• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Obama implement FDR's strategies?

Should Obama implement FDR's strategies?

  • Yes, I'm ok with an additional $117 trillion in debt

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • No, I'm not ok with an additional $117 trillion in debt

    Votes: 12 85.7%
  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
vasuderatorrent

vasuderatorrent

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
6,112
Reaction score
987
Location
(none)
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Numbers for the national debt under Franklin D Roosevelt
6/30/1932 19,487,002,444.13
6/30/1945 258,682,187,409.93

Increase in dollars = $239,195,184,965.80
Increase by percentage = 1,327.46%

Numbers for the national debt under Barrack H Obama during his first four years.

National Debt 9/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
National Debt 9/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

Increase in dollars = $6,041,516,510,473.40
Increase by percentage = 60.2%

If Obama utilizes the same policies and strategies for expanding the government that was used by Roosevelt the national debt needs to reach $133,074,213,116,554.54.

Should Obama work hard to increase the debt by $117,007,971,709,168.65 or $117 trillion
 
FDRs economic strategy for combating the effects of the Great Depression were a lot more complicated than just adding a percentage of debt to our debts.

But since we don't have a banking collapse, and 25% unemployment, and even a recessionary economy, no we don't need to add that kind of debt. And we probably wouldn't have to even if that were the case.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Numbers for the national debt under Franklin D Roosevelt
6/30/1932 19,487,002,444.13
6/30/1945 258,682,187,409.93

Increase in dollars = $239,195,184,965.80
Increase by percentage = 1,327.46%

Numbers for the national debt under Barrack H Obama during his first four years.

National Debt 9/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
National Debt 9/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

Increase in dollars = $6,041,516,510,473.40
Increase by percentage = 60.2%

If Obama utilizes the same policies and strategies for expanding the government that was used by Roosevelt the national debt needs to reach $133,074,213,116,554.54.

Should Obama work hard to increase the debt by $117,007,971,709,168.65 or $117 trillion
Click to expand...

After spending the money he has in the last 5 years it would be sad, if there were any more sensible infrastructure projects still out there.
 
He can never be like FDR until he rounds up US citizens of arab descent and puts them in internment camps, for no other reason than they're of arab descent.

Until then he can only be one of the top piece of **** presidents and not #1. That title is still clearly dominated by FDR.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Numbers for the national debt under Franklin D Roosevelt
6/30/1932 19,487,002,444.13
6/30/1945 258,682,187,409.93

Increase in dollars = $239,195,184,965.80
Increase by percentage = 1,327.46%

Numbers for the national debt under Barrack H Obama during his first four years.

National Debt 9/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49
National Debt 9/30/2012 $16,066,241,407,385.89

Increase in dollars = $6,041,516,510,473.40
Increase by percentage = 60.2%

If Obama utilizes the same policies and strategies for expanding the government that was used by Roosevelt the national debt needs to reach $133,074,213,116,554.54.

Should Obama work hard to increase the debt by $117,007,971,709,168.65 or $117 trillion
Click to expand...

In 1945 FDR's federal debt amounted to 7% of the worlds gross product for that year.

In 2012 the federal debt is 35% of the world's gross product for that year.

FDR could have doubled his maximum debt and still would not even be holding a candle to the current president when it comes to adding debt to an already untenable burden.
 
It was hardly a matter of Roosevelt acting irresponsibility, but rather the evident need for more federal involvement in the form of social safety nets, in tandem with fighting off the worst financial crisis in modern history and winning its largest war. Expecting anything less than substantial fiscal shortfalls during the time period was and remains foolish.
 
joG said:
After spending the money he has in the last 5 years it would be sad, if there were any more sensible infrastructure projects still out there.
Click to expand...

You do realize that you are pedaling the fallacy that deficits were caused by Obama spending, right?
 
MTAtech said:
You do realize that you are pedaling the fallacy that deficits were caused by Obama spending, right?
Click to expand...

The deficits have come from many years of building a structure that needs too much money. That has left the government in a position that is unpleasant. There is no doubt.
But it was the decision of the present president to spend as he did. The intelligent thing to do in a recession is to spend on the things you have earmarked for a time, when you will have to fight recession. One of those things is infrastructure in as far as it is a public good.
 
"Should Obama implement FDR's strategies?"

Rutabaga
 
joG said:
The deficits have come from many years of building a structure that needs too much money. That has left the government in a position that is unpleasant. There is no doubt.
But it was the decision of the present president to spend as he did. The intelligent thing to do in a recession is to spend on the things you have earmarked for a time, when you will have to fight recession. One of those things is infrastructure in as far as it is a public good.
Click to expand...
Obama asked for spending on infrastructure and was denied.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Obama asked for spending on infrastructure and was denied.
Click to expand...

I am afraid that is not good enough for the one who can.

If you take the presidency the glory is yours. But there can be no excuse for failure.
 
ToastyOats said:
FDRs economic strategy for combating the effects of the Great Depression were a lot more complicated than just adding a percentage of debt to our debts.

But since we don't have a banking collapse, and 25% unemployment, and even a recessionary economy, no we don't need to add that kind of debt. And we probably wouldn't have to even if that were the case.
Click to expand...

If not for spending trillions, the banks (supposedly) would have collapsed

The true cost of the bank bailout | Need to Know | PBS

And the unemployment numbers are a lot higher than what is being portrayed.

Laboring over new unemployment numbers - Teton Valley News: Opinion
 
MoSurveyor said:
Obama asked for spending on infrastructure and was denied.
Click to expand...

Wasnt that part of the stimulus? 500bn or so in shovel ready jobs? How much is enough? Wheres the money going that already been appropriated for infrastructure? Why is it even the responsibility of the federal govt?

All questions that need to be answered before spending billions more, IMO.
 
joG said:
The deficits have come from many years of building a structure that needs too much money. That has left the government in a position that is unpleasant. There is no doubt.
But it was the decision of the present president to spend as he did. The intelligent thing to do in a recession is to spend on the things you have earmarked for a time, when you will have to fight recession. One of those things is infrastructure in as far as it is a public good.
Click to expand...
We had four balanced budgets under Clinton, when tax rates were raised. Every since Bush cut taxes we've had deficits. We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.

If you think the U.S. spends too much, go identify $600 billion you would like to cut.
 
MTAtech said:
We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.
Click to expand...

Except this is known as factually inaccurate, unless you want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class too?
 
scatt said:
Except this is known as factually inaccurate, unless you want to raise taxes on the poor and middle class too?
Click to expand...

I don't see why raising tax on the poor and middle class is a necessary requirement. Raise taxes 10% on capital gains would yield hundreds of billions in additional revenue without raising them on the groups I mentioned.
 
MTAtech said:
I don't see why raising tax on the poor and middle class is a necessary requirement. Raise taxes 10% on capital gains would yield hundreds of billions in additional revenue without raising them on the groups I mentioned.
Click to expand...

Hundreds of billions? Any links?
 
MTAtech said:
We had four balanced budgets under Clinton, when tax rates were raised. Every since Bush cut taxes we've had deficits. We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.

If you think the U.S. spends too much, go identify $600 billion you would like to cut.
Click to expand...

A budget requires dealing with both; which Obama proposed budget called for either cutting spending or raising sufficient tax revenue to cover the proposed spending? Can you identify a tax proposal to generate an additional $600 billion/year? Obama raised taxes on "the rich" by about 1/10th of that amount and added PPACA spending which will far exceed that meager amount.
 
MTAtech said:
I don't see why raising tax on the poor and middle class is a necessary requirement. Raise taxes 10% on capital gains would yield hundreds of billions in additional revenue without raising them on the groups I mentioned.
Click to expand...

Care to back up that bold assertion with some actual figures? Even using "liberal math", that calls raising tax rates from 15% to 25% a mere 10% increase (when, in fact, that is a 66.6% tax rate increase) you fall far, far short - even in boom years.

Raising Capital Gains Tax By 33% Won't Raise Enough New Revenue - Forbes
 
Many of FDR policies were found unconstitutional until he stacked the USCOTUS in his favor. the majority of the new deal was shot down and deemed unconstitutional.
I think that Obama would have a very hard time getting the same type of things passed the court again.

not to mention it would never pass the house.

seeing that Obama is looking like he could lose both the house and the senate in the next election he is going to be a in a very sore spot. he has 0 leadership ability and is basically useless up to this point.
 
MTAtech said:
We had four balanced budgets under Clinton, when tax rates were raised. Every since Bush cut taxes we've had deficits. We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.

If you think the U.S. spends too much, go identify $600 billion you would like to cut.
Click to expand...

Avg Spending under Clinton - 20% of GDP
Bush - 19.5 %
Obama - 24%

We have a spending problem. And im not blaming Obama. But its obvious that if we are spending 5% of GDP MORE than usual, then that must be responsible for some of the deficit. As to what we cut, i assume you think we need every dollar, so it wont matter what I say.
 
Last edited:
MTAtech said:
I don't see why raising tax on the poor and middle class is a necessary requirement. Raise taxes 10% on capital gains would yield hundreds of billions in additional revenue without raising them on the groups I mentioned.
Click to expand...

52% of those with taxable gains had incomes below 75k. Mostly retired old people.

Who Pays Capital Gains Tax?
 
jonny5 said:
52% of those with taxable gains had incomes below 75k. Mostly retired old people.

Who Pays Capital Gains Tax?
Click to expand...
That's how people mislead with figures -- using the number of people instead of the dollars. What you claim may be factually correct, but the amount of those capital gains was very small to each tax-payer who had a total income less than $75K. 50% of all capital gains is earned by the top 1% and 50% of that is the top 0.1% That means that 25% of all capital gains, in dollars, is concentrated in the pockets of a small elite. 50% of the total is spread over 99% of the people. Some of those are minors, with the stocks in education accounts. They don't earn enough on the gain to be eligible to be taxes. Thus, raising taxes on capital gains targets the wealthiest taxpayers. Yes, there is a bit of spread to other taxpayers but it isn't a big part of their income. Those seniors you mention may earn capital gains but likely don't earn enough to pay federal income taxes.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Wasnt that part of the stimulus? 500bn or so in shovel ready jobs? How much is enough? Wheres the money going that already been appropriated for infrastructure? Why is it even the responsibility of the federal govt?

All questions that need to be answered before spending billions more, IMO.
Click to expand...

Much of that money went to the States to cover Medicaid and State workers payrolls. Here's a link to see exactly where the stimulus went.

The Stimulus Plan: How to Spend $787 Billion - The New York Times
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom