Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- In Arkansas, Exxon Is Threatening to Arrest Reporters But Otherwise Telling Nobody Nothing
- It’s Official: A Democratic President Proposes to Cut Social Security
- The Corporate Betrayal of America
- Why Would Anyone Celebrate the Death of Margaret Thatcher? Ask a Chilean
- The Elephant in the Room: Militarism
Popular content
Today's Top News
Blame Clinton, Not Paul
What is so great about our bloated federal government that when a libertarian threatens to become a senator, otherwise rational and mostly liberal pundits start frothing at the mouth? What Rand Paul thinks about the Civil Rights Act, passed 46 years ago, hardly seems the most pressing issue of social justice before us. It's a done deal that he clearly accepts. Yet Paul's questioning the wisdom of a banking bailout that rewards those who shamelessly exploited the poor and vulnerable, many of them racial minorities, is right on target. So too questioning the enormous cost of wars that as he dared point out are conducted in violation of our Constitution and that, I would add, though he doesn't, prevent us from adequately funding needed social programs.
Under the leadership of President Bill Clinton, Wall Street secured the radical deregulation of the financial industry that its lobbyists had long sought. I opposed that betrayal of the sensible policies of the last great Democratic president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and I suspect that Paul applauded the move as an extension of the free market that he so uncritically celebrates. Where I agree with him is that with freedom comes responsibility, and when the financial conglomerates abused their freedom, they, and not the victims they swindled, should have borne the consequences. Instead, they were saved by the taxpayers from their near-death experience, reaping enormous profits and bonuses while the fundamentals of the world economy they almost destroyed remain rotten, as attested by the high rates of housing foreclosures and unemployment and the tens of millions of newly poor dependent on government food handouts.
But the poor will not find much more than food crumbs from a federal government that, thanks to another one of Clinton's "reforms," ended the federal obligation to deal with the welfare of the impoverished. Yes, Clinton, not either Paul, father Ron or son. It was Clinton who campaigned to "end welfare as we know it," and as a result the federal obligation to end poverty, once fervently embraced by even Richard Nixon, was abandoned.
Concern for the poor was devolved to the state governments, and they in turn are in no mood to honor the injunction of all of the world's great religions that we be judged by how we treat the least among us. That would be poor children, and it is unconscionable that state governments across the nation are cutting programs as elemental as the child care required when you force single mothers to work.
"Cuts to Child Care Subsidy Thwart More Job Seekers" ran the headline in The New York Times on Sunday over a story detailing how in a dozen states there are now sharp cuts in child care for the poor who find jobs, and how there are now long lists of kids needing child care while their mothers work at low-paying jobs at places like Wal-Mart. In Arizona, there is a waiting list of 11,000 kids eligible for child care. That is what passes for success in the welfare reform saga, with mothers forced off the rolls into a workplace bereft of promised child care that the cash-strapped states no longer wish to supply.
A couple of weeks ago came the news-reading like a page out of Dickens (or perhaps like a parody from The Onion )-that the Terminator was again in action, this time terminating California's programs for the poor. The son-in-law of Sargent Shriver, who once ran the federal war on poverty, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now seeks to eliminate the Golden State's CalWorks program. By ending the once celebrated program along with child care funding, Schwarzenegger expects to save $2.2 billion. As the Los Angeles Times reported, "Ending CalWorks, which provides recipient families with an average of $500 per month, would make California the only state not to offer a welfare program for low-income families with children."
Schwarzenegger apparently doesn't care; poor kids can't complain too loudly, and while the governor backed down in his earlier threats to cut funding for somewhat more privileged college kids who protested those cuts loudly, he found the safety net for the poor an easier target: "You cannot have a safety net if you don't have the money for that safety net."
Sure you can't, and so the safety net is being shredded in state after state, but why don't we have the money, and why was responsibility for the poor left to the tender mercy of state governments while the federal government maintains a lavish welfare system for needy bankers who treat a few billion in government bailouts as chump change?
I am not a libertarian; I proudly remain a bleeding-heart liberal, as befits one who began life in a family on the dole during the Depression. But if the federal government exists primarily to serve super-rich defense contractors and bankers while ignoring the poor, I say it is time to expose as the enemy of progress the Washington bureaucracy that tends to the greedy rich at the expense of the truly needy. That is the problem; Rand Paul is the distraction.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
60 Comments so far
Show AllClinton is one of the most overrated presidents in history. His economic "boom" was built on a bubble economy, first Silicon Valley, then housing. He balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and funded the Pentagon at massive levels at the downfall of the Soviet Union, a time at which we could have been receiving a "peace dividend." I cannot forget his interventionist foreign policy, his embargo of Iraq, his bombing of pharmaceutical plants in Africa, his endless posturing to place the United States out in front. I foolishly voted for the man in 1992, but was wiser four years later. He might have made a decent sax player with more practice. What a waste!
I feel your pain.
You've pretty much said it all.
The President who dismantled much of the progressive New Deal legislations of FDR was Democrat Bill Clinton: Telecom Reform Act ’96 paved the way for media consolidations, Welfare Reform Act ’96 removed the safety net for the poor, Freedom to Farm Act ’96 removed the protections for the family farms and led to the gigantic subsidies for the corporate agribusiness, and most crucially Banking Reform Act ’99 took away the government oversight of the banking system.
Clinton also pushed and passed NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement) and WTO (World Trade Organization) which allowed corporations to pursue profit free from constraints of US environmental and worker protection laws.
To the American public traumatized by the Bush Presidency, corporate America poured enormous amount of money to promote an African American man, Barack Obama, as the candidate of ‘Hope and Change’; however, once in office, President Obama kept Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in charge of the Military Industrial Complex and kept Bush’s Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, in charge of the Nation’s Banking System.
Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, was asked in 2010, what difference he saw between Bush and Obama. He succinctly answered ‘color of their skins’.
No Exit Folks!
Could it be that the media dogs have been let loose on Paul not because of his libertarianism or even his link to the tea party movement, but because of his now muted anti-war stance? This seems the only way you can have a full court press launched against him, when liberal commentators who are otherwise muted in regards to Afghanistan, civil liberties, or Israel are so unleashed and given full corporate backing.
Sounds plausible. It is my guess that the great majority of politicians could be torn to shreds by the corporate media jackals at any time if their corporate masters would give them that mission. Paul is likely a target because of his foreign policy views, not because of his stance on the Civil Rights Act or his connection to the Tea Party.
His anti-Fed, anti-bank bailout stance also drives the attacks.
War, Empire, zionism and the care and feeding of the super-rich enjoy the support of a solid bi-partisan consensus in DC. "Liberals" and "progressives" vote to support this consensus right along with moderates and conservatives.
Prove that last statement about progressives. Liberal is not the same a progressive. You're dreaming if you think Joe Hill would support that. By lumping everyone together you show that you have no answers or recommendations. This willful ignorance ensures nobody on the left benefits except spoiled little anarchists with dirty pants and stinky bodies. Viva la b.o.
First off your infantile insults involving body functions kind of show where your head is at, and it's not a good place.
Secondly, look at the votes to fund the wars, to adopt the patriot act, or to express support for Isreal. They are all approved with only a handful of dissenters. See how many members of the congressional progressive caucus vote time and again to fight the wars, fund the CIA or restrict our civil liberties.
It's like the old Supreme Soviet whenever the consensus issues come up. Virtually everyone votes the same way.
And people who support the Pauls, who defend them at every opportunity, vote to support the consensus of deregulate, deregulate, deregulate, all government is evil, the State's only use is as a police force to protect property meme.
You talkin t' me??
I've never voiced support of either Paul's deregulatory path to corporate rule.
I have voiced support for their anti-intervention positions.
Not anymore. Rand has backtracked on his opposition to sanctions against Iran and has even now indirectly suggested nuking Iran is an option. It appears that he is moving towards the Washington foriegn policy consensus; so you won't be hearing anything more for now from me regarding Rand Paul's foriegn policy positions.
Too bad, the country could use an anti-imperialist force on the conservative side based on constitutionalism and fiscal responsibility.
There is the occasional progressive anti-militarist in DC. Grayson and his economic arguments against the war are good. But the bi-partisan war consensus on the Hill is stronger than ever since the election of Obama pretty much took the wind out of the Dem opposition to the wars.
I am talking to anyone that doesn't want to look closely at what the Pauls' positions are, simply because they have occasionally said some nice anti-imperialist things.
