Great Depression

JP Morgan Chase Loss Of $2 Billion Demonstrates Need For MORE Regulation, More Dodd-Frank Legislation!

Ronald Leave a comment

One of the biggest banks, JP Morgan Chase, which happens to be, unfortunately, my bank by default, has engaged in a manipulation of their depositors and stockholders, which has caused a loss of $2 billion.

This just proves further the need for MORE regulation, not less, as Mitt Romney advocates, and his party endorses!

The Republicans want to destroy the Dodd-Frank legislation of 2010, designed to promote regulation, as a result of the abusive financial practices of the big banks and insurance companies on Wall Street, which led to the Great Recession, the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s!

How can the American people not get the point that our big banks, “too big to fail”, are undermining any hope of economic revival, with their reckless and arrogant practices, all endorsed by the GOP, and the spoiled, arrogant, nasty, mean spirited, bullyish Mitt Romney, who does not give a damn about the harm to average middle class Americans, let alone the poor among us?

This is a major issue of the campaign of 2012, the abuse by the top one percent of the other 99 percent, who have had enough abuse, and are sick of being kicked around by Wall Street “bullies” backed by “Mr. Bully” himself, Mitt Romney!

Mitt Romney: The “Would Be President” Without “Cajones”!

Ronald 2 Comments

Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney is proving yet again that he is a flawed candidate in the most basic ways.

Not only has he demonstrated that he has no principles, no beliefs, that he will not change if it is a way to gain votes!

Not only is he showing a lack of concern for the lives of average middle class and poor Americans, who are facing the absolutely worst times economically in the lifetime of ninety percent of our citizens, with only the oldest among us having any memory of the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Not only is it clear that other Republicans look at Romney with a lack of respect and deference that one would expect for a Presidential nominee, as demonstrated by the shabby treatment of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in their grudging, unemotional support of his candidacy.

But beyond all this, Mitt Romney has made it clear he lacks the most important trait of any leader who wishes to be our President: CAJONES!

This man worries about talk show hosts, “hoodlums” such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and other talk show hosts on radio and Fox News Channel, including right wing Christian hate monger Bryan Fischer, who describes himself as a “country yokel”, which is too nice a term for this BUM!

Fischer is bragging that he brought pressure on Romney to dump a gay foreign policy aide, and said that if Romney caves in to him, as he has, then how can one assume that Romney could stand up to China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other nations that are potential threats to our nation?

As despicable as Fischer is, his gloating points out the problem and the truth!

Beyond what Fischer said, how can one believe that Romney could stand up to the Tea Party radicals in Congress, to the leadership of his own party, to the opposition party leaders, to “friendly” nations in Europe and Asia and Latin America, to the news media, to corporate leaders, and every other challenge that any President faces, and that Barack Obama can very easily testify to?

This man lacks “Cajones” in a very blunt way, and is unfit to be President of the United States of America!

Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman And The American “Depression” Solution: An Activist Government!

Ronald Leave a comment

Paul Krugman, the winner of the Nobel Economics Prize, columnist for the New York Times, and Professor at Princeton University, has written a new book about how to deal with the American “Depression”, as he calls the Great Recession.

Just suggesting that we are going through a depression is a stunning statement, but Krugman, despite attacks from conservatives, Republicans, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul and his libertarian views, is correct in stating that austerity, being pursued in Great Britain and elsewhere in Europe in a way that has led to a worsening economic condition throughout the continent, is absolutely the wrong thing to do at this time.

The time for cutting spending is when there is a booming economy, not an economy with millions of people unemployed, and attempts being made to cut back the social safety net for desperate people. As Krugman writes, it is John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas helped Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, who needs to be followed today.

After all, even Richard Nixon said he was a Keynesian when he decided to impose wage and price controls in the 1970s, and it was Keynesian ideas that helped Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan during the two worse economic downturns in the 1970s and 1980s since the end of the Great Depression until those time periods!

So Krugman advocates much more government intervention and spending than Barack Obama was able to get through Congress in 2009, and argues that had more been done then and since, our economic condition would be far better than it is now.

There may be skeptics, and certainly Ron Paul supporters live in their own parallel universe, but Paul Krugman needs to be listened to, and followed, hopefully, by a Democratic controlled Congress in 2013 and after!

Rare Popularity Of Former “Living” Presidents In Past Century: TR, Ike, Reagan, Clinton

Ronald Leave a comment

The Presidency tends to cause the decline of popularity of those who hold that office, because they have to make controversial and difficult decisions which undermine their image after four or eight years in office.

In the past century, in the time of modern media exposure, which makes the Presidency a national concern on a daily basis, most Presidents, upon leaving office, have seen their public opinion rating collapse, and usually, only after they die, does their image, and respect for the difficult decisions they made, revive their popularity among both scholarly experts and the general public.

This discussion, of course, must eliminate those Presidents who did not survive the office, including Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. However, FDR and JFK would remain highly popular in death on a regular basis since their deaths, while Harding’s brief popularity after his tragic death collapsed upon learning of the sex and other scandals during his Presidency, and he has not recovered in ratings by any group.

The only Presidents who remained generally popular after leaving office were Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H. W. Bush left office after defeat, and none of them were well regarded after their time in office. Carter and Bush had the bad luck of being followed by popular Presidents Reagan and Clinton, and Bush has had the bad luck of having both his predecessor and successor well regarded, making his time in office look quite unimpressive by comparison.

Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge and Lyndon B. Johnson left office, with each under a cloud of disrepute, with Wilson seeing the defeat of the Versailles Treaty ratification and membership in the League of Nations; Coolidge seeing the coming of the Great Depression crash on Wall Street within months of his retirement; and Johnson having to bear the burden of the Vietnam War: and all three died within four years of retirement, highly unpopular.

Taft regained respect for his service as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Richard Nixon gained respect for his foreign policy expertise in his long 20 years of retirement, but did not gain popularity for the rest of his lifetime; Harry Truman also had 20 years of retirement, but only gained popularity and respect after his death; Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter started to be regarded better as the years went by, with Carter about to surpass Herbert Hoover in longevity after the Presidency, but still condemned by many experts and the general public; and George W. Bush remains unpopular and seems resigned to the fact that he may not gain popularity or respect until he has passed from the scene.

Eisenhower and Reagan retained their public popularity in their post Presidency despite scholarly criticism of their time in office, and both are now regarded more highly, even by scholars, than they were when they were retired and alive.

TR and Clinton share a special bond, as both were young when leaving office; both were highly verbal and opinionated and constantly made news; both had charisma and were loved by the general public in their post retirement years; and TR actually ran for President on a third party line, while Bill Clinton would love to run again, as many Americans wish he could be President again, but of course, the 22nd Amendment prevents that, so instead, the push for his wife, Hillary Clinton, to try for the Presidency again in 2016 is growing!

The Unusual Nature Of The 2008 Election, In More Ways Than One!

Ronald Leave a comment

2008, the year of the economic collapse in America, unrivaled since the Great Depression of the 1930s, was a very unusual election year.

This was the first time we had an African American Presidential nominee, and he won the election, despite a majority of white men voting against him.

The country had both candidates for President born off the mainland of America–John McCain in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, and Barack Obama born in Hawaii in 1961.

The country had the greatest gap in age between the two Presidential candidates in American history–a difference of 25 years between McCain and Obama.

The country had the first college professor (although part time) winning office since Woodrow Wilson 96 years earlier, in 1912.

Barack Obama was the first President from Illinois since Abraham Lincoln 148 years earlier, in 1860.

Barack Obama was the first Northern President elected since John F. Kennedy in 1960, and is the only Democrat to have at least 51 percent of the total vote since World War II, with the exception of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964.

The year 2008 saw the first Republican woman nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin.

John McCain became the second Arizona Senator to lose the Presidency, after Barry Goldwater 44 years earlier, in 1964.

So the 2008 election was a path breaking election in more ways than one!

Modesty And Humility: Not Traits Of Mitt Romney, As Compared To Wealthy Presidents!

Ronald 3 Comments

Mitt Romney was born with a “silver spoon” in his mouth to a father who was a success story in the auto industry.

Mitt Romney had the opportunity to attend Harvard for a law degree and a business degree.

Mitt Romney was able to use personal contacts, through his wealthy family, to multiply the wealth of the Romney family.

Mitt Romney grew up with an attitude of entitlement, that he was ordained to lead because of his family connections and business contacts.

Mitt Romney is not the first modern President to have similar advantages.

Theodore Roosevelt had these advantages. So did Franklin D. Roosevelt,. John F. Kennedy, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

But none of the above wore their wealth quite like Mitt Romney!

All of them engaged in politics more than Mitt Romney, who took the route of the least government service and experience, a minimum four years as Massachusetts Governor.

All of the other wealthy Presidents at birth had their own character flaws and shortcomings as we all do.

But none of them were cocky and arrogant, at least in public, quite like Mitt Romney is!

And none of their wives quite acted as Ann Romney is displaying, also an attitude of entitlement and arrogance!

It is one thing to be wealthy. It is another thing to boast about it, to emphasize it, to be cocky and arrogant, and act as if one is entitled!

What Mitt Romney and Anne Romney lack is a sense of modesty and humility!

The other Presidents tried very hard to make the American people forget their personal wealth and status, although, of course, it was there for all to see!

But Mitt and Anne Romney exude wealth, and make it out to be a virtue they wish to publicize.

And no one really likes a wealthy person who acts this way. It is not a nice character trait to brag or to boast.

Rather, it is nice when one goes out of his or her way to divert attention to one’s wealth, and to show concern for average Americans who are not so fortunate.

So Theodore Roosevelt showed concern with labor rights.

So Franklin D. Roosevelt showed concern about the poor during the Great Depression.

So John F. Kennedy planned a War on Poverty, and concern about racial discrimination.

So George H. W. Bush showed concern about the problems of the disabled and handicapped.

So George W. Bush showed concern about health care prescription costs for senior citizens.

How has Mitt Romney displayed concern for those less fortunate than himself?

The answer is that he has NOT displayed concern for anyone less fortunate, wanting to see the auto industry collapse, as just the tip of the iceberg as to his lack of care about how ordinary people are affected in their daily lives. He has displayed lack of concern about labor rights, the plight of the poor, discrimination against Hispanics and Latinos, and the cutting of Medicaid for the disabled and elderly.

This man has no “heart”, and while one who is cynical might argue that the other wealthy Presidents were just putting on a facade of concern, the old saying goes: Action speaks louder than words!

Vice Presidents Who Just Missed The Presidency: Hannibal Hamlin, Garret Hobart, John Nance Garner, Henry A. Wallace, Spiro Agnew, Nelson Rockefeller

Ronald Leave a comment

American history records that we have had 43 Presidents of the United States.

What is often NOT recorded is how six Vice Presidents came so close to the Presidency, but circumstances prevented them from doing so.

Three situations involved the timing of the death of the President; while two involved the fortune of two attempted Presidential assassinations failing to succeed; and one involved a Vice President being forced from office before the President in office resigned in disgrace.

Imagine if any of the following Vice Presidents had become President, how it would have changed history!

Hannibal Hamlin was the first term Vice President under Abraham Lincoln from 1861-1865, and then was replaced on the electoral ticket by Andrew Johnson. Six weeks after Hamlin left the Vice Presidency, Johnson became President, upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and is seen by many as a true disaster, possibly the worst President in American history, and in any case facing an unsuccessful impeachment in office which he survived. One might imagine that Hamlin, a former Senator from Maine, would have, somehow, avoided the fate of Andrew Johnson and dealt with Southern Reconstruction in a different way that would have affected the nation long term.

Garret Hobart was Vice President in the first term of William McKInley, but died in office in November 1899, after about two years, eight and a half months in office. He had been a leader in the New Jersey state legislature, and was considered to have added to the Vice Presidency by his regular presiding of the US Senate, his being considered a Presidential adviser, and his being often called an “assistant President”, a new term at the time. Had he not died in office, he would have been on the ticket with President McKinley in 1900, and would have succeeded McKinley as President when McKinley was assassinated in September 1901. Instead, Theodore Roosevelt became President, and changed the course of American history in massive ways, and ushered in the Progressive Era!

John Nance Garner had had a long career in the US House of Representatives, and was Speaker of the House, when chosen by Franklin D. Roosevelt to be his Vice President in the 1932 Presidential Election. As President-Elect, FDR was subjected to an assassination attempt in Miami, Florida, on February 15, 1933, just 17 days before the inauguration. Fortunately, the assassin’s bullets did not hit FDR, but instead Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, and FDR was spared. Otherwise, Garner would have become President on March 4, 1933, but with his conservative and southern (Texas) heritage, it is highly doubtful that the New Deal would have occurred, denying us the most important and greatest President of the 20th century, and making one wonder how America would have dealt with the Great Depression.

During FDR’s third term as President, Henry A. Wallace, formerly Secretary of Agriculure, became his Vice President, and actively pursued the issue of civil rights, and also the issue of relations with our World War II ally, the Soviet Union. He alienated conservatives and Southerners in the Democratic Party, and when FDR decided to run for a fourth term, he replaced Wallace with Harry Truman, who became President 82 days after the fourth term began with FDR’s death, and changed the course of history. One has to wonder how Wallace would have conducted himself as President, particularly since he was highly critical of Truman’s Cold War policy toward the Soviet Union after World War II.

Spiro Agnew was Vice President for four and a half years under Richard Nixon from 1969-1973, and was loyal to Nixon, making himself controversial as he attacked liberals and the news media in Nixon’s behalf. But Agnew was forced out by personal financial corruption in the office of the Vice Presidency, as well as revelations about earlier such corruption in the office of the Maryland Governor and Baltimore County Executive in his years in public office before the Vice Presidency. Nixon, himself under attack in the Watergate scandal, did nothing to support Agnew, and Agnew resigned. Had this corruption not been revealed, Agnew would have become President upon the resignation of Richard Nixon on August 9, 1974. Instead, we had the Presidency of Gerald Ford for two years, five and a half months, after Ford had been a member of the US House of Representatives from Michigan, and Minority Leader of the House for almost nine years, with only a goal of someday being Speaker of the House.

When Gerald Ford was President, he chose Nelson Rockefeller , former Governor of New York and three time Presidential aspirant, as his appointed Vice President under the 25th Amendment. Then, Ford was subjected to TWO assassination attempts in Sacramento and San Francisco, California, seventeen days apart in September 1975. Both assassins missed the President, but had either been successful, Rockefeller would finally have achieved what he wanted the most, the Presidency of the United States.

So imagine how Hamlin, Hobart, Garner, Wallace, Agnew and Rockefeller MIGHT have changed the course of American history has they become President–instead of Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Gerald Ford!

March 4: Traditional Presidential Inauguration Day Through 1933

Ronald Leave a comment

March 4 was set up in the Constitution as Inauguration Day every four years, and every inauguration through 1933, except for the first, was held on that day.

George Washington was delayed in reaching the then capital of New York City in 1789, and did not arrive for the inauguration until April 30, but every other elected President from John Adams to Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4.

Then, the 20th Amendment in 1933 changed the inauguration date to January 20, beginning in 1937 and every fourth year since.

So March 4 was historic, particularly with the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln in 1861 and Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, at the two most delicate and dangerous moments in our history, the oncoming Civil War, and the worst moments of the Great Depression.

Other March 4 inaugurations which stood out historically include 1829, 1841, 1865, and 1877.

In 1829, the newly inaugurated Andrew Jackson invited the crowd to come back to the White House and celebrate, and a mob descended on the White House, and proceeded to break the windows, and commit other destruction since many were drunk!

In 1841, newly elected President William Henry Harrison gave the longest inaugural address in American history on a cold, rainy day, and contracted pneumonia, and died exactly a month later.

In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address became the most memorable such speech in American history, at least until Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address in 1933.

And in 1877, President Rutherford Hayes was inaugurated, after only learning of his selection by the specially constituted Electoral Commission two days earlier, in a political compromise agreement known as the Compromise of 1877. Many had wondered whether a new civil war was in the offing because of the dispute over the Presidential election results.

So March 4 will always remain a particularly historic day in American history.

Business Background And The Presidency: Herbert Hoover And George W. Bush

Ronald Leave a comment

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney touts his business background and experience as a plus in his race for the Republican Presidential nomination. Many people take him at his word, but is that a good thing?

Historically, the answer is a resounding NO!

Who are the Presidents with a business background?

Two precisely, Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).

Isn’t that enough information all by itself?

Both presided over the WORST economic collapses in American history, Hoover with the Great Depression, and Bush with the Great Recession.

Hoover was, by far, the smarter and more talented and creative of the two, but still the business background was of no help at all in the Presidency.

The point is that business is NOT the same as government, and never will be. Business is NOT the right background to run a government, as the needs of people are vastly different than the need for profits.

So, business background and the Presidency do not mix well, and it will not insure that Romney would have a successful Presidency and revive the economy!

Ten Other Presidential Elections That Transformed American History For Better Or Worse

Ronald Leave a comment

In addition to what are considered the ten most important Presidential elections in American history, there are also ten other elections that transformed our history, as history would have been different had the results been the opposite of what they were.

In chronological order, these elections are as follows.

Presidential Election of 1844—If James K. Polk had not won over Henry Clay, the likelihood of gaining the Pacific Northwest by treaty with Great Britain, and gaining the Southwest by war with Mexico, together the greatest land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase under Thomas Jefferson, would have been far less likely. But also the Civil War might have been delayed without the battle over freedom or slavery in the Mexican Cession territories gained from the war.

Presidential Election of 1864—An election often ignored, if Abraham Lincoln had not won over General George McClellan, who he had fired from Union Army military leadership, the Civil War, in its late stages, might have ended differently in some form, hard to determine.

Presidential Election of 1876—If the Electoral Commission and Compromise of 1877, giving Rutherford B. Hayes victory over Samuel Tilden, had not occurred, after a disputed election result in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there might have been civil war erupting all over again.

Presidential Election Of 1896—If William McKinley had not defeated William Jennings Bryan, there might have been no Spanish American War, no Filipino Insurrection, and no gaining of overseas colonies, as Bryan opposed the idea.

Presidential Election Of 1916—If Woodrow Wilson had not squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes, he had readied plans to hand over the Presidency to Hughes early, with the Secretary of State resigning, Hughes being named Secretary of State, the Vice President resigning, and then Wilson resigning. Wilson left behind a hand written memorandum to this effect, concerned about the transition of power as the dangers of World War I came closer to the possibility of American participation.

Presidential Election Of 1928—If Herbert Hoover had lost to Alfred E. Smith, the likelihood of a very different reaction to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 might have led Smith to being the equivalent of Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his New Deal.

Presidential Election of 1968—If Hubert Humphrey had defeated Richard Nixon, it is likely that the Vietnam War would have ended earlier, and that there would not have been a Watergate scandal, and instead a continuation of the Great Society begun by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential Election of 1976—If Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter, it is likely that after 12 years of Republican control and growing economic and foreign policy challenges, that the Democrats would have retaken the White House in 1980, and there would have been no Ronald Reagan Presidency.

Presidential Election Of 1992–If George H. W. Bush had not had to deal with an economic recession and the third party challenge of Ross Perot, the second highest popular percentage third party effort in US history, it is very likely that Bill Clinton would never have been President.

Presidential Election of 2000—If the popular vote recount in Florida had been continued, and the Supreme Court had not intervened to declare the election over, then Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush, and there might not have been a September 11 terrorist attack, the resulting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely not a tremendous growth in the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion

How much history would have been different if only the results of these elections had been other than what they were!