Jay Bookman

By catlady

January 2, 2009 9:24 AM | Link to this

Bush officials recognize that our economic situation is so grave as to preclude political point-scoring.

Sorry, Jay, I don’t agree with you on this. Anything they are doing now is, as always, for the OWN profit. (See NCLB for an example, especially Reading First, which reaped enormous profits for FOB.) Looks good, but doesn’t pass the smell test.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 2, 2009 9:25 AM | Link to this

having proposed significant stimulus packages of its own and agreeing to bail out Detroit over protests from the hard right.

If you lie about one thing………

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A national poll suggests that six in 10 Americans oppose using taxpayer money to help the ailing major U.S. auto companies.

By E-4

January 2, 2009 9:26 AM | Link to this

One the more remarkable aspects of the modern conservative movement is its eagerness to believe whatever it prefers to believe, whatever gives conservatives ammunition against their opponents, regardless of the facts and data and expert opinion.

Jay: You have just written the best paragraph describing exactly how Democrats/liberals use doublespeak, half-truths, shrill volume and the MSM to push their agenda*. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Thanks.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 9:28 AM | Link to this

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this

“People willing to believe that the Clintons killed Vince Foster and there’s no such thing as global warming can talk themselves into believing almost anything.”

And please, rational people—if you’re tempted to argue with the wingnuts on the subject of FDR, do keep this in mind, ‘k?

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this

How FDR Prolonged the Great Depression

By E-4

January 2, 2009 9:33 AM | Link to this

Off Topic

Headline:

Gaza rockets put Israel’s nuclear plant in battle zone

Now, just imagine a Saddam Hussein still running amok in Iraq with even bigger and better missles.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 2, 2009 9:33 AM | Link to this

People willing to believe that the Clintons killed Vince Foster and there’s no such thing as global warming can talk themselves into believing almost anything.

No proof on the KKKlintons, they obviously know how to commit crimes and get away with them, but on the other-

Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998, and have plummeted in the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The 2007-2008 temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models. But it was predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000.

I guess maybe I am naive, what, me looking at temperatures and cold hard facts, perhaps now is your chance to explain what the word “warming” really means.

I always thought the Webster’s definition was what we were working with.

Maybe Websters made it all up, no?

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 9:39 AM | Link to this

Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists — including two Nobel Prize winners — at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities.

By E-4

January 2, 2009 9:39 AM | Link to this

What is wrong with the following article:

• Friday, January 02, 2009 AP*

  The pirates in three speedboats and armed with guns and rocket-propelled grenades twice tried to board the Greek-flagged Kriti Episkopi but were scared off when the crew turned fire hoses on them and EU aircraft scrambled from a nearby EU naval flotilla to help, company and Greek government officials said.

By atlpaddy

January 2, 2009 9:44 AM | Link to this

New Deal deniers are just a bunch of yuppie, Monday morning quarterbacks.

If you want to know whether the New Deal worked or not, why not ask someone who lived through the Great Depression? I think we all know how they felt about Roosevelt and the New Deal. Americans re-elected FDR four times, so he must have been doing somethings right.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 9:45 AM | Link to this

With policy after policy and program after program, “FDR’s Folly” traces the high hopes and disastrous consequences. It would be funny, like the Keystone cops running into one another and falling down, except that millions of people were in economic desperation while this farce was being played out in Washington.

By The BlogFather of Scroll

January 2, 2009 9:46 AM | Link to this

This topic requires centuries of historical data mining about the cyclical boom bust of capital economies.

No valid theory exists about the causes of the depression or the perpetuation of the boom/bust cycle.

The reason may lie in the fact that we are mortal and life is short, and we suffer consequences in real time, and most of us just want to escape our own upbringing and education which has been spun into nonsense for so long that we probably cant break our own personal cycle of self love/hate.

But corruption is understandable. Corruption is a definite cause of any societal ills. Cheney is our Corruption and needs to be imprisoned w/OJ. After a fair trial, of course.

Poof,the tragic gigolo, bilked liberty…

By RB from Gwinnett

January 2, 2009 9:49 AM | Link to this

Classic liberal tactic there Jay. Sad, but typical. You attempt to paint everyone who might disagree with your opinion with the Vince foster brush and throw global “warming” in to boot. How about we just debate the facts of the issue and you stop taking your writing cues from Ms G, GHT, Midori and Co.

By RB from Gwinnett

January 2, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this

Classic liberal tactic there Jay. Sad, but typical. You attempt to paint everyone who might disagree with your opinion with the Vince foster brush and throw global “warming” in to boot. How about we just debate the facts of the issue and you stop taking your writing cues from Ms G, GHT, Midori and Co.

By Ray

January 2, 2009 9:52 AM | Link to this

FDR…… the beginning of welfare as we know it. Started Social Security, stated it was not to be taxed, voluntary at first…. look how things can change when a money hungry Congress gets their hands on the purse strings. WPA put people back to work but at a huge price. Didn’t like the Supremes so he decided to add three more so that the vote would be to his liking. Member of Hyde Park society with a thirst for good looking women and the “finer things in life”. Only thing he did right was to select Truman as his Veep.
His politics were not all that popular with other than the handout recipients. Things haven’t changed much.

By Mike

January 2, 2009 9:55 AM | Link to this

“One the more remarkable aspects of the modern conservative movement is its eagerness to believe whatever it prefers to believe, whatever gives conservatives ammunition against their opponents, regardless of the facts and data and expert opinion.”

Yes, because as a group, conservatives are flawed, whereas liberals as a group are not flawed.

Only partisan fools lump large groups of people into homogeneous groups and make gross overgeneralizations about how “they” behave.

Does Bookman really think that liberals are immune to the behavior he describes? Are Mrs. Godzilla, Midori and GodHatesTrash all intellectually honest people who use facts and reason as their guide?

All Bookman demonstrates with his grossly overgeneralized ad-hominem attack on millions of people is his own intolerance for the views of others.

If I were a mindless partisan like Bookman, I would make the claim that the “modern liberal movement” is intolerant. However, being a rational human being, I understand that Bookman is an intolerant person who happens to be a liberal, and his mindless partisanship does not mean that all liberals are as intolerant as he.

By E-4

January 2, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this

The New Deal is plainly an attempt to achieve a working socialism and avert a social collapse in America; it is extraordinarily parallel to the successive ‘policies’ and ‘Plans’ of the Russian experiment. Americans shirk the word ‘socialism’, but what else can one call it?

H.G. Wells

One thing I hate about the New Deal is that it is killing what, to me, is the American pioneering spirit. I simply do not know what to tell my own boys, leaving school and confronting this new world whose ideal is Security and whose practice is dependence upon government instead of upon one’s self…. All the old character-values seem simply insane from a practical point of view; the self-reliant, the independent, the courageous man is penalized from every direction.

Rose W. Lane

By E-4

January 2, 2009 9:58 AM | Link to this

To Mike

Amen and AMEN !

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 10:00 AM | Link to this

Hi, RB. Serious question—do you consider my onscreen handle to be namestealing?

I really didn’t think it was, given the overt differences between “DB, Gwinnettian” and “RB from Gwinett”. But that “RW” guy has expressed some concern over it.

If you have been harboring any serious objections, let me know, and I’ll change. Otherwise I’ll assume you’re ok with things as they are.

By Morningstar

January 2, 2009 10:01 AM | Link to this

By Ray January 2, 2009 9:52 AM His politics were not all that popular with other than the handout recipients. Things haven’t changed much

You and others might do some research regarding those ‘hand out’ recipients. Absolutely NO WORK was available in large sections of the country, until the WPA, CC Camps etc. began to pull them out.

You might also look at the number of roads built, in addition to lakes to generate electricity in many areas of the country.

You’re right, nothing has changed in the wingnut camp.

By Davo

January 2, 2009 10:08 AM | Link to this

FDR was responsible for ushering the nanny state with the greatest ponzi scheme of all; social security. While he was a great leader for his time and his ‘make work’ programs kept people fed, we are now stuck with an entire govt that wishes to expand his welfare state ideology. For an economists view on this subject read Peter Schiff.

Also, nice touch adding the global warming/Vince Foster slant to the argument. If you can’t defend your position with reason then just resort to name calling…I really do expect better from you.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 2, 2009 10:10 AM | Link to this

Unfunded Social “Security” liabilities are the greatest threat to this country bar none.

Bush’s biggest mistake and, in fact the beginning of his downfall, was letting the liberal democrat hysteria keep him from reforming Social “Security.”

Oblahmi has not the guts, the brainpower or the will to take this on, so FDR’s bright idea will just continue to get worse. Not only that, but Oblahmasan’s mindless ask what the government can do for you approach to politics will exacerbate the debt, creating millions more government dependent morons who live their life in the care of others.

