Now it's the Republican's turn for a north eastern liberally prone flip flopping candidate. Can't wait to see Democrats slice into Mitt Romney the RINO. It's gonna be brutal. He has way more flip flops than Kerry did.
Liberals are disgusting. They call Bush, Palin, and other repubs every name in the book, but if you even slightly criticize Obama they'll call you racist.
@nedarc Really??!! Zel Miller sabotaged John Kerry`s election in 2004. He went against his own party and supported the enemy. The country would have been much better off if John Kerry had won in 2004. People in Europe couldn`t believe that we re-elected Bush in 2004. That`s when Europe and the world started to hate us. They forgave us for Bush before, cause they knew that he stole the 2000-election from Gore, but that changed after he actually won in 2004. Zel Miller is a traitor. I hate him!
@nedarc And you are the one without any class, cause no.1, you support Zel Miller, no.2 you criticize president Obama, no.3 you`re a conservative, no. 4 you attacked me first-I had no beef with you. I didn`t insult you personally, but you went after me.
@232009jordan The fuck he was " ran out after this speech ". Zell Miller started supporting Republicans after he left office as governor in 1998 and went to work as a lobbyist. When he was appointed to the Senate in 2000 to serve out the remainder of Paul Coverdell's seat, he praised Coverdell as a great public servant and praised his friendship with then Governor George Dumbya Bush. Miller is the classic dictionary version of political opportunist, But idiots think he's sincere
@BCE42906 Zell Miller represents the Democrat Party the way it was under JFK not the fanatical left of Nancy Pelosi. JFK today would be considered a Republican. Common sense and logic always transend political views this is something todays Dems cannot deal with !!!!!!!
@nedarc to be fair, the Republican party has walked away from conservatove values overall. I;d like to see Srah Palin as Chariman of the GOP to get it back on track.
@nedarc The fuck he does. Zell Miller represents Zell Miller and Zell Miller only. Go listen to his keynote speech from the 1992 convention where he supported Bill Clinton. Sounds like what people like you call a far left liberal. Miller is the classic example of a politician who sticks his finger in the wind to see which way it blows. In that 1992 speech, he praised JIMMY CARTER as a good president. He became a conservative when he became a lobbyist after he left office as governor
To all my patriotic Republican friends. This is by far the greatest speech I have ever had the pleasure to listen to. Zell Miller delivers this with such perfection. Just listen to the crowd. I love this man. He is a true American hero, ex soldier. If you can, I urge you to listen to this wonderful speech from 2004. I never get enough of it.
Zell is Highly respected in our State (Georgia) by both Republicans and Dems...He may seem ultra Red here...but the man is blue in his soul...just ask the thousands of kids he put through college in my state...
@pseudobliss If you think Miller is ultra red, you don`t have a fucking clue. He`s a right-winger. I think he`s a fucking traitor. I`m a true liberal democrat, and i hate southerners. Fucking redneck assholes
When the First Black Mayor of Atlanta, Maynard Jackson, and the former Segregationist(KKK) Governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox, died within days of each other, Who do You think Zell Miller's Republican Party Honored with Flags at Half Staff? Says everything about Zell and his Republican Party (Res ipse locquitur)
He's got his pathetic democrat party figured out that's for sure! They made him so sick he swapped teams! The things he says about the America hateing democrats is still true today. The "soldier" has given us all our freedoms...not the pathetic democrats! Their "warped" way of thinking! I love this guy! He realized he was on the scumbag team and got away from those lowlifes. Democrats hate America....America hates democrats!
@Tampaslice More like, he found out that Republicans were more sympathetic to seven and/or eight figured salary lobbyists than Democrats were. And when Miller left office as governor in 1998, he went to work as a lobbyist. Zell Miller is classic dictionary definition of political opportunist, and better yet, SCUMBAG!!!! He is no soldier, he served in the Marine Reserves and saw no combat. The only people who hate America are crazy right wing nuts, scumbags like Miller and George Dumbya Bush
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
What an idiot!!!! War is for men with underdeveloped brains. A simple way for hick nasty guys to fly across the ocean, use a gun and come back to reap the benefits of our tax money.
Im a Republican and we need more Democrats like him, this is old school thought. The thinking that made this country what it is today. If you dont remember the past, it will repeat.
Far left and right are facsist. They believe if you dont think like them you do not have a right to your thought.....you crazy.
@chbtrucker I'm a Democrat and we need fewer of these "Democrats" like this.It's old school alright, the type of thinking that left "Negroes" on the back of the bus.Personally I'm glad the days of segregation are over.
"Democrats and Republicans worked together" B.S. Harry Truman accomplished most of his foreign policy and domestic agenda in spite of Republican opposition.
The Great Prevaricator,St Ron of Raygun;a man who opposed the Civil Rights Act and who actually raised taxes.
@johndgray1 i think you need to check your history sir! It is the democrat party that has and continues to encourage blacks to feel cheated into a sense of entitlement from others. The Republican party itself was created to end slavery, and did. It was republicans who were marching with MLK, and we shot and killed by democrats. The kkk was founded by a democrat...It was democrats who called JFK a traitor when he supported the REPUBLICAN WRITTEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF OF 1957!
@Tanner016 Okay dickweed the Democratic Party did include slaveholders and racists,but when the Civil Roghts movement came about it sure as hell wasn't conservatvie Republicants who were in favor of passing legislation to enforce the the rights that black people were supposed to have under the Constitution.Since the end of Reconstruction the Republican Party has done nothing for African-Americans.
If the Civil Rights Act of 1957 had been any good we wouldn't have needed any further legislation.
@johndgray1 haha your total carelessness when it comes to Black history is rather funny. The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican CONSERVATIVE President, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down.
@Tanner016 Yes the Republican PArty was founded by anti-slavery activists,but since the end of Reconstruction and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision,the Republican Party pretty much did nothing for African-Americans.FDR and other Democratic Presidents couldn't send Federal troops to enforce Civil Rights legislation because of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision with its "seperate but equal" idea.No Republicant ever came out against that idea.
@johndgray1 shoot ahead to 1898 in Wilmington, N.C. There Democrats murdered black Republicans so they could stage, "the nation's only recorded coup d'etat." go a little ahead to 1922, Democrats in the Senate filibustered a Republican attempt to make lynching a federal crime.
@johndgray1 Go ahead slightly further where liberal democrat president FDR merely nominated a pro civil right judge and did nothing more, whereas his successor Eisenhower (CONSERVATIVE) sent troops to Arkansas to ensure schools were desegregated. But as you have stated that was before the 60's and since then EVERYTHING has changed right? WRONG!
@johndgray1 Do you recall one by the name of George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" Wallace standing in the door of an Alabama schoolhouse to keep black children from being able to go to school with whites?he was a post 60's liberal democrat. Remember Bull Connor turning water hoses and dogs on civil rights protesters? he was a post 60's liberal democrat.
@johndgray1 But, what about the Civil Rights Act you mentioned? That's where the Democrats really stepped up for blacks right? Wrong. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. But none of this matters to your small liberal brain. Republicans a racists you say! things are different today! Well, facts are stubborn things! Republicans have elected more black congressmen and senators than democrats.
@Tanner016 George Wallace was a conservative Democrat from Alabama;aka a "Dixiecrat". Conservative Democrats opposed Civil Rights legislation but when it became clear that their views on racew wouldn't be tolerated in the Demoocratic Party they jumped ship to the Republicant Party where their views where accomodated and welcomed.Need I mention Nixon's "Southeren Stragety"?
Colin Powell is a liberal,he believes in equal rights and affirmative action.He's a pariah in the Republican Party.
@johndgray1 BULLSHIT. 20 of the 21 Democrat Senators that opposed the civil rights act STAYED with the Democrat party. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. It is time you stop buying the LIES your liberal masters have programed you with. The Republican party was FOUNDED on freedom for slaves and it lives up to that charge to this very day. The modern day democrats have figured out a way to keep the minorities on the plantation and under their control, they just have better P.R. now
@ToddAldrich I don't believe any LIES thatyour conservative masters have fed you.Okay the real truth?Civil rights after Reconsrtuction wasn't on either political party's agenda(and for the record it was a Republican that ended Reconstruction).Not until Martin Luther King started raising awarness of the plight of blacks in America did either political party really begin to pay attention.Then it was liberal Democrats(AND I STRESS THE WORD "LIBERAL") who began to say that something should be done.
@johndgray1 You are simply WRONG. Eisenhower introduced a bill nearly Identical to the 1964 act - in 1957 and guess who opposed it? LBJ. REPUBLICANS tried to repeal the poll taxes in 1945, 1947 and in 1945. Democrats blocked it in the Senate. You are simply an ignorant brainwashed fool who LIED about Racist democrats switching to the Republican party. They did not - and they STAYED with the Democrats and pursued their racist agenda - only they disguised it as welfare.
@ToddAldrich Welfare was part of the Great Society programs of LBJ that cut poverty in half and benefitted whites more than blacks because of the sheer numbers of whites living in poverty.
Your statement is racist on its face and brings to mind the Great Prevaricator's race baiting by assailing on the campaign trail "welfare queens driving Cadillacs."
@johndgray1 Welfare did no such thing. There are MORE people in poverty today than there were when it was passed and the % has not changed significantly.
