Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 28 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Painful lessons Americans have to learn
Published Friday, October 3, 2008
It is hard to remember tougher times than those of today in America. Our economic system, the model for the planet, is crumbling; our energy costs are out of control; we are engaged in two long and expensive wars; our deficits in spending are higher than ever in our history; our homes are more at risk than they have ever been. Are there any lessons to be learned from all of this, so we can avoid ever repeating all that has taken us here?
One lesson that we must never again forget is that government must regulate the giants of business and industry, because left alone their greed will destroy all that it touches. The Republicans have for a hundred years told us that business needs to be freed from the shackles of onerous regulation. But the Republicans were wrong, it was the absence of regulation and the failure to enforce regulation that brought about a great deal of the economic collapse that is now unfolding in America.
Another lesson that we must never forget is the Republican theory of “trickle down,” that is giving tax breaks to the richest Amer-icans, does not work. There is no “trickle,” just failed tax policy. We must also learn, now and forever, that cutting taxes does not increase the revenue in the federal treasury. It has never worked, not when Reagan did it, and not when Bush did it. All that happens when we cut taxes to raise revenues is that the reduced tax collected is never matched by economic growth taxes. In every instance it has been used, the policy has simply increased the debt and the deficit.
A third lesson we must never forget is that war is the last resort of a strong nation. The war in Iraq was never about the national security of the United States, and is therefore a war of choice. But that choice has cost the nation over $700 billion dollars and still counting. While our President and other leaders tell us we may have to reduce the benefits of Social Security, we squander the money that could have prevented that from happening in Iraq, pouring it into the sand with no benefit.
A fourth lesson we must learn is that energy policy is also national security policy. Almost eight years ago this administration set our national energy policy in a secret meeting Dick Cheney held with the largest oil companies. The result has been an oil energy policy that has trapped the U.S. into the Middle East, failed to develop alternatives, and allowed other nations to pull ahead of the U.S. in energy creation. Our first oil president indeed served the interests of the oil industry, for during the Bush administration we have seen the price of oil go from $20 a barrel to $100 a barrel (and occasionally beyond $100).
A fifth lesson we must still come to grips with is the powerful and destructive influence of special interests in Washington. While homeowners continue to struggle, the banks that loaned the money are bailed out; while pension plans that were the retirement savings of many shrink and dissolve, the CEO’s of failed investment banks cash out with hundreds of millions of dollars in golden parachutes. For too long the administration and the Congress have listened to those like Jack Abramoff, who corrupted our system and turned the Congress into a piggy bank for special interests.
America is still the greatest nation ever, but our future must lead us away from the failed ideas of our recent past.
Jim Crawford is a contributing columnist to The Ironton Tribune and a former educator at OU Southern.
Comments
Posted by Vil (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Blah blah blah, rabble rabble rabble.
Same column, different week by ACLU member Jim Crawford.
Remember, the organization that this man represents thinks it is ok for repeat drunk drivers to be on our streets.
Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on October 3, 2008 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Crawford.... why oh why do you continue to write falsehoods? It was a proven fact that under Reagan that treasury revenue increased dramatically when taxes where cut ... what you stated is nothing but an outright lie...
President Reagan's policies resulted in the largest peacetime economic boom in American history and nearly 35 million more jobs.
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.
I don't know where you get your facts but you do the people a disservice for continually publishing your diatribe.
I am not even going to attempt to comment on the rest of your article ... you just don't have any credibility ...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/taxes/B...
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Vil, I have to agree with you. Blah, blah blah, it's all Bush's and republicans fault... no mention of reality like the fact that it was China's and India's booming economy and increased thirst for oil that drove up oil prices...
Republican deregulation caused our economic problem or was it the fact that the Community Reinvestment Act that Clinton signed into law MANDATED that banks had to give mortgages to poor people with bad credit ratings.
No, democrats had nothing to due with this meltdown lets just disregard the fact that Franklin Raines (who also headed Obambi's VP search committee) made over $90 million from Fanny or Jim Johnson, the CEOs under whom the worst excesses took place in the late 1990s to mid-2000s, were both high-placed Democratic operatives and advisers to presidential candidate Barack Obama. Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick also got taken care of by the Fannie-Freddie. So did top Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel, among others.
Over the span of his career, Obama ranks No. 2 in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie, taking over $125,000. Dodd, head of the Senate Banking panel, is tops at $165,000. Clinton, ranked 12th, has collected $75,000.
The really scary thing is that there are other intellectually dishonest liberals like Crawford still teaching our kids.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 3, 2008 at 10:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In the space of a little more than a decade, Fannie and Freddie spent close to $150 million on lobbying efforts. So pervasive were their efforts, they seemed unassailable, even during a Republican administration.
Yet, by 2004, the crony capitalism had gone too far. Even OFHEO issued a report essentially criticizing Fannie and Freddie for Enron-style accounting that let them boost profits in order to pay their politically well-connected executives hefty bonuses.
It emerged that Clinton aide Raines, who took Fannie Mae's helm as CEO in 1999, took in nearly $100 million by the time he left in 2005. Others, including former Clinton Justice Department official Gorelick, took $75 million from the Fannie-Freddie piggy bank.
Even so, Fannie and Freddie were forced to restate their earnings by some $3.5 billion, due to the accounting shenanigans.
As we noted, those who tried to halt this frenzy of activity found themselves hit by a political buzz saw.
President Bush, reviled and criticized by Democrats, tried no fewer than 17 times, by White House count, to raise the issue of Fannie-Freddie reform. A bill cleared the Senate Banking panel in 2005, but stalled due to implacable opposition from Democrats and a critical core of GOP abettors. Rep. Barney Frank, who now runs the powerful House Financial Services Committee, helped spearhead that fight.
Now, with the taxpayer tab approaching $1 trillion or more, we're learning the costs of crony capitalism.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles...
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 4:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And, no republicans benefited at all?
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 4:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since the 1990 election cycle, Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae's employees and political action committee have given $19.5 million to federal candidates and committees, 53 percent of which has gone to Republicans. -
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/...
Granted, Obama's receipts from their employees and PACS far exceed McBush's receipts. But McBush DID take the money. So lets not kid ourselves. Obama received more because he's been the most likely to win the election.
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 5:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And lets not forget another giant of banking deregulation, Phil Gramm, is a McBush national co-chair.
Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on October 4, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MasterChef,
Conservatives are always the first to recognize corruption on both sides of the isle ... but when direct evidence of Obama and Democrats being dirty is posted you always come to their defense ...
Why is that?
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Because its always the republicans who are dirtier calling the dems dirty. You don't like facts. Straight up!
Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on October 4, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MasterChef ...
actually it is Democrat liberals that are in denial ... it is an ailment with no cure ....
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
After all your bs about who got what from Fannie and Freddie, imagine my surprise to find out that Fannie/Freddie gave more lobbyist money to republicans than they did democrats. An even bigger shock was to find McBush's name also on the list of recipients.
But I shouldn't be surprised at all. Thats the same kind of deception you post all the time.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 12:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 4:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since the 1990 election cycle, Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae's employees and political action committee have given $19.5 million to federal candidates and committees, 53 percent of which has gone to Republicans. -
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/......
Granted, Obama's receipts from their employees and PACS far exceed McBush's receipts. But McBush DID take the money. So lets not kid ourselves. Obama received more because he's been the most likely to win the election.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MC, McCain got $22,000 over 25 years he's been a congressman. Obambi got his $190,000 in three years none of it after he announced his candidacy. So much for your false assertion it was because "he's been the most likely to win the election." If that was the case, Hillary would have gotten all that money.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And MC, you left this out from your open secrets website:
Both (Freddie and Fannie) are giving more to Democrats than Republicans this election cycle.
Republicans obviously didn't let contributions affect their votes. They were the one who voted for more regulation. Democrats however voted consistently against oversight. Of course, it didn't hurt when your boyfriend is on the company that you are supposed to have oversight over.
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You're just sore because Obama received more than McBush. Hey, they supported the candidate they thought had a better chance to win.
Posted by Vil (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Or they supported the one that they knew they could use as a puppet.
The bankers are so far up Obama's ying yang he should be spitting out fingernails.
Posted by Writeon (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wahoo! What can you say in 500 trillion words or less that Crawford would not fail to under stand or deliberately distort. I truly disapprove of calling any one a liar, even when the fact is indisputable and undeniable because lying can only be achieved deliberately. Lying is also many other things defined with words like deception, deceit, dishonest and the list as we all know goes on and the description doesn’t get better. As for Mr. Crawford I think his writing skills are in my humble opinion substantial. It’s his views, interpretations, conclusions, prospective, social virtues and political values that seem to conflict with his persona and my personal sociopolitical positions. His choice of facts and the conclusion of his reasoning are so wildly different from my own I have begun to believe it would be almost impossible for any one to gather so many incorrect facts and reach so many inaccurate conclusions accidentally. Mr. Crawford In this case because I think anyone, right or wrong that offers our public an opinion in good faith for the benefit of all deserves respect for his civic service. It would seem unfair to with hold decent rebuttal or your best effort to shine a light on facts or truth for any decent neighbor or fellow American. I know we are all familiar with the term "you can take a horse to water" and what it means but unless I become convinced a hand up is futile or I find a contact toxic I will continue to share what honesty and truth I can, so long as I can. Crawford take my word for it the glass is half full!
Vote John McCain, Sarah Palin
Thanks
Sincerely
Write On
Posted by Writeon (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 3:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Padanorr I got your message and I am working on it. I will make sure you know when I am done. What was the name of that fellow that got slimed? It may be better I get the answer with out detail and in the same way you got in touch last time. I will be talking to you again soon. Try to let me know you got this!
Tanks
Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on October 4, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 4, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You're just sore because Obama received more than McBush. Hey, they supported the candidate they thought had a better chance to win.
--------
That is really a lame statement MasterChef ...
