Em, not sure you got your facts straight, but you might want to read up a bit on something called "The New Deal". Originally Posted by F-SharpHe has his facts straight. You might want to read up on something called the 'depression of 1920' to which "New Deal' has no relevance.
He has his facts straight. You might want to read up on something called the 'depression of 1920' to which "New Deal' has no relevance.You completely missed the point Billy. Most economists and historians believe it was Harding's policies enacted in reponse to the 1920 depressionn that caused the market crash of 1929. Go back and look at the chart I posted and consider the similarities between that and the policies implemented during the. Bush administration that led us to present day. The 1920s amounted to nothings more than an economic bubble that eventually burst. Similar policies- similar result. I'll post some links later this evening to support ths further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depress...920%E2%80%9321 Originally Posted by Billy_Saul
I'll post some links later this evening to support ths further. Originally Posted by F-SharpI'll look forward to reading them since I am not able to come up with anything supporting that.
Kosher I like the tone of your posts in general even when I don't always agree with the content but I do have one question. What's behind the need to remind us of his middle name? Originally Posted by BoothBecause I feel like it, you probably already know why...if not, I'll tell you
I'll look forward to reading them since I am not able to come up with anything supporting that.Much of it is right there in your Wikipedia link under "Causes". Read up on debt deflation and i'll post some more details when I get home this evening.
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/...depression.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Causes Originally Posted by Billy_Saul
I'll look forward to reading them since I am not able to come up with anything supporting that.Sometimes you just have to a little deeper Billy. Tell me if any of this sounds vaguely familiar to you...
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/...depression.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#Causes Originally Posted by Billy_Saul
"Harding’s election meant big bucks for big business. The anti-trust gains made by Wilsonian progressives went out the door as a new age dawned for fat-cat tycoons and good old boys in the Republican Party. Ironically, though, many of Harding’s pro-business policies hurt the American economy in the long run. First, the sudden free-for-all in the market led to speculation and corruption. Speculators began using future earnings on the stocks they owned—money they did not even have yet—to buy new stocks, a process known as “buying on margin.” This overspeculation, along with widespread corruption and faulty international finances, eventually led to the stock market crash of 1929."Here's an interesting time-line that shows some of the major points leading up to the depression through Harding's administration:
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/am.../section1.html
"In the 1920's American economic policy was laissez faire. Businesses were left alone and for sometime things appeared to fine. American businesses reported record profits, production was at an all time high. The problem was that while earnings rose and the rich got richer, the working class received a disproportionally lower percentage of the wealth. This uneven distribution of wealth got so bad that 5% of America earned 33% of the income."
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_83_Notes.htm
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n...epression.htmlThese should keep you busy for a little while anyway.
Everybody needs to look at the 1920 Depression which was worse than the Great Depression. The gov't did the right thing by cutting spending and taxes and letting the markets correct themselves. I am sorry but when you are in debt you can not spend your way out of it. I don't care if you are a democrat or republican.The above statement is in fact true although I am sure there are different interpretations of that period.
Our problem is that the idiots in charge all have responsibility in this. Originally Posted by mgohara
Em, not sure you got your facts straight, but you might want to read up a bit on something called "The New Deal". Originally Posted by F-SharpTo say that the corrective measures which quickly dispatched the incapacitated Woodrow Wilson's 20-21 depression caused the great depression is no different then saying that The dot com bubble of the 1990s ending in 2000, the failure of Clinton to pursue Al Qaeda contributing to 9-11, the housing bubble with its roots firmly planted in the 90s all add up to Clinton being responsible for our current economic malaise.
He has his facts straight. You might want to read up on something called the 'depression of 1920' to which "New Deal' has no relevance. Originally Posted by Billy_SaulThanks for the interesting links. Amazing that the Republicans were able to reverse Wilson's depression in only 6 months. I think we will see a similar result in 2012 after OBama is voted out of office.
the failure of Clinton to pursue Al Qaeda contributing to 9-11, the housing bubble with its roots firmly planted in the 90s all add up to Clinton being responsible for our current economic malaise. Originally Posted by Billy_SaulYou seriously believe this don't you? It seems to me that our "current economic malaise" boils down to two things, deficit and unemployment. I would argue these things have little to do with 9/11, Al Qaeda (unless you count the money and time wasted failing to erradicate them), or the housing bubble.
but Bush has been gone, it is Obama's job and deal now and the problem is not being fixed. We are worse off as a nation, the outlook not great.You have totally confused the terms "responsibility for (as in "The buck stops here.")" and "the cause of (as in the reason why we are up shit creek without a paddle)". Blame is negative and needs to be handed out correctly. The issues that caused any given problem must also be identified to make sure the problem is fixed.
instead of hearing Bush Bush Bush Bush Bush from the liberals when will we hear ' This is the problem, this is how we are going to fix it' and leave Bush out.
One reason you hear bush, bush, bush, etc. is because there is blame associated with the subject issue. If you want to hear “Here is the problem. How do we fix it?” you don’t start with “President Obama sure fucked up the economy. The US as we knew it will never be the same.” You say “The economy sure is fucked up. How do we fix it?” And oh yeah, the other party is supposed to help. And of course there is the elephant in the room that maybe republican policies helped put us where we're at and maybe we should try something different?
Naw! Everything was perfect right up until Obama took office.
I swear I won't cum in your mouth!
The main reason you hear “bush, bush, bush” is obvious. Usually the best measure of presidential performance is historical. President Bush was the president before the current one. You don’t check Harry Truman’s statistics unless they are relevant. The closer in time frame to the compared presidency the better. It’s more apples-to-apples.
Anyone who posts comments about the current president’s job performance should expect comparisons to the previous president. Bush’s name is by far more often in response than initial subject (when Obama and Bush are mentioned in same subject. On a board like this the percentage could easily be in the 90% range. A perfect example is the number of rounds of golf the president has played. Expect to hear about the 1000ish days at Crawford/Camp David. If a person makes an incorrect statement about any subject, should he be angry he was corrected? Shouldn’t he take note of the correction and not do it again? Unfortunately the name Bush is found in many of the corrections.
And sorry, it’s hardly as simple as turning the keys over. If compared to a vehicle this would be an aircraft carrier, the most complicated of ships considering all the different logistics involved. The analogy breaks down when you consider a ship’s Captain is the sole decider. There is no congress.
Obama is driving the bus we are all passengers on, Bush had the keys taken away years ago and he no longer has them, he isn't on the bus, he is retired in TX halfway across the country. I'm not defending Bush, just saying he is gone. 2+ years. You're not defending Bush? I'll let that go for the moment. But you blame Obama for things beyond his control....without knowing the details of course. And as soon as you hear "bush" you stop listening. Too bad that is when the details are explained.
He may be gone but his legacy will be around for a long time.
Fish and/or F Sharp may be correct, incorrect or partially correct and I am not up to date on all the fine details but I do know one thing, America is hurting, the outlook for the future of the children and grandchildren is not great and only one person sits in the Oval Office now and has for 3+ years. It's 2+ years. Math challenged too?
So you're not sure who is right or wrong in the facts being presented but you are positive it is President Obama's fault. You don't feel any personal responsibility to know the facts before you render judgment and place blame for our country’s demise on the sitting president. Since the details are the facts, what do you base you choice on....Wait, I don't care. If you don't use the facts, who cares what you used.
When you say "This is the problem, how do we fix it?" you mean "This problem is my fault. Despite the fact it has been in the making for years, that global impact type problems take a united country to solve, or may be the direct result of an action of a previous office holder, I want to go on record as having claimed the blame. Having done that, now I'm sure the house will give America and I their best efforts." Right?
No fucking way.
and that person is the Commander in Chief, President Barack Hussein Obama. Originally Posted by KosherCowboy
