Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Wrong change

June 9, 2009

Advertisement

To the editor:

The author of the June 6 Public Forum letter titled “Time for change” blames America’s problems as a discreet event starting with President Bush, justifies President Obama’s actions and objects to disagreement with those actions. The author ignores world events are a continuum with Presidents Reagan and Bush inheriting messes from Democratic presidents, and Congressmen Barney Frank’s and Chris Dodd’s roles in the current financial crises. There is plenty of blame to go around.

The public did vote for change seeking a new direction. We did not vote for our Constitution to be trampled or for our government taking over our banks, financial institutions and automobile industry. We did not vote for statism!

In President Obama’s rush to reward the unions he disenfranchises the legal rights of bondholders of Chrysler and calls them greedy. It turns out those greedy bondholders are Indiana state police and teachers pension funds. The Indiana attorney general is taking the case to the Supreme Court.

In April 2009, english.pravda.ru ran an opinion column titled: “American capitalism gone with a whimper.” The opening line reads: “It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American descent into Marxism is happening with breathtaking speed, against the backdrop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.” A must-read for those wanting an outside view of our current situation.

It is our right and obligation to disagree with our president based on principle.

Reynolds is from Lawrence

Comments

Pilgrim2 4 years, 10 months ago

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Wall St. and the Media Are Trying to Make Us Forget Who Started the Financial Crash By Les Leopold, AlterNet. Posted May 20, 2009.

We're at the moment Wall Street has been waiting for: The time where we begin to forget who brought the economy down.


No, Richard, here is what caused the current financial mess:

Watch and learn.

0

JHOK32 4 years, 10 months ago

Thanks Merrill for some help! It is really quite scary that the die-hard reds still swallow the red propaganda machine's bull. It's not enough that Bush destroyed our economy, but as far as I am concerned, Bush should be tried for killing more people than the whole population of Lawrence Kansas just to profit his big oil buddies. It's bad enough he killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, but he killed 4000 of our own as well, not to mention the thousands of people on all sides who have lost their legs, arms, sight, etc. Is this the type of capitalism the reds really want? I could not sleep at night.

0

Richard Heckler 4 years, 10 months ago

The republican party is living in fear that the USA may bounce back after 8 years of their war mongering bank fraud economics. The fear is if the USA quality of life improves dramatically they are out of politics for a very long time.

What do they fear? National Health Insurance New Industry thus new jobs thus new wealth for the USA Green Collar Industries which produce jobs that cannot be outsourced A dramatically improved quality of life for all americans Being exposed as the party manipulating the lower middle class,middle class and upper middle class to fund increasing wealth to the upper 1%. Loss of tax incentives/tax breaks that actually create tax increases for entire spectrum of the middleclass thus constantly reducing the wealth of the middleclass. * Clean air,clean water,clean energy and healthy green space scattered throughout america

Actually the Bush treasury department was the acting watch dog. You repubs go to great lengths supporting the criminal leadership of your party and have been since Reagan/Bush.

The Second Savings and Loan Scandal 1/21/09 http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/21/wamu-indymac-thrifts-oped-cx_mh_jo_0121hudsonoverton.html

Oversight Authority would have been the Bush Treasury Department because GW Bush was president: http://www.ots.treas.gov/

Wall St. and the Media Are Trying to Make Us Forget Who Started the Financial Crash By Les Leopold, AlterNet. Posted May 20, 2009.

We're at the moment Wall Street has been waiting for: The time where we begin to forget who brought the economy down.

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/140123/wall_st._and_the_media_are_trying_to_make_us_forget_who_started_the_financial_crash/

The repub/neoconservative/PNAC party is largest law breaker in our nations history:

Isn't it odd each time our nations financial institutions crumble there are Bush family near by and a McCain still in office?

Who has history with financial institutions going south such as the savings and loan scandals? Republicans! http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

0

JHOK32 4 years, 10 months ago

News Flash! I heard it from a reliable source that Clinton actually did tell Bush to invade a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 911. Bush was against the idea until he learned that Iraq had the world's third largest oil reserves. Then Clinton pursuaded Bush to get on prime time television and beg the American people to bail out AIG because their greedy Billionaire CEO's were about to run the company into bankruptcy. Clinton thought it was a good idea to punish the greedy billionaires by giving them our taxpayer money to bail them out. That would teach them a lesson! So I apologize Mr. Reynolds, you were right, it was Clinton's fault after all.

0

JHOK32 4 years, 10 months ago

Your right on track Mr. Reynolds.....blame the Democratic Presidents a decade ago for the total incompetence of Bush's domestic and foreign policies. That makes total sense to me. So exactly who was in the Whitehouse the last 8 years? Was it a figment of my imagination that we had a Republican who was President for the last 8 years, or was that just a very bad dream? I wish it had been a dream instead of the nightmare legacy he left behind. Good luck Obama......you have a hell of a mess to clean up!

