General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt was 80 years ago today...
- Edmund Wilson, Hull House (1932)
This is the America that Franklin Roosevelt took the helm of 80 years ago today. After decades of increasing income disparity, the bottom had fallen out under Hoover's watch. Hoover worked mightily to right the ship by bailing out banks and business, but to his great surprise, his trickle-down efforts never worked. The job creators wouldn't create jobs.
FDR entered the White House determined to create a New Deal for Americans - a deal where all Americans, not just the wealthy, could get a leg up and lead a decent life. And since 1933, that New Deal has been the very lifeblood of working Americans: As the New Deal grew and expanded, the 99% did better. As the New Deal has been unceasingly attacked and beaten back by America's elite since 1981, the lot of the 99% has fallen, fallen.
It has become fashionable lately to bash FDR. Even Democrats have joined in the fun, including our President, who claims (erroneously) that FDR let the previous depression get terrible on purpose. And while FDR had his faults, the bottom line is this: he made sure that the working class got a fair break, and he set the stage for almost 50 years of growing prosperity for all Americans.
As we listen to the growing bipartisan demand to take bigger and bigger chunks out of the New Deal, to whittle it down until it's small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, remember this: we are the New Deal, and the New Deal is us. If it dies, we die with it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)It needs to said, over and over again until people everywhere, 'get it'
TDale313
(7,820 posts)
lark
(23,091 posts)Since he's not running again, he's totally willing to do grave damage to the Democratic party for many years to come by whacking SSI. He's acting as Jeb Bush's best friend in doing all possible to make sure that R is the next president.
Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)
Post removed
jsr
(7,712 posts)We all know four out of five dentists agree FDR was a lazy bum. 
2naSalit
(86,536 posts)and as quoted and stated by Sekhmets Daughter above, over and over and over and over... on billboards and full page newspaper ads and all over the cell phone universe and everywhere else...
840high
(17,196 posts)over and over and over - sending this to my whole email list.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)
Even with his few mistakes or the misgivings of others, FDR was still one of the greatest presidents we ever had. We need an FDR now, but the political climate and the powers that underlie it are not the same.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)Well it was built to be military housing in 1948, but it's mine now!
Correction i am Home buyer not a home owner
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)"It has become fashionable lately to bash FDR. Even Democrats have joined in the fun, including our President, who claims that FDR let the previous depression get terrible on purpose."
The included link leads to this quote from Obama:
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/story-behind-obamas-remarks-fdr
Which leads to a HuffPo post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leo-hindery-jr/political-malpractice-in_b_784108.html
Amazing. With all the resources behind him, and with his long interest in becoming the President of the United States, President Obama actually has a belief that FDR waited
"for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically."
Where does he get his information? From Fox News?
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)I thought I remembered FDR going right to work on the New Deal after his inauguration. I hate it when people try to re-write history, whether it be a Republican or a Democrat.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)One wonders why there wasn't even an aid around that passed High School to clarify it for him, hell if I recall properly they even taught about FDR's first 100 days when I was in grammar school.
No wonder he has no understanding of Keynesian economics, he appears to have missed those high school years entirely.
I am now rather embarrassed for him.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)But as President Obama took office, the Council on Foreign Relations was cranking up a remarkably one-sided conference purporting to be a "Second Look at the Great Depression and the New Deal." Ms. Shlaes was a prominent participant, as was the Council's co-chair, one Robert Rubin, whose myriad protégés thronged the Obama Treasury and economic councils.
Whether our highly intellectual president picked up the idea by reading it or hearing somebody else say it, it was, and is, in the air. And you can be sure that his words will now be rattling around for years to come and likely cited as proof of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "irresponsibility."
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/story-behind-obamas-remarks-fdr
Hard to believe those big shots could have forgotten "The first 100 days". In fact, I don't believe they did; I believe they're purposefully revising history for their own reasons.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)We really need to on our toes and to stay on top of the media to do so as well.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)His fan club all hate us too. He has also, through Carney, said that the New Deal is an anachronism that needs to be done away with.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)It was a nice tribute, until you had to bash Obama.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that you use every opportunity to bash Obama as some here used to bash Bush.
