HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » Thom Hartmann: Why There ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:32 PM

Thom Hartmann: Why There will be a Crash of 2016



The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann on RT TV & FSTV "live" 9pm and 11pm check www.thomhartmann.com/tv for local listings

9 replies, 1221 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to thomhartmann (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:59 PM

1. Damn hope he's wrong that will be right smack

In the Presidential election.A bad economy in a election year is very bad news for the party in power.Per The 13 keys to the whitehouse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigdarryl (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:04 PM

2. Maybe why it will happen. I noticed gas prices rising when Clinton was running and dropping when

Bush was. Don't think it was a coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thomhartmann (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 06:14 PM

3. Where is our FDR? K & R

Bernie? Warren?

Hartmann is right on. Without the middle class, the backbone of the nation, we are screwed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mother earth (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:23 PM

5. If you study the New Deal, it was the CONGRESSMEN who lead it

FDR was the man on top, and tried to contain it, but the real driving force wast the Democratic Controlled Congress (both House AND Senate). Warren is a leader at that level. the real key is who will lead.

The biggest problem is the left has no real center at the present time. I do not mean Center as in left or right, but center as what the most of the left look to. While William Jennings Bryan died in 1925, his wing of the Democratic Party was that Center. Herbert Hoover even acknowledge that by his comment on the New Deal "Bryanism without Bryan".

Bryan was NOT what we would call DLC, but at the same time was a serious candidate to be President (Thus he had to be careful as to the South and thus no comment from him about Segregation for he knew he had to have the South in Win election, as did FDR needed the South in win after 1936, thus you heard FDR talk against Racism but he did nothing to end segregation, his wife did during WWII, but FDR did not).

Who is the unifying force within the Democratic Party but also known to be progressive. Bill and Hillary Clinton are NOT, neither is Obama.

Now, Bryan was the Second most Popular Speaker on the Chautauqua Circuit (Helen Keller beat him out). The Chautauqua Circuit was an Rural adult education forum from the 1970s to the early 1930s. The Circuit was where people went to hear people speak about how to improve their lives (this included Religious speakers but also educational programs). Bryan was know for both, and thus well liked as a speaker in that Circuit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chautauqua

In many ways the Chautauqua Circuit was an early form of the Internet, you could hear from many sources not otherwise available. You had to pay to attend, but it was in most of Rural America (More in the North and West then in the South). The decision to broadcast radio starting in 1920 AND the decline in farm pricing starting in 1927, put the circuit into a tailspin, it survived into the 1930s but by then was a shadow of its former self (and disappeared in the late 1930s). One or two building built for the Circuit survives to this day, but most had been tent based and moved from town to town like a circus. Speakers would vary, but the tents would move from town to town.

I bring the Chautauqua Circuit up for that was how Bryan kept getting his message to the People. His main support group were rural residents and thus used the Circuit to keep in touch with them AND to tell them what he stood for, not leaving the papers do that. In urban areas, support for Bryan was weaker (as was support for the Democratic Party in that period, 1870-1930). Yes, up to and including th 1930s the Democratic Party had more support in Rural America then Urban America, it was the GOP who controlled the Urban Cities at that time (that would change in the 1930s, do to the working class switching their support to the Democrats and with that support most urban cities turned Democratic (Bryan had supported labor but Labor supported the GOP till the Democrats pushed through the Wagner Act in 1934).

Side note: One way the GOP controlled inner Cities prior to the 1920s was through owning all the bars in most Cities and using those Bars to build up support for the GOP. In many ways the Democratic Party Supported Prohibition in the 1910s, just to break up these local GOP political power basis. This worked only to a certain degree, many GOP mayors in the 1920s were supported by speak easies that replaced the old saloons (The Chicago Mayor of the 1920s Thompson was one, as was the last GOP Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh). When prohibition was repealed, these power basis had been destroyed and the new legal Saloons and Bars came under restrictions to make sure they did not become what they had been in the 1910s. Yes, in many ways Prohibition helped Democrats take over most inner cities by breaking the power base the GOP had on those same cities through the Saloons and bars of those Cities.

Bryan was one to note every election is different, and by the 1920s more people lived in Urban areas then in Rural Areas (that had NOT been true as late as the 1910 census, the last Census where more people lived in RURAL Areas then Urban Areas). Thus the Democrats needed more Urban voters and thus supported labor and improvements in urban areas. Thus the Democratic Party had been for improvements NOT only in Rural America but also in Urban America by the 1930s. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party (that tended to look to Bryan for leadership) came out for those improvements by the 1920s.

I bring this up for who is the William Jennings Bryan of today? Who is the center of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party? He or she does NOT have to hold office (Bryan held no office from 1894 till his death, he made his money on the lectures to people on how to fight for progressivism and fundamentalism, he was for BOTH). We do NOT need someone of his religious outlook, but we need someone with his view as to HOW to improve the lives of people (which in the eyes of Bryan was tied in with Fundamentalism, but of the Progressive wing of Fundamentalism). We need someone who is a good speaker (or writer) capable to getting people to support not only him, but other people needed to be elected to get those progressive acts enacted into law.

Jessie Jackson sr did this to a degree in the 1980s and 1990s but since his son ran into his problem Jackson has been ignored. John Edwards looked like he could have been that center, till he could no keep his pants on. Eliot Spitzer had possibilities till he was caught going to a $5000 hooker. All were progressives and had the balance between elect-ability AND getting things done.

Now, these three may come back, if they had learned they lesson that progressive politicians can NOT do anything in their personal life out of the norm (Bryan for example was questioned on his sanity do to his Fundamentalism by the GOP from 1896 till the 1930s do to how much they FEARED him and it was the only thing they could attack him on).

Yes, we do need a FDR (through I would prefer an LBJ, LBJ knew HOW to get things passed through Congress, something Obama is NOT noted for). We also need to get into power progressive Congress men and women, and in many ways getting progressives elected to the Senate and the House is more important then who is President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 06:50 PM

8. TY, happyslug, straight from my heart, just saying, you mentioned many I admire...

now go and post an OP on this subject matter. It's just what we all need right about now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thomhartmann (Original post)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 08:24 PM

4. I think Hartmann is right: they're doing all they can to forestall the

crash until 2016...makes sense. I felt better at the end of the video
but of course we'll have to survive the crash to extract change...oh
boy...I'm getting too old for this stuff and trying to clue my thirty
something kids into the situation is difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snappyturtle (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 21, 2013, 11:03 PM

6. We have a much better understanding of what GOVERNMENT can do to prevent a Crash

Today, do to the Great Depression, we have a much better understanding on how to prevent a crash then we did in 1929. For Example Carter tried to force a Recession in 1979, so that by 1980 the US would be coming out of it (he failed the recession came to late in 1980, right in the middle of the election year). Reagan wanted to make sure that by 1984 the US would be out of the Recession, so he engineered another recession in 1981 that lasted till 1982 (one of the first "double dip" recessions), so that by 1984 the country would be on the re bound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Now, the GOP reluctance to do job creation activities after the 1991 recession, meant high unemployment during the 1992 election year (and why Bush sr lost that election).

Clinton knew that as soon as he reappointed Alan Greenspan, Alan Greenspan would restrict money flow and cause a recession (Greenspan was know to prefer the GOP, so he was going to do his best to cause a recession and make it easier for Bush to win the 2000 election). Thus Clinton waited for the last second to renominate Greenspan, thus delaying the onset of the 2001 recession till after the election.

I bring this up for as you can see, Recession can (and in most cases are) product of the Federal Reserves decision that the economy is getting to hot. Thus the Federal Reserve knows how to force a recession and how to ease a recession, the real question is it willing to do so?

Now, one aspect of this power of the Federal Reserve is that it is limited, the Federal Reserve can pour more and more money into the economy via the banks, but if the banks are not leading that money out it does no good. In most recessions it is sufficient, but every so often Congress has to step in and provide jobs. That is what Congress did in the 1930s, the 1970s and needs to do today, but has REFUSED to do so. The Fed Reserve members are coming out more and more saying CONGRESS has to provide those jobs for without those jobs, what the Fed is doing is self defeating. No one has jobs, so they are NOT borrowing money, so the banks hold onto the money (or use it to invest in something that is making money, right now that it is the US Stock Market).

Thus, do to the inaction of Congress, most of the money the Feds is leaning to the Banks is going into the Stock Market. If Congress would provide money for jobs, those jobs would give people incentive to borrow and get this economy going.

Thus the Fed KNOWS what is needed, KNOWS it can NOT do what is needed (Congress can, the Fed can not), but Congress has refused to do what is needed. Thus the Fed has a choice, a choice it does NOT want to make. Increase money supply and push up the Stock Market, hoping that sooner or later that such investors will take some of their money out and use it elsewhere and thus give the economy the jump it needs OR pull out the money supply and crash the Stock Market, thus forcing people presently in the stock market to invest they money elsewhere so the economy gets its needed kick start from below.

Thus the Fed wants to drag out this problem hoping that Congress will see the errors of they ways and passes a law creating the needed job creation program This decision by the Fed is also supported by a fear that if the Fed would force a Recession, the Fed will get the Blame not Congress.

The problem with the above solution is that it is just delaying the down fall. The Fed will do what it can to delay the down fall but it is running out of options, and Congress which CAN solve this problem does NOT want to, for it means spening money on people who tend NOT to vote GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 06:52 PM

9. Get thee to a thread all your own...you are so right on. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thomhartmann (Original post)

Fri Nov 22, 2013, 03:59 PM

7. Best political video clip I've seen in weeks!

K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread