I think I ended up having this conversation with everyone from the Bund save Ryan.
What war movies could be remade today, doing a better service to history and to the original movies?
I was blessed with a full range of movies to choose from today, from "To Hell and Back" to "The Big Red One" to "Heartbreak Ridge" to a full marathon of "Band of Brothers" and to those with HBO, the complete marathon of "The Pacific". The talk started when the cheesy special effects of "To Hell and Back" finally detracted from the enormity of the picture enough to make a person wonder. Who better to play Audie Murphy than Audie Murphy? But, in the end, should Dreamworks decided to revisit classic war films for remaking, that's an absolute must.
Titus added a few to the list. Sink the Bismark was one. BadBoy added The Battle of Britain. I suggested Sergeant York. Thoughts?
Monday, May 31, 2010
How unfortunate for athiests ...
... yet another hole in their theory.
President Barak Obama, having skipped Arlington Cemetery and the laying of a wreath at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier (the first CiC to do so since its' inception), was scheduled to give Memorial Day remarks at a Lincoln site, in Chicago - where he and the first family chose to vacation for the 3 day holiday. Which really speaks to Titus' sentiment "let us not forget the reason for the season." As the PoTUS sat waiting for his turn at the lectern a cloud burst erupted, soaking the crowd, speakers, everyone. Forcing the president to retreat to an enclosed area, the speech postponed indefinitely. Of course I understand, it's dangerous to have multiple teleprompters exposed to rain (hehe). But I decided it's more than that. I can see Patton and a few other rowdy officers imploring God to give them just this little signal to any Commander-in-Chief whom would dain to pass on Arlington.
Every night when I pray with my sons I make it a point to enclose this request: "and please bless all the soldiers fighting for us, and their families." Tonight I will ask that all the US soldiers whom have given their life, that we may do things like pray, be blessed to spend eternity in His presence and their surviving families given comfort. And I will make sure my sons know why the change in our usual prayer.
Thank you to all those serving, and especially to the families whom have born the burden of losing their loved one in service to this nation.
President Barak Obama, having skipped Arlington Cemetery and the laying of a wreath at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier (the first CiC to do so since its' inception), was scheduled to give Memorial Day remarks at a Lincoln site, in Chicago - where he and the first family chose to vacation for the 3 day holiday. Which really speaks to Titus' sentiment "let us not forget the reason for the season." As the PoTUS sat waiting for his turn at the lectern a cloud burst erupted, soaking the crowd, speakers, everyone. Forcing the president to retreat to an enclosed area, the speech postponed indefinitely. Of course I understand, it's dangerous to have multiple teleprompters exposed to rain (hehe). But I decided it's more than that. I can see Patton and a few other rowdy officers imploring God to give them just this little signal to any Commander-in-Chief whom would dain to pass on Arlington.
Every night when I pray with my sons I make it a point to enclose this request: "and please bless all the soldiers fighting for us, and their families." Tonight I will ask that all the US soldiers whom have given their life, that we may do things like pray, be blessed to spend eternity in His presence and their surviving families given comfort. And I will make sure my sons know why the change in our usual prayer.
Thank you to all those serving, and especially to the families whom have born the burden of losing their loved one in service to this nation.
Memorial Day
Since I have been out of work, I've had a chance to see how the rest of America lives for the "holiday weekend" and it is very nice. When you work in the casino industry, there is no "holidays", just busier work days. New Years, Fourth of July, Labor Day Weekend, even Christmas are all days when you can expect to work, not have time off with family and friends.
Our week has been cleaning, organizing and moving items from one location to another... very hard, hot labor. We truly did "bust hump" this week, and yesterday was our first chance to relax and do hang out with Super Jon and Becki... after we helped them paint their shed, wash their house and vacuum their pool. It was hard work, but a lot of fun (and we have certainly worked those two hard enough in the past to owe them a work day, don't get me wrong) and I am telling you Jon put on a GREAT feed... grilled chicken, burgers, dogs, shrimp, clams, salads, beer, and deserts... WOW. Jake was really good, and actually ate a big meal (something he never does) and played with the other kids very nicely.
Today, we have the added bonus of it being not only Memorial Day, when we are called as a nation to remember and honor the memories of those that have given their lives for the defense of this nation (and indeed, all that have served), but also our wedding anniversary. Liz and I have been married for two years, and together for four, and I wanted to take a moment and state very clearly, and without hesitation, that they have been the best years of my life. We still have some stuff to do, and some last things to move, and some corners of the bathroom to paint, and we'll probably be called on to help another neighbor today for at least a few hours, but I promise that we will not let the business of the day get in the way of our honoring the sacrifice of those that have paid the ultimate price for my freedom, nor will it detract from my celebrating the best years of my life with my wife and my new family.
I hope all of you will have as much fun as I do today, and that none of you will forget the "reason for the season".
Our week has been cleaning, organizing and moving items from one location to another... very hard, hot labor. We truly did "bust hump" this week, and yesterday was our first chance to relax and do hang out with Super Jon and Becki... after we helped them paint their shed, wash their house and vacuum their pool. It was hard work, but a lot of fun (and we have certainly worked those two hard enough in the past to owe them a work day, don't get me wrong) and I am telling you Jon put on a GREAT feed... grilled chicken, burgers, dogs, shrimp, clams, salads, beer, and deserts... WOW. Jake was really good, and actually ate a big meal (something he never does) and played with the other kids very nicely.
Today, we have the added bonus of it being not only Memorial Day, when we are called as a nation to remember and honor the memories of those that have given their lives for the defense of this nation (and indeed, all that have served), but also our wedding anniversary. Liz and I have been married for two years, and together for four, and I wanted to take a moment and state very clearly, and without hesitation, that they have been the best years of my life. We still have some stuff to do, and some last things to move, and some corners of the bathroom to paint, and we'll probably be called on to help another neighbor today for at least a few hours, but I promise that we will not let the business of the day get in the way of our honoring the sacrifice of those that have paid the ultimate price for my freedom, nor will it detract from my celebrating the best years of my life with my wife and my new family.
I hope all of you will have as much fun as I do today, and that none of you will forget the "reason for the season".
Sunday, May 30, 2010
I hope...
You guys got to see the WW2 in HD marathon on the History channel yesterday. Damn. Hope you're feeling better, Ryan.
"Well, they were right about one thing..."
My big "To do" list had three things on it. Married with family, own the house, write the book. For about two years I had all that until the divorce fractured the family and cost me my house.
In the end? Highly overrated.
People walk up to me all the time, even last night, and ask, "Seriously, what's it like to write a book?" Or, "You must be SO PROUD!" or something like that, immediately followed by, "So when are you going to do the next one?" My automatic response is usually along the lines of "Why bother writing another when you haven't read the first one yet?" Which usually succeeds in getting them away from me enough to enjoy the rest of my break.
All the REALLY important times, and I mean REALLY important, like the world stops spinning moments in my life, I cannot hope to explain or share with anyone else. Holding each of my children for the first time. The day the book came in the mail. Standing on Little Round Top. Sitting under a shady tree watching the river Avon flow towards the small hamlet of Stratford under a perfect April sky. Being inches away from the Magna Carta. I could write a personal obit 900 pages long and not capture what those meant.
BUT...
The greatest compliment to date I have received came from old man Allan Duits, who walked up to me one night wondering which break I had. After I told him he shook his head. "I was looking for you last break, had a question about football that needed answering." The man was a walking encyclopedia about everything football, baseball and Nascar, and for him to need little old ME to answer a question about the Purple People Eaters was THE honor.
Carve on my tombstone, "People gave up the early out break to have the same break as me," and that's all the obit I need. Does anything else REALLY have to be said?
In the end? Highly overrated.
People walk up to me all the time, even last night, and ask, "Seriously, what's it like to write a book?" Or, "You must be SO PROUD!" or something like that, immediately followed by, "So when are you going to do the next one?" My automatic response is usually along the lines of "Why bother writing another when you haven't read the first one yet?" Which usually succeeds in getting them away from me enough to enjoy the rest of my break.
