Democrats, Remember Your History
Democrats, Remember Your History
Our guest blogger is John Halpin, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and co-author of “The Power of Progress: How Progressives Can (Once Again) Save Our Economy, Our Climate, and Our Country.”
Anyone who thinks that the Fed’s rescuing of AIG and Treasury Secretary Paulson’s unconditional, blank-check bailout plan somehow validate the beliefs of FDR needs a serious tutorial in the history of the Democratic Party.
Democrats, since the days of Thomas Jefferson, have always stood on principle against the predatory instincts of Wall Street, speculators, and bankers.
As political theorist Michael Sandel has noted, the fight between Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton over the First Bank of the United States (and Hamilton’s larger government-sponsored economic agenda) was a legendary battle about competing visions of the nation. Jefferson, seeking to uphold the civic republican tradition of the nation’s founding, argued that Hamilton’s national bank was unconstitutional and a “treasonous” tool of oppression supported by northern financial interests. Jefferson believed a central bank and national capitalism would undermine the economic independence and civic virtue of farmers and small producers. Hamilton, in turn, thought Jefferson’s economic vision for the country was quaint and would inhibit the nation from becoming a world leader in manufacturing and finance. He viewed the national bank as an essential engine of the American economy.
Hamilton won that debate but the Jeffersonian skepticism of a national bank and government-sponsored capitalism lived on. Sounding similar themes, President Andrew Jackson accused the Second Bank of the United States of supporting an economic elite that controlled Congress and was neglectful of southern and western agrarian interests. Three-time Democratic presidential candidate, William Jennings Bryan, picked up this strand of thought in his attacks on the early plans for the Federal Reserve system put forth by Republican Senator Nelson Aldrich, the Hamiltonian-inspired nemesis of progressives at the turn of the twentieth century. Aldrich, a close associate of J.P. Morgan, devised a plan to create a system of regional reserve banks with a central authority run by private bankers. The thought of turning the nation’s finances over to the “money trust” set the hair on fire of progressives like Bryan and Republican Senator Robert La Follette of Wisconsin who wanted full public control of the nation’s money supply and credit. After fierce congressional wrangling, President Wilson heeded Bryan’s warnings and eventually negotiated the hybrid Federal Reserve system we have today that preserves privately owned banks with a publicly controlled central board.
Which brings us to Franklin Roosevelt.
In the years preceding the Great Depression, many observers rightly concluded that Wilson’s Fed system allowed too much control by private bankers in relation to the public board. With the Banking Acts of 1933 and 1935, Roosevelt successfully placed more public authority over the Federal Reserve Board and created the open-market committee and the FDIC, setting the stage for his administration’s eventual saving of the private economy and the protection of millions of Americans.
As Bush, Paulson and Bernanke try to employ FDR’s rhetoric and methods to ram through a $700 billion taxpayer-backed bailout of the private sector, keep in mind that FDR undertook all of these prudent actions with the belief that he was serving the general welfare and not the private bankers and financiers he directly blamed for the Great Depression. He did so squarely within the confines of the Party’s long-standing spirit and traditions. FDR believed government intervention and control over the economy should only be used for the advancement of economic justice, the public good, and increased opportunities for the little guy. In no way, shape, or form did FDR approve of government intervention as a means for cementing economic privilege or screwing the people for the benefit of private interests.
That’s a lesson Congressional leadership would be wise to remember as they consider the actions of the Fed and the Paulson plan.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
please... stop placing democrats on a pedestal... fdr, despite his many pluses, shares at least as much responsibility for setting the stage for our present state as many of our more recent leaders... if you look at history honestly, the democrats and the republicans have both been intimately complicity in the on-going rape and pillage of our country and eroding the very foundations of the republic... they've managed to orchestrate a very elaborate and well-camouflaged hand-off from time to time, but, if you follow the money, it's going into the pockets of super-rich dems just as fast as it's going into the pockets of the super-rich r's... why do you think nancy pelosi, that disgusting excuse for a house majority leader, is supporing the bailout...? why do you think so many other democrats also support it, while making all sorts of appeasing noises about the poor homeowners and limiting executive compensation... gimme a break and stop lionizing the democrats... they're guilty as hell of creating our present dismal state and they show zero signs of seeking redemption...
And, yes, I DO take it personally
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:21 pmPARTY PROPAGANDA
The Bush psyops factory is using the technique of transference - saying we are just like FDR... just think of him and his respectable goodness.
They used the transference technique over and over when demanding cash from the congress for Iraq.
The major media, who have so lost sight of serving the public good that they follow the Repub talking points like they were they came from the pied piper himself -are slowly walking up - but still dead from the boardroom down...
It aint truth, it aint real -- its party propaganda while we get looted blind by a criminal regime.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 pmprofmarcus,
very trolly.
blame both sides
vote nader
elect mcsame.
*
very trolly.
:)
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:51 pmIf the taxpayers bail out these criminals, shouldn't each taxpayer get stock in the bailed out companies, of equal value to their share of the bail out?
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 pmThe modern conservative movement was founded on an anti-FDR agenda. Everything that conservatives have tried to do with regards to the financial world has been to reverse what FDR did. The diversion of money for Social Security accounts into private accounts invested in the stock market are all part of destroying FDR's legacy. And they will not stop until everything, including federal lands and public properties, are owned by private citizens. They must be stopped.
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:57 pmThe Bush bailout stands to spend $1 to 2 trillion buying up "mortgage related securities". Those could include credit default swaps, the peace of mind that moves credit. Goldman's swaps went from $100,000 last summer to $900,000 for a year's worth of coverage on $10 million.
No poor people buy credit default swaps. The rich effectively decided not to buy each other's credit last week, unless there were significant guarantees. So the Bush bailout helps what were once Wall Street investment houses pushing mortgage debt and their "coverage".
But it gets better. Bush pushed the Fed to relax ownership restrictions on commercial banks. Just this evening the Wall Street Journal reported private equity firms can buy larger chunks of regulated banks. The Carlyle Group's financial division has an ex-number 2 to Paulson and the brother of French President Sarkozy. They just got their second present in 10 months from Bush. The first was a Christmas gift of ManorCare approval.
Carlyle stands to win multiple ways from the bailout. They might get to roll up the remains of Carlyle Capital Corporation through the vehicle. They stand to buy back ManorCare's mortgage security debt of $4.6 billion for pennies on the dollar.
Jefferson would be appalled. So would FDR. But, we're being Bushed again!
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pmMr. Schneider: I think you mean the NeoCons won't stop till everything is owned by CORPORATIONS, not persons. Probably Int'l corporations at that.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:10 pmWillowOrchid,
As my boss explained to me once, a corporation owns nothing. Its share holders own the assets of the corporation. So it will be in the hands of private citizens. But I do agree with you about one thing - many of those private citizens may be non-Americans owning American soil and properties.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:25 pmjoe cantwell, profmarcus is definitely not a troll.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 pmThat's why private citizens have corporations -- to avoid taxes.
Do I have that right?
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:29 pmhttp://progressiveaccountability.org/ A little off topic...but about that "PORK" that McCain rails against...umm, not so much:) He IS a porker!!
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:30 pmI am a Democrat but I agree with much of what profmarcus said. Also, to comment at any length would be funny because this is a 200 plus year old argument. The debate goes book counter book. Halpin put a very kind face on President Wilson's role as Wilson himself later expressed regret. In a semi-side note, Dick Cheney and more than a few in this administration are Federalist, a group that is alive and well, and is busy undermining our legal system for power and profit.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:41 pm..I got an email from democrats.com saying:
"George Bush wants taxpayers to pay $700 billion to bail out Wall Street for its reckless investments in mortgage-backed securities. That's on top of $800 billion for other recent bailouts, including A.I.G., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns."
Can someone explain this? Is this right or wrong? Is it really $1.5 Trillion?
Robert Scheer on DemocracyNow today said we need a criminal investigation of Paulson, Rubin, Gramm, and others who benefited from this fraud and bailout.
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 pmKeith,
Don't forget the "no oversight" clause.
The criminal Bush is aiding and abetting the criminals.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:02 amMost likely this 700 billion dollar bailout will only last ubtil Nov 4th if it even goes that far.The super rich elite of this country have raped and pillaged and now they will be rewarded for it by us the middle class tax payers.These greedy SOB`s need to be horse whipped and tarred and feathered and a few other things to.These people of wealth can never have enough of it, while we in the middle class get stiffed once again.My daughter is sickened at the fact that college is going to cost her even more because of the interest rate she will have to bear and is wondering if it is really worth going into debt over.From what I see Laisse Faire Trade does not work without regulations and neither can the banking world work without them.Regulations and oversight do keep people honest and honesty seems to be in short supply with these greedy SOB`s.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 amZooster,
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 amI believe it was Scheer that said today that the Treasury Sec will have vast secret powers under this proposal. No oversight. Problem is there ain't no 'sanity clause'.
The other day I noticed a humorous closed-captioning error, which now doesn't seem quite so funny: 'treasury secretary' got turned into "treachery secretary." :(
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:13 am"Problem is there ain’t no ’sanity clause’."
Ah, classic Marx Brothers!
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:15 am"Democrats, Remember Your History"
yea... wait till you hear what bill fookin clinton said
to david letterman just now...
certified pr!ck.
david asks about how to fix this mess, the economy, and WHY would anyone WANT the job?
and bill says that it would be a great time to be president,
because you know it couldn't get any worse...
"... and john mccain or barack obama would be..."
i'm sorry - i started screaming at the man at that time...
'cause during the course of this conversation i was mentally coaching him, c'mon bill - make your pitch for your guy...
c'mon bill do the right thing...
and damn if he didn't just spit on him... put the name of george w. mcBUSH ahead of his own party's nominee - the ONLY person qualified and ABLE to fix this mess.
i can't believe he did that.
...
and he's STILL doing it, propping up mcCRAZY....
aaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGH.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:20 amsorry, john halpin...
...
and he is STILL doin' it...
thanks bill. thanks a whole lot.
how's YOUR 401k doin'?
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:23 amTwo pieces in the NYT show how the big boys benefit from the Bush bailout. The first shows Carlyle's chief David Rubenstein drooling over the multiple ways for his PEU to make more kajillions:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-us-carlyle.html
The second involves the Fed rule relaxation allowing greater private investment in commercial banks:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-us-financials-fed-minorities.html
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 amRasmussen Poll: just 28% support what has been proposed so far. Thirty-seven percent oppose it and 35% are unsure.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 am*
CHRIS ROCK SAW IT TOO!!!
"IS IT JUST ME OR DID HE NOT WANT TO SAY
THE NAME BARACK OBAMA!"
and dave acknowledged it too... but wanted diplomacy, "now..."
"SHE LOST!"
good on you, chris rock. HE will tell it.
wow.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:31 amIt seems to me for the most part that republicans, conservative republicans and neocon republicans have one agenda; to acquire as much of the nation's money, through whatever means, for themselves. With this capital they assume comes automatic power. Since they have nothing of substance to offer anyone at anytime, they feel the need to control. Once again, by any means necessary, control the populace. Its relatively easy too as history has proven. Then the avarice for control clouds all other rationale and becomes their sole reason for existence and the basis for all subsequent decisions, which are usually poorly thought out and usually had bad consequences. This has all been tried before in many countries over many eras. All with the same result, crash and burn. Now they want to take $700 Billion of tax payer money or Chinese money or wherever they get it (notice they never use their own capital either individually or as a pool) to alledgedly avert economic disaster. To make it simple they wanted to make boat-loads of money as quickly as possibly and sank the ship. And now they want a do over, free of charge and without any real or perceivable oversight. This is unacceptable. The only I could ever support a bailout of these proportions is with massive oversight and without CEO's and without lobbyists. Let the employees run the businesses and let them have an actual stake in its success. If they can't agree to those terms then to hell with them. Let them fail. Then they get to see what life is like being poor or middle class. Then they may get to see what its like to decide whether to buy food or gas. No more paying yourself a bonus to have whatever you want. Now its real money to make the very real mortgage payment or rent. Try asking one of your neocon friends for a loan so you can get back on your feet and back in the game and watch them drop you like a hot stone.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 amThis country is sick and needs healing. Not more charades to justify handing out millions and billions to ever-greedy rich people to further indulge their delusions of grandeur while they laugh at the rest of us. The best way to learn a lesson is the hard way. Protect anyone that was defrauded directly and pensions of the elderly. But for the people directly responsible for this debacle, I say let them fall. And hard!
BUSH'S BAILOUTS: $1.8 TRILLION & COUNTING by Bob Fertik:
http://www.democrats.com/bush-bailouts-1.8-trillion-and-counting
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 amKaty @ 19
I feel your pain and damn what is wrong with him? Is he that selfish to risk a neocon supreme court, continued ruination of our country hoping Hilary can run/win in 4 years?
Is Hilary out there supporting Obama? If not then the agenda is truly there.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 amIt's interesting that no one has said anything about the price tag of the war in relation to this.
These bailouts are more than twice what we've already paid for the war in Iraq.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:00 amMr. Evil,
I do understand the right as I used to be one of them. I was arrogant, thought Reagan and our government was wonderful, would grow very bored if a co worker of color talked of discrimination. It took a few journeys in life to come to my senses. Now, I can't stand others that have the same qualities I had such as feeling superior to others, being completely oblivious to current events but into appearances and at the same time not seeing the flaw in this because after all I thought I was perfect.
Those on the right think only THEY can handle our government, will do anything to win as the end justifies the means to them.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:21 amThis Republican/Democrat argument that there all the same is not quite true.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:29 amWhile both may steal some money (I say that just to appease) one way to tell for sure is the Republican votes no to preschool, headstart and school lunchs, and the Democrat will vote yes.
It's pretty simple to see why people think Republicans are greedy self serving bastards. It's also easy to see why sane people vote Democratic.
.
Baaaaaaa...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiO9FE3TiG4
.
September 23rd, 2008 at 3:57 amIts time to send the banksters, the neocons, the neoliberals and all their political henchmen to a Chinese labor camp and force feed them melamine-tainted baby formula. After a month or so of this enriched diet, push them out of an airplane circling Wall Street without a parachute.
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:16 amBlaming the Democrats for this current mess is complete and utter fabrication if not evidence of extreme dementia.
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 amBTW -- I fully admit FDR--arguably the greatest President in American history and the Father of Our Modern Country--was a liberal reformer and national reconstructionist (as well as a war leader) and not looking to radically transform the system. He was trying to save capitalism and did by forcing social-democratic adaptations upon it. He would not have rejoiced over the current situation. His plan was for a tripartite establishment of Government Business and Labor. (Furthermore, FDR wanted to pass a New Bill of Rights that included universal healthcare.) But what do we have now? A Government broken by those who hijacked it. They are criminals and should be treated as such.
He was an aristocrat with a difference. If you're going to throw mud on him at least give your reasons. Otherwise it's just useless empty-headedness. You could just as flippantly say George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin set the stage for the crisis of predatory capitalism existing today. But that wouldn't make much sense unless you could show proximate cause. In other words, those closest to perpetrating the malefaction are the guilty parties.
====
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:48 amI am opposed to any bailout--certainlyt the Cheney-Bush-Paulson version. If we have to have something, let's look at the Dodd bill as a point of departure. Authority to spend anything must have strenuous, non-partisan oversight and cronyism must be beaten down.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:58 amWe're still fighting the Red Coats. It's obvious.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:38 amThe Republicans and Bush Administration are looking for a bailout for their 400 friends on Wall Street and the upper .1% with no oversight. No surprise there. "Money for nothin', that's the way ya do it."
But hold on... what better time ( since we are going to have to borrow the money anyway from our grandkids) to set up that proverbial "lock box" and secure the funds for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid?
Hell, if we're Borrowing money from future generations to the tune of Trillions of Dollars, we might as well fund Universal Health CARE this way. No?
If we have the funny money for the Iraq war and to bail out poor investments that the taxpayers have to pay... might as well make it worth our while, no?
Because, IMHO they are just trying to break the bank so some of these programs will be impossible to implement. Don't fall for it again.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:52 amprofmarcus @ #1
In order to clean house we need to get our house elected.
We don't need concern trolls here and now.
Comeback in 09.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 amFor a really detailed explanation of the origins of the Federal Reserve, watch all parts (5) of the Zeitgeist:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=zeitgeist+federal+reserve&search_type=&aq=f
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 amProf Marcus is not a troll.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:45 amAnd if you think that our elected Dems don't have investments in banking, oil, defense, insurance and drug companies, and it doesn't cloud their judgement, you are an idiot.
My demands as a taxpayer in return for the bailouts:
1)Everyone who lost their home and needs a home to live in gets their home back with clear title, no mortgage. (Part of the bailout is their future wealth and if the people pay the price for these mortgages, they should get the properties)
2) Everyone who currently owns a mortgage on a home and is not in default, now gets clear title and their mortgage is wiped from the books just to be fair - the banks are gettin a tone of money for these properties.
3) Low cost health, auto, home and life insurance policies issued by AIG to every person in America.
OR
700 billion to one trillion dollars distributed to every person age 18 or over with amounts determined by current income level and no money goes to the top 5%-10% of earners.
OR
we can just give away our future wealth to one man, who will then turn and give it to a few hundred people - who will keep it and never return it to the economy in any way, shape or form in exchange for pieces of commercial paper with a current value of $0.00 and a realistic future value of $0.00 because who in the hell would buy defaulted paper?
