Post by: Perd Hapley on February 08, 2008, 09:30:30 AM
What say you?
Post by: Paddy on February 08, 2008, 09:36:24 AM
Post by: vernal45 on February 08, 2008, 09:45:33 AM
Post by: trapperready on February 08, 2008, 09:53:09 AM
Post by: ilbob on February 08, 2008, 09:55:30 AM
Rush Limbaugh has just named Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as the next Ronald Reagan.
What say you?
I say it is a bit early to be naming the next Reagan. There are not many leaders to come along like Reagan. We have seen only a few in the last 100 years.
What say you?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 08, 2008, 10:22:44 AM
I say that Rush is a bloviating gasbag.
I would say that meaningless personal attacks don't add to the thread, but then I wouldn't get any responses at all.
Why? Does he want to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy while raising payroll taxes on the middle class and then steal and squander the money?
Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what he meant when said that.
Post by: trapperready on February 08, 2008, 11:03:18 AM
Quote
I would say that meaningless personal attacks don't add to the thread, but then I wouldn't get any responses at all.
fistful - If Mr. Limbaugh is a contributor to this thread, then I guess that would be considered a personal attack. Since that's highly unlikely, it's just my opinion of him. Back in 1990 and 1991, I used to listen to him frequently while driving through Illinois. I probably listened off and on until about 1996, so it's fair to say that I'm not speaking from ignorance.
Let's just say that his schtick got old. Very old. Furthermore, it's not even much of an attack:
Quote
bloviate \BLOH-vee-ayt\, intransitive verb:
To speak or write at length in a pompous or boastful manner.
To speak or write at length in a pompous or boastful manner.
Quote
gas?bag /ˈg?sˌb?g/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[gas-bag] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1. a bag for holding gas, as in a balloon or dirigible.
2. Slang. a talkative, boastful person; windbag.
noun
1. a bag for holding gas, as in a balloon or dirigible.
2. Slang. a talkative, boastful person; windbag.
I may be guilty of a little redundancy, but to call Mr. Limbaugh talkative and boastful is quite accurate.
Politically, I'm an unabashed conservative. However, I am sick to death of all the overly shrill "pundits" of whatever ilk. So, when you ask "What say you?" about some comment made by Rush, my first thought is along the lines of my original comment.
As far as your actual intent, I'm not familiar enough with Governor Jindal to have an opinion, but I'm happy to do a little research.
Post by: 30 cal slob on February 08, 2008, 11:09:55 AM
Bobby Jindal ROCKS.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 08, 2008, 11:15:39 AM
Post by: MrRezister on February 08, 2008, 11:32:34 AM
I wouldn't mind, I just wish there was some substance to your post. Even Riley out-did you there.
Ooooh, burn!
Not to unhijack the thread or anything, but I appreciate Limbaugh looking out for future leaders, but other than that, he's amusing background noise. W/r/t Jindal, I had to look him up, and I found his "31 Point Ethics Plan" for Louisiana, which includes points like "Require all legislators and statewide elected officals to disclose their sources of income, assets, and liabilities" in order to "address potential conflicts of interest". And "Demand consistent, independant enforcement of State ethics laws". It goes on quite a bit, but most of it sounds pretty good. He might be worth watching, except that he's
Post by: seeker_two on February 08, 2008, 11:57:58 AM
Post by: trapperready on February 08, 2008, 02:41:57 PM
Quote
You were talking about Rush, personally, rather than the thread topic.
Hold the presses!! Someone posted a comment in the Internet that wasn't directly related to a thread topic.
The horror!!!!
Look, Jindal may actually be the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. Your initial post was pretty brief, as in:
Quote
Rush Limbaugh has just named Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal as the next Ronald Reagan.
What say you?
What say you?
That could mean "What do you think about Bobby Jindal?" or " What do you think about Rush Limbaugh calling him the next Reagan?". You probably meant the former. I took the latter, and shortened my response too far.
Perhaps a more complete answer would be:
Governor Jindal is someone I've not heard much about. I'll have to check into it before I render an opinion. However, I am extremely leary of people proclaiming that someone is the next someone else. For me, Rush Limbaugh is not someone I care to take cues from.
BTW, if "personal attacks" on public figures were disallowed, you could probably back up the entire Internet on a 3.5" floppy.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on February 08, 2008, 02:50:32 PM
Quote
As far as your actual intent, I'm not familiar enough with Governor Jindal to have an opinion, but I'm happy to do a little research.
Was that so hard?
Post by: trapperready on February 08, 2008, 04:20:05 PM
Quote
Was that so hard?
