[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE

Pinguinite You have mail..

What did Bill Clinton and Gavin Newsom talk about in Mexico? I have an idea


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: If Trump is nominated, the GOP must keep him out of the White House (George Will comes unhinged)
Source: WP
URL Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin ... 6-8ab8-9ad050f76d7d_story.html
Published: Apr 30, 2016
Author: By George F. Will
Post Date: 2016-04-30 09:25:39 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 5362
Comments: 37

Donald Trump’s damage to the Republican Party, although already extensive, has barely begun. Republican quislings will multiply, slinking into support of the most anti-conservative presidential aspirant in their party’s history. These collaborationists will render themselves ineligible to participate in the party’s reconstruction.

Ted Cruz’s announcement of his preferred running mate has enhanced the nomination process by giving voters pertinent information. They already know the only important thing about Trump’s choice: His running mate will be unqualified for high office because he or she will think Trump is qualified.

Hillary Clinton’s optimal running mate might be Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a pro-labor populist whose selection would be balm for the bruised feelings of Bernie Sanders’s legions. Running mates rarely matter as electoral factors: In 2000, Al Gore got 43.2 percent of the North Carolina vote. In 2004, John Kerry, trying to improve upon Gore’s total there, ran with North Carolina Sen. John Edwards but received 43.6 percent. If, however, Brown were to help deliver Ohio for Clinton, the Republican path to 270 electoral votes would be narrower than a needle’s eye.

Republican voters, particularly in Indiana and California, can, by supporting Cruz, make the Republican convention a deliberative body rather than one that merely ratifies decisions made elsewhere, some of them six months earlier. A convention’s sovereign duty is to choose a plausible nominee who has a reasonable chance to win, not to passively affirm the will of a mere plurality of voters recorded episodically in a protracted process.

Trump would be the most unpopular nominee ever, unable to even come close to Mitt Romney’s insufficient support among women, minorities and young people. In losing disastrously, Trump probably would create down-ballot carnage sufficient to end even Republican control of the House. Ticket splitting is becoming rare in polarized America: In 2012, only 5.7 percent of voters supported a presidential candidate and a congressional candidate of opposite parties.

At least half a dozen Republican senators seeking reelection and Senate aspirants can hope to win if the person at the top of the Republican ticket loses their state by, say, only four points, but not if he loses by 10. A Democratic Senate probably would guarantee a Supreme Court with a liberal cast for a generation. If Clinton is inaugurated next Jan. 20, Merrick Garland probably will already be on the court — confirmed in a lame-duck Senate session — and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer will be 83, 80 and 78, respectively.

he minority of people who pay close attention to politics includes those who define an ideal political outcome and pursue it, and those who focus on the worst possible outcome and strive to avoid it. The former experience the excitements of utopianism, the latter settle for prudence’s mild pleasure of avoiding disappointed dreams. Both sensibilities have their uses, but this is a time for prudence, which demands the prevention of a Trump presidency.

Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states — condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation’s civic life. Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible.

It was 32 years after Jimmy Carter won 50.1 percent in 1976 that a Democrat won half the popular vote. Barack Obama won only 52.9 percent and then 51.1 percent, but only three Democrats — Andrew Jackson (twice), Franklin Roosevelt (four times) and Lyndon Johnson — have won more than 53 percent. Trump probably would make Clinton the fourth, and he would be a tonic for her party, undoing the extraordinary damage (13 Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, 913 state legislative seats) Obama has done.

If Trump is nominated, Republicans working to purge him and his manner from public life will reap the considerable satisfaction of preserving the identity of their 162-year-old party while working to see that they forgo only four years of the enjoyment of executive power. Six times since 1945 a party has tried, and five times failed, to secure a third consecutive presidential term. The one success — the Republicans’ 1988 election of George H.W. Bush — produced a one-term president. If Clinton gives her party its first 12 consecutive White House years since 1945, Republicans can help Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, or someone else who has honorably recoiled from Trump, confine her to a single term.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: no gnu taxes (#0)

"Republicans ... will reap the considerable satisfaction of preserving the identity of their 162-year-old party"

Yeah. That's all we'll reap. Again.

And what exactly is this "identity" Republicans are expected to preserve? Seems to me Republicans have the reputation of being the party of the rich, cold and heartless to the poor, racist, homophobic and anti-woman. We want to preserve that?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-30   9:35:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

If Trump is nominated, the GOP must keep him out of the White House

So he's saying that if Trump is nominated, we should all just make sure Hillary is elected? Has he gone nuts?

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-04-30   9:41:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: no gnu taxes (#0) (Edited)

Have no fear. Trump is and still will be the most popular liked candidate from any party. He will beat Twatlary by one of the biggest landslides in our voting history. The independent registered voters haven't even been heard yet.

