Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[PoliticalChic]

Sure.

All men are created equal.

All white, christian males are created equal you mean

Black people counted only for 3/5 and could be held as slaves and women didn't count at all

As I said, if that's such a "moral truth" why aren't true conservatives campaigning to bring back those good old days?

I need to stop saying 'How dumb can you be?'....it appears you take it as a challenge.

1. The dominant American culture of the time was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

2. 'Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
Coulter

3. Researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review




4. Clearly, they both understood the Bible, and, unlike you, had a facility with the English language.

The understood that 'All men are created equal' meant....
...ready?..

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

That is why our founding documents were designed to end slavery.

Wait a second. Conservatives were opposed to the Revolution. Conservatives vehemently intoned that it was unnatural to rebel against the Monarch. Edmund Burke maintained that social order would come from a small group of wealthy aristocrats ruling over the poor majority. Care to explain that away?

Another disgusting Liberal with a disgusting avi.

 

[Dad2three]

How come YOU ignored the fact that reagan raised the NATIONAL DEBT 186% from 1 trillion to 2.86 trillion AND BUSH I raised it again by another 1.55 trillion. Clinton paid down the debt by 400 billion and change then along came Bush ll and raised it again. If all the republican presidents had balanced their budgets today's debt would be MUCH lower. Here is WHY republicans are responsible for most of the National debt:



So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.

So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?

The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.

It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.

Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

By Now, you should realize how ridiculous your rant about Clinton's 41% national debt increase looks to anyone with a modicum of rational thinking. But to drive the shaft home vigorously and with great pleasure I give you this:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. US Department of the Treasury

The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


Compare the Obama failures with the Reagan recovery:

"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Reagan Recovery? Reagan left us with such massive debt no other succeeding president could retire his debt. His policies caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the ruination of savings and loans. The man was a train wreck.

Complains about Reagan debt, yet worships Obama, the biggest spender in all or recorded history.

No Obama has spent the least since Eisenhower... haven't you been paying attention.

Obama yrs set budget near $3.7T/yr.....hardly any accomplishment to hold "steady" after!
GWB yrs closer to $2T/yr but last yr Bush2 inculded $786B Tarp (eventually paid back, yes wasted that too). Hey, GWB yrs catastrophic (trillions added to overall debt), Osama yrs much worse!

Dubya had a deficit of $1.2 trillion Jan 07, 2009. THAT was TARP,

CBO projects record $1.2 trillion deficit - Jan. 7, 2009


THIS WAS STILL PART OF DUBYA'S FINAL F/Y BUDGET. Obama's stimulus, needed BECAUSE of 8 years of Dubya /GOP "job creator" policies counted $200 billion in 2009, total deficit was $1.4 trillion



WORSE? Taking US from record surpluses to record deficits as he cheered on the Banksters bubble, went TWO UNFUNDED wars and gave US UNFUNDED tax cuts AS he gave US Medicare expansion that cost as much as Obamacares this decade, but without a penny of new funding?

WHICH WAS WORSE AGAIN?

 

[nuhuh]

LOL, PC ignores everything that happened between 1933 to 1936 and then illustrates the fact that Morgenthau, anxious to balance the books, got FDR to cut spending that put us in a hole again. And then uses that to reinforce the opinion she is right. Talk about clueless.

 

[Dad2three]

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. US Department of the Treasury

The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


Compare the Obama failures with the Reagan recovery:

"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Reagan Recovery? Reagan left us with such massive debt no other succeeding president could retire his debt. His policies caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the ruination of savings and loans. The man was a train wreck.

Complains about Reagan debt, yet worships Obama, the biggest spender in all or recorded history.

No Obama has spent the least since Eisenhower... haven't you been paying attention.

Obama yrs set budget near $3.7T/yr.....hardly any accomplishment to hold "steady" after!
GWB yrs closer to $2T/yr but last yr Bush2 inculded $786B Tarp (eventually paid back, yes wasted that too). Hey, GWB yrs catastrophic (trillions added to overall debt), Osama yrs much worse!

When Bush left office the debt was $10.6 trillion. The current debt is 18 trillion, how is that worse if all Obama contributed was 8 trillion?

CONservative "math"

OBAMA'S FIRST F/Y BUDGET BEGINS

October 1, 2009

U.S. Begins Fiscal Year $11,776,112,848,656.17 in Debt

U.S. Begins Fiscal Year $11,776,112,848,656.17 in Debt


NOW I CAN AGAIN EXPLAIN HOW DUBYA BROKE THE BANK, TO UNFUNDED TAX CUTS, 2 UNFUNDED WARS, UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION, THEN CHEERING ON THE BANKSTERS BUBBLE WHICH CAUSED THE WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST!


How did Obama "increase" the debt again?

OH RIGHT KEEPING US OUT OF A SECOND GOP GREAT DEPRESSION!

 

[NYcarbineer]

We don't realize how evil Conservatives are, and always have been, because they tend to lose the battles they fight throughout history, and we tend to forget the evil lost causes conservatives supported.

As shown here:

CONSERVATIVES: ALWAYS ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY:

1) Conservatives opposed the American Revolution

Conservatives vehemently warned us that it was unnatural to rebel against our Sovereign Lord, King George III, and that doing so would plunge the colonies into disorder. They assured us, as the father of conservatism, Edmund Burke echoed, that social stability would only come from the small group of wealthy aristocrats ruling over the poor majority. Conservatives reiterated that it was the duty of the poor to obey their “betters.” Their rewards, after all, will come in Heaven.

2) Conservatives opposed freeing the slaves

I know, I know. Here’s where the sophomoric CONS, lacking the ability for complex thought, will whine that Lincoln, a Republican, freed the slaves. But as Southern historian Al Benson, Jr. wrote in his article, “The Republican Party, There are NO conservative roots there,”

“It is interesting to note that, in 1860, the Democrats were the real conservatives, while the Republicans were the left-leaning radicals.”

The Republican Party of the 1860’s, as evidenced by their platform, was a progressive party that rose in opposition to the entrenched power structure. It called for protective tariffs, Besides emancipating the slaves, Lincoln was in favor of progressive taxation. The Revenue Act of 1862 levied a 3% tax on people making between $600 and $10,000 a year, and a 5% for those making over $10,000.

As Andrew Belonsky wrote for Death and Taxes,

“Lincoln believed that rich Americans should pay more than their less wealthy friends and neighbors.”

But, because they are CONS and want to rig the system in their favor, they only considered slaves “people” for purposes of counting them in order to increase the slave-state representation in Congress.

Conservatives warned that freeing the slaves, believe it or not, was an affront to liberty – as well as an evil government plot to force hardworking business owners to release their property. After all, as the Bible tells us, and as Rush Limbaugh later reminded us, “some people are just born to be slaves.”

3) Conservatives opposed women’s suffrage

Conservatives warned us that women just didn’t have the mind, much less the disposition, for politics. They would, of course, get all hysterical – and if they’re having their periods! Well, look out, men! As Limbaugh cautioned again, uppity women might put testicles in a lock box and upset the “natural” hierarchy.

Even today, in 2012, CONS (such as, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, tea party activist, Fox News contributor, and founder of an organization where Sean Hannity serves as an advisory board member) lament that the worst thing that ever happened to America was that women were given the right to vote.

4) Conservatives opposed minimum wage and child labor laws, the 8-hour work day, weekends, sick leave… etc.

Conservatives warned us that the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which established a national minimum wage, guaranteed ‘time-and-a-half’ for overtime in certain jobs and banned child labor, was going to collapse the economy. But President Franklin Roosevelt countered at the time, “Do not let any calamity-howling executive with an income of $1,000 a day, …tell you…that a wage of $11 a week is going to have a disastrous effect on all American industry.” What a surprise! He was right and conservatives were wrong.

70 years later, CONS are still trying to undo the minimum wage and get those kids out of the classroom and back into the factories of Republican campaign contributors.

5) Conservatives opposed humane treatment of animals

Since Conservatives are too stupid to know how to make a buck unless they can leave filth, pain and destruction in their wake, they consistently oppose any regulation that not only keeps our food supply free of the filth they love to spread, but treats the creatures giving their lives for human sustenance with a level of dignity and humanity.

As a matter of fact, CONS are such insipid fascists that, rather than address and rectify the abuses at factory farms, they are currently working to make it illegal for whistleblowers to film the abuse. They have been successful in Iowa at this endeavor. After all, if a pig’s infected pustules are viciously sliced off sans painkillers, and no one is there to document the pig’s screams, did it ever really happen?

And, as for the filthy conditions in the farms feeding the good old U-S-A – U-S-A – U-S-A that the conservatives pretend to love, who cares if a few dozen Serfs eat chicken feces and die of E. coli when a Republican campaign contributor needs more profit?!

We all remember when John Boehner’s district in Ohio was experiencing an E. coli outbreak at the same time he was trying to gut more food industry regulations. The bottom line is, Republicans don’t care if their constituents get sick and die from the filth that Republican (and DINO) campaign contributors are feeding them. To Republicans, that means there’s one less person they have to disenfranchise out of voting.

But if the survivors try to seek justice or recourse and TRY and sue the corporation who killed their child, their pappy, or spouse…they won’t get too far since the John Robert’s Supreme Court had something to say about it.

6) Conservatives opposed the Social Security Act

The Social Security Act established a system that provided old-age pensions for workers, survivors benefits for victims of work-related accidents, aid for orphans and widows, benefits for the blind and physically disabled, and unemployment insurance. Conservatives were apoplectic about this. They warned freedom-lovers everywhere that America’s next stop would be a government concentration camp.

Never mind that “a necessitous man is not a free man,” as FDR famously quoted. Conservatives were inciting their ignorant followers to, once again, oppose their own best interests for the sake of enabling the rich to keep treating them like hosts from which to suck profit.

As author Nancy J. Altman wrote in the LA Times,

“opponents claimed that Social Security would result in massive government control. A Republican congressman from New York, for example, charged: “The lash of the dictator will be felt, and 25 million free American citizens will for the first time submit themselves to a fingerprint test.”

Another New York congressman put it this way: “The bill opens the door and invites the entrance into the political field of a power so vast, so powerful as to threaten the integrity of our institutions and to pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants.” A Republican senator from Delaware claimed that Social Security would “end the progress of a great country and bring its people to the level of the average European.”

As we expected, the concentration camps have yet to come to fruition, and conservatives, ironically, scramble to position themselves as defenders of Social Security – still with a mind to destroy it.

These same arguments were retread decades later to oppose the Affordable Care Act. Being generally devoid of ideas, conservatives just keep replaying the same old tired tunes…confident their fear-based followers will continue to dance on cue.

7) Conservatives oppose clean air and water

Once upon a time, conservatives, although still fear-based, greed-centered, and inherently racist, weren’t completely bat-shit, off-the-rails, crazy. There were some who even believed that the land and environment we shared should be protected, and shouldn’t be a utilized as a toilet for psychopathic corporations to evacuate their waste.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen…it was Nixon who proposed the Environmental Protection Agency, which was ratified by Congress and began operation in December 1970.

But since then, a chain of events unfolded where powerful interests were able to reclaim the ground they were forced to concede to the greater good.

In a nutshell… After the defeat of Barry Goldwater, conservatives began to follow Lewis Powell’s memo to the Chamber of Commerce – a plan that laid out step-by-step how CONS, and thus, corporations, would take over America.

Reagan was elected and began his assault on the New Deal. The American working class was transformed into the working poor.

You see, one ironic tragedy of FDR’s New Deal was that it created economically stable middle classes who, with the aid of these incessant right-wing misinformation machines, were convinced their interests and the interests of billionaires were one in the same.

One aspect of the Reich-wing takeover of America laid out in the Powell Memo was the suggestion that the judiciary be stacked with extreme Reich-wing ideologues. Slowly, but surely, these judges loosened regulations and undid campaign finance laws and removed what little barriers existed that were meant to deter the rich from using their money to corrupt government. With their cushy jobs on the line, politicians began to dance solely to the tunes of their wealthy benefactors who wanted “big government” off their backs so their corporations could, among other offences, pollute the land they pretended to love. So here we are – at a point in history where Republicans (and some phony DINOS) don’t get out of bed in the morning unless they can attack the EPA, and any organization that We the People bring into being that dare try to regulate businesses from ravaging America like a third world nation.

Faced with the prospect of having to actually operate their businesses like members of a community rather than sociopathic children, conservatives whine that environmental regulations are “job killers.” As usual, this simply isn’t true. In fact, environmental regulations actually create jobs. ThinkProgress reported,

“According to a new report from the Economic Policy Institute, however, the “job-killing” part of the phrase “job-killing regulation” is built largely on myth. Last year, EPI released a report that found that several of the EPA’s proposed environmental regulations would actually create jobs. Now that the EPA has finalized a rule regulating toxic waste, EPI has used that rule to analyze whether such regulations are, indeed, job-killers. Once again, it found the opposite to be true, and said the new rule will actually create more jobs than it previously estimated…”

8) Conservatives opposed the Civil Right’s Act

Here, again, conservatives use conflation and count on the stupidity of their followers not to understand that “Democrat” didn’t (and doesn’t) always mean “liberal” and “Republican” doesn’t always mean, “conservative.”

You see, much like the Republicans of the 1860’s were the progressives, the Southern Democrats of Johnson’s era were the CONSERVATIVES who opposed the Civil Right’s Act.

Matthew Yglesias wrote for ThinkProgress,

“Bruce Bartlett has become so damn reasonable that he clearly needs to bolster his conservative bona fides somehow, and his favored path seems to be things like this post drawn from his book Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past. Bartlett’s point in the post is that most of the opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Democrats.

This is very true. But it simply highlights the fact that politics in 1964 were not ideologically aligned. The main block of support for white supremacy was a group of Southern Democrats, most of whom were very conservative on all issues, and all of whom were very conservative on the issue of race. They were joined in their support for white supremacy by a smaller block of non-southern conservative Republicans. Conservative movement organs like The National Review supported white supremacy, as did Barry Goldwater who was the leading conservative politician of the time. It’s a very interesting historical fact about the United States of America that for most of the twentieth century conservative southerners generally belonged to the Democratic Party. But it’s also true that if you think of American politics in terms of the history of ideological struggle, civil rights is clearly an issue on which the liberals were right and over time conservatives came around to that view.”

But, as Rand Paul’s recent criticism of the Civil Right’s Act reminds us… not ALL conservatives have “come around.”

9) Conservatives opposed Medicare

Unless it is bombing unarmed civilians for 10,000 feet, putting someone to death or invading a woman’s private medical decisions, conservatives have always hated anything to do with government. They tell their easily led followers that this has to do with “freedom,” and “big government” interference with the “rugged individual” conservatives fantasize they are. It’s the nice story the “average Joe” CON likes to tell himself on the way to cash his Social Security check, but it isn’t true. The real reason the conservative leadership opposes government is because government is the only organization large enough to tell the rich to pay their fair share, or regulate an oligarch’s corporations into “playing nice with the plebs.” Hence, the conservative hatred of anything that government does to promote the General Welfare.

Conservatives opposed Medicare for the same reason they opposed Social Security. It cuts into the potential profit of the 1%. It also affords the average citizen the ability to live in dignity. To the “Masters of the Universe,” an economically secure serf is an uppity serf. They like – and need – the people nice and economically desperate and easily exploitable. But they told their ignorant followers, “First you get Social Security – but next stop, it’s the gulag!”

Their soon-to-be-patron-saint, and reason the American middle class is currently on life-support, Ronald Reagan actually cut an LP called “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,” in which he warned the perpetually dumb that American “freedom” was in danger. He said, “pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him.”

But again, the REAL reason the CON leadership opposed Medicare was because they feared it would take America one step closer to offering health care as a right of citizenship – like the rest of the civilized world – and the gravy train would end for those conservative donors who got rich denying people health care.

10) Conservatives oppose Equal Protection Under the Law

There’s only one thing conservatives hate more than a brown person with the right to vote – and that’s an openly gay person.

You see, conservatives are scientifically-verified, fear-based cowards…and true Republican homophobes loathe the LGBT community for the simple fact that they possess what CONS can only envy…namely, the COURAGE to live an authentic life.

