  Lodgedodger Member Username: Lodgedodger Post Number: 1535 Registered: 05-2008 |
After so much bad news for so long, I needed to hear a hopeful and uplifting message. Our young President delivered. Thank you. | ||
Mopardan Member Username: Mopardan Post Number: 180 Registered: 11-2008 |
Part of Jindal's response: "Our party got away from its principles," he said. "You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington." But that is changing, he said. ============================== ================== I just about busted a gut laughing at his "went along" statement as the GOP had complete control for 6 of the last 8yrs. Who the f*ck were they going along with? If this guy's the best the Republicans can muster out, they're in more trouble than I thought. They want to be led by a "conservative" from a backwater state. Geez! | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 6669 Registered: 12-2005 |
There's no doubt now that Obama has a powerful oratory tool that Bush never dared to use. I expect many more speeches to come. Open source government! Bravo! | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 562 Registered: 04-2008 |
Remember the "Vogue" dance craze of days past? The new dance craze is the "Jindal". All ya gotta do is stand and posture! | ||
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard Post Number: 18 Registered: 02-2009 |
Open source, like when the stimulus bill was slammed through Congress so fast (Crisis, CRISIS!) that no one was able to actually read through it before they voted for $750 billion package? After all, it was an emergency measure and time was of the essence. Then Pres. Obama takes off for Valentine's Day in Chicago and doesn't come back to sign the bill until 4 days after it passed. What happened to the CRISIS that required it to be voted on before it could be fully read? That may be effective bare knuckle politics but it's certainly not open government. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 6670 Registered: 12-2005 |
Thank you, Classicyesfan: quote: | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4439 Registered: 10-2003 |
^^^Is it your claim that no one, including the Congressional staff attorneys who wrote the stimulus bill, read it? I'm laughing hysterically now that the President is a Democrat, suddenly every proposal has "no details" and everything is "rushed". Where was this latent concern during the Bush administration? We might not be at war in Iraq, or have passed $1.4 trillion in fruitless tax cuts if this sudden sense of responsibility hadn't been dormant. | ||
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard Post Number: 22 Registered: 02-2009 |
The bill was over 1000 pages long. It was released about 12 hours before the vote. Most of those 12 hours were in the middle of the night. It wasn't online that I could find. You're OK with that on general principles? Sure you are. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4440 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: You act as if this is different than any other piece of legislation. The House and Senate vote on the principles of the bills, and then the proper committee attorneys put it into legalese. Of course, you'd rather wait for each of 535 members of Congress read every word of legalese for every bill before they vote on anything. quote: I wasn't aware that requirement was in the Constitution. Have you read the legislation since??? | ||
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard Post Number: 27 Registered: 02-2009 |
If you think this was like any other bill you must not be very into politics. It was rushed through in a breathlessly urgent appeal that the nation was in crisis and it had to be passed before it could be examined. Then Pres. Obama took four days to get around to signing it. quote:Did you think some one stated it was?? Is knocking down strawmen your best attempt at intelligent discussion? President Obama committed to putting it on the web. Remember? Do you not read the New York Times or the Washington Post, or listen to NPR? Jimaz knows what I refer to. Don't you? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4441 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: It takes time to hash out the principles of a bill such as this, and as the President stated, the longer we wait, the longer the economy suffers; hence, the urgency. Did you scrutinize Bush's 2001 tax cuts, and the 2003 authorization to use force in Iraq in a similar fashion? Both of those were "urgent" as well. quote: I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not, but Congress doesn't work on weekends or federal holidays. It's not as if this bill were sitting in Obama's briefcase over the weekend. quote: It's a straw man that YOU created! quote: I do recall this. And I also appreciate practicality. If you haven't read the bill (now law) since, then chances are, you weren't going to read it in 48 hours anyway. What's your point? Now, if you have valid criticisms you'd like to discuss, let's hear it. Otherwise, you're just wasting time. | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1728 Registered: 01-2008 |
quote: Yes, President Obama delivered a very eloquent and statesman-like speech, it was so refreshing compared to those of his predecessor. So, what does Jindal have against budgeting millions for monitoring volcanoes? I am pretty sure that he wants the NOAA to continue tracking tropical storms, as well as potentially damaging hurricanes. Guess that spending more billions on defense and undeclared wars and occupations is alright though. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4442 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Yeah, that was a pretty disturbing line in his speech, as if science isn't important. Keep going, Jindal! You, Mark Sanford, and Haley Barbour have more work to do before you make the GOP *completely* irrelevant. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 6673 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote:I do not endorse Det_ard's positions. Please cease alluding to the contrary. (Message edited by Jimaz on February 25, 2009) | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1242 Registered: 08-2006 |
"Guess that spending more billions on defense and undeclared wars and occupations is alright though." Like Afghanistan? But back to the speech. President Obama said that $2T of cuts, over some years, had already been identified. That was the highlight. If I were a college student, I would have liked the $2,500/year X 4 years of financial aid he promised. It wasn't clear if this was linked to doing community 'volunteer' work that the President mentioned later in his speech. Overall, I would give him an 'A' for form and a 'D+' for content. It sounded hopeful but I couldn't believe that his numbers would add up. Nice touch though being so kindly toward big banks. | ||
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard Post Number: 28 Registered: 02-2009 |
quote: quote: So you're going to argue that 1. it was urgent, yet 2. Congress won't work weekends or holidays even in the face of the "worst crisis in the history of the world"? What kind of Congress would that be? Too concerned with their holiday plans to deal with a massive crisis. Anyway, it didn't matter since the bill passed on Friday and Obama could have signed it on Friday. Congress did their thing, the ball was in Obama's court. Obama waited until Tuesday to sign it. Why? There's no reason he couldn't have signed it immediately. It simply shows that the "urgency" was manufactured for political effect. Some people are apparently fooled easily. quote:No, I said it wasn't online, as Obama stated it would be for the American people to see. YOU countered with a strawman stating that it's not a constitutional requirement to post it on the web. No shit, Sherlock. The founding fathers had opined very little on the internet. YOU set up the strawman about a constitutional requirement. I never claimed there was any constitutional requirement, rather that Obama promised he'd do so. So you set up a strawman, then knock it down. An amateurish approach and a sycophantic overall position. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8568 Registered: 02-2007 |
no, the bill was available for a few days before it was voted on. these congresspeople have staffs of dozens -- no excuse to not have had each section read and summarized before the vote, just another right-wing non-issue talking point, since they haven't got a single idea on which to hang their collective hats | ||
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard Post Number: 30 Registered: 02-2009 |
No, it wasn't. It was released around 11 p.m. Thursday (2/12). The House passed a resolution less than 12 hours later that considered it to have been "read", even though obviously no one, staffers or otherwise had read it all in the less than 12 hours from 11 p.m. to 11 a.m. Then the vote was rushed through. But hey, who cares, it was only 3/4 of a trillion dollars. No biggie. After all it was essential that it be passed immediately. (Nevermind the fact it sat on Pres. Obama's desk for the next four days.) So what if President Obama and Speaker Pelosi both promised that it would be up on the web 48 hours before a vote was taken. So what if it was rammed through before the press or we could examine it. So what if the bill was converted to an image .pdf file, not html text or .pdf text, so it would be impossible to perform searches on it. Hey, whatever Obama and Pelosi do is OK, right, because they're on "our" side. I thought we were going to enjoy a higher standard of behavior but I guess Obama supporters will be just as compliant as Bush supporters were when he did whatever he felt like. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1243 Registered: 08-2006 |
The bill was available 36 hours ahead of time. It might have been available a little earlier except that it took time to put the whole thing into an internet photo format which made it difficult to do searches on and copy sections of it. It was posted at about midnight after most aids were home and perhaps sleeping. Five hard copies were delivered each to the Senate and the House at about noon the day of the vote. They had handwritten last minute changes in the margins. This isn't to say they weren't available to everyone. One Representative reported that he had received 137 pages of Porkulus from a lobbyist before he had access to it as a Representative. One could say that at least Obama did better than Bush who presented the first Patriot Bill bill to the House fifteen minutes before the vote. On the other hand, even township governments require posting a proposed ordinance something like 30 days before a vote. The presentation of Obama's Porkulus was, in terms of transparancy and ethics, closer to the Bush/Patriot Act end of the spectrum. | ||
Firstandten Member Username: Firstandten Post Number: 711 Registered: 05-2006 |
