NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[imaplanner]

Yes, you are wrong.

.

You are wrong. You are talking about a political party where over 40 percent of it's members believe our African-American president was born in in Kenya, due to no evidence whatsoever. Like I said, statewide office means nothing. Thanks for playing though.

 

[PennPlanner]

There are too many Democrats who still want to believe that Republicans are racist and sexist people, the party of narrow-minded white Southerners or rednecks and unable to lead a modern, 21st century United States. I gave you credible evidence that non-white Republicans have succeeded very well in heavily Republican states, including the deep, deep South, and you dismiss it as not being good enough for you?

Fine, I'm tired of playing this game too.

You are wrong. You are talking about a political party where over 40 percent of it's members believe our African-American president was born in in Kenya, due to no evidence whatsoever. Like I said, statewide office means nothing. Thanks for playing though.

 

[mgk920]

You know, there is one interesting question that I have never seen or heard discussed in any medium, ever since BHO came onto the political scene and was being touted as a 'black' politician - "Discuss for us your family's ancestral experiences with slavery as it was practiced in the USA prior to 1865".

^o)

Mike

 

[kalimotxo]

There are too many Democrats who still want to believe that Republicans are racist and sexist people, the party of narrow-minded white Southerners or rednecks and unable to lead a modern, 21st century United States. I gave you credible evidence that non-white Republicans have succeeded very well in heavily Republican states, including the deep, deep South, and you dismiss it as not being good enough for you?

Fine, I'm tired of playing this game too.

As long as Republicans keep pandering to the loudest, most ignorant segment of their base, it's going to be difficult for them to shake that perception. On paper, I agree with Republican governing philosophy just as much, if not more, than Democrats. But until they start condemning the nonsense spouted by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and the so-called Christian Right, I have no interest in deigning to vote for about 95% of them.

Southern states electing black Republicans is not necessarily a new phenomenon. They're obviously going to have a better shot at statewide office in these areas than black Democrats. I don't mean to sound too cynical about what compels people to vote the way they do, but I'm sure some conservative southern whites are mesmerized when they hear black politicians speaking out against affirmative action, entitlement programs, and the liberal elite. Furthermore, most of those elected are very conservative Christians. Nikki Haley's Sikh heritage was actually an issue in the SC race. Do you think Bobby Jindal would have won in LA if he was still a practicing Hindu? Of course not. (His history as an exorcist, however, was readily forgiven)

This is not solely a Republican tendency either. I'm sure there were thousands of Obama voters who wanted to be part of electing the first mixed race president. I personally know Obama voters who have their own racial biases... voting for a black man did not magically make them go away.

As for Michael Steele, that's a pretty poor example. He won as a very moderate Republican in a heavily Democratic state.

 

[CJC]

You know, there is one interesting question that I have never seen or heard discussed in any medium, ever since BHO came onto the political scene and was being touted as a 'black' politician - "Discuss for us your family's ancestral experiences with slavery as it was practiced in the USA prior to 1865".

^o)

Mike

Why is this surprising? Everyone knows that he's not the descendant of American slaves, so why would they ask the question?

"Black" does not equal "descendant of American slaves" - unless I'm mistaken ^o)

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

There are too many Democrats who still want to believe that Republicans are racist and sexist people, the party of narrow-minded white Southerners or rednecks and unable to lead a modern, 21st century United States. I gave you credible evidence that non-white Republicans have succeeded very well in heavily Republican states, including the deep, deep South, and you dismiss it as not being good enough for you?

Fine, I'm tired of playing this game too.

I have voted for R's in the past. However, they started losing me during the Clinton impeachment debacle. They had people who had done worse openly, and hypocritically pointing the finger at him. Since then, they have drifted into extremeism-be it on moral issues or on free market-capitalism. Like others have said, they pander to the extreme of their base and moderates seem rarer then hens teeth.

As for pointing out that a view have been Indian, African American or Hispanic is to highlight that their have soo few of them. Those examples only blow up in your face and prove the opposite point. Regarding the Indians, I agree with the point that if they had remained Hindii, the would not have gotten elected.

 

[wahday]

You know, there is one interesting question that I have never seen or heard discussed in any medium, ever since BHO came onto the political scene and was being touted as a 'black' politician - "Discuss for us your family's ancestral experiences with slavery as it was practiced in the USA prior to 1865".

^o)

Mike

As CJC pointed out, "Black" colloquially refers to ANYONE of African descent. Are you saying he does not fit that description? I have a hard time seeing anyone legitimately claim that he is not a Black Politician. But I can see where you are heading with this.

What I would say, and I have said this to others who have raised the "But Obama isn't REALLY and African American..." issue is:

Does it really matter if you are a kid growing up in the US and you are black - in whatever configuration that may have come about? People still make the assumption that you are African-American with all the baggage that implies and treat you accordingly. The average person on the street, teachers, shop owners, etc. are not going to engage in an inquiry about one's ancestry - "oh, you're half African and not the descendant of slaves? Ok, well, I guess I will treat you differently" People base their behavior on what they can perceive and to the average American, Obama appears to be African-American.

The African American experience is impacted not only by a direct connection to the experience of slavery but also (and perhaps more profoundly) by how the rest of society views and treats this population now. Besides, not a single black American of Obama's generation experienced American slavery firsthand either. So what? Does that mean that people still do not experience discrimination or have to deal with the numerous false assumptions people make of them on a daily basis? (are they dangerous? Are they hostile? Are they going to make me uncomfortable?) Of course not.

The Black Experience (or white, or any experience at all) is just that - the experience people have in the world and that is impacted by how others treat you as much as by one's personal history. Besides, its not like being a Luo in Kenya during his father's era under British colonial rule was any picnic (not that his dad was around much to impart that experience, but my point is that just because someone is from Africa does not mean they have not experienced imperialist oppression. Hey, I have grad certificate in African Studies so I think about these things...)

Lastly, I don't think Obama leans heavily on claiming the African American experience as some sort of legitimacy to the presidency. And its not like he has tried to cover anything up about his heritage - he wrote two books about his past before he even ran for president, afterall. Its all in there.

 

[TerraSapient]

As long as Republicans keep pandering to the loudest, most ignorant segment of their base, it's going to be difficult for them to shake that perception. On paper, I agree with Republican governing philosophy just as much, if not more, than Democrats. But until they start condemning the nonsense spouted by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, and the so-called Christian Right, I have no interest in deigning to vote for about 95% of them...

Well said kalimotxo! I wanted to say this exact thing yesterday, but decided not to post it because I'm not very active in this thread and didn't want to end up putting my foot in my mouth if I started a big argument. I completely agree with being fiscally conservative, to a point. Social programs are extremely important, but we desperately need to curb our spending, cut budgets, and diminish the size of government. However, I would never vote for a Republican candidate for precisely the reasons you mentioned. They have done nothing to disassociate themselves from these hate-spewing, racist, homophobic, bigots, and to me, not saying anything against them is the same thing as silent approval.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

You know, there is one interesting question that I have never seen or heard discussed in any medium, ever since BHO came onto the political scene and was being touted as a 'black' politician - "Discuss for us your family's ancestral experiences with slavery as it was practiced in the USA prior to 1865".

^o)

Mike

Typical teabager drivel.

Your "river" is one inch wide and 1/8" deep.

 

[btrage]

You know, there is one interesting question that I have never seen or heard discussed in any medium, ever since BHO came onto the political scene and was being touted as a 'black' politician - "Discuss for us your family's ancestral experiences with slavery as it was practiced in the USA prior to 1865".

^o)

Mike

ALL black people have felt the effects of slavery in this country, regardless of their family's ancestral experiences.

 

[Gedunker]

Dandy Randy at it again:

The amendment [criminalizing pointing lasers at pilots] was approved on a 96-1 vote. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was the only senator to vote against the proposal.

"I think that it is a bad idea to point lasers at pilots and there are a lot of states that already have laws" against doing that, Paul said. "I think the states ought to take care of it."

LINKY

Yeah, regulating interstate commerce should be left the the states.

 

[mgk920]

And are all people whose recent ancestors or who themselves came from the African continent 'black' (another stereotype)?

(Ie, if I was a naturalized USA citizen who happened to be immigrant Afrikaner from Johannesburg, would I properly check the 'African-American' box on various government forms?)

^o)

This just shows the utter folly and über-silliness of trying to parse such superficial differences (although I would be interested in seeing how a slave-descended President would act and perform).

I dislike (note, *NOT* 'hate'. Unlike those on the hard left, I *NEVER* 'hate') BHO for no other reasons than his politics - politics that were quite well known to me ever since his run for the USSenate. So far, I have not been disappointed in the results that I have been fully expecting. Unfortunately, as the cliché says, "It does take a Carter to get a Reagan".

<sigh...>

Mike


BTW - Happy 100th Ronnie (Sunday, 2011-02-06), we still miss you!

:b::b:

 

[Maister]

You know, there is one interesting question that I have never seen or heard discussed in any medium, ever since BHO came onto the political scene and was being touted as a 'black' politician - "Discuss for us your family's ancestral experiences with slavery as it was practiced in the USA prior to 1865".

if I was a naturalized USA citizen who happened to be immigrant Afrikaner from Johannesburg, would I properly check the 'African-American' box on various government forms?)