So, in closing, what time period is Bookman’s column about?

The past or the future?

By lovelyliz

January 2, 2009 10:12 AM | Link to this

If the neo-cons can’t rewrite history……………..

By Morningstar

January 2, 2009 10:14 AM | Link to this

By AJC/DNC Management January 2, 2009 8:45 AM Lucky for Princess Kennedy that she looks like a horse, it keeps her from having family problems like Hot Sarah does. I mean, really, who would want to knock her up?

I’m not questioning Hot Sarah’s character at this point, but those who live in a ‘glass house’……If you’ll check what’s out there regarding Hot Sarah’s wedding date, and the birthdate of her first born. Hummmmmmm.

Hot Sarah, Bristol the ‘Pistol’ and now we have the Tripp.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 10:16 AM | Link to this

This is always what happens when politicians decide to muck around in private industry. Even when made with the best intentions, their policy decisions have unintended consequences that help some companies at the expense of others.

By Ray

January 2, 2009 10:17 AM | Link to this

Morningstar,

Comments based on the three hour documentary presented by the History Channel about 3 wks ago on the life and times of FDR. Unemployment was in the 30%+ range at the first of the depression and didn’t get much below 15 or so percent despite all of the govt programs designed to put people back to work. FDR was very unpopular with the Hyde Park crowd but was a master politician with a gift for gab, just like Mr. Wonderful. He did manipulate, cajole, lie and scheme to help the Brits, even with an isolationist Congress….. probably a good thing or they would probably be speaking German today. Guided us through the worst war in history but was in poor health at the end and could not deal with Stalin as history has proven. We are fortunate that Truman followed him and not someone like Al Gore or John Kerry. The world would be a much different place today.

By dbm

January 2, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this

One irony here is that Hoover, widely considered to have prolonged the depression by doing nothing, actually prolonged the depression by doing something. He put floors on wages and prices, which made good and services overpriced and therefore unbought, putting people out of work and businesses out of business.

By JAY BOOKMAN

January 2, 2009 10:35 AM | Link to this

Take a look at what those economists actually wrote, Sunshine. They argue that a few specific steps taken by FDR — centrally, the National Industrial Recovery Act — were mistakes that made things worse.

It would be a shock if that WASN’T true, because the economic situation was so dire at the time that the government was trying a whole slew of experiments to get the economy back on track, and inevitably some would work and some would fail.

Likewise, we’re gonna make mistakes in response to the current mess as well — by some accounts, for example, we already have with that $700 billion TARP fund. Time will tell, and even then we’ll no doubt have a debate.

But those economists you cite do not argue that the economic stimulus policy adopted by FDR made things worse, that creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or Social Security made things worse, that pulling the country off the gold standard made things worse. They take issue with specific and in truth comparatively small programs initiated by FDR, and on that basis you can certainly find legitimate grounds to criticize.

But judged as a whole, the New Deal was much smarter economics than the Hooverian policies that preceded it. There is no serious dispute about that.

And RB, you crack me up. You criticize me for wrapping all conservatives into one group, and you begin that criticism with the words “Classic liberal tactic there Jay. Sad, but typical.”

Finally, a word with Management. Once again, you fail to provide a source for the diatribe you cite. It is an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily, a publication that makes the WSJ edit board look like the Nation.

The editorial makes the point that 2008 might be the coldest in the 21st century, as if that refutes the notion of global warming. It leaves off the fact that 2008 is the 10th warmest year on record going back to 1850, according to the World Meteorological Society, which puts it into proper context. It fails to point out that, as the WMS states, “the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Global temperatures for 2000-2008 now stand almost 0.2 °C warmer than the average for the decade 1990–1999.”

“Globally, temperature was 0.31 °C above the 1961-90 average. In the northern hemisphere the mean temperature was 0.51 °C above average (8th warmest on record) and in the southern hemisphere it was 0.11 °C above average (20th warmest).” the WMO concludes.

One more thing, Management. Please post no more than two off-topic screeds per thread. I think that’s a reasonable limit. If you disagree, you are of course free to start a blog of your own, and I’m sure all of the many fans you’ve made on this blog will follow you there. It could be the start of a new career for you.

Shoot, I’d even add your blog to roll of favorites up there on the left, just to help get you started.

By mm

January 2, 2009 10:36 AM | Link to this

Not only are wingnuts rewriting history, they are rewriting the future.

Gloom and doom. God will judge these hatemongers sternly.

Keep it up losers, only 2 more years until your next election destruction. You better start putting a spin on that one.

By Ray

January 2, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this

Morningstar….

Wedding date… 29 Aug, l988

First child born…. 20 Apr, 1989.

Works out to 7 mos, 21 days if you do the math.

Give her credit, at least her first born was not part of the 1.3M kids that end up in wastebaskets every year. Which would you choose?

By RealityKing

January 2, 2009 10:39 AM | Link to this

The federal debt compared to the GDP grew to its highest ever under FDR, an amount that took 50 years to pay down. And that was before the financial transfer from gold to paper. Disaster will surely follow an FDR of today..

By Mike

January 2, 2009 10:44 AM | Link to this

“And RB, you crack me up. You criticize me for wrapping all conservatives into one group, and you begin that criticism with the words “Classic liberal tactic there Jay. Sad, but typical.””

Well, I made the same criticism without the “liberal” crack. I simply pointed out the Jay was an intolerant person who just happens to be a liberal and that his intolerance should not be ascribed to all liberals.

He didn’t disagree with me, so I guess he agrees.

By Tom

January 2, 2009 10:47 AM | Link to this

Raised in affluence and taught to “hate” FDR by all my peers, reality set in t an early age. Consider this: Most of you hate-filled, bitter little freaks would never have been born were it not for FDR. And you have NO idea whatever concerning the ignorant isolationist Repug policies of the time. Nor that he began turning industry quietly into a war-footing in 1939. So instead of mouthing your collective ignorances, you should get on your knees and thank whatever Pig God you worship for the existence of FDR.

By RealityKing

January 2, 2009 10:47 AM | Link to this

Once upon a time..

A man appeared in a village and announced to the villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each. The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out and started catching them. The man bought thousands and, as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped catching them. The man next announced that he would now buy monkeys at $20 each. This renewed the villagers interest and they started catching monkeys again. Soon the supply diminished even further so the offer was increased to $25 each. But soon the supply of monkeys became so scarce it was an effort to even find a monkey, let alone catch it!

So the man announced that he would now buy monkeys at $50 each! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would buy on his behalf. But, in the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers: “Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has already collected. I will sell them to you at $35 and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each.” See the money to be made, the villagers rounded up all their savings and bought all the monkeys they couldn’t afford, 700 billion dollars worth to be exact. They never saw the man or his assistant again, only lots and lots of monkeys!!

Moral: Don’t buy and sell the man’s monkeys if you want to keep your savings..

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 10:51 AM | Link to this

I just finished reading that article from CATO that s&t so kindly provided a link to. If I had put my name to that piece of crap, I’d demand enough upfront cash compensation to allow me to never want or need for money for the rest of my life. How can anyone make such utterly ridiculous arguments. For example, and I’m paraphrasing here, People in the west got more from the New Deal than people in the south because the southern vote was so high that FDR was not worried about getting their vote. I almost fell out of my chair. What a load of crap. This “paper” is just riddled with this sort of nonsense.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 10:53 AM | Link to this

“Shoot, I’d even add your blog to roll of favorites up there on the left, just to help get you started.”

Wow. I’d be all over that offer like ugly on Duhbya.

By Mac

January 2, 2009 10:55 AM | Link to this

OK, just for the sake of insanity, let’s say there is an even divide among scientists about the existence of global warming … where is the sense in conservative pooh pooh-ing? Would not pragmatic “conserv”atives find it prudent to act on the side of caution? You would think so. But that’s not the reality of it.

Surely, people with sense can agree that, whether we agree on what it’s doing to our planet or not, reducing pollution and bringing to market cleaner energy is a desirable goal.

By Morningstar

January 2, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this

By Ray January 2, 2009 10:17 AM FDR was very unpopular with the Hyde Park crowd

You betcha he was unpopular with the Hyde Park crowd. During the 1920’s the middle class of this country was comprised of 15 to 20% of the entire population. The remaining Americans were, well, “You know, I mean, like, you know.”

You are correct that Roosevelt’s programs didn’t completely end the depression, although economic indicators certainly improved during his administrations, and people who had no hopes of finding work, began to earn and contribute. Many programs were enacted that improved the lives of most average Americans.

Yep, the Hyde Park crowd didn’t care for Roosevelt. Many of the rich were totally untouched by the depression. They continued to party, pillage, plunder and grab it all. Sorta like today, huh?