Welfare is NOTHING more than a means to entrap our poor - and to control them. It is designed to make people utterly dependent - just like SS, and Medicare are. Just look at how the liberals used seniors' utter dependence on medicare to scare the living shit out of them and thus control them by LYING about Ryan's budget plan.
@ToddAldrich Bull!There might be more people in poverty today because of population increase,but the Great Society programs did indeed cut the rate of poverty in half.
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition
@johndgray1 SO WHAT. That was NOT the purpose of Posse Comitatus so that is IRRELEVANT. Quit pretending it was racist in it's motivation. The Democrat party is STILL representing the racists in America.
@ToddAldrich No that was exactly the purpose of Posse Comitatus.It was passed into law under a Republican President to prevent the use of Federal troops being used to enforce laws such as the variious acts intended to insure the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment passed during Reconstruction.
@johndgray1 NO it was not. I was to remove the federal government from local policing duties and return them to their Constitutionally defined role of protecting our borders.
@ToddAldrich No the purpose of Posse Comitatus was to prohibit the military from enforecing any of the legislation passed to secure blacks their rights under the Constitution that were passed during Reconstruction.Check your history books.
@johndgray1 That may have been the effect but is was not the purpose. You simply have bought the lie. This was the party that just got done fighting a war to free the slaves so please learn what the hell you are talking about before you spout such laughably ignorant crap.
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation
June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it
@ToddAldrich The Great Prevaricator and his conservative bedfellows were OPPOSED to the Civil; Rights Movement.St.Ron of Raygun led the charge to overturn a fair housing bill in California and was OPPOSED to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
As for "keeping minorities on the plantation",if you're referring to affirmative action,that's the reason that we have people of color and women in postions of power.
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools
@johndgray1 He opposed ONE of the fair housing bills and SUPPORTED a different one. You liberals cant tell the truth about anything. One bill was a bad bill while his that he supported was a good bill.
Why can't you guys HONESTLY characterize things instead of purposely misrepresenting people's positions?
@ToddAldrich No he never supported a different one.He lead the charge to make it legal to discriminate in California in housing.Unlike say,William Buckley,who before he died had the decency to say that he was wrong to oppose the Civil Rights Act,St Ron of Raygun never admitted to any regret in trying to repeal Californias Rumford Fair Housing Act or his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
@ToddAldrich ROTFLMFAO.Ronnie,The Great Prevaricator standing up for open housing klegislation in California?
"California voters embraced both Johnson and a constitutional right to a segregrated neighborhood,as promoted by Ronald Reagan and the real estate industry."
Taylor Branch "Pillar of Fire: pages 522-523.
Oh please tell me your source for the Great Prevaricator's dedication to civil rights?
@johndgray1 Come on I'm waiting for your source to show me The Great Prevaricator's dedication to civil rights.
I remember that St.Ron had to aplogize to the King family when after he grudgingly signed the legislation establishing MLK day he insinuated that Dr.King was indeed a communist.
Ronnie,like all conservatives felt that " Negroes" should just be happy picking cotton and giving him a song and dance and then he'd give them a shiny dime,which they should be grateful for.
@johndgray1 You see, YOU have been manipulated into believing all these horrible things based on cherry-picked and out of context quotes. You are willing to disregard the entire congressional record and the documented history of Republicans that shows THEY are the party of civil rights and individual freedom.
The Liberals have convinced you via their lies and manipulations of the facts that Dems have ben the herors and that GROUP rights, instead of Individual rights are actually civil rights
@ToddAldrich I have not been "manipulated" I just see that the Democratic Party of today,thankfully purged of CONservatives like Zell Miller,is the champion of minorities and that the Republican Party isn't.The heroes of the Republican Party of today,the Great Prevaricator and Goldwater didn't support civil rights and the Party continues to follow in the footsteps of these people.
You still haven't given me your source for saying St Ron supported a fair housing bill in California.
@johndgray1 You are the one claiming that the racist Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights act all switched to the Republican party, Not I.
You obviously were manipulated into believing that. YOU are the one that tried to claim that Robinson was referring to racism against blacks when he made the Jews in Germany quote. Sorry you were sorely misinformed.
@ToddAldrich No I wasn't isinformed the quote stands as given and is obvoiusly a reference to the hositily towards blacks on open display at the 1964 convention.
I cited my source for the quote and have even attempted to secure from the Pittsburgh Courier online the original full quote as given to its repeorter.
@johndgray1 Yes you WERE and ARE misinformed. I GAVE you the full quote. You are simply lying.
The animosity was directed against Rockefeller - the VERY SAME people you are trying to pin the racist tag on were the very same people that voted overwhelmingly to pass the 1964 Civil Rights bill. Are you seriously suggesting that one day they bravely stood for freedom and dignity for our black brothers and then all of a sudden they just changed their minds???
@ToddAldrich No,the animosity was directed at black delgates to the convention and the Goldwater/Reagan Republicans had gone to great lengths to insure the fewest number of black delegates at a GOP comvention probably since its founding.
Rockefeller was a liberal and was purged from the GOP because of it.
@johndgray1 Oh for Christ's sake - Rockefeller became the VICE PRESIDENT. He was NOT purged from the party. When will you tell the truth? Remember you are talking about MY relative here. I should know. (Go look at his middle name and my last name.) But the fact that he was not purged from the party is EASILY googled. And the FACT that he served as Ford's Vice President, can also be easily discovered.
In other words, you AGAIN have been misled - or you are lying - take your pick.
@ToddAldrich Yeah,he was selected as Ford's Vice-President.He didn't run for office wasn't nominated at a PArty convention.He was selected by one of the last decent Republicans there was.Hell,Ford had to fight like hell just to get the Republican nomination when he wanted to run in his own right.With the election of The Great Prevaricator the party of Lincoln died.
@johndgray1 So what. ONE person gets to be President. Not everyone gets a chance. Well according to you, the Republicans never were anti-slavery. So color me surprised when you think Reagan ended it. Never mind that minorities made HUGE economic progress under Reagan.
@ToddAldrich The Republicant's were anti-slavery,never said they weren't.Yes blacks made HUGE economic gains during the Reagan years,IN SPITE OF and NOT BECAUSE OF The Great Prevaricator's policies.
The whole Reagan economic "miracle" was BS anyways.His tax cuts produced little economic growth and were offset for most people by the raise in Social Security tax.Once the Federal Reserve had decided that they had choked off inflationary worries and dropped interest rates the economy grew again.
@ToddAldrich yes,I'm sure your an economist;like all Republicans are economists.Which is why they are demanding a balanced budget right now and deep spending cuts.Never mind that this is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Reagan's economic plan was and remains snake oil.Tax cuts for working people were offset by the increase in Social Security tax.As I said economic progress for blacks and other minorities as well as for most wage earners came about in spite of St.Ron's policies,not because of them.
@johndgray1 How would they have done when they didn't get their SS check? you moron. You get you SS taxes BACK - unless it goes bankrupt - and that is what was prevented.
Keeping up govt spending,raising taxes and instituting all sorts of "jobs" programs based in the public sector is what turned a 6-8 month downturn into the GREAT DEPRESSION.That is what Obama is doing. Reagan took the WORST economy since the Depression and turned it around to one with 20 years of nearly uninterrupted growth.
@ToddAldrich So much for you being an economist.The Reagan economic miracle was BS.The Federal Reserve raised interest rates under Carter plunging the US into a deep recession,St.Ron had hte good fortune to be President when the Federal Reserve eased interest rates and reaped the benefits of their decision to lower them.his economic plan was aptly decscribed by GHW Bush as "vodoo economics".
@johndgray1 Now let's address you ignorance on Reagan's record. One of the main problems of Jimmy Carter's economic situation was a combination of things that came to be known as stagflation. Under the Keynesian theories of the time this was deemed not possible. Inflation was seen as a result of an overheated economy - one growing too fast and cold not exist in a slow growth economy. These same Keynesian "experts" (Paul Krugman among them) said Reagan's policies would INCREASE inflation.(cont)
@ToddAldrich " Keynesian theories" JM keynes was a genius and his work hasn't bee replaced or refuted by the voddo economics of the Republican Party.
Reagan encouraged interest rate hikes by the Fed?Strange how he mentioned in his diary how he hoped the Fed wouldn't raise rates and choke of economic growth.All the economic growth that occured during the Reagan years was a direcxt result of the Fed finally choking off inflation after they felt inflation was tamed they eased rates,growth resumed.
@johndgray1 Keynesian theories turned the MILD and SHORT recession of 1929 into a decades long Great Depression. Keynesian theories led to the stagflation and economic MALAISE of the Carter years. They are PREVENTING a recovery from the current mess.
Reagan did indeed hope the Fed wouldn't choke off economic growth - but that was AFTER the recovery was underway and once inflation had already been tamed. You liberal morons seem to ignore CONTEXT. It is everything.
@ToddAldrich Keysian theories did no such thing idiot.
Reagans economic plocies didn't do squat for the economy.All the credit he recieves will eventually rightfully be seen as the work of the Fed in manipulating interest rates.His policies consisted of spend ,but not tax and led us to the debt problem we have today.Keyensian economics is the standard model of economics.
WWII brought huge intervention of the governmnet into the economy,but didn't choke off the market or hurt businesses at all.
@johndgray1 Tell you what, when you learn that Hoover did indeed increase taxes and did indeed institute several "new deal" type programs and spent HUGE percentages of the GNP on relief programs, you can BEGIN to hold a conversation with me. You don't even have a clue as to the history of who passed what laws and taxes and when the economy turned south. Go look at a timeline of the depression and compare it to the enactment of taxes and the new deal programs - you will quickly see the link.
