Home | About | Donate

Trillion Dollar Wall Street Bailouts, Bernie Sanders, and the Washington Post

Trillion Dollar Wall Street Bailouts, Bernie Sanders, and the Washington Post

Dean Baker

Glenn Kessler, the Washington Post Fact Checker gave Bernie Sanders two Pinocchios yesterday for saying that the Wall Street banks got a trillion dollar bailout. Kessler raises several points of contention. First, whether the Wall Street banks actually got that much money. Second, whether it can really be called a bailout, since the government made a profit on the loans.


Let’s just come to the point: The Washington Post, much like the rest of the mainstream media, is dedicated to undermining Bernie and promoting whichever moderate flavor of the moment (currently the emptiest of suits, AKA, Beto) is running anywhere near him.

Later, when the Ds lose to Trump again, the mainstream media will echo the d-party establishment and blame Sanders and his hippie followers for the outcome.

I’m not supporting Bernie, but as a hippie, I welcome their finger-pointing. Let’s face it, the Dems suck.


The “Truth” is always “For Sale” in Duopoly politics.

1 Like

I was never a hippie, I was a freak. The “Freaks” came after the "Hippies."

I gave everything except my first-born son to Bernie in the last election debacle.

If there’s anyone here at Common Dreams that doesn’t believe the Democratic Party Establishment won’t do to Bernie what they did last time, you’re deluded.

Guess you’re at home in the "Deludopoly."

Or the "Deludacratic Party."

You can keep supporting shit like this…

Not me.


Yeah, if anyone believes Bernie has any chance at being nominated for POTUS in 2020, please let me know because I have a bridge in Alaska for sale.


How anyone continues to have faith and offer their Constitutional support to this farce of a government, is beyond my understanding.

Hopefully, when our generation is finally planted in the Earth, the young will have more sense than we did.


Washington Post IS the lying Pinocchio.


Love your “emptiest of suits!”

Too many Dems have been looking for their lost prince since 1963, Beto being the latest edition.


That is why some have called those politically, naive people sheeple. To paraphrase the Carlin quote: THE REASON THEY ARE CALLED SHEEPLE IS BECAUSE THEY STILL BELIEVE IN THE AMERICAN DREAM; AND HAVE TO BE DREAMING AND ASLEEP TO BELIEVE IT!

Reference to the “Freaks” fell by the wayside just as the mention of the “Keep on Truckin” guys, and the French-Vietnamese slang we brought back with us from Nam.

One we used in our town at that time was the “Planter People.” The hip underaged teens hung around downtown in the evenings and on weekends and congregated on benches placed between flower planters along the sidewalks.
It was a time when a friendly police force had officers mingling with the young folks as they did their walking route along main street. A wilder time, but a gentler one at the same time.

Thanks for the memories PonyBoy.

I would like to see a Sanders / Inslee ticket. The other candidates, the women in particular, are very visable. But I feel their time is in 2024. imho.


Very “progressive” ticket Gandolf.

You may be on to something.

Don’t get too hopped up on it though.

The Establishment Democrats will stay up pulling all-nighters, thinking up new and devious ways to fuck Bernie and whoever he chooses.

Pardon my language.

I’m having a extra large Margarita.


I support Bernie.


Sanders is being conservative about it, probably because he knows that the statement will be hit. WaPo is just lying.

The publicized figure at the time was two bailouts of $US 800bn each. This was in addition to money delivered straight from the Fed, which was not publicized. Part of the unpublicized money paid off the publicized money.

Another outright lie is that the “bailout” was necessary in the form that it took in order to balance the economy. It was not. Giving the money to the banks on the condition that it was a payoff of the various failed home loans would not have hurt the banks financially, and would have stabilized the economy far more, dollar for dollar.

There are more details, but the best way to get to them is probably to study the response in Iceland. Iceland jailed a lot of their financial class and recovered faster and better.

The bailout was a heist, and it was for a good deal more than a trillion, all told.


Thank you, mealouts, and I’ll caucus for Bernie in February 2020.
The others’ skepticism is understandable, but I’m willing, along with quite a few others, to give it one more try.

1 Like

I had Dreams, or more like Delusions that our citizenry held our Political/Financial class responsible for their corrupt acts.

Then, I woke up.

It’s sad isn’t it, that we as a people continue to permit our children to inherit a country where the majority of us haven’t got the ability to see how our votes have determined their futures.

The futility of their futures that we have relinquished them to inherent makes me ill just thinking about it.

Everytime I read another piece from Mr. Baker, my respect for him drops.

He is still far better than Paul Krugman, and this article highlights the lie about the paper market and the fact that it might go bust if the bailout does not occur.

This to me is central to the lie that Henry Paulson floated.

Why has no one ever broken down how this might or might not have happened?

Here are my layman questions.

  1. How much paper was in the market and who was holding it?
  2. What percentage was in personal accounts?
  3. What percentage was in business accounts?
  4. How much reserve did the fed actually have without printing a new trillion ever six months?
  5. If the banks were not liquid, how could the everyday accountability be continued without a complete breakdown?
  6. What gateways could have been maintained to continue foreign transactions?

The other factor about foreign central banks being government run vs ours not public is another matter that needs to be put under the microscope.
But I will leave that for a later time.

My modest proposal was to give all that money to those borrowers whose mortgages were under water. The lenders would have gotten the money back eventually, but without the consequent foreclosures, bankruptcies, broken families, broken neighborhoods and suicides.

How this would have been any more “socialist” than what was actually done escapes me—except that the beneficiaries in the former case would have been of the 99%, and in the latter, of the parasitic 1%. If socialism is so bad, why do they keep it to themselves instead of making us suffer along with them? (He asked rhetorically)

1 Like

I’m still supporting Bernie also. Yes, the DNC M$M etal will try to screw him again.
I worked like hell for him last time and will one more time. I get what the skeptics are saying, I have the same concerns. But Bernie is still the best chance we’ve got to turn this around. Unless this turns around, going forward, there won’t be much need to participate after this one… I’m still pissed Bernie didn’t start a 3rd party this time. I skipped the Presidential vote last time and will again if it comes to that. One thing for sure, I will never - Blue No Matter Who - again (did that with Obama - got burned)

1 Like

Thanks, Dean - I’ll hold onto this one for future reference, both re the bailout and, in particular, for when Sanders is attacked.

1 Like