Tuesday, September 23, 2008

e-mail from Denis Kucinch about the economic crisis

Protecting the public interest in any economic "bailout"

Back from motivational clips to real news. You've heard what dictator Paulston has to say, curiously, no address from Bush! You can't make it up. Well, you heard solutions from Republican Ron Paul here that you won't see in any mainstream UK media outlets. Now, here, in the fold beneath, is an e-mail just this minute sent out by Denis Kucinich on his solutions. For background on him. He was responsible for putting forward 35, yes, 35 articles of impeachment of George W Bush. As the UK media didn't cover a whisper of impeachment proceedings, you won't read this in any UK newspapers or see it on any UK TV shows. Forget expecting any sense from any UK "politicians".

Posted by planning4acrash @ 06:02 PM (1162 views)
Please complete the required fields.



15 thoughts on “e-mail from Denis Kucinch about the economic crisis

  • planning4acrash says:

    Protecting the public interest in any economic “bailout”

    Dear Friend,

    The U.S. government has been turned into an engine that accelerates the wealth upwards into the hands of a few. The Wall Street bailout, the Iraq War, military spending, tax cuts to the rich, and a for-profit health care system are all about the acceleration of wealth upwards. And now, the American people are about to pay the price of the collapse of the $513 trillion Ponzi scheme of derivatives. Yes, that’s half a quadrillion dollars. Our first trillion dollar compression bandage will hardly stem the hemorrhaging of an unsustainable Ponzi scheme built on debt “de-leverages.”

    Does anyone seriously think that our public and private debts of some $45 trillion will be paid? That the administration’s growth of the federal debt from $5.6 trillion to $9.8 trillion while borrowing another trillion dollars from Social Security has nothing to do with this? Does anyone not see that when we spend nearly $16,000 for every family of four in our society for the military each year that we are heading over the cliff?

    This is a debt crisis, not a credit crisis. Just as FDR had to save capitalism after Wall Street excesses, we have to re-invigorate our economy with real – not imaginary – growth. It does not address the never-ending war on the middle class.

    The same corporate interests that profited from the closing of U.S. factories, the movement of millions of jobs out of America, the off-shoring of profits, the out-sourcing of workers, the crushing of pension funds, the knocking down of wages, the cancellation of health care benefits, the sub-prime lending are now rushing to Washington to get money to protect themselves.

    The double standard is stunning: their profits are their profits, but their losses are our losses.

    This bailout will not bring real jobs back to America. It will not bring back jobs that make things. It does not rebuild our schools, streets, neighborhoods, parks or bridges. The major product of this financial economy is now debt. Industrial capitalism has been destroyed.
    In the next few days I will push for a plan that includes equity for every American in any taxpayer investment in this so-called bail-out plan. Since the bailout will cost each and every American about $2,300, I have proposed the creation of a United States Mutual Trust Fund, which will take control of $700 billion in stock assets, convert those assets to shares, and distribute $2,300 worth of shares to new individual savings accounts in the name of each and every American.
    I will also insist that all of the following issues be considered in whatever Congress passes:

    Reinstatement of the provisions of Glass-Steagall, which forbade speculation
    Re-regulation of the finance, insurance, and real estate industries
    Accountability on the part of those who took the companies down:
    a) resignations of management
    b) givebacks of executive compensation packages
    c) limitations on executive compensation
    d) admission by CEO’s of what went wrong and how, prior to any government bailout
    Demands for transparencey
    a) with respect to analyzing the transactions which took the companies down
    b) with respect to Treasury’s dealings with the companies pre and post-bailout
    An equity position for the taxpayers
    a) some form of ownership of assets
    Some credible formula for evaluating the price of the assets that the government is buying.
    A sunset clause on the legislation
    Full public disclosure by members of Congress of assets held, with possible conflicts put in blind trust.
    A ban on political campaign contributions from officers of corporations receiving bailouts
    A requirement that 2008 cycle candidates return political contributions to officers and representatives of corporations receiving bailouts
    And, most importantly, some mechanism for direct assistance to homeowners saddled with unreasonable or unmanageable mortgages, as well as protection for renters who have lived up to their obligation but fall victim to financial tragedy when the property they live in undergoes foreclosure.

    These are just some thoughts on the run. You will hear more from me tomorrow.

    Dennis J Kucinich
    http://www.Kucinich.us
    216-252-9000 877-933-6647

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • If Dennis doesn’t watch out, he could be called a socialist….