Clinton was hugely overrated and was primarily responsible for his own slaughter in 1994. He is not brilliant just without shame or morals. Obama is heading down the same box canyon and will be ambushed by the right in 2010. The enthusiasm gap exists because of the DLC and the Blue Dogs who were recruited by Rahm over Dean's objections. From the election of 1992 to today the Dems have consistently run left-of-center and then their leaders govern to the right. Dean wanted populist/progressives and Rahm wanted The Establishment Dems. We ended up with a mushy middle of white, upper class moderate Republicans who consistently support the corporations. This is often sold as bipartisanship but really is nothing more than a political genuflection to Wall Street and its' cash-filled wallet. The need for a multi-party, coalition type political structure in this country has never been more apparent. Four parties would be infinitely better than two right now. 1) Progressive/ Populist with environmental credibility 2)Conservative Dems/Trade Unionists with fair trade policies 3)The Establishment/Corporate Republicans and 4)Conservative/evangelical theocrats. This regrouping would force our country to better understand the real dynamics and forces at work. It would isolate and define our common interests and our personal animosities. It would be a political bloodletting that would make our country much better long-term. It can't get any worse for most of us.
I Have long had little regard for either Clinton. They are both in politics for themselves. As each day goes by, it becomes more and more obvious. I don't think that's the case with either Paul. I don't buy the basic libertarian ideology, it's too simplistic, however I believe they are both interested in the general wellbeing of US society as a whole. There was a recent post on this blog that made the argument that Kagan, and to an extent Obama, lack a moral sensability. They maintain a cynical relationship with the corporate US powers because that association serves their own political, social, and economic self interest. The Clintons are cut from the same cloth.
I voted for Obama and Clinton on the positions that Clinton was a lesser evil and Obama talked a good talk. Never again. I go 3rd party from here on out.
welcome aboard, rich! spread the word.
Ring wing libertarianism is basically the economic policies of Bush (both of them) / Clinton / Obama on steroids.
Intentions are meaningless.
Stated "Intentions are meaningless".
Rather "intentions based on infantile fantasies and unsound axioms are meaningless."
In the real world, libertarians become Alan Greenspans and Friedmanites because that's how the world comes into place around the unacknowledged and implicit elements of their "thought" (not to mention the explicit worship of "property rights" as the sine qua non of existence), largely because there is no logical extension from the playpen to a world that actually exists and has a history.
This site has been around a long time but still interesting..."Libertarianism Makes You Stupid"
http://www.sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
"Blame Clinton, not Paul"
Bullshit, let's put the blame where it belongs:
Gingrich, DeLay, Gramm, Norquist, Barr, Scaife, Reagan, Greenspan, Paulson, Ailes, Atwater and Murdoch, just for starters.
Let's blame the people who carefully planned and carried out the destruction of the US economy. It only took them 28 years to turn a democratic economic powerhouse into hollowed out, corporate fascist shell.
Blame the ignorant and self important inhabitants of the US for buying into the Republican crap.
you can't blame the victims, because we're not like the French, who, whenever their state benefits are too be cut, riot. we've never had the benefits in the first place. we are a people beaten, neglected and used like poker chips--sheople. the responsibility lies with our corrupt leaders, first and foremost.
It was and is the propaganda. The conservative narrative that never was opposed because the propaganda machine is owned and operated by the conservatives.
Even today there is no acknowledgment that the conservative policies of the past 30 years are responsible for increased poverty, out of control debt, endless war, class warfare, a de-industrialized America, chronic unemployment, decimation of the middle class, acceptance of the bribery of politicians as free speech, etc.
Don't you look at the polls? Americans poll quite progressive.
For example, you may remember, the great majority of Americans preferred a single payer or strong public option health care bill and got neither. It was so blatantly rigged but did you see progressives massing in the streets making demands?
Congress received calls - 100 to 1 - in opposition of the bailouts. There are many examples.
The MSM distorts Americans true desires and opinions. They play up the tea parties while progressives get no coverage whatsoever, unless it's to point out how on the "fringe" we are. Then you see everyone going nuts because a few well to do voters get together and make some noise. On the "left" you have people like Robert Sheer cheerleading for right wing candidates. It's insane - and I really mean that.
Larry Summers also belongs on your list of perpetrators.
You forgot two of the biggest names in your list of sociopaths: Bush and Cheney (multiple generations)
Let's see. Bill Clinton and the DNC triangulation strategy of appeasing corporate interests rather than confronting them got us into this mess so we should blame? I got it--the Washington Bureaucracy. Thank goodness we still have the good old Democratic Party to come to our aide and straighten things out.
