patrick.net

indigenous says

So FDR had nothing to do with extending it?

You are clueless...

Let's go back and see exactly what you said before:indigenous says

Hmm that was a pretty big one on FDR's watch?

So yes- you basically said it "happened" under his watch. As I correctly pointed out.... wrong. The cause and the amplification happened under Hoover. One of the biggest reasons the depression was as bad as it was is because Hoover decided that it would be a good idea to setup protective barriers from imports which in turn caused a devastating trade war between the US and Europe. This was a knee-jerk reaction the initial crash. Seeing as how we were a very large manufacturing-based economy this further crippled the entire economy. Had the protective barriers not been put in place the depression would most likely have abated within a few years, not the decade-long debacle it turned into.

So as a result the depression became much more severe. Frankly I am less concerned about "Who" was President when historical events happened. But when I see a response that is historically inaccurate I will make a response to correct that claim...

Still clueless

indigenous says

Still clueless

Oh- just because you say so? If I'm so clueless then how is it that you're not really backing up any of your claims? Its really easy to just type "You're clueless". Ok... two can play at that game....

You are clueless. There. I guess I must be right. Rather than have a debate, let's just say me/you are wrong. Yes... that's very constructive.

No I just don't have the time to waste on something you will not hear. But you are less than ignorant on the subject

indigenous says

No I just don't have the time to waste on something you will not hear. But you are less than ignorant on the subject

Why not? We've spent a large quantity of time on the subject at hand already. I've stated my historical observations on both the depression and the subsequent war following it. That period was the most transformational period in our history due to the collusion of several major factors:

A: The US went from being a minor to major superpower
B: The US economy experienced an economic boom that had never been experienced before.
C: There were few protections for financial firms, consumers and banks.
D: Europe was heating up in regards to the causes of WW2

So the economy crashed, there was a run on the banks, people lost their money, banks and financial firms closed shop, we threw up protective barriers and at the same time our depression caused more economic calamity in Europe, further exacerbating the lack of stability which it had not fully recovered from WW1 yet.

So putting all of that together was the perfect storm. No president would have been able of making much of an impact on the initial severity of the depression. But scholars and economists have long maintained that putting up trade barriers was perhaps the single cause which made the then recession into a depression. Was it the fault of "The GOP"? Not necessarily. There were too many factors ranging from the lack of financial protections, lack of oversight, and lack of even basic understanding of how the system worked from the everyday citizen.

Let me just put it this way: The depression and WW2 were the two most tumultuous periods in the last century. The level of poverty and outright devastation of the depression were as such that nobody who didn't live through it would understand. I've only heard from my Grandparents what it was like... and it was truly awful. For example their fridges were always full of food and they stockpiled food in pantries too. A direct result of their experiences and the desire to never be hungry again.

Likewise WW2 was the absolute horror of horrors. The relatives of mine who fought in it would never talk about it. As in one was in Iwo Jima. I can't imagine what he went through.

I feel passionate about the history of these events because of the sacrifice my family and millions of others made. What would I do if I were in those situations? I can't even imagine. But they deserve my utmost respect.

indigenous says

The fact is that this country would be vastly different if we never fought WW1

It would indeed be vastly different.

The classic Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever" covered this ground in a mildly entertaining way. Your speculation reminds me more of the Sad Sacks who fantasize about what would have happened if the South won the Civil War. Different is not necessarily better.

Captain happy pants golf pro isn't popular? Who saw that coming...

FortWayne says

Captain happy pants golf pro isn't popular? Who saw that coming...

The same right wingers post the same drivel daily? Gee-wizz. I didn't expect that...

edvard2 says

FortWayne says

Captain happy pants golf pro isn't popular? Who saw that coming...

The same right wingers post the same drivel daily? Gee-wizz. I didn't expect that...

You call me a right winger, yet I've never supported a war. Nor I'm the one who lives in mentality of "you are either with us or against us". That's all you Ed, the only right winger here is you!

edvard2 says

The same right wingers post the same drivel daily? Gee-wizz. I didn't expect that...

6 years of radical liberal policies. It hasn't worked for any other country, what makes you left wing nut jobs it will work here?

FortWayne says

You call me a right winger, yet I've never supported a war. Nor I'm the one who lives in mentality of "you are either with us or against us". That's all you Ed, the only right winger here is you!

Note that I didn't specifically say you, right? But given your previous statements which are all predictably right-leaning I can only assume that your views are exclusively right-leaning. Correct me if I am wrong.zzyzzx says

6 years of radical liberal policies. It hasn't worked for any other country, what makes you left wing nut jobs it will work here?

Obama's admin has been far from "radical". In fact if anything, many have actually compared his admin to the Reagan admin. You see, the situation isn't that then left has gotten more radical but rather the right has drifted so far right that what used to be considered conservative is now liberal.

He would have let the housing market 'hit the bottom'.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/05/kamala-harris/Kamala-Harris-Romney-favors-letting-foreclosures/

http://www.zillow.com/blog/romneys-stance-on-housing-let-it-run-its-course-95778/

edvard2 says

Obama's admin has been far from "radical"

That's laughable!

David9 says

He would have let the housing market 'hit the bottom'.

Romney would have let the banks foreclose, including by robosigning and violating the law, but he would not have made the banks put the houses on market. In other words, he doesn't believe in free markets. A market in which all the banks collude to artificially keep the supply of houses low IS NOT a free market. It's a controlled market.

Under Romney, more people would be kicked out of houses, but those houses would not go on the market. Instead, it would just increase the demand for housing, pushing up prices of houses and rents. This would further decrease the effeciency of the economy, starving other businesses of customers who can't afford to buy things, and creating more unemployment. This vicious cycle would keep housing and other goods unaffordable and increase people's reliance on welfare and food stamps.

Housing costs compete with all other businesses for revenue. What a family spends on housing, they can't spend on cars, plane tickets, restaurants, electronics, vacations, starting businesses, etc.

zzyzzx says

That's laughable!

Please tell us all what his admin has done that is oh-soooo radical. curious minds want to know...

zzyzzx says

6 years of radical liberal policies.

Just came back from Canada.

"Radical liberal"? Anybody you could name here except Bernie Sanders would be moderate-right just about anywhere else on the planet.

If you live in that echo chamber long enough though, you believe it don't you.

David9 says

He would have let the housing market 'hit the bottom'.

Riiight, so his private equity pals could pick over the rubble for the gems. All these vulture capitalists clothe their insatiable greed in guff about it being a useful cleansing for everyone.

Vicente says

Riiight, so his private equity pals could pick over the rubble for the gems.

That is exactly what I saw happen here in Southern California.

Dan8267 says

A market in which all the banks collude to artificially keep the supply of houses low IS NOT a free market.

That is exactly what I see happening here in Southern California.

Social issues are a different subject. If I may name one, Florida does not have a State Law prohibiting discrimination based on Sexual orientation, only a few counties do.

Vicente says

so his private equity pals could pick over the rubble for the gems

I was reading the wikipedia version of the history of Wards just now, and was surprised to see it passed through Bain's hands in the early 1990s, between its initial LBO and eventual disposition.

Towards the end of its life, the company essentially seized the employee pension fund, cashing them out, and that struck me as profitable business model, as all these 20th century corporations had cash-loaded pension funds ripe for the plucking by big-money operators like Romney.

Of course, the 1980s movie Wall Street had this as a plot point.

sbh says

You're correct. He's a religious nut-job.

Isolationism is a sub-strain of right-wingerism, of course. Buchanan, and the 1930s pro-German version of it, too.

Plus the midwest conservatism has always been pretty isolationist. They just want to sell their wheat and corn, they don't care who buys it.

sbh says

You're correct. He's a religious nut-job

Just a nut-job.

His antenna doesn't pick up all the channels.

If his brains were taxed, he'd get a rebate.

They say that you stand really close to him, you can hear the sea.

edvard2 says

Please tell us all what his admin has done that is oh-soooo radical. curious minds want to know...

For one thing, illegal aliens are more important to Obama than American citizens.

sbh says

Wreck America because it's wreckable.

I think it's more because they BELIEVE in creative destruction so strongly. Perhaps this is related to all the nutso preachers infesting GOP these days, carrying with them the philosophy that Judgement Day is something to look forward to to. Anything they can do to hurry it along is just grand. Supporting Israel in anything they care to do, is one facet of that mindset. At the end of it course, the righteous GOP will end up in heaven or their own private planet with their wives, so they win.

Bellingham Bill says

Plus the midwest conservatism has always been pretty isolationist. They just want to sell their wheat and corn, they don't care who buys it.

They pick all their own crops do they?

I love it when my Texas friends spout off about illegals. I ask them what was the citizenship status of the people who built the places they live and work. Construction would be crippled without illegals, easily half the workforce in Texas.

zzyzzx says

For one thing, illegal aliens are more important to Obama than American citizens.

ohhhhh realllly? Well you're gunna' have to try a lot harder then that because for one thing you simply made a opinionated statement and furthermore the Obama Admin has spent way, wayyy more on border security between the US and Mexico.

But the reason I'm assuming you are mentioning this is because the GOP party smells like rotten feces to all immigrant groups now and so they naturally vote for Democrats, which causes the GOP to lose elections, which in turn ironically makes the GOP and their voters make stupid comments about immigration... which makes them lose again...

zzyzzx says

For one thing, illegal aliens are more important to Obama than American citizens.

Let me guess. This is the right wings media's current rant, because the democrats question sending children from violent situations back home ?

THe anti-trafficing statute of 2008, which had bipartisan support, under Bush, is the reason they can't just send those children back without having a hearing at least first.

Vicente says

They pick all their own crops do they?

To be fair, wheat and corn is pretty well automated--nobody picks it.

Bellingham Bill says

Isolationism is a sub-strain of right-wingerism, of course. Buchanan, and the 1930s pro-German version of it, too.

First we hear from some that Romney would have brought on more right-wing warmongering, then somebody states they do not support the recent wars, and it suddenly turns into dangerous isolationism, which is - of course - another sub-strain of right-wingerism. Seems like only Obama does it right, whether he warmongers or not ;)

Can't really say how Mittens would have fared overall, but at least his tax policy and special deduction/exemptions/loophole reform would have been far better than Obama's tax policy.

Vicente says

I love it when my Texas friends spout off about illegals. I ask them what was the citizenship status of the people who built the places they live and work. Construction would be crippled without illegals, easily half the workforce in Texas.

Easy for you to say out of Davis, CA. Not so easy for a family in a Arizona or Texan border town, caught in the crossfire of trafficking and crimes, fearing for their children.

mell says

Easy for you to say out of Davis, CA. Not so easy for a family in a Arizona or Texan border town, caught in the crossfire of trafficking and crimes, fearing for their children.

Your profile says "San Francisco, CA" which is even farther from AZ & TX.

GOP are just whiners here, they lack bold initatives like this:

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/kkk-member-calls-shoot-kill-policy-refugee

Vicente says

Your profile says "San Francisco, CA" which is even farther from AZ & TX.

Yes, but I am not the one telling the "whiners" to suck it up.

mell says

Can't really say how Mittens would have fared overall, but at least his tax
policy and special deduction/exemptions/loophole reform would have been far
better than Obama's tax policy.

Sure-if you're part of the 1%.

tatupu70 says

mell says

Can't really say how Mittens would have fared overall, but at least his tax

policy and special deduction/exemptions/loophole reform would have been far

better than Obama's tax policy.

Sure-if you're part of the 1%.

Disagree. The very top would have paid more because of the special tax/fee levied on the very wealthy, the "wage slaves" (roughly 100K-300K) would have gotten a well deserved break and it would have been marginally harder on those who currently have a negative effective tax rate, which is utter bs and inherently unfair. It also masks the number of people who are dependent on the state (welfare, subsidies etc.).

