La Rouche's "Next Step to Economic Recovery"

[Samarkis]

Lyndon H. LaRouche Webcast, February 11, 2009
See full speech at www.larouchepac.com




FREEMAN: Lyn, this question comes from a member of the
President's economic team. He asks, "Mr. LaRouche, fortunately,
the degree of anonymity that these proceedings afford, allow
greater candor than might otherwise be the case." He says,
"There was a great deal of disagreement surrounding the elements
of the banking stabilization policy that was announced yesterday,
and as to what that policy should be. For the most part,
however, everyone {did} agree that what Secretary Geithner
ultimately announced had almost no chance of succeeding.
"However, two arguments were presented, to counter what some
of us were recommending, which was moving immediately in the
direction of bankruptcy reorganization. The first argument is
one that you have addressed in part, and that was the argument
that, to deal effectively with what will undoubtedly be a
strident and ferocious backlash, if this administration were to
move for bankruptcy reorganization, that all other avenues had to
be exhausted first.
"The second argument, which I find more troublesome in terms
of countering, was the argument that bankruptcy reorganization
classically requires a certain degree of viability, and that we
are faced with the problem, that once you isolate the toxic paper
in most of the American banking institutions, and then isolate
the non-performing debt, the problem is that the vast majority of
U.S. banks lack the degree of viability to qualify for bankruptcy
reorganization, if you're talking about it in classical terms.
And that therefore, what would be necessary would be some measure
to stabilize the situation, and then move for bankruptcy
reorganization. Can you please address this?"
LAROUCHE: That won't work. What you have to do is this.
Let's look at what happened: As of the 25th of July, 2007, you
had a certain state. Now, a mistake was made, which Bill
Clinton, for example, was partly responsible for: Glass-Steagall.
Glass-Steagall was dissolved, and this uncorked the problem.
Now, this occurred with Clinton at a time he was under very nasty
treatment, or had been under nasty treatment, and it was a big
mistake on his part. But I don't think Bill understood economics
that well at that time. He understood many other things, he's
brilliant at it. But this was one thing he didn't understand.
It was a terrible mistake.
All right. Now, what happened is, at the time, I submitted
-- and we had massive support, in states and counties throughout
the United States, for my proposal for a Homeowners and Bank
Protection Act. The intent of that, was to defend that aspect of
banking in the United States which was chartered banking. That
is, which used to be on Federal charter, or under state charter,
and this is where you had regular deposits. Not the high-flown
bankers, the merchant bankers of New York City and so forth.
And Roosevelt had recognized the importance of making that
division. Clinton had made a mistake. I don't know why he did
it, but it was really way off-base. It opened the gates for
Hell.
All right, now. What you have, is, you have these guys, who
out of malicious intention, used the situation to {loot and rob}
the American people, with this high-binder operation, through the
so-called New York crowd.
Now, this was a crime. Because the intention to do something
which is against the common good, is a crime! When powerful
forces, especially financial forces, use their financial power to
injure the common good, knowingly, then that is a crime! You
don't have to have it on the books: this is this principle of
equity, requires that you recognize this is a crime. And what
they do is a crime.
And also, on top of this, remember that you had one of the
biggest criminals, of course, is Alan Greenspan. Probably the
biggest criminal in this whole operation, because what did he do?
He did something which has been classified as a {crime} in the
state of California. And he used that when he came into office,
in the Federal Reserve System, he used a criminal activity and
legalized it, essentially, as the activity of the Federal Reserve
System: that is, the use of financial derivatives. This is
gambling! So what happened is we have legalized gambling by the
legalized gamblers of New York City and elsewhere--and of the
world--who are looting the people of the world. Starving them!
Ruining their countries! A locust plague! This was a crime, a
moral crime against humanity, in its effect!
Do you think that we owe anything to any of these
characters, of these kinds of bankers, eh? We don't owe a thing
to them! They should get {nothing}! They rob the country. Are we
going to pay them for their claims to enjoy the benefits of
robbery? Of thievery? Of looting? No, we have to protect--our job
is to defend the nation, to defend our republic and its people,
against all predators. And what are these? These were
international predators, coming in and looting in our country!
Destroying it! Ruining our people! Destroying jobs! Destroying
health care! Everything! Do you think these guys on the principle
of equity have anything coming to them, except punishment? They
should consider themselves lucky to be allowed to walk away with
{nothing!}
Now, I can tell our politicians in Washington, that about
90%, or something like that, of the American people agree with
me. Unfortunately, Washington is organized in a way that some of
the leading politicians do not agree with me. And the thieves,
who are high-binder thieves who are trying to fly with their
golden parachutes, don't agree with me either. But these are the
thieves! Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves--only this is 40,000
thieves, or 40 million thieves! And they're international.
They're parasites. We are now in a general collapse of the world
monetary financial system {caused by these thieves. And we owe
them something?} The American people don't owe these bastards a
nickel. And the nickel's pretty cheap these days
So therefore, what we do is you walk into a bank: We're
declaring general bankruptcy reorganization of the system {in the
national interest!} The fundamental interest of the United
States. Fundamental interest of other nations. We walk in there.
Now, we've got some bankers who know how to do this. You walk in,
you look at the accounts. What's that account? Oh, that's a
normal banking account, a mortgage or something else. That's
protected. And the guy, the management who's competent in
managing this, stays on the job. That's protected. These other
guys? Hah! They want something? Ha-ha. They'll get something. You
know what they'll get? {Bubkes}! That's what they get. They get
nothing. They don't have anything coming to them! They already
stole more than should be allowed! You're gonna pay the robbers
for what you caught them stealing? No!
What you do is you walk into every bank. If that bank is an
institution, it has deposits in it, of depositors, under
conditions which conform to the standards of chartered banking,
state and federal. That bank has a relationship to the community.
That bank's going to be defended. We don't care how bankrupt it
is. We're going to defend it. We're not going to pay $700
billion, or whatever, to bail this out. {We're going to protect
that bank,} and every bank like it. We're going to protect the
savings banks, the savings of the depositors in that. We're going
to protect the legitimate interests of charter banking. One at a
time. And we have enough expert bankers in the Federal Reserve
System and other places who are competent, who know how to do
that. And we're going to empower them to do that.
That's why I need a reform, which goes to a national banking
system. We need to put the Federal Reserve System which is
bankrupt into bankruptcy reorganization. We have to create a new
federal institution, which is a Hamiltonian National Bank. We
take the competent people who are in the Federal Reserve and
similar systems today, or have that experience, we put them in
this institution. They are the ones who then manage, as part of
their job, manage this problem. Every bank that is viable, in
terms of its function, every part of that bank that's viable, is
reconstituted under federal protection. Those things which are
speculative in nature, get nothing. They get nothing. They get a
free exit from the door, and they don't take anything with them.
Maybe their pants, but that's it! And that's it!
Now, if you do that, what you've done is, first of all,
you've rebuilt the confidence of the American people in their
government, because when you're talking about chartered banks,
usually the core of our system, our political system, those
people have a right to protection. They have more right to
protection than Hank Paulson, or anybody else. They really have
it. We owe it to them. They're weak. They don't have government
power, but they're citizens. They're entitled to protection of
their rights. We protect their rights, and we protect them
because it's necessary to have them on their feet and
functioning, if we're going to rebuild this economy and build our
way out of this mess.
So they get nothing. And the problem is, what people are
afraid of is they're afraid of the reaction of these fascist
bastards, who are of the mentality of Paulson and so forth. They
were--these guys were the fascists--the supporters of Mussolini
in the 1920s, the supporters of Mussolini and Hitler from the
United States in the 1930s. These are the same--these are the
grandchildren, in a sense--of the same institutions! Do we owe
them anything? We don't owe them a thing. They walk out safely.
We don't shoot them. We don't torture them. They walk out the
door, and that's it. And the people who belong there, and the
people who were represented there, legally, properly, are
protected.
If you do this, and take that approach--it does take guts to
do it, and I think a lack of guts is the question you have to
raise here, in this connection--if you do this, you're going to
have the support of the great majority of the American people.
And you're going to have the kind of support that a President
needs. And that's the way you have to go. Is there a risk
involved? Of course there's a risk involved. You're up against
fascists! What do you expect with fascists? You have people like
the late [former] Vice President. We have eight years of the
worst administration in U.S. history since the beginning of the
Civil War. For eight years, hell! Under a totally corrupt and
evil administration, which is why this thing developed to the
extreme it did.
So therefore, we take a chance. We take a chance with the
American people. We defend them. We ask them to defend our
government. It'll work.

La Rouche's Documentary on Why United States Succeeded
and then what brought on the Economic Breakdown & How to REVERSE it!!!
Well worth watching!!! (Folks,this is NOT in our history books!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgcdRCWEt4Q