drachma. This will cause massive amounts of pain, but it will also make Greek exports super cheap, which will eventually revive their economy.

So why not just let that happen?

It's just too catastrophic to consider. German banks, of course, would collapse and have to be bailed out. Ditto for banks in other countries that have lots of exposure to Greek debt. But that's not the worst of it. If Greece exits the euro, it will become terrifyingly obvious that other weak countries might exit too. Portugal, Spain, and Italy are the obvious candidates. Investors, spooked at the thought of their money being stuck in a country that might exit the euro and devalue all its bank deposits, would start huge runs on banks in those countries. The ECB would have to intervene and provide liquidity without limit. It would be a disaster.

So exiting the euro can't be allowed?

Right.

But if there's no exit, there's no devaluation, and Greece is pretty much screwed forever.

Right.

So who wins?

It depends on who blinks. Exiting the euro would be no picnic for Greece. But they could decide it's better than endless indenture and threaten exit in order to get a better deal from the Germans. Then the Germans have to decide whether to call their bluff.

Wow.

Exactly. Wow. Everyone knows that somebody's going to lose a huge pile of money over this. What's really happening right now is a very high-stakes negotiation to figure out just how the losses are going to be parceled out.

It's actually a little unclear just which country has the biggest exposure to Greek debt. Maybe Germany, maybe France, maybe Switzerland. See here, here, and here. And the ECB owns a lot of Greek debt these days too.

But the general principle doesn't change much. One way or another, Europe's big countries have to decide whether to bail out Greece or whether to let them default and then bail out their own banking systems."

(End of Kevin Jones article)

Also read: Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou Faces Critical Confidence Vote

Another take: Why not just give the Greeks what they want?

Bud Meyers: Why doesn't Greece just default on their debt, screw the banks and let them take the losses (and NOT bail them out with taxpayer money), exit the Euro, and NOT devalue their currency? The CEOs of the banks will never end up homeless, and this could very well prevent many Greeks from becoming homeless.

Meanwhile, back home in the good ole U.S.A. - A poll shows that even Republican voters think that the GOP is deliberately trying to tank the economy, just to insure that Barack Obama is not re-elected..."in other words, this isn't just a liberal conspiracy theory."

But why should we care about Greece? Robert Reich says that until we reverse the trend toward inequality, our economy can't be revived either. "Look elsewhere around the world and you see a similar collision unfolding. The details differ, but the larger forces are similar. You see it in Spain, Greece, and Italy, whose citizens are being squeezed by bankers insisting on austerity."

Why are the "commoners" always expected to do all the suffering and sacrificing when it's the banks and the top 1% who keep screwing up and making bad and greedy decisions that we're all forced to live with whenever they fail.

EXAMPLE: Prior to taking over MF Global, Jon Corzine ran Goldman Sachs & Co, and was a senator and governor of New Jersey. As CEO of MF Global, his bets on European debt drove the futures brokerage into a $45 billion bankruptcy, but he says he "can't find" $1 billion in investor's money. WTF?

Why is Goldman Sachs always connected in some way to scandal, wealth inequality, bailouts, bankruptcies, "golden parachutes", corruption, the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve and our politicians? And it always seems to end up with "austerity for the masses." And why hasn't anyone gone to prison besides just one rouge trader named Bernie Madoff?

From 2009 to 2011, Jared Bernstein was the Chief Economist and Economic Adviser to Vice President Joe Biden and a member of President Obama’s economic team. He writes a blog and has made numerous appearances on MSNBC. So I emailed him (below), thinking he might have more information about why those who were involved with the economic melt-down were never put in jail.

An e-mail I sent to Jared Bernstein today:

"What was Larry Summers and Robert Rubin's involvement regarding the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act?

I'd like to see you write a short and concise article tying this all together...and then explaining why no one has been investigated and arrested by Eric Holder and Company, and why no one ever went to prison.

What's the inside scoop on this? Who advised Obama to hire Larry Summers? Was it Valerie Jarrett?

Robert Rubin, who worked for Goldman Sachs for 27 years, was the Secretary of the Treasury during the Clinton administration -- about the time the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was signed into law.(right about the time Larry Summers transitioned into that job.)

When Rubin became the chairman of Citigroup he got the government to guarantee $300 billion of Citigroup's toxic assets and obtained a $45 billion taxpayer bailout, then he received a $126 million golden parachute. How did this happen?

Those toxic assets and other collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps were exempted from government regulation by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which Rubin helped design while he was treasury secretary (and which was turned into law when Rubin protégé Larry Summers took over that Cabinet post.)

Why would Rubin, a banker and commodities investor, be involved with any "reform" of the investment banks?

In 2009 President Obama tapped Larry Summers to be the director of the White House National Economic Council. Why? On who's advice?

