Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression? »
Posted By ameliog 10 months, 3 weeks ago in Political NewsConservatives' newest talking point - designed to stop Congress from passing an economic stimulus package - is breathtaking.
Read Full Story at salon.com »
1438 Views Share Story 94 Comments Report
Submitted By:
ameliog
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 94 (view all)
-
79%
amazed10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is not a new idea. In fact, in my US History class in the early 70's we were taught that the New Deal didn't get us out of the depression -- it was WWII. In fact, there was huge speculation that Roosevelt had advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor, but let it happen in an attempt to get us into the war so that the economy could start moving again. To say that this idea that the New Deal wasn't a good deal is brand new is just not true.
Reply
In addition, when Roosevelt started his massive alphabet soup of works projects, there were no unions and civil service was not as iron-clad as it is today. He was able to hire out of work people cheaply and temporarily. Today, to put people to work on our infrastructure, they will have to be paid union wages and benefits and, of course, once they are part of the civil service system, we have them (or their replacements) for life. This means that Obama's New Deal will most likely result in a vastly expanded PERMANENT public sector -- which will have to be supported by tax dollars in perpetuity.
yeah, that'll work.-
71%
b-happy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't understand how creating jobs building bridges is going to help us get out of this economic situation. To me the main root of the problem is that almost all the manufacturing jobs have gone overseas thus, no one buys anything from the USA anymore. Shouldn't we be trying to rebuild those industry's that were being sent overseas to China? This is a great opportunity to start over again. No one wants to buy CHinese products anymore because they are so tainted with lead and other chemicals. American made could mean something again.
Reply
BTW, where is Obama going to get the money to create these jobs? All this means is an even bigger deficit. Do we really want that? -
100%
Klarissa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Spending our tax money on a trillion dollar bailout (Pelosi and Reid proposal) is like giving a sick person one antibiotic tablet.
Reply
Won't cure the problem and it comes back worse than ever.
From what I have read on here most people would first pay down their debt (they already bought at lot and are still paying for it) and making sure that their cars are in good working condition to they don't have to buy a new one.
I hear people around here saying, "I think twice before buying something, asking myself if I really need that?" - how about the area where you live?
The media brings up examples - are they the worst they can find, or does it apply to the people who live near you?
-
-
44%
beavith110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
who's this Sirota guy? did he just fall off the turnip truck?
Reply
its kind of funny that he talks about FDR prolonging the Depression when one can argue that he helped create it.
I don't think that anyone can argue that the Crash of '29 didn't kick off a recession. That Smoot Hawley was a ticking time bomb that went off when FDR pulled the pin by taxing the wealthy, wealth creation, promotion and preservation.
when does Sirota start his clock? 1937? why not 1932?
deer in the headlights? sure. he's trying to backfill FDRs full legacy. is stimulus bad? no. is it the answer? no, again. its just a tool. maybe its the wrong tool. that is up as an opinion. seeing that the $150B stimulus made for a 1% upward blip in a slowly declining economy, what does any rational person think that $750B will do in a free falling economy?
we're peeing into the wind. and i don't think 'stimulus' is a code word for a solution. IMO.
i'm only propping it because its so darn zany. -
75%
wtagg10 months, 3 weeks ago
-
60%
beavith110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that's absolutely correct!
Reply
and that's what makes the hue and cry FOR stimulus so undefendable.
i don't think that running around like a headless chicken, doing something, ANYTHING, even if its the wrong thing truly constitutes a strategy.
Bush is wrong. the dem leadership is wrong. the republican congressional leadership is right only because they are being contrarian.
i have no idea where this is going. i think we aren't even close to having this thing get better.
anyway. back to the original point of this story, Sirota is has his panties all in a bunch because someone said something about FDR he didn't like.
tough noogies, Mr Sirota.... get a perspective that's not just being another apologist. -
-
-
50%
beavith110 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that's always been possible with a fiat currency. that evil Reagan (huh! actually Carter appointee his sole good deed in 4 years) Volcker set a benchmark limit for inflation of 2% per year. enough to allow for growth without beggaring the economy.
Reply
and its not really a tax because the Gov't doesn't get the proceeds. i wouldn't call it secret either. they report the inflation rate...-
100%
amazed10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
well, yeah, inflation does result in more money to the gov't -- as your income rises to keep up with inflation, your taxes go up-- in fact, not only the absolute dollars you pay, but there is also bracket creep that wasn't addressed at all until fairly recently. As your income rises even more to keep up with inflation, you even can end up running into the AMT (alternative minimum tax) originally designed to make sure that the super-wealthy paid their fair share, but now affecting many middle class people and the loss of deductions and tax credits -- at incomes that used to be for "rich people", but now affect many, if not most families with two wage earners who have reasonably decent jobs.
Reply
So, that's the argument inflation is a "hidden" tax, not really a "secret" tax.
-
-
boots72_Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
psychohorsebeastComment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
75%
cosmogenium10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, these neo-cons are right; there's something about dependable, well-paying jobs that just makes my skin crawl. Who needs a middle-class? All we need are the rich and cheap labor/military fodder. Hasn't the world learned anything?
Reply -
83%
tchef10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Republicans have no problem sending our money to Iraq to build roads and schools but god forbid we spend any here on our own country. Let's just let all our kids go to school in crumbling portables infested with mold, and let our bridges collapse while we drive over them and make sure that those Iraqis have nice new schools and bridges to bomb.
Reply -
50%
buckncindykill10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The tremendous growth of the federal government is just disgusting. And all parties are to blame.
Reply
In 2008, government spending commitments increased by 25%. That means that we, the taxpayers, were on the hook for more than $1 trillion even BEFORE this economic bailout, this UAW bailout, and any other "rescue" the government has attempted to provide. Don't just pass this statistic by. This country has been around for 225 years now ... and in just one year we increased the cost of government by 25%. This growth is simply unsustainable. There is no way our children and grandchildren can afford to pay this bill. If you can figure out how to do it ... for goodness sake let the rest of us know before it is too late.
The joint report from the White House and Treasury Department says that much of the increase is because of an unexpected jump in veterans' benefits liabilities and the lack of revenues ... aka; your tax dollars. And here's another way to look at it: the report shows that US debts and liabilities have almost passed the value of the US population's net worth. That is according to a nonprofit organization that promotes fiscal responsibility.
We simply cannot keep up our current system and expect our grandchildren to be OK. The report says that current revenues (that's money collected from taxes) are only sufficient to pay HALF of what the government is going to owe in 30 years. We are headed for financial disaster. If you think this is bad, wait until our grandchildren inherit the fruits of our current spending. They will be paying for our love of government.-
78%
cosmogenium10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This growth you speak of is in defense and security, where most of the money ends up in the hands of private contractors, the so-called military-industrial complex. In the meantime, money to states for education and infrastructure has been shrinking. Jobs at the state and local governments are disappearing. Layoffs at large companies are at record levels because the middle-class has stopped buying. No middle class equals no commerce equals no economy. Bush's tax cuts only moved wealth from the middle to the top. The war took even more and gave it to the defense contractors. If you want to cut waste, end the war. If you want prosperity to return, re-build this nation's infrastructure which creates jobs here and not overseas.
Reply -
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Realize that the civil war wasn't paid off until the 1980s. Part of why deficit spending can be beneficial (unlike your personal finances) is that over long periods of time costs inflate (this is actually desirable if controlled. You want your house to be worth more in 10 years right?). Then in 150 years we can assume there will have been continued economic growth so that a trillion dollars in todays world may be more like a million dollars in tomorrow's world. Hence it will be reasonable to deal with. Government finance is quite different than personal finance, We can not simply issue ourselves more money if we need it but government can. We must think in terms of balancing our budget in shorter order because frankly we will be dead in the long term.
Reply
Government will still be here.
-
-
100%
chevydog10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's hard to know how to comment on this. I'm not a political economist, so any comment on the mechanics of how that phase worked would come from ignorance.
Reply
But the psychology of this amazes me. Some Dems have made the point that the current economic problems look something like the Depression of the 1930's. I see some similarities too-- think that probably everyone who thinks about it does. But there are differences too.
So now come along certain Repubs (my party), I guess under the theory that nobody who was called a Dem in the history of this country could ever have done anything right, are now arguing that FDR's actions didn't cure the Depression. IMHO, in the process they're making themselves look like intellectual ciphers. I'm not the most widely read guy in the history of the universe; but I've never heard anyone argue anything other than WWII ended the Depression. The mainline opinion seems to be that Roosevelt's alphabet soup of agencies changed the psychology of the situation from "woe is us" to "maybe something can work".
Psychology is an interesting thing. It can carry you sometimes where maybe logic wouldn't. Only Nixon could have normalized relations with China; he was successful because it was so unlike anyone would have expected.
There's a similar comparison between Herbert Hoover and GWB. By measures like intellectual capacity, previous accomplishments, and worldwide respect, Hoover was way ahead of our beloved soon to be ex-prez. Had he at some point dcided to embark on massive deficit spending, the world would have gasped--and then gone along. It wasn't that Hoover didn't have the personal capital--he did-- but that he was hamstrung by his own ideology that a balanced budget must be maintained. In this case, the fixation on ideology brought an otherwise superior man down to Mr. Bush's level.
This sort of brings up differences between now and the Great Depression that make you wonder just what the right course is. Druing the 1920's, speculation my have been rampant along with financial bad-doing; but the official government policy was to balance the budget. It's hard to say what the official fiscal policy was leading up to our current economic difficulties -- it seems to have varied from "balanced budgets are great" to "who gives a d*mn?" But when the recession hit, we were dong massive deficit spending; nothing much has changed since then on that front.
FDR's deficits were a major psychological change that gave him the chance to play with other options. Increased deficit spending now woud only be more of the same; on that basis, one has to wonder how effective it might be.-
100%
DenCuddy10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Everyone, I just watched this last night on the history channel, very informative: http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail=3802...
Reply
I urge you all to watch. the similarities are amazing. -
-
-
ellsworth-tooheyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
33%
THOMNH6210 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article...
Reply -
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
70%
MonkeyBiz10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As usual, the right wing uses illogical and mean spirited nonsense to arrive at silly conclusions. It is a well known fact that WWII was the final step out of the great depression, but the right wing would use the final step as the entire ladder, ignoring the fact that the new deal's work programs kept thousands of families fed and sheltered creating economic stimulation while providing an infrastructure that helped make America the modern and great nation that it is today.
Reply
Of course keeping the common man fed and clothed by government policies and actions is anathema to the right, because it smacks of socialism or communism or some other "ism" that, to a true blue right winger, equals evil government.
Despite the obvious disconnect between the Christian idea of helping those less fortunate and the idea that doing so is an evil and scary thing, the right wing will cling to their failed ideology of anything goes, caveat emptor, laissez-faire capitalism even if it requires blinders and some serious revisions of history.
And despite the obvious disconnect that money earned by the common man financially supports enterprises that in turn, financially support even more jobs and money, keeping the cycle of economic growth and prosperity going, the right wing demonizes the common worker's pay and benefits as the source of economic evil.
Very sad, very strange.-
-
Neutral
rimbaud10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The cycle ("money earned by the common man financially supports enterprises that in turn, financially support even more jobs and money, keeping the cycle of economic growth and prosperity going") is somewhat inhibited by the global economy. GM may fail, here, but might continue to build and sell, overseas, continuing to distribute profits to its shareholders (the ownership society), here.
Reply
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLj8i8h8mM=related -
-
-
100%
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This nonsense has been around for quite some time, yet more or less only among fringe groups. Every year showed marked improvement under FDR by any honest measure,except 1938 (when he listened to those who claimed the deficit spending was damaging the economy and scaled back spending dramatically), yet all criticism of New Deal successes focus primarily on 1938 which was the aberration, the departure from Keynesian policy.
Reply
And everyone agrees WWII put an end to the G.Depression once and for all, yet what was this war from an economic standpoint? It was Keynesian spending with the stops pulled out fully and no breaks. A massive government spending and job creation program. It was New Deal without brakes.
FDR was bold. -
-
67%
THOMNH6210 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
but it is true even your left wing college economists agree, sort of like blaming republicans for the mortgage crisis when all you have to do is watch Barnie frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters during hearings geared at increasing oversight on the banking industry. You guys are great are denying facts even where they are from your own side or on tape.
Reply-
100%
rimbaud10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If we use partisanship to color well-understood history, how can we hope to learn from it? Stick to the facts: our infrastructure, taken on since the middle of the last century as a responsibility of our government, is falling behind. Other nations are not waiting for better economic times to building for their future. Depression or not, this is an investment we must make.
Reply
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/05/06/america-... -
75%
MonkeyBiz10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NO respectable economists believe that FDR prolonged the depression, left or right wing.
Reply
You have however, brought up another right wing propagated myth, that the mortgage crises is the fault of dems. That conclusion requires some serious separation from reality. The dismantling of the Glass-Steagal act was the doing of the repugs and spear-headed by Phil Gramm, a repug and champion of de-regulation. Glass-Steagal made investing in mortgage backed securities by commercial banks illegal. In 1999 a repug congress made it legal. In June 2002, Prez Bush issued a "Home Ownership Challenge" that provided the impetus for the mortgage and real estate industries to do away with roadblocks to home ownership. A couple of the roadblocks were credit worthiness and income. What used to be high risk lending (sub-prime) was no longer a risky undertaking, since the banks could now bundle up the loans and sell them as mortgage backed securities.
So, who is denying facts? How did dismantling Glass-Steagal and Bush's "Ownership Society" policies work out for you? -
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What are your sources Thomnh62? Ultimately there is only one study that came to that conclusion by using 1938 as the endpoint which as I said was the aberration not the rule. That study is rejected by an overwhelming number of economists. Every article or blog I've read critical of the New Deal sites that same study which itself is an aberration as '38 was NOT the endpoint, but a glitch when the government scaled back spending. It's simply intellectually dishonest.
Reply -
Neutral
THOMNH6210 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
it is call the internet maybe you have heard of it. You can find endless stories on line from economist from UCLA to Harvard who have written papers and articles about FDR and the extension of the depression. Try reading with an open mind, I know you libs have a hard time with the truth. Why is it most republicans have no problem calling a spade a spade but you guys will defend your left wing agenda in the face of substantial hard evidence that your wrong. I call that the Paul Bibola syndrome.
Reply
-
-
67%
Rick78x10 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Its not what you don't know that will screw you up, it's what you know that is wrong. The spin you hear from the mainstream media is intended to mislead you. Open your eyes and face the future. If you leave your head in the sand and ignore it, you are only leaving your butt exposed for the world to kick. This all may sound like gloom and doom, but when you get a handle on what is going to happen, you will have a future filled with opportunity. Fortune favors the Informed.
Reply
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/11.08/rothsc...
Watch the video also -
-
Neutral
Jokimo9 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You've got to be kidding me !! "Democrats lie and will defend their point ......" As if Republicans are saints??? Wasn't it George W Bush who LIED to this nation about WMDs?? Wasn't Dick the one who gained construction bids in Iraq ?? Wasn't it the Republican party who got us into this mess in the first place !!! Grow up !
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.