Economy in recession for a year

From 1931 to 1940, New Deal joblessness ranges as high as 16% (1934) but never got below 9%. Unemployment was aggravated because newly-empowered unions insisted on higher wages when businesses could ill afford them. Higher wages reduce hiring. "Card-check" legislation, which would strengthen organized labor at the expense of employee free choice protected by secret-ballot elections, would reduce the number of new jobs created and existing jobs maintained.

What happens after the bail out money evorpates?

First, No Harm,

Let's get a few facts straight. Unions don't negotiate contracts with themselves. Company management is on the other side of the bargaining table and there is no contract until both sides say there is a contract.

What you seem to be advocating is a race to the bottom. I expect you think your pay and benefits are at a minimum adequate, but highly skilled auto workers are over paid. Where do you think the middle class came from? That's right, union members who could afford to buy homes, cars, appliances, put their kids through college and so on.

Any thoughts on CEOs making millions per year in salaries, bonuses, and perks even when the copmanies they manage are losing money?

"NBER does not define a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real gross domestic product, as is the rule of thumb in many countries..."

Including the U.S.

Why did NEBR change the definition of a recession? Guess if it isn't a recession by existing rules, then just--change the rules!

Reminds me of a quip about economists predicting six of the last two recessions....

This will make it harder to blame Obama for the recession. Well, actually it won't make it harder to blame Obama, it will just make people look stupider when they try.

Doug,

The middle class came from rising productivity in the American economy. The auto industry is a perfect example of unionized companies passing on excessive benefit costs to customers as higher prices, which in turn increase pressure for higher wages in a never-ending cycle. In a global marketplace, that doesn't work. Past government attempts to control prices have been a disaster.

I think shareholders should have more say in executive compensation. I don't believe employers should be able to recognize unions as exclusive agents of their employers without secret-ballot elections. Employees don't want adversarial relationships with their employers. They want to be on the same team. Foreign carmakers with US facilities match US carmaker wages, but they have lower benefit costs. I have no objection to national health insurance.

I object to organized labor's attempt to bypass employees and buy power with the Employee-Free Choice Act. I object to weak executives and unions being bailed out by taxpayer money. Give home-buyers a tax credit. Give green-car buyers a tax credit. Let the consumer decide who gets bailed out. After all, they are the middle class and they are the tax payers.

The middle class came from rising productivity in the American economy. The auto industry is a perfect example of unionized companies passing on excessive benefit costs to customers as higher prices, which in turn increase pressure for higher wages in a never-ending cycle. In a global marketplace, that doesn't work. Past government attempts to control prices have been a disaster.
.
Posted by: Do No Harm | December 1, 2008 4:23 PM

These days, to be a Republican is to be a walking oxymoron: The party that beats its chest in paroxysms of self-reliance never takes responsibility for anything that goes wrong. They talk about lowering taxes. But more and more Americans won't be paying any because they are jobless. They talk about making government smaller. But a country that is in the midst of an economic meltdown is comfortable with the massive stimulus that only government can provide. Americans now want big government to protect them from the freewheeling free market that Republicans have touted.

Just when Americans yearn for a promising future, conservatives offer us a return to a mythical, past time when everything was allegedly ideal. So, they attack everyone and everything not to their liking — immigrants, gays and lesbians, abortion. Leaderless, they hold the political equivalent of séances to channel Ronald Reagan. But they don't appear to understand that young and middle-aged voters don't know, let alone idolize, him — or that those of us who do remember his declaring that government was the problem, not the solution, have lived to realize that the Gipper (Reagan) was the problem and he had no solutions.

Over the past few days, it has become pretty clear what the Republican response to the auto-industry bailout will be- no. If the Big Three are bailed out, Democrats are going to have to do it on their own, because the Republicans have some history to re-write and some other motives.

In order for the Republicans to get back to their roots so that they may one day get back in power, they are going to have to become “fiscal conservatives” again. Now granted, looking at the history of Republican rule, they have NEVER been fiscal conservatives, as the vast majority of our national debt, to include the largest annual budget deficits, were all brought to you via Republicans. As such, expect the Republicans to spend the next few years simply saying no to any and all spending. What they are hoping is a couple years of them saying no and the Obama administration spending will allow them to rebuild their favorite fantasy- the GOP as prudent defenders of the taxpayer’s money.
The second reason you can expect them to say no is even easier to figure out- this is union busting on a grand scale.
When Republicans reject a bailout of the auto-industry, they are not doing so out of principle. If anything should be clear, when it comes to spending, the GOP has no principles. Instead, their no vote will be about something else- protecting the big money backers, the captains of industry and the folks who, unlike everyone else, have done well in the past eight years.