Vicente says

They pick all their own crops do they?

I love it when my Texas friends spout off about illegals. I ask them what was the citizenship status of the people who built the places they live and work. Construction would be crippled without illegals, easily half the workforce in Texas.

A lot of farmers pick their own crops or hire locals to use machinery to handle the process.

In Texas they work with local government to legalize Mexicans, so they could hire legals. Only in CA, as far as I could tell, we hire millions of illegals and pretend the world needs to be like us.

We are driving ourselves toward a welfare state.

FortWayne says

A lot of farmers pick their own crops or hire locals to use machinery to handle the process.

In Texas they work with local government to legalize Mexicans, so they could hire legals. Only in CA, as far as I could tell, we hire millions of illegals and pretend the world needs to be like us.

We are driving ourselves toward a welfare state.

I disagree from a personal perspective. My Uncle is a 3rd generation farmer who employs immigrant labor and as he has told me multiple times, if he did not have this labor the farm would go out of business. The other thing too is that its not like pays them less. He actually pays them the same as anyone else. He even lets them stay in a number of homes on the property free of charge. The issue is that he seriously cannot get anyone else to do the labor period.

edvard2 says

The issue is that he seriously cannot get anyone else to do the labor period.

The issue is that our welfare benefits are too high.

edvard2 says

I disagree from a personal perspective. My Uncle is a 3rd generation farmer who employs immigrant labor and as he has told me multiple times, if he did not have this labor the farm would go out of business. The other thing too is that its not like pays them less. He actually pays them the same as anyone else. He even lets them stay in a number of homes on the property free of charge. The issue is that he seriously cannot get anyone else to do the labor period.

His story is common, but I've never seen it as the shortage of labor because plenty of legal workers come to work in US too. There is a program for that in CA.

It's always been the problem with taxation, and regulation. Board of Equalization is a pain in you know what. There are all kinds of fees and taxes on employers, making it very expensive to hire someone to work. So most just choose to hire illegals. And as long as government has no way of policing the activity it'll stay that way. Honest people go out of business pretty fast out here.

And I tell you, government knows all this. They don't care how it affects any of us. All they want is to maximize their tax dollars so they can spend it on their crony friends. That's my opinion of it.

zzyzzx says

The issue is that our welfare benefits are too high.

No and no. Seriously he spent YEARS trying to get Americans to work on his farm. His father never had a problem with that. The pay for the area they live in was good and he treated his employees fair. But the guys would just quit. Either that or they would be problematic employees.

To me its more an issue that Americans are too damned lazy. Most Americans don't know what hard work is and when they actually have to do it, well they're just too good for doing "that" kind of work. Its got nothing to do with welfare.

I don't think this is a new issue. America has always had a group of immigrants from either a country or a select few countries who come here, do the hard work, and after several generations work their way up the ladder. In the 1890's-1900's it was the Italian and German immigrants working in the factories. Later on it was the Italians. And now we have immigrants from Mexico. At some point my family came here from Europe for the same reasons.

edvard2 says

Seriously he spent YEARS trying to get Americans to work on his farm.

I question certain aspects of the universal industriousness theory of illegals.

Some I suspect work in the fields because that's the kind of job you can get with few questions asked considering the situation many are in. Sometimes iffy grasp of English, perhaps need to work only seasonally and return to Mexico. If you had decent English, and no spouse to return in another country, you'd be a fool not to shoot for at least a fast-food gig.

Vicente says

The classic Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever" covered this ground in a mildly entertaining way. Your speculation reminds me more of the Sad Sacks who fantasize about what would have happened if the South won the Civil War. Different is not necessarily better.

No dumb ass look at the things that Wilson did that would not have happened if not for the sentiment created by WW1

indigenous says

No dumb ass look at the things that Wilson did that would not have happened if not for the sentiment created by WW1

It's difficult enough comprehending what DID happen.

Hypothetical history is for wankers.