Obama to Repeat FDR's Scam

Shewter said:

It's easy to blame the media.

Click to expand...

Especially since they're at fault.

Shewter said:

Just remember, the media broadcasts what will bring them the best ratings.

Click to expand...

:bs

Wrong. If that were the case, they would have covered a Democratic presidential candidate (Edwards) knocking up his mistress. In 10 months, they ran a couple dozen stories on John Edwards cheating on his wife while preaching about family values and dragging her around the country for pity votes as she fought cancer.

Yet in the first five days after word got out that Sarah Palin's daughter was pregnant, there were almost 1,000 stories.

The media cover what will get them ratings at the expense of conservatives.

Shewter said:

Obama was new to the scene, so was Palin. The difference? Obama was a smoothe speaker. Palin was not.

Click to expand...

She was smooth anytime she was asked questions remotely similar to the ones Obama got.

Shewter said:

You are putting way too much effort into making it look like the media is the only thing that effects peoples opinions.

Click to expand...

When they're burying one entire side of the story, yes, they become omnipresent.

Shewter said:

People liked to watch Palin blunder. So, the media delivered, we ate it up. End of story.

Click to expand...

Overwhelmingly, people thought the media was trying to destroy Sarah Palin, according to the polls. They were not rooting the media on. They were disgusted.

And again, if Obama had received anywhere near the same coverage, people would've seen the non-stop blunders those of us saw who worked around the media to get multiple sides of the story. He is a programmed Saul Alinsky Manchurian candidate with no clue how to govern.

aquapub said:

Actually, the joke here is liberals pretending to be something other than the most notoriously historically ignorant people on the planet.

From my book:

"Rexford Tugwell, a crucial figure in FDR‘s New Deal, even admitted that 'practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.'

Claremont Institute. 'Debating the New Deal.'”

Click to expand...

So your point is even if the Republican got elected he would have done FDR's scam. And of course he would have. Nobody cares about the right wing view when 1 out of 4 are starving.

Which is why the whole question is irrelevant. Even if do nothing laissez-faire would have worked better (which is entirely academic), no libertarian would have had any chance at power since poor people can vote too.

Harry Guerrilla said:

What was odd about FDR is that traditionally democrats had been against big federal government. FDR blew that out of the water though.

Click to expand...

Very true, though keep in mind this was also the time when the Democrats controlled the Southern white vote, something that seems incomprehensible today.

There is a big communication problem where Democrats and Republicans are on the political scale.

Democrats are more like bottom up socialists where as Republicans are top down socialists.

Click to expand...

It's the demand side baby!

Ethereal said:

Don't you find it slightly curious that the depression which saw the most government intervention lasted longer than any other depression in American history?

Click to expand...

There were longer.

Don't you find it curious we haven't had a depression since?

Research the depression of 1921 (I believe that was the year). It saw very little government intervention and lasted only one year. The Great Depression, however, was typified by massive government intervention and lasted roughly a decade; that is until WWII shocked our economy into recovery, which, consequently, provided a convenient mask for FDR's economic buffoonery.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the war effort as economic buffoonery? I agree that the ban on strikes was pretty horrible, but, well, we won and production skyrocketed across the board.

The idea that government officials can properly "manage" something as large, as complex, and dynamic as a country's economy is beyond laughable. No matter how many times history has proven this underlying concept to be a complete and abject failure it continues to persist like some incurable virus. Get the government out of our economy and our lives and we'll be just fine. It's about time for Americans to come out from under mommy's skirt...

Click to expand...

And if this "Let them eat cake" attitude is what the incoming President FDR had said he would have been overthrown by the people. The economy was just slowing down, it was shrinking at over 10%. The largest drought had hit this country that we've known, uprooting hundreds of thousands of farmers (not to mention that food prices had fallen incredibly fast) who needed to provide for their families.

I don't think FDR did that bad of a job:



Now, in 1937 a recesion hit, but luckily FDR was able to get a $5b stimulus plan passed in order to put that in the rear view mirror.

Also, while everyone else can dis on FDR's actions, nobody talks about what has stood since the Depression, from Hoover Dam to the TVA we gained a lot more from that period than a lot of prosperous times.

Joby said:

So your point is even if the Republican got elected he would have done FDR's scam.

Click to expand...

Not quite. Republicans, if history is any indication, would have expanded the nanny state at about 55 mph. Democrats do it at 95 mph, while claiming to be champions of the Constitution. With Democrats, it's actually a scam.

