• 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!

Obama to Repeat FDR's Scam

Read the intro and vote accordingly


  • Total voters
    14
We are leaving a government which has record high spending and record high borrowing, We could feed and house most of America each month for the cost of what Bush borrowed and spent.

No we couldn't, not even close.

We are sagging under Bush's debt and you try to shift the problem to Obama.
Our current debt is a problem no doubt. However, Obama shifted the problem to Obama, he won, remember. On January 20th it became his problem by his own choosing.

Obama is human, but at least wait and see before you attack. I know the Right Wingers are looking to attack when there is no reason to attack.
Can you let us know when we can criticize Obama? Send out a memo or something? Are people supposed to keep mum about EVERYTHING he does or just certain things?
 
The country was already headed in the direction of recovery thanks to the New Deal policies initiated by FDR. There’s no doubt the War made the recovery occur much faster.

When FDR had the new deal passed in 1932, the 1932-33 unemployment rate was 23.6-24.9%. When WWII started 1941-42 the unemployment rate was 9.9-4.7%.

How is that not a vindication of the FDR’s new deal?

Now let’s look at the gross national product in those years as well. GNP before and after the New Deal in 1932:

Table 2:1929 1931 1933 1937 1938 1940
Real GNP 101.4 84.3 68.3 103.9 103.7 113.0
in 1929 dollars
(Please match up the #s with the years)
New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How is that kind of progress not a defense of the efficacy of the New Deal for pulling us out of the Depression?

Or the country was headed in the direction of recovery IN SPITE OF the new deal. Then the war broke out, several programs were struck down and others made obsolete, the recovery ramped up to the rate it should have been if not hindered by government interference.
 
Can you let us know when we can criticize Obama? Send out a memo or something? Are people supposed to keep mum about EVERYTHING he does or just certain things?

If you haven't noticed, Phoenix, Obama is now listed among several other mythical gods.

There is Zeus - supreme god, Hades - god of underworld, Athena - goddess of war, and Obama - god of the USA..however, word had it that Obama is planing on pulling a 'coup', and taking over Zeus - the Media, along with Hades, are along in the scheme.
 
Or the country was headed in the direction of recovery IN SPITE OF the new deal. Then the war broke out, several programs were struck down and others made obsolete, the recovery ramped up to the rate it should have been if not hindered by government interference.
A recovery in spite of the New Deal?

The government saved the capitalist free market with the New Deal.

HIstory does repeat itself b/c here we are again in 2008 saving Capitalism from its own excesses.

When capitalism, laissez faire econ, is left to its own designs, it is crushed under its own weight--hoarding, monopolies, inefficiency. We need the government in the market the way football needs referees.

Without regulation, anti-trust laws, and oversight, the 'free market' collapses.
 
A recovery in spite of the New Deal?

The government saved the capitalist free market with the New Deal.

HIstory does repeat itself b/c here we are again in 2008 saving Capitalism from its own excesses.

When capitalism, laissez faire econ, is left to its own designs, it is crushed under its own weight--hoarding, monopolies, inefficiency. We need the government in the market the way football needs referees.

Without regulation, anti-trust laws, and oversight, the 'free market' collapses.

Please provide proof for your claims.

Right now it sounds like your yapping party line nonsense.
 
A recovery in spite of the New Deal?

The government saved the capitalist free market with the New Deal.

HIstory does repeat itself b/c here we are again in 2008 saving Capitalism from its own excesses.

When capitalism, laissez faire econ, is left to its own designs, it is crushed under its own weight--hoarding, monopolies, inefficiency. We need the government in the market the way football needs referees.

Without regulation, anti-trust laws, and oversight, the 'free market' collapses.

Our economy is far from laissez faire. It certainly isn't left to it's own designs.
I'll explain a little later but it's 5:00pm and I to get to a program for my daughter.
 
Thank you Dolly and Decker for bringing some historical facts into the debate. The Herritage foundation propaganda utterly falls apart under its scrutiny, as you have illustrated.
 
Okay here we go.

I bold the programs that came out of the New deal and give definitive evidence that shows our economy is neither laissez faire nor a free market. Also to disprove HDL's claims.

The first concept is fiat money. This allows the government (and only the government in our system) to set the standard of currency and the amount of currency in circulation. That allows the government to set the interest rates that the banks use on their whims.

The next up is the FDIC. While it seems like a great idea, it has lingering consequences that will be explained later. I mention it here because it is an intervention in the market that eliminated our economy as laissez faire.

Next is Fannie Mae. If no other example existed this is a big one to disprove a free market. It is a government program with the specific intent to circumvent free market ideals. This program will back people to get loans that the free market would not otherwise support.

Let's start after the .com boom crashed.
Keep in mind that today's politicians are more interested in the appearance of things to get elected rather than the reality that faces them.
The feds start lowering the interest rates to "prevent a recession". Now laissez faire supporters understand that the economy works in cycles and the recession should have been allowed to run it's course unfetered to allow the bad businesses to be eliminated. The feds in an effort to keep the economy from going sour "on their watch" started using the fiat money system to lower interest rates. They do this by giving the banks more money to use.
Enter Fractional-reserve banking notice it's not bolded. It's a naturally occurring economic concept. You may not have realized it but banks don't keep the money on hand to cover all their deposits. When you hear that a "run" has been made on a bank that means lots of people came at one time and asked for their money. The natural occurrence of this means a bank has to weigh the benefits of lending out more money with the ability to remain solvent. The more times they lend the money out the easier it is to become insolvent. Historically banks would even engineer runs against each other to put banks out of business. Enter the FDIC. Since the government guarantees part of our money (using our money BTW ...huh?) they now have a vested interest in preventing a run on banks and will take steps necessary to prevent it. This means that banks can loan out more than they would be inclined to naturally because the know they have the protection of the government.
Now lets put all this together and relate it to today.
Government lowers interest rates, this gives the banks more money to lend. They want to lend more money because at the lower rates they need to lend more dollars (volume) to make money.
Housing, a historic "always gainer" seems a good investment.
Politicians like housing because helping people get a house looks good on your resume. So fannie mae eases the requirements to buy loans from banks. As if this weren't enough they also pass laws that state banks should lend to unworthy persons. Don't worry, we'll buy the loans.
So with more people able to buy houses,(an increase in demand) house prices soar, making them better investments and a bubble is created because the cycle continues.
Now government starts to fear inflation. That is what happens when too much fiat money is on the market. Inflation is bad for business for politicians because it takes money out of the people's pockets. So they use the fiat money to raise interest rates. (take money out of the market) Now many people that took out adjustable rate loans and are maxed out on their credit, can't afford their house, and the tower starts to crumble.

Now to fix the problem the feds have lowered interest rates to the point they can't lower them anymore and are going to attempt to put 1 trillion MORE dollars on the market. It's a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately since almost all the people in the United States attend public school, and have been indoctrinated by our government to believe that FDR and his big government programs were the savior of the country we are destined to follow this path, I am afraid.
 
Please provide proof for your claims.

Right now it sounds like your yapping party line nonsense.
I've taken the time to read about the causes of the Great Depression. It's an extremely complex topic. Here're are some of the main reasons the country's economy crashed:

The politics/economics dominating the years prior to the Great Depression were Republican & laissez faire. Low taxes, invisible regulation of business and free-wheeling capitalism. Harding, Coolidge and Hoover followed that playbook which played to the interests robber baron/wall street elites. Wealth and income inequality were extreme.

IN the 1920s 600 banks a year were failing. Farmland was losing its value by almost half. Although worker productivity rises some 43% in the decade, the income goes almost solely to the top 1%. Stocks take off in value and taxes on the wealthy drop. Regulation of business is invisible. Hoover took office in 1929 and offered some gov. help but it was too little, too late.

After years of small government laissez faire approach, the US economy crashed. In its wake, destitution to the tune of 25%+ unemployment.

That's what happens on the watch of Republicans with their small government, laissez faire politics/economics.

Along comes FDR using Keynesian spending policies: the economy rose in 5 out of 7 years prior to the war. The gov. goes off of the gold standard (about time) and creates jobs with the CCC, TVA...FDR resdistributes much wealth from the elites to the rest of the population and the standard of living improves, unemployment shrinks, GDP/GNP improves and the only setback occurs in 1938 when he tries to placate his opponents with the failed policies of his Republican predecessors. There's a time and place for balanced budgets and 1938/USA was not one of those times or places.

The Great Depression was worldwide. The first countries to rise out of the GD were those that adopted governmental spending - Germany, Great Britain, Sweden.

Since the US has adopted governmental spending policies to correct the errors of the free market, the USA has not had a single depression.
 
Okay here we go.

I bold the programs that came out of the New deal and give definitive evidence that shows our economy is neither laissez faire nor a free market. Also to disprove HDL's claims.

The first concept is fiat money. This allows the government (and only the government in our system) to set the standard of currency and the amount of currency in circulation. That allows the government to set the interest rates that the banks use on their whims.