Loss of income during Hoover’s time in office took it’s toll on nearly everyone. So, it might be advisable to rethink going back to those ‘good ole days.’ Those little ‘darlins’ out there now, from age 1 to 25, might have a standard of living MUCH less advantaged than the one with which you and others have been afforded.

That little college degree might not be worth so much if no jobs exist, or the jobs that do exist pay zilch. But I regress….

By Ray January 2, 2009 10:38 AM

Ray, my views on abortion are VERY conservative, as some who sputter around here all day long, every single day, can attest. I believe I stated I was not questioning Hottie’s character at this point, but don’t squeak and squawk if you live in a glass house.

By Davo

January 2, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this

Here’s how the economic stimulus packkage will work:

Liberals and Kenseyans…your good intentions will ruin this country.

By dbm

January 2, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this

To Tom @ 10:47 AM:

Any change changes everything quickly, including who is born. Most of us alive today would not have been born if it had not been for the Holocaust. This does not make the Holocaust a good thing.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 11:04 AM | Link to this

JAY

You wrote:

But judged as a whole, the New Deal was much smarter economics than the Hooverian policies that preceded it. There is no serious dispute about that.

First you claimed that no serious economist of historian thought that FDR’s policies prolonged the Depression. Then you read my links and had to admit that some pretty serious economists did indeed think that.

Now you make that claim again without any evidence to back it up.

As for the global warming nonsense, I thought it went out with eugenics. Haven’t we concluded that global warming is the scam of the decade? Isn’t it a known fact that scientists are stimied for funding if they DON’T believe in man made global warming?

By AJC/DNC Management

January 2, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this

By Morningstar January 2, 2009 10:14 AM I’m not questioning Hot Sarah’s character at this point, but those who live in a ‘glass house’……If you’ll check what’s out there regarding Hot Sarah’s wedding date, and the birthdate of her first born. Hummmmmmm.

My point exactly, the first hurdle you have to clear to develop common everyday family problems in America is to have sex and it seems as though dog faced liberals like Kennedy have no worries like normal Americans do.

You’re free to go ahead and tell me that illegitimacy and drug use are purely an Alaskan problem.

And don’t try the hypocrisy card, it won’t fly when we are dealing with a person that carries her children full term regardless of the circumstances and advocates for the birth and adoption of the children of others.

~~~~~

Aahhh, yes, new rules for the “Management,” the blog gods seem awful testy with the dissent this morning.

Maybe Florida can beat the Sooners, bwahaha, and I can be just another toady singing the love and praise of thee Oblahmasan.

And then we’ll all be happy!

~~~~~

It still doesn’t change the fact that we are in a cooling trend-

The three warmest years on record are 1998, 2006 and 1934.

Hmmmm, 1934?

And citing the WMO as a credible source doesn’t fly-

Arctic sea ice extent during the 2008 melt season dropped to its second-lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, reaching the lowest point in its annual cycle of melt and growth on 14 September 2008. Average sea ice extent over the month of September, a standard measure in the scientific study of Arctic sea ice, was 4.67 million km2. The record monthly low, set in 2007, was 4.3 million km2.-WMO

But not a word about Antarctica, where of course, the ice grew to record amounts-

The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area narrowly surpassed the previous historic maximum of 16.03 million sq. km to 16.17 million sq. km.

Webster’s definition of warming- transitive verb 1: to make warm

Which the climate ain’t doing.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 11:21 AM | Link to this

“Bushies….blow it out your a*.”

Mrs. G, this linkee’s for you.

By The BlogFather of Scroll

January 2, 2009 11:24 AM | Link to this

Carol Lombarde rocks!

She was an actress during the great depression, and one look at her is all you need to know why we pulled out of it.

If our chief eonomists cant explain this Bush economy, or FDR’s economy, then you bloggers embarrass yourself for no reason.

Is there anything worse than bluster blogging?

By Daedalus

January 2, 2009 11:33 AM | Link to this

Why shouldn’t conservatives think that FDR made the great depression worse — after all they have long claimed the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery — it was all about ‘states rights’— i.e., the right to legalize slavery.

My other favorite conservative myth is that slavery was actually good for black people and that white slave-owners truly cared about their slaves and took excellent care of them.

I wonder what flavor kool-aide conservatives drink to come up with this BS?

By Morningstar

January 2, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this

By AJC/DNC Management January 2, 2009 11:16 AM You’re free to go ahead and tell me that illegitimacy and drug use are purely an Alaskan problem

Now that would be foolish wouldn’t it, since it’s a program throughout???

See my comment at 10:38AM Ray, my views on abortion are VERY conservative, as some who sputter around here all day long, every single day, can attest.

By getalife

January 2, 2009 11:37 AM | Link to this

The gop are against spending money on our country to create jobs.

As usual, if it is not governing for the greedy, there is no gop.

The gop party is destined to fail.

By Dusty

January 2, 2009 11:41 AM | Link to this

I agree and disagree about FDR.

He gave the country hope and jobs. What else could he have done? Economic appraisals came later, after the fact. Maybe you had to be there.

About George W. Bush..

He gave the country hope and determination after 9/11. He promoted protection for America. What was he suppose to do? Cry and wring his hands?

About Vince Foster and global warming..

I never met anyone who thought Vince Foster did NOT commit suicide. I never met anyone who was absolutely certain about global warming (I never met Gore.) and most leave it to the scientists (Gore is not one) to fight it out. Nobody is going to live a million years to prove their point.

About liberal Democrats….

Anyone who posts “Bushies…blow it out your a” is most certainly a biased hardnose fundamentalist liberal Democrat. And…most certainly I could add “uncouth”. Might sound better than “ill-mannered”.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 2, 2009 11:42 AM | Link to this

DB

excellent!

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 11:42 AM | Link to this

MRS Godzilla

You wrote:

Bushies….blow it out your a.

You are such a dainty thing.

By Dusty

January 2, 2009 11:46 AM | Link to this

OH, I forgot to add:

Sarah Palin’s personal life is HER OWN BUSINESS. Would you busybodies mind tending to your own affairs?

Conservatives are not so stupid as to go around wondering when Caroline Kennedy had her babies and other such personal information.

New rule for “libs”: MYOB!!!!!

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 2, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this

Dusty and Sunshine and thunder

Yes I am a hardnose liberal and proud of it.

Dainty when appropriate.

Most importantly strong enough to call a blowhole a blowhole when it fits.

Dusty and Sunshine and Thunder

Blow it our your a*.

By GodHatesTrash

January 2, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this

{{By Morningstar January 2, 2009 10:14 AM | Link to this By AJC/DNC Management January 2, 2009 8:45 AM Lucky for Princess Kennedy that she looks like a horse, it keeps her from having family problems like Hot Sarah does. I mean, really, who would want to knock her up?

I’m not questioning Hot Sarah’s character at this point, but those who live in a ‘glass house’……If you’ll check what’s out there regarding Hot Sarah’s wedding date, and the birthdate of her first born. Hummmmmmm.}}

A “hot” Wasillabilly babe is a gal what ain’t done so much meth that she still has her own teeth.

And shotguns are always part of Wasillabilly weddings. Levi (and any self-identified redneck) will tell you, why buy a Palin cow when they’re givin’ it away?

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this

GHT, I don’t normally bother telling you when you’re acting like a douchebag but… feeding Trollboy Andy’s stupid “Sarah Is TEH HAWT!! Caroline is TEH HORSE!!” pig-ignorant, sexist nonsense is, well, douchebaggy.

You’re better than that.

(yes. really. You are. And you’re smart enough, and doggone it, some people like you!)

By AJC/DNC Management

January 2, 2009 11:57 AM | Link to this

Wait a minute, I totally missed this one-

One more thing, Management. Please post no more than two off-topic screeds per thread.

GayGrayGeek hasn’t posted in several weeks but on the very day he returns to action, so do the threats against the Management.