Det_are , President Obama did the right thing. This concept that everybody should have read the stimulus bill line by line is a red herring. First of all these Congresspeople don't do it, like Rb336 said there staffs read it, evaluate it, and summarize it for their bosses. Secondly the Congress knew of the bills overall concept and what it was attempting to accomplish, which is how bills get passed. What you and others with this position wanted to do was to have the time to pick out certain line items in the bill in which the content and intention could be taken out of context in order to create additional talking points. President Obama rightly decided that the country didn't have the time or patience for that kind of politics. (Message edited by firstandten on February 25, 2009) | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8573 Registered: 02-2007 |
" One Representative reported that he had received 137 pages of Porkulus from a lobbyist before he had access to it as a Representative." that sounds like BS just by the way it is phrased. no possible means to verify, designed to vilify | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1244 Registered: 08-2006 |
This is so comical reading all these excuses. Firstandten, you advocate a rubberstamp congress and make assumptions to justify restricting information from even getting into the hands of Congress. Repeat, parts of this bill found their way to lobbyists before they were available to Congress. That is not "the right thing". It wasn't for Obama to decide "that the country didn't have the time or patience for that kind of politics." He is not our dictator yet although his State of the Union Speech may have been kind of a "Mugabe in Economic Wonderland" trial balloon. | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 3938 Registered: 01-2005 |
All politics aside, I can only note that it certainly is nice to hear an eloquent President, compared to the past eight years. (That sentence comes to you from this conservative Republican, thank you.) | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1245 Registered: 08-2006 |
Rb quote: " One Representative reported that he had received 137 pages of Porkulus from a lobbyist before he had access to it as a Representative." that sounds like BS just by the way it is phrased. no possible means to verify, designed to vilify" Rb, It gives me great pleasure, more pleasure than I can describe, to verify my statement. Go to the 1 minute, 40 second moment of this video. You can call the Congressman a liar, but here you will find the verification of my claim. Actually, this entire video is instructive to understanding the smarmy way Obama pushed through Porkulus. The President broke his word. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Pw7U8JS1a4A | ||
Tkshreve Member Username: Tkshreve Post Number: 760 Registered: 07-2006 |
Ray..... I echo your thoughts. That fact alone must rustle the panties of his detractors. quote: Are you saying that BO is friendly towards the banks? Too friendly? Uhhhh..... where do GWB and Hank Paulson fit into that friend-o-meter after giving the banks the first half of the TARP funds? They force fed the banks almost a half trillion dollars and said be home before supper. There was zero accountability for the way they used those funds, and what do you think that did for credit flow? Nothing....... absolutely nothing. Those executive fat cats are sitting high up on their mountains of cash dropping parachutes of green and gold to their ilk as America plummets deeper into recession. Way to go Bush. Thanks for pushing that decision through on your way out. It stinks to high heaven of a payment/payback of sorts to our savvy, trustworthy business leaders who so effectively and arrogantly push paper (my paper at that) across a desk. Where is their website listing the beneficiaries and direction the money was going? I'll bet GWB's flow chart was drawn in the dirt at some oil refinery in Texas. Last night I was very proud to hear BO state that greed and corruption are now a target in this recovery. Corporate executives will no longer take private jets to the lavish country clubs and luxury spas. Executive salary is now collateral the minute you take a dime of taxpayer money (my money). | ||
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard Post Number: 36 Registered: 02-2009 |
First and Ten, the staffs didn't have time to read it either. You're generally correct in that much of what was in the bill was known. Much wasn't however, and in a bill as huge as this one, both in terms of the money and the length, the stuff that got crammed in and passed in a big rush is significant, as we're now discovering. The urgency argument is BS. It's not like it was the 12/7/41 declaration of war. It was a spending bill in which the vast majority of spending doesn't even occur this year according to the independent CBO. So why the false sense of urgency? Pres. Obama didn't think it was urgent to enact the bill. He flew out to Chicago for a long weekend with his wife and didn't sign the bill when he returned to DC on Monday. He waited for a photo op in Denver on Tuesday. The urgency was because there were a lot of things in the bill that people, not just Republicans, might not like and he wanted it jammed through during his honeymoon period and with minimal transparency in the press. Politically skillful, but inconsistent with his commitments and his overall tone of promising hope and change. The arguments for passing this bill are similar to the ones made for passing the Patriot Act. The public expected action, time was of the essence, etc. Something tells me that you weren't too supportive of that one. Situational ethics? I think what we're seeing now is the Obama supporters aren't willing (publicly, at least) to be critical of things they would have found objectionable under a different administration. They're very highly invested in his Presidency and I'm not sure they'll object to anything he does. Sound familiar? You're all Bushies now. You've already vacated the moral high ground. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8576 Registered: 02-2007 |
what is the source of the video? oh -- faux news! suprise surprise (Message edited by rb336 on February 25, 2009) | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8577 Registered: 02-2007 |
one would think if the story were true, if one googled "137 pages" and lobbyist something relevent might pop up. such is not the case | ||
Det_ard Member Username: Det_ard Post Number: 38 Registered: 02-2009 |
Rb336 wrote: quote: Then Oladub posted a link to a video in which Rep. Ron Paul says exactly what Oladub claimed. So Rb336 responds: quote: Apparently Rb336 would rather make a fool of him/herself denying a proven fact than watching part of a video from -horrors- Fox News. LMAOARB336. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1246 Registered: 08-2006 |
Tkshreve, Yes, I am saying that Obama has been too friendly to corrupt bankers. He took too much of their money during the campaign (source available upon request) and he voted for Bush's Wall Street bailout. I am even more critical of that bailout than Porkulus. The discussion here, however, is about President Obama's broken promise to provide transparency and the lame excuses ranging from the need for censorship to "Bush did it too". Rb, Once again you blame the messenger - a weak argument at best. The statement is made verbally by Congressman Ron Paul, not something reported second by Fox, at the one minute and forty second mark of this video. He says he received 130 pages of Porkulus from a lobbyist before it was otherwise available to him as a Representative. Would you believe him more if he said the same thing on a CNN video? You are coming pretty close to following up with my previous suggestion, "You can call the Congressman a liar." Re-read the last paragraph of Det_ard's post 36. He is right on. Another point made in this video is that things were inserted by the budget committee after the votes of the House and Senate that were never voted upon by anyone except a committee and President Obama. If this is President Obama's idea of transparency, it does not bode well for Obama's credibility. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Pw7U8JS1a4A | ||
Firstandten Member Username: Firstandten Post Number: 712 Registered: 05-2006 |
The arguments made for this stimulus bill was similar to how the Patriot Act got passed. At the time I was willing to rally around the President. Because of 9-11 there was a real threat and the country needed to get its arms around it. During that time John Conyers even said he didn't read that bill and basically said no one does. If we waited for all bills to get read and analysed, everything would grind to a halt in DC. What we must do is have some trust in the executive branch in that they will do the right thing. The Bush administration lost any trust with the people, with the lies and outright criminality of him and his surrogates. I do know that there is a level of partisinship in DC that is toxic. I do know that Limbaugh and Hannity and other right wing talk show host are the de-facto face of the Republican party. The nit-picking that would have gone on concerning some line items in the bill would be beyond belief. No bill is perfect the President even said that himself. However the Rushs and Seans would have been able to spout enought dis-information for us to lose focus on what this bill was supposed to do. Some aspects of the bill was designed to stimulate the economy in the short term(within 90 days) some had a longer time frame. However the longer you wait the longer its going to take for the economy to bounce back, meanwhile companies are still laying off and homes are still being foreclosed. I am giving Obama the benefit of doubt just like I did "W" until he proves me wrong. I am not going to nit-pick him just so folks can have some talking points to misrepresent his policies | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8578 Registered: 02-2007 |
Ron Paul has zero credibility with me as does fox. He has hemmed and hawed about all the racist crap that came out on HIS newsletter so much that I just don't believe a word he says | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19022 Registered: 11-2006 |
It is what it is...a speech. Up lifting is great. What is distrubing is what he is DOING, not what he is saying. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8582 Registered: 02-2007 |
what is great is what he is doing - righting a ship of state that 8 years of dubya and deregulation has left foundering | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19023 Registered: 11-2006 |
What ship are you referring to? The ship of dreams that you seem to be floating along in? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4443 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: It's a Congress that uses weekends to travel back to their home districts, so they can listen to people like you piss an moan. Maybe you should learn how your government works before you criticize it. | ||
Denbytar64 Member Username: Denbytar64 Post Number: 142 Registered: 03-2008 |
thanks for nothing obama...sounded like you were on the campaign trail. Why are the markets down after you speak or announce your plans? NO INVESTOR CONFIDENCE. You payed off your campaign donors, now start doing something you idiot | ||
Firstandten Member Username: Firstandten Post Number: 713 Registered: 05-2006 |