Trump doesn't even need a party to win. He's twice the sensation Obunghole was... and the rabid assholes that plaque his rallies, the trailer trash that announces false rape charges, the libtarded media that unfairly report news and the scum that hate Trump right here on LP are all indications of real FEAR that you libtards shitbags know TRUMP WILL BE YOUR NEXT PRESIDENT.

I'm gonna laugh my ass off for the next 4 years.

I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح

GrandIsland  posted on  2016-04-30   9:52:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: no gnu taxes (#0)

George Will comes unhinged

It was a short trip.

BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO!

ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.

sneakypete  posted on  2016-04-30   10:07:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#1)

Seems to me Republicans have the reputation of being the party of the rich, cold and heartless to the poor, racist, homophobic and anti-woman.

To this, we need to add two more charges:

(1) The Republicans created the current military disaster through incompetence.

(2) The Republicans preside over deregulation, a period of wild run-up, and then economic calamity - the Roaring Twenties followed by the Great Depression, the Reagan 80s followed by the S&L blowup and the crash of 1987, and the Bush tax cuts and housing bubble followed by the Great Recession. In all three cases, the Republicans tore down regulations and had a great big boom, followed by a bust, and then were flatfooted and hapless in dealing with it. In all three cases, a Democrat took over afterwards and cleaned up the mess - FDR after Hoover, Clinton after HW Bush, and Obama after W.

Obama has not been nearly as effective as either FDR or Clinton, which is why the Democrats are so weak. Still, the Republicans are the ones who have created disaster over and over again by foolish economic and regulatory policies. And everybody knows it except Republicans.

So, they're the party of rich, poor-hating, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, military and economic incompetents. Who, by the way, gave us Roe v. Wade.

Really, they should just go hang themselves.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-30   10:08:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

"So, they're the party of rich, poor-hating, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, military and economic incompetents. Who, by the way, gave us Roe v. Wade."

Right! And if we can't preserve that, then who are we?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-30   10:14:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

he Roaring Twenties followed by the Great Depression

Hoover actually started the economic reforms that Roosevelt expanded.

Bush tax cuts and housing bubble followed by the Great Recession. In all three cases, the Republicans tore down regulations

Clinton is the one who started Wall Street deregulation. And it was the Democrats who pursued the CRA which was at the heart of financial crisis. It is quite a stretch to say tax cuts caused a recession.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-04-30   10:19:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite (#6)

Right! And if we can't preserve that, then who are we?

'Zactly!

I listened to Trump's foreign policy speech. He's obviously not a politician (and that's good). His teleprompter reading wasn't polished (BFD). But what he said was not scripted in a think-tank. That was Trump. He restated a series of policies that he himself has been saying since the beginning of the campaign, and for years before too, in some cases.

The man is consistent. He is running on what HE believes in, not on some poll-tested position papers.

And by my lights he is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, about EVERY SINGLE POINT. If we suddenly became a monarchy and I woke up king, you'd already know my foreign policy: exactly what Trump said, every word and facet of it.

That's why I have supported him since the beginning. The man GETS IT.

The Republican Party does not.

But the PEOPLE DO! Which is why Trump is running away with it.

With Trump in charge, George Will and his ilk will need to be purged from the party. They're a bunch of Herbert Hoovers lecturing everybody on how to run an economy. They're George Custer training his troops how you fight Indians. They're Bull Halsey's fleet hurricane procedures.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-30   10:20:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: no gnu taxes (#7)

Hoover actually started the economic reforms that Roosevelt expanded.

Don't fall for the propaganda.

The fact is that the Republicans had already had plenary power the entire nine years leading up to the Great Depression. They controlled the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court throughout the 1920a. They had the White House under Harding, then Coolidge, then Hoover. The Crash of 1929 happened in the first year of Hoover's Presidency. He had four full years,

There was no "shared responsibility" for the unregulated wild growth of the 1920s. The Republicans owned it. And when the crash came in 1920, the Republicans STILL owned it. The Democrats didn't get control until 1933.

The crash happened in 1939, and Hoover did not leave office until 1933. The full government was in Republican control during the Crash and for the next four years, and they followed their philosophy, which was to do very little.

The New Deal was FDR's invention, not the Republicans. They resisted him with fang and claw. For the first year, the Republican Supreme Court blocked every major FDR reform. It is not true that the Republicans put everything in place that FDR did and he just got the credit. That is a Republican lie that developed over the ages to try to cover the fact that the Republicans were totally wrong about every aspect of economics in the 1920s. They made things wide open, and when i blew up, their response was wooden-headed and did not address the suffering of the people, and did not address the immediate needs for jobs and income. They simply didn't do it.

FDR was elected, the New Deal was SWEEPING reform that the Republicans fought to the death. The Supreme Court blocked it until FDR moved to pack the Supreme Court, then they made their "switch in time that saved nine".

And then the Republicans were dead wrong about the rise of Hitler and the dangers of the Axis. They opposed American engagement in "European wars" while Hitler gobbled up the Western democracies. It wasn't FDR who held back, it was the Republican Party, four-square. They resisted tooth and nail until Pearl Harbor, and then Congress only declared war on Japan, not the Axis. Fortunately, Hitler declared war on the US. Had he not, the US would have very probably just focused on Japan.

The problem for Republicans is the same problem that Democrats have looking back to the 19th Century. They were the party of slavery, of the KKK, of Jim Crow and segregation. They had to remake themselves to get the black vote, and they did so through social welfare benefits.

The GOP's problem is that their economics lead to the Depression, and deepened it - the economic numbers for family disposable income and housing values did not begin to rise again until the end of 1934, AFTER FDR had forced the Supreme Court to back down and stop blocking him. The end of the Great Depression and the victory in World War II were Democratic Party achievements. The GOP gave us the Great Depression, and were military isolationists as Hitler and Tojo devoured the world.

I've heard GOP apologists try to shift the blame for the Depression to the Democrats, but that's stupid: the Republicans owned the government and the financial industry for the entire DECADE. I've heard them try to shift credit for the recovery to Hoover's Administration, or, if they know the facts better (or are dealing with an audience that does) state that nothing got better until World War II, which is patently untrue.

The problem with Republican self-deception on this matter is that nobody but Republicans buys their bullshit on the matter - but Republicans DO buy their own bullshit. So they never learn anything from the Depression. Instead, they have deregulated and then crashed the economy TWICE MORE SINCE, at the end of Reagan's term, and in W's term.

The pattern has been Republicans follow their weird combination of laissez-faire, caveat emptor and crony capitalism, the economy blows a huge bubble, the cronies get super rich, and then everything explodes and slides into the sewer, the Republicans dither and things get worse, then a Democrat is elected to come in and fix it.

I've seen it twice in my lifetime, and earlier generations saw it happen in World War II also.

The really effective Republican Presidents: Ike, Nixon, Ford and Reagan accepted the verdict of the New Deal and did not seek to throw out things like Social Security. They also understood that the US could not militarily ignore the threat of Communism (of course Truman and JFK and LBJ also knew that).

With Reagan, cranky 1920's economic regulatory ideas came back in vogue, and since then the Republican Party has become a caricature on economic matters. Unfortunately, with the end of the Cold War and the successful reconstruction of German and Japanese governments, Republicans have also become exaggerated in their aspirations for "nation building".

In any case, no, Republican policies under Hoover did not turn around the Great Depression. That's false and the numbers show it. FDR's New Deal is what turned it around. Which is why Reagan, who lived through the era, never renounced the New Deal.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-30   11:47:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

Excellent post ...

Gatlin  posted on  2016-04-30   11:53:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

FDR's New Deal is what turned it around.

Actually It did not. That the new Deal turned around the Depression IS the propaganda. The economy never never recovered much in the 1930s and was in serious decline by 1940.

If anything the GOP did brought about the Depression, it was regulation, not deregulation. Hoover's protectionist Smoot-Hawley destabilized banks and vastly reduced imports and led to decimation of the US economy.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-04-30   11:55:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: GrandIsland (#3)

God, I hate the idea that we support the same candidate. With said, fuck you, George Will. There's a fork in the road ahead and we've decided to go to the right.

Logsplitter  posted on  2016-04-30   12:29:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: no gnu taxes (#0)

Donald Trump’s damage to the Republican Party, although already extensive, has barely begun.

Fix:

Donald Trump’s damage to the Republican Party Neo-Conservatives, although already extensive, has barely begun.

And that is a good thing, a needed thing. The neo-conservatives need to be destroyed and sent back to where they came from.

Ted Cruz’s announcement of his preferred running mate has enhanced the nomination process by giving voters pertinent information.

Ted Cruz believes two losers equals one winner is, indeed, pertinent information.

Now he can get about announcing his cabinet members and give more pertinent information.

Republican voters, particularly in Indiana and California, can, by supporting Cruz, make the Republican convention a deliberative body rather than one that merely ratifies decisions made elsewhere, some of them six months earlier.

George Will believes the will of the people should be subverted by the superior George Wills of the world.

A convention’s sovereign duty is to choose a plausible nominee who has a reasonable chance to win, not to passively affirm the will of a mere plurality of voters recorded episodically in a protracted process.

