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.
That is definitely an important point. The Civilian Conservation Corps was created first and foremost to keep people busy and their spirits in tact.
FDR knew that if people could get up everyday and have a purpose, it would get them through.
FDR won almost every single state AFTER his policies were in place. It's intriguing how we have shifted to fearing government so much. I guess there's been a pretty hard propaganda effort underway since the 1970s.
I've actually been on the fence over whether this spending was a good idea. At first blush, it seems pretty stupid. But, the more I learn and discuss, the more I am convinced Obama is generally doing precisely what needs to be done at this period in time and that the alternatives being proposed (tax cuts and spending freezes) would fail.
I am confident now that we chose wisely and I think the next few years will slowly bring proof to that.
Spending money that doesn't exist and will never exist is not going to solve any problem. Obama is spending trillions upon trillions of non-existent dollars. Very soon he might has well pay for his pork programs with monopoly money. The dollar is fast becoming worthless.
There were other candidates on the ballot other than just the blue and red talking heads. My "candidate" never had a chance to get into office, the point is I voted.
I'm happy for you that you think ONE man can pull America out of a tall spin. He sure is bringing us together though. It's evident on this board everyday.
You don't seem to have a problem in suggesting, and riding the boat with people who believe, ONE man can put America into a tail spin. I never said, however, that one man can pull America out. My expectations are tied to his position and that is him being the elected [executive] leader of America. He's doing what he is supposed to.
As for you candidate, it doesn't matter who the person was, the bottom line is, you've not recovered from it.
Katiana the problem with those programs is they were supposed to be a temporary hand out out. Only to be used for a few months, or a year, until someone was back on their feet. The system has been completely abused until the point that it's broken.
Whatever my opinion on that, it helped keep people fed during the depression. My mom was 8 years old when the depression hit, and she was the oldest kid in her family. I've heard the stories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
Are you actually trying to claim there was no misery during the Great Depression?????
Of course there was misery, a lot of it and for years, and FDR did not avert it.
Of course not. If you actually read my post, you'd see that I said FDR's programs helped avert misery. Would you rather have seen people starve to dealth?
Many historians and economists have debated the subject of F.D.R. and "The New Deal" for a long time, they don't all agree.
Quote:
According to Gene Smiley, "a number of economists" believe the New Deal delayed economic recovery.[56] A 1995 survey of economic historians asked whether "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed 'with provisos' (what provisos the survey does not state) and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, only 27% agreed and 73% disagreed.[57]
Quote:
But the Administration's other response to the 1937 deepening of the Great Depression had more tangible results.[46] Ignoring the requests of the Treasury Department and responding to the urgings of the converts to Keynesian economics and others in his Administration, Roosevelt embarked on an antidote to the depression, reluctantly abandoning his efforts to balance the budget and launching a $5 billion spending program in the spring of 1938, an effort to increase mass purchasing power.[47] The New Deal had in fact engaged in deficit spending since 1933, but it was apologetic about it, because a rise in the national debt was opposite of typical Democratic party policy. Now they had a theory to justify what they were doing. Roosevelt explained his program in a fireside chat in which he finally acknowledged that it was therefore up to the government to "create an economic upturn" by making "additions to the purchasing power of the nation."
I really appreciate EinsteinsGhost's post and would be interested to hear a reasoned rebuttal that does not include words like "messiah", "socialist", or "Rosie O'Donnell".
I think it is very legitimate to be concerned over a Republican proposal to take the largest spender out of a market in which individuals, businesses, states, and local governments have already taken themselves out of spending.
Freezing spending makes sense on the surface, but has been proven wrong historically for this particular kind of crisis when it was attempted at the beginning of the Great Depression.
I am beginning to believe Obama and his counter-intuitive willingness to conduct massive spending are precisely what we need at this point and only at this point.
It's been posted a million times. The BLS.gov website and Christina Romer though don't agree so it's utterly ignored. If they don't agree with it they go find some "progressive" think tank that says otherwise. Totally ignoring the Chairman of The Council of Economic Advisers board and from a fellow Keynesian too.
The fact that we were one of the last ones out of the depression doesn't carry any weight apparently. If the only thing FDR did was focus on strict monetary policy it would have been a fairly short recovery. Instead he prolonged it with his vote buying distribution of the New Deal. The South still reflects this. The North and Northwest does the same. Easily verified by the money supply during that period. http://books.google.com/books?id=Flx...um=1&ct=result
If you want to argue about the warm fuzzy it gave people carry on. I agree it helped some if not most people. The people elected him over and over but not for his ability to solve the crisis through monetary policy as I'm sure (like now) people probably disagreed with it. Unemployment insurance was turned down by the AFL until the Great Depression. That level of human suffering changed the way people thought about social programs.
In short the New Deal was a hit or miss flood the system something has to work program. It wasn't to national gold theft happened that it actually helped. In return the gold standard was very efficient at transferring the crisis throughout the world.
Last edited by BigJon3475; 03-07-2009 at 09:41 AM..
Spending money that doesn't exist and will never exist is not going to solve any problem. Obama is spending trillions upon trillions of non-existent dollars. Very soon he might has well pay for his pork programs with monopoly money. The dollar is fast becoming worthless.
The problem with having to spend money we don't have, when we must, is not the problem. The massive debt buildup in the 1980s (increased expense, reduced income due to tax cuts) and since 2001 (increased expense, two wars and reduced income due to tax cuts) is the problem. But, you're more likely to defend those and blame now when we actually need those dollars.
Spend, spend, spend has been the republican mantra for at least three decades. We've forgotten how to create wealth and keep it. That needs to change, even if you disagree because ideologues stuck with a one-size-fits-all and criticize-no-matter-what for political satisfaction are irrelevant and it needs to continue to be that way while the economy recovers, and hopefully, for ages.
Whatever my opinion on that, it helped keep people fed during the depression. My mom was 8 years old when the depression hit, and she was the oldest kid in her family. I've heard the stories.
Of course not. If you actually read my post, you'd see that I said FDR's programs helped avert misery. Would you rather have seen people starve to dealth?
I'd rather not have a Great Depression that lasts 10-12 years.
It's the way history is taught but it's very likely if it weren't for FDR and his policities, the Depression would have ended much sooner and no one would have starved to death. You can still have the soup lines with out the Socialist programs that delay an economic recovery.
I'd rather not have a Great Depression that lasts 10-12 years.
But it depends on your definition of a depression. What is it? While at it, what is a recession?
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.
He sure is bringing us together though. It's evident on this board everyday.
