US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Broken record.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

US jobless claims are at a 4 decade low. Who's out of work? The uneducated blue collar. What's trump going to do for them? We know he would have them spend $30k at trump edu. Is that good advice?

So we know the only thing he would do is con them. Same as he's doing people like you

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Broken record.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.

So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:

So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]

CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]

Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]

So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?

Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..

Right.

Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.

What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.

 

[sealybobo]

Last time it was this low was 1973

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

Yea, "from what you heard". But fact is the same formula that gave bush 1&2 a deficit, gave Clinton a surplus.

Assuming the next president didn't get us into 2 wars and give massive tax breaks & send millions of tax paying jobs overseas

"From what I heard," it was Bill Clinton who was mainly responsible for sending so many of our jobs overseas. I remember when he was running against Ross Perot. He said that if Clinton had his way, a huge sucking sould would be heard from all of the jobs leaving the U.S. Bill Clinton got elected and what Ross Perot predicted is exactly what happened. After that, it amazes me that anybody would even consider voting for Bill Clinton's piece of ass. But if a worthless negro can get elected, anything can happen.

Of course that's what a con said about Clinton. Ron paulers teabaggers libertarians neo cons conservatives are all greedy ignorant liars and or stupid. Just depends on if you are rich which ones you are.

The corporate Democrats need to be reformed true. That's what Bernie supporters tried to do.

But the real problem is Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They've gerrymandered the house so we need to take back the Senate. We will.

 

[Oldstyle]

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

Not all Regulations are bad yet you talk about them like all regulations are equal.

How about tariffs. Are you for them? Well that's a 180 you right wingers have taken as far as free markets go. Now all of the sudden you are for tariffs?

Published on Friday, March 12, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

When Republicans try to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA, they are trying to pretend they aren’t the ones who pushed/push for unregulated free trade. Here is what we were saying about free trade in 2004. I challenge any Republican to show me one article from 2004 that shows they were for regulating free trade or tariffs.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." But that’s insane because corporations only care about 1 thing and that’s maximizing shareholder profits. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

The "middle class" is not the natural result of "free trade." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business and when domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer.

"Conservatives complained about Smoot Hawley tariffs but the main result was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. It brought jobs back to America. Most of the Founders advocated and passed tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America! The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

" few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America's tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own."
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what a buffoon, Rshermr is...click on his cite from the Economist and read the article he quoted from in it's entirety! He took one line out a long article which presented the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the following light:

"EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week's Economist, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”

As well as this...

"Of all the calls on Hoover not to sign the bill, perhaps the weightiest was a petition signed by 1,028 American economists. A dozen years later Frank Fetter, one of the organisers, recalled their unanimity. “Economic faculties that within a few years were to be split wide open on monetary policy, deficit finance, and the problem of big business, were practically at one in their belief that the Hawley-Smoot bill was an iniquitous piece of legislation.”"

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS. You are such a clown. The question was never whether the bill was good or bad. Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made. The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ". You seem to be tripping over english, me boy. You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929. Sorry to steal your thunder. You seemed so excited. I was so happy for you. But then, the same old thing. You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either![/QUOTE]

How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression? Did you even read it? You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression? Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed. Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention? Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?

 

[sealybobo]

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Broken record.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Broken record.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.

So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:

So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]

CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]

Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]

So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?

Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..

Right.

Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.

What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.

I want to puke anytime I hear a stupid Republican cry about "regulation". What regulation? You sorta have to kind of be more specific. In fact, every regulation is completely different. If it is a bad regulation, let Congress spend a week on each regulation that is up for debate and decide if it's a good regulation or bad regulation. Why isn't fox news doing news shows on all these bad regulations? Im all for doing away with bad regulations.

Republicans purposely and successfully made the very word regulations a bad word.

 

[Oldstyle]

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Broken record.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

You REALLY want to create more jobs in the US? Stop burdening our businesses with more regulations out of Washington. The liberal "solution" to all things is to pass another law. Then you can't figure out why corporations choose not to build here? Duh...

Broken record.

Broken record? Wow...talk about being in denial! American businesses spend trillions each and every year complying with Federal regulations yet you don't see that as a problem?

