• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why does she have to be from my favorite state?

badaxemoo

Well-known member
The Queen of the Tinfoil-Helmet-Wearing Legions Speaks!

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/historian-michele-bachmann-blames-fdrs-hoot-smalley-tariffs-for-great-depression.php?ref=fp2

Teabaggers Unite!
 

Mike

Well-known member
There is one major upside to Michelle........

You always knows where she stands on any given subject.

From what I've seen.......................

She doesn't pussy foot around and twist her words to try to appeal to everyone.
 

Bullhauler

Well-known member
Mike said:
There is one major upside to Michelle........

You always knows where she stands on any given subject.

From what I've seen.......................

She doesn't p***y foot around and twist her words to try to appeal to everyone.

With your obsession with liars I would think you would call her a lying biatch. I guess she would have to be a liberal to get that kind of treatment though. :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Bullhauler said:
Mike said:
There is one major upside to Michelle........

You always knows where she stands on any given subject.

From what I've seen.......................

She doesn't p***y foot around and twist her words to try to appeal to everyone.

With your obsession with liars I would think you would call her a lying biatch. I guess she would have to be a liberal to get that kind of treatment though. :roll:

What did she lie about? I don't have audio on this computer and didn't watch the video.......... but I will later.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Is this lady serious, does she think a lie like that will be accepted.

On the positive side, maybe people will investigate the truth, and become educated on what economic policies did/did not work in the 30's

Who cares who implemented them. Did they work or not?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Bullhauler said:
Mike said:
There is one major upside to Michelle........

You always knows where she stands on any given subject.

From what I've seen.......................

She doesn't p***y foot around and twist her words to try to appeal to everyone.

With your obsession with liars I would think you would call her a lying biatch. I guess she would have to be a liberal to get that kind of treatment though. :roll:

What did she lie about? I don't have audio on this computer and didn't watch the video.......... but I will later.

This woman is from another planet...If this is the educated brilliance of the base/future of the Repub Party- the Dems will never be taken out of control :wink:

Historian Michele Bachmann Blames FDR's "Hoot-Smalley" Tariffs For Great Depression
By Eric Kleefeld - April 29, 2009, 11:08AM
Make no mistake: When it comes to economics, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) knows her history -- even if that history is from another planet.

On Monday night, our friends at Dump Bachmann reported, Bachmann took to the House floor and paid tribute to the economic policies of Calvin Coolidge and the "Roaring 20s" (the era that ended with a massive monetary contraction and the Great Depression). One particular line really does stand out, though -- saying Franklin Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression through the "Hoot-Smalley" tariffs:



Here's what really happened: When Franklin Roosevelt took office, unemployment was already about 25%. And the tariff referred to here was actually the Smoot-Hawley bill, co-authored by Republicans Sen. Reed Smoot of Utah and Rep. Willis Hawley of Oregon, and signed into law by President Herbert Hoover.

Interestingly, this speech also happened on the same day as when Bachmann connected the 1970s swine flu outbreak to Democrat Jimmy Carter being president, even though it was actually Gerald Ford in office at the time.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I have read many articles where the Smoot-Hawley Act raised tariffs to extraordinary limits and in fact held down the recovery of the Depression.

It was called "Protectionism" then..... and is now. Ever wonder why Zer0 promised everyone in his "Apology Tour" of Europe that the U.S. would NOT be "Protectionist" in the future?

I don't know the year that Smoot-Hawley was enacted but FDR let it take effect and cause serious damage.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (sometimes known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act)[1] was an act signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. In the United States 1,028 economists signed a petition against this legislation, and after it was passed, many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half. In the opinion of most economists, the Smoot-Hawley Act was a catalyst for the severe reduction in U.S.-European trade from its high in 1929 to its depressed levels of 1932 that accompanied the start of the Great Depression.[2][3]
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
That sounds bad for the economy Mike. I know Canada has relaunched their WTO claim, and are also looking at the protectionism that is connected to the Stimulus funds.

I hope this woman gets additional bad publicity and the media investigates the facts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
I don't know the year that Smoot-Hawley was enacted but FDR let it take effect and cause serious damage.

Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (sometimes known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act) was an act signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.

The act was pioneered by Senator Reed Smoot, a Republican from Utah, and Representative Willis C. Hawley, a Republican from Oregon.

When running for president in 1928, one of Herbert Hoover's many campaign promises to help beleaguered farmers had been to raise tariff levels on agricultural products. Hoover won, and Republicans obtained comfortable majorities in the House and in the Senate in 1928. Hoover then asked Congress for an increase in tariff rates on agricultural goods and a downward revision in rates on industrial goods.

The House passed a version of the act in May 1929, raising tariffs on agricultural and industrial goods alike. The Senate debated its bill until March 1930, with many Senators trading votes based on their states' industries.

Hoover opposed the bill and called it "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious" because he felt it would undermine the commitment he had pledged to international cooperation. (Hoover was right. The international community levied their own tariffs in response after the bill had become law.) However, in the end, Hoover bowed to pressure from his own party and business leaders and signed the bill.

Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke against the act while campaigning for president in 1932.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act
 

Mike

Well-known member
Wonder why FDR didn't fight to repeal it?????

Back then the Republicans were the liberals. Wonder why FDR didn't side up with Hoover's initial dislike of it?

So......no one is saying Smoot-Hawley didn't do damage and prolong the agony?
Michelle: saying Franklin Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression through the "Hoot-Smalley" tariffs:

Sounds like a reasonable statement to me...............
 

Mike

Well-known member
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Smoot, Hawley, & Pelosi
The Washington Post reports:

The stimulus bill passed by the House last night contains a controversial provision that would mostly bar foreign steel and iron from the infrastructure projects laid out by the $819 billion economic package.

A Senate version, yet to be acted upon, goes further, requiring, with few exceptions, that all stimulus-funded projects use only American-made equipment and goods....

U.S. industrial giants including Caterpillar, General Electric and the domestic aerospace industry are emerging as strong opponents. The measures, they argue, could violate trade deals the United States has signed in recent years, including an agreement on expanding access to government procurements reached through the World Trade Organization.

But most damaging, critics say, would be the "protectionist message" attached to imposing such barriers on foreign companies.Nations including China and many in Europe are preparing to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money on stimulus projects. American companies are angling for a piece of those pies, and retaliatory measures against U.S. companies, executives argue, could significantly complicate those efforts. This week, a European Commission spokesman threatened countermeasures if the Buy American provisions are approved.

I hope President Obama and his economists strongly oppose these first shots in a new trade war of protectionism. So far, the article says, "the administration has not addressed the issue publicly."
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
There was so much pressure on him from his party that he went against his campaign promises, and what people voted for!

Sounds like that lying Bush, when he went against the additional regulations of Fannie and Freddie, and allowed Congress to call the shots!

You'd almost think these big businesses and banks run the government, and not the other way around!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Mike said:
I have read many articles where the Smoot-Hawley Act raised tariffs to extraordinary limits and in fact held down the recovery of the Depression.

It was called "Protectionism" then..... and is now. Ever wonder why Zer0 promised everyone in his "Apology Tour" of Europe that the U.S. would NOT be "Protectionist" in the future?

I don't know the year that Smoot-Hawley was enacted but FDR let it take effect and cause serious damage.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (sometimes known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act)[1] was an act signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. In the United States 1,028 economists signed a petition against this legislation, and after it was passed, many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half. In the opinion of most economists, the Smoot-Hawley Act was a catalyst for the severe reduction in U.S.-European trade from its high in 1929 to its depressed levels of 1932 that accompanied the start of the Great Depression.[2][3]

Wasn't there a few economists that did the same thing with Obama's porkulus bill? Can you help us with that, Badaxe?
 
Top