The W
Views: 98526822
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
29.8.07 1940
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - As if there were any questions of Dean's rather liberal credentials....
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(1206 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (38 total)
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 26/2159
EXP: 6295593
For next: 97206

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2237 days
Last activity: 2235 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#21 Posted on 20.11.03 1250.41
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1251.34
    Originally posted by Grimis
    The fact of the matter is that the New Deal promoted the idea of profligtate government spending and the nanny state. Nor did it ever help unemployment and did cause the 37-38 mess. The only government works program that picked up the economy? The war.


Fine, but in what could be considered a National State of Emergency, was the Government to do NOTHING? There's a reason some of your finer slums during the Depression were called Hoovervilles.

And yes, not every program in the New Deal worked. Some did, some didn't...it was the political practice of Throw Enough Shit At The Walls And Some Of It Will Stick. But Rome was burning and Roosevelt wasn't elected to sit in the Rose Garden and play a fiddle.

By the way, there ARE legitamite reasons to question FDR's presidency...you just haven't mentioned any of them.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2486/4700
EXP: 21452060
For next: 384602

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#22 Posted on 20.11.03 1414.38
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1414.54
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Then why did unemployment drop considerably in the years before WWII?
Becuase of the build-up to World War II. Remember, prperations for the war started in late '39/early '40 and that we were in the process of firing up Lend/Lease too. We were the arsenal of democoracy and somebody had to build the stuff.

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    Are you saying that we should still be on the Gold Standard? America's prosperity would be nowhere near where it is today if our currency were still tied to a commodity. And it was still loosely tied until Nixon ended it.
Point taken

    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    Fine, but in what could be considered a National State of Emergency, was the Government to do NOTHING?
Constitutionally, that was exactly what they should have done.

    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    By the way, there ARE legitamite reasons to question FDR's presidency...you just haven't mentioned any of them.
Yeah, but that gets into FDR dragging us into the war, and that is an entirely different story.

(edited by Grimis on 20.11.03 1515)
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 29/2159
EXP: 6295593
For next: 97206

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2237 days
Last activity: 2235 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on 20.11.03 1434.25
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1435.43
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Constitutionally, that was exactly what they should have done



By the textbook definition of the law, yes. By the spirit of the law, no. It's the difference between procedure and proactivity, and procedure wasn't getting the country anywhere in the 30s. So when something fails, you try something else. It helps to try to build a ladder to climb over a brick wall as opposed to running into it over and over again. In politics and in life as well.

I'd be mortally shocked if you knew how actual public service worked. I'm not talking about what's in a textbook or CNN or C-Span, but government at the deptartmental level, and you'd also be amazed to find out that partisanship means very, very little at those levels.

And by the way, the reasons that I hinted at were NOT dragging this country into war...it was things like stacking the court, violating the unwritten rule that later forced the 22nd Amendment and turning back boats at Ellis Island at a time when the Nazi Theme Parks were open for buisness. THOSE are legitamate. But since all of this had to be laid out for you, you don't get to use them.

Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2487/4700
EXP: 21452060
For next: 384602

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#24 Posted on 20.11.03 1501.30
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1502.38
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    but government at the deptartmental level, and you'd also be amazed to find out that partisanship means very, very little at those levels.
I think after five years of undergrad and grad school, and three and half years at DOD, I've got that covered.
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    And by the way, the reasons that I hinted at were NOT dragging this country into war...it was things like stacking the court, violating the unwritten rule that later forced the 22nd Amendment and turning back boats at Ellis Island at a time when the Nazi Theme Parks were open for buisness. THOSE are legitamate. But since all of this had to be laid out for you, you don't get to use them.
We had talked about stacking the court, and I really don't see a third term as that legitimate of an issue.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 32/2159
EXP: 6295593
For next: 97206

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2237 days
Last activity: 2235 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#25 Posted on 20.11.03 1524.58
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1525.05
    Originally posted by Grimis
    I think after five years of undergrad and grad school, and three and half years at DOD


And yet you still learned nothing...astounding. And besides, how can you work for the DOD when you live in St. Louis?

Wade Matistic, you're not fooling anyone.*

And oh no, cosigning 1000s of Jews back to Europe to face their certain (and in this case, actual) demise...there's NOTHING wrong with that, nosiree Bob. The question was what legitamate reasons are there to dislike/discredit Roosevelt...I should know what the question was, since I was the one who asked it, and to me that's perfectly legitamate.

By the way, who at the DOD are you, Peter Sellers, Sterling Hayden or George C Scott?




*Inside joke for the 5 people trolling on this board who'll get that.

Edit: Fixed the quote (missing ']') -Keeper

(edited by Keeper on 20.11.03 1656)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2488/4700
EXP: 21452060
For next: 384602

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#26 Posted on 20.11.03 1529.14
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1534.24
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    And yet you still learned nothing...astounding.
Speaking of trolls....

    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    And besides, how can you work for the DOD when you live in St. Louis?
Please point out to me where it says I live in St. Louis
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 728/1084
EXP: 2425324
For next: 36540

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2933 days
Last activity: 2930 days
#27 Posted on 20.11.03 1601.07
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1601.54
You're still ignoring the drops in unemployment that happened immediately after the New Deal went into effect. Buildup for WWII did not begin in 1933, which is when GNP began to grow and unemployment began to drop.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 172/2697
EXP: 8834392
For next: 154427

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#28 Posted on 20.11.03 1642.32
Reposted on: 20.11.10 1642.39
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
      Originally posted by Grimis
      Constitutionally, that was exactly what they should have done



    By the textbook definition of the law, yes. By the spirit of the law, no. It's the difference between procedure and proactivity, and procedure wasn't getting the country anywhere in the 30s. So when something fails, you try something else. It helps to try to build a ladder to climb over a brick wall as opposed to running into it over and over again. In politics and in life as well.

    I'd be mortally shocked if you knew how actual public service worked. I'm not talking about what's in a textbook or CNN or C-Span, but government at the deptartmental level, and you'd also be amazed to find out that partisanship means very, very little at those levels.

    And by the way, the reasons that I hinted at were NOT dragging this country into war...it was things like stacking the court, violating the unwritten rule that later forced the 22nd Amendment and turning back boats at Ellis Island at a time when the Nazi Theme Parks were open for buisness. THOSE are legitamate. But since all of this had to be laid out for you, you don't get to use them.




The one item that I cannot ever forgive FDR, his advisors, Churchill and the Vatican for was their deliberatly ignoring the Holocaust. Grimis was correct in that I brought up the stacking of the Supreme Court.

People who lived during the Depression benefitted greatly as did the country as a whole with public works, etc. Yes, I know it wasn't in the Constitution. Neither are the many laws that Rep's favor that intrude into my life. There are times when morality dictates action.

edit bad grammar

(edited by DrDirt on 20.11.03 1643)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 212

Posts: 3276/16171
EXP: 140167499
For next: 868287

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on 20.11.03 2258.44
Reposted on: 20.11.10 2259.01
    Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
    *Inside joke for the 5 people trolling on this board who'll get that.
You should *probably* stick to Delphi if you're going to start making posts like this...
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 34/2159
EXP: 6295593
For next: 97206

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2237 days
Last activity: 2235 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on 21.11.03 0805.41
Reposted on: 21.11.10 0807.31
Wasn't planning to make a HABIT of it...
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 192/810
EXP: 1513979
For next: 63576

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 3 days
#31 Posted on 21.11.03 0830.01
Reposted on: 21.11.10 0832.38
    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    You're still ignoring the drops in unemployment that happened immediately after the New Deal went into effect. Buildup for WWII did not begin in 1933, which is when GNP began to grow and unemployment began to drop.


When unemployment is approaching 25 percent and economic 'growth' is at -13.4%, then I would argue there is only one way to go. The New Deal programs were not a long-term fix for the economy, and government spending programs which consist of transfer payments (to either businesses or individuals) will never provide for long-run macroeconomic growth. We saw this in the recession of 1937-8 when FDR cut back on government spending to cut down on the government budget deficit.