Is it just me that you are constantly bashing Obama for any reason?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it's just you.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)it seems that every post the OP does actually DOES bash Obama in one way or another.
Maybe you don't see it.
The "is it just me" part was a rhetorical question. Maybe you should look "rhetorical" up.
Just a suggestion!
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)in order to make his own administration look better, he most certainly needs to be called on it.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)In case that's what you thought it was. And considering that it's a question whose answer many here would disagree upon, you should perhaps label it to be rhetorical if that's what you intend it to be.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)you lack any credibility to judge anyone anytime. Too bad, 25,000+ posts all down the toilet, I'll never read another one. buh bye.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Thanks in advance.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)ty.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)jazzimov
(1,456 posts)that I am of the opinion that you are a very self-centered individual. You have already decided what "should be done" in your own mind without consideration of any outside influences and climate.
Therefore, anyone who does not "do as you think proper" or who does not meet the fantasy of your desired "results" is therefore unfit - at least in your mind.
Honestly, I do not think that you have any type of logic and you rely on pushing people's emotional "buttons" in order to get a response.
I think that you will take any opportunity or twist the words of any candidate to justify your ends.
But, that is just my personal opinion. Which precludes me from taking anything you have to say "seriously".
Good night!
It's like something out of a cartoon
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)bashed FDR by incorrectly stating that FDR 'waited six months' before he decided to do something to help people when took office. That was incorrect.
'Bashing' means attacking someone for something they did not do. If you can find something in Manny's posts that refer to the President that is deliberately incorrect and intended to create a false impression, then post them. Otherwise you have incorrectly used the word 'bashing'. The word you should have used is 'criticized' which it is the duty of citizens to do regarding elected officials, so long as they are accurate in their criticism.
This President is a Democrat. We give him the respect we do not give Republican president, which is we expect him to act like a Democrat. That includes not bashing one of the best Democratic presidents on Social Issues in the last century. And not even considering dismantling the Social Network that is the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, not even a teeny, weeny bit to satisfy Republicans. And when he does suggest doing such a thing, which he has, it is not just Manny who will criticize him, it is ALL Democrats.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
jsr
(7,712 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)
shcrane71
(1,721 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)for that well deserved smackdown of a shameless post.
EOTE
(13,409 posts)Second, your attitude is pretty damned poor and your logic is even worse. So, that would preclude a great bulk of us here from taking anything you have to say "seriously". If you have an issue with the SUBSTANCE of a particular post, you can address that substance. You are utterly incapable of doing that, so you shoot the messenger. Shooting the messenger is for the intellectually lazy.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)about the depression.
At the end of February we were a congeries of disorderly panic-stricken mobs and factions. In the hundred days from March to June we became again an organized nation confident of our power to provide for our own security and to control our own destiny.[31]
The economy had hit bottom in March 1933 and then started to expand. Economic indicators show the economy reached nadir in the first days of March, then began a steady, sharp upward recovery. Thus the Federal Reserve Index of Industrial Production sank to its lowest point of 52.8 in July 1932 (with 1935–39 = 100) and was practically unchanged at 54.3 in March 1933; however by July 1933, it reached 85.5, a dramatic rebound of 57% in four months. Recovery was steady and strong until 1937. Except for employment, the economy by 1937 surpassed the levels of the late 1920s. The Recession of 1937 was a temporary downturn. Private sector employment, especially in manufacturing, recovered to the level of the 1920s but failed to advance further until the war. Chart 2 shows the growth in employment without adjusting for population growth. The U.S. population was 124,840,471 in 1932 and 128,824,829 in 1937, an increase of 3,984,468.[32] The ratio of these numbers, times the number of jobs in 1932, means there was a need for 938,000 more 1937 jobs to maintain the same employment level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal
pampango
(24,692 posts)but not surprising.
Although perhaps the Obama-bash was the real point of the OP and the praise for FDR was just the setup for that. You never know. 
