South Carolina's senators split — again — today on the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Guess which one voted against? (Hint: It was NOT the guy Obama's going to be looking to for foreign policy advice.) But he managed to be quite civil about it, saying:
For these reasons, I will be voting against the nomination, but I will do so with nothing but sincere hope and goodwill toward our new Secretary of State, and pray for her success as she takes the helm of the State Department.
Meanwhile Lindsey Graham put out this statement:
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement after Hillary Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State. The vote in the Senate was 94-2.
“Hillary Clinton will serve our nation well as Secretary of State. She understands the enormous domestic and international challenges facing our nation. In choosing Hillary Clinton, President Obama has selected a person of great substance, skill, and intellect.
“President Obama won the election and has earned the right to put his team in place. The presidential campaign is over but the wars our nation is engaged in are not. Our young men and women around the world in harms way need an advocate on the world stage.”
####
Of course, he and Hillary have always gotten along pretty cordially.
How would I have voted? Well, as you know, I didn't think this was the best call Obama has made. Some other job, yes, but I don't think secretary of state is the best place to put your chief rival. The SecState should be understood as completely subordinate to the president, and that seems a tough role for her.
But in the end, Graham says it well: This is the president's call. If this is who he wants, barring some really compelling reason to reject her, I say get her in place as soon as possible. Yeah, I think the Clinton foundation thing is a problem. But then Bill is always a problem for Hillary. No matter how much disclosure, there would be a problem. Not enough to vote "no" for me, though.
Related Posts
By all means, Brad. It’s Obama’s call. After all, he has been elected dictator, hasn’t he?
And if he wanted Bill Ayers as Secretary of State and Jeremiah Wright as Secretary of Religion, you and Graham would back that, too, even if it required a constitutional amendment, just so Lord Obama’s feathers weren’t ruffled.
Pardon the hyperbole, but your shift from McCain backer to Obama lapdog disgusts me.
P.M.,
Your invective directed against Brad is one of the most telling reasons to believe that the Republicans just don’t get it. They have been defeated constitutionally and the Democracy now has the right to rule.
Still, in the great American tradition of bipartisanship, the mud-slinging and hyperbolic political rhetoric of the campaign should now be forgotten in favor of getting all hands to deal constructively with the problems that now face the Union.
Not since FDR took over in the middle of a Depression–a great depression that Hoover had already had four years to deal with unsuccessfully as the conservative Republican president who balanced the budget, cut taxes, reduced spending–and watched as the country spiraled ever downward economically and as people actually starved–has an incoming president faced such daunting challenges.
Yes, winning the election means that those voted in now have the right to push through their program in Congress and govern in the manner they think best, but it should also include a hand stretched across the aisle, a willingness to listen to the other side, and a constructive, meaningful, and respectful involvement of their leaders in decision-making.
I think Barack Obama has hit the ground running here. Of course, the die-hard fundie core of the Republican Party isn’t going to get much more than an invocation by Rick Warren and a tepid acknowledgment of the ambiguous role of some 18th-century deistic conception of “God” in our civil religion.
And I do believe that lies at the heart of the matter for so many Republicans. They didn’t vote for a government of the people, they voted for the government of God.
The core of the Republican Party is a Christian version of Hezbollah, and it is just as implacable.
Well, the fundies lost face at the Scopes Trial in 1925 and most recently at the Dover trial in 2005. They will continue to lose, and lose they must if we are not to bring a gotterdamerung down upon our secular, democratic republic.
Yeah, we are firing rockets into the United Blue States. Rumor has it that Obama will send troops into Rhea County, Tennessee, to destroy all the launching sites located at the Scopes Trial Museum.
Goetterdaemmerung — ah yes, the American republic is in great danger from these religious fanatics and terrorists. Perhaps the government should consider burning all the copies of The Purpose Driven Life–and while they are at it, get rid of the Bible as well, since that book is at the root of all the trouble.
Then it can proceed with the final solution to the Christian question.
Thank you for your tolerance.
Rich, I would prefer to have a Secretary of the Treasury who had paid all his back taxes before Obama nominated him and a Secretary of State whose husband didn’t represent such a conflict of interest.
There, that’s one issue you brought up dealt with peacefully, without hyperbole.
Next, you say not since Roosevelt have such challenges been faced economically, but I would tell you what Carter left Reagan was worse.