^o)

This just shows the utter folly and über-silliness of trying to parse such superficial differences

Yes, I must agree that parsing such superficial differences is certainly folly and uber-silliness. And yet, we have heard tales (probably non-Cyburbians) about those who would attempt to make an issue of such superficial differences. You haven't encountered anyone who do something like that have you?

Boy, the next thing you know, folks who engage in this sort of folly might even try to hone in on other superficial/meaningless things and attempt to make every effort possible to emphasize the fact that, say, Obama's middle name is 'Hussein'. Why would someone do a thing like that I wonder?

 

[Hink]

See I like political discussion. I am keeping out of this one because - A.) It adds nothing to the political discourse, B.) It is trolling for responses to an obviously biased question.

Can we move back to political topics? *Best Mike Meyers impression* I'm getting all vaclempt. Talk amungst yourselves... I'll give you a topic(s)...

=============================

What does everyone think about Supreme Court Justice's having spouses that are in politics?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48812.html
=============================

Is Egypt going well for the United States? Is this President Obama's fault?

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2...pen-and-honest-debate-about-whats-stake-egypt

Should we have stuck with the guy we have trusted for years, or with the people who don't want him anymore. Are we going to see a Terrorist state government?

 

[mgk920]

Yes, I must agree that parsing such superficial differences is certainly folly and uber-silliness. And yet, we have heard tales (probably non-Cyburbians) about those who would attempt to make an issue of such superficial differences. You haven't encountered anyone who do something like that have you?

I hear it all the time form the 'popular' press corps - "He is the first black to do this", "She of the first Hispanic woman to do that" and so on ad-nauseum. Jackie Robinson breaking the modern-era color barrier in Baseball and integrating the sport was one thing, but that was over 60 years ago and yes, I think that we can finally put those issues into the past.

Mike

 

[imaplanner]

You know, there is one interesting question that I have never seen or heard discussed in any medium, ever since BHO came onto the political scene and was being touted as a 'black' politician - "Discuss for us your family's ancestral experiences with slavery as it was practiced in the USA prior to 1865".

^o)

Mike

um......

Ok. I will be nice and not say anything

 

[mgk920]

Dandy Randy at it again:

The amendment [criminalizing pointing lasers at pilots] was approved on a 96-1 vote. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was the only senator to vote against the proposal.

"I think that it is a bad idea to point lasers at pilots and there are a lot of states that already have laws" against doing that, Paul said. "I think the states ought to take care of it."

LINKY

Yeah, regulating interstate commerce should be left the the states.

Interfering with aviation safety is already a serious federal offense. My question is "How will making that act 'more illegal' help to suppress it?". I don't see how that will make those who do such things easier to catch, nor will it add the needed space and time to the federal courts to prosecute them if and when they are ever caught.

<sigh...>

Mike

 

[Gedunker]

Interfering with aviation safety is already a serious federal offense. My question is "How will making that act 'more illegal' help to suppress it?". I don't see how that will make those who do such things easier to catch, nor will it add the needed space and time to the federal courts to prosecute them if and when they are ever caught.

<sigh...>

Mike

From the article:

Interference with commercial airlines is already a federal crime. But current law has a gap that weakens the FBI's ability to investigate laser incidents involving helicopters, said Dave Joly, a spokesman for the FBI in Denver, where 38 laser incidents were reported last year. The law covers mass transportation, but helicopters aren't considered mass-transit aircraft, Joly said.

There have been many instances of lasers pointed at helicopters, including police helicopters. Helicopters are especially vulnerable because they fly at lower altitudes than planes.

Emphasis added.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

"It does take a Carter to get a Reagan".

<sigh...>

Mike:

And it takes a Bush to get an Obama

<sigh.....>

 

[mgk920]

From the article:

Interference with commercial airlines is already a federal crime. But current law has a gap that weakens the FBI's ability to investigate laser incidents involving helicopters, said Dave Joly, a spokesman for the FBI in Denver, where 38 laser incidents were reported last year. The law covers mass transportation, but helicopters aren't considered mass-transit aircraft, Joly said.

There have been many instances of lasers pointed at helicopters, including police helicopters. Helicopters are especially vulnerable because they fly at lower altitudes than planes.

Emphasis added.

I was under the impression that that applied to all aircraft, commercial, military, general aviation and so forth.

Even then, WRT police choppers, that would more often than not likely be nothing more than a penalty enhancer for whatever else the cops were already trying to take care of.

I guess that Shakespeare was right....

