Pabst, it still amazes me that this is ALL that the Republican Party has to offer these days . . . in the way of a Presidential candidate. Unbelievable.
America still wants Big Federal solutions. Interventionist military, bailouts, massive entitlements for Federal employees and seniors, maybe even universal healthcare. Market liquidity has different ideas. New capital will build alternative energy in China not lend at low yields to the U.S. Treasury or BOJ. The governments in Japan, Europe the U.S. are dead. My weekend reading will be learning the contributing factors to Argentina's collapse. I need to be versed in some distinctly non-U.S. fractals. We're in a new ballgame. Wags, I make no bones about my partisanship-I'm a states rightest-the bulk of needed services are local-hence I'm a virtual secessionist. I believe the de facto destruction of the Federal fiscal engine as we now know it is our only answer.
Visual Guide: The Balance Of Power Between Congress and The Presidency 1945-2008 Which party controls Congress? Which, the White House? The answer reveals the "balance of power" in the two branches of government that have elected officials (Congress and the White House). Americans seem to prefer that the checks-and-balances envisioned by the founders be facilitated by having different parties control Congress and the White House. Contrary to popular belief, most of the time (in modern political history) Congress and the President are at odds; that is, most of the time the same political party does not control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Only 10 times (20 years) since 1945 have both branches of Congress and the Presidency been controlled by the same party. However, most of the time, Congress has been controlled by the same party. The "odd man out" has literally been the President. Since 1945, the House and Senate have been controlled by different parties only five times (10 years). And there have been only two complete turn-overs of Congress since 1945: one in 1949 and the other in 2007. Also see A Guide To Sessions of Congress : Congressional Calendars, 1971-2008 Updated 13 November 2006 Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435) 2007 110th R D - 51** D - 233 2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232 2003 108th R R - 51 R - 229 2001 107th R D* R - 221 1999 106th D R - 55 R - 223 1997 105th D R - 55 R - 228 1995 104th D R - 52 R - 230 1993 103rd D D - 57 D - 258 1991 102nd R D - 56 D - 267 1989 101st R D - 55 D - 260 1987 100th R D - 55 D - 258 1985 99th R R - 53 D - 253 1983 98th R R - 54 D - 269 1981 97th R R - 53 D - 242 1979 96th D D - 58 D - 277 1977 95th D D - 61 D - 292 1975 94th R D - 60 D -291 1973 93rd R D - 56 D - 242 1971 92nd R D - 54 D - 255 1969 91st R D - 57 D - 243 1967 90th D D - 64 D - 247 1965 89th D D - 68 D - 295 1963 88th D D - 66 D - 259 1961 87th D D - 64 D - 263 1959 86th R D - 65 D -283 1957 85th R D - 49 D - 232 1955 84th R D - 48 D - 232 1953 83rd R R - 48 D - 221 1951 82nd D D - 49 D - 235 1949 81st D D - 54 D - 263 1947 80th D R - 51 R - 246 1945 79th D D - 57 D - 242 An all Democratic or Republican controlled Presidency and Congress is disasterous for the American people, history has proved it time again. :eek:
You conveniently started after FDR. FDR was elected along with an overwhelming Democratic majority in the congress. That was what was needed to pull the country out of the Great Depression. There is no doubt in many people's mind that today we're staring at an economic disaster parallel to 1929. So it only makes sense for the people to vote in a president along with a congress controlled by the same party, and also with an overwhelming majority. You can blame Bush for it.
Roosevelt and his policies extended the depression. The are no economic numbers untill the war 1942 that show an end to the depression
Liar. GDP during FDR's first term was close to 10% per year. Look it up: http://bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
The U.S. had not returned to 1929's GNP for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940 â down from 25% in 1933. I believe this is a more accurate measure. Don't call people liars. Does it make you feel good
If you didn't lie because you didn't think growth rate was a reasonable measure of recovery, then you were just being dishonest. If the economy crashes by 70% no policy can make it return to its pre-crash level immediately. A growth rate above 10% is a decent recovery rate. Unemployment also recovers along with the economy. There was absolutely no possibility that continuing Hoover's "free market" policy would have made the recovery faster. In fact, Hoover's policy was what made the crash so much worse.
Hoover was hardly "free market". Had he been free market their is a good chance the economy would have taking less then 10 years to come back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover ________________ After his successful election in November 1928, Hoover entered office with a plan for reform of the nation's regulatory system. A dedicated Progressive and Reformer, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism. Long before he entered politics he denounced laissez-faire thinking. As Commerce Secretary he had taken an active pro-regulation stance. As President he helped push tariff and farm support bills through Congress. Hoover agreed to one of the largest tax increases in American history. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. -------------------------------------------------