Nobody should be receiving money's from Fannie and Freddie ... but as Noesis pointed out ... McCain only received $22k in over 25 years ... Obama ... $190,000 in just 3 years ... looks like the leadership at Fannie and Freddie are expecting Obama to do some favors eh?
Like I said ... Fannie and Freddie are Democrat cookie jars ...
Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on October 4, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Writeon ... thanks I appreciate it ....
Posted by Writeon (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Padanorr thank you! Did you happen to read my response to the neo slim? I think it was removed but I'm not sure. If you didn't see that post or if you don’t have a copy and would like one, I will gladly try to get you one. I'm still at it and I will get back to you soon. I hope you and the many other admirable people like you will keep carrying the water. I will pitch in as often as I can. Have a great day!
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, David. Paul Harvey you're not.
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who is Neo slim? If you'd like to ask me a question I'd be glad to accommodate you.
Posted by keta (anonymous) on October 5, 2008 at 8:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Reagan and his "peacetime boom" was the beginning of people like us going bust - the beginning of big deficits and corporate welfare programs that pretended prosperity would trickle down to working families if we'd just be patient. It's just now becoming clear how that turned out. The thing I remember most about Reagan was his utter disregard for the poor and his contempt for minorities, and how obvious it became that something was interfering with his ability to think clearly. I figured arterial blockage, not Alzheimers. John McCain is deja vu all over again: corporate welfare, funneling every loose tax dollar to the Pentagon, a history of being uninterested in the economy and people who are struggling. Would Reagan be such a right-wing icon if Dubyah wasn't such an awful president? I mean, compared to Dubyah, Reagan looks good.
Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on October 5, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MasterChef ??
People like us? Sounds like you are playing the same card that Obama is trying to use .... Class Warefare ...
Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on October 5, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by padanorr (David A. Norris) on October 5, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MasterChef ??
People like us? Sounds like you are playing the same card that Obama is trying to use .... Class Warefare ...
----------
Excuse me please ... that should have said ...
keta ??
People like us? Sounds like you are playing the same card that Obama is trying to use .... Class Warefare ...
Posted by Neo (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are several key issues that this election hinges on. Our policy about preemptive war. Civil liberties and the patriot act. America's standing in the world. However, I think the one thing this election will be most remembered for in retrospect is as a referendum on trickle down economics.
First of all, let's get real when it comes to this talk of class warfare. Obama will return tax rates for the rich and for corporations to what they were under Ronald Reagan. Republicans, if you think that Reagan was a socialist or a class warfare advocate on behalf of the middle class or working poor, go ahead and make your case.
America is a big place comprised of small communities. Let's look at our small community, Lawrence County.
I would venture to say that AT LEAST 99% of the citizens and small businesses in Lawrence County make less than $250,000 per year. According to the Herald Dispatch back in May the average household income here is $28,806.
http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/comm...
So who are we kidding when opposing Barack Obama who'll do everything possible to reinvigorate the middle class? His tax cuts for us will be 3 TIMES as big as those McCain would offer. Obama will provide an energy rebate of $1000 per household to offset the outrageous cost of energy (which we're paying as big oil companies turned in RECORD profits last quarter). In fact, there are a lot of things Barack Obama will do for the middle class when elected. You can get more information on his website.
John McCain, to cut through all the minutia, is basically an agent and advocate of trickle down economics. We've had 28 years of trickle down and our average household income is $28,806.
One of the central premises of trickle down is that corporation and the rich create jobs. Give them money...they will create jobs...everyone will benefit. This philosophy has failed. Corporations ARE creating jobs....in China, India, Mexico and many other countries around the world. The idea of putting money into hands of corporations and the rich as being the most reliable and efficient way of benefiting the economy (remember the bailout) is laughable.
Here is one that I would bet on. Invest in the middle class, the working poor and small businesses and they will spend money, pay their mortgages, stabilize the "financial crisis" and stimulate the economy. I'd take that bet, trickle up economics, any day.
If you disagree, just take your tax refund next year...sign it over to Donald Trump and mail it to him. Tell him that you know that you'd benefit more from him having the money than you having it yourself. You know, Mr. Trump would then take that money, create jobs....you know the story.
Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)
Posted by keta:
Reagan and his "peacetime boom" was the beginning of people like us going bust - the beginning of big deficits and corporate welfare programs that pretended prosperity would trickle down to working families if we'd just be patient. It's just now becoming clear how that turned out. The thing I remember most about Reagan was his utter disregard for the poor and his contempt for minorities, and how obvious it became that something was interfering with his ability to think clearly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a 1996 study from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:
* On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
* Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
* Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh well Keta, nice try anyway...
Posted by MasterChef (anonymous) on October 6, 2008 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this needs repeating, since the REPUBLICANS are the ones who benefited most from fannie/freddie. The quote:
Since the 1990 election cycle, Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae's employees and political action committee have given $19.5 million to federal candidates and committees, 53 percent of which has gone to Republicans. -
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/.........
Granted, lately most giving has been to the dems. Could Fannie/Freddie be as sick of a republican budget as the rest of the country.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)