Support the reform of 3rd party registration on state ballots. The stranglehold will continue until we have more choices. There are at least 4-5 constituencies and only 2 parties. It's like trying to keep both your hands and feet warm with only one pair of woolies. Everything gets cold or something gets frostbitten. Just sayin'.
Royce
Arizona again. 11,000 children in need. Clinton's excision of welfare is one part of the story; the other is that Arizona is a "right-to-work" state. Clinton's Arkansas is as well.
"Right-to-work" sounds perfectly fair (other more familiar examples, "separate but equal", "don't ask, don't tell"). But in Arizona "right-to-work" really means "right-to-fire". As a man in Tucson explained it to me one afternoon, "It doesn't matter how good a job I do, when the 59th day comes, I'm told not to come back."
His was not an isolated case. In Tucson you can see two distinct classes, those with cars who drive helter-skelter throughout the day and those without cars who take the bus. Step on a Tucson bus and you will see the cleaning ladies and the kitchen workers and the 60-day construction site hopefuls.
The "right-to-work" battle had its heyday in the 50's and 60's. States which established "right-to-work" may simply see it as "the way we do it here", but in this age of transnational retailing, an employer's unstricted right-to-fire creates an added responsibility and burden on the state, like those 11,000 children.
With all the political battles that must be fought and won, is anyone out there today willing to stand up against "right-to-work"?
Excellent post. I was in Arizona in January and spent 3 days in Tucson. What a hollowed out shell. The people we stayed with say $20/hr jobs are now $10/hr. Drug trafficking was out of control and so many young women with babies and no real support. The right-to-work laws are the right to steal and perpetuate economic slavery. Greg Palast had a very interesting take on Arizona draconian economy: white majority voting districts being taken over by minorities. This is a huge voter-roll purge; nothing more. Even my enlightened colleagues are beginning to knee-buckle with this horrible economy. When will the American Hitler step out of the shadows? I'm afraid sooner rather than later for Arizona: J. D. Hayworth, anyone?
The same disintegration of wages and salaries is happening everywhere -- in communities across this country. I have countless friends, and I include myself, who can't find work in their fields of expertise. In addition, if they are lucky enough to find work, the job pays about 1/2 what they were previously earning. Here in NYC, a couple of days ago, Mayor Bloomberg, a billionaire many times over ($16-$20 billion) -- a politician who has accumulated, according to some sources, as much as $14 billion while he has been mayor of this city -- announced that corporations in NYC can't afford to pay a living wage. However, CEOs and other executives in this city (owners and operators of world-wide corporations) make out like bandits.
Currently, NYPL, NYC libraries, will soon suffer another big cut in the budgets that contribute, or not, to the well-being of the libraries in this city. In July of 2009, 1/3 of the library staff were fired, while the CEO, as far as I can tell, continues to draw a salary of $800,000 per year. Right now, the authorities are threatening to cut back services again, possibly to 4 days. Will the execs (supposedly these men and women are public servants) be forced to take a pay cut? Steven Schwartzman, an infamous corporate raider who is also a billionaire many times over, now has his name engraved on the front of the 42nd Street Library on 5th Avenue, a library that is recognized as one of the world's most important research libraries. Mr. Schwartzman bequeathed an enormous amount of money to the library, and currently, the 42nd Street Library is undergoing a major facelift -- I don't begrudge the library a facelift -- but at the expense of services? This is what the authorities call philanthropy.
NYC still bears empty commercial spaces from one end of the city to the other, and there are empty apartment and condo buildings advertising luxury apartments and condos in my neighborhood of East Harlem, and other neighborhoods as well. Mayor Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani before him, promoted these development projects -- no doubt, subsidized by all taxpayers. Clearly, the authorities don't want anyone but the rich to live here. Forget about Section 8 housing, and other benefits that might empower we the people. The authorities don't care. Cleansing the city of people who are struggling to make it seems to me to be a cleansing of class. I'd like to know -- who will be left to work for them?
When I lost my job in December of 2006, I began to talk to people on the streets of NYC, and I soon discovered that I was NOT alone. I also discovered that the mortgage foreclosure crisis already had claimed thousands of victims. I met people who were astonished at how their resume value had deteriorated, since they had last been out in the so-called job market. That's when I stumbled across Barbara Ehrenreich's book, Bait and Switch, about the professional/white collar job market that was losing steam fast. Like she did in Nickel and Dimed, Barbara, once again, went under cover and illuminated a market that did NOT exist for many people.
If any residents of NYC are curious about the MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) debacle, check out the NY Times article, written by Charles Duhigg and Carter Dougherty on November 2, 2008. MTA invested in an Irish bank, Depfa (parent company in Munich) hedging -- borrowing a lot of money to invest in a CDO -- a collateralized debt obligation. Of course, the idea was to earn more money on the investment than what the MTA owed on the loan. Depfa, like other big investment banks, is famous for its lavish events and big paychecks. The MTA deal was put together in 2005 -- with Bloomberg as mayor -- and was a variable rate loan, with a $200 million bond issued by MTA. When Depfa was downgraded, investors dumped transportation bonds, which meant that Depfa had to pick up the tab, so to speak. The interest rate for MTA rose by $12 million a year, and with tax receipts declining, the MTA suffered a $900 million shortfall. And, that, my friends, is what the citizens and taxpayers of NYC are being forced to pay -- in rate hikes, etc.
This crisis is hitting us from every angle.
BTW -- the Kenosha, Wisconsin school system also invested with the same Irish bank.
The entire system is rigged, and Wall Street is at the heart of the system. A CD writer, just the other day, mentioned that we should all be marching and protesting on Wall Street instead of D.C. And, all of us recall Senator Durbin's honesty when he said the 'banks own the place."
Congress is NOT willing to take on the issues -- even as our infrastructure, our lives, etc., disintegrate around us.
This is getting ridiculous! The corporations are the SENIOR partner in the Business-Government-Corporate-State, so it is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE! - to be anti-imperial without also being in favor of ending the power of the corporations AND advocating the evolution to a post-capitalist world.
I repeat, libertarians are living in a fantasy world. They have never put forth a convincing argument about how to impliment their agenda in a world where transnational corporations - by definition, beyond national boundaries - have more power than most countries.
Do we forget that the orginal Boston Tea Party was directed against the British East India Company - the original imperialist corporation - along with the British government that backed them?
And Rand Paul isnt even a libertarian per se - did he not seek the endorsement of super-hawk Sarah Palin? He is pandering to the right-wing-nuts - see:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelley-beaucar-vlahos/rand-paul-drinks-tea-turn_b_589667.html
Just like Obama, Rand is in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan and kisses israels ass. I made these points a few days ago. If the Paul's want to end imperial overstretch, they have to take on the MIC - and THAT means taking on the corporations - the Israeli Lobby AND the fundamentalist christians who support both Israel and an anti-Muslim Jihad. Plus, there are plenty of such people in the highest ranks of the military.
Peak Oi, resource depletion, environmental degradation and climate change - without straight talk on all of these issues as THE number one priority of all of humanity, there is no solution. We need candidates at every level to start telling the hard truths NOW.
" .... but why don't we have the money, and why was responsibility for the poor left to the tender mercy of state governments while the federal government maintains a lavish welfare system for needy bankers who treat a few billion in government bailouts as chump change?"
"WHY?" Robert Sheer asks "Why?" corporate vetted and financed candidates, once in office, do the bidding of corporations.
It's telling that he has to ask.
I will play the teacher role here and let Robert Sheer come to an answer all on his own.
If by tomorrow you are still having trouble answering this question, Robert, I suggest you seek help from Ralph Nader.
"Are there no work houses; aren't there enough prisons?" E. Scrooge.
But, apparently, the people don't not of their own needs, except ,"American Idol" and "Sex in the City."
Don't forget professional sports. Not only does it sap the attention of the general citizenry, it permeates their lives more deeply and takes much, much time than a TV show or a one time movie.
I get what you're saying, I just tire of the same old clichés of blame when its the brain/wallet-draining sports cartel that distracts so many on so many socioeconomic levels for so many hours: 24/7 – 365 days a year.
Its a curious thing, why is "sports" exempted from blame?
"Are there no work houses; aren't there enough prisons?" E. Scrooge.
But, apparently, the people don't not of their own needs, except ,"American Idol" and "Sex in the City."
The fools keep voting in people from both wings of the Corporate Party. Forget the Donkey and the Elephant, this parties symbol is a huge rat in a three piece suit.
