I guess if you don't read history you are doomed to repeat it.
http://www.newsmax.com/Head...al&promo_code=A63B-1

quote Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich warned Thursday that President Obama and congressional Democrats appear to be on the verge of repeating the same mistakes that aggravated the Great Depression, adding that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would prove "very dangerous" for the nation's economy. Speaking in an exclusive Newsmax interview, Gingrich sounded the alarm that raising taxes could cause serious damage to the economic recovery. "If we have large tax increases in January," Gingrich told Newsmax.TV, "this economy will sink deeper into recession. There will be higher unemployment. The recovery will be longer. "This was exactly the mistake made in 1937 and 1938, and it created a second mini-depression. I think it's very dangerous, and I think the simple battle cry ought to be no tax increase in 2011, period. Keep current tax law exactly as it is through 2011," Gingrich said. Gingrich charged that the high unemployment that continues to plague the economy stems from "an administration which consistently has been destroying American jobs." He cited the financial reform legislation that the president recently signed into law as an example of "one more job-killing bill" Democrats have passed. "The financial reform law increased the power of Washington, D.C., increased the power of bureaucracies, increased the amount of uncertainty, killed American jobs, and made it easier for Frankfurt, London, Tokyo, and Shanghai to become the financial centers of the world," Gingrich said. When asked to give his recommendations for curing the nation's ongoing economic woes, the former speaker pointed to the five-point agenda on his AmericanSolutions.com Web site, which is included in the Economic Freedom Act recently submitted to Congress by Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. That legislation calls for: A 50 percent cut in the Social Security and Medicare tax, both for the employer and the employee Zero capital gains tax, which is the rate in China A 12.5 percent corporate tax rate, which is the rate in Ireland A 100 percent write-off annually for small businesses to buy new equipment, so workers have the best, most modern equipment Permanent elimination of the estate or "death" tax "so people have an incentive to work and save their entire lifetime. "We think those five tax changes would dramatically accelerate economic growth and help the economy," Gingrich tells Newsmax. For most of the interview Gingrich focused on national security, Islamic fundamentalism, and the recent publication of sensitive intelligence about the war in Afghanistan. Among the other key points the former speaker made: Radical Islamists hope to impose Islamic law, called Shariah, in the United States, which Gingrich says "would end America as we know it." He called for a "serious inquiry" into the U.S. national security apparatus that has been unable to anticipate and thwart attacks such as the Christmas Day bomber and the attempted bombing in Time Square. If the United States could defeat radical Islam and compete economically with India and China, it "probably would have no major national security problem in the next 50 years." The United States would be much more secure today if authorities initially had identified the war on terrorism as being actually a struggle against radical Islam and the effort to impose Shariah. The leaks of the Wikileaks documents on Afghanistan should be considered an "unconscionable" act of treason. It isn't only that the documents were leaked, he said. "I think we should also be very, very strong in our condemnation of the newspapers that published them." Regarding the mosque controversy at ground zero, Gingrich urged the president and Congress to declare the area around the World Trade Center site a national military battlefield "because that was a battle and it's part of a real war." More Americans were killed at the World Trade Center than at any battle site in the United States since the Civil War. That justifies designating the area as a national battlefield, he said, where only "appropriate" buildings and uses would be allowed near the battlefield. Gingrich also told Newsmax he will decide whether to run for president by March 2011, adding he is focused on trying to help as many Republicans as possible win in November. Asked to evaluate President Barack Obama's performance in office, Gingrich said, "Well, I think he's very good at being a celebrity, and not very good at being president. He's perfect on The View but not too good in the Oval Office."

quote Originally said by Newt Gingrich: Well, I think he's very good at being a celebrity, and not very good at being president. He's perfect on The View but not too good in the Oval Office.