The next up is the FDIC. While it seems like a great idea, it has lingering consequences that will be explained later. I mention it here because it is an intervention in the market that eliminated our economy as laissez faire.

Next is Fannie Mae. If no other example existed this is a big one to disprove a free market. It is a government program with the specific intent to circumvent free market ideals. This program will back people to get loans that the free market would not otherwise support.

Let's start after the .com boom crashed.
Keep in mind that today's politicians are more interested in the appearance of things to get elected rather than the reality that faces them.
The feds start lowering the interest rates to "prevent a recession". Now laissez faire supporters understand that the economy works in cycles and the recession should have been allowed to run it's course unfetered to allow the bad businesses to be eliminated. The feds in an effort to keep the economy from going sour "on their watch" started using the fiat money system to lower interest rates. They do this by giving the banks more money to use.
Enter Fractional-reserve banking notice it's not bolded. It's a naturally occurring economic concept. You may not have realized it but banks don't keep the money on hand to cover all their deposits. When you hear that a "run" has been made on a bank that means lots of people came at one time and asked for their money. The natural occurrence of this means a bank has to weigh the benefits of lending out more money with the ability to remain solvent. The more times they lend the money out the easier it is to become insolvent. Historically banks would even engineer runs against each other to put banks out of business. Enter the FDIC. Since the government guarantees part of our money (using our money BTW ...huh?) they now have a vested interest in preventing a run on banks and will take steps necessary to prevent it. This means that banks can loan out more than they would be inclined to naturally because the know they have the protection of the government.
Now lets put all this together and relate it to today.
Government lowers interest rates, this gives the banks more money to lend. They want to lend more money because at the lower rates they need to lend more dollars (volume) to make money.
Housing, a historic "always gainer" seems a good investment.
Politicians like housing because helping people get a house looks good on your resume. So fannie mae eases the requirements to buy loans from banks. As if this weren't enough they also pass laws that state banks should lend to unworthy persons. Don't worry, we'll buy the loans.
So with more people able to buy houses,(an increase in demand) house prices soar, making them better investments and a bubble is created because the cycle continues.
Now government starts to fear inflation. That is what happens when too much fiat money is on the market. Inflation is bad for business for politicians because it takes money out of the people's pockets. So they use the fiat money to raise interest rates. (take money out of the market) Now many people that took out adjustable rate loans and are maxed out on their credit, can't afford their house, and the tower starts to crumble.

Now to fix the problem the feds have lowered interest rates to the point they can't lower them anymore and are going to attempt to put 1 trillion MORE dollars on the market. It's a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately since almost all the people in the United States attend public school, and have been indoctrinated by our government to believe that FDR and his big government programs were the savior of the country we are destined to follow this path, I am afraid.
FDR did save the country. He also helped expand the middle class with his gov. programs.

You are mischaracterizing the Freddie/Fannie scandal. The problem started when LBJ privatized FDR's program (when Freddie was created to compete with Fannie). The companies bought mortgages from banks and resold them to new investors.

Enter GW Bush and Phil Gramm. After 9/11, to fund both his wars and unheard of giant tax cuts, Bush removed the reserve requirement from Freddie/Fannie so that more bargained basement loans could be made to keep the economy humming. Bush also preempted state oversight laws for predatory lenders with federal laws...unenforced federal laws.

Low taxes and no regulatory oversight. Sounds familiar? Like the 1920s.

Phil Gramm, he wrote the book and the law on credit default swaps freeing markets/institutions from oversight. "Prior to its passage, they say, banks underwrote mortgages and were responsible for the risks involved. Now, through the use of [CDSs]-which in theory insure the banks against bad debts-those risks are passed along to insurance companies and other investors," wrote Texas Observer.

How does this relate to Lehman's bankruptcy? "[CDSs] were a key factor in encouraging lenders to feel they could make loans without knowing the risks or whether the loan would be paid back. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act freed them of federal oversight," according to Texas Monthly. And it was due to these CDSs that Wall Street held an emergency session yesterday to try to minimize the damage of Lehman's CDSs and other derivatives. Unfortunately, this session did not produce much thanks to the built-in lack of knowledge of the risks in these transactions that Gramm's legislation ensured.
100 Year Crash: McCain advisor spurred $62 trillion derivatives market that will swamp global markets - BloggingStocks

Greed and corruption ran rampant. Foreign countries unwittingly kept the scheme alive buying the repackage/bundled bad mortgages and now we have all this.

That's the genesis of the problem...not fiat money or gold standards or the like.
 
I've taken the time to read about the causes of the Great Depression. It's an extremely complex topic. Here're are some of the main reasons the country's economy crashed:

The politics/economics dominating the years prior to the Great Depression were Republican & laissez faire. Low taxes, invisible regulation of business and free-wheeling capitalism. Harding, Coolidge and Hoover followed that playbook which played to the interests robber baron/wall street elites.

Laissez faire capitalism at that point was out the window. I will agree some of the robber barons where manipulating the market but they did that with the governments help by the establishment of the Federal Reserve.

The Fed caused the depression because they didn't know what they were doing with the money supply. The contracted it in the middle of the depression instead of expanding it. Banks fail because they were operating with fractional lending. The Fed was the supposed to be the lender of last resort at this time.

The government failed in controlling the economy. They can't control it. Its nearly a complete impossibility.

Wealth and income inequality were extreme.
This will always be true because some people are achievers and others are not. Government can never fix this.

IN the 1920s 600 banks a year were failing. Farmland was losing its value by almost half. Although worker productivity rises some 43% in the decade, the income goes almost solely to the top 1%. Stocks take off in value and taxes on the wealthy drop. Regulation of business is invisible. Hoover took office in 1929 and offered some gov. help but it was too little, too late.

After years of small government laissez faire approach, the US economy crashed. In its wake, destitution to the tune of 25%+ unemployment.

I addressed this above.

That's what happens on the watch of Republicans with their small government, laissez faire politics/economics.

Which decade Republicans are you talking about?

Along comes FDR using Keynesian spending policies: the economy rose in 5 out of 7 years prior to the war. The gov. goes off of the gold standard (about time) and creates jobs with the CCC, TVA...FDR resdistributes much wealth from the elites to the rest of the population and the standard of living improves, unemployment shrinks, GDP/GNP improves and the only setback occurs in 1938 when he tries to placate his opponents with the failed policies of his Republican predecessors. There's a time and place for balanced budgets and 1938/USA was not one of those times or places.

The Great Depression was worldwide. The first countries to rise out of the GD were those that adopted governmental spending - Germany, Great Britain, Sweden.

Or it could of been that the recession/depression was over. That people were starting to lend more again. Its a natural cycle. Contraction and expansion, in true laisse faire style though it won't be as sharp as what we see now.

Since the US has adopted governmental spending policies to correct the errors of the free market, the USA has not had a single depression.

No but we have had several booms and busts because the government forces the hand of some. It creates illusions of growth. Then the bust comes when people realize that most of the growth was bunk.
 
Laissez faire capitalism at that point was out the window. I will agree some of the robber barons where manipulating the market but they did that with the governments help by the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
The government was still on the gold standard prior to FDR's arrival so the Fed was not allowed to affect the money supply in any meaningful way.

The Fed caused the depression because they didn't know what they were doing with the money supply. The contracted it in the middle of the depression instead of expanding it. Banks fail because they were operating with fractional lending. The Fed was the supposed to be the lender of last resort at this time.
I don't think that's true at all. The factors causing the Great Depression were many and as I pointed out, the country was still on the gold standard so the Fed had little leeway in affecting the money supply.

The government failed in controlling the economy. They can't control it. Its nearly a complete impossibility.
Oversight, regulation, anti-trust laws and the like ensure that the economy can run smoothly. Like officials make a football game run smoothly.

This will always be true because some people are achievers and others are not. Government can never fix this.
I don't think so. The level of abject poverty in terms of degree and scope should not be the normal product of a country's economic activity. To accept such destitution as normal is cruel. As FDR showed, the government can improve everyone's life in a certain measure.


Which decade Republicans are you talking about?
The Harding-Hoover years.

Or it could of been that the recession/depression was over. That people were starting to lend more again. Its a natural cycle. Contraction and expansion, in true laisse faire style though it won't be as sharp as what we see now.
How did the country start emerging from the Depression? Was it the massive national job creation efforts of the US government? Was it the crackdown on robber-baron type practices? Was it the redistribution of wealth that was implemented?

Or was it the low tax, zero regulation approach that worked so poorly during the Coolidge-Hoover Years?

No but we have had several booms and busts because the government forces the hand of some. It creates illusions of growth. Then the bust comes when people realize that most of the growth was bunk.
I'm not following you.
 
How did the country start emerging from the Depression? Was it the massive national job creation efforts of the US government? Was it the crackdown on robber-baron type practices? Was it the redistribution of wealth that was implemented?

Or was it the low tax, zero regulation approach that worked so poorly during the Coolidge-Hoover Years?

It was the natural start to the expansion cycle of capitalism. The growth would have been larger in the early years if not hindered by New Deal programs.
You keep using the referee analogy so I will use one also.
Think of the economy during the depression as a huge block of ice sitting outside. The temperature is 15 degrees day after day.
Everyone keep waiting for the ice to melt but it never does.
Finally FDR decides to build a temp. controlled building around the ice block and the temperature will be set at 40 degrees. So the ice block begins to melt. In the meantime the outside temperature rises to 50 degrees.
The ice block doesn't melt as fast as it would naturally because if the temperature controlled building. The economy didn't rebound as fast as it would have because of government interference.
 
The government was still on the gold standard prior to FDR's arrival so the Fed was not allowed to affect the money supply in any meaningful way.

I don't think that's true at all. The factors causing the Great Depression were many and as I pointed out, the country was still on the gold standard so the Fed had little leeway in affecting the money supply.

The Fed was created in 1913. It more or less changed our money supply by offering a partial fiat partial gold standard type currency. The Fed could inflate/deflate the currency at that time.

Oversight, regulation, anti-trust laws and the like ensure that the economy can run smoothly. Like officials make a football game run smoothly.

I don't think so. The level of abject poverty in terms of degree and scope should not be the normal product of a country's economic activity. To accept such destitution as normal is cruel. As FDR showed, the government can improve everyone's life in a certain measure.

Regulation and oversight are good idea's but they are never performed correctly by government(Madoff scandal). If a company emerges as a monopoly in a free market they have to operate as if they are still competing with another company. Otherwise they will find new competition springing up everywhere to unseat them.

On the other hand government is a monopoly but a lot of people find it as a benevolent force. History has proven that untrue.

Poverty is a fact of life. Some people don't have the motivation, the brain power, or the ability to learn new or better skills to adapt to a dynamic world.
We will never escape it in any near future lifetime.

The Harding-Hoover years.

I'm not fans of Harding or Hoover but the Fed was relatively new and no one knew what going to happen until it was to late.

How did the country start emerging from the Depression? Was it the massive national job creation efforts of the US government? Was it the crackdown on robber-baron type practices? Was it the redistribution of wealth that was implemented?

Or was it the low tax, zero regulation approach that worked so poorly during the Coolidge-Hoover Years?
The money he appropriated was either a: taken from the market in taxes or b: borrowed. In scenario a: the government acting as a middle man is inefficiency alone but that the money would be better spent by people creating jobs out of self interest.

In scenario b: the borrowed money is robbed from future generations to cover the stupidity of now. It robs them of possible wealth and government is notorious for inefficiency.


I'm not following you.

Since the Great Depression, it seems every 6-10 years we have a boom bust cycle. The rises in supposed economic growth are sharp, then the bust comes to correct the fake growth and it tries to find its center.


As a side note: Thanks for replying thoughtfully and intelligently.
I apologize for calling your earlier post "partisan yapping" it was uncalled for
 
FDR did save the country. He also helped expand the middle class with his gov. programs.

You are mischaracterizing the Freddie/Fannie scandal. The problem started when LBJ privatized FDR's program (when Freddie was created to compete with Fannie). The companies bought mortgages from banks and resold them to new investors.
Neither were ever fully privatized and it was always assumed they were defacto backed by the government. Turns out they were right.
Enter GW Bush and Phil Gramm. After 9/11, to fund both his wars and unheard of giant tax cuts, Bush removed the reserve requirement from Freddie/Fannie so that more bargained basement loans could be made to keep the economy humming. Bush also preempted state oversight laws for predatory lenders with federal laws...unenforced federal laws.

Can you substantiate that claim? I think it is incorrect. Bush actually call for MORE regulation and proposed an agency specifically to oversee Fannie/Freddie. It was shouted down by Franks, Watts, and others that were afraid it would adversely affect poor and minorities ability to get housing, exactly what I was talking about. Either way it doesn't matter who was keeping the program going, the point is Fannie/Freddie were used to get banks to make loans they would not otherwise make. You even admitted that.

Low taxes and no regulatory oversight. Sounds familiar? Like the 1920s.
Repeal of a few laws hardly constitutes "No Oversight"
Phil Gramm, he wrote the book and the law on credit default swaps freeing markets/institutions from oversight. "Prior to its passage, they say, banks underwrote mortgages and were responsible for the risks involved. Now, through the use of [CDSs]-which in theory insure the banks against bad debts-those risks are passed along to insurance companies and other investors," wrote Texas Observer.

How does this relate to Lehman's bankruptcy? "[CDSs] were a key factor in encouraging lenders to feel they could make loans without knowing the risks or whether the loan would be paid back. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act freed them of federal oversight," according to Texas Monthly. And it was due to these CDSs that Wall Street held an emergency session yesterday to try to minimize the damage of Lehman's CDSs and other derivatives. Unfortunately, this session did not produce much thanks to the built-in lack of knowledge of the risks in these transactions that Gramm's legislation ensured.
100 Year Crash: McCain advisor spurred $62 trillion derivatives market that will swamp global markets - BloggingStocks

Greed and corruption ran rampant. Foreign countries unwittingly kept the scheme alive buying the repackage/bundled bad mortgages and now we have all this.

That's the genesis of the problem...not fiat money or gold standards or the like.

This whole part leaves out the fact that if Government hadn't been offering bargain basement money to banks they would not have been able to loan the funds in the first place. The banks would have needed people to do things like save money in order to make loans. That means people need to have down payments. Fannie freddie loans do not have this requirement.

And why is it not Clinton and Gramm instead of Bush and Gramm?
 
No we couldn't, not even close.


Our current debt is a problem no doubt. However, Obama shifted the problem to Obama, he won, remember. On January 20th it became his problem by his own choosing.


Can you let us know when we can criticize Obama? Send out a memo or something? Are people supposed to keep mum about EVERYTHING he does or just certain things?
Don't let my stop you from criticizing Obama. We have freedom of speech and you can create anything you want when you write.

Here are some good ideas for you to start your fiction stories with.

1. Obama is Russian Spy trained by Stalin.
2. Obama was actually borne at the North Pole/Poll and is really Santa Claus.
3. Obama is a secret Bush/Rush supporter.
4. Obama hates all Americans whether they are brown, red, blue, green, black or white.
5. Obama hates Clowns with big purble noses.
6. Obama loves Norwegian and Chinese Tacos.
7. Obama was hatched from an egg from outer space. At least he did not evolve from nasty little man eating sharks, as George Bash did.

Sorry,, I should have said Geoge Rush, Butch, Bunsh,,,,, Darn what was that man's name???? you all know,???,,,???,, the one with the big wooden nose that grew a half an inch longer each time he told a lie. Remember George who's nose was many thousands of miles long by the time he stopped being president.

You can always listen BRush. He fills the air ways with home made lies, bad chicken soup and inuendos concerning Obama.

Have a good day, Your Buddy,

DRAGONSLAYER THE GREAT. What will I do now? The great nasty man eating dragon is no longer in the White house.
 
Last edited:
Don't let my stop you from criticizing Obama. We have freedom of speech and you can create anything you want when you write.

Here are some good ideas for you to start your fiction stories with.

1. Obama is Russian Spy trained by Stalin.
2. Obama was actually borne at the North Pole/Poll and is really Santa Claus.
3. Obama is a secret Bush/Rush supporter.
4. Obama hates all Americans whether they are brown, red, blue, green, black or white.
5. Obama hates Clowns with big purble noses.
6. Obama loves Norwegian and Chinese Tacos.
7. Obama was hatched from an egg from outer space. At least he did not evolve from nasty little man eating sharks, as George Bash did.

Sorry,, I should have said Geoge Rush, Butch, Bunsh,,,,, Darn what was that man's name???? you all know,???,,,???,, the one with the big wooden nose that grew a half an inch longer each time he told a lie. Remember George who's nose was many thousands of miles long by the time he stopped being president.

You can always listen BRush. He fills the air ways with home made lies, bad chicken soup and inuendos concerning Obama.

Have a good day, Your Buddy,

DRAGONSLAYER THE GREAT. What will I do now? The great nasty man eating dragon is no longer in the White house.


Great Comedy!
 
Originally Posted by dragonslayer View Post
Don't let my stop you from criticizing Obama. We have freedom of speech and you can create anything you want when you write.

Here are some good ideas for you to start your fiction stories with.

1. Obama is Russian Spy trained by Stalin.
2. Obama was actually borne at the North Pole/Poll and is really Santa Claus.
3. Obama is a secret Bush/Rush supporter.
4. Obama hates all Americans whether they are brown, red, blue, green, black or white.
5. Obama hates Clowns with big purble noses.
6. Obama loves Norwegian and Chinese Tacos.
7. Obama was hatched from an egg from outer space. At least he did not evolve from nasty little man eating sharks, as George Bash did.

My guess would be maybe 3. Except you got to change it to "is a secret supporter of the group that Bush was shared power through".


4 would be an interesting P-O-V. He'd have to be a mole perfectly planted by some entity with THE money in a perfectly executed plan by using some out of the spot-light and very charismatic person. I think someone would have found out by now though.

If 6 isn't true maybe it should be.
 
Last edited:
I seen this in rants and raves on craiglist and seems good info if all correct to add to this thread.

History , do you really know it.? Do government Stimulus bills work ? not the ones that make “government jobs”

1929 Stock market crashes. Over the next “3” years the unemployment rate goes up from 5% to 37% (in 1932)

1933 The “new deal” is started by President Roosevelt. Millions of new government paid for jobs are started. Almost “ALL” are blue collar. Remember at the time over 70% of the people at that time were blue collar and farm jobs people.

Over the next “2” years the unemployment rate “slowly” went down to 30%. At that time the supreme court found that many parts of the “New Deal” were un constational. Many parts of the plan were stopped. With less government intervention the unemployment continued to drop. Who would have thought?

By 1937 the unemployment rate had dropped to about 22%. The government started the new stimulus package “New Deal” part 2. by 1938 the unemployment rate had jumped back “UP” to 27%. More stimulus package= more unemployment.

With WW2 on the horizon, the government started a War preparation manufacturing and construction. The unemployment rate started a slow slide down to 22%.

1940 the US starts its “War Economy program” and unemployment slides to 14%

1941 US enters WW2, over the next “year” unemployment FALLS to about 7%

1942 With the US at war the unemployment drops to 3% by 1944.


The point of all this boring data is to show that. The “New Deal” did help a little. It did start a very slow decrease in unemployment 1933 (37%) -1937 (22%) . than the government started a "new stimulus package" and unemployment went back up to 28% till war preparation was started.

All the stimulus packages from 1832 to 1838 never brought the unemployment rate below 22%.

So if we use the same time line we only have 8-10 more years to go to get back to normal. And that’s only if we start a new world war other wise we may have 15-20 more years to go.

The PORK stimulus package is a joke on the American people by the Democratic PIGS in congress.

Why are we giving a $140,000,000.00 (140 Million) stimulus out for climate data computer modeling. A lot of F-ing jobs that will make. But if you want the “global warming” BS going you have to pay off some one
 
Looks like he's planning on repeating a few scams.

Obama lets CIA keep controversial renditions tool -- chicagotribune.com
WASHINGTON — The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these discredited programs, President Barack Obama left an equally controversial counterterrorism tool intact.

Under executive orders issued by Obama last week, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, or the secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the U.S.

I like how they take no responsibility
Obviously you need to preserve some tools, you still have to go after the bad guys," said an Obama administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing legal reasoning behind the decision. "The legal advisers working on this looked at rendition. It is controversial in some circles and kicked up a big storm in Europe. But if done within certain parameters, it is an acceptable practice.




From the highest positive rated quote on digg regarding this quote
It's fairly safe to say this will surprise no-one; Mr. Obama's strong message to the world is 'Business as Usual'.

However, the only peculiar thing is the justification of state kidnapping as a vital tool against terrorism. Other than Israel, communist states and some African countries, nearly all nations long ago realized that apart from legalities this is too dangerous a weapon, analogous to not granting full protection to diplomats, for the civilized world to practice.

-Claverhouse



I'm wondering exactly the workings of it.
 
Last edited:
It was the natural start to the expansion cycle of capitalism. The growth would have been larger in the early years if not hindered by New Deal programs.
You keep using the referee analogy so I will use one also.
Think of the economy during the depression as a huge block of ice sitting outside. The temperature is 15 degrees day after day.
Everyone keep waiting for the ice to melt but it never does.
Finally FDR decides to build a temp. controlled building around the ice block and the temperature will be set at 40 degrees. So the ice block begins to melt. In the meantime the outside temperature rises to 50 degrees.
The ice block doesn't melt as fast as it would naturally because if the temperature controlled building. The economy didn't rebound as fast as it would have because of government interference.
There is a business cycle no doubt. But that BC was stuck in a depression until FDR started spending the US out of it.

The New Deal programs created millions of jobs that helped the US recover from the GD.
 
The Fed was created in 1913. It more or less changed our money supply by offering a partial fiat partial gold standard type currency. The Fed could inflate/deflate the currency at that time.
Really. Niether Hoover nor Coolidge took advantage of that tool.

Regulation and oversight are good idea's but they are never performed correctly by government(Madoff scandal). If a company emerges as a monopoly in a free market they have to operate as if they are still competing with another company. Otherwise they will find new competition springing up everywhere to unseat them.
I disagree. The FDA, SEC, FTC, ATF etc. would also disagree with you.

On the other hand government is a monopoly but a lot of people find it as a benevolent force. History has proven that untrue.
We are the US government.

Poverty is a fact of life. Some people don't have the motivation, the brain power, or the ability to learn new or better skills to adapt to a dynamic world.
We will never escape it in any near future lifetime.
I cannot be so facile with people's lives. Let's face it, the average intelligence in America is not impressive and half of the people are dumber than that. Just b/c they clean our streets or suck our sewers, do they have to be resigned to the threat of economic ruin? It is my opinion that those with the strongest arms (econonmically speaking) do the heaviest lifting.

I'm not fans of Harding or Hoover but the Fed was relatively new and no one knew what going to happen until it was to late.
I agree with this entirely. Even the New Deal was massive experimentation...a lot of hit or miss.

The money he appropriated was either a: taken from the market in taxes or b: borrowed. In scenario a: the government acting as a middle man is inefficiency alone but that the money would be better spent by people creating jobs out of self interest.
The very essence of a Depresion is hoarding of money by the people. They won't spend. It has to be spent for them.

In scenario b: the borrowed money is robbed from future generations to cover the stupidity of now. It robs them of possible wealth and government is notorious for inefficiency.
I disagree with your choice of language. It's not robbing and government is not inherently inefficient.

Gov. is much more efficient than private business when comparing Soc. Sec. to private insurance companies.


Since the Great Depression, it seems every 6-10 years we have a boom bust cycle. The rises in supposed economic growth are sharp, then the bust comes to correct the fake growth and it tries to find its center.
Isn't growth from the vantage of population, a fact? More people producing?


As a side note: Thanks for replying thoughtfully and intelligently.
I apologize for calling your earlier post "partisan yapping" it was uncalled for
Thanks. You're a decent guy.
 
Neither were ever fully privatized and it was always assumed they were defacto backed by the government. Turns out they were right.
Yup.


Can you substantiate that claim? I think it is incorrect. Bush actually call for MORE regulation and proposed an agency specifically to oversee Fannie/Freddie. It was shouted down by Franks, Watts, and others that were afraid it would adversely affect poor and minorities ability to get housing, exactly what I was talking about. Either way it doesn't matter who was keeping the program going, the point is Fannie/Freddie were used to get banks to make loans they would not otherwise make. You even admitted that.
I was overstating it a bit in this respect, it was a Bush appointee that gutted the reserve requirement and not Bush himself.
Here's a story that outlines how it worked: SEC Lifted Debt Limit For Brokerages In 2004

"In 2004, the Security and Exchange Commission, led by then-chairman William H. Donaldson, unanimously approved a major change (deregulation) in the “net capital” rule, a change that reduced how much money banks had to hold in reserve to protect against bad investments (losses).

The net effect of the rule change was to allow the investment banks to "leverage" their money more aggressively. What this means in layman's terms: for every dollar of equity, the investment banks could increase their debt. Bear Stearns was soon up to 33 to 1, and a lot of that debt was in mortgage-related securities. The corollary for Main Street (sorta): assume you have $50,000 in Certificates of Deposit (and have no other assets) and use those CDs as collateral for a loan of $1.7 million. If you default on your $1.7 million loan, your lender is S.O.L., as my dear departed mom would say. (Also see The ABCs of CDOs: How We Got Into Today's Financial Mess)

That was 2004. In 2005, President Bush appointed Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) as SEC chief. William S. Lerach said the nomination "is like putting the fox in the chicken coop." After his nomination, Cox said: "The free and efficient movement of capital is helping to create the greatest prosperity in human history."

And under Cox's leadership, the SEC did almost nothing to try to figure out just how that capital was moving about (emphasis added)..."


I could have stated that whole thing better.


Repeal of a few laws hardly constitutes "No Oversight"
It's not the repeal of laws, it's the unenforced oversight laws that result in no oversight.

This whole part leaves out the fact that if Government hadn't been offering bargain basement money to banks they would not have been able to loan the funds in the first place. The banks would have needed people to do things like save money in order to make loans. That means people need to have down payments. Fannie freddie loans do not have this requirement.
I disagree. Banking and investing deregulation caused this mess. Not mortgage loans to lower middle class people.

And why is it not Clinton and Gramm instead of Bush and Gramm?
The Bill was Gramm's and the unenforced federal oversight laws were done by Bush's people and not Clinton.
 
Do you realize the article you posted makes the case that a program started during the New Deal was used to create this financial crisis? That is exactly what I have been saying. The intervention of government hinders the proper correction that would occur in the market if left alone.
 
Back
Top Bottom