Deleted
Tony,
if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then quite likely it is a duck. The voters knew what they were getting into when they voted for him.
In a recent interview with David Frost, the interviewer asked him about his famous interview with 'tricky dicky' and asked if he would be prepared to do a similar interview with Bush the lesser. Frost's reply was that he would delight in an interview with 'dubya' as the guy was intelligent. Now I know that David Frost is a very astute interviewer and wonder if he was being sarcastic, as to the intelligence level of George the lesser, or being sarcastic as to the low perceived intellect of tricky-dicky. An interview with George the lesser would require either serious editing or be used as a comedy hour special. Maybe a little shoe throwing could be added for some interest? I had always regarded tricky as an astute politician in the 1950's and wonder what drove him to the depths he descended to in the 1970's.Deleted
Quote from Tony’s link above -
“In retrospect, some would call the Nixon presidency the “last liberal administration.” This was not only because of the imposition of economic controls. It also carried out a great expansion of regulation into new areas, launching affirmative action and establishing the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Probably more new regulation was imposed on the economy during the Nixon administration than in any other presidency since the New Deal,” Herbert Stein ruefully observed.”
Tony,
what heresy is this? We are talking of a Republican presidency? A regular on this site will respond. “I was in the post office the other day and asked if anyone knew either Daniel Yergin or Joseph Stanislaw (the authors of the link above) and not one person had heard of either man, but one guy thought he had a distant cousin whose name sounded familiar.”
Deleted
Tim Brien said:
Tony, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then quite likely it is a duck. The voters knew what they were getting into when they voted for him.In a recent interview with David Frost, the interviewer asked him about his famous interview with 'tricky dicky' and asked if he would be prepared to do a similar interview with Bush the lesser. Frost's reply was that he would delight in an interview with 'dubya' as the guy was intelligent. Now I know that David Frost is a very astute interviewer and wonder if he was being sarcastic, as to the intelligence level of George the lesser, or being sarcastic as to the low perceived intellect of tricky-dicky. An interview with George the lesser would require either serious editing or be used as a comedy hour special. Maybe a little shoe throwing could be added for some interest? I had always regarded tricky as an astute politician in the 1950's and wonder what drove him to the depths he descended to in the 1970's.</blockquote>I am not a huge fan of GW’s political career, but he couldn’t be a dunce the MSM enjoys making him out to be as a graduate of Yale and Harvard. History will judge this man’s accomplishments and mistakes.
No detractor here. Since LBJ, the USA had only one quasi-conservative president and only 2 years of a Republican controlled Congress.
David Hill said:You have your facts wrong, David. The "Gipper" alone had 6 years of Republican controlled Congress. I will not bother pulling the statistics from the Congressional web-site, as I have done this several times here at LSC already. Wonderful thing about the internet age. The information is always available if one takes the time to look. Even so, I too am at times guilty of posting without doing the research. Ralph
No detractor here. Since LBJ, the USA had only one quasi-conservative president and only 2 years of a Republican controlled Congress.
I found this on Wiki, not the safest source but it’s all in one place. Let’s read it and critique.
After the 1954 Congressional elections, the Democratic Party now dominated both houses of Congress until 1994, (40 years) except when Republicans held a majority of seats in the Senate (only the Senate), after the party dominated the 1980 US Presidential and US Senate elections, due to the fact that the Democratic US President Jimmy Carter became more and more unpopular as he failed to rescue the Iranian US hostages- being held during the Iranian Hostage Crisis-, and failed to curb high US unemployment and inflation rates that soared further after Iran’s oil became isolated following the 1979 Iranian Revolution as well.[18]. The Democratic Party was able to break the Conservative Coalition, after President Johnson was able to gain a great amount of support through his Great Society policies, but the coalition rebounded in 1966, as the Democratic Party began to lose support after President Johnson began to escalate the number of troops involved in the Vietnam War, and could continue to help the Republican Party gain more Congressional seats between 1966 and 1970- when the Republican Party and Richard Nixon started an anti-war platform, until the 1970 US invasion of Cambodia occurred, and the Republican Party became more unpopular after the Kent State Shootings occurred during a protest to this invasion- and 1972 and 1974- when the once-again anti-war Republican Party (interesting side note) regained popularity after Republican President Nixon passed the SALT I agreement and re-opened US-China relations-, until the Watergate Scandal helped bring President Nixon and the Republican Party down further between 1974 and 1980.
The Republicans six year control over the Senate ended in 1986, after the Iran-Contra Affair damaged the popularity of President Reagan and his administration. The Republicans finally returned to a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the election of 1994, thanks in part to: 1) President Clinton’s temporary failure to establish universal health care; and 2) Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America, which was promoted heavily by the entire Republican Party. By the 1996 US Presidential Election, Clinton’s economic programs prevailed and the President was elected to a second term in a landslide victory. Despite Clinton’s huge victory, however, the Democrats were still not able to regain control of either the US House of Representatives or Senate.
For most part (?) between 1995 and 2007, the Republicans controlled both houses. In the wake of the unpopularity of President Clinton’s impeachment trial the 107th Congress (2001-2003) saw the Democrats and Republicans split control of the US Senate 50-50, ending effectively tied; though Republican Vice-President Dick Cheney did have the tie breaking vote in the Senate during the first four months of 2001 as well. In May 2001, Republican US Senator from the state of Vermont, Jim Jeffords, ended his affiliation with the Republican Party and became an Independent. After departing from the Republican Party, Jeffords agreed to caucus with the Democrats and control of the Senate switched back to the Democrats once again.
The 108th Congress (2003-2005) saw the Senate return to a GOP majority of 51-49, as Republican President George W Bush had gained some popularity for his fight against Al Qaeda terrorists. In 2006, opposition to Bush’s continuation of the Iraq War had grown to new heights. As a result, the 110th Congress saw the Democrats regain majority control of both the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives.
I read 40 years of Democratic control until 1994, then Republican control from 1995-2007 (12 years). Am I missing something? The “Gipper” had a Republican Senate, but a Democratically controlled House.
Anyone can add information to wikipedia.
But regardless, even the wiki shows your 2 year claim to be false.
After the latest financial debacle, it is clear the banks control both parties.
Ours is no longer a government for the people, but for the money.
Our government is overrun with sheep and wolves, sheepdogs being the minority.
Ralph
Ralph Berg said:I will (and intended to just) admit I was wrong about the two year Republican control of Congress beginning in 1994. I thought I recalled a Republican Senator switching parties, and another that died or resigned by 1996, giving the Democrats a majority. I humbly stand corrected.
Anyone can add information to wikipedia. But regardless, even the wiki shows your 2 year claim to be false. After the latest financial debacle, it is clear the banks control both parties. Ours is no longer a government for the people, but for the money. Our government is overrun with sheep and wolves, sheepdogs being the minority. Ralph
Our Federation would appear to be now more, by definition, an oligarchy run by some big moneyed few even as we retain the pretense of a Constitutional Republic. Sad to say, it changed on our watch.
David Hill said:Ralph Berg said:I will (and intended to just) admit I was wrong about the two year Republican control of Congress beginning in 1994. I thought I recalled a Republican Senator switching parties, and another that died or resigned by 1996, giving the Democrats a majority. I humbly stand corrected.
Anyone can add information to wikipedia. But regardless, even the wiki shows your 2 year claim to be false. After the latest financial debacle, it is clear the banks control both parties. Ours is no longer a government for the people, but for the money. Our government is overrun with sheep and wolves, sheepdogs being the minority. RalphOur Federation would appear to be now more, by definition, an oligarchy run by some big moneyed few even as we retain the pretense of a Constitutional Republic. Sad to say, it changed on our watch.
It’s not so much on which watch it happened, it’s more about how long it took to notice! Wasn’t it Ike who - as a parting message - warned of the dire results of the Military Industrial Complex? Go back to that chart regarding the per capita expenditures on armaments - or better yet, follow the curve between the 50s and today.
I would argue that the US was ALWAYS run by the wealthy and primarily for the wealthy.
Hamilton’s argument about the national debt is a perfect example. The colonies owed huge amounts of money to England dating from before the Rev. War. The burning questions was “should we repudiate those debts now that we have won independence?” Hamilton argued, famously, that “a national debt is a national blessing,” and that we should pay those debts by issuing bonds. The bonds, he said, should only be available in large denominations, only available to the wealthy, because we needed to cement the interests of the very wealthy to the fate of the new Republic. When he founded the 1st bank of the US he made the dame argument–stock in the bank should be purchasable only by the wealthy. Jefferson bitterly fought Hamilton and lost: Hamilton was a practical realist.
Does anybody here know how we financed the transcontinental railroads?
Simple–the Government gave the railroads land, just gave it to them, so they could sell it to finance construction. The US west was surveyed in 640 acre “sections.” That’s why the western states are square. Under the Pacific Railways ct of 1862, railroads were given every other section of land along their proposed right of way, for esevaral miles back. “From 1850-1871, the railroads received more than 175 million acres (708,000 km²) of public land - an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger than Texas.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Act
You could not farm or do business without being near the railroad’s right of way, so In effect the US massively subsidized four or so corporations, creating huge fortunes at the public’s expense. Of course, the public also got the railroad, but the railroad’s had an effective monopoly on shipping rates in the midwest and could raise prices on farmers at their pleasure, which leads to the failed political revolt of the Populist Party in the 1890s
Things like this suggest to me that the US has always been based on an extremely close relationship between large business and govt., and that the policy has generally been to prfit corporations forst, and the rest of us second, hopefully as a byproduct of corporate wealth. On the whole, it’s worked pretty well. I just can’t buy the argument that the modern state of affairs is new.
I like Chuck’s comments and think they would help if people thought that way again. But around here having a bigger garden than the neighbors will get you a visit from the county and state to be sure you aren’t breaking any laws. Ya, it’s that bad where I live, jealous people… You also don’t stop to help somebody on the side of the road either. They will rob you, yell rape or get pissed at you for bothering them!
I’m not so sure it was a good thing to wake up this morning. Nothing has changed for the better.
Jon.
Jon,
I feel it was a good thing that you woke up this morning. You might want to rethink your thoughts and consider giving a little thanks.
I consider it a good day when I can wake up, get breakfast and nobody is shooting at me. If I haven’t had to reload before lunch, its a great day. We have a lot of young men and women wishing for that privlege and hoping for the same results.
Cold morning here, but bright sunshine is rising over a clear sky. Doing some hedge trimming, before the buds show. Time to cut the tall grasses and walk about the yard looking for what projects are on the agenda for this year. Coal fired power plant is still in progress in the basement, but coming along real well. Might be ready for fresh pictures in the next day or so.