• 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!

How Democrats missed their chance when FDR did not (opinion).

And this argument would fly if Democrats didn't control Congress in 2009 and 2010.

I've finally started to make progress on forcing myself to ignore yer worthless BS posts, so I'll just leave the rest of the garbage you've put up here alone.

As to yer point in response to me, I think I made myself clear — the new Negro president wanted to bring the country along with him and set the stage for decades of progress. You don't understand a god damn thing about macroeconomics or national politics. You live in a RW fantasyland where presidents dictate policy. Democrats in Congress are terrified that if they get too far out ahead of their constituents, they'll lose their seats to Republicans who will do very serious damage to the country. This fear is based on experience. That's the way the game is played.
 
I've finally started to make progress on forcing myself to ignore yer worthless BS posts, so I'll just leave the rest of the garbage you've put up here alone.

As to yer point in response to me, I think I made myself clear — the new Negro president wanted to bring the country along with him and set the stage for decades of progress. You don't understand a god damn thing about macroeconomics or national politics. You live in a RW fantasyland where presidents dictate policy. Democrats in Congress are terrified that if they get too far out ahead of their constituents, they'll lose their seats to Republicans who will do very serious damage to the country. This fear is based on experience. That's the way the game is played.

LOL!

There you have it folks.. first one to break is mmi... defining a President by skin color... You are being racist by defining a Presidents skin color.

Irony here.. is mmi is a Democrat calling Obama a Negro.
 
Government couldn't have put anybody to work if it wasn't WWII. It's cause of WWII people were drafted or joined. Most of those drafted actually had jobs already. What it really did was take the men out of the workforce and put women into the workforce DOUBLING household income during a period in which price controls and consumption limits were put in place.. which lead to a SAVINGS Glut which lead to War Bond drives that "paid" for the War.

All of which, btw, is directly contrary to anything a libertarian would support, since our government took strong measures to control the economy.

Thing is, according to conservative and libertarian economic dogma, instead of dragging us out of the Depression, our build-up to and conduct of the war SHOULD have bankrupted our nation - if your economic dogma were right, then we would never have gotten out of the Depression in the first place.

Instead, the build-up to war was - in economic terms - a great government-funded economic stimulus package...and it worked wonderfully. It worked just as Keynesian economics says it should.
 
All of which, btw, is directly contrary to anything a libertarian would support, since our government took strong measures to control the economy.

Thing is, according to conservative and libertarian economic dogma, instead of dragging us out of the Depression, our build-up to and conduct of the war SHOULD have bankrupted our nation - if your economic dogma were right, then we would never have gotten out of the Depression in the first place.

Instead, the build-up to war was - in economic terms - a great government-funded economic stimulus package...and it worked wonderfully. It worked just as Keynesian economics says it should.

Actually, I supported nothing in my analysis. Why paying for WW2 worked was because we took that increased government spending which families received and got them to invest in War Bonds. So it made it net neutral.. I.E dollar spent = invest in Governmental bonds. We did hit a recession post WW2, in fact 4 recession before 1960. The 1949 recession happened because the fall of fix investments.

Keynes never argued for Militaristic spending.
 
Actually, I supported nothing in my analysis. Why paying for WW2 worked was because we took that increased government spending which families received and got them to invest in War Bonds. So it made it net neutral.. I.E dollar spent = invest in Governmental bonds. We did hit a recession post WW2, in fact 4 recession before 1960. The 1949 recession happened because the fall of fix investments.

Keynes never argued for Militaristic spending.

Your reasoning is faulty in that Defense Bonds didn't even begin to be sold until May 1, 1941, (the name was changed to "War Bonds" after Pearl Harbor). In fact, the first "war loan drive" didn't even take place until November 1942...which implies that if official 'drives' were needed, then they may not have been that popular initially.

FDR's New Deal policies and build-up of our military, on the other hand, had already gotten us officially out of the Depression in 1940.

Try again, guy.
 
first one to break is mmi... defining a President by skin color

I've been calling him the Negro for twelve years, ever since I first heard about him and quickly came to believe that he would soon be POTUS, so nothing new there. It's the way I've dealt with the racial attitudes of many in this country since I was a teenager, and I've been posting that way since I joined DP. I call Obummer lots of other things too. Does that bother you?

>>You are being racist by defining a Presidents skin color.

Yer wrong about everything, so it comes as no surprise that yer wrong about this as well. You don't know what racism is. I don't have that problem. I can feel the dents, lumps, and scars under the hair on my head.

>>mmi is a Democrat calling Obama a Negro.

I called him another word beginning with en for a while in some of my posts but the staff won't allow it. The explanation is really quite simple — that's the way he's treated by my political opponents, so that's what I call him. It's my way of spitting in their complacent faces.
 
Your reasoning is faulty in that Defense Bonds didn't even begin to be sold until May 1, 1941, (the name was changed to "War Bonds" after Pearl Harbor). In fact, the first "war loan drive" didn't even take place until November 1942...which implies that if official 'drives' were needed, then they may not have been that popular initially.

FDR's New Deal policies and build-up of our military, on the other hand, had already gotten us officially out of the Depression in 1940.

Try again, guy.

So you admit bonds led to increase spending.
 
I've been calling him the Negro for twelve years, ever since I first heard about him and quickly came to believe that he would soon be POTUS, so nothing new there. It's the way I've dealt with the racial attitudes of many in this country since I was a teenager, and I've been posting that way since I joined DP. I call Obummer lots of other things too. Does that bother you?

>>You are being racist by defining a Presidents skin color.

Yer wrong about everything, so it comes as no surprise that yer wrong about this as well. You don't know what racism is. I don't have that problem. I can feel the dents, lumps, and scars under the hair on my head.

>>mmi is a Democrat calling Obama a Negro.

I called him another word beginning with en for a while in some of my posts but the staff won't allow it. The explanation is really quite simple — that's the way he's treated by my political opponents, so that's what I call him. It's my way of spitting in their complacent faces.

Deflect all you want.. still racism on your part.
 
So you admit bonds led to increase spending.

Oh, boy, you're REALLY trying to tap-dance your way out of this one, aren't you? My whole premise was that FDR's New Deal and his military build-up (prior to ANY defense bonds being sold, mind you) ALREADY got us out of the Depression in 1940.

His New Deal and military spending were for all practical purposes a great economic stimulus, for it was all deficit spending...and so, according to conservative and libertarian economic dogma, SHOULD have driven us further down into the Depression.

But it didn't. It got us OUT of the Depression...long before any of your War Bonds even hit the market.

Keynesian economics got us out of the Depression.

Try again, guy.
 
In an honest answer? I am asking, you a democrat, why you think Obama's stimulus was good when it actually provided this nation with nothing of substance? Such as those things I listed, that FDR's New Deal program did. Obama and Democrats had a massive chance to do New Deal 2.0 or 3.0 if count FDR's New Deal in two parts. Democrats could have fixed bridges, highways, Schools (especially inner city schools), internet speeds and made Amtrak's NE line 100% high speed.
Yet they pissed money away. There was no concise plan on how to spend stimulus. It was a few dollars here and a few dollars there. Who gives DOD $4.4b to modernize Defense Department facilities? It's that's part of the DoD budget already? Isn't that why we spend $600 plus billion on DoD per year?
I guess if you call not having a depression "nothing of substance" than I have to agree with you. But that was all he was going to get during the demonization of debt and deficit and government in general.


Also don't care what Stephanie Kelton thinks. MMT is failed Chartalism.
I didn't ask for a review of what Stephanie Kelton thinks. I mearly posted an example of bi-partisan stupidity as it related to debt. You asked for why they didn't "spend and spend" and the answer is right there.

Democrats weren't chasing electorate in 2009. Democrats were given a free pass in 2009, especially in the first 100 days, to do what they needed to do. They could have spend $1t on stimulus and still been reelected in 2010.
Apparently you learned no lesson from "read my lips..."


You can easily doubt Eccles because FDR didn't just waste money as Eccles wanted.
I have no idea what you are referring to. You site FDRs projects as forward thinking, but deny the man pushing the funding any credit?

You can doubt MMT because it's Neo-Chartalism and not "forward thinking" rather it's 'accounting identities' and they are just saying the same stuff as Keynes and other said almost a century ago. They actually believe one can't save without Government deficits which is ludicrous. Anybody can sink MMT in this manner.. Saving is the excess of production over consumption.
That's not what they say at all. They say that saving reduces output. So the correct statement is that the economy would grow slower when their is more savings unless the government makes up the difference.

Government couldn't have put anybody to work if it wasn't WWII. It's cause of WWII people were drafted or joined.
Yes this still work.

Most of those drafted actually had jobs already.
What is your point? The people that replaced them did not.

