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.
Hoover's "conseravtive" policies as president. According to his Wikipedia entry. This guy was all about big government. Just like FDR and Bush/Obama. Once again the complete opposite of Harding.
"Hoover entered office with a plan to reform the nation's regulatory system, believing that a federal bureaucracy should have limited regulation over a country's economic system.[27] A self-described Progressive and Reformer, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism. Long before entering politics, he had denounced laissez-faire thinking.[28] As Commerce Secretary, he had taken an active pro-regulation stance. As President, he helped push tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress.
Hoover expanded civil service coverage of Federal positions, canceled private oil leases on government lands, and by instructing the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service to pursue gangsters for tax evasion, he enabled the prosecution of Al Capone. He appointed a commission which set aside 3 million acres (12,000 km²) of national parks and 2.3 million acres (9,000 km²) of national forests; advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes for the wealthy; doubled the number of veterans' hospital facilities; negotiated a treaty on St. Lawrence Seaway (which failed in the U.S. Senate); wrote a Children's Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender; created an antitrust division in the Justice Department; required air mail carriers to adopt stricter safety measures and improve service; proposed federal loans for urban slum clearances (not enacted); organized the Federal Bureau of Prisons; reorganized the Bureau of Indian Affairs; instituted prison reform; proposed a federal Department of Education (not enacted); advocated $50-per-month pensions for Americans over 65 (not enacted); chaired White House conferences on child health, protection, homebuilding and homeownership; began construction of the Boulder Dam (later renamed Hoover Dam); and signed the Norris-La Guardia Act that limited judicial intervention in labor disputes.
On November 19, 1928, Hoover embarked on a seven-week goodwill tour of several Latin American nations to outline his economic and trade policies to other nations in the Western Hemisphere."
"CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA added between 1.0 million and 2.1 million to the number of workers employed in the United States, and it increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by between 1.4 million and 3.0 million. Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers. CBO also estimates that real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.5 percent to 3.5 percent higher in the fourth quarter than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA."
And your problem is that Hoover was an interventionist. He also did the exact opposite of Harding.
All FDR was to continue and expand Hoover policies.
Sort of like all Obama has done is expand Bush policies. And given us more.
I say FDR and not Hoover with the Great Depression because FDR is associated with it more. But your correct. Hoover made things worse. With his big government policies.
Unless you can show me otherwise. With facts, not opinion.
It's hard to say Hoover was a true interventionist. He begged businesses to keep employment and wages steady, which lasted about a year. He pushed federal construction projects up to get the jobs out of them, but didn't add many new ones. He didn't regulate or shore up the banking industry which one could argue both ways on. Maybe they deserved to fail, but there are consequences to such in-action.
He was no interventionist like FDR was or Obama is.
Well, I won't argue with your point that significantly more government spending is what ultimately ended the Depression, but you can't argue with cutting the unemployment down below 15% from its high near 30%.
That's a pretty extraordinary feat for any president.
It was never near 30% even at the height of the great depression.
What got us out was WW2 and the deaths of millions of people.
No, actually, they'll call President Obama a failure no matter what happens.
Are you playing a pre-race card?
He will fail because what he is doing has never worked before.
But yes, we will enjoy some modest growth as the team in Washington lets 2/3rds of last years stimulus money out the door on make work projects in order to lessen the 2010 election hit.
One good thing about time is in 3 more years we will all know if it was a failure or not.
If you throw in the people that quit looking for work, but would be looking if they thought there was something out there, the unemployment rate is definately closer to 21 than 9.
I couldn't argue with your comments even if I wanted to, but it has little bearing on the CDO's report or this discussion since you would have to argue that the unemployment rate would be higher still than your estimate of 20% absent the number of jobs provided by the stimulus.
He will fail because what he is doing has never worked before.
But yes, we will enjoy some modest growth as the team in Washington lets 2/3rds of last years stimulus money out the door on make work projects in order to lessen the 2010 election hit.
One good thing about time is in 3 more years we will all know if it was a failure or not.
Actually, what Obama's doing has worked many times. Sweden used Keynesian economics and was the first to pull out of the Great Depression.
All the other countries have used stimulus spending to recover from this collapse as well.
What Obama's doing is what countries the world over are doing and have done for a long time.
The GDP has been propped up by government spending. It's all a fake.
Since GDP always includes government expenditures, GDP is what it is. So
If you want to argue that recent rises in GDP don't reflect an increase in private sector productivity, that's fine but calling the figures for GDP fake is a bit suspect.
Sorry, I was pulling that from memory. Your graph is wrong too, though. It topped out at about 25%, not "almost 30%" like I said.
And - in case I wasn't clear when I said significantly more government spending is what pulled us out of the Great Depression, I meant the war.
Wars are massive government stimulus bills. That one created tons of government jobs for the war effort.
I agree with you on that. I though you were referring to all the jobs programs he initiated.
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.
