Knee-jerk reaction: I wonder if we could apply this principle to members of Congress. But it probably doesn't matter. They might work for nothing, then take corporate executive jobs in all the companies for which they wrote favorable legislation.

When I saw the headline “It's payday!” I thought it was going to be about the foreign banks and hedge funds and Goldman Sachs getting paid for the credit default swaps they bought from AIG. $180 billion. That's a payday. Forget the AIG employee bonuses. That's chicken feed next to the real giveaway… er, I mean theft. And of course, Turbo-Tax Timmy, our Treasury Secretary, is working night and day to commit however many trillions of non-existent dollars (your kids' payday) are necessary to ensure a rich payday for bank bondholders. The means are convoluted, but the ends are plain and simple: no bankruptcy for big banks, and no bondholder haircut. Contrast this with Obama's treatment of the auto industry, and Obama is cast in the role of sock puppet for the financial oligarchy. “The Quiet Coup,” an article in the May 2009 Atlantic Monthly by a former chief economist for the IMF, makes a case for the USA as banana republic in the way “the finance industry has effectively captured our government.”

We know who's going to get the payday if things continue on plan. The question is whether we will take action to prevent it.

Knee-jerk reaction: I wonder if we could apply this principle to members of Congress. But it probably doesn't matter. They might work for nothing, then take corporate executive jobs in all the companies for which they wrote favorable legislation.

When I saw the headline “It's payday!” I thought it was going to be about the foreign banks and hedge funds and Goldman Sachs getting paid for the credit default swaps they bought from AIG. $180 billion. That's a payday. Forget the AIG employee bonuses. That's chicken feed next to the real giveaway… er, I mean theft. And of course, Turbo-Tax Timmy, our Treasury Secretary, is working night and day to commit however many trillions of non-existent dollars (your kids' payday) are necessary to ensure a rich payday for bank bondholders. The means are convoluted, but the ends are plain and simple: no bankruptcy for big banks, and no bondholder haircut. Contrast this with Obama's treatment of the auto industry, and Obama is cast in the role of sock puppet for the financial oligarchy. “The Quiet Coup,” an article in the May 2009 Atlantic Monthly by a former chief economist for the IMF, makes a case for the USA as banana republic in the way “the finance industry has effectively captured our government.”

We know who's going to get the payday if things continue on plan. The question is whether we will take action to prevent it.

Knee-jerk reaction: I wonder if we could apply this principle to members of Congress. But it probably doesn't matter. They might work for nothing, then take corporate executive jobs in all the companies for which they wrote favorable legislation.

When I saw the headline “It's payday!” I thought it was going to be about the foreign banks and hedge funds and Goldman Sachs getting paid for the credit default swaps they bought from AIG. $180 billion. That's a payday. Forget the AIG employee bonuses. That's chicken feed next to the real giveaway… er, I mean theft. And of course, Turbo-Tax Timmy, our Treasury Secretary, is working night and day to commit however many trillions of non-existent dollars (your kids' payday) are necessary to ensure a rich payday for bank bondholders. The means are convoluted, but the ends are plain and simple: no bankruptcy for big banks, and no bondholder haircut. Contrast this with Obama's treatment of the auto industry, and Obama is cast in the role of sock puppet for the financial oligarchy. “The Quiet Coup,” an article in the May 2009 Atlantic Monthly by a former chief economist for the IMF, makes a case for the USA as banana republic in the way “the finance industry has effectively captured our government.”

We know who's going to get the payday if things continue on plan. The question is whether we will take action to prevent it.

Not that I'd know anything about it firsthand, necessarily…

I am actually a proponent to some of the bailout measures, not all, and the same goes for the Stimulus package. Last year, I railed against Bush for sending money to individuals rather than trying to strengthen the system the individuals live in. I think Obama has a handle on that aspect. Unfortunately, the state recipients who are supposed to appropriate those funds into “shovel-ready” projects are all over the map. NY's Patterson has to disperse the money statewide. NYC Mayor Bloomberg argues NYC is the motor of the state and at least 70% of the funds should be earmarked for the city alone.

Bloomberg has been a fairly decent mayor, just as NJ's Jon Corzine has tried his best as Governor… but it's awfully hard to hear these two billionaires say things about strapped budgets and how little guys are gonna need to feel some pain to see things through. It's like watching football players telling people in the stands that they didn't pay enough to get into the game.