Letters: We must learn from our history

Why would I vote for Republicans who caused the great recession to fix it? President Barack Obama saved us from a great depression and would be having a better recovery if not for the do nothing Republican Congress.

If they regain power they have promised to cut regulations that led to the great recession. A recession isn’t enough they want the great depression and the destruction of America’s middle class. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Greg Lavergne

electrician

Baker

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 15/06/2012

@chem: The authorization for military action in Afghanistan passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 420 Ayes, 1 Nay, and 10 not voting. The only nay vote was cast by Rep. Barbara Lee a Democrat of California. In the U.S. Senate the vote was 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, and 2 Not Voting. The two not voting were Sen. Larry Craig, and Sen. Jesse Helms, Both Republicans. Authorization for military action against the Hussein Regime in Iraq was passed in the U.S. House with 81 Democrats voting Aye and 126 Nay. Republicans voted 215 Aye and 6 Nay. The Iraq authorization was passed in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 29 Democrats Aye and 21 Democrats Nay. Republicans voted 215 Aye and 6 Nay. So the claim that it was all Bush/Republicans is a rationalization on your part. Let me help you out with what it is to "rationalize". It means "to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes". -[**]- Yes. During the eight years of Bush, Jr the U.S. National Debt increased by about 5 Trillion Dollars. However, the part of that spending attributable to the military is of limited duration. The war will end and spending on it will stop. The deficit spending attributable to Social Security(1935) and other social spending which is a greater part of federal spending will continue forever. SS was broken when implemented and as the number of U.S. Citizens receiving SS benefits continues to increase and the number of U.S. Citizens paying benefits to support SS benefits continues to decline. While originally there were dozens of people paying in for every recipient of benefits, the number today is less than two. Neither party has succeeded in doing anything other than kick the can down the road. Under President Obama the U.S. National Debt in 3.5 years has been increased by an amount greater than what it took the previous administration more than twice that time to accomplish. Look at President Obama's latest jobs bill. He wants money passed to hire more teachers, police, and fire fighters. While those are all worthy jobs. They are in the field of endeavor with the lowest unemployment rate of any in the country 4.2% according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm. It would only help the areas of work already better situated than any other area in the nation. -[**]- Unemployment is worse than you might think: http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/news/economy/unemployment-rate/index.htm There are 86,000,000 Americans of working age not shown in unemployment statistics. The number of such was about 70,000,000 before the current economic downturn. -[**]- Both Republican and Democrat administrations have in the past and currently support free trade. The weakening of banking restrictions which led to banking crisis and foolish bailouts was passed under the administration of and was signed by President Bill Clinton. Democrats also played a leading role in the financial problems that lead to the bursting of the housing bubble. Denial corrupts. Confession is good for the soul. Repent brother!

2) Comment by chem - 13/06/2012

Republicans do not care about the middle class and the middle class continues to shoot itself in the foot by voting for those clowns. Republicans, especially the extreme right-wing types that we have today, kowtow to corporate money. They will continue to screw the middle class in favor of their corporate handlers. The Republicans have mired us in debt because of their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they plunged this country into the worst recession ever because of their looking the other way while their Wall Street cronies gutted our economy. And now that the asinine Supreme Court has stated that corporations are people and have Constitutional rights, the 1% will drown out any dissent by pouring unlimited amounts of money into campaigns to get their dogs elected. Yea, Mr. Lavergne is correct. Good letter.

3) Comment by gravityassist - 13/06/2012

@InPVille: The snarky "get over it" line appears in the 2nd part of a two-part response to caucajun.//As for your suggestion re: the Constitutional "amendments," that's precisely WHERE the crucial nature of presidential elections comes into sharp focus. Their decisions set precedents that add "meaning" to the weight of the body of the basic principles enshrined within the Constitution's outline. The Supreme Court's decisions of late are undeniably "bad decisions,"ceding power to corporations, and away from "we the people." None watching the transparently partisan, grossly biased misuse of their "Supreme" power is happy about the blatant perfidy. Their removal - or additional appointments to dilute their destructive power has become the rallying cry at the "barricades" of the looming Nov 6 battle. More appointments to the Supreme Court like Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, will mean the death of the empire once known as "The United States of America."// A French-like "revolution" will probably be the only viable course of action left to "we the people" to restore the country - and our Constitution - to its original glory. I guess some lessons do have to be learned over and over again! The only positive thing about it is that a new, healthy dawn will await us once again on the other side of the battle.// This is a beautiful country, and it deserves a people who love it and want to protect it from destruction by the greedy forces of malignant capitalism. I think we're ready!// Viva Le Revolucion..........//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmaTNf4YhEs

4) Comment by InPVille - 13/06/2012

@gravityassist: "/ HE REALLY WAS BORN IN HAWAII….GET OVER IT!!" - - - referring to President Obama. -[**]- Pardon me! You have got to be confusing me with some other regular participant in these discussions. I recall not a single instance where I have ever indicated I sign on to "birtherism".

5) Comment by InPVille - 13/06/2012

@gravityassist: The U.S. constitution's amendment process provides a way to limit the powers of corporations and to secure the achievement of other desirable ends. Perhaps you should work toward your goal via that method. If you can convince Congress, the President, and sufficient states to sign off on the idea, your goal can be achieved.

6) Comment by InPVille - 13/06/2012

@gravityassist: Since all of a sudden you have become so concerned with following the original intent of the founding fathers and have brought James Madison into the discussion, On March 3, 1817 then President James Madison vetoed a federal public works bill which sought to set apart and pledge funds "for constructing roads and canals and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote and give security to internal commerce among the several states, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense". It wasn't that he had any objection to the idea of improving roads and waterways. But he could find no authority for such action within the constitution by the federal government. I can find much more attention to the limiting the federal government by specificially enumerating it's powers and writings about concerns of the dangers of the courts becoming too powerful than I can for worry about the powers of corporations. By original intent there could be no national health care law mandates. Many of the programs which Democrats are so fond would not be in existence. These matter would be left to the people or the States. The decision on the creation of new rights of the people would be left to the constitutional amendment process rather to interpretation by SCOTUS or legislation. Questions about Health Care, Abortion Rights, and Gay and Homosexual Rights would be decided by the Constitution's Amendment process as were the questions of Slavery and the Voting Rights of Women was settled rather than either legislative or judicial fiat. Precisely how far does your fealty to original intent extend? The concept of "Natural Law" was also central to the thinking behind the constitution. Both Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas believe in the concept of "Natural Law". It seems this idea is abhorent to Democrats so much so that they created a new term "to Bork" to ensure Judge Bork did not obtain a seat on the Supreme Court going so far as to send agents to examine the contents of Judge Bork's garbage can to find out what kind of movies he rented from the video store. It turned out they were mostly of the Walt Disney variety. A less than successful attempt was made "to Bork" Justice Clarence Thomas. What do you think about "Natural Law"?

7) Comment by gravityassist - 13/06/2012

@InPVille. Hi! Well you’ve really got to WANT to believe in something other than “democracy” (or simply not understand it), or not to know enough about our European roots to remember WHY the Founders were so concerned about the about the “balance of power” in the first place. Their whole INTENT of escaping the climate in Europe for a “new world,” was to escape the oppression of the power of the East India Trading Co, the EXACT kind of threat we are now experiencing at the hands of powerful “corporations.” Their deliberations for a society of free men NOT to be ever burdened with that kind of existential threat to “freedom” and the “pursuit of happiness,” is what inspired them to their “vision” of an America with a government empowered “by the people,” the flesh and blood, thinking feeling, living dying PEOPLE actually affected by the law of the land. The first three words of the Constitution are “We the people.” It doesn’t say “We the people, and the creations of the state, established by law with contracts, stipulations, obligations, and rights established by the state….”// The “absence” of language in a legal document speaks as loud as explicit language itself. The very ABSENCE of any mention of “corporations” in the founding documents is not an omission or explicit invitation to include them, but an express intention to EXCLUDE them (or any other “agent”) from the document’s protections (which is the express purpose of the whole document – to outline the parameters of the people’s “rights.”).//”Silence” is as fundamental to the principles of “law” as explicit language. If you stay “silent” to a legal complaint against you – you lose the case by default.// The Constitution’s intent is to avoid extraneous language (that could become material) and just provide a working scaffold of “principles” from which to extrapolate unknown/unseen elements that would invariably arise. // If you’d actually read that discussion between the historian and the lawyer, or just the summary, it lays the logic of the Constitution bare, and (I think) unassailable: “A court decision to allow corporations unlimited political spending goes against the principles of the Founding Fathers and early Americans because it implies a risk of a government beholden to corporations instead of " government of the people, by the people, for the people". Lincoln quite rightly added only such a government "shall not perish from the earth" and I think we will ignore his words at our peril.”//No it’s not our “Forefather’s Constitution anymore, it’s evolved with the times. But its core principles have always retained their original vigor in our hearts and minds.//Unfortunately, however, because of our failure to be diligent, the US has already - for all intents and purposes – made the dangerous turn down the road of plutocratic Oligarchy. Our Congress no longer represents the will of the people, but the will of the corporations that pay their campaign bills. We’ve got one shot (IMO) – this election – to begin to reclaim our democracy, or I fear the tide will wash us away for good. There are just too many people fallen by the wayside under the influence of powerful propaganda machines. Republicans just need a few months to dismantle what’s taken us 200+ years to build. The money is powerful, however, so Citizens United may – as I intimated – be turn out to be the murder weapon (The Senator in the Library!). Time will tell…and there’s always the specter of another “Civil War” to settle the conflict! Or just maybe the conclusion of the first one…lol.//Your comments about Bain are understood (and uncontested by me). It’s just that, IMO, a ruthless, capitalist corporate raider is the last thing a democratic country needs in effective, compassionate leadership. A country is not a “balance sheet.” There’s no “game” to play of profit (growing a commodity to sell) and loss to be played. It’s a delicate dance of merging disparate ideologies into a workable compromise that allows all participants to flourish.//To be frank with you, I still can’t understand WHY corporations can’t understand they’d be MUCH more profitable if the middle-class was thriving and had the resources to BUY all the commodities and services they’re selling. Like the Clinton years – everyone had enough – and the rich were STILL getting richer. I just don’t get it…unless I’m right, and there really is no there there to the Republican Party…lol. All they’ve got to do is bleed the country dry, destroy it -and the lives of millions of people - and move on to the next "sting." When I think of how complacent in our irrational belief in our own "exceptionalism” we’ve become, and our inability to see how vulnerable we are to the powerful forces of pure greed it makes me want to cry...lol. Einstein (I think) once said the most abundant element in the Universe wasn't hydrogen - it was (rhymes w/cupidity). He WAS a genius...lol. //Anyway, if that’s what you think a democracy should be, InP, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one….lol…Peace!

8) Comment by gravityassist - 12/06/2012

The man truly deserves a Purple Heart for just surviving the grenades of distortion, innuendo, lies and silliness constantly lobbed at him while just doing his duly elected (that’s right – we won the election and they SHOULD have consequences in a true democracy), and managing to keep his cool in the face of such an overwhelming onslaught of nothing but transparently you-know-what-starts w/”r” bullying. (I HONESTLY don’t know HOW he does it).//Obama’s not perfect - by any stretch of the imagination - but he's NOT only NOT the arrogant, extreme-left-leaning “out-to-destroy-the-country" ideologue that Fox (and “Friends” and the hoard of _____ (fill in the blank) they’ve produced) ARE SO DESPERATE to make him out to be. He’s done nothing “radical’ whatsoever (unless you call getting something done on healthcare that presidents – Republican Democrat have been trying to do for 100 years RADICAL). He’s been nothing but an (infuriating) CONSISTENT dead right of center ideologue these past three years (I SO hope that changes), and is THE most educated, most cerebral, most thoughtful, most intelligent, most moral, most ethical, most fair, most COMPETENT - AND MOST INSPIRING - president this country's seen in a HALF A CENTURY!// HE REALLY WAS BORN IN HAWAII….GET OVER IT!! //The world's respect for him is unwavering, and they shake their heads in constant disbelief that SO MANY AMERICANS can really be so gob smacking fill in the blank (rhymes w/cupid). // In addition to what he IS – at this point in history -- what’s really important about him is what he is NOT. He’s the leader of an actual Political Party, NOT a failed-ultra-right-wing conspiracy – the REAL “criminal minds” determined to turn the US into a plutocracy (corporate fascism) – i.e., determined to “destroy America.” ( I know that sounds familiar to you, so I’ve got a tip for you: Whenever you want to know what Republicans ARE REALLY up to, listen closely to what they are accusing Democrats of doing. They give themselves away every time they open their mouths.)//Go back and actually READ the comments already posted on this thread – and learn what’s going on in the REAL world. It’s kinda important stuff.

9) Comment by gravityassist - 12/06/2012

@caucajun//Well, let’s see if I can clean this up enough to please the filter.//Honestly, it’s hard to muster anything but a “meh” over your well-organized and presented list of supposedly “incriminating” deeds. But next to the downright near-criminal (if not actually so – Florida is pushing the envelope) and seditious stuff Republicans have done and are doing, it just makes Obama look like an ordinary, run-of-the mill politician.// I have more real dirt on Obama lurking in the recesses of my mind than you can imagine: gross, irresponsible, destructive offenses against his own base (folks who VOTED for him), while he was trying to meet obstructionist Republicans half way, so determined was he to do his duty to represent the interests of ALL Americans - even the ones who clearly hated his guts. Your little stream-of-consciousness tract about the minute-by-minute obstacles being dreamt up by the eager-beaver hoard of enemies that have dogged this president mercilessly since his election pales in comparison to his constant, unrelenting, unwavering INTEGRITY. In situation after situation, action after action, statement after statement, this president has CONSISTELY REVEALED a sterling CHARACTER, demonstrated at all times, the utmost in ethical human – and ultimately PRESIDENTIAL – behavior, principled, rational, sound reasoning – as opposed to the way Republicans CONSISTENTLY REVEAL their UN-admirable LACK of integrity, unethical –and ultimately childish – behavior, un-principled, irrational and whacked reasoning. All things you’d might have noticed, if you expanded your horizons further than Fox News (the outfit research just confirmed [again!] that produces people who know LESS about what’s REALLY going on in the world than people who watch NO TV at all! )// cont’d

10) Comment by gravityassist - 12/06/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

11) Comment by gravityassist - 12/06/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

12) Comment by gravityassist - 12/06/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

13) Comment by InPVille - 12/06/2012

@gvm: No I can't. I checked my source economist. He cited no reference. My search developed none. However, I did get the impression that government has always tried things to improve the economy, and not always with good results. President Jefferson was the first to have attempted to establish tariffs to positive effect and have it backfire on him as was attempted by Hoover at the beginning of the Great Depression to negative effect. The three things which seem to be part of every recession or depression are banking(financing) issues, property issues, and war; just about in that order or in combination. You might think that after a couple of hundred years, we would have an idea how to keep these things under some control. But it doesn't seem to be happening. My Bad !

14) Comment by InPVille - 12/06/2012

@gravityassist: To point out the other side of the Bain issue as presented, Bain Capital was in the business of buying failing companies. Sometimes the companies could be saved and sometimes they could not. Apparently 80% of the companies were restructured and grew jobs after Bain acquired them and 20% of the companies were liquidated. What I have seen has indicated that Bain acquired companies ended up growing far more jobs than were lost. Remember the businesses were failing and all jobs were on the verge of being lost when Bain became involved. If memory serves Academy Sports and Staples are two companies which Bain Capital was able to turn around. The restructuring of American Automobile Companies led by the current Administration resulted in thousands of non-union employees and retired employees of Delphi Corporation getting the shaft. Some prominent Democrats have made positive assessments of Bain and Romney's work there. At least one has been ostracized for his comments. There is so much politics involved in all of this, I wouldn't want to place a bet on either side of the issue being completely honest in all of this. As the saying goes, the way to tell whether a politician is lying is to check to see whether his lips are moving.

15) Comment by InPVille - 12/06/2012

@gravityassist: I have looked through the U.S. Constitution, the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and through the indexes of my two volume copy of the Federalist Papers. I could find no direct mention of corporations in either The Constitution or in any of the Amendments to it. The Federalist Papers had only two or three vague mentions of corporations. In the books I have from the college course I took on the American Revolution which covered the period through the coming about of the Constitution only Forrest McDonald's "The Formation of the American Republic 1776-1790" contains any discussion of corporations and that is about a Bank's corporate charter and whether it could be invalidated. It was considered to be legally a contract. Section 10 of Article 1 of the Constitution says "No State shall . . . pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, ..." As was pointed out in a previous discussion about corporations by a frequent contributor, corporations are creations of the state and established by law with stipulations, obligations, and rights established by the state. Contracts can be given a period of existence after which they must be redrawn. So contract law can be changed. It seems to me that if corporations were an overwhelming obsession for the founders I'd have found more on it in the founding documents and the Federalist Papers. The founders were concerned about the concentration of power. It is the reason for the three branches of government, the separation of powers, the method established for election of the president, the election of Representatives and Senators, their salaries, and many other things. The national government has taken unto itself powers delegated to the people and to the States. For good or for ill, it is no longer your founding father's constitution.

16) Comment by gvm - 12/06/2012

@Your Brain on Steroids: I am glad to see that someone else feels the same as I do about that rag FOX News. Bravo!

17) Comment by Your Brain on Steroids - 12/06/2012

Greg is a classic example of what is wrong with our country. Voters listening to the lying lame stream media and refusing to look at the facts. Our country is doomed.

18) Comment by caucajun - 12/06/2012

For the White House, it was just the latest entry in the when-it- rains-it-pours ledger. This has been one of the worst stretches of the Obama presidency. In Washington, there is a creeping sense that the bottom has fallen out and that there may be no second term. Privately, senior Obama advisers say they are no longer expecting much economic improvement before the election. … The AP asked about the president’s unfortunate private-sector- is-fine remark. The Reuters correspondent asked about the economic “head winds” from Europe. Ed Henry of Fox News Channel asked about the looming contempt-of-Congress vote against Attorney General Eric Holder. Margaret Talev of Bloomberg News asked about the Supreme Court striking down Obamacare. Norah O’Donnell of CBS News asked about calls for a special prosecutor to probe leaks. Victoria Jones of Talk Radio News asked about the stalled talks with Pakistan. Carney sought relief by calling on TV correspondents from swing states, but the one from Wisconsin asked about the failed attempt to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker and the one from Nevada asked about her state’s unemployment rate, the nation’s highest.

19) Comment by caucajun - 12/06/2012

DMJ, facts are inconvenient for liberals aren't they?

20) Comment by DMJ - 12/06/2012

Caucajun, you're reaching, bub.

21) Comment by caucajun - 12/06/2012

President Barack Obama wants his 2012 re-election campaign to focus on Gov. Mitt Romney’s private-sector record, but his own private-sector history shows that he promoted and profited from the nation’s disastrous real-estate bubble. One striking example comes from the president’s 1995 housing-discrimination class action lawsuit: It provided him with legal fees, greased his political donations and boosted his role in Chicago politics. While he made personal gains, his lead African-American client, Selma Buycks-Roberson, declared bankruptcy in 2001 — and again in 2008 as she received a home foreclosure notice, according to unpublicized federal and city records obtained by The Daily Caller. Buycks-Roberson is still likely underwater on her mortgage, owing more to her home lender than the property is worth. Her house has dropped in value by 30 percent since 2010. Its 2011 assessed value for tax purposes was $97,520, well below her 2006 mortgage of $112,400. Meanwhile, the online real estate database Zillow estimates that home is worth just $69,400 today. Buycks-Roberson’s story is not an anomaly. It can be found repeatedly throughout Obama’s Chicago.

22) Comment by gravityassist - 12/06/2012

obviously ( I hope), a misplaced "Romney" mention in my initial post should have been "Reagan."

23) Comment by gravityassist - 12/06/2012

And, speaking of "Founding Fathers"...@InPVille – I know how interested you are in scholarly material, so as a diversion, thought you might like to peruse something off your beaten path (sort of like the link Old Man Kensey provided). It’s a gentle take-down of Citizens United (the murder weapon in America’s wished for demise), published in The Harvard Review (a history professor’s conversation with a lawyer). /////http://blogs.hbr.org/fox/2010/04/what-the-founding-fathers-real.html///// One reader’s comment (of many) is a good summary:/// “I find the views and foresight of the Founding Fathers enlightening. They foresaw, as early Americans saw, the propensity for unfettered corporations to become imperia in emperiae if I recall my Latin correctly. (MY NOTE: means 'an empire within empires') This is exactly the case we are facing now, which some define as mutant capitalism, diminishing the original importance of social consciousness in corporate decision making.//A court decision to allow corporations unlimited political spending goes against the principles of the Founding Fathers and early Americans because it implies a risk of a government beholden to corporations instead of " government of the people, by the people, for the people". Lincoln quite rightly added only such a government "shall not perish from the earth" and I think we will ignore his words at our peril.//I agree wholeheartedly with Dana Stefanelli therefore that it could lead us to an environment with multiple British East India companies, evidence of a society which most early American settlers tried to escape for a better life. It seems that it only takes 200 years to go full circle, as she states, and I am not sure many are actually aware of this slow and insidious take over.//In my opinion, a radical and thorough review of the principles and thoughts emanating from the Age of Enlightenment, that led to the key documents enshrining the values of the world's pre eminent democracy needs to be undertaken and taught at educational institutions. This in order that all persons, including legal persons, have a firm "understanding of citizenship as something based on accountability and membership in civil society." to quote Brian Murphy from his blog.//History has great relevance as long as we devine the intent rather than get hung up on the semantics and environmental clutter linked to any time period. I am glad to soon read a thoughtful discussion on a very important episode in the US and the world's history and development which we all disregard at our peril//Ferdinand Balfoort”

24) Comment by gravityassist - 12/06/2012

In Conclusion!!///Democracies die without informed, active participation. The Democrats are a party. The Untra Conservatives calling themselves Republicans are a conspiracy. I do think this election will be THE watershed moment – the “jig” as they say is up – finally. Either the Republican Party will slink off and die - or the United States Of America will (a death not unlike the disintegration of The Roman Empire – and for the exact same reasons).//Our Founding Fathers understood well the corrupting power of unregulated greed in an open, “free” environment. They spoke of the danger forthrightly, and with stern warning of the insidious stealth of common thieves. Here’s just a few of their thoughts:// "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." --Thomas Jefferson//"But charters and corporations have a more extensive evil effect than what relates merely to elections. They are sources of endless contentions in places where they exist, and they lessen the common rights of national society” --Thomas Paine The Rights of Man//"The growing wealth acquired by them [corporations] never fails to be a source of abuses."--President James Madison//”I hope Americans – “we the people” – win this fight.” -- gravityassist (not a founding father, but it's MY post.l!)

25) Comment by gravityassist - 12/06/2012

@InPVille// A country is NOT a for-profit business….nothing like it, and it’s economic administration nothing like a household budget. A president’s job is promoting – leading – guiding the machinery of government to strike something close to the right balance between policies that adequately support the welfare of EVERYONE –rich and poor alike – so ALL can be prosperous… and pursue “happiness.”/// Republicans have never, nor will they EVER be in the business of doing something that equitable or moral. Their constituency is rich oligarchs and their corporations….not PEOPLE.// A Republican win in 2012 will NOT result in more jobs for middle-class Americans. There will be some dandy excuses at first – eventually a call for MORE sacrifice – to get closer to the Chinese (who I think are up to $4) and work for $6.00 an hour ( in the existing opportunities), leaving a lot of folks destitute, all the WHILE giving themselves more tax breaks (or lowering their tax rate to zero), while increasing the burden of EVERYTHING on the backs of the middle-class, AND continuing to TRY to suck blood from turnips (the ever growing “poor” class of Americans). That’s longer hours, 7 day work weeks (including children), no rights, no paid sick leave (or family leave.pftt….no women will be working), no paid vacation, no healthcare and no pension. Then when revenues COMPLETELY DRY UP, they’ll start feigning fiscally responsibility (again) and announce the ONLY way to pay off our Chinese debt is to dismantle and and privatize the ENTIRE Federal Government…WHICH HAS BEEN THE GOAL OF THIS RABID INCARNATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR THE LAST 49 YEARS.//The only funny part is no Democrat is convinced Romney even understands any of it particularly well yet, which explains the continuous gaffs (he’s “one note” on economics and just doesn’t seem very bright generally). He’s the REAL "Manchurian," just doing what they’re telling him to do because he DESPERATELY wants his name in the history books.// Meanwhile, Rove is licking his lips and pinching himself because they’re so close to making the dream a reality (goodness knows they’ve thrown enough money on it…lol) He’s convinced that Republicans have perfected their “fool the dumb” act, and are unstoppable (and why shouldn’t he be? Talk about some whopers!!)// I even have complete faith that should the Republicans succeed in destroying the country, you’ll STILL be blaming everyone BUT yourself and Republicans….lol.// (None of this is personal InPville. Underneath the stubbornness, you seem like a very nice soul.) Peace :))

26) Comment by gravityassist - 12/06/2012

@InPville: I’m almost (ALMOST..lol) curious about the prescription YOU would write to fix our ailing economy. It’s hard to believe ANYONE actually BELIEVES a “President Mitt Romney” would unveil to America (in an inauguration speech, perhaps?) some special, secret plan he’s devised to create eight million American jobs. Republican capitalists haven’t considered themselves responsible for, not have they shown any interest in, creating American jobs since Romney opened the flood gates to cheap foreign labor. (And where ARE the jobs that SHOULD have resulted from 11 long years of HUGE tax breaks?)// Governor Romney certainly has no job-creating credentials. He couldn’t/didn’t stem the draining tide of 40,000 Massachusetts manufacturing jobs. He even signed a bill as governor sending American jobs to India. (His excuse was that they weren’t REALLY “Massachusetts jobs.” Well…yeah, I guess that does make ALL the difference…lol!)// The folks in Massachusetts don’t even remember him being IN the state half the time he was governor, much less working for THEM. He was too busy (ala Bobby?) off campaigning for president// What Romney knows how to do is DESTROY jobs. And he seems quite good at it. (But really, how hard is it to profit from firing people and leaving them with no healthcare and robbing them of their pensions). Romney’s Bain job was loading up troubled companies with debt, firing ordinary working Americans (he admits he “likes” firing people…lol), then filing for bankruptcy….wiping out all creditors but themselves….and laughing all the way to the bank. That kind of ruthless capitalism and selfish interest isn’t “job experience” for the presidency of a democratic republic.// Mitt Romney’s wealth is $250 billion (reportedly...hmmm), and last I heard he expected his California neighbors to sign a document saying they had no objection to the demolition and new construction of a house so big it will obscure a part of their Pacific Ocean view. Entitled much? (They refused.) Romney’s clueless about what it’s like to live on less than $200,000-300,000 a month, and isn’t keen on learning either. Mitt could care LESS about this country or its people. So far, he seems to be offering to sell to the American public the same bridge Republicans sold us 11.5 years ago - the very same bridge to nowhere – the one that eventually crashed and burned with eight million working Americans on it. (Actually, we didn’t BUY the bridge in 2000, ownership was forced on us ). A Romney presidency would be “The Mitt Show,” starring all-Mitt-all-the-time (so he could admire himself on TV amid all that pomp and circumstance?) – an elaborate Ken-like Puppet Show (not unlike W’s, except cuter) with his strings being pulled by all those rich corporate campaign financiers who are running the Republican Party (with the help of their propaganda machines – Fox News and most of the corporate-owned media). Mitt wants to be “special” like his Dad (all Mormons are, you know…lol), and being POTUS” is simply an item on his personal bucket list.// Truth is he’s nothing but a pretty face in an empty suit, an emotionally crippled, eternal teenager, a classic “borderline personality disordered” sociopath (do look it up…lol), who’s still imagining himself as cheerleader-In-Charge, “big man on campus.” He has NO discernible “vision” for the country, only one for himself. And, after all, like Ann said “it’s his turn.”//Just what we DON'T need...we'd be laughed off the planet. (cont'd)

27) Comment by ScotB - 12/06/2012

Was there a shortage of letters submitted?

28) Comment by gvm - 11/06/2012

@InPville: you state "Since government began attempts to avoid economic downturns, the duration of those economic downturns have been longer than before such efforts began." This seems to be a pretty broad statement. Can you back it up with facts?

29) Comment by Whatnow - 11/06/2012

@DMJ, You said, "In terms of Obama vs. Romney.....we've already given 40% of our economy over to Big Finance". Who did that?

30) Comment by InPVille - 11/06/2012

The more you are willing to bail out financiers and corporations for their bad mistakes, the more they are likely to take unsound risks believing that some entity will save them should their machinations turn to folly. This kind of crony-capitalism is mega-bad thinking and drags everything down.

31) Comment by DMJ - 11/06/2012

In all fairness, the GOP had plenty of help from Clinton and the '90s Democrats. Glass-Steagall was overturned with 90 votes and happily signed by Clinton. Chuck Schumer was as guilty as anyone. However, only one party still thinks that was a good idea while the other party has, for the most part, learned from its mistakes. In terms of Obama vs. Romney.....we've already given 40% of our economy over to Big Finance, and look how they repaid us. Now, they want us to hand the presidency over to one of them?! I don't think so. Don't get me wrong, finance will always have a place in the American economy; I just don't think that place is the Oval Office.

32) Comment by InPVille - 11/06/2012

And also if there was little or effect from the stimulus as claimed by other economic theory and supported by my examples, that the action staved off catastrophe is also at issue.

33) Comment by InPVille - 11/06/2012

@gvm: As should have been obvious, it is not possible to state with certainty that stimulus guarantees the results they promise. The matter is controversial. Since government began attempts to avoid economic downturns, the duration of those economic downturns have been longer than before such efforts began. The current downturn is the longest since The Great Depression. Consider also the CBO document on the absence of the expect multiplier effect and limited extent of what effect was supposed to occur when the most recent stimulus packages was created.

34) Comment by gvm - 11/06/2012

@InPVille: "The following scholarly study, http://minneapolisfed.org/research/WP/WP597.pdf suggests New Deal stimulus policy extended the duration of the great depression rather than shortened it. " Then there are those who argue just the opposite. What's your point?

35) Comment by InPVille - 11/06/2012

When Keynesians inject money into the economy they do so either by taking money out of the right pocket of the economy in order to put it in the left pocket of the economy or else they borrow it and increase debt and future interest payments which is still taking money out of one pocket to put it in another. The following scholarly study, http://minneapolisfed.org/research/WP/WP597.pdf suggests New Deal stimulus policy extended the duration of the great depression rather than shortened it. The 1970s tax rebate stimulus effort by Gerald Ford didn't work. Japan repeatedly tried different stimulus packages to jump start their lagging economy in the 1990s. The only thing which went up was their national debt. Stimulus spending at the beginning of the most recent recession by George Bush paid no dividends either. @gvm "You can argue that the recovery hasn't been fast enough but you can't, in fairness, argue that actions taken by this president didn't avert a catastrophe (admittedly former President Bush deserves an infinitesimal amount of credit but not much more because it was his administration's policies that brought our fiscal house down in the first place)" -[**]- I think I did just that. The fiscal house was brought down in large part as a result of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The act repealing Glass-Steagall was supported by Fed Chariman Greenspan, passed in the House by a 262-57 vote, in the Senate by a 90-8 vote and was signed by President Clinton. When the majority of both political parties sign onto a legislative idea, both bear responsibility for what happens after the bill becomes law.

36) Comment by InPVille - 11/06/2012

@gravityassist: Spoken like a true Keynesian. However, contrary to what big spending government types would have you believe, not all economists accept the idea that Keynesian stimulus spending works. For example. Economists in the "rational expectations tradition" believe there would be no effect, even on a short term basis from a Keynesian stimulus. Economists of the "monetarist tradition" think that short lived would be any effect of stimulus spending. That it will soon fall back to the pre stimulus level. Even though Keynesian economics make confident claims about how they can fix the economy, in reality we don't have an accurate short term economy model. The results are as likely to destabilize the economy. Add to that the long-term debt that is added. Bush should have used a veto pen instead of signing every bill Congress passed. However, during the current administration an amount has been added to the national debt in less than one term by an amount which it took two terms to happen in the prior Bush administration. So don't pretend Democrats care how much the debt goes up. -[**]- Have a look at the 11-22-2011 analysis from the non-partisian Congressional Budget Office available here: http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42715 . -[Page 2]- " The effects of ARRA on output peaked in the first half of 2010 and have since diminished, CBO estimates. The effects of ARRA on employment are estimated to lag slightly behind the effects on output; CBO estimates that the employment effects began to wane at the end of 2010 and have continued to do so throughout 2011. Still, CBO estimates that, compared with what would have occurred otherwise, ARRA will raise real GDP in 2012 by between 0.1 percent and 0.8 percent and will increase the number of people employed in 2012 by between 0.2 million and 1.1 million." -[Page 9]- "ARRA’s long-run effect on output also depends on whether it permanently changed people’s saving or their ability or willingness to work. For example, to the extent that ARRA reduced long-term unemployment during the 2009–2011 period, it might improve participation in the labor force, employment, and productivity in later years. However, CBO’s estimates of the long-term effects of ARRA do not incorporate any effects of that sort." -[**]- In conclusion, where is the claimed multiplier effect of stimulus spending demonstrated? -[**]- The maximum stimulus package should probably be closer to $0.

37) Comment by gravityassist - 11/06/2012

@InPVille: You ask: When is deficit spending not stimulus spending? RU serious? When it’s being used to “pay” for past expenses, like tax breaks for the rich (who just deposit it in off-shore tax-shelters), or to pay for TWO wars, or to pay of Big Pharma (Medicare Part D), or create the Department of Homeland Security, or any of the other kinds of “corporate welfare” (like Big Oil, Big Ag) Republicans like Bush love spreading around to their corporate buddies (while they’ve got you belly-aching about the little bit the Dems want to use to support the poor…lol. The ONLY time Republicans CARE about spending is when a Democrat is doing it!) Remember Cheney’s “deficits don’t matter”? He was RIGHT, actually - they DON’T, especially in times like these, and the ONLY reason we’re talking about them like the world’s ending is because it’s the only campaign issue Republicans HAVE that they can fabricate enough lies about to even SOUND like a responsible political party! They definitely have no new ideas – all they want is to get into the WH one more time, so they can fix it so they get ALL the money, all the time - FOREVER// The amnesia you people have about what just HAPPENED in this country is frightening! Bush came into office with a surplus, and left with a huge deficit AND a bankrupted economy. Are you talking about the money Bush and Goldman Sachs gave to the TBTF banks? The billions that went back into their capital accounts to make up for OUR “guaranteed deposits” they lost gambling. A lot of it went into lobbying cost to fight off “reform,” and some to even bigger bonuses for the gambling CEO’s that got us into this mess!!//The HOLE Republicans blew in the economy was HUGE. The MINIMUM size of the stimulus we needed to try to replace JUST SOME of that lost circulation (temporarily) was on the order of $800 billion….which our “conservative” president thought was too much….so the amount of stimulus was about half of that, and just too small to fill up a HUGE hole. Even so, it did help some – a lot actually (so did GM) – but it simply wasn’t enough (apparently) to pull us far enough out of the ditch to keep us from slipping back (that spike in gas prices, and Europe’s troubles hurt us). //Europe hasn’t TRIED any stimulus, they’re STUPIDLY trying to resurrect their economy with “austerity “(which will just make their problems WORSE, and inevitably – ours, too.) //Grown men and women with actual brains who really CAN NOT grasp the simple – but totally apropos – analogy of an economy being EXACTLY like a combustion engine, and NO GAS (money in circulation) in the engine means GOING NOWHERE (and sitting around like naval gazing dolts (I guess) waiting for consumer to “demand” goods and services they have NO money to pay for, and employers to hire people to make stuff people CAN’T BUY) is just an indictment of a human being’s claim to be “intelligent life.”//Keynesian economics HAS, DID, and DOES work. It’s kept us OUT of breadlines so far - which is absolutely WHERE we WERE headed.

38) Comment by gravityassist - 11/06/2012

@Old Man Kensey//Thank you for that excellent link. I'd hope some Republicans would take the time to listen....but not holding my breath..lol.

39) Comment by nimby? - 10/06/2012

agreed , in a perfect world conversation , political discourse would lead to some sort of agreement amongst parties beneficial to all . instead we stand our ground , recite our mantra to the point of exhaustion . lotta words , nothing done but further the divide . being my point . we all could stand to humble ourselves a bit ...

40) Comment by gvm - 10/06/2012

Yet again you illustrate that you're a big part of the problem. Much of the misunderstanding that exists with regard to many of these topics can be attributed to the fact that we live in a "sound bite" era. A prudent person should first seek to examine available data and then see if he or she reaches the same conclusion. Most of these topics require some discussion. Simply parroting something because you heard it somewhere or because it lines up with your biases is just plain stupid. If you'd do a better job of presenting your case, then perhaps you wouldn't get so frustrated when challenged.

41) Comment by nimby? - 10/06/2012

"for what it's worth" , I made my point . some aspiring novelist here are a bit long-winded ....

42) Comment by gvm - 10/06/2012

@Nimby: That outburst added volumes to the discussion...NOT!

43) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 10/06/2012

And for all of those that just like to hurl insults: http://youtu.be/uz2jbCJXkpA

44) Comment by Old Man Kensey - 10/06/2012

Why don't we listen to an old style conservative on the matter. Bruce Bartlett was Reagan's economist. http://billmoyers.com/segment/bruce-bartlett-on-where-the-right- went-wrong/#.T9S3eHAWSps.facebook

45) Comment by nimby? - 10/06/2012

I'm right and you're an idiot ; factions each have their choice "source of reference" , which is the true truth ?

46) Comment by gvm - 10/06/2012

@The_Host: Please explain how spending solely for the purpose of stimulating the economy leads to Socialism? How was the Stock market performing during the final weeks of the Bush administration? Look at where it is today compared to where it was then. That difference is due almost entirely to the policies implemented by President Obama. You can argue that the recovery hasn't been fast enough but you can't, in fairness, argue that actions taken by this president didn't avert a catastrophe (admittedly former President Bush deserves an infinitesimal amount of credit but not much more because it was his administration's policies that brought our fiscal house down in the first place). It seems to be lost on you and others who share your views that it is not possible simply to cut spending as a means to "make this country great again." That option isn't going over so well in Europe currently and it won't go over well here either. Many Conservative politicians like to narcotize their constituents by insisting that the myth of American Exceptionalism is real - it's not. If the measures conservatives are touting to fix the economy are failing in Europe, Asia and the entire world, then they will not work here either. In actuality the solution lies somewhere in between massive budget cuts and increased spending - ideally it would be a combination of the two. I'd like to think our so-called leaders know this. However, it seems they'd rather put party over country and, as long as this remains the case, only calamity can result. President Obama gets it - Romney, on the other hand, doesn't have a clue. About 20% of me would like to see Romney elected so that I could watch those who put him in office utterly freak out once he starts putting his policies in place. It'll be like watching former Bobby Jindal supporters lose it, just on a grander scale - that could be fun.

47) Comment by The_Host - 10/06/2012

In not knowing history dooms us to repeat it I suggest the letter writer looks into the history or all other socialism based societies. Actually no history is needed to see what we are doing by spending money we don't have all one need do it look at Europe. That is our future based on HISTORY. I will cut him some slack, he must have been shocked a LOT on the job and he obviously is blind to reality now. I love how he talks in generalities about what "would" have happened without those evil Republicans. I guess he can also Quantify "jobs saved or created" for us as his masters tell us all the time. This is one clueless electrician I wouldn't want wiring up anything more than the Christmas decorations although he follows great directions from his masters in what he spews. Poor Obama is ONLY he had complete control again maybe he would do something other than socialize medicine this time, maybe? Let us not forget the Obama himself sat in the very same Senate that got us into this mess before he took over. So how does the smartest man on earth sit in a job for 2 years only to get promoted and then say WOW I had no idea it was this bad? Really? Joe Schmo citizen knows it is this bad why doesn't the smartest teleprompter reader in the world?

48) Comment by ABayouBoy - 10/06/2012

If you don't have the money, don't spend it. Why is the USA spending more than all other nations combined on the so called, "defense" budget?. Why must we send our main navy carrier group to Asia? Why must the USA feel like its our "prerogative" to "police" the world when we are staggering under the weight of a 17 trillion dollar deficit? Why do the wise members of Congress not give the middle income taxpayers a break? As a previous comment here suggested, the economy would then skyrocket with consumer spending and confidence, as well as the stock market. Why is it that our great Congress cannot see the big picture when it is as clear as day to some poor, middle income person such as myself? And now, the "party" has decided that the extremely wealthy Romney, who is worth at least 250 million dollars, be the candidate to succeed Obama? I mean, I'm sure that someone with his personal wealth can really relate to the "vast majority" of taxpayers. I say do away with both and any party systems. God help the USA.

49) Comment by InPVille - 09/06/2012

@gravityassist: Stimulus Spending/Deficit Spending. When is deficit spending not stimulus spending? At the end of the Bush Administration and also during the Obama Administration it has been claimed that some deficit spending was stimulus spending. If pumping money into the economy over and above available tax revenue truly stimulates the economy, why then with what President Bush pumped into the U.S. economy which was doubled down on by President Obama the U.S. economy should be going great guns. By now you should be able to detect the major flaw in Keynesian economic theory. There has been no multiplier effect on the economy from all the extraordinary efforts to fix the problem. Stimulus efforts have still failed to work to help Japan recover from their "Lost Decade". Stimulus didn't work for Gerald Ford when he tried it via citizen tax rebates. It didn't work for Pres Bush at the end of his term and it really didn't work for Pres Obama once the stimulus money ran out(no multilplier). Ditto for the European economies which have been spending money they don't have for decades as if there was no tomorrow. At this point the concept that there may be no tomorrow for them could well be correct. Stimulus spending only serves as a method politicians can use to try to mollify the public into believing they are doing something about the problem when, in reality, they don't have the stroke to fix the problem. Should the people ever realize this, we might finally start tossing some of the self-serving bums out of office.

50) Comment by InPVille - 09/06/2012

@gravityassist: I noticed you didn't claim that the Obama Administration had stopped using the deposits into Federally controlled retirement systems such as SS, Railroad Retirement, and etc. which have been removed from the "so called" trust funds for decades under administrations both Republican and Democrat and placed in the general fund. This is how President and Clinton were able to claim they balanced the budget, by counting money borrowed from another account controlled by the government. Get thee to: http://fms.treas.gov/mts to confirm. I suggest you use to figures for the last month of the fiscal year as the data is cumulative for the fiscal year. -[**]- Oh and as to the previous comment about wonkish data sources. You must not have much experience reading scholarly papers. They are pretty much all written that way. You should have seen the stuff I had to read when I was studying Sociology in college. It was far worse.

51) Comment by InPVille - 09/06/2012

@gravityassist: All of your references are based on Wikipaedia. Whenever someone on the conservative side of the aisle references Wikipaedia as a source in these blog pages, the first thing that happens is that someone on the liberal side of the conversation replies that Wikipaedia is an unacceptable source because anyone can input to it. It cuts both ways bud! -[**]- I cited a text from the NYTimes(the newspaper of record for the repeal of the Glass-Stegall act. It shows that both parties voted for it. I suspect it is because you can't refute this data(which points to both parties) you resort to a character attack. Weak! Very Weak!! I do admit that the science of economic uncertainty in just that uncertain. That isn't the point. The point is that bonafide economists have taken seriously the idea that the reason the economic recovery is lagging is because investors have no confidence and not that they are just evil. And who is trying to fundamentally change the nation and the way it works? -[**]- Dick Gephart once famously opined that for every 100 point drop in the stock market another seat in the House of Representatives became available for the Democrats. So don't talk to me about wishing to stall the economy for political gain as one sided.

52) Comment by gravityassist - 09/06/2012

@tradewinn///Your “do-nothing” senate is doing nothing with those Republican bills to “do nothing” to damage this country.

53) Comment by gravityassist - 09/06/2012

InPVlle: As noted before, the foundation upon which your conclusions are laid is so faulty that I can’t begin to unwind your Sisyphean knots of illogic in this forum (there just isn’t room).// But I venture to point out to you that your link is nothing but a bunch of wonkish-sounding (and looking) gobbledygook. Digging down to try to find one, single valid idea (much less conclusion), I did find this: “Despite the debate, there exists no standard measure of this type of uncertainty.” They then go on to try to cobble-together THEIR idea of how to create a “standard measure” for something (IMO) that CAN NOT be legitimately measured (which is why no one has ever done it). The whole thing is an excuse to FIND something to support a pre-conceived conclusion. Even then, all they “conclude” is that “economic uncertainty” causes …wait for it…..”economic uncertainty.”//InPvlle: the line: “policy related uncertainty plays a role in the slow growth and fitful recovery of recent years” would have been true REGARDLESS of who was in the White House. //That’s just how economics works: business doesn’t like uncertainty.// And they REALLY don’t like the kind of political games Republicans played with the debt ceiling (that caused a credit rating downgrade) or the constant gridlock Congressional Republicans have PURPOSEFULLY engineered to stall the economy - just to ensure they have at least a representative “failed economy” on which to campaign. Reprehensible, treasonous behavior (IMO).

54) Comment by gravityassist - 09/06/2012

Summary: The economy hasn’t recovered – not because of onerous regulations (search “regulations help businesses”) or “uncertainty “(the confidence fairy is a myth) – but simply because there is no DEMAND for goods and services.//If the middle-class had purchasing power, our economy would be thriving, employers would be hiring, revenues would be recovering. PERIOD.// Republicans have purposefully made debt an issue – a club to beat to death out of the truth of what we really need most in this country – stimulus spending. (Debt should wait until we’ve restored people’s lives, the economy and revenues. We’ve been in deeper debt before.) Stimulus spending was/still is so critical in times like these…it’s what the deep-pockets of stable governments do - provide the “gas” to keep the country running until the private sector is back on its feet.//Needless to say, there really isn’t enough space for an in-depth discussion about all the relevant factors, but the only problem we have now is a Party so desperate to return to power they’ve no compunction whatsoever about hurting the country to (they think) improve their chances of being allowed back in the White House. It would be nice to think they want that power to do something good for the country, but that’s not what they have in mind – there’s nothing new in their ideology - they only want it to continue their decades-long pattern of enriching themselves and their cronies - with more tax breaks for the rich and more corporate welfare.//It sickens me to see so many good Louisianans under the spell of their mischief and hate. If Republicans ever do get their hands on that power, it will be the poor Southern states – the ones who actually are the beneficiaries of all that government spending you proclaim to hate – who will suffer most. For all your sakes – especially if you depend on SSA and Medicare – I do hope your fervent wish to make your own lives miserable (and much of the country’s) does not materialize. )

55) Comment by gravityassist - 09/06/2012

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DEBT – (Pt 3) – OR – WERE ALL THOSE WARS, TAX BREAKS FOR RICH and THE ECONOMY REPUBLICANS TANKED A GOOD IDEA?: Same ref:///// The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:///// • Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%///// • Defense spending increases: 15%///// • Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%///// • Increases in net interest: 11%///// • Other non-defense spending: 10%///// • Other tax cuts: 8%///// • Obama Stimulus: 6%///// • Medicare Part D: 2%///// • Other reasons: 7%"

56) Comment by gravityassist - 09/06/2012

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DEBT – Pt 2 – OR – LET’S STOP HIDING COSTS FROM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC : (same ref) - "The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the federal government. The four changes were:///// 1. accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations;///// 2. assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation;///// 3. accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and///// 4. anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief.///// According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear."

57) Comment by gravityassist - 09/06/2012

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE DEBT - (Pt 1) – OR – WHICH PARTY IS THE TRUE FISCAL CONSERVATIVE? : (Quoted from ////http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt)///// “Changes in debt by political affiliation/////Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness. Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong, former Clinton Treasury Department official, observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt). David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s. Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, attributes the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast". While noting that that George H.W. Bush's budget deal was one of the main reasons for improvement in fiscal situation in 1990s and ultimately for budget surplus, Bartlett is highly critical of George W. Bush for creating budget deficits by reducing taxes and increasing spending.”

58) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 09/06/2012

Mr factless (jdk) telling someone else they need to study? How rich...

59) Comment by jdk944 - 09/06/2012

Mr. Lavergne, you need to really study the history on this topic, because it is blatantly clear you HAVE NOT!! And this doesn't mean reviewing the Democrat National Committee's talking points, the Main Stream Media's information etc. in doing so, because it's also apparent that is what you have done and called it "History"!!

60) Comment by InPVille - 09/06/2012

Banking regulation changes blamed for that portion of the current economic crisis came about when Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999 during the administration of President Bill Clinton. In the House, 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans voted for the measure. Fifty-one Democrats, 5 Republicans, and a single independent opposed it. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/ So it was a dumb idea signed onto by both parties. -[**]- Problems leading to the bursting of the housing bubble were suspected and efforts made to initiate legislation to address the problem. What one political party suggested didn't appeal to the second political party so that proposed legislative effort went no where and the second political party did not think the problem needed to be addressed. So nothing was done about the problem. So one party is at fault because they failed to come up with a solution acceptable to the other party and the charitable view would be that the other party didn't even recognize the problem existed. So shame on both. -[**]- When you lack sufficient introspective self knowledge and delude yourself into believing that all the problems of your world are caused by other people's actions or inaction, your misery index will rise and the resolution probability declines.

61) Comment by tradewinns - 09/06/2012

the "do nothing" congress is in reality a "do nothing" senate. the republican controlled hose is producing many bills including a national budget. you may disagree with any or all of their work, but they are doing something. the democrat controlled senate has not only not produced a budget of their own, they refuse to bring up the proposed house budget, all democrat "ideas". so when it comes to sitting on their behind, collecting public money and doing nothing, the democrats are #1. whether they are doing it through welfare or the senate, they are good at doing nothing.

62) Comment by InPVille - 09/06/2012

Yes! Republicans caused the great recession by too much deficit spending. But Democrats are going to fix that problem by deficit spending at twice the rate Republicans were using. And we need to regulate everything to the point where in order to have a lemonade stand, a child has to hire an attorney to negotiate the required paper work. Wait! In New York City this situation already exists. We can use that as our model. -[**]- The letter writer is speaking high popalorum and low popahirum. The findings of this study reinforce concerns that policy related uncertainty plays a role in the slow growth and fitful recovery of recent years. http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/steven.davis/pdf/PolicyUncertainty.pdf Government action has only hindered the recovery as happened during the Great Depression. The country didn't come out of that until after WWII when, as the only intact industrial power, the U.S. could have a tremendous export - import balance and great wealth. As is frequently the case, we came to take the situation for granted and foolishly believed that the world would never keep up and the party would never end. -[**]- What we learn from history, it is that we do not learn anything from history. Since government began trying to micro manage economic downturns to overcome them recoveries have taken longer and longer to happen. Not learning anything from the experience, government keeps doing what hasn't worked before. If the people ever figured out that politicians really can't control these things, their power would be much reduced. . . can't have that now, can we? Wise regulation is necessary. However, waving the word regulation around as some kind of magical mantra isn't going to solve anything.

63) Comment by gravityassist - 09/06/2012

One sincerely hopes voters afflicted with whatever malady causes them to be blind to your simple truth will have their vision restored on or before November 6.