News-Record.com

"Many of the families Congress would add to SCHIP already have private insurance."

That's the idea, Chris. If they (nanny staters) can't sell Hillarycare as a package deal, they intend to do it incrementally.

you neocons are so right. lets keep spending hundreds of billions of dollars that the US government has to borrow since we don't have the tax revenues to support it, but not spend any more at home. shame on us greedy americans.

`

Mikeg,
You have to admit, our "neocon" is like the tide ebbing and flowing twice every twenty four hours--predictable!

It is amazing that people who LIKE to call themselves "conservatives" have no problem spending in excess of TEN BILLION PER MONTH on a ridiculous war that Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" years ago! Ron White must have been talking about "neocon" when he said, "You just can't fix STUPID". LOL!

`

Unfortunately Mr. Downing insists on perpetuating the administration's half-truths.

There was no change in the SCHIP legislation that would have allowed New York to bump its coverage up to $83,000. New York has asked for (and been denied) an exemption under the current program.

Some states do allow adults to participate in SCHIP. Mr. Downing's figures of a half a dozen states having more adults on the program than children does not square with the administrations own numbers from February which only claimed that 3 states fell into this category (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2007/factsheet_schip.pdf ). Moreover, Mr. Downing does not tell us that under the administration's proposal "States can continue to cover parents up to existing eligibility levels." (see link above).

Finally, Mr. Downing does not tell us that it was the administration's own Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountibility Initiative in 2001 that encouraged states to expand coverage to adults! (see the GAO report on this at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04166r.pdf ).

The administration's "plan" does nothing to fix any of the problems that Mr. Downing cites.

This issue is SO last week.

Hey Neo - where were you when Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act was signed .. you know that earlier "Hillarycare" increment .. the one the Senate passed 61-39 and the same one Tom DeLay keep on the floor for hours and hours as he negotiated deals to squeak it though the House.

Can you provide links of your objection at that time, or Mr. Integrity, are you still doing the game thing?

great links, Dave.

Dave, thanks for providing the information and the comments.

Did anyone actually expect someone affiliated with the administration in any way to do much more than be a "cheerleader?"

Shalom

"you know that earlier "Hillarycare" increment"

I think you meant excrement.

Mr. Downing's letter led me to look a little more closely at the history and figures behind the "adults on SCHIP" criticism. The long version of this is now at my blog at (http://appliedrationality.blogspot.com/2007/10/how-did-those-adults-get-on-state.html ).

Long story short... Absent the administration's encouragement and absent its approval of specific state requests, there would be NO ADULTS, other than pregnant women, on the federally-funded portion of SCHIP. There were no adults on the federally-funded portion of SCHIP prior to August 2001 (though states were funding some adults using their own money).

As recently as last month, the administration (specifically, Mr. Downing's own agency) gave the go ahead to New Mexico, one of the 6 states that is spending more on adults than on children, to keep operating its program for adults.

To borrow politifact.com's (http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ ) terminology, Mr. Downing makes a misrepresentation of the "pants on fire" variety.

More fact-checking, here is the Lewin Group's report (Mr. Downing misidentified as the Levin Group): http://www.lewin.com/NR/rdonlyres/B45E2670-8A65-4817-B68B-83B818616DDF/0/BushHealthCarePlanAnalysisRev.pdf

Contrary to Mr. Downing's assertion (is there anything that he hasn't misrepresented?), the Lewin Group predicted that the President's tax plan would increase the number of insured people by just over 9 million, not the 20 million.

9 million more insured would be great, but what would be the cost? Well, the Lewin Group predicts the cost would be would be $61.8 billion dollars in just ONE YEAR. By contrast, the SCHIP expansion would have cost about $7 billion per year. Unlike the bipartisan plan that he vetoed, the President's plan contained no provision for offsetting expenditures to eliminate the impact on the deficit. So much for the President finally becoming an advocate of fiscal responsibility.

Dave, thanks again for that information!

Shalom

PS - Where are all of the "conservatives" (sorry for the label JDR) when all of this information has been placed at their feet to behold?

Dave has indeed done a fine job of debunking the misinformation in Mr. Downing's LTE. Would you consider writing this as a "counterpoint" of your own, Dave? It seems to me that N&R readers need the facts, not another propaganda piece from the administration.

I'm also concerned that the N&R is running what appear to be bulk-mailed letters (they did it with a LIddy Dole letter a few months ago, and Downing's letter also appeared in the Gainsville Sun this week) in what is supposed to be a forum for individuals writing personally about issues of local interest. There was in fact a policy at one time that excluded from publication any LTE that did not meet that standard.

If that standard is no longer in force, it needs to be reinstated, especially in regard to political officials. This is not the first time HHS has been caught manipulating the media--remember the fake news stories, complete with fake reporters, they planted in various TV markets a while back?

"Hey Neo - where were you when Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act was signed .. you know that earlier "Hillarycare" increment"

I was there pointing out how Bush was a rino on that issue and how he was trying to 'out democrat the democrats', cRock-o-...feller. Sorry you missed that.

Amusing to watch you liberals squabble over the amount of $ that will have to be stolen from the producers in order to fund this socialist program. "$61.8B vs $7B per year"... Yeah, "great links" all right...if socialism is your cup 'o tea. No wonder the dimocrats enjoy the support of two bit socialist dictators the world over, just look at what they have in common.

How about $0.00 per year? How about I raise my kids and you raise yours? How about you stop advocating government confiscation of my money in order to fufill your wet dreams of socialized medicine?

Elizabeth:

You must have read my mind. I e-mailed the following letter to Chris Downing and CC'd the editorial staff at the N-R.

Dear Mr. Downing:

An editorial letter that you submitted to numerous newspapers, including my local paper in Greensboro (the News-Record) made a host of misleading representations.

First, the letter stated that "the president cannot support turning a program for poor children into an entitlement for middle-income families, some (in New York) with incomes almost up to $83,000 a year." As an ACF official you must be aware that the vetoed legislation did no such thing. New York could, as it has done already, apply for a waiver for expanded coverage, but it would not get this expansion unless Secretary Leavitt or some future Secretary approved it.

Second, the letter stated that the vetoed legislation would "continue the trend toward using SCHIP to cover adults instead of children." It also noted that "half a dozen states already spend more SCHIP money on adults than on children." However, the letter failed to mention that the extended coverage for adults in the federally-funded portion of the program was a result of your Department's August 2001 Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability (HIFA) initiative. Prior to August 2001, states could not use federal funds to cover adults unless very strict conditions were met. The HIFA relaxed these conditions. In fact, HHS approved renewals of plans for several of the "half dozen states" that you cite in the last two years. Moreover, unless the President has changed the plan that he submitted in February, he has promised that "states can continue to cover parents up to existing eligibility levels." (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/pubpress/2007/factsheet_schip.pdf ).

Third, the letter mentioned that the "Levin Group" (I assume you meant Lewin Group) calculated that "the president's overall health-access proposal would mean nearly 20 million more Americans with health insurance." Their report ( http://www.lewin.com/NR/rdonlyres/B45E2670-8A65-4817-B68B-83B818616DDF/0/BushHealthCarePlanAnalysisRev.pdf ) says no such thing. It instead calculates that the net increase in the number of insured Americans would be 9.2 million people (less than half of what the letter asserted--perhaps you meant that the proposal would reduce the number of uninsured by 20 percent?). The report also indicated that the net cost of the President's proposed tax deduction for just one year would be $61.8 billion. Your letter cites "limited resources," yet the tax cut proposal is far more costly than the $7.8 billion to $13.9 billion annual price tag of the SCHIP legislation from FY 08-12 (CBO estimates). Moreover, it wouldn't be offset by revenue increases as the bipartisan legislation proposed.

As someone who was formally affiliated with the Administration for Children and Families, I find it disheartening that an agency official would mischaracterize data and the historical record in this way. I hope that you will take an opportunity to recontact the newspapers and set the record straight.

Respectfully,

David C. Ribar

... wonder if Gonzales approved Chris Downing's Federal Appointment as "Regional Director of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in Atlanta" ...

"Yeah, "great links" all right...if socialism is your cup 'o tea."

... ... except Ribar's links were about THIS ADMISTRATION socialist policies ... not a dimocrat in link-sight.

Did ya just missed that?
Are ya playing Games?
Is Mr. Bozo taking over your head?

"... except Ribar's links were about THIS ADMISTRATION socialist policies ... not a dimocrat in link-sight."

No, not over my head Einstein, but this socialist mentality is born of the dimocrats. Can you say 'FDR' and 'LBJ'? I don't care who is pushing it now, socialism/communism is still the end result.

"Ribar's links" is nothing more than a comparison of who wants to steal the most $ and turn it over to those who did NOTHING to earn it...except cast their vote to the politician who promised to sanitize the robbery and therefore allow them to sleep better at night.

cRock-o-...feller, is it possible for you to wipe yourself without a government program?

It's still amusing to watch the socialists put forth the argument about who gets the stolen loot and how much...as this makes any difference.
Is that over your head, Einstein?

Neo's right that there is a consistent position here. It's just that the administration hasn't taken it. First they were for adults being on SCHIP before they were against it. Similarly, they were for busting the budget before they were against it though they're really still for busting the budget (it's all so confusing).

To be clear, however, these are the administration's inconsistent positions, not Neo's.

No one addressing the theft issue...Oh yeah, it's "for the children"...(sniff, sniff)

Dave & JDR, is it so difficult to see that a "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink?"

I am sure my meaning is gathered. As my fellow Friends would note, sometimes one has to step back and wait for the other party to become willing to dialogue. Until then, keep the faith and keep telling the story as it TRULY is, not what some wish it to be!

Dave, I personally appreciate the efforts that have been made in providing this information and the "Counterpoint" that has been submitted to the N & R. I would not hold my breath waiting on a response from the Atlanta Area Director of DHHS!

Shalom

"Socialist mentality" ... born of the democrats

.. perhaps, I'll give you that 'FDR' did many things .. but would suggest .. 1 - it was during the depression with 25% unemployment so ya gotta cut some slake on that basis alone .. and ... 2 - mostly what FDR did was create in America something that never existed before - a Middle Class. You have some arguments against that, I'll listen.

Consider also that much of what FDR did has been screwed up by successive Congresses and Presidents. A couple quick examples:

Social Security. Runs great - cost about 0.5% to administer which contrasts well against 401K's which costs 1-2% for the same service .. the difference? Congress has tapped into the S/S system for 70 years .. that's R's and D's alike .. and all the money that should be in Knoxville has been pissed away on g-man programs - that's R's and D's alike.

To exclusively blame FDR is delusional, dude. You have some arguments against that, I'll listen.

The Farm Bill. The original bill was a loan to farmers. If they had a crop that would not sell, the g-men would give them a loan with the crops as collateral, and the farmer would plant less the following year. When the corn finally sold, the farmer repaid the loan. It was a self-correcting program. Since then the program has corrupted so that the farmer gets paid no matter what - so plant corn they do - we have so much corn in this country it has screwed up the food chain big time - see [corporations] Cargill and ADM for motives.

You have some arguments against that, I'll listen, but to exclusively blame FDR is delusional, dude.

I'm not a big fan of LBJ's War on Poverty - like the War on Terror well intended but horribly executed - nor of his handling of the Vietnam War ... but Nixon was more a socialist as any of your fantasy dimocrates - as is Bush .. and Carter could not delegate but he was dealing with Nixon's folly and regardless he held fiscally generally conservative policies ... and so on ...

For you to place all the blame on dimocrates and "Rino's" is just ignorant. Again you have some arguments, I'll listen, but you seem delusional.

=

Is it possible for me "to wipe myself without a government program" - what a stupid statement. Please present some links where I have done so irresponsibly or in a "socialist" matter. I'll hold my breath.

"No one addressing the theft issue ???

JEEZE that's 50% of what I talk about .. are you deaf too?

Darryl:

Thanks. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Chris Downing to get back to me, especially since he and a couple of other "area directors" appear to have blanketed local newspapers with their apology on behalf of Bush. I've probably only succeeded in getting myself kicked out of the few remaing things that I was doing for ACF.

There are reasons to support these programs and reasons to oppose them. Unfortunately, in this case, the "reason" for the veto was a crass political consideration that had little to do with the merits of the actual legislation. President Bush wanted to do two things: deny the opposition any political victory and shore up support among his base. None of the other stated reasons hold up to any real scrutiny. The transparency of the political considerations will cost the Republican party in the next election.

