« Auto-Tune the News #2: pirates. drugs. gay marriage. | RedSoxIn2009Baby!'s Blog | Moyers & Benjamin Barber (December 21, 2007) »

12 Shameful Sentate "Democrats"


Here they are.  All 12 of the below-listed Democrats took bailout funds (by way of Bank Lobbyist "legalized bribes", that is) and voted against Foreclosure Relief this week:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Specter (D-PA)
Tester (D-MT) 

Bill Moyer's reported last night about President Obama's good buddy Dick Durbin's losing effort at desperately needed reform:

"On Monday an exasperated Senator Durbin told an interviewer that although, quote, "We're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created, the banks are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill, and they frankly own the place." Let me repeat that: one of the Senate's own leaders says the banks own the place. And just yesterday, as if to prove Durbin's point, bankers killed the Senate's latest effort to staunch that wave of foreclosures, squashing a measure Durbin says would help one million seven hundred thousand [1,700,000] Americans save their homes."

But I agree with Dave Ramsey (a huge Republican, that I love despite his anti-Obama hints) when he says we can't wait for Washington to fix our problems.  These "12 Democrats" show us this week that they're going to protect the banks, despite the disruptive and stultifying upheaval that foreclosure will cause to 1,700,000 Americans and their children.  Bill Moyers goes on to profile Steve Meacham of City Life/Vida Urbana of Dorchester, MA.  The profile of Meacham is one of the best profiles I've ever seen.  I'm not kidding.  Please do watch it if you get a chance.  This guy is for real, and he's been doing it for years.  He knows the true effects of the Bank's financial "innovation" in the past 30 years.

As Moyer's website says, Meacham:

...is fighting on the frontlines of the foreclosure crisis. Meacham and his colleagues at City Life employ a community organizing strategy they call the The "shield" is a strategy of legal defense: teaching City Life members about their rights under the law, plus providing access to volunteer legal assistance. The "sword" is a public relations strategy, where City Life organizes protests in front of banks, and eviction blockades in front of people's homes.

Let's face it, Washington Democrats are not going to help us or our neighbors.  Spiking the Anti-Foreclosure Amendment this week proves it once and for all.  The rarest thing in American politics is a Republican or other entrenched power (the Banks) admitting to a mistake.  It's just never going to happen.  Funny how "Moral Hazards" only apply to the public, and not to their actions or governance decisions.

So let's stop paying into the banker's system, and resist their strong-arm evictions in the name of "market forces."  We can all start by cutting up our credit cards.  But if you know of someone about to be foreclosed on, help them RESIST and STAY in their home.  As Mecaham's group does on a daily basis, let's help them "create the moral space for people to feel like they have the right to resist, because they're told by almost everybody that they don't. You know, their first reaction is, "There's nothing I can do because the bank owns the building now." And that is part of a disempowerment that goes far beyond that situation.  And part of the reason that people love to come here I think is that not only are we giving them solidarity and support in fighting the bank, but in so doing, it's like a, kind of upsetting this whole apple cart of disempowerment that they've been fed for years and years and years."

My point:  We have to help create the moral space to fight banks:  "IT IS OK TO STAY IN YOUR HOME AND OK TO DEMAND LEGAL PROTECTION FROM PREDATORY LENDING."  Until the public gets that legal protection, we must help our neighbors fight.

 


12 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Thank you for outing the 12. We need to establish a record on these creeps. What percentage of the time do they vote against the middle class? Voters need to know the truth.

user-pic

Thanks... Arianna and Keith discussed it last night, and Olbermann was explicit on the effects on people in their own states... I gotta wonder what's going on with Montana... What are they getting out of siding with banks? Perhaps they see this as an urban problem? (I had high hopes for Tester - he's got an awesome haircut, btw...):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-on-countdown-disc_b_195014.html

user-pic

Really good piece, Wade. I was so angry when I saw this yesterday, and nobody in the papers even seemed to mention it. Wasn't Obama keen on bankruptcy reform? I don't see much coming from the politicians, so if it takes community organizing - then so be it. Right now, the whole issue seems buried, with everyone hoping that the latest stock market burp is going to carry us back to the way things were. Meanwhile, people keep getting tossed.

user-pic

I like what you said. If it has to be "community organizing, then so be it". We're all shareholders now, and they only vote we have is to NOT be pushed out. The debt they SOLD people that they knew could never be paid back, must be extinguished at their expense. Debt has been the #1 marketed product over the last 30 years.

user-pic

This is a good solid post.

I guess my only real bitch is that we had em, we had the banking system by the short hairs and we had an opportunity to create an entirely new economy.

user-pic

I wonder what the legal ramifications would be for an organizer that somehow gets a mass of people to stop paying on these LIAR and NINJA and BALLOON loans en masse? That person would probably be locked up asap. Not sure though. Need a lawyer advice on that. (I'd do it myself if I was independently wealthy, but I'm just as scared as everyone else about losing my job and home... Doing my best to save a cushion this year though, just in case.)

To me, these contracts (toxic mortgages) are invalid anyway, b/c they were offered and originated with clear fraud.

user-pic

No dd, sadly, "we" never had em at all.

The Democrats in Washington "had em" in the sense that in light of their collosal corruption and failure due to fraud and irresponsibility the government could have chosen to punish the guilty and imposed sensible regulations on the scoundrels to prevent them from doing it all over again. But that isn't what DC Democrats think when they say they "had em." What they think is, "this is a great opportunity for me to threaten to actually do something and extort campaign contributions from the banks in return for doing their bidding as usual."

And that is the sad truth of it all.

user-pic

Alas, tooooo much truth in what you say.

user-pic

Oh yeah, here's a neat moment:

"Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a strong backer of the bill, spent a good deal of time trying to persuade his colleague Jim Webb (D-Va.). As she got close to convincing him, she called in Durbin. "Hey Durbs," she could be heard saying, "help me with Jim." Durbin and Webb spoke for several minutes and Webb cast an aye vote."

Hey Durb's! Love it... Olbermann lauded Evan Bayh as well for voting the RIGHT way, despite his original leanings in favort of banks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/30/banks-beat-howeowners-for_n_193902.html

user-pic

These Senators cannot hide behind centrism and bluedoggism to justify their corrupt votes. Their conservative constituencies have absolutely nothing to do with this inexcusable sellout.

user-pic

Specter (D-PA)
That is funny.

BTW, great post.

user-pic

This just pisses me off...This is the kinda crap you expect from Republicans, not Democrats...

Leave a comment

"Ruthless Pragmatism" Sucks

user-pic

Following: 2
Followers: 11

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address