What it really did was take the men out of the workforce and put women into the workforce DOUBLING household income during a period in which price controls and consumption limits were put in place.. which lead to a SAVINGS Glut which lead to War Bond drives that "paid" for the War.
Hmmm I wonder how that savings would have helped managed inflation during those consumption limits. Did we pay for the whole war with bonds? No. But does any of that matter? The fact remains that we crushed unemployment DESPITE DOUBLING the workforce by creating stuff that simply got destroyed over seas. Broken windows anyone?

Why are we talking about 2009? Because the reality is.. wasting resources (capital and debt) in the past does not justify future spending. Both parties subscribe to Keynesian theory but both parties have ALWAYS screwed the pooch. So what difference does it make if they promise it today, they promised it in 2001 and 2009 and I still haven't found anything that shows useful spending took place in a major stimulus bill.
You still seem to be searching for something that is very subjective and hoping that translates into libertarianism in general. Just because you can't grasp something tangible from the stimulus doesn't mean it wasn't effective, and it certainly doesn't go against spending in general. But that was not the question you asked. You asked why. You didn't ask if it would be or wouldn't be effective (and in fact you alluded that it would be effective by referencing past projects). You simply asked why they didn't do more and I told you - we've been demonizing government spending for 40 years and did so in a big way leading up to 2009, mostly with libertarians and teabaggers driving that charge.
 
And I am posing the question to you..
I feel so special...
my views are quiet clear.
Clear=contradictory
but you never go down to the economic section
I have....but I guess I missed the invitation to your party, hon.
in which I have no problem with stimulus that actually produces something.. hence the FDR reference.
Of course the counter I have read.....from lots o' austrians......is that it didn't, WWII did....but go on
I hate wasteful spending and Obama stimulus was full of wasteful spending.
The same could be said of '33 to '41....shrug.....but then again, I hate absolute/utopia/baby/bathwater arguments, and you should too.

But hey, don't address yer obvious contradictions on '09 actions, after all, you didn't want anything to be done, austerity didn't cause the sky to fall!
 
There is absolutely ZERO inconsistency.
Sure, saying "austrity wasn't doomsday" and wondering "why didn't they do more?" is consistent.
Again, my opinion matters naught here.
If your opinion doesn't matter, why create a thread that expresses an opinion (yours, the title states this thread is YOUR opinion.
I am asking why should ANYBODY trust Democrats and as byproduct Republicans who want to do stimulus when **** all has been accomplished.
Democrats as a "byproduct"? WTF?
You seem to think I am changing my opinion on stimulus.
Yes, you are, you have....you just said FDR was good.....but Obummer bad.
I've stated since day one Obama stimulus wouldn't do dick for the US economy.
That sounds like an expression of an opinion!
Ask Kush, ask Imapeg, and ask JP.. those who actually spend time in the Economics forum,
Now I'm supposed to get your opinion 2nd hand.....sheesh.
I've always said only way stimulus works is if it actually produces something of value. Obama stimulus actually produced nothing of value. It didn't increase US broadband capabilities to compete against the rest of the world. It didn't reduce transit times for rails which is the backbone of our economy. It didn't even improve schools (fix up or build).
Weird......not only are you again EXPRESSING AN OPINION, it is so horribly WRONG....all of those areas....ESPECIALLY KEEPING TEACHERS EMPLOYED....were funded in the ARRA.


This is why I don't debate you much, you dont recognize your contradictions, you don't even have a firm grasp of subject yer critical of.
 
Democrats could have been forward thinking as FDR in some projects that was done under his Presidency... such as Hoover Dam, Griffith Observatory, Tennessee Valley Authority, or Blue Ridge Parkway.
In an honest answer? I am asking, you a democrat, why you think Obama's stimulus was good when it actually provided this nation with nothing of substance? Such as those things I listed, that FDR's New Deal program did. Obama and Democrats had a massive chance to do New Deal 2.0 or 3.0 if count FDR's New Deal in two parts. Democrats could have fixed bridges, highways, Schools (especially inner city schools), internet speeds and made Amtrak's NE line 100% high speed.
I have no problem with stimulus that actually produces something.. hence the FDR reference.

_________________________________________________________________________________

What you all say is true.. but follow me here.. California has earthquakes and droughts (due to Federal Government screw ups when it comes to building dams during Great Depression .....
Wow!


Really!

The New Deal public works, that included Hoover Dam, are responsible for EARTHQUAKES and the declines in RAINFALL in California and the Colorado Basin?!?!?!

And this comes on the heels of your praise for the FDR New Deal infrastructure spending in your Blame Obummer thread!
 
Back
Top Bottom