So what’s he doing, emailing or calling y’all?

~~~~~

First off topic post allowed for dee Management (duhzilla broke the “allowance” with one post and signed off with an obscenity, but yet no whining, what’s up with that?)

Mark Steyn is sitting in for Rush today and he is always a riot, do not miss this one.

By Dusty

January 2, 2009 11:57 AM | Link to this

Thank you, Mrs. Godzilla.

I will always associate you with the activity you suggested.

God Hates Trash,

Were you ever fined for throwing out trash on the streets? You throw a lot out here.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this

*MRS GODZILLA

You wrote:

Yes I am a hardnose liberal and proud of it.

I’d characterize you more as a charter member of the bewildered herd.

You have to scream to be heard and, one of these days, you’ll figure out that nobody listened anyway.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this

Dusty @ 11.57, I am pretty sure GHT’s name refers snarkily to Rev. Phelps’ “God Hates F@gs” site.

Problem is, this site is so much funnier. But I digress.

By getalife

January 2, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this

Where is the self appointed blog monitor, the private or W-2 when you need him?

Stay on topic wingnuts and try to show a little patriotism without the name calling.

Geez.

By GodHatesTrash

January 2, 2009 12:05 PM | Link to this

Point taken, DB, but I do enjoy every opportunity to gig Bookman’s RightWingnuts about what low-rent Wasillabilly trash Sarah Palin is.

But it seems that Bookman’s RightWingnuts looked down the barrel of her gun and thought “what fun!”…

Why, Larry Craig and ‘em are still talking about that over at the Urinal…

ew.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 12:07 PM | Link to this

*TO ALL

“New Year’s: Now is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving the road to Hell with them as usual.” ———Mark Twain

Happy New Year, everyone.

By Morningstar

January 2, 2009 12:12 PM | Link to this

By Dusty January 2, 2009 11:46 AM OH, I forgot to add: Sarah Palin’s personal life is HER OWN BUSINESS. Would you busybodies mind tending to your own affairs?

Dusty, I could care less when ole Hottie had her babies. My response was to prompted by Management’s deranged remark about Caroline Kennedy being so ugly that no one would wish to ‘you know.’

I’d be willing to be Caroline had her pick of the ‘takers.’ She, unlike some others, used some common sense and good taste. It doesn’t mean she’s any better or any worse than the next one.

I can just imagine the Pubbie outcry if Chelsea Clinton had become pregnant while Poppa was in the White House. The neo-nuts have been watching Hillary for years, and when they cease to find something, they’ve tried making it up.

‘Muff said about this rediculous subject. Anyhoo, on the note of this particular thread: (sort of)…

Women’s roles began to change during the Great Depression, when many had to give up the traditional role of at-home Mommie, and become a breadwinner. IF she was lucky enough to find a job during these good ole days.

GHT @ 11:47 am

You’re being naughty again GHT. Lucky for you, Christmas is over and Santa has already brought your toys.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this

MRS G

80% approval rating by the MTV crowd. Wow, what an accomplishment.

I bet he could go on the Tonight Show and get a standing ovation.

History will tell.

You remember history. They tried to teach it to you in high school.

By The Corporal

January 2, 2009 12:15 PM | Link to this

Anybody out there reading Audacity of Hope?

I am on chapter four.

By RealityKing

January 2, 2009 12:16 PM | Link to this

50% of Americans were out of work when FDR was president. But evidently.., 8% is enough economic justification for Obama to double our national debt.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 2, 2009 12:18 PM | Link to this

MTV crowd?

Funny sunshine and thunder…..

just like you…

funny and not true….

la la la la

maybe you have to blow it out your …. cause your head is in the sand…

la la la

18 days!

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 12:21 PM | Link to this

“I do enjoy every opportunity to gig Bookman’s RightWingnuts about what low-rent Wasillabilly trash Sarah Palin is.”

Eh. Fish, barrel, boom… it gets tiresome.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 2, 2009 12:22 PM | Link to this

Oh and that Military Times survey that was being blown about here the last few days…..

That would have been a much more accurate reflection of what the poll actually tells us. Buried towards the end of their article, Military Times offers the following disclaimer: The findings are part of the sixth annual Military Times survey of subscribers to Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times newspapers. This year’s survey, conducted Dec. 1 through Dec. 8, included more than 1,900 active-duty respondents. The responses are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole. The survey group overall under-represents minorities, women and junior enlisted service members, and over-represents soldiers.

la la la

By Davo

January 2, 2009 12:31 PM | Link to this

For those interested in the topic of the hour and not in throwing mud…

The Book on FDR We Don’t Have http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north549.html Krugman on FDR and the “Clean” New Deal http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024585.html

Also, just saw a bit on CNN with Ben Stein telling everyone ‘not to be afraid to spend money’. Takes me back to when W had the world at his feet immediately after 911…his answer to a stunned nation? “Go shopping”. It’s the same message Obama is spouting as well.

I thought we were going to get change. Ya…right.

By Wyld Byll

January 2, 2009 12:32 PM | Link to this

Mrs. Godzilla 11:47 AM

Rush, I must, to the defense of poor Dusty and Sunshine and Thunder. It seems that their only transgressions are to express pride in our great Nation and its leaders.

You write, “Yes I am a hardnose liberal and proud of it” before you go on to insult both Dusty and Sunshine and Thunder in a manner most vulgar.

May I ask, as a proud liberal, how you feel about the liberal policies that hypercharged risk at Fannie and Freddie such that the whole world’s economy has been brought to its knees. Mighty good liberal work, wouldn’t you agree?

By T. Finger

January 2, 2009 12:38 PM | Link to this

Dear AJC/DNC Management, Here’s praying that 2009 brings you a job and something to do other than hover over your computer waiting for Jay’s next column. What a pathetci existence you have. You have way too much time and are full of way too much crap. Go away and come back when you have something, anything - anything at all, interesting to say.

By The Corporal

January 2, 2009 12:38 PM | Link to this

To Mrs. Godzilla

1) I was the one to first bring up that survey.

2) If you read my post I attached the article and encouraged everyone to read the whole thing stating that it had some flaws.

3) That said, the fact that the majority of careerists feel that way is sobering.

4) What I would really like to see is a secret survey (so their careers wouldn’t be hampered by politically correct appointees and members of Congress) of all current flag ranks in all the services. That would be an eye-opener but only if by secret ballot.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 2, 2009 12:39 PM | Link to this

Well first off it’s spelled Wild Bill.

So I can’t give any credence to the GOP/RNC talking points you blow about Freddie and Fannie.

If you Bushies knew what you were doing, understood reality or were compassionate we would not be in the mess we are in.

If you think slimey mortgages to middle class folks caused this mess….you must be kept away from any position of fiscal responsibility.

Silly boy.

By The Corporal

January 2, 2009 12:40 PM | Link to this

To T. Finger

Are you at home or at work?

If you are at work are you robbing your employer of company time?

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 2, 2009 12:45 PM | Link to this

corporal

thanks for the honesty.

I like this picture

It’s worth a thousand words.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 12:56 PM | Link to this

To all:

By The Corporal

January 2, 2009 12:57 PM | Link to this

To Mrs. Godzilla

Nice photo but no relevance to our discussion.

Quick short story - 1967:

I had been in the field for several weeks and since it was my turn, I caught a chopper back to the base for one night to make the mail run. Late that evening, they grabbed about 20 of us, and made us stay up all night cleaning our gear, etc. for an inspection. Why? President Johnson was coming to V.N. (just for a couple of hours) and they were going to pick 10 of us to represent the regiment in a mass formation in his honor in Saigon.

I purposely failed the inspection so I would not be chosen as I cared nothing for his screwed up policies. I would rather be in the field with my buddies than good time duty in Saigon. Most others felt the same way.

Now, had I gone, there may have been a photo of him shaking my hand or something - a picture worth a thousand words that wouldn’t tell the truth !!!

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 2, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this

corporal

ditto your story.

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 1:01 PM | Link to this

Ah yes. How could we possibly forget those good old Republicans and all they’ve done for we the people over the years …The American economy quickly slipped into recession and then plummeted headlong into the greatest depression the nation had ever experienced. The Great Depression in the United States had a widespread ripple effect throughout the world, soon leading to economic stagnation and widespread unemployment in virtually every industrialized nation. Millions of Americans lost their jobs and their homes, and shantytowns dubbed “Hoovervilles” (after the president whom many blamed for the depression) began to spring up throughout the country…

…Despite the worsening economic plight, Hoover still refused to provide any direct federal assistance to relieve the suffering. He even authorized the army to use force to remove 20,000 members of the “Bonus Army,” a group of World War I veterans and their families who marched on the U.S. Capitol demanding economic relief. By 1932, Americans, fed up with Hoover’s lack of economic assistance, voted him and his Republican counterparts out of office. The optimistic Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York—a distant cousin of previous president Theodore Roosevelt—took office…

By T. Finger

January 2, 2009 1:02 PM | Link to this

Corporal douchebag, What business is it of yours where I am? But thanks for another worthwhile, insightful, on-topic posting to this blog. You are truly an asset to public discourse.

And while you are at it - get back off the company computer and back to the fry-a-lator before I have you fired for robbing me of your $10.35/hour! Major Woodie

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 1:12 PM | Link to this

And I see Corporal (aka the lowly E-4) is still yammering on about that survey that conclusively proved once and for all that those people with the most to gain prefer to have those people most willing to give to their cause in charge. What a revelation. Write a book on that one, E-4.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 2, 2009 1:17 PM | Link to this

T. Finger- I am totally understanding of and sympathetic to your mindless sputtering rage, how could I not be, seeing how I have not walked a mile in your whiny, blubbering liberal shoes?

I can only imagine how much you suffer!

Please accept my condolences and may you try to have a blessed day, as hard as that must be for you.

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 1:17 PM | Link to this

s&t,

In case you are interested in reading something a little better than that Cato “paper” that you provided a link to…This is part one of two and there’s a link at the end to part two. It’s a lot to read and there are numerous links throughout that should also be read.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 1:45 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer

Thanks for the link. A lot of pundits truly believe in coming deflation - even during the QE. I’ll wait and see.

There’s been strong growth in M2 which is never a harbinger of deflation. Unless we think we are Japan.

The commodity bubble that burst about mid 2007 was supposed to be the worst inflation for years. Didn’t happen. With everything the Fed is doing and with the onset of QE (quantitative easing) the world will once again be flooded with money.

I’m more inclined to see what the next bubble is going to be.

Of course the recent unpleasantness will cause caution among investors for years to come.

By The Corporal

January 2, 2009 1:56 PM | Link to this

To T. Finger

1) You should be nice. No name calling please. It’s not polite.

2) I just asked a question. Why are you so upset? Are you at work?

And it is my business because you jumped AJC/DNC regarding his “hanging over the computer”. Maybe he likes to do that?

3) I’m retired.

By The Corporal

January 2, 2009 1:57 PM | Link to this

To Taxpayer

I attached the article. It is what it is.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 2, 2009 2:22 PM | Link to this

Corporal: Yesterday I posted a comment from 40’ up in a tree with my beloved 30 ought 6 laying across the climber, uh, kinda tells you how much liberals know, don’t it?

By RogersParkRob

January 2, 2009 2:26 PM | Link to this

Hey Jay, If new deal policies wasn’t what drove us deeper into a Depression, than what was/ were the reason(s)? Do you dare to ask such difficult questions? Just keep quoting Krugman as the beat all end all Ecomonic thinker. Yeah, he won a Nobel peace prize. So did Arafat. What was his for? Peace? So much for that award. Al Gore won one too.

Also, as someone who studied weather and climate I can tell you man-made global warming is a theory at best based on the green house effect. The fact remains the globe warms and cools based on things outside of our control. Otherwise known as the sun. A better question to ask is the warmer temps better for the planet than the temps of the past 100 years?

By Ima Chicago Crook

January 2, 2009 2:39 PM | Link to this

Is every public official in Ill a pos crook or does it just look that way?

CHICAGO: Who Runs it?

Senators: Barack Obama & Dick Durbin Representative: Jesse Jackson, Jr. Illinois Governor: Rod Blogojevich (arrested) Illinois House leader: Mike Madigan Illinois Attorney General: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike) Chicago Mayor: Richard M. Daley (son of Mayor Richard J. Daley)

The leadership in Illinois ? All Democrats.

Thank you for the combat zone in Chicago .

Body count in the last six months: 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago 221 killed in Iraq

State pension fund - $44 Billion in debt, worst in the country.

Cook County ( Chicago ) sales tax - 10.25% highest in country. (Look it up).

Chicago school system - rated one of the worst in the country.

Of course, they’re all blaming each other. They can’t blame Republicans because there aren’t any.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from in Illinois . And he’s going to ‘“fix” Washington politics for us?

Good luck and may God help us.

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this

Bombs. That’s what we need and lots of them. We need to start world-wide bombing campaigns. But we can be humanitarian about this. We need to announce when and where and we need to do it in a well-planned and logical order. First and foremost, we need to put people to work. So, the first order of business is for the UN to get together and agree to get all nations to declare all out war against everyone else. Then, all nations will be forced to implement the draft except the draft must be limited to men and women between the ages of 17-25 and 40-65. The people in the 26-39 age bracket are needed to man the factories while the people over 65 are needed for everything else from serving food to workers, preaching, and acting as executives for all the businesses. The unemployment rate will clearly drop back down to historic lows of about 1% and everyone will be happy as long as we kill as many annually as are born. Now I ask you, How can any devout member of the Limbaugh-Republican faith oppose such a plan.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this

“Just keep quoting Krugman as the beat all end all Ecomonic thinker. Yeah, he won a Nobel peace prize.”

So Freeptacular, I had to see it again.

By mm

January 2, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this

Jay,

You should ban cut and paste posts (there are copyright laws). No links. no posts.

Not only do certain people ignore copyright laws, but they cherrypick sentences and paragraphs to distort the original intent of the article they stole from. Maybe they don’t always want the original source of their garbage known.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 2:57 PM | Link to this

MM

You wrote:

Not only do certain people ignore copyright laws, but they cherrypick sentences and paragraphs to distort the original intent of the article they stole from. Maybe they don’t always want the original source of their garbage known.

Let’s see if I have this straight: posters cherry pick from the link to tease you into clicking on it in order for the source to be hidden? How does that work?

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 3:22 PM | Link to this

last year homicides in Barack Obama’s hometown of Chicago substantially exceeded the number of deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

By The Corporal

January 2, 2009 3:26 PM | Link to this

To AJC/DNC

Ooo Rah and I hear you.

I had a scout-sniper MOS but I just can’t kill a deer ……….. :o)

I love a good steak though !

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 3:37 PM | Link to this

Ok, S&T—from your own right-wing media-whiners linkee:

“According to a tally by The Associated Press, at least 314 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq in 2008, down from 904 in the previous year.”

While on one level it’s swell that the number of war dead is one third that of the previous year, that 314 still works out to something like a >200 per hundred thousand murder rate.

Want to find me a nation, let alone a US city, that has a murder rate comparable to that? That’s ok, I’ll wait.

(You do know that the population of Chicago’s around 3 million, which means it’s… 20x* that of the number of active duty troops in Iraq at any given time, right?)

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 3:39 PM | Link to this

JAY

So your statement that the idea of FDR prolonging the recession is just “fantasy” has been rather strongly debunked on this thread. I’m glad.

By RealityKing

January 2, 2009 3:52 PM | Link to this

Funny how clairvoyant liberals that cry about being lied to by Bush now clamor to idealize two presidents(Linclon and FDR) known to have blatantly lied to the American people during wartime…

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 4:00 PM | Link to this

s&t,

Where is the strong debunking of Jay’s statement?

By mm

January 2, 2009 4:00 PM | Link to this

Sunshine,

I see now why your posts are so stupid. You have a comprehension problem. I was referring to the copied partial articles that have no link.

Now we know your dirty little secret. You can’t read, therefore you have no knowledge.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 4:03 PM | Link to this

DB Gwinnettian

You wrote:

Want to find me a nation, let alone a US city, that has a murder rate comparable to that? That’s ok, I’ll wait.

I’ll have to know how many troops rotated in and out of Iraq last year.

Of course Iraq is a war zone and Chicago is not, but that probably doesn’t matter to you.

Thanks for not blaming the SCOTUS’ 2nd A decision. That’s what I was expecting.

Also, I know it’s hard on you guys to see all these gang bangers getting killed. You need those votes. Don’t despair, you can still register them once they’re dead.

Call ACORN @ BS 549.

By T. Finger

January 2, 2009 4:11 PM | Link to this

By The Corporal January 2, 2009 1:56 PM | Link to this 3) I’m retired. 4) You’re retarded

great another geezer who likes to complain about the gov’ment. please go back to making life hell for others with you position on the HOA borad.

By getalife

January 2, 2009 4:12 PM | Link to this

A recession with the Dow over 9000?

I guess socialism works.

By The BlogFather of Scroll

January 2, 2009 4:14 PM | Link to this

Did you say, Scotus, or Scrotus?

You use that acronym alot, sir.

I dont think it means what you think it means.

bwa haw

moron

By Daisy Scarlett Blanche O'Hara

January 2, 2009 4:16 PM | Link to this

Well now being a fine southern flower I do not usually like to think very hard, I prefer to let my men folk handle anything that does not involve menus and a color palette. Howevah, I will comment on the Yankee known as FDRah. The best thing RDRah ever did was come down to good ole Georgia to assist in repairing his infantile paralysis.

