milu's Blog

MILWAUKEE, Sept. 29, 2008

on  CBSnews.com

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., wears a bracelet honoring Sgt. Ryan D. Jopek, during a presidential debate at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss., Friday, Sept. 26, 2008. Sgt. Jopek, from Waupun, Wis., was killed in 2006 in Tikrit, Iraq. (AP)

Moderator Jim Leherer joins Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate John McCain for the first presidential debate at the University of Mississippi. | Share/Embed

• Analysis: New Vigor At Ole Miss

© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Sanders opposition also was based on what was left out of the bill.

 “This bill does not effectively address the issue of what the taxpayers of our country will actually own after they invest hundreds of billions of dollars in toxic assets.

 “This bill does not effectively address the issue of oversight because the oversight board members have all been hand picked by the Bush administration.

“This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of foreclosures and addressing that very serious issue, which is impacting millions of low- and moderate-income Americans in the aggressive, effective way that we should be.

“This bill does not effectively deal with the issue of executive compensation and golden parachutes. Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.

“This bill does not deal at all with how we got into this crisis in the first place and the need to undo the deregulatory fervor which created trillions of dollars in complicated and unregulated financial instruments such as credit default swaps and hedge funds.

“This bill does not address the issue that has taken us to where we are today, the concept of too big to fail. In fact, within the last several weeks we have sat idly by and watched gigantic financial institutions like the Bank of America swallow up other gigantic financial institutions like Countrywide and Merrill Lynch. Well, who is going to bail out the Bank of America if it begins to fail? There is not one word about the issue of too big to fail in this legislation at a time when that problem is in fact becoming even more serious.

“This bill does not deal with the absurdity of having the fox guarding the hen house. Maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks so, but I have a hard time understanding why we are giving $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who along with other financial institutions, actually got us into this problem. Now, maybe I'm the only person in America who thinks that's a little bit weird, but that is what I think.

“This bill does not address the major economic crisis we face: growing unemployment, low wages, the need to create decent-paying jobs, rebuilding our infrastructure and moving us to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.”

I have received a message from Lil Bits telling me that she read a message from me calling her a b.  Well, that wasn't me.  I did Not do that .  I don't even use that word.

So, everyone should know that there is a troublemaker out there who has also posted an Obama photo as a Muslim with my name.  That also was not me.

You can tell which blogs are really mine by clicking on Milu's blog in the bottom right corner, e.g. My blog started 8/4/2007 the imposter started their blog 9/18/2008.  That is how you can tell.  A real giveaway.

Sarah Palin Boom Busts: Poll Casts Doubt on Experience Prior to Vice Presidential Debate

ABCNews/ WashPost Poll

Less Than Half Convinced of Palin's Grasp on Complex Issues, Experience

ANALYSIS by GARY LANGER Oct. 2, 2008 

 Skepticism about Sarah Palin has soared since she entered the national political stage, with six in 10 Americans now doubting her qualifications for office and fewer than half convinced of her grasp of complex issues. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden will meet in their first and only vice presidential debate in St. Louis, Missouri, on Thursday. The vice presidential contenders have been preparing for the debate all week. (AP Photo) More PhotosIn advance of her debate against Joe Biden on Thursday, Palin now looks more like a drag than a boost to the GOP ticket: Thirty-two percent of registered voters say her selection makes them less likely to support John McCain for president, up from 19 percent last month.

 Her basic ratings are weaker still. Just 35 percent say Palin has the experience it takes to serve effectively as president, down a dozen points since early September; 60 percent think not, up 15. And just 46 percent think Palin "understands complex issues," while 49 percent think she doesn't -- a poor assessment on this most basic qualification. Related Obama Leads But Race Still Up for GrabsSee How They Run!Failed Vote to Cause More Economic Woes?

Biden's ratings starkly contrast Palin's: Seventy-five percent say he understands complex issues, 70 percent say he has suitable experience to take over as president if necessary and just 13 percent say his selection makes them less apt to support Barack Obama. In the most fundamental measure of a public figure's popularity, 51 percent now express an overall favorable opinion of Palin, down from 58 percent Sept. 7, just after the GOP convention. While she's lost 7 points on this score, Biden's moved the other way, gaining 6 points -- 57 percent see him favorably, up from 51 percent.

VP Debate Marks Opportunity for Palin

Thursday's debate marks an opportunity for Palin to address these concerns, but also carries the risk of cementing them in the public's mind. The hazard she faces is that it's generally easier to confirm preconceptions than to change them. Palin does have one better rating, for her common touch: Fifty-eight percent of registered voters think she understands the problems of people like them. But as many, 57 percent, say the same of Biden. ........

Among independents, Palin's presence on the ticket has gone from a 10-point net positive to an 11-point net negative.

And her reception has turned negative among another key swing group, white Catholics; they're now 19 points more apt to say Palin pushes them away from McCain than toward him.

Similarly, just 40 percent of white women now say Palin has the experience it takes to serve effectively as president, down 12 points; 56 percent think not. It's lower still among independents, 32 percent, down 17 points.

And among white Catholics the sense that Palin is qualified has plummeted from 54 percent early last month to 27 percent now. It's dropped nearly as far among non-evangelical white Protestants as well.

There are related trends in favorability; favorable views of Palin have dropped, for instance, by 20 points among white Catholics (from 69 to 49 percent), by 15 points among Midwesterners (who gave her a particularly favorable initial reception) and by 18 points among non-evangelical white Protestants. ..........

See ABCNews

"I have never had it so good" in the last couple of years.  People like me should be paying more taxes.  I am paying thelowest taxes that I have in my life.  The government has taken less and less from the wealthy.  We should be paying more taxes.

Wrong to tax labor, e.g. Payroll tax more than investment/wealth.

The highest 1% is paying 25% of income taxes not of all taxes, i.e. Over $900 billion of payroll taxes are provided every year .  That is unfair to the working class. 

He pays 15% on capital gains but the working person pays 15% on payol lwhich is inequitable to such lower income people.

He says that there shuld be a stimulus package for the working people and poor.

Dick Morris' Analysis of the Map

Newsmax

" The polls now make it clear that McCain lost the first debate, and has lost ground during the entire gambit of suspending his campaign, going off the trail, going to Washington, and working on the bailout.

He was tied, or 1 to 2 percent behind when he made the suspension announcement, and he is now 5 to 6 percent behind. The fallout in the electoral map does not make for a pretty picture.

Core Republican states like Louisiana, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arizona, and North Carolina are now really toss ups, and even states like South Carolina and Georgia are in play. "

Monday, September 29, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 45%. That’s the fourth straight day Obama has been at 50% and the fourth straight day McCain has been at either 44% or 45% (see trends). Obama is now viewed favorably by 58% of voters, McCain by 55%.

http://www.in-forum.com/ap/index.cfm?page=view&id=
D93FTECG1

Coleman panel did plenty, but Dems say too little

 By PATRICK CONDON Associated Press Writer The Associated Press - Sunday, September 28, 2008

MINNEAPOLIS

 About the time Norm Coleman stepped into one of Congress's most prestigious oversight jobs in 2003, the Bush administration's handling of Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was becoming a partisan hot potato. Democrats were clamoring for a closer look into the actions of defense contractors like Halliburton. And they accused Republicans in Congress of turning a blind eye - a charge that soon would be leveled directly at the Coleman-led Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Five years later, Coleman's leadership of that subcommittee is a key issue in his re-election campaign against Democrat Al Franken. In a TV commercial and in a series of public appearances, Franken has blistered his opponent's time atop PSI as "maybe the worst thing Norm Coleman's done," in the words of the TV ad. Coleman and his supporters defend his work, saying he should be judged on what he did do - not what he didn't.

They correctly claim that Coleman initiated dozens of investigations that uncovered more than $80 billion worth of waste and fraud by government and its contractors, and argue that corruption in the rebuilding of Iraq was best left to other investigators. "It's frustrating for me to see these unfair attacks launched against a senator who has worked so hard, and who has such a strong record on rooting out waste, fraud and abuse," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a Coleman ally who in 2003 helped pick him to lead PSI. That was a coup for a freshman who had joined the Senate just a few weeks earlier. Collins said she was impressed by Coleman's work as a prosecutor in the Minnesota attorney general's office, and his experience as mayor of St. Paul. "So much of what you're investigating is the workings of government, and he impressed me as someone with a good knowledge of those workings," said Collins, who said Coleman also played an integral role in helping her investigate the failure of the federal response after Hurricane Katrina.