The markets are down for a lot of reasons. Its been up and down all week. Much of it is a function of investors getting more info from the Treasury sec. Much of it is the deepening recession with which the stimulus package should deal with once the money gets out in the street. Thats another reason why the President wanted to get the bill passed. The only confidence you should be concerned with is 69%... as in Obama's approval rating. BTW the only time you should mention idiot and a president in the same sentence is when you talk about Bush. | ||
Rideron Member Username: Rideron Post Number: 197 Registered: 08-2008 |
Obama has a job to do that requires our participation. If you don't want to help, go somewhere else! It's a different day. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19055 Registered: 11-2006 |
If we participate, we are asking for the consequences...of socialism (or worse)...which is misery. | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 568 Registered: 04-2008 |
^^ Or, more appropriately, we should ASK to participate to recover from the miserable consequences of the neo-con era. Po-tay-to. Po-tah-to. It's a new day yet we hear the same old tired shtick. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19070 Registered: 11-2006 |
Watch what happens with this "new day" AKA American liberal socialism. Is it new if it is intentionally modeled after Marxism? | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 575 Registered: 04-2008 |
"Is it new if it is intentionally modeled after Marxism?" No. It's new because it's a robust tackling of problems in the manner of the New Deal. Oh, and did you watch what happened with Gingrich's contract on America (oops, I meant contract with America) in the 90's, or during 6 of the past 8 years of Republican stranglehold on America? I definitely would like to watch a new program. Thanks for your concern. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1268 Registered: 08-2006 |
"the U.S.A., with its $14 trillion economy, has a federal government that is going to spend, over the next year, all the money in their usual $3 trillion-plus budget, but also another $2 trillion or so over the next year! $5 trillion in government spending, at a cost of $3 trillion in new debt, all in a $14 trillion economy! Gahhhhh! We’re freaking dooooooooomed! I did not mention that there are only about 100 million non-government, non-taxpayer paid workers in the U.S.A., which means that there are only 100 million workers who can make a profit with which to pay taxes, which means that $5 trillion in government spending is a staggering $50,000 for Every Freaking One (EFO) of those non-government, non-taxpayer paid positions! And you think THAT is going to work out for the best? Hahahaha!" -The Mogambo Guru 02-26-09 Classicyesfan, How is this "robust tackling of problems in the manner of the New Deal" supposed to work? The last time that Hoover/Roosevelt did this, they managed to stretch the recovery from a Fed caused bubble into a 10 year depression. I mean, how is a $50,000 debt assigned to every non-governmental worker supposed to allow them to go out and buy more five or ten years from now? The interest alone will cost them an additional $2,000 year forever, if they don't also pay down the principle. | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4475 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: The New Deal "stretched" the Depression? How long was recovery *supposed* to take? | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1270 Registered: 08-2006 |
Dan, In 1921 the country went into a depression. Unemployment rose to over 5 million. The government did relatively little about it. There were failures all over and the economy recovered in about a year. No Bush/Obama attempt was made to saddle the average non-governmental worker with a $50,000 debt plus a $2,000 annual interest bill figured at 4% interest. | ||
Flanders_field Member Username: Flanders_field Post Number: 1748 Registered: 01-2008 |
The early 20th century US economy also did not have to contend with a global economy and the massive outsourcing/offshoring of jobs including the loss of a huge chunk of its industry and manufacturing on a scale comparable in any way to the past 30 years. The idea that our economy will recover in the same manner as before, including recent recessions when bubbles of vapor artificially restored the economy, in the tech boom of the 90s and the housing boom of this decade seems to be a bit of wishful thinking, IMO. (Message edited by Flanders_field on February 28, 2009) | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 583 Registered: 04-2008 |
Oladub, I think you are mistaking the roaring 20's for the depression. The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn starting in most places in 1929 and ending at different times in the 1930s or early 1940s for different countries. The Great Depression originated in the United States and historians most often use as a starting date the stock market crash on October 29, 1929, known as Black Tuesday. And, true, the Hoover government did relative little about it. Hoover didn't believe in helping the individual weather the depression, but believed in helping business. However, the Roosevelt "New Deal" beginning in 1932 did plenty about it and remains controversial in some quarters. This led to the Republicans being considered the party of the wealthy class, while the Democrats stood up for the common man. Eleanor Roosevelt did her part for the lowest social classes as well, countering prejudice and Jim Crow wherever she could. Some would name them the greatest leaders of the free world. Hoover=depression, Roosevelt=recovery. Bush=depression, Obama=recovery. | ||
