39 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
"By 1941, the remainder of the town's gold mining operations were ordered shut down by the US Government as part of the country's war effort since metals other than gold were needed."
Caused by Roosevelt, blamed on Hoover
Notice the direct cause and effect of Roosevelt's actions, but what is the shanty town called? Yes, not RooseveltTown or Franklinville, but Hooverville. Notice who the Liberal went after first? Those who had served and earned pension. The embarassing and sad part of this was Patton and McArthur were complicit in the disgusting action against the veterans which followed. Arguably, this first act by Roosevelt, a betrayal of those who had served the country in war, was the cornerstone which turned the Recession into the Great Depression which followed.
On March 10, 1933, six days after his inauguration, Roosevelt submitted legislation to Congress which would cut $500 million ($8.181 billion in 2009 dollars) from the $3.6 billion federal budget by eliminating government agencies, reducing the pay of civilian and military federal workers (including members of Congress), and slashing veterans' benefits by 50 percent. Veterans benefits constituted a quarter of the federal budget at the time. The Act was written primarily by Lewis Douglas, Roosevelt's Director of the Budget, and Grenville Clark, a private attorney.
The Act faced stiff opposition in the Congress. On June 17, 1932, the Bonus Army (about 17,000 World War I veterans and 26,000 of their family members and affiliated groups) had established a Hooverville shanty town on the Anacostia Flats area of Washington, D.C.
H'villes were first established under Hoover, hence the name
UCLA says Roosevelt Created Depression
Finally, even universities are starting to compare Roosevelt days to our current days and realizing just how wrong they've been on who to blame for the Great Depression.
Also note the date, this is before Obama was even elected to Presidency, before he was in office. Notice the underlined last sentence, then remember what's been going on. Class dismissed.
August 10, 2004
"Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
The study is not widely accepted, neither are the Profs.
Bodie was nothing to really get excited about, it was already going downhill or already reached bottom in my visit of 1974. So, even at that time it wasn't all that much. But, it was a town that depicted how life was in the old west days, reason I made the day trip vacation.
As for anything associated with coal, that too is a hard industry to fathom. Sure, there's coal in them hills but it isn't the hard coal many want and/or easy to reach. The lesser quality from other areas of the country are easier reach and can be shipped by RxR back to the east. Further much of coal mining while large companies st6ill do this work, more often smaller mines provide employment and its these that are hard hit. I wish it wasn't so but they are harder to keep going on the best of terms. Further, maintaining coal waste and the past evidence of poor planning has been known to cause problems. The reason many govt. regs. or intervention had to be done. Don't count on employment being the main reason as the side issue of population and waste is too easily know that cause conflict. Why have employment if you're going to dump the waste and ruin waters and/or destroy top lands, even if reclaimed there is still coal waste under the topsoil. There's alot more dynamics going on here than meets the eye. -----Willy
It's true that western coal is cheaper
and add to that the natural gas from fracking easily used in some areas, not so easily compressed and transported. The worsening situation began due to increasing environmental restrictions which pushed many industries including power plants off coal to some other source of power, thereby also decreasing demand. China now imports a lot of our coal.
Go to the hills and look
Coal usage just isn't clean and the regs are there so you and I can breathe now and our grandchild will too. If ran as the way they wanted you have like in Russia and China, black everywhere. China uses coal because that the main source of energy they have, they use it even for cooking by buying coal bricks intended for months use. China is hard learning all the industrialization they have is starting to hurt and trying to get things inline just as we already have. Russia or the old USSR regions also felt this same pollution, in fact when demand dried-up after the break-up of the USSR and it could no more maintain a "wasteful operation", plants were closed. They really never updated anything and the old processes were wasteful and polluting like crazy.
In the gold rush days when "monitoring" was done to wash gold out of mountains, practically washing mountains away. people noticed even in the 19th century you can't sustain that and live with the results. Even mining that's regulated now still has to deal with the olden waste they put aside. Many old mines still leach toxins or putrid waste that been polluting for yrs.. and hope the dikes don't break. It doesn't have to be gold, but any minerals extracted. Waste is waste and toxins take a looooonnnnggggg time to break down. -----Willy
>>>They really never updated anything and the old processes were wasteful and polluting like crazy.>>>
But WE did and continued to do so, until BO made the threat that he would bankrupt any company that wanted to build a coal powered plant, and those that exist that were already at peak total compliance with existing laws were then told that had to spend billions more to get to the 100% that BO insisted on since based on that 100% figure, they were already operating at 90% and it still wasn't good enough for this administration because of its 'green' agenda. That's why so many refineries and plants were shut down, putting thousands out of work and turning towns into ghost towns economically. He didn't care and still doesn't that at a time when our economy and jobs were already in the toilet, he made it worse and turned his back on it all in order to spend billions in stimulus money on failed green crony jobs instead.....spending millions to create under ten jobs each.
We are about the only country (along with Canada) that actually HAS cleaned up our environment, and it's still not good enough for this prez and he even talked about it in Russia again the other day, when you consider that other countries (even those who signed the KYOTO Protocol...which the USA and Canada never ratified) have done little or nothing about their own environment. Do you think their air doesn't eventually get HERE and OUR businesses get blamed for the pollution because it fits with BO's agenda?
Maybe not now but it will happen
Here in my area, farming is still a key industry or business if you will. However, the constant fertilzer run-off to include all those home yards add to the drainage system, which causes algae outbreaks or worse. Smell, might be bad, but if the drinking water takes a dive, it certainly isn't good. If you rely too much to promote employment where pollution can be such a time-consuming reverse cleaning process it's far better to start with little to begin. In history past, in Japan, you could put an undeveloped photo and it would process it from the bay water. Here, in Ohio at Cleveland docks, fires broke along the lakefront. We've come a long way from those past moments and it takes alot of arm twisting, laws, legal maneuvering and plain keeping everyone in line to get here. Even now the "Superfund" is constantly besleighed for cleaning funds of what has been left behind. A local cancer cluster lawsuit against Whirlpool here in Clyde, OH is from possible chemical barrels and waste buried from old plants, so its still here with us many yrs. later. 90% is pretty good but 100% is better and you're not going to get that if you settle for less. There will be a day we pay the piper because action wasn't taken early enough. It's tough i know, but if you lived next to any factory, plant or industrial park or coal mine or oil field you'll see the in plain view what's being contended with. Old oil pipe heads or caps, are pulled so kids can huff or breathe the bad crap and become overwhelmed, what a tragic pastime. Maybe, the hydrogen fuel cell will come around but for now i try to reduce my carbon footprint as best as I can. I'm looking into methane gas instead of propane from pig waste, yeah that's gonna smell or not. -----Willy
gas converts naturally into carbon dioxide, using methane instead of 'fossil' fuels isn't any better a solution than what we already have. It's a carrot being dangled as an alternative but the carrot is more rotten than the apple we are already eating.
You won't stop, contain, or control the 'greenhouse' effect because methane comes naturally in large quantities from other sources that people don't think about. You talk about the side affects to older ways that we are paying to clean up now and believe you can avoid that by shutting down entire industries and replacing the source with something else......but you aren't even questioning the side affects of what the 'new' source will be because you are buying into the theory that man has caused it all when it is strictly agenda driven propaganda tripe being driven by others looking to make billions off of fear. You take away the jobs and industry of one only to replace it with something that is equally or even more destructive.
Funny how you should mention algae.....when we have a government experimenting and spending millions in research to see if that very product could also be a replacement fuel source. You should be happy to have it so close at hand, right?
You seem to forget (or maybe didn't pay attention) that I am originally FROM Cleveland...and I remember the river catching fire while I was there. I think little Dennis the Menace was our Mayor at the time (maybe not). While I agree that the pollution was the cause and was immediately targeted for cleanup, there were signs for years and years prior to that that the water was in trouble and nobody did anything about it. I remember the warnings that the fish weren't safe to eat. BUT the answer wasn't to turn Cleveland into a ghost town and a tremendous loss of jobs by shutting down every industry nearby........and yet that's what eventually wound up happening. A huge city that people COULD HAVE BEEN proud of again was turned into what is now Detroit.
Yes, moving forward and finding innovative ways to deal with humanity is the right path, but you also need to have people in charge and leading who don't have personal agendas at stake and use fear in order to line their pockets and their friends' pockets to get immediate gain and gratification by rushing into what they want rather than look at the long-term affects. What is progress today usually ends up as a disaster tomorrow when you don't take into consider cause and affect, and most of our leaders unfortunately don't.
speaking of methane
astronomers studying both these worlds have detected a gas that is often associated with living things: methane. It exists in small but significant quantities on Mars, and Titan is literally awash with it. A biological source is at least as plausible as a geologic one, for Mars if not for Titan. Either explanation would be fascinating in its own way, revealing either that we are not alone in the universe or that both Mars and Titan harbor large underground bodies of water together with unexpected levels of geochemical activity. Understanding the origin and fate of methane on these bodies will provide crucial clues to the processes that shape the formation, evolution and habitability of terrestrial worlds in this solar system and possibly in others.
Methane (CH4) is abundant on the giant planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune
Just think, Mars was probably a warm tropical climate eons ago till Liberals took over and started complaining about global warming and farting cows.
It seems ....
the Conservatives made Venus uninhabitable (too much global warming, too hot now) before they died off on that planet. That's a bad prospect for Earth.
Or could if have to do with the distance to the sun?
Methane isn't especially associated with living things. It's a not uncommon product to form if you have a lot of C and a lot of H and not enough O(xygen) to make carbohydrates. On earth, O is associated with live.
did you know
if based ONLY on weight and gravity as a factor, every planet and moon in our solar system could be landed on and walked on by man, except for Jupiter. Of course there are other considerations, but it's true; if a comfort zone could be maintained around a human regarding temperature, breathable air, pressure, then personal weight due to gravity would not preclude us being on almost all the heavenly bodies in our solar system.
Hey, us Venusians are here, and we like it fine.
Men are from Mars and women from Venus.
How nice to be just in the middle for both of them.
Can I have a list of ghost towns with the people responsible
for them, please? Towns die. In hard times towns sometimes die under pressure from the weather, from drought, or from the economics of their location. The truth is that the recovery of gold there became uneconomic. Are you saying that all goldmining in the US was halted by Roosevelt? There is great irritation in Newfoundland over Joey Smallwood's insistence that some communities were too remote to support and very odd pictures of houses on pontoons being floated to new locations. When sailing was cheaper, they were serviced by coastal shipping, when it began using coal and oil it became too expensive. All of this ignores the prior cost of servicing those communities in human lives. Funny how easily we ignore the human cost of things.
Your understanding of the issue of the Gold Standard in the Depression, is on par with your understanding of most issues, in other words appallingly ignorant. Perhaps you should do the reading before you weigh in on an issue you don't understand, purely to slag two of the most different politicians in the history of the US. Obama is no more a leftist than was Eisenhower, possibly less.
I'd suggest a real economic study of the situation in the US in 1933, but odds are that Wikipedia has a potted article of the roots and reasons for the change from the Gold Standard. There was a controversy in the late 10th Century with Wm Jennings Bryan thundering "Thou shalt not crucify a man on a Cross of Silver." You can look it up. For God's sake, look something up so we don't have to read this drivel.
Why is it that you insist
that your version of history can be the ONLY version and therefore everyone else in the world has to be stupid, Rob? Are you ever wrong, misinformed, innocently incorrect,,,,,,or are you now God, with the final word on everything?
You are increasingly obnoxious.
His interest in history is
based on how me may twist it to preconceived notions and personal agenda, rather than proper research to discover the truth about it. When that fails he tacks on the insults like a smoke bomb to try and hide behind.
Freudian slip, James? "how me may twist" history to preconc
conceived notions. "Zat iss ferry interrestink, now tell me about your Muzzer."
The cheque for the therapy session is in the mail, James. And for twice the usual amount.
I don't, I'm just insisting that mine is better informed.
You and BO = arrogant clones
I have posted corrections and retractions, which I don't
recall anyone else doing. But when I post most things I've already checked the facts with generally accepted authorities, unlike that 2008 study by UCLA professors blaming Roosevelt for worsening the Depression.
As Paul Krugman has pointed out: Stimulus in Bad Times and Austerity in Good Times are Text Book Macro-economic Principles. Just because you have decided that he is beyond your particular Pale, is no reason to presume that he is wrong, or that the majority of Economists who happen to agree with him are wrong. Joseph Stieglitz who agrees with him but doesn't have a column or a character assassination squad from the Hoover Institute, or wherever, following him merely means he's quieter, or possibly more dangerous to confront. Stieglitz as I continue to point out has TWO Nobel Prizes in Economics. Of course here at SE that means the True Believers (read Eric Hoffer) think he's twice as wrong.
"The True Believer: Thoughts On The Nature Of Mass Movements is a 1951 social psychology book by American writer Eric Hoffer that discusses the psychological causes of fanaticism."
"U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower read The True Believer in 1952, gave copies to friends, and recommended it to others. In 1956, Look magazine ran an article calling Hoffer "Ike's Favorite Author".
"Allen Scarbrough chose The True Believer as one of 25 books that "you need to read to know just about everything".
"The True Believer earned renewed attention after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and also after the Tea Party Protests and Occupy Wall Street protests a decade later."
You might also click on the link to Eric Hoffer in Wikipedia too if you really want some insight. He was a very interesting man
"He once remarked, "my writing grows out of my life just as a branch from a tree." When called an intellectual, he insisted that he was a longshoreman. Hoffer has been dubbed by some authors a "longshoreman philosopher." "
He was never an academic, he was always a worker, and moreover a worker at what would be called unskilled labour. He was however quite brilliant and quite influential. I liked him a lot.
>>>Stieglitz as I continue to point out has TWO Nobel Prizes in Economics>>>doesn't make him right. After all, BO got HIS Nobel Peace Prize within a month of becoming President and THAT hasn't worked out so well either. Perhaps BOTH should give those prizes back since they are both failures at what they stand for. (PS....we all KNOW that the committee that decides those Nobel prizes are far left leaning and most times that's who get the recognition)
Well, you missed that one
Obama isn't a leftist?
He most certainly is in US politics. Don't give me the standard response of comparing our left with other leftist politics around the world, as I pointed out a few times over the years in response to that argument there are plenty far right of us too. World wide comparison, I doubt you can make a case for the any large group in the US being left or right extremes.
Left or right politically is relative to the system you're working in, not something halfway around the globe.
In post-Reagan American terms he is, in broader terms, NO.
This is where I part company with the rest of Americans.
Americans tend to see America as being not just apart from the rest of the world, but generally "above it all". This is especially true of Conservatives but is a much much more widely held belief than just that group which represents 20% of belief in the US. I'm afraid we're all inhabitants of the same planet, and that political systems all have a range of values which may be placed on a spectrum. The US is a very conservative limited Democracy. All Democracies are limited democracies (as opposed to Direct Democracies where everybody votes on every issue), but not all are as conservative as the US. Many allow greater recognition of differences in political belief and feeling. The US strives to exclude difference, to assimilate and dissolve in the melting pot.
Even solely in terms of American politics, Obama is more conservative than Eisenhower or Nixon to choose two Republican Presidents of relatively recent vintage. Are we supposed to reset the parameters with each election and say Oh, the President is the new middle, or does that only apply to Republican Presidents? That's certainly how it appears from the outside. The only paradigm shifters you're willing to acknowledge appear to be Rightists. McCarhy, Nixon, Reagan. And you campaign viciously against the one Democrat in the 20th Century who really has legitimate claims to have shifted the paradigm, 68+ years after his death and counting.
Obama has been less liberal and left than Bill Clinton, or George H.W. Bush, or Jimmy Carter or Gerry Ford or Richard Nixon.
That certainly means he's no leftist in my book. Or in the books of anyone who can remember what it was like before G. W. Bush, let alone before Ronnie Reagan.
I apologize if that sounds confrontational, Roger, but I don't think there is any way to rationally maintain Obama is a leftist, particularly not in terms of legislative success which has been blocked at every turn. Obama is neither leftist in his beliefs, nor in what he has been allowed to do, which is a double whammy. History will record him as a Conservative Democrat with poor legislative success owing to massive Republican anti-democratic obstructionism. He was elected by a solid majority but was not allowed to legislate what he promised because of the arbitrary filibuster which obtained throughout his two terms (at least so far, and I don't see that changing).
The filibuster was never part of the plan for governance of the Founding Fathers for example, despite its users claiming to want to go back to Founding Principles. Republicans don't want to play fairly or to accept what the people have voted for, they want to WIN, and even more to rub Obama's and all the Democratic Party's faces in the dirt. In that they have gone far beyond the behaviour of the Democratic Party on the National Political stage. And I think it's wrong.
I love how you continue to rewrite current history
to suit your purposes and beliefs...that doesn't make it correct.
what legislature is blocked
can't really be counted as grading Obama's leftness.
You can't just his stance on what he's not allowed to do, as you indicated in one line.
He can't really control Congress now can he? Neither party leaders really have the imperial rule over party members in Congress they use to exercise.
I see both parties as have more extreme fractions, sadly so does the public seem to do also.
Radicals aren't all foreign or all of one political persuasion.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)