Mike

 

[otterpop]

And it takes a Bush to get an Obama

<sigh.....>

Well done and well said..

 

[Hink]

Absolutely amazing.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...-life-as-son-of-gay-parents-is-internet-hit/1

I think if this doesn't hit you hard about what our country is becoming, I don't know what will.

If Iowa puts this in the constitution like so many other states illegally have, I hope that our President makes an effort to make sure this type of discrimination doesn't happen again, and pushes for a constitutional amendment for freedom of marriage for anyone.

As a straight man, who is madly in love with my wife, I cannot understand how anyone would favor keeping someone who is madly in love with someone else (whether if be from the opposite or same sex) from marrying.

This kids words are amazing...

"My family really isn't so different from yours. "After all, your family doesn't derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, 'You're married, congratulations.' No. The sense of family comes from the commitment we make to each other, to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us."

 

[Mastiff]

I think that we can finally put those issues into the past.

Then why did you bring it up?

 

[The One]

Ha ha ha.....

Unfortunately, as the cliché says, "It does take a Carter to get a Reagan".

How funny, I always thought it went like this:

It takes a Warren G. Harding:-o, Calvin Coolidge8-! and Herbert Hoover:-c:-@:-{ to get Franklin D. Roosevelt:h:.

 

[TexanOkie]

How funny, I always thought it went like this:

It takes a Warren G. Harding:-o, Calvin Coolidge8-! and Herbert Hoover:-c:-@:-{ to get Franklin D. Roosevelt:h:.

Dude, Coolidge was awesome. I don't know what you're talking about... ;-)

 

[mgk920]

Well, as highly esteemed as he was during his time (and obviously still is in many circles), Franklin Roosevelt's stock value is steadily falling in many other circles (including mine) as the policy changes (ie, dropping the gold standard) and many of the social programs that he first put in place are starting to bite the USA back BIG TIME - for example, Social Security (the biggest Ponzi scheme of all, IMHO) has just started running a deficit that is never expected to turn around. These things can very well easily bankrupt our nation.

Many forget that his über-intrusive National Industrial Recovery Act and the National Recovery Agency ('NRA'), even worse and more intrusive than Obamacare™, which he rammed through Congress in his first couple of months in office and was ultimately slapped down by the USSupremes, had, during the time that it was in effect, inserted federal meddling into pretty much every aspect of day-to-day commerce and life.

Yes, he did very well in prosecuting WWII, but the growing consensus is that his economic policies deepened and lengthen the serious financial panic of the day, turning it into the Great Depression that was only turned around as a consequence of the War.

Mike

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Well, as highly esteemed as he was during his time (and obviously still is in many circles), Franklin Roosevelt's stock value is steadily falling in many other circles (including mine) as the policy changes (ie, dropping the gold standard) and many of the social programs that he first put in place are starting to bite the USA back BIG TIME - for example, Social Security (the biggest Ponzi scheme of all, IMHO) has just started running a deficit that is never expected to turn around. These things can very well easily bankrupt our nation.

Many forget that his über-intrusive National Industrial Recovery Act and the National Recovery Agency ('NRA'), even worse and more intrusive than Obamacare™, which he rammed through Congress in his first couple of months in office and was ultimately slapped down by the USSupremes, had, during the time that it was in effect, inserted federal meddling into pretty much every aspect of day-to-day commerce and life.

Yes, he did very well in prosecuting WWII, but the growing consensus is that his economic policies deepened and lengthen the serious financial panic of the day, turning it into the Great Depression that was only turned around as a consequence of the War.

Mike

FDR was dealing with massive unemployment, a worldwide economy that was in the toliet due to Wall Street speculation (sound familiar). We had the dustbowl. People were starving and able bodied people were unable to work. The ederly were starving. Hoover's ideas didn't work and only made the situation worse. FDR did what needed to be done. Before you critize FDR, a lot of our infrastructure dates back to that era. Infrastructure we are unable or unwilling to replace.

It's a whole lot easier to complain about those lazy bums when you've got food in your stomach, a job and shelter. Things look a whole different when you don't. As Christ said "As you do unto the least of these, so do you unto Me". That is a verse conseratives like to over look.

 

[TexanOkie]

[OT]

As Christ said "As you do unto the least of these, so do you unto Me". That is a verse conseratives like to over look.

I think that's a verse Christians of all political persuasions overlook. Note that it says "As you do unto the least of these, so do you unto me." It doesn't say, "As you have your government do...", etc. There's a long-standing debate between government aid vs. civil society that seems to have fallen by the wayside recently, but perhaps should be brought back up.[/OT]

 

[wahday]

This just shows the utter folly and über-silliness of trying to parse such superficial differences (although I would be interested in seeing how a slave-descended President would act and perform).