Joby said:

And of course he would have. Nobody cares about the right wing view when 1 out of 4 are starving.

Click to expand...

:lol:

Thank you for demonstrating my point about liberals being completely historically ignorant. After years of Hoover enacting liberal policies and wildly expanding the nanny state, our economy collapsed. The same inadequately Republican leader who caused the Great Depression by being too liberal would've used the same shortsighted big government approach to try and fix the problem he created, deepening and prolonging the Depression, just like FDR did.

Liberal policies simply don't work, as we've seen yet again almost a hundred years later with Democrat-created $4/gallon gas and the Democrat Affirmative Action lending policies that destroyed the housing market.

Joby said:

Which is why the whole question is irrelevant. Even if do nothing laissez-faire would have worked better (which is entirely academic), no libertarian would have had any chance at power since poor people can vote too.

Click to expand...

It is not academic at all. History has repeatedly proven that liberal policies don't work. And no, just because poor people are always going to vote in favor of trampling the Constitution to redistribute the wealth from those who earn it to those who won't lift a finger for their own station in life doesn't mean that trampling the Constitution was inevitable. Proper vigilance by the other two branches can always put the power grabs of the one trying to trample the Constitution in check.

Joby said:

In 1937 a recesion hit, but luckily FDR was able to get a $5b stimulus plan passed in order to put that in the rear view mirror.

Also, while everyone else can dis on FDR's actions, nobody talks about what has stood since the Depression, from Hoover Dam to the TVA we gained a lot more from that period than a lot of prosperous times.

Click to expand...

:rofl

Thanks for the preview of how Obama apologists will spin the prolonged recovery and spinoff recessions he creates-by misrepresenting his extreme expansion of the nanny state as what saved it, rather than what the market managed to survive despite of.

This is exactly the sleazy, dishonest propaganda tactic (identified in the original post) that will lead to Obama, like FDR, being glorified as a savior (not that that's not already happening) despite the fact that it is Democrats who always create and then greatly worsen the economic problems.

Please, have some integrity and stop perpetuating leftist misinformation. :liar2

Public works could perhaps still save the empire. I hope that Obama's efforts are able to result in at least as many and hopefully many more public works projects than the new deal did.

Oh and the notion that the markets can regulate themselves is dead forever. I take that back. It's dead for now. It will return when it becomes even a feasible scheme for the incredibly wealthy to further concentrate their wealth. At this point its leading to such a massive collapse that it threatens even them. And when it returns from the fringe, its hilarious without end to think that it will not be spewed only from CEOs and the grandsons of CEOs and heritage foundation hacks, but from those within the working class, and those benefiting from government programs who still imagine that they could get ahead if only the weaker workers around them didn't have it so easy.

Hilarious I say, but tragic in the end. Then again comedy is tragedy plus time. One can only laugh in a country where labor is treated like **** and millions of people, not just the rich think that the problem is that workers have it too easy. In a country where the labor of the many produces such astounding wealth for so few and the masses call for lower taxes on the wealthiest before even thinking of themselves. Such opposition to self-interest and reason. Such deeply engrained obedience.

Damn, I voted wrong. grrrr I meant no.

faminedynasty said:

Public works could perhaps still save the empire. I hope that Obama's efforts are able to result in at least as many and hopefully many more public works projects than the new deal did.

Oh and the notion that the markets can regulate themselves is dead forever. I take that back. It's dead for now. It will return when it becomes even a feasible scheme for the incredibly wealthy to further concentrate their wealth. At this point its leading to such a massive collapse that it threatens even them. And when it returns from the fringe, its hilarious without end to think that it will not be spewed only from CEOs and the grandsons of CEOs and heritage foundation hacks, but from those within the working class, and those benefiting from government programs who still imagine that they could get ahead if only the weaker workers around them didn't have it so easy.

Hilarious I say, but tragic in the end. Then again comedy is tragedy plus time. One can only laugh in a country where labor is treated like **** and millions of people, not just the rich think that the problem is that workers have it too easy. In a country where the labor of the many produces such astounding wealth for so few and the masses call for lower taxes on the wealthiest before even thinking of themselves. Such opposition to self-interest and reason. Such deeply engrained obedience.

Click to expand...

Just curious the logic behind the bolded part of your statement.

The rest is so laughable, I'm ignoring it, lest I spew coffee on my keyboard.

aquapub said:

Not quite. Republicans, if history is any indication, would have expanded the nanny state at about 55 mph. Democrats do it at 95 mph, while claiming to be champions of the Constitution. With Democrats, it's actually a scam.

Click to expand...

Democrats state what they're doing before they do it. For example, Obama said he was going to spend a lot of money once he got elected in a stimulus package. If you had paid attention during the campaign season, you would have noticed.

Ronald Reagan, along with the 2 Republicans after him, on the other hand, came in promising a balanced budget. All of them lied to the American people and, in the case of the actor we got introduced to the trillion dollar deficit. But as Dick Morris states in your link, Reagan cut taxes and rode up the deficit so Democrats couldn't spend money...which is perhaps the stupidest explanation for any policy I have ever heard.

Thank you for demonstrating my point about liberals being completely historically ignorant. After years of Hoover enacting liberal policies and wildly expanding the nanny state, our economy collapsed. The same inadequately Republican leader who caused the Great Depression by being too liberal would've used the same shortsighted big government approach to try and fix the problem he created, deepening and prolonging the Depression, just like FDR did.

Click to expand...

a. FDR inherited a Republican created depression and, if your logic holds, it was George W Bush's liberal policies which created this one.
b. All republican office holders are scum who immediately betray their party's ideals once elected, so please stop acting like it's weird.

Liberal policies simply don't work, as we've seen yet again almost a hundred years later with Democrat-created $4/gallon gas and the Democrat Affirmative Action lending policies that destroyed the housing market.

Click to expand...

Care to explain your logic on this?

Damn, you know aquapub, Republicans must really suck if even when they control the federal govt the opposition is still able to destroy the economy.

It is not academic at all. History has repeatedly proven that liberal policies don't work. And no, just because poor people are always going to vote in favor of trampling the Constitution to redistribute the wealth from those who earn it to those who won't lift a finger for their own station in life doesn't mean that trampling the Constitution was inevitable. Proper vigilance by the other two branches can always put the power grabs of the one trying to trample the Constitution in check.

Click to expand...

First, your absolutely right, it's no academic at all. In the United Kingdom, conservative policies were enacted, including cutting public sector wages by 10% and returning to a balanced budget. They completely took a dump on Keynes, despite his being British.

Needless to say the result was so horrible that people remembered it for a long time. Which is why in 1945 they kicked Churchill and his conservative minions to the curb.

Now, how did the UK get out of the slump?

From 1936 onwards the National Government followed a policy of mass rearmament in the face of the rise of Nazi Germany. This provided the economic stimulus that finally ended the depression. By 1937 unemployment had fallen to 1.5 million, from where it fell even further. The mobilisation of manpower following the outbreak of World War II in September 1939 finally ended unemployment.

Click to expand...

That's right, massive got spending.

Or in other words, conservative reactions to the Great Depression was an absolute failure :2wave:

Second, as long as the GOP believes that Paris Hilton, who we all know works so hard, deserves a tax break before I do they can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned. :2wave:

Joby said:

(SNIPPED)
b. All republican office holders are scum who immediately betray their party's ideals once elected, so please stop acting like it's weird.

Click to expand...

ALL politicians immediately betray their constituents once elected, it's not specific to any certain party.

Lately the Republican party has been rewriting the history of the Depression, with the aim of using their fabricated history as a weapon to whack Obama with, when it comes time to take action to clean up Bush's mess.

This effort got a boost up when we started hearing this "FDR prolonged the Depression" nonsense from Harold Cole and Lee Ohanian at UCLA. Trying to ridicule stimulus programs like the ones being contemplated now in Washington , these two guys claimed, with no evidence, that the New Deal recovery took longer than it should have, and that most of the blame for this alleged delay belongs to the National Industrial Recovery Act (the NIRA, not the NRA). This assertion is idiotic: the NIRA was blown away by a Supreme Court ruling only 2 years after enactment, and had very little impact even when it was in force. They claim further that under the NIRA, FDR went too easy on Big Business, which is absurd – Big Business hated FDR more than any man in the 20th century and wanted him destroyed. They insist, also on no evidence, that without the NIRA the Depression would have ended in 1936.


And the people who are trying to peddle this Cole/Ohanian rubbish to the American people: Fox News. Enough said. They claim that historians agree with this assessment, which is dead wrong.


The argument that FDR’s effort to restore the economy took too long begs the question: compared to what? The Republicans? Hoover had almost four years to fix the problem and he failed disastrously: virtually every economic indicator tanked, including the stock market which dropped something like 90 percent. Hoover signed the Smoot Hawley bill even though he knew it was risky, which made matters even worse. Despite all this, the Republicans nominated him for reelection in 1932, and he made clear that he intended to stick to his own economic plans if reelected. Even after he lost the election, he was still yammering at FDR to continue doing things the Hoover way. So clearly Hoover couldn’t have done it better.


And who did the Republicans nominate in 1936? Alf Landon, who liked FDR and publicly approved most of the New Deal (although he criticized it a week before the election because he knew he was about to get crushed by the voters). Landon would have had to do things pretty much the way FDR did, but he couldn’t have done it without FDR showing the way.


The widespread view held by both historians and economists is that FDR did what he had to do. Despite the necessity of essentially rewriting the textbook for modern economics and fiscal policy right in the middle the worst economic crisis on record, he did just what was needed. Bush’s Fed chair, Bernanke, and conservative economist Milton Friedman are among those who have admitted that FDR’s reform of the financial sector was the key step in saving the economy, and that setting up the FDIC was the best move for stabilizing finance in 70 years. FDR saved the banks and the banks helped save the country.


And just as important, FDR restored the one element necessary to any healthy economy: confidence. Once people knew that we had a president who was going to work like a dog to solve the problems, and that there was going to be a sensible level of oversight to prevent speculation, fraud and other nonsense, people spent, bought, invested, worked.


Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman is one of a number of experts who pointed out that the only time the recovery faltered was when FDR dialed back the New Deal programs in 1937, under pressure from conservatives. It was impeding the New Deal programs that impeded the recovery.


Even the way Cole and Ohanian framed the question was wrong: the issue was never how fast FDR rebuilt the economy, but how well he did it. It was a Herculean task that was going to take a long time no matter who was doing it. But at the end of the day, if you’re undergoing open-heart surgery to save your life, do you want the guy who will do it in 10 minutes with a jackknife, or in 2 hours with a surgical team? Or, in Hoover ’s case, someone who can’t do it fast OR do it right? Any effort to launch a quick fix in 1933 would have led to a speculative-bubble sugar-high like the one that caused the Depression in the first place. Building safely and soundly, as FDR did, was what got confidence, spending and investment going. America saw that, and reelected him three times.


People in the political world never seem to grasp the fact that although their own world moves fast, economic change moves slowly. Note that I said economic, not financial – currencies and stocks can jump all over the place in a day, but the underlying economic fundamentals just don’t change that fast. And when you ask these critics – what could FDR have done to speed things up? – a silence descends.


Only FDR could have achieved what he did: not Hoover , not Landon. Not even FDR’s rivals for the 1932 nomination: Al Smith hated FDR and the New Deal, and John Nance Garner interfered with FDR so much that FDR threw him out of the vice-presidency in the 1940 election, and prevented him from running for president.


FDR achieved a miracle, and raised us up from disaster into world conquest. Without FDR’s brilliant New Deal performance, we never could have built the greatest economy in world history and conquered both halves of the world in WWII. Never, not even during the age of Alexander or Genghis Khan or Napoleon, has a nation risen from such disaster to such greatness in such a little time. From economic catastrophe to world domination in only 12 years, and they say it didn’t happen fast enough? Carping about the New Deal is like whining that Sergeant Pepper isn’t perfect because they should have chucked out "Fixing a Hole". It’s freakin Sergeant Pepper. Enough with the whining and the historical revisionism.

Enacting the new Deal policies particularly Social Security, minimum wage, increased tax rates, and government backed unions all played a part to increase the cost of labor in the 30s. The more it cost businesses to hire a worker the less workers they can hire. So it stands to reason that unemployment (a major factor in a recession/depression) would have decreased at a quicker rate than it did without all or some of these policies. This would have resulted in a quicker recovery.
That is not to mention many of the policies enacted were found to be unconstitutional. Many of the programs enacted by the New Deal (Fannie Mae, Fiat Money, FDIC) Are now directly responsible for our current situation. Since we have a school system run by the government, most people have been taught to believe FDR was a knight in shining armor when really he was a turd carrying megalomaniac.

Phoenix said:

Enacting the new Deal policies particularly Social Security, minimum wage, increased tax rates, and government backed unions all played a part to increase the cost of labor in the 30s. The more it cost businesses to hire a worker the less workers they can hire. So it stands to reason that unemployment (a major factor in a recession/depression) would have decreased at a quicker rate than it did without all or some of these policies. This would have resulted in a quicker recovery.
That is not to mention many of the policies enacted were found to be unconstitutional. Many of the programs enacted by the New Deal (Fannie Mae, Fiat Money, FDIC) Are now directly responsible for our current situation. Since we have a school system run by the government, most people have been taught to believe FDR was a knight in shining armor when really he was a turd carrying megalomaniac.

Click to expand...

The economy did not rise or fall depending on labor costs -- it depended on the needs of the market and on spending confidence. Your hypothesis about these policies causing unemployment is directly contradicted by what actually happened. The policies were not unconstitutional and they did not cause the current crisis. And your silly ad hominem attack at the end isn't hurting anything but your credibility.

FDR was one of the most treasonous presidents we've ever had the misfortune of having in office. He blackmailed the SCOTUS to pass his unconstitutional plans, he put us in a state of emergency which authorized the government with power it shouldn't have had and which to this day has not been canceled. And all this talk about how he got us out of the depression, well that has more to do with WW II than anything else. People tend to look at FDR with rose colored glasses and forgive all that he has done to destroy the chains of the Constitution and bring ruin to the Republic. Instead, having firmly set us down the path not of republic, but of oligopoly. Obama I fear is of the same cloth, and we must watch his every move. Well that's true of government as a whole; but Obama can not be trusted. Chicago politicians are the scariest of them all.

I suggest some people read The Roosevelt Myth, it's a really good and objective look at FDR's presidency.

Ikari said:

FDR was one of the most treasonous presidents we've ever had the misfortune of having in office. He blackmailed the SCOTUS to pass his unconstitutional plans, he put us in a state of emergency which authorized the government with power it shouldn't have had and which to this day has not been canceled. And all this talk about how he got us out of the depression, well that has more to do with WW II than anything else. People tend to look at FDR with rose colored glasses and forgive all that he has done to destroy the chains of the Constitution and bring ruin to the Republic. Instead, having firmly set us down the path not of republic, but of oligopoly. Obama I fear is of the same cloth, and we must watch his every move. Well that's true of government as a whole; but Obama can not be trusted. Chicago politicians are the scariest of them all.

I suggest some people read The Roosevelt Myth, it's a really good and objective look at FDR's presidency.

Click to expand...

Treason? Hogwash.
It was the Supreme Court which won its confrontation with FDR, not the other way around.
Our economic recovery was underway long before WWII.
And the rest of your post just descends into more silliness which I won't even address.

HelloDollyLlama said:

Treason? Hogwash.
It was the Supreme Court which won its confrontation with FDR, not the other way around.
Our economic recovery was underway long before WWII.
And the rest of your post just descends into more silliness which I won't even address.

Click to expand...

Dismissal.

FDR first tried to get his plan through. The SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. FDR threatened to pack the court (as the number of justices on the SCOTUS isn't set, it just can't go down) till he put enough people on there that would back his plan as to get it through the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS succumbed to the threat and allowed his plans to go through. Our economic recovery did not take off, unemployment wasn't seriously addressed, until the start of WW II. I suggest you go back and learn some history.

Ikari said:

Dismissal.

... Our economic recovery did not take off, unemployment wasn't seriously addressed, until the start of WW II. I suggest you go back and learn some history.

Click to expand...

That's just not true. The Economy improved after the New Deal. In one year after passage (1933-34) of the ND, the GDP grew 10% and unemployment fell to 21.7% Compensation from before World War I through the Great Depression

Those trends continued until 1938 when FDR adopted 'conservative' actions to balance the budget. Then the progress hit a snag.

Ikari said:

Dismissal.

FDR first tried to get his plan through. The SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional. FDR threatened to pack the court (as the number of justices on the SCOTUS isn't set, it just can't go down) till he put enough people on there that would back his plan as to get it through the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS succumbed to the threat and allowed his plans to go through. Our economic recovery did not take off, unemployment wasn't seriously addressed, until the start of WW II. I suggest you go back and learn some history.

Click to expand...

You're factually inaccurate again. Sorry!

HelloDollyLlama said:

You're factually inaccurate again. Sorry!

Click to expand...

Go read a history book.

Decker said:

That's just not true. The Economy improved after the New Deal. In one year after passage (1933-34) of the ND, the GDP grew 10% and unemployment fell to 21.7% Compensation from before World War I through the Great Depression

Those trends continued until 1938 when FDR adopted 'conservative' actions to balance the budget. Then the progress hit a snag.

Click to expand...

And it was WW II which brought us out of the Great Depression. The New Deal, no matter how unconstitutional, had affects as well as time to bring us up. But it was WW II which had the greatest impact.