The PSI has a storied history born of Harry Truman's efforts as a U.S. senator from Missouri to crack down on fraud in defense contracting at the dawn of World War II. Assistant Senate historian Betty Koed said it's believed Truman's efforts saved taxpayers up to $300 million during the war. In the late 1940s, senators enshrined what Truman had started. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations went on to serve as a vehicle for investigations into everything from ties between labor and organized crime to Joseph McCarthy's hunt for communists in the federal government. "Its main focus today still continues to be investigating waste in government, and fraud in government programs," Koed said. "But the jurisdiction is defined in a broad enough way that they can investigate basically any aspect of government."

When Coleman took over, he continued the tradition of headline-grabbing investigations that highlighted taxpayer fleeces. In his first year, Coleman went after Pentagon officials for abusing government credit cards and travel privileges, and took on the recording industry for filing lawsuits against people for downloading music. "What I would say is that I thought the subcommittee aggressively pursued issues of fraud, waste and abuse with my team," said Greg Kutz, the managing director of investigations at the General Accounting Office, which often worked alongside PSI staff. "I think Senator Coleman provided aggressive oversight of what I think is a bipartisan issue, which is eliminating government fraud and waste."

Coleman took on his biggest investigation in early 2004 by looking into the United Nations' oil-for-food program, which allowed Iraq to sell oil despite international economic sanctions in exchange for humanitarian goods for Iraqis. Coleman, after presenting what he said was evidence that Saddam's government illegally profited, made news worldwide by demanding that then-U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan step down over the scandal. But around that same time, Democrats in Washington started to express concern that private contractors hired by the Department of Defense to rebuild Iraq were getting sweetheart deals and not delivering the work for which they had contracted. At the end of 2003, Coleman's fellow Minnesota senator, Democrat Mark Dayton, sent Coleman a letter asking him to further investigate a New York Times report that Halliburton was overcharging the U.S. government for gasoline imported to Iraq.

Coleman responded by saying he'd started a preliminary investigation but that other entities were already looking into the claim. Dayton, who was also a member of PSI at the time, said that by the end of 2003 and early 2004, Democratic senators "ran into one stone wall after the other" in demanding oversight from their Republican colleagues. In early 2005, Democrats began investigating contractor fraud on their own through the Democratic Policy Committee, chaired by Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota. "In this circumstance today, we have a Republican in the White House, Republicans controlling the House and Senate, and they have no interest in doing any oversight hearings," Dorgan said in a March 2005 Senate floor speech. "There is massive waste, fraud and abuse. Billions of dollars is being abused and wasted and nobody seems to give a whit about it."

In 2005 and 2006, Dorgan's committee uncovered numerous examples of sometimes egregious fraud and unfinished work by contractors. Besides the cost to taxpayers, critics of the U.S. conduct during this period contend that the botched reconstruction helped fuel the Iraqi insurgency that has kept U.S. troops in the country to this day. "When you talk about what fed the insurgency, you're talking about electricity not being delivered, about water infrastructure not being completed, about gasoline not being available," said Charlie Cray, director of the Washington-based Center for Corporate Policy, a non-profit group that promotes corporate accountability. Coleman said he believed that "history would not look kindly" on the argument that lack of oversight played a role in the insurgency.

"There were much larger reasons for the spread of an insurgency," Coleman said. "There were tactical decisions. They disbanded the military but didn't take their guns away. You had guys with guns and no jobs, and then you've got an insurgency." But Coleman's seat atop PSI did put him in a unique position to investigate just about whatever he wanted - and he chose topics other than the Iraq reconstruction. "There isn't a more relevant or a potentially more powerful platform in which to look into this," said Thomas Mann, an expert on Congress at the Brookings Institution. "It seems to me it's a legitimate question to raise."

 Coleman did support other investigations into the reconstruction, and said there were other investigative entities better equipped than PSI to tackle contracting fraud in Iraq. He singled out the work of the Special Investigator General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), which Congress created to provide oversight of taxpayer funds spent in Iraq. In 2006, Coleman was among a group of senators that led an effort to extend SIGIR's existence. SIGIR dispatched investigators to Iraq in January 2005. Franken argues that the pivotal years where Coleman could have made a difference were 2003 and 2004, when contractor fraud began to undermine the shaky process of reconstruction.

It was in 2004 that Franken started making fraud in the reconstruction of Iraq a regular topic on his Air America Radio show. To him, the reason PSI didn't look into the problems is clear. "He did it to protect the cronies in the Bush administration, to protect them from embarassment," Franken said. "He was a loyal soldier in the Bush-Cheney army, and that's why he didn't do it." Coleman said criticism like that is clearly political. "We did put in place mechanisms like SIGIR, and gave them the responsibility for investigating the reconstruction," Coleman said. "Whether there could have been more hearings to generate more headlines or generate more arguments, you can argue about that. We made judgments at the time that were based on the most effective use of tax dollars."

Copyright C 2008 The Associated Press.

Post debate, Obama's lead grows

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 9/28/08 6:20 PM EDT  Text

Politico.com

Size:   
Barack Obama may have gotten a post-debate boost, despite some saying it was a tie. Photo: AP

Two days after a presidential debate many commentators scored as a tie, it's beginning to look like the public saw things differently, as several polls show a small but significant post-debate boost for Barack Obama.

A USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday showed 46 percent of debate-watchers believed Obama outperformed John McCain, while.just 34 percent said McCain got the better of the exchange.

Thirty percent of debate-watchers said they had a more favorable opinion of Obama following the debate, compared with just 14 percent who said their opinion of him had worsened.

Respondents whose opinion of McCain changed as a result of the debate were evenly split, as 21 percent said their view of McCain had improved because of it and 21 percent said it had worsened.

The poll surveyed 701 adults who watched Friday's debate, and all interviews were conducted on Saturday.

Obama's numbers have ticked up nationally since the debate, the first of three scheduled this year, along with next Thursday's vice-presidential face-off.

In the Sunday update to Gallup's daily tracking poll, Obama widened his lead over McCain to 50-42 percent. Friday, in polling that preceded the debate, Obama had a five-point, 49-44 percent advantage.

Gallup's Sunday poll reflected polling from September 25-27, and included just one full day of interviews conducted following the debate in Oxford, Miss. If Obama's improvement does stem from his debate performance, his numbers could rise further over the next few days as the proportion of polling conducted after the debate increases.

Similarly, in the Rasmussen Reports automated tracking poll, Obama opened up a six-point, 50-44 percent, edge over McCain this weekend in both Saturday and Sunday's updates.

These numbers seem to match the results of snap polls taken after the conclusion of the debate, which showed Obama winning over more viewers than McCain.

A CNN poll conducted Friday night by Opinion Research Corp. gave Obama a thirteen-point advantage over his opponent, with 51 percent of viewers saying the Illinois senator won the debate and 57 percent saying he exceeded their expectations. Just 38 percent said McCain's performance was stronger, though 60 percent said he exceeded their expectations.

A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll released Sunday gave Obama a narrower, 49-45 percent edge among debate-watchers, consistent with the lead he held in surveys prior to the debate.

But according to this poll, he scored very high on a question asking which candidate appeared more 'presidential,' besting McCain 46-33 percent.

In a CBS/Knowledge Networks poll conducted just after the debate, Obama led by a similar, fifteen-point margin, with 39 percent of respondents saying he won the debate, compared with only 24 percent who believed McCain came out on top.

And in a focus group conducted during the debate by Democracy Corps, a firm run by Democratic strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville, Obama made inroads among undecided voters.

Thirty-eight percent of these voters believed Obama won the debate, with 27 percent handing the win to McCain.

And among these focus group participants, two-thirds of whom voted for President George W. Bush in the 2004 election, Obama improved his favorability rating from 40 percent to 69 percent.