@ToddAldrich The "recession" of 1929 wasn't mild or short.As for non-Keysian economic policies,well Britan did essentailly nothing to stem the Great Depression's effects on its economy and they had suffered from its effects and their do-nothing policies until 1939.
The stimulus package that President Obama got passed was too small to have the necessary effect to right the economy;he needed one that was 1-1.5 trillion dollars in direct spending,he didn't propose one and we're suffering for it.
@johndgray1 I KNOW IT WASN"T you moron!!! Because Hoover and FDR followed Keynesian policies we ended up with a depression. I already showed you that by June of 1930 - 8 months after the crash of 1929, the unemployment rate had already fallen to 6.3%. That is simply a FACT. Also a fact is that in 1930, Hoover raised taxes and we took a sharp downturn into what then BECAME the Great Depression. Hoover enacted so many relief programs that he was accused of socialism by FDR!!!
@johndgray1 That direct spending is putting us back INTO a recession. The 2008 recession was OVER by June of 2009, long before any significant portion of the "stimulus" was even allocated - LET ALONE spent.
Every TEMPORARY job "created or saved" by government spending comes at the cost of 2 or 3 REAL jobs that are self sustaining in the private sector. In addition those private sector jobs ADD to the govt coffers instead of putting us further into debt.
@ToddAldrich God!You've just proven that you aren't an economist.Every job -including those created by the government puts money in people's pocket,which they go out and spend,which puts money in other people's pockets which they in turn spend-it's called the mutiplier effect.
You're are total ignoramus.
Direct spending is the only that will keep the economy from going back into a recession
@johndgray1 You have fallen for the Keynesian fallacy. There is no magic money fairy to give that money to the government in order for it to multiply. That money must 1st come OUT of the MORE EFFICIENT producer of jobs - the private sector. Thus we LOSE net jobs as a result. What you are saying is akin to taking water out of the deep end of the pool, spilling 1/3 of it on the deck, and dumping it into the shallow end and THEN expecting this method to fill the pool.
@ToddAldrich Once agian you show that you're not an economist.The mutiplier effect is for all jobs,governmet or private sector,if you put money in people's pockets they spend it.
You're wrong on the facts(Congress hasn't repealed Shrub's tax cuts and they aren't working)and just plain ignorant and of history and economics.You're a plain,simple boob who thinks he knows something when you don't.
@johndgray1 Your ignorance and BLIND allegience to a FAILED theoretical system.You are too stupid to realize that in order to "put money in peoples pockets" as you said, it must FIRST come OUT of somebody else's pocket.THERE IS NO NET GAIN.Like I said before, there is no magic money fairy that simply waves her wand and money appears out of thin air. Govt must first TAKE that money from someone else.The place that govt TAKES $ from is FAR more efficient at producing jobs then where it sends it.
The evidence is staring right at you when you pass the uneployment office.The warmed over Reagnomics of Shrub failed.It failed to produce much economic growth and then it couldn't even sustain itself and brought a near total collapse of the economic system.If we keep following the same failed ideas were never going to have an economic recovery.
@ToddAldrich The mutiplier effect works regardless of who hires whom.It is a widely understood and accepted doctroine.You've shown time and agian that you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.You should try going back to school and this time pay attention when the teacher explains these things in Macroeconomics 101.
Direct government countercyclical spending on public works programs has been shown to lead to recovery from economic downturns.
@johndgray1 It is accepted by ONE group of economists. The SAME economist that brought us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the Carter years AND the 2008 crash. The ONLY conservative economic policy Bush followed were the tax cuts - the rest of his policy was pure keynes and liberal in nature.
@johndgray1 I don't need to go back to school - the Multiplier effect is a MYTH.
If it were true, then, instead of 2 trillion, we should just spend $500 trillion dollars and all of our economic problems will be solved - yet I THINK that even someone as dull as you can see that this is not a good policy to follow.
@ToddAldrich No the multiplier effect is accepted across economic schools.It has nothing to with JM Keynes and contrary to your calims Keyensian economics didn't bring abpout stagfasltio0n or cause the Great Depression or prolong it.
You rewally do need to go back to school.How you can claim to be an economist and no nothing about the mutiplier effect is beyond me,the teach this in high school intoductory economics for god's sake.
@johndgray1 I don't need to go back to school - the Multiplier effect is a MYTH.
If it were true, then, instead of 2 trillion, we should just spend $500 trillion dollars and all of our economic problems will be solved - yet I THINK that even someone as dull as you can see that this is not a good policy to follow.
@johndgray1 Since my opinion is in line with MULTIPLE Nobel prize winning economists that actually won their Nobel prize for MACRO economics, you will forgive me if I don't take your scorn too seriously.
@ToddAldrich No of those economists would deny the mutiplier effect.It's accepted across a wide variety of economic schools of thought.I notice that you've quit caliming that you are economist,which is good because you certainly aren't one.You've shown your total ignorance of ecoomics time and again.
Here's a test for you to see if you actually know anything about economics:How do meconomists define savings?What is savings?
@ToddAldrich You can't "debunk" the mutiplier effect,even Milton Friedman would have acknowleged that if people have jobs they spend the earnings causing others to in turn spend the earnings they received from others buying goods or services from them.
@johndgray1 I know a little bit about Milton Friedman. You are wrong in saying he believed in the multiplier effect. Having jobs is one thing. No one denies that people with jobs helps continue a cycle of growth, but Government "stimulus" spending is NOT the same as people having jobs. As I have shown (but you CHOOSE to ignore) government stimulus COSTS us jobs - it does not add net jobs. It robs jobs from the private sector - in favor of FEWER jobs in temporary projects or in govt.
@ToddAldrich You know nothing.You've proven that you are an idiot.
You've claimed to be an economist and yet you can't answer the a very basic economic question;I'll put it too you again:what is savings?
Are you trrying to tell me that if people spend money that this money doesn't circulate through the economy?Even Milton Friedman would have rejected that and no I don't think you knew Milton Friedman.Friedman worked at a level far beyond your comprhension.
@johndgray1 Not at all, just that there is no net gain when it happens. The ONLY net gain is when we combine natural resources with human ingenuity - to CREATE something new and more valuable than the raw materials used to produce it are worth on their own. OR - when we have a net gain in things coming in from other countries. Savings at it's most basic is assets not spent. Money simply changing hands is nothing more than money changing hands.
@ToddAldrich Money changing hands is what makes the economy run.If people spend money-from whatever source-this causes others to spend money which increases economic activity.
I knew you couldn't define savings,so much for being an economist.Here's the definition of savings by economists:savings is spending delayed.
It's been over twenty years since I took macroeconomics and I still remember that.Funny how you claim to be an economist but you can't define savings.
@ToddAldrich Of course if people have money and spend it on goods and services this doea absolutely nothing for the economy,it's just money changing hands and has no economic effect at all.
What a fucking idiot.
Money changing hands as you put it is what economics is all about.
@johndgray1 Learn to READ you mental midget. I said there is a difference between cash flow and the mythical multiplier. Cash flow does indeed occur, but there IS NO MULTIPLIER. It is a myth.
@johndgray1 You simply don't know what you are talking about THERE IS NO SPENDING MULTIPLIER.
As I have linked to earlier, my views on this are shared by Nobel Prize winning economists. Economists that actually won their Nobel Prize in the field of MACRO economics.
The increase in the economy is not due to spending by government but by the combination of raw materials into USEFUL things.
@ToddAldrich YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALIKIG ABOUT!There most certainly is a spending mutiplier.You know nothing about economics,which isn't surprising given that you are a conservative idiot.
@ToddAldrich YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALIKING ABOUT!There most certainly is a spending mutiplier.You know nothing about economics,which isn't surprising given that you are a conservative idiot.
@johndgray1 When government spends money , it must first take it OUT of the economy and the efficiency LOST by running it through the bureaucracy makes the exchange a NET LOSS.
Yes the private sector is so efficient at creating jobs that we don't have 9+ percent unemployment and the private sector didn't almost crash the economy and send us into a second Great Depression.
Your argument doesn't hold water.Eisenhower stimulated the economy with the interstate highway program and that didn't cause a net loss of money,by hiring contractoors to build the highways it created jobs that otherwise wouldn't have been there.
@johndgray1 We have 9+ % unemployment BECAUSE of the government spending and because of govt programs. The recession ended BEFORE virtually any stimulus money had even been allocated, let alone spent. ALWAYS - after the end of a recession we have a BOOM in hiring - except THIS one - which was curiously accompanied by MASSIVE govt spending. Coincidence? I think not. The MAIN reason businesses are not hiring is because of govt programs restricting lending, creating uncertainty and sapping cash.
@ToddAldrich Actually we have 9+ % unemploymeny(and not worse)because of what little effect the stimulus had.
There are no government programs restricting lending and the recession has ended only in the sense that things aren't getting worse,literally the words of those who declared the recession over.
If we'd gone with the correct amount of spending(aproximately $1.5 trillion,ten percent of 14-15 trillion dollar economy)we would wouldn't be talking about a recession & unemployment.
@johndgray1 There are REAMS of regulations preventing loans and jobs in JUST the Dodd-Frank bill. THat bill does NOTHING to prevent the too big to fail banks from failing and yet it is DESTROYING smaller community banks.
