When Henry Paulson first proposed his unbelievably dangerous plan for the Wall Street bailout, I was terrified that Congress would be railroaded into passing it unedited. But when I saw Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank's somewhat more reasonable plans, I thought that sanity might prevail. How naive.
After hearing the proposed revisions, the banks are actually ASKING FOR MORE! These bastards are trying to negotiate, as if $700 BILLION is just the starting point.
If this were a bailout, they would be desperate for whatever they could get, no matter what kind of strings congress decided to attach. We need a new frame to describe this sham. My suggestion is...
"This isn't a bailout, it's a STICK UP."
Naomi Klein used this phrase in passing in her latest article.
I think that this could be an effective way of communicating the fundamental unfairness and even illegality of what Paulson has proposed. It conjours up images of bank robbers and getaway cars, which is pretty much what this we've got here. Granted, the crooks are wearing suits rather than masks, but that doesn't change what's happening.
Calling it a "stick up" puts pressure on congress to come up with a plan that makes more sense, and to reject anything that resembles Paulson's folly. What congressman, after all, wants to vote for a "stick up?"
What are some other effective ways of framing this financial abomination?
UPDATE: The Poll question should read, "Could framing the bailout as a 'stick up' help to sway public opinion?"