"The greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." --JFK, June 11, 1962

"The tone and tendency of liberalism...is to attack the institutions of the country under the name of reform and to make war on the manners and customs (and freedom) of the people under the pretext of progress." --Disraeli, "Speech in London"

In1933 FDR became the 32nd President of the United States. He had sent William Bullitt to the USSR even during the campaign to arrange its recognition while Stalin was killing 10 million Ukrainians. FDR imposed central planning through New Deal, a.k.a. Raw Deal, regulations and programs. His close advisor Douglas said "The present pseudo-planned economy leads relentlessly into the complete autocracy and tyranny of the Collectivist State." FDR broke every campaign promise he had made and the New Deal was exactly the opposite of what he had promised. FDR had promised "I propose to you that the government, big and little, be made solvent and that the example be set by the President of the United States and his cabinet...Stop the deficits! Stop the deficits!" FDR made a flat promise to "reduce the cost of government operations 25 percent" and called for a sound gold currency (!). Instead, Franklin Deficit Roosevelt engaged in an orgy of spending and implemented the first twelve planks of the Socialist Party platform, which in substance was the New Deal. In his first year he proposed spending 10 billion on 3 billion of revenues; from 1933 to 1936 government expenditures went up more than 83 percent. He closed all banks with no intention or thought of ever re-opening them (banks are not needed in Marxist economics). After two years the New Deal was such a failure through waste, mismanagement and outright graft that FDR had to introduce a "New New Deal." The ND has been called 'a study in economic confusion.' FDR undermined the Constitution with blank-check appropriations which allowed him to control spending and blank-check legislation which allowed him to set up agencies to pass laws and regulations.
"There is in Chicago and in a very large part of the country, more suffering than there was in 1933 when the President came into office. It is a common sight to see children salvaging food from garbage cans." Grace Abbott to the DNC. Labor leader John L. Lewis told the NAACP in 1940 that "Mr. Roosevelt made depression and unemployment a chronic fact in American life." Herbert Hoover, 1928 Democrat Presidential Nominee Alfred E. Smith, and the 1924 Democrat Presidential Nominee John Davis all called the New Deal communistic. Admitting the failure of the New Deal, FDR said in October of 1937, "I'm sick and tired of being told by the cabinet, by Henry (Treasury Secretary Morganthau) and everybody else what's the matter with the country and nobody suggests what I should do." Gottfried Haberler, Professor of Economics at Harvard and President of the American Economic Association and the world's leading authority on depressions, called the failure of the New Deal a policy disaster "unparalleled in other countries." Winston Churchill said in 1937: "The Washington administration has waged so ruthless a war on private enterprise that the US...is actually...leading the world back into the trough of depression." The New Deal was repudiated by the voters in 1938 and the Republicans took effective control of Congress. FDR made the depression worse and prolonged it, including the FDR recessions of 1937 and 1939. When he was elected there were 11,586,000 unemployed and in 1939 - seven years later- there were still 11,369,000 unemployed. In 1932 there were 16,620,000 on relief and in 1939 - after seven years - there were 19,648,000 on relief. The war eventually ended it. FDR supporter Merle Thorpe wrote in 1935, "We have given legislative status, either in whole or in part, to eight of the ten points of the Communist Manifesto of 1848; and, as some point out, done (sic) a better job of implementation than Russia." Religious leader Colonel Eugene N. Sanctuary's pamphlet Is the New Deal Communist? made a 35 point comparison of it to Marx's 1848 program.

Every choice made in the New Deal, whether it was one that moved recovery or not, was a choice unerringly true to the essential design of totalitarian government.
**************************************************

FDR didn't "create a middle class" he created dependency and poverty that we are still paying for today.
But I can see where he makes you get your jollies... the taxes he imposed on corporations approached the 90% mark.

I have many family members who lived through the great depression, and I have yet to hear one of them give this socialist credit for America's triumph over it. They tell me America survived the depression IN SPITE OF FDR and his Marxist regime.
Sadly, today there are still a great number of his type still in power in America, and now they want a 'new deal' that confiscates the earnings of the producer and turn it over to the non producer under the guise of "it's for health care for the children"...sniff...sniff...sniff...

I confess to not being super informed on the Depression .. but two things in your post caught my eye, Neo:

"He closed all banks with no intention or thought of ever re-opening them (banks are not needed in Marxist economics). "

Look at that in two halfs: He closed all banks. Did he personally install the locks?

Bank Suspensions
Year - Number - Suspensions
1929 - 24,633 - 659
1930 - 22,773 - 1350
1931 - 19,970 - 2293
1932 - 18,397 - 1453
1933 - 15,015 - 4000
1934 - 16,096 - 57

Historical Statistics of The United States: Colonial Times to 1970, 1975, p. 912.

http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Statistics-United-Colonial-Bicentennial/dp/B000I735U2/ref=sr_1_5/002-3308464-2246432?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193300041&sr=1-5

the second half: ".. banks are not needed in Marxist economics".

Maybe that's true, I don't know what a Marxist Economy is, and afaik, it never been affected .. but it shows a clear editorial bias in the writer.

==

Now from your post:

"I have many family members who lived through the great depression .. They tell me America survived the depression IN SPITE OF FDR and his Marxist regime."

Everyone is set up by their parents .. if your dad was an "R", you probably are too. My personal observation is that folks vote based primarily on what their parents said rather than on any study of the facts or of the candidates. Now candidates are all slippery as ells - not figuring them out is pretty much their plan - but to not check out the facts, to not appreciated that all writers are at least a little biased - well shame on US for falling into the slime.

My Point - whomever you quoted above has a clear strong anti-FDR bias - proven by skewed bank facts and the "(banks are not needed in Marxist economics)" interjection. You'd be better served taking things with a little salt and finding a counterbalance. Most things end up closer to the middle.

"The greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." --JFK, June 11, 1962

(Coffee Made)

I think my Social Security and Farm Bill examples fit the same pattern. Years of abuse by others does not demonstrate a bad idea.

Author Mark E. Wiley = no bias there!

I found this interesting .. Neo notes the 90% tax imposed on corporations .. I had not heard that .... yes on individuals approached the 90% mark.

1933
- 4% on incomes over $4,000
$58,887.07 in today-dollars
- 63% on incomes over $1,000,000 (top)
$14,721,769 in today-dollars

1934
- 4% on incomes over $4,000
- 77% on incomes over $1,000,000
- 79% on incomes over $1,000,000 (top)

==

... and I found he rest of Churchhill Quote:

"It is surely far better to allow the productive forces of capital and credit to create wealth and abundance and then, by corrective taxation of profits, meet the needs of the weak and poor! Instead, the Washington Administration has waged so ruthless a war on private enterprise that the United States, with none of the perils and burdens of Europe upon it, is actually at the present moment leading the world back into the trough of depression."

So while in 1937 Chuchhill was not to keen on FDR's repeated tinkering .. and I think few argue that in hindsight, some of these tinkerings prolonged the Depression ... Chuchhill still appreciated the need for taxes.

Here might be a more balanced take on FDR:

"As the downturn lingered, tensions also developed between President Roosevelt and his Treasury secretary [who] came to see that a relentless attack on the business class was not a prescription for recovery ... 'Of course we must have additional revenue, but in my opinion the way to make it is for businessmen to make more money.' He put a plan to cut top marginal tax rates before the president, who snorted "A Mellon plan of taxation." FDR went on to ridicule the sign on Morgenthau's desk, "Does It Contribute to Recovery," proclaiming instead, "This is politics." Morgenthau's diary complains, "This lecture went on and on, he saying that this was going backwards and that this simply would mean that we would have a fascist President."

"The New Deal, that is, was not about economic recovery, but about displacing business as the nation's predominant elite."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rbartley/?id=110004190

As for the depression (same link):

" I would lay the first blame not on FDR but on Herbert Hoover, who was after all on watch when disaster struck. Mr. Powell ably recounts Hoover's mistakes in signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, and in vainly trying to balance the budget by raising taxes in 1932. The Republican president boosted the top marginal rate to 63% from 25%; Roosevelt took it to 75% and then 91%." ... 91% being WWI of course.

Ok - off to work

"My Point - whomever you quoted above has a clear strong anti-FDR bias "...

Yes, they have "a clear strong anti-FDR bias"...they are not a communist/socialist who swallows the FDR 'myth' hook. line, and sinker. I'll admit, I too, have a clear anti-communist/socialist/FDR bias.

Like I said, there are many of his supporters around today who are still trying to expand his 'Raw Deal', only NOW, it's "for the children" in an attempt to make it more palatable to those who are still a bit squeamish about the government overtaking the health care industry in this country.

All the links and comments above posted to 'prove' what a liar and terrible person Bush is (why, the bill he vetoed would have stolen ONLY $7 billion from the citizens per year of this country) sweeps under the rug this fact: Those of you who are advocating this incremental takeover of the health care industry in this country by the government would make Karl Marx proud. Anytime I can find a candidate running for office at any level that advocates rolling back the socialist environment that was the brainchild of the 'great' FDR, he/she will have my vote...regardless of the letter posted in parenthesis after the name.

Neo,

you really need to move to France. your intolerance of others, even when they are right and you are wrong( which is most of the time) would suit you much better there than here. With your closed minded, pedantic attitude, you would fit right in.

One more thing, cRock-o-...feller. Since my dad was an "R", his experiences and evaluation of things during the depression are null and void, right?

mikeg, I don't have any Canadian flag patches to sew on my luggage.

Neo,

Let's not even mention that FDR was too busy running around on his wife to.....

Seriously, I agree with Neo's examination of FDR. I believe he took our country down the wrong path.

However, that was 70 years ago. Since then, both parties have been doing the same thing but with different interests in mind.

You believe FDR took us down the wrong path, NP?

Be specific. In particular I'm curious about the original Farm Bill - but be forewarned that is a trick question and you'd better do a little homewwork before responding.

"Since my dad was an "R", his experiences and evaluation of things during the depression are null and void, right?"

Of course not - you're game-playing again .. but statistically the chances of you voting non-R are pretty slim - short of an earthquake event, like for example your pal LBJ signing "the black vote" into law.

Here's a fun statistic re. the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

The original House version (yea % - na %):
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)

how about addressing the other issues, Neo ..

Closed all the banks?
Original Farm Bill?
Liberalism is not Socialism.
Bush is the real Socialist.
JDR is a moderate and rational person.

'The issue' is socialized meicine, cRock-o-...feller. I simply pointed out - and correctly so - that FDR is the father of the modern welfare state and he still has his followers who are trying to advance his socialistic agenda. The SCHIP program just happens to be on the table at this time.

Yes he closed the banks to keep people from withdrawing their money. After all, he knew better how to handle their money, right? No, he didn't personally go around and lock the doors. (game-playing a little are we?)

The farm bill?...yet another well intentioned, but misguided, liberal meddling scheme that has turned into a seperate welfare state all of it's own. Evidently a trick question, or you wouldn't be tooting your horn so much about this 'farm bill'. Enlighten me, please.

"Liberalism is not socialism"...No, it's just that all liberals happen to be socialists.

" .. all liberals happen to be socialists". what a ridiculous thing to say.

"Socialized". Tell you what, Neo - you start hammering on the socialist-side of corporations as much as you hammer on the socialist-side of liberals and you'll be considered a more honest person.

"Banks" Right after his inaugural he had the banks take a week off - banks that had been crashing for weeks:

"After a month-long run on American banks, Franklin Delano Roosevelt proclaimed a Bank Holiday beginning March 6, 1933 that shut down the banking system. When banks reopened on March 13, 1933, depositors stood in line to return their hoarded cash. This paper traces the remarkable turnaround in the public's confidence to the Emergency Banking Act, passed by Congress on March 9, 1933. Roosevelt used the emergency currency provisions of the Act to prod the Federal Reserve to create de facto deposit insurance in the reopened banks. The contemporary press confirms that the public recognized the implicit guarantee, and as a result, believed the President's words in his first Fireside Chat on March 12, 1933, that the reopened banks would be safe. The public responded by returning more than half of their hoarded cash to the banks within two weeks and by bidding up stock prices on March 15, 1933, the first trading day after the Bank Holiday ended, by the largest ever one-day percentage price increase [15.34%]. The Bank Holiday and the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 reestablished the integrity of the payments system and demonstrated the power of credible regime-shifting policies."

http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/finance/docs/WP/2007/pdf/wpa07004.pdf

==

Farm Bill .. I wrote a summary above: "The original bill was a loan to farmers. If they had a crop that would not sell, the g-men would give them a loan with the crops as collateral, and the farmer would plant less the following year. When the corn finally sold, the farmer repaid the loan. It was a self-correcting program. Since then the program has corrupted so that the farmer gets paid no matter what - so plant corn they do - we have so much corn in this country it has screwed up the food chain big time ..."

==

WHO turned this well intentioned - and well functioning scheme into CORPORATE welfare?

See Cargill and ADM for motives. Start hammering on the socialist-side of corporations and you'll be considered a more honest person.

BTW - the FDR Banking Holiday eventually led the the FDIC .. which as I recall had it greatest moment in the sun during the mid 80's Savings and Loan Crisis when that great Liberal-I-mean-Socialist RONALD REAGAN used my tax dollars to bail out the rich bastards that played it into insolvency.

JDR:

The FDIC didn't play much of a role in the 1980s S&L crisis; the organization that got slammed was the FSLIC, which was subsequently replaced by the Resolution Trust Corporation. Deregulation of the savings and loan industry earlier in the decade contributed mightily to the collapse, as did the oil patch slump and a collapse in real estate prices in the late 1980s.

Also, the bail-out occurred in 1989 under Bush 41.

.. you sure Dave? I thought I was living in Texas at the time .. maybe there were two?

March, 1984--Failure of Empire Savings of Mesquite, TX. "Land flips" and other criminal activities are a pattern at Empire. This failure would eventually cost the taxpayers approximately $300 million.

Maybe that's what I was remembering.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/

Welfare...corporate welfare...all in the same big fat, happy tent I say. I see little difference in welfare and 'corporate' walfare. At least the corporations are employing a few million people and producing something...

If you think you're pissin' me off with your "socialist Ronald Reagan" bs, you're way off the mark. Anyone who steals from the producers and turns over the loot to the non producers are socialists playing the vote buying scheme in my book. It's just that the dimocrats have turned it into an art.

I've already read the bit about FDR and the banks. A "banking holiday" is closing the banks, no? And we will never know what would have happened had the citizens been allowed to draw THEIR $ out of the bank, will we?...because they were denied their savings by FDR, who naturally knew better than they what was best for them...

Congrats are in order. You've made it through 40 + comments of discussion about socialism and no npr links. Perhaps you are more reasonable than I credit you.

repeat after me

JDR is a moderate and rational person

JDR is a moderate and rational person

JDR is a moderate and rational person

JDR is a moderate and rational person

JDR is a moderate and rational person

JDR is a moderate and rational person

JDR is a moderate and rational person

JDR is a moderate and rational person.

I'd agree with that. I think you lean more to the left of moderate. Of course, I lean more to the right so it makes sense I'd think that.

Politically, my philosophy is this: I can't do a damn thing to change any of it. I could die trying but my cost/benefit ration says no. So while it's fun to bicker back and forth, the only real say-so I have in national politics is my vote. Which makes me a teeny-tiny microscope in the sea.

(Sorry if this is a double post but I saw two typos while waiting the typical 2 minutes for the little green bar to stop moving to the right.)

JDR is a moderate and rational person.

I'd agree with that. I think you lean more to the left of moderate. Of course, I lean more to the right so it makes sense I'd think that.

Politically, my philosophy is this: I can't do a damn thing to change any of it. I could die trying but my cost/benefit ratio says no. So while it's fun to bicker back and forth, the only real say-so I have in national politics is my vote. Which makes me a teeny-tiny microbe in the sea.

JDR:

The S&L mess involved an alphabet soup of agencies. The FDIC covered (and still covers) banks. S&L's were distinct creatures. Some were insured by the FSLIC; others (especially in Ohio and Texas) were covered by state funds.

When the S&L's went down, they took the state insurance funds and the FSLIC with them. The bail-out involved taking care of the FSLIC losses (about $150 billion?) and replacing it with the Resolution Trust Corporation.

The President's brother Neil was on the board of one of the S&L's that went down (Silverado), while his other brother Jeb defaulted on a loan to Broward Federal Savings, which also went down. John McCain's friend Charles Keating was convicted of fraud (Democratic Senators Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, and Donald Riegle, Jr. rounded out the rest of the "Keating 5"). And of course there was Bill and Hillary Clinton's friend, Jim McDougal who ran Madison Guarantee into the ground, thanks in part to losses on the Whitewater land deal. All-in-all quite a collection of scoundrels.

`

Bottom line:
neo knows little of what he speaks.

Or maybe his beloved FEMA has a new Bush appointee running it---and maybe this one was also once a horse show judge!! LOL!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21490838/

```
Of course I just love Bush Administration's playing of "Good Cop, Bad Cop"! They are more like the Keystone Cops! neo's boys!

`

`

James,
WHY do you try to talk sense with the mental midget who calls himself "neocon"?
Time and time again, he has proven that he does not have the gray matter to comprehend your questions or your comments....he cannot answer without hyperbolic commentary and his trademark "cut and paste" articles from fringe websites. If he were a plant, he'd be a mushroom---lives in the dark and thrives on sh_t!

`

"WHY do you try to talk sense with the mental midget who calls himself "neocon"?"

Jealous because the one you parrot doesn't recognize you, Canuck?

BTW, I got your 'mushroom' right here...
;-)