And another con talking point from Oldstyle. I asked what the benefit is of the regulations. No answer. Because con trolls like oldstyle assume that there is no benefit. So, how did the trillions number, and the net huge cost come about? Why, by the debunked WSG reports.

So, any benefits from the regs, me boy/:
OMB: Benefits Of Federal Rules Outweigh Costs. While Livermore noted that the 2001 OMB report was flawed and discontinued, more recent OMB reports show that year after year the economic benefits of the government's major rules far outweigh their economic costs:

So, there you go. Benefits far outweigh costs. How odd that a con would miss that. So, how many Trillions do the regs cost?
"Most Recent Report Mimics 2014 Edition Which Admitted Method Of Calculating Costs Was "Not Scientific." The 2014 edition of CEI's report stated that their method for calculating each household's regulatory costs is "not scientific," and that they use a "back-of-the-envelope way of reflecting on the magnitude of regulatory costs." In each of the reports, CEI used the same methodology and claimed that regulations represent a "hidden tax" on American families. [CEI.org, 2015; CEI.org, 2014; CEI.org, 2013]

CEI Methodology Was Debunked By The Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, Which Called It"Misleading." In January 2015, The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog criticized congressmen for citing the 2014 edition of the CEI report, noting that the report "has serious methodological problems" and that it is "unbalanced" because it only looks at the costs of regulations while ignoring the benefits. The Fact Checker called the total regulation cost cited by CEI "an idiosyncratic guesstimate," and concluded that citing CEI's estimate of each household's share of regulatory costs constitutes "a misleading statement worthy of at least Two Pinocchios." [The Washington Post, 1/14/15]

Experts Similarly Criticized "Hugely Flawed" 2015 Report
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman: CEI Report Is A "Terribly Inaccurate And Unrealistic Guess."Robert Weissman, president of the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen, criticized the CEI report's figure for regulatory costs as "a terribly inaccurate and unrealistic guess." Weissman pointed out that the report counts economic costs that have "nothing to do with regulations" to reach its total tally -- including transfer payments related to Medicare benefits and tax compliance costs -- and that much of it relies on a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) that was "discredited by all independent observers and received so much criticism that it was eventually disavowed by the SBA itself." Weissman also stated that the CEI report's failure to compare the benefits of regulations to their costs "is akin to grocery shoppers deciding to buy no groceries simply because groceries cost money." [Public Citizen, 5/13/15]

So, why would con trolls miss the fact that the claims they post have been discredited completely?
And why would they miss the benefits of the regulations?

Must just be a mistake, because they certainly would not want to post incorrect dogma..

Right.

Wow, proponents of Big Government don't think government regulations are a bad thing! Stop the presses! Public Citizen's primary reason for existing is a belief in strong government regulations but you use them as "experts" that government regulation is a good thing? You're an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.
Uh, government regulations, for thinking people, are neither good nor bad. Whether Public Citizen believes regulations are good or bad is, again, not the issue. You see, there is this thing termed "the truth" which you do not seem to understand. And they saw, as the truth, that the studies that showed the costs of regulations were trillions were badly flawed. They did not conclude that gov regulation was a good thing. So, no, you are the idiot. I am showing you that, quite succinctly, they did not believe in the great study that tried to show how expensive gov regulations were. Sorry you are incapable of complex thought. And that two components is too complex for you. Dipshit. Your an idiot. With each successive post you prove that fact even more.

What is that, I recall 4 for me, ZERO for Oldstyle. But you have to give him an A for effort. And an F for brains.

Only the truly clueless would use Public Citizen as the authority on whether or not government regulation was a good or bad thing! It would be like using the NRA as the authority on whether or not gun control laws are a good or bad thing! You STILL don't grasp that though...do you? I'm guessing that's because you had no idea what Public Citizen WAS when you used them? Typical, Rshermr...just one more topic you know nothing about while trying to pretend that you do!

 

[sealybobo]

Not all Regulations are bad yet you talk about them like all regulations are equal.

How about tariffs. Are you for them? Well that's a 180 you right wingers have taken as far as free markets go. Now all of the sudden you are for tariffs?

Published on Friday, March 12, 2004 by CommonDreams.org

When Republicans try to blame Bill Clinton for NAFTA, they are trying to pretend they aren’t the ones who pushed/push for unregulated free trade. Here is what we were saying about free trade in 2004. I challenge any Republican to show me one article from 2004 that shows they were for regulating free trade or tariffs.

Democracy - Not "The Free Market" - Will Save America's Middle Class

1. There is no such thing as a "free market."

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering).

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop government from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." But that’s insane because corporations only care about 1 thing and that’s maximizing shareholder profits. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest.

The "middle class" is not the natural result of "free trade." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business and when domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and the rich get richer.

"Conservatives complained about Smoot Hawley tariffs but the main result was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. It brought jobs back to America. Most of the Founders advocated and passed tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class.

We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America! The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

" few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America's tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own."
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what a buffoon, Rshermr is...click on his cite from the Economist and read the article he quoted from in it's entirety! He took one line out a long article which presented the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the following light:

"EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week's Economist, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”

As well as this...

"Of all the calls on Hoover not to sign the bill, perhaps the weightiest was a petition signed by 1,028 American economists. A dozen years later Frank Fetter, one of the organisers, recalled their unanimity. “Economic faculties that within a few years were to be split wide open on monetary policy, deficit finance, and the problem of big business, were practically at one in their belief that the Hawley-Smoot bill was an iniquitous piece of legislation.”"

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS. You are such a clown. The question was never whether the bill was good or bad. Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made. The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ". You seem to be tripping over english, me boy. You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929. Sorry to steal your thunder. You seemed so excited. I was so happy for you. But then, the same old thing. You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression? Did you even read it? You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression? Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed. Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention? Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?[/QUOTE]
Smooth was implemented 2 years into the depression. What smoot did was get Americans buying American again.

 

[Oldstyle]

Right, until the democrat President Jimmy Carter took over in 1974, whereas the Republican President was in office in '73.

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

Yea, "from what you heard". But fact is the same formula that gave bush 1&2 a deficit, gave Clinton a surplus.

Assuming the next president didn't get us into 2 wars and give massive tax breaks & send millions of tax paying jobs overseas

"From what I heard," it was Bill Clinton who was mainly responsible for sending so many of our jobs overseas. I remember when he was running against Ross Perot. He said that if Clinton had his way, a huge sucking sould would be heard from all of the jobs leaving the U.S. Bill Clinton got elected and what Ross Perot predicted is exactly what happened. After that, it amazes me that anybody would even consider voting for Bill Clinton's piece of ass. But if a worthless negro can get elected, anything can happen.

Of course that's what a con said about Clinton. Ron paulers teabaggers libertarians neo cons conservatives are all greedy ignorant liars and or stupid. Just depends on if you are rich which ones you are.

The corporate Democrats need to be reformed true. That's what Bernie supporters tried to do.

But the real problem is Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They've gerrymandered the house so we need to take back the Senate. We will.

Let me see if I've got this straight...you think taking back the Senate is going to "reform" things when Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office? Did you not get the memo about Hillary taking millions of dollars from all those movers and shakers? You think she's going to let anything happen to them if she's elected? How naive are you, Sealy?

 

[Oldstyle]

We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America! The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

" few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America's tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own."
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what a buffoon, Rshermr is...click on his cite from the Economist and read the article he quoted from in it's entirety! He took one line out a long article which presented the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the following light:

"EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week's Economist, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”

As well as this...

"Of all the calls on Hoover not to sign the bill, perhaps the weightiest was a petition signed by 1,028 American economists. A dozen years later Frank Fetter, one of the organisers, recalled their unanimity. “Economic faculties that within a few years were to be split wide open on monetary policy, deficit finance, and the problem of big business, were practically at one in their belief that the Hawley-Smoot bill was an iniquitous piece of legislation.”"

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS. You are such a clown. The question was never whether the bill was good or bad. Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made. The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ". You seem to be tripping over english, me boy. You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929. Sorry to steal your thunder. You seemed so excited. I was so happy for you. But then, the same old thing. You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression? Did you even read it? You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression? Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed. Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention? Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?

Smooth was implemented 2 years into the depression. What smoot did was get Americans buying American again.[/QUOTE]

Smoot Hawley was something that made a bad situation worse...igniting global trade wars. To claim that it didn't affect the Great Depression is laughable!

 

[Oldstyle]

What did you people study in college? Basket weaving?

 

[Oldstyle]

We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America! The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

" few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America's tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own."
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what a buffoon, Rshermr is...click on his cite from the Economist and read the article he quoted from in it's entirety! He took one line out a long article which presented the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the following light:

"EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week's Economist, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”

As well as this...

"Of all the calls on Hoover not to sign the bill, perhaps the weightiest was a petition signed by 1,028 American economists. A dozen years later Frank Fetter, one of the organisers, recalled their unanimity. “Economic faculties that within a few years were to be split wide open on monetary policy, deficit finance, and the problem of big business, were practically at one in their belief that the Hawley-Smoot bill was an iniquitous piece of legislation.”"

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS. You are such a clown. The question was never whether the bill was good or bad. Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made. The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ". You seem to be tripping over english, me boy. You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929. Sorry to steal your thunder. You seemed so excited. I was so happy for you. But then, the same old thing. You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression? Did you even read it? You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression? Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed. Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention? Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?

Smooth was implemented 2 years into the depression. What smoot did was get Americans buying American again.[/QUOTE]
Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Cause the Great Depression? | America's Trade Policy

 

[sealybobo]

That was then this is now. After that the bush family fucked up the Clinton surplus and Obama fixed the bush great recession.

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

Yea, "from what you heard". But fact is the same formula that gave bush 1&2 a deficit, gave Clinton a surplus.

Assuming the next president didn't get us into 2 wars and give massive tax breaks & send millions of tax paying jobs overseas

"From what I heard," it was Bill Clinton who was mainly responsible for sending so many of our jobs overseas. I remember when he was running against Ross Perot. He said that if Clinton had his way, a huge sucking sould would be heard from all of the jobs leaving the U.S. Bill Clinton got elected and what Ross Perot predicted is exactly what happened. After that, it amazes me that anybody would even consider voting for Bill Clinton's piece of ass. But if a worthless negro can get elected, anything can happen.

Of course that's what a con said about Clinton. Ron paulers teabaggers libertarians neo cons conservatives are all greedy ignorant liars and or stupid. Just depends on if you are rich which ones you are.

The corporate Democrats need to be reformed true. That's what Bernie supporters tried to do.

But the real problem is Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They've gerrymandered the house so we need to take back the Senate. We will.

Let me see if I've got this straight...you think taking back the Senate is going to "reform" things when Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office? Did you not get the memo about Hillary taking millions of dollars from all those movers and shakers? You think she's going to let anything happen to them if she's elected? How naive are you, Sealy?

"Movers and shakers"? Lol. Do you expect or assume us liberals are anti wallstreet? No, in fact we want wallstreet to do well. In fact the economy always does better when we are in charge.

You've clearly got the anti hillary pitch down. I think it's hilarious. It's not going to work.

You'll live wondering should you have run kasich Cruz rubio jeb Romney or Carli

 

[Oldstyle]

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. From what I heard, the Clinton administration used accounting practices that would have been illegal in the private sector to make it look like on paper that they had balanced the budget. It was all smoke and mirrors.

Yea, "from what you heard". But fact is the same formula that gave bush 1&2 a deficit, gave Clinton a surplus.

Assuming the next president didn't get us into 2 wars and give massive tax breaks & send millions of tax paying jobs overseas

"From what I heard," it was Bill Clinton who was mainly responsible for sending so many of our jobs overseas. I remember when he was running against Ross Perot. He said that if Clinton had his way, a huge sucking sould would be heard from all of the jobs leaving the U.S. Bill Clinton got elected and what Ross Perot predicted is exactly what happened. After that, it amazes me that anybody would even consider voting for Bill Clinton's piece of ass. But if a worthless negro can get elected, anything can happen.

Of course that's what a con said about Clinton. Ron paulers teabaggers libertarians neo cons conservatives are all greedy ignorant liars and or stupid. Just depends on if you are rich which ones you are.

The corporate Democrats need to be reformed true. That's what Bernie supporters tried to do.

But the real problem is Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They've gerrymandered the house so we need to take back the Senate. We will.

Let me see if I've got this straight...you think taking back the Senate is going to "reform" things when Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office? Did you not get the memo about Hillary taking millions of dollars from all those movers and shakers? You think she's going to let anything happen to them if she's elected? How naive are you, Sealy?

"Movers and shakers"? Lol. Do you expect or assume us liberals are anti wallstreet? No, in fact we want wallstreet to do well. In fact the economy always does better when we are in charge.

You've clearly got the anti hillary pitch down. I think it's hilarious. It's not going to work.

You'll live wondering should you have run kasich Cruz rubio jeb Romney or Carli

Pointing out that Hillary Clinton has taken millions from Wall Street fat cats is "anti Hillary"? I'm hard pressed to see the humor in electing someone who has so routinely proven that they are for sale! One wonders how humorous it will be for you liberals when you see what you're REALLY getting from a Hillary Clinton Presidency! I'm actually looking forward to that if it happens. Watching people like you scratch your heads in bewilderment will be worth four more years of awful leadership.

 

[sealybobo]

We "complained" about Smoot Hawley because that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! Tariffs did NOT create a strong and vibrant middle class in America! The strong middle class evolved during a remarkable boom in industrial production following WWII when the US was providing the goods to rebuild much of the rest of the world that had been devastated by that war.

" few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America's tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own."
http://www.economist.com/node/12798595

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what a buffoon, Rshermr is...click on his cite from the Economist and read the article he quoted from in it's entirety! He took one line out a long article which presented the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the following light:

"EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week's Economist, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”

As well as this...

"Of all the calls on Hoover not to sign the bill, perhaps the weightiest was a petition signed by 1,028 American economists. A dozen years later Frank Fetter, one of the organisers, recalled their unanimity. “Economic faculties that within a few years were to be split wide open on monetary policy, deficit finance, and the problem of big business, were practically at one in their belief that the Hawley-Smoot bill was an iniquitous piece of legislation.”"

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS. You are such a clown. The question was never whether the bill was good or bad. Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made. The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ". You seem to be tripping over english, me boy. You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929. Sorry to steal your thunder. You seemed so excited. I was so happy for you. But then, the same old thing. You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression? Did you even read it? You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression? Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed. Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention? Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?

Smooth was implemented 2 years into the depression. What smoot did was get Americans buying American again.

Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Cause the Great Depression? | America's Trade Policy[/QUOTE]
That article proves my point thanks

 

[Oldstyle]

Parties "run" who their members elect at the polls...oh wait...not so much if you're the Democratic Party...then it's who the Democratic leadership DECIDES who should get the nomination! I was never a Trump supporter but I'd rather have him...selected by the voters...then someone chosen by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz!

 

[sealybobo]

Yea, "from what you heard". But fact is the same formula that gave bush 1&2 a deficit, gave Clinton a surplus.

Assuming the next president didn't get us into 2 wars and give massive tax breaks & send millions of tax paying jobs overseas

"From what I heard," it was Bill Clinton who was mainly responsible for sending so many of our jobs overseas. I remember when he was running against Ross Perot. He said that if Clinton had his way, a huge sucking sould would be heard from all of the jobs leaving the U.S. Bill Clinton got elected and what Ross Perot predicted is exactly what happened. After that, it amazes me that anybody would even consider voting for Bill Clinton's piece of ass. But if a worthless negro can get elected, anything can happen.

Of course that's what a con said about Clinton. Ron paulers teabaggers libertarians neo cons conservatives are all greedy ignorant liars and or stupid. Just depends on if you are rich which ones you are.

The corporate Democrats need to be reformed true. That's what Bernie supporters tried to do.

But the real problem is Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They've gerrymandered the house so we need to take back the Senate. We will.