Teresa,

If you are responding to my point that past price control efforts were a disaster, they were imposed by the Nixon administration. But I should have been more clear that rising wages are warranted and sustainable in an expanding economy, where productivity creates a surplus for distribution. That is not where we are or where we will be for some time. We are paying the price for unsustainable demand based on excessively free credit due to an unregulated market. I didn't vote for Reagan either time and don't really know what connection you could be drawing between him and the part of my remarks you excerpted

Auto industry a big NO-
Why blow money on them when they aren't competive-
If they were their sales wouldn't be slipping ever year simiple as "ABC"-

Auto industry a big NO-
Why blow money on them when they aren't competive-
If they were their sales wouldn't be slipping ever year simiple as "ABC"-

Posted by: Inky | December 1, 2008 5:53 PM

Yes, we must save the jobs of the white collar guys on wall street only, the blue collar auto workers can take a long walk off a short pier.
It's the Republican way!

Ahhh, now I see why Inky has never written a full sentence. After watching this auto building debate, I can say that I support a loan to them, as it would be a real double standard if all the white collars on wall street got one, and the blue boys didn’t. It should be a conditional loan, whereby the upper management needs to be relieved, and no one should be making more than $250,000 per year. If Iacocca took a loan and paid himself $0.00 per year until the loan was paid off, the current industry should be modeled nearly the same. You know what happens to the blue collar workers when they fail to perform….they get fired with no severances. Why is there the double standard with white collars that don’t perform?

There is a big difference between the bank bailouts and the auto bailouts. A major reason for the automakers needing bailouts, is the fact that there was no liquidity for them to conduct their business. Also, the banking induistry has to be looked at as a utility in the respect that the country does not function without it. The country could function w/o the auto industry - granted there would be a huge transition, but it could be done. Some might say we are actually going thru that now as the American auto industry has been shrinking.
.
Back to the topic of the recession. The NBER is very reliable and independent arbitrar of economic data. They may be slow, but they are thurough.
.
Accoring to their website, www.nber.org , this past economic expansion lasted 73 months - 5th longest of the past 33 expansions that NBER has been measuring since 1854. Kudos to this administration for that.
.
The reason so many people are nashing teeth over this, is that this is the longest recession, 12 months now (unless NBER says its over months from now), is that if you are under 45 years old, you have't gone thru a recession of this length as an adult.
.
The past two recessions have been short and shallow. The
last deep recesssion was 1981-82 when Volcker and Reagan decided it was woth a recession in order to wip inflation, and they did a good job of it.
.
The economic growth of the 90's, which many attribute to Bill Clinton pulling us from a recession. That line of thought has a mjor flaw - the expansion, which ended in March, 2001 - 40 days after Clinton left office, had a duration of 120 months! Clinton was only in office for 96 months, so he basically inherrited an economy that was 21 months removed from a recession that ended in March, 1991. The reason Clinton was able to play "its the economy stupid" thru the election is that NBER didn't announce that the recession of 1990-91 was over until Dec 22, 1992. They do move slowly.
.
Finally, on a historical note, when FDR took office in March, 1933, the economy was exiting its longest recession in history, 43 months, which started in August, 1929 and ended March, 1933. The economy actually was not in a recession during most of the great depression.

X,
Auto industry loans with conditions such as those you mentioned may be inevitable, but the quickest way for our economy to get out of a recession is to increase wealth creation by increasing productivity. Productivity is not improved by disputes over a non-existent surplus. So, taking away secret-ballot unionization elections will prolong and worsen a recession/depression. The US auto-makers are merely poster boys for how this is the case. They can't compete because they couldn't control their employee benefit costs in collective bargaining. It was easier to go-along and pass the costs on to the consumer - until the foreign competition moved in and ate their lunch. So, maybe we make loans that put all compensation at risk, but for God's sake, don't handicap the rest of the economy with the Employee-Free Choice Act. That will just open wage negotiations for recoup organized labor's $450,000,000 bill for campaign services rendered ($1 billion if you include all non-cash staff and member campaign work time) through new dues and political contributions as the gift that keeps on giving.

Looks like our lovely Republicans haven't learned a thing from the election! Sure bail out the richest sectors but not the middle class. I would also like to add that your Republican adminsitration for the past eight years gave no push for the auto industry to have incesntive to comeup with new and better ideas. Not to mention that the auto industries best performing cars are not even introduced into the American market! You guys only care about the rich companies that dont give a damn about the average American!
Lets hope and pray the Democrats get those needed senators to block you and your losing party of un-American policies!

Republicans are willing to put hundreds of billions into bailing out the financial sector but they say no to helping the auto industry that will put tens of millions out of work and push us into a depression. It's that the GOP hates the auto unions with a vengeance and they are willing to send the economy into a tailspin to accomplish their goal. Republicans say OK to billions to AIG without any oversight and then give them billions more when they ask for it. But labor must be punished in the GOP play book the way Reagan destroyed the air traffic controllers. They want to put the government in the bathtub and drown it and leave the banks to rip us off. They conveniently forget it's the government that's bailing out the banks and that's sacred. But labor is evil and expendable.

Ref-
Ahhh, now I see why Inky has never written a full sentence. After watching this auto building debate, I can say that I support a loan to them, as it would be a real double standard if all the white collars on wall street got one, and the blue boys didn’t. It should be a conditional loan, whereby the upper management needs to be relieved, and no one should be making more than $250,000 per year. If Iacocca took a loan and paid himself $0.00 per year until the loan was paid off, the current industry should be modeled nearly the same. You know what happens to the blue collar workers when they fail to perform….they get fired with no severances. Why is there the double standard with white collars that don’t perform?

Posted by: Xcellentform | December 1, 2008 6:26 PM

You have more money than I to thow away-

* * * * *
Posted by: Palin fan | December 1, 2008 5:22 PM
.
There are actually a good number of reasons not to bail out the big-three auto manufacturers - even aside from the supposed historical revisionism of which you falsely accuse the Republicans. Let's start with the obvious.
.
First, there is the problem of setting a bad precedent with regard to the government's role in the market. The moment the federal government gets into the business of bailing out industries, it has turned itself into the arbiter of which businesses will be competitive and those that won't. I can't think of a single reason why this is a good idea. Today the system is still somewhat self-policing, insofar as businesses that exercise bad business judgment and foolishly expend their capital will be expunged through the process of bankruptcy and liquidation. Government bailouts of bad businesses, on the other hand, will simply waste taxpayers' money on poorly run businesses and further delay the inevitable bankruptcy and liquidation that should take place to properly reallocate economic resources.
.
In the particular case of the auto makers, there is nothing in the record to date to show that they have a plan to reorganize to produce better cars, more efficiently or even at a better cost to price ratio. Thus, for all we know, we would be bailing out bloated, inefficient manufacturers who will need yet another bailout a few years down the line to keep their bad businesses afloat.
.
In the second place, it is not the place of the federal government to create more moral hazard in the economy. The moment the government gets established as the guarantor of industry, industry itself will become more relaxed and less scrupulous in conducting its own affairs. That's because they will know they can always look to Uncle Sam for a dollar or two in a pinch. To the contrary, we need to let industry in this country know that there is no safety net. There should be no corporate welfare, and no bailouts to reward bad business models.
.
In the third place, show me where in the Constitution the government has the power to bail out industries? Bailing out industries is not in any sense a regulation of interstate or international commerce. To bail out an industry is to bail out a company that trades in commerce, and a regulation of interstate commerce itself. Furthermore, even assuming one buys into the dubious idea that the Constitution grants the power to spend "for the general welfare," spending money on specific industries inures to the benefit of a limited number of people, in a limited number of industries, in a limited number of geographical locations. There would, therefore, be nothing "general" about the welfare spread around. Thus, the lack of Constitutional authority for the bailouts is a reason, in and of itself, to deny the bailout. Then again, I can't expect either Republicans or Democrats to care too much anymore about the limitations the Constitution places on the federal government.
.
I must also observe that you are wrong when you suggest that Republicans have never been fiscal conservatives. The last President ever to balance a budget two years in a row and lower the national debt in those same two years was a Republican. That was Eisenhower. Ever heard of him, or are you one of those folks who think that history started 20 years ago? In fact, every other President since Eisenhower has added to the debt. Even Bill Clinton's administration added more than $1.5 trillion to the debt, and the government debt increased every year he was in office. Given these facts, one may only conclude that Bill Clinton's so-called "balanced budgets" and "surpluses" were the product of creative government accounting rather than genuine budgetary responsibility.
.
Moreover, you have judged all Republicans by some of the politicians they have sent to Washington. Most Republicans detest government waste and irresponsibility. In case you haven't noticed, George W. Bush's latest approval ratings (which should be called disapproval ratings) indicate that substantially more than half of all Republicans disapprove of his performance. In case you haven't noticed, a substantial number of Republican voters abandoned Republican candidates in last month's election - and that was primarily because of the perception that the politicians weren't conservative enough. If you had been perceptive enough to notice, you would have seen that it was a grass-roots groundswell of Republican voters who e-mailed, snail-mailed and phoned their representatives urging them to vote against the Wall Street bailout. Republicans are now to the point of helping Republican candidates lose in order to send a message to the Republican Party leaders that neo-cons and other big government, big spender types have to go.

Just remeber one thing-
Wal Mart is the best run company in Ameirca-
Before you say no - Remember-How did they get so big.

It's so sad, Americans bashing other Americans and wanting our country to fail. Ticked off because someone makes more per hour than them. Or has better benefits. Ticked off at middle class people who pay taxes, who shop and spend money, who vacation in other part of our own country. I don't know why Al Qaeda even bothers plotting against us, we seem resigned to let our country go to hell on our own.

There are more than just "evil" UAW factory workers that stand to lose their jobs and suffer if the big 3 fail. There are salary engineers and IT people, contract workers, food service people, advertisers, dealerships, suppliers and all kinds of businesses that rely on the big 3. All of the areas where there are big 3 facilities will wither and die and it's not just Detroit. It's all over. Think there is a lending crisis now? Add a couple million more foreclosures to the banks list. See how banks deal with people not paying their car note or credit card bill.

Other countries protect their industry. Hey GM, want to sell cars in Japan? Good luck. Doing business there will cost you. Want to sell cars in China? Sure, as long as you build plants in there and hire and train their workforce. You just can't export American made cars there. But all you other countries, we'll take your products. Bring them on, we'll make it cheap for you to import them. Heck, want to build a plant here, no prob. Put one in Alabama. We'll give you tons of tax breaks, pay your workers half of what American car companies pay, you don't need to take care of your retirees..the American government can do that. We'll set you up for success. Make it so you can afford more research and development, so you can sell your cars cheaper and spend more on quality. The American companies, they made some crappy cars 20 years ago and even though their quality has caught back up and in many cases surpassed their foreign competitors, let's keep bashing them because they take care of their workers.

Fix the credit crisis. Loan the big 3 some money so they can make it through the crisis. Americans, support each other, buy American.

Ronald Reagan and the Trickle Down voodoo spell that his twisted legacy has put on his faithful GOPer robots is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country since Hoover.

John "W",
Republicans prefer media outlets whose bias is toward dumb. Faux News leaps to mind of course, but there is also the "New York Post," "The Washington Times," the editorial page of "The Wall Street Journal," the "Pittsburg Tribune-Review," William Kristol of "The New York Times" of all places, and AM blowhard radio. Republican supporters all.

Any of these entities, given the choice, will take dumb over smart every time. Rush Limbaugh defended his title as the Prince of Dumb the other day by claiming that Barack Obama had caused the current economic mess.

"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh said on his radio show. That’s dumber than even William Kristol would go.

The GOP could start lurching back to smart in an effort to win back voters but it seems to be going the other way. They’re already talking up Sarah the Blunder Woman for president in 2012. Many smart conservatives – George Will, Colin Powell, Christopher Buckley, Chuck Hagel – are or already have, jumped ship.

Republican "leaders" will have to be content to win the dumbed down talking point games with their deadender followers rather than elections from now on. They can’t afford to lose any more true believers or their won't be anyone left in the party.

If GM and Ford are such great companies, why doesn't Warren Buffet just use some of his spare cash and buy them?
.
They are a combined worth bout $9 Billion in market cap. He has about $28 billion on hand in CASH.

Scary Terry,
With reactionary conservatism, the Republican Party has become the party of dumb. You can deny it, but for years now, your candidates have played the dumb card. No matter what the question – George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, global warming, Freedom Fries, stem cell research, Dan Quayle, evolution, Star Wars, trickle-down voo doo economics – you’ve always come down on the dumb side of the answer.

The result has been a gradual dumbing down of the Republican party until the only places that really bought what McCain and Palin were selling were places (the deep South) where poor people are still being duped into believing that tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans is some how going to help them put food on their table, gas in their pickem'up truck and ammo in their 12 gauge shotgun.

...
Posted by: John W. | December 1, 2008 7:40 PM
...

You're a hypocrite John W. and you're sounding more and more like brain dead Terry the ideologue Repub every single day.
You decry the evil collective of the democratic state, but have no problem with the total accumulation of power into corporations.

All the while, failing to recognize that centralized power is dangerous in any system, public or private.

The same exact problems with big, bureaucratic, centralized governments is equally present in big, centralized corporations - they all lack, among other things, accountability.

This is the problem conservatives like John W face: Their principles -- particularly in their approach to governance and oversight -- were thoroughly repudiated by the voters in two straight elections because of the manifest failures of those principles put into action. So the legitimacy of their movement hinges on denying that. Yet they'll never solve their dilemma until they recognize that reality and come to terms with the whys. Maybe someday they'll figure out that being conservative doesn't require authoritarianism or xenophobia or apocalytpic religious fanaticism.

Meantime, they can blame the horse (Bush/Cheney) they rode in on all they like. But it can't change the fact that they were the rider.

Do no harm,

There has to be balance. Sure, higher wages may decrease employment. But without certain wage assurances, you'd have more people working who are NOT making a living wage.

I guess its sort of "pick your poison", but isn't the idea to come together to see how we can have the most amount of people working, while also making a decent living wage?

Sorry, generally I agree with the Democrats but this time NO to the big 3 then on the other side I said NO to the wall street bailout too. However, it was not just the Republicans who said Yes to the bailout it was the Democrats too.
The people are the ones that need to be bailed out. If the big 3 hadn't been so self adsorbed at profits and had decent management they would have seen high oil prices and looked to see why toyota oversold them but they had their heads up their rears and didn't. If I had a business and I made bad decisions time after time no one would bail me out.
Bail out the big 3 ONLY after they replace the management

* * * * *
Posted by: Sam I Am | December 2, 2008 2:02 AM
.
Your response (above) is a collection of mindless drivel and falsehoods.
.
You call me a "hypocrite" but fail to establish such a proposition. Your only suggestion of hypocrisy is that, I "… decry the evil collective of the democratic state, but have no problem with the total accumulation of power into corporations." That is a lot of rot. I have written that corporations should be allowed to fail if they screw up. I am the one who wrote that there should be no corporate welfare, and that industries need to be told there will be no safety net. And that sounds to you like someone who supports the accumulation of corporate power? Where you got that from anything I have ever written is beyond me. Maybe in past posts I have written that corporations shouldn't be driven from the face of the earth because they employ mass quantities of people and, thus, serve some public good. However, I have never suggested that they be given anything other than a fair place on a level playing field.
.
However, now that we are on the subject of hypocrisy with regard to corporations, let's talk for a moment about the plan to allow large insurance corporations make life and death decisions in the Democrat health care plan. You loons decry the accumulation of power in corporations, yet you are more than willing to allow them to bilk you for money and decide your fate because they provide health insurance. That is entirely hypocritical, if not completely naïve.
.
And then, in the middle of your post, you change voices as if your comments are no longer addressed to me - but rather as though you have turned to face a larger audience in judgment of me. How dramatic! How inane!
.
And, no, voters didn't reject all conservative ideals in the last two elections. They rejected the neo-con agendum and style and substance of George W. Bush's governance. And it wasn't just Democrats that did so. Republican voters have been pulling the plug on big government, big spending Republican politicians who have failed them. I could explain to you the difference between Bush's agendum and the traditional conservatism that conservative voters crave, but that would be a true waste of time. You have no idea of what you are talking about when it comes to conservatism anyway. I would prefer to eat green eggs and ham - which is all anyone will ever get after the incoming administration completes its spending spree.

John W,
When I hear conservatives like you tell themselves that the reason they lost this last election was their failure to adhere to "conservative principles," I know they're continuing to cling to the very reason they lost. Because such adherence inherently means that these "principles" -- (conservative dogma about how they believe the world ought to be, particularly the insistence that government itself is the problem, when the reality is that bad governance is the problem) trump their ability to face realities on the ground.

From the outset, it's clear that reversing that approach is the most fundamental aspect of the "change" that Barack Obama intends to bring to the White House. And that is a very good sign indeed.

Inky,

This will show you the depths to which Wal-Mart haters (EFCA advocates) will go to achieve their ends regardless of the means:

http://www.shopfloor.org/wp-content/uploads/wal_mart_watch_statement.pdf

* * * * *
Posted by: DrainYou | December 2, 2008 2:36 PM
.
You may have had a point, and your comments might have held some water, had I actually ventured a theory as to why Republicans lost the last election. But, alas, I did no such thing. I stated why Republican voters abandoned Republican candidates and I argued against the notion that voters rejected all things conservative in the last two elections. But that's not the same as saying why Republicans lost the last election. Had I ventured a theory to explain last month's loss, my analysis would have included: McCain was too old and creaky, and out of touch with what concerned people the most; his positions on a number of issues were too close to those of George W. Bush's; many Republicans didn't like McCain because of his lack of conservative views on a number of issues; McCain's campaign was run with an incompetence rivaled only by that of John Kerry's 2004 campaign; Sarah Palin shook the confidence of voters due to her perceived unsuitability to assume the presidency if McCain croaked; Obama was different, young and optimistic; and that there was a deep felt conviction by Democrats, Republicans and Independents that a change from Duh'bya's style of government was long overdue.
.
If, on the other hand, you believe that the conservatism of George W. Bush had anything to do with the loss, then I suspect you don't even know what conservatism is. George W. Bush apparently doesn't know what conservatism is either, inasmuch as he never practiced it. The phony political gurus who equate "movement conservatism" (or even neo-conservatism) with traditional conservatism are entirely ignorant. If you listen to them, you are sure to be led astray.
.
BTW - I still very much believe that too much government is both a bad thing and the reason for our problems - including that little Frankenstein monster the feds created called the Federal Reserve Bank. If you don't think so now, I suggest that you ask yourself the question again in another four years after the shameless spending spree is well underway, the federal government grows at an exponential pace and the job of shredding the Constitution is finished at the hands of well meaning tyrants - assuming, of course, that we still have much of a country or economy left by then.

Dippy Hippy,

Unlike those intellgent urban voters - you know the ones that tolerate corruption, like those in BO's home city of Chicago.
.
Star Wars is becoming operational.
.
Son of Sam I Am,
.
First your premise or strawman is all wrong. When corporations break the law, I'll be the first to say have them do the perp walk.
.
Supply-side economics is a proven winner. The 2nd, 3rd, and 5th longest economic expansions in this country since the 1850's came after the highest incremental tax rates were lowered.

Little Johnny "W",

When are you going to put down the "conservatism never fails...people fail conservatism", kool-aide?

It's like you are stuck in a time warp and Ronny Raygun is riding a flying horse on which he's going to swoop down anytime now and make your fantasy world a reality.

Did the nusing home stop giving your your meds or something?

Terri,

HAHAHA!

You're the same guy who thinks Herbert Hoover was a great president aren't you? I'll never understand rightwing luintic fringers like Terri because obviously he doesn't reside in the top 1% of wage earners and yet he's on here every single night praying to the gods of trickledown for more tax cuts for the rich. The foot soldiers of the GOPer movement like Terri have to be among the dumbest people in the world, they actually campaign every year for their right to get screwed by big oil and big corporations.

Unfortunately Terri, reality and facts always trump your delusions:
.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/us%20surplus%20and%20deficit/fairewinds/deficit_3.gif?o=1
.

Little JohnEE-boy,
.
This country was founded on the ideals of conservatism. Those who wrote the Constitution and led our country in its fledgling years rejected the idea that a central government could do a better job of running people's lives than the people themselves. They believed in individual liberty. Individual liberty to them meant allowing the individual the freedom to act and make his/her own choices without a big brother. They believed that government encroachment into people's daily affairs was the greatest threat to that liberty. Madison and Jefferson, who were clearly two of the best Presidents we had in our early history, were openly contemptuous of any suggestion that the federal government ought to operate as a nanny state. That's because they believed government largesse led to indolence and waste. They had the experience of history to draw upon, and they drew upon it heavily in arriving at their convictions. The history of this country has since proven them correct time and time again.
.
Needless to say, I have something better than Kool-Aid to draw upon to support the validity of my ideas. You don't. Those who espouse your political views have only the shortsighted vision of venal populism funded by governmental plunder. One need only look at the shameless spending programs slated to begin next year as part of Obambi's economic recovery plan. Let's lay aside the fact the Constitution authorizes none of this spending. Let's even lay aside the fact that we can't afford it. The real tragedy is that none of your party's leaders apparently consulted history as a guide before cooking up this nearsighted monstrosity. Had they done so, they would have realized that similar plans failed earlier in this country's history as well as more recently in other countries.
.
This is so typical of the type of thinking (or lack thereof) that goes into these grandiose plans. This is the same type of Democrat thinking that got this country to throw many trillions of dollars at the problem of poverty in a manner that left us only trillions of dollars poorer without having put a dent in poverty. And then there's that little ponzi scheme cooked up by Democrats called Social Security. It is going to either bankrupt the country once baby-boomers retire in significant numbers or come to a screeching halt once everyone notices that the math no longer works. In none of these instances does anyone want to own up to the truth that the math doesn't work and/or the programs need to be fixed in order to avoid financial catastrophe. Thus, not only is your party plagued with shortsightedness, it protects its shortsighted ideal by mass denial. Kool-Aid anyone?
.
So take your snarky little stabs and go away little JohnEE-boy. Come talk to me again when you have something genuinely intelligent to say.

....
Posted by: John W. | December 3, 2008 12:56 AM
...

"W",
Not only do you live in a fantasy world, you can't even get the leaders of your own party (Repub) to listen to you. So bash the Dems all you want but it is you who is stuck in a party that is marred in 4th party gadfly status right now. If you're wondering why no one is listening to you it's because we've heard it all before from Repubs like you and you've failed to deliver anything other than complete and utter failure time and again. Your party has been given a chance to succeed over and over again and you've always failed in a spectacular way. After the complete denial and rejection of the GOP in two straight elections I find it disingenuous and childish of you to bash President-elect Obama before he has even taken office. For the last two decades, the Republicans have steadily purged themselves of all moderates, of anyone who did not toe the party line, of anyone who did not support the party leaders with every fiber of their being. Under leaders like DeLay and a dozen other of the top far-right powerbrokers, apostasy was ruthlessly punished. Moderates were primaried out, the religiously or socially tolerant were excoriated, the legislatively balanced were forced from their positions -- all in service to a supposed permanent ideological governance, one that valued ideological purity over all else. Over knowledge, over experience, over common sense, over the very fabric of the law -- the ideology of hard-right conservatism trumped it all. Toe the line, and you were granted jobs in the administration, or positions of leadership in Iraq, or plum committee assignments. Voice disapproval -- you were nothing. You woke up the next morning to a White House Press Secretary declaring that you were a disgruntled brat, one with emotional or mental impairments that were responsible for your pitiable desertion.

After twenty years of purging, all the Republicans have left is that hard-right extreme. They shoved everyone else out willingly: it seems hardly surprising that now, faced with the fruits of it all, they are finding that all constituencies of the nation that they sought to condemn, belittle or purge are no longer interested in supporting them now.

I have no particular interest in them learning this lesson, of course. As far as I am concerned the last thirty years have proven modern conservatism to be not just ill conceived, but paranoid, divisive, willfully incompetent, obtusely premised, and in sum utterly valueless to the nation -- a waste of political oxygen. Something to be burned at the stake, and the ashes scattered, never to be heard from again.

But I expect they will, in the next years, at least try to retool their party into one that at least pretends to be more tolerant of, well, anyone not fully immersed in the notion that Ayn Rand and James Dobson rule the universe. The coming bloodshed between the two factions -- conservative true believers who can look at the last eight years and see absolutely nothing worth doing differently, nothing but a smashing but sadly misunderstood success, versus those that truly wish to temper the party in an effort to regain at least some semblance of their former power -- will, no doubt, be a glorious thing to behold.

* * * * *
Posted by: Hunter | December 3, 2008 3:13 PM
.
Please write something original. I have already read and responded to the exact post - word for word, I might add - in another thread. I don't care to respond to it again. If you wrote these words, then go and chase down the other poster for using your work without giving you credit. In any event, having already responded, I figure it is up to you to find my response rather than for me to reiterate it here. But, I will favor you with a short synopsis: You prove you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about when you talk about conservatism and the Republican Party. Not a clue.
.
As for what you call "bashing" of president-elect Obama, he and his entourage should keep their mouths shut and not disclose their plans if they don't wish to draw criticism. To the contrary, however, they have already revealed their extensive plans for spending a trillion dollars beyond other budget demands just to reinvest in the infrastructure, stimulate the economy and maintain jobs. That's in addition to all the bailout money already approved by Congress - which most Democrats voted for, including Obama. That is in addition to the proposed health care plan. That is also undertaken in the teeth of the looming debt that will soon overwhelm the federal government because of its obligations to pay Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
.
It is all foolishness and insanity. I just want to know: What part of "We can't afford it" don't you quite get? I want to know how or why people of your political persuasion deny that these plans are going to generate unbearable inflation and/or taxation - especially in light of Obama's already revealed plans to continue deficit spending. How are we going to simultaneously pay for social security? The math doesn't add up, and it is only your blind faith and hero worship that keeps you from seeing the truth.
.
And you think I live in a fantasy world? Wake up and look at reality. I don't care to be the one to tell you "I told you so" when it all blows up.

...
Posted by: John W. | December 3, 2008 4:59 PM

Wrong again. People did care. Obama ran on an explicitly progressive platform, and Americans responded enthusiastically, flocking to his campaign in mind-numbing numbers — rallies topping 100,000 people, 12 million on his e-mail list, a staggering 3.1 million donors. Republicans frantically screamed, "Liberal!" and America responded with a "Right on!" and pulled the lever for the guy. Is that what a "center-right" nation does?

Does a "center-right" nation take a 30-seat Republican advantage in the House and turn it into an 80-seat Democratic advantage in just two election cycles? Does it take a 10-seat Republican advantage in the Senate and turn it into a near-filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the same time frame?

But nothing disproves the "center-right nation" fiction more clearly than the campaign Republicans just ran.

They spent the bulk of the election ranting about "celebrities," "tire gauges," "Rev. Wright" and "William Ayers," then capped it all off with the silly "Joe the Plumber" nonsense. Fear-mongering isn’t a hallmark of a party confident that its agenda is squarely in the American mainstream. Rather, it’s a sign of insecurity — that it can’t win votes by running on substance.

Yet substance was all the voting public wanted this cycle, and they proved it by electing the "liberal." i.e. Barack Obama.

I don't want to be the one to say 'I told you so".....uh yeah I do...the "we the people" told you so.

Herd,

.
Where did I say Hoover is a great president?
.
Now that your strawman has been torn down, let's look at some facts
.
Out of the 33 economic expansions that have occurred in this country since the 1850's, the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th largest have come after the highest individual income tax brackets have been lowered. Do you think that is mere coinicidence?
.
I may not be in the top 1% (probably a lot closer than you are), but I am smart enough to realize that it is the top 1% that create jobs in this country. Tell me, when was the last time someone making minimum wage offered you a job?
.
Whatever education of yours that your parents paid for, please go seek a refund.

Little Johnny 'W"
Your team (Repubs) had control of the white house for the last eight years and you controlled congress for ten of the last twelve and you've accomplished NOTHING but proving that conservatism is a complete and utter failure. Quit trying to rewrite history.

You also voted for George Bush which shows your profound lack of judgement. I knew in 2000 that Bush was an idiot son of another failed Republican Prez (GHW Bush) and yet you bought his act hook, line and sinker.

This case is closed.

You lose.....again.

Terri,
You log cabin Republicans crack me up and I just want to say that it's a pleasure coming on here and seeing that you're still as delusional as ever. I figured after the Repubs got destroyed in two straight elections it might kill your spirit but I see that you've embraced your insanity by rewriting history to make yourself feel better.

Good luck and thanks for the laughs, you're funnier than Colbert.

I may not be in the top 1% (probably a lot closer than you are), but I am smart enough to realize that it is the top 1% that create jobs in this country.
Posted by: Terry | December 3, 2008 8:48 PM

Yes because it has worked soooooo well the last eight years....

Try again Terri and quit getting all of your info from Conservapedia.

Trickled On,
.
Lots of blather, but no facts - start supporting your dribble with some facts.
.
Herd (or at least what is left afterwards),
.
The tax cuts of 2001 & 2003 set the basis for a six year economic expansion. That's a fact.
.
The recent meltdown is from the sub-prime loans shoved thru Congress by the flat-liner libs. Democratic fingerprints are all over the sub-prime mess: Frank, Dodd, Emmanuel, Rubin, etc... all the usual suspects are there.
.
If you mean www.nber.org as a conservative organization, I guess you are right. All those Noble prize winning economists have to work somewhere.
.
When, or should I say if, you can find any facts, please try to use them to support any arguement you make.

Terri Palin,
I'm sure you are aware of this but it's impossible for myself or others of my political leanings to have a fair argument with Repugs or even to make a regular comment on here because we have our comments so heavily censored all the time. So congratulations, you are wrong on everything as usual but it doesn't matter when you have the censorship gods on your side because they make sure that nuts like you always "win".

Trickled On,

No rebuttals to my facts, just a lot of whining.
.
I'm wrong on everything, but you can't show me just once where I am.
.
SWAMP is censoring flat-line leaning positions - that's rich.
.
GAME, SET, MATCH.