One wonders, if such differences are superficial and über-silly, why you think a slave-descended President would act/perform in any particular way, or why it even matters...

 

[CJC]

There is rarely a "consensus" among economists, that's just the nature of the science. If Mike sees some growing consensus that some of FDR's moves are now viewed as negative, I'd need to see some links to back that up.

That said, there are several things that the FDR did during his presidency that have long been viewed as negative by a near consensus of economists and other policy analysts - cutting government spending in 1937 and plunging the country back into recession being the biggie (deficit spending was feared at the time - sound familiar?).

The idea that there's some kind of growing consensus of going back to the gold standard or that FDR was wrong to uncouple our currency from a ridiculously volatile commodity is lunacy. There might be growing talk of it, but going from 1% of folks liking an idea to 5% does not constitute anything close to a consensus, a majority, or even a sizable minority.

 

[Hink]

Well, as highly esteemed as he was during his time (and obviously still is in many circles), Franklin Roosevelt's stock value is steadily falling in many other circles (including mine) as the policy changes (ie, dropping the gold standard) and many of the social programs that he first put in place are starting to bite the USA back BIG TIME - for example, Social Security (the biggest Ponzi scheme of all, IMHO) has just started running a deficit that is never expected to turn around. These things can very well easily bankrupt our nation.

blah, blah, blah...

Mike

I get annoyed when some conservatives want to rail on FDR about doing harm to this country, when he obviously did lots of things that help further our country's cause. The same for Reagan. He did some good and some harm. Trying to pretend like these people were horrible or great Presidents is really pretty pointless. They had some good and some bad. If you think Reagan is a saint, and can't accept that FDR was a good president, then you aren't allowing yourself to see reality. Maybe that is easier than dealing with our real problems?...

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

[OT]

I think that's a verse Christians of all political persuasions overlook. Note that it says "As you do unto the least of these, so do you unto me." It doesn't say, "As you have your government do...", etc. There's a long-standing debate between government aid vs. civil society that seems to have fallen by the wayside recently, but perhaps should be brought back up.[/OT]

Government stepped in because because the churches were either overwhelmed or dropped the ball. We have a lot more poor and troubled society. Churches tend to be small scale and piecemeal (except for the Catholics and Lutherns). They have a role, but we are long, long way past were we can rely on them for any meaningful on a macro scale.

 

[dandy_warhol]

Former president George W. Bush was slated to speak at a gala charity event in Geneva on February 12, supporting United Israel Appeal. This weekend, a Bush spokesman announced that the trip had been scrapped.
He noted the “threat of demonstrations” associated with the event. Now it appears that Bush’s decision not to travel abroad may have had an entirely different basis.

Two victims of torture in U.S. detention have prepared a criminal complaint against Bush (PDF), backed by a coalition of international human rights groups, two former United Nations rapporteurs, and two Nobel Peace Prize laureates. The indictment appears to have been furnished to Geneva’s cantonal prosecutors with a request that they act on it by arresting the former president. There’s no indication that the Geneva criminal justice authorities would have taken such a step—which would have been certain to provoke a diplomatic incident between Switzerland and the United States.

linky

 

[biscuit]

...the growing consensus is that his economic policies deepened and lengthen the serious financial panic of the day, turning it into the Great Depression that was only turned around as a consequence of the War.

Mike

I don't know where this little bit of historical revisionism got started, but it has been making the facebook post and email forward rounds for the past couple of years despite not making one bit of sense.

To make that true Roosevelt would have created the Great Depression by causing the stock market to crash a full three years before he was elected by implementing policies during his Presidency that oppressed private enterprise so much that investors lost faith and ran on the banks which caused a financial depression that lasted a terrible six years during which the GDP recovered and moved far beyond the 1929 levels until non-government spending in WWII pulled us out of it.

Which genius blogger/pundit came up with that?

 

[TexanOkie]

Government stepped in because because the churches were either overwhelmed or dropped the ball. We have a lot more poor and troubled society. Churches tend to be small scale and piecemeal (except for the Catholics and Lutherns). They have a role, but we are long, long way past were we can rely on them for any meaningful on a macro scale.

Therein lies the debate, but also included in the debate is measures of effectiveness (including how you measure it to begin with), efficiencies (or lack thereof), who constitutes civil society (there are some very large charitable institutions around), history (and how you interpret it), strategic goals, etc. In our current political context, you may be right, but its nowhere near a foregone conclusion that we have the right mix or whether the scales are as skewed as many, yourself included apparently, believe.

I don't know where this little bit of historical revisionism got started, but it has been making the facebook post and email forward rounds for the past couple of years despite not making one bit of sense.

To make that true Roosevelt would have created the Great Depression by causing the stock market to crash a full three years before he was elected by implementing policies during his Presidency that oppressed private enterprise so much that investors lost faith and ran on the banks which caused a financial depression that lasted a terrible six years during which the GDP recovered and moved far beyond the 1929 levels until non-government spending in WWII pulled us out of it.

Which genius blogger/pundit came up with that?

Several notable economists, from camps as wide as traditional monetarists to Marxists, contributed to that notion. Perhaps the most notable contributors were Austrian school theorists. And few argue that FDR created the Depression - just that many of his New Deal policies prolonged and deepened it. Most also don't deny that the government spending in WWII pulled the US out of it, they just deny that the New Deal did (or helped do so). Several actually make pretty good cases. However, it's easy to judge in hindsight. Viewed in the context of its time, it's hard to imagine any other alternatives to FDR's "try anything" policies.

 

[mgk920]

IMHO, the worst mistake resulting in the Great Depression was the first one, adopted in 1930 (yes, signed into law by Hoover) - the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which pretty much slammed the door on any international trade involving the USA. Those businesses who did any kind of export trade (the tariffs were intended to protect domestic industry from cheap imports) lost those markets (and their related jobs) when their foreign customers' countries slammed their doors on imports from the USA in retaliation. We have still not fully recovered from that.

Had Smoot-Hawley not been adopted, it is my belief that the economy would have been well on its way towards a full recovery by election day in 1932, as it had been by that point in the timelines of previous similar 'panics' - and yes, some of them were just as severe as in 1929-1930. The socialistic Alphabet Soup programs of FDR only served, at great cost of public treasure, to further prolong things with the unemployment rate remaining in the mid-high teens right up until the Pearl Harbor attack.

Mike

 

[imaplanner]

Well, as highly esteemed as he was during his time (and obviously still is in many circles), Franklin Roosevelt's stock value is steadily falling in many other circles (including mine) as the policy changes (ie, dropping the gold standard) and many of the social programs that he first put in place are starting to bite the USA back BIG TIME - for example, Social Security (the biggest Ponzi scheme of all, IMHO) has just started running a deficit that is never expected to turn around. These things can very well easily bankrupt our nation.

Many forget that his über-intrusive National Industrial Recovery Act and the National Recovery Agency ('NRA'), even worse and more intrusive than Obamacare™, which he rammed through Congress in his first couple of months in office and was ultimately slapped down by the USSupremes, had, during the time that it was in effect, inserted federal meddling into pretty much every aspect of day-to-day commerce and life.

Yes, he did very well in prosecuting WWII, but the growing consensus is that his economic policies deepened and lengthen the serious financial panic of the day, turning it into the Great Depression that was only turned around as a consequence of the War.

Mike

They are only starting to fall apart because politicians have been chipping away at them and attacking them for 20 years.

And hey- I wouldn't say a growing consensus. Maybe among the lunatic revisionists.

 

[CJC]

IMHO, the worst mistake resulting in the Great Depression was the first one, adopted in 1930 (yes, signed into law by Hoover) - the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which pretty much slammed the door on any international trade involving the USA. Those businesses who did any kind of export trade (the tariffs were intended to protect domestic industry from cheap imports) lost those markets (and their related jobs) when their foreign customers' countries slammed their doors on imports from the USA in retaliation. We have still not fully recovered from that.

Had Smoot-Hawley not been adopted, it is my belief that the economy would have been well on its way towards a full recovery by election day in 1932, as it had been by that point in the timelines of previous similar 'panics' - and yes, some of them were just as severe as in 1929-1930. The socialistic Alphabet Soup programs of FDR only served, at great cost of public treasure, to further prolong things with the unemployment rate remaining in the mid-high teens right up until the Pearl Harbor attack.

Mike

I would agree that one of the worst mistakes (if not the worst) was Smoot-Hawley, though I'm not clear how this ties into FDR. The damage was done long before he became president, and simply reversing course wouldn't have really done much at that stage.

I'm not sure how you can compare previous panics to the one in 1929 though, because there was never the combination of global asset bubble + banking panic + massive leverage prior to that on anywhere near the same scale.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

I've been watching the John Adams miniseries that was originally on HBO. One of the more fascinating part of the series is how we are struggling with the same issues as the ywere 200+ years ago. Sadly, the poltics haven't changed either.

 

[ofos]

I've been watching the John Adams miniseries that was originally on HBO. One of the more fascinating part of the series is how we are struggling with the same issues as the ywere 200+ years ago. Sadly, the poltics haven't changed either.

