Conservatives Were Lucky

A few months ago on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," regular guest Jon Meacham, a respected author and editor, commented that "conservatives have won the argument" about cutting the budget, but while I have tremendous respect for Meacham, I must disagree, or at least "clarify," on his point, although it "appears" (or "appeared" at the time he made the statement) that conservatives have (had) won that argument. First, the conservatives, or more specifically the Republicans, were politically lucky that the economy took the dive it did in the waning months of the Bush administration. The worst political case for the Republicans was for them to win the 2008 election, especially with John McCain, a man many conservative true believers have detested for years, and still do. With polls still showing a majority of Americans, including about half of Republicans, hold George W. Bush responsible for the severe economic downturn, if Republicans had held the presidency and the Senate, I can't imagine it would have meant anything but a virtual obliteration of the Republican Party.* The policy of just letting things collapse until they could collapse no further would have been a recipe for their own destruction, if they dared to continue such policies. And some of the true believers would undoubtedly have continued to push such policies. Remember during the Gulf oil spill as the coast, the tourist industry and the seafood industry were devastated and disrupted, one Republican congressman publicly apologized to BP! Don't think the true believers ever "get it," they don't.

Huge deficits run during Bush's terms were forgotten by the conservatives, and even the nearly one and a half TRILLION dollar deficit inherited by Obama from Bush was then used AGAINST Obama.** As the economy began to right, the deficits also began to decline, although slowly. When deficit reduction was discussed, Republicans refused to consider any tax hikes to help lower the deficit. With responsible economists across the political spectrum saying that there needed to be some mixture of spending cuts and tax hikes, Republicans sat on their hands, refusing to raise taxes on the so called "job creators;" that is, the ultra rich, none of whom (see Word History, below) would have noticed the extra tax money missing from their monthly statements.***

When Obama defeated McCain, I have to believe some conservatives heaved a sigh of relief, as they then did not have to face the brunt of the economic plunge, nor its aftereffects. Instead they worked up a message that never mentioned any conservative involvement in the unfolding disaster. They quickly pivoted to place blame for the situation on the new President and Democrats. Although that message has not been totally successful, it did shore up the Republican/conservative base. When a couple of Republicans strayed from the ranch, they were lambasted for not standing firm with other Republicans.**** In the early going, the President correctly reached out to Republicans, even adding tax cuts to the actual stimulus plan to garner GOP votes, but it was virtually for naught, as Republicans, once so in favor of tax cuts, declared the cuts were not enough, and that they did not favor spending money directly to thwart the downward slide. Then a few months later, rightly or wrongly, President Obama gave the Republicans and conservatives a shot in the arm they could never have administered to themselves, health care. For about a year a titanic struggle played out day after day in front of an often disconnected American public, who thought the President had come to office to fix the economy. Some Republicans who had previously favored an "insurance mandate," quickly changed positions once Obama embraced their own basic plan. ***** Eventually the President won, but the cost was high, and his popularity has never totally recovered. Gleeful Republicans, then having been allowed to get back up off the floor, mounted an all out attack in the midterm elections, maiming Democrats across the country, and taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

So my point is, did conservatives win the argument? I say we don't really know, because they didn't have to face the music of the worst part of the economic downturn, and the economy still hasn't healed from the devastating blows it took. In other countries where cut backs have been put in place, economic growth has been slowing, and in fact this slowing could have a serious impact on our own economy. Some conservative governments in these countries have either been voted out (France), or have taken major hits in recent elections (Germany). To me, the verdict is still out, although most Democrats and most progressives agree that the deficit must be brought down, albeit gradually, something many have been saying independently from Republican demands of more immediate reductions.******

* Don't cheer too loudly Democrats. Some other party would have replaced it, or it would have survived on life-support, as there is always a counterbalance that eventually comes into play. And that is not a bad thing, although I can hear the names I'm being called for writing that.

** To be fair, the initial inherited deficit was increased slightly by certain stimulus spending, added after Obama took office, but the main deficit had been passed to him by the previous administration. The stimulus bill passed by Congress and signed by the President had spending spread over a couple of years, not concentrated in one year. Further, with the economy in headlong retreat, shrinking revenues only made things worse. I told you conservatives were lucky not to have won the 2008 election.

*** The "Bush tax cuts," as they have come to be called, cut taxes substantially on incomes in the top 2 to 2.5 %. The "bottom" of that bracket involves incomes of about $250,000 per year. While most of us would love to earn that much, that amount in itself doesn't necessarily make one wealthy. Myself, I did NOT support raising taxes on this income group. A debate raged at the time within Democratic circles over the income level higher taxes should start. Some suggested $500,000, others suggested one million dollars, something I DID support and still do! While much fuss was made by both sides, the taxes on upper incomes would have only increased about 3 1/2%, although you'd have thought from Republican rhetoric that Democrats were out to confiscate upwards of 100% from millionaires and billionaires.

**** Beleaguered and battered Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector even switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

***** The basic idea was that if everyone, or virtually everyone, was going to be covered by a national plan, then everyone would have to purchase insurance. Insurance is based upon a "pool" of insured; that is, paying customers. In spite of the largely successful Republican rhetoric about "a government take over of health care," Obama supported free market insurance companies to insure Americans. Yes, the government would require people with preexisting conditions be covered, but it would also require that people buy insurance (or have company offered insurance), with extensive subsidies provided to lower and middle income people to help with the purchase of such insurance. The conservative policy group, the Heritage Foundation, was one of those conservative groups IN FAVOR of such a basic plan just a few years ago; in fact, I believe they PROPOSED IT. Other supporters of this approach were none other than Mitt Romney when he helped get statewide insurance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, and Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House. The idea is, if everyone is insured, including people with preexisting conditions, the "pool" has to be large enough to cover those people. This is just for example, but let's say you work for a company with 100 employees and you have hornswoggle of the big toe. Don't ask me what that is, I may tell you. The insurance company may not want to cover you, as you are higher risk, or let's say they agree to cover you for like $20,000 a year (ah, like I said, they don't want to cover you). If they can get the other 99 employees (let's say they are basically healthy) to buy insurance, they can lower the cost to you and the others to something much more reasonable, as the risk has been spread out.

****** Generally polls have shown deficit reduction much further down the agenda of most Americans. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but it does not support the notion that conservatives have won the deficit argument.

WORD HISTORY:
Who/Whom-This common pronoun goes back to Indo European "qwos/qwes," with several related meanings, but basically "who." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "(k)hwas/(k)waz," again with several related meanings, one of which was "who." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hwa," which later became modern English "who," and the "wh" was pronounced, but has obviously since been lost, but that's the reason for the modern spelling. "Whom" is the dative form of "who;" that is, for the object of a sentence or phrase, but its usage has slowly been in decline, as to many English speaking people, perhaps more so Americans, using "whom" seems a bit "high-style," or awkward; so we tend to say, "Who did I gave the book to?" Not the technically correct "To whom did I give the book?" Anyway, "whom" in Old English was "hwam." Various forms are common in the other Germanic languages, but as I noted in the Old Germanic (and Indo European) word, the basic word had several meanings (like "how" and "that" and others) which have come down to modern times in various forms in the Germanic languages. Standard German has three forms, not counting the genitive (possessive) form (I've mentioned before that German retains much of the complex Germanic grammar of old that was gradually simplified by its cousin, English): "wer," "wen" (accusative form), "wem" (dative form); Low German also has "wer" and "wem," and some dialects have "wäm" for "whom;" West Frisian has "wa;" Dutch has "wie;" Norwegian has "hvem;" Icelandic has "hver;" Danish has "hvo" and "hvem,"and Swedish has "vem."

The Sequester Pinches An "Essential" Service

First published in March 2013


Both political parties, or factions within those two parties, often make dire predictions of what will happen if the other side gets its way. Recently it's been the Obama administration and Democrats telling the public that the country might just dry up and blow away if the so called "sequester" went into effect, although previously Republicans predicted the whole thing would be terrible, mainly because of defense cuts. The reality of the situation then saw the Democrats back away from the terrible predictions they had been foretelling. There will be consequences due to the sequester, but unless you're one of the people apt to lose your job quickly or have your hours trimmed, there won't be excruciating pain for most Americans, at least not right away, and maybe never. Just as tax cuts and stimulus programs take time to have a positive effect, cuts take time to have a negative effect. What effect the 85 billion in cuts will have on the economy remains to be seen, and it may take a couple of months or so before we have some inkling of an answer. Presently, the most visible sign of the cuts is the halt to White House tours, a plan that has drawn the ire of some Republicans. You know the Republicans, right? They're the party that seems to want government to go away, except to fight wars. Government can't regulate Wall Street, can't protect consumers from predatory banks and credit card companies, can't help uninsured Americans with health care, can't tax the wealthy, can't regulate pollution, and a number of other cant's. Well now they're saying those "cant's" are superseded by another "can't;" that is, the government "can't" stop giving tours of the White House, obviously a life or death program, seemingly right up there with fighting wars.

After their defeat in the 2008 election, the GOP opposed President Obama at every step on the economy, predicting dire consequences if he/we didn't do what they recommended, which was what they had been recommending and practicing since Ronald Reagan took office in 1981; that is, tax cuts, especially for the "sit on their ass class," I mean, "the job creators," as they have terrible concerns for the plight of millionaires and billionaires, and they seek to help them pile millions on top of more millions on top of billions, including by blatant attempts to destroy America's unions. You know unions, don't you? They schemed to market securities backed by bad mortgages, mortgages they knew to be bad, sending the world into a financial crisis. Oh ... wait a second. That wasn't unions, was it? Well, but then of course there are those damned poor people. Can't they just go away? Wealthy people wouldn't have to listen to all this stuff about the income gap and inequality. Now there's a new Pope known for being an advocate for the poor. Look out Donald Trump, you might have to pay a little more in taxes if this Pope starts to speak out for more equality. No wonder Trump can't get his hair done right, he's overwhelmed with taxes. The Pope should be saying, "Be a Christian and help a millionaire."   

The Republicans of the 1960s were nowhere near as vicious as those of today, but some then too vehemently opposed the implementation of Medicare for America's seniors, just as some opposed the passage of Social Security in the 1930s, another program that has just bugged the absolute hell out them. The problem for them and their big business, egomaniac allies has been, the public, including many Republican voters, came to embrace these two programs wholeheartedly. Still, today's hardcore Republican opponents of these programs haven't given up on destroying things they can't get their hands on. On top of everything else, now no White House tours. The country is in dire peril!    

WORD HISTORY:
Can-This is the verb meaning "to be able to do something, to know how to do something, have the knowledge to do." My guess is, most English speakers are unaware that "can" is closely related to "know." It goes back to Indo European "gnoh," which had the notion of "to have knowledge." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "kunnanan," with the same general meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon), "cunnan," which later became "connen," with the first and third person singular present being "can." The infinitive form then changed to the shorter "can." Common throughout the other Germanic languages: German and Low German Saxon have "können" (1st & 3rd person singular present tense "kann"); Dutch has "kunnen/kan;" West Frisian has "kinne," Icelandic has "kunna/kann," Danish has "kunne/kan," Norwegian has "kunne/kan," and Swedish has "kunna/kan." 

Erased Wealth For Some, Gains For Guess Who?

Federal Reserve data released earlier this month showed a huge drop in the net worth of American families; a drop of 39% from 2007 to 2010. This only tells us "the Great Recession" was "greater" than many at first realized. The interesting part of this is, middle class families took much of the blow from those three years of  "the Great Recession.." While middle class people and the poor took a beating, the wealth of one segment of American society actually rose somewhat. I'll bet you'd never guess it was the wealthiest families in America. So you've been losing ground while they've been gaining ground amid the worst times since the 1930s and the Great Depression. Still want to give them more tax cuts? Better think about all of this folks, as it would amount to another transfer of wealth from YOU to people who DO NOT need it! This is NOT a tough one! 

WORD HISTORY:
Wether- This is NOT a misspelling.  I came across this word quite by accident, which then prompted me to check into it. To my recollection, I had never heard of it (keep reading). It certainly is not common in the U.S., but perhaps it is still used in England? Or by people involved with animals, especially with sheep? Anyway let's broaden our language knowledge at bit. The word now means "a male sheep (ram) or goat, usually one that has been castrated." Originally it meant "an animal (usually a lamb) of one year or less." It goes back to the Indo European root "wet," which meant "year." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wethruz" or "wethraz." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) wether "male sheep, ram." Above, I mentioned that I didn't recall ever hearing of the term, but during my research on the word, I found that it is the second part of "bellwether," a term still much in use, usually as to "leader in trends" or regarding election results. The original meaning of "bellwether" was "a male sheep or goat with a bell around its neck, which led the rest of the herd." German has "Widder," with similar meaning to its English cousin. Apparently the word has died out, or is of very limited use, in other Germanic languages, as for instance, both English and Dutch now use "ram" in common speech.

Capitalism & Long Term, Broad-based Prosperity, Part One

Can capitalism create broad-based prosperity for a long period of time? Progressives have argued that capitalism can only sustain full employment and reasonable wages (and benefits) during times of major war, when large parts of the working population serves in the military, leaving job openings to the civilian population. The scarcity of labor then drives up wages (and potentially benefits), as businesses try to attract and keep workers. When I was much younger, this was one of the big economic arguments between both sides of the political spectrum, as the political feelings of the Vietnam War and the Cold War also stirred debate about economics, particularly capitalism.

When I studied economics in college, the term often used to describe the American economy of those times was "mixed." Our economy was basically "free enterprise" (I don't hear that term used as much anymore); that is, privately owned businesses, but with government regulations (federal, state or local) of certain business activities or practices* and with government programs, such as Social Security, income or medical assistance for certain elements of the population, usually elderly, although not necessarily poor, or for low income people, financed by special taxes or.by taxes paid into the general fund, which gave the American economy a socialist element (in the sense of 'shared responsibility in caring for others'). Laws and programs put in place during the Great Depression, and then during World War Two, and the expansion of American labor unions, helped smooth out the high level of income disparity prevalent before the Great Depression. Disparity remained relatively contained until the late 1970s, and it has only grown since that time, with huge increases in inequality since the late 1980s.

In Part Two I will have some data for various years.

* Just for example, "child labor laws" prohibited children being exploit...ah, I mean being employed by business. Minimum wage laws are self-explanatory, and overtime laws gave employees the right to higher wages after working so many hours, usually 40 hours per week. Banking laws kept traditional banking, like checking/savings accounts and home/auto loans, separate from riskier investment banking, like investing money in the stock market.

WORD HISTORY:
Long- This is the adjective meaning "measurement distance of a physical object or a duration of time." It is sometimes also used as an adverb. The word goes back to Indo European "dlonghos," which meant "long." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "lang(g)az," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "lang" and "long," depending upon dialect, and it was quite some time before the spelling "long" won out. Very common in the other Germanic languages: German, Low German, Frisian, and Dutch all have "lang," pronounced similarly to "long", although some Low German dialect has "lank," with the harder ending sound. Norwegian and Danish also have "lang," Swedish has "lång," and Icelandic has "langur."

We Can't Compare Now to 2007

Just a little spiel about the economy: the economic crisis and virtual collapse that occurred in the early fall of 2008 actually started out as a downturn in late 2007.^ Escalating housing prices, called a "bubble," as well as escalating stock prices, ah... called a "bubble," escalating oil prices, ah... called a "bubble," escalating personal debt of all types, and escalating government debt at all levels, which helped "cover up" the true weakness in the American economy, all contributed to an economy ripe for a major collapse. While unemployment was relatively low, many workers were struggling to meet obligations, as debt and low or stagnant wages put a crimp in the pocketbooks of many Americans, although not the wealthiest among us, who continued to reap the rewards of all of the above named problems, as they continued to "rape" the rest of us.

With the collapse of a couple of big banks and the teetering on the brink of collapse by others, the "bubbles" burst, and the economy and the stock market took a downward plunge, as unemployment went in the opposite direction, an upward spiral. The administration of President George W. Bush, previously devoted to "free markets," suddenly, but CORRECTLY, saw the need for GOVERNMENT ACTION. Thus began a period, which continued and escalated in the Obama administration, of action by the federal government to halt and stabilize the economy.^^

Now in the spring of 2012, we are better off, but problems remain, as we are tied more than ever to outside influences. History shows us that the effects of such dramatic downturns linger for years, and this downturn has been no exception. The reasons are really common sense. People defaulted on all sorts of loans, including millions of mortgages, and the use of credit actually shrank, sometimes by consumer choice, sometimes because terrified credit providers would not grant credit. Unemployment has declined, but it is still relatively high, and it may well remain that way for a while, even if economic matters continue to improve. One of the key problems worldwide will be how to reduce government debt and wean the world economy off of deficit spending by governments. The wheels could come off again, if some nations are unable to deal with their debts in a responsible way. American deficits have been declining, but they are still high. No one person or group of people have the answer to these problems, and don't believe anyone who says they can snap their fingers and all will be well. There are many irresponsible people who want to do away with the minimum wage, cut wages and benefits for workers, pretty much outlaw unions, etc, etc. If you notice, these are things about non-wealthy people. As soon as someone mentions tax hikes on wealthy people, these same people go ballistic, claiming the economy can't take any tax hikes. Folks, many of the wealthiest Americans have been doing better in the last couple of years than EVER, and this has been in a slow to moderate economic recovery. The idea that the rest of us can give up things, and that doesn't hurt the economy, but that a few hundred thousand dollars in taxes on people making millions will somehow bring the economy to a standstill is NONSENSE. We heard all of this before, and not all that long ago, in the early part of the Clinton administration, which proposed higher taxes on the well off. The doomsayers and protectors of great wealth told us the end was near, but the economy did the exact opposite, it BOOMED! Don't be fooled.

And another thing, we can't compare the economy of 2007/2008 with the economy in 2012, unless we're all ready to go on another credit binge. HOPEFULLY, many people have learned some lessons, so don't be fooled by those who say, "but in 2007," or "in 2008." Do you want to revisit that perilous time? Further, the devastating earthquake in Japan and the Gulf oil spill hurt the American economy at a time it was seemingly on the mend. Debt problems in certain European countries have made world financial markets jittery, as has a slowdown in China's economy, so continued progress for the American economy is far from certain.

^ The Great Depression started as a downturn in the early summer of 1929, but it didn't begin to turn into a rout until October of that year. For more on the Great Depression, see my series on the subject beginning with: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/08/great-depression-part-one.html

^^ There were similar actions taken in other countries, as the economic collapse was not just in America, but worldwide.

WORD HISTORY:
But-This little and very common word is actually from a compound, "be," not the modern word, rather what became modern "by," and "utana," a Germanic relative of "out," which meant "out, outside." I covered "by" elsewhere, http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/10/german-military-leadersnazi-erajodl.html . "Utana" traces back to the Indo European root "ud/ut." West Germanic* had the compound word "bitana," which meant "by the outside, at the outside." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "butan," which meant "outside of;" thus also, "besides, except." It wasn't until the 1200s that the word gained more popular usage as a conjunction, as it previously was purely adverbial. Later the word became "boute(n)/buten," before the modern version. Low German Saxon and Frisian have "buten," which still means "outside;" Dutch has "buiten," with the basic meaning "outside," although also with the meaning "but," in certain circumstances. High German once had a form, BUT it died out before the modern era.

* Germanic has three branches: North, East and West. English is West Germanic, and therefore its closest Germanic relatives are German, Low German, Frisian, Dutch, and Afrikaans.

Paying The Piper-Part Seven-Income Gap Biggest Ever

The U.S. Census Bureau yesterday (9/28) released the latest information on incomes in the U.S. It shows more disturbing trends, as the rich continue to rake it in, and the poorest Americans continue to fall behind even further. Those in the middle also dropped. Here are the basics of the latest info. If interested in more info, you can always go to http://www.census.gov/ (under income topics):

The top 20% of earners, those making at least $100,000 (and don't forget, those in the top one and a half percent make like a million or more) took in almost half of all income earned. On the other hand, the bottom 20% took in less than 3 and a half percent of all income. Those in the middle seem to have slipped a bit.

I really have no problem with people who make a hundred grand, or two hundred grand. Good for them! Of course, it DOES matter how they made it, but that's another subject. Okay Republicans, you should know what's coming.... We have Republicans in Congress pushing to extend tax cuts for the very top earners in the country. Those cuts were initially presented by and signed into law by President George W. Bush in two installments: 2001 & 2003 (and passed by Congress). Personally, I believe it would be far better if we had another one or two income tax brackets for higher incomes, rather than lumping everyone together who makes 200 grand (individuals) or 250 grand (couples) and higher. Its the "higher" part that I'm more concerned with. Those "higher" income people make anywhere from a half million up to amounts none of us can imagine. The idea that these folks need tax cuts is absurd. As I mentioned a couple of articles ago, I know I beat up on Republicans a lot, but they seem to have a soft spot for multi-millionaires, even indicating how tough it is for such high income people. Republicans actually have some ideas I agree with, but their desire to do anything and everything for VERY wealthy people troubles me deeply, and it should trouble you, too, unless you're making a cool million or more a year. I'm too old for much of this stuff to matter to me, but I find that I cannot sit still and watch what is happening to this country, which has just been handed over lock, stock, and barrel to the wealthiest people and interests in the country, and just to be fair, not without some help from Democrats. Republicans and Democrats, alike....THINK!!!

If you notice some of the ads on television, "Its a bad idea to put any kind of tax on oil companies." Did you see who is paying for those ads? The petroleum industry! They have lots of money, and they are willing to spend a chunk of it to keep their treasures. They're entitled to run those ads, but other Americans need to pay attention to WHO is trying to scare the hell out 'em! And that's perhaps the most troubling thing of all to me; Americans don't pay attention to these matters, and the "interests" know it. I just saw a caption online that indicated that in one poll, only 6 in 10 Americans knew that Joe Biden is Vice President of the United States. So, forty percent of Americans don't know who their own VP is!!! C'mon folks! Americans disturbingly seem not to know what's going on around them, and in this age of "globalization," that's downright dangerous. Other countries are pulling ahead of us in all sorts of education matters. The petroleum industry ads don't scare me, but this stuff does!

WORD HISTORY:
Gap-This word, related to "gape" and "yawn," ^ goes back to an Indo European base "ghei," which had the notion of "to open the mouth, to make an opening." This gave Old Germanic "gaponan," with the same general meaning. Whether Old English had a form of the word "gap" is not known, but it is "assumed" that many Old English words were unrecorded, as the common people could not usually write, and there are forms of "gap" in other West Germanic languages, and the old forms of the Germanic ancestors of "gap," "gape" and "yawn" were so close, it is at times difficult to separate them (Low German Saxon, for instance, has "jappen" and "gapen" for "yawn," but both also mean  "gape.") Apparently, English borrowed "gap" from Old Norse (a North Germanic language, English is West Germanic), seemingly in the 1200s, and kept the general Old Norse meaning, "chasm." Of course, if English did already have a word of its own, then the Norse relative most certainly reinforced the English word.

^ The English ancestor of modern "yawn" was spelled with a "g," not a "y," as its German relative, "gähnen," and its Dutch relative, "geeuw," still do.

Paying The Piper-Part Four-B-Does Obama Get It?

First a little disclaimer: Since "it's the economy, stupid," I'll say this, many people have compared the last couple of years to the Great Depression and have compared Obama to Franklin Roosevelt or to Herbert Hoover.* While we came close to a new depression in late 2008, and we aren't totally out of the woods yet, the devil is in the details. The circumstances which faced Hoover, and then Roosevelt, were different from today. When the Great Depression started, America still had a substantial, although dwindling, agriculture component as a percentage of the economy, and the country had become a major industrial powerhouse in previous years. With American agriculture having been depressed throughout much of the 1920s; that is, prior to the onset of the actual Great Depression, many small farmers and laborers had headed into cities and towns to seek jobs in America's bustling factories or associated businesses. When the economy went belly-up, and they lost their jobs, they couldn't just decide to go back to the farm, because agriculture was in terrible shape, even worse than in the 1920s; thus unemployment in many cities was extremely high. Back in those times though, most businesses in this country were owned by Americans, were headquartered in America, had plants in America (with some scant exceptions), and relied upon the American economy and the American consumer to make those businesses successful. Increasingly in more recent times, many companies located in America are foreign-owned or have large interests (plants and outlets) in foreign countries, with workers provided by those countries, or in some cases, like BP, for instance, are foreign-owned and located overseas (the actual headquarters), but have plants or outlets here. In just casually watching some business news on television in recent years, I've heard it said that many "American companies" are more dependent on markets in foreign countries for the biggest share of their profits, than right here in this country. Now, I'm NOT slamming foreign countries, or American companies with large foreign interests, but there's no question that all of this has an effect on OUR economy and OUR country. The question is, is that effect good or bad? I'm not sure we know the answer to that question, as we've never seen a situation like this before, and the answer will always depend upon who is giving that answer. If you are in the importing business, you will probably say the effect is "good." Will things get to be every business for itself and who cares what happens to the country? Maybe, but eventually what happens here helps or hurts most of the world. To those who wonder why "history" is important, this is why. We look to the past for answers about the present and the future. So this situation is one major difference facing Obama that neither Hoover or FDR confronted.

Next, we have so much, what I'll call, "political information" available to us, it is absolutely mind boggling. Notice I didn't say it was necessarily truthful information. We've always had some of this, but now maybe it's tied to our "legalistic society," where lawyers toss accusations and theories around to defend clients, and that is part of our system. While I'm not a lawyer, I do believe a judge has to allow such theories to be used based upon some realistic foundation.** Further, unlike in the not too distant past, there are all sorts of ways to get these accusations and conspiracy theories out to the public. Claims can now be made on the blogosphere, talk radio, cable TV, or by mass emails. They then get picked up by the more traditional media, and off they go. It happened to George W. Bush and it has certainly happened even more, in my opinion, to Barack Obama. All of this hurts the presidency. I'm not for squashing debate or free speech, but so often there is a lack of reason. What is perhaps more troubling is that these folks have fairly large audiences and followings. What has gotten into America's drinking water? Polls show a disturbing percentage of Americans believe Obama, not Bush, started the bailouts of banks and auto companies (he didn't, Bush did, but Obama continued those policies) and that Obama is a Muslim (he's not, he's a Christian). This is not the sign of an informed American public, nor is it the way America will be able to compete in the modern world.

Then we have the political parties. These are not the same parties of a few decades ago, and in some officeholders' cases, not even the same as fairly recent (witness Charlie Crist of Florida changing from Republican to independent, and a couple of southern Democratic congressmen changing to the Republican Party). The Democratic Party has always been pretty raucous, some times VERY raucous. Why? Undoubtedly a lot of reasons, but perhaps the most important is about regional philosophy. Some of the most conservative elements of this country were, until fairly recently, Democrats, not Republicans. The South came to be known as the "solid South," in political terms, because in the post-Civil War era, the states of the old Confederacy (and even many so called "border states") voted Democratic.*** In fact, there weren't many Southerners who even dared identify themselves as Republicans, because, unlike in recent times, Republicans were the party of the Federal Government, and Lincoln was far from a revered figure in the South. These conservative elements often clashed with the more moderate or progressive Democrats in other parts of the country. On the other hand, some of the most progressive/liberal elements of the country were in the Republican Party a number of decades ago, and this too brought about some major philosophical clashes among Republicans. Ever so gradually conservatives, mainly "fiscal" conservatives at first, began to take control of the Republican Party. The 1970s and 1980s brought the much more socially conservative elements into the party until it truly became the conservative party of the country, leaving little room for liberals/progressives, or even in some cases, moderates. At this very moment, there is still a battle going on within the party over who is conservative enough.

So, for quite some time, both parties had a big mixture of conservatives, moderates, and progressives/liberals. With such a mixture of these philosophies being represented in both parties in Congress, members frequently reached across to members of the other party to work together on legislation for the country, something that is sorely missing so often today. Today's Republican Party is pretty much limited to people who identify themselves as conservatives, some even espousing such so called conservatism that Ronald Reagan, the man who initially brought conservatism to power, and made it acceptable to many Americans, would not qualify as a Republican. Democrats have many progressives/liberals, but also many moderate to moderately conservative supporters, especially in southern and border states, while many Americans have chosen to declare themselves as independents.

With the two parties so philosophically aligned now, the venom has poisoned the political atmosphere. Politics has never been much of a profession for the faint-hearted, but now it has truly become a "knock 'em down, kick 'em, and drag 'em by the hair" donnybrook. In this case, Obama is much more like Herbert Hoover, at least so far. Like Hoover, his basic temperament is less combative. His opponents have done just about everything they can to dirty his name and image. The question is, can he bounce back? Bill Clinton was pummeled too, and some of his wounds were self inflicted, but Clinton, no matter what you may think of him, was a fighter, as is Hillary.

To be continued in Part 4 C.... (A Word History is below the notes)

* For those interested, this link will take you to "The Great Depression-Part One," a multi-part series which I did a few years ago. You can then get to the rest of the series by clicking on either "Herbert Hoover" or "the Great Depression" in the "labels" listed at the bottom of Part One.

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/08/great-depression-part-one.html


** What I'm getting at is, if you are on trial for murder, saying "I'm on the government death panel," isn't necessarily going to fly with a judge, unless that judge is Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.

*** Political philosophies aren't subject to state borders, and while border states didn't attempt to leave the Union, many people in those states had strong sympathies for the Confederacy, and like the states of the Old South, these feelings didn't die with the end of the Civil War.

WORD HISTORY:
Five-This numerical word goes back to Indo European "penkwe/pengke," which meant "five." This gave the Old Germanic offshoot "fimfe/fenfe" (I found both forms). This in turn gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "fif," which later became "five." There are many relatives to our word throughout the Indo European languages, sometimes a bit "disguised," but our other Germanic relatives are: German "fünf," Dutch "vijf," Frisian "fiif" (that is double "i"), Low Saxon "fief," Danish, Norwegian and Swedish "fem," and Icelandic "fimm."

Paying The Piper-Part Four A-Does Obama Get It?

First, I hope the more partisan readers of whatever persuasion will read the ENTIRE article before getting too worked up. There will be two parts to this topic, this one is Four A, and since I'm a little slow, I've been having trouble coming up with a title for the second part, but I'm leaning to Four B. That's catchy.

Barack Obama came to the presidency with lots of good will from the American public. Race has been an ever present issue in this country from its very beginning, and many Americans seemed to believe, while many others hoped, that with Obama's entering the highest office in the land, this divisive issue would finally be put to rest and the country would move forward truly as "The UNITED States." Further, he was young, energetic, intelligent, charismatic, and could give a hell of a speech. He seemed to want to get along with the opposition party, among other high-minded ideals. With the country in economic peril the likes of which hadn't been seen since the Great Depression, with terrorists hatching endless plots to kill Americans and other "Westerners," with two ongoing wars that were never paid for, and with countries which previously looked favorably upon America seemingly frowning upon many of our policies, we needed a real stand-up leader to right the listing ship. Did we get that leader?

While he has only been in office less than two years, my gut feeling is, no. The President has seldom seemed to be "in charge" of getting the policies he seems to advocate. The "stimulus" plan, which was seen by many people as a means of halting the sliding economy, as well as bolstering confidence that would then turn the economy around and add jobs, was handed over to Congress to hammer out. While the President advocated the plan, he seemed detached. The bill that passed had spending strung out over a couple of years, lessening, in my opinion, its impact. In spite of figures touted by the White House on jobs created or "saved," it is nearly impossible, again in my opinion, to come up with accurate numbers for such, although I'm sure it has had an effect.

Then came the health care...ah...debate? Is that the right word? Maybe "ugly" would be better. Again though, the President announced he was "for" health care legislation that would insure more Americans, but he left it to Congress to come up with the details. That is pretty much leaving a lit match in charge of dynamite. And it blew up! My sense was, the President and his advisers never anticipated the reaction they got, even from Republicans. They were thrown back on their heels by what happened to members of Congress last summer in their home states or districts,* and while they finally got a bill passed, they really never recovered, even to this day. Further, the longer the "debate" dragged on, it sure looked like they would have accepted ANY legislation, just to say they got it, and that the terrible battle shown in the news every day would end. The public wanted the economy to be "priority number ONE," and while the President said that health care legislation was important to the economy, he was never able to convey just how it would do so. The legislation for such an undertaking was huge and complex, something he and other supporters could not fully explain to an at times "detached" and increasingly skeptical American public, let alone put into slogans or catch phrases to garner support. Opponents had no such problem; they called it "socialism," "fascism," "communism," "big government," and some things I can't print here. When they ran out of names to call it, they invented something to use against it, "death panels."** After about a year of what many Americans thought was time wasted, as the economy still needed tending, the bill passed, but at a terrible cost to the President and many members of Congress, especially Democrats. The President touted the new law, but it may yet prove to be a problem that could blow up, perhaps even on him (if he runs and wins a second term) or on a future president, as there are not many cost saving measures in this law, in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong. I could go on about some other things that have transpired, but you get the overall point. So now, what about Obama's performance? (A Word History is below the notes)

* Even some Republican members of Congress had difficulty, with Mike Castle of Delaware coming to mind. The overall situation in many of these meetings was NOT one of America's shining examples to the world, as speakers were shouted down, and even members of the audience were taunted, including a handicapped woman in a wheel chair. Hmm, let's see, I did question if "debate" was the right word.

** For those who have been living some place other than "Mother Earth," put simply, the alleged government "death panels" were supposed to decide who lived and who died among elderly Americans in need of expensive treatments in order to hold down health care costs. No matter that the President had recently lost his elderly grandmother, polls showed an alarming number of Americans believed it, although I do believe those numbers dropped somewhat a bit later, but still remained awfully high for a public that had loads of information to the contrary available to it. In just the last few months, a Republican congressman, I believe from North Carolina, whose name escapes me just now, publicly acknowledged that the "death panel" charge was phony, and that most Republican members of Congress knew it was phony.

WORD HISTORY:
Four-This numerical word apparently traces back to Indo European "kwetwor/kwetwer," which meant "four." I say "apparently," because the Old Germanic offshoot, "fetwor/petwor," is assumed to have been derived from the Indo European root. The Germanic form gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "feower," which then became "fower" (seemingly pronounced "foe-er") later on, before evolving to the modern form. The other Germanic languages have similar forms: German and Dutch have "vier" (pronounced similarly to our word "fear"), Norwegian and Danish have "fire" (not, I believe, pronounced like our word "fire," but rather like "fear-eh"), Swedish has "fyra," Icelandic has "fjórir."

Where Things Stand & A Catch 22

Back in January of this year, I sort of took a look at where the country was, economically speaking. Now we're at the midpoint for 2010, so it's time to take another look. The Obama Administration likes to tout the fact that, during their first year in office, the economy "didn't fall off the cliff." Okay, I'll give them that, and I'll remind regular readers that I said prior to the 2008 election, that whoever won the presidency would probably end up being the loser, as the economic plunge and its aftermath would make life difficult for them, politically (not to count millions of Americans suffering the direct consequences).

So where's the economy now, going into the July Fourth weekend? The economy has gained more than a half million jobs so far this year, but that has to be put into the perspective that the "plunge" caused the loss of about 8 MILLION jobs! Now the unemployment rate sits at 9.5%, although counting people who are underemployed, it is in the upper teens.* The recent U.S. Census brought about "temporary" hiring, but many of those jobs are now over. The bad news is, private business hiring is slow, with only 83,000 hirings in June. The good news is, the "under employement" rate did take a good drop. The reason this "could" be good news is, employers will increase hours for current workers first, before they hire new workers. Let's hope! In fairness to the Obama Administration, the President and others in the administration have been saying from the first, that unemployment would be slow to fall. Some private economists have said it will take four or five YEARS to recover from the mess, and that estimate probably does not assume a major slowdown or even another period of negative growth in that time period. Now, my crystal ball is a bit cloudy today, but all is not well, and none of us should need a crystal ball to tell us that. The "oil spill" in the Gulf of Mexico has got to have an impact on employment in that area of the country, although I suppose some people have been hired in the clean-up effort. Even "if" they stop the leak this evening, the consequences will linger for some time, possibly years.

In other parts of the world, all is not "moonlight and roses," either. Europe has been in a separate (at least at this point) financial crisis of its own lately. Overspending by governments, presently most prominently by Greece, including "locked in" payments for a variety of benefits, have caused major financial problems, which in turn, have brought about attempts to rein in spending, which in turn has brought about civil unrest. All of this has been complicated by the economic down turn in the last couple of years, and from what I understand, from the purchase by some countries of securities marketed by American bankers. Yep! As Ronald Reagan would say, "There they go again!" This isn't gospel, but from what I understand at this time, that magnificent edifice of wealth, Goldman-Sachs, sold Greece (and other European countries) securities, often backed by ah.....American mortgages, including ....ah....subprime mortgages. "Supposedly," Goldman-Sachs told these governments what a great deal these securities were, but at the same time they were telling wealthy American clients to get out of these securities before they imploded. "Supposedly," Goldman-Sachs owned a large number of these securities, and its leaders were in the process of "dumping" as many of these securities as possible before the collapse came. C'mon now! American bankers do such a thing? Ah....all I can say is...."There they go again!"*** How much any of this will affect America's economy is unknown, although Fed Chairman Bernanke just recently said it wouldn't hurt us. Forget not, a few years ago it was said that the mortgage crisis wouldn't hurt the economy. Yeah, right!

Basic finance isn't rocket science. Look at it this way: You're employed and making decent money. You develop a lifestyle. You buy a house, so you have a mortgage. You buy a new car, and this adds another payment. You take a vacation, and you put all or a portion of the cost on your credit card, or cards; more payments. Then the economy gives away. Even if you keep your job, maybe you have your pay cut significantly.** You have these fixed payments. They haven't gone away. Something has to give. Even if you "save for a rainy day," if you actually lose your job, in an economy like now, that amount may not be enough.

Now, back to our economy. State and local government budgets, including for education, are in deep trouble. When the stimulus bill was passed about a year and a half ago, there was a certain amount of money that went to help state and local governments in an attempt to prevent layoffs from these entities. I guess, at least to some extent, it did help on that front, but now the "medicine" has been cut or stopped, and whether the patients can now get by on their own is very doubtful in my mind. California's budget has been a mess for years, and now they are really under the gun. Governor Schwarzenegger just issued an order reducing California employees' pay to minimum wage, because they are in a budget crisis. All over the country state and local governments are trying to bring revenues and expenditures into balance, but at great cost to many people, and to the overall economy. This whole situation could prove to be more than just a thorn in the side of the economy, but it may even cause a "double dip" recession. For the "free marketers," they'll say, "It will weed out unnecessary and inefficient programs," and there is a certain amount of truth to that.**** Of course, some also have argued that Uncle Sam should have just stood by and let nature take its course with the overall economy. Remember folks, those at the top don't worry about their next meal, or their child's next pair of shoes, or their kids' schooling. It is easy for them to make these "do nothing" arguments, and I understand that. What troubles me is that some middle class/working class folks seem to be on that same page.

If nothing had been done by Uncle Sam, and it certainly was NOT perfect, including the Federal Reserve, my guess is, many of these same folks would be wondering about those hardships I just mentioned above, because they would now either be unemployed or underemployed. I know many Americans, including this one, are concerned about the terrible budget deficit, and with good reason. That's one of the reasons the "winner" in 2008, may end up being the "loser." The Bush Era left the country in terrible debt,^ unable to properly finance an "anti depression/recession" package. So, the private credit bubble that so helped ravage the economy is now being combated by a trade off to public debt.^^ Not good, but something had to be done. The current administration is between a rock and a hard place, with trillions of dollars having been lost by the economy during the downturn.^^^ "Public" money has been borrowed to try to help make up for some of that lost money, but whether America is on the precipice of another downturn remains to be seen. The other day I heard on television that it is estimated 40% of our current budget deficit is due to the recession. So that means, if we don't get the economy growing more, that deficit can't be easily cut. On the other hand, the money needed to stimulate the economy is borrowed. What a "Catch 22!" (A Word History is below the notes)

* Underemployment essentially means that some workers still have jobs, so they aren't counted as unemployed, but they have had hours cut, or even gone to part time status.

** This might include no overtime, or you might not get bonuses, or you might even be put on part time.

*** In fairness, to my knowledge, all the facts have yet to be determined.

**** My guess is, most Americans don't want police and firefighters cut (and probably teachers), but in some cases it may be necessary.

^ The budget surpluses inherited by George W. Bush evaporated, and replaced by trillions in debt over his eight years in office. Neither the Iraq War nor the Afghan War was paid for, nor was the prescription drug benefit added to Medicare (thus further weakening that program, financially), on top of those things, tax cuts were given, with the bulk of those cuts going to upper income people, including many of those who got us into the current mess. As I've noted before, Bush was terribly worried about the "plight of billionaires and multi-millionaires."

^^ What I mean is, for instance, banks' bad (private) debts were taken over by the government in many cases, but the money given to the banks was not in the U.S. Treasury, but rather had to be borrowed (public debt). To be fair, some of those government loans have been paid back, with interest. Things aren't just limited to banks or car companies, but to all the other measures taken to try to stop the "plunge" that occurred. All of that money was borrowed by Uncle Sam.

WORD HISTORY: 

Three-This goes back to Indo European "trejes," which gave Old Germanic "thrijiz." This then was passed down to its Germanic descendants as: Old English "thri/thrie/threo," prior to our modern spelling, standard German has "drei," Low German dialect has "dree" and "drie," Dutch also has "drie," Swedish, Norwegian and Danish all have "tre," and Icelandic has "þrír," which is essentially the equivalent of "thrir."

The Economic Fallout Continues

The Obama Administration likes to tout the fact that, during their first year in office, the economy "didn't fall off the cliff." Okay, I'll give them that, and I'll remind regular readers that I said prior to the 2008 election, that whoever won the presidency would probably end up being the loser, as the economic plunge and its aftermath would make life difficult for them, politically (not to count millions of Americans suffering the direct consequences). So, as we begin 2010, where are we, economically speaking?

Well, the economy has stopped plunging downward, and it even has seen some minimal growth, but the emphasis has to be on "minimal." A year ago the nation was losing in excess of a half million jobs every month. Now the unemployment rate sits at 10% (although counting people who have gone to part time work, it may well be in the mid to upper teens), and the number of job losses has slowed considerably, to "only" 85,000 in December 2009. We always have to remember that if YOU are one of those 85,000, "only" is not an important word to you. So, while things certainly are not great, economically speaking, there has been some improvement. So what troubles me?

I'm a chronic worrier, and one of the things that has me worried (notice I said "one of the things") is the dire situation in many states and local communities. State and local government budgets, including for education, are in deep trouble. When the stimulus bill was passed early last year, there was a certain amount of money that went to help state and local governments in an attempt to prevent layoffs from these entities. I guess, at least to some extent, it did help on that front, but now the "medicine" has been cut or stopped, and whether the patients can now get by on their own is very doubtful in my mind. California's budget has been a mess for years, and now they are really under the gun. All over the country state and local governments are trying to bring revenues and expenditures into balance, but at great cost to many people, and to the overall economy. This whole situation could prove to be more than just a thorn in the side of the economy, but it may even help cause a "double dip" recession.

For the "free marketers," they'll say, "It will weed out unnecessary and inefficient programs," and there is a certain amount of truth to that. Of course, some also have argued that Uncle Sam should have just stood by and let nature take its course with the overall economy. To me, that's a bunch of nonsense. Remember folks, those at the top don't worry about their next meal, or their child's next pair of shoes, or their kids' schooling. It is easy for them to make these "do nothing" arguments, and I understand that. What troubles me is that some middle class/working class folks seem to be on that same page. If nothing had been done by Uncle Sam, including the Federal Reserve, my guess is, many of these same folks would be wondering about those things I just mentioned above, because they would now either be unemployed or underemployed.

I know many Americans, including this one, are concerned about the terrible budget deficit, and with good reason. That's one of the reasons the "winner" in 2008, may end up being the "loser." The Bush Era left the country in terrible debt,* unable to properly finance an "anti depression/recession" package. So, the private credit bubble that so helped ravage the economy is now being combated by a trade off to public credit. Not good, but something had to be done. The overall outcome is still to be determined, but in the meantime, watch those state and local situations, and keep your fingers crossed.

* The Afghanistan and Iraq wars were never paid for, nor was the Medicare prescription drug plan. Of course that didn't stop Bush from cutting taxes, and the wealthy benefited tremendously from Bush's tax cuts and his administration's lax regulatory philosophy. Income inequity grew ever wider, with many middle class folks actually losing ground.

WORD HISTORY:
Nimble-The roots of this word go back to Indo European "nem," which had the notion of "dividing, dealing out." The Old Germanic offshoot was "neman(an)," but rather than the notion of "dividing," the meaning veered to the result of something being divided or dealt out; that is, "take, accept." (See note below) This gave Old English "naemel," with the notion of "take" still very much present, as it meant "quick on the uptake/take in knowledge quickly." By the 1300s, this "quickness to learn" began to fade, as the meaning broadened to "quick afoot," and then also, "agile," and the spelling changed to "nemel." Later still (1400s or 1500s) the spelling changed again and the "b" was added, presumably because it made pronunciation easier, although some believe it was copied from the spelling of "limb."

Note: In Old English the verb "niman" meant "to take," but this was later replaced by "take." Modern German has "nehmen," which still means "to take."

Are We Going To Make Things?

There are signs the economy may be stabilizing. Notice I said “stabilizing,” not recovering. Besides the big questions of when a recovery will start, and, more importantly, when unemployment will begin to drop, there is also a question in my mind about American manufacturing. You remember American manufacturing, don’t you? You know, where Americans made things with their hands or operated machinery that made things, and where men and women could get decent paying jobs with benefits, and they didn’t have to know the square root of some number, what the hell Excel was, or know the symbol for copper; which is, ah….ah…well I know, but I just don’t want to make any of you feel dumb.

In reading over some things recently, I found that the U.S. now ranks BEHIND every other “industrialized” nation in percentage of national economic activity that is from manufacturing, except France. (At least the French have an excuse. Hey, you can’t make wine and washing machines too! Or is that, you can’t drink wine and make washing machines too?) According to the World Bank, less than 14% of our economic activity now comes from manufacturing. It makes me wonder how long it will be before we’re no longer called an industrialized nation. And we’ve dropped 4 big percentage points in the last decade!

Will the current administration put together some kind of manufacturing policy for the country? They don’t have to do a hell of a lot to be better than the Bush Administration on this. As millions of manufacturing jobs disappeared, the Bush people gave the standard answer they gave for everything economic: “We can’t do anything about it, this is a free market economy.” Thus Bush and his people answered until the country was on the verge of economic collapse, then they decided it wasn’t THAT MUCH of a free market economy,* and they asked taxpayers for 700 billion bucks to help banks and insurance companies.**

In just six months, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress are already well ahead of Bush and Co. according to an article by Louis Uchitelle that was published in the NY Times. He says that the “stimulus bill” includes a “Buy America” clause for the purchase of American made goods for infrastructure work. Further, he says, “And trade agreements negotiated by the Bush Administration-agreements that would make the United States more open to imported manufactured goods-have (now) been allowed to languish in Congress.” He also cites government loan guarantees as a way the new administration is trying to jump-start new manufacturing plants, frequently in wind and solar energy equipment. He notes a plant in Toledo where the owner is beginning to make solar panels, and he now has 100 workers. The author further notes that the number of loan guarantees under Bush was zero, which doesn’t surprise me in the least. They didn’t believe in government action, except to cut taxes for very rich folks, and in that, they were great.

That’s not to say that he feels things are perfect now. He also chides the Obama people for following in the steps of the last couple administrations in permitting China to keep their currency at an artificially low rate of exchange, thus hurting American manufacturing. This is a sensitive issue with the Chinese, and I don’t know where it will go. It’s easy to say, “Just put the heat on them,” but for one thing, we need them as some sort of counterbalance to that wacko in North Korea, Kim Jung (mentally) Ill, I mean Il.

Whatever the new administration has already done, we will need much more to revive a sector so devastated by neglect. It is not only a matter of economics, but of national security! (A word history is below)


*Remember many well fed, well supplied Communist leaders in Russia and elsewhere essentially made the point, "We want all people to be equal. We just want to be more equal than the rest of you."

**Something I think was VERY distasteful, but necessary. The point is though, the time to avoid economic collapse was well before the summer of 2008, and they needed to quit hiding behind these “free market” statements.

Word History:
Shimmer-This goes back to an Indo European root "skai," which had the meaning "gleam or shine." The Old Germanic derivative of this was "skim." Old English had "scimerian," which meant "to glitter." (The "sc" was pretty much pronounced like modern "sh.") Close English relative German has "schimmern," and another relative, Swedish, which is North Germanic, has "skimmra." Notice, in North Germanic the "k" sound was retained from the original Germanic, but in West Germanic (English and German), it became the softer sounding "sch/sh."

Greed Has No Conscience

The greedy bastards are right back at it, folks! Oil and gasoline are soaring, just as if we've learned nothing about the economic mess we plunged into. The self-centered, egomaniacs will do anything and everything to get that money, even though they already have plenty. Then, I'm sure, they'll turn around and whine about their taxes going up 3% and perhaps having to live by some rules and regulations of the "free markets," which is a term they choose to use so they can gouge us at every turn; all the while cutting workers pay and/or benefits. The income gap in America didn't get to be the way it is because things are fair to middle and lower income Americans. If the Obama Administration allows this crap to start all over, then they'll go the way of Bush and his minions. And they deserve it! They need to take a stand now, before this all heads off any chance for an economic recovery.

I'm not saying that 99 cent a gallon gasoline should prevail, but what these people already did to us should serve as a reminder as to what they will do again, if left unchecked. If all the millions and millions of dollars in bonuses made you angry, then you need to focus on what's happening NOW! Don't let the economic downturn, or Pakistan, or health care, or any other issues distract you from the doings of these ever greedy bastards!*** Write a letter or send an email to your congressional representative and your senators, as well as to the White House.

In the past year, we've heard consideration of nationalizing banks, insurance companies and auto companies (taxpayers already own like 75-80% of insurance company, AIG, and varying percentages of some banks, with auto companies to follow, but these are "probably" temporary measures, and should be such). What really needs to be nationalized are ENERGY products!!! We've still got all of these vital products in the hands of the greedy, and the greedy have no conscience. They'll further ruin the country for their own interests.

*** I'm NOT saying that these issues and others aren't important, they most certainly are important.

Word History:
Big-While this is an extremely common word today, it only seems to have come into English usage during the 1300s, and this was in the dialects of northern England where there was much influence from Old Norse, a North Germanic language, leading many linguists to believe it was brought to England by the Danes, and some linguists feel there is a connection to the Norwegian dialect word "bugge," meaning "great or important man;" however, the other Germanic languages do not have any known forms of the word. Gradually the word moved south across England. No other reliable information is available on the origins of "big." Initially, the word meant "powerful, strong." The notion of being "strong" or "powerful" progressed to the meaning of "large" by the latter part of the 1300s. Just a little note, "bigwig" came from the notion of the large wigs worn by important men in England.

Is The Crisis Easing?

Recently there have been some economic statistics that have given a bit of hope that, ever so gradually, the crisis is beginning to ease. Let's hope, but to be quite honest, we have a long way to go. At times during the Great Depression conditions seemed to be improving, only to have the economy tumble even further. Currently, some parts of the economy do seem to at least be stabilizing, so I'm not saying things are going to get a lot worse, but there are still very troubling matters that could send the economy into another tailspin.

First, a high number of job losses are already in the pipeline. When we've heard or read that Company XYZ is cutting 5000 jobs, seldom does that mean that those 5000 jobs were eliminated that very same day, but rather those jobs will be eliminated over a given period of time, usually measured in months. So unemployment is going to get worse, at least in the next few months. Hopefully the job losses will begin to come down, but don't expect employers to come knocking at your door to fill vacant positions any time soon.

Then we have the banking situation. Right now it does seem to be stabilizing, and I hope that is truly the case, but there is an escalating crisis in commercial real estate, as many office buildings and shopping malls have high vacancy rates, or tenants behind on rent, and these properties are having increasing difficulty meeting their payments, aka, mortgages. Home foreclosures are still rising (up 24% in the first three months of this year compared to the same period last year), and with so many job losses, I can't imagine the numbers are suddenly going to start getting a lot better. As if this isn't enough, credit card and auto loan defaults and late payments have significantly increased. Again, it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that with more unemployment, there will be even higher default rates. The question is, with many of the banks doing a bit better, can they take the hit of more credit losses?

We, the taxpayers, have put billions (actually TRILLIONS have been pledged) into propping up banks, insurance companies, and automakers. I know we don't like it, and we shouldn't. BUT we still have to consider the alternative; that is, to have let all of these companies fail. Let me tell you, if you think things are bad now, how bad do you think it would be if all of these companies had gone under? We think the current 8.5% unemployment is bad, but just pick a number for what it might be otherwise: 12%, 15%, 20%??? Believe me, 20% is NOT out of question. Not only would millions of people have lost their jobs from these businesses, but the effect on the overall psyche of the country (and the WORLD) would have been so traumatizing that even 20% unemployment may be a low number.*** If you feel that your job has been shaky now, chances are, you would be another statistic in the unemployment number by now. Again folks, this is what they, the merchants of greed, got us into; virtually a "no win" situation. And don't count the bastards out yet, as I'm absolutely sure they're just waiting to get the price of oil and gasoline back up as soon as possible. Will we let them get away with it? (A word history is below)

*** Remember, the Crash of 1929 and the resulting downturn (including bank failures), scared the living hell out of people, and spending by businesses and consumers plunged by incredible amounts. Roosevelt's New Deal spent what were considered huge amounts for those days, but even those expenditures couldn't pull the economy totally out of the Depression. The truly huge amounts we spent on World War Two finally got the country out of the doldrums.

Word History:
Stark-This goes back to the Indo European root word "ster," which meant "rigid, stiff." The Old Germanic offshoot was "starkaz," which had much the same meaning, but also with the added notion that if something was rigid, it was "strong." In Old English it was "stearc." Close relatives of English, Dutch and German, have "sterk" and "stark," respectively, both meaning "strong." North Germanic also uses the word, as for instance, Norwegian has "sterk," meaning "strong." The notion of "stark=strong" gave rise to its use as an intensifier as "total, complete," by the 1400s in English, and thus to this day we say, "stark naked" ("strongly" naked, if you will; thus, "totally, completely"). This term further gave English the idea of "barren," as in "the stark countryside."

Foreclosures & Rabbits

Foreclosures and rabbits go together, because they both multiply so quickly. Below is the link to an article about how foreclosures have skyrocketed and how they are now spreading to areas that hadn't seen particularly high foreclosure rates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29528856/

Some Very Ugly Economic Stats

Here is the link to an article that really spells out, in statistics, many of the economic problems facing America.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29412777/

Can We Get Out Of This Mess? Part Five

One of the problems that made economic matters worse was that, earlier on, influential people like Bernanke and Paulson*** were unable to get their arms around the economic problem in order to wrestle it to the ground. There’s no doubt in my mind that a large part of this failure to recognize the economic problems and then to act was due to ideology. Conservatives don’t believe in governmental action, unless of course your name is George W. Bush, and you choose a “preemptive war“ against Iraq. But to engage in “preemptive” actions to stave off economic disaster? Hell no!!! You can’t tamper with the “free markets.” Instead of seeing what was becoming obvious to many Americans already battered by high prices for just about everything, stagnant wages, benefit cuts, foreclosure and the like, these folks consistently UNDERESTIMATED (or turned a blind eye to) the mounting dangers to the American economy. Even just last summer, Bernanke and the Federal Reserve continued to harp on the possibility of inflation spiraling out of control. Oh yes, prices had been escalating,^^^ but that “free market” ideology said, “We can’t control prices on ANYTHING, because that’s against free market principles.” Even if those high prices are strangling many American families and thus the American economy?+++ Of course, in order to try to solve a problem, one must first admit that there IS a problem and get the diagnosis of the problem correct. Just imagine if you went to the doctor with a severe headache and the doc said, “The REAL problem you’ve got is that you have corns on both feet.”

The failure to see the mounting problems, and then the misdiagnosis of the problems led the Fed and the Bush Administration to do nothing at first, but it seems that their “free market” minds couldn’t see how severe the problems really were, leaving the severity of the problems terribly underestimated, as well as misdiagnosed (“Take two corn removal pads and call me in the morning!”).


NOTE: I'm working on Part Two of "Why Do We Call Them These Names" for "Word Histories," and it will be posted separately.

*** And even earlier, Greenspan. When the history of this era is written, Greenspan may get a good deal of blame, as halting a problem early on is often easier than letting it fester.

^^^In my opinion, driven much higher by greedy speculative investors with too much money on their hands. I’m telling you folks, you can’t give them more money through huge tax cuts and expect that they’ll suddenly donate their savings to “The Mother Theresa Society” or to the “Mahatma Gandhi School of Non Violent Public Protest.” Currently, many of those who benefited by this speculative behavior are still in the process of defending it by saying that prices were driven higher by “supply and demand,” that good old free market standby. These “free marketers” just seem unable to admit that free market systems have a downside to them. They don’t get it, just like the bankers and officers of many companies now in meltdown who still feel “entitled” to huge bonuses. And the conservatives have the nerve to say that many other Americans have a sense of “entitlement;” and that’s over basic subsistence, not mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money! One part of the “free market” philosophy these folks seem to forget, is that part about “merit based compensation and job retention.” Using their own “principles,” these corporate bigwigs, and also members of the Federal Reserve and the Bush Administration, would have been terminated.

+++For those in need of special medications to help them stay alive, the free market philosophy says, “Sorry to hear that, but we’ll send flowers to your funeral.” Most are too hypocritical to say such a thing openly, because I hope that inside them they know they’re wrong, but their greed overrules any inclination toward humanity. This “never wrong” free market crap has just provided them with an excuse.

Can We Get Out Of This Mess? Part Four

Regular readers: WARNING!!! Hold onto your seats!!!

T. Boone Pickens, a Texas billionaire, deserves a pat on the back. THUD!!! (Hey, I told you to hold onto your seats!) On one issue, this guy has stepped up to the plate and spent his OWN money to inform Americans about energy alternatives and our need to get away from using oil in so many ways. This will protect us from all enemies, foreign (probably his take on it) and domestic (my addition, as some of the most ruthless people on Earth are many, but not all, wealthy American business investors, also known as "the sit on their ass class").

Pickens has been promoting wind and solar power, but also the use of natural gas as a replacement for gasoline or other petroleum products. He makes a lot of sense, as these energy sources have the added benefit of causing far less pollution. Like any advertisement, he's "selling" us something, but in this case an "idea," and he seems sincere, and I've heard him in interviews about the subject on television. Now for the downside. (You can't have an upside without a downside.)

As presented by Pickens, it all sounds good. The problem, however, in my mind is the part about natural gas. He has admitted that natural gas will go up in price if his plan is adopted. I wholeheartedly agree with him, except that I think the price will go up so much, that we might well consider last year's $4.50-$5.00 a gallon for gasoline the "good old days." In my opinion, the wealthy and their money managers will shift HUGE sums into natural gas, driving it sky high. Remember the "Hurricane Katrina" price surge in natural gas? How could you forget when many folks went virtually bankrupt trying to heat their homes that winter. Well, once our wealthy investors get us latched onto natural gas for other purposes.....LOOK OUT!!! Those Hurricane Katrina prices may look low.

Pickens has made a bundle in his life, and he's spent millions of his own money to get us thinking about alternative fuels to replace oil. He's made his money in the "free market," and if that term doesn't scare the absolute hell out of you, after the torture we've been put through lo these many years, and now economic consequences of that torture, then nothing can scare you! Make NO MISTAKE about it folks, part of today's economic meltdown traces back to the run up in the prices of energy and just about anything else the "sit on their ass class" could lay their hands on. The ONLY way to keep the lid on prices is for GOVERNMENT, that's right, GOVERNMENT, to take the lead and keep energy sources OUT OF THE HANDS of greedy, ruthless business people. As I've noted before, our water resources are controlled by governmental entities, usually state or local, and the world has NOT ended because of it. Such control was done to prevent exploitation and abuse by PRIVATE individuals or companies. If we let these greedy bastards keep their hands on natural gas, and Pickens' plan is put into motion, 2008/2009 may look like those $4.50 to $5.00 a gallon prices for gasoline..."The Good Old Days."

Can We Get Out Of This Mess? Part Three

First, in April 1912 the "unsinkable" Titanic struck an iceberg and sunk. The Titanic had been pronounced "unsinkable" due to an amazing set of 22 watertight compartments built into the structure of the massive ship. The Titanic could remain afloat even if various combinations of watertight compartments were flooded, including, if I remember right, the first five compartments, if the ship were to experience extensive damage to the frontal area. The passengers were segregated by "class;" with some of the world's wealthiest people on the top decks, in "First Class." Below that was "Second Class," and in the lower areas of the "unsinkable" ship was "Third Class," also known as "Steerage." The iceberg punctured or crumpled the metal plates covering the ship, allowing water into the first SIX compartments. With that situation, the ship was doomed, as the weight of water entering the flooding forward compartments pulled the front of the ship down, which then allowed water from the sixth compartment to spill over into the seventh, and then that added weight pulled the ship down further to permit water to spill into the eighth compartment, and so on. A couple of hours later, the ship was gone.

Just a further note: Even though the ship was in such dire straights, the ship's personnel tried to prevent passengers in Third Class from getting up to Second or First Class to escape the rising waters below. Think about it!

Now, with housing prices in the tank and foreclosures mounting, unless those in need of help can be salvaged, others may well be pulled down, too. Here's why:

Once foreclosures began to rise and the housing bubble began to deflate, prices for housing fell. That may sound good (that prices fell), but when prices fell, it also began to endanger other homeowners with mortgages, as prices fell below what they owed on their homes. As foreclosures increased, and credit standards for a mortgage tightened, this general process continued, and in fact, it still continues to the point that at least 25% (some estimates say more) of all Americans who owe a mortgage now owe more for that mortgage than the property is worth. Now you might say, "So! What's that got to do with me?"

Well, if you happen to be one of those with such a situation, and the numbers are increasing, if something happens that your income falls to the point where you can't pay the mortgage, you won't be able to sell your property OR refinance it. Just for the sake of example:

So you owe $100,000 on your mortgage. Let's say your hours are cut at work, or that maybe you lose your job, or that maybe you have health issues with lots of medical bills. Whatever the reason, you can't afford the mortgage payment and you decide to sell your house and downsize to an apartment. When you talk with a real estate company, they tell you that due to foreclosures and the generally poor real estate market, that homes in your neighborhood are selling for $75,000. Now unless you've got 25 grand hidden under your mattress, or unless the "Good Fairy" slips that amount under your pillow tonight, you can't sell the property. The mortgage holder isn't going to eat the $25,000. The same problem is present if you want to refinance; you owe more on the mortgage than the property is worth. Ah, guess whose going to get a foreclosure notice? Then this will further decrease the property values of the homes in your neighborhood, so that Mr. & Mrs. Jones, who are having trouble making ends meet, decide to check into selling their house and are told essentially the same thing you were told. Guess who else is getting a foreclosure notice?

The Titanic sank from the bottom up, but eventually the water reached the top deck of First Class. Just for your information, we're ALL on THIS modern Titanic together.

Can We Get Out Of This Mess? Part Two

Going back a few years, virtually all of the so called “experts” didn’t see the problems of the truck gathering speed coming down the highway toward the economy. The drum beat of “free markets” seems to have warped their minds. Like fanatics in anything, they put their minds into suspended animation and allowed themselves to be blinded by their total belief in the system that had been concocted in their imaginations. Further, they were so disconnected from what was happening to real live Americans, who were basically unassociated with Wall Street or corporate board rooms, that they couldn’t grasp the hardships that were befalling many of their countrymen.*** When signs of economic trouble began to become more apparent, they chose to hide behind the nonsense of their free market slogans. They said to those who tried to sound the alarm, that they were nothing more than like “Chicken Little,” claiming that the sky was falling. Thus began the “period of denial.”

Denial led many of the “experts” to underestimate what was and is going on. This whole process continues, as, in my own opinion, even the new Obama Administration doesn’t quite get it. They get it more than the Bush Administration, but the sky could have fallen on Bush, and he’d have probably seen it as some new signal from God. Beware of people who claim to hear from God or gods. We can excuse the religious writers from ancient times for claiming to hear from deities, as they didn’t know any better. Folks, today hearing voices and getting secret messages from a deity is called “mental illness.” That’s the name for it. At least when Bush was drinking, he’d have had a better excuse. And Bush claimed to be fighting against “Muslim religious extremists,” which they are, but it also takes one to know one.

So far, Obama permitted the “stimulus package” to be crafted outside of his own oversight. While I understand the big picture, it doesn’t mean that the Republicans and some Democrats didn’t have some very valid points about some silly parts to this package. For such an important piece of legislation, and one that may well go a long way towards defining his presidency, Obama let this one get away from him. The idea that $10-$15 more a week in most people’s pay (due to tax cuts) will somehow save the Republic from the catastrophe we’re in, is nonsense!!!^^^ And to get the tax cut, you have to have a paycheck; something millions of American workers no longer have!!! Do you want to smack Pelosi and Reid, or do you want me to do it?

Obama’s basic premises are correct, in my opinion; that is, rebuild American infrastructure, give a major boost to renewable energy sources and expand this energy segment into a major job producer, upgrade the electric grid, provide financial aid to states so that they don‘t have to layoff workers and cut services.+++ The bill that went through Congress was pretty much lacking in imagination, except for pet projects by many Democrats in Congress. There needed to be far MORE money, for example, for infrastructure, as most of the folks who have made studies of America’s infrastructure problems say that it will take 2 to 3 TRILLION dollars to bring the country up to some acceptable standard.

While I didn’t exactly expect all of that in this bill, it only provides about a cup of water in a five gallon bucket. Now, they can always come back later and say, “The original bill was just a down payment, and we need....(fill in the amount) to do more.” That’s not to let the Republicans off the hook. After the bill passed, a couple of Republican congressmen released statements to their constituents about projects in the package for their own districts, while failing to note that they had voted AGAINST the bill. Talk about having it both ways!!! Okay, these are politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, and that’s what they do, and we shouldn‘t be surprised by it. The idea that somehow politics will be transformed because of economic calamity is wishful thinking. Which brings me to another political situation that has garnered much media attention...bipartisanship.

I think its good that the president tried to court Republicans, but this can only go so far. They were able to peel off the three moderate Republicans in the Senate,~!~* but House Republicans remained united in opposition to the bill. I’m not naive, and there was lots of political positioning by both sides during the whole process. Again, the bipartisan outreach can only go so far, as some Republicans, especially those many on the far right, will NEVER go along with Obama’s proposals. We saw this during the Clinton years. Clinton was far from some leftwing ideologue, and many of his proposals were not what a number of Democrats in Congress really favored, but the Republican rightwing opposed the plans anyway. Polls show that Americans want the politicians to work together, but there are major philosophical differences at times, and bridging that gap, unless absolutely necessary, may cause more problems that what it would be worth.

Anyway, down the highway comes that speeding truck. So far, the response has been “Let’s throw some orange barrels in front of it to stop it.” The Obama Administration is proposing a way to help on foreclosures and another way to help the financial system. It remains to be seen exactly what the proposals are, and their potential to stem the onrushing truck. To me, if they don’t get out of the economic orthodoxy, and quit the free market malarkey, and start thinking outside the box, they may not be able to stop that speeding truck from running over all of us.

The Bush Administration, along with Fed Chairman Bernanke, fooled around with these banks far too long. They ended up taking the step of partially nationalizing some of the most troubled banks, but every time we heard how things were fixed, another crisis arose. The time has come (long since, in my opinion) to nationalize the banks. If the government is just going to keep throwing money at them, take the damned things over!!! Later, when things stabilize (I hope that’s not wishful thinking on my part), they can be sold off again, in whole or in part, to private investors. All of this crap to try to preserve some semblance of free market capitalism has done little to halt that speeding truck. I guarantee the free marketers, if the banks are nationalized, I WON’T wear a little red socialist flag on my shirt. We’ve had this hand wringing by the capitalists before in our history, for instance, when Roosevelt closed the banks in a “bank holiday.” The world didn’t end, and Americans didn’t don little red flag pins then either.

Well, this is going to require a "Part Three," if not "Part Four," (Hey, what can I say? I'm verbose!) but I promise to post the word histories first, hopefully by tomorrow.

***My absolute disdain for these people leads me to offer the opinion that they wouldn’t have cared what was happening to their fellow Americans anyway, as they were/are focused on one thing and one thing only...their self gratification at mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money!!!

^^^I hope I’m wrong, and I’ll be more than happy to admit such in the future when we can evaluate something of the effects of this package.

+++Take note, Obama and his people have basically been careful to say that the package will “create or save” 3 to 4 million jobs.

~!~*There was more political posturing here, in my opinion, as the idea that shaving off about $50billion from the bill will save the country from financial disaster is ludicrous, especially when the income tax cut was lessened. I thought that’s what Republicans wanted, more tax cuts. The original proposal, which was pretty much Obama’s campaign promise tax cut, was whittled down in the final bill. So help me, you can’t take your eye off of them for three seconds, and I mean people in both parties. That’s my bipartisanship for today. Franklin Roosevelt didn't worry much about the discredited Republicans of his time. In fact, as to the wealthy, he made reference to them in a somewhat famous speech where he mentioned how they hated him, but that, "I welcome their hatred!!!" That's the attitude we need now, and I echo FDR's sentiment!!!

Can We Get Out Of This Mess?

Calvin Coolidge was president during much of the era known to history as "The Roaring Twenties." *** Coolidge was a conservative, including in his use of the English language, as he conserved words to the American press and to the American public. As the election of 1928 approached, Coolidge called together members of the press and made a startling announcement. Let's see...do you want me to tell you EVERYTHING he said? Okay, but you asked for it. Let me get my fingers limbered up....flex...flex...flex. Ready? Here we go: "I do not choose to run for president in 1928." And with that, Coolidge walked out of the room. Whew! I'm worn out from typing his statement!

Many Americans wondered why Coolidge had opted out of another term, as he most certainly would have been re-elected. Stories circulated, and I can't tell you with absolute certainty that any of these stories was 100% true, but there's probably some truth to them. One story kind of sums up all of the other stories about Coolidge's choice to step down as president, although the story does make Coolidge something of a prophet, and a pretty accurate prophet at that. This isn't a word-for-word recital, but the gist of the story was that a few months after his announcement that he would not run for president, and his Secretary of Commerce, Herbert Hoover, had been nominated on the Republican ticket for president (Hoover too was a likely winner in the election), Coolidge told his wife and a cabinet secretary or two that there was a depression coming. He said that Hoover would have to spend lots of money to combat the downturn, but that he wouldn't spend enough, and that the Democrats would win the presidency, and that they would spend money like water. After that, the country would be ready for him (Coolidge) again. As I said, the story does make Coolidge something of a prophet, but it certainly fits with his general philosophy. "Supposedly" he also told some folks that he had been elected to save money (something he did with great ability), but that the time had come to spend money, and that he did not fit that role. Hmm, if only those modern Republicans had read this info about Coolidge. At least he understood his role, and that the role of the presidency in those times was going to change and that he didn't fit into it, but that his role would return. Thus the ebb and flow of political eras.

Today, we seem to be in a quandary; that is, there's a general feeling that government needs to spend money to help the floundering economy, but the fact is, the country is trillions of dollars in the hole already. Bush inherited a surplus and a declining national debt.^^^ As for the surplus, he cut taxes, with much of that money going to the wealthiest Americans, who already had plenty, and who frequently just took the tax savings and invested it in things that drove up the cost of necessary items, like oil and gasoline and various food stuffs. This was a tremendous transfer of wealth from middle and lower income Americans to the wealthy, and in the case of oil, to foreign countries, many of them not known for their loving affection for America. Of course, the greedy bastards were also heavily involved in “mortgage backed securities,” which has proven to be one of the daggers thrust into the heart of the American economy. The “sit on their class” showed how they had become an entire “industry” unto themselves, albeit one that produced nothing tangible. At least the greedy barons of the 1800s and early 1900s produced steel, oil, coal, railroads, ships, etc. Further as to the surplus, we got involved in two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, and they continue to this day, and Bush NEVER asked the American people to help pay to fight those wars, except in the all important category of blood. Add to this the need for “Homeland Security,“ after "9/11," and more money went out the door. Add to that the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and it shouldn’t take a mathematics professor to tell you that the surplus was long gone, but that you might need a mathematics professor to total up the increasing debt. Which brings us to the national debt, it went up by TRILLIONS under Bush and the Republican controlled Congress; more than under ANY other president in American history, and we‘re still counting. Mr. Bush’s legacy will be with us for many, many years to come.

Now we have a new administration, and while it has only been on the job for a few weeks, it seems to me that it, too, is trying to preserve the fantasy of the system being “intact.” In my opinion, this is not going to work. It already hasn’t worked under Bush. Both administrations seem intent on trying to pretend that this is still a free market (crapola) economy. It isn't!!! Bush and his minions took us back in time to try to relive a part of history when there was little regulation of business and industry, but when that very system got into trouble, just like during the Great Depression, these same "free marketers" turned to the government for help, hat in hand, and the Bush "free marketers" offered them billions. That was the end of this free market nonsense. Now we need to return to the reality of 2009, not 1929!!!

End of "Part One." I know many of you like the "word histories," and I will be posting several "word histories" in a separate article either before or after "Part Two." I have much of the work on the word histories already finished.

*** Coolidge was vice president under Warren G. Harding, and they took office in March, 1921 (in those days, presidents took office on March 4th, not January 20th, as they do today). Harding died in office in 1923, and Coolidge became president. He ran for a term of his own in 1924, but chose not to run for another term in 1928.

^^^Without checking on my memory of the facts, the country actually paid DOWN the national debt in the late 1990s (both Clinton AND the Republican Congress deserve credit for this), and this was the first time a substantial amount had been paid on the national debt since.....guess who? Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s! While admirable, both situations also had consequences to the downside, as without government debt for investors to buy up, off they went into other forms of investments, like the stock market in the 1920s and 2000s, and oil and mortgage backed securities in the 2000s.