tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25168606.post8309613153631661326..comments2023-10-19T04:46:10.308-05:00Comments on Griper Blade: Conservatives Practicing Soviet-Style RevisionismWiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25168606.post-81345623285257680742010-04-13T17:38:56.253-05:002010-04-13T17:38:56.253-05:00The problem, as it usual is with these debates, is...The problem, as it usual is with these debates, is that it is not all one thing or the other . FDR put programs in place that held the country together long enough for the recovery to actually take hold. Much like the Bush/Obama bailout, it was an emergency response to a very bad economic situation. Many of the New Deal programs were a huge waste of money but at least they put a few people to work. And yes the war did finally end the depression. Hundreds of thousands of young men went to war(and got paid to do so), factories had orders that they could not keep up with, and military contractors hired anyone with a pulse. It was more government deficit spending but it was the war that they were spending on. Where the progressives miss the boat is in thinking that government spending is the long term solution. As dp pointed out our post war economy boomed because we were the industrial kings of the mountain. Our ability to produce factory goods won the war and fueled decades of economic growth that paid down years of writing rubber government checks. <br /><br />My question is where is the money going to come from to pay down the debt now? Our manufacturing base is shrinking and we become less competitive every day. We have crossed over the line and now over 50% of people take more from the government than they put in. You can’t stimulate an economy that is already dead.Steven Marty Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12025403178005766557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25168606.post-55963486008548655622010-04-07T23:05:41.522-05:002010-04-07T23:05:41.522-05:00Wage controls were put in place, rationing of esse...<i>Wage controls were put in place, rationing of essential goods and services,...</i><br /><br />This is one point that always bothers me about the "WWII ended the depression" argument. The war was actually <i>bad</i> for the economy, since rationing capped consumer spending. If you ran a factory then, yeah the war was great. If you ran a grocery store, a hardware store, a gas station, etc. -- well, not so much. It was a nightmare for small businesses which was an even larger part of the economy then than they are today.<br /><br />The problem with right wing arguments -- and this is something I really should bring up more often -- is that they never think anything all the way through. They reach the conclusion that they want to reach and then they stop thinking. If they thought about this argument, rather than just repeat it robotically, they'd realize that it was illogical horsecrap.Wiscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25168606.post-92207170897080895392010-04-07T22:27:36.907-05:002010-04-07T22:27:36.907-05:00I love to see the talking point that WWII ended th...I love to see the talking point that WWII ended the depression. Which is usually followed by that the government had nothing to do with it. Really! FDR saved this country from a brewing revolution which likely would have been Marxist. You cannot have millions of unemployed young men crowding into the cities. FDR gave them jobs in the rural areas. Then came WWII, where the government became and ran the entire economy. There is this romanticized view that somehow the war was run private. Nothing could be further from the truth. If an industry didn't want to play along they were threatened with nationalization. Wage controls were put in place, rationing of essential goods and services,... This led to bigger deficits. We ended the war with huge debt. No FDR saved the country and what pulled us out of the depression was the fact the United States was the only country at the end of the war that had its industrial base intact. All of the other countries were completely destroyed allowing US business to sell, sell, sell. But how do you get workers when there are still wage controls? Why not offer benefits? For the first time workers could get cars, houses, and employer based health care.dphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05145340276794194183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25168606.post-12064460477684108452010-04-07T22:24:58.740-05:002010-04-07T22:24:58.740-05:00Jesus was an unemployed anti-capitalist freeloader...Jesus was an unemployed anti-capitalist freeloader who avoided women, justified stealing and encouraged others to quit their jobs.<br /><br />Jefferson was a well educated, productive businessman and contributor to our nation and civilization in general.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25168606.post-84601918846357706352010-04-07T19:14:21.185-05:002010-04-07T19:14:21.185-05:00If the idea of the course is to study Enlightenmen...If the idea of the course is to study Enlightenment political thought, then personally I'd agree that Jefferson is really not a very important figure, certainly not compared with Locke, Hobbes, Voltaire et al.<br /><br />"Aquinas" doesn't seem to belong in that list, though.<br /><br />But if you're talking about the influence of Enlightenment thought on political revolutions, then it's hard to see a case for excluding Jefferson. Or Trotsky, of course.<br /><br />Anon: did the New Deal end the Depression? That depends on your definitions of "depression" and "end", and this really isn't a good forum for a debate like that. But it undoubtedly did more, for more people, than Hoover's policy. There was a reason why Roosevelt was the longest-serving president in your country's history: people liked what he did (and when he died, they were literally sobbing in the streets). That's democracy for you.vethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13376500106064052491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25168606.post-61356097550284028572010-04-07T16:57:09.371-05:002010-04-07T16:57:09.371-05:00Oh for fuck's sake...
Look at history. Herber...Oh for fuck's sake...<br /><br />Look at history. Herbert Hoover was president at the beginning of the depression and he did <i>exactly</i> what the right recommends -- nothing. The economy went into a tailspin.<br /><br />FDR came into office and the economy began to improve. Why? Because a depression or a recession is caused by people <i>not</i> spending money. So you get money to people who need it, because it's 100% guaranteed they'll spend it.<br /><br />Now you can type out hamhanded insults all day, but that's no substitute for an argument. If you want to display your ignorance for all the world to see, you're going about it the right way.<br /><br />You're also making my point for me: there's no shortage of gullible people who'll fall for revisionist history. The politburo will give you extra brownie points if you dump on Thomas Jefferson -- why don't you give that a shot, Comrade?Wiscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25168606.post-41780311312500412502010-04-07T16:34:09.879-05:002010-04-07T16:34:09.879-05:00Your North Korean handlers must be proud! The new...Your North Korean handlers must be proud! The new deal is just one of a long line of failed government programs that did nothing but increase government debt and did little of anything to actually increase economic opportunities for the poor and downtrodden of the era. Your disagreement makes a really poor assumption about my GOP affiliation. That is because you only see ideas as left versus right. You simply can not see ideas outside that limited range. As for your point regarding war spending. I agree war is bad and spending money on war is bad. It is almost as if you said That because the Great depression ended at the start of World War II that somehow I thought war spending was a good idea. Oh well, You simply aren't going to be any fun to debate with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25168606.post-87624257659759724192010-04-07T16:19:38.494-05:002010-04-07T16:19:38.494-05:00The New Deal wasn't meant to eliminate poverty...The New Deal wasn't meant to eliminate poverty. That's just ignorance on your part. And spending is spending, war or otherwise -- in fact, war spending is worse, snce you bascally convert money into bombs and blow it all up. Try that with stimulus money and see were it gets you.<br /><br />And are you saying the New Deal created debt, but WWII didn't?<br /><br />Wow, you've learned your lessons well, Comrade. The GOP politburo must be very proud.Wiscohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25168606.post-26664600997355042602010-04-07T16:08:54.563-05:002010-04-07T16:08:54.563-05:00But, by most accounts of economists World War II m...But, by most accounts of economists World War II marked the end the Great depression. The only real thing that The New Deal accomplished was just to put the government on a path toward perpetual and never ending debt. How can one measure the effectiveness of the New Deal? Easy. Are there poor people today? Yes? Then it failed. Simple. The New Deal was the "Great False Utopian Promise" of its generation. Just as both the Liberals and the Right espouse their own "Utopian" ideologies today. Try again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com