Still, having said that, FDR deserves credit for doing something, unlike the other public figures or institutions of the time.
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni
Level: 66

Posts: 730/1084
EXP: 2425324
For next: 36540

Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2933 days
Last activity: 2930 days
#32 Posted on 21.11.03 1059.36
Reposted on: 21.11.10 1100.32
Why would it stop there, then? The economy showed no sign of turning around on its own. Bank defaultings also stopped at the time of the New Deal, when Roosevelt closed them all.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1514/2104
EXP: 6558338
For next: 92352

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 1 day
#33 Posted on 21.11.03 2201.44
Reposted on: 21.11.10 2201.50
The New Deal programs were not a long-term fix for the economy

Then what was? You can hardly argue that the economy wasn't fixed - in a long term way - after the depression. I mean, we haven't had another one yet.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 181/2697
EXP: 8834392
For next: 154427

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#34 Posted on 22.11.03 2330.24
Reposted on: 22.11.10 2332.14
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    The New Deal programs were not a long-term fix for the economy

    Then what was? You can hardly argue that the economy wasn't fixed - in a long term way - after the depression. I mean, we haven't had another one yet.


I think the point for many here is that even if the New Deal Worked and saved civilization as we know it, it never should have happened. The programs were outside the scope of the government, unconstitutional and a socialist (or communist plot). I don't agree but I believe that is the thinking. And since they came from FDR they were bad and didn't work. That is open to reasonable debate but most objective histories I have read while not sayong they were a panecea, indicate they did a lot of positive things for the country. Grimis is right in that one of the things that helped recovery prior to WW II was the lend-lease program which geared up production of goods, especially military, to aid Britain and the USSR in their war against Nazi Germany. It also helped us gear up more effectivel when we entered the war. People forget that our Coast Guard and navy were battling u-boats well before we entered the war.
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 193/810
EXP: 1513979
For next: 63576

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 52 days
Last activity: 3 days
#35 Posted on 23.11.03 1622.31
Reposted on: 23.11.10 1626.25
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    The New Deal programs were not a long-term fix for the economy

    Then what was? You can hardly argue that the economy wasn't fixed - in a long term way - after the depression. I mean, we haven't had another one yet.

You can't just say that the New Deal programs were a long-term fix for the economy simply because we haven't had another one since. Hopefully current policymakers have studied history and will not make the same mistakes that the policymakers of the early 1920s and 1930s did. For instance, I doubt that Federal Reserve will respond to deflation, high unemployment/huge recession, and an absence of money by not doing anything. I doubt that the FDIC, the OCC, the Federal Reserve, and the state banking regulators will respond to a bank panic by just shrugging their shoulders, shuttering banks and not providing liquidity. I would hope that Congress and the President do not pass anything as idiotic as the Smoot-Hawley tariff again (although the country's growing enchantment with protectionism worries me).

I guess my point is that programs like social security and many of the public works or agricultural price support programs do nothing to improve long-run economic growth. We saw this in the 1930s--in the beginning of the New Deal, the economy grew. But, as the economy began to grow in 1937, FDR tried to balance the budget and we plunged back into recession, which was ended by the build up to WW2. In the long-run, the only lasting economic growth comes from things that increase our productive capacity or improve our efficiency (i.e. human or physical capital investment, technological innovation, etc.). It is not possible to create long-run economic growth by simply having the government spend money and run huge deficits. That's a classic formula for financial crisis, not economic success.

As far as FDR goes, I don't care whether or not his programs should or should not have been legal. I think they were fine as a short-run stimulus but not so great in the long-run (I feel the same way about Bush's tax cut, unless he can cut spending at the same time). And, to answer eviljonhunt's comment--if a bank is closed by the government, technically it has defaulted on some of its liabilities, provided at least one of its customers wants to withdraw their funds but cannot.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 184/2697
EXP: 8834392
For next: 154427

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#36 Posted on 23.11.03 2235.45
Reposted on: 23.11.10 2237.12
Corajudo, good post. Social Security and ag. subsidies are not designed for economic growth. Social Security was designed as a bare minimum safety net for people who retired and was designed to allow them some sort of existence for the four or five years they had left before they died. The problem is the age to collect benefits stayed the same but we decided to live alot longer.

Grimis also mentioned the farm program. I don't think very many Americans really understand the purpose of the government and its ag policy. It is not to keep farmers in business. It is not to stimulate the farm economy. It is not to make famers wealthy. Farm policy since the 1930's has been designed for one simple task, to provide you city folk with cheap food. It has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Farmers are hurt by this in the long run as it has been great at keeping prices down. When you go to the store and buy a loaf of bread for $2 or $3 remember there is about 5 cents worth of wheat in it. We spend so little of our incomes on food compared to the rest of the world that it is ridiculous. And the food you eat that is produced here is the safest in the world. This is one case where the government has succeeded admirably for the American public.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2489/4700
EXP: 21452060
For next: 384602

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1011 days
#37 Posted on 24.11.03 0557.16
Reposted on: 24.11.10 0557.23
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Farm policy since the 1930's has been designed for one simple task, to provide you city folk with cheap food. It has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Farmers are hurt by this in the long run as it has been great at keeping prices down. When you go to the store and buy a loaf of bread for $2 or $3 remember there is about 5 cents worth of wheat in it.
But is it really to provide cheap food to the city? Think about this for a second. We spend however much money per year on farm subsidies. So farmers grow a certain amount of food, then get subsidies to not grow food. So we are spending tax dollars on that....

...on top of that, we are spending tax dollars to provide food to starving nations. Generally, we have to buy that food because it is too expensive for the poor nations to buy food.

Solution: take farmers off of the subsidies and allow them to sell the food. Simple solution.

Incidnetally, my other problem with farm subsidies is not the fact that farmers don't grow anything, it's that corporate farmers buy up the land for the point of taking the subsidy. That takes more farmland out of rotation which is not good for us long-term.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 185/2697
EXP: 8834392
For next: 154427

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#38 Posted on 24.11.03 0839.45
Reposted on: 24.11.10 0841.05
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Farm policy since the 1930's has been designed for one simple task, to provide you city folk with cheap food. It has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Farmers are hurt by this in the long run as it has been great at keeping prices down. When you go to the store and buy a loaf of bread for $2 or $3 remember there is about 5 cents worth of wheat in it.
    But is it really to provide cheap food to the city? Think about this for a second. We spend however much money per year on farm subsidies. So farmers grow a certain amount of food, then get subsidies to not grow food. So we are spending tax dollars on that....

    ...on top of that, we are spending tax dollars to provide food to starving nations. Generally, we have to buy that food because it is too expensive for the poor nations to buy food.

    Solution: take farmers off of the subsidies and allow them to sell the food. Simple solution.

    Incidnetally, my other problem with farm subsidies is not the fact that farmers don't grow anything, it's that corporate farmers buy up the land for the point of taking the subsidy. That takes more farmland out of rotation which is not good for us long-term.


Yes it really is. As far as being paid not to produce, I assume your are talking about the CRP (conservation reserve program) payments. These are designed to take marginally productive and/or highly erodible land out of production. Also has the side benefit of producing get habitat for wildlif that people can go out and hunt.

Farmers get paid for bushels (production). The more they produce the more money they receive. This keeps prices down except when bad weather screws the production. And livestock producers receive no general subsidy. Dairy producers do have the milk subdsidy.

The corporate farm argument is a red herring. There are caps on total payments which are gotten around illegally. Farms are corporations for the most part. farm operations are increasing in size for a simple reason. We have fewer farmers and not many feel like going into the profession. most farmers in our area are making their children obtain college degrees and move away, at least for a while. They see farming as a dead end and want something better for their children. You have less than 2 million farmers providing your food for you and its cheap. Grimis you better hope someone wants to farm or when most of your food comes from overseas, your disposable income will drop dranatically.

The major reason we are losing farmland is the fact that good farmland also makes the best land for your mall and housing developments. Farmers sell out land to pay the bils and because they canot afford the taxes anymore, especially in the east and on the coast.

The only money being made is by the Cargills and ADM's of the world.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: States Rights?
Next thread: Wait...I thought the Democrats were the party of Tolerance
Previous thread: from "The West Wing" to real life
(1206 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - As if there were any questions of Dean's rather liberal credentials....Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.231 seconds.