As to your statement about “the core of the Republican Party” being “a Christian version of Hezbollah,” well, I thought you said it was time to forget hyperbolic political rhetoric.
Seriously, Rich, your fanatical religious oratory doesn’t get much traction. Herb’s preceding hyperbole slapped you silly from my point of view.
Apart from all that, I thought Obama did a nice job today of setting a precedent for his administration by executive order. I was also pleased to see him retake the oath to keep everybody happy.
Peace.
Did anyone expect Bill and Hillary Clinton to keep their end of the bargain?
These crooks came to Washington too broke to own a house in Arkansas, and were worth $30,000,000 the first year out of office. Bill Clinton is the most bribed President in history, and now he is the bag man for selling foreign policy.
Jim Demint is an embarassment to the state of South Carolina. His article today shows how ideologically blinded he is, even to the point of getting basic facts wrong. First of all his comment about the great depression and FDRs handling of it is a long discredited conservative spin point. Except for a few crackpoint neocon economists everyone agrees that the New Deal was a success. Unemployment soared during the Hoover Administration and people were quite literally starving to death. After hitting 24+% unemployment dropped steadily between 1933 and 1936. By todays standards the New Deal fiscal stimulus was modest, but proved effective. Then FDR got timid and started worrying about a balanced budget before the economy attained full employment. The result was a recession within a depression. FDRs problem was that he resorted to Hoover’s economic strategy. After that though he renewed his stimulus program and by 1941 unemployment was down to single digits. WW II ended the depression once and for all because of the fiscal simulus of war SPENDING, not tax cuts for the wealthy.
Then we have this nonsense about Kennedy. Kennedy’s tax cuts came at a time when the top marginal rate was above 70%, double what it is today. That was appropriate given the particular set of circumstances at the time. More importantly Demint cites the decline in unemployment over the next 5 years. DUH. We embarked on yet another round of war-related spending. So yet again Demint ignores the spending component that stimulated the economy during the 60s.
And then there was the Reagan tax cuts. Reagan faced a different challenge, stagflation. Before he could use Keynesian stimulus techniques he had to eliminate the rapid rise in inflation brought on by the over-heated spending of the Nixon and Ford Administrations. Carter started this by appointing Paul Volker to oversee the nations money supply issues. The result was a horrible rise in interest rates that choked inflation. It was the right call but ultimately led to Carter’s downfall. Reagan inherited a situation where everything was in place to end inflation. But a price had to be paid and that was the great recession of 1981-82. With unemployment at 10+% inflation did cool down allowing fiscal policy to assert itself through tax cuts and, again, an increase in spending, this time through the build up of our military. That was not the best way to stimulate the economy but it did work and unemployment gradually declined. Of course the nation’s deficit soared but that was probably necessary.
Bush Sr. inherited the deficit situation and because of the flaws in the Reagan “stimulus” his administration was doomed to another recession. It was only during the Clinton Adminsitration, COMPLETELY IGNORED by Demint’s trip down memory lane, that the economy really took off.
And of course the Bush years have been a disaster. For Demint to cite anything that this discredited administration did shows how deluded our junior senator is. His tax cuts for the wealthy have been a complete failure with job growth languishing badly for the entire tenure of his presidency. The DOW dropped 26% during his 8 years in office. And then came the current nightmare recession.
Fact is job growth has been vastly superior under the stewardship of Democratic presidents vs Republicans. Demint’s logic is both flawed and dishonest.
FACTS about the Failure of the New Deal
1. FDR ran against Hoover’s attempts at stimulus spending, but when elected, he increased the deficits, continued Hoover’s programs, and implemented most of Hoover’s proprosals.
2. Unemployment was no better in 1938 than it was in 1932. Every government job was offset by a high-paying job in industry.
3. Industrial production fell steadily throughout the New Deal.
4. Farm prices fell. Ag police destroyed crops, fruit, milk and cheese while millions went hungry. Farmers were prosecuted for trying to give food to charities.
5. FDR’s tax increases, union promotion, and socialist central planning boards prolonged the Depression.
6. Entering World War II is the only thing which ended the Depression. 5,000,000 men were drafted into the military.
Senator DeMint is right about government spending never helping economic growth. How can it? Government spending is done by people with the worst information and motives, by taking money from those closest to the wants of the customers and the best motivation for serving those wants.