YOUR side is the one that said things were getting better and the recession "officially" ended back in June of 2009 - that is my POINT. Normally after the end of a recession, you have very good job creation - yet BECAUSE of the spending we are slipping BACK into recession
@ToddAldrich Too big to fail banks should be broken up and made smaller,no argument there.There are no "reams" of regulations preventing any bank from loaning money.
Mor B.S froman idiot who doesn't understand economics.
"We sampled the calculations, and consulted several academics and lawyers involved in studying Dodd-Frank. The consensus is that the 2.2 million number is reasonable, if not low. Indeed, just one part of one rule had an estimate of 604,800 hours."
They disputed it because the congressman was LOW in his estimate of the damage it does to community banks and because he did not say "MID-sized" in his claims - he only said "small banks".
@johndgray1 If we had spent $1.5 trillion we would be around 13-14% unemployment - if not worse. That is exactly what Hoover did (also he increased taxes) that set off the Great Depression. After the 1929 crash caused unemployment to spike up to 9%, we were on our way to recovery. In fact, unemployment had fallen to 6.3% in June of 1930. THEN Hoover increased government spending and raised taxes (just exactly what you advocate NOW), and we soon had > 20% unemployment and a DEPRESSION.
@ToddAldrich If we increased government spending on public works we would have less unemployment than we do now.I refer you again to Eisenhower's idea for putting people to work,building highways.Increase in government spending during WWII did not lead to mass unemployment.
@johndgray1 Hey DUMBASS during WWII a HUGE % of our workforce was overseas fighting the war!!!! What happened when we raised taxes & spending in 1930??? We went from 6.3% unemployment to 20 - PLUS percent unemployment. What happened when we raised taxes and increased regulations in 1937?? we went from 12.3% unemployment to over 20% AGAIN!
@ToddAldrich Hey Dumbass we still increased taxes and regulations and government spending in WWII and it didn't cause mass unemploymnet crash the stock market agian or have any negative effect on the economy;we had increased employment and rising incomes.
Uneploymnet went up in 1930 because the stock market crash of 1929 spread to the banking system,it increased again in 1936 due to the Federal Reserve raising reserve requirements,not due to increased government spending.
@johndgray1 Oh for Christ's sake. ONCE AGAIN, but this time I'll type REALLY SLOW so EVEN you can understand. During WWII the entire free industrialized world was reduced to rubble EXCEPT for North America.
We had NO COMPETITION and in addition to this, we had a HUGE demand from the other countries that could not produce much AND in addition to this, a very large % of our workforce was overseas and thus we had fewer workers to employ - thus low unemployment. Do you use your brain at all???
@ToddAldrich I know you don't use your brain.By looking at your posts I can see that your ability ot process information and think has atrophied,but then save for a few rare exceptions,conseratives can't think.
@johndgray1 You said raising taxes and spending didn't cause mass unemployment and crash the economy again - WHAT, was the Great Depression not enough????
After the Crash of 1929, unemployment did indeed spike up to 9% that December, but by June of 1930 it had already fallen to 6.3% - the "Depression" was OVER and things were improving. It never would have been a Depression EXCEPT we raised taxes in 1930 and Hoover began creating New Deal type programs to help the economy.
@ToddAldrich The New Deal programs instituted by Roosevelt replaced the ineffective small scale programs that began under Hoover.Your hero,Milton Friedman downplayed the effects of Smoot -HawleyAct on the Great Depression,with good reason since 60% of imports weren't subject to tarrifs.
The RFC was created by Hoover to investigate the soundness of businesses and lend them money to keep operating.
The right to form a union and bargian with employers didn't make the Depression worse.
@johndgray1 Monetary policy absolutely had a lot to do with the Depression - but it does not explain the recovery that happened in early 1930 and then the dip into the depths of the Depression that occurred after the tax increases and the National Recovery Act and the rest of the various "relief" programs. It also does not explain the recovery that was occurring in the mid 1930's that happened when the Supreme court began ruling many of FDR's programs unconstitutional - thus ENDING them.
@ToddAldrich I said the National Recovery Act, but meant the Reconstruction Finance Corporation - a government program that was designed to --- Come on I bet you can't guess!!!
@ToddAldrich The recovery of the mid-thirties was do to those programs like the CCC that hired people and put them to work-these were never ruled unconstitutional.The NRA by trying to restirct production was doomed to failure;after it was ruled unconstitutional FDR and the New Dealers focused on programs to increase consumption
The dip that occured in 1937-1938 was caused by the Federal Reserve tightening the money supply by raising bank reserve requiremnets.
@johndgray1 FDR’s own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, seemed to disagree with you. He wrote: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight yearsof this Administration we have
just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!”
@ToddAldrich Morgenthau-the man who wanted to repeat the mistakes of Versaiiles after WWII?Yeah a real economic genius.
The unemployment was caused by the collapse of the stock market and the banks and if we'd done nothing we wouldn't have solved any problems.The economy,aided by the New Deal,was starting to recover by 1939.If we had done nothing,we wouldn't have even started to recover by 1941.
The Wagner Act,allowing people to unionize,had nothing to with any downturn in the economy.
@johndgray1 Well, Morganthau was correct. The facts bear that out. They spent TONS of money and had NOTHING to show for it. If you consider a DECADE of double digit unemployment success, I don't know what else to say. In 1939 we recovered because we were supplying the allies with war materials. If we had done nothing there NEVER would have been a Depression. The Wagner act preceded ANOTHER dip into 20% unemployment.
@ToddAldrich Wagner Act and increased unemployment=post hoc ergo propter hoc.Actually it doesn't even equal that.
We had a decade of double digit unemployment becasue we had a collapse of the stock market and the banking system and a foolish decision by the Federal Reserve in 1936 to tighten reserve requirements for banks.
It was the New Deal public works programs that kept the economy from collapsing completly.
If we had followed adivice from idiots like you the country would off than it was.
@johndgray1 We had ALREADY RECOVERED FROM THE CRASH and we did so before ANY new deal type program was in place. Unemployment had dropped from 9% to 6.3% until we raised taxes and started spending money.
That is simply a fact.
We DID follow advice from idiots like YOU and we got a Depression. We already KNOW what your prescriptions lead to and it isn't good.
We also know what advice like mine leads to. Reagan ushered in two decades of neary uninterrupted prosperity and we STILL benefit today.
@ToddAldrich No we hadn't.The stock market didn't recover it's full value until the Eisenhower Adminstration and the stock market crash led to the bank panics,which further exacerbated the economic problems we were going through.
Oh,yes please tell me how we "still benefit" from the economic policies of the Great Prevaricator.I'l tell that to the people who lost their savings in the stock market and the people who's houses are being foreclosed on.
@hookalaka I agree completely. Long live Zell.
namznej 3 days ago
Zell Miller should for the Democratic Nomination, I'd gladly vote Democrat if it meant he would be President.
1RedshirtXLG 1 week ago
Now it's the Republican's turn for a north eastern liberally prone flip flopping candidate. Can't wait to see Democrats slice into Mitt Romney the RINO. It's gonna be brutal. He has way more flip flops than Kerry did.
lovethyneighborloljk 2 months ago
Zell Miller was the last great Democrat.
hookalakah 2 months ago
Liberals are disgusting. They call Bush, Palin, and other repubs every name in the book, but if you even slightly criticize Obama they'll call you racist.
PatriotInChief 3 months ago
Comment removed
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
What stance did he take on the Vietnam War?
CharlesDickens99 4 months ago
Give 'em hell, Zell!
scason 5 months ago
Wonder how this sack of shit feels about the current president.
typhonsentra 5 months ago
Has this boy been gelded yet?
Tsnore 6 months ago
he speech one everyone
cbowman61 8 months ago
I've got news for you Zell, "bipartisan" means that republicans cave in and give in to democrats, not the other way around.
nr63kish 8 months ago
How'd that liberators thing work out for ya Bush?
lovethyneighborlol 10 months ago
Zell Miller delivers one of the most courageous and impactful speeches... EVER ! Bravisimo !
mozellagi 1 year ago
@mozellagi He`s a fucking traitor.
Yellyist 1 year ago
@Yellyist YOU ARE THE 'FUCKING TRAITOR '
nedarc 1 year ago
@nedarc Am i?? Go fuck yourself you worthless piece of shit!
Yellyist 1 year ago
@Yellyist You are the mirror image of your own rhetoric and everyone knows it, and also, you are without class, or credence in your profanity !
nedarc 1 year ago
@nedarc Really??!! Zel Miller sabotaged John Kerry`s election in 2004. He went against his own party and supported the enemy. The country would have been much better off if John Kerry had won in 2004. People in Europe couldn`t believe that we re-elected Bush in 2004. That`s when Europe and the world started to hate us. They forgave us for Bush before, cause they knew that he stole the 2000-election from Gore, but that changed after he actually won in 2004. Zel Miller is a traitor. I hate him!
Yellyist 1 year ago
@nedarc And you are the one without any class, cause no.1, you support Zel Miller, no.2 you criticize president Obama, no.3 you`re a conservative, no. 4 you attacked me first-I had no beef with you. I didn`t insult you personally, but you went after me.
Yellyist 1 year ago
he was ran out of the democrat party pretty quick after this speech!....guess the truth hurts!
