I also don’t think Joe Wilson should have to apologize to ANYONE for telling the truth. Just because he wasn’t “politically correct” and his constituents think he should join them in being pied piper followers who can’t think for themselves.

Probably a lot more of them were thinking the same thing Joe was thinking but too afraid to speak out for fear of losing money for their states.

(I do some writing for a sprained ankles website resource.)

Worse yet, the father of the bomber contacted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria and reported to the Americans that his son had become radicalized, and was in warning the U.S. that he most likely was involved with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

Mind you, our Government has yet to refer to this young man as a Terrorist, just as they did the same with Major Nedal at the Ft. Hood killings, and despite his contacts with an Al Qaeda Yemeni Cleric.

Fox News interviewed DHS Secretary Napolitano by Peter Jackson Jr. and other Fox News anchors, she attempted to dodge all their questions as to what happened, and why he was not on our No Fly List, but was on our Tides list (a database of suspected people who are considered terrorists, or have terror ties, I would love to know how he was missed. Peter Johnson would not let up on her claims the list was part of the Bush Admin…It has been a year since Bush was in office, it is now up to the new DHS to take care of business.

She actually told Fox that the system worked after the attempt…What in the hell is that type of statement? Would the “System” worked had he succeeded? NO!

Under Bush, the DHS had all of our agencies working together and sharing information, Obama has now undone that order, and are now prohibited from info sharing…THAT is why it was never picked up on.

I do not care what anyone thinks of Bush, but he had the right idea, more terror plots were thwarted during his term in office after the WTC attacks, due to the media, there are hundreds more the Lame Stream Media never reported.

A few weeks back, Briton’s Mi-6 have told the U.S. of 24 more airline attacks by terrorists, yet we had not heard that from our Media or Government, until Fox obtained the report.

If you all recall, Obama thought it best to “Talk” to Iran, other Muslim countries and Dictators…And how has that worked out for him? Did he actually think Iran would listen…during their talks, the secretly built even more uranium processing facilities. Not to mention the development of more and more powerful missile delivery systems…And still nothing from the Admin., not ever an embargo.

Then there was the other Nigerian man who was allowed to board planes “without a passport” from, on the same flight the Bomber made.

I believe Obama is protecting Muslims; I have posted a link before which shows Obama on several occasions using a meeting room in the White House where he and other Muslims are praying to Allah. This is a difficult prayer (done 5 times a day) yet Obama knows the prayer and rituals which accompany them).

The FIRST job of any American President is to protect our citizens, not going very well, is it?

Glad to hear you have the book.

Actually, the spending cuts I had alluded to were the actions of the Truman administration; I was unaware that FDR had done so as well, as you had mentioned. I guess such an unlikely concession on FDR’s part shouldn’t surprise me since the reality of war mobilization also impelled him to make another concession – the casting aside of some of the more zealous New Deal planners in his administration and adding over 10,000 business executives in the federal war agencies, as described in “The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Great Depression and the New Deal”, pgs 163, 164.
Tied into that, and due to the relatively more pro-business environment started in FDR’s third term and continued by Truman, was the the surge in private investment, from 5.0% in 1945, to 14.7% in 1946 and 1947, and 19.5% in 1948.(according to the “From Central Planning to the Market” essay)

I wholeheartedly agree that a new party name is in order. The name ‘Tea Party’ greatly appeals to me since it serves as a constant reminder of what this country was originally intended to be about. I would shuck the ‘Republican Pary’ label in an instant along with the ‘bad blood’ within its ranks who had repeatedly betrayed its more conservative constituents.

<laughing> re: ‘spending cuts’ – These days, that means a reduction in the projected increase in spending.

Back to your post #8, FDR was able to cut spending due to the influx of capital (he was not a fan of Capitalism), but was force into doing so due to before we joined the war with other countries needing us to make military equipment, and other factories re-opened for making parts for not only our equipment, for the Allies military equipment and sending massive amounts of goods and food to those being attacked.

We have had Progressive Presidents in all parties, but the Democrats were the most costly.

What we need now is a change in Party Name, several polls show our people broken into three groups:

Tea Party:  44%
Conservative: 26%
Republican:  22%

I do not think a TEA Party will work for all Americans, so perhaps if we rename the Republican Party to the New Republic Party or New Republican Party, to get everyone on the same page. Airing PSAs that the new party is all inclusive (mentioning all three groups).

The CORRECT footnote that Dilorenzo references his two-thirds government spending reduction claim from his book “How Capitalism Saved America” (page 184), is listed as follows on page 269 –
[U.S. Department of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961), 711.]

The footnote in my #12 post pertaining to the “Wartime Prosperity?” essay by Robert Higgs actually addressed some of the points that you had brought up in post #11.
Curiously, when I tried to Google that essay, none of the search results produced it. However, the essay is included in Higgs’ book, “Depression, War, and Cold War – Challenging the Myths of Conflict and Prosperity”, which I own. Since the book came out in 2006, perhaps the libraries would have it, should you desire to read it.

Another essay from the “Depression, War, and Cold War” book, entitled, “From Central Planning to the Market – The American Transition, 1945-47” is a good compliment to the “Wartime Prosperity?” essay.

Regards

I initially came across the two-thirds reduction in government spending tidbit from economist Thomas Dilorenzo’s book, “How Capitalism Saved America”, page 184.
The footnote he references this claim to is an essay from another economist of the Austrian School, Robert Higgs, titled “Wartime Prosperity? A Reassessment of the U.S. Economy in the 1940’s”.

Never to be contentious with you, I haven’t seen the Austrian Data, or how it was collected. The economic figures I am using for from our own Government during the years of 1938 through 1946, which I received over a year ago via FOIA.

Long before we entered the war, dormant factories suddenly sprang to life once again to manufacture goods, weapons, building and selling parts for U.S. aircraft to send to Europe. This increased each year until we entered the war. Millions of people once again had jobs, after we entered the war, and our young men left for Europe, there were not enough workers to keep up, and began hiring women to work in building all forms of airplanes (fighters, bombers, and support aircraft), every type of naval ships, jeeps, tanks, light and heavy artillery.

The trickledown effect was enormous; all the military factories needed parts, which opened other dormant factories. Suddenly people had money in their pockets again; this caused farming to boom for the first time in years, prices of meats began to rise. Clothing was again needed on a massive scale…within three years (after we were there); stock markets begin to come alive as the GDP increased by leaps and bounds.

Where you may be correct, in 1945 and 1946, the economic charts showed growth in all sectors of our economy, but there was an asterisk. Since Europe was decimated, they needed goods, food, building materials, it wasn’t until then the money from Europe began making payments, which paid back much of the debt incurred. Especially when the US began helping rebuilding the decimated countries, then eventually Japan.

However, had WW II never happened, he would have kept up his progressive policies. With the exception of all the death that war took, the worst thing which eventually came from the War was the creation of the United Nations, and Nelson Rockefeller gave them the land to build it on, so it could be in the U.S.

As for your final sentence, yes…can you even imagine a two-thirds cut in spending today? That is not going to happen under our current Marxist leadership.

I used to believe that myself for many years, but from more recent readings, I had found the arguments from some Austrian Theory economists more credible. Namely, that the Depression ended after federal government spending was slashed by two-thirds from 1945-1948 (98 billion down to 33 billion dollars). That, along with the scaling back of FDR’s failed massive interventionist schemes, which, as you pointed out, prolonged the Depression in the first place.

Could you imagine such a draconian cut in spending these days?