What we need is more upstanding strong southern males to tell us what to do now that we are to be led by one of those people. I declare I nevah thought I would evah live to see the day. My poor husband Bubba is just fit to be tied. I am sorely afraid he may do something very rash. Our dear pastor is cautioning against panickin but Bubba and my dear son Buster have gone and purchased more guns to add to our home defense armory. You just neveh can tell with the hoards of poor people in this city. They may try to take some of our money and look at our woman folk.

How some people could not have seen how just lovely our dear Sarah is, well it is just beyond me. Even though she did have a rather odd accent she is just like me and all my friends. It is a woman’s duty to be well groomed and attractive, not well read for heavens sake. After all ,how important is what you read ? Gosh darn it, I just do not understand it all. I think I will go pour me a Mint Julep and powder my nose.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 2, 2009 4:19 PM | Link to this

Sunshine: Never mind mmoron, it’s one of those liberals that claims to love diversity just as long as it says exactly what he/she wants to hear.

Differing opinions confuse young mm and cause much anger and upset, as you can tell.

Tell it a nice story about the Good Fairy Oblahmi, that always soothes the animal in them.

By The BlogFather of Scroll

January 2, 2009 4:27 PM | Link to this

Dont listen to andy. He’s a fallguy. I’ve got him using italics, breaking up his comments into shorter paragraphs when he’s more effective in a long set piece diatribe, and then, most entertaining of all, he swings from the heels at everything I throw at him.

What a fallguy. What a dope.

What a maroon!!

I love it. If I couldn’t tease the trolls, who Book coddles, then you can leave me out.

There’s nothing worse than a troll coddling sychophant who thinks data is a spin unto itself.

ISAIDNOTHING!!

By AJC/DNC Management

January 2, 2009 4:34 PM | Link to this

My goodness, the discussion on this blog has descended into hair pulling chaos, can we get a new subject so I can get started on my two allowables?

You know, liven things up a bit.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 4:43 PM | Link to this

TAXPAYER

The fact that there are serious studies showing a relationship between FDR’s programs and a prolonging of the depression means that the idea isn’t just a “fantasy”. OK?

MM

You wrote:

I see now why your posts are so stupid

Let’s get it out of the third grade MM, shall we?

Whether you think I can read or not is of no concern to me.

By catlady

January 2, 2009 4:52 PM | Link to this

Andy is maroon? Is he a Tide fan, or has he been sunbathing? I know he is not at Seminole, because their colors are garnet and gold.

By Pogo

January 2, 2009 4:53 PM | Link to this

Jay, You are a textbook example of a 60’s liberal infactuated with all those beautiful socialistic ideas that you so want to experiment with. Experiment with them on your own dime, not ours. If you want to believe that the Big Deal didn’t worsen the depression then by all means, do so. But don’t even try to sell it to the rest of us as good policy to have our Federal Government in the private enterprise business. This is lunacy. They have never been able to run anything in the business world (or most any other place) without leaving it worse than it was to start with. Fanny and Freddie. Fanny and Freddie. Fanny and Freddie. That is all that needs to be said.

By Midori

January 2, 2009 4:56 PM | Link to this

*How about we just debate the facts of the issue and you stop taking your writing cues from Ms G, GHT, Midori and Co. *

Are Mrs. Godzilla, Midori and GodHatesTrash all intellectually honest people who use facts and reason as their guide?

no wonder my ears were ringing!!!

Looks like I keep some d*amn fine company!!!

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 4:56 PM | Link to this

But seriously, S&T,

Elaborate on these “to-be-taken-seriously” studies that you allude to. How did FDR’s programs (i.e., New Deal, second New Deal, etc.) prolong the Great Depression and in what way(s)? Put some meat on them bones. Give me something to pick over or do you really expect me to provide comic relief for everyone here by breaking down that Cato link. Come on now. Everyone knows by now that the Great Depression was actually brought to an end by WWII. So what was it about a World War that ended the Great Depression and how does it differ from what FDR did. Do a little side-by-side comparison for me and show me how the World War accomplished what the New Deal could not. Come on. I need real debate here.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2009 4:58 PM | Link to this

David Sirota, writing in Salon, has a nice piece debunking the FDR claim, not that it matters much. People willing to believe that the Clintons killed Vince Foster and there’s no such thing as global warming can talk themselves into believing almost anything. You can’t reason someone out of a position when reason had nothing whatsoever to do with putting there in the first place

Jay B.,

That paragraph of yours makes it very difficult for any posts to be considered off topic. That being said your singling out of Andy is ridiculous. You have one particular liberal here that probably posts more times in a week than any other poster here and you could count on one hand the times their posts are even remotely on topic.

DB Nanny,

It’s a new year and you’re still whining about me? For what it’s worth your new nic is a direct knockoff on RB’s and whether or not that bothers him or her doesn’t change that fact.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 5:09 PM | Link to this

TAXPAYER

I haven’t found the actual report but here is a press release about it:

When you find the report let me know.

You could have read the other links I posted earlier.

I still say that Jay’s word “fantasy” is debunked. He may disagree with the conclusions but they are not fantasies.

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 5:12 PM | Link to this

How about comparing Hoover’s fine and outstanding work to FDR’s, S&T. If you believe that FDR’s policies prolonged and worsened the Great Depression then am I correct to assume that you believe that Hoover’s Laissez faire approach, if left intact, would have shortened and lessened the impact of the Great Depression. And if yes, then how so. By what metrics. Again, a side-by-side comparison of the two approaches who really go a long way. You got any links like that. Give me something to work with here.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 5:17 PM | Link to this

Obama has demanded a one trillion dollar stimulus bill from congress by January 20th so he can immediately launch New Deal II.

Just one problem, putting all those people to work with government money can’t be sustained. Who’s going to pay for it?

Why can’t these fools in Washington understand that to get the country back to the business of creating wealth is the job of the private sector? The best way to handle it is to cut taxes and leave us alone.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 5:32 PM | Link to this

TAXPAYER

Herbert Hoover has been accused of being a do-nothing president who allowed the country to continue to slide into its worst depression ever. Some will grudgingly admit that Hoover did take some action, but that it was too little, too late. But the truth is far more complex. Hoover did intervene after the Stock Market crash, but the acts passed by Congress and signed by Hoover were the worst kind of intervention: they actually exacerbated the problem. The most famous of these interventions was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Raising tariffs was one of the worst things that could be done. Remember, both free market advocates and Keynesians agree that lowering prices would cure a depression, it’s just that the Keynesians believe government intervention is necessary. A tariff does exactly the wrong thing by raising prices. Thus Smoot-Hawley was guaranteed to worsen any depression, not improve it. Other acts passed during Hoover’s administration had similar effects of either raising prices or keeping them artificially high when they should have been dropping. Thus, it’s not that Hoover was a do-nothing president, it’s that he intervened in exactly the wrong way.

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 5:33 PM | Link to this

Wait a minute,

Who the heck pays for putting people to work in war time. Who paid for WWII, for example, and how did those government expenditures compare with the economic stimuli (remember, we have had several already under Bush).

By Danjonglee

January 2, 2009 6:06 PM | Link to this

Salon is your source? Good Lord Jay, David Sirota was born in 1975. You can do better tan that.

By **"The Corporal"**

January 2, 2009 6:08 PM | Link to this

To T. Finger

Have a nice day and God bless.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 6:09 PM | Link to this

In WWII the deficit amassed to more than 100% of the GDP. At the same time Americans sacraficed greatly in volunteering, donating, rationing and other ways to help the effort.

Together all of those things couldn’t help but stimulate the economy. People were working to build supplies for the war effort.

Does anyone want that kind of stimulus now? War, rationing, shortages of raw materials?

By Bud Wiser

January 2, 2009 6:18 PM | Link to this

What a bunch of retards………

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 6:34 PM | Link to this

Come on S&T. Cut and paste doesn’t answer any questions. First of all, the increased tariffs were Republican policy so how does that tie in to FDR making the depression worse. Second, an examination of the effective tariff rates on products over time does not support any argument that they prolonged on worsened the depression.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 6:59 PM | Link to this

You come on taxpayer. I don’t know what you want. The question is whether Jay’s premise was right or wrong. It was proven wrong.

There is an erudite school of thought that has research to show FDR’s policies prolonged the Great Depression.

So those thoughts aren’t fantasies.

Got it?

You wrote:

Second, an examination of the effective tariff rates on products over time does not support any argument that they prolonged on worsened the depression.

Show me.

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 7:02 PM | Link to this

