President Obama's Speech-What did you think?

danzig wrote:tvb hey dick head I went to a private Catholic school up until High School. I experienced both sides of the system. There was no comparision.
Put your money where your mouth is (what is left of it) and shut up.

No....Not a "dick head" at all..........tvb is a woman. Feel tough now do you? (I'll bet you can beat your grandmother at ice hockey too)

(well..alright.......But you came damn close to beating her....& would have ......if she just stopped "High Sticking" you!!)

Oy - you outed me and now he's probably going to think I'm in need of some "bitch-slapping" like Joe Biden

jpete wrote:

stockingfull wrote:

jpete wrote:Stocking, if Hoover had done "nothing", we might not even talk about 1929. The fact of the matter is that he did "something". It was the wrong thing and we know what happened. Do a little research on the market crash of 1920-1921. It's hard to find info on it because the government did NOTHING. Over 500 banks closed and the market tanked due to WWI debt. You've never heard of it because it lasted less than a year. Compare the to FDR and Bush/Obama. In my expirience, in any crisis, the person screaming "We HAVE to do SOMETHING!!!" is about to do the WRONG thing. Sometimes nothing is the right thing. When you're lost in the woods, sit down and don't do anything.

This observation has been made before here and, to me, it just doesn't withstand the most superficial scrutiny.

Harding is rated as a President even more deficiently (38/42) than Hoover (34/42) and Dubya (36/42). So, if his response to the "crash of 1920-21" was so exemplary, I have a couple questions:
1. How is it that this wonderful model wasn't followed by Hoover in 1929? (Are we even sure he didn't?)
2. How is it that FDR didn't return to it when he took office in 1933?
3. How come we haven't heard it mentioned more widely since the current meltdown began last September?
4. With all the experts economists (many of them Republicans, especially last fall when it started!) who've studied the crashes and the Depression, how is it that there wasn't a robust debate about this wonderful 1920 approach when, or before, Bush threw $350 Billion at the banks with virtually no strings attached within a couple days of the crash?
5. Has this notion (that Harding's 1920-21 response was so darned good) been run through Snopes?

There's no need to even bother looking at this model, IMO, in the complete absence of any circumstantial indication, whether in history, or by current economic experts, or in any other way, that it was worth a *censored*.

So if there is a "successful" (ie. no long term depression) then we can't look at it to see what was done?

1) Yes, we are sure we passed the "Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act". That counts as "something" rather than "nothing"
2) FDR was of the opinion of the current president that only government can solve our problems.
3) Anyone who doesn't agree with the current administration is demonized or ignored.
4) Are these the same "experts" that brought us the current situation? They don't seem to be working out.
5) Who snopes Snopes?

You get your experts, and I'll get mine and we'll let them go at it "Thunder Dome" style. Deal?

http://www.cato.org/fiscalreality

Jeff, the problem with the "Cato List" and with your argument is that you can't blame it on the "godless, pointy-headed liberals" this time. All this started in September 2008 with the failures -- and IMMEDIATE bailouts -- of AIG and the bankers. Just as a tiny point of information -- in case people have forgotten -- not only wasn't Obama the President then, the election was a month and a half away. Sure, there were people in the GOP who opposed the banking bailouts; but they didn't even carry the day in the Republican party!

After that time, there was a continuing campaign, including a number of debates between the presidential candidates. At no time did I hear either of them endorse the "old-tyme economic religion" which the Cato List (including one 89 year-old Nobel laureate and a bunch of lesser-magnitude economics professors with tenure) represents. But I'm not relying on the "Thunder Dome" cred match you suggest, because it's not necessary. Your own party's president didn't choose to follow this school of economic thought before January 20, 2009, and neither did the American public in the last election. The argument over which is the right path is over; the choice has been made by both parties and by the American voters in what was about as close to a plebiscite on the issue as you can get.

In the end, as I've said before, nobody's got a reliable crystal ball, nor is there any guarantee that either side is right. But the leaders of both parties AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE have cast their lot with the deficit-stimulus approach. So the best that can be said of your thesis at this point is that it occupies the enviable position of the "alternative not chosen," in case the whole thing doesn't work.

We're in what's called "full-scale testing" now.

What do I think? He still campaing! He can't stop. He bet the white house on his ecomic plans. The sad part he probaly will not finish his term. Working people will not stand for bailing out the dead beats, paying health care for every one and selling of country assets to China and continuing loss of jobs. Limiting the amount of money people have access through higer taxes will have peopel in the streets.

Stockingfull, you've got a number of things wrong. First, "IF" I'm an R, I'm closer to Barry Goldwater than the current crop of neo cons. And that "if" I am and since I am registered as "unaffiliated" and voted Constitution Party in November, that's a mighty big "if". Second, this mess started with the Gramm/Leach/Bliley Act which repealed Glass/Steagal and was signed into law by Clinton.

All you have to do is look at this thread to see what's wrong with America. We are too divided, but the fix is coming! Within tens years we will be united
again. United in our poverty!

Don_t_Say wrote:All you have to do is look at this thread to see what's wrong with America. We are too divided, but the fix is coming! Within tens years we will be united
again. United in our poverty!

I think you are only partly right. When our comrade president gets through with his hyper inflation program the country will again unite behind a right wing candidate. That's what they did in Germany. Lets hope it turns out better here.

He sounded great but what he says and what he does are two different things.

Richard

harry coal wrote:. The sad part he probaly will not finish his term. Working people will not stand for bailing out the dead beats, paying health care for every one and selling of country assets to China and continuing loss of jobs. Limiting the amount of money people have access through higer taxes will have peopel in the streets.

I don't think he'll finish his term, either, but for different reasons: with martial law/national emergency, it will be too "dangerous" for the country for him to leave office. Who will prevent a reversal of the two terms limit in that scenario?

Ashcat wrote:

harry coal wrote:. The sad part he probaly will not finish his term. Working people will not stand for bailing out the dead beats, paying health care for every one and selling of country assets to China and continuing loss of jobs. Limiting the amount of money people have access through higer taxes will have peopel in the streets.

I don't think he'll finish his term, either, but for different reasons: with martial law/national emergency, it will be too "dangerous" for the country for him to leave office. Who will prevent a reversal of the two terms limit in that scenario? FDR lasted more than two terms, no?

I don't think there was any Constitutional term limit until after FDR. Only a specified a four year term. George Washington started the tradition by stepping down after two terms and all other presidents respected that tradition until that rat FDR.

And I HOPE BHO finishes his term. Other wise we are stuck with Biden! Or worse, Pelosi!

jpete--Thanks. While you were posting your response, I investigated the matter and returned here (and removed the FDR line, then read your post). You are correct.

jpete wrote:I don't think there was any Constitutional term limit until after FDR.

You are right. The 22nd amnedment of 1947 set a 2 term limit for Presidents. http://www.ask.com/bar?q=when+was+a+pre ... nstitution

franco b wrote:

Don_t_Say wrote:All you have to do is look at this thread to see what's wrong with America. We are too divided, but the fix is coming! Within tens years we will be united
again. United in our poverty!

I think you are only partly right. When our comrade president gets through with his hyper inflation program the country will again unite behind a right wing candidate. That's what they did in Germany. Lets hope it turns out better here.

He sounded great but what he says and what he does are two different things.

Richard

Hitler was member of the Nationalist Socialist Party (Natzi). I've never heard of a "right wing socialist".

Don_t_Say wrote:

franco b wrote:

Don_t_Say wrote:All you have to do is look at this thread to see what's wrong with America. We are too divided, but the fix is coming! Within tens years we will be united
again. United in our poverty!

I think you are only partly right. When our comrade president gets through with his hyper inflation program the country will again unite behind a right wing candidate. That's what they did in Germany. Lets hope it turns out better here.

He sounded great but what he says and what he does are two different things.

Richard

Hitler was member of the Nationalist Socialist Party (Natzi). I've never heard of a "right wing socialist".

While Fascism is a form of socialism, Hitler never advocated government ownership of the means of production or the abolition of private property. At the first opportunity he eliminated the socialist leadership in his party, (Stroesner) during " The night of the long knives". The Nazi party was socialist in name only.

Richard

Oh, this is the height of hilarity, kinda like Hannity's blog the other night about what form the "revolution" would take.

"To the streets, me hearties!"

... and to prison for sedition.

We had an election. The outcome wasn't close. The President is doing just what he said he'd do. If you don't like it (and it's far too early for most people to evaluate that, but we realize many of you have supernatural powers to predict the future ), under our Constitution and laws you can challenge his laws in court, or vote for the other guy next time around.

In the meantime, suck it up; ya sound like a bunch of babies.

stockingfull wrote:
In the meantime, suck it up; ya sound like a bunch of babies.

Sounds like what the Tories might espouse.

Nothing like a flaming liberal to stifle opposition rather than explain why your way is better.

Why not just take 100% of all our money and let the government decide what to do with it? You don't seem to be able to think for yourself so by all means, put your life in the governments hands, cradle to grave.