Geez,

I was just making reference to soneone else who called another person the "One".

Chuckle....

And on the Gas price Thing:

Actually George Bush didn't have a thing to do with the drop in gas prices.

The American Consumer can take the credit for it by conserving fuel and causing a surplus that forced prices down. Even then the Oil Companies posted record profits.

But then again, many Americans lost their jobs so they drove a lot less. Bush can take credit for the state of the Economy and their loss of jobs, So in a way he is responsible for much of it.

But I can't give Bush credit for anything, its against my better judgement,

But he can ALMOST walk and chew gum at the same time! I ALMOST give him credit for that!

Jinx of course you wont admit what happened to the american economy. It was the Ninja housing loans the ONE and the rest of the democrats . Chris Dodd Byron dorgan the old ***** barney frank. remember him who gave his boy/girlfriend a highpaying job with freddie mac to compenasate said b/f for putting his penis into the scion of the democrat partys anal opening. All of these were responsible for the housing loan crisis along with thye ONE, WHO SENT ACORN OPERATIVES INTO BANKS telling them the banl]ks had to loan the BROTHAS AND THE SISTAHS HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY ALTHOUGH THESE SAME brothas and SIATAHS COULDNT AND WOULDNT PAY THE MONEY BACK. It was and is a way of spreading the wealth around.
Bush tried to stop this but the democrats controlled the congress and it was a way for obama to be able to control unemployment. When he gains or takes complete control of the united states he can control unemployment by eliminating at least half of this countrys population and you and every one else here will applaud that.

Sure...Sure...

The only thing that I applaud is your Total and Complete Ignorance. Its truly astounding.

Not to mention that your so paranoid and hysterical.

Duane a few months back or so Pres. Bush said that he was opening up off shore drilling which was the start of the price drop on oil, demand also slowed which added to lower prices.

So yes Pres. Bush did start the tumble down. Ok I said it now come back with something more important as our lame duck Pres is leaving soon

Gasoline prices normally rise and fall with demand. Not this time. This time prices rose because of speculators - Largely hedge fund managers - who were looking for hedges against the falling stock market.

By trading sharply in oil futures, the speculators ran the price up and made a fortune - right up until they drove the price through the demand roof and caused some rather massive demand destruction. I doubt that prices will rise very much for the next year or so - maybe more.

Bush's only involvement in high gasoline prices was the nearly completely deregulated markets he and his cronies allowed to develop.

Beyond that, he had nothing to do with making them go up and absolutely nothing to do with them coming down again. Any statements about opening off-shore drilling were pure unadulterated horse manure. There is currently a waiting list of several years for acquisition just for the boats required to do the requisite testing and to build the necessary platforms.

There was never any chance of additional offshore drilling making any significant change in oil availability durng Obama's coming two terms, let alone it happening in Bush's waning months. Which is why you will no longer be hearing anything about it from anyone.

Interesting Jack.

But,,What about that old ploy of Obamas to take care of the high unemployment by sending them all to the Gallows? My question is are you worried about it as much as I am?

Or better yet,,,are we worried about it as much as Duane is?

Bro, nobody is as worried about it as much as Duane is. Frankly, I doubt that anyone is capable of worrying about it as much as Duane does.

Im not worried at all about the ONE reducing the population of the united states for myself. But rather for the little American kids who he will never let grow to run and go to school to go fishiong to ride a bike. And some of those kids just might belong to you guys here. So even though you believe he and the islamic terrorists will take good care of you . When the time comes you may possibly get in his way your heads will roll at his behest. He will not let anyone get in his way.
One of the first things that will be done is to elimiate the use of the secret free ballot for unionizing companys . Then the secrwt ballot will be eliminated for elections then no elections. Then the ONE will be the calih of the western hemisphere.

That's one of the most ridiculous, far fetched, cry wolf posts that I think I have ever read.

In fact it is almost a carbon copy of some of the things that the Crack Pot Militias write in their literature and mailers for recruitment..

quoted from above:

Im not worried at all about the ONE reducing the population of the united states for myself. But rather for the little American kids who he will never let grow to run and go to school to go fishiong to ride a bike. And some of those kids just might belong to you guys here. So even though you believe he and the islamic terrorists will take good care of you . When the time comes you may possibly get in his way your heads will roll at his behest. He will not let anyone get in his way.
One of the first things that will be done is to elimiate the use of the secret free ballot for unionizing companys . Then the secrwt ballot will be eliminated for elections then no elections. Then the ONE will be the calih of the western hemisphere.
=============end quote=============================

Duane where do you come up with this stuff. And yes you sound like one of them rag tag militias.

Your racism and uneducated comments continue to flow out of you on a daily basis I see. Thank God I did not have you in my unit in NAM.

Hey Mike, I don't think that Quano belongs to a rag tag militia. I think that his militia is probably still trying to work their way up to rag tag.

At this point, they are probably just at the rag level. And now they are running scared.

Hey, Quano, I have some real bad news - we took all of our black helicopters and repainted them. Now you mooks are going to have to look a lot closer to tell when we are in your area.

Duane:

Here's something to hang on your Wall of Fame. Its totally ridiculous and probably right up your alley of, "The One and That Day"!

I'll post it even though it has been against my better judgement for more than 30 years now!

Enjoy your ride in .50 Caliber La-La land!

======================================================From:
The Freeman of Montana

"Many in the “militia movement” seem to think there will be a particular moment when the tyrannical regimes of the “New World Order” will finally unleash all those foreign troops hidden in secret bases within our borders and bring on the globalists coup. How many militia members are preparing for “that day.” That day when the New World Order gang attempts their final take over, and the great war begins to determine if the last remnants of our American nation will fade into the soon to be re-written history books.

The tyranny upon us has been building, one brick at a time. “They” have no plans for “that day.” Things are progressing just fine for the people at Treason Incorporated. What matters to them is the slow erosion of our constitutional republic and its equally slow replacement with their administrative regime. Any militia waiting for “that day” will find themselves surrounded by a brick wall of tyranny out of which they will no longer be able to shoot."

All of you fellow travelers. look up the "employee free choice act". this legislation was primarilly sponsored by one Barrack HUSSIEN obama. It eliminates the use of a secret ballot for unionizing companys.
Max Baucus and Jon Tester Montana's senators are co sponsors. probably because they know which side their bread is buttered on. plus they also know who owns them Mahomet Aminidnijad the presidnt of Iran ( who owns every democrat in this country
Eliminating the secret ballot in union elections is the frst step in eliminating the secret ballot in all elections in this country and then eliminating elections. So naturally it is the democrats who are doing it. Now that democrats have total power in this nation they can never take a chance on losing it. Correct!!! The only way to asssure complete and TOTAL power is to eliminate any possible opponets. That is what the ONE did when he ran for senate in Illinoi. Used his connections and power of his friends to keep anyone else off the ballot.

The Employee Free Choice Act
Background

The Employee Free Choice Act is bipartisan legislation introduced by Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Reps. George Miller (D-CA) and Peter King (R-N.Y.). It passed the U. S. House of Representatives, 241-185, on March 1, 2007, and gained majority support in the U.S. Senate on June 26, 2007, but was blocked by a Republican filibuster.

The best opportunity for working men and women to get ahead economically is by uniting with coworkers to bargain with their employers for better wages and benefits. These are tough economic times – soaring gas and food prices, home foreclosures, unaffordable health care, and shattered retirement security. Wages for working men and women have stagnated while pay and bonuses for CEOs have sky-rocketed.

The Employee Free Choice Act is the most important legislative proposal in seventy years because it will remove unfair barriers to union representation and collective bargaining so that workers can get their fair share and improve jobs and benefits for everyone. It will help workers achieve the American Dream by giving them the freedom to choose a union and bargain collectively. It will mean that the economy can work for everyone again.

Current federal labor law – the National Labor Relations Act – has become a barrier to workers’ rights. Companies intimidate, harass, coerce and even fire people who try to organize unions. Workers are fired in a quarter of private-sector union organizing campaigns and most workers who try to form unions are subjected to repeated, coercive one-on-one anti-union meetings with their supervisors. Even after workers successfully form unions, 44 percent of the time they can’t get a first contract. This is an urgent crisis for workers, blocking their free will and their ability to bargain for a better future.
Provisions

The Employee Free Choice Act remedies these problems in three specific ways:
1. Removes Current Barriers that Prevent Workers from Forming Unions to Bargain Collectively
Requires that when a majority of employees has signed authorizations designating the union as its bargaining representative, the union will be certified by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Requires the Board to develop model authorization language and procedures for establishing the validity of signed authorizations. Changes the current corporate-dominated representation process that encourages companies to coerce and intimidate workers who seek to form a union and pressure them to influence their choice
.
2. Guarantees Workers a Contract When They Form a New Union.
Provides that when an employer and newly formed union are unable to bargain a first contract within 90 days, either party can request mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). If no agreement has been reached after 30 days of mediation, the dispute is referred to binding arbitration. All time limits can be extended by mutual agreement. This change eliminates current incentives for employers to delay and stall negotiations and will dramatically reduce the delay, frustration and animosity generated by the company-dominated system.

3. Strengthens Penalties against Companies which Break the Law During Organizing Campaigns and First Contract Negotiations.

Company violations have become epidemic in large part because remedies for corporate misconduct, such as illegal firings of union supporters, are so weak that companies treat them as a cost of doing business and a cheap way to scare workers away from their union support. New, tougher remedies will provide more protection for workers’ rights.

a. Civil Penalties: Up to $20,000 per violation against companies found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees’ rights during an organizing campaign or first contract negotiations.

b. Treble Back Pay: Increases to three times back pay the amount a company is required to pay when an employee is discharged or discriminated against during an organizing campaign or first contract negotiations.

c. Mandatory Applications for Injunctive Remedies: Requires the NLRB to seek a federal court injunction when there is reasonable cause to believe a company has discharged or discriminated against employees, threatened to do so, or engaged in conduct that significantly interferes with employee rights during an organizing campaign or first contract negotiations. Equalizes remedies by making mandatory injunctive remedies against companies the same as the currently required injunctive remedies against unions.

As usual Duane, you don't know what you are talking about.
Democratic majority sign-up procedures are necessary to avoid anti-democratic employer coercion through the NLRB election process. Union elections are unlike any other kind of elections because of the inherent coercive power that management holds over employees—the power to deprive employees of their livelihood and to control their pay, hours and working conditions. According to a survey of 400 NLRB election campaigns in 1998 and 1999, 36 percent of workers who vote against union representation explain their vote as a response to employer pressure.1 The NLRB election process makes matters worse by enabling management to wage lengthy and bitter anti-union campaigns, during which workers can expect harassment, intimidation, threats and firings. By avoiding these inherently coercive and anti-democratic anti-union campaigns, majority-rule majority sign-up procedures help employees make freer choices under less duress.

Obama supports this act because it is "pro-workingman." As a lifelong supporter, and member, of Unions, I think this is a good law. Only a scab, or a scab sympathizer, would object to a MAJORITY sign up procedure.
The Employee Free Choice Act can restore the balance, giving more workers a chance to form unions and get better health care, job security, and benefits – and an opportunity to pursue their dreams.

The Employee Free Choice Act will:
Strengthen penalties against employers who break the law. Too many unscrupulous employers get away with breaking labor laws because the current penalties are too weak. The Employee Free Choice Act would increase penalties against employers who illegally fire or retaliate against pro-union workers during an organizing campaign or an effort to obtain a first contract. Read more about strengthened penalties.

Allow employers or employees to request mediation if they’re unable to negotiate a first contract. Under current law, anti-union employers often drag workers through lengthy negotiations by delaying bargaining sessions, withholding relevant information, and putting forth bogus proposals. Even though these tactics are illegal, there are no effective deterrents to prevent “surface bargaining.” The Employee Free Choice Act will strengthen workers’ ability to achieve a first contract within a reasonable period of time. Read more about mediation & arbitration.

The Employee Free Choice Act would allow workers to form a union through “majority sign-up.” If workers know they want a union, we should have laws that let them have it. The Employee Free Choice Act would require an employer to recognize its employees’ union when a majority has signed union authorization cards. Under current law, management can refuse to recognize a union even when 100 percent of employees have signed authorization cards. After a majority of workers have signed cards, an employer can still call for a separate election. Under the current system, then, the employer gets to decide whether a separate election is necessary. The Employee Free Choice Act would give this choice to the workers. Read more about majority sign-up.

© 2008 American Rights at Work

And when Vinnie and Guido come to the workers and say sign this card. what does anyone think they are going to do sign that card of course. Because those workers are aware that Guido and Vinnie know where they live and they could suffer the same fate jimmy Hoffa sr. did. The reason the union bosses dont want a free secret ballot and the reason none of you here like secret ballots is the same . Complete and total control of whomever you and the union bosses want.
When honda toyata built plants in this country they chose not Michigan and the UAW. They chose the southern states. Alabama kentucky where there was agood hardworking labor fiorce that wasnt tied down by a uhion that only cared for power. You'll notice that toyoata hoda etc. are not coming for taxpayer moneys to keep the unions and their leaders afloat.
For that is what the so called auto bailout is for
the unions and their leaders.

Quano, do you really need to be reminded that Honda and Toyota are FOREIGN companies? And that when these Japanese companies were on the ropes in the same manner that American auto makers are now, Japan ****ed well DID bail them out?

Likewise, Germany bailed out it industry and England also help its own. Seems like only America doesn't believe in keeping its manufacturing industry alive.

As for Toyota and Honda moving into the south - in addition to the chance to avoid unions, those companies also got subsidies (could call them bribes, I suppose) to the tune of more than $100,000 per worker to locate their factories where they did.

Also, the Big 3 "legacy costs" that all of the right wing pundits keep crying about are the pension and health care costs for retired auto workers. The reality is that the pension portion of those costs are already funded, so the real issue is health care. Those costs have already been removed from the auto makers to independent trusts - and if the firms go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, we - that is the U.S. government - will assume responsibility for them.

Finally, the big 3 U.S. automakers currently have about 105 factories in the U.S. All of the foregin manufaturers together have only about 24. The idea that the 24 foreign companies will be able to keep alive all of the businesses that the 105 U.S. firms depend on for parts and materials is ridiculous.

The results of the collapse of the American auto industry will also heavily impact the foreign car makers in the U.S. They will either not be able to continue making cars or they will have to increase prices as their own costs increase.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
Meg Sullivan
8/10/2004

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

pt 1

Pt 2

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding,"
Who's proof - Which pudding?
The problem with revisionist history is by definition it goes against the mainstream. The mainstream may not always be right; but I would caution against accepting contrary theories simply because they are new. This particular theory does deserve to be debated, but I suspect it has only been brought forth, now, to argue that, perhaps, our present economic difficulties were not caused by excessive deregulation.
.
"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "IRONICALLY, OUR WORK SHOWS THAT THE RECOVERY WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY RAPID HAD THE GOVERNMENT NOT INTERVENED." (My caps)
Are they defining rapid in geological terms? The stock market crashed in 1929. Things kept getting progressively worse from then all through 1932 - without Government intervention. That is why the new dealers were swept into office. These guys seem to be claiming that just a few more months of laissez-faire policies would have straightened thing out. If we had waited much longer, the pudding would not have been worth eating.

Guido and Vinnie...
I guess he means Italian. Now some Italian's would take that as an insult, Not me though My Middle name is Guido!

Duane, I really think you should stop renting those Old Untouchable Movies! Your getting Delusional again.


You are without a Doubt a , Testa di *****!

Needless to say, there are a significant number of economists (including recent Nobel prize winners) who disagree with UCLA pair's assumptions and conclusions about the causes of the Great Depression and the effect that FDR had on it.

I won't get into a duelling economists post, but among the bones of contention are the treatment of all WPA workers as unemployed - which strikes me as odd, since they did receive wages, did spend money, and did produce a lot of infrastructure that had sufficient value to still be in regular use today.

Few would argue that the NIRA added anything to the recovery, but most would say that FDR's fiscal stimulus was definitely helping and that it had a positive effect on net investment - right up until he tried to return to more conservative/traditional economics in 1937 (he raised taxes and tried to balance the budget), causing another major downturn.

The pro-stimulus group of economists say that FDR's major flaw was that his efforts at economic stimulus were too small.

How come none of you jinx jaqui mad doc Mike ivy have not mentioned the role of FDR going on the national cable t v network after the stock market crash in 1929. According to the democrat historian and democrat icon joe biden. Roosevelt as president reassured the american people. Havent you guys heard about that. Ole joe said that right on CBS in an interview with katie couric. And as i said before about this employee free choice act . No secret ballot is just the first step eliminating secret ballots and all elections in this country. Just the same as the old soviet union. one pary rule no oppistion to the rulers the Democrats no one shall say anything the democrats dont like. And if they say it once they wont say it twice .

Let us not, forget about the draught and the Dust Bowl. Things which added to the economic upheaval, social displacement, and unemployment, but couldn't be predicted.

Duane states: Havent you guys heard about that.

Duane I was not around back then and am trying to be optomistic and look to tomorrow.

Yes he did say that Duane.

But still will be the New Vice President.

I guess the American People didn't put as much emphasis on it as you Loooooooooooosers do!

Quano, you slay me. Having a Bush worshipper point out another politician's verbal gaffes pretty definitely qualifies as high comedy.