Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Here's a little piece of forgotten history on the depression that happened in 1920, how were they able to get out of it so quickly? By cutting spending.

I think the following explains the 1920's economic growth better than anything Harding did:

Economic Growth in the 1920s

Despite the 1920-1921 depression and the minor interruptions in 1924 and 1927, the American economy exhibited impressive economic growth during the 1920s. Though some commentators in later years thought that the existence of some slow growing or declining sectors in the twenties suggested weaknesses that might have helped bring on the Great Depression, few now argue this. Economic growth never occurs in all sectors at the same time and at the same rate. Growth reallocates resources from declining or slower growing sectors to the more rapidly expanding sectors in accordance with new technologies, new products and services, and changing consumer tastes.

Economic growth in the 1920s was impressive. Ownership of cars, new household appliances, and housing was spread widely through the population. New products and processes of producing those products drove this growth. The combination of the widening use of electricity in production and the growing adoption of the moving assembly line in manufacturing combined to bring on a continuing rise in the productivity of labor and capital. Though the average workweek in most manufacturing remained essentially constant throughout the 1920s, in a few industries, such as railroads and coal production, it declined. (Whaples 2001) New products and services created new markets such as the markets for radios, electric iceboxes, electric irons, fans, electric lighting, vacuum cleaners, and other laborsaving household appliances. This electricity was distributed by the growing electric utilities. The stocks of those companies helped create the stock market boom of the late twenties. RCA, one of the glamour stocks of the era, paid no dividends but its value appreciated because of expectations for the new company. Like the Internet boom of the late 1990s, the electricity boom of the 1920s fed a rapid expansion in the stock market.

Fed by continuing productivity advances and new products and services and facilitated by an environment of stable prices that encouraged production and risk taking, the American economy embarked on a sustained expansion in the 1920s.

The expansion of consumer demand is what fueled the economic growth of the 1920's. In other words, spending money on radios, iceboxes, cars, fans, lamps, etc...Plus there was an expansion of roads into suburbs and people moving there. More spending. Moreover, if people were spending, the government didn't need to, unlike the economy bush left Pres. Obama. No one was spending.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[ariscus99 1]

Wasn't this huge spike of unemployment in 1920 caused by solders returning from WWI?

No, there was a recession immediately following WW1, that lasted about 7 months, but the economy quickly recovered, the depression of 1920 was another valley, in our economic times, which economist have shown we should go through. Highs, and lows. What the left is trying to do is create a levelness through our markets, which has been shown time and again doesn't work. We must have highs and lows. And the way out of the lows was is exactly what Wilson and Harding did during this time, cut spending.

[ariscus99 1]

[bCOLOR=red]The expansion of consumer demand is what fueled the economic growth of the 1920's. In other words, spending money on radios, iceboxes, cars, fans, lamps, etc...Plus there was an expansion of roads into suburbs and people moving there. More spending. Moreover, if people were spending, the government didn't need to, unlike the economy bush left Pres. Obama. No one was spending. [/color][/b]

Don't forget what most economist believe drove the roaring 20's, capitalism, invention, and entrepreneurship. Mixed well with minimal government intrusion and regulations.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

No, there was a recession immediately following WW1, that lasted about 7 months, but the economy quickly recovered, the depression of 1920 was another valley, in our economic times, which economist have shown we should go through. Highs, and lows. What the left is trying to do is create a levelness through our markets, which has been shown time and again doesn't work. We must have highs and lows. And the way out of the lows was is exactly what Wilson and Harding did during this time, cut spending.

Government Spending and Economic Expansions

Posted by Rdan | 5/24/2010 05:10:00 AM

by Mike Kimel

Cross posted on the Presimetrics blog.

Government Spending and Economic Expansions

It is conventional wisdom that raising taxes, particularly during and just after a recession, will harm the economy. Last week I checked whether that was true. (The post appeared in the Presimetrics blog and the Angry Bear blog.) The post looked at every recession since 1929, and it showed that recessions that were accompanied by marginal tax rate cuts were followed by shorter, slower expansions than recessions that weren't accompanied by marginal tax rate cuts. (Expansion, btw, is the term for the period between recessions.)

This week I will look at the effect of cutting back on government spending during and just after a recession. I'm going to do that with three graphs. The first shows the length (in months) of every expansion since 1929. The second looks at the annualized growth in real GDP per capita for each expansion period, and the third looks at the total growth rate in real GDP per capita over the length of the expansion period. In each graph, recoveries are divided into three groups based on what happened to the federal government's spending as a share of GDP from the start of the recession to the period one year after the end of the recession.

Before I get started, let me describe the data I'm going to use… Data on the starting and ending dates for recessions comes from the NBER, the folks who call the start and end. Real GDP per capita comes from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' National Income and Product Accounts ("NIPA") Table 7.1, updated on April of 2010. Real GDP per capita is available annually from 1929 to 1946, and quarterly thereafter. Data on federal government spending comes from NIPA Table 3.2, and GDP figures come from NIPA Table 1.1.5.

As I did last week, I am going to assume that the real GDP per capita in any month is equal to the real GDP per capita for the quarter (or if prior to 1947, the year) in which it fits. In other words, the real GDP per capita (in 2005 dollars) for the first quarter of 2008 is $43,997, and I am assuming that the real GDP per capita in any of the three months in that quarter (i.e., January, February, or March of 2008) is equal to $43,997. Government spending and GDP are treated the same way. That assumption shouldn’t cause any major changes in the results and it will keep me from having to go off on tangents about how the data was smoothed.

With that, here we go. The first graph shows the length of each expansion, in months.

Figure 1

There aren't a lot of recessions during which spending was cut, but on average, they tended to produce the shortest expansions.

The next figure shows the annualized growth rate during each expansion.

Figure 2

Once again, on average, the recessions during which federal government spending shrunk as a percentage of GDP tended to producer slower economic growth. Two out of the three recessions for which the government cut spending were among the three that produced the slowest economic growth. The third one actually produced rapid growth, but as the first graph showed, that expansion didn't last all that long either. Which leads us to the third graph, which shows the total increase in real GDP per capita during each expansion.

Figure 3

To summarize - while there were weren't all that many recessions during which federal government spending as a share of GDP fell, those recessions tended to produce shorter, slower expansions than other recessions. And btw, we get similar results if we use total government spending (i.e., federal, state & local) as opposed to just federal government spending.

Now... consider last week's post, which showed that recessions during which marginal tax rates were followed by underperforming expansions. The two findings seem to suggest that when it comes to getting the economy moving again during and just after a recession, government spending seems to be more important than private sector spending. One reason this might true - during recessions most private sector players companies hunker down and cut spending, and they usually don't start investing and hiring people until they're reasonably sure there's going to be demand for their products and services. Meanwhile, individuals cut back too, fearful they might lose their jobs.

With everyone waiting until the other guy moves first, there isn't much of a foundation set down for future growth. But if the government steps in and acts when nobody else is willing to do so, it could create that more stable environment the private sector needs in order to get off the ground.

Your premise is not supported by this in-depth look at government spending, recessions and periods of economic expansion (the periods between recessions).

Edited May 25, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[phil1336 0]

No, there was a recession immediately following WW1, that lasted about 7 months, but the economy quickly recovered, the depression of 1920 was another valley, in our economic times, which economist have shown we should go through. Highs, and lows. What the left is trying to do is create a levelness through our markets, which has been shown time and again doesn't work. We must have highs and lows. And the way out of the lows was is exactly what Wilson and Harding did during this time, cut spending.

I agree with you 100%. Lets start by cutting the Defense Department Budget and that of the Pentagon by half. Bring the troops home from Germany, Panama, Korea, Japan, and last but not least Iraq and Afganistan. There will be plenty of money left over for Prescription drug coverage for Medicare, National Health Care Reform, and Cash for Clunkers! You can`t fight terrorism when it has no defined leader, country of origin, and consists of hundreds of splintered cells that can only agree on their hatred of the West and Israel. When they strike, you retaliate much as the Israel does. A school bus or rocket attack hits from Gaza or the West Bank, NO PRESS CONFERENCE, just fighter planes in the air within minutes for a heavy handed response! Case closed!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Don't forget what most economist believe drove the roaring 20's, capitalism, invention, and entrepreneurship. Mixed well with minimal government intrusion and regulations.

My second mantra, as you should know, is regulate, baby, regulate. And I'm glad my government has emission controls on cars, clean air and Water laws, work place safety laws, food and drug safety laws.

I don't want lead in my paint or toys or bridges made quickly and cheaply (no pesky government regs), etc..

Without these regulations it's russian roulette when you go to work or eat your food or drink your Water. I don't want to live that way. I don't think most people do.

[ariscus99 1]

I agree with you 100%. Lets start by cutting the Defense Department Budget and that of the Pentagon by half. Bring the troops home from Germany, Panama, Korea, Japan, and last but not least Iraq and Afganistan. There will be plenty of money left over for Prescription drug coverage for Medicare, National Health Care Reform, and Cash for Clunkers! You can`t fight terrorism when it has no defined leader, country of origin, and consists of hundreds of splintered cells that can only agree on their hatred of the West and Israel. When they strike, you retaliate much as the Israel does. A school bus or rocket attack hits from Gaza or the West Bank, NO PRESS CONFERENCE, just fighter planes in the air within minutes for a heavy handed response! Case closed!

Cut defense spending by half? Can you tell me where the money in the defense department is spent dollar for dollar? And once you've done that please tell me where you wish to make these cuts? Should it be from the armored vehicles that protect our brothers and sisters, and mother and fathers, and sons and daughters? Maybe from developing new technology to keep them from having to enter combat area's? Or maybe we cut the spending on the programs and people that staff our destroyers, and aircraft carriers? You know the one that go to supply medical necessities and hospitals to countries that can't support their own, that have just suffered earthquakes, and tsunami's and other natural disasters? Development of new aircraft everyone deems to be so wasteful, that can and will saves lives, lets get rid of all of that stuff. And since your all for cutting expenses now, lets not do wasteful programs like cars for clunkers and paying for all the other hand out programs. Why should you get free money for buying a house? Why don't we do what is necessary to save the country, make the necessary cuts, yes some people will suffer, but unfortunately thats life, there will always be those who are hungry and sick and doesn't mean we can save them all. We can give a hand up to those who will use it, but for those who only want to use the system, they should get nothing.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Cut defense spending by half? Can you tell me where the money in the defense department is spent dollar for dollar? And once you've done that please tell me where you wish to make these cuts? Should it be from the armored vehicles that protect our brothers and sisters, and mother and fathers, and sons and daughters? Maybe from developing new technology to keep them from having to enter combat area's? Or maybe we cut the spending on the programs and people that staff our destroyers, and aircraft carriers? You know the one that go to supply medical necessities and hospitals to countries that can't support their own, that have just suffered earthquakes, and tsunami's and other natural disasters? Development of new aircraft everyone deems to be so wasteful, that can and will saves lives, lets get rid of all of that stuff. And since your all for cutting expenses now, lets not do wasteful programs like cars for clunkers and paying for all the other hand out programs. Why should you get free money for buying a house? Why don't we do what is necessary to save the country, make the necessary cuts, yes some people will suffer, but unfortunately thats life, there will always be those who are hungry and sick and doesn't mean we can save them all. We can give a hand up to those who will use it, but for those who only want to use the system, they should get nothing.

Why don't we ask republican secretary of defense, Gates? He should know.

Defense Secretary Gates Blasts Military Spending

Andrea Stone Senior Washington Correspondent

AOL News

WASHINGTON (May 8) -- In a speech crafted for history but liable to be swept into the dustbin like so many before it, Defense Secretary Robert Gates today called for a sweeping overhaul of Pentagon spending that would not only kill expensive weapons programs but also cut military health care costs and reduce the number of generals in the ranks.

Speaking at the Eisenhower Library in Abilene, Kan., on the 65th anniversary of the Allied victory in Europe during World War II, Gates said the "gusher of defense spending" that opened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and doubled the military budget over the past decade would be capped. "The gusher has been turned off and will stay off for a good period of time," he said in prepared remarks released on an embargoed basis Friday.

Gates said if combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are to be sustained at the level necessary to succeed, hard choices must be made as the Pentagon begins preparing its fiscal 2012 budget request.

"What is required going forward is not more study. Nor do we need more legislation. It is not a great mystery what needs to change," he said today from the home of World War II general and 34th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower. "What it takes is the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices -- choices that will displease powerful people both inside the Pentagon and out."

That may be be an understatement.

Gates hinted at big changes earlier this week in a speech to the Navy League in which he asked whether the Navy really needed 11 carrier groups and no fewer than 32 of its planned next-generation destroyers. But today's speech made clear that weapons cuts -- like granting the Air Force just 20 of the 132 B-2 bombers it wanted -- was "only a start. More is needed -- much more."

On the Chopping Block

Besides canceling costly procurement programs, Gates advocated:

Cuts in military health care spending: "Leaving aside the sacred obligation we have to America's wounded warriors, health care costs are eating the Defense Department alive," Gates said. He noted that the cost of providing military retirees' health care has risen from $19 billion a decade ago to $50 billion, even as many veterans with full-time civilian jobs are opting for the taxpayer-funded TRICARE program instead of getting insurance through their employers.

At a time when civilians are seeing their premiums and co-pays go up by double digits, all proposals for "modest increases" by the Pentagon have "been met with a furious response from the Congress and veterans groups" and have gone on to "routinely die an ignominious death on Capitol Hill," he said. He suggested that despite the "admirable sentiment" in protecting veterans from higher health care costs, they must foot a bigger share of the bill.

Reducing the number of flag officers: Gates said there are simply too many generals and admirals. At a time when corporations are streamlining their management structures, no fewer than five four-star headquarters must sign off on a request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan.

He noted that while the post-Cold War military was trimmed by 40 percent, the number of generals and admirals was cut by about half that.

"How many of our headquarters and secretariats are primarily in the business of reporting to or supervising other headquarters and secretariats, as opposed to overseeing activity related to real-world needs and missions?" he asked.

Gates urged that more positions now held by an officer with stars be converted to a lower rank. But he also noted that a similar proposal made a few years ago, which targeted 37 positions out of more than 1,300 active and reserve flag officer billets, resulted in none being downgraded.

"In considering these questions, we have to be mindful of the Iron law of bureaucracies," he said, "that the definition of essential work expands proportionally with the seniority of the person in charge and the quantity of time and staff available -- with 50-page PowerPoint briefings being one result."

Minding the "gaps": Gates said military planners must change the way they decide there are "alleged 'gaps' " in their requirements, and think twice before they ask for more resources.

"Should we really be up in arms over a temporary projected shortfall of about 100 Navy and Marine strike fighters relative to the number of carrier wings, when America's military possesses more than 3,200 tactical combat aircraft of all kinds?" he asked rhetorically. "Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners?"

A Nod to Eisenhower

The choice of venue was squarely aimed at upping the speech's impact. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell alerted military reporters far ahead of time that a big speech was planned in Kansas and made sure journalists had a copy of it in time for Sunday analysis pieces.

Gates observed that the last time he had been at the Eisenhower Library was with his sixth-grade class from Wichita 54 years ago. He chose the spot in the nation's heartland to better evoke Eisenhower's famous "military-industrial complex" farewell speech in 1961, in which he spoke about the need to maintain balance among national programs. There at the boyhood home of one of America's few five-star generals, he noted that President Eisenhower once said, "No one ever comes up and says, 'Let's get rid of something,' " and that he also remarked it took the Army 50 years to get rid of horses.

President Barack Obama, too, referred to Eisenhower's historic speech at West Point last December, when he laid out his case for this summer's troop surge in Afghanistan.

While administration critics often like to quote another two-term Republican president, the one who oversaw the biggest military buildup since World War II, Obama and Gates have made clear their preference for Eisenhower under whom, the defense secretary said, "real choices were made, priorities set and limits enforced."

Not that Gates is the first defense secretary to call for spending reform at the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave a major speech challenging the military budget-busting bureaucracy. Few remembered it the next day when a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

Chances for Success

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va., think tank, said Gates' speech was significant because until now, the focus has been on junking military hardware.

"Now he is casting the net wider than just wayward weapons systems," Thompson said, "because he's asking questions about why military health care costs so much, the need for some commands and asking why so many generals are needed."

But whether Gates, and by extension his boss in the White House, can push through reforms is questionable.

"Secretary Gates is to be highly praised for new actions on reducing officer bloat, now at gigantic proportions, and against pork, of which the C-17 is a classic example," said Winslow Wheeler, who heads a military reform project at the Center for Defense Information. "On the other hand, we have a long way to go to make fundamental reform the operative condition in the Pentagon: pleading for still more money above our post-World War II spending high, even as war costs are going down, will not get us there."

Moreover, members of Congress are unlikely to look approvingly on cuts in defense jobs in their districts in an election year. Nor is the idea of trimming TRICARE and turning a myth of the health reform debate at least partly into reality something lawmakers are likely to embrace.

"This is not going to be well received on Capitol Hill, but it's what needed to be said," Thompson maintained. And with Gates, the only Cabinet holdover from the Bush administration, now approaching the time he has said he will stay at the Pentagon, "this is the kind of pronouncement you get from a defense secretary who's thinking about departing.

"He is saying some very tough things that the political system won't like," Thompson said, "but maybe now is the right time because his successor will be the one to take care of it."

Edited May 25, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[BJean 16]

I know this isn't the 'abortion' thread, but I wanted to post this little fact:

The Roe Effect

Pro-life Americans continue to out number the pro-abortion crowd, according to the latest Gallop poll on America's opinions on abortion. The spread, 47% to 45%, is within the margin of error, but the sea change is dramatic when compared with the numbers from 1996, when Americans 50-38 believe abortion is morally wrong, and abortion supporters only have themselves to blame for the demographic shift. You see, since 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court scribbled abortion into the margins of the bill of rights, Pro-abortion parents faced with "unwanted pregnancies" have exercised their "right to choose". Consequently, as the Gallop data vividly show, pro-abortion parents have given birth to fewer children relative to pro-lifers, whose children were not slain by abolitionists and were raised to respect the sanctity of life. And now pro-lifers outnumber abortion supporters.

You just like to start stuff. You just spew crap. If someone did a poll that said, Are you Pro Abortion or Pro Life, why would you think anyone would choose Pro Abortion?

Most Americans believe in a woman's right to choose. That's very different from saying that most Americans are pro abortion or pro life.

You can't change this anymore than you can justfiy people's "feelings" that discrimination is acceptable in any form!!!

[BJean 16]

Don't forget what most economist believe drove the roaring 20's, capitalism, invention, and entrepreneurship. Mixed well with minimal government intrusion and regulations.

Oh yeah... minimal governmental intrustion and regulations - look how great that worked for us. Where do you think and why do you think that governmental regulations became necessary? Because corporations have been proven to use fair business practices? This conversation would be humorous if it weren't so dangerous and irresponsible.

[BJean 16]

Cut defense spending by half? Can you tell me where the money in the defense department is spent dollar for dollar? And once you've done that please tell me where you wish to make these cuts? Should it be from the armored vehicles that protect our brothers and sisters, and mother and fathers, and sons and daughters? Maybe from developing new technology to keep them from having to enter combat area's? Or maybe we cut the spending on the programs and people that staff our destroyers, and aircraft carriers? You know the one that go to supply medical necessities and hospitals to countries that can't support their own, that have just suffered earthquakes, and tsunami's and other natural disasters? Development of new aircraft everyone deems to be so wasteful, that can and will saves lives, lets get rid of all of that stuff. And since your all for cutting expenses now, lets not do wasteful programs like cars for clunkers and paying for all the other hand out programs. Why should you get free money for buying a house? Why don't we do what is necessary to save the country, make the necessary cuts, yes some people will suffer, but unfortunately thats life, there will always be those who are hungry and sick and doesn't mean we can save them all. We can give a hand up to those who will use it, but for those who only want to use the system, they should get nothing.

I just can't imagine what rock you've been living under. We need a strong department of defense... everyone knows that. What we don't need are obscene government defense contracts for weapons and airplanes and bullets and crap that we stockpile and never use or only use if someone like Bush makes sure that we do.

What we need in America is a healthy and safe environment for our citizens. We need safe roads, safe schools (and high quality schools for our future), top-notch health care for everyone, safe food supply, clean air and Water and all the things that make a country a great place to live.

What we don't need is war. And we'd like to not have terrorists in this country. But you don't stop terrorists with a massive department of defense. You can try to stop acts of terrorism by learning about them and nipping their activities in the bud. But if you think that big guns are going to stop terrorism you must have your head in the sand. :smile2:

[tdslf1 0]

Good point BJ

Most people understand that someone elses body choices are not their own. If pro life and pro abortion are the choices, obviously few would pick pro abortion on the grounds that such a phrase is ignorant. Pro abortion is not a choice and the ones that use it are trying to throw the guilt card. Not gonna ever work. Never to the point that we turn back the clock to back alley abortions. This is settled law, I think. I want my country forward, not back. We seem to be going in the right direction on a lot of issues.

They lost on keeping women in the shame of having abortions. They will continue to lose on this issue because no one wants to take the choice away. The best advertisement for keeping it that way was the wacko who killed Tiller.

[tdslf1 0]

By the way, I haven't heard any yahoos screeching about Obama raising taxes. Idiots finally looked at their tax returns.

[tdslf1 0]

GOP tries to upend NC campaign backed by tea party

By MIKE BAKER, Associated Press Writer Mike Baker, Associated Press Writer – Mon May 24, 6:18 pm ET

RALEIGH, N.C. – Republican officials are working to derail the campaign of a tea party supported candidate in North Carolina — circulating documents from the man's messy divorce that depict him as a pot smoker who has called himself the messiah.

It's a risky move for state and national party leaders trying to harness the power of the tea party movement without letting it spin out of their control.

Tim D'Annunzio, a congressional candidate in North Carolina's most competitive district, has run an anti-establishment campaign with vows to dismantle entire branches of the federal government. His ideas have drawn support from tea party activists, and he has raised more money from individuals than his GOP rival while also contributing more than $1 million to his own campaign.

Republican leaders in both Raleigh and Washington, however, are worried about his electability in November if he wins a primary runoff next month. They're publicizing court documents about D'Annunzio's past legal, martial and business troubles and denouncing him as unfit for office.

"Mr. D'Annunzio has disqualified himself by his background, his record and his behavior," said Tom Fetzer, North Carolina's Republican Party chairman. He said the GOP embraces the tea party but doesn't believe a person with such a checkered past should be the party's nominee.

In Hoke County divorce records, his wife said in 1995 that D'Annunzio had claimed to be the Messiah, had traveled to New Jersey to raise his stepfather from the dead, believed God would drop a 1,000-mile high pyramid as the New Jerusalem on Greenland and found the Ark of the Covenant in Arizona. A doctor's evaluation the following month said D'Annunzio used marijuana almost daily, had been living with another woman for several months, had once been in drug treatment for heroin dependence and was jailed a couple times as a teenager.

The doctor concluded that his religious beliefs were not delusional. A judge wrote in a child support ruling a few years later that D'Annunzio was a self-described "religious zealot" who believed the government was the "Antichrist." The judge said he was willfully failing to make child support payments.

D'Annunzio declined Monday to discuss the specifics of his past and refused to confirm or deny the details of the court documents. He acknowledged having "a troubled upbringing" but that he got himself out of it and changed his life 16 years ago, when he had a religious conversion.

"The bigger story is that the power brokers in Raleigh and in Washington are willing to go to any length and use any unscrupulous tactic to try to destroy somebody," he said. "They think that they're losing their control over the Republican party."

D'Annunzio was the leader in a Republican primary earlier this month but didn't get enough votes to avoid a runoff. He faces former television sportscaster Harold Johnson in a runoff vote June 22 for the 8th District, which extends from Charlotte to Fayetteville. The GOP is targeting Democratic Rep. Larry Kissell, who won the seat two years ago after many years of Republican control.

Republican tensions with the tea party have surfaced around the country, most recently in Kentucky, when the coalition pushed political novice Rand Paul to victory in the GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat. Paul defeated Trey Grayson, who was supported by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

In Nevada, tea party backers have supported Sharron Angle over former state GOP chair Sue Lowden as the party's pick to challenge Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.

Ronnie Long, a Harrisburg businessman who is president of We the People NC and part of the tea party movement, said he was disappointed to see Republican officials resort to personal attacks against D'Annunzio.

Long said his group and others are backing D'Annunzio because he has the integrity and fortitude to make decisions for the people and not the party.

"He's not the kind of person the parties can rule over and manipulate," he said.

Did they say DERAIL? As in, the crazies have taken over the asylum? What is this joyfull news? Rethugs eating their young? Did they not give birth and encourage this animal, now they want to tell their creation they're too crazy? I thought they loved REAL people like half term governor Palin? Outstanding that they have to back peddle 2 times in a month with Paul and now this one. No lamestream media doing this attack job. This is all the rethugs. Let us liberals sit back and watch the implosion.

Edited May 26, 2010 by tdslf1

[phil1336 0]

The Military Industrial Complex has drained the US Treasury of 100`s of Billions of dollars of waste and useless spending due to the fact that they use National Security to defend their budget. Much like the US Postal Service who uses the same Contractors as the Defense Dept. Siemens, Lockheed-Martin, Martin-Marietta, Gruman, etc to purchase state of the art, high tech automation mail sortation machinery that is no longer needed due to drastic drop in mail volume, yet they continue to get billion dollar contracts to fill in the gap for whatever wasn`t picked up by the Defense Dept. It`s funny you right wing Tea Party advocates have No Problem with "corporate welfare" but always throw a shit-fit when money is wasted on "social welfare"! They always use the same tired excuse.....the old (trickle down doctrine) that throwing money at Big Business will ultimately create jobs.....WRONG! Most of these jobs are out-sourced off shore anyhow and the only group that truly benefits are the Board of Directors and to a lesser degree the Shareholders. The Big Lie!