Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Congressman Brad Sherman: Martial Law if We Voted No [2]

video posted by jaralero

Text with video:

October 2, 2008, U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Brad Sherman [D-CA] asks:

"But why are we bailing out the Bank of China? Why are we bailing out the Saudi royal family?...

The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and by sustaining a panic atmosphere...

A few Members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted ``no.''


Congressman Brad Sherman: Martial Law if We Voted No [1]
Congressman Brad Sherman: Martial Law if We Voted No [2]
Congressman Brad Sherman: Martial Law if We Voted No [3]

Sherman's speech on the 1st proposal (or 2nd if you count the one published on Sept 20th) of the Bailout bill (September 29th 2008): Best on Bailout Day

Alex Jones interviews Brad Sherman

Sherman's Blue Paper on the Bailout

171 Heroes vs 263 Traitors

Paul Craig Roberts: It takes the trouble off the banks and puts it on the taxpayers


That's what I call fear mongering--unjustified, proven wrong.

We've got a week; we've got 2 weeks to write a good bill. The only way to pass a bad bill: Keep the panic pressure on.

Now, what has the Senate done to this bill? First, they've added pork to it in the hope that that would buy off some votes. Second, they've created a double hostage situation. Now, we already know that the first bill was a hostage situation. When Paulson announced this crisis, he basically sent a ransom note, and that ransom note read, ``We've got your 401(k), and you'll never see it alive again unless you send us $700 billion in unmarked bills.'' So we had one hostage situation.

There's the AMT patch, a necessary tax provision that Congress passes every year. Without this patch, the AMT tax, which is designed to fall only on the wealthy, will hit another 20 million American households. Everyone knows we have to pass this. We sent it to the Senate for them to pass. Instead of passing it, they created a hostage situation. They refused to pass it. They put it on this bill. So now we're being told, if you don't send $700 billion to Wall Street, we're going to tax 20 million American families in a way no one in Congress wants to do.

That's totally phony. If we vote down this bill, the Senate will pass the AMT patch bill that we sent them just like they do every year.

There has been some attempt to tell the American people that this bill isn't going to cost anything permanently because, in 2013, we're going to get the money back from the financial services industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. All the bill says is that the President has to send us a proposal to tax the financial services industry. Now, keep in mind, if the President has any good ideas in 2013, he'll send them to us or she'll send them to us. If the President is only sending us
revenue ideas because they have to send them and they don't want to send that proposal, well then, they're going to send it with a note, saying, ``I'm required to give you this proposal, but I think it's a bad idea.'' What do you think we're going to do with a Presidential proposal that is disparaged by the President?

Furthermore, it would be absolutely impossible and contrary to the intent of the bill, contrary to the logic of the bill and contrary to the statutory provisions of the bill to construct a tax that hit only those companies that got bailed out. Instead, the tax is going to hit the entire financial services industry, and a proposal like that is highly unlikely to pass the House. If it passed the House and if it got over to the Senate, 41 Senators could block it, and Wall Street could have enough
money to hire 4,100 lobbyists.

Now, why is it that we can't tax the individual companies that are bailed out on some sort of proportional basis?


[ ]


Post a Comment

<< Home

View My Stats