The Depression continued with decreasing effect until the U.S. entered the Second World War. Under the special circumstances of war mobilization, massive war spending doubled the GNP (Gross National Product)[44] Civilian unemployment was reduced from 14% in 1940 to less than 2% in 1943 as the labor force grew by ten million. Millions of farmers left marginal operations, students quit school, and housewives joined the labor force. The effect continued into 1946, the first postwar year, where federal spending remained high at $62 billion (30% of GNP).

The emphasis was for war supplies as soon as possible, regardless of cost and efficiencies. Industry quickly absorbed the slack in the labor force, and the tables turned such that employers needed to actively and aggressively recruit workers. As the military grew new labor sources were needed to replace the 12 million men serving in the military. These events magnified the role of the federal government in the national economy. In 1929, federal expenditures accounted for only 3% of GNP. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditure tripled, but the national debt as percent of GNP hardly changed. However, spending on the New Deal was far smaller than spending on the war effort, which passed 40% of GNP in 1944. The war economy grew so fast after deemphasizing free enterprise and imposing strict controls on prices and wages, as a result of government/business cooperation, with government subsidizing business, directly and indirectly.

A major result of the full employment at high wages was a sharp, permanent decrease in the level of income inequality. The gap between rich and poor narrowed dramatically in the area of nutrition, because food rationing and price controls provided a reasonably priced diet to everyone. White collar workers did not typically receive overtime thus the gap between white collar and blue collar income narrowed. Large families that had been poor during the 1930s had four or more wage earners, and these families shot to the top one-third income bracket. Overtime provided large paychecks in war industries.

Click to expand...

New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HelloDollyLlama said:

You're factually inaccurate again. Sorry!

Click to expand...

Do you have anything to back up your claims?

Ikari said:

And it was WW II which brought us out of the Great Depression. The New Deal, no matter how unconstitutional, had affects as well as time to bring us up. But it was WW II which had the greatest impact.

Click to expand...

The country was already headed in the direction of recovery thanks to the New Deal policies initiated by FDR. There’s no doubt the War made the recovery occur much faster.

When FDR had the new deal passed in 1932, the 1932-33 unemployment rate was 23.6-24.9%. When WWII started 1941-42 the unemployment rate was 9.9-4.7%.

How is that not a vindication of the FDR’s new deal?

Now let’s look at the gross national product in those years as well. GNP before and after the New Deal in 1932:

Table 2:1929 1931 1933 1937 1938 1940
Real GNP 101.4 84.3 68.3 103.9 103.7 113.0
in 1929 dollars
(Please match up the #s with the years)
New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How is that kind of progress not a defense of the efficacy of the New Deal for pulling us out of the Depression?

We had begun to rebound after the Great Depression started, but we weren't out of it at the start of WW II. Civil unemployment was still at 14% in 1940, and while the GDP had begun to come back up there were many factors including FDRs New Deal. When WW II broke out, most of the New Deal was put on hold to funnel money into the military effort. It was the military industrialization which skyrocketed our GDP and plunged our unemployment to under 2%; and it was that which put an end to the Great Depression.

aquapub said:

This visionary column by Dick Morris hits the nail on the head:

TheHill.com

As Obama uses the recession to justify wildly expanding the nanny state-to European proportions-under the guise of "recovery," while the policies he enacts actually drag it out and worsen it, he will fundamentally weaken the US and cripple its economy, permanently, with irreversible welfare programs, as FDR did with things like Social Security.

He will also use this insane government expansion to stack the deck for generations against those who prefer individuality, personal responsibility, and self-reliance to nanny state welfare programs and no right to choose.

And like FDR, for his assault on America, Obama will be revered-at least by all who control the flow of information in this country. And the free market enabling this country to still inch its way towards recovery despite liberal policies will be misrepresented for all time as liberals fixing Republican policy failures.

So the question is, will America be the least bit distinguishable from the stagnant, mediocre economies of Europe, with their double-digit unemployment rates and government-run everything by the time this charismatic serpent is done smiling his way past our common sense?

Click to expand...

Morris is a piece of work and we need to pay attention to him as much as we need to pay attention to Bush or Rush. Not, Nil, No. He works for big corporations who were the puppet masters of Bush.

Would one trust Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin? then for forget Morris.

We are leaving a government which has record high spending and record high borrowing, We could feed and house most of America each month for the cost of what Bush borrowed and spent. We are sagging under Bush's debt and you try to shift the problem to Obama. Obama is human, but at least wait and see before you attack. I know the Right Wingers are looking to attack when there is no reason to attack.

At least under Bush, the Left winger, had real reasons to attack Bush. He earned every big and little attack by his own terrible actions.