SpecialK(y) I also notice that the Barack Gold Boot Youth have yanked their initial video….

if it is/was such a wholesome activity that does no harm to THE ONE why owuld they do that?

sven10077 on October 7, 2008 at 7:25 AM

sven10077 on October 7, 2008 at 7:23 AM

Like Obama you manage to dodge the central questions.

Epic post? What are you auditioning for? Only Obama uses the word epic when referring to himself. Are you beginning to see the light now? And you think Obama will bring in the black helos to catch you writing an epic post?

Get some air and go into the real world a couple of times a week. You’ve lost perspective.

Bradky on October 7, 2008 at 7:29 AM

On a second point note that with the irregularities on the part of Frank, Waters, and others and especially Dodd the Democrats MUST win. If they don’t it means their careers are busted. And in some cases they visit club fed for corruption. If Obama wins, they get pardons as needed.

herself on October 7, 2008 at 7:32 AM

FDR’s policies were very much responsible for the length of the GD.

Prior to the GD no US downturn had lasted more than three years, and NEVER in US history had a “depression within a depression” occured.

Economies are NOT “car motors” subject to a wrench turn here and a minor tweak there….

One of the myths about the “cause”(as if one thing caused it)of the GD is that it was out of control capitalism and the collapse of the stock market over the course of two weeks in October. People who subscribe to this view are ignoring the contraction of money, idiotic overregulation of banks, and increasing of tariffs, and they are WILLFULLY ignorant of the true interventionist nature of Hoover. Hoover has been trasformed by the mythmakers who worship FDR into this cowering icon of laissez-faire and NOTHING could be further from the truth.

The so-called “progressive” movement was sheltered in its infancy by another Roosevelt in another party and Hoover was a TR type Republican. Hoover was the true father of “Alphabet Soup and the new deal” as evidenced by his establishment of the Reconstruction finance Corporation during his admin-hardly the act of either a laissez-faire believer or a ‘lazy do-nothing President’.

The RFC extended loans to smaller town banks and was kept on as a cornerstone of FDR’s admin. The problem is that the RFC was used as a political tool as much as a recovery based one. Jesse Holman Jones was notorious for using RFC assets to extend loans to “persons of interest” in regions and then inform them of what types of legislation would affect the RFC.

Hoover was anything BUT a laissez-faire man. He was responsible for the WW1 version of the “Marshall plan” whereby we aided Belgium through his Commission for the Relief of Belgium. He also arranged for the transport of 120,000 or so Americans back from Europe.

He had seen the Wilsonian war measures not as an indicator of the sacrifices the economy must make during wartime, but as a harbinger of a “better way to do things”. Hoover had intimate dealings and knowledge of the various war boards including(but not limited to) the War Finance Corporation, the War Industries Board, and the war trade Board. Hoover along with many who served in Wilson’s wartime administration were the ultimate believers in the power of the US government towork miracles in the time of emergency.(a shaky proposition given the low percentage of national industrial base that was required to do our part in WW1)

Hoover was also a huge believer in the “high wages can get us out of ANY downturn” school of thought that was prevalent at the time. The fact that this doctrine is now considered akin to a Grimm’s fairy tale makes it hard to grasp how much sway the notion had at that time. For all the Unionite bluff and bluster about “Henry Ford the demon” he was the original proponent of this school of thought in heavy industry always paying at least 75% higher than the prevailing wage and often paying double. The trouble was that these higher wages resulted in higher costs for the product…..(do a google and see how long you could buy a new model-t for under 500 bucks)

Several noteworthy economists of the era(and not Chiteng brand historian ones either) defended this notion. Hoover was not the master orator Roosevelt was, but he was far from the crippled foal the FDR legions portray. He called several conferences of industrial leaders and encouraged them to maintain high wages. Hoover believed that the massive money contraction policies of the Fed would and should hit profits rather than wages, and he told this to Henry Ford, Alfred Sloan, and others.

The problem was that Hoover’s efforts to maintain wages above the market was a disaster-as John T. Flynn noted in the Jan 1933 issue of Harpers, “prices must come down to bring goods closer to the size of available income…..income itself must be freed for purchasing by the extinguishments of excessive debts. Whether we like it or not, this is what takes place. Any attempts to hold up prices or save the weaker debtors necessarily prolongs the depression.” The inherent fallacy of the purchasing power school is that it doesn’t increase total purchasing power-it merely concentrates it in the employee base. The employees have more money to spend but the business and investors have less. All the policy accomplishes is an alteration in the distribution of revenue, not in the total purchasing power of an economy.

Hoover was also the Godfather of governmental spending as a panacea to boost the economy out of a downturn. He urged Gubenatorial and Municipal governments to engage in as many public works projects as he could. The governor of New York pledged his support-his name Was franklin delano roosevelt.(the funny thing is not a lot came of this because the majority of state and city budgets had other duties but the point here is that Hoover was hardly the “lapdog of the wealthy” people like to remember him as-also public works require folks with construction skills not unskilled laborers who were the hardest hit sector)

Hoover seldom met a farm subsidy he didn’t like, but the root of the matter was that too many farmers were tilling too many acres and the traiff warfare the politicos of both sides engaged in in that day meant that we had no ability to shunt excess production. This happened because of alteration to the European market made by WW1-Russia was not in the farming business and the wheat had to be made up by the US, Oz and Canada. This market condition was given a bodyblow as European production came back online as the recovery from WW1 progressed, the result of many European nations erecting massive tariffs to “protect our domestic farmers” was that their markets were now effectively closed to the overproduction of the nations that had fed them during the war.

Farmers are a powerful lobby and they exerted pressure for subsidization to avoid as many cutbacks as possible. They continued to be burdened with overproduction and low price structure throughout the 20s. In 1926 Coolidge agreed to have the US purchase excess cotton in order to maintain the high price of cotton-the guy who did it for him? hissecretary of commerce Herbert Hoover. By 1930 Congress was was authorizing the Federal Farm Board to increase subsidiztion by about 100 million-hardly the act of a laissez-faire champion of unfettered capitalism.

In 1929 Hoover asked for higher Tariffs on agricultural tariffs and the House way and means men listened. Of course it was becoming increasingly evident that you couldn’t isolate such high tariffs to one sector of the economy. EVERY sector wanted higher tariffs on their products.(now why is this ah yes it allows the artificial boosting of higher prices for inferior product) As a lobbyist for Big Silk said in his testimony, “I have never felt that it was a consistent position for one man to try and advocate duties for his own products and object for duties for another person.” by the time the hearings were over the record had 20,000 pages of testimony.

The result of this was the famed Smoot-Hawley Tariff which raised import duties an average of about 60% on more than 25,000 agri commodities and manufactured goods-happy days are here again! The US stock market took a plunge the day after it was signed on June the 18th(remember Black Tuesday and Thursday were a half year old but the market had recovered to 85% of peak at the time) It seems that 60 countries decided that Smoot-Hawley was two steps shy of an act of war and retaliated by targeting those goods that they felt would impact America hardest, and that was not the reciprocal goods of the tariff but other products thus damaging random and disparate businesses here in the US.(a panic set in)

Nothing like pissing off neighbors who are in debt to you and denying them a market to attain the wealth they needed to make the payments on their war debt eh?

We decided that Canada needed to take a hit in EVERY major export they had. Halibut, Potatoes, cattle, wheat, and lumber. Hoover managed to deliver body blows to every province in Canada, but why stop there let’s screw the English too(who at that time were the ultimate champions of free trade and free markets not us). The British unleashed the Import duties Act(of 1932) that was their first general tariff in 100 years, and part II specifically penalized nations with penalties on British goods by a 100% duty(like the US).

Thing was….the stupidity that led to the worldwide implosion of economies was largely a bipartisan effort…..

If you’d like I could go on, but Chittles although outgunned will hardly be impressed….

see all my knowledge is “just there to pad my bias” after all…..

http://www.madcowssteakhouse.com/viewtopic.php?p=177870&highlight=smoothawley#177870

sven10077 on October 7, 2008 at 7:38 AM

On a second point note that with the irregularities on the part of Frank, Waters, and others and especially Dodd the Democrats MUST win. If they don’t it means their careers are busted. And in some cases they visit club fed for corruption. If Obama wins, they get pardons as needed.

herself on October 7, 2008 at 7:32 AM

Bingo…

They usually gin up between 2-5% in fraud unless I miss my guess….look for 5-8% this go around….

any investigations will, of course, be “racist”….

sven10077 on October 7, 2008 at 7:41 AM

Dummy! because the teacher who got fired for posting it probably was asked to pull it.

