|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 1st, 2004 01:13 PM | ||||||
| MatthewCleveland | It was the failure of the Federal Reserve Board to act. They didn't help out the banks so there was massive failures. The stock market crash caused all of it too much money was based on margin. | |||||
| Dec 31st, 2003 08:33 PM | ||||||
| The One and Only... |
I meant the New Deal aggrevated the Depression. What do you think made the Depression so bad in the first place? The stock market crash was bad, granted, but it alone would not have lead to the horrors of the 30's. |
|||||
| Dec 30th, 2003 11:16 PM | ||||||
| Drew Katsikas |
Quote:
|
|||||
| Dec 30th, 2003 04:03 PM | ||||||
| The One and Only... |
Quote:
Quote:
These programs were not "essential", and they certainly were not "very successful"... they kept people unemployed for the benefit of white, northern Americans. It is no suprise that the unemployment rate was so high. Herbert Hoover was no laissez-faire capitalist, he was pre-New Dealer. That distorted image of HH has always disturbed me. The depressions in Germany and Italy were far more grave than in America. Those countries were victims of horrible hyperinflation. |
|||||
| Dec 30th, 2003 10:26 AM | ||||||
| mburbank |
FDR, or Faglin Depravo Jewsevelt as I like to call him, was a known child rapist who began each morning by tearing the head off a live kitten and sucking it's spinal fluid. Far from being crippled, he only used the wheelchair or sympathy and in the privacy of the west wing refused to move on his own out of laziness. Child slaves were strapped to each leg and commanded to do his waking for him so he could 'use more juice' for 'raping the country'. He kept the saintly head of Herbert Hoover on a pike on the east lawn as a warning to all those who might believe in America and were it not for Richard Nixons time travelling exploits would have lived to drop the Atom Bomb on Texas as a precursor to handing the Whitehouse to his lover, Adolf Hitler. His little dog Fala ate only fresh human meat and Eleanor introduced Lesbianism to the continental united states, and is theorized to have been a space alien. |
|||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 11:12 PM | ||||||
| Drew Katsikas |
I think most historians believe it was the war. The race to build arms and manufacturing military units put many of the unemployed into a job, and many of the rest were drafted. However, there is no mistaking the importance of the New Deal programs. OAO, do you really believe that leaving the depression alone would have been a better idea than FDR's political experiementation? Do you realize that had any other country fallen victim to such a depression, that they would have quickly became a dictator state? Examples: Italy and Germany. Extremley impoverished nations that gave power to a dictator. They gave up freedom for food. Too an extent, that's what the US did, but FDR, while clearly exceeding presedential limits, was not so much a dictator. If anything, FDR was a slightly conservative political leader for his time. He did not make Mussolini-esque programs, like giving incentives to have children, and selling asking citizens to sell their wedding rings to the state. Instead he created jobs that did superfluous construction , and other things that the people wanted. This is why Hoover failed to have any popular support. They didn't want to wait out the problem for years in poverty. They wanted something to be done. Even though FDR's plans had many errors, the amount of progress made surely canceled any of that. He led the country out of war and depression, into one of our most prosperous and revered ages. Too bring up shady numbers and "facts" from the fucking Cato institue against FDR is absurd. THe only thing I agree with that the article stated was the folly in the Dems support neo-New Deal programs. I don't believe the country needs such programs at this time, but during the depression and the war, these programs were essential, and very succesful, and to try feebly to pick them apart to fuel your juvenile libertarian agenda, is... well, juvenile. |
|||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 07:55 PM | ||||||
| camacazio | Whether it's the war or the new deal, FDR fixed the crappy shithole the country was in. | |||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 06:35 PM | ||||||
| kellychaos | Where all the "war improves the economy" people? I've heard some people claim that is what got our nation out of the economic slump during FDR's term. Possibly that's true during a war on the grand scale as WWII when it puts your production over 100% ... yes, it's possible. It hasn't seemed to be the case in any of our wars since. Our nation enjoyed one of it's biggest economic booms shortly after WWII but I hardly consider the war as that much of a contributing factor. It's just a case where industrialization and modernization of certain technologies saw a rapid improvement (possibly due to develoment of military technology, granted) and a population explosion but who's to say that, minus the New Deal, we would have been in the same place? A simular boom followed the first Gulf War but I don't see anyone faulting nor praising the economic policies of President Bush. The public seemed more apt to praise Clinton for that. | |||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 06:11 PM | ||||||
| Drew Katsikas | Good job OAO! Let's expose FDR for the heartless commie that he was! | |||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 06:01 PM | ||||||
| AChimp |
LOL @ Max 
|
|||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 05:53 PM | ||||||
| Protoclown | FDR was a good president. | |||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 05:39 PM | ||||||
| kellychaos | You really think that a higher profit margin would serve as an incentive for businesses to created better working conditions without the unions prodding them in that direction? I guarantee they would have continued to try to get away with as little improvement in working conditions as they could have and pocketed the rest or used it for some other form of capital improvement. | |||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 05:18 PM | ||||||
| The One and Only... |
Re: I've got that itch again... It's fun to debate with Keynesians... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 05:07 PM | ||||||
| kellychaos |
Duuuuude. I'm a dude! 
|
|||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 05:03 PM | ||||||
| MatthewCleveland |
Can't blame you with views like his, fucking laissaz faire republican pig. 
|
|||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 04:28 PM | ||||||
| kellychaos |
Mathew, None us really pay attention to OAO that much or give much credence to what he posts although we may humor him with a response every now and again. Sincererly, The Rest Of The Board |
|||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 04:26 PM | ||||||
| MatthewCleveland | FDR is my hero, he's like "|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|" awesome. | |||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 04:25 PM | ||||||
| Brandon | HEY EVERYBODY! LET'S RAPE FDR'S CORPSE AGAIN! | |||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 04:15 PM | ||||||
| Anonymous |
Re: I've got that itch again... Quote:
Government out of my house!!! |
|||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 03:34 PM | ||||||
| MatthewCleveland |
Re: I've got that itch again... Now here you go argueing FDR's new deal with out mentioning that actually reasons for these laws. You cited all problems that resulted from them, but none of the sucesses. The consumer taxes you talked about didn't punish the needy. The needy had no where enough money to buy radio's and such. The consumer taxes were meant for the upper middle class taht still had some wealth left in them. The National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) also cut back production because factory owners were faced with underconsumption coupled with overproduction. Warehouses were stockpiled with thousands upon thousands of consumer goods with no market to sell them too. This act forced industry to cut back its production to *STAY* in business. At their current rate they would of driven themselves out of business. It was necessary to cut back production and growth in order to reestablish a strong manufacturing base and build its self back up. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) was intended to raise farm prices back to thier pre-Depression levels. Farmers having lost all thier money on credit based investments were losing thier mortages to banks while farm prices were dangerously low because of high production. This act paid farmers to leave thier land fallow as to decrease the supply in order to stabilize prices. The governmetn fixed grain and corn prices in order to bring stability back to the government. Your views on the National Labor Relations Act is jsut disgusting. Prior to this act blacklisting and spying on union meetings was common practice. People were fired in mass droves as cheap immagrant and black laborers took thier places by the droves. The National Labor Relations Act allowed unions to lobby for better conditions (which are inarguably horrific) along with job security and higher wages. This helped also bring stability to economy as people could be assured that they would be able to keep thier jobs. The Tennesse valley Authority "monopoly" brough jobs to the south. It put men to work and allowed them to send checks home to thier family. It created cheaper power supplies from the hydroelectric dams created. FDR perfectly intended to bring good to the people and stability to our economy. He brought us out of the depression and led us through a war. He is with out a doubt the most influential American icon in our modern history. He had strength and courage and dedication to this country. And if you think we shoudl evaulate our politics I think you should take a better look at our current administration instead of argueing how FDR's New Deal harmed millions of people. You can't please everyone, you can't bring them all prosperity, but FDR's new deal brought us to where we are today. Matthew Cleveland |
|||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 02:32 PM | ||||||
| mburbank | That 'itch' is puberty. | |||||
| Dec 29th, 2003 02:24 PM | ||||||
| The One and Only... |
I've got that itch again... How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People by By Jim Powell Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003). Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are suggesting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is a good model for government policy today. Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities. New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up. The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent." Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs. New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring. Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938. What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing. For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side. Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937). Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation. FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions. |
|||||