Let me see if I've got this straight...you think taking back the Senate is going to "reform" things when Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office? Did you not get the memo about Hillary taking millions of dollars from all those movers and shakers? You think she's going to let anything happen to them if she's elected? How naive are you, Sealy?

"Movers and shakers"? Lol. Do you expect or assume us liberals are anti wallstreet? No, in fact we want wallstreet to do well. In fact the economy always does better when we are in charge.

You've clearly got the anti hillary pitch down. I think it's hilarious. It's not going to work.

You'll live wondering should you have run kasich Cruz rubio jeb Romney or Carli

Pointing out that Hillary Clinton has taken millions from Wall Street fat cats is "anti Hillary"? I'm hard pressed to see the humor in electing someone who has so routinely proven that they are for sale! One wonders how humorous it will be for you liberals when you see what you're REALLY getting from a Hillary Clinton Presidency! I'm actually looking forward to that if it happens. Watching people like you scratch your heads in bewilderment will be worth four more years of awful leadership.

You don't sound confident at all. I love it! Ric flare Whoooh!

 

[Oldstyle]

If anyone is interested in seeing exactly what a buffoon, Rshermr is...click on his cite from the Economist and read the article he quoted from in it's entirety! He took one line out a long article which presented the Smoot Hawley tariffs in the following light:

"EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”

According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week's Economist, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”

As well as this...

"Of all the calls on Hoover not to sign the bill, perhaps the weightiest was a petition signed by 1,028 American economists. A dozen years later Frank Fetter, one of the organisers, recalled their unanimity. “Economic faculties that within a few years were to be split wide open on monetary policy, deficit finance, and the problem of big business, were practically at one in their belief that the Hawley-Smoot bill was an iniquitous piece of legislation.”"

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS. You are such a clown. The question was never whether the bill was good or bad. Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made. The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ". You seem to be tripping over english, me boy. You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929. Sorry to steal your thunder. You seemed so excited. I was so happy for you. But then, the same old thing. You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression? Did you even read it? You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression? Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed. Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention? Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?

Smooth was implemented 2 years into the depression. What smoot did was get Americans buying American again.

Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Cause the Great Depression? | America's Trade Policy

That article proves my point thanks[/QUOTE]

Do any of you people have the ability to read an entire article and not cherry pick the parts that you like as you ignore what you don't? You're as bad as Rshermr!

 

[Oldstyle]

"From what I heard," it was Bill Clinton who was mainly responsible for sending so many of our jobs overseas. I remember when he was running against Ross Perot. He said that if Clinton had his way, a huge sucking sould would be heard from all of the jobs leaving the U.S. Bill Clinton got elected and what Ross Perot predicted is exactly what happened. After that, it amazes me that anybody would even consider voting for Bill Clinton's piece of ass. But if a worthless negro can get elected, anything can happen.

Of course that's what a con said about Clinton. Ron paulers teabaggers libertarians neo cons conservatives are all greedy ignorant liars and or stupid. Just depends on if you are rich which ones you are.

The corporate Democrats need to be reformed true. That's what Bernie supporters tried to do.

But the real problem is Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They've gerrymandered the house so we need to take back the Senate. We will.

Let me see if I've got this straight...you think taking back the Senate is going to "reform" things when Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office? Did you not get the memo about Hillary taking millions of dollars from all those movers and shakers? You think she's going to let anything happen to them if she's elected? How naive are you, Sealy?

"Movers and shakers"? Lol. Do you expect or assume us liberals are anti wallstreet? No, in fact we want wallstreet to do well. In fact the economy always does better when we are in charge.

You've clearly got the anti hillary pitch down. I think it's hilarious. It's not going to work.

You'll live wondering should you have run kasich Cruz rubio jeb Romney or Carli

Pointing out that Hillary Clinton has taken millions from Wall Street fat cats is "anti Hillary"? I'm hard pressed to see the humor in electing someone who has so routinely proven that they are for sale! One wonders how humorous it will be for you liberals when you see what you're REALLY getting from a Hillary Clinton Presidency! I'm actually looking forward to that if it happens. Watching people like you scratch your heads in bewilderment will be worth four more years of awful leadership.