Its such a shame that the majority of America felt like voting for him because he makes a good celebrity, no one cares about experience or politics...

both the depression of the 30's
and our current mess

WERE CAUSED BY THE GOP

and in both cases the GOP did NOTHING
to help and a lot to make it worse

learning from mistaken ideals is something the GOP doesNOT do

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

quote Originally posted by ray b: both the depression of the 30's and our current mess WERE CAUSED BY THE GOP and in both cases the GOP did NOTHING to help and a lot to make it worse learning from mistaken ideals is something the GOP doesNOT do

Please explain

Big News. The party who is not in power says the one's who are are doing everything wrong, and say they will make everything better. It's called politics or some would say bulls*#t , and it's kind of the oppositions job.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-31-2010).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: both the depression of the 30's and our current mess WERE CAUSED BY THE GOP and in both cases the GOP did NOTHING to help and a lot to make it worse learning from mistaken ideals is something the GOP doesNOT do

Oh, for the love of GOD, ray, you must be joking.

The FDR, a DEMOCRAT, was president from 1933-1945 Source

The House was led by DEMOCRATS from 1931-1947 Source

The Senate was led by DEMOCRATS from 1933-1947 Source

Explain to me how the Republicans, with NO power, managed to pull that off?

How about the Depression of 1920, in the wake of 8 years of Woodrow Wilson's Progressive policies? Harding and Coolidge, both Republicans, got us out of that by cutting taxes and government spending. The result? The "Roaring 20s". It came to an end not because of Republican policies, but because of out-of-control speculation in the stock market.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, for the love of GOD, ray, you must be joking. The FDR, a DEMOCRAT, was president from 1933-1945 Source The House was led by DEMOCRATS from 1931-1947 Source The Senate was led by DEMOCRATS from 1933-1947 Source Explain to me how the Republicans, with NO power, managed to pull that off? How about the Depression of 1920, in the wake of 8 years of Woodrow Wilson's Progressive policies? Harding and Coolidge, both Republicans, got us out of that by cutting taxes and government spending. The result? The "Roaring 20s". It came to an end not because of Republican policies, but because of out-of-control speculation in the stock market.

Oh bear, now you've jumped in and given a clear, concise picture of actuality! I was waiting for another of ray's convoluted ramblings. BUMMER

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Oh bear, now you've jumped in and given a clear, concise picture of actuality! I was waiting for another of ray's convoluted ramblings. BUMMER

Give him time. He has to pick himself up off the floor after the high wears off.

quote Originally posted by ray b: both the depression of the 30's and our current mess WERE CAUSED BY THE GOP and in both cases the GOP did NOTHING to help and a lot to make it worse learning from mistaken ideals is something the GOP doesNOT do

They were caused by the US Government, thats BOTH liberals and Republicans*.

*It wasn't all democrats in the house and senate.

[This message has been edited by htexans1 (edited 07-31-2010).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: learning from mistaken ideals is something the GOP doesNOT do

Interesting... are you implying that you're a GOP member?

quote Originally posted by ray b: both the depression of the 30's and our current mess WERE CAUSED BY THE GOP and in both cases the GOP did NOTHING to help and a lot to make it worse learning from mistaken ideals is something the GOP doesNOT do

PROVE IT!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, for the love of GOD, ray, you must be joking. The FDR, a DEMOCRAT, was president from 1933-1945 Source The House was led by DEMOCRATS from 1931-1947 Source The Senate was led by DEMOCRATS from 1933-1947 Source Explain to me how the Republicans, with NO power, managed to pull that off? How about the Depression of 1920, in the wake of 8 years of Woodrow Wilson's Progressive policies? Harding and Coolidge, both Republicans, got us out of that by cutting taxes and government spending. The result? The "Roaring 20s". It came to an end not because of Republican policies, but because of out-of-control speculation in the stock market.

I'm not an American but from what I remember the Great Depression started under and Republican President (Not that I think they caused it on purpose or anything) and Roosevelt is credited for getting the country out of it and was elected 4 times.

But you did show that the Democrats were in power during the recovery from the Depression very nicely.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, for the love of GOD, ray, you must be joking. The FDR, a DEMOCRAT, was president from 1933-1945 Source The House was led by DEMOCRATS from 1931-1947 Source The Senate was led by DEMOCRATS from 1933-1947 Source Explain to me how the Republicans, with NO power, managed to pull that off? How about the Depression of 1920, in the wake of 8 years of Woodrow Wilson's Progressive policies? Harding and Coolidge, both Republicans, got us out of that by cutting taxes and government spending. The result? The "Roaring 20s". It came to an end not because of Republican policies, but because of out-of-control speculation in the stock market.

crash of 1929 under GOP leadership [or lack there of] from 1920 to 33
by 33 the damage was done after 12 years of GOP leaders and recovery took many years

yes after the GOP lead crash in 1929 the people threw the GOP out of the house in 1930 elections
cleaning up the senator's took longer because of their longer terms
GOP packed courts didnot help and took longer to correct too

so I guess you forget filibusters obstruction and the general tactic's THE PARTY OF NO, LOVES TO USE
along with the racist conservatives in the southern wing of the democratic party who allied with the GOP on many items
to block delay or weaken the reforms FDR tryed

for a generally looking bass ackwards party
you guys sure do missremember history
I guess thats why you want PROVEN TO FAIL IDEAS AND IDEALS RETRYED OVER AND OVER

btw we got out of the 1929 depression by massive tax and spending for WW2
not tax cuts or spending cuts as those simply DONOT WORK

quote Originally posted by newf: I think is probably more accurate for a lot of things. Not just in your country either.

That's very true. Plus, the President doesn't run the economy. But people like to point fingers at the President, because he's a convenient scapegoat. Then when voting time comes, they go vote for the idiots (in the House and Senate) who ARE destroying the economy. Pretty ironic, if you ask me.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 07-31-2010).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: THE PARTY OF NO,

I like that, they should use it next election.
"Can I have some money for not doing anything?" NO
"Can I have some of his money he has too much?' NO

quote Originally posted by ray b: for a generally looking bass ackwards party you guys sure do missremember history

Christ, ray, I JUST PROVED to you my point with historical FACT.

quote btw we got out of the 1929 depression by massive tax and spending for WW2 not tax cuts or spending cuts as those simply DONOT WORK

WRONG, ray. The Republicans cut spending and taxes in 1920, and it got us out of the first depression. FDR PROLONGED the depression with the government spending and higher taxes.

What did Republicans DO to create the depression?

failed to regulate banks and the stock markets and the resulting /Economic bubble
plus poor management/nonmanagement much like the current markets know best randian ideas
lead to runs on banks and deflation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...%93Hawley_Tariff_Act
spread the mess world wide

opposition from the new Conservative Coalition caused a rollback of the New Deal policies in early 1937, which caused a setback in the recovery

[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 07-31-2010).]

quote Originally posted by ray b: failed to regulate banks and the stock markets and the resulting /Economic bubble plus poor management/nonmanagement much like the current markets know best randian ideas lead to runs on banks and deflation

Wrong. The CRA and pushing banks to give loans to people who weren't credit-worthy caused the housing bubble and subsequent crash of the housing market.

quote http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...%93Hawley_Tariff_Act spread the mess world wide

Smoot-Hawley WAS bad. But FDR's out of control government spending and taxation prolonged the depression. WWII got us out. After the war, it was generally believed we'd slip back into a depression after all the men returned from military service, and factories no longer were running at 100% in the war effort. In 1947, Republicans led both houses of Congress.

From: http://camp.house.gov/Uploa...Taylor_Testimony.PDF

But the real economic lesson to come out of the World War II era was not that the conscription of nearly a fifth of the labor force into grueling and dangerous working conditions abroad and the imposition of a command economy at home—complete with rationing, price controls and government allocation of many aspects of life—could bring unemployment down. Soviet-style command economies had many problems, but unemployment was not typically one of them.
Instead, the true lesson from the period can be ascertained from the events of 1945–1947 when the largest economic “stimulus” in American history was dramatically and quickly unwound, months before most persons anticipated it (because the atomic bomb brought a sudden unexpected end to the war). No other episode more clearly supports the notion that the best economic stimulus is for the government to get out of the way.

THE DEPRESSION OF 1946

Historically minded readers may be saying, “There was a Depression in 1946? I never heard about that.” You never heard of it because it never happened. However, the “Depression of 1946” may be one of the most widely predicted events that never happened in American history. As the war was winding down, leading Keynesian economists of the day argued as Alvin Hansen did that “the government cannot just disband the Army, close down munitions factories, stop building ships, and remove all economic controls.” After all, the belief was that the only thing that finally ended the Great Depression of the 1930s was the dramatic increase in government involvement in the economy. In fact, Hansen’s advice went unheeded. Government canceled war contracts and its spending fell from $93 billion in 1945 to under $40 billion in 1946. By 1947, the government was paying back its massive wartime debts by running a budget surplus of close to 6 percent of GDP. The military released around 10 million Americans back into civilian life. Most economic controls were lifted, and all were gone less than a year after V-J Day. In short, the economy underwent what the historian Jack Stokes Ballard refers to as the “shock of peace.” From the economy’s perspective, it was the “shock of de-stimulus.”

If the wartime government stimulus had ended the Great Depression, its winding down would certainly lead to its return. At least that was the consensus of almost every economic forecaster, government and private. In August 1945, the Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion forecast that 8 million would be unemployed by the spring of 1946, which would have amounted to a 12 percent unemployment rate. In September 1945 Business Week predicted unemployment would peak at 9 million, or around 14 percent. And these were the optimistic predictions. Leo Cherne of the Research Institute of America and Boris Shishkin, an economist for the American Federation of Labor, forecast 19 and 20 million unemployed respectively—rates that would have been in excess of 35 percent!

What happened? Labor markets adjusted quickly and efficiently once they were finally unfettered—neither the Hoover nor the Roosevelt administration gave labor markets a chance to adjust to economic shocks during the 1930s when dramatic labor market interventions (e.g., the National Industrial Recovery Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, among others) were pursued. Most economists today acknowledge that these interventionist polices extended the length and depth of the Great Depression. After the Second World War, unemployment rates, artificially low because of wartime conscription, rose a bit, but remained under 4.5 percent in the first three postwar years –below the long-run average rate of unemployment during the 20th century. Some workers voluntarily withdrew from the labor force, choosing to go to school or return to prewar duties as housewives. But, more importantly to the purpose here, many who lost government-supported jobs in the military or in munitions plants found employment as civilian industries expanded production—in fact civilian employment grew, on net, by over 4 million between 1945 and 1947 when so many pundits were predicting economic Armageddon. Household consumption, business investment, and net exports all boomed as government spending receded. The postwar era provides a classic illustration of how government spending “crowds out” private sector spending and how the economy can thrive when the government’s shadow is dramatically reduced.

Employment is closely related to the productivity-adjusted real wage. When the labor costs of making a widget fall, employers find it profitable to make more widgets and hire more widget-makers. Those costs fall when productivity rises (more widgets produced per hour of work), when the price of widgets rises (increasing the margin between revenues received and cost of production), or when money wages fall. In the immediate postwar era, prices and productivity were generally rising, more than offsetting modest increases in money wages.

The data today suggest that the self-correcting and healing forces of markets are beginning to work again. Worker productivity is generally increasing, and money wages are stagnant or rising less than the rate of inflation, meaning real wages are falling. In a productivity-adjusted sense, the wage decline appears to be substantial. After a lag to be sure this trend is real and sustaining, this should lead to an upsurge in new hiring. In other words, unemployment will start falling not because of the stimulus spending, but in spite of it. And just as the stimulus money created few if any new jobs, its withdrawal will destroy few if any jobs. To be sure, some specific jobs will be lost, but others will be others gained as the negative effects of government borrowing are eased somewhat.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: From: http://camp.house.gov/Uploa...Taylor_Testimony.PDF

If you even think for one second he would read and evaluate anything that don't say liberal good, conservative bad, well......

I know your guys LOVE SMOKE AND MIRRORS and BIG LIES

but stick to ONE GOP DEPRESSION the big one in 1929 after 3 terms of GOP leadership
not the current GOP caused mess post 2006 or the 1946 or 1920 minor blips

STAY ON SUBJECT

mid 1930's dip in 1937 thru 38 WAS CAUSED BY THE opposition from the new Conservative Coalition caused a rollback of the New Deal policies in early 1937, which caused a setback in the recovery

BTW your whole post is MARKETS KNOW BEST BS

and that is proven to FAIL
OVER AND OVER AND OVER

TIME FOR NEW IDEAS
YOUR OLD ONES CAUSED THIS MESS
AND RETRYING OVER AND OVER THE SAME FAILED IDEAS
IS A PROVEN FAIL

quote Originally posted by partfiero: If you even think for one second he would read and evaluate anything that don't say liberal good, conservative bad, well......

Yeah, I know. He just responded with his usual B.S. I'll just let him rant.

Hey Ray:

BTW your whole post is GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST BS

socialism is proven to FAIL
OVER AND OVER AND OVER

TIME FOR NEW IDEAS
YOUR OLD ONES CAUSED THIS MESS
AND RETRYING OVER AND OVER THE SAME FAILED IDEAS
IS A PROVEN FAIL

NEO-COMMIES shoving the BIG LIE down our throats,
politics of ENVY and GREED,
GOV'T SPONSORED THEFT!

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: Hey Ray: BTW your whole post is GOVERNMENT KNOWS BEST BS socialism is proven to FAIL OVER AND OVER AND OVER TIME FOR NEW IDEAS YOUR OLD ONES CAUSED THIS MESS AND RETRYING OVER AND OVER THE SAME FAILED IDEAS IS A PROVEN FAIL NEO-COMMIES shoving the BIG LIE down our throats, politics of ENVY and GREED, GOV'T SPONSORED THEFT!

LOL

You're like two sides of the same coin. Don't you think both parties have had good and bad policies, and that they both have what's best for the country in mind. Not that you have to agree with everything an opposing party does but this belief that the opposite side is evil and wants to destroy the country is to me...well..un-American (this is coming from an outsider so no disrespect intended)

Informed critisizm and disagreement is natural and healthy but the name calling and hatred seems childish. You don't have to agree on things but a little bit of respect would be nice. From both sides. Look at politicians for example do you think they actually hate the other side, some may but the majority would probably run for the other side if they thought it would get them elected. It's their job to critisize and oppose things the other party does and try to say they would have done things better when in actual fact they would just do what they think is best for what ever reason, sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong.

Part of this problem is with the media, the hunger for ratings tends to have idiots spewing crap and hatred, playing on peoples fears for their own numbers and popularity. Some seem to be able to sift through it and see it for what it is while others buy into it.

THEY DO GET UPSET WHEN THEY GET TRAPED

come on is 1946-8 time frame totally bogus or what

we had the ONLY nonbombed factory and plant base totally up and running
while a good % of everybodys production facility's were smoking ruins
all our workers had cash and years of pent up demands for stuff
baby and home booms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
just to name a few differences

sure that is so TOTALLY UNLIKE TODAY
with little cash in anyones pockets
and homes full of tons of stuff with little demand for more
and lots of brand new world wide factorys to compete with
no home building in many areas

I guess the best answer is anything today like it was in 1946 ???????????

quote Originally posted by newf: You're like two sides of the same coin. Don't you think both parties have had good and bad policies, and that they both have what's best for the country in mind. Not that you have to agree with everything an opposing party does but this belief that the opposite side is evil and wants to destroy the country is to me...well..un-American (this is coming from an outsider so no disrespect intended) Informed critisizm and disagreement is natural and healthy but the name calling and hatred seems childish. You don't have to agree on things but a little bit of respect would be nice. From both sides. Look at politicians for example do you think they actually hate the other side, some may but the majority would probably run for the other side if they thought it would get them elected. It's their job to critisize and oppose things the other party does and try to say they would have done things better when in actual fact they would just do what they think is best for what ever reason, sometimes they are right and sometimes wrong. Part of this problem is with the media, the hunger for ratings tends to have idiots spewing crap and hatred, playing on peoples fears for their own numbers and popularity. Some seem to be able to sift through it and see it for what it is while others buy into it.

Out of all of the back and forth bickering, this is the most complete piece of truth I've read.

quote Originally posted by Rallaster: Out of all of the back and forth bickering, this is the most complete piece of truth I've read.

Thanks man (I appreciate it).

Maybe it's because it's about your countries politics.

Don't get me started on this country I hate those friggin... haha

Actually newf, you made some very good points. American politics is not "the good guys vs the bad guys". There is plenty of deceit and corruption on both sides of the fence. And both sides have made their fair share of mistakes over the years.

The belief that "your side" has everything right and "the other side" has everything wrong is, in my opinion, intellectual laziness. I like to make fun of partisan zealots on both sides of the fence.

And like you mentioned, the media likes to sensationalize politics, which serves to polarize the populace, making the situation even worse.

quote Originally posted by newf: You're like two sides of the same coin. Don't you think both parties have had good and bad policies, and that they both have what's best for the country in mind. Not that you have to agree with everything an opposing party does but this belief that the opposite side is evil and wants to destroy the country is to me...well..un-American (this is coming from an outsider so no disrespect intended)

I don't have a problem saying that about 90% of our politicians are out of touch, over their heads, and after a while become consumed with power. I am for as little government as possible, especially on the federal level.
Of course this is why I am a conservative and not a party hack.
Even though I am one of those work, have your family take care of you, beg or die kind of guys, I do realize that being ruled from the middle is best for our nation.
Just look at the mess we have now when one party has too much power.
A complete runaway disaster.
But saying one side is to blame in what make our politics fun and it's what makes our brand of politics work.
And can't we all just get along in very dangerous for our government and the people.
The hatred for the other side goes back to the first election after the first president, so nothing new here.

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 07-31-2010).]

People don't realize that our politics are really choosing the lesser of two evils every time. We have to do this every time for us to get ahead.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: People don't realize that our politics are really choosing the lesser of two evils every time. We have to do this every time for us to get ahead.

That's where the Tea Party comes in. We aren't totally happy with the Republican party, either. But rayb's contention that the economic policies they follow got us into this mess is simply false. They haven't been *helping*, with all the spending and growing government, but the progressive/liberals have taken over the Democrats and moved so far left there's no left left. Total socialism, total government. Those are BAD things. But back to the Tea Party. We want smaller government and more responsible spending. If we have to kick out some Republicans to get it, so be it.

One problem is that "the powers that be" seem to want to keep pitting us against eachother. Divide and conquer. Assuming that, you have to ask the question of where they want to take us. Total government? Is that a good idea?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Oh, for the love of GOD, ray, you must be joking. The FDR, a DEMOCRAT, was president from 1933-1945 Source The House was led by DEMOCRATS from 1931-1947 Source The Senate was led by DEMOCRATS from 1933-1947 Source Explain to me how the Republicans, with NO power, managed to pull that off? How about the Depression of 1920, in the wake of 8 years of Woodrow Wilson's Progressive policies? Harding and Coolidge, both Republicans, got us out of that by cutting taxes and government spending. The result? The "Roaring 20s". It came to an end not because of Republican policies, but because of out-of-control speculation in the stock market.

plesae don't muddy up RayB's ignorant statements with facts, it's not nice

We need to realize that RayB needs to have someone tell him how to run his life. That is the mantra of the socialists. They feel that the general population is too ignorant on how to manage themselves, so need someone else to tell them on how to do it. Ray doesn't yet realize that congress manages the budget and controls the financials. The president gets the blame or credit no matter how the congress does its job.

Bill Clinton get the credit for the boom years of the 1990s when congress was controled by the republicans, Bush gets the blame for the downturn of the economy of the 00s while the democrats were in control of the congress.

Just let Ray live in his purple haze world eating the government supplied cheese.

This thread isn't about who made mistakes in the past. It's about the present administration repeating those mistakes, because they didn't learn anything from the past mistakes made by others. Doing the same wrong thing over again will not yield different results.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: This thread isn't about who made mistakes in the past. It's about the present administration repeating those mistakes, because they didn't learn anything from the past mistakes made by others. Doing the same wrong thing over again will not yield different results.

Let's just hope the pres doesn't get his ideas on what the next step should be, from left-wing talk radio while doing his morning coffee and smoke.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: This thread isn't about who made mistakes in the past. It's about the present administration repeating those mistakes, because they didn't learn anything from the past mistakes made by others. Doing the same wrong thing over again will not yield different results.

well you almost get it
the conservatives CAUSE DEPRESSIONS
then try to blame others for the depressions that the conservatives policy created
and to prevent acts to limit or recover from the depressions

and then want to repeatedly do the same things again over and over
expecting a better result

quote Originally posted by ray b: well you almost get it the conservatives CAUSE DEPRESSIONS then try to blame others for the depressions that the conservatives policy created and to prevent acts to limit or recover from the depressions and then want to repeatedly do the same things again over and over expecting a better result

HOW do conservatives CAUSE depressions?