Thanks for the reminder. We started watching the series, liked it but have never finished it. Gotta say though that Abigail Adams (Laura Linney) wears me down with her long-suffering patience. Was J.A. really such a doofus?

 

[wahday]

IMHO, the worst mistake resulting in the Great Depression was the first one, adopted in 1930 (yes, signed into law by Hoover) - the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, which pretty much slammed the door on any international trade involving the USA. Those businesses who did any kind of export trade (the tariffs were intended to protect domestic industry from cheap imports) lost those markets (and their related jobs) when their foreign customers' countries slammed their doors on imports from the USA in retaliation. We have still not fully recovered from that.

Had Smoot-Hawley not been adopted, it is my belief that the economy would have been well on its way towards a full recovery by election day in 1932, as it had been by that point in the timelines of previous similar 'panics' - and yes, some of them were just as severe as in 1929-1930. The socialistic Alphabet Soup programs of FDR only served, at great cost of public treasure, to further prolong things with the unemployment rate remaining in the mid-high teens right up until the Pearl Harbor attack.

Mike

Wow, talk about revisionism. I assume you know that the Smoot-Hawley tariffs were proposed by Republican senators Reed O. Smoot of Utah and Willis C. Hawley of Oregon with the support of a Republican-controlled Congress. The protectionism-fueled idea was to stimulate domestic production by raising tariffs on many goods from abroad. Hoover signed it, yes, but reluctantly and knowing that his veto would be overridden. Few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America’s tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own, so its not like this came out of the blue and rocked the world markets.

 

[The One]

Dude, Coolidge was awesome. I don't know what you're talking about... ;-)

From a source better than Fox News:

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


During Coolidge's presidency the United States experienced the period of rapid economic growth known as the "Roaring Twenties". He left the administration's industrial policy in the hands of his activist Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, who energetically used government auspices to promote business efficiency and develop airlines and radio. With the exception of favoring increased tariffs, Coolidge disdained regulation, and carried about this belief by appointing commissioners to the Federal Trade Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission who did little to restrict the activities of businesses under their jurisdiction.[108] The regulatory state under Coolidge was, as one biographer described it, "thin to the point of invisibility."

Coolidge had been reluctant to choose Hoover as his successor; on one occasion he remarked that "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad."[146] Even so, Coolidge had no desire to split the party by publicly opposing the popular Commerce Secretary's nomination.[147] The delegates did consider nominating Vice President Charles Dawes to be Hoover's running mate, but the convention selected Senator Charles Curtis instead.

Try to keep focused on the Economy with this post.....Coolidge did a few decent things......

 

[TexanOkie]

From a source better than Fox News:

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


During Coolidge's presidency the United States experienced the period of rapid economic growth known as the "Roaring Twenties". He left the administration's industrial policy in the hands of his activist Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, who energetically used government auspices to promote business efficiency and develop airlines and radio. With the exception of favoring increased tariffs, Coolidge disdained regulation, and carried about this belief by appointing commissioners to the Federal Trade Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission who did little to restrict the activities of businesses under their jurisdiction.[108] The regulatory state under Coolidge was, as one biographer described it, "thin to the point of invisibility."

Coolidge had been reluctant to choose Hoover as his successor; on one occasion he remarked that "for six years that man has given me unsolicited advice—all of it bad."[146] Even so, Coolidge had no desire to split the party by publicly opposing the popular Commerce Secretary's nomination.[147] The delegates did consider nominating Vice President Charles Dawes to be Hoover's running mate, but the convention selected Senator Charles Curtis instead.

Try to keep focused on the Economy with this post.....Coolidge did a few decent things......

1. The "" was meant to convey slight facetiousness.
2. I was unaware that anyone talked about Coolidge except Ronald Reagan, and I knew that from reading Reagan's autobiography, collected writings, diaries, and several different biographies. I had no idea Coolidge was/is a post-mortem Fox News contributor or demigod, if that's even what you're talking about. I do not watch Fox News.
3. The thing that you underlined as evidence of Coolidge being bad I'm sure resonates with most Cyburbians - but I am not one of them.
4. Coolidge had an awesome wit that few people appreciated then nor now - I do.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

Thanks for the reminder. We started watching the series, liked it but have never finished it. Gotta say though that Abigail Adams (Laura Linney) wears me down with her long-suffering patience. Was J.A. really such a doofus?

I normally like Laura Linney but for most of the series, she has a pained expression on her face. It's like, show some emotional range. J.A. comes across like a complete @$$, smart but an @$$. Plus, Giamatti looks like a turtle when he's bald. Outside of that, it's a good series that I would recommend to all the history geeks out there.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

1. 
   .......
2. The thing that you underlined as evidence of Coolidge being bad I'm sure resonates with most Cyburbians - but I am not one of them.
   .......