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • You won’t see it on UK news, because we’re not the same country. I don’t go to America expecting to see blow-by-blow coverage of the Labour Party Conference on Fox News.

    I believe that our UK politicians are more honest and less corrupt than the Americans. You only have to look at the issue of campaign finance – in America it’s normal for a Congressman to receive millions of dollars in donations from companies and individuals; whereas even our cash-for-honours scandal involved piddling sums of money.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • planning4acrash says:

    Yup. There is a split here in the opposition. The true Conservatives who believe in limited government want an end to the entire system and straight forward return to the Constitution. The true Democrats, those who believe in government intervention in the name of general welfare, want a new deal scenario, where bankers aren’t bailed out, but where the citizens are bailed out. I’d personally go for a hybrid where we get a bail out of the general public as a transition towards constitutional limited government. What we are seeing played out, is a bail out of the corporate elite as a transition towards global socialised corporatism.

    Denis would probably have no problem being called a socialist. That’s what a democrat means. Democracy means using the force of the law to take money from one group to benefit another. That’s why it often ends in despotism. I prefer constitutional moderism or conservatism, where individual rights are upheld by a constitutional government, but do see a limited place for government intervention. Here’s a video that helps explain it

    Its tough for me, because I’m a planner who belatedly moved towards traditional conservatism, yet I can’t let go of the belief that it is right for the government to stop private individuals from pulling down a listed building. Tho I am aware that much of today’s socialism is a result of fiat currency. We wouldn’t see so much threat to our built environment and more cash would be available for maintenance without free liquidity for investment bankers and inflation for consumers.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • planning4acrash says:

    Drewster. The crisis is originating from America, we predict things here, you can’t predict them without looking over the little pond, to a HUGE country that is separated from us by a short fiber optic cable. I am one of HPC’s self styled American Correspondents. Does that help you understand my perceived role? Maybe I should set up a second screen name “American Correspondent” when speaking of such matters for the benefit of Drewster?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • p4ac,

    The American political system has a much wider divide between parties than the UK. The gerrymandering of boundaries means that most representatives are in safe seats. Their primary agenda is whipping up a frenzy amongst their voters, not making nuanced and well-balanced decisions. This personality split can be found in the media too – there are left-wing and right-wing newspapers, radio stations, tv channels, websites, etc. The unfortunate consequence of all this is that it becomes difficult to uncover the real story, because each side will only tell you the facts that support its argument.

    It has been interesting this week to see the US blogosphere engaged in battling down the $700bn bail-out, but I don’t think we need to post every little snippet from blogs and self-interested politicians across the pond.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • planning4acrash says:

    Denis is the main resistance to this within the Democrat party. Ron Paul is the main counter to this in the Republican Party. It is very important to blog these. The American system at the moment is a two party dictatorship.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • 4. planning4acrash said…

    “Yup. There is a split here in the opposition. The true Conservatives who believe in limited government want an end to the entire system and straight forward return to the Constitution. The true Democrats, those who believe in government intervention in the name of general welfare, want a new deal scenario, where bankers aren’t bailed out, but where the citizens are bailed out. I’d personally go for a hybrid where we get a bail out of the general public as a transition towards constitutional limited government. What we are seeing played out, is a bail out of the corporate elite as a transition towards global socialised corporatism.”
    Denis would probably have no problem being called a socialist. That’s what a democrat means. Democracy means using the force of the law to take money from one group to benefit another. That’s why it often ends in despotism. I prefer constitutional moderism or conservatism, where individual rights are upheld by a constitutional government, but do see a limited place for government intervention. Here’s a video that helps explain it”

    Firstly, that video is nonsense – right is individualism or responsibility for oneself only, left is collectivism or responsibility to others. Obviously, the ideal is a mix. The left, or socialism, does not automatically equal government intervention (George Orwell, William Morris and indeed Marx would turn in their graves)- that is statism, which results in despotism. Democracy is nothing to do with forced distribution of wealth. Again, that is statism. True socialism is the natural distribution of wealth – this results when the minority cannot hoard what belongs to all by force.

    “Its tough for me, because I’m a planner who belatedly moved towards traditional conservatism, yet I can’t let go of the belief that it is right for the government to stop private individuals from pulling down a listed building. Tho I am aware that much of today’s socialism is a result of fiat currency. We wouldn’t see so much threat to our built environment and more cash would be available for maintenance without free liquidity for investment bankers and inflation for consumers.”

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government denying the right of a private individual to tear down a listed building – it’s enforcing law, not intervention. The difference is that laws should be decided by the people and have a moral basis.
    I share a lot of common ground with traditional conservatives and libertarians – where I differ is that I believe that we have a common responsibility to look after others as well as ourselves. That means that responsibility extends downwards from those with power (to ensure a fair society) rather than just upwards (where we all obey the law and keep our mouths shut).

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • planning4acrash says:

    That’s why I think it great that Denis and Ron Paul both have put their opposing ideas out there. Both are better than the status quo, and I’d like to see them debate it and wish they were in the majority!

    Surely socialism is statism?! Individuals or communities providing social goods is charity, something supported very much by Libertarians.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Socialism is a very broad church.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

    People associate it with state control because this is the only form we have seen on a national basis. Similarly we have only really seen state/corporate-controlled capitalism at work. Unfortunately, most systems involving small government are somewhat utopian because the aggressive and power-hungry few inevitably want control and riches. In a democracy this is obtained through coersion, as you know – we know the lies – statist socialists are doing it ‘for the people’, corporatists replace the state with corporations but nevertheless retain ultimate control. After all, who controls you for 8 hours a day?

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Meant to post this from the Wiki –

    “Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; libertarian socialists advocate co-operative worker ownership of the means of production; most Marxists (some inspired by the Soviet economic model), advocate centrally-planned economies. By contrast, Social-Anarchists, Luxemburgists, the U.S. New Left and various forms of libertarian socialism favor decentralized ownership via co-operative workers’ councils and participatory planning.”

    The common theme is common, rather than private, ownership and collective effort for the common good.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Good to see an intelligent discussion of the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘conservatism’ for once, instead of the usual Daily Mail ranting palinesque caricatures. Ship…I’m a fan.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • Good to see an intelligent discussion of the terms ‘socialism’ and ‘conservatism’ for once, instead of the usual Daily Mail ranting palinesque caricatures. Ship…I’m a fan.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • planning4acrash says:

    I personally feel that most of the issues surrounding socialism are clouded by the issue of fiat currency and inflation. Now, the printing of money can be from the state or corporations, but is really command and control economics. Is it Marxist? But the main point is, that inflation causes economic and social problems, so feeds on itself. Inflation causes bubbles and crashes that inevitably result in bail outs, that really end up being consolidation of power in the hands of the big boys, with all roads leading to oligarchy. Much of the need for state ownership is that the uncertainty and inflation stops the free market from working, so industries key to sustaining the state, not necessary the needs and wants of the people, must be nationalised to sustain the state, because of its failure to embrace sound money and free market economics.

    The other issue is, that social problems result from the instability and inflation from fiat currency. 9/10ths of the needs for socialised housing come from the business cycle. If we didn’t have housing booms you could cut the need for housing benefit, council housing and housing corporations very significantly, given that there isn’t a shortage of housing, its just that, without free markets being allowed to work, prices inflate and distort the market.

    The same is true for healthcare, public transport, many things.

    Only problem is, that these excess socialist projects, required to keep society together, to maintain the integrity of the state, become and means for justifying government, so they are never let go of.

    So, get rid of the baggage of fiat currency, bring in sound money and eliminate inflation and significantly reduce the business cycle, and much of today’s socialism becomes obsolete, as does much of the size of government. With more money in the hands of the people, yet more of the role of the state would return to private charities. Socialism would then be such a small thing, that it would no longer be debated of as a key concept around which nations are formed, because economic and personal liberty and protection of it would become the key role of the state, with some democratically mandated interventions, only from direct taxation, being a small part of what the government does, but with people being extremely vigilant to avoid a government so large that it would be tempted to start printing money for its own activities.

    Many of these ideas are incapsulated in Ron Paul’s “The Revolution”, and in Lew Rockwell’s Lew Rockwell Show” podcast.

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



  • planning4acrash says:

    In quick summary, I think that the left and right you discuss, Shippy, is of whether government or corporations are responsible for the printing of fiat money.

    The spectrum I discuss, that’s in the video posted above, is about the form of government, from all power in one person on the left (monarchy), to each individual having full control of themselves (anarchy)

    – One of the major problems today is that debate is brought down to left or right, creating the two party dictatorships. It is as if we are on animal farm and have distilled our political ideas to “Two legs bad, four legs good!”

    Reply
    Please complete the required fields.



Add a comment

  • Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
  • Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>