0

parrotuya 4 years, 10 months ago

What is the difference between Republicans and Libertarians during an economic crisis?

Republicans want to the government to cut taxes and reduce spending but Libertarians want to get rid of the government!

More and bigger tax cuts for the wealthy to solve all economic and social problems!

DOWn, baby, DOWn!

0

citizen1 4 years, 10 months ago

Results from the vote for the EU Parliament showed huge disaffection among Europeans for state-directed answers to the economic crisis — specifically, for the kinds of massive stimulus programs pushed by the U.S.

Parties allied with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy — who have both made a point of opposing any kind of U.S.-style stimulus — made big gains. Even Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, embroiled in a scandal in his home country, saw his party increase its strength in the Euro Parliament.

We mention this because, just one day after this sweeping repudiation of statism in Europe, the White House is doubling down on a losing bet, moving to "accelerate" stimulus spending and claiming it'll "save or create" up to 600,000 jobs.

Pardon us if we're skeptical. Earlier this year, the White House predicted the jobless rate would top out at 8% if Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus package. Well, since then, 1.5 million jobs have been lost, and unemployment just hit a 26-year high of 9.4%. So, by the administration's own yardstick, it hasn't worked at all.

Ignoring this reality, the new "Roadmap to Recovery" unveiled Monday seeks to accelerate stimulus spending on 10 major projects, ranging from road and airport repairs to hiring 135,000 teachers to finding 125,000 summer jobs for youth.

It sounds noble, but it's just plain foolish.

The $787 billion stimulus, which is only 6% spent, has nothing to do with this. It won't even start being spent in significant amounts until early next year.

Virtually all of the jobs in Monday's stimulus do-over are nonproductive government jobs — not productive private sector ones. Virtually all economists agree: Real job creation means permanent jobs in the private sector, not make-work jobs for government.

The short-term recovery that looks under way was baked in the cake when the Fed cut interest rates to a record low 0% last December. Still, with economic policy favoring high taxes and government over the private sector, the rebound's not likely to be a strong one. And looking long term, the outlook is troubling. With an estimated $13 trillion in new spending planned by 2019, the U.S. government is fast becoming a bloated leviathan.

Americans will pay for this through higher taxes, more regulation, fewer jobs, lower incomes and less freedom. The surge in government spending and taxes will significantly hurt our productivity, damaging our economy's long-term growth.

Just half a decade ago, it was commonly assumed that U.S. GDP could grow indefinitely by 3.5% or more, thanks to surging productivity. Now economists think we'll be lucky to get 2% growth.

When Europeans trooped to the polls, they gave a definitive "no" to more and bigger government. Maybe Americans are ready to do the same; last weekend, a Gallup Poll showed most Americans for the first time view President Obama unfavorably when it comes to "controlling federal spending."

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 10 months ago

jafs, new jobs will come when wages fall during a recession. When wages fall below prices, it becomes profitable to begin hiring again. This isn't desirable from an emotional point of view since it "feels" like you are making less money. But if prices have fallen as well your purchasing power hasn't really changed.

Credit should be tight--that's how you avoid the next recession. Loose government credit will cause another overexpansion and another recession. When credit is tight, only the most profitable ventures are undertaken, and thus our economy is strengthened.

"Also, punishing workers who had nothing to do with the bad decisions made by the company seems harsh and a bit unfair."

What's worse though is punishing taxpayers who had nothing to do with the company at all by confiscating their income to save a few jobs. Regardless, the workers are being misused or are overpaid--the company is an unsuccessful one. We need to reallocate their labor to a more profitable venture.

0

jaywalker 4 years, 10 months ago

"Also, punishing workers who had nothing to do with the bad decisions made by the company seems harsh and a bit unfair."

Don't excuse those workers, jafs, or at least their union representation who've had a very large hand in the downfall of these companies. Both sides of those tables created this mess, it's far from one-sided.

0

bronze 4 years, 10 months ago

it is not socialism. it is not fascism. it is not communist.

what is rearing its head since the so called Reagan revolution is the end of a federated democracy and the empowerment of a 'Corporate State', one controlled by the large banks & multi-national corporations.

will the 1776 dream make it to 250, stay tuned?

in USA INC, our government is the shadow cast by big business interests.

watch Governor Brownback headed for an 8 year rule on behalf of big business.

0

tolawdjk 4 years, 10 months ago

I was following the writer fine, right up until the Pravda stuff. What is the uber-fascination lately with that article? Isn't there a conservative writer somewhere within the US that can write where we don't have to base our latest defense to a newspaper that also espouses aliens/talking fish?

0

jafs 4 years, 10 months ago

Liberty,

In a recession, where will all of the new jobs come from?

If credit is tight, and folks are worried, they won't start new businesses or invest in them as much.

Also, punishing workers who had nothing to do with the bad decisions made by the company seems harsh and a bit unfair.

Finally, the CEO's and those at the top who are in fact responsible will certainly be ok, and walk away millionaires (as a reward for running the companies into the ground).

0

logicsound09 4 years, 10 months ago

I already know how you feel about the issue, L_O, and I respect the fact that your views are consistent, even though I disagree with your philosophy.

My question was really aimed more at those who use the "free-market" cry as a crutch. They don't necessarily agree with the lasseiz-faire approach that you support, they use it as a means to an end--a way to criticize without substance.

0

Liberty_One 4 years, 10 months ago

LS09, let the companies fail that should fail. Letting them continue means supporting inefficiency and failure, which will hurt our economy far more than a liquidation and redistribution of the assets of that company. The workers and assets would be more productive somewhere else. What's worse is using tax money to prop up this company, stealing from the rest of us to help out a small percentage of the country. It's morally wrong and economically unsound.

0

logicsound09 4 years, 10 months ago

"It is our right and obligation to disagree with our president based on principle."


I agree. It's too bad that sentiment wasn't respected prior to November 2008.

I do have to question why one group of people who are going to be hurt by this reorganization (Indiana state police and teachers) are more worthy of pity than any other group (employees). This is a bad situation for all involved, so I don't really get the "this party deserves compensation more than this party" other than current bankruptcy laws, which, as jafs points out, are flawed.

And for those of you crying about "marxism" or "statism", the alternative in the case of Chrysler/GM was allowing them to fail and liquidate, which would have caused unmeasurable damage.

I'm no fan of the government getting involved in private business or spending so much money to help people who've failed, but I feel that this was the best of several bad options.

Getting hysterical about our supposed march to Communism doesn't provide any benefit or value. I would love to hear a better solution from those who feel we are sliding towards socialism.

0

edjayhawk 4 years, 10 months ago

I rather give money to union workers then millions to CEOs...

0

jaywalker 4 years, 10 months ago

The writer makes good points, but what is this recent fascination with what Pravda thinks of us?

0

jafs 4 years, 10 months ago

There is certainly plenty of blame to go around.

One thing about the union question - our bankruptcy laws and governmental pension protections are quite flawed.

When a company goes bankrupt and can't meet their pension obligations (which were negotiated as part of what should be a binding legal contract), the government takes them over. However, they don't meet the figures in the contracts much of the time.

Thus workers who agreed to certain wages, benefits, working conditions, etc. with the understanding that they had a pension plan with a defined benefit don't get what they were promised.

Something's wrong with this situation.

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 10 months ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Thanks, Dave, you've really contributed to the debate with this injection of hysteria


The hysteria came from Rick's letter, not David's, boohoozo.

0

BigPrune 4 years, 10 months ago

Pravda says America is speeding towards Marxism? They should know, shouldn't they?

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 10 months ago

Oh and good letter BTW Mr. Reynolds. Exciting times ahead! Obama is nothing more than a celebrity----a figurehead and the long-desired ultimate affirmative action feat for the PC police on the left. Reality? We don't need no stinking reality!

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years, 10 months ago

Lotsa "I told you so's" cramming the airwaves more every day. And bozo, hysteria is exactly what you're going to start seeing if things don't start clearing up pretty fast. How much of this administration's plan can you withstand, bozo. I realize you didn't vote for him (at least I think you've said that) but this administration's actions are quickly becoming indefensible. Bush is gone, Obama is president.

0

jonas_opines 4 years, 10 months ago

A good letter ruined with an absurd last paragraph.
Still, better than the original.

/I submit that anytime anyone feels the need to use the word "sheeple," what they mean is that people are following some other idea or ideology than the one the speaker follows unquestionably.

0

Left_handed 4 years, 10 months ago

Libtards on parade. What an amusing sight. There's something wrong when a union gets better treatment than secured bondholders in a reorginization settlement. Why should investors be required to settle for less than they are entitled to under bankruptcy law? Because it's unpatriotic? Malarkey. It's unpatriotic to trample the Constitution and exercise Presidential Powers which don't exist.

By the way, Bozo, you really contributed to the debate with your weak little girly-man ad hominem attack. What's that matter, nothing substantive to say?

0

Pilgrim2 4 years, 10 months ago

That was just another thread-bare, bedraggled, worn out float in the seemingly endless BDS parade, David. Nothing to see there.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 10 months ago

Thanks, Dave, you've really contributed to the debate with this injection of hysteria.

0

i_tching 4 years, 10 months ago

And the stoopit just keeps on coming.

0

jmadison 4 years, 10 months ago

Obama and the Dems have put us on the road to serfdom.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.