Not everything is a vast left wing conspiracy…. saaaay isn’t that is your second cup of coffee. Careful a third cup is not healthy.

Bradky on October 7, 2008 at 7:39 AM

Brad darling that the teacher(unnamed) was “fired” should be immaterial if it was “such a healthy thing for the campaign”….

Fact is Barry’s backers got caught with their hands in the cookie jar again just like fraudulent sub 200 buck donors. I never said there was a dark conspiracy I am mocking your Machts Nichts decorum on political indoctrination as part of a school curriculum. Considering the donks spend their time decrying non-partisan civics classes in some locales their use of kids in campaign material is pretty funny.

I drink Milk with Hershey’s lite syrup for breakfast….

am also about ready to hit the treadmill after I take lad to school and then dropping by my shop.

You have any other helpful advice while you either march proudly into worker’s paradise or put your blinders back on?

sven10077 on October 7, 2008 at 7:45 AM

Well, what else does this dim-witted, syphilitic, ugly little corrupt pervert have?

Frank can’t say that he knows what he’s doing. Everyone knows that’s not the case.

He can blame it on the idiot Democrat leadership for putting a fecal matter encrusted little troll like him in charge of something he knows nothing at all about. That would bring heat from above.

So he relies on the ol’ shopworn excuse of racism.

Although in his case, it’s trollism.

NoDonkey on October 7, 2008 at 8:21 AM

So as Rome burns Frank is fiddling around with the fiddler. Apparently his boyfriend (Herb Moses?) was an executive with Fannie Mae. Which opens up the definition of receiving “favors”.

These back door politics have to stop…

right2bright on October 7, 2008 at 8:44 AM

Criticizing Obama means we’re racists. Criticizing Congress means we’re racists. Getting angry at Congress for pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into buying bad loans and infecting the entire financial system with essentially fraudulent paper — at a cost of up to $700 billion in taxpayer money and potentially trillions in lost investments — means we’re racists.

Welcome to the new reality. If Obama wins, we will melt down into a leftist dictatorship because to criticize him (and now, apparently, the Dem congress) is racist, and there are only too many in the MSM who will be willing to destroy lives by pinning the racist label on anyone and everyone who dares question the One.

We have dark days ahead of us. I’m convinced of that now.

crazy_legs on October 7, 2008 at 8:45 AM

CRA pushed banks to loan to less qualified people on suspect income and identity documentation. The same rules were applied to speculators buying 2, 3, or more investment houses. Ergo, CRA caused this problem.

Vashta.Nerada on October 7, 2008 at 9:20 AM

Impeach Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and while we’re at it, let’s throw Hussein Obama into the mix. Two whites and a half white doesn’t seem racist to me…..

adamsmith on October 7, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Sorry, that was clearly racist of me…

sabbott on October 7, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Racism is the last refuge of scoundrels in 2008, and not surprisingly, we find most of those scoundrels in the Democratic Party.

I agree with the first part of the sentence, but I know I’ve seen more than once the argument that permitting women the choice to have an abortion is racist because black women chose to have abortions.

thuja on October 7, 2008 at 10:28 AM

Criticism of Congress is now racist not allowed

I thought you all knew better…unless a Republican is being criticised

NoFanofLibs on October 7, 2008 at 11:03 AM

“They’re aware that the affordable-housing goals of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and) the Community Reinvestment Act (aim to help) poor people. And let’s be honest, the fact that some poor people are black doesn’t hurt either from their standpoint.”

Gee, I honestly never equated “poor people” with “black people” and I grew up in a town that’s about 35 miles from Capitol Hill. Maybe Barney should get out of the Boston suburbs — or quit hanging around Dupont Circle — and experience a dose of reality.

Putz.

Y-not on October 7, 2008 at 11:49 AM

Off topic: from that picture and others I’ve seen it looks like Mr. Frank’s lips have been completely worn away. What happened to that poor guy?

DarkCurrent on October 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM

In the interest of decorum, I hate to speculate. Probably the peddlers of soft porn at Ace of Spades have a theory! ;-)

Y-not on October 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM

Off topic: from that picture and others I’ve seen it looks like Mr. Frank’s lips have been completely worn away. What happened to that poor guy?

DarkCurrent on October 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM

So many avenues…so little time…

sabbott on October 7, 2008 at 7:26 PM