No. Not at all. Perhaps I should have added a bunch of smilies and things.
Looking into Jindal's background, he sounds like he's on the right-wing of the Republican party (compared to many we see right now). He's also an unabashed dreamer if he honestly thinks he can get meaningful ethics reform going in Louisiana. I wish him the best of luck, but that's going to be a tough one.
fistful - What exact comparisons did Limbaugh make between Jindal and Reagan? Were they specifically to Reagan, or just the idealized version of Reagan's policies and positions?
Post by: MechAg94 on February 08, 2008, 04:42:33 PM
Other than taxes, regulation, and foreign policy, I am not sure what else Reagan really stood for in reality.
Post by: Lee on February 08, 2008, 07:56:32 PM
But who knows; maybe when the American people get tired of a very liberal African-American President Obama, they'll crave a conservative Indian American President Jindal. Who woulda thunk it....considering that Catholicism was once perceived to be a huge issue for JFK.
Post by: stevelyn on February 09, 2008, 04:08:09 AM
Post by: anygunanywhere on February 09, 2008, 05:32:20 AM
Of course, I do not spend much time around where Katrina did the most damage so what do I know?
Anygunanywhere
Post by: Tecumseh on February 09, 2008, 11:15:55 AM
Do we know of any politicians who actually don't give lip service to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? What about that Ron Paul guy? How are his stances on the issues? Is he for big government like the rest of the GOP candidates? What about corporate donations? Does he take those? What about his record on gun rights? How about the right to privacy?
Anyone got any information on him?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 09, 2008, 12:02:00 PM
Thank you.
Post by: Tecumseh on February 09, 2008, 01:35:11 PM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 09, 2008, 02:45:36 PM
My apologies. However I still think Ron Paul is the closest thing we will have to a small government politician. It seems that every other politician seems to support expanding government power and authority.
Hello? What does Ron Paul (and I agree with the "small" part of your statement--his positions are very small indeed) have to do with Bobby Jindal or Ronald Reagan?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 09, 2008, 02:48:12 PM
Post by: trapperready on February 09, 2008, 04:29:14 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 09, 2008, 05:12:56 PM
Limbaugh Letter: Interview with Bobby Jindal
It was an off-hand comment, that came up in a discussion of who might be McCain's running mate.
Quote from: Rush Limbaugh
I'll tell you.... I'm going to give you a name that would make me jump for joy. It's not going to happen because he's not been...
Bobby Jindal. I did an interview with Bobby Jindal. He is the next Ronald Reagan, if he doesn't change. Bobby Jindal, the new governor of Louisiana is the next Ronald Reagan. He's young. He was just sworn in for his first term. He's the guy that beat the liberal Democrat machine throughout Louisiana. He did it on 100% conservatism. We interviewed him for The Limbaugh Letter about three issues ago. In fact, I am hereby ordering the editrix of The Limbaugh Letter, Diana Schneider to make -- since it's a past issue -- the interview with Bobby Jindal in The Limbaugh Letter available at RushLimbaugh.com this afternoon. You can send it up to Koko as a PDF file or text or whatever you want. This guy could be the next Ronald Reagan. If McCain chose him, here's a Southern state; this is Louisiana, but I think he may be too conservative for McCain. That depends on who they think McCain will need or want, but Jindal is very young, and he's only in his first year as governor and doesn't really have... He came from the House of Representatives. Also being talked about is Haley Barbour...
Bobby Jindal. I did an interview with Bobby Jindal. He is the next Ronald Reagan, if he doesn't change. Bobby Jindal, the new governor of Louisiana is the next Ronald Reagan. He's young. He was just sworn in for his first term. He's the guy that beat the liberal Democrat machine throughout Louisiana. He did it on 100% conservatism. We interviewed him for The Limbaugh Letter about three issues ago. In fact, I am hereby ordering the editrix of The Limbaugh Letter, Diana Schneider to make -- since it's a past issue -- the interview with Bobby Jindal in The Limbaugh Letter available at RushLimbaugh.com this afternoon. You can send it up to Koko as a PDF file or text or whatever you want. This guy could be the next Ronald Reagan. If McCain chose him, here's a Southern state; this is Louisiana, but I think he may be too conservative for McCain. That depends on who they think McCain will need or want, but Jindal is very young, and he's only in his first year as governor and doesn't really have... He came from the House of Representatives. Also being talked about is Haley Barbour...
Post by: trapperready on February 09, 2008, 08:50:54 PM
Post by: Scout26 on February 10, 2008, 08:48:20 AM
Don't hear much of that talk these days.
