The tyrant gave his "dire" warning to the Congress today that if they don't pass the finance industry's burglary of the treasury the sky will fall.  But one of the more important motives of the tyrant at 1600 Penn. Ave. has goes back to Grover Norquist and his objective of bankrupting the government as a means of destroying all the social programs and other successful government efforts that grew out of the New Deal and Great Society.  By adding an other totaly unjustifed trillion to the national debt, Bush achieves the objective of tying Obama's hands on demostic policy even if he wins two terms!  It is the equivalent of the fait accomplis Bush has structured with Iraq.  He's done all he could to make American withdrawa in Iraq impossible regardless of who succeeds him.  The real purpose of Bush's tax cuts for the rich you may recall wasn't to simply give money to them.  It was to drive the deficit so high Congress would have no choice but to get rid of everything except defense and social security and maybe not even social security.

The great heist of taxpayer money now being engineered by the tyrant and his man Paulson is simply frosting on the cake for bringing the federal government to it's knees for a generation or more ad thus preventing Obama or any other successor from implementing national heath care and a host of other urgently needed domestic intitiatives.  That the Democrats and even Obama are falling for this obviously bullshit is horrifying.  Any and all politicians, regardless of party, who vote for this will have no plausible excuse for doing so in the future as it becomes increasingly apparent over time just how illegitimate and unnecessary this thievery is.  Why are the DC Dems so blind?  Why are they so stupid? 

Why the Democrats would go along with tying the hands of Obama in advance of his election is beyond my comprehension.  It's just so politically stupid and cowardly that it makes my head hurt thinking about it.  Is there anything these idiotic DC Dems won't do if the tyrant says: "Boo!"?

As Dean Baker points out in a post today, when you consider the situation, it makes more sense for we the patsies (I mean taxpayers), to natonalize the banks than it does to attempt to rescue them with tons and tons of money we don't have but will have to repay at some point and for which we will get nothing in return.  Other than ideological reasons, I see no reason why we should not nationalize all the insolvent institutions and pursue prosecution for any and all malfeasance in the financial industry that led to this horrific mess.  Looks like that is the approach the Brits are going to take and I certainly have more confidence in their policymakers than in ours.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-us-bradfordbingley.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin