Be a Supporter!

Mitt Romney

  • 4,822 Views
  • 118 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
WallofYawn
WallofYawn
  • Member since: Aug. 2, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Musician
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-01-19 01:35:21 Reply

At 1/18/12 08:10 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: At 1/18/12 07:39 AM, WallofYawn wrote:\
Now, I'm not particularly excited about Obama either, but I can tell you compared to the other candidates, he's still our best bet. The rest of them will cripple America. Completely cripple her, and it will be like 1930s all over again, only possibly worse this time. Obama is our only hope at this point, and it's all riding on him. If he can't do it, no one can, really. I hate to say it, but it's true.
We're already living in the 1930's... We had our big interventionist herbert hoover, and our bigger interventionist Roosevelt, the only difference is this time around our Roosevelt is less inspiring. This recession is not going to end any time soon, and I can guarantee you that it will get worse before it gets better.

At any rate, if you really do want Obama to win, then perhaps endorse the republican that you feel has the worst chance against him.

Why would I endorse the republican that has the worst chance against him? Why would I ever endorse a republican? Or a democrat for that matter? I'm a socialist. Although, I'd vote democrat over republican any day, even though they're still two sides of the same coin.

Also, key word there: RECESSION. The 1930s was a depression. This is nowhere near as bad as that, because banks are still afloat, businesses get bail outs, and the unemployment rate is still not as high, compared to the population we have, as opposed to the population and amount of money they had back then.

In the 30s, almost every middle class person was homeless, they all pulled their money from banks forcing them to shut down, and Mr. Hoover's solution? Ignore the problem and let it work itself out. There were no bail outs, nothing to encourage banks to start lending money again, no safety nets.

That is why they called hoover villes hoover villes. Because he was partly responsible for the situation. It wasn't until Roosevelt stepped in, that things started to change. Government took direct action in the economy, which helped improve conditions.

There was also no such thing as unemployment or social security back then, until Roosevelt came along, so unlike today, if you lost your job, in that economy, you were pretty much fucked. No one was going to come to your rescue, and all the money you saved up over the years is inaccessible because the banks were closed.

We may be in a recession, on the verge of a depression, but at least people can somewhat carry on their lives like there's still some hope. Things are still seemingly normal, even if this is one of the worst economies next to the great depression.(and again, key word there, DEPRESSION. This is only a recession. Things would be much worse if this was a full blown depression)

Another thing to note is that this didn't happen over night like it did in the 30s. People are more aware, more educated, and a little more willing to take risks than back then. This isn't happening as fast as the Great Depression did. That shit seemed to strike without warning, and crippled the country for nearly 10 years. It took WWII and a progressive change in politics to get us out of it.

I will agree that Obama is less inspiring than Roosevelt, but Roosevelt was a man who had very strong moral convictions, and his policies weren't shot down every step of the way by a shitty congress.

Like I said, if an asteroid came and hit all of congress, I'd be the guy sitting in front of the tv watching C-Span eating a bucket of popcorn cheering and clapping.

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-01-19 11:08:09 Reply

At 1/19/12 01:35 AM, WallofYawn wrote:

Why would I endorse the republican that has the worst chance against him?

I thought this was obvious. Because if would give Obama the best chance of winning.

Also, key word there: RECESSION. The 1930s was a depression. This is nowhere near as bad as that, because banks are still afloat, businesses get bail outs, and the unemployment rate is still not as high, compared to the population we have, as opposed to the population and amount of money they had back then.

The word Depression was simply an adjective that was used in the 30's instead of the word "Panic" which had been seen as harsher than the more euphemistic word depression. [Take it to mean, "Don't panic, the economy is simply depressed"] but as with all Euphemisms, the word comes to be associated with aspects of the actual object it describes, and so depression became a word for a Recession longer and more deep than any other.

The word recession is a text book term referring to two consecutive terms of negative GDP Growth. By Text book standards, the recession ended in the summer of 2009, that's nearly three years ago.

Since the economy of the early 20th century was far more goods-producing based, much of layoffs businesses were caused by a combination of the failures of Unit banking, the Tariff of 1930, tax increases [I'm not sure if they offset or were less than the actual spending increases] during the Hoover Administration, as well as pressure by said administration on businesses not to Cut wages. [I.e. to fire people rather than pay them less]

Today's economy is kept afloat by debt based consumption. Americans, and their Government, buy things on credit, and it is measured as growth. It is entirely dependent on the confidence in the value of the dollar.

Why bother mentioning this? Because the economy of the 1920's was, despite being lead off track from a boom, more structurally sound than the economy today. The crash of 1929 itself was not the worst financial panic in US History, but the unusual response made it that much worse. Today's economy has the appearance of strength only because of factors which, mathematically cannot exist for much longer. When The US Government and US Citizens are no longer able to siphon credit from other places, the part of GDP that is represented by that consumption will disappear. When Americans can't buy on credit, the service sector will implode with it.

That moment will come probably sometime after this election. The US Dollar tends to strengthen any time fears about Europe arise. Attention will shift back to the US at some point.

There are other things that can be said about comparing 1930's to today, notably that methods of national accounting have changed, always to the benefit of court apologists. However the point of my mentioning this is is Undoing bad policy in the late 20's and early 30's might have brought a quick recovery. Today, it's too late. A Mitt Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum could not engineer a recovery even if they knew what to do to make it happen. Paul grasps what would need to be done to fix the problem but doing it wouldd still entail a recession, and as president would not have enough clout to solve the problems himself.

Obama, like Romney, seems almost entirely interested in using recession economics to reward his campaign contributors and enrich those who do business with the Government. They bought their power with other people's money, and those people will expect a return on their investment.

Since we're all going to die anyway, metaphorically speaking. I would rather have Obama as president when it happens than someone else. Particularly because second term incumbents have no accountability to anyone, I'll be interested to see just how much damage Obama can do to the economy and to civil liberties when

I don't hold in very high regard people who base their election preferences on who they think can 'fix the problems' -- It's even worse when people think this way after looking at a Candidate's face and saying to themselves, that they can "Imagine them as looking smart and being able to fix problems"

I ignored the rest of your statements because I can't fit it into the actual discussion about Mitt Romney. But don't insult my intelligence by giving me a middle school rendition of the great depression,
I know what the court historians have to say about the time, and also knowing why their narratives are misleading at best, and propaganda at worst. Feel free to make a separate topic on the issue.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

sjsyami
sjsyami
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Artist
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-01-20 00:37:43 Reply

since there is only 4 candidates left, Gingrich,santorum,romney,and paul
the ideal situation would be a santorum-paul battle for the nominee
because a conservative and a libertarian very interesting match up but unfortunantly unless Romney messes up really bad it will probably be Romney- ?


That guy

marchohare
marchohare
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Animator
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-01-20 01:53:45 Reply

I don't understand why you guys are even guessing. The Republican nominee is going to be Romney. That was obvious three years ago. He was next in line. You can pretty much call these things on three factors: 1) Image, 2) Image, and 3) Image.

The only time I've been surprised in recent memory is when Obama received the Democratic nomination over Hillary. THAT surprised me. The Republicans haven't surprised me for 32 years. The last time an election truly surprised me, it was a double-whammy: I couldn't believe the Republicans were stupid enough to nominate Reagan in 1980, and I couldn't believe Americans were stupid enough to elect him. But, they were, and we did.

It's all been downhill from there, kids.

Anyway, I'm very hard to surprise. I knew Obama was going to get the nod by this time four years ago (January 20, 2008), but I was surprised when it became obvious by the end of 2007 that he had become the Mainstream Media's Anointed One. Who did Hillary piss off? She'd always been a good little bitch for her Corporate Masters. She rolled over and helped Big Pharma screw us all up the ass throughout the 'nineties. Who did she piss off?

Now I know: it turned out that Obama impressed Israel a lot more. It should have been obvious. Not only that, but he was just a better bet: he wasn't female and he wasn't married to anyone nearly as controversial and unpredictable as Slick Willy.

That was a hard call, but generally speaking, Democrats are less predictable than Republicans. Romney is easy. He's gonna get the Republican nomination, and then he's going to lose to Obama.

Hide and watch.


BBS Signature
WallofYawn
WallofYawn
  • Member since: Aug. 2, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Musician
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-01-20 02:15:11 Reply

At 1/19/12 11:08 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
At 1/19/12 01:35 AM, WallofYawn wrote:

Why would I endorse the republican that has the worst chance against him?
I thought this was obvious. Because if would give Obama the best chance of winning.

I think no matter who goes against him, he'll win, because you know, he's a human, and they're all chimps.


Also, key word there: RECESSION. The 1930s was a depression. This is nowhere near as bad as that, because banks are still afloat, businesses get bail outs, and the unemployment rate is still not as high, compared to the population we have, as opposed to the population and amount of money they had back then.
The word Depression was simply an adjective that was used in the 30's instead of the word "Panic" which had been seen as harsher than the more euphemistic word depression. [Take it to mean, "Don't panic, the economy is simply depressed"] but as with all Euphemisms, the word comes to be associated with aspects of the actual object it describes, and so depression became a word for a Recession longer and more deep than any other.

I see. Makes sense. In that case, there isn't widespread panic. I mean, people are still pretty calm considering the circumstances.


The word recession is a text book term referring to two consecutive terms of negative GDP Growth. By Text book standards, the recession ended in the summer of 2009, that's nearly three years ago.

Since the economy of the early 20th century was far more goods-producing based, much of layoffs businesses were caused by a combination of the failures of Unit banking, the Tariff of 1930, tax increases [I'm not sure if they offset or were less than the actual spending increases] during the Hoover Administration, as well as pressure by said administration on businesses not to Cut wages. [I.e. to fire people rather than pay them less]

Today's economy is kept afloat by debt based consumption. Americans, and their Government, buy things on credit, and it is measured as growth. It is entirely dependent on the confidence in the value of the dollar.

Why bother mentioning this? Because the economy of the 1920's was, despite being lead off track from a boom, more structurally sound than the economy today.

Yea, this is all true. I mean, shit, if we had an economy like the 1920s, in today's world, shit would be off the hook. I mean, I guess you could say the 90s was a bit of resurgence, but nothing compared to the 20s.

The crash of 1929 itself was not the worst financial panic in US History, but the unusual response made it that much worse. Today's economy has the appearance of strength only because of factors which, mathematically cannot exist for much longer. When The US Government and US Citizens are no longer able to siphon credit from other places, the part of GDP that is represented by that consumption will disappear. When Americans can't buy on credit, the service sector will implode with it.

Yea, I never liked the idea of that whole credit idea. I mean, it works if say, I wanna buy shit, but economically, that shit is unstable. We need to go back to using gold, or something physical.(I understand even gold has no intrinsic value but what we give it, but it's far more stable) I mean, that is, if that is even possible.


That moment will come probably sometime after this election. The US Dollar tends to strengthen any time fears about Europe arise. Attention will shift back to the US at some point.

There are other things that can be said about comparing 1930's to today, notably that methods of national accounting have changed, always to the benefit of court apologists. However the point of my mentioning this is is Undoing bad policy in the late 20's and early 30's might have brought a quick recovery. Today, it's too late. A Mitt Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum could not engineer a recovery even if they knew what to do to make it happen. Paul grasps what would need to be done to fix the problem but doing it wouldd still entail a recession, and as president would not have enough clout to solve the problems himself.

Well, yea, his idea of abandoning the credit system is a good idea...his ideas on the role of the fed. though don't make me very enthusiastic. I understand that it's a big bubble, though, and some day this bubble is going to pop, and it's perhaps far too late to fix it.


Obama, like Romney, seems almost entirely interested in using recession economics to reward his campaign contributors and enrich those who do business with the Government. They bought their power with other people's money, and those people will expect a return on their investment.

Yea, I never said Obama wasn't an asshole. He is a typical politician, only slightly less annoying or two faced than some others. He still uses typical tactics, like any other politician. People expected him to not be like a politician. He was expected to be like some black JFK, but even JFK was still a politician. The only radical in the group is Ron Paul, and perhaps too radical at that.


Since we're all going to die anyway, metaphorically speaking. I would rather have Obama as president when it happens than someone else. Particularly because second term incumbents have no accountability to anyone, I'll be interested to see just how much damage Obama can do to the economy and to civil liberties when

I don't hold in very high regard people who base their election preferences on who they think can 'fix the problems' -- It's even worse when people think this way after looking at a Candidate's face and saying to themselves, that they can "Imagine them as looking smart and being able to fix problems"

Well my reason wasn't so much "who can fix it" as "who is less likely to make it significantly worse." I mean, at least Obama tried to undo some of the shit Bush put in place. Most of the other candidates want to return to those failed economic policies we call Reaganomics.


I ignored the rest of your statements because I can't fit it into the actual discussion about Mitt Romney. But don't insult my intelligence by giving me a middle school rendition of the great depression,
I know what the court historians have to say about the time, and also knowing why their narratives are misleading at best, and propaganda at worst. Feel free to make a separate topic on the issue.

I might do that. I never claimed to be an expert on the shit, though. I was just attempting a retort, of sorts...I guess. You have a better grasp of the facts than I thought, though. But riddle me this:

Is there not ANYTHING that we can do? I mean, if it's as bad as you say, and this economy is doomed to fail, what's that mean for folks like me, who are in their 20s and have little job experience? If it is gonna be worse than in the 30s, shit is gonna be a LOT harder.

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-01-20 12:53:14 Reply

At 1/20/12 02:15 AM, WallofYawn wrote:
At 1/19/12 11:08 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

I think no matter who goes against him, he'll win, because you know, he's a human, and they're all chimps.

I don't think his chances are quite as good as you say. Though I do think he'll end up living.


The word Depression was simply an adjective that was used in the 30's instead of the word "Panic" which had been seen as harsher than the more euphemistic word depression. [Take it to mean, "Don't panic, the economy is simply depressed"] but as with all Euphemisms, the word comes to be associated with aspects of the actual object it describes, and so depression became a word for a Recession longer and more deep than any other.
I see. Makes sense. In that case, there isn't widespread panic. I mean, people are still pretty calm considering the circumstances.

Pre-1929 recessions were known for being short and fast. Namely they would start with a run on the bank [bank panic] followed by a sharp uptick in unemployment, and then half a year later normal activity would resume.

Yea, I never liked the idea of that whole credit idea.

That's a surprise for me. Well, you and gold and all. But i'm not saying this to advocate a commodity standard per-say.

c p

I ignored the rest of your statements because I can't fit it into the actual discussion about Mitt Romney. But don't insult my intelligence by giving me a middle school rendition of the great depression,
I know what the court historians have to say about the time, and also knowing why their narratives are misleading at best, and propaganda at worst. Feel free to make a separate topic on the issue.
I might do that. I never claimed to be an expert on the shit, though. I was just attempting a retort, of sorts...I guess. You have a better grasp of the facts than I thought, though. But riddle me this:

Is there not ANYTHING that we can do? I mean, if it's as bad as you say, and this economy is doomed to fail, what's that mean for folks like me, who are in their 20s and have little job experience? If it is gonna be worse than in the 30s, shit is gonna be a LOT harder.

If you're asking ME, there's nothing that can be done to avoid a corrective recession. The Government can quicken the correction by abstaining from 1. Supporting failed businesses and failed business models 2. Allow factors of production [labor, land and capital] to fall so that they can be purchased by entrepreneurs towards productive [that is, aimed at the satisfaction of consumer demand] uses. 3. Not trying to inflate another bubble in housing or education or the stock market. No one can stop the recession but it can be shortened.

Why people like me think we're doomed is basically because we anticipate the government will 1. Continue pump priming 2. Try to pay off debts by monetizing them.

We also have economists who consider deflation to be the worst threat. In a nuttshell, just as loaning money into existence increases the money supply. So they'll tell central banks to make up the difference.

My guess is, Like a drug, the economy has acquired a tolerance to stimulus. So once faith in the dollar tends to waver, interest rates will rise, prices will rise, and unemployment will rise. d


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

WallofYawn
WallofYawn
  • Member since: Aug. 2, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Musician
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-01-20 14:49:02 Reply

So, I guess the only option is a pheonix economy rising from the ashes of a former one? In a way, I hope it will happen...I just wish I wasn't a part of it, because I don't want to suffer myself.

I just hope that when it does happen, it's swift, and we can get back on our feet, to a better system of governing and economics. I also hope that everyone who caused this crisis gets their much deserved karmic justice, but that probably won't happen. Evil men rarely get punished, while the good all die young, and in this case: broke and pennyless.

WallofYawn
WallofYawn
  • Member since: Aug. 2, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Musician
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-01-20 14:53:02 Reply

On the other hand, chances of a fast recovery after such a collapse would be slim, and even then, they'd probably go back to doing shit the way they used to, using the same fiat banking system and trying to pump stimulus into the economy again. You'd see a recovery and then 20-30 years down the road, it'd start happening all over again.

I don't get what the fuck is wrong with all of these politicians. They need to pull their heads out of their asses and wake the fuck up, but they can't. They don't care, because they are so sure, and they will not accept alternatives, and so we are fucked.

Ranger2
Ranger2
  • Member since: Jan. 28, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 00:53:16 Reply

At 12/25/11 11:08 AM, tiegizzle wrote:
Ron Paul has all of the young and/or intelligent people's vote.
Rick Perry has all of the idiot's votes.

Nope, no bias towards any candidate in this prompt.

Ihatedapatriots
Ihatedapatriots
  • Member since: Oct. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Programmer
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 04:27:33 Reply

At 2/3/12 12:53 AM, Ranger2 wrote:
At 12/25/11 11:08 AM, tiegizzle wrote:
Ron Paul has all of the young and/or intelligent people's vote.
Rick Perry has all of the idiot's votes.
Nope, no bias towards any candidate in this prompt.

LOL

To be fair I don't think he ever denied having a bias.

joe9320
joe9320
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 06:36:02 Reply

The GOP used to be left wing. What happened during the 70's and now?


I still like Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven!

BBS Signature
TNT
TNT
  • Member since: Jul. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 11:30:21 Reply

At 1/21/12 12:19 PM, MudkipsPiano wrote: Anyone who votes for Mitt Romney is an ignorant asshole

I don't support Mitt Romney, but I don't believe that alone will convince me that he is worse than Obama. Obama had an interview sometime ago at the White House, and he was asked what he thought about legalizing marijuana. He response was, "I'm against legalizing it".

Basically that video cancels it out. Still does not mean I support him because he is not my first choice.


Latest song cover: Rock Is Dead.
Steam ID: echoes83 (Tyler from Texas)

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 12:14:51 Reply

At 1/21/12 12:19 PM, MudkipsPiano wrote: Anyone who votes for Mitt Romney is an ignorant asshole

;;;;
Why any working man or woman would vote for this ultra rich person to run the country for the good of the working people,the poor & destitue is so laughable it is sad to the point of tears.

He hasn't got a CLUE on what the working & poor people of the US need, he doesn't give a fucking shit about anything accept his own concerns & how to protect them.
On Obama I was reading in the Reuters news today how he says he prays each day & uses Jesus to craft policy !
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/0 2/us-usa-obama-religion-idUSTRE8111TZ201 20202
So that's where he gets his ideas ! !
No wonder you countries falling apart, you've got a nut bar holding the top job & a mega rich nutbar running to be in the race to replace him ! ! !
you guy's are screwed.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

AJtheRipper
AJtheRipper
  • Member since: Aug. 25, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 12:45:25 Reply

Predictions:

Romney vs Obama and sadly Obama wins.

Then I shoot myself or leave for Norway to reside for the remainder of my life.

J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 14:51:39 Reply

As a general rule an opposition almost never wins its the incumbent who loses, additionally a libertarian in the true sense of the word will always have problems in the Republican party since they tend to be social liberal as well as economic liberal and conservatives as a rule dont like the first hence their positions on drugs, gay marriage etc. Frankly someone like Paul would have had more chance as a Democrat as they're still broadly economic liberal and they tend towards the social liberal as well.

J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 14:58:42 Reply

At 1/19/12 11:08 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
Since the economy of the early 20th century was far more goods-producing based, much of layoffs businesses were caused by a combination of the failures of Unit banking, the Tariff of 1930, tax increases [I'm not sure if they offset or were less than the actual spending increases] during the Hoover Administration, as well as pressure by said administration on businesses not to Cut wages. [I.e. to fire people rather than pay them less]

As far as I can tell from when I studied it Hoover didnt set in motion any significant operations in terms of economic intervention besides increasing taxes though he certainly had some ideas albeit the ones that were implemented had low funding to the point of pointlessness due to the economic orthodoxy of maintaining a balanced budget. That said some of his ideas were adopted by FDR and when implemented properly which is to say when they actually got funding they were fairly successfull.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 15:15:32 Reply

At 2/3/12 12:45 PM, AJtheRipper wrote: Predictions:

Romney vs Obama and sadly Obama wins.

Then I shoot myself or leave for Norway to reside for the remainder of my life.

my eyes are on Estonia, but feel free to run away to an even more liberal nation.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 15:18:19 Reply

At 2/3/12 03:15 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:
At 2/3/12 12:45 PM, AJtheRipper wrote: Predictions:

Romney vs Obama and sadly Obama wins.

Then I shoot myself or leave for Norway to reside for the remainder of my life.
my eyes are on Estonia, but feel free to run away to an even more liberal nation.

But Estonia has the dreaded universal health care!

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 16:14:18 Reply

Romney is gonna win the nomination anyways Just wait till Super Tuesday.

SmilezRoyale
SmilezRoyale
  • Member since: Oct. 21, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 18:05:34 Reply

At 2/3/12 02:58 PM, J1993 wrote:
As far as I can tell from when I studied it Hoover didnt set in motion any significant operations in terms of economic intervention besides increasing taxes though he certainly had some ideas albeit the ones that were implemented had low funding to the point of pointlessness due to the economic orthodoxy of maintaining a balanced budget. That said some of his ideas were adopted by FDR and when implemented properly which is to say when they actually got funding they were fairly successful.

Quoting from http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured /great-myths-of-the-great-depression/

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government's share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover's agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover's administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt's policies of the 1930s, explained, "We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."[6]


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 18:36:20 Reply

Here's what makes Mitt has going for him. The other GOP candidates have all these views and opinions. These opinions are often horribly off-putting. Luckily, Mitt doesn't have any opinions. His opinions are whatever the voters (or lobbyists) want them to be.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
camobch0
camobch0
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Gamer
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-03 21:12:39 Reply

In my government class, before the primaries started, the teacher set up a betting pool for who would win the nomination, and the winner(s) get a milkshake, I stupidly bet on Gingrich. Here's hoping Mitt screws up very badly somehow.


A vagina is really just a hat for a penis.

BBS Signature
joe9320
joe9320
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-04 04:04:13 Reply

Mitt Romney is better than Newt Gingbitch (Gingrich's detractor's name). Gingbitch only wants to shit on Jesus for preaching peace, tolerance and love. And crucify him in the process, only because Jesus sees adultery as evil to the marriage, and may be a harm to Gingbitch's career.

Plus, Gingbitch is an infidel! And infidels burn in hell!

I say have Mitt Romney fix NASA and launch us to the Moon and Mars!


I still like Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven!

BBS Signature
Globex
Globex
  • Member since: Nov. 9, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-04 06:23:50 Reply

I'm not an American, but isn't Mitt Romney just a dumb capitalist puppet of Trump?

J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-04 08:15:06 Reply

At 2/3/12 06:05 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
Quoting from http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured /great-myths-of-the-great-depression/

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government's share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover's agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover's administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt's policies of the 1930s, explained, "We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."[6]

Fair enough I only looked at it at high school so we didnt get a hell of a lot of information on it. That said FDR did scale up significantly and Hoover was coming off of a period of low public spending.

J1993
J1993
  • Member since: May. 26, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-04 08:18:59 Reply

At 2/4/12 06:23 AM, Globex wrote: I'm not an American, but isn't Mitt Romney just a dumb capitalist puppet of Trump?

Yeah but politicians in general are slaves to their backers (not justifying it Im socialist personally but no point looking at this without considering alternate perspectives).

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-04 21:05:15 Reply

At 2/3/12 06:36 AM, joe9320 wrote: The GOP used to be left wing. What happened during the 70's and now?

The Evangelicals and other big religious voting blocs switched teams. Whichever party they're in bed with is going to have to represent their interests. Which usually means turning far to the right and being against things that most average americans are either for, or don't really care about all that much in terms of social issues. There's also the fact that they've become the party of the rich and corporations and don't really hide that (unlike the Democrats who still try to say with a straight face that they aren't just as in bed with corporate interests and donors).


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
joe9320
joe9320
  • Member since: Aug. 20, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Gamer
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-05 03:06:22 Reply

At 2/4/12 09:05 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
The Evangelicals and other big religious voting blocs switched teams. Whichever party they're in bed with is going to have to represent their interests. Which usually means turning far to the right and being against things that most average americans are either for, or don't really care about all that much in terms of social issues

Who's the last GOP member that stood for the Republican's original left-wing policies?


I still like Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven Riven!

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-05 07:06:15 Reply

well looks like romney won Nevada with Gringitch second and paul and santorum who came nowhere close.

All-American-Badass
All-American-Badass
  • Member since: Jul. 16, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 31
Blank Slate
Response to Mitt Romney 2012-02-05 11:41:25 Reply

At 2/5/12 07:01 AM, Travis wrote: Quick question...

I don't exactly keep up with it, so don't take this as me being a smartass.

But... what's so great about Ron Paul?

He's libertarian, he pretty much tells big government to go fuck themselves. EPA, FDA? Get that shit out of there.