Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
RedsPwnAll
MemberWell, after reading this Cato article it looks like my question is answered:
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n4-1.html\
So, if Big Business itself is going after regulation doesn’t that make a particular, business accountable just as, much as government going to intervene?
I mean how’s it possible to achieve a true laissez-faire capitalist environment, if business is actively going to government( and not the other way around) to use it to gain an advantage on consumers and their competition.
MemberNot to hijack the OP’s thread, but I also have my questions:
1) I don’t think I quite fully understand how the Great Depression became so, worldwide as it did. Was just simply the Fed itself, and going off the gold standard that did it?
2) My second question is more towards the policies of Sweden during The Great Depression. Many say it went full-blown who went full-blown Keynesianism to recover, is this true? If not what attribute to its quick recovery as others say.
MemberOh ok, Thanks! I feel this would have happened with or without the amendment, but I can see how it made it all the easier.
Member“I don’t know that the definitive book on W has been written. The two-volume Neo-Conned series has some great material on the war in Iraq.”
Well, there is James Bovard’s “The Bush Betrayal” I just ordered. Though, it’s not a defiant account as it only goes over his first term. I’ll check that Neo-Conned series out though!
“Murray Rothbard wrote a piece on Reagan titled “Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy”, which was highly critical of him. I’m curious if you could comment on this article.”
I’ve skimmed through some of the Rothbard articles on Reagan, and I have to say…despite me being somewhat suspicious of Reagan……I do feel Rothbard seem somewhat…harsh. :-/
Member“W had a Republican Congress for six of his eight years. He demonstrated no interest in controlling spending; indeed, aversion to reining in government spending is what his slogan “compassionate conservatism” was meant to convey.”
Interesting! Would you happen to know some good book on the abuses of the Bush Administration on both domestic and foreign policies, Mr. Gutzman?
“One should not confuse the Bushes with Reagan: Daddy Bush was the anti-Reagan on every major issue in the 1980 primaries, and he came from the anti-Goldwater wing of the party (as does Romney, by the way).”
Wow, how did he become Vice-president then? Politics, or was Reagan just unfortunate, to get him as his Vice and was hoping for a more conservative choice?
Member“direct election of senators”
I think I need some clarification. How is this bad?
MemberNo problem Mr. Woods! Nice to have you back!
Member“Reagan sympathizers only controlled Congress during the first two years of Reagan’s presidency. Not coincidentally, that was also the only two-year period in my life when domestic discretionary spending declined.”
“It’s common to comment critically upon Reagan’s administration by assuming that he had the power of an Arab dictator and commenting on everything that the Federal Government did as if Reagan had desired it. This approach is, of course, fallacious.”
I’ll take your word for it Mr. Gutzman. I’ll give Reagan the big benefit of the doubt! I admit to being still cautious and suspicious of his administration and policies though. I’ve heard plenty of times the excuse of Democratic or Republican Congress being used for several Presidents. The Bushes being the most recent examples, but I have some doubt (especially, about Bush Jr.) whatever their policies that were block were actually for the best, even if the Congress reason for blocking them weren’t for noble intentions. Granted, in Reagan’s case it defiantly seemed more “genuine” blockade against his policies. And his policies would have worked if what I’ve read about them are true. I will read the book Mr. Woods suggested though, and maybe come back with some new thoughts about him.
Thanks for answering though! 🙂
MemberSo, is it safe to say that the Progressive Era ushered in Progressiveness the most destructive ideology in American history and the cancer that’s been killing our nation ever since and still is to this very day. :-p 😮
MemberI’ve seen them. Their great overviews of the 1920’s, but it focus on the domestic and foreign issues of the nation at the time. Which is the point of Mr. Woods vids mind you!, But, I was more looking for an answer on how the common individual lived at the time. He mentions that wages went up, hours of work lowered, and technology usually reserve for the wealthy slowly, started to tinkered down to the common folk. That answers some, but what I’m asking is even with all that would they still be considered poor by those days standards? They would today of course, but for that time was life was far better for the majority of Americans than it had been even thirty years before? Am I making sense? I hope I’m not sounding picky. I’m just curious is all! 🙂
MemberWow, thanks for the books suggestion! I’ll be looking forward too your political guide! Thanks for the help! 😉
MemberThanks! I sorta off knew about the Fed already, but thank you for the crash course on it anyway!
I’ll be looking forward to Napolitano’s book!
Was there anything else as, far as social issues go that he unfortunately, screw up on?
MemberA pleasure to be on this site, Mr. Gutzman! I’ll look forward to ask any questions when necessary!
MemberWell, a little about me: I enjoy littering,the taste of burnt hair, justifiable arson, putting catnip in rat traps, the high notes raccoons make when you burn them out of their nests, the sound of fingernails giving way to a pair of pliers, making puppets out of body parts found in dumpsters, and am believer in the capitalistic system!
Nice to meet you all!
…………………………………….
Well, if that didn’t scare you away than it’s best to say that I’m a college sophomore that has ran into this site, and would like to learn about “true” history, and do have some interest in a political science or history degree since, the subject of History just fascinates me.
-
AuthorPosts