You don't sound confident at all. I love it! Ric flare Whoooh!

Tell me you're REALLY looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton as our President, Sealy? Honestly? Is she the best you've got? That's a sad commentary on the modern progressive movement...isn't it?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm not "confident"! If Clinton wins we've got a sleazy liar who sells political favor like a street vendor! If Trump wins we've got a loudmouth New York billionaire who thinks his shit doesn't stink! The country is screwed either way.

 

[sealybobo]

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Georgie? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

OS, OS, OS. You are such a clown. The question was never whether the bill was good or bad. Perhaps you need to re read the post you yourself made. The issue was were you correct in saying "that legislation was one of the things that created The Great Depression! ". You seem to be tripping over english, me boy. You constantly demonstrate that you know nothing of Economics or the English Language.
You see, oldstyle, the article refutes in quite clear terms that the bill had anything at all to do with the Great Republican Recession of 1929. Sorry to steal your thunder. You seemed so excited. I was so happy for you. But then, the same old thing. You proved yourself stupid again.

Why do you even try to argue history or economics with me, Dipshit? You constantly demonstrate that you know NOTHING of either!

How does that article "refute" that Smoot Hawley was one of the causes of The Great Depression? Did you even read it? You claim that few economists think Smoot Hawley was one of the principle causes of the Great Depression? Interesting that almost unanimously, economists at the time warned of dire consequences if it were passed. Were those 1028 American economists all mistaken?

Would you like to cite an article that actually back up your contention? Or are you sticking with the one that doesn't and pretending that it does?

Smooth was implemented 2 years into the depression. What smoot did was get Americans buying American again.

Did the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Cause the Great Depression? | America's Trade Policy

That article proves my point thanks

Do none of you people have the ability to read an entire article and not cherry pick the parts that you like as you ignore what you don't? You're as bad as Rshermr![/QUOTE]
It's you guys who cherry pick. The depression was already under way and it made Americans buy American goods and services. I see how it had some short term pain but it didn't cause the great depression.

And assuming you are right, does trump agree with you? Because he wants to make trade fair again. That means tariffs. Just like every other country does despite the corporations wishes.

 

[sealybobo]

Of course that's what a con said about Clinton. Ron paulers teabaggers libertarians neo cons conservatives are all greedy ignorant liars and or stupid. Just depends on if you are rich which ones you are.

The corporate Democrats need to be reformed true. That's what Bernie supporters tried to do.

But the real problem is Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. They've gerrymandered the house so we need to take back the Senate. We will.

Let me see if I've got this straight...you think taking back the Senate is going to "reform" things when Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Oval Office? Did you not get the memo about Hillary taking millions of dollars from all those movers and shakers? You think she's going to let anything happen to them if she's elected? How naive are you, Sealy?

"Movers and shakers"? Lol. Do you expect or assume us liberals are anti wallstreet? No, in fact we want wallstreet to do well. In fact the economy always does better when we are in charge.

You've clearly got the anti hillary pitch down. I think it's hilarious. It's not going to work.

You'll live wondering should you have run kasich Cruz rubio jeb Romney or Carli

Pointing out that Hillary Clinton has taken millions from Wall Street fat cats is "anti Hillary"? I'm hard pressed to see the humor in electing someone who has so routinely proven that they are for sale! One wonders how humorous it will be for you liberals when you see what you're REALLY getting from a Hillary Clinton Presidency! I'm actually looking forward to that if it happens. Watching people like you scratch your heads in bewilderment will be worth four more years of awful leadership.

You don't sound confident at all. I love it! Ric flare Whoooh!

Tell me you're REALLY looking forward to four years of Hillary Clinton as our President, Sealy? Honestly? Is she the best you've got? That's a sad commentary on the modern progressive movement...isn't it?

Nope I like her. I know she'll triangulate with the Republicans more than Bernie or Obama and that's good and bad but the only thing I don't miss was the GOP constantly playing politics for all 4 years because as soon as the 2016 election is over they start running for the 2018 midterms. They don't govern.

And too many Americans only vote every 4 years. We can't take this country back because only 30% vote ever 2 years.