Keep an eye on Gov Jindal, sure. If he stays true to his conservative beliefs and gains some experience, then yes, he could be.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 10, 2008, 09:27:36 AM
And in case anyone's curious, he was born in Baton Rouge, so is eligible to run for President.
Post by: ilbob on February 11, 2008, 06:34:52 AM
I think Rush is right about at least one thing, the message is what is important. Tha package less so.
Smaller government (not small government), more personal liberty (not anarchy), and strong national defense are the things that resonate with a majority of Americans.
Post by: MrRezister on February 11, 2008, 06:37:45 AM
Smaller government (not small government), more personal liberty (not anarchy), and strong national defense are the things that resonate with a majority of Americans.
Yes, as evidenced by the current crop of frontrunners.
Post by: grampster on February 11, 2008, 05:01:37 PM
Post by: Paddy on February 11, 2008, 05:10:00 PM
Post by: seeker_two on February 12, 2008, 01:23:55 AM
Fools. I am the new Reagan.
No......Reagan was the new Grampster.....
Post by: MrRezister on February 12, 2008, 04:15:27 AM
No......Reagan was the new Grampster.....
HE SAYS THAT YOU ARE OLD!
Turn up your frickin' frackin' hearing aid.
Post by: ilbob on February 12, 2008, 04:21:53 AM
Reagan is only a hero to corporatists, exploiters, and rubes. To the real producers of this nation (the middle class), he's a parasite.
interesting since reagan's tax cuts benefited the middle class pretty substantially, and he was the guy that came up with the earned income credit which was put in place to balance off the increases in fica tax.
Post by: Scout26 on February 12, 2008, 04:56:55 AM
Quote from: Ilbob
he was the guy that came up with the earned income credit which was put in place to balance off the increases in fica tax
I thought it was Nixon (or during his adminstration) that the EIC was invented 
Yep, and to make Fistful happy: here's my documentation/proof:
http://www.nber.org/digest/aug06/w11729.html
Quote
The EITC began in 1975 as a modest program aimed at offsetting the Social Security payroll tax for low-income families with children. The design of the credit was the result of a vigorous public debate around the disincentive effects of a Negative Income Tax (NIT) proposed by the Nixon Administration. The NIT would allow a transfer that is taxed away at a constant flat rate for all taxpayers. To offset the resulting disincentive effects, the EITC was made available only to workers; the maximum credit was earned, and the credit was phased out only after an untaxed region.
Reagan expanded it:
http://www.caseygrants.org/documents/reports/MCF_EITC_Paper.pdf
Quote
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was originally enacted in 1975, in the wake of the failure of
President Nixons proposed Family Assistance Plan. Although it began as a temporary and limited
alternative to President Nixons proposal, the EITC has, in the years since, been made permanent
and been refined and expanded. In 1986, the EITC was a critical reason why President Reagan
could proclaim that the Tax Reform Act took millions of working poor off the income tax rolls, and
there were important further expansions in 1990 and 1993. Further, the EITC has been amended
several times to address noncompliance problems and to try to simplify the filing process, and the
IRS has undertaken programs of enhanced enforcement and expanded outreach to educate potentially
eligible taxpayers about the credit. In addition, since 1997, the EITC has been complemented
by a Child Tax credit that provides additional benefits to many families.
President Nixons proposed Family Assistance Plan. Although it began as a temporary and limited
alternative to President Nixons proposal, the EITC has, in the years since, been made permanent
and been refined and expanded. In 1986, the EITC was a critical reason why President Reagan
could proclaim that the Tax Reform Act took millions of working poor off the income tax rolls, and
there were important further expansions in 1990 and 1993. Further, the EITC has been amended
several times to address noncompliance problems and to try to simplify the filing process, and the
IRS has undertaken programs of enhanced enforcement and expanded outreach to educate potentially
eligible taxpayers about the credit. In addition, since 1997, the EITC has been complemented
by a Child Tax credit that provides additional benefits to many families.
here's more documentation
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL31768_20070315.pdf
Page CRS-20 (or 24 in your PDF viewer)
Quote
Appendix 1. Legislative History of the EITC
The idea that became the EITC first arose during congressional consideration
of President Nixons 1971 welfare reform proposal. Nixons proposal, the Family
Assistance Plan, would have helped working poor, two-parent families with children
by means of a federal minimum cash guarantee that would have replaced the
federal-state welfare program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Work Bonus Plan (1972-1974 Proposals)
The EITC was patterned after a proposal, then known as a work bonus for the
working poor, recommended by the Senate Finance Committee in April 1972.
