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.
Outside of his California Republican buddies, who appreciated the pork he sent their way, yes, because he was totally inept at dealing with the Depression and ordered the military to fire on the Bonus Army.
Hoover believed it was not goverments role to intervene in the economy. He stuck to his guns on that, and never attempted to use goverment spending to rescue the economy. Bush did not stick to his small goverment principles during the panic of 08 however, as he spent 700b to rescue the economy. I think Hoovers postion was the correct one, as time will show that a goverment cannot buy its way out of a depression with money it does not have. In 5 years the depression will be twice as bad as it would have been in 08 when we cannot pay the debts we accrued in the bailouts. (look at Greece) Hoover is maligned for doing nothing because there is a preception out there that FDR saved America from the depression by spending the nation out of it. The reality of it is WW2 saved us from the depression. INdustry was forced to gear up by the war, then after our total victory in 45 our industry had no foriegn competition. All the debt of the 30s and 40s became manageable because of our total victory, and massive industrial expansion made possible by that victory. Had we not expanded like we did in the 50s and 60s, our economy would have collapsed under the weight of FDRs debt and our depression would have resumed right after the war. Unless something similar happens today, our economy will not survive the debt we have been accruing in order to prevent total collapse. We may have delayed total depression, but unless some economic miracle happens it is coming. Hoover was following good sound econmic policy in the early 30s. Had his policies been given time, many say the economy would have righted itself in a few years. Now, what he did with that bonus army is hard to defend.
Hoover believed it was not goverments role to intervene in the economy.
The Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 (which made the Depression "Great" and made it go worldwide) and the Reconstruction Finance Act of 1932 (a sort of New Deal-lite) are examples to the contrary. Not to mention the building of Hoover Dam which was essentially pork for his close friend, California Governor Clement Young. Hoover did believe in government aid to business ; he was a protectionist and corporatist.
Quote:
He stuck to his guns on that, and never attempted to use goverment spending to rescue the economy
Late in his presidency he did change course on this, e.g. the Reconstruction Finance Act. In fact, during the 1932 presidential campaign, FDR attacked Hoover for raising taxes while overspending, and John Nance Garner attacked Hoover as a socialist. Once in office, the Democrats would of course go in a very different direction.
Quote:
Bush did not stick to his small goverment principles during the panic of 08 however, as he spent 700b to rescue the economy.
Bush gave up his small government principles early in his administration, and was also a corporatist.
Quote:
I think Hoovers postion was the correct one, as time will show that a goverment cannot buy its way out of a depression with money it does not have.
That was a position that Hoover abandoned, mainly to try to save himself politically.
Quote:
In 5 years the depression will be twice as bad as it would have been in 08 when we cannot pay the debts we accrued in the bailouts. (look at Greece)
Very, very possible. Although there are substantial differences between the US and Greece, because Greece cannot coin its own money, and the weakness of the Euro because of the situation in the PIGS countries has given a lease on life to the dollar as the world's reserve currency. This situation cannot last forever, though. The current economic holocaust has similarities to the Great Depression but also some differences ; in many ways we really are in uncharted territory in the context of looking at global economic crises.
Quote:
Hoover is maligned for doing nothing because there is a preception out there that FDR saved America from the depression by spending the nation out of it.
Hoover was quite clueless as a leader. FDR's policies may have not done much to help the economy but from a political point of view they were probably necessary to keep capitalism alive. Although who knows what would have happened if Garner had won the 1932 presidential nomination - given that Garner was a conservative Texan, with attitudes on race typical of Texas Dixiecrats of his time, and did not like the New Deal - as FDR's VP he became FDR's biggest political enemy, for all practical purposes mutinying against FDR by urging Congress to defeat New Deal legislation that FDR backed. That might've opened the door for Huey Long or Norman Thomas as president in 1936, which would've led to a less free market friendly America. Garner would have definitely beat Hoover ; practically anyone the Dems ran in 1932 would have.
Hoover believed it was not goverments role to intervene in the economy. He stuck to his guns on that, and never attempted to use goverment spending to rescue the economy. Bush did not stick to his small goverment principles during the panic of 08 however, as he spent 700b to rescue the economy. I think Hoovers postion was the correct one, as time will show that a goverment cannot buy its way out of a depression with money it does not have. In 5 years the depression will be twice as bad as it would have been in 08 when we cannot pay the debts we accrued in the bailouts. (look at Greece) Hoover is maligned for doing nothing because there is a preception out there that FDR saved America from the depression by spending the nation out of it. The reality of it is WW2 saved us from the depression. INdustry was forced to gear up by the war, then after our total victory in 45 our industry had no foriegn competition. All the debt of the 30s and 40s became manageable because of our total victory, and massive industrial expansion made possible by that victory. Had we not expanded like we did in the 50s and 60s, our economy would have collapsed under the weight of FDRs debt and our depression would have resumed right after the war. Unless something similar happens today, our economy will not survive the debt we have been accruing in order to prevent total collapse. We may have delayed total depression, but unless some economic miracle happens it is coming. Hoover was following good sound econmic policy in the early 30s. Had his policies been given time, many say the economy would have righted itself in a few years. Now, what he did with that bonus army is hard to defend.
I'm sorry Daniel. You've got most of this wrong. Its the history forum and we tend to adhere to a little higher standard here than they do in some other forums.
First, your wrong about Hoover. Hoover actually did some of things you seem the most critical of. Under the Herbert Hoover Administration something called the RFC (Reconstruction Finance Corporation) was created. Under Hoover's authority, the Treasury loaned troubled corporations and businesses money to keep them afloat. Its very similar to the policy followed by both Bush and Obama today under the TARP program. Hoover also engaged in some modest deficit spending as President. The biggest problem with Hoover was he didn't go far enough, fast enough.
Second, you fault deficit spending by governments as a means to end a recession. Where is your authority? All I see is one unsubstantiated opinion on your part. Deficit spending works because it replaces private spending that vanishes when a recession takes over. Without deficit spending, a recessionary economy becomes trapped in an ugly cycle. The trouble is that deficit spending has been accepted for almost seventy years as a means to "prime the pump" and stimulate spending in an econmic mired in recession. It has been used by both democrat and republican presidents. Whenever taxes are cut, the President cutting taxes is using this policy. Somehow, though this is always less controversial than government spending is even though both tax cuts and spending increases do exactly the same thing.
Third, your speculation on this recession getting worse is just that--speculation. I might as well guess that Christ will return to the earth in the year 2015 or that Vikings will win next year's Superbowl.
Fourth, our economy expanded enormously during the fifties and the sixties because of government policies that helped fight recession and restore employment.
I must also say that your point about World War II is by far the worst point you make. World War II brought America out of the Great Depression precisely because it served as a excuse for mammoth government spending on a scale never seen before. In other words, its proof that deficit spending will end a recession/depression.
Finally here's something else for you to chew on: Since Government began getting involved in the economy in the 1900's to preserve prosperity and fight recession, business cycles (recessions) have grown about 1/2 as frequent as before and their severity is less too than it was during the 1800's.
The main problem with Bush was his Starve the Beast tax cuts policies but i would not say that he is hated altough people may strongly disagre with his policies.
My dad,who lived thru the depression,( born 1890) despised Hoover.
People who state that Hoover was correct in doing nothing, have no idea how bleak the situation was. I recall my dad saying that besides there being no FDIC, no unemployment insurasnce,no food stamps, there was no hope.
What FDR did was give hope and help alleviate the suffering.
Also, my dad was a small farmer.
The 30's was some of the worst years due to record heat and drought.
Trees were cut down solely so cattle could eat the green leaves cuz the grass was brown and dead.
I do not credit FDR with ending the depression.
I do credit him for lessening the pain for the people suffering.
The suffering back then was way worse than what people today call suffering.
The main problem with Bush was his Starve the Beast tax cuts policies but i would not say that he is hated altough people may strongly disagre with his policies.
I would def say he was/is hated.And I remember the Nixon years. Bush hatred rivaled that.
Dont think Jimmy Carter was "hated", just a gentle soul who would better serve from a pulpit then the White House.
My dad,who lived thru the depression,( born 1890) despised Hoover.
People who state that Hoover was correct in doing nothing, have no idea how bleak the situation was. I recall my dad saying that besides there being no FDIC, no unemployment insurasnce,no food stamps, there was no hope.
What FDR did was give hope and help alleviate the suffering.
Also, my dad was a small farmer.
The 30's was some of the worst years due to record heat and drought.
Trees were cut down solely so cattle could eat the green leaves cuz the grass was brown and dead.
I do not credit FDR with ending the depression.
I do credit him for lessening the pain for the people suffering.
The suffering back then was way worse than what people today call suffering.
My Father could talk about his combat experiences in the Pacific almost with detachment,yet,when he talked about growing up during the depression,he could barely get the words out.Possibly because it just went on and on,for some,a decade 29-39.For others,farming in particular,prices had collapsed years before the stock market crashed.
When and if the records are finally opened on the unaccountable Bush-Cheney administration, tomes will be written on it. John Dean, who knows a little about corruption and cover-up, starts the first page of his book "Worse than Watergate" with the following quote by conservative activist and lawyer Larry Klayman:
"This [Bush-Cheney] administration is the most secretive of our lifetime, even more secretive than the Nixon administration. They don't believe the American people or congress have any right to information."
-- Larry Klayman, Chairman, Judicial Watch
Andrew Jackson was the biggest bastard Ive ever heard of...and im a descendant
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.