Private enterprise has the price mechanism to tell businessmen what people really want. Government uses ideology to give people what the politicians and bureaucrats want – control over the lives of individuals.
Wow. When I posted this, I didn’t realize that DeMint was one of only TWO voting against her.
And p.m., I remain a loyal McCain man. Seems to me I heard that McCain spoke up for Hillary yesterday. I believe he agrees with me and Lindsey Graham on this.
DeMint is positioning him as this generation’s “Senator No,” trying to inherit the Helms mantle. Until the demographics in SC reach a certain tipping point, he’s locking in a pretty safe electoral position in his home state. The more times he’s on the losing end of 94-2 types of votes, the better for him in the Palmetto State as far as he’s concerned. That will no doubt work in 2010 but if he goes for a 3rd term in 2016 I think he’ll find that the state may have moved on without him.
6. Entering World War II is the only thing which ended the Depression. 5,000,000 men were drafted into the military.
Senator DeMint is right about government spending never helping economic growth.
-Lee
Lee has outdone even himself for stupidity. This oxymoron sets the standard by which all future blog posts should be compared.
Obviously Lee is just unable to grasp the concept that military spending = government spending. On the other points he made, he’s simply wrong, period. The economy DID grow during the 1933-1941 period because of New Deal spending except for that period when the New Deal was de-facto suspended. That’s just a fact. Comparing 1932 to 1938 is invalid because it compares a year when Hoover was president and things had not yet bottomed out to the worst year in the late-30s recession. The valid comparison is 1933 vs 1941 the worst year vs the last year before our full involvement in WW II.
McCain is another man who wants to be liked by those in power. That is why he is not in power.
McCain and Lindsey Graham are just too willing to overlook corruption in order to get along and hope to get a pat on the head from the media. They know you get more camera time for playing along with Democrats than you get for explaining why you can’t vote for bribery and corruption.
bud, let me repeat the facts for you.
Drafting 5,000,000 young men ended unemployment.
Government spending amounting to more than 50% of the entire budget only made the Depression last longer and get worse.
The FDR policies never solved any economic problems: unemployment, manufacturing, farming, banking, nothing.
Rich!!!
Good post as always but don’t tell P.M. the reasons Republicans don’t get it! Some may be smart enough TO actually get it, and then where will we be?
So based on the above comments:
– Cutting taxes stimulates the economy
– Government spending stimulates the economy too
President Obama is proposing both of these, right? So you would think things are looking up.
My question is if you cut taxes and increase spending, aren’t you creating a massive deficit on top of the one we already have? And isn’t that deficit going to have to be repaid one day? And aren’t we going to have to cut spending and/or increase taxes to do it? Isn’t this going to have the opposite effect of the stimulus plans above?
If this is the case, it seems like you are over-inflating the economy now only to deflate it later. And are we not going to have to cut spending MORE and raise taxes MORE to pay the interest factor on the debt?
I understand why balancing the budget can slow down the economy. But to me, it’s still the common sense objective for the long run.
Anyone got an opinion on this?
Bud-put down the kool aid and do some fact checking, your entire screed is wrong.
Back to the subject at hand… it may be a case of keeping your enemy[rival]close, and after she fails, which she will eventually do, she is eliminated as a contender for the 2012 election.
this is a great day for the people of new york state, as now the self serving, do nothing junior senator has moved on.
Here’s a nice timeline of the great depression from this article:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
ECONOMIC TIMELINE
The following timeline shows the order of economic events during the Great Depression. Notice the effect that deficit spending had on economic growth:
Receipts: Tax receipts as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product
Spending: Federal spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product
GNP: Percent change in the Gross National Product
Unemp.: Unemployment rate
Tax Federal GNP Unemp.
Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate
————————————————-
1929 — — — 3.2% < Hoover era, Great Depression begins 1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7 1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9 1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6 1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; contraction ends March 1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7 1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1 1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9 1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 < recession begins, May 1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 < recession ends, June 1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2 1940 6.9 9.9 1941 7.7 12.1 1942 10.3 24.8 1943 13.7 44.8 1944 21.7 45.3 1945 21.3 43.7 Clearly the great depression was caused by the utter failure of the Republicans, especially Herbert Hoover. It's equally clear that the policies of FDR, though far too small, did begin the process of re-building the economy. This article cites the example of Sweden in it's far more aggressive deficit spending approach to the depression. By 1934 they were essentially over it and growing at a nice clip. Too bad FDR wasn't as bold as the Swedes.
Birch, I disagree. Deficit spending is necessary to fight a recession as severe as the one we’re in now. Few people would dispute that. Once we approach full employment levels then it may become necessary to run surplus spending. In the long run debt should not accumulate if this prescription is followed. That is what happened during the Clinton years. The deficit spending of 1993-1998 was followed by budget surpluses. And the economy was never healthier.
Following up on what I said in the comment above, this is from the NYT blog The Caucus:
Just before a recess a few minutes ago so that senators could attend their policy luncheons, Senator John McCain, whose failed presidential bid resulted in his return to the Senate, tried to cut off the hours of debate and move quickly toward Senator Clinton’s confirmation. He argued that she must begin work on the world’s problems — the United States is fighting two wars, the fragile ceasefire over Gaza, a deteriorating situation with North Korea.
And then Mr. McCain, with the heft that only he could offer given his unusual situation, invoked yesterday’s inaugural wonderment. “We had an election and we also had a remarkable and historical time yesterday and this nation has come together as it has not for some time,” he said, noting the high popularity ratings of President Barack Obama. “The message the American people are sending us right now is they want us to work together and get to work right now.”
But the debate will continue after their recess. Senator Kerry said that as much as he would have liked to agree to Mr. McCain’s request to simply do a voice vote and move on, he found himself in the unusual position of protecting the right under Senate rules of Mr. McCain’s fellow Republicans who still wanted to appear on the floor for debate.
My man McCain is a “move on” kind of guy, like me.
Henry Waxman says the New Deal failed
Incoming House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com Tuesday that Franklin D. Roosevelt “did not spend what was needed” to get people “back to work” during the Great Depression. – January 09, 2009 (AP)
His comments were made following a House Steering and Policy Committee hearing about the current need for an economic stimulus package that could cost anywhere between $775 billion and $1 trillion. It is estimated that the Roosevelt administrations spent $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted dollars) to try to get America out of the 1930s Depression.
When asked how the spending in a stimulus package today would have a different effect than FDR’s spending on federal programs, which did not significantly lower unemployment until the start of World War II, Waxman said Roosevelt did not spend enough.
“Well, a lot of economists tell us that what Roosevelt failed to do was to spend as much money as was needed to get people back to work and get the economy moving again,” he said.
“It wasn’t until World War II when we had major expenditures that the Depression was finally resolved,” said Waxman. “We’re going to be looking at that experience. But I think what we are facing now is unique. But we’ve got to approach it with what we’ve learned from the past but think through what we need for the future.”
Despite the $500 billion spend under FDR through various programs, the unemployment rate in the United States did not significantly decrease until after the U.S. officially entered World War II in 1941.
According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from 1929-1944, the rates of unemployment in the United States were as follows:
1929 … 3.2%
1930 … 8.7%
1931 … 15.9%
1932 … 23.6%
1933 … 24.9%
1934 … 21.7%
1935 … 20.1%
1936 … 16.9%
1937 … 14.3%
1938 … 19.0%
1939 … 17.2%
1940 … 14.6%
1941 … 9.9%
1942 … 4.7%
1943 … 1.9%
1944 … 1.2%
Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau admitted that the
New Deal had been a failure. On May 6, 1939, he confessed, “We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!”
FDR imposed a Undistributed Profits Tax in 1936 and tried to raise the income tax to 99.5% on all income over $100,000. The result was a further economic plunge. Roosevelt was trailing in the polls, so he went on a spending spree of targeted “infrastructureprojects” in districts to buy the election. (Sounds familiar.)
Despite the $500 billion spend under FDR through various programs, the unemployment rate in the United States did not significantly decrease until after the U.S. officially entered World War II in 1941.
-Lee
Huh? Your data does not support that. Unemployment declined from 24.9% in 1933 to 14.6% in 1940. That represents a decline of more than 41 percent. Where I studied statistics that would be highly significant.
But whether you’re being stubborn or stupid Waxman’s point is clear enough, FDR did not spend enough. He’s not suggesting we don’t spend money to get us out of the recession. Rather, he’s suggesting we should spend more.
(Ok, I’m a hypocrit. After calling Herb out for responding to Lee what do I do. But this is a widely cherished myth of conservatism, not just one of Lee’s rants, that the New Deal was a failure. Demint trotted it out this morning. This needs to be addressed head on so someone doesn’t actually believe the nonsense that Lee is peddling).
Unemployment didn’t decline until the massive war preparations and the military draft began in 1939.
The unemployment numbers are actually worse in other economists studies, which take into account the 4,000,000 make-work government jobs.
The draft didn’t start until late 1940. Besides, military spending is still GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Why is that so hard to understand. Whether you want to acknowledge the proven fact that the economy did grow and unemployment did decline because of the New Deal the point is clear that the depression ended because of government spending NOT, I repeat, NOT because of tax cuts.
Unemployment didn’t fall until 1940, either.
There are all kinds of military spending, and all kinds of government spending. Military spending is one of the few legal, authorized activitives of the federal government. Most of it provides little stimulation to the economy because it is not enough to distort the economy. During World War II, almost all industrial efforts were directed at arming America, and it was so huge, that it did jolt manufacturing out of the slump it had been in during the entire New Deal.
Unemployment fell because between November 1940-October 1946, 10,110,104 men between 17 and 36 were inducted into the military, plus some older and younger ones.
The only thing the FDR apologists are right about is that FDR did not end the depression with tax cuts – he PROLONGED it with tax increases.
Birch, I disagree. Deficit spending is necessary to fight a recession as severe as the one we’re in now. Few people would dispute that. Once we approach full employment levels then it may become necessary to run surplus spending. In the long run debt should not accumulate if this prescription is followed. That is what happened during the Clinton years. The deficit spending of 1993-1998 was followed by budget surpluses. And the economy was never healthier.
So what you’re saying is if we run a large enough deficit by increasing the amount of government spending, we’ll eventually create a healthy economy so we can decrease government spending (or raise taxes), create a surplus and then use that surplus to pay off our previous deficit spending plus interest?
Also, you’re saying this cutting of government spending (or raising taxes) during the good times won’t have an adverse effect on the economy even though doing the exact opposite previously had a positive effect on the economy?
My man McCain is a “move on” kind of guy, like me.
I’m guessing you’re not a “follow the rules because they are there to protect others’ rights” kind of guy like Sen. Kerry.
According to Ben Stein, the New Deal didn’t just prolong the Great Depression — it caused it.
Stein also says what we’re experiencing now is a mosquito bite compared to the atom bomb the Great Depression was (6% unemployment vs. 25% unemployment; 30 percent market drop vs. 90 percent market drop).
Y’all go ahead and watch Jimmy Kimmel. I’m going with Stein.
Birch,
You can’t use logic on these people.
* They still talk about the mythical “Clinton surpluses”, when Clinton never proposed a budget surplus, ran deficits every year, and fought the GOP to try to double the deficits.
* They still believe the lies about FDR ending unemployment and bring prosperity.
* Six months ago, they were feigning outrage over the “Bush deficits”. Then they realized Pelosi and the Democrats had been in control of the budgets since 2006.
When the Democrat mortgage programs crashed and took the banks down, they applauded the Democrats’ $2.0 TRILLION deficits.
* Now they want Obama to run TRILLION DOLLAR deficits year after year.
They just want the money to go to themselves, not the military.
Birch, the government has to balance it’s tax and spending priorities to address 2 conflicting threats: unemployment and inflation. At some point in an economic expansion the economy will reach “full” employment at which point any further stimulus cannot lower unemployment but will only fuel inflation. It’s at that point when the appropriate tax increases/spending cuts (along with money supply adjustments) will prevent inflation from getting out of hand. The problem is deciding at what point these priorities change. The classroom ideals don’t really exist in the real world. Outside events such as 9-11 have a nasty way of upsetting the apple cart.
You are repeating the talking points of fiscal stimulus theory, bud.
Reality: Democrats don’t care about deficits or inflation.
Democrats have been proposing $600 BILLION deficits since 1992, and been beaten back by President GWH Bush, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and President GW Bush. When the economy was booming in 2007 and 2008, Pelosi and Reid and their Democrat majority pushed through deficits totalling $1.1 TRILLION, then added on another $750 BILLION in deficits in November 2008 for the bailout of FNMA, FMAC, and all the banks brought down by the failure of those Democrat housing scams.
This crisis was created by Democrats, and brought to a head by Democrats as their October Surprise to blame it on Bush and McCain.
Now they are going to use the sham of “stimulus spending” to nationalize the banks, medical care, and even the bankrupt news media.
A lot of editors and faux journalists know they had better get cozy with their new owners if they want to keep a paycheck.
According to Ben Stein, the New Deal didn’t just prolong the Great Depression — it caused it.
-p.m.
Wow. Given the fact that unemployment increased from 4% to 23% BEFORE FDR ever became president that is quite a claim. There is just simply not one iota of support for that claim. The New Deal made the depression better. It just didn’t go far enough.
Unemployment is only one economic indicator.
Unemployment did not increase significantly immediately after the stock market crash of 1929.
Ben Stein and a lot of other economists refer to the fact that the economy was recoving without all the meddling by Hoover and FDR. Remember, FDR just continued and expanded the failed government programs begun by Hoover in late 1930, then added on socialist central planning that made matters worse.
Bud, forgive me, but if Ben Stein says the New Deal caused the Great Depression, I’m sure there’s at least “one iota of support for that claim.”
Here’s the basic argument, paraphrased from a fellow named Jim Glass: What made the “Great Depression” the Great Depression was not the initial economic fall, which wasn’t a lot different from previous plunges, but the decade that the recovery required.
It could have been called the Recession of ’30, like the Recession of ’21, but because it was so prolonged, it was called the “Great Depression.”
Why did the recovery take so long and longer in the United States than anywhere else?
Any number of economic historians (see Peter Temin, MIT) say it was because of the New Deal policies that lifted prices and wages above market clearing levels (encouraging cartels, monopolies, price floors, output restrictions, etc.), which were never applied following any previous recession to remedy it.
To the extent this is true, Ben Stein is exactly right, New Deal policies in fact did cause the Great Depression.
In fact, bud, I believe Ben Stein would be willing to defend his theory against you by becoming a common contestant.
Call me crazy, but you can also call me fairly sure you wouldn’t have a chance against him.
The sad thing is not that coffeehouse pundits like ‘bud’, ‘rich’ and ‘Brad’ are wrong, but that President Obama, his advisors, and most of Congress is just as misinformed and wrong about the economy and policies.
Excuse me p.m. but Stein’s claim that the new deal caused the great depression is just plain fiction. The great depression was well under way before the New Deal ever started. Unemployment went up in 1929 over 1928, then again in 1930, 31 and 32. FDR was not in office until March of 1933. So even if the New Deal failed to alleviate the situation (false in my opinion) we already had 3+ years of a serious DEPRESSION with very high unemployment BEFORE the New Deal was put in place. That’s just a fact. Something that you conveniently ignore. But then again neocons are good at ignoring facts. That’s why they never learn and when they control the White House the economy always deteriorates. Everytime conservative economics is tried it fails. No amount of slick talking points by faux economists changes that.
Look, bud, the policies begun by Hoover, which Roosevelt continued and amplified with the New Deal, turned a stock-market crash into a national economic catastrophe that lasted 10 years before WWII “solved” it.
That’s the opinion of a great many learned economists, at any rate. Your saying something is “a fact” doesn’t make it true. If you could prove what you say with more figures than just unemployment, that would be one thing, but even the unemployment figures back the contention of Ben Stein and many others: from 1930-1932, what Hoover did made things worse, and from 1933-1939, what Roosevelt didn’t return unemployment to pre-1929 levels, but instead prolonged the problem.
Note, bud: Bush’s policies started this mess (like Hoover’s) and now Obama’s planning to trump his effort (like Roosevelt). Wouldn’t it be logical to expect the same result — a decade of unacceptable unemployment figures with money so tight the economy doesn’t function properly, all because the government is stealing so much money from the mainstream and spending it much less efficiently than the private sector would?
The bank bailouts are a failure, so Obama wants to continue the policies that failed, and expand the.
The 2008 bank bailouts did not work.
They were supposed to buy up worthless assets and sell them off, so the banks could resume lending.
Instead, the Democrats have hijacked the bailout to not sell off the bad properties, because that means foreclosing on 10,000,000 minority voters.
So they are illegally misappropriating the funds directly to the banks, who are using it to buy up other bankrupt banks and brokerage firms.
Obama and the Democrats now put one of the main people responsible for the bank failures, Tim Geithner, in charge of the continuation of the failed bailouts.
Chairmen support is very very important to all i think it will be good
Christena
Save OVER 50% for 3 months,Save $21/mo for an Entire Year!* on your Favorite Channels