While such instant surveys can be unreliable, this weekend's USA/Today Gallup survey and tracking polls fall in line with their results.

In a Sunday appearance on Fox News Channel, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of McCain's most fervent supporters, defended McCain's debate performance but acknowledged Obama's improved standing.

"Sen. Obama helped himself, according to the polls," Graham told anchor Chris Wallace, "Quite frankly, I thought he presented himself well."

Zogby: Obama Won Debate by a Nose; Race Tight

Newsmax

Likely voters nationwide who watched Friday's debate in Mississippi between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain gave Obama the win by the slightest of margins, a new Zogby Interactive survey shows. The poll shows that 44% believed Obama won the debate, while 41% said McCain did. Another 16% said they watched the debate but were unsure who came out on top.

The President and Sec. of the Treasury are trying to shove an expensive, wasteful bill through in a hurry, before many of the critics can bring attention to the facts.  But the Dems won't be rushed.  They are taking their time and want to do it right, especially for the taxpayers.  Both parties are working expeditiously.

Citizens for Ethics in Washington have named the 20 most corrupt members of Congress 14 (more than twice the Dems) are Republicans.  Why is that?  Why are so many Republicans in jail?. 

Go to http://www.commoncause.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionIte
m.aspx?  c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4559581&auid=4054354

As you and your colleagues work to come up with a solution to the economic crisis facing our country, I hope you will keep the needs of the taxpayers – and not the special interests – foremost in your mind.

I realize that this is an election year, and that many in Congress are eager to adjourn quickly and get back to the campaign trail.  However, there is too much at stake to rush to judgment.  I urge you to take your time in considering the current bailout proposal, even if it means extending your session past this Friday.  Specifically, I hope that any bailout bill will:

* Be completely transparent about how our tax dollars are being used. 
 * Include strict oversight over the actions of the Treasury Secretary.  The current proposal gives unprecedented, unlimited authority to the Treasury Secretary, and makes his decisions non-reviewable by any court of law or administrative agency.  The lack of oversight is what's gotten us into this mess; Congress should not compound the problem.
* Include provisions to help families who are in danger of losing their homes avoid foreclosure.
* Cap the pay of CEOs of the bailed out companies.  As ordinary Americans struggle to make ends meet and taxpayers are asked to shoulder this $700 billion bailout, the CEOs responsible for these problems should not be receiving million-dollar bonuses and golden parachutes.
* Ensure that, when the bailed out companies become profitable again, some portion of those profits will be returned to the public treasury.  This cannot turn into a public debt for private profit situation.

Finally, I ask that you not let the negotiations over this bill dissolve into partisan bickering.  The financial health and stability of our nation, and Congress's duty to provide oversight over the handling of taxpayer dollars, must be your first and last consideration.

Thank you.

Sep 25 16:00

DC Protest: Put Main Street First! No to the Bush Bailout! March to the White House

THIS THURSDAY 9/25, 4pm Join USAction Education Fund, ...

Meet at Pershing Park, 4pm SHARP! The park is located diagonally across from the Treasury Department (15th St, NW btw E St.)

TrueMajority.org

Miriam Leitao Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Miriam Leitao is a reporter and columnist for O Globo and Radio CBN in Brazil. She is also a commentator on Globo TV Network and runs her own blog, www.miriamleitao.com, hosted at Globo online at www.oglobo.com.br. She was awarded Columbia University’s Maria Moors Cabot Prize in 2005. Close.

Miriam Leitao Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Miriam Leitao is a reporter and columnist for O Globo and Radio CBN in Brazil. more » Main Page | Miriam Leitao Archives |

PostGlobal / Washington Post

Archives « Previous Post |

Lessons America Can't Teach Us Now

American capitalism could still teach the rest of the world a few lessons - but it's increasingly teaching us what never to do if you are a country loyal to a free-market economy. For instance:

 Never nationalize a troubled insurance company, especially two days after the Treasury and the FED say that no more taxpayer money will be used to rescue bankrupt financial companies.

As a government, never interfere to rescue and sell a failed investment bank and then decide several months later not to do the same for other failed investment banks. Applying that kind of double standard for the same species of financial creature signals to the market that monetary authorities are making up the rules as they go along. That lack of a strategic or systemic view takes a toll on market confidence.

As a regulator, never be so lenient, so lax with the rules regulating financial markets, for so many years in the name of deregulation and small government. The end result of this complacency could be more government intervention. After all, a free market has never meant zero regulation. Clear and parsimonious regulation is the best way to promote a free market while at the same time prevent damaging distortions.

Despite being called "The Maestro", former FED chairman Alan Greenspan failed to identify "irrational exuberance" when it appeared, and took no action. He failed to orchestrate the free market symphony just when it really needed a true Maestro.

The United States preached the virtues of "pure capitalism" for so many years, highlighting the need to privatize state-owned companies and insisting that the market could solve its problems by itself. Now it turns around to do the opposite. Here in Brazil we followed these supposed virtues - reducing the role of the state, privatizing state-owned companies, re-regulating the capital market with very impressive results. However, in spite of the success of the previous policies, defenders of "big government" are now celebrating the bankruptcy of neoliberal capitalism and the inauguration of a new era of the state-led economy.

Authorities should never underestimate the risks of a bubble in any economy. As everybody knows, bubbles do burst after their euphoric boom periods. The government should never assure the market that taxpayer money will be available to pay for irresponsible and fraudulent behavior, because this leads to the well-known risk of "moral hazard". Markets will always bet on the taxpayer's bail-out. Let's hope that a year of crisis is enough to trigger preemptive government actions to avoid the worst-case scenarios, in which the government would be forced to absorb all the toxic papers and bad mortgages in the market.

This government-induced mess has put people's savings in danger. The best way to fix it now is to support homeowners by enabling them to pay their mortgages - not to rescue banks.

TPM TPMMuckraker TPMElection Central TPMtv TPMCafé (Talking Points Memo)

What Wall Street Should Do To Get Its Blank Check

 By Robert Reich - September 21, 2008, 1:48PM

The frame has been set, the die cast. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, presumably representing the Bush administration but indirectly representing Wall Street, and Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, want a blank check from Congress for $700 billion or possibly a trillion dollars or more to take bad debt off Wall Street's balance sheets. Never before in the history of American capitalism has so much been asked of so many for (at least in the first instance) so few. Put yourself in the shoes of a member of Congress, including our two presidential candidates. The Treasury Secretary and Fed Chair have told you this is necessary to save the economy. If you don't agree, you risk a meltdown of the entire global financial system. Your own constituents' savings could go down with it. An election is six weeks away. Besides, in the last two days of trading, since rumors spread that the Treasury and the Fed were planning something of this sort, stock prices revived.

Now - quick -- what do you do? You have no choice but to say yes. But you might also set some conditions on Wall Street. The public doesn't like a blank check. They think this whole bailout idea is nuts. They see fat cats on Wall Street who have raked in zillions for years, now extorting in effect $2,000 to $5,000 from every American family to make up for their own nonfeasance, malfeasance, greed, and just plain stupidity. Wall Street's request for a blank check comes at the same time most of the public is worried about their jobs and declining wages, and having enough money to pay for gas and food and health insurance, meet their car payments and mortgage payments, and save for their retirement and childrens' college education. And so the public is asking: Why should Wall Street get bailed out by me when I'm getting screwed?

So if you are a member of Congress, you just might be in a position to demand from Wall Street certain conditions in return for the blank check. My five nominees:

1. The government (i.e. taxpayers) gets an equity stake in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt that company shoves onto the public. So when and if Wall Street shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.

2. Wall Street executives and directors of Wall Street firms relinquish their current stock options and this year's other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of firm profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply-feathered nests?

 3. All Wall Street executives immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street PACs be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. Why should taxpayers finance Wall Street's outsized political power - especially when that power is being exercised to get favorable terms from taxpayers?

 4. Wall Street firms agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.

 5. Wall Street agrees to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should distressed homeowners lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones? Wall Streeters may not like these conditions. Well, you should tell them that the public doesn't like the idea of bailing out Wall Street. So if Wall Street doesn't accept these conditions, it doesn't get the blank check.