Why do we taxpayers have to bail out the Billionaires (who by and large pay no taxes)?

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07182008.html

The Fed's emergency rescue plan for the financial markets is hopelessly flawed. It's a scattershot approach that doesn't address the real source of the problem; an unregulated, unsustainable structured finance system that emerged in full-force after 2000 and spawned a shadow banking system that creates trillions of dollars of credit without sufficient capital reserves. This is the heart of the problem and it needs to be debated openly. The present system doesn't work; it's as simple as that. It makes no sense to provide trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to shore up a system that is essentially dysfunctional. It's just throwing money down a rat-hole.

The Federal Reserve and US Treasury want a blank check to prop up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two war-horses of the mortgage industry, that currently underwrite nearly 80 per cent of all new mortgages in the US. But by any objective standard both of these GSEs are already insolvent. Thus, the taxpayer is being asked to rescue a failed industry that has been used for private gain so that speculators will not have to suffer the losses. Even worse, Fannie and Freddie have written hundreds of billions of dollars worth of mortgages that have not yet defaulted, but will certainly default within the next two years. This is bound to batter the already faltering economy.

since economists are more often wrong than right, claiming not to be one is a safe bet.

That said, the stated aim of providing "stability" is a central problem.  Somehow, these people have become convinced that stability is the holy grail of human existence.  It's what they're aiming to provide with the invasion, occupation and building of bases in Iraq.  Since the world is naturally in a state of flux, aiming for stability--i.e. no change-- is a hopeless cause.  Of course, if things were stable, then it would be easy to predict the future.  And that may well be the motivation for creating stability--to avoid surprise.  But, however logically consistent, it's still totally unrealistic.

Of course, given that context, the Obama call for change is merely being realistic, while the conservative call for change is retrograde.  In other words, realists want to go with the flow; the stability freaks want to go back to how things used to be.

Nick Mitchell of Americans for Campaign Reform writes to interested voters:

"We've been fielding a lot of questions recently about Barack Obama's decision to forego public funding for his presidential bid. Many folks fear it might be a setback for our cause.

"We see it differently. Obama is a staunch supporter of public funding. Explaining his decision in a recent op-ed in USA Today he said, 'I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that we need to limit the influence of big donors on campaigns, and I've co-sponsored legislation to fix the system. I am firmly committed to reforming the system as president, so that it's viable in today's campaign climate.' In fact, Obama has cosponsored each public funding bill that Americans for Campaign Reform has endorsed.

"So, why did Obama opt out of the public financing system? Quite simply, the system is broken: Congress has failed to update the amounts that the system provides as the cost of campaigns has increased. Obama believes, and we happen to agree, that the amount of public funding he would have received is insufficient to run a competitive campaign unless he were to rely heavily on both party expenditures and independent 527 expenditures in addition to the public funds.

" . . . .

"Like an elephant (or donkey) sitting in a room, the presidential race tends to draw all of the attention. But our current push continues to be on Capitol Hill. We've made great progress in recent months in conversations with key Senators and Representatives. But more members of Congress need to be shown that their constituents will settle for nothing less than full public funding.

"We need your help now. Please contact your representatives today. They need to hear this directly from you."

So it's clear, at least to some advocates, that despite its satisfying and pleasingly doctrinaire extremism, the ritual suicide of a candidacy helps to promote the cause of publicly funded campaigns less than the election of a candidate who has pledged to champion the cause, and whose financing comes from a vast group of small contributors who share his concern about this important issue.

DFA now has over 78,000 members, according to
DFA users

That's people who have registered for an account; not just people who are on DFA's mailing list, which I assume to have passed a half million a long time ago.

How many of these people come to BFA? That's a good question. If other sites are comparable, there's at least a thirty to one relationship between readers and posters. Who knows why?

Lots of people are just loath to voice an opinion unless they are well-informed. That should not be held against them. Nevertheless, their interests should not be ignored. That's why I've consistently argued that discussion on the blog should be aimed at a much larger audience then announces itself.

Which is why I particularly object to the WC. Aside from being an effort to segregate, it sends the message that if comments are not judged to be totally relevant (according to someone's fallible judgment), they will be sent to purgatory-- a strategy that's sure to depress participation further.

Barack in Afghanistan -- more at the link, where I 'borrowed' the picture (hope I don't blow the margins):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/19/10443/3921/404/553863

Obama, "I will take the war to Afganistan, and Pakistan"

Suspicion Surrounds Firing of EPA Panel Chair

Chemical Industry Request Prompted EPA Dismissal of Toxicologist From Peer Review Panel

In a surprising move last year, the Environmental Protection Agency fired the chairwoman of a chemical review panel six months after the panel took place. When Dr. Deborah Rice, a toxicologist for the Maine state health department, was thrown off a peer review panel at the request of the chemical industry, the EPA's ethics were called into question....

Rice, 61, had worked for the EPA for four years before joining the Maine Dept. of Health and Human Services. In 2004, she had been awarded one of the EPA's most prestigious scientific awards -- the Scientific and Technological Achievement Award -- for her "exceptionally high-quality research" on the toxicity of lead. Regarded as an expert in environmental toxicology, Rice was asked by the EPA to chair a February 2007 review panel on the fire retardant deca (or decabromodiphenyl ether). The five-member panel carried out a standard review of the chemical's safety.

Rice has served as an expert on more than 30 review panels and assessment committees for the EPA and other government agencies. In fact, since she was fired from the deca panel in August, she has served on another EPA review panel -- for the metal thallium.

As Rice remembers it, she did nothing different on the deca panel than all her other panels. But she was later dismissed, after the American Chemistry Council, the lobby group for the chemical industry, wrote a letter to the EPA asking for her removal. The EPA charged her with conflict of interest because she had previously recommended the banning of deca to the Maine state legislature. (Maine has since passed the ban.)....(read more)

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/suspicion-surrounds