• 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
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.

Some people are just now figuring this out.
 
A free market is capable of self-correction, but when politicians start to feel the heat from a natural slump in the business cycle they are spurned to action by their constituencies and commanded to "do something" to "fix" the economy.

In an attempt to give the appearance of due diligence politicians enact measures which delay and inhibit this self-correction thus prolonging and intensifying the inevitable collapse of the bubble. If we simply allowed the market to contract naturally after it over extended a correction would ensue. People would scale back on speculation and spending while saving and managing their money more efficiently. This would allow the bubble to break lightly and briefly instead of further inflating it by propping up inefficient market modalities and trends.

The only action the government need take during a period of self-correction is to cut taxes. This accomplishes two things; it eases the burden felt by their constituents and it provides a catalyst for the self-correction process by putting more money back into the market without inflating the currency.
 
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.
I dont' think the article concludes that at all.

It was the inaction of the SEC - unenforced laws - that made the problem worse. Oversight failed b/c there was no oversight...no regulation. A tautology but accurate.
 
and some will never figure it out!

The entire civilized world has turned its collective back on letting markets 'self-correct' when the situation borders on ruin.

Before an economic emergency can turn into a crippling depression, government steps in to right the situation.

I don't think anyone sees a good thing in 25% unemployment, rampant poverty, attendant rises in crime or the like as palatable results from a self-correcting market.

So we do something about it.
 
The entire civilized world has turned its collective back on letting markets 'self-correct' when the situation borders on ruin.

Before an economic emergency can turn into a crippling depression, government steps in to right the situation.

I don't think anyone sees a good thing in 25% unemployment, rampant poverty, attendant rises in crime or the like as palatable results from a self-correcting market.

So we do something about it.

Ya like make people go to war and the unemployment magically drops.
 
Intellectual Conservative Politics and Philosophy


In 1939, ten years after the crash on Wall Street, the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., told the House Ways and Means Committee:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises . . . I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"
 
I dont' think the article concludes that at all.

It was the inaction of the SEC - unenforced laws - that made the problem worse. Oversight failed b/c there was no oversight...no regulation. A tautology but accurate.

False.

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 author spins it as deregulation but it's not. they changed the rate. It's still regulated just at a different rate. To use an analogy if the government changes the speed limit from 55 to 70, we are no less regulated we still must limit our speed, we can just drive faster now. the law regulating speed still exists. This is a common problem with government intervention. We never know who is going to be controlling these things or even if they are qualified.(think Brownie)
Besides all that the need for regulation by the SEC wouldn't need to exist except that the banks are protected by the government to start with.
 
Ok so who thinks he is being entirely honest and who things this man is just blowing smoke up our ass then?

Obama: Catastrophe coming if Congress doesn't act - Yahoo! News

He sure seems to be throwing in his share of guilt trips. Even though the majority of Americans thought/think bailouts where/are a bad idea. What a word smith.
 
Ya like make people go to war and the unemployment magically drops.
No. I mean like fixing our crumbling bridges and federal highways among other pressing needs....port development, levee maintenance....
 
No, it's true:

(from article) The investment banks complained about being regulated by both the SEC and Europe; in exchange, they wound up effectively regulated by no one.

The author spins it as deregulation but it's not. they changed the rate. It's still regulated just at a different rate. To use an analogy if the government changes the speed limit from 55 to 70, we are no less regulated we still must limit our speed, we can just drive faster now. the law regulating speed still exists. This is a common problem with government intervention. We never know who is going to be controlling these things or even if they are qualified.(think Brownie)
Besides all that the need for regulation by the SEC wouldn't need to exist except that the banks are protected by the government to start with.
High finance is not a freeway. I think you greatly oversimplify what the SEC is and what it does.

It is undeniable that every country on the planet uses gov. intervention to help the free market when the market fails.

Remember the circumstances surrounding the 1929 crash - laissez-faire was the model and ideal of the 3 republican administrations preceding the crash--widespread economic inequality; decimation of organized labor, rampant cannibalistic mergers and acquisitions, blatant fraud on Wall Street, richest 1% owns about half of the country, and worker productivity grew some 40% over the decade with worker wages not reflecting that effort.

Those facts of the 1920s are a rightwing dream. Unfortunately, the crash and depression followed.

It's a good thing FDR and his spending policies aided in the US's recovery.
 
No, it's true:



High finance is not a freeway. I think you greatly oversimplify what the SEC is and what it does.

It is undeniable that every country on the planet uses gov. intervention to help the free market when the market fails.

Remember the circumstances surrounding the 1929 crash - laissez-faire was the model and ideal of the 3 republican administrations preceding the crash--widespread economic inequality; decimation of organized labor, rampant cannibalistic mergers and acquisitions, blatant fraud on Wall Street, richest 1% owns about half of the country, and worker productivity grew some 40% over the decade with worker wages not reflecting that effort.

Those facts of the 1920s are a rightwing dream. Unfortunately, the crash and depression followed.

It's a good thing FDR and his spending policies aided in the US's recovery.

It doesn't mean they do it right. Power corrupts. Once someone gets in a position that isn't usually granted thanks to the heightened circumstances you don't know if they are going to control themselves or even act in the way they promised. But you still gave up the expected and norm. It cannot be reversed. But later they can apologize or make up an excuse and people's opinions will.

In all things you cant mix nothing with something and get something new. You cant mix nothing + water and get cool-aid. You cant mix nothing with nothing and get anything. And you for sure as hell can't mix nothing + paper + ink and get money.

All you will do is water down everything that isn't properly set up for economic failure survival and make sure it fails.
 
TARP recipients paid $114M to lobby lawmakers - Washington Business Journal:

TARP recipients paid $114M to lobby lawmakers
Recipients of the $700 billion federal bailout package in the finance and auto sectors may view their contributions and lobbying as the smartest investments made in years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

More than half of the 300 companies helped by the federal government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) have dished out $114.2 million for politicking, with $77 million spent on lobbying last year and $37 million spent on federal campaign contributions for the 2008
 
It doesn't mean they do it right. Power corrupts. Once someone gets in a position that isn't usually granted thanks to the heightened circumstances you don't know if they are going to control themselves or even act in the way they promised. But you still gave up the expected and norm. It cannot be reversed. But later they can apologize or make up an excuse and people's opinions will.

In all things you cant mix nothing with something and get something new. You cant mix nothing + water and get cool-aid. You cant mix nothing with nothing and get anything. And you for sure as hell can't mix nothing + paper + ink and get money.

All you will do is water down everything that isn't properly set up for economic failure survival and make sure it fails.
The value underlying money is a fiction. That's the front end of the argument. The back end is the allocation of that fictitious value. There's no magic gold bullet that changes the first leg of this argument and governmental intervention corrects the failures of the market in the second leg of the argument.
 
I listen to news on my local npr station and when they bring economists they are always Keynesians. Practically all mainstream economists make me want to pull my hair out.




What?:shrug:

Junk Economists teach MONEY WHOREING Humanity is a different course . When all is said and done we will have to start in 101(the freshman level). Our founding fathers tried to avert this collision with socialism but our presidents and congresses perverted the constitution. Voila ...socialism like hell.
 
He is building upon the infrastructure already in existence. It takes critical thinkers to judge a man wisely and that is not what the electorate is made of.
Speak for yourself.
 
Junk Economists teach MONEY WHOREING Humanity is a different course . When all is said and done we will have to start in 101(the freshman level). Our founding fathers tried to avert this collision with socialism but our presidents and congresses perverted the constitution. Voila ...socialism like hell.
Seems to me like unfettered Capitalism isn't working all too well, is it?
 
Really. Niether Hoover nor Coolidge took advantage of that tool.

Nope they didn't but that was the whole reason for the creation of The Fed.

They were to be a lender of last resort. Problem was that before The Fed came into existence the larger banks served that purpose. So the government usurped private businesses to take control. They failed massively.


I disagree. The FDA, SEC, FTC, ATF etc. would also disagree with you.

I'm not being sarcastic or rude in saying this but I can find a humongous amount of failures with all these institutions of the government but I think its generally obvious.

We are the US government.

We were the US government. That time has passed. The people are asleep at the wheel. If they did wake up they are to uneducated to make smart decisions.

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 know what you mean. I'm not trying to say toss them to the streets but at the same time they need to share more of their load.

The thing about taking away welfare and other benefits the government provides is that it forces people to be more productive. It forces them to make smarter decisions because if they don't it is their problem to deal with.

Someone on here in another thread pointed out that china's benefit structure (unemployment etc.) exists but that its not worth trying to get anything from.
As a result the savings rate among the people is much high than in the US.

I agree with this entirely. Even the New Deal was massive experimentation...a lot of hit or miss.

Nearly any program the government passes is experimental. That is why they shouldn't play with peoples lives and money if they don't know if it will work.

Let individuals come up with their own plan of action.

The very essence of a Depresion is hoarding of money by the people. They won't spend. It has to be spent for them.

I'll be nice to about it this time but I hate the word hoarding.

It is a subjective word. If you (not you specifically) "hoard" money then you are a smart saver, if someone else does it then they are an evil hoarder.

Those people who don't spend their money may need in case of a job loss or some other unforeseen situation.

I disagree with your choice of language. It's not robbing and government is not inherently inefficient.

If an old generation pads their life with money borrowed that a future generation will have to pay, I do consider it robbery because they have no say in the situation.

If you can't pay for your life then don't dump your debt on your kids. That is wrong among all wrongs.

Their is a thread in "Breaking News" that talks about a guy working for the NY state government that makes roughly $90,000 a year and does nothing.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/43498-state-employee-i-get-93-803-no-work.html

Or the treasury paying to much for bank stocks. I think this is the tip of the iceberg in government inefficiency.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/43497-watchdog-treasury-overpaid-bank-stocks.html

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

The Social Security funds have been spent. It is now a mandatory Ponzi scheme.


Isn't growth from the vantage of population, a fact? More people producing?

The population growth wasn't what I was referring to really. I'm talking about the economic run up then the sharp splat.

Like the Tech bubble and the Housing bubble.



Thanks. You're a decent guy.

I appreciate it :2wave: So far you have been a great person to discuss this with and I mean it honestly. A lot of people would not have waited for my responses and actually answer.

A little history of FDR and the supreme court. Most people believe that FDR was a great president but I think his actions proved otherwise.

He tried to usurp The Supreme Court by appointing extra judges that agreed with him.

Court Packing

I am sorry it took me so long to respond but through the week I'm super busy and the limited time I get wouldn't do our subject justice if I were to drop small blurbs.
 
Last edited:
what crack me up is how easy some folks throw out misinformation.

When FDR became president, unemployment was at over 25% of the population. At the next election just four years later, unemployment was at below 15% percent. At the next election unemployment was below 8%.
The New Deal worked brother it worked quite well.
 
what crack me up is how easy some folks throw out misinformation.

When FDR became president, unemployment was at over 25% of the population. At the next election just four years later, unemployment was at below 15% percent. At the next election unemployment was below 8%.
The New Deal worked brother it worked quite well.

Unemployment dropped not because of the new deal but because they were coming out of the depression.

It is the natural force of a market.
 
YOur wrong, If it was not for the new deal, we might still be in that old depression, instead the new Bush Depression.

No, I don't think so because if the Fed had acted it would have been just another recession.

These guys say that he did prolong the depression and studied it for four years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

You should seriously read more about FDR, he was more tyrannical than Bush has ever been. Just imagine if Bush had told the supreme court that "If you don't agree with me I'll ad justices who will." That in a way is what FDR did.

BTW, I'm not saying your ignorant, I'm just pointing out some common misconceptions.
Court Packing
 
Nope they didn't but that was the whole reason for the creation of The Fed.They were to be a lender of last resort. Problem was that before The Fed came into existence the larger banks served that purpose. So the government usurped private businesses to take control. They failed massively.
The Federal Reserve is still comprised of private banking entities with few public restrictions. It’s a quasi-public entity.

I'm not being sarcastic or rude in saying this but I can find a humongous amount of failures with all these institutions of the government but I think its generally obvious.
Look at the situation predating the crash of 1929 and today’s mess: little oversight, unenforced regulations, rampant fraud etc. Those organizations are the referees of the financial football game so to speak. They keep up the veneer of propriety make sure the market participants operate on the level.

We were the US government. That time has passed. The people are asleep at the wheel. If they did wake up they are to uneducated to make smart decisions.
We still are the US government but impediments have grown: corporate lobbyists that grease our representatives, equating free speech with the dollar, the incessant demonization of government and basic government services to get government off the backs of industry. What’ wrong with a little clarity and transparency?



I know what you mean. I'm not trying to say toss them to the streets but at the same time they need to share more of their load.

The thing about taking away welfare and other benefits the government provides is that it forces people to be more productive. It forces them to make smarter decisions because if they don't it is their problem to deal with.

Someone on here in another thread pointed out that china's benefit structure (unemployment etc.) exists but that its not worth trying to get anything from.
As a result the savings rate among the people is much high than in the US.
What I’m trying to communicate is that for all the talk of potential and that everyone can be a financial success, I just don’t see it. I see a large segment of our population that will never rise above a certain level of achievement. They are followers.

Judge Smehls was right (Caddyshack) “The world needs ditch diggers too!” He’s right. And the vast multitudes will never surpass that station in life. I think they do valuable work and should have some modicum of security in their situation.
Nearly any program the government passes is experimental. That is why they shouldn't play with peoples lives and money if they don't know if it will work.

Let individuals come up with their own plan of action.
In the national interest, we cannot have these marginal people reaching for the unattainable brass ring. I know that sounds condescending but we have a small group of leaders and whole lot of followers. That’s how it has always been

I'll be nice to about it this time but I hate the word hoarding.

It is a subjective word. If you (not you specifically) "hoard" money then you are a smart saver, if someone else does it then they are an evil hoarder.

Those people who don't spend their money may need in case of a job loss or some other unforeseen situation.
The problem with everyone acting in their own self interest is that when they refuse to spend, the entire economy shuts down.
Here is something well worth reading. It is called the Tragedy of the Commons. It illustrates how society can be ruined by everyone acting in their own self-interest.

He asks us to imagine the grazing of animals on a common ground. Individuals are motivated to add to their flocks to increase personal wealth. Yet, every animal added to the total degrades the commons a small amount. Although the degradation for each additional animal is small relative to the gain in wealth for the owner, if all owners follow this pattern the commons will ultimately be destroyed. And, being rational actors, each owner ads to their flock:

Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit - in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. (Hardin, 1968)
Tragedy of the Commons Described



If an old generation pads their life with money borrowed that a future generation will have to pay, I do consider it robbery because they have no say in the situation.

If you can't pay for your life then don't dump your debt on your kids. That is wrong among all wrongs.

Their is a thread in "Breaking News" that talks about a guy working for the NY state government that makes roughly $90,000 a year and does nothing.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/43498-state-employee-i-get-93-803-no-work.html

Or the treasury paying to much for bank stocks. I think this is the tip of the iceberg in government inefficiency.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/43497-watchdog-treasury-overpaid-bank-stocks.html
Robbery is a legal terminology denoting an unlawful taking of another person’s property. The gov. has the right to tax. It’s in the Constitution. Debt is part of life. There is good debt—debt that improves our national infrastructure-roads, education, etc. There is bad debt—funding wars of choice and giving tax breaks to people who have no pressing need for more income.
Of course there is waste in government. There’s waste in all human endeavor. We try to address waste when we find it.

The Social Security funds have been spent. It is now a mandatory Ponzi scheme.
The social security trust has bonds supported by the full faith and credit of the US government meaning that they will be paid except in the instance that the US gov. is dissolved.
Tell Warren Buffet his bonds are just IOUs.

The population growth wasn't what I was referring to really. I'm talking about the economic run up then the sharp splat.

Like the Tech bubble and the Housing bubble.
There is an economic cycle no doubt—a series of expansions and contractions. We just don’t want those contractions to go as far as full blown depression.


I appreciate it :2wave: So far you have been a great person to discuss this with and I mean it honestly. A lot of people would not have waited for my responses and actually answer.

A little history of FDR and the supreme court. Most people believe that FDR was a great president but I think his actions proved otherwise.

He tried to usurp The Supreme Court by appointing extra judges that agreed with him.

Court Packing

I am sorry it took me so long to respond but through the week I'm super busy and the limited time I get wouldn't do our subject justice if I were to drop small blurbs.
The reason I came to this site is b/c I got tired of debating with people who would accentuate their points by calling me a dumb ass or the like.

So I guess I’m in your debt for that one. Dumb ass.

Sorry, hahaha, I had to that.

And I do agree with you that FDR did try to stack the US SCT.
 
YOur wrong, If it was not for the new deal, we might still be in that old depression, instead the new Bush Depression.

What a dumb statement. WW II took us fully out of the Great Depression and had a far greater affect on the economy and employment than the New Deal. Regardless of what FDR passed, we would have been taken out of the Great Depression thanks to Hitler.
 
Back
Top Bottom