Bulletmagnet Member Username: Bulletmagnet Post Number: 1809 Registered: 01-2007 |
Bush=E-ville, Obama=Gah-duh. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 1271 Registered: 08-2006 |
No, I was specific to the 1921 depression which was in reference to Dan's question (see my post 1268 above). This was during Harding's, not Hoover's, adminstration. Doing very little to counteract the 1921 depression with its 5M unemployed, the economy promptly recovered. In 1924, still before Hoover, the Fed unleashed liquidity creating the Roaring Twenties bubble that popped during the Hoover administration so he got the blame.I used this as a contrast to the Hoover/Roosevelt approach that mired us in a 'U' shaped recovery instead of a 1921 'V' shaped recovery. Hoover did attempt many of the same inept solutions that Roosevelt later utilized. Roosevelt put his own Supreme Court judges in so he implemented some similar programs to Hoover's that weren't ended by the Court as Hoover's had been. "In fighting the depression,“no peacetime president since Jefferson had done more to expand the powers of the presidency than Hoover had in that one year.” -historian Robert Sobel My larger point in post 1268 though was that the Bush/Obama billing of the average US worker with $50,000 of debt is not compatable with a long term recovery. I asked how saddling workers with an additional interest of perhaps $2,000 annually plus principle was conducive to recovery and no one responded to that. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19087 Registered: 11-2006 |
Classic CYF..."new" (as in not seen before, unique??), followed by "as in the New Deal"....???? Contradict yourself much? | ||
Danindc Member Username: Danindc Post Number: 4476 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: I don't know enough about the 1921 recession to comment. Although this suddenly seems to be the new "I FOUND IT!" that the right-wing is latching onto. It bears investigating the circumstances that led to the 1921 recession before a one-size-fits-all approach is applied. | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 586 Registered: 04-2008 |
cc, what in the world are babbling on about in "Classic CYF..."new" (as in not seen before, unique??), followed by "as in the New Deal"....???? Contradict yourself much?" FDR's actions are commonly referred to as the "New Deal". I fail to detect contradiction. Please be more specific so that I can respond rationally, otherwise I will reluctantly file it in the "drivel" folder. (Message edited by classicyesfan on March 02, 2009) | ||
Classicyesfan Member Username: Classicyesfan Post Number: 587 Registered: 04-2008 |
Oladub: "No, I was specific to the 1921 depression which was in reference to Dan's question (see my post 1268 above). This was during Harding's, not Hoover's, adminstration. Doing very little to counteract the 1921 depression with its 5M unemployed, the economy promptly recovered." I thought by "depression" that you were referring to the events of 1929 and afterwards. 1921 is not widely held to be a "depression" now. From Professor Parker at East Carolina University: "The 1920s began with a recession lasting 18 months from the peak in January 1920 until the trough of July 1921. Original estimates of real GNP from the Commerce Department showed that real GNP fell 8 percent between 1919 and 1920 and another 7 percent between 1920 and 1921 (Romer, 1988). The behavior of prices contributed to the naming of this recession “the Depression of 1921,” as the implicit price deflator for GNP fell 16 percent and the Bureau of Labor Statistics wholesale price index fell 46 percent between 1920 and 1921. Although thought to be severe, Romer (1988) has argued that the so-called “postwar depression” was not as severe as once thought." | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 4528 Registered: 02-2004 |
The U.S. is now a strong Democratic nation and the Republicans will be sitting ducks. We're a Obamaist Nation. Driven for socialist proletarian Obamaism ideologies. Worker's Party of the United States unite. We have nothing to lose but our chains. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19129 Registered: 11-2006 |
Ever read history Danny? Particularly early 20th century Russian history. Thank G-d we are a democracy and we can kick out the socialists when (not if) we learn the folly of that method. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8596 Registered: 02-2007 |
ever actually understood a concept bats? there is nothing, repeat nothing, that justifies your continual reductio ad comiepinko arguments. | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 19136 Registered: 11-2006 |
Once again, the hypocritical argument from Rb..."you must prove it", and in the next breath...there is no proof....why...apparently (in your mind) because you declare it. Try logic. | ||
Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 8598 Registered: 02-2007 |
sorry, bats, what, exactly, is hypocritical? tell you what, let's have an outside party determine which of us has ever provided proof for statements. guess who would win that one? and where, exactly, did I ask for proof? i just called you out for always spewing venom without basis (and invented a new name for your favorite rhetorical fallacy) I never asked for "proof." everyone here knows asking you for "proof" is like asking a slab of bacon to cure heart disease. Besides, there is nothing for you to prove -- there is "no there there" I thank Obama for constantly showing up the small-minded fringe that increasingly define the Republican Party |