But there is hope folks, most communities still pay a bounty on dead rats! Help save America and earn money at the same time! (+)
Republicans offer nothing but war and deregulation. They have no answers for Wall Street rip-offs and there is no such thing as a Progressive Republican as only a Repressive Republican would belong to that ship of fools. The libertarians and anarchists share more in common with pirates and drug dealers than anything else in the U.S. today. Progressives like Grayson are ant-war, anti-corporate, and for the little guy in leveling the playing field. They are at least the most honest about their real agenda.
There's plenty of Progressive Republicans.
They're called Democrats.
"Republicans offer nothing but war and deregulation."
True-- as do the Democrats.
Who's in charge now? Look at the stinking mess we're in.
Grayson may be better than some but he too signed on the
dotted line for the corporate hideous health care deform bill and BTW, his Medicare "buy in" is nothing more than a gimmick.
When it came time for those "progressive" Democrats to show
their teeth on health care reform (single payer Medicare-For-All/"public
option") they ran with their tails in between their legs--not one left
standing--not even Kucinich.
If this is the best "progressive" Democrats can do, time to jump ship.
At least you know what the Greens stand for--if not please learn.
I left the Dem party--I'm an Indy now.
Go Indy or go Green.
Both parties are corrupt to high heaven.
Chelsea
Yes ---- in a three piece suit ---- a rat ---- with a gold tooth.
I find Rand Paul's politics, and that of his father's as well, to be far more dangerous for its surface appeal to liberals and moderates who fail to do their due diligence than, apparently, does the author..
Under the leadership of President Bill Clinton, Wall Street secured the radical deregulation of the financial industry that its lobbyists had long sought.
Oh, but El Slicko now says he was wrong. Poor guy. Let's give the SOB a break.
Why dismiss anyone's racism so easily?
Pointing out that Clinton's a jerk does nothing to excuse Paul.
Is there any reason beyond polemic convenience that makes this kind of reasoning so difficult for political commentators?
Libertarians concern me because they court the Left so much with their opposition to war (out of selfish isolationism, not for a love of peace and a hatred for bloodshed), support of drug legalization, wanting to repeal the Patriot Act.
The major parties can lift ideas from 3rd parties. That's one reason why Nader has continued to run. He hopes to influence the Democrats.
The economic conservative-social liberal mindset is really coming into vogue right now. It's good only in some ways, but is disastrous (save for a sliver of the populace) in many, many more.
Yes, blame Clinton by all means, but don't act like the Friedmanites are too fringe to matter or pat them on their heads for being pro-gay marriage. They definitely got in Obama's ear at some point, and look at where we are now.
I think liberals need to confront conservatives (and especially libertarians) with the clear history of the last 140 years (complete with statistics: percent of wealth held by the wealthiest 1%, etc).
We've been through Gilded Age, Age of FDR, and Age of Reagan. History is quite clear about how most Americans fared under each of these systems. Certainly, my liberalism is informed by this history. I don't believe in progressive taxation and 'big government' out of any doe-eyed belief in the goodness of government. History bears out that everything does better, especially and remarkably our capitalism, with higher progressive taxation, more involved governance, and more labor-friendly policies, than we currently demand.
Conservatives will spout nonsense like 'today is different' (its always different when its convenient for them to forget history). And Libertarians have practically nothing BUT theory to support their belief systems (if a little freedom is good, than nothing-but-freedom must be very good! just like if a hamburger is good, then 40 hamburgers is great!).
But liberals have history on their side. We've tried it the conservative way, twice now (Gilded Age, Reagan Age). In both cases, WallStreet flew until it hit the ground, Mainstreet became a harsh, hardscrabble, unfriendly place, and the country finally convulsed and threw massive quantities of ordinary folk into unemployment. Only the Age of FDR saw a steady expansion in America's economy, her people, her polity, her example to the world in civil rights, environment, industry, science, arts, etc. The contrast between these three periods in American history is particularly stark. Imagine flying to the moon during the Gilded Age or the Age of Reagan: it ain't happening. The money, the will, but most importantly, the Optimism just isn't there. In these Ages, its all about ME, me, me.
Just juxtapose these three era's in American history with the maximum marginal income tax bracket, and you'll see all you need to see about where America ought to be going, but isn't... YET.
Liberals have history on their side. They need to use it every chance they get. (and now you know why conservatives labor ceaselessly to rewrite history: its critical to their effort).
I give up! "The New World Order" of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski and their organizations: The Council on Foreign Relations, Tri-Lateral Commission, and Bilderberg Club is now "The Reality".......There is no more "Liberal Agenda"!
When you have a President that can maintain an "Assassination List", you have lost "The Rule of Law"! When you have Generals saying that they can "Invade"="Clandestine Operations" in whatever country they want, you have lost "The Rule of Law"! When you have a Congress that continues to fund Invasions,Kidnappings Tortures, and Murders, you have lost "The Rule of Law"!
When the government spent over 50 million dollars examining Bill Clinton's definition of sex, and only spent $600,000 dollars investigating the murder of almost 3,000 people on 9/11 and destroyed most of the evidence, the American People should have been in a rage. Instead, The American People were forced to accept their leaders' "Official Version"!
No, whether you are a Liberal, Libertarian, or Conservative, Henry and Zbigniew knew what was best for you and "Their Elite"!
Law is missing for sure, but it is the abandonment of morality that led the way. If people had a moral foundation, then laws wouldn't be needed.
And I'm not talking religion.
The Clinton Administration opposed repeal of Glass Steagall. Clinton signed the bill only because it had a veto-proof majority. Scheer is blaming Clinton for Congress' screw-up.
Highlights of the Clinton record. Eat your heart out, Obama:
Longest economic expansion in American history--a record 115 months of economic expansion
More than 22 million new jobs: more than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration
Highest home ownership in American history
Lowest unemployment in 30 years: unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000; unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women was the lowest in more than 40 years
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
Lowest crime rate in 26 years.
Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
Higher incomes at all levels: after falling by nearly $2,000 between 1988 and 1992, the median family's income rose by $6,338, after adjusting for inflation; all income brackets experienced double-digit growth; the bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth at 16.3 percent
Lowest poverty rate in 20 years
Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
Lowest infant mortality rate in American history
Deactivated more than 1,700 nuclear warheads from the former Soviet Union: efforts of the Clinton-Gore Administration led to the dismantling of more than 1,700 nuclear warheads, 300 launchers and 425 land and submarine based missiles from the former Soviet Union
Paid off $360 billion of the national debt: under Clinton, we were on track to pay off the entire debt by 2009; what a difference a stolen election makes...
Converted the largest budget deficit in American history to the largest surplus
Lowest government spending in three decades
Lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years
More families owned stock than ever before
Most New Jobs Ever Created Under a Single Administration: Republicans really chew the rug when you mention this one, so it's worth repeating constantly
Median Family Income Up $6,000 since 1993
Unemployment at Its Lowest Level in More than 30 Years
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: inflation was at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration
Highest Home ownership Rate on Record
7 Million Fewer Americans Living in Poverty
Largest Surplus Ever
Lower Federal Government Spending: after increasing under the previous two administrations, federal government spending as a share of the economy was cut from 22.2 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 2000--the lowest level since 1966
The Most U.S. Exports Ever: between 1992 and 2000, U.S. exports of goods and services grew by 74 percent, or nearly $500 billion, to top $1 trillion for the first time
Lowest Inflation since the 1960s: inflation was at the lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, down from 4.6 percent during the previous administration
Higher Incomes at All Levels: after years of stagnant income growth among average and lower-income families, all income brackets experienced double-digit income growth; the bottom 20 percent saw the largest income growth, at 16.3 percent
Lowest Poverty Rate in 20 Years: the poverty rate declined from 15.1 percent to 11.8 percent in 1999--the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years
The child poverty rate declined more than 25 percent
The poverty rate for single mothers was the lowest ever
The African American and elderly poverty rates dropped to their lowest level on record
The Hispanic poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 1979
Lowest Poverty Rate for Single Mothers on Record: under President Clinton, the poverty rate for families with single mothers fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 35.7 percent in 1999, the lowest level on record
Smallest Welfare Rolls Since 1969: between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 billion (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people
Lowest Federal Income Tax Burden in 35 Years: Federal income taxes as a percentage of income for the typical American family dropped to their lowest level in 35 years
Higher Incomes even after Taxes and Inflation: real after-tax incomes grew by an average of 2.6 percent per year for the lower-income half of taxpayers between 1993 and 1997, while growing by an average of 1.0 percent between 1981 and 1993
Largest investment in education in 30 years. Raised
education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment.
Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill.
"The Clinton Administration opposed repeal of Glass Steagall." But not his secretary of the treasury, Robert Rubin, who explicitly advocated reform or repeal of Glass Steagall in order to allow affiliations between banks and security firms.
So who in the administration opposed it?