JuneWHORE,

Rayguns contribution to supplant 'corporate responsiblity with unbridled greed" is infantismal compared to that of Bill Clinton:

And their was, I hae demonstrated NO Free MARKET involved at all, it was all by definition CORPOTISM...GOVERNMENT interferance giveing Corporatists SPECIAL Priviledge and POWER.

WASHINGTON — Nine years ago, Gary Gensler played a central role in fending off tough regulation for exotic financial instruments for hedging against risk. On Thursday, President-elect Barack Obama picked him for a central role in cleaning up the wreckage that some of those instruments caused.

Mr. Obama named Mr. Gensler, a former Treasury official under President Clinton, to take over a seemingly obscure backwater of regulation, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
...

In 1999, Mr. Gensler worked alongside Robert E. Rubin, then the Treasury secretary under President Clinton, and Alan Greenspan, then the chairman of the Federal Reserve, to block proposals by the commission to regulate the new instruments.
link:[www.nytimes.com]

None other than the FOX who now GUARDS the CHICKEN COUP - Gary Gensler  

Not only REWARDING FAILURE, but GIVING HIM MORE POWER....

Indeed, when is ENOUGH TOO MUCH.....

HOW CAN A RATIONAL PERSON WITH ANY INTEGRITY WHORE THEMSELVES OUT TO A PARTY, THAT  REWARDS WITH MORE POWER PEOPLE LIKE GENSLER WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR LEGALIZING THE CORPORATE GREED OF CDOS?

June,

I read this on an internet blog today:

Watching disconnected Congressional Republicans demonstrate their "trickle down" theory by using their pants legs the last two weeks has been a thing of perverse beauty. Their anti-stimulus rants have been evocative of classic Mel Brooks circa "History of the World: Part I," wherein King Louis' lackey runs into the arrogant King's throne room.

Count De Monet: "Your majesty, the peasants are revolting!"

King Louis: "That's right! They stink on ice!"

link:[www.smirkingchimp.com]

That sort of sums it up. 

Wow, indietool,

You would think those EVIL REPUBLOTARDS would LOVE a Stimulus Bill from LARRY SUMMERS....

[NYT caption:] Depression-Era Rules Undone Alan Greenspan, left, the Federal Reserve Chairman, and Congressional leaders applauded President Clinton yesterday after he signed the Financial Services Modernization Act, which allows merging of banks, securities firms and insurers. It repeals parts of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act.

“This legislation is truly historic,” President Clinton told a packed audience of lawmakers and top financial regulators. “We have done right by the American people.”

“With this bill,” Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said, “the American financial system takes a major step forward toward the 21st Century — one that will benefit American consumers, business and the national economy.” Opponents said it would have the opposite effect, creating behemoths that will raise fees, violate customers’ privacy by sharing and selling their personal data, and put the stability of the financial system at risk.

Lawrence H. Summers - The same LARRY SUMMERS that OBAMA just REWARDED with a position as Obama's CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISOR - Director of the White House National Economic Council

When is ENOUGH TOO MUCH?

Wait, my tax dollars are keeping them in business, and now that we in effect hold all the seats on the Board of Directors, we have the right to make management decisions. Including executive compensation.

The other option for CITI and Chase, is to go out of business.

Remember the GM and Chrysler debates.

And how it was acceptable for Republitards to demand wage cuts for middle class workers?

Where was the moral outrage then?

Oh yeah, that was screwing over union workers; this is about protecting wealthy dumbasses who've run their bank into insolvency and want welfare with no strings attached.

When is Enough too much?

Clinton, who will be speaking in West Michigan at the Economics Club of Grand Rapids annual dinner on June 18, signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a major change in media regulations.

According to Jeff Chester in his book Digital Destiny deregulation of the media was part of the plan early on with Clinton, who stated "we will support removal of judicial and legislative restrictions on all types of telecommunications companies: cable, telephone, utilities, television and satellite. Market forces replace regulations and judicial models that are no longer appropriate." This was not just rhetoric for Clinton, but a mandate that was embodied with the passing of the 1996 Tele-Communications Act. Media Scholar Bob McChesney calls the 1996 Tele-Com Act one of the most anti-democratic pieces of legislation passed in the 20th century. Here is a summary of what the 1996 Tele-Com Act changed:

• Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, homogenization of play lists, and less local news.
• Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies - Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp, NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.
• The Act deregulated cable rates. Between 1996 and 2003, those rates have skyrocketed, increasing by nearly 50 percent.
• The Act permitted the FCC to ease cable-broadcast cross-ownership rules. As cable systems increased the number of channels, the broadcast networks aggressively expanded their ownership of cable networks with the largest audiences. Ninety percent of the top 50 cable stations are owned by the same parent companies that own the broadcast networks, challenging the notion that cable is any real source of competition.
• The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections.
• The Act reduced broadcasters' accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.

The consequences from the 1996 Tele-Com Act have been far reaching and continue to impact the American public, as is documented well in a Common Cause report entitled "The Fallout from the 1996 Telecommunication Act." One of the consequences of the 1996 Tele-Com Act has been the reduction in female and minority ownership of media, which has also resulted in a decrease in women's and minority voices in news coverage.

One more important outcome of the Clinton administration's passage of the 1996 Tele-Com Act has been the ongoing relationship between the telecom industry and the Democrats. According to the Center for Public Integrity, from 1998-2004 the Democrats received over $82 million from the telecom industry and the Republicans just over $63 million. In the same way that Clinton's support of NAFTA, the war in Iraq, and welfare reform have been a detriment to working people, media deregulation under Clinton has only benefited big business.

HOW DO ANY OF YOU JUSTIFY WHORING YOURSELVES OUR TO A PARTY LIKE THIS?  YOUR HYPOCRICY IS ABHORRANT.

indieTOOL, it is a very accurate depiction of Obama'a choices rewarding THE SAME people who are RESPONSIBLE for THIS VERY CRISIS to guard the multi TRILLION hen house...

Both Mr. Lew and Mr. Froman are well respected in Washington for their extensive government experience, which includes work in the Clinton administration on budget matters, in Congress and on international financial affairs.

But their shift to the Obama administration from Citigroup has raised questions about the potential for conflicts of interest, and about whether Mr. Obama’s own staff members benefited from the kinds of Wall Street excesses he has criticized.

“You sort of have to wonder why it is so smart to put them in charge now, if they helped create the mess that we are in,” Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told The Times. “They wouldn’t strike me as the natural choice.”

Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, has questioned whether the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, is relying too much on former bank executives in shaping the bailout of the financial sector. Recent appointees include Mark A. Patterson, a former lobbyist at Goldman Sachs, who is now the chief of staff to the Treasury secretary.

link:[dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com]

HOW DO ANY OF YOU JUSTIFY WHORING YOURSELVES OUR TO A PARTY .....

Who rewards the VERY PEOPLE responsible for this Financial Crisis who came from Citi, Sach in the first place...and then gives the the BANKERS who used the system to enrich themselves...POWER IN THE WHITEHOUSE....

HOO-AHH, adam - are you auditioning for Ann Coulter's roadie?  Uou make it sound like our economic meltdown would be this bad if President Clinton and his economic advisors had been in office the last 8 years!