Oh, bullshit. The Republican Party is not a sovereign, and the party convention has no sovereign duties.

The convention will affirm that Donald Trump has won a clear majority of the delegates.

Trump would be the most unpopular nominee ever, unable to even come close to Mitt Romney’s insufficient support among women, minorities and young people.

Trump has already exceeded the popular vote total achieved by Mitt Romney in the entire 2012 primary process. He will shatter the all-time GOP record for any primary year.

this is a time for prudence, which demands the prevention of a Trump presidency.

This is a time of prudence, which demands the attaining of a Trump presidency to destroy the influence of the George Wills of the world.

Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states

Were he to be nominated, true conservatives would have one task, to elect him and to politically destroy the influence of the neo-conservatives and the disgusting presstitutes such as George Will.

If Trump is nominated, Republicans working to purge him and his manner from public life will reap the considerable satisfaction of preserving the identity of their 162-year-old party while working to see that they forgo only four years of the enjoyment of executive power.

There is no 162-year old Republican party identity. It has changed, utterly, from its identity at its founding in 1854 and the several decades following. 162 years ago, the GOP was not the party of the South, and the Democratic party did not dominate New England. A major inversion came with the Nixon Southern strategy. George Will wants to preserve a more recent Republican party identity. Mostly, George Will desperately wants to preserve his own relevance, and that of his fellow travelers.

Anyone who preaches that a GOP loss would cause conservatives to "forgo only four years of the enjoyment of executive power," is delusional or a deliberate liar. How many decades of judicial power would be lost? The Federalists dominated the early years of the judiciary and used that power to shape the federal government as they saw fit. The influence is still felt centuries later. It is a certainty that a Clinton victory would reshape the Supreme Court to a very liberal majority.

It was 32 years after Jimmy Carter won 50.1 percent in 1976 that a Democrat won half the popular vote. Barack Obama won only 52.9 percent and then 51.1 percent, but only three Democrats — Andrew Jackson (twice), Franklin Roosevelt (four times) and Lyndon Johnson — have won more than 53 percent. Trump probably would make Clinton the fourth

Trump may collect a majority. He has created a movement that is steam-rolling the GOP establishment and the neo-conservative media. He is shattering the record for the popular vote in a GOP primary season, despite starting with a 17-person field which divided the early primaries.

Hillary has not generated any movement or energy. When is the last time anyone has seen Hillary speaking to a crown of thousands? Bernie Sanders has drawn the large crowds and has clobbered Hillary in fund raising, despite Democratic establishment resistance and obstruction. All of those funds and many of those votes will not go to Hillary.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-04-30   14:39:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: no gnu taxes, Vicomte13, redleghunter (#7)

Clinton is the one who started Wall Street deregulation. And it was the Democrats who pursued the CRA which was at the heart of financial crisis. It is quite a stretch to say tax cuts caused a recession.

100 % correct . Even the most liberal paper in liberal NY pinned the tail on the donkey .

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/andrew-cuomo-and-fannie-and-freddie- 6395833

"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato

tomder55  posted on  2016-04-30   14:41:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: no gnu taxes (#0) (Edited)

Republican voters, particularly in Indiana and California, can, by supporting Cruz, make the Republican convention a deliberative body rather than one that merely ratifies decisions made elsewhere

Elsewhere meaning the votes of the people. Except for the Reagan period (and with the possible exception of Nixon) we've been cursed by a string of defiant demogogues since 1960. Will wants to see us get another one courtesy of a corrupt deliberative body determined to perpetuate itself.

rlk  posted on  2016-04-30   17:34:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: no gnu taxes (#11)

Actually, it did not. That the new Deal turned around the Depression IS the propaganda. The economy never ever recovered much in the 1930s and was in serious decline by 1940.

Not true. The usual statistic used to "prove" this assertion is stock market performance. But very few people were in the stock market back then. Certainly the speculative and rich class who got hit in 1929 didn't recover their lost capital for over a decade. And given that the Republicans are the party of the rich - and have been since Ulysses S. Grant's utterly corrupt administration changed the Republicans from being a preserve-the-Union/abolitionist alliance into primarily a vehicle for crony capitalist stockjobbing.

Two much better statistics for the overall economic health of the general public, which is to say the VOTERS, demonstrates very clearly the change in direction that came with FDR.

These are the statistics for two key numbers: per capta disposable income, and average housing prices, per year, starting in 1930.

The Crash happened in 1929, the first year of Hoover's Presidency. Hoover left the Presidency in January 1933.

Here are the numbers:

1930 (Hoover) disposable income per capita ("I"): $6411; Housing price ("H"): $6016

1931 (Hoover): I $6145 (decline); H $5600 (decline)

1932 (Hoover): I $5806 (decline); H: $5022 (decline)

1933 (Hoover out, FDR in; Supreme Court blocks New Deal) I $5122 (decline); H $4830 (decline)

1934 (FDR; Supreme Court allows New Deal to proceed): I $5570 (increase); H $4971 (increase)

1935 (FDR): I $6080 (increase); H $5456 (increase)

1936 (FDR) $6802 (increase, 1930 level exceeded); H $5632 (increase)

1937 (FDR begins second term) $6990 (increase); H $5776 (increase).

Pause for a moment and look at those numbers. Every year full year of Hoover following the late 1929 crash, and during the first year of FDR, when the Republican Supreme Court blocked the New Deal, the per capital income disposable income declined and the value of housing declined. But from the year that the New Deal came into force and every single year thereafter until World War II began in 1938 (with the Japanese invasion of China, the Spanish Civil War, the Anschluss and the occupation of Czechoslovakia, per capital income and housing values increased. By 1936, two years into the New Deal, the Hoover per capita income had been topped.

It took a dip in 1938, back to $6556 (still well above the Hoover numbers), as world instability rose to the level of wars in Europe and Asia, but then it continued to increase every year after that: 1939: $7046, 1940: $7164. 1941: $8558.

Contrary to the Republican myth, the economy was not in serious decline by 1940. Sure, the vehicles by which the rich got richer and ran away from the rest had not recovered - and Republicans can always be relied upon to focus on the rich and ignore the rest of the people.

But THESE metrics are the ones that affected the people at large, and by 1940, thanks to the rise in disposable income that began only with the New Deal, the average American had TWICE as much available to him as he did in 1930.

America did not enter World War II until the very end of 1941. You know, Americans lived through the 1930s, and they voted and kept voting for years afterwards. They remembered Hoover, and FDR and the New Deal. They lived it. They saw what happened to their incomes, and that generation voted crushingly for the New Deal right through Reagan. Reagan never repudiated the New Deal. No average American who lived through it would, because they knew.

Republicans have the problem of having been flat out wrong about both the economy AND national defense and foreign policy in the Depression and World War II era. That is why they were crushed. FDR's New Deal worked, and his war strategy made us victorious. The facts are the facts, and I've presented them to you above. That is what America experienced, and that is WHY FDR was popular, and REMAINED so. People REMEMBER how the New Deal made things better.

The Republicans redeemed themselves on foreign policy with Nixon and then Reagan. This was at the same time that the McGovern kook fringe took over the Democrats.

Economically, Ike, Nixon and Ford understood the lesson of the Depression. Reagan, who was a New Dealer FDR supporter, did not repudiate things like Social Security and unemployment, but deregulated savings and loans, and cut taxes so deeply that the deficit exploded. W Bush did the same thing.

The Depression Era generation is very old now, and mostly gone. People do not remember directly anymore. And in this environment of ignorance, Republicans have been able to put out propaganda that pretends that the New Deal was bad and did nothing.

The numbers put the lie to that. It's just not true that the New Deal did nothing. Per capita income marched back up and housing values improved consistently.

The economy improved dramatically for most people. That the rich did not start getting richer again until the war contracts is true, but that this meant the economy didn't improve for all of those years of the New Deal is false. If that were true, FDR would not have been as popular as he was and remained.

Now that we've seen the income and housing price numbers, we cannot deny what happened, and if we don't want to keep on crashing the economy as Republicans did at the end of the 20's, and against at the end of Reagan, and again at the end of W Bush, we could learn something here.

But we won't learn anything if we lie to ourselves about what happened. I've provided the data to make it clear that the average American saw a marked and steady improvement in his life from the New Deal. The lot of the average man did not rot from 1929 to 1942. It got worse and worse until the Republicans got out of the way with Hoover's departure, and the Supreme Court got out of the way of the New Deal, and then it steadily got better. That's just the truth. The New Deal worked. It did NOT improve the stock market. And it wasn't meant to.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-30   17:46:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#16)

Actually, it did not. That the new Deal turned around the Depression IS the propaganda. The economy never ever recovered much in the 1930s and was in serious decline by 1940.

Not true. The usual statistic used to "prove" this assertion is stock market performance.

No,True.

The unemployment rate jumped up again in 1938. It was WWII that got us out of the depression with a combination of the draft and an influx of hiring to produce goods for the war effort. The unemployment rate rapidly dropped to around 1 1/2 Percent. Without WWII we still would have been strugging with the aftermath of the depression in 1950.

rlk  posted on  2016-04-30   18:31:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13 (#16)

The New Deal

Unemployment never got below 10%. The artificial increase in the minimum wage stagnated the economy. There were a number of other problems. But I don't want to get into a long discussion on something happened on what's now going on 100 years ago.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-04-30   19:28:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: rlk (#17)

No,True.

The unemployment rate jumped up again in 1938. It was WWII that got us out of the depression with a combination of the draft and an influx of hiring to produce goods for the war effort. The unemployment rate rapidly dropped to around 1 1/2 Percent. Without WWII we still would have been strugging with the aftermath of the depression in 1950.

No, NOT true. What you have stated is false.

The statistics I have presented to you above are average per capita income and average housing prices. You can see that they rose, and rose, and rose again, steadily, year after year, from the time of the New Deal in 1934 until World War II. There was a bobble in 1938 as the war began, with instability, but per capita wages continued to rise, and so did housing prices. They did so for four years, had a years' hiatus, and then began their march upward after that.

Did things return to Roaring Twenties levels? No. But the Roaring Twenties levels were artificial, built on fake money. They were like the housing prices in the US in 2006: hopelessly bloated. Those prices were not real, and they haven't risen back to those unreal prices.

Unemployment stagnated in in the 1930s, yes, because capital losses caused businesses to stagger. And that was the POINT of the New Deal: to create income for people, through public works projects, through unemployment insurance and through Social Security, to allow them to live and improve their lot in life EVEN THOUGH the capitalist economy was stalled. This created demand at the base level, and resulted in a steady improvement in people's lives EVEN IF the capital economy had not recovered sufficiently to employ everybody in the private sector.

It worked.

You're never going to admit it because you're a Republican, and doing things like killing Social Security are just part of your DNA. Your party is never going to have the numbers or the power to do that, and the more that the party focus on that sort of anti-social stupidity, the less popular it is. Fortunately, Donald Trump has no plans to gut, or to privatize, Social Security. Nor does he intend to abolish Obamacare. He intends to properly fund it.

We're not going to agree on the past, but hopefully we can agree that Trump's the man, and that Trump offers enough that you like that you can overlook the things you don't.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-30   23:06:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: no gnu taxes (#18)

The artificial increase in the minimum wage stagnated the economy.

It stabilized the economy by preventing mass homelessness, mass starvation and a revolution.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-04-30   23:07:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#19)

No, NOT true. What you have stated is false.

According to my almanac the unemployment rate was 16.9% in 1936, 19% in 1938, 4.7% in 1942, and 1.2% in 1944.

rlk  posted on  2016-05-01   2:49:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: rlk (#21)

Yes, the unemployment rate was bad. No question about that. What the New Deal did, though, was get various forms of financial support to the population in ways that stabilized the situation and improved it. There wasn't any mass starvation in America during the Great Depression, and there certainly would have been had there been no New Deal.

The two critical innovations of the New Deal were unemployment insurance and Social Security.

This took the two most vulnerable portions of the population: the unemployed, and the elderly, particularly those who were grown ill and could not work, out of the danger of immediate starvation.

The old form of retirement in America was as in China: everybody worked until they could no longer physically do it, and then they moved in with their adult children for the remaining few years of their lives. That worked well when America was rural. It worked a lot less well in an urban, apartment- dwelling, salaried worker society, because apartments were not large, and the excess margin of the salaried worker was much smaller.

The old without family or whose children did not do their legal duty and care for them (for it was the legal obligation of children to care for their adult parents then, just as it is the legal duty of parents to care for their children), were often homeless, living in poorhouses, etc. Once the Depression hit with massive unemployment, the adult workers couldn't get a job to provide for themselves, let alone for their parents.

Social Security stabilized the lot of the elderly, giving them a permanent independent source of income which allowed them to house and feed themselves at a basic level, or to contribute financially where they were living with their children. The elderly poor were often not going to be able to be employed in any case, but now they had an income for their own support, which raised the overall average per capita income in spite of high unemployment, and removed a substantial burden of fear of homelessness, starvation and death in the winters. Social Security was foundational to the stability of society, even in Depression. And it still is. Everybody who lived through the Depression knew that, and the vast majority of Americans nearing retirement know it now. Which is why the determined efforts of Republicans to fundamentally alter Social Security always fail and always will.

The second piece was unemployment insurance. It did for unemployed working people what Social Security did for the elderly. The net effect was to bring income in to families that would have been starving and homeless.

The unemployment rate took a long time to improve, and capital formation took a long time because so many capitalists had been wiped out.

In the end , it did require the third government program: massive rearmament and mobilization for World War II, to bring full employment back. The WPA and things like the TVA directly created some jobs during the depression, but WW2 is what put the country back to work. That's true.

What is not true is that the country languished in the conditions of 1930-1933 until World War II. Those were desperate times indeed, as "Hooverville" tent cities went up all over the place. The New Deal, with injections of transfer payments to the elderly and the unemployed, through Social Security and the Employment Security Commissions rapidly stabilized the financial situation of Americans, causing per capital disposable incomes to rise back to pre-1930 levels by 1936. The source of that income was not jobs but transfer payments, but the point was that it was INCOME. People were no longer facing imminent homelessness, starvation and death. The Hoovervilles stopped growing and shrank. Nobody starved to death. Times were still hard and the dignity of work was still out of reach, but the FDR stabilized the country at a subsistence level through government transfers. The Republican laissez-faire that preceded it for four years of Depression under Hoover did not. And everybody who lived through it knew the difference.

Getting jobs back was important. Getting money into people's hands so they didn't all go homeless and starve was MUCH MORE IMPORTANT. And that's what the New Deal did that the Republican policies that preceded it did not, and never were going to.

The contention is that not having these programs would have caused the situation to repair itself faster. That was the Republican belief. The crash happened in 1929. Hoover left office in 1933 and the Supreme Court blocked FDR's New Deal for a year. For 6 years the Republican policy was in place - and labor and land got cheaper and cheaper and cheaper - and homlessness exploded and starvation appeared - but things did NOT get better, the ship did NOT right itself. Most people were simply sliding into further misery. The capital class had been cut by over half in the crash, and the remainder simply didn't have enough, or have the courage, to rebuild. There was too much excess labor to employ. There was a good six years of trying it the laissez faire way. It did not work.

In 1934 the New Deal finally took effect after the Supreme Court got out of the way, and in that very year American per capital disposable income and housing prices began to rise for the first time since the crash. Within two short years, per capital income was above what it had been in Hoover's term, and it kept rising inexorably for the next decade, with a small bobble when war returned to Europe and Asia in 1938.

Housing prices had continued to decline after the crash because of unemployment, foreclosure and the rise of Hoovervilles. Again, in 1934 that reversed, and housing prices steadily rose again until 1938, and then again thereafter.

Government transfer payments saved the people. That's why FDR was popular. The market was not going to turn itself around before millions were starving, and that's not acceptable. The stubborn refusal to accept that is the REASON that Republicans, having been dominant since the Civil War, lost their power. If Republicans today STILL won't learn the lesson, you're never getting the power back either.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-01   8:02:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#20)

The artificial increase in the minimum wage stagnated the economy.

It stabilized the economy by preventing mass homelessness, mass starvation and a revolution.

it kept the unemployment rate from ever falling below 14%.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-05-01   8:17:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

Reduced government intervention and government spending is what is needed to stop recessions:

https://mises.org/library/forgotten-depression-1920

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-05-01   8:22:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: no gnu taxes (#23)

it kept the unemployment rate from ever falling below 14%.

And it kept the starvation rate from reaching 1%.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-01   8:48:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: no gnu taxes (#24)

Reduced government intervention and government spending is what is needed to stop recessions

That's what Herbert Hoover thought too. The crash happened in 1929, on the first year of his watch. In 1933 he left office because year after year he dithered, and the lot of the people got worse and worse and worse - disposable income plummeted every year, year on year. Housing values plummeted every year, year on year.

That is WHY Hoover was defeated soundly and the Democrats swept solidly into power for the first time since the Civil War. But the Supreme Court was Republican, and it continued to Hoover economic policies for another year, blocking every major policy move by FDR until he threatened to pack the Court. In 1934 the Supreme Court caved, the New Deal came into force, and the relief was immediate.

The Depression did not end, of course, unemployment remained very hight and the stock market did not recover. But the disposable income of Americans began to rise steadily again, due to transfer payments. Housing prices rose again too. The threat of starvation receded.

For FIVE YEARS America followed your rote prescription and did nothing meaningful, while a quarter and then a third of the population were out of work. Huge numbers of people lost their homes, tent cities sprang up everywhere, and starvation lurked around the corner.

We tried it your way. It did not work. Five years is an ocean of time to sit and watch things get worse and worse and worse because of a stubborn orthodoxy of belief.

Relief came through transfer payments. We learned from the Great Depression that in calamity, if the government refuses to intervene, that in a severe crisis you will have mass homelessness and mass starvation.

In Europe governments did NOT intervene. They agreed with you. So they got fascist and communist revolutions instead. Was that better?

It is the height of foolishness to believe that a third of the people of a country will just stand in dejection and starve because the leaders believe in an economic orthodoxy that did not work. Fortunately for America, FDR was a patrician capitalist who understood that the people needed to be given RELIEF without uprooting the whole capitalist system. Elsewhere in the world went fascist and communist, with disastrous results for their people. FDR provided subsistence to people on the verge of starving, gave a solid but not generous stipend on which people could rely for the basics, and refused to allow the suffering of the people for basic needs - like food and housing - to get worse and worse and worse while the economy "worked itself out". It didn't work itself out for five years under Republican philosophy. And FDR and the American people were not going to let the population go hungry and freeze waiting for capital to work its way out.

Had we tried to "hold the line" we would have had a revolution of one stripe or the other. Republicans get lost in high school debating team logic..."If...if...if..." "If only we'd just let the people starve a little MORE, everything would have turned around."

No it wouldn't. All over the world governments did that, and things never "turned around". The people turned them OVER, in revolutions.

FDR's answer saved American capitalism and American democracy. That is why most Americans hail him as the greatest President of the 20th Century - because he was.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-01   9:02:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)

That's what Herbert Hoover thought too.

That IS NOT what Hoover thought. read the article at the link I provided.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-05-01   9:16:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

it kept the unemployment rate from ever falling below 14%.

And it kept the starvation rate from reaching 1%.

Maybe somebody should have asked the 14% who were still unemployed.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-05-01   9:17:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: no gnu taxes (#27)

Vic is a moron who loves theft like Satan vic loves it that Roosevelt stole everyone's gold and replaced it with paper. Remember vic would vote for baby killer hillary.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-05-01   9:44:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: no gnu taxes (#28)

Maybe somebody should have asked the 14% who were still unemployed.

They have been irrelevant by the the five page long verbose irrelevant arguments appearing here.

rlk  posted on  2016-05-01   13:06:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Vicomte13 (#26) (Edited)

FDR's answer saved American capitalism and American democracy.

What saved America was WWII that dropped the unemployment rate from nearly one in five to 1% in three years. For your delight and edification, I am not against Social Security if it's done on a statistically valid and sound basis.

rlk  posted on  2016-05-01   13:21:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: no gnu taxes (#28)

Maybe somebody should have asked the 14% who were still unemployed.

Somebody did. Those people voted in 1932. And they voted in 1936. And they voted in 1940. And they voted in 1944. They were officially polled four times. And all four times they wanted Roosevelt.

They did not buy the Republican nonsense, and people still don't. That is the key reason that the Republican party is the minority party in America and will remain so unless it wises up.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-02   10:52:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: A K A Stone (#29)

Vic is a moron... Vic ... loves theft like Satan... ...vic would vote for baby killer hillary...

A K A Stone calls it as he sees it.

So do I.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-02   11:10:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: A K A Stone (#29)

But when I call things as I see them, I keep the calls at the intellectual and policy level. I do not make it personal. Because when you make it personal, you make enemies of people whom you will need someday, and that's stupid.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-02   11:11:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: no gnu taxes (#27) (Edited)

That IS NOT what Hoover thought. read the article at the link I provided.

Of course - the American people were just all stupid. That's the theme for you Republicans. People live their lives, experience things, figure out what's what, but they're all morons and idiots and Satanists if they don't come to your conclusions.

Got it.

And THAT, my friend, is why Republicans are the minority party in America.

We really don't need to go on. Neither of us is persuading the other, or anybody else.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-02   13:17:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)

And THAT, my friend, is why Republicans are the minority party in America.

Maybe somebody should tell the people who voted them into majorities in the House and Senate.

Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president

no gnu taxes  posted on  2016-05-02   15:07:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: no gnu taxes (#36)

Maybe somebody should tell the people who voted them into majorities in the House and Senate.

The ONLY REASON people voted Republican in 2014 was to stop Obama, to stop the funding of Obamacare, to stop his various plans and programs.

THAT is the single, sole, solitary reason that anybody other than hard-core Republicans voted for the GOP.

And the GOP flagrantly betrayed them all and bent over for Obama every single time, on every single thing. That's why Cruz was a bit of a hero, to some, because he stood up the GOP for bending over to Obama.

Trump is the RESULT of the "Republican" majorities in the House and Senate. The Republican Establishment has controlled the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court for two years, and Obama's entire agenda has advanced, been funded - everything.

People are disgusted with the Establishment. They're not coming out and voting for the REPUBLICANS, they are coming out voting for TRUMP. And note well, until they realized that he was inevitable after the Northeast primaries, the Establishment was fully arrayed to battle Trump to the death.

Now, they are bending the knee and bobbing the head for Trump just as they did for Obama.

That's fine. At least the cooperation THIS time is in a positive direction.

Without Trump, the GOP would go crashing down in flames this election. And they may anyway. You could have a situation in which Trump wins the White House but the Democrats retake Congress.

Many millions of the people who like Trump and who will vote for him still despise the Republican Party.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-05-03   13:33:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com