Obama's honeymoon is over - now it's his recession

[sealybobo]

Here's one, though I don't expect leftist worshipers of FDR to accept the truth.

Great Myths of the Great Depression [Mackinac Center]

Ah, a free enterprise think tank revisionist history piece, how appropriate. The trouble is this is made up history, the facts as outlined in the urls counter this revisionist BS.

What can one make of these think tanks, mostly conservative, that are funded by some sort of magic? Actually corporations fund them for obvious reasons.

Mackinac Center for Public Policy - SourceWatch

These groups feign openness but are tools just as you are a tool. Next piece please.

Revisionist my ass. Mebby you should read through the end notes and references.

But hey, when you can't refute the facts with any of your own, the natural next step for mental midgets is the reducto ad hominem to poison the well and disparage the source.

Post some of the "facts" and we'll explain the slant. Don't make us do all the work shit for brains.

 

[sealybobo]

The "talk" is by the "talking heads," period.

Talking heads? Could you be more specific?

Chatterers on the cable news channels ("could we?" or "should we?"). There has been NO consideration in Washington for another stimulus.

Subliminal ......................................................"Is Obama a Socialist????"........... scroll at the bottom of the tv.

 

[elvis]

I never once said any such thing. Why? Because it never occurs to me to USE the same stupid ploys against someone who disagrees with me on politics by accusing them of supporting enemies. I invite you to do a search of everything I posted and prove where I said anything remotely resembling that.

I have complained in the past about people (um, another Elvis, surprise surprise ) of calling me disgusing sexist names, like a ****. THAT, my dear man, has zero in common with calling someone who disagrees with me an "enemy."

Interesting how the rabid Obama haters seem to be actually supporting U.S. enemies now. Pathetic.

there's one.

Yep. And fully warranted, too. It was incredible how many righties jumped to slam Obama when he wouldn't immediately embrace the Iranian protesters, but were mum when it came to renouncing Achmedinejad. I wasn't the only one who noticed, sir. The comment was made to make the point that it doesn't matter WHAT Obama does, you people will take the opposite view. Sick.

Next?

there's no next about it, you ******* idiot. You wonder why people call you names. calling people traitors goes far beyond partisanship and is much worse than a woman being called a ****. unbelievable.

 

[Oddball]

Ah, a free enterprise think tank revisionist history piece, how appropriate. The trouble is this is made up history, the facts as outlined in the urls counter this revisionist BS.

What can one make of these think tanks, mostly conservative, that are funded by some sort of magic? Actually corporations fund them for obvious reasons.

Mackinac Center for Public Policy - SourceWatch

These groups feign openness but are tools just as you are a tool. Next piece please.

Revisionist my ass. Mebby you should read through the end notes and references.

But hey, when you can't refute the facts with any of your own, the natural next step for mental midgets is the reducto ad hominem to poison the well and disparage the source.

Post some of the "facts" and we'll explain the slant. Don't make us do all the work shit for brains.

The links are posted....Either read the sourced material or STFU, dickhead.

 

[midcan5]

Revisionist my ass. Mebby you should read through the end notes and references.

But hey, when you can't refute the facts with any of your own, the natural next step for mental midgets is the reducto ad hominem to poison the well and disparage the source.

Oh jeez, I forgot the notes and references. You are a bigger fool than I thought if that is all you have. When someone has no argument and loses as you do so often, the references must contain some morsel of hope. LMAO

And the other posts counter your complete lack of knowledge.


"The causes of the Great Depression are hotly disputed by scholars even to this day. No one knows the ultimate reason why the economy started plunging downhill in 1929. However, several things are certain:

* There was a variety of things wrong with the economy going into 1929, and they had been deteriorating throughout the decade.

* The conservative economic policies of the 1920s -- low taxes, little regulation, lack of anti-trust enforcement -- did nothing to stop the August recession and the October stock market crash.

* Hoover kept the Federal Reserve from expanding the money supply while bank panics and billions in lost deposits were contracting it. The Fed's inaction was the reason why the initial recession turned into a prolonged depression.

* The economy continually sank throughout Hoover's entire term. Under Roosevelt's New Deal, it rose five out of seven years.

* Attempts to blame Big Government for the Depression do not withstand serious scrutiny. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had a minor impact because trade formed only 6 percent of the U.S. economy, and reducing trade gave Americans only that much more money to spend domestically. Hoover's other attempts at government intervention came mostly during his last year in office, when the Depression was already at its depth.

* The first nations to come out of the Great Depression -- Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, and then everyone else -- did so after they adopted the Keynesian solution of heavy deficit government spending.

* Keynesian economic policies have eliminated the depression from the world's economies in the six decades that have followed." [Reagan/Bush/Rove/Cheney changed that]

Summary

 

[midcan5]

there's no next about it, you ******* idiot. You wonder why people call you names. calling people traitors goes far beyond partisanship and is much worse than a woman being called a ****. unbelievable.

Such nice language and such inspiring analysis. The wingnuts are doing what they did when Clinton was elected, going plain crazy is the only way I can describe it. Limbaugh et al want him to fail because ? tell me why he wants him to fail as the past eight years, actually more, were a failure for the nation. Partisanship on the right has reached a level that is hard to believe, as ultimately it hurts the entire country. The rational thing would be to see if the policies work better than the past policies. If they too fail we are in a real quandary as 'trickle down social darwinism' didn't work. And illegal invasions of sovereign nations didn't work. Definitely time for change.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unemployment was 7.1% when Reagan (the conservative gold standard of economic policy) was elected. It rose for 2 years, and stayed above that 1980 number for 5 years.

 

[Oddball]

Revisionist my ass. Mebby you should read through the end notes and references.

But hey, when you can't refute the facts with any of your own, the natural next step for mental midgets is the reducto ad hominem to poison the well and disparage the source.

Oh jeez, I forgot the notes and references. You are a bigger fool than I thought if that is all you have. When someone has no argument and loses as you do so often, the references must contain some morsel of hope. LMAO

And the other posts counter your complete lack of knowledge.


"The causes of the Great Depression are hotly disputed by scholars even to this day. No one knows the ultimate reason why the economy started plunging downhill in 1929. However, several things are certain:

* There was a variety of things wrong with the economy going into 1929, and they had been deteriorating throughout the decade.

* The conservative economic policies of the 1920s -- low taxes, little regulation, lack of anti-trust enforcement -- did nothing to stop the August recession and the October stock market crash.

* Hoover kept the Federal Reserve from expanding the money supply while bank panics and billions in lost deposits were contracting it. The Fed's inaction was the reason why the initial recession turned into a prolonged depression.

* The economy continually sank throughout Hoover's entire term. Under Roosevelt's New Deal, it rose five out of seven years.

* Attempts to blame Big Government for the Depression do not withstand serious scrutiny. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had a minor impact because trade formed only 6 percent of the U.S. economy, and reducing trade gave Americans only that much more money to spend domestically. Hoover's other attempts at government intervention came mostly during his last year in office, when the Depression was already at its depth.

* The first nations to come out of the Great Depression -- Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, and then everyone else -- did so after they adopted the Keynesian solution of heavy deficit government spending.

* Keynesian economic policies have eliminated the depression from the world's economies in the six decades that have followed." [Reagan/Bush/Rove/Cheney changed that]

Summary

Pure unadulterated swill.

Hoover meddled with monetary policy and tinkered with every aspect of economic policy he could lay his hands on, and Smoot-Hawley exacerbated that know-noting intervention in the markets.....Claiming that there wasn't any, let alone sufficient, intervention is just a bald-faced lie.

Overbearing Keynesian technocratic economic policies end up causing economic problems...Crediting that voodoo with being the "cure" is akin to crediting the arsonist for putting out the fire.

 

[MaggieMae]

there's one.

Yep. And fully warranted, too. It was incredible how many righties jumped to slam Obama when he wouldn't immediately embrace the Iranian protesters, but were mum when it came to renouncing Achmedinejad. I wasn't the only one who noticed, sir. The comment was made to make the point that it doesn't matter WHAT Obama does, you people will take the opposite view. Sick.

Next?

there's no next about it, you ******* idiot. You wonder why people call you names. calling people traitors goes far beyond partisanship and is much worse than a woman being called a ****. unbelievable.

Tell it to Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, and all the FAUXNEWS and other right-wing loudmouths during the 04 campaign. Shove it, palie.

Just wunnerin' -- Where's the original "Elvis"?? He seems to have magically disappeared...

 

[MaggieMae]

Unemployment was 7.1% when Reagan (the conservative gold standard of economic policy) was elected. It rose for 2 years, and stayed above that 1980 number for 5 years.

Most pubs who post here seem to have memory spans of gnats.

 

[elvis]

Yep. And fully warranted, too. It was incredible how many righties jumped to slam Obama when he wouldn't immediately embrace the Iranian protesters, but were mum when it came to renouncing Achmedinejad. I wasn't the only one who noticed, sir. The comment was made to make the point that it doesn't matter WHAT Obama does, you people will take the opposite view. Sick.

Next?

there's no next about it, you ******* idiot. You wonder why people call you names. calling people traitors goes far beyond partisanship and is much worse than a woman being called a ****. unbelievable.

Tell it to Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, and all the FAUXNEWS and other right-wing loudmouths during the 04 campaign. Shove it, palie.

Just wunnerin' -- Where's the original "Elvis"?? He seems to have magically disappeared...

I'm the only elvis on here. I changed my avatar. that's all. i didn't like cheney and rove comparing people to bin laden and I don't like shitheads like you doing it either. so bite me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unemployment was 7.1% when Reagan (the conservative gold standard of economic policy) was elected. It rose for 2 years, and stayed above that 1980 number for 5 years.

Most pubs who post here seem to have memory spans of gnats.

It's the peril of thinking that talk radio is a history class.

Reagan also inherited an economic expansion, and the country went BACK into recession 6 months after Reagan took office.

 

[Dr Grump]

This recession will go down in history as Baby Bush's recession, no matter how it is spun...

 

[Zoom-boing]

This recession will go down in history as Baby Bush's recession, no matter how it is spun...

It certainly will . . . in your world.

 

[Dr Grump]

It certainly will . . . in your world.

In any normal person's world...

 

[Dr.House]

It seems democratics will never take responsibility for any of their mistakes...

Not unexpected...

 

[elvis]

It seems democratics will never take responsibility for any of their mistakes...

Not unexpected...

yeah, they still call Vietnam Nixon's war. never understand that, either.

 

[jillian]

It seems democratics will never take responsibility for any of their mistakes...

Not unexpected...

yeah, they still call Vietnam Nixon's war. never understand that, either.

who's they? i think most people know that johnson was the one who escalated it and nixon ended it... a term too late, but ended it nonetheless. so i'm not quite sure why the baseless comment.

as for "their mistakes"... i'm afraid i've never seen a rightie admit that this is bush's debacle and now they're just trying to clean up his mess. if the wingers were any type of rational, i'm sure there could be discussion on what works, what doesn't... what they should do and where they should change course.

but the wingers aren't interested in that... it would require honest, realism and an admission of their own failed policies.

 

[elvis]

It seems democratics will never take responsibility for any of their mistakes...

Not unexpected...

yeah, they still call Vietnam Nixon's war. never understand that, either.

who's they? i think most people know that johnson was the one who escalated it and nixon ended it... a term too late, but ended it nonetheless. so i'm not quite sure why the baseless comment.

as for "their mistakes"... i'm afraid i've never seen a rightie admit that this is bush's debacle and now they're just trying to clean up his mess. if the wingers were any type of rational, i'm sure there could be discussion on what works, what doesn't... what they should do and where they should change course.

but the wingers aren't interested in that... it would require honest, realism and an admission of their own failed policies.

They? John Kerry called it Nixon's war in the 2004 campaign, for one. He said he came home and protested against Nixon's war. and I"ve heard it many times.

 

[jillian]

They? John Kerry called it Nixon's war in the 2004 campaign, for one. He said he came home and protested against Nixon's war. and I"ve heard it many times.

I don't recall that. But last I checked, Kerry is "he" and not "they" and isn't president. Certainly it doesn't change the point of my comment.

*edit* what i was able to get from a VERY quick google is that it wasn't Vietnam that was referred to as "nixon's war"... it was the bombing of Cambodia.... an illegal action that they denied was occurring if I recall my history correctly.

Again, doesn't diminish my point one iota, just deflects from the discussion.