Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Obama & Teddy Roosevelt?

I sure don't see any comparison. Maybe he was looking for another comparison?

Obama's Entire Speech

"Well, it is great to be back in the state of Tex [laughter] state of Kansas. I was giving Bill Self a hard time, he was here a while back.As many of you know, I have roots here. I'm sure you're all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie. Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent and my values from my mother. She was born in Wichita. Her mother grew up in Augusta. Her father was from El Dorado. So my Kansas roots run deep.........

Hmm, weren't his grandparents "fellow travelers" aka communists? Obama's speech then descends into a class warfare mode. Obviously he's either too dumb to understand that in any economic downturn the rich will be the last effected, it doesn't mean they had anything to do with the overall economic situation. It's like running from a disaster, the old, the weak, the crippled always are the first to die and the last ones standing are those with the best health and who can run the fastest. Same in economics. If only someone with a capitalist understanding could make our dunderheaded President understand that simple fact of life. But no, he'd rather play the blame game and try to institute class warfare as it fits his politics of division he's practiced since day one while pretending to be a uniter. Liar in Chief.

"These aren't Democratic values or Republican values. These aren't 1%
values or 99% values. They're American values. And we have to reclaim
them. And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism."


Obama is moving away from his support of OWS since it's not been as popular a stance as he'd first hoped. Oh, someone else also liked Osawatomie between Roosevelt and Obama. They were "progressive" too. Weather Underground? Now who does that make us think of? Is there any connection there with Obama & friends? Can you say Ayers? Can you say Dohrn? Don't we love coincidences? What's the last thing those two were up to? I wonder if their hearts swelled with pride as their friend Obama, son of a fellow traveler like them, took the stage near their old headquarters of the Weathermen Underground?

But, lets continue with more from Obama.

"Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. "The market will take care of everything," they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes especially for the wealthy our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty.Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory."

It doesn't work?!!! It has NEVER worked?!!! He wants us to follow a new Theory. Oh, he couldn't resist another hit at individualism, freedom from excessive government and our stupidity on a DNA level. That latter means someone he imagines has better DNA should be in charge, aka him.

"Now, this kind of inequality a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. "

Blah, blah, blah, the 1% again, blah, blah, blah. He just assumes inequality of wealth hurts people with no proof whatsoever. If I have the same things I had before the economy ran into a problem, then I'm not hurt by someone else having more. If instead I make foolish mistakes, buy bigger home than I can afford after lying on mortgage applications and then accept terms which are harmful, then why should I blame others for my own foolishness? Should I look around for anyone who didn't make such mistakes, see them better off for not having done so, and then blame them instead? This guy is all about class warfare, a typical tactic of the far left constantly, the "progressives" who still dream of that Great Socialist Empire they want to build in America.

Most of the speech is American Pie stuff, but underlying that crust on it is the Socialist Agenda, which is what Obama and his grandparents he mentions were all about.

If Obama wins this next time, maybe Osawatomie can put up a statue of him there too.

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Obama & Teddy Roosevelt?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Obama & Teddy Roosevelt?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) Osawatomie & Communists?

In reply to: Obama & Teddy Roosevelt?

Collapse -
I Know! It's Surprising Isn't It?!

In reply to: Osawatomie & Communists?

In Kansas. Who knew? Well, OK, some did.

Collapse -
Just another story from Kansas

In reply to: I Know! It's Surprising Isn't It?!

Like Alice In Wonderland?

Collapse -
you been up all night waiting for that?

In reply to: Just another story from Kansas

Devil
Collapse -
Up all night? ...It was 0936 here

In reply to: you been up all night waiting for that?

I'm in different time zone than you, But I get up early even for this time zone.


It was a good one though, wasn't it?

Collapse -
(NT) Nova Scotia?

In reply to: Up all night? ...It was 0936 here

Collapse -
(NT) New Brunswick

In reply to: Nova Scotia?

Collapse -
He needs a better

In reply to: Obama & Teddy Roosevelt?

Collapse -
DARN YOU GOOGLE!!!!

In reply to: He needs a better

THEY can erase it from history BUT they can't erase it from Google.

Collapse -
Eventually

In reply to: DARN YOU GOOGLE!!!!

the truth wins out if you have enough people who care about it to post it somewhere on the internet. I'm glad it was enlightening for you because the truth is, you won't find that information in any of our USA history books anymore.

Collapse -
RE: I'm glad it was enlightening for you

In reply to: Eventually

Perhaps I can enlighten you with one of the links from the link you provided.

Thus the unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920s caused the Great Depression

you won't find that information in any of our USA history books anymore

and you'll never see another "Great Depression" again because


The financial lobby is the biggest and most powerful interest group on
Earth. Their ability to rig the system so as to enrich themselves has
overwhelmed the ability of the politicians and the regulators to keep
them in check. As Prof. Meyer puts it, "People don't mind losing, but
they don't like being cheated." And that's the inequality worth worrying
about.

Collapse -
What has your last

In reply to: RE: I'm glad it was enlightening for you

paragraph taken from the link you provided have to do with never seeing another "Great Depression" again? You neglected to include in your paragraph, the beginning of it....

>>>>The real problem, argues Prof. Cowen (and I agree), lies with the elites of the financial class who've grabbed a gargantuan share of the spoils by means of fancy financial engineering that creates no value, and sometimes destroys it on a massive scale. Nobody knows how to keep them from wrecking the system every so often.>>>> The operative words here, I believe, are : EVERY SO OFTEN and you failed to understand that 'every so often' terrible things happen no matter what you try to do to stop it, but that EVERY TIME things get turned around again.

As for your first link, you took one small area out of an entire piece and try to use a two-man THEORY as fact for why the Great Depression happened. When in fact, the larger areas of this piece further up points to Keynesian mentality (British economist John Maynard Keynes argued in General Theory of Employment Interest and Money that lower aggregate expenditures in the economy contributed to a massive decline in income and to employment that was well below the average. In such a situation, the economy reached equilibrium at low levels of economic activity and high unemployment.

Keynes' basic idea was simple: to keep people fully employed, governments have to run deficits when the economy is slowing, as the private sector would not invest enough to keep production at the normal level and bring the economy out of recession. Keynesian economists called on governments during times of economic crisis to pick up the slack by increasing government spending and/or cutting taxes.) as the real issues, along with Marxist solutions.

In BO's use of K's theory, his main solution has been government spending with next to nothing regarding cutting taxes (if you seriously believe that cutting the payroll tax is a solution when it in fact stops funds from going into social security instead causing the Fed to make up that money from somewhere else or print/borrow more to keep the checks going out, you're nuttier than a fruitcake at Christmas).

Collapse -
I Fail to understand?

In reply to: What has your last

you failed to understand that 'every so often' terrible things happen no
matter what you try to do to stop it, but that EVERY TIME things get
turned around again.


YOU'RE the one, of the 2 of us, that claims Obama is "destroying America"...once something is destroyed....it's over...


speaking of fruitcakes, The oldest known fruitcake is approximately 130 years old and lives under glass in a Michigan home The 14 monks of Assumption Abbey in the Ozark Mountains of Missouri
create 23,000 fruitcakes per holiday season. I wonder how much of the
liquor that is bought for these cakes makes it into the actual product,
, I got one in the cupboard...been nibbling away at it for a week, should last till Valentines Day.

you're nuttier than a fruitcake at Christmas.

AND a MERRY CHRISTMAS to you to.
Collapse -
Also

In reply to: RE: I'm glad it was enlightening for you

there are two things the people hate more than anything in this country....being cheated and being lied to. That's part of why the Tea Party was started.

Collapse -
IF any of them that get in power

In reply to: Also

Unsatisfied Americans (and others) will refer to them as the Lemon Tea Party.

Collapse -
Internet does let information out

In reply to: Eventually

but less not forget, for every view, even "fact" on a web page, there will be others that dispute it.

Collapse -
Nice speech, but...

In reply to: Internet does let information out

...to what exactly are you referring? Fact checking doesn't take too much effort. Are there some errors in information presented by those in this thread that need correcting?

Collapse -
RE: erased it from our history books

In reply to: He needs a better

Collapse -
More unsubstantial garbage

In reply to: RE: erased it from our history books

Your link doesn't give evidence to your original linked statement that the Roaring Twenties caused the Great Depression, as well as the little that was on that Wiki link accounted for two THEORIES that the '20s did.

My entire 'upset' is over the fact that there WAS a depression in 1920 and it was completely RESOLVED within one year, but this entire event is not written about or even known about in our school history books because progressives have manipulated our history textbooks for nearly one hundred years to show a slanted view of events that favor their agenda or those events have been completely obliterated. Facts mean nothing to them....the 1920 Depression, cause and cure, HAS been erased. Find me a current middle school or high school USA history textbook that shows it and prove me wrong.

Collapse -
Jubilee

In reply to: More unsubstantial garbage

Part of the capitalist economic system set up in the OT also involved a Jubilee year. It was every 50 years when all debts were cancelled and everyone started over free of debt. It was sort of a national bankruptcy proceeding every 50 years which solved the problem of those who had gotten themselves so deep into debt they had to sell themselves even as bondsmen and bondswomen to try and work it off. It's sort of what we do by Recessions and Depressions, especially the latter about every 60-70 years. I guess the Jubilee was to do the capitalist reset of economy before it got to the point of a Depression.

Collapse -
There is no record of the year of Jubilee

In reply to: Jubilee

ever happening, even the first one.

Diana

Collapse -
Jubile in KJV

In reply to: There is no record of the year of Jubilee

I gave it a more modern spelling. It's in Leviticus chapters 25 & 27

Collapse -
I know what and where it is.

In reply to: Jubile in KJV

It just never happened. I'm sure that the Bible would have mentioned it if it had ever happened.

Diana

Collapse -
Start your own school.

In reply to: More unsubstantial garbage

There ya' go!

Collapse -
RE: there WAS a depression in 1920

In reply to: More unsubstantial garbage

there WAS a depression in 1920 and it was completely RESOLVED within one year,

Does less than 1 year of tough sledding constitute a "Depression"?

The "Great" Depression lasted 10 or more years...I would think that a "Lesser" Depression should at least last 2 years before it attains Depression status.

REcessions

According to economists, since 1854, the U.S. has encountered 32 cycles
of expansions and contractions, with an average of 17 months of
contraction and 38 months of expansion.[5] However, since 1980 there have been only eight periods of negative economic growth over one fiscal quarter or more,[38] and four periods considered recessions:

In economics, a depression is a sustained, long-term downturn in economic activity in one or more economies. It is a more severe downturn than a recession, which is seen by some economists as part of the modern business cycle.
Considered, by some economists, a rare and extreme form of recession, a depression is characterized by its length,

Your little 1 year of tough sledding was not a depression, it was hardly a recession.

THAT'S why it doesn't make it into the history books.

Collapse -
Here's a better

In reply to: RE: there WAS a depression in 1920

explanation of the depressions, both the 1920 one and what you call the Great Depression (based on its length), and how the one that occurred in 1920 was in many ways worse than the one that started in 1933.

You dismiss it by calling it a 'little 1 year of tough sledding'...but it shows how badly Woodrow Wilson and progressives after Harding, including Hoover (a Republican) and FDR mangled Harding's reversal of Wilson's depression.

http://mises.org/daily/3788

>>>The conventional wisdom holds that in the absence of government countercyclical policy, whether fiscal or monetary (or both), we cannot expect economic recovery — at least, not without an intolerably long delay. Yet the very opposite policies were followed during the depression of 1920-1921, and recovery was in fact not long in coming.

The economic situation in 1920 was grim. By that year unemployment had jumped from 4 percent to nearly 12 percent, and GNP declined 17 percent. No wonder, then, that Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover — falsely characterized as a supporter of laissez-faire economics — urged President Harding to consider an array of interventions to turn the economy around. Hoover was ignored.

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The national debt was reduced by one-third.

The Federal Reserve's activity, moreover, was hardly noticeable. As one economic historian puts it, "Despite the severity of the contraction, the Fed did not move to use its powers to turn the money supply around and fight the contraction."[2] By the late summer of 1921, signs of recovery were already visible. The following year, unemployment was back down to 6.7 percent and it was only 2.4 percent by 1923.>>

Harding, unfortunately died of a stroke in 1923 and Hoover came into play and totally dismantled what Harding had achieved. Even FDR's New Deal couldn't solve the problem until he entered the war and took millions of men into the war out of the private sector and into the public sector. The main thing that saved our economy wasn't because FDR changed any of his policies, it was because the private sector became heavily industrialized, began manufacturing material for the war and women became Rosie the Riveter types for far less pay than the men would have received. The Federal government became the largest employer in the entire world temporarily. We almost fell into another Great Depression after those men returned home and reclaimed their jobs, of which many shut down because the need for those products being manufactured specifically for the war that ended was gone.

Truman took over as President when FDR died a few months into his FOURTH term. The economy was already in dire trouble and in 1946, during midterm elections, the Republicans took over the house and the senate and began cutting taxes and removing price controls. They overrode Truman's veto: >>>>After many years of Democratic majorities in Congress and two Democratic presidents, voter fatigue with the Democrats delivered a new Republican majority in the 1946 midterm elections, with the Republicans picking up 55 seats in the House of Representatives and several seats in the Senate. Although Truman cooperated closely with the Republican leaders on foreign policy, he fought them bitterly on domestic issues. He failed to prevent tax cuts or the removal of price controls. The power of the labor unions was significantly curtailed by the Taft-Hartley Act, which was enacted by overriding Truman's veto.[99]>>>

When Eisenhower became President, the economy was booming again because of Republicans' actions during Truman's final years.

You call the 1920 depression nothing....the economic numbers compared to the Great Depression were far worse, and because of a strong leader who understood economics, it was resolved quickly. Progressives dragged the Great Depression into a long process. It's not how many years a depression lasts...it's the actual numbers that show it IS a depression and how it gets resolved that matters.

By your standards, we have been in a 'recession' now since 2007, of which THIS leaders knows nothing about how to resolve it and his policies are a mirrored image of FDR's and dragged a 'recession' that lasted from 2007-2009 into his own personal depression from 2009-2012 based on the economic numbers alone. So why isn't anybody calling this a depression? Because it isn't 'long enough' yet? Or is it because to do so would be political suicide for BO.

Collapse -
That's a good find

In reply to: Here's a better

They don't want to talk about success like that, prefering to talk up the many failures of the FDR administration which took us deep into depression and kept us there longer than we should have been there.

Collapse -
Response

In reply to: That's a good find

Instead of "fiscal stimulus," Harding cut the government's budget nearly
in half between 1920 and 1922. The rest of Harding's approach was
equally laissez-faire. Tax rates were slashed for all income groups. The
national debt was reduced by one-third.


How do you think cutting the Defense budget in half would go over?
Collapse -
About the same as

In reply to: Response

cutting social entitlement programs in half, maybe less though since all foreign aid comes in under the Defense Budget and that's where a lot of cuts would come first.

Collapse -
I know someone here(in SE) that wouldn't like it.

In reply to: About the same as

NOT AT ALL.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GIVEAWAY

Enter to win* a free holiday tech gift!

CNET's giving five lucky winners the gift of their choice valued up to $250!