Why? Because the Paulson Plan is nothing more than a legalized bank robbery. This guy should have come to the Committee Hearing wear a mask and holding a .45.
And John McCain butting in where he doesn't belong (he doesn't sit on any Committee responsible for dealing with this current issue), and basically holding up the democratic process of elections, he's no better.
Let me talk a little bit about Crassus, and why his story is very similar to the Paulson one...
From Answers.com:
(born c. 115 — died 53 BC) Roman financier and politician. He sided with Lucius Cornelius Sulla against Gaius Marius in the civil war of 83 – 82 BC and came into conflict with Pompey the Great. In 72 – 71 he put down the slave rebellion led by Spartacus. He made loans to indebted senators, including Julius Caesar. In 70 Crassus and Pompey were elected co-consuls. Ten years later Crassus, Caesar, and Pompey formed the First Triumvirate (see triumvirate). As governor of Syria (54) Crassus invaded Parthia; his death at the Battle of Carrhae led to civil war between Caesar and Pompey.
Basically, the guy used his vast financial empire to fund Julius Ceasar and created the template for what we call "checks and balances" except that instead of three branches of government, they used...well, three wealthy, powerful men.
I know, I know; you have some questions, like:
- How did Crassus finance Julius Ceasar?
- He sounds like a nice person (for a Roman). What else did he do?
- Why the comparison to Paulson?
To which I would answer:
- He was one of history's richest men ever, so he had the spare cash.
- He started the first fire brigade (he was also into owning slaves and proscriptions, but name a Roman who wasn't back then).
- He used said fire brigade to extort money from the very people he claimed he was helping.
"Say What?" Yeah; I know, right? Let 'ol Plutarch explain:
People were wont to say that the many virtues of Crassus were darkened by the one vice of avarice, and indeed he seemed to have no other but that; for it being the most predominant, obscured others to which he was inclined. The arguments in proof of his avarice were the vastness of his estate, and the manner of raising it; for whereas at first he was not worth above three hundred talents, yet, though in the course of his political life he dedicated the tenth of all he had to Hercules, and feasted the people, and gave to every citizen corn enough to serve him three months, upon casting up his accounts, before he went upon his Parthian expedition, he found his possessions to amount to seven thousand one hundred talents; most of which, if we may scandal him with a truth, he got by fire and rapine, making his advantages of the public calamities. For when Sylla seized the city, and exposed to sale the goods of those that he had caused to be slain, accounting them booty and spoils, and, indeed, calling them so too, and was desirous of making as many, and as eminent men as he could, partakers in the crime, Crassus never was the man that refused to accept, or give money for them. Moreover observing how extremely subject the city was to fire, and falling down of houses, by reason of their height and their standing so near together, he bought slaves that were builders and architects, and when he had collected these to the number of more than five hundred, he made it his practice to buy houses that were on fire, and those in the neighborhood, which, in the immediate danger and uncertainty, the proprietors were willing to part with for little, or nothing; so that the greatest part of Rome, at one time or other, came into his hands. Yet for all he had so many workmen, he never built anything but his own house, and used to say that those that were addicted to building would undo themselves soon enough without the help of other enemies.
In other words:
The rest of Crassus' wealth was acquired more conventionally, through traffic in slaves, the working of silver mines, and judicious purchases of land and houses, especially those of proscribed citizens. Most notorious was his acquisition of burning houses: when Crassus received word that a house was on fire, he would arrive and purchase the (apparently lost) property along with surrounding buildings for a modest sum, and then employ his army of 500 clients to put the fire out before much damage had been done. Crassus' clients employed the Roman method of firefighting -- destroying the burning building to curtail the spread of the flames.
Talk about privatization: "Pay me or I'll let your house burn. In fact, scratch that; gimme your land!"
Of course, to be a true analogy Crassus would have had to set the fires in the first place. But it's close enough.