Just this week, conservatives in North Carolina voted to prevent two people of the same-sex from forming a legal marriage contract. This is because living in a free society takes a level of maturity conservatives simply don’t possess. They lack the intelligence to live up to the responsibilities of freedom – which includes ensuring that each citizen is afforded equal protection under the law – even if you don’t like them.

Yes. It is exhausting to live among whiny children sporting “Made in China” American flag lapel pins, working incessantly to devolve this nation into the antithesis of a free society – simply because they can’t handle the “freedom” they pretend to love.

So, as the President himself joins the rest of the civilized world and “evolves” to the notion that all people deserve the freedom to build a life and contract with the partner of their choosing, the conservatives dig their heals in deeper, once again on the wrong side of history.

We all must continue to evolve – without them.

Conservatives: Always On The Wrong Side Of History

 

[nuhuh]

Sure.

All men are created equal.

All white, christian males are created equal you mean

Black people counted only for 3/5 and could be held as slaves and women didn't count at all

As I said, if that's such a "moral truth" why aren't true conservatives campaigning to bring back those good old days?

I need to stop saying 'How dumb can you be?'....it appears you take it as a challenge.

1. The dominant American culture of the time was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” David Limbaugh

2. 'Believers in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or, as they would be known today, “an extremist Fundementalist hate group.”
Coulter

3. Researchers discovered that the founders quoted directly out of the bible 4 times more than they quoted Montesquieu, 4 times more often than they quoted Blackstone, and 12 times more often than they quoted John Locke. Thirty four percent of the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the bible.
David Barton, Original Intent, 1997

Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism 1988

“The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought” American Political Science Review




4. Clearly, they both understood the Bible, and, unlike you, had a facility with the English language.

The understood that 'All men are created equal' meant....
...ready?..

ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

That is why our founding documents were designed to end slavery.

Wait a second. Conservatives were opposed to the Revolution. Conservatives vehemently intoned that it was unnatural to rebel against the Monarch. Edmund Burke maintained that social order would come from a small group of wealthy aristocrats ruling over the poor majority. Care to explain that away?

Another disgusting Liberal with a disgusting avi.

Thank you, it wasn't photoshopped. The great one revealed his real personality.

 

[Dad2three]

Reagan Recovery? Reagan left us with such massive debt no other succeeding president could retire his debt. His policies caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the ruination of savings and loans. The man was a train wreck.

Complains about Reagan debt, yet worships Obama, the biggest spender in all or recorded history.

No Obama has spent the least since Eisenhower... haven't you been paying attention.

Obama yrs set budget near $3.7T/yr.....hardly any accomplishment to hold "steady" after!
GWB yrs closer to $2T/yr but last yr Bush2 inculded $786B Tarp (eventually paid back, yes wasted that too). Hey, GWB yrs catastrophic (trillions added to overall debt), Osama yrs much worse!

When Bush left office the debt was $10.6 trillion. The current debt is 18 trillion, how is that worse if all Obama contributed was 8 trillion?

This topic has been beat to death world-wide. I am not certain "When Bush left office the debt was $10.6 trillion"is true? (too lazy to dig it all up again but closer to $8T if memory serves) . Not important as the NEXT GUY has presided over about $10T added debt to date! DISASTER!!!!

You can take off $786B from your GWB number (it paid back to FED). Osammay yrs added ~>$1T/yr first 5-6yrs? Tax/revenue increases have dropped down to $600B/yr or so. CATASTROPHIC! Not sustainable according to CBO.

PAID BACK THE DEBT? DUBYA? lol

Clinton's last day:

09/30/2001, $5,807,463,412,200.06.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014

OCT 1, 2009


U.S. Begins Fiscal Year $11,776,112,848,656.17 in Debt

U.S. Begins Fiscal Year $11,776,112,848,656.17 in Debt


I GUESS 2 UNFUNDED TAX CUTS, 2 UNFUNDED WARS, UNFUNDED MEDICARE EXPANSION AND CHEERING ON A BANKSTER BUBBLE HURT US?

 

[Dad2three]

Here we go again:

start GWB: debt ~$5.6T
end GWB: debt ~$10T
(-$786B TARP paid back into Obama yrs, debt increase dramatic when DemWits took congress 07')

Current debt: ~18.4 (to date $8.4T added on under Obama yrs.)

You're not accurate, The national dept was $10,626,877,048,913.08 when George W Bush left office. If Obama is at $18.4 that leaves him responsible for 7.8 Trillion added debt. Doesn't appear to me to be the horror story people are trying to make it out to be.

your argument is a few months debt accumulation( 08-09 during housing collapse) or the TARP amount whatever? OK. so what?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014

IT is DISASTER and non-sustainable. Bottom line $18.4T and NO ONE is doing anything about it.

HOW did the US get there again?


"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.

The term "the beast" in this context refers to the United States Federal Government and the programs it funds, using mainly American tax payer dollars, particularly social programs such as education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.


Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."

Starve the beast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dad2three]

your argument is a few months debt accumulation( 08-09 during housing collapse) or the TARP amount whatever? OK. so what?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014

IT is DISASTER and non-sustainable. Bottom line $18.4T and NO ONE is doing anything about it.

What do you propose doing about it?

Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.

Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?

The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.

October 2014

a. National debt $18 trillion

b. State and Local debt $2.2 trillion

c. US unfunded liabilities $115 trillion

d. Social Security liability $ 115 trillion*

e. Medicare liability $ 80 trillion*

f. Total GDP of entire world $74.91 trillion (2013)

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

FUTURE DEBT? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.

Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?

The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.

October 2014

a. National debt $18 trillion

b. State and Local debt $2.2 trillion

c. US unfunded liabilities $115 trillion

d. Social Security liability $ 115 trillion*

e. Medicare liability $ 80 trillion*

f. Total GDP of entire world $74.91 trillion (2013)

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

yeah those unfunded pyramid ponzi promises are un-imaginably scary. They are not even working on the easier stuff.

Correction: My other post meant to imply $10K/mo lifetime pension for FED and or STATE workers. not $10/mo

And, with respect to government employees....more proof that the world has turned upside down: the idea of being a government employee was job security but less earning potential than private industry jobs.

"Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

1. .....federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

2. Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row.

3. Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

4. The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

5. "Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep.Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.

Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.

6. What the data show:

•Benefits.Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay.The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation.Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers"

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts - USATODAY.com

Comparing federal workers to Walmart and McD's employees? lol

Are Federal Workers Overpaid?

..Consistent with the overall picture described above, statistical analysis of the impact of individual education and experience on earnings in the United States by the Harvard economist George Borjas showed that federal employees are paid considerably less than comparable private workers at the top end.

As the conservative columnist Ross Douthat points out, earnings inequality is generally lower in public-sector employment, and countries with a larger public sector therefore experience less overall income inequality.



Some oinking can definitely be heard out there in the labor market, but anyone willing to follow the numbers can tell that the biggest piggies are not those employed by the federal government.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/are-federal-workers-overpaid/?_r=0

 

[Dad2three]

I love making you squeal like the stuck pig you are....you did admit to being vulgar....so let me stick you again, pig:

1. Roosevelt groupies might contend that it that Franklin Roosevelt wasn't a poor manager, after all, wasn't the Depressiona worldwide phenomenon???


Let's see.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr


2. So...not only did the "great" Emperor Franklin the First manage to extend and magnify the depression, but he couldn't compete with the leaders of most European nations.


"Great" seems to have developed a new definition.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

So....Schlesinger doesn't count, but some guy named Gross does????

Really?

1. "Arthur Meier Schlesinger, Jr. (/ˈʃlɛsɪndʒər/; born Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger; October 15, 1917 – February 28, 2007) was an American historian, social critic, and public intellectual, son of the influential historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. A specialist in American history, much of Schlesinger's work explored the history of 20th-century American liberalism. In particular, his work focused on leaders such as Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, andRobert F. Kennedy. In the 1952 and 1956 presidential campaigns he was a primary speechwriter and adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson II.[3] Schlesinger served as special assistant and "court historian"[4] to President Kennedy from 1961 to 1963."
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

2. Daniel Gross "...editor of global finance for Daily Beast/Newsweek." Daniel Gross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In terms even easier for you to understand....
Let's compare your understanding of economics, history and politics to mine...
It would be like comparing a bamboo hut- simple, but not without some level of primitive charm- to the palace at Versailles.

I didn't discount Schlesinger, I never even mentioned him. This is you making up facts to suit your purpose again.

Here's what Schlesinger REALLY said about FDR and the Depression. Schlesinger was to the LEFT of FDR:

Why We're Where We Are | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I provided the quote of what he REALLY said.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

You are certainly free to deny he said same, as you are known as NYLiar.



And then you can lie about this:

"Out of curiosity, I took from my shelf the college history textbook assigned to me at Yale in 1968. The relevant chapters had been written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the most acclaimed and authoritative of all New Deal historians. To my surprise, not even this fervent liberal and stalwart admirer of FDR attempted to pretend that his hero’s policies had solved the Depression.

In “The National Experience,” published in 1963 (just 18 years after FDR’s death), Schlesinger wrote: “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produced recovery…The New Deal had done remarkable things, especially in social reform, but the formula for full recovery evidently still eluded it.”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937 – in the midst of “the Second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression (or, indeed, than in any other period in American history for which statistics are available). National income fell 13 per cent, payrolls 35 per cent, durable goods production 50 per cent, profits 78 per cent. The increase in unemployment reproduced scenes of the early depression and imposed new burdens on the relief agencies.”
Michael Medved - How government expansion worsens hard times

Yes your usual out of context crap. AND?

 

[Eric Cartman]

Interesting, except the current Republican party is not a true Conservative party.

The current Republican party is reactionary with a Neo Conservative idea of spreading Democracy by war which isn't in sync with what Conservatism is about.

A matter of opinion.

What's sure, however, is that the current Democratic Party is the true Progressive party, and all that the modern definition entails. The masks came off when Al Gore lost the 2000 election, and the faces tattooed when Kerry matched that performance 2004.

You're wasting my time trying to change the subject to Liberalism.The Op has made the assertion that Conservatism is better for the individual and for society, the problem of course is that the Republican Party does not meet the standards of Conservatism. Do you have any idea when they will meet that standard?

The nation was designed to espouse classical liberal views, based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

In reality, there are only two choices, Republican or Democrat.

Neither is perfect....but....

Which is closer to the classical liberal view?

Conservatives seem to espouse non-classical liberal views, based on corporatism, fixed or crony markets, and unlimited government protections for their supporters (trillion dollar bailout anyone?).

 

[nuhuh]

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

So....Schlesinger doesn't count, but some guy named Gross does????

Really?

