Dilorenzo chastises even more so the D's and FDR's " new
deal ". His article means little because it is all hindsight. MJ &
DiLorenzo need to smell today's coffee and realize that the multi-
trillion dollar give away by the D's will surpass all government
interventions or corruptions all done at lightning speed so as to keep
from the public what is really going on. As an economist he should be
commenting on the plundering and stealing going on in DC. today . The
Obama administration ( the D's ) will spend over ten trillion dollars
plus in the next eight years taking from the middle class and "the
rich" and redistributing the wealth Robin Hood style.
This fast track stealing is more money than all spending in the
history of our country. MJ's posting of this article is typical Saul
Alinsky tactic. Watch what my left hand is doing so people can't see
what the right hand is doing. In this case the D's are plundering &
stealing at a volume and rate so great that all of past histories
doings will have little or no meaning to our future & the future of
our children.
Sorry MJ! I'm not buying your curve ball. Nice try
though! Now you and the D's can go and print more
money were running low !!!!!!!!!!!!!
********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
On Jun 27, 10:06 am, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Keith in Tampa
> During the last fifty years, the Republican Party
> has in general, been the political party of, and
> home to those Americans who believe in traditional
> <snip>
> First and foremost, is "Less Government; and Less
> Government Intrusion Into Each And Every
> American's Life". Yes, Jack, the economy is important,
> but government has no place in trying to manipulate our
> economy. The federal government's stewardship and
> <snip>
> MJ
> Yep that is how the Rs TALK and CAMPAIGN. A pity they
> demonstrate zero interest in 'ruling' that way.
> Regard$,
> --MJThe Origins of the GOPby Thomas J. DiLorenzoSome very silly books have
> been written about the history of the Republican Party (and the Democrat
> Party). They tend to read like The Story of Moses, with Christ-like figures
> overcoming tremendous roadblocks to achieve greatness and sanctify not only
> themselves, but the entire nation. They are usually written by political
> hacks and funded rather surreptitiously by various business and other
> special-interest groups that are associated with the Party. Such books, of
> course, are pure baloney: "GOP" should really stand for
> "GangOfPlunderers."The Party of PlunderAs soon as the newly-created GOP
> gained enough power in the late 1850s, the first thing it did was to get the
> U.S. House of Representatives to pass the protectionist Morrill Tariff during
> the 1859–60 session, before Lincoln’s election and before any southern state
> had seceded. The Party then vigorously defended southern slavery. Two days
> before Lincoln’s inauguration, after the seven states of the lower South had
> seceded and taken their fourteen senators with them, the
> Republican-controlled U.S. Senate passed a constitutional amendment (that had
> already passed the House) that would have forbidden the federal government
> from ever interfering with southern slavery. Two days later, Lincoln would
> pledge his support for this amendment in his first inaugural address, saying
> he preferred that the defense of slavery in the Constitution be made "express
> and irrevocable." He also promised in that same address a federal invasion of
> any state that failed to collect the newly-doubled U.S. tariff rate.
> The GOP opposed theextensionof slavery to the new territories, not southern
> slavery, and it did so for the basest of reasons. Reason number one was the
> desire to keep all blacks – slave or free – from the territories, which the
> Party wanted to be an all-white preserve. To the GOP "free soil" meant soil
> that was free of black people, not freedom per se. That’s why states like
> Illinois, "Land of Lincoln," had previously amended their constitutions to
> make it illegal for black people to move into them. The few blacks who did
> reside in these areas had virtually no citizenship rights and were grossly
> discriminated against in all aspects of their lives.
> The second reason for opposing the extension of slavery to the new
> territories was to limit congressional representation of the Democratic
> Party, which would have been increased due to the Three-Fifths Clause of the
> U.S. Constitution, which allowed for every five slaves to be counted as three
> persons for purposes of determining the number of congressional
> representatives in each state. Thus, pork-barrel politics and white supremacy
> were the reasons the "Grand Old Party" gave for opposing the extension of
> slavery in 1860.
> As for politics, the purpose of the GOP’s quest for political domination was
> so that it could finally adopt the old mercantilist economic agenda of the
> Whigs, who were mostly transformed into Republicans when the Whig Party fell
> apart in the early 1850s. Once the south seceded, and the Southern Democrats
> left Congress, the GOP immediately pushed through the entire Whig economic
> agenda.Lincoln’s "New Deal"Incapable of ever doing anything but praising the
> early GOP, most contemporary historians, who are largely ignorant of
> economics, praise this "achievement" to the treetops. A good example of this
> appears in the October 2004 issue ofThe Smithsonianmagazine, in an essay by
> Lincoln biographer David Donald entitled "1860: The Road Not Taken." The
> essay is part of a "what if" symposium that poses the question of what
> America would look like had the outcomes of the presidential elections of
> 1860, 1912, 1932, and 1980 been different.
> Donald zeroes in on the Lincoln administration’s "social legislation." Had
> Lincoln not been elected, the Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer writes, a
> sizeable Democratic minority in CongressWould have blocked the important
> economic and social legislation enacted by the Republicans during the Civil
> War. Thus, there would likely have been no high tariff laws that protected
> the iron industry, so essential in postwar economic development, no Homestead
> Act giving 160 acres to settlers willing to occupy and till land out West, no
> transcontinental railroad legislation, no land-grant colleges, no national
> currency or national banking system, no Department of Agriculture to offer
> expert guidance on better seeds and improved tillage. Without such
> legislation, the economic takeoff that made the United States a major
> industrial power by the end of the century would have been prevented . .
> .Like most Lincoln scholars who comment on economic issues, Donald is mostly
> ignorant of the subject he is speaking of. Protectionist tariffs made the
> U.S. steel industry lazy and inefficient by isolating it from the rigors of
> international competition. Consequently, it became a perpetual whiner and
> complainer about the "unfairness" of competition – the spoiled brat of the
> American economy. For decades, it has lobbied for protectionism that has
> plundered the American consumer, made the industry even lazier and more
> inefficient, allowing it to pander to its unions and their grossly
> inefficient featherbedding rules, and generally made it far less competitive
> that it would have been under a free trade regime. Despite a century of
> "protection," the steel industry has all but disappeared from my home state
> of Pennsylvania, for example.
> Furthermore, the higher steel prices caused by protectionist tariffs have
> always been harmful to American steel-using industries, which includes
> virtually all of American manufacturing. Thus, GOP protectionism was a
> serious drag on American industrial success during the late nineteenth
> century, contrary to Donald’s assertions. American industry grew despite
> these foolish and counterproductive policies, not because of them.
> Late nineteenth-century tariff protection was especially harmful to American
> agriculture. American farmers have always sold a large portion of their
> output on foreign markets. Tariffs that reduce the volume of international
> trade end up reducing the amount of money that our foreign trading partners
> have with which to purchase American goods, especially American agricultural
> output. That’s why the farmers of the Midwest were vociferous proponents of
> free trade during the late nineteenth century. GOP protectionism did far more
> harm to American farmers than any conceivable good that David Donald’s
> beloved U.S. Department of Agriculture bureaucracy could ever have done. Not
> to mention the fact that our trading partners often retaliated with
> protectionist policies of their own that blocked the sale of American goods
> in their countries.
> As for the Homestead Act, the majority of the land given away under the Act,
> as historian Ludwell Johnson has shown, went to timber and mining companies,
> most assuredly in return for political campaign contributions from those same
> companies. And the giving away of the land, as opposed to selling it, was a
> political impetus to keep tariff rates high – and economically destructive –
> during this pre-income tax era when the majority of federal revenues came
> from the tariff.
> The government-subsidized transcontinental railroads were arguably the worst
> examples in all of American history of the corruption and inefficiency that
> is always associated with government "public works" projects (See Burton
> Folsom,The Myth of the Robber Barons). They resulted in the Credit Mobilier
> scandal of the Grant administration, and fueled the arguments of the
> "progressive movement" to have government regulate and control American
> business. By contrast, James J. Hill built his highly successful
> transcontinental railroad, the Great Northern, without a dime of government
> subsidy.
> Land-grant colleges opened the door to the politicization of higher education
> that plagues virtually every American college and university today, and is
> the inevitable result of the politicization of education. The Department of
> Agriculture was never necessary to educate farmers about the latest seeds;
> the free market can handle such tasks much more efficiently. Instead, the
> Department of Agriculture has always been, first and foremost, an enforcer of
> the agricultural cartel operated by federal politicians on behalf of a very
> important political bloc, farmers. It is the U.S.D.A. that paid farmers for
> not raising crops and livestock during the Great Depression, when thousands
> were starving or suffering from malnutrition. Its programs of paying farmers
> for not farming have always been simply ...
>
> read more »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