It is not that a lack of pre-regulation before something goes wrong is bad. As can easily be determined from human history, nobody seems to do anything about a bad situation until something REALLY bad happens. Its after the fact, that doing nothing is pig headed, stupid and truly criminal.

Everything is fine, until the lettuce you are eating on your salad has a particularly deadly strain of E-Coli bacteria on it. You can't change brands of lettuce, because "ALL THE MANUFACTURERS THAT PROCESS THE LETTUCE USE THE SAME SUPPLIERS LETTUCE". It is at this point, the sheer scale of the processing system in the modern world, where Adam Smith breaks down. It's no longer the hidden hand and more the "Bizarr appendage with all thumbs". Government regulation is then required to:

A) Regulate methods used to produce products.
B) Track products from start to finish.
C) Have a method to force recall's of tainted products.
D) Place the burden of paying for these regulations on the producers.

This is the same weather it is bad egg's, sticking floor mats in a Toyota, dirty hamburger plants selling bad meat, criminally under maintained coal mines, or any industry that can cause harm in reality.

Texas wants to poison your air and lakes Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Georgia. You seem content to let them for some reason. Whats wrong with you?

This is why regulation is required in the modern world. ESPECIALLY after it is understood why it is needed.

 

[TexanOkie]

It is not that a lack of pre-regulation before something goes wrong is bad. As can easily be determined from human history, nobody seems to do anything about a bad situation until something REALLY bad happens. Its after the fact, that doing nothing is pig headed, stupid and truly criminal.

Everything is fine, until the lettuce you are eating on your salad has a particularly deadly strain of E-Coli bacteria on it. You can't change brands of lettuce, because "ALL THE MANUFACTURERS THAT PROCESS THE LETTUCE USE THE SAME SUPPLIERS LETTUCE". It is at this point, the sheer scale of the processing system in the modern world, where Adam Smith breaks down. It's no longer the hidden hand and more the "Bizarr appendage with all thumbs". Government regulation is then required to:

A) Regulate methods used to produce products.
B) Track products from start to finish.
C) Have a method to force recall's of tainted products.
D) Place the burden of paying for these regulations on the producers.

This is the same weather it is bad egg's, sticking floor mats in a Toyota, dirty hamburger plants selling bad meat, criminally under maintained coal mines, or any industry that can cause harm in reality.

Texas wants to poison your air and lakes Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, and Georgia. You seem content to let them for some reason. Whats wrong with you?

This is why regulation is required in the modern world. ESPECIALLY after it is understood why it is needed.

Spare me your arguments for/against regulation, because it's one you especially, Duke, will not win with me (i.e. you won't convert me). I understand the need for regulation. Besides, I don't want to argue the merits/demerits of regulation because it really boils down to level of regulation, not regulation vs. no regulation.

 

[stroskey]

[OT]

I think that's a verse Christians of all political persuasions overlook. Note that it says "As you do unto the least of these, so do you unto me." It doesn't say, "As you have your government do...", etc. There's a long-standing debate between government aid vs. civil society that seems to have fallen by the wayside recently, but perhaps should be brought back up.[/OT]

I'm a Catholic so not super-skilled in Bible verses, but it also says give to Caesar what is Caesars. Which I take to mean let the gov't do their thing and let your church worry about social ills. I'm a middle-of-the-road guy but I once read that conservatives volunteered and donated much more than liberals. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061130/ai_n16909800/

One thing I never understood is why people who criticize Christians tend to criticize them for being too religious in politics but then use this verse to say they aren't Christian enough. Which is it?

 

[Hink]

Hmmm... $53B to High Speed Rail... well since the $8B went over like a lead balloon, I am sure the R's will allow infrastructure "investment" without much hassle...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110208/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_high_speed_rail

I love this idea from a practical "investment" perspective. But I also don't know if we need to spend this money now. I would much rather see us have manageable debt levels first... then invest heavily in our infrastructure.

An entirely new system of rail needs to be placed. Passenger rail needs to be a stand alone project. No more sharing of freight...

 

[boiker]

You know, there is one interesting question that I have never seen or heard discussed in any medium, ever since BHO came onto the political scene and was being touted as a 'black' politician - "Discuss for us your family's ancestral experiences with slavery as it was practiced in the USA prior to 1865".

^o)

Mike

What are you suggesting? That he's less black than those with slave ancestry?

 

[WSU MUP Student]

All the hoopla over Reagan's birthday last week got me wondering where the love for William Henry Harrison is?

Happy 238th birthday Old Tip!