I hate law. I hate politics. I am an expert at neither and I personally hate them both more than the average American hates dealing with the CHORE that is this subprime lending mess. Yet again, it's a necessary evil. Since the American people are unconstitutionally dragged into this mess.
Dear Readers, may I introduce you to the tactic and rhetoric and fallacy that is called Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Or FUD for short. This is an older phenomenon. Bill Gates and Microsoft used this tactic to intimidate their competators Linux and IBM. Since the rise of the tech industry I've seen this tactic used along with ad hominems and red herrings to intimidate their antagonist. It can be called a lot of other things, jargon changes with it's intentions.
THe bailout initially violated the Constitution because spending bills must be passed in the House first and the Senate second before it heads to the President’s desk in the Oval Office. The bailout passed President Bush on behalf of Paulson before it was voted on by Congress and the Senate.
The night the bailout was proposed, our government declared Martial Law while the Constitution was being violated. They used scare tactics like declaring that the economy was going to collapse at that very minute, or that this was so complicated that Congress must resign all control of the bailout to the Treasury Secretary. This is a FEAR tactic. They depend on our ignorance to pull this off. Resourceful, accurate information on the scenario as is in an objective manner is not presented to the general public, or made easily accessible as a reference. That would solve our own purposes, not Paulson's.
One could have the media tell us that the universe supports these bailouts, I can go anywhere; such as a store or a gas station or anywhere people spend their money and people are complaining about this, openly. In public. Everywhere. I've heard clerks ask if this is really happening. In a logical sense, it shouldn't be.
Someone can tell me that the sky is red when my own eyes tells me that it's blue. There could be two reasons for this.
1. They confuse blue for red.
2. They are convincing me not to trust my sense. That i don't know what I'm talking about. That my eyes are fooling me.
This is uncertainty and doubt that will plague the financial crisis and any other unethical or manipulative schemes. I ran into this when realtors were defending the unjustly high price of real estate. The real wages didn't support it. Most of these properties were owned by specualtors. But they were telling me that "demand was high"... that "San Diego was a desirable location".
Okay. I'm a multigenerational decendant of San Diego and I personally know what homes sold for in the last 50 years in San Diego. Because my family has bought and sold homes in San Diego for 4 generations. The job market in San Diego was always muffled, as were the salaries. Therefore, in the last century the homes in San Diego were always valued at just above par (or average). The Cost of Living Index might have been 135, not 220. So I knew right away that the realtors were full of @#$!. Mind you, not one realtor or specualtor gave me any credible evidence as to why the real estate in San Diego was infact that expensive. Realtors were using ARM loans to speculate, artificially making the price of real estate unrealistically expensive. Natives of San Diego were infact looking at the home prices with their jaws to their knees, blaming transplants or the tech sector in the Bay Area for the "demand" (false, artificial demand) that got the price so high to begin with. Many of them were just concerned about their ability to afford a home in their hometown. The realtors were backed by the media pimping out the prices.
So that was a fine example of how Uncertainty and Doubt plays into a scenario. To sum it up, it's just exaggerated bull$@%! with absolutely no proven fact to support their claim. Infact, the facts proved otherwise. The average household salaries in that city in 2000-2005 were around $50,000 per year. This is not enough to qualify for a legitimate mortgage on a home that is valued at $750,000 (or whatever the average price of a house was at that time). Yet the Pied Piper, aka. the media played the tune of how great the housing market is (to justify the prices).
All this can be retorted to "hear say", aka Uncertainty and Doubt (of FUD). Or just straight out lies.
Now back to the bailouts.
When considering the bailouts, Not once did Congress even breathe the words "auditor" or seek their own council to interpret the situation to them before passing the bailout.
Not once did anyone bother to examine the possibility of suspending the mark to market rule; or any other means to make the banks solvent to keep businesses running (and people employed).
When 95% of Americans oppose this bill, signing it into law is infact Taxation Without Representation.
Note: The president swears to defend the Constitution upon taking his oath.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
—Presidential oath of office, Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution
So whose responsibility is it to protect and defend the Constitution? The POTUS of course. Obama taught Constitutional Law, he hates that thing and the Machievellian Prince knows better than most how to get around it. So are the lawyers supposed to protect us? Only if we hire them. So in the end, it's up to us to learn the Constitution and to do our sole duty to interpret, protect and defend it. We need to be familiar with it. Stand for something you'll fall for anything.
In reality, shareholders should be the only outsiders dealing with the bank during trial. The taxpayers and our money should not be involved with this, most Americans did not participate or understand the crime even. Without being melodramatic (I'm trying to prove a point here), this legislation is an unwarrented seizure or bond set on the taxpayers for the crimes of the banks. This is not just a moral hazard.
Think about it this way, one assumes control of the situation once they take responsibility for it. Sure it's not your fault if you're attacked and mugged, but it's your responsibility to defend yourself if you can or you suffer the consequenses.
Taxpayers are supposed to be watching this entire ordeal go down on the sidelines; without our Constituion, our liberties, our rights and our money seized from us. The 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms protects us from that. Remove the 2nd Amendment and we have no case against unwarranted searches and seizures. The 2nd Amendment does not end with guns. (guns and gun control are symbolic of this gesture, and gun sales have been going through the roof)
This Congress may want to re-consider grand theft and larsony of the American taxpayers without the immediate scare of pine-tar torches and clatter of pitchforks; and tempermental women sitting patiently with heads on a stake right outside the gates...silence is consent.