That’s usually how a ripple effect works. It obviously started here. The same exact argument could be made with this recession too.

“To say that Hoover’s tax cut had an effect that aided the onset of the Depression is as shortsighted as blaming Bush for making conditions ripe for 9/11. It started barely nine months after he was sworn in.”

I don’t think anyone’s ever made that argument about 9/11. I know I certainly never have. And I didn’t mean to give the impression that it was solely the tax cuts that caused it. It was that, in concert with loose banking regulations. This recession started in eerily similar fashion.

“I might also point out that just because Hoover was a Republican doesn’t mean he was a true conservative”

That has absolutely no bearing on what happened. He doesn’t need to be a conservative to be at fault. And actually, I’d like to amend my answer to include the nuance that the definition of the word conservative has certainly changed over the decades. I can remember reading about “radical” amendments (14th- 18th) being ratified to the constitution by the progressives in Congress, and they were Republicans. After Reconstruction, for about ten to fifteen years, Republicans were considered radical progressives. Then they sort of died off and were replaced by moderates.

“THEN, he gave us Smoot-Hawley, something Obama would do again if he could–it raised tariffs on all imported goods to protect American products. This only made things worse in the rest of the world.”

Obama would NOT do something like that, and much to my chagrin. Smoot-Hawley (or, as Michelle Bachaman calls it, Hoot-Smalley) has, as of late, become a new whipping post for the right, but they of course fail to realize that even after its passage (which was signed well into the depression), trade was under 2% of GNP. And I am an ardent supporter of protectionist policies. If you look at every industrialized nation that is experiencing healthy economic growth, they’re all doing so with protectionist policies. China, Japan, South Korea, as well as several European nations are all protecting their economies. China’s government passed an economic stimulus at about the same time we did, and they were smart enough to stipulate that that money needed to stay in the country; it was their “Buy America” provision (China is also the biggest benefactor of our stimulus, because our buy America provision was shot down).

What I’ve never been able to understand is how the right wing in this country has successfully demonized the word protectionism. Why is it such a terrible thing to protect our economy? Why is it so bad to keep profits in this country? After Reagan blew up our tariff system, our average tariff is hovering at around 2%. Two percent! That’s ridiculous. When we export our cars into Japan, they charge a 20% tariff. It’s not a coincidence that protectionist countries have the strongest economies. This is sadly a lesson that President Obama has yet to learn. He just went to Africa this year (with Tom Freidman’s book in tow) and pushed for “free” trade for the continent. That won’t work. I’ve said this many, many times, that if we as a nation don’t move back to a rational tariff policy, we’ll continue to have these economic problems.

“So, when you get down to it, some of Obama’s policies have been tried before. If they end up being passed again–including government-run healthcare–we’ll end up in the same predicament we were in before. Possibly worse.”

You’re right (not about health care), but about the scenario I explained above. “Free” trade has been tried before. It’s time for fair trade. Globalization has done nothing but make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

“But FDR didn’t save us, a massive World War did”

That is NOT true, not even a little. Do I need to post the numbers again? Because I can, complete with the 1938 recession, and its reasons.

“I also believe that if WWII happened today, our culture wouldn’t know what to do. That’s already been evidenced by what’s actually happening now. Not only would we not have the backbone to fight it, we’d never be able to provide the manufacturing power necessary for the war effort.”

This may be the first time I’ve agreed with you this emphatically (with the exception of the backbone part. Really, that sounds like a dig at out military). We really wouldn’t know what to do. Our production base has all but vanished thanks to the Republicans and Clinton. NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO have killed our economy. Who knew that funny looking guy with the big ears was right when he predicted a “giant sucking sound” would be produced by the passage of NAFTA?

“I might also point out another little fact about Roosevelt…he targeted local and state elections to campaign for specific Democratic candidates, too.

He failed miserably.”

Ha, kind of like Sarah Palin. But, what does that have to do with anything?

I appreciate you calling it government run healthcare becuase in this nation we do not have health insurance. Health Insurance is not insurance. But, what is it?

What we call heath insurance is really pre-paid health care. You pay your premiums and depending on the level of coverage you have pre paid for, you get covered. So if your arm aches from too much tennis, then your “insurance” will pay for your sore arm if you purchased insurance to cover that. From sore arms to massive heart attacks, it is all waiting to be pre-paid. We all know how expensive it is.

Real insurance does not work that way. When you car needs gasoline, you pay for it. You don’t bill your auto insurance. That is not what auto insurance is for. When your bathroom needs a new lightbulb, you go out and buy one. You don’t bill your renters or homeowners insurance. That is not what those forms of insurance are for.

Insurance is purchased to cover disasters. A sore arm from tennis is not a disaster. A massive heart attack is.

So now the goverment wants to get into the system of pre-paid healthcare for all. From sore arms to strokes it is all supposed to be covered and it should not be. When your arm hurts, you pay for it.

Until we get over this mentality that every Band Aid and tablet of aspirin is at no additional cost, the very rants about the health care system won’t change.

He failed miserably.

To say that Hoover’s tax cut had an effect that aided the onset of the Depression is as shortsighted as blaming Bush for making conditions ripe for 9/11. It started barely nine months after he was sworn in.

I might also point out that just because Hoover was a Republican doesn’t mean he was a true conservative. Know anything about Davis-Bacon? Hoover was very pro-labor. He struck a deal through Davis-Bacon that guaranteed industries wouldn’t lower wages and unions wouldn’t strike, but by the end of 1931 unemployment had reached 16% and got worse from there. Hoover also enacted Norris-LaGuardia, stopping the courts from issuing injunctions against striking labor unions. THEN, he gave us Smoot-Hawley, something Obama would do again if he could–it raised tariffs on all imported goods to protect American products. This only made things worse in the rest of the world.

So, when you get down to it, some of Obama’s policies have been tried before. If they end up being passed again–including government-run healthcare–we’ll end up in the same predicament we were in before. Possibly worse.

Not everything Hoover did was completely stupid. But FDR didn’t save us, a massive World War did. I firmly believe that if it hadn’t been for WWII and all of the drafts and sudden need for workers that also demanded women get jobs, too, I’m not sure we would have recovered.

I also believe that if WWII happened today, our culture wouldn’t know what to do. That’s already been evidenced by what’s actually happening now. Not only would we not have the backbone to fight it, we’d never be able to provide the manufacturing power necessary for the war effort.

You read that story after it had been updated. The original post was merely drawing attention to the fact that the RNC, for the last 18 years, has offered insurance that covers abortion. It was just humorously ironic. Apparently, they didn’t like attention being called to them offering something they’ve been supposedly opposed to as a platform, so they’ve decided to, after 18 long years, stop being so damned hypocritical.

Here’s a subject I’m not afraid to dive right into. You clearly don’t like having a progressive taxation system. But if it’s demonstrably beneficial to society as a whole (which it has been), then what’s the problem with that? I’ve gone through this before, but history shows us that the higher marginal tax rates (this is the essence of a progressive tax system) are, the more healthy and sustainable economies we have. Just take a look at the period from the post-depression 1930′s right up until the 1980′s, when Ronald Reagan came in and starting slashing taxes on millionaires and billionaires (by raising taxes on the working poor, the largest redistribution of wealth in the history of the country, yet conservatives have yet to blast the Gipper for being a redistributer). That 50 year span was one of the most prosperous ever, making it the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure; and working people’s wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen. GDP was consistently at or above 4.6%. After Reagan, it dropped to under 3%.

If you want a more stark contrast, look at the time leading up to the Republican Great Depression. Hoover cut the marginal tax rate from 73% to 24%. This led directly to the stock market bubble, boom, and then the crash. We saw the same thing occur with both of Regan’s tax cuts. Tax cuts only affect the rich.

I’m talking about assuming partial-birth abortion being legal under the prescedant set by Roe V Wade. The law on the books allowed for it, it had to be explicity and officially stated that it was not included.

One verdict that cancels out a big government assumption leaves us with “nothing”.

A positive minus a negative = -0-