I don't think there's any grand conspiracy of that type any more than that there's a grand conspiracy of Obama wanting an Islamic theocracy (and while I do not beleive it, I could list the quotes to support the theory).

The guns talk I understand completely. We have discussed the second amendment here before and i realize that there is a wide variance of opinions on it.

The God talk....I can't say that it makes me uncomforrtable, but I don't understnad why it is such a huge part of the movement. There is really no threat by most of what is viewed by these as immoral, and I wish we could have a live and let live society. I don't really claim to have a handle on the religious aspect of what is going on with Palin and the crowds that gather.

And what's your handle on wanting a smaller government when 22 million Americans are out of work?

Well....I'm not sure how having a bigger government helps in that.

Business reports I have read are saying that businesses have cash on hand and the capability to hire, but they are afraid because of new mandates - include Obamacare - that raise the overall cost of employment. The private sector is being overly cautious because they are afraid of growing government and higher taxes.

If you are referring to benefits for the unemployed....those have already been extended to a more than generous 99 weeks.

Oh bullsh!t. How about the business sector is being over cautious because no one can afford to pay for goods and services?

Businesses are there to make money. They are not afraid to hire because they don't know exactly how much money they'll make; they're afraid to hire because there's no money to hire people when no one's buying your goods or services.


Tell ya what, why don't you look at how the U.S. got out of this situation the last time this percentage of the population was unemployed ... and whether it was the private sector or the federal government that turned that around?

We already went to war, it hasn't helped. Unless it has to specifically be a war against Germany and Japan. I'd be in favor but it doesn't seem to be on the roadmap at the moment.

And if the New Deal is going to get credit for ending the Depression rather than just preventing it from deepening even further then we've got another five or six years before we can really start questioning whether the actions taken so far were adequate.

Well, lets look at just that - presuming you are referring to the depression....

My favorite economist, among others I could link to but won't bother, dispute the commonly held view on government spending and the effects on great depression. A quote from the first paragraph of the link above, being itself a quote from FDR's treasury secretary -

We can debate the point ad infinitum, and I'm certain we could all link to economists supporting out particular point of view. My point is simply that it is certainly not uniform agreement.

As far as cash on hand....I attempted to find links to what I alluded to in the above, and in the 2 minutes I spent could not, so I will withdraw that for now.

The effects of the Obama stimulus packages have done.....nothing. Perhaps even made it worse. When he was pushing hard to get it passed, though he and his administration have now admitted (they kind of had to) that their predictions were wrong, he said if it was passed unemployment would peak at below 8% (a projection, certainly - it was not a promise). He was off by a factor of 25%. He gets away with saying that it would have been worse, but that's certainly not provable.

So, no....I do not believe bigger government is the answer to coming out of economic difficulties. In fact, I believe it has made it worse.

For the record, in neither case (Great Depression or the latest crisis) did the government spend anywhere close to the amount of money that the economic theory of government stimulus truly calls for to solve the problem (though most calculations estimate that WWII made up that gap almost exactly), so that particular theory has never really been tested.

I grok Cynthia's various statements. Reagan's election affirmed to her that people are sheep; horrific events can happen because sheeple don't often have the foresight that could prevent the things from happening (or go along with them when they do.)

They're out there (I'm leaving for a weekend in Santa Barbara in five minutes so I don't have time to track them down) but you can find other research as well that shows that such large scale uncertainty really doesn't seem to have much impact on business decisions.

I don't necessarily believe that bigger government is the answer to all economic issues, however, small government is not politically viable when people are out of work. It is not politically acceptable for either party to just say "Well, there was a bubble and the economy was about 10% bigger than it was so we'll just have to sit back while it deflates but to where it should have been and then it'll start growing organically then. Yes, it sucks that unemployment will be 10-13% during that period but it really is the best way to let the economy get back on track for consistent long term growth."

And there are many economists who would disagree with yours.