This last one is called trickle down economics or rich people peeing on yo9u, however you want to look at it. We've been getting hosed on for quite some time and all we get is hosed again and again so it's time for some bottom up economics instead.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:26 amOf course some democrats are as entrenched as republicans in this K Street environment of corruption. There will always be bad apples in a barrel.
A few points on that though:
1) We are seeing a new progressive element in legislature develop right before our eyes. Look at Kucinich, Dodd, Feingold, and a host of other newer faces that don't have much notoriety. Look for even more new progressive faces after this coming election. I believe the whole dem/repub paradigm is shifting.
2) To just lump dems in with repubs as being part of the problems we are facing now, in terms of the financial crisis, is to ignore the fact that the policies responsible for this melt-down were ram-rodded down the throat of Americans and Congress by a Republican majority of all branches of government from 2000 to 2006.
3) After 35 + years of supply side, trickle down economics being the dominant financial ideology of Washington, and seeing these policies under the above said republican majority come to such disastrous fruition, defenders of this ideology really have no leg to stand on in debating these issues. We have tried this philosophy and it has failed miserably.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 amAnd really let's call this what it is - it is not a bailout. It is the largest redistribution of wealth in American and probably world history. And it's not redistribution of top end wealth to the poor, which is something noble in my view, it is giving the poor's money to the wealthy. 700 billion is not just near term future wealth it is the foreseeable future's entire wealth.
It is better these banks go under and we rebuild from the ashes than to enslave our future generations to the government. Right now most of us pay a third to half of our income out in some sort of tax but mostly income tax. What percentage will the government demand in the future with this bill coming home to roost? 2/3rds? Don't laugh. Prior to Reagan the top 1% of earners in this country paid taxes as high as 75% on their income. That tax level is now 15% as most people in that bracket don't earn salaries, they make "capital gains" - formerly and more accurately known as "unearned income." Those who do earn incomes from work at this level still only pay a measly third out if they have very bad tax accountants and financial planners. With good ones they pay nothing to almost nothing. Slowly, but surely, the wealthy have been pushing the tax burden down the economic ladder and in this one fell swoop, will ensure that it will happen sooner and to a much larger degree.
Oh,and by the by, the amendment to the Constitution that allwoed the government to tax income for the first tim ein history (16th Amendment - 1913)was sold to the public on the idea that only the top 5% of earners would be paying it. The tax code had five brackets, the low end of income taxed began at $100,000 at 1% up to the highest bracket of $500,000 or more at 5%. In 1913! Translated to today that would mean only a percentage of the top 1% would be paying any taxes at all - maybe we should hold Congress to their original promise.
Anything, anything at all is better than this idea.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:43 amWilson was beholden to the banking lobbyists who helped him get elected. The Central Bank legislation was passed on Christmas Eve when most DC pols were home for the holidays. Wilson later wrote that the creation of the Federal Reserve system was his greatest regret, saying:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
Why should the American people pay interest to a private corporation to "borrow" OUR OWN CURRENCY? There is no way to ever, ever pay off that debt since you are in debt from the first dollar onwards.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm...I'd also like to point out that all this is being paid for by a Federal income tax that is illegal.
There's a lot of BS and bologna arguments as to why the Federal income tax is true a la tinfoil hat groups & sea lawyers, but there are a few valid arguments which, in any case, are enitirely moot since the amendment added to the US Constitution to create the Federal income tax in the first place was never ratified! Take a few moments to check: only a handful of states signed on, not the plurality an amendment to the Constitution requires.
The courts have acknowledged this fact, but have essentially said, "Yeah, it's not legal but since so much time has passed, we're enforcing as if it was the law and therefore it IS the law." (I don't remember the Latin legal phrase.)
Interestingly enough, that very same argument was used regarding the personhood status of corporations. This "law" is based on a case summary written by a court clerk (who was a former railroad lobbyist) in the case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) and has subsequently stretched and abused the 14th amendment for the benefit of our corporate masters rather than for former slaves at a rate of 9:1, meaning
"Of the 150 cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment heard by the Supreme Court up to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 that established the legal standing of 'separate but equal,' 15 involved blacks and 135 involved business entities."
Class dismissed.
(quote from Doug Hammerstrom, reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf)
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 pmWhile we're on the topic of history, here's the video of Biden explaining how FDR got on television to handle the stock market crash of 1929:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/23/biden-on-fdrs-management-of-the-1929-crash/
Obviously, a couple of problems. FDR wasn't the president in 29, and television wasn't evented yet.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 pmor invented.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:14 pm