232009jordan 1 year ago
@232009jordan The fuck he was " ran out after this speech ". Zell Miller started supporting Republicans after he left office as governor in 1998 and went to work as a lobbyist. When he was appointed to the Senate in 2000 to serve out the remainder of Paul Coverdell's seat, he praised Coverdell as a great public servant and praised his friendship with then Governor George Dumbya Bush. Miller is the classic dictionary version of political opportunist, But idiots think he's sincere
kmel5150 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kmel5150 like i said the truth hurts! you give me no reason to believe any different.
232009jordan 11 months ago
Zell Miller is a Democrat I can go for
BCE42906 1 year ago
@BCE42906 Zell Miller represents the Democrat Party the way it was under JFK not the fanatical left of Nancy Pelosi. JFK today would be considered a Republican. Common sense and logic always transend political views this is something todays Dems cannot deal with !!!!!!!
nedarc 1 year ago
@nedarc to be fair, the Republican party has walked away from conservatove values overall. I;d like to see Srah Palin as Chariman of the GOP to get it back on track.
BCE42906 1 year ago
@nedarc The fuck he does. Zell Miller represents Zell Miller and Zell Miller only. Go listen to his keynote speech from the 1992 convention where he supported Bill Clinton. Sounds like what people like you call a far left liberal. Miller is the classic example of a politician who sticks his finger in the wind to see which way it blows. In that 1992 speech, he praised JIMMY CARTER as a good president. He became a conservative when he became a lobbyist after he left office as governor
kmel5150 1 year ago
@kmel5150 I love you....
Northpaw14 11 months ago 3
Obama, Kerry= communists
superman93994 1 year ago
An amazing man. I loved the entire speech, yet he was incorrect about his support of Bush.
ethanlbr 1 year ago
To all my patriotic Republican friends. This is by far the greatest speech I have ever had the pleasure to listen to. Zell Miller delivers this with such perfection. Just listen to the crowd. I love this man. He is a true American hero, ex soldier. If you can, I urge you to listen to this wonderful speech from 2004. I never get enough of it.
hamsterstuey 1 year ago
Zell is Highly respected in our State (Georgia) by both Republicans and Dems...He may seem ultra Red here...but the man is blue in his soul...just ask the thousands of kids he put through college in my state...
pseudobliss 1 year ago
@pseudobliss If you think Miller is ultra red, you don`t have a fucking clue. He`s a right-winger. I think he`s a fucking traitor. I`m a true liberal democrat, and i hate southerners. Fucking redneck assholes
Yellyist 1 year ago
I was at RNC the night of this speech! This is going to go down in history as one of the best convention speeches of all time!
FIRSTDRESHER 1 year ago
Still the best speech ever at an RNC convention. WE NEED ZELL NOW!!!
RachTrinity 2 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
When the First Black Mayor of Atlanta, Maynard Jackson, and the former Segregationist(KKK) Governor of Georgia, Lester Maddox, died within days of each other, Who do You think Zell Miller's Republican Party Honored with Flags at Half Staff? Says everything about Zell and his Republican Party (Res ipse locquitur)
bkohatl 2 years ago
Comment removed
bkohatl 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Zell, you supported "W" because you think that 4 more years of "W" would make the country a better place. How did that work out?
Bush make the USA WEAKER not stronger. W was the worst president in USA history.
volvol1 2 years ago
"For my family is more important that my party."
If only more politicians felt that way.
InternetDisciple 2 years ago 9
He's got his pathetic democrat party figured out that's for sure! They made him so sick he swapped teams! The things he says about the America hateing democrats is still true today. The "soldier" has given us all our freedoms...not the pathetic democrats! Their "warped" way of thinking! I love this guy! He realized he was on the scumbag team and got away from those lowlifes. Democrats hate America....America hates democrats!
Tampaslice 2 years ago
@Tampaslice More like, he found out that Republicans were more sympathetic to seven and/or eight figured salary lobbyists than Democrats were. And when Miller left office as governor in 1998, he went to work as a lobbyist. Zell Miller is classic dictionary definition of political opportunist, and better yet, SCUMBAG!!!! He is no soldier, he served in the Marine Reserves and saw no combat. The only people who hate America are crazy right wing nuts, scumbags like Miller and George Dumbya Bush
kmel5150 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What an idiot!!!! War is for men with underdeveloped brains. A simple way for hick nasty guys to fly across the ocean, use a gun and come back to reap the benefits of our tax money.
skeetarbeatar 2 years ago
well why dont you just go hug our enemys and hope they dont behead you
jeremyc311709 2 years ago 7
@skeetarbeatar you're nuts
whitesox130 2 years ago
Im a Republican and we need more Democrats like him, this is old school thought. The thinking that made this country what it is today. If you dont remember the past, it will repeat.
Far left and right are facsist. They believe if you dont think like them you do not have a right to your thought.....you crazy.
chbtrucker 2 years ago 26
@chbtrucker I'm a Democrat and we need fewer of these "Democrats" like this.
johndgray1 8 months ago
@chbtrucker I'm a Democrat and we need fewer of these "Democrats" like this.It's old school alright, the type of thinking that left "Negroes" on the back of the bus.Personally I'm glad the days of segregation are over.
"Democrats and Republicans worked together" B.S. Harry Truman accomplished most of his foreign policy and domestic agenda in spite of Republican opposition.
The Great Prevaricator,St Ron of Raygun;a man who opposed the Civil Rights Act and who actually raised taxes.
johndgray1 8 months ago
@johndgray1 i think you need to check your history sir! It is the democrat party that has and continues to encourage blacks to feel cheated into a sense of entitlement from others. The Republican party itself was created to end slavery, and did. It was republicans who were marching with MLK, and we shot and killed by democrats. The kkk was founded by a democrat...It was democrats who called JFK a traitor when he supported the REPUBLICAN WRITTEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF OF 1957!
Tanner016 5 months ago
@Tanner016 Okay dickweed the Democratic Party did include slaveholders and racists,but when the Civil Roghts movement came about it sure as hell wasn't conservatvie Republicants who were in favor of passing legislation to enforce the the rights that black people were supposed to have under the Constitution.Since the end of Reconstruction the Republican Party has done nothing for African-Americans.
If the Civil Rights Act of 1957 had been any good we wouldn't have needed any further legislation.
johndgray1 5 months ago
@johndgray1 haha your total carelessness when it comes to Black history is rather funny. The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican CONSERVATIVE President, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down.
Tanner016 5 months ago
@Tanner016 Yes the Republican PArty was founded by anti-slavery activists,but since the end of Reconstruction and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision,the Republican Party pretty much did nothing for African-Americans.FDR and other Democratic Presidents couldn't send Federal troops to enforce Civil Rights legislation because of the Posse Comitatus Act and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision with its "seperate but equal" idea.No Republicant ever came out against that idea.
johndgray1 5 months ago
@johndgray1 wait, you mean republicans wont do anything for blacks as in they wont support the racist affirmative actions nonsense?
Tanner016 5 months ago
@johndgray1 shoot ahead to 1898 in Wilmington, N.C. There Democrats murdered black Republicans so they could stage, "the nation's only recorded coup d'etat." go a little ahead to 1922, Democrats in the Senate filibustered a Republican attempt to make lynching a federal crime.
Tanner016 5 months ago
@johndgray1 Go ahead slightly further where liberal democrat president FDR merely nominated a pro civil right judge and did nothing more, whereas his successor Eisenhower (CONSERVATIVE) sent troops to Arkansas to ensure schools were desegregated. But as you have stated that was before the 60's and since then EVERYTHING has changed right? WRONG!
Tanner016 5 months ago
@johndgray1 Do you recall one by the name of George "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever" Wallace standing in the door of an Alabama schoolhouse to keep black children from being able to go to school with whites?he was a post 60's liberal democrat. Remember Bull Connor turning water hoses and dogs on civil rights protesters? he was a post 60's liberal democrat.
Tanner016 5 months ago
@johndgray1 But, what about the Civil Rights Act you mentioned? That's where the Democrats really stepped up for blacks right? Wrong. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. But none of this matters to your small liberal brain. Republicans a racists you say! things are different today! Well, facts are stubborn things! Republicans have elected more black congressmen and senators than democrats.
Tanner016 5 months ago
@Tanner016 George Wallace was a conservative Democrat from Alabama;aka a "Dixiecrat". Conservative Democrats opposed Civil Rights legislation but when it became clear that their views on racew wouldn't be tolerated in the Demoocratic Party they jumped ship to the Republicant Party where their views where accomodated and welcomed.Need I mention Nixon's "Southeren Stragety"?
Colin Powell is a liberal,he believes in equal rights and affirmative action.He's a pariah in the Republican Party.
johndgray1 5 months ago
@johndgray1 BULLSHIT. 20 of the 21 Democrat Senators that opposed the civil rights act STAYED with the Democrat party. You are so full of shit your eyes are brown. It is time you stop buying the LIES your liberal masters have programed you with. The Republican party was FOUNDED on freedom for slaves and it lives up to that charge to this very day. The modern day democrats have figured out a way to keep the minorities on the plantation and under their control, they just have better P.R. now
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich I don't believe any LIES thatyour conservative masters have fed you.Okay the real truth?Civil rights after Reconsrtuction wasn't on either political party's agenda(and for the record it was a Republican that ended Reconstruction).Not until Martin Luther King started raising awarness of the plight of blacks in America did either political party really begin to pay attention.Then it was liberal Democrats(AND I STRESS THE WORD "LIBERAL") who began to say that something should be done.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 You are simply WRONG. Eisenhower introduced a bill nearly Identical to the 1964 act - in 1957 and guess who opposed it? LBJ. REPUBLICANS tried to repeal the poll taxes in 1945, 1947 and in 1945. Democrats blocked it in the Senate. You are simply an ignorant brainwashed fool who LIED about Racist democrats switching to the Republican party. They did not - and they STAYED with the Democrats and pursued their racist agenda - only they disguised it as welfare.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Welfare was part of the Great Society programs of LBJ that cut poverty in half and benefitted whites more than blacks because of the sheer numbers of whites living in poverty.
Your statement is racist on its face and brings to mind the Great Prevaricator's race baiting by assailing on the campaign trail "welfare queens driving Cadillacs."
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Welfare did no such thing. There are MORE people in poverty today than there were when it was passed and the % has not changed significantly.
Welfare is NOTHING more than a means to entrap our poor - and to control them. It is designed to make people utterly dependent - just like SS, and Medicare are. Just look at how the liberals used seniors' utter dependence on medicare to scare the living shit out of them and thus control them by LYING about Ryan's budget plan.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Bull!There might be more people in poverty today because of population increase,but the Great Society programs did indeed cut the rate of poverty in half.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Care to sight your source?
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich At that time the Democratic Party represented the interests of Southern racists.
The Posse Comitatus Act forbidding the use of Federal troops to enforce civil laws was siged into law by Rutherford B. Hayes-a Republican.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 SO WHAT. That was NOT the purpose of Posse Comitatus so that is IRRELEVANT. Quit pretending it was racist in it's motivation. The Democrat party is STILL representing the racists in America.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich No that was exactly the purpose of Posse Comitatus.It was passed into law under a Republican President to prevent the use of Federal troops being used to enforce laws such as the variious acts intended to insure the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment passed during Reconstruction.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 NO it was not. I was to remove the federal government from local policing duties and return them to their Constitutionally defined role of protecting our borders.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich No the purpose of Posse Comitatus was to prohibit the military from enforecing any of the legislation passed to secure blacks their rights under the Constitution that were passed during Reconstruction.Check your history books.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 That may have been the effect but is was not the purpose. You simply have bought the lie. This was the party that just got done fighting a war to free the slaves so please learn what the hell you are talking about before you spout such laughably ignorant crap.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%
January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation
June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich The Great Prevaricator and his conservative bedfellows were OPPOSED to the Civil; Rights Movement.St.Ron of Raygun led the charge to overturn a fair housing bill in California and was OPPOSED to the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
As for "keeping minorities on the plantation",if you're referring to affirmative action,that's the reason that we have people of color and women in postions of power.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 He opposed ONE of the fair housing bills and SUPPORTED a different one. You liberals cant tell the truth about anything. One bill was a bad bill while his that he supported was a good bill.
Why can't you guys HONESTLY characterize things instead of purposely misrepresenting people's positions?
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich No he never supported a different one.He lead the charge to make it legal to discriminate in California in housing.Unlike say,William Buckley,who before he died had the decency to say that he was wrong to oppose the Civil Rights Act,St Ron of Raygun never admitted to any regret in trying to repeal Californias Rumford Fair Housing Act or his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 You simply are factually wrong. You need to learn what the hell you are talking about. He absolutely DID support a different housing act.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich ROTFLMFAO.Ronnie,The Great Prevaricator standing up for open housing klegislation in California?
"California voters embraced both Johnson and a constitutional right to a segregrated neighborhood,as promoted by Ronald Reagan and the real estate industry."
Taylor Branch "Pillar of Fire: pages 522-523.
Oh please tell me your source for the Great Prevaricator's dedication to civil rights?
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Come on I'm waiting for your source to show me The Great Prevaricator's dedication to civil rights.
I remember that St.Ron had to aplogize to the King family when after he grudgingly signed the legislation establishing MLK day he insinuated that Dr.King was indeed a communist.
Ronnie,like all conservatives felt that " Negroes" should just be happy picking cotton and giving him a song and dance and then he'd give them a shiny dime,which they should be grateful for.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 You see, YOU have been manipulated into believing all these horrible things based on cherry-picked and out of context quotes. You are willing to disregard the entire congressional record and the documented history of Republicans that shows THEY are the party of civil rights and individual freedom.
The Liberals have convinced you via their lies and manipulations of the facts that Dems have ben the herors and that GROUP rights, instead of Individual rights are actually civil rights
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich I have not been "manipulated" I just see that the Democratic Party of today,thankfully purged of CONservatives like Zell Miller,is the champion of minorities and that the Republican Party isn't.The heroes of the Republican Party of today,the Great Prevaricator and Goldwater didn't support civil rights and the Party continues to follow in the footsteps of these people.
You still haven't given me your source for saying St Ron supported a fair housing bill in California.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 You are the one claiming that the racist Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights act all switched to the Republican party, Not I.
You obviously were manipulated into believing that. YOU are the one that tried to claim that Robinson was referring to racism against blacks when he made the Jews in Germany quote. Sorry you were sorely misinformed.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich No I wasn't isinformed the quote stands as given and is obvoiusly a reference to the hositily towards blacks on open display at the 1964 convention.
I cited my source for the quote and have even attempted to secure from the Pittsburgh Courier online the original full quote as given to its repeorter.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Yes you WERE and ARE misinformed. I GAVE you the full quote. You are simply lying.
The animosity was directed against Rockefeller - the VERY SAME people you are trying to pin the racist tag on were the very same people that voted overwhelmingly to pass the 1964 Civil Rights bill. Are you seriously suggesting that one day they bravely stood for freedom and dignity for our black brothers and then all of a sudden they just changed their minds???
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich No,the animosity was directed at black delgates to the convention and the Goldwater/Reagan Republicans had gone to great lengths to insure the fewest number of black delegates at a GOP comvention probably since its founding.
Rockefeller was a liberal and was purged from the GOP because of it.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Oh for Christ's sake - Rockefeller became the VICE PRESIDENT. He was NOT purged from the party. When will you tell the truth? Remember you are talking about MY relative here. I should know. (Go look at his middle name and my last name.) But the fact that he was not purged from the party is EASILY googled. And the FACT that he served as Ford's Vice President, can also be easily discovered.
In other words, you AGAIN have been misled - or you are lying - take your pick.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Yeah,he was selected as Ford's Vice-President.He didn't run for office wasn't nominated at a PArty convention.He was selected by one of the last decent Republicans there was.Hell,Ford had to fight like hell just to get the Republican nomination when he wanted to run in his own right.With the election of The Great Prevaricator the party of Lincoln died.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 So what. ONE person gets to be President. Not everyone gets a chance. Well according to you, the Republicans never were anti-slavery. So color me surprised when you think Reagan ended it. Never mind that minorities made HUGE economic progress under Reagan.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich The Republicant's were anti-slavery,never said they weren't.Yes blacks made HUGE economic gains during the Reagan years,IN SPITE OF and NOT BECAUSE OF The Great Prevaricator's policies.
The whole Reagan economic "miracle" was BS anyways.His tax cuts produced little economic growth and were offset for most people by the raise in Social Security tax.Once the Federal Reserve had decided that they had choked off inflationary worries and dropped interest rates the economy grew again.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 So which is it? Did Blacks make (as you said) HUGE economic gains, or was it BS?
A bit of advice, before you expose your supreme ignorance any further, I am an economist.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich yes,I'm sure your an economist;like all Republicans are economists.Which is why they are demanding a balanced budget right now and deep spending cuts.Never mind that this is exactly the wrong thing to do.
Reagan's economic plan was and remains snake oil.Tax cuts for working people were offset by the increase in Social Security tax.As I said economic progress for blacks and other minorities as well as for most wage earners came about in spite of St.Ron's policies,not because of them.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 How would they have done when they didn't get their SS check? you moron. You get you SS taxes BACK - unless it goes bankrupt - and that is what was prevented.
Keeping up govt spending,raising taxes and instituting all sorts of "jobs" programs based in the public sector is what turned a 6-8 month downturn into the GREAT DEPRESSION.That is what Obama is doing. Reagan took the WORST economy since the Depression and turned it around to one with 20 years of nearly uninterrupted growth.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich So much for you being an economist.The Reagan economic miracle was BS.The Federal Reserve raised interest rates under Carter plunging the US into a deep recession,St.Ron had hte good fortune to be President when the Federal Reserve eased interest rates and reaped the benefits of their decision to lower them.his economic plan was aptly decscribed by GHW Bush as "vodoo economics".
Obviously failed Econ 101 you did.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Now let's address you ignorance on Reagan's record. One of the main problems of Jimmy Carter's economic situation was a combination of things that came to be known as stagflation. Under the Keynesian theories of the time this was deemed not possible. Inflation was seen as a result of an overheated economy - one growing too fast and cold not exist in a slow growth economy. These same Keynesian "experts" (Paul Krugman among them) said Reagan's policies would INCREASE inflation.(cont)
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich " Keynesian theories" JM keynes was a genius and his work hasn't bee replaced or refuted by the voddo economics of the Republican Party.