And it's not just you.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The OP is the leading producer of manufactured outrage widgets here on DU.
harkonen
(36 posts)and never will be. Deal with it.
John2
(2,730 posts)Six months or one month is irrelevant. What matters is he do the right thing and the end result. He cannot do anything without the Democratic Party or us. That is the big mistake the Republicans are making. They forget that we are constituents also just like their constituents. That is why they loss the Election. They also insult our intelligence. They actually believe we voted for President Obama because of the color of his skin. Well I got news for them. We actually have the capacity to think for ourselves.
midnight
(26,624 posts)mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)Certainly the labor movement doesn't seem to resonate with younger folks. They know they're being screwed by employers, but they don't seem to see unions as the answer.
When I was young, my family stressed over what to do with Grandma and Grandpa, who couldn't pay for their doctors and pay the rent too. Medicare to the rescue. Two generations later and Grandma and Grandpa are better off than their kids, but the kids don't seem to understand why. It's Medicare, dummy! It's Social Security, dummy! It's Civil Rights, dummy! It's the ERA... oops, didn't get that one, and we've been slowed down ever since.
I remember, watching history being made almost every day in the 60's, and we had a news industry just dying to tell us all about it on the teevee. Now, we get crap.
I'm 65 and can't understand why anyone my age (whose not Rmoney) could be anything but a liberal, FDR loving, Democrat, and why we haven't instilled that in the younger generations.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But it's certainly true that most people today don't appreciate what we have, how we got here, and where we're going.
It should be taught, the same as we teach the Revolution and the Civil War. It's a big deal!
mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)I can tell you what my three kids didn't learn in school, we made sure they learned from us and from the books we gave them to read. The first place we visited in Colorado was Ludlow. I believe in public schools, but as parents we have to do our jobs too.
I Cant Dance
(42 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Great video.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)
CountAllVotes
(20,868 posts)n/t
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)A voice of reason. Thanks.
More Manny, for democratic discussion.
More FDR, for democratic progress.
Less phonies, for a saner polity.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Hulk Smash
(51 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Not to excuse it, but in the context of a world war, it's somewhat more forgivable to me. Millions of people were being slaughtered each month - things may have gotten confusing.
And somehow we won that war without torture as a policy.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)So glad that denying people's civil rights is "forgivable."
Here's your excuse for the Dresden bombing: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2348318
"And somehow we won that war without torture as a policy."
Are you suggesting that President Obama has a "torture" policy?
President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps.[8] In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders,[9] while noting that the provisions that singled out people of Japanese ancestry were a separate issue outside the scope of the proceedings.[10] The United States Census Bureau assisted the internment efforts by providing confidential neighborhood information on Japanese Americans. The Bureau's role was denied for decades, but was finally proven in 2007.[11][12]
In 1980, President Jimmy Carter conducted an investigation to determine whether putting Japanese Americans into internment camps was justified well enough by the government. He appointed the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to investigate the camps. The commission's report, named “Personal Justice Denied,” found little evidence of Japanese disloyalty at the time and recommended the government pay reparations to the survivors. They formed a payment of $20,000 to each individual internment camp survivor. These were the reparations passed by President Ronald Reagan.
In 1988, Congress passed and President Ronald Reagan signed legislation which apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government. The legislation said that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership".[13] The U.S. government eventually disbursed more than $1.6 billion in reparations to Japanese Americans who had been interned and their heirs.[14]
<...>
Many internees lost irreplaceable personal property due to the restrictions on what could be taken into the camps. These losses were compounded by theft and destruction of items placed in governmental storage. A number of persons died or suffered for lack of medical care, and several were killed by sentries; James Wakasa, for instance, was killed at Topaz War Relocation Center, near the perimeter wire. Nikkei were prohibited from leaving the Military Zones during the last few weeks before internment, and only able to leave the camps by permission of the camp administrators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment
The degrading treatment of Japanese American families like mine is the theme of my new musical, Allegiance
Seventy years ago, US soldiers bearing bayoneted rifles came marching up to the front door of our family's home in Los Angeles, ordering us out. Our crime was looking like the people who had bombed Pearl Harbor a few months before. I'll never forget that day, nor the tears streaming down my mother's face as we were forcibly removed, herded off like animals, to a nearby race track. There, for weeks, we would live in a filthy horse stable while our "permanent" relocation camp was being constructed thousands of miles away in Arkansas, in a place called Rohwer.
I recently revisited Rohwer. Gone were the sentry towers, armed guards, barbed wire and crudely constructed barracks that defined our lives for many years. The swamp had been drained, the trees chopped down. Only miles and miles of cotton fields. The only thing remaining was the cemetery with two tall monuments.
Because I was a child, I didn't understand the depth of the degradation and deprivation my parents suffered, or how courageous and foresighted my mother had been to smuggle a sewing machine into camp, which permitted her to make modest curtains for our bare quarters. I didn't grasp what a blow the ordeal was to my father's role as provider, as he struggled to keep our family together. The family ate, bathed and did chores along with a whole community, pressed together in the confines of a makeshift camp, in the oppressive heat and mosquito-infested swamps of Arkansas.
Later my family would be shipped to a high-security camp in Tule Lake, California, constructed in a desolate, dry lake bed in the north of the state. Three layers of barbed-wire fences now confined us. Out of principle, my parents had refused to answer yes to a "loyalty" questionnaire the government had promulgated. It had asked whether they would serve in the US army and go wherever ordered, and whether they would swear allegiance to the US government and "forswear" loyalty to the Japanese emperor – as if any had ever sworn such loyalty in the first instance.
- more -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/27/we-japanese-americans-wartime-internment
WWII had brutal consequences on U.S. soil.
<...>
Burger and the rest of the Long Island team were picked up by June 22, and by June 27 the whole of the Florida team was arrested. To preserve wartime secrecy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered a special military tribunal consisting of seven generals to try the saboteurs. At the end of July, Dasch was sentenced to 30 years in prison, Burger was sentenced to hard labor for life, and the other six Germans were sentenced to die. The six condemned saboteurs were executed by electric chair in Washington, D.C., on August 8. In 1944, two other German spies were caught after a landing in Maine. No other instances of German sabotage within wartime America has come to light.
- more -
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/german-saboteurs-executed-in-washington
"It has become fashionable lately to bash FDR. Even Democrats have joined in the fun, including our President, who claims that FDR let the previous depression get terrible on purpose. And while FDR had his faults, the bottom line is this: he made sure that the working class got a fair break, and he set the stage for almost 50 years of growing prosperity for all Americans. "
It almost seems like you're harboring some deep animosity of President Obama.
Ever get the feeling that virtually nobody with power gives a crap about your life?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022438850
We need a new Democratic Party
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022453600
Here's some perspective:
FYI: America's problems predate 2009, and President Obama is working to improve the country.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022461547
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Can't someone have a POV without being made into an object of, oh, I don't know, contempt?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Can't someone have a POV without being made into an object of, oh, I don't know, contempt?"
...upset about the hypocrisy?
Aren't you?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Yet you seem offended that someone would point it out.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)It creates an impression that what Manny is writing about deserves less respect than say someone who disagrees with him or her. Once one person can be derided, it leads to marginalization. That is most un-democratic.
All Manny Goldstein's about is being a democrat: One who believes that all people are equal under the law and the powers of government should be used to make life better for all. Like Manny, I wish the leadership of the Democratic Party would remember that, whether through a New New Deal or verified paper trails at the ballot box.
Something else we have noticed: the banks and corporations aren't in that equation, yet they are central to the problem in Washington and in the Democratic Party.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I don't seem anything. I don't like you monitoring another DUer.
It creates an impression that what Manny is writing about deserves less respect than say someone who disagrees with him or her. Once one person can be derided, it leads to marginalization. That is most un-democratic. "
... for your spin. I mean, please go police someone else, and take your own advice. I responded to his comment, which apparently is eating away at you.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)What does bother me is the hypocrisy.
An example: FDR was less than perfect because of the un-Constitutional internment of Japanese Americans during the war.
Thus, FDR is a flawed model for Obama to follow, making it good Democratic policy to support his Wall Street-first economic policy.
Hypocrisy: That's trickle-down, when the GOP does it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"An example: FDR was less than perfect because of the un-Constitutional internment of Japanese Americans during the war.
Thus, FDR is a flawed model for Obama to follow, making it good Democratic policy to support his Wall Street-first economic policy."
...nonsense.
The Wall Street reform law would have a significant impact if implementation is sped up.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022441546
Bedrock Consumer Protections Once Were Flogged as ‘Exceedingly Dangerous,’ ‘Monstrous Systems’ That Would ‘Cripple’ the Economy
WASHINGTON, D.C. – As the nation approaches the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, opponents are claiming that the new measure is extraordinarily damaging, especially to Main Street. But industry’s alarmist rhetoric bears striking resemblance to the last time it faced sweeping new safeguards: during the New Deal reforms. The parallels between the language used both then and now are detailed in a report released today by Public Citizen and the Cry Wolf Project.
In the decades since the Great Depression, Americans acknowledged the necessity of having safeguards in place to prevent another crash of the financial markets, including the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and laws requiring public companies to accurately disclose their financial affairs. Although these are now seen as bedrock protections when they were first introduced, Wall Street cried foul, the new report, “Industry Repeats Itself: The Financial Reform Fight,” found.
“The business community’s wildly inaccurate forecasts about the New Deal reforms devalue the credibility of the ominous predictions they are making today,” said Taylor Lincoln, research director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division and author of the report. “If history comes close to repeating itself, industry is going to look very silly for its hand-wringing over Dodd-Frank when people look back.”
<...>
In fact, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is designed to prevent another Wall Street crash, which really made it tough on everyone by causing massive job loss and severely hurting corner butchers and bakers, as well as retirees, families with mortgages and others. The Dodd-Frank law increases transparency (particularly in derivatives markets); creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ensure that consumers receive straightforward information about financial products and to police abusive practices; improves corporate governance; increases capital requirements for banks; deters particularly large financial institutions from providing incentives for employees to take undue risks; and gives the government the ability to take failed investment institutions into receivership, similar to the FDIC’s authority regarding commercial banks. Much of it has yet to be implemented.
- more -
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/12-0
Posted by Mike Konczal
<...>
Dodd-Frank tries to deal with these issues by creating the rules for a crisis in advance. It requires stricter regulations on capital and activities for the largest and riskiest financial firms, to make them less likely to fail in a crisis. Dodd-Frank also grants the FDIC a special new power called resolution authority. This allows the government to run a bridge company to keep essential operations running at a failed firm that needs to be liquidated, with losses put on those who deserve them, rather than putting taxpayers at risk.
So what do critics have to say? The first objection is that all of this is unnecessary – there’s no such thing as systemic risk. Bank runs usually don’t happen, but when they do they are necessary, and they don’t threaten the surrounding financial system. This laissez-faire approach doesn’t carry much weight among scholars.
The second criticism — he one Hensarling is making — is that resolution authority is a permanent, unfair bailout. Some argue that the FDIC will use their powers to bailout creditors instead of imposing losses on them. Others worry that the FDIC’s ability to borrow money and provide bridge money is an unfair practice that puts taxpayers at risk of losses. The underlying concern is that stakeholders in the financial firm won’t care if they go through resolution authority, and as such, resolution authority makes them a safer bet and acts as a kind of permanent bailout promise to the markets.
However, the structure of Dodd-Frank’s resolution authority is explicitly designed to avoid bailouts. Numerous regulators must approve the activation of this process, and they have to argue that either the bankruptcy code or “a private sector alternative to prevent the default” aren’t available or appropriate instead...if a firm goes into resolution the FDIC has to wipe out shareholders and hit creditors in a way designed to mimic bankruptcy. It is blocked from buying equity in the firm, like in TARP or AIG, and can’t act for “the purpose of preserving the covered financial company.” It also has to fire management, board members, and has the option to claw back previous compensation. It’s difficult to imagine a firm wanting to go through this process. If any taxpayer money is put on the line, it has to be recouped from the financial sector as a whole; this is appropriate, because the government is acting to preserve the financial sector as a whole.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/02/does-dodd-frank-really-end-too-big-to-fail/
Octafish
(55,745 posts)William K. Black
Assoc. Professor, Univ. of Missouri, Kansas City; Sr. regulator during S&L debacle
President Obama is getting ready to negotiate (or, if you believe him, not negotiate) an extension of the debt limit. The Republicans control the House and are promising to follow Donald Trump's suggestion that they use what he called the "nuclear weapon" to terrorize the U.S. economy and people in order to gain negotiating leverage over Obama. That act of treachery was designed to produce two other acts of betrayal of the American people. First, Trump urged the Republicans to use their "nuclear weapon" to force Obama to inflict austerity on our Nation and force us back into recession. Second, Trump urged the Republicans to use their leverage to force Obama to gut the safety net. It is somehow fitting that Trump's advice to act in unprincipled manner was designed to produce policies that would enrich the wealthy and cause immense harm to the nation.
Naturally, the Republican Party has decided to adopt Trump's "nuclear weapon" strategy in its entirety. A party that takes its policy advice from Donald Trump -- advice to use a "nuclear weapon" on our economy in order to extort policy changes that will enrich the 1 percent at the expense of the nation -- has become a self-parody and the enemy of the American people.
I wrote to warn about how to disarm Trump's treacherous threat to use a nuclear weapon against America.
Like many readers, I have been a negotiator in important matters. This was one of my functions as litigation director of a federal agency. In my column, I showed multiple ways in which Obama could eliminate permanently the ability of any party to use the debt limit as a means of terror and extortion against America. We can defuse Trump's "nuclear weapon."
Obama, however, has systematically thrown away the means to defuse the weapon. He has unilaterally disarmed as he prepares to confront Speaker Boehner. He has unilaterally refused to do his duty under the 14th amendment and he has unilaterally refused to use the platinum-clad coin to defuse Trump's nuclear weapon. Indeed, he has ginned up and put in the public record the absurd legal position that Treasury has no authority to issue such a platinum-clad coin and made the even more preposterous claim that the Federal Reserve would violate instructions from the Treasury to accept such a coin. If Obama had wanted to use the platinum-clad coin or the 14th amendment, the Treasury opinion would have been said the opposite, and the opinion could have been written without torturing the language of the statute. By torturing the language of the statute to create a negative legal opinion, Obama has cast doubt on the legal ability of future presidents who would have the courage to defuse Trump's nuclear weapon to do so. Obama's actions either indicate that he does not know how to negotiate or wishes to be "forced" by the Republicans to make deep cuts to social programs and begin to unravel the safety net.
CONTINUED...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/obama-debt-ceiling_b_2478191.html
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The FBI was tasked with the job of finding suspects among the Japanese. Problem is, the FBI did not have much expertise where Japanese language and culture was concerned. Italian and German they had a handle on. So a very small percentage of Italians and Germans were sent to the camps. Not understanding the Japanese, the FBI defaulted on the side of caution.
As a result the Japanese ended up treated better in the camps than did the Italians and Germans. And post-war the Japanese were released pretty quickly. While it took years to sort out the Italians and Germans.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I hadn't heard about that, thanks.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)the KoolAid drinkers will be along to help you soon
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
Ishoutandscream2
(6,661 posts)
kentuck
(111,079 posts)was my first thought from your title.
Yes, government is shrinking. We no longer have the tax base to pay for it.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I guess the title did it to both of us!
hay rick
(7,605 posts)A major problem is that a disproportionate share of taxable income is going to the very, very rich- and they have successfully avoided paying additional taxes in proportion to their increased incomes.
Social Security as an example- link: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/policybriefs/pb2011-02.html
"The percentage of earnings covered by the tax max has fallen since the early 1980s because earnings among above-max earners have grown faster than earnings among the rest of the working population."
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Democrats should be working to defend and expand the New Deal programs.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)as always.
Thank you, Manny.