Though the idea originated as an alternative to the proposed Family Assistance
Program, the work bonus provision was advocated as a refund of Social Security
taxes paid by employers and employees on low annual earnings and was to have been
available only for wages subject to Social Security taxation.
The Senate approved the work bonus plan in 1972, 1973, and 1974, but the
House did not accept it until 1975.
Enactment of EITC in 1975
The Tax Reduction Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-12) included a provision that
established, in Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code, a refundable credit to tax
filers with incomes below $8,000. This earned income credit was to equal 10% of
the first $4,000 of any earnings (including earnings not subject to Social Security
taxation) and thus could not exceed $400 per year. The credit was to be phased out,
at a rate of 10%, for adjusted gross income (AGI) above $8,000.
The idea that became the EITC first arose during congressional consideration
of President Nixons 1971 welfare reform proposal. Nixons proposal, the Family
Assistance Plan, would have helped working poor, two-parent families with children
by means of a federal minimum cash guarantee that would have replaced the
federal-state welfare program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Work Bonus Plan (1972-1974 Proposals)
The EITC was patterned after a proposal, then known as a work bonus for the
working poor, recommended by the Senate Finance Committee in April 1972.
Though the idea originated as an alternative to the proposed Family Assistance
Program, the work bonus provision was advocated as a refund of Social Security
taxes paid by employers and employees on low annual earnings and was to have been
available only for wages subject to Social Security taxation.
The Senate approved the work bonus plan in 1972, 1973, and 1974, but the
House did not accept it until 1975.
Enactment of EITC in 1975
The Tax Reduction Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-12) included a provision that
established, in Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code, a refundable credit to tax
filers with incomes below $8,000. This earned income credit was to equal 10% of
the first $4,000 of any earnings (including earnings not subject to Social Security
taxation) and thus could not exceed $400 per year. The credit was to be phased out,
at a rate of 10%, for adjusted gross income (AGI) above $8,000.
Post by: grampster on February 12, 2008, 08:44:24 AM
Post by: K Frame on February 12, 2008, 09:33:05 AM
Reagan is only a hero to corporatists, exploiters, and rubes. To the real producers of this nation (the middle class), he's a parasite.
I don't know what particuarly psychotic segment of middle class that you inhabit, but Reagan did far more for the middle class in this country than any president since World War II.
I'm sure, though, that that particular segment of the middle class remembers the Carter years fondly as a "why can't we go back there" time of "prosperity, plenty, and wealth" (cheese lines anyone?)
Couple interesting facts...
Under Reagan, 20 million NEW jobs were created, the vast majority of them solidy middle-class jobs.
Middle class income was up 11% over 8 years, which I believe is the largest jump since the US came out of World War II.
In raw numbers, though, the middle class DID shrink under Reagan...
Not because economic times were so bad, but because incomes for a staggering number of individuals moved them from middle class to UPPER class.
Remember that the next time a liberal whines about how the middle class shrank (hell, the lower class shrank, as well, because people were earning money to pull themselves up to middle class). It's another liberal example of turning the truth into a lie.
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 12, 2008, 11:38:45 AM
Post by: The Rabbi on February 12, 2008, 01:16:54 PM
Reagan is only a hero to corporatists, exploiters, and rubes. To the real producers of this nation (the middle class), he's a parasite.
interesting since reagan's tax cuts benefited the middle class pretty substantially, and he was the guy that came up with the earned income credit which was put in place to balance off the increases in fica tax.I guess there were a lot of corporatists, exploiters and rubes back then because they elected the man twice in a landslide.
Post by: Paddy on February 12, 2008, 02:32:50 PM
Quote
I don't know what particuarly psychotic segment of middle class that you inhabit, but Reagan did far more for the middle class in this country than any president since World War II.
You must mean FDR, who was indeed a champion of the middle class.
That Reagan did anything for the middle class (except rip them off) is myth. The truth is Reagan supported a number of tax increases. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.
In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.
The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp
Post by: ilbob on February 13, 2008, 07:06:14 AM
Quote
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively.
need i mention who controlled congress while all this tax raising was going on?
Post by: The Rabbi on February 13, 2008, 07:52:24 AM
Quote
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?
Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
*
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
*
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
* Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
from here:Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:
*
Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
*
As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
* Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm
It would take an act of willfull disbelief to make Reagan's presidency anything other than a whopping success for the average American. Probably why, again, they voted for him in droves, twice.
Post by: K Frame on February 13, 2008, 09:51:22 AM
But tax rates aren't the WHOLE story (not surprising that you're ignoring the whole story).
Middle class unemployment in the 1970s was dramatically higher than at any time since the Depression of the 1930s.
A large part of Reagan's economic legacy was the return to work of millions of Americans, at higher wages, and often with much better benefits.
Real income rose dramatically as a result as more Americans returned to work and wages continued to rise.
Buying power was further enhanced with the reduction of inflation and interest rates to near historic lows.
Any increase in taxes during the Reagan years were more than offset by the rise in real income, buying power, and simple employment for millions who prior to Reagan simply didn't have jobs.
What you're saying, then, is that an out-of-work American on either unemployment benefits or welfare was far better off than employed with benefits, then, right? Especially when inflation and interest rates are running double digits. Right?
The claims that Regan was somehow a disaster for the middle class in America are bandied about by those who lean left. But when pinned down and asked to provide concrete examples of just how life got worse for any class during the Reagan years, they can only resort to sweeping generalizations and sound-bite sentences that sound great, but when poked collapse under their own weight and lack of substance.
Post by: roo_ster on February 13, 2008, 10:56:10 AM
Quote
I don't know what particuarly psychotic segment of middle class that you inhabit, but Reagan did far more for the middle class in this country than any president since World War II.
You must mean FDR, who was indeed a champion of the middle class.
Bullhockey. You mean FDR colluded with big corporations to set prices (NRA) and to jail middle-class shopkeepers who didn't follow them.
Post by: Paddy on February 13, 2008, 07:54:01 PM
Quote
Ever take a look at what FDR did to middle class tax rates, Reilly?
Yes. During WWII, FDR passed a progressive income tax that barely touched the working and middle class but took up to 90 percent after a person earned what would be $2 million of today's dollars. That tax rate remained high under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, and Carter. Our debt was relatively small, and progressive taxation kept money in the pockets most likely to spend it and stimulate consumer demand.
FDR's policies and the New Deal were directly responsible for the prosperity and expansion of the middle class in the 1950's and '60's.
Quote
A large part of Reagan's economic legacy was the return to work of millions of Americans, at higher wages, and often with much better benefits.
A phony, unsustainable bubble created by record deficit defense spending on the Star Wars debacle. It was all over by the recession of 1990.
Quote
Real income rose dramatically as a result as more Americans returned to work and wages continued to rise.
"Are you better off than you were four years ago"? That's how he got re-elected. It didn't last beyond his second term.
Quote
Buying power was further enhanced with the reduction of inflation and interest rates to near historic lows.
Greenspan artificially induced reduced interest rates by printing more money so we could incur more debt. That's hardly 'prosperity'. The buying power of the middle class by 1990 was no more than it was in 1980. However, the rich were twice as rich by 1990. That's Reagan's 'legacy'.
Quote
Any increase in taxes during the Reagan years were more than offset by the rise in real income, buying power, and simple employment for millions who prior to Reagan simply didn't have jobs.
Do you mean the low wage jobs that were 'created' to replace the outsourced hi tech jobs?
Post by: The Rabbi on February 14, 2008, 02:54:53 AM
Quote
Ever take a look at what FDR did to middle class tax rates, Reilly?
FDR's policies and the New Deal were directly responsible for the prosperity and expansion of the middle class in the 1950's and '60's.
Boy this cracks me up!
I guess WW2 and the destruction of the industrial infrastructure of competing economies had nothing to do with those things.
Post by: K Frame on February 14, 2008, 03:08:05 AM
Adolph Hitler was more responsible for the expansion of the American Middle Class than Franklin Roosevelt was by a long shot.
You obviously have no clue what happened in the late 1930s when Roosevelt and crowd started pulling the plug on many of the New Deal programs, the ones that were designed to "solve" the depression.
They pulled the plug on these programs because everything was telling them that the depression was ending and the economy could sputter back to life without them.
Problem was, Roosevelt's brain trust was absolutely, 100% wrong.
The secondary phase of the depression that started after about 1937 was far WORSE than the primary phase that started in 1929.
Roosevelt's policies didn't solve the depression. Granted, they propped up the economy so that it wouldn't continue to spiral out of control, but it was Adolph Hitler who solved the American economic crisis.
Reagan? His policies did it without a war.
Post by: seeker_two on February 14, 2008, 07:43:16 AM
WWII and the post-war economic expansion was what brought us out of the Great Depression.....
Post by: Tecumseh on February 14, 2008, 08:19:42 AM
americans are always looking for a solid, conservative leader that they can feel right about. if there is not one available, they tend to vote liberal.
Keep thinking that.