Reagan encouraged interest rate hikes by the Fed?Strange how he mentioned in his diary how he hoped the Fed wouldn't raise rates and choke of economic growth.All the economic growth that occured during the Reagan years was a direcxt result of the Fed finally choking off inflation after they felt inflation was tamed they eased rates,growth resumed.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Keynesian theories turned the MILD and SHORT recession of 1929 into a decades long Great Depression. Keynesian theories led to the stagflation and economic MALAISE of the Carter years. They are PREVENTING a recovery from the current mess.
Reagan did indeed hope the Fed wouldn't choke off economic growth - but that was AFTER the recovery was underway and once inflation had already been tamed. You liberal morons seem to ignore CONTEXT. It is everything.
I
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Keysian theories did no such thing idiot.
Reagans economic plocies didn't do squat for the economy.All the credit he recieves will eventually rightfully be seen as the work of the Fed in manipulating interest rates.His policies consisted of spend ,but not tax and led us to the debt problem we have today.Keyensian economics is the standard model of economics.
WWII brought huge intervention of the governmnet into the economy,but didn't choke off the market or hurt businesses at all.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Tell you what, when you learn that Hoover did indeed increase taxes and did indeed institute several "new deal" type programs and spent HUGE percentages of the GNP on relief programs, you can BEGIN to hold a conversation with me. You don't even have a clue as to the history of who passed what laws and taxes and when the economy turned south. Go look at a timeline of the depression and compare it to the enactment of taxes and the new deal programs - you will quickly see the link.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich The "recession" of 1929 wasn't mild or short.As for non-Keysian economic policies,well Britan did essentailly nothing to stem the Great Depression's effects on its economy and they had suffered from its effects and their do-nothing policies until 1939.
The stimulus package that President Obama got passed was too small to have the necessary effect to right the economy;he needed one that was 1-1.5 trillion dollars in direct spending,he didn't propose one and we're suffering for it.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 I KNOW IT WASN"T you moron!!! Because Hoover and FDR followed Keynesian policies we ended up with a depression. I already showed you that by June of 1930 - 8 months after the crash of 1929, the unemployment rate had already fallen to 6.3%. That is simply a FACT. Also a fact is that in 1930, Hoover raised taxes and we took a sharp downturn into what then BECAME the Great Depression. Hoover enacted so many relief programs that he was accused of socialism by FDR!!!
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich You are an economist like a high school dropout is a brain surgeon.FDR's polcies were about the only thing keeping the economy going.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 How about you go check out the facts I listed. You will find that YOU have been lied to by your liberal masters.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Your government spent tax payer money to directly PREVENT a company from hiring workers
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 That direct spending is putting us back INTO a recession. The 2008 recession was OVER by June of 2009, long before any significant portion of the "stimulus" was even allocated - LET ALONE spent.
Every TEMPORARY job "created or saved" by government spending comes at the cost of 2 or 3 REAL jobs that are self sustaining in the private sector. In addition those private sector jobs ADD to the govt coffers instead of putting us further into debt.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich God!You've just proven that you aren't an economist.Every job -including those created by the government puts money in people's pocket,which they go out and spend,which puts money in other people's pockets which they in turn spend-it's called the mutiplier effect.
You're are total ignoramus.
Direct spending is the only that will keep the economy from going back into a recession
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 You have fallen for the Keynesian fallacy. There is no magic money fairy to give that money to the government in order for it to multiply. That money must 1st come OUT of the MORE EFFICIENT producer of jobs - the private sector. Thus we LOSE net jobs as a result. What you are saying is akin to taking water out of the deep end of the pool, spilling 1/3 of it on the deck, and dumping it into the shallow end and THEN expecting this method to fill the pool.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Once agian you show that you're not an economist.The mutiplier effect is for all jobs,governmet or private sector,if you put money in people's pockets they spend it.
You're wrong on the facts(Congress hasn't repealed Shrub's tax cuts and they aren't working)and just plain ignorant and of history and economics.You're a plain,simple boob who thinks he knows something when you don't.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Your ignorance and BLIND allegience to a FAILED theoretical system.You are too stupid to realize that in order to "put money in peoples pockets" as you said, it must FIRST come OUT of somebody else's pocket.THERE IS NO NET GAIN.Like I said before, there is no magic money fairy that simply waves her wand and money appears out of thin air. Govt must first TAKE that money from someone else.The place that govt TAKES $ from is FAR more efficient at producing jobs then where it sends it.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Keynessian economics hasn't failed.Tax cut ,supply-side, voodoo,trickle down economics has.
The evidence is staring right at you when you pass the uneployment office.The warmed over Reagnomics of Shrub failed.It failed to produce much economic growth and then it couldn't even sustain itself and brought a near total collapse of the economic system.If we keep following the same failed ideas were never going to have an economic recovery.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 If anybdy's talking about failed economic theories it's you.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich The mutiplier effect works regardless of who hires whom.It is a widely understood and accepted doctroine.You've shown time and agian that you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about.You should try going back to school and this time pay attention when the teacher explains these things in Macroeconomics 101.
Direct government countercyclical spending on public works programs has been shown to lead to recovery from economic downturns.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 It is accepted by ONE group of economists. The SAME economist that brought us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the Carter years AND the 2008 crash. The ONLY conservative economic policy Bush followed were the tax cuts - the rest of his policy was pure keynes and liberal in nature.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 I don't need to go back to school - the Multiplier effect is a MYTH.
If it were true, then, instead of 2 trillion, we should just spend $500 trillion dollars and all of our economic problems will be solved - yet I THINK that even someone as dull as you can see that this is not a good policy to follow.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich No the multiplier effect is accepted across economic schools.It has nothing to with JM Keynes and contrary to your calims Keyensian economics didn't bring abpout stagfasltio0n or cause the Great Depression or prolong it.
You rewally do need to go back to school.How you can claim to be an economist and no nothing about the mutiplier effect is beyond me,the teach this in high school intoductory economics for god's sake.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 I don't need to go back to school - the Multiplier effect is a MYTH.
If it were true, then, instead of 2 trillion, we should just spend $500 trillion dollars and all of our economic problems will be solved - yet I THINK that even someone as dull as you can see that this is not a good policy to follow.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Since my opinion is in line with MULTIPLE Nobel prize winning economists that actually won their Nobel prize for MACRO economics, you will forgive me if I don't take your scorn too seriously.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich No of those economists would deny the mutiplier effect.It's accepted across a wide variety of economic schools of thought.I notice that you've quit caliming that you are economist,which is good because you certainly aren't one.You've shown your total ignorance of ecoomics time and again.
Here's a test for you to see if you actually know anything about economics:How do meconomists define savings?What is savings?
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 I'll try again. This debunks the multiplier
moveleft.org/voodoo_multiplier/index.html
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich You can't "debunk" the mutiplier effect,even Milton Friedman would have acknowleged that if people have jobs they spend the earnings causing others to in turn spend the earnings they received from others buying goods or services from them.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Sorry John, but Keynesians are just about the only major school of economic thought that embraces the multiplier MYTH.
AND given the FACT that Keynesian interferences preceded every major economic downturn in the last 100 years back up the non-Keynesian arguments..
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
Comment removed
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
Comment removed
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 I know a little bit about Milton Friedman. You are wrong in saying he believed in the multiplier effect. Having jobs is one thing. No one denies that people with jobs helps continue a cycle of growth, but Government "stimulus" spending is NOT the same as people having jobs. As I have shown (but you CHOOSE to ignore) government stimulus COSTS us jobs - it does not add net jobs. It robs jobs from the private sector - in favor of FEWER jobs in temporary projects or in govt.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich You know nothing.You've proven that you are an idiot.
You've claimed to be an economist and yet you can't answer the a very basic economic question;I'll put it too you again:what is savings?
Are you trrying to tell me that if people spend money that this money doesn't circulate through the economy?Even Milton Friedman would have rejected that and no I don't think you knew Milton Friedman.Friedman worked at a level far beyond your comprhension.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Not at all, just that there is no net gain when it happens. The ONLY net gain is when we combine natural resources with human ingenuity - to CREATE something new and more valuable than the raw materials used to produce it are worth on their own. OR - when we have a net gain in things coming in from other countries. Savings at it's most basic is assets not spent. Money simply changing hands is nothing more than money changing hands.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Money changing hands is what makes the economy run.If people spend money-from whatever source-this causes others to spend money which increases economic activity.
I knew you couldn't define savings,so much for being an economist.Here's the definition of savings by economists:savings is spending delayed.
It's been over twenty years since I took macroeconomics and I still remember that.Funny how you claim to be an economist but you can't define savings.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Not arguing that, just that money changing hands is not a multiplier.
Go fuck your self . My definition has been used by economists for decades. Go look it up you moron.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Obviously you are ignorant of the the concept of synonyms.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Of course if people have money and spend it on goods and services this doea absolutely nothing for the economy,it's just money changing hands and has no economic effect at all.
What a fucking idiot.
Money changing hands as you put it is what economics is all about.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Learn to READ you mental midget. I said there is a difference between cash flow and the mythical multiplier. Cash flow does indeed occur, but there IS NO MULTIPLIER. It is a myth.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich If anybody's a mental midget it would be you.You don't have any clue about economics.
The mutiplier effect works,if it didn't there would be no economic gain at all,no increase in money supply and no mincrease in goods and services.
What an absolute moron you are!
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 You simply don't know what you are talking about THERE IS NO SPENDING MULTIPLIER.
As I have linked to earlier, my views on this are shared by Nobel Prize winning economists. Economists that actually won their Nobel Prize in the field of MACRO economics.
The increase in the economy is not due to spending by government but by the combination of raw materials into USEFUL things.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALIKIG ABOUT!There most certainly is a spending mutiplier.You know nothing about economics,which isn't surprising given that you are a conservative idiot.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALIKING ABOUT!There most certainly is a spending mutiplier.You know nothing about economics,which isn't surprising given that you are a conservative idiot.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 How about you tell me about all of those multiplier jobs that we gained with the government spending on Solyndra?
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 When government spends money , it must first take it OUT of the economy and the efficiency LOST by running it through the bureaucracy makes the exchange a NET LOSS.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich No it doesn't.
Yes the private sector is so efficient at creating jobs that we don't have 9+ percent unemployment and the private sector didn't almost crash the economy and send us into a second Great Depression.
Your argument doesn't hold water.Eisenhower stimulated the economy with the interstate highway program and that didn't cause a net loss of money,by hiring contractoors to build the highways it created jobs that otherwise wouldn't have been there.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 We have 9+ % unemployment BECAUSE of the government spending and because of govt programs. The recession ended BEFORE virtually any stimulus money had even been allocated, let alone spent. ALWAYS - after the end of a recession we have a BOOM in hiring - except THIS one - which was curiously accompanied by MASSIVE govt spending. Coincidence? I think not. The MAIN reason businesses are not hiring is because of govt programs restricting lending, creating uncertainty and sapping cash.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Actually we have 9+ % unemploymeny(and not worse)because of what little effect the stimulus had.
There are no government programs restricting lending and the recession has ended only in the sense that things aren't getting worse,literally the words of those who declared the recession over.
If we'd gone with the correct amount of spending(aproximately $1.5 trillion,ten percent of 14-15 trillion dollar economy)we would wouldn't be talking about a recession & unemployment.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 There are REAMS of regulations preventing loans and jobs in JUST the Dodd-Frank bill. THat bill does NOTHING to prevent the too big to fail banks from failing and yet it is DESTROYING smaller community banks.
YOUR side is the one that said things were getting better and the recession "officially" ended back in June of 2009 - that is my POINT. Normally after the end of a recession, you have very good job creation - yet BECAUSE of the spending we are slipping BACK into recession
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Too big to fail banks should be broken up and made smaller,no argument there.There are no "reams" of regulations preventing any bank from loaning money.
Mor B.S froman idiot who doesn't understand economics.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Dodd Frank ABSOLUTELY DOES impose HUGE restrictions and costs on Community banks.
financialservices.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FinancialServices-DoddFrank-REPORT.pdf
Copy that & put it into your address bar (SKIP THE 3 w's)
Here is what Politifact said about the bill - in a fact-check that they DISPUTED a claimed opponent put forth.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 (continued from earlier post)
"We sampled the calculations, and consulted several academics and lawyers involved in studying Dodd-Frank. The consensus is that the 2.2 million number is reasonable, if not low. Indeed, just one part of one rule had an estimate of 604,800 hours."
They disputed it because the congressman was LOW in his estimate of the damage it does to community banks and because he did not say "MID-sized" in his claims - he only said "small banks".
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich politifactDOTcom/wisconsin/statements/2011/aug/22/sean-duffy/rep-sean-duffy-says-small-banks-will-have-spend-22/
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
Comment removed
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 If we had spent $1.5 trillion we would be around 13-14% unemployment - if not worse. That is exactly what Hoover did (also he increased taxes) that set off the Great Depression. After the 1929 crash caused unemployment to spike up to 9%, we were on our way to recovery. In fact, unemployment had fallen to 6.3% in June of 1930. THEN Hoover increased government spending and raised taxes (just exactly what you advocate NOW), and we soon had > 20% unemployment and a DEPRESSION.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich If we increased government spending on public works we would have less unemployment than we do now.I refer you again to Eisenhower's idea for putting people to work,building highways.Increase in government spending during WWII did not lead to mass unemployment.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Hey DUMBASS during WWII a HUGE % of our workforce was overseas fighting the war!!!! What happened when we raised taxes & spending in 1930??? We went from 6.3% unemployment to 20 - PLUS percent unemployment. What happened when we raised taxes and increased regulations in 1937?? we went from 12.3% unemployment to over 20% AGAIN!
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Hey Dumbass we still increased taxes and regulations and government spending in WWII and it didn't cause mass unemploymnet crash the stock market agian or have any negative effect on the economy;we had increased employment and rising incomes.
Uneploymnet went up in 1930 because the stock market crash of 1929 spread to the banking system,it increased again in 1936 due to the Federal Reserve raising reserve requirements,not due to increased government spending.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Oh for Christ's sake. ONCE AGAIN, but this time I'll type REALLY SLOW so EVEN you can understand. During WWII the entire free industrialized world was reduced to rubble EXCEPT for North America.
We had NO COMPETITION and in addition to this, we had a HUGE demand from the other countries that could not produce much AND in addition to this, a very large % of our workforce was overseas and thus we had fewer workers to employ - thus low unemployment. Do you use your brain at all???
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich I know you don't use your brain.By looking at your posts I can see that your ability ot process information and think has atrophied,but then save for a few rare exceptions,conseratives can't think.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 You said raising taxes and spending didn't cause mass unemployment and crash the economy again - WHAT, was the Great Depression not enough????
After the Crash of 1929, unemployment did indeed spike up to 9% that December, but by June of 1930 it had already fallen to 6.3% - the "Depression" was OVER and things were improving. It never would have been a Depression EXCEPT we raised taxes in 1930 and Hoover began creating New Deal type programs to help the economy.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich The New Deal programs instituted by Roosevelt replaced the ineffective small scale programs that began under Hoover.Your hero,Milton Friedman downplayed the effects of Smoot -HawleyAct on the Great Depression,with good reason since 60% of imports weren't subject to tarrifs.
The RFC was created by Hoover to investigate the soundness of businesses and lend them money to keep operating.
The right to form a union and bargian with employers didn't make the Depression worse.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Right after the passage of the Wagner act, unemployment soared back into the 20% range.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Monetary policy absolutely had a lot to do with the Depression - but it does not explain the recovery that happened in early 1930 and then the dip into the depths of the Depression that occurred after the tax increases and the National Recovery Act and the rest of the various "relief" programs. It also does not explain the recovery that was occurring in the mid 1930's that happened when the Supreme court began ruling many of FDR's programs unconstitutional - thus ENDING them.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich I said the National Recovery Act, but meant the Reconstruction Finance Corporation - a government program that was designed to --- Come on I bet you can't guess!!!
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich The recovery of the mid-thirties was do to those programs like the CCC that hired people and put them to work-these were never ruled unconstitutional.The NRA by trying to restirct production was doomed to failure;after it was ruled unconstitutional FDR and the New Dealers focused on programs to increase consumption
The dip that occured in 1937-1938 was caused by the Federal Reserve tightening the money supply by raising bank reserve requiremnets.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 That is simply not true. The economy got WORSE as these programs were put in place and it got BETTER as they ended.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 FDR’s own Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, seemed to disagree with you. He wrote: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. ... We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight yearsof this Administration we have
just as much unemployment as when we started ... and an enormous debt to boot!”
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Morgenthau-the man who wanted to repeat the mistakes of Versaiiles after WWII?Yeah a real economic genius.
The unemployment was caused by the collapse of the stock market and the banks and if we'd done nothing we wouldn't have solved any problems.The economy,aided by the New Deal,was starting to recover by 1939.If we had done nothing,we wouldn't have even started to recover by 1941.
The Wagner Act,allowing people to unionize,had nothing to with any downturn in the economy.
johndgray1 4 months ago
@johndgray1 Well, Morganthau was correct. The facts bear that out. They spent TONS of money and had NOTHING to show for it. If you consider a DECADE of double digit unemployment success, I don't know what else to say. In 1939 we recovered because we were supplying the allies with war materials. If we had done nothing there NEVER would have been a Depression. The Wagner act preceded ANOTHER dip into 20% unemployment.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich Wagner Act and increased unemployment=post hoc ergo propter hoc.Actually it doesn't even equal that.
We had a decade of double digit unemployment becasue we had a collapse of the stock market and the banking system and a foolish decision by the Federal Reserve in 1936 to tighten reserve requirements for banks.
It was the New Deal public works programs that kept the economy from collapsing completly.
If we had followed adivice from idiots like you the country would off than it was.
johndgray1 4 months ago
Comment removed
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
@johndgray1 We had ALREADY RECOVERED FROM THE CRASH and we did so before ANY new deal type program was in place. Unemployment had dropped from 9% to 6.3% until we raised taxes and started spending money.
That is simply a fact.
We DID follow advice from idiots like YOU and we got a Depression. We already KNOW what your prescriptions lead to and it isn't good.
We also know what advice like mine leads to. Reagan ushered in two decades of neary uninterrupted prosperity and we STILL benefit today.
ToddAldrich 4 months ago
Comment removed
johndgray1 4 months ago
@ToddAldrich No we hadn't.The stock market didn't recover it's full value until the Eisenhower Adminstration and the stock market crash led to the bank panics,which further exacerbated the economic problems we were going through.
Oh,yes please tell me how we "still benefit" from the economic policies of the Great Prevaricator.I'l tell that to the people who lost their savings in the stock market and the people who's houses are being foreclosed on.
johndgray1 4 months ago
Comment removed
ToddAldrich 4 months ago