Saturday, October 29, 2011
On Herbert Hoover and FDR 1
To all of those who think that Hoover was a laissez-faire Capitalist who sat on his hands and let the Great Depression continue absent intervention, please, explain this, a quote from FDR during the 1932 Presidential campaign; "This is the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all our history", OR THIS, a quote form FDR's running mate, John Nance Garner; "He (Mr. Hoover) is leading the country down the path to socialism." It doesn't sound to me as if the Democrats from that era thought that Herbert Hoover was laissez-faire Capitalist AT ALL....So much so for armchair historians (can you say MSNBC's Chris Matthews?), huh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
58 comments:
Damn, that is very interesting! Those comments would seem to switch the traditional roles we are led to believe each men had. Methinks there is more to this than meets the eye.
It is looks like a unicorn, grunts like a unicorn, perhaps we need to take a closer look.
One could easily articulate, John, that FDR's policies were largely an extrapolation (on steroids) of Mr. Hoover's.
Will,
It's funny. I don't know if you know the players, but T. Paine and Burr Deming at a knock-down drag out fight about Hoover Policy vs. FDR policy and who caused and what fixed the Great Depression.
I don't think either men appreciated this historical irony.
It reminds me of Obama being an idiot for continuing Bush Stimulus ideas.
I bet history will show that Obama took a completely different approach to Bush where stimulus was concerned.
While it is true that Obama would have if had had had the backing, the reality is that his approach very similar.
During the 2008 campaign, I once referred to McCain as "Bush on Steroids" and Obama as "Bush Lite". I was referring to the foreign policy positions of the dudes but, yeah, you're right, there are certainly other similarities, too.
FDR didn't govern on the platform he ran on. The situation and the voters pushed him to act... which is most often the case with politicians. Your presentation of the facts is no great conundrum.
"Socialism" has always been a part of our political/economic system. And at the same time been demonized. BFD is my response to your post. Also, how can you extrapolate what one man said to mean "all the Democrats of the era"??
Obviously, in retrospect we can see that Hoover did very little. FDR and his administration saw it too... not long after they assumed power. Yet Will (over 80 years later) still does not see it!
So much for armchair historians (can you say Contra O'Reilly's Will Hart?), huh?
John Myste: Damn, that is very interesting!
I didn't find it interesting in the least... just nonsense "supporting" Will's moderate view of the world.
Will: One could easily articulate, John, that FDR's policies were largely an extrapolation (on steroids) of Mr. Hoover's.
IMO only an armchair historian with an inaccurate view of history would articulate that.
John Myste: ...the reality is that his approach [was] very similar.
I completely disagree. While they both supported the bank bailouts (socialism for the rich, as VP Biden referred to them), I highly doubt bush would have supported a stimulus bill like Obama's.
Will: ...there are certainly other similarities, too.
They both bowed/bow to the pressures of big money... which manifests itself as a support of socialism for the rich by both. Where they greatly differ is in how much socialism each believes everybody else should receive... bush: very little, and Obama: more but not nearly enough (which the Republicans have reduced even further).
Dervish,
FDR didn't govern on the platform he ran on. The situation and the voters pushed him to act... which is most often the case with politicians. Your presentation of the facts is no great conundrum.
It is as interesting as if this were not the case. Bush spoke of voodoo economics. That will be of interest to historians, regardless of his actual policies.
John Myste: Damn, that is very interesting!
I didn't find it interesting in the least... just nonsense "supporting" Will's moderate view of the world.
You did not find it interesting, not out of lack of interest, but out of cognitive dissonance. Anyone with interest in history would find it interesting unless it hurt their feelings. Most people who thought it was not revealing, would still find it interesting. I wish you more stable. You would be one of the great ones under a physician’s care.
John Myste: ...the reality is that his approach [was] very similar.
I completely disagree. While they both supported the bank bailouts (socialism for the rich, as VP Biden referred to them), I highly doubt bush would have supported a stimulus bill like Obama's.
You forgot about tax cuts. Bush would not have supported extending unemployment. They were very similar. I appreciate your need to find differences. Cognitive dissonance.
John Myste: Cognitive dissonance.
Ad hominem.
And also total bullshit. I didn't say I disbelieved the comment (even though Will provided no source, as usual).
I know FDR didn't run on the programs and policies he eventually instituted/championed. This is NOT cognitive dissonance.
Dervish,
It was ad hominem as a debating tactic, but I was merely making an observation.
John Myste: ...I was merely making an observation.
Your "observation" is wrong.
Anyway, I was disagreeing that Will's post was interesting. The "explanation" he asked for was not hard to figure out.
What you said about switching roles, more than meets the eye, and unicorns wasn't interesting either.
The comments by FDR and Garner themselves are somewhat interesting. I would be interested in knowing what FDR thought the Hoover administration was spending too much on. I'd be interested in knowing how Garner thought Hoover was "leading the country down the path to socialism". Probably just campaign rhetoric.
But Will failed to provide sources or context... as usual. His only goal was to sell his moderate worldview and to bash FDR (and Chris Matthews)... two individuals he frequently targets... which isn't interesting but old and stale.
John and Dervish,
Your debate about what is or is not interesting is very uninteresting. Back on track please...
From Wikipedia... Garner saw himself as the champion of the traditional Democratic Party establishment, which often clashed with supporters of Roosevelt's New Deal. ... Garner did not appeal to liberals, however. Union leader John L. Lewis testified before Congress that Garner was a "a labor-baiting, poker-playing, whiskey-drinking, evil old man.
It looks like his sole purpose of being on the ticket was to garner the votes of those who identified with "the traditional Democratic Party establishment" (moderate and conservative Democrats PLUS independents).
Like I said earlier, FDR was pushed to be more Liberal by the people and the circumstances.
Hopefully the 99 percent movement will be able to push Obama to be more Liberal (perhaps in his second term). It's time for a NEW New Deal.
I think new Smoot Hawley-type tariff legislation wouldn't be a bad idea either.
"I think new Smoot Hawley-type tariff legislation wouldn't be a bad idea either."
Smooth-Hawley is one of the horsemen of the Depression.
Of course. it clobbers the economy, wipes out MILLIONS of American export jobs, enriches and empowers the actual ruling elites, and punishes ordinary American with a stiff financial penalty for making informed economic decisions also. A perfect example of a few forcing their 'one size fits hardly anyone' trading preferences on everyone.
WD, I respect your right to choose to buy inferior overpriced products. But I do not respect your right to force this decision on everyone.
Have fun driving your exploding Pinto.
Have fun driving your exploding Pinto.
Umm .. hey, dummy Marks .. they ain't made them there cars since Reagan was sh*tting in his Depends in the White House.
Yup. We buy Camry's and Civics and other cars which are by and large Japanese and Korean, and by and large surpass Ford products when it comes to quality.
Sorry, not a "dummy". Just defending the rights of people to make their own informed economic choices. Let each person choose. This is one that's clearly not the government's business.
Yea but the Camry you probably drive ain't made over there either dummy,
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Texas, Inc (TMMTX) is located in San Antonio. Vehicle manufacture and assembly - Tundra & Tacoma.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana, Inc. (TMMI) is located halfway between Princeton and Fort Branch. Vehicle manufacture and assembly - Sequoia, Sienna & Highlander.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Alabama, Inc. (TMMAL), is located in Huntsville. Engine manufacture 1GR-FE, 1UR-FE and 3UR-FE. Engines mostly for TMMTX and some TMMI.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing West Virginia, Inc. (TMMWV), is located in Buffalo. Engine manufacture 2GR-FE and 1AR-FE.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Mississippi, Tupelo, Mississippi –
Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Inc., (TMMK) is located in Georgetown. Engine manufacture - 2GR-FE and 2AR-FE. Vehicle manufacture and assembly - Camry, Hybrid Camry, Avalon and Venza.
See it Toyota Corolla is made in Georgetown Kentucky ......
by good ole USA workers ...
as fer Honda;
East Liberty Auto Plant is a Honda factory in East Liberty, Ohio, United States. The assembly plant opened in 1989.
Products:
* Honda Accord Crosstour
* Honda Element
* Honda CR-V
Honda Manufacturing of Indiana Greensburg, Indiana, USA Honda Civic
Honda Civic GX NGV
Honda Manufacturing of Alabama (HMA) is an automobile manufacturer located in Lincoln, Alabama. It builds vehicles for Honda sales in North America.
Vehicles:
* Honda Odyssey
* Honda Pilot
* Honda Ridgeline
Engines:
* Honda J engine
Marysville Auto Plant is a Honda manufacturing facility located approximately six miles northwest of Marysville, Ohio. Operations include stamping, plastics injection molding, welding, painting, subassembly and assembly. The assembly plant opened in 1982. The plant is a major employer for Marysville, East Liberty, and nearby Bellefontaine, Ohio
Products:
* Honda Accord
* Acura TL
* Acura RDX
* Honda Gold Wing motorcycles 1979-2009
Damn Dummy Marks; more AMERICAN workers making cars in the good ole USA
kinda blows your ignorant rant away eh dummy?
And in case ya don't know the Camry has had more problems in the last couple of years the any Ford product.
But don't let that fact ruin your partisan ideological rant there dummy
As for me I buy American for a hell of a lot of what I buy because the crap from overseras doesn't hold up to work day in and day out,
Hand tools, if they ain't good American or maybe German steel they do not last.
Proto, Snap-on etc,
Sears don't cut it anymore neither does Stanley since walmart sent them packing to china with their weak brittle steel.
and don't even say Harbor Freight, crap before it left the factory.
One of my hobbies is High end Audio;
NOTHING from China cuts it.
I use Thiel speakers, and a Tube amp from a guy in Chicago, he builds them one at a time. My pre is from a Canadian Company, that hasn't outsourced to be cheaper which means crap.
Sorry but far too much which used to be GOOD quality got destroyed for a quick buck by people who don't give a damn about good quality, hell they probably think Bose is good audio. It ain't close.
Give me a product made here by people who still care over the cheap foreign imitation any day.
There you go. Free trade at its best #37 is able to make his choices without overhigh tariffs.
And yes, it all prove that American workers and American products CAN complete in a free trade environment.
And Honda investing in this country and building the plants. More free trade.
And by the way, the Camry's etc even with their problems are much higher quality than Ford. Check Consumer Reports. The Ford is still much worse.
So much for your ignorant rant against free and fair trade.
And you forgot to mention the Subaru factory in Indiana. Like many of the other Japanese-run factories, they give American workers good high-paying hobs. Without agreements that force the employees to join political fundraising schemes (i.e. unions).
Good jobs made possible by open trade between nations.
open trade between nations. controlled by the corporate bastards from Wall street.
Finished yer sentence fur ya dummy
"open trade between nations. controlled by the corporate bastards from Wall street."
Nope. It's controlled by us. The vast majority of free trade decisions are made by average Americans and small companies. Like you: deciding where to get your audio equipment.
You finished my sentence by turning it into a lie. One I would not have stated.
dmarks [Free trade is] controlled by us. The vast majority of free trade decisions are made by average Americans and small companies. Like you...
Wrong. The decisions have all been made by the time the imported goods reach American store shelves... and the decisions were made by the large transnational corporations.
The reason the transnationals manufacture their goods overseas is because the cost of labor is significantly lower (and they don't have to follow our safety and environmental standards). They lower the price a little for the consumer, but most of the money they save (via low labor costs, unsafe work environments, and an increased ability to pollute the environment) goes to their bottom line (increased profit).
Which is what this is all about... more profits at the price of putting Americans out of work. Free trade is a bad deal for American workers and a bad deal for the American economy.
Economic decisions should be made by our elected representatives, not by the transnational corporations. That's the real choice. The choice as presented by dmarks, where each individual American consumer decides, is a false one.
WD said: "Economic decisions should be made by our elected representatives"
I strongly disagree. These decisions should be made by individuals, not the ruling class. Even if the rulers are chosen in a democratic fashion.
"The reason the transnationals manufacture their goods overseas is because the cost of labor is significantly lower"
This is true sometimes, and sometimes it is not. This is certainly not true, for example. for Japanese cars made in Japan and German cars made in Germany. The real picture is a lot more complicated.
Free trade is a very good deal for American workers (look at the many many millions who manufacture and export) and for the American economy. And #32 is able to make his choices. The choice I have, where each consumer decides, is a very real one. For him, for you, and for me. Such choices are, and should be, personal, and not the government's business.
The vast majority of free trade decisions are made by average Americans and small companies.
But dummy, the decisions of what to offer is already made, by the corrupt bastards club on wall street so I DIDN'T LIE, which you can't seem to grasp.
These decisions should be made by individuals, not the ruling class.
IE the ruling class as you call them BUY the freakin' politicians you screech about with out ever admitting the people they buy already work for them, you know people like Herman Cain who was a lobbyist for the restaurant association (when he is accused by two women of sexual harassment) before the Koch brothers decided that their favorite lobbyist in the campaign is who they want to buy this year.
You cannot admit the ruling elite make decisions of why to buy for us LONG before we go to the store, just like they decide who to give their large amounts of cash to and which candidates their corporate owned media will giver favorable coverage.
It is the corrupt bastards club of wall street who make most of these decisions and have made them for the last three decades or so.
Sorry your very partisan pro-rich/corporate position keeps you from admitting this simple truth. But the same people who decide what is offered for us to buy, decide which politicians get a chance to do their bidding, by "winning" their staged campaigns.
Those they don't want get the Howard Dean "Scream Treatment" or the organizations that support them get "ACORNED by the slimy Right Wing Corporate Controlled Media. Or have lies and smears run 24-7 like the lies about Gore and Kerry were ran so the Idiot Bush Jr. could screw up the country while a very few rich bastards could make a killing on wall street.
It really has been that simple for much longer then people want to admit.
#32 said "But [person I disagree with] , the decisions of what to offer is already made"
So? And if we don't want/need the products or they are overpriced, the "decisions" are changed.
"....by the corrupt bastards club on wall street so I DIDN'T LIE"
Can you back up your allegations? Is there a club? Are there actual charges of corruption against all importers and producers, or are you just lying that all are corrupt?
"which you can't seem to grasp."
The problem is that you are making false claims and I refuse to accept them.
"IE the ruling class as you call them"
I am referring to the actual rulers, who rule whether or not I call them the ruling class or ruling elites.
"BUY the freakin' politicians you screech about with out ever admitting the people they buy already work for them"
So, what defines a bought politician? One who stands for ideals oyu disagree with?
"before the Koch brothers decided that their favorite lobbyist in the campaign is who they want to buy this year."
And what does this have to do with Koch brothers at all? I suspect you are getting into some sort of paranoid control thing, like the Right does about George Soros.
"You cannot admit the ruling elite make decisions of why to buy for us LONG before we go to the store"
I can't "admit" it since it is not true whatsoever. Except for some instances forced by regulation (such as the ruling elites forcing the auto companies to make "Green" cars), the ruling elite is not in the habit of micro-managing product offerings in the private sector. It does happen, but only rarely.
"just like they decide who to give their large amounts of cash to and which candidates their corporate owned media will giver favorable coverage."
1) The ruliing elites giving money to candidate is a problem in my view (Will supports it, though). I would zero out ALL federal spending, matching funds, etc and get the ruling elites out of it entirely.
2) Corporate owned media? The liability situation forces most media of any size in the US to be corporate. This includes "Democracy Now" as well.
"Sorry your very partisan pro-rich/corporate position"
No, I am defending the rights of the people to make these decisions.
"keeps you from admitting this simple truth."
Your claim of a "simple truth" has no factual basis.
"But the same people who decide what is offered for us to buy, decide which politicians get a chance to do their bidding, by "winning" their staged campaigns."
Sorry, only "dummies" believe in lutanic conspiracy theories.
"Those they don't want get the Howard Dean "Scream Treatment""
What? Did your mythical club pay Howard Dean to destroy his campaign by blowing his stack on national TV? They are powerful indeeed.
"or the organizations that support them get "ACORNED by the slimy Right Wing Corporate Controlled Media."
Actually, ACORN is a left-wing organization. They got into trouble all by themselves.
"Or have lies and smears run 24-7 like the lies about Gore and Kerry were ran so the Idiot Bush Jr. could screw up the country while a very few rich bastards could make a killing on wall street."
Did you realize that Bush is not a Jr? And as much as you don't like it, the independent media has a right to tell the truth about Gore and Kerry, even if you don't like it.
I can tell the idea of an independent media that is critical of those in power really gets you angry.
"It really has been that simple for much longer then people want to admit."
It's hard to admit that which is entirely false, and the real world is a lot more complex than the simplistic lies that conspiracy theorists would have us believe.
And here a good article on the attempts of the organized crime operation known as ACORN, involving trying to destroy democracy through voter fraud. Actual crimes. Probably the only actual "corrupt" entity you named in your comment, #32.
#37,would you be so kind as to elaborate on this "corporate bastards club of wall street?"
Just who are these folks?
Do they have actual names?
Do they have a meeting place?
How does a person become a member?
Is there really a corporate bastards club of wall street or are you just saying that because you're not a member?
Rusty: Rest assured that one of this evil cabal is the man who put a live lobster in Howard Dean's pants and made him scream like a maniac on TV.
Diabolical fiends!
Dmarks is a dupe for the the right 37 Guy. I never thought he was a dummy. Just a deluded right wing fool.
Can't argue the liar part with you though. I got stock in several companies that contribute to politicians and groups I don;t like. I don't have a say.
But it's okay with Dmarks if they do that. He just doesn't think unions who are the defenders of working people should donate and work for groups or politicians that will work for them.
Like I said. Dmarks is a dupe.
Truth: No, I am more a defender of working people than you. No, I am not "duped" just because I defend the rights of people to control their own economic lives (in contrast to #37 who reserves this right only for the ruling elites).
I would agree that companies you are forced to to business with (such as government-fostered monopolies) should not do political funding.
The same with any union that members are forced to join.
"should donate and work for groups or politicians that will work for them."
Union members are deeply divided on this.
Why not let each worker choose? That's all I ask.
Workers can donate or not to union pacs. Union dues dollars can be used to advocate for issues. Not candidates.
As I said in a previous thread, if a person doesn't want to be in a union, let them get a job in a non union shop as Michelle Bachman advocates for people that want employer sponsored health insurance.
Are all your "friends" who are unwilling union members willing to give back the pay and benefits their union negotiated for them through collective bargaining? If not, they're hypocrites.
Truth said; "Union dues dollars can be used to advocate for issues. Not candidates."
What is the difference? I see very little. Issues divide us as much as candidates. And issues and candidates are closely tied together.
"if a person doesn't want to be in a union, let them get a job in a non union shop"
I strongly disagree with this, as union membership has absolutely nothing to do with a person's ability to do a job. Might as well force workers to join the Baptist Church. If they don't like it, they can work elsewhere.
And of course it is obvious that the "join the outside organization or you can't work here" is very anti-worker. It kicks working people in the teeth, and does not harm the corporate fatcats at all.
As for my friends, they are good hard workers and are entitled to keep what they have earned. Since it is a result of their hard work.
The most recent example of a actual friend who was bullied by a union is the home healthcare worker who got a pay cut as a direct result of union actions. In such a situation, "giv[ing] back the pay and benefits their union negotiated for them" would mean demanding a check from the union.
Another mythical friend Dmarks?
The result of the hard work and abuse endured by union people like myself helped raise the wages and benefits of union workers above that of non union Dmarks.
It was because of collective bargaining that I was able to get far better pay packages for my members than the non union workers.
In essence what you're saying is that your mythical friends don;t deserve the better wages and benefits union workers enjoy.
Why do you think workers should make less Dmarks?
"Another mythical friend Dmarks?"
No. The same real one. I refuse to lie and deny she exists.
The same one who was forced into a union without a vote and had her take-home pay reduced as a result. This is a bad thing, IMHO.
Why do you think workers should make less Truth?
Truth: if a person doesn't want to be in a union, let them get a job in a non union shop.
I strongly AGREE with this. Union membership has absolutely everything to do with a worker being assured they are treated fairly on the job and receive what they have coming to them.
Without a union employers keep more of the profit for themselves and the workers get the shaft.
dmarks: Why do you think workers should make less Truth?
That is an extremely odd question. Truth supports higher wages and increased benefits (as do I). It is you, dmarks, who is always ranting about workers making too much (and falsely claiming that greedy unions put companies out of business when they demand too high wages).
Why do YOU think workers should make less dmarks??
A fair wage can quite often be a higher wage. I favor merit pay for good teachers. The teachers union opposes this.
How can you accurately measure the performance of one teacher against another Dmarks. Unless you can figure out a way to make all students and parents equal.
I got the quotes from Thomas E. Woods's book, "Meltdown". But before you denigrate him for being a conservative, wd, let me just inform you that he is a Libertarian and not a Republican and that he eviscerates Mr. Bush completely. He also quotes FDR (a flip-flopper?) as criticizing Mr. Hoover for his thinking that we "ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."............And what it the hell is the matter with you, wd? John Myste and Heathen Republican are two of the nicest guys on the blogosphere and you can't even get along with them. Come on, dude.
And if I'm an armchair historian, then what in the hell are you, wd; the dust mite trying to weasel his way out from under the cushion? Anybody who's even cracked a history book knows that Herbert Hoover a) launched public works projects, b) raised taxes, c) extended emergency loans to failing firms (sound familiar?), d) crippled international trade, e) artificially propped up wages, and f) lent money to the states for relief programs. It's exactly like John Myste said, you have this almost comedic notion of one side being all bad and the other side being all good and you simply cannot break from it.
Will: And what it the hell is the matter with you, wd? John Myste and Heathen Republican are two of the nicest guys on the blogosphere and you can't even get along with them.
What the hell is the matter with you? I didn't respond to anything Heathen Republican said (not in this thread).
And what the hell is the matter with John Myste? He's the one insulting me with these bogus charges of "cognitive dissonance" (a subject of one of your past posts). He agrees with you quite often, yet CLAIMS he's a Liberal.
I'm beginning to think John Myste is as much a Liberal as you say you previously were.
Anyway, given the source of your quotes... I'm now skeptical of their truthfulness.
Truth: ...you think they are so benevolent and fair they will pay more unless they have to?
dmarks is either lying or delusional. Of course they won't pay more than they have to.
You're accusing Mr. Woods of lying?
Will: It's exactly like John Myste said, you have this almost comedic notion of one side being all bad and the other side being all good and you simply cannot break from it.
These charges of my worldview being "cartoon like", "black and white", like 70s wrestling, etc... are getting old. You're wrong. I don't care what you (or John Myste) think. *Yawn*.
Will: You're accusing Mr. Woods of lying?
Why and how could I do that? I've never heard of the individual or the book before today (although, I suppose admitting that is opening myself up to criticism).
But certainly he's spinning... and I wouldn't be surprised if he got some his facts wrong, or is twisting the truth a little.
And I wouldn't be surprised if you were totally full of shit.......As for Mr. Hoover, my mother lived through the depression and, even her, a lifelong Democrat, used to tell me that Herbert Hoover had always gotten a bad wrap, that a lot of what Mr. Roosevelt did Hoover was going to do anyway (and, yes, that's why a shitload of today's conservatives view Mr. Hoover so contemptuously).
Another source for the quotes; http://www.mackinac.org/4026
And this one from the Boston Globe (note that nonmilitary spending went up a whopping 259% under the Hoover years); http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/04/13/the_misuse_of_hoovers_name/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z.......Gee, what a surprise, the smarmy and self-righteous Mr. Matthews was wrong.
When they were handing out brains WD thought they said trains and said no thanks,I already have a set.
Truth asked: "How can you accurately measure the performance of one teacher against another Dmarks."
It's performance-based compensation. Hardly rocket science.
You're assuming all students, parents, facilities and support staff are equal Dmarks.
That's totally irrelevant. Some teachers excel, and deserve to be paid a lot more.
Performance-based pay is not rocket science. And it makes a lot more sense than a tenure-based system.
WD was correct Dmarks. You are an idiot if you think students, facilities and support staff are irrelevant to successful teaching.
Now if you have a real system to identify the best teachers and reward them, I'd love to see it.
Of course they are relevant. But not relevant to the issue of merit pay for teachers who excel.
So if a teacher has an easy time of it because he works in a district where the parents are wealthy and can afford to pay attention to the academic performance of their children... they should be rewarded?
But a teacher who works in a poor district where the student's parents work long hours and don't have the money to pay for tutors or after school programs... they should be punished? No matter how hard they work?
This is the problem with merit pay for teachers who "excel"... when you determine whether or not the teacher "excelled" based on the performance of the students. dmarks doesn't care because he has no problem punishing people (and their children) for being poor.
I'm not necessarily a proponent of merit pay, either, wd, but I believe that the comparisons would be made within systems/districts. The teachers from affluent Marblehead MA, for example, wouldn't be compared to the teachers from the north end of Boston.
And how 'bout that Chris Matthews, spouting something almost as idiotic as the crap that Bachmann and Palin mutter? It's like, what, he's never heard of the Hoover Dam, the fact that federal spending went up exponentially under Hoover, the fact that the dude rang up the biggest peace-time deficits in U.S. history (well, that is, until FDR came along), etc.? What a frigging dolt (glass houses or what?), huh?
FDR Campaign
Heathen, is that interesting?
Post a Comment