In case you are a Republican and have found yourself reading this blog, first let me define feudalism for you. n. a medieval system of land tenure with allegiance and service due to the land owner. Ah hell, never mind, you probably won't even understand the definition. I'm not trying to be hateful, but let's face it, if you are still a Republican after 2000, you have to be mentally deficient. And if you're still a Republican after 2008, then you must be brain dead.
Remember the years from 2000 until 2008 are what ushered in the end of American democracy where George W. Bush, used the lives of poor Americans to steal oil from the Middle East, when he handed over the keys of the nation to the richest Americans, left millions homeless and then stole $3 trillion to bail out his cronies in the banking industry.
Sorry, buried the lead. Because what this post is really about is the fact that now Attorney General Eric Holder and by proxy President Barack Obama are on the record as saying that if you are rich you have rights and if you are poor, you don't. I'm speaking of Holder's confession, Wednesday, that if you are rich enough, the law just doesn't apply to you. And if you are a bank, the federal government will even hold the door for you while you steal everything and anything the poorest Americans have.
Holder said, some banks are just too big to prosecute, no matter how sinister their crimes, because it might negatively affect the economy. The problem is Holder's reasoning and apparently the entire Department of Justice's reasoning is just wrong.
Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. If we are a nation of laws, then those laws must apply to everyone, from the guy blowing leaves for $8 an hour to the crooks who run big Wall Street banks. If we are not a nation of laws, then that's okay too. I am more than happy to compete with the pasty faced banker from a standpoint of Jungle Law. What I am not willing to do is compete in an arena where I have different rules and am then told by the people who purchase their advantage that I am deficient because I can't overcome those rules.
But to say banks and bankers are too big to prosecute, is just dishonest and the truth is there is no reason why prosecuting big finance should be detrimental to the economy. If I commit a crime, the government can come in and take my house, my car, and everything I own if they can prove it was used in the commission of a crime. They will then auction off everything I once owned to some rich guy waiting in the wings to profit from my misfortune.
The same laws can be applied to banks. If the DOJ can prove that Bank of America or Morgan Stanley or HCSB (which isn't even an American Bank) committed crimes, we can seize all their assets. We can auction off those assets, we can federally take control as if nothing ever happened or we can parcel it out into smaller banks across the country. In fact, that is exactly what we should do. We should prosecute every bank,that needed a bailout, take their assets and create small and medium sized banks across the country. The end result would be a stronger economy and one that is not subject to the avarice of a tiny portion of the overall population.
And bear in mind that when Theodore Roosevelt took on the giant trusts of his day, those guys are cried and squealed that to bust the trusts would throw the economy into turmoil. Turns out the economy did just fine. The only ones who suffered then were the robber barons. Of course they figured out another way to exact their revenge in 1929.
My final point is this. History, for anyone who will take the time to study it, teaches us that greed unchecked is bad and that without safeguards it will find a way to express itself. I am no enemy of Capitalism. But Capitalism without morality, legislated or not, is as sure a failure as any brand of Socialism.
http://www.campaignforfairsettlement.org/100_days
No comments:
Post a Comment