Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aqizzar]

Might also be related to the 25 least populous states being home to a sixth of the population (the most rural, conservative sixth) being represented by half of the Senate, while the nine states home to half the population get 18 Senators to balance them.

Working as intended!

Yes, I'm well aware, I took middle school civics as well.  You're welcome for being provided with a gag line to respond to, instead of mountain of evidence proving all of your economic theories wrong.  Don't bother responding to them, we know you don't believe in facts or anything, so you're perfectly excused.

[mainiac]

Yes, it's working exactly as the comprimise between low population states where the slaveowning aristocracy refused to ceed power and the populace states that actually became the basis for our nation.

[Nikov]

Spoiler: Federalist 62 and 63 (click to show/hide)

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate.

The heads into which this member of the Government may be considered are, I. The qualification of Senators; II. The appointment of them by the State Legislatures; III. The equality of representation in the Senate; IV. The number of Senators, and the term for which they are to be elected; V. The powers vested in the Senate.

I. The qualifications proposed for Senators, as distinguished from those of Representatives, consist in a more advanced age, and a longer period of citizenship. A Senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a Representative must be twenty-five. And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter. The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the Senatorial trust; which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires, at the same time, that the Senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the National Councils.

II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of Senators by the State Legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the Government, that which has been proposed by the Convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State Governments such an agency in the formation of the Fœderal Government, as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a People thoroughly incorporated into one Nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the Government; and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils; it does not appear to be without some reason, that in a compound republic, partaking both of the National and Fœderal character, the Government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." A common Government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A Government, founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed Government and a Government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be, to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.

In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.

Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the People, and, then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may, in some instances, be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defence which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our Governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice, than it appears to many in contemplation.

IV. The number of Senators, and the duration of their appointment, come next to be considered. In order to form an accurate judgment on both of these points, it will be proper to inquire into the purposes which are to be answered by a Senate; and in order to ascertain these, it will be necessary to review the inconveniences which a republic must suffer from the want of such an institution.

First. It is a misfortune incident to republican Government, though in a less degree than to other Governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a Senate, as a second branch of the Legislative Assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the Government. It doubles the security to the People, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient. This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it. I will barely remark, that as the improbability of sinister combinations will be in proportion to the dissimilarity in the genius of the two bodies, it must be politic to distinguish them from each other by every circumstance which will consist with a due harmony in all proper measures, and with the genuine principles of republican Government.

Secondly. The necessity of a Senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies, to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked, is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity, ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.

Thirdly. Another defect to be supplied by a Senate lies in a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation. It is not possible that an assembly of men called for the most part from pursuits of a private nature, continued in appointment for a short time, and led by no permanent motive to devote the intervals of public occupation to a study of the laws, the affairs, and the comprehensive interests of their country, should, if left wholly to themselves, escape a variety of important errors in the exercise of their legislative trust. It may be affirmed, on the best grounds, that no small share of the present embarrassments of America is to be charged on the blunders of our Governments; and that these have proceeded from the heads rather than the hearts of most of the authors of them. What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding, against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the People, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted Senate?

A good Government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of Government, which is the happiness of the People; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some Governments are deficient in both these qualities; most Governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert, that in American Governments too little attention has been paid to the last. The Fœderal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first.

Fourthly. The mutability in the public councils arising from a rapid succession of new members, however qualified they may be, points out, in the strongest manner, the necessity of some stable institution in the Government. Every new election in the States is found to change one half of the Representatives. From this change of men must proceed a change of opinions; and from a change of opinions, a change of measures. But a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence, and every prospect of success. The remark is verified in private life, and becomes more just, as well as more important, in National transactions.

To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable Government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others.

In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with National character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another, what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the People, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few, over the industrious and uninformed mass of the People. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things, in which it may be said, with some truth, that laws are made for the few, not for the many.

In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable Government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce, when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant Government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward, which requires the auspices of a steady system of National policy.

But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence, which steals into the hearts of the People, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No Government, any more than an individual, will long be respected, without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

PUBLIUS.

To the People of the State of New York:



A FIFTH desideratum, illustrating the utility of a Senate, is the want of a due sense of National character. Without a select and stable member of the Government, the esteem of foreign powers will not only be forfeited by an unenlightened and variable policy, proceeding from the causes already mentioned, but the National Councils will not possess that sensibility to the opinion of the world, which is perhaps not less necessary in order to merit, than it is to obtain its respect and confidence.

An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every Government, for two reasons: the one is, that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is, that in doubtful cases, particularly where the National Councils may be warped by some strong passion, or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations; and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind?

Yet however requisite a sense of National character may be, it is evident that it can never be sufficiently possessed by a numerous and changeable body. It can only be found in a number so small that a sensible degree of the praise and blame of public measures may be the portion of each individual; or in an assembly so durably invested with public trust, that the pride and consequence of its members may be sensibly incorporated with the reputation and prosperity of the community. The half-yearly Representatives of Rhode Island would probably have been little affected in their deliberations on the iniquitous measures of that State, by arguments drawn from the light in which such measures would be viewed by foreign nations, or even by the sister States; whilst it can scarcely be doubted, that if the concurrence of a select and stable body had been necessary, a regard to National character alone would have prevented the calamities under which that misguided People is now laboring.

I add, as a sixth defect, the want, in some important cases, of a due responsibility in the Government to the People, arising from that frequency of elections which in other cases produces this responsibility. This remark will, perhaps, appear not only new, but paradoxical. It must nevertheless be acknowledged, when explained, to be as undeniable as it is important.

Responsibility, in order to be reasonable, must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party; and in order to be effectual, must relate to operations of that power, of which a ready and proper judgment can be formed by the constituents. The objects of Government may be divided into two general classes: the one depending on measures which have singly an immediate and sensible operation; the other depending on a succession of well-chosen and well-connected measures, which have a gradual and perhaps unobserved operation. The importance of the latter description to the collective and permanent welfare of every country, needs no explanation. And yet it is evident, that an assembly elected for so short a term as to be unable to provide more than one or two links in a chain of measures, on which the general welfare may essentially depend, ought not to be answerable for the final result, any more than a steward or tenant, engaged for one year, could be justly made to answer for places or improvements which could not be accomplished in less than half a dozen years. Nor is it possible for the People to estimate the share of influence which their annual assemblies may respectively have on events resulting from the mixed transactions of several years. It is sufficiently difficult, to preserve a personal responsibility in the members of a numerous body, for such acts of the body as have an immediate, detached, and palpable operation on its constituents.

The proper remedy for this defect must be an additional body in the Legislative department, which having sufficient permanency to provide for such objects as require a continued attention, and a train of measures, may be justly and effectually answerable for the attainment of those objects.

Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the Representatives of the People. To a People as little blinded by prejudice, or corrupted by flattery, as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary, as a defence to the People against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all Governments, and actually will, in all free Governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers: so there are particular moments in public affairs, when the People, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the People against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the People of Athens have often escaped, if their Government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day, and statues on the next.

It may be suggested, that a People spread over an extensive region cannot, like the crowded inhabitants of a small district, be subject to the infection of violent passions, or to the danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures. I am far from denying that this is a distinction of peculiar importance. I have, on the contrary, endeavored in a former paper to show, that it is one of the principal recommendations of a confederated republic. At the same time, this advantage ought not to be considered as superseding the use of auxiliary precautions. It may even be remarked, that the same extended situation, which will exempt the People of America from some of the dangers incident to lesser republics, will expose them to the inconveniency of remaining for a longer time under the influence of those misrepresentations which the combined industry of interested men may succeed in distributing among them.

It adds no small weight to all these considerations, to recollect that history informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a Senate. Sparta, Rome, and Carthage are, in fact, the only States to whom that character can be applied. In each of the two first, there was a Senate for life. The constitution of the Senate in the last is less known. Circumstantial evidence makes it probable, that it was not different in this particular from the two others. It is at least certain, that it had some quality or other which rendered it an anchor against popular fluctuations; and that a smaller Council, drawn out of the Senate, was appointed not only for life, but filled up vacancies itself. These examples, though as unfit for the imitation, as they are repugnant to the genius of America, are, notwithstanding, when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty. I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular Governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other. But after allowing due weight to this consideration, it may still be maintained, that there are many points of similitude which render these examples not unworthy of our attention. Many of the defects, as we have seen, which can only be supplied by a Senatorial institution, are common to a numerous assembly frequently elected by the People, and to the People themselves. There are others peculiar to the former, which require the control of such an institution. The People can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the Representatives of the People; and the danger will be evidently greater, where the whole Legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public Act.

The difference most relied on, between the American and other republics, consists in the principle of representation; which is the pivot on which the former move, and which is supposed to have been unknown to the latter, or at least to the ancient part of them. The use which has been made of this difference, in reasonings contained in former papers, will have shown, that I am disposed neither to deny its existence, nor to undervalue its importance. I feel the less restraint, therefore, in observing, that the position concerning the ignorance of the ancient Governments on the subject of representation, is by no means precisely true in the latitude commonly given to it. Without entering into a disquisition which here would be misplaced, I will refer to a few known facts, in support of what I advance.

In the most pure democracies of Greece, many of the Executive functions were performed, not by the People themselves, but by officers elected by the People, and representing the People in their Executive capacity.

Prior to the reform of Solon, Athens was governed by nine Archons, annually elected by the People at large. The degree of power delegated to them, seems to be left in great obscurity. Subsequent to that period, we find an Assembly, first of four, and afterwards of six hundred members, annually elected by the People; and partially representing them in their Legislative capacity, since they were not only associated with the People in the function of making laws, but had the exclusive right of originating Legislative propositions to the People. The Senate of Carthage, also, whatever might be its power, or the duration of its appointment, appears to have been elective by the suffrages of the People. Similar instances might be traced in most, if not all the popular Governments of antiquity.

Lastly, in Sparta, we meet with the Ephori, and in Rome with the Tribunes; two bodies, small indeed in numbers, but annually elected by the whole body of the People, and considered as the Representatives of the People, almost in their plenipotentiary capacity. The Cosmi of Crete were also annually elected by the People; and have been considered by some authors as an institution analogous to those of Sparta and Rome, with this difference only, that in the election of that representative body the right of suffrage was communicated to a part only of the People.

From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients, nor wholly overlooked in their political Constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the People, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the Representatives of the People from the administration of the former. The distinction, however, thus qualified, must be admitted to leave a most advantageous superiority in favor of the United States. But to insure to this advantage its full effect, we must be careful not to separate it from the other advantage, of an extensive territory. For it cannot be believed, that any form of representative Government could have succeeded within the narrow limits occupied by the democracies of Greece.

In answer to all these arguments, suggested by reason, illustrated by examples, and enforced by our own experience, the jealous adversary of the Constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a Senate appointed not immediately by the People, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous preëminence in the Government, and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.

To this general answer, the general reply ought to be sufficient, that liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty, as well as by the abuses of power; that there are numerous instances of the former as well as of the latter; and that the former, rather than the latter, are apparently most to be apprehended by the United States. But a more particular reply may be given.

Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State Legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the People at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted, before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State Legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the opposition of that coequal branch of the Government would inevitably defeat the attempt; and without corrupting the People themselves, a succession of new Representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order. Is there any man who can seriously persuade himself, that the proposed Senate can, by any possible means within the compass of human address, arrive at the object of a lawless ambition, through all these obstructions?

If reason condemns the suspicion, the same sentence is pronounced by experience. The Constitution of Maryland furnishes the most apposite example. The Senate of that State is elected, as the Fœderal Senate will be, indirectly by the people, and for a term less by one year only than the Fœderal Senate. It is distinguished, also, by the remarkable prerogative of filling up its own vacancies within the term of its appointment; and at the same time, is not under the control of any such rotation as is provided for the Fœderal Senate. There are some other lesser distinctions, which would expose the former to colorable objections, that do not lie against the latter. If the Fœderal Senate, therefore, really contained the danger which has been so loudly proclaimed, some symptoms at least of a like danger ought by this time to have been betrayed by the Senate of Maryland; but no such symptoms have appeared. On the contrary, the jealousies at first entertained by men of the same description with those who view with terror the correspondent part of the Fœderal Constitution, have been gradually extinguished by the progress of the experiment; and the Maryland Constitution is daily deriving, from the salutary operation of this part of it, a reputation in which it will probably not be rivalled by that of any State in the Union.

But if anything could silence the jealousies on this subject, it ought to be the British example. The Senate there, instead of being elected for a term of six years, and of being unconfined to particular families or fortunes, is an hereditary Assembly of opulent nobles. The House of Representatives, instead of being elected for two years, and by the whole body of the People, is elected for seven years, and, in very great proportion, by a very small proportion of the People. Here, unquestionably, ought to be seen in full display the aristocratic usurpations and tyranny which are at some future period to be exemplified in the United States. Unfortunately, however, for the Anti-Fœderal argument, the British history informs us that this hereditary Assembly has not even been able to defend itself against the continual encroachments of the House of Representatives; and that it no sooner lost the support of the monarch, than it was actually crushed by the weight of the popular branch.

As far as antiquity can instruct us on this subject, its examples support the reasoning which we have employed. In Sparta, the Ephori, the annual Representatives of the People, were found an overmatch for the Senate for life; continually gained on its authority; and finally drew all power into their own hands. The Tribunes of Rome, who were the Representatives of the People, prevailed, it is well known, in almost every contest with the Senate for life, and in the end gained the most complete triumph over it. The fact is the more remarkable, as unanimity was required in every act of the Tribunes, even after their number was augmented to ten. It proves the irresistible force possessed by that branch of a free Government, which has the People on its side. To these examples might be added that of Carthage, whose Senate, according to the testimony of Polybius, instead of drawing all power into its vortex, had, at the commencement of the second Punic War, lost almost the whole of its original portion.

Besides the conclusive evidence resulting from this assemblage of facts, that the Fœderal Senate will never be able to transform itself, by gradual usurpations, into an independent and aristocratic body, we are warranted in believing, that if such a revolution should ever happen from causes which the foresight of man cannot guard against, the House of Representatives, with the People on their side, will at all times be able to bring back the Constitution to its primitive form and principles. Against the force of the immediate Representatives of the People, nothing will be able to maintain even the Constitutional authority of the Senate, but such a display of enlightened policy, and attachment to the public good, as will divide with that branch of the Legislature the affections and support of the entire body of the People themselves.

PUBLIUS.

[Criptfeind]

California and New York are both wonderfully liberal and hopelessly broke. As I've quoted before, socialism works so long as there's someone to pay for it.

Hmm... Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and plenty of other states are hopelessly broke.  Heck, pretty much all of them are.

See what the minimum wage did to your country? Repent!

YES! LET US GO BACK TO THE TIMES BEFORE MINIMUM WAGE! THE ECONOMY WAS MUCH BETTER IN THE 1930S ANYWAY!

I just found this funny.

[RedKing]

Dear New York: The Senate is there to save America from itself. And besides, history shows that Senates never get very powerful anyways. So you should totally let those dickwads in South Carolina have as much say you do, even if there's like five times as many of you. Love, J.M.

I grok a lot of Madison's arguments, but I see nowhere in there where he's saying that Senate representation should act as a mechanism of redistribution of wealth from the large states to the small states. I mean, the idea is downright SOCIALIST.

[Nikov]

Aw, but I thought you all loved that stuff. I was looking at California's budget, by the way. They could cut the entire transportation budget and still be red, so I hoped someone from the state might point out your error. Roads do not make states go broke. Subsidies make states go broke. And California is paying out the nose for education, building of all things half-billion dollar schools in LA. Trying to blame those darned red-staters and their evil Republican Senate majority is too absurd to dignify. I'm sorry Aqizzar, I will only respond in quips to statistical bovine diarrhea, but thanks for trying to butress a false position.

And finally, the least-discussed economic decade in every Roosevelt-worshipping history book.

There were several errors on the part of policy makers that plunged our economy into a deep depression. The inaction on behalf of President Hoover, New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Federal Reserve Board to curb over-speculation proved very unwise. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which President Hoover supported and signed into law helped to paralyze global commerce. The huge tax increases signed into law by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt retarded economic growth, ballooned the national debt, and sunk the nation deeper into the great depression. If Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt had moved to curb over-speculation and otherwise continued the economic policies of Harding and Coolidge, the nation may have been able to have avoided the great depression.

Ohshits! Run leftists! History's catching up!

[RedKing]

And finally, the least-discussed economic decade in every Roosevelt-worshipping history book.

There were several errors on the part of policy makers that plunged our economy into a deep depression. The inaction on behalf of President Hoover, New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Federal Reserve Board to curb over-speculation proved very unwise. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which President Hoover supported and signed into law helped to paralyze global commerce. The huge tax increases signed into law by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt retarded economic growth, ballooned the national debt, and sunk the nation deeper into the great depression. If Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt had moved to curb over-speculation and otherwise continued the economic policies of Harding and Coolidge, the nation may have been able to have avoided the great depression.

Ohshits! Run leftists! History's catching up!

SRSLY? Cherry-picking much? Care to find something in...y'know, an actual BOOK written by an actual HISTORIAN? F**k, what's next? backing up your arguments with discussion board posts from FreeRepublic?

The real golden part is that you apparently didn't even read it, because you got such a hard-on when it blamed Roosevelt for something.

A. Curbing over-speculation meant enacting financial regulation. Which conservatives hated and still hate.
B. Yes, Smoot-Hawley was a bad, bad idea. And it was a REPUBLICAN idea. Smoot and Hawley were both Republicans, it was passed by a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, and signed into law by a Republican President.

Ohshits, Nikov! Read your history before you try to weaponize it!

[Shades]

Ohshits, Nikov! Read your history before you try to weaponize it!

But where is the fun in using facts? It's much easier to keep repeating rhetoric until people start believing it.

[Phmcw]

Hello, I'd just like to point out that the most sucessful economy in the world is china, an old school communist country. And that America can afford his Stupidianism because china pay for it. Europe is goin the same way.

[Eugenitor]

building of all things half-billion dollar schools in LA.

The $578M thing isn't one school, it's a massive K-12 complex with 4,200 seats; $135,000/seat. If it was built with modern materials to last, it'll be around for the next hundred years at least; $1,350 seat/year. And it was built under a fucking municipal bond, which puts it rather outside the whole "California is broke" business. Furthermore, the spent money will go right back into the local economy, or at least someone's economy; this is Keynes 101. The only thing that worries me is graft and corruption.

Besides, are you really on a Dwarf Fortress forum bitching about megaprojects?

[Criptfeind]

Hello, I'd just like to point out that the most sucessful economy in the world is china, an old school communist country. And that America can afford his Stupidianism because china pay for it. Europe is goin the same way.

You mean the country that was failing really really hard until it had capitalist reforms?

[Zrk2]

But China is not actually communist. It kept the authoritarian dictatorship parts and then let corporations come in and rape its' work force, leading to a massive economy.

[Aqizzar]

I'm sorry Aqizzar, I will only respond in quips to statistical bovine diarrhea, but thanks for trying to butress a false position.

Sources confirmed that Nikov does not trust in the last three days - U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Congressional Office of Management and Budget (on issues not related to repealing Social Security).

Look man, I get the whole "federal government is always the problem" platform as a self-consistent theory, but really, whose numbers do you believe on the federal government's own spending?

[ToonyMan]

Aqizzar is the Buttress.

It is him.

Wait holy crap that's a real thing.

[Phmcw]

Well, it work now, and is a tad bit more socialist than what Nikov seems to find crippling for the economy.
I am not exactly a fan of china, but I'm a tad bit amused to hear that state dirigism is inefficient  economically when the best economy in the world is "communist".
Also raping one's own workforce is pretty much the standard in "old school communism"