Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have no one to borrow this money from. China has its own problems right now just like everyone else. That leaves printing worthless paper that will cause inflation. It's a tax increase in any case. We just pay this one at the grocery store.
Google Carternomics or stagflation. Then check this out.
Wow the heritage foundation praising a republican president that was a keynesian. Thats impressive.
From your link: [SIZE=+3] IKE'S TOP[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+5]5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]PRESIDENTIAL FAILURES[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1](debatedly)[/SIZE]
5. He Failed to Improve the Plight of the American Farmer.
The goal of his farm policy was to get government out of agriculture and strengthen the family farmer. He failed at both.
4. He Failed to Moderate the Republican Party.
This was a personal goal of Eisenhower's. He wanted to reenergize and modernize the Republican Party, making it less conservative and more acceptable to mainstream America. His failure became evident when Republicans nominated the conservative Barry Goldwater as their presidential candidate in 1964.
3. He Failed to Provide Leadership in Civil Rights.
He did not actively support the 1954 Brown decision abolishing segregation in public schools. In fact, he believed that to immediately enforce the Court's ruling was a mistake and would only lead to conflict. Critics suggest that if he had expressed a personal commitment to civil rights, the Court's ruling would not have met with such defiance in Little Rock, and Central High could have been integrated without the employment of the U.S. Army. To his credit though, he did sponsor and sign the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
2. He Failed to Denounce Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Had he publicly condemned McCarthy and his investigations, there would have been much less damage inflicted on innocent lives and the country's morale. But Eisenhower believed that to personally confront McCarthy would demean the Presidency and give McCarthy exactly what he craved: more publicity.
AND EISENHOWER'S NO.1 FAILURE AS PRESIDENT:
1. He Failed to Defuse the Cold War.
He certainly tried. And he seemed to be on the verge of success when the Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, visited the U.S. in 1959 and agreed to a Paris Peace Conference for the following spring. But then the Soviets shot down the U-2 spy plane, Khrushchev scuttled the peace conference, and all hope of deflating the Cold War ended. When Eisenhower left office, the Cold War was even more threatening than when he embarked upon the presidency eight years before
I don't want to diminish Ike my point is all presidents can be made to look bad no matter how great. Some are bad like Dubya and so on. I haven't studied Ike enough to say either way but I have studied FDR extensively. I am disgusted by the hit job the heritage foundation and a few others have put on one of the greatest presidents our country ever had. I can't understand how they could put such a selfish agenda above truth. Whether you are Republican or Democrat the man came int office when the country lost 90% of its GDP in the last four years. Just imagine that for a second.You might be a free market thinker but you have to admit a lot of good came out of FDR and he did not shy away from the challenges in front of him, he adressed them with grace and honor. he was a true patriot and as far as those who were there gave him high approvals.
Methinks neither. I am old enough to remember all the recessions going back to the 70s. Each time one rolls around, the cries of "another Depression" are thrown around like booze at a stag party. Each time, "its unique", "unlike anything we have seen before" or "unparalleled" to paraphrase you. Each time its the end of the world, end of things as we know it, the end of history, the end of endings, etc. Until the economy begins to grow again, which it will.
From this, I would say both. Even if it were true that people ran about during every post-war recession claiming it was another Great Depression, that would have absolutley nothing to do with either the nature of this crisis or the economic particulars of any prior recession. This crisis arose from an overload in the credit markets. The rather ironic thing about all that Bushie and McCain insistence that the fundamentals of the economy were strong is that it was true. For a while. Bold action taken in the summer or fall of 2007 might have been enough to bottle up the problem where it began, but none of that ever happened. Instead, credit problems were allowed to grow and eventually to leak out into the real world. Modern economies run on credit. It is what makes them go on every level. When credit is not easily available, economic activity comes to a halt. Which is where we are now, confronting a negative feedback loop that doesn't recognize any defined lower limit. So go ahead...find another post-WWII recession that was of such origins and had such characteristics. There aren't any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Sensible people would indeed wish to ward off some of the conditions, mostly by being sensible. They might start with ceasing all the fiction and sheer nonsense about the Great Depression and the New Deal. The New Deal did not solve the Great Depression. That is indisputable.
It is actually ridiculous. The New Deal approach, while at times uncertain and haphazard, was the only thing that did work. It suffered from being less bold than it might have been, from the fact that there was no international cooperation to put major economies on the same page, and from the success of some idiot Republicans in reimposing balance-the-budget madness some years along, but the recognition that free markets are perfectly capable of settling into equilibria that are highly anti-social and that those equilibria could successfully be upset by using government spending to augment total demand was a revolutionary and wildly successful step forward. Revisionist arguments to the contrary are politically motivated fluff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Sensible people would also recognize that spending copious amounts of debt does not make any more sense if an intelligent Democrat does it than it does when a befuddled Republican does it.
Don't be misled into thinking that all this prospective debt is welcomed. It is all a last resort that we are reluctantly forced into by the dire nature of inherited circumstances. Compare and contrast to the idiot Republican who invited debt, who sought it at every turn and with no provocation or reason for it at all. One boy pulled the fire alarm box because he liked to see the fire trucks come. Another boy pulled the fire alarm box because his house was on fire. One doesn't lump those two boys together as if they were equals unless one is totally oblivious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Sensible people would recognize that yes, money should be spent on things like emergency extensions of Unemployment Benefits (one good thing, along with Red Rocks, that came out of the New Deal), extension of COBRA benefits, and other things to help people in need. Sensible people would further recognize that yes, new and sensible regulations are needed and also, unpalatable as it is, toxic assets should be corraled into a "bad bank".
Steps in the right direction, but baby steps. We need big, we need soon, we need broad-based, we need to be in for the long haul. All the risk here lies in UNDER-medicating the patient. At this point, there is no downside on the other end of the scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
Most of all, sensible people would recognize that Presidents, past and present, neither give nor take away economic growth. Sensible people would encourage this President on his good ideas and dissuade him from burying them in mountain of debt.
Keep in mind again that we have been left with no choice, and keep in mind also that it is only necessary to be able to service the mountain of debt, not pay it off. We have not paid off our Civil War debts, nor those for WWI or WWII. Vietnam is still on the monthly statement as is the much larger tab for eight years worth of Ronald Reagan. Keep in mind further that while created by us, this is now a global crisis and every other major economy needs to do very much what we need to do. With coordinated policies and procedures, it is conceivable that we could erase the problem while leaving everyone at the end relatively as well off as at the beginning. Cleverness and flexibiltiy will be required. And a lot of debt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moth
How about it Saganista? Would you like to be sensible?
Already made a career out of it, thanks. Pretty good one, too.
It's all academic because the new deal did nothing to end unemployment that simply regulating the banks and creating the FDIC wouldn't have done. Smoot-Hawley did real harm to the economy along with the high marginal tax rates that we kept. Unemployment remained high all through the thirties and didn't get back to single digits until after the military draft was reinstated in 1940. Unemployment declined to 9.9% in 1941 from 14.6% the year before. The average unemployment rate during Roosevelt's presidency from 1933 until the military draft took thousands of young men out of the civilian work force in 1940 was 18.6%. After eight years of "new deal" the unemployment rate in 1940 was still 14.6%. The "new deal" didn't work!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamexican
You are hilarious FDIC is part of the new deal. We lost 90% of GDP from1929 to 1933 and that quickly turned around once the new deal was enacted. Smoot hawley was enacted by Hoover not FDR. Unemployment went from 24.9% to 14% in three years, 15 million unemployed down to 7 million that is impressive. Unemployment rose after FDR cut spending to appease the Republicans in 1937 and is blamed. See what bi-partisanship with republican scum gets you. The new deal was a great sucess but wasn't perfect. It certainly more impressive than anything that any republican president has done.
Never said they weren't. What's your point?
1929 was the last year GDP grew (3.6%) in the US before the great depression. The US GDP in 1929 was 103.6 billion. In 1933 the US GDP was 56.4 billion. A 90% loss would have given us a 10.4 billion GDP in 1933. The actual decrease in GDP was 46%.
"that quickly turned around once the new deal was enacted"
Really? Is that actually true?
Roosevelt best year prior to WW2 was 1939 with a GDP of 92.2 billion and not really close to the 103.6 billion of 1929.
With not a single bank in operation spring of 1932, Why wouldn't unemployment decrease once the banks came back on line?
"Unemployment rose after FDR cut spending to appease the Republicans in 1937 and is blamed."
You don't see anything fundamentally wrong with an economy that continually requires the government to throw money into it to keep it functioning? The problem with the US economy at that point was the little fact that our best trading partners Canada and GB were not interested in our coal, timber, cotton, etc. because we had dissed them first.
"It certainly more impressive than anything that any republican president has done."
I'll concede that point because the Constitution gives the power of the purse to the Congress. The founders had enough sense to keep this power separate from any one person. For example, WJC ran on a promise of lowering taxes in 1992. But true to Democratic form, he reneged on his pledge to raise taxes only on the wealthiest two percent of income earners. In fact, he and the Democratically controlled House and Senate raised taxes on people earning as little as $20K/year from 11% to 15%, a 36% increase for people at the bottom. When the midterm elections of 1994 rolled around we returned the favor to the tax and spend liberal congress by voting in the Republican Revolution of 1994. Clinton rescinded his tax increase per Republican demands but refused to agree to the spending cuts Gingrich needed to make pay-go work and give us a balanced budget. He was so determined to resist these spending cuts that we had to actually shut down the government twice to get them. But in the end, it was well worth it because consumer confidence skyrocketed ushering in the prosperity of the mid to late 90s along with the balanced budgets that resulted. In the end Clinton claimed credit for the results of the reforms he fought against. Look for a repeat of the Republican Revolution in 2010. You heard it here first.
Wow the heritage foundation praising a republican president that was a keynesian. Thats impressive.
From your link:
[SIZE=+3] IKE'S TOP[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+5]5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]PRESIDENTIAL FAILURES[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1](debatedly)[/SIZE]
5. He Failed to Improve the Plight of the American Farmer.
The goal of his farm policy was to get government out of agriculture and strengthen the family farmer. He failed at both.
4. He Failed to Moderate the Republican Party.
This was a personal goal of Eisenhower's. He wanted to reenergize and modernize the Republican Party, making it less conservative and more acceptable to mainstream America. His failure became evident when Republicans nominated the conservative Barry Goldwater as their presidential candidate in 1964.
3. He Failed to Provide Leadership in Civil Rights.
He did not actively support the 1954 Brown decision abolishing segregation in public schools. In fact, he believed that to immediately enforce the Court's ruling was a mistake and would only lead to conflict. Critics suggest that if he had expressed a personal commitment to civil rights, the Court's ruling would not have met with such defiance in Little Rock, and Central High could have been integrated without the employment of the U.S. Army. To his credit though, he did sponsor and sign the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
2. He Failed to Denounce Senator Joseph McCarthy.
Had he publicly condemned McCarthy and his investigations, there would have been much less damage inflicted on innocent lives and the country's morale. But Eisenhower believed that to personally confront McCarthy would demean the Presidency and give McCarthy exactly what he craved: more publicity.
AND EISENHOWER'S NO.1 FAILURE AS PRESIDENT:
1. He Failed to Defuse the Cold War.
He certainly tried. And he seemed to be on the verge of success when the Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, visited the U.S. in 1959 and agreed to a Paris Peace Conference for the following spring. But then the Soviets shot down the U-2 spy plane, Khrushchev scuttled the peace conference, and all hope of deflating the Cold War ended. When Eisenhower left office, the Cold War was even more threatening than when he embarked upon the presidency eight years before
And all these years later, What has any Democratic pesident done to accomplish any of these goals?
Wow, there are a lot of truly retarded people in America who know nothing about history. The sad fact is the Republicans he was making a speech at probably ate that nonsense up. "Yeah, umm... FDR caused the depression 4 years before he became President... or something..."
Anything to pass the buck, the GOP will muddy any water, tell any lie, and do anything to pass the buck. That's just their modus operandi.
We have no one to borrow this money from. China has its own problems right now just like everyone else.
It's chief problem is that it has to maintain output, even if it has to give the stuff away. For the foreseeable future, they will be happy to take as many dollars as we can send them, then loan them all right back to us again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
That leaves printing worthless paper that will cause inflation. It's a tax increase in any case. We just pay this one at the grocery store.
Tens of trillions of dollars worth of wealth have just gone up in smoke. The risk of deflation continues to be larger than that of inflation. At this point, a decent dose of inflation would be a rather welcome thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Google Carternomics or stagflation. Then check this out.
Carternomics hits = mindless right-wing blogs and the Heritage Foundation. Two peas in a pod there. Stagflation meanwhile was a Nixon/Ford thing. Low growth coupled with high unemployment and high inflation. Until the 1979 Arab Oil Crisis came along, Carter's years were characterized by strong growth and rapidly declining unemployment. I don't know where you were during the Carter years, but wherever it was, you certainly weren't paying any attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Roosevelt wanted a 100% income tax on all earning in excess of $25K/yr. A nut doesn't fall far from the tree.
Was that in the Spring of 1942, when we were still losing the war? Would $25K in 1942 be the equivalent of about $325K today? How many people make more than $325K today? In a time of national crisis, would they really need more than $325K? Is it hard to live on that little? Not talking about wealth here, just income for this year...
Last edited by saganista; 02-12-2009 at 02:49 AM..
I don't want to diminish Ike my point is all presidents can be made to look bad no matter how great. Some are bad like Dubya and so on. I haven't studied Ike enough to say either way but I have studied FDR extensively. I am disgusted by the hit job the heritage foundation and a few others have put on one of the greatest presidents our country ever had. I can't understand how they could put such a selfish agenda above truth. Whether you are Republican or Democrat the man came int office when the country lost 90% of its GDP in the last four years. Just imagine that for a second.You might be a free market thinker but you have to admit a lot of good came out of FDR and he did not shy away from the challenges in front of him, he adressed them with grace and honor. he was a true patriot and as far as those who were there gave him high approvals.
In one breath you say,
"all presidents can be made to look bad no matter how great."
and in the next breath you say,
"Some are bad like Dubya"
"I am disgusted by the hit job the heritage foundation and a few others have put on one of the greatest presidents our country ever had"
What MSNBC has said about GWB and McCain is OK?
OK, one more time, GDP declined 46%, not 90% as you keep insisting and for all the meddling FDR did in the economy the GDP of 103.6 billion in 1929 wasn't realized again until WW2.
"he did not shy away from the challenges in front of him, he adressed them with grace and honor"
He threw money at problems in such a way as to avoid addressing the real problems. Did he do great things? Absolutely! Could we have ended the Great Depression earlier by dumping Smoot-Hawley and cutting taxes? Absolutely!
The economy then was fundamentally flawed by a trade war and excessive marginal tax rates that sucked the life blood out of it. Today our economy is again fatally flawed but for different reasons. We have the second highest tax rates on business in the world behind only stagnant Japan. We also have some of the highest wages in the world. How can we deny the reason we have trade deficits is the cost of doing business in the US? We can throw money at Democratic pet projects that will do little except buy votes for current office holders, or we can actually address the reasons our products are priced out of the world markets. We're not the sole surviving manufacturer post WW2 any longer. The nations that were destroyed after the war have rebuilt their economies and developed their ability to export. We're still lost in the 50s.
He did not actively support the 1954 Brown decision abolishing segregation in public schools. In fact, he believed that to immediately enforce the Court's ruling was a mistake and would only lead to conflict. Critics suggest that if he had expressed a personal commitment to civil rights, the Court's ruling would not have met with such defiance in Little Rock, and Central High could have been integrated without the employment of the U.S. Army. To his credit though, he did sponsor and sign the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
Ike is my favorite President and kind of a personal hero. I don't think this part is quite fair. I was in grade school at the time (7 y/o), and remember all this quite vividly. Ike was getting it from both sides. He did implement this immediately, at least in the school district I attended (St. Louis). The opposition was there from the beginning. The Conservatives lambasted him because he used National Guard troops within our borders to protect the children involved when needed, in opposition to State governments. What else could he have done? Had he not afforded them protection he would have been refusing to treat the Supreme Court's ruling as federal law, in effect promoting Jim Crow to the federal level. Since that was his only other choice, he did what he had to do despite his misgivings. To me that is the mark of a true leader, someone who is willing to do something that draws personal criticism because it is the right thing to do. Of all the historic figures involved in the struggle for racial equality Ike always seems to get the least respect in relation to his Contribution. Few people realize that Affirmative Action became law under his Administration, based on a Court case where his Justice Department provided legal support to the plaintiff. No one has ever done more to defend the Constitution as it was written than Dwight David Eisenhower.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[SIZE=+3] IKE'S TOP[/SIZE]
