Skip to main content

View Diary: Taibbi, Naked Capitalism Re: Our Bipartisan "Fraudemocracy" (261 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  elites are corrupt - and then? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jose Bidenio

    For example: the following is just nonsense in the tradition of MSM "on the one hand/on the other hand".

    On the other hand, partisan Democratic party hacks say that bad corporations caused the crisis, and that if more power is given to Summers, Bernanke, Geithner and the other governmental honchos, they'll fix everything.

    But Summers, Bernanke, Geithner and the other meatheads largely caused the crisis through their actions. And as Simon Johnson points out, the government created the mega-giants, and they are not the product of free market competition.

    Who are these "partisan Democratic party" hacks to tell us these things? Certainly President Obama describes the crisis as a mix of chicanery and failure to regulate. I don't think I've heard a Democrat say that if more power is given to certain officials they will "fix everything" either.

    And did Summer, Bernanke, and Geithner cause the crisis? They appointed Cox as head of the SEC and made it go to sleep? They appointed Douggan as Comptroller? They ran Alan Greenspan's bubble? They dismantled the white collar crime offices in DOJ? They appointed Paulson at Treasury? They started two unfunded wars and put the financing off books? They created the Bush tax breaks for the rich?

    Those guys are powerful and evil! Call the cops.

    •  The SAFE Banking Act. (6+ / 0-)

      You read the diary but apparently don't wish to comprehend it. I'm guessing you think that if we let Summers Bernanke, Geithner and the other meatheads go along as they've been, that's just wonderful.

      Maybe you like the way things are, you think it's good for us. In either case, I'll not help you further distract from the intent of the diary, so adios.

      Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

      by Jim P on Sun May 02, 2010 at 10:12:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  i'm quoting from the diary - and it's false (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jose Bidenio

        The diary makes false statements. Pointing that out means that I am in favor of accuracy, not that I am for or against any particular policy.

        •  Specifically, what is 'false' in the diary? (4+ / 0-)

          You remind me of Warren Buffet this week, standing up telling the World how great Goldman Sachs is while still calling 'derivatives' Weapons of Mass Destruction.

          What part of the word 'Fraud' and 'Systemic Corruption' don't you agree with.............specifically, what is false in the diary?

          Point for point please.

          ...oh, not to worry, I'm wearing a Flame Retardant Valentino Orange Moo Moo whenever I visit DailyKos.

          by Badabing on Sun May 02, 2010 at 10:43:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  let's try again (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jose Bidenio

            "On the other hand, partisan Democratic party hacks say that bad corporations caused the crisis"

            Nobody has said that. Democrats say a combination of bad corporate behavior and lax regulation caused the crisis.

            "and that if more power is given to Summers, Bernanke, Geithner and the other governmental honchos, they'll fix everything."

            Nobody said that either.

            But Summers, Bernanke, Geithner and the other meatheads largely caused the crisis through their actions.

            No that's false too. At most these guys played some part in contributing to or not doing enough to stop this crisis. But they were not responsible for the 8 years of Bush financial insanity and total lack of regulation and corruption or Bush's gross mismanagement of the crisis start. And Sunmmers, for example, has been complaining about wealth inequality since 2002, which gives even him a much deeper insight into the problems than we get from the alarm-bell scandal analysis of this diary. And Summers is not particularly insightful.

            •  As usual, you grossly conflate others' quotes... (5+ / 0-)
              ...with my own words and thoughts. But, then again, that's your m.o., as is made self-evident by your outrageous, memorialized commentary in some of my other recent diaries (and, even herein), and with regard to your comments in other diaries in this community (about me) behind my back.

              "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

              by bobswern on Sun May 02, 2010 at 01:14:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  That last paragraph (Dugan) is super accurate. (0+ / 0-)

      Dugan is dirty, dirty, dirty.

      Of all the architects of last year's financial crash, John Dugan remains the most obscure, despite his stature as one of the most influential. While regulatory errors have made Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan household names, most people have never heard either of Dugan or his agency, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. But as the chief regulator for the largest US banks, Dugan and his staff are one of the most powerful engines of economic policy in the world.

      Over the course of nearly a quarter-century, Dugan has proved himself a staunch ally of the American financial elite as a Senate staffer (1985-89), a Treasury official (1989-93) and a lobbyist (1993-2005), building a career that culminated in 2005 when George W. Bush appointed him comptroller of the currency. When the financial system finally succumbed to its own excesses in September 2008, Dugan's fingerprints were all over the economic wreckage, but almost nobody noticed.

           Zach Carter: John Dugan helped create the "too big to fail" economy--so why is he still regulating our banks?

      A Master of Disaster By Zach Carter

      This article appeared in the January 4, 2010 edition of The Nation.
      December 16, 2009

      There is a lot more good, or bad, reading depending on how you look at it in that article.

      I ask the same question its author asks, though:  "so why is he still regulating our banks?"

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site