1. "Arthur Meier Schlesinger, Jr. (/ˈʃlɛsɪndʒər/; born Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger; October 15, 1917 – February 28, 2007) was an American historian, social critic, and public intellectual, son of the influential historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. A specialist in American history, much of Schlesinger's work explored the history of 20th-century American liberalism. In particular, his work focused on leaders such as Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, andRobert F. Kennedy. In the 1952 and 1956 presidential campaigns he was a primary speechwriter and adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson II.[3] Schlesinger served as special assistant and "court historian"[4] to President Kennedy from 1961 to 1963."
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

2. Daniel Gross "...editor of global finance for Daily Beast/Newsweek." Daniel Gross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In terms even easier for you to understand....
Let's compare your understanding of economics, history and politics to mine...
It would be like comparing a bamboo hut- simple, but not without some level of primitive charm- to the palace at Versailles.

I didn't discount Schlesinger, I never even mentioned him. This is you making up facts to suit your purpose again.

Here's what Schlesinger REALLY said about FDR and the Depression. Schlesinger was to the LEFT of FDR:

Why We're Where We Are | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I provided the quote of what he REALLY said.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

You are certainly free to deny he said same, as you are known as NYLiar.



And then you can lie about this:

"Out of curiosity, I took from my shelf the college history textbook assigned to me at Yale in 1968. The relevant chapters had been written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the most acclaimed and authoritative of all New Deal historians. To my surprise, not even this fervent liberal and stalwart admirer of FDR attempted to pretend that his hero’s policies had solved the Depression.

In “The National Experience,” published in 1963 (just 18 years after FDR’s death), Schlesinger wrote: “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produced recovery…The New Deal had done remarkable things, especially in social reform, but the formula for full recovery evidently still eluded it.”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937 – in the midst of “the Second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression (or, indeed, than in any other period in American history for which statistics are available). National income fell 13 per cent, payrolls 35 per cent, durable goods production 50 per cent, profits 78 per cent. The increase in unemployment reproduced scenes of the early depression and imposed new burdens on the relief agencies.”
Michael Medved - How government expansion worsens hard times

Yes your usual out of context crap. AND?

Yesterday I commented that Europe was essentially in a depression since the end of WWI and had much longer to build a model to resurrect themselves. Using the late 30's as an example is another way she pushes a dishonest argument, sure, they looked better than us they had been working at it a dozen years longer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Interesting, except the current Republican party is not a true Conservative party.

The current Republican party is reactionary with a Neo Conservative idea of spreading Democracy by war which isn't in sync with what Conservatism is about.

A matter of opinion.

What's sure, however, is that the current Democratic Party is the true Progressive party, and all that the modern definition entails. The masks came off when Al Gore lost the 2000 election, and the faces tattooed when Kerry matched that performance 2004.

You're wasting my time trying to change the subject to Liberalism.The Op has made the assertion that Conservatism is better for the individual and for society, the problem of course is that the Republican Party does not meet the standards of Conservatism. Do you have any idea when they will meet that standard?

The nation was designed to espouse classical liberal views, based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

In reality, there are only two choices, Republican or Democrat.

Neither is perfect....but....

Which is closer to the classical liberal view?

Conservatives seem to espouse non-classical liberal views, based on corporatism, fixed or crony markets, and unlimited government protections for their supporters (trillion dollar bailout anyone?).

WHAT?????

Please....take notes so that you don't embarrass yourself this deeply ever again.

1. Conservatives, classical liberals, the Founders of the nation had in mind a nation based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

2. "corporatism, fixed or crony markets" is the very antithesis....it is the fascism of Mussolini, and the copy of same embraced by Roosevelt's New Deal.

1. Woodrow Wilson, the great centralizer and would-be leader of men moved to empower would-be social engineers, creating a vast array or wartime boards, commissions and committees. The War Industries Board, under Bernard Baruch, whipped, cajoled, and seduced American industry into the loving embrace of the state long before Mussolini and Hitler contemplated their corporatist doctrines.
2. Wilson’s government intruded deep into the private sector in unprecedented ways is indisputable. It launched the effort, carried forward by FDR, of turning the economy into a “cooperative” enterprise where labor, business, and government sat around a table and made the decisions that effected everyone.
3. The propaganda of the New Deal (“malefactors of great wealth”) to the contrary, FDR simply endeavored to re-create the corporatism of the last war. The New Dealers invited one industry after another to write the codes under which they would be regulated. Even more aggressive, the National Recovery Administration forced industries to fix prices and in other ways to collude with one another: the NRA approved 557 basic and 189 supplementary codes, covering almost 95% of all industrial workers.
   1. The intention was for big business to get bigger, and the little guy to be squeezed out: for example, the owners of the big chain movie houses wrote the codes that almost ran the independents out of business (even though 13,571 of the 18,321 movie theatres were independently owned). This in the name of ‘efficiency’ and ‘progress.’
   2. New Deal bureaucrats studied Mussolini’s corporatism closely. From “Fortune” magazine: ‘The Corporate state is to Mussolini what the New Deal is to Roosevelt.’(July 1934) See “Liberal Fascism,” by Jonah Goldberg and
      "Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939," by Wolfgang Schivelbusch

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....Schlesinger doesn't count, but some guy named Gross does????

Really?

1. "Arthur Meier Schlesinger, Jr. (/ˈʃlɛsɪndʒər/; born Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger; October 15, 1917 – February 28, 2007) was an American historian, social critic, and public intellectual, son of the influential historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. A specialist in American history, much of Schlesinger's work explored the history of 20th-century American liberalism. In particular, his work focused on leaders such as Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, andRobert F. Kennedy. In the 1952 and 1956 presidential campaigns he was a primary speechwriter and adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson II.[3] Schlesinger served as special assistant and "court historian"[4] to President Kennedy from 1961 to 1963."
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

2. Daniel Gross "...editor of global finance for Daily Beast/Newsweek." Daniel Gross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In terms even easier for you to understand....
Let's compare your understanding of economics, history and politics to mine...
It would be like comparing a bamboo hut- simple, but not without some level of primitive charm- to the palace at Versailles.

I didn't discount Schlesinger, I never even mentioned him. This is you making up facts to suit your purpose again.

Here's what Schlesinger REALLY said about FDR and the Depression. Schlesinger was to the LEFT of FDR:

Why We're Where We Are | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I provided the quote of what he REALLY said.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

You are certainly free to deny he said same, as you are known as NYLiar.



And then you can lie about this:

"Out of curiosity, I took from my shelf the college history textbook assigned to me at Yale in 1968. The relevant chapters had been written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the most acclaimed and authoritative of all New Deal historians. To my surprise, not even this fervent liberal and stalwart admirer of FDR attempted to pretend that his hero’s policies had solved the Depression.

In “The National Experience,” published in 1963 (just 18 years after FDR’s death), Schlesinger wrote: “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produced recovery…The New Deal had done remarkable things, especially in social reform, but the formula for full recovery evidently still eluded it.”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937 – in the midst of “the Second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression (or, indeed, than in any other period in American history for which statistics are available). National income fell 13 per cent, payrolls 35 per cent, durable goods production 50 per cent, profits 78 per cent. The increase in unemployment reproduced scenes of the early depression and imposed new burdens on the relief agencies.”
Michael Medved - How government expansion worsens hard times

Yes your usual out of context crap. AND?

Yesterday I commented that Europe was essentially in a depression since the end of WWI and had much longer to build a model to resurrect themselves. Using the late 30's as an example is another way she pushes a dishonest argument, sure, they looked better than us they had been working at it a dozen years longer.

Really?

Must you insist on revealing that you know less than nothing???

“The two movements [that is, in the US and in Germany] nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations. Of the two the Nazis were the more successful in curing the economic ills of the 1930s. They reduced unemployment and stimulated industrial production faster than the Americans did and, considering their resources, handled their monetary and trade problems more successfully, certainly more imaginatively. This was partly because the Nazis employed deficit financing on a larger scale and partly because their totalitarian system better lent itself to the mobilization of society, both by force and by persuasion. By 1936 the depression was substantially over in Germany, far from finished in the United States.”

In fact, the jobless rate in the United States remained high until the stimulation of large-scale war production took hold. Even as late as March 1940, the US unemployment rate was still almost 15 percent of the work force. It was production for war, not Roosevelt’s “New Deal’ programs, that finally brought full employment.

Garraty wrote: “Certainly full employment was never approached in America until the economy was shifted to all-out war production … American unemployment never fell much below eight million during the New Deal. In 1939 about 9.4 million were out of work, and at the time of the 1940 census (in March) unemployment stood at 7.8 million, almost fifteen percent of the work force.”
John A. Garraty, “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression,”The American Historical Review, Oct. 1973 (Vol. 78, No. 4), p. 917, incl. n. 23


Yet fools who simply accept Leftist propaganda are horrified when Roosevelt is revealed as the abject failure that he was.
Raise your paw.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I didn't discount Schlesinger, I never even mentioned him. This is you making up facts to suit your purpose again.

Here's what Schlesinger REALLY said about FDR and the Depression. Schlesinger was to the LEFT of FDR:

Why We're Where We Are | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I provided the quote of what he REALLY said.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

You are certainly free to deny he said same, as you are known as NYLiar.



And then you can lie about this:

"Out of curiosity, I took from my shelf the college history textbook assigned to me at Yale in 1968. The relevant chapters had been written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the most acclaimed and authoritative of all New Deal historians. To my surprise, not even this fervent liberal and stalwart admirer of FDR attempted to pretend that his hero’s policies had solved the Depression.

In “The National Experience,” published in 1963 (just 18 years after FDR’s death), Schlesinger wrote: “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produced recovery…The New Deal had done remarkable things, especially in social reform, but the formula for full recovery evidently still eluded it.”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937 – in the midst of “the Second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression (or, indeed, than in any other period in American history for which statistics are available). National income fell 13 per cent, payrolls 35 per cent, durable goods production 50 per cent, profits 78 per cent. The increase in unemployment reproduced scenes of the early depression and imposed new burdens on the relief agencies.”
Michael Medved - How government expansion worsens hard times

Yes your usual out of context crap. AND?

Yesterday I commented that Europe was essentially in a depression since the end of WWI and had much longer to build a model to resurrect themselves. Using the late 30's as an example is another way she pushes a dishonest argument, sure, they looked better than us they had been working at it a dozen years longer.

Really?

Must you insist on revealing that you know less than nothing???

“The two movements [that is, in the US and in Germany] nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations. Of the two the Nazis were the more successful in curing the economic ills of the 1930s. They reduced unemployment and stimulated industrial production faster than the Americans did and, considering their resources, handled their monetary and trade problems more successfully, certainly more imaginatively. This was partly because the Nazis employed deficit financing on a larger scale and partly because their totalitarian system better lent itself to the mobilization of society, both by force and by persuasion. By 1936 the depression was substantially over in Germany, far from finished in the United States.”

.

Your vote for Nazi totalitarianism is noted.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Conservatives seem to espouse non-classical liberal views, based on corporatism, fixed or crony markets, and unlimited government protections for their supporters (trillion dollar bailout anyone?).

Which conservatives?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's what Schlesinger REALLY said about FDR and the Depression. Schlesinger was to the LEFT of FDR:

Why We're Where We Are | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I provided the quote of what he REALLY said.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

You are certainly free to deny he said same, as you are known as NYLiar.



And then you can lie about this:

"Out of curiosity, I took from my shelf the college history textbook assigned to me at Yale in 1968. The relevant chapters had been written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the most acclaimed and authoritative of all New Deal historians. To my surprise, not even this fervent liberal and stalwart admirer of FDR attempted to pretend that his hero’s policies had solved the Depression.

In “The National Experience,” published in 1963 (just 18 years after FDR’s death), Schlesinger wrote: “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produced recovery…The New Deal had done remarkable things, especially in social reform, but the formula for full recovery evidently still eluded it.”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937 – in the midst of “the Second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression (or, indeed, than in any other period in American history for which statistics are available). National income fell 13 per cent, payrolls 35 per cent, durable goods production 50 per cent, profits 78 per cent. The increase in unemployment reproduced scenes of the early depression and imposed new burdens on the relief agencies.”
Michael Medved - How government expansion worsens hard times

Yes your usual out of context crap. AND?

Yesterday I commented that Europe was essentially in a depression since the end of WWI and had much longer to build a model to resurrect themselves. Using the late 30's as an example is another way she pushes a dishonest argument, sure, they looked better than us they had been working at it a dozen years longer.

Really?

Must you insist on revealing that you know less than nothing???

“The two movements [that is, in the US and in Germany] nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations. Of the two the Nazis were the more successful in curing the economic ills of the 1930s. They reduced unemployment and stimulated industrial production faster than the Americans did and, considering their resources, handled their monetary and trade problems more successfully, certainly more imaginatively. This was partly because the Nazis employed deficit financing on a larger scale and partly because their totalitarian system better lent itself to the mobilization of society, both by force and by persuasion. By 1936 the depression was substantially over in Germany, far from finished in the United States.”

.

Your vote for Nazi totalitarianism is noted.

What a stupid post....

...exactly what I've come to expect of you.

 

[nuhuh]

I provided the quote of what he REALLY said.

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

You are certainly free to deny he said same, as you are known as NYLiar.



And then you can lie about this:

"Out of curiosity, I took from my shelf the college history textbook assigned to me at Yale in 1968. The relevant chapters had been written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the most acclaimed and authoritative of all New Deal historians. To my surprise, not even this fervent liberal and stalwart admirer of FDR attempted to pretend that his hero’s policies had solved the Depression.

In “The National Experience,” published in 1963 (just 18 years after FDR’s death), Schlesinger wrote: “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produced recovery…The New Deal had done remarkable things, especially in social reform, but the formula for full recovery evidently still eluded it.”

He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937 – in the midst of “the Second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression (or, indeed, than in any other period in American history for which statistics are available). National income fell 13 per cent, payrolls 35 per cent, durable goods production 50 per cent, profits 78 per cent. The increase in unemployment reproduced scenes of the early depression and imposed new burdens on the relief agencies.”
Michael Medved - How government expansion worsens hard times

Yes your usual out of context crap. AND?

Yesterday I commented that Europe was essentially in a depression since the end of WWI and had much longer to build a model to resurrect themselves. Using the late 30's as an example is another way she pushes a dishonest argument, sure, they looked better than us they had been working at it a dozen years longer.

Really?

Must you insist on revealing that you know less than nothing???

“The two movements [that is, in the US and in Germany] nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations. Of the two the Nazis were the more successful in curing the economic ills of the 1930s. They reduced unemployment and stimulated industrial production faster than the Americans did and, considering their resources, handled their monetary and trade problems more successfully, certainly more imaginatively. This was partly because the Nazis employed deficit financing on a larger scale and partly because their totalitarian system better lent itself to the mobilization of society, both by force and by persuasion. By 1936 the depression was substantially over in Germany, far from finished in the United States.”

.

Your vote for Nazi totalitarianism is noted.

What a stupid post....

...exactly what I've come to expect of you.

Political Chic should win an award for complete and total lack of awareness.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes your usual out of context crap. AND?

Yesterday I commented that Europe was essentially in a depression since the end of WWI and had much longer to build a model to resurrect themselves. Using the late 30's as an example is another way she pushes a dishonest argument, sure, they looked better than us they had been working at it a dozen years longer.

Really?

Must you insist on revealing that you know less than nothing???

“The two movements [that is, in the US and in Germany] nevertheless reacted to the Great Depression in similar ways, distinct from those of other industrial nations. Of the two the Nazis were the more successful in curing the economic ills of the 1930s. They reduced unemployment and stimulated industrial production faster than the Americans did and, considering their resources, handled their monetary and trade problems more successfully, certainly more imaginatively. This was partly because the Nazis employed deficit financing on a larger scale and partly because their totalitarian system better lent itself to the mobilization of society, both by force and by persuasion. By 1936 the depression was substantially over in Germany, far from finished in the United States.”

.

Your vote for Nazi totalitarianism is noted.

What a stupid post....

...exactly what I've come to expect of you.

Political Chic should win an award for complete and total lack of awareness.

She copies and pastes without reading and understanding what she's posting. Clearly her post was an endorsement of Nazism.

She endorsed the 'totalitarian system', deficit spending, and government spending as the means to stimulate an economy.