S&T, regarding the war-time economy, I see you did note one significant difference — the government expenditure in war time versus the expenditure during the New Deal. Yes indeed. Factories were humming. Innovation was running wild. Turkeys couldn’t fly but you never would have convinced people like Howard Hughes of that. People were either working or fighting. Nothing was idle. Things were getting blown up and torn up and rebuilt or replaced. It was great — almost. So, what if FDR had spent (on his programs) as though we were at war — just without the killing and bombing part. Would that have been sufficient to end the Great Depression? minimize its duration and impact? Anyone?

By lwwmm7

January 2, 2009 7:12 PM | Link to this

OK kids, let’s all sing along— Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another, right now, right now, riiiiight now.

There, don’t you feel better already?

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 7:25 PM | Link to this

OK, S&T, here’s a little info on the tariffs:

According to the U.S. Statistical Abstract, the effective tariff rate was 13.5% in 1929 and 19.8% in 1933 with 63% of all imports being duty-free. From 1821 through 1900 the United States averaged 29.7% effective tariff rates and peaked in 1830 at 57.3% with only 8% of all imports being duty-free, dwarfing the Smoot-Hawley rate. In addition, imports in 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States’ GNP and exports were only 5.0%.

Now, you said:

There is an erudite school of thought that has research to show FDR’s policies prolonged the Great Depression.

So those thoughts aren’t fantasies.

Now, where’s the beef, i.e., some proof that extends beyond someone’s stray thought process. And if you really buy into that Cato link as your proof, let me know because I could just focus on that erudite “body of evidence” and then we’ll see who’s living the fantasy. OK.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 7:38 PM | Link to this

“For what it’s worth your new nic is a direct knockoff on RB’s and whether or not that bothers him or her doesn’t change that fact.”

So you’re saying it annoys you, and you alone?

And I should care, why?

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 2, 2009 7:40 PM | Link to this

“There is an erudite school of thought that has research to show FDR’s policies prolonged the Great Depression.”

Oh, well, if it’s erudite, it must be true!

Still waiting for the American city with a murder rate within an order of magnitude of what American troops in Iraq faced in 2008. Do let everyone know when you’ve found that, won’t you?

By Taxpayer

January 2, 2009 7:51 PM | Link to this

Who can argue with Aphrodite. I mean she was hot was she not. Oh…Really…No…Really…Erudite…Not Aphrodite. Oh. I don’t feel well.

By RW-(the original)

January 2, 2009 8:43 PM | Link to this

DB Nanny,

It doesn’t bother me in the least. I’m just pointing out how unoriginal you are.

By CommunistAJC

January 2, 2009 10:05 PM | Link to this

Jay Bookman, You depress me more than anyone else in this world. And that is saying something.

By The Corporal

January 2, 2009 10:09 PM | Link to this

To CommunistAJC

Don’t encourage him.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 10:29 PM | Link to this

TAXPAYER

So you are saying that all we have to do is deficit spend up to 100% of GDP and all of our economic troubles will be over. I thought you guys took deficits seriously - NOT!

I don’t know where you get your data on tariffs because you give no link. I’m sure there are many schools of thought on the effect of SH tariffs on the economy after the crash.

I don’t know.

My use of the tariffs was to illustrate that Hoover didn’t make good decisions followed by Roosevelt who was even worse.

The Federal Reserve (government entity) got tight and stayed tight for years during the 1930’s. That, probably more than any single thing, exacerbated the Great Depression.

DeadBeat Gwinnettian

I don’t have any idea how many troops have rotated through Iraq during 2008 and obviously you don’t either. So, in your moonbat mind, there is no significance to the fact that a Chicago politician just became president of the United States in a year when homicides in the largest city in his home state far outnumbered U.S. Military deaths in the whole country of Iraq (which is in the midst of a war, genius).

Of course no city has the per capita deaths of troops in Iraq. I don’t know of any cities in the US that have recently had a murdering dictator removed either. DUH!?

I’m glad you like the word “erudite”. You should try to become it.

By sunshine and thunder

January 2, 2009 10:38 PM | Link to this

TAXPAYER

Prior to 1913 almost all Federal revenues were from tariffs. Before the 1860’s almost all shipping was sail power. It’s no surprise then that when steamships arose that imports and exports would increase.

By The Corporal

January 2, 2009 11:13 PM | Link to this

P.S.

………… and the liberal politicians are sure beholden to you guys!

By Taxpayer

January 3, 2009 8:55 AM | Link to this

S&T,

The debate is regarding the claim that FDR made the depression worse. So, I’m trying to find proof of these claims since I clearly would like to know if this is true. Now, we know that the depression started on Hoover’s watch and catalyst for the depression was the market crash…Hoover signed off on the Smoot-Hawley tariff so FDR cannot be blamed for that and besides the difference between imports and exports was not very large and they accounted for a small portion of GNP so it’s difficult to even claim that this bill truly worsened the depression.

On a side note, you might wish to read more about taxes in the US. A blanket statement such as yours regarding Federal revenues prior to 1913 coming mainly from tariffs is extremely misleading. We had a great deal of variation in sources of revenue and amount collected over time with the bulk of the collections coming during war time. Someone has to pay for the wars.

Regarding the huge deficit spending for WWII, again I’m simply looking to understand what prolonged the depression — not recommend policy — in order to allow me to decide whom to believe, you or Jay. The question is still, Did FDR make the depression worse. So, it seems logical to me to compare the war time to the New Deal time and the New Deal time to the Hoover time and see where the differences are. One striking difference is that during war the deficit jumped to over 100% of GNP versus about 40% during the New Deal. Of course, there were many other “striking” differences as well. Clearly, during the war, unemployment dropped to historically low levels. People were either working or fighting. People were making money and making sacrifices but there was no more Great Depression.

By sunshine and thunder

January 3, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this

TAXPAYER

You wrote:

The debate is regarding the claim that FDR made the depression worse.

The debate that you started between us was not that at all. It was about whether Jay’s claim that the idea was a “fantasy” had been debunked.

I wrote that Jay’s claim of FDR prolonging the recession being a fantasy has been debunked.

You challenged that it hadn’t been debunked.

I posted links to a study done by two UCLA economists that showed, in fact, FDR’s policies did prolong the Depression.

So it wasn’t a “fantasy”. The idea that FDR’s policies prolonged the Depression is based on existing studies and not fantasy.

Tariffs were the primary source of revenue for the Fed Gov until 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified. (Except for a Civil War measure that created an income tax temporarily.)

Of course there were other sources but tariffs were in the Consitution to fund the government.

IMHO if you want to put blame somewhere you can use a combination of poor fiscal policy and incredibly bad monetary policy.

Either way the Great Depression was caused by poor government policy.

There was a depression around 1921 that we snapped right out of and subsequently experienced the Roaring 20’s. Nobody talks about that anymore. The Fed’s easy money policy beginning about 1924 got us out of a depression and into a booming economy.

By Mad Dawg

January 3, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this

If it’s a newly formed myth, why did I hear it in an economics debate at Lake Forest in 1971?

The minute this guys says this, he loses all credibility. He’s just another Liberal propagandist, a so-called “analyst” who makes stuff up because the truth is difficult to assess and sometimes unpleasant when discovered.

By Midori

January 3, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this

Mad Dawg,

have you had your rabies shot?

You might want to wipe that foam off your mouth.

By Scott

January 3, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this

I’m surprised Jay didn’t blame President Bush for the 1939 Depression while he was at it.

I think that the evidence has proven over the years that the Smoot-Hawley act and well as FDR’s programs did indeed prolong the depression and make unemployment far worse than it was in the years before FDR.

But that wouldn’t fir into Jay and the AJC’s editorial position that liberal Democrats never do anything wrong.

By sickofthis

January 3, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this

One the more remarkable aspects of the modern conservative movement is its eagerness to believe whatever it prefers to believe, whatever gives conservatives ammunition against their opponents, regardless of the facts and data and expert opinion OMG- as if liberals have not been doing this FOREVER

By JOJO

January 3, 2009 2:52 PM | Link to this

Jay:

Fact is unemplyoment remained at 1over 0% on the day Pearl Harbour was bombed. The New Deal didnt end the depression. The New Deal also hindered economic growth by providing millions of “make work” jobs that didnt create wealth but instead diverted resources from the private sector to the public sector. Thereby prolonging the depression. You also conveniently didnt mention one of the main reasons for the “Roosevelt Recession” of 1937-38 was the new FICA tax

By sunshine and thunder

January 3, 2009 3:22 PM | Link to this

MAD DAWG

Pay no attention to Midori. If she had anything worthwhile to add to the discussion she would have. Or at least she would have made something up like so many on this forum.

Notice how when you post links to verify your arguments the libs just say: “nice cut and paste” and then make up their own arguments as if we’re supposed to believe them because they SAID SO.

By Oldvet

January 3, 2009 3:41 PM | Link to this

All these bozo liberal progressive socialist forget that the wonderful Income Tax withholding and Social Security laws we all labor under today came from their first god FDR. At best he was a closet socialist and at worst a true communist. He was not a free market champion!

By Oldvet

January 3, 2009 3:42 PM | Link to this

All these bozo liberal progressive socialist forget that the wonderful Income Tax withholding and Social Security laws we all labor under today came from their first god FDR. At best he was a closet socialist and at worst a true communist. He was not a free market champion!

By Taxpayer

January 3, 2009 5:10 PM | Link to this

S&T, Are you playing semantics now. Obviously, you believe that the two links that you provided disproves every other study ever done on FDR and the depression. I, on the other hand, do not. So, S&T, if you’ve read these great works that you linked to and understand them, please share with me the bottom line — the proof that FDR made the depression worse. Dispel the “fantasy” just for me. Give me the excerpts via cut and paste from those links that prove your case. By the way, we have already established that it was not the tariffs that you cited earlier because FDR did Not sign them into law — Hoover did. So move on past that one. Also, we never were discussing what caused the depression. That is an entirely different discussion that Jay never raised. So, let’s save that one for another discussion. Further, if you insist on sticking with the use of the word “fantasy”, I’ll even concede that one. Just show me how these links that you give have proven that the statement “FDR made the depression worse” is not “fantasy” or “myth” or “false” or whatever descriptor. Simply providing a link to a paper with a given title does not provide proof. I could just as easily publish a paper with the title “Bush Sucks”, but I would readily admit that the title does not make the proof. I’d have to list all the facts that verify the title. So, I am asking you to do just that. I know that you are capable because I’ve seen you post long bullet lists before in your efforts to support your past claims. So, I just want you to do something similar again, OK. Please.

By sunshine and thunder

January 3, 2009 10:23 PM | Link to this

TAXPAYER

I am not paid to do research for you. I have proven my point very well thank-you. And, in doing so, handled your little query on January 2, 2009 @ 4:00 PM.

So all of your cute tricks since then have evaded the original question you asked.

Government intervention prolonged the Great Depression. On this, it seems, you and I agree. Your main theme seems to be to pin it on Herbert Hoover. Fine.

How do you take FDR out of the picture? He had over 8 years to make things better and he didn’t. He couldn’t. The Federal Reserve was not letting the money flow.

I know you bow down and worship the central power in Washington D.C. How you and the rest of the moonbats can have fore knowledge that those people put their pants on a different way than the rest of us is beyond me.

You idiots assume that everyone in the private sector is out to steal. I’ve got news for you son, the theives are in Washington. And if you think that Obama is above all of that you’d really better watch your wallet.

It really doesn’t matter who signed Smooth Hawley into law. It was government meddling in free markets and it was a disaster by any measure.

I have linked many sources for you and you have linked NONE, ZERO, NADA, ZILCH.

It’s your turn to drum up some proof of all the BS you’ve been spreading around this barn, cowboy.

By Taxpayer

January 3, 2009 11:18 PM | Link to this

Jay,

If you are out there, I would appreciate your taking down S&T’s 10:23 post. He/she has decided to violate your rules by resorting to name calling rather than sticking to a civil debate. He/she has also made outright lies regarding my posts such as claiming that I offered no links. Clearly, I will avoid any further contacts with S&T in the future based on this childish behavior and I would appreciate your help at this point by removing his/her post.

Thank you.

By vuduchld

January 4, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this

Folks, the “Bush revisionism” has begun. Right wing ding bats are doing everything to hijack Bush’s legacy in their favor. Any small nugget of pseudo fact or half truth they are trying to use to bolster arguments that Bush’s policies will be vindicated three decades from now. In doing this, they are setting up a thesis that Obama’s tenure will be one of failure, letting Bush off the hook. Don’t buy the Jim Jones Kool-Aid!! This adminstration from top to bottom has been one of lies, arrogance, buffonery and complete failure. In the end, Bush and his monkey cohorts will be judged as morally bankrupt and everyone with any moral fiber in them will do all they can to continue to expose the fraud they perputated. Any moron who is in the Bush revisionism business needs to be exposed, and squished like a stink bug!!

By sunshine and thunder

January 4, 2009 11:28 AM | Link to this

TAXPAYER

Whassamatter? Was I a wittle wude to you?

By Bat Boy

January 4, 2009 3:06 PM | Link to this

Is “squished like a stink bug” a physical threat?
Typical.

By RJ Garfunkel

January 4, 2009 8:10 PM | Link to this

This article is typical of the claptrap that is promulgated by the apologists for the New Deal critics. In fact, unemployment went down every year in the FDR’s first two administrations. The unemployment by March of 1933 had reached almost 25% and another 25% were only working part time. We were in economic slippery slope that saw the closing of thousands of banks, breadlines, Hoovervilles, hobos riding the rails, Okies abandoning the dust bowl plagued farms, food commodity prices tanking and all sorts of other disasters created by the Harding-Coolidge bubble years, and the inaction and failed policies of Herbert Hoover. Only when the new Dixiecrats of the south, who controlled Congress by the late 1930’s and their conservative Wall Street GOP buddies and allies, pressured FDR on spending did we hit another severe economic bump. That cutback in spending, to create a balanced budget, caused a severe, but short recession that was quickly ended by priming the pump once again. In fact, if one took in to account employment through the WPA, and PWA, and not including the CCC, unemployment dropped to about 8%, not far different of what we experienced under Reagan. It is obvious to all, but a few troglodytes of the right that FDR saved America and thus capitalism. That is why he is written about in over 1000 books, of which the vast amount over 95% are quite favorable. Speaking of reality in unemployment, in fact, according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1981, Ronald Reagan’s first year in office, the U.S. average unemployment rate stood at 7.6 percent. During Reagan’s presidency, it reached a high of 9.7 percent, and had declined to a level of 5.5 percent when Reagan left office. The rate from when Reagan entered office through his last year declined by 2.1 points, far less than the eight-point drop for which Brooks credited Reagan. (Besides that obvious reality in November of 1981, ten months into the Reagan Administration, unemployment had risen to 8.5% and continued to rise to almost 10% through February of 1983.) When Reagan left, with 5.4% unemployment and a huge national debt, his successor failed completely. The low tax rates on the top brackets caused more deficits, and even the Bush popularity (95%) brought on by the swift victory in Gulf War I, couldn’t save his administration. He was beaten by an unknown governor from Arkansas and his vote total of 37% was on of the lowest by an incumbent in way over 100 years. Remember, today government employs about 16% of our workforce as opposed to 4% in 1928, which also includes teachers. If one took into account the employment in our universities and colleges supported by their tax-exempt status and the huge defense spending that hires millions in related industries which depended on that part of the budget, unemployment would be very close to 16%. Since 1928 there have been 13 presidents, 7 Republicans (Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr) and 6 Democrats (FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter and Clinton).Six of the seven Republican Presidents had unemployment increase while in office. Ronald Reagan is the only Republican President since 1928 to leave office with a lower unemployment rate. All six Democratic Presidents had unemployment decrease or stay the same while in office. The worst Democratic performance was Jimmy Carter, who had the same unemployment rate when he left office as when he entered. Viewing the President’s 4 year term gives an even more pronounced effect. Of the Republican President’s 9 terms, unemployment has increased in 7 of the 9 terms. Of the Democratic President’s 10 terms, the unemployment rate never increased. Also, according to the NY Times, OP-Ed, of October 14, 2008, written by Tommy McCall, a former editor of Money Magazine, in the 80 years since the election of Herbert Hoover, there have been 40 years each of Democratic and Republican administrations. If one invested $10,000 in the 40 years of the democratic presidents the return on that investment would have been$300,671. Conversely, if one invested that same $10, 000 in the 40 years of GOP rule, the return would have been $11,733. If you exclude out Hoover’s four years the return would have been $51,211. Now, as in 1929, less people own more of America! In the midst of this incredible increase in executive compensation, Ronald Reagan’s administration lowered the highest tax brackets by more than 60% from 71% to 28% in 1986, while raising the bottom tax rate from 11 to 15%. In reality the Reagan Administration created two tax brackets. The poorest earners paid up to 15% and multi-millionaires paid a little more than double? Did this increase revenue to the Treasury? No! No wonder we experienced record deficits. Did it increase wealth to the wealthiest? Yes! Recent articles have debunked the “urban myth” promulgated by the flat-taxer’s and other anti-tax groups that tax cuts increase revenues. In fact, tax cuts without expense reductions create greater deficits. With that in mind, the Reagan years offered some of the biggest deficits, (tripling the National Debt), continued high unemployment, averaging over 7% in his tenure, and great private sector increases in wealth.

Therefore let us get on to problems at hand the country is in trouble, we have just experienced one of the worst and most incompetent presidents in history, and any one has to be better.

RJ Garfunkel

By Chad Woodburn

January 5, 2009 1:09 PM | Link to this

He calls the view about FDR “a newly formed myth”. No, it is not new. It has been around for decades. I first came across it from an economist who told me about 30 years ago that his economics professors understood that to be a macro-economic FACT all along. It’s certainly not a view idea, and those economists did not see it as a myth.