Larry Summers ran Mr. Obama’s daily Oval Office briefings on the economy and sees the president more than the other economic advisers. He had guided Obama on matters ranging from the $787 billion economic stimulus package to the financial regulatory reform bill passed in 2010.

Again, why? And what was his connection to Hank Paulson?

Can you tell me more about the relationships between the Federal Reserve (headed by corporate CEOs of other commercial banks) and the financial institutions who sold the toxic credit-default-swaps?

READ THE ARTICLE: Too Big to Jail - "Robert Rubin's destructive impact on the economy in enabling these giant corporate banks to run amok was far greater than that of swindler Bernard Madoff, who sits in prison with a 150-year sentence."

Don't all these connections have a very high appearance of impropriety? Robert Rubin > Secretary of the Treasury > Goldman Sachs > bailouts > bonuses > golden parachutes > Citigroup's exemptions > Larry Summers > Ben Bernanke > Hank Paulson > Goldman Sachs > Secretary of the Treasury / back to Ben Bernanke (Federal Reserve) > and our elected officials in Congress and the White House.

(End of e-mail to Jarod Bernstein. If he every replies, or writes an article, I'll update this post. )

This whole circle of characters stinks to high Heaven. Was it because our elected officials were so involved, and that's why no one was ever prosecuted? Does corruption run so deep, and among so many, within our banking system and our system of government?

Again, why should we care about Greece, and why are there 280 large and profitable U.S. corporations that are "Too Big to Tax"? Because of the banks, we could end up like Greece. And isn't this exactly why Occupy Wall Street exists today?

You Can Advise the White House

http://WhiteHouse.gov/Advise

* Not that it will help much (like barking at the moon), but here's what I submitted....

Goal:
Repatriate $2 trillion in hoarded corporate profits off-shore to be taxed at the same rate as in China (25%) with no loopholes. Then rehire laid off government workers and restore UI benefits for the unemployed to generate economic activity. Borrow from the general fund to begin work on infrastructure to be paid back with an imposition of taxes on capital gains - taxed as REGULAR INCOME.

Federal Actions:
By executive order, nationalize the Federal Reserve, repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, order Eric Holder to investigate, arrest, and put on trial all the banking executives involved in the banking and commodities fraud, to restore confidence in the markets and in our government.

Community Actions:
They are already doing it...it's called Occupy Wall Street (just like they've been doing in Greece.)

* I had forgot to say, DRAFT ELIZABETH WARREN! (Republicans don't like her because she wants to reform the greedy banking system that created this global economic mess to begin with.)

* And rather than have the banks foreclose on millions of homes, rendering them vacant (and not generating any income at all) and/or selling them to others at a depressed market value, and/or having the taxpayers pick up the tab, thus guaranteeing the bank's investment, why not just forgive all housing mortgages completely? After all, wasn't it the banks who destroyed the housing market? Who says the banks have to be guaranteed profits, or that their executives have to be guaranteed their multl-million-dollar salaries and bonuses at the expense of THE PEOPLE? Where is it written in stone? Is that what the Republicans mean by "certainty in the marketplace"? Certainty for the banks but no certainty for THE PEOPLE?

* From HuffPost Hill today: Some of the biggest banks are offering foreclosure reviews for 4.5 million people. But ProPublica found it's really unclear what benefits the consumers would receive.

Speaking of those big banks, many of them have a "less than zero" percent income tax rate. Wells Fargo, for instance, collected $681 million from taxpayers after making $49.3 billion in profits in 2008-10.

The Department of Justice thought about changing Freedom of Information Act rules to let government agencies lie in order to deny access to public records. U.S. Senators Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) were pissed, as was a coalition of advocacy groups. On Thursday, the DOJ decided maybe that wasn't a good rule.

Greg Gutfeld (Fox News "Red Eye") Makes Ass of Himself

If you can, watch the Fox News Red Eye "Half-time Report" from tonight when they discussed Occupy Wall Street. Greg Gutfeld made a total ass out of himself in a discussion with Andy Levy.

Greg Gutfeld said that if the Occupy Wall Street protesters got bailed out and had their college loans forgiven, he'd go on the street to protest.

PARAPHRASED....

Andy Levy : "Oh, so it's OK to bail out the banks?"
Greg Gutfeld : "That's different, the government gave them that money."
Andy Levy : "The government? Aren't we the government?"
Greg Gutfeld : "That's different. The bankers weren't camping out in a park saying 'give me a bail out, give me a bail out.'"
Andy Levy : "No, the bankers were in their million-dollar penthouse suites saying 'give me a bail out, give me a bail out.'"

It's common knowledge that, like the Republicans, Fox News pimps for the wealthiest 1%. So seeing Greg shamelessly pimp for the banks was no surprise. But seeing Andy Levy so skillfully counter Greg's insanely lame argument was priceless!

To join the exclusive 1% club, Americans need a minimum annual income of $516,633 according to the Tax Policy Center.