she flew into combat zones, places that were being bombed to visit the troops >> herbert hoover has a poor reputation because of the depression. but maybe that is quite undeserved but his wife, >> i liked lou a lot. studied geeologiy and mining engineering at a tim when - >> did she go into the mountains to did herrifle headee air as >> we only have a few seconds. wasn't pat nixon a ver stronghe helped write speeche and craft papers and came from a very humbl background born in a minin town in >>> were any of the first because she would go int fits at the time and for a long time people ought it was mental disorder. >> depression.e whole 4 years basically in depressio trying to contact the spirits of her dead children through sayances. quite a tragic figure. >> do you think that whe all is said and done we will have a female as president of the united states? >> i think we will i think we have got enough talented women in politics now who have got the requisite experience to be that they are ready to lead that hasn't been true until recently >> what is holding it back? back is that vo

let's take herbert hoover versus fdr. whether you agree with fdr or not, jimmy carter and ronald reagan for eight years. the dramatic changes, though they started off with the country really in a slew -- >> there's another reason why he was so popular. he had tax breaks and those tax breaks, an economy that grew by 9.8% while he was in office. >> his ideas worked, but he inspired the country. >> he inspires people into it? he bought their confidence? >> after 3 1/2 years of ronald reagan before the great recoverytook hold. >> this gets to beth's point, whether people perceive their government as helping them or not. all this massive government intervention, americans want to say, get our free market back. get out of our way. >> as the leader we want to bring back from the 80s. i think -- >> why don't you join now? >> no, let's talk about president reagan. he was at 42% popularity. he had unemployment of 10.8%. and he managed to come out of that. it is way too early. tax cuts have been dancing on the grave of president oba

>> bonnie, without a doubt the most powerful, handed an equivalent of a herbert hoover legacy. she decided that you needed the congressional equivalent, fdr in a skirt, that's what she became. >> well, i would say he is and the federal government are probably more powerful than they have ever been because they are spend morning dollars than they've ever spent. frankly the new deal she is talking about say bad deal including financial regulations and i think she will be a little more surprised in november than she is relating to you here. >> i think what you said understates it. i think she's the most powerful elected female official in american history and the most powerful speaker period in a century since uncle joe canon. and what she has accomplished is especially impressive given the number of conservative democrats who she knew she would need to have majority in congress. >> powerful perhaps, but she's presiding over an absolute disaster. the legislation that has passed is disastrous for this country in the long-term. and you know we all know how history is jujd the archit

let's take out the herbert hoover administration. that was the worst. you are charitable and take that out, to $10,000 investment exclusively under republican and assertions would have resulted in $51,211. i don't know how good you think that is of return over seven years. under democratic administrations, if you had taken that same $10,000 and invested exclusively under democratic administrations, that would now be worth $300,671. 600% more than if you had exclusively had the money grow under republican administrations p. when we talk about republican economic failure, we are not talking about passing trend. notwithstanding the fact that i can tell you that during the course of the clinton administration, the dow jones group to what a 26%, the s&p route to 20 -- the assateague route 220% -- is sen -- dow grew 226%, s&p grew 229%. republican policies have objectively benefit the privileged and left working americans behind. we might be able to write that off if republicans gave any indication that there would reconsider the policies they have created. b

during the eight years of the bush administration as i said, the worst job record since herbert hoover. a stark contrast with the clinton administration that created 21 million private sector jobs in 96 hons as opposed to the net 1 million jobs created during the 96 months of the bush administration. oaf eight years of president bush, our economy added just a million private sector jobs. it was president bush who ran a 2.13 trillion dollars in deficits. and wiped out the biggest surpluss in american history. an inheritance of 5. trillion dollars, a national debt of some five plus trillion dollars turned into a national debt of 10-plus trillion dollars. that record is not an abrasion how far. a deck -- in decade after decade, the democrats performed better than on the economy than republicans. some may be surprised to hear that. market analysis -- analysts larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that, and i quote, jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats. princeton political scientist larry bartal studied

if we don't do that we're following herbert hoover comics, and herbert hoover economics doesn't put usack to work. >> do you all agree with that? more money from the federal government even though it doesn't have more money to send to you? >> i don't agree with it. i think that it's going to take modification of the expectations of the public of what government does. and so far this discussion has been about how have we scraped and adjusted to maintain to meet the public's expectations about funding. now you put the other option on the table that states go to the federal government to find money to meet the expectations, whether it's health care, roads or anything else. and so what we have is as states in effect we're dealing with a historical pattern that each state developed with regard to what it was going to fund or what it was going to fund it. so to me it seems to me that we're avoiding the basic question, which is each of us have to figure out some way to pair back the public expectation of what government is going to pay for, or we continue this sort of, as you say, sweep funds

the same policies that resulted in the worst jobs record since herbert hoover.we owe the unemployed a hands. not just because it's the right thing to do but because economists agree that there are few more effective ways to stimulate local economies than extending unemployment insurance. why is that? because when somebody is unemployed and has no dollars and they get dollars, they spend them. they buy food, they buy prescription drugs, they buy other items for them and their families. they buy gasoline for their cars. and as they do, they help the economy grow. failing to give them the resources to support their families also undermines our economic situation. my republican friends claim that they are for extending unemployment insurance but simply believe it needs to be paid for. however, frankly, such a claim rings hollow because after decades of treating unemployment insurance as emergency spending when they weren't in charge, when no democrat could determine what came to the floor, they passed unemployment insurance when bush's failing economy had large numb

which we've had to increase because of the need to get out of this worst economic recession since herbert hoover put us into the depression some 80 years earlier. no more american independent private spending person than warren buffet has said that unemployment compensation should be passed. it helps the economy and it's just the right thing to do. this is the right thing to do for the economy, for the people who got in -- who have gone the purple hearts of this economic downturn and for our country and i urge everybody to use their brains and their hearts and to support this proposition. thank you. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i will just point out again to our colleagues across the aisle that the reason we had a surplus when bill clinton was president was because republicans were in charge of the congress and the reason we had a deficit the last two years of the bush administration is because democrats were in charge of the congress. we'll continue to remind you of th

during the eight years of the bush administration as i said, the worst job record since herbert hoover. a stark contrast with the clinton administration that created 21 million private sector jobs in 96 hons as opposed to the net 1 million jobs created during the 96 months of the bush administration. oaf eight years of president bush, our economy added just a million private sector jobs. it was president bush who ran a 2.13 trillion dollars in deficits. and wiped out the biggest surpluss in american history. an inheritance of 5. trillion dollars, a national debt of some five plus trillion dollars turned into a national debt of 10-plus trillion dollars. that record is not an abrasion how far. a deck -- in decade after decade, the democrats performed better than on the economy than republicans. some may be surprised to hear that. market analysis -- analysts larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that, and i quote, jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats. princeton political scientist larry bartal studied

we do not do that -- if we do not, we're falling herbert hoover economics. that is not the people back to work. >> do you agree? more money from the federal government even though they do not have the money to send to you? >> i do not agree. it is going to take the exhortations of the public. so far, this is how we have a script and adjusted to meet the public's expectations about funding. now in the other option on the table which is this going to the federal government to get money to meet the expectations whether it is health care, roads, or anything else. as states, we are dealing with a historical pattern that each state's are deciding how they're going to fund things. to me, it seems that we are rewarding the raise a question which is, each of us have to figure out how to pare back public expectation of what government will pay for or we continue to come as you said, suite funds somewhere. >> where do you do that? we already have 40 million people to run health care. who are you going to tell. -- medicaid? >> i think we will have to trim back what medi

during the eight years of the bush administration as i said, the worst job record since herbert hoover. a stark contrast with the clinton administration that created 21 million private sector jobs in 96 hons as opposed to the net 1 million jobs created during the 96 months of the bush administration. oaf eight years of president bush, our economy added just a million private sector jobs. it was president bush who ran a 2.13 trillion dollars in deficits. and wiped out the biggest surpluss in american history. an inheritance of 5. trillion dollars, a national debt of some five plus trillion dollars turned into a national debt of 10-plus trillion dollars. that record is not an abrasion how far. a deck -- in decade after decade, the democrats performed better than on the economy than republicans. some may be surprised to hear that. market analysis -- analysts larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that, and i quote, jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats. princeton political scientist larry bartal studied

democratic president and a democratic congress evolving out of a depression caused by republican herbert hoover and now 75 years later we look at a situation where another republican president, a hoover george bush caused another financial crisis and the republicans talk about privatizing social security. social security is money that needs to be there to preserve people's standards of living when republicans who left the -- let the economy out of hand let it happen. this is the most foolish thought i've ever seen. if we didn't learn from september of 2008 that the market is a gamble and comes up and down it's not social security, it's social insecurity. and people have gotten up here and said, you haven't in the that bush is gone? it's all they can say is bush is gone. nobody can defend him. rated the second worst president in the history of the united states. given tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and fighting a war based on lies to rise great deficits and now all they can say he's gone. thank goddess' gone. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: -- thank god he's gone.

during the eight years of the bush administration, it was the worst job record since herbert hoover. it is a stark contrast with the clinton administration that created 21 million private sector jobs in 96 months, as opposed to the net 1 million jobs created during the 96 months of the bush administration. over eight years of president bush, our economy added just 1 million private sector jobs. it was president bush iran a $2.13 trillion in deficit and wiped out the biggest surpluses in history. the national debt was more than $5 trillion turned into a national debt of more than $10 trillion. that record is not an aberration. decade after decade, democrats are performed better on the economy than republicans. some may be surprised to hear that. market analyst larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found that "jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats." princeton political scientist larry bartell studied income growth from truman to george w. bush. he found that when a republican president is in power, people