All the REALLY important times, and I mean REALLY important, like the world stops spinning moments in my life, I cannot hope to explain or share with anyone else. Holding each of my children for the first time. The day the book came in the mail. Standing on Little Round Top. Sitting under a shady tree watching the river Avon flow towards the small hamlet of Stratford under a perfect April sky. Being inches away from the Magna Carta. I could write a personal obit 900 pages long and not capture what those meant.
BUT...
The greatest compliment to date I have received came from old man Allan Duits, who walked up to me one night wondering which break I had. After I told him he shook his head. "I was looking for you last break, had a question about football that needed answering." The man was a walking encyclopedia about everything football, baseball and Nascar, and for him to need little old ME to answer a question about the Purple People Eaters was THE honor.
Carve on my tombstone, "People gave up the early out break to have the same break as me," and that's all the obit I need. Does anything else REALLY have to be said?
Arizon's "immigration" law...
Anyone else notice that rags like the LA Times have started to refer to the new AZ law as an "immigration" law, rather than the illegal immigration law that it actually is? I find that terribly telling...
I never got it...
I never understood the fascination some people have with all the things they haven't done. In this day and age, in this nation, I find it harder and harder to imagine circumstances where a rational adult can't do just about anything they want to do... when they want to do it.
There are dozens of books and movies like The Bucket List (which I haven't seen yet) wherein the characters do all they want to do so as to not feel cheated or short-changed by life's unfair twists and turns. Why wait till you have only weeks or months left to live? Why put off, over and over again, that which you always wanted to do?
Now, it's tough for me to imagine Ryan simply going out and becoming President of the United States next week... but if that were your life's goal, you'd be pursuing it with all you had. My wife Liz, for example, was fussing about the time it was taking to clean and re-organize all the boxes and totes of my past life just yesterday, so I got to it and started getting things together. In one of them, I found an old letter from Jambo and Cramey, written while they were still in the dorms at UW and I was in Colorado, planning a "Spring Break" get away to warmer climates. The letter was written by the two of them on one of their very old, very early home computers with a dot matrix printer, so it is difficult to read after twenty years or more... but it is funny and full of references to past adventures that the three of us had been on. Liz got kind of quiet and said that, while I was off having all these adventures (trips to CO, AZ, the Oregon Coast, Myrtle Beach, Thunder Bay, Ont. for coffee, Russia... you get the point), she was getting pregnant and raising kids with a husband that cheated on her constantly, leaving her to wallow in a house in NEPA.
In Liz's case, she was raising children (unknown to her then, but someday they would be MY children) in a difficult world, under difficult circumstances, and doing a great job of it. What greater, more noble "career" could one hope for? Ryan is a well-adjusted, healthy (well, typically healthy... sorry you're under the weather right now) single father raising two exceptional boys to understand what the word "morals" means in today's amoral world, and doing a great job at it, too. In either case, should these people have chosen to focus their drives and aspirations on themselves rather than on the real purpose for their lives right now, where is the gain?
Perhaps Ryan hasn't reached the pinnacle of his political career... yet. Lest we forget, some of histories greatest figures got late starts. Caesar stood before a statue of Alexander and lamented that, when Alexander was Caesar's age, he had already conquered the world... yet Caesar had the greater impact on western society, I think, and is certainly better known by the ignorant masses of today's modern America. Ben Franklin didn't get close to the pinnacle of his career (which was damn impressive already) till he was 59 years old.
As I continually tell Liz, society (as skewed as it is today) still sees the value in sacrifice. Sacrifice of self for the benefit of others is, as it has been since the beginning of recorded human history, something we all see as noble, and there is no greater effort that can be made than to put our own wants, needs and desires aside to ensure the healthy, happy development of children. Sacrificing the opportunity to say "I climbed Everest!" or "I won a Pulitzer!" or "I've been to Europe twice every year for twenty years!" for the opportunity to say "I raised my children to be happy, healthy and successfull human beings!" is the far greater achievement.
Besides, you've had some success stories of your own, my friend... your obit could easily contain such jewels as the time we drank the Banshee pub dry of stout, then managed to walk the battlefield at Gettysburg the very next morning. Some of the best memories I have are of hanging with you lumps on Ryan's patio, while my shorts bleached white from sitting on his patio furniture.
Anyway, I hope you feel better soon, and that the boys don't get what you have. We've had a pretty bug-free spring here, but I know it can be a tough time to be sick.
There are dozens of books and movies like The Bucket List (which I haven't seen yet) wherein the characters do all they want to do so as to not feel cheated or short-changed by life's unfair twists and turns. Why wait till you have only weeks or months left to live? Why put off, over and over again, that which you always wanted to do?
Now, it's tough for me to imagine Ryan simply going out and becoming President of the United States next week... but if that were your life's goal, you'd be pursuing it with all you had. My wife Liz, for example, was fussing about the time it was taking to clean and re-organize all the boxes and totes of my past life just yesterday, so I got to it and started getting things together. In one of them, I found an old letter from Jambo and Cramey, written while they were still in the dorms at UW and I was in Colorado, planning a "Spring Break" get away to warmer climates. The letter was written by the two of them on one of their very old, very early home computers with a dot matrix printer, so it is difficult to read after twenty years or more... but it is funny and full of references to past adventures that the three of us had been on. Liz got kind of quiet and said that, while I was off having all these adventures (trips to CO, AZ, the Oregon Coast, Myrtle Beach, Thunder Bay, Ont. for coffee, Russia... you get the point), she was getting pregnant and raising kids with a husband that cheated on her constantly, leaving her to wallow in a house in NEPA.
In Liz's case, she was raising children (unknown to her then, but someday they would be MY children) in a difficult world, under difficult circumstances, and doing a great job of it. What greater, more noble "career" could one hope for? Ryan is a well-adjusted, healthy (well, typically healthy... sorry you're under the weather right now) single father raising two exceptional boys to understand what the word "morals" means in today's amoral world, and doing a great job at it, too. In either case, should these people have chosen to focus their drives and aspirations on themselves rather than on the real purpose for their lives right now, where is the gain?
Perhaps Ryan hasn't reached the pinnacle of his political career... yet. Lest we forget, some of histories greatest figures got late starts. Caesar stood before a statue of Alexander and lamented that, when Alexander was Caesar's age, he had already conquered the world... yet Caesar had the greater impact on western society, I think, and is certainly better known by the ignorant masses of today's modern America. Ben Franklin didn't get close to the pinnacle of his career (which was damn impressive already) till he was 59 years old.
As I continually tell Liz, society (as skewed as it is today) still sees the value in sacrifice. Sacrifice of self for the benefit of others is, as it has been since the beginning of recorded human history, something we all see as noble, and there is no greater effort that can be made than to put our own wants, needs and desires aside to ensure the healthy, happy development of children. Sacrificing the opportunity to say "I climbed Everest!" or "I won a Pulitzer!" or "I've been to Europe twice every year for twenty years!" for the opportunity to say "I raised my children to be happy, healthy and successfull human beings!" is the far greater achievement.
Besides, you've had some success stories of your own, my friend... your obit could easily contain such jewels as the time we drank the Banshee pub dry of stout, then managed to walk the battlefield at Gettysburg the very next morning. Some of the best memories I have are of hanging with you lumps on Ryan's patio, while my shorts bleached white from sitting on his patio furniture.
Anyway, I hope you feel better soon, and that the boys don't get what you have. We've had a pretty bug-free spring here, but I know it can be a tough time to be sick.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Well, I'm home sick ...
... 102 degree fever. So as the children at there friend's house and I already called in, I figured I might as well bother you two lumps before I attempt a comotose 12 hour fever breaking sweat fest.
You may be surprised to hear this, but I'm a big fan of the television series Frasier. And it has nothing to do with his (Kelsey Grammer) campaigning for Republicans. I was a fan well before I knew his politics. The writing, well lets just say it's not Tool Time, ok? Scattered reference of the Byzantine Empire for a laugh here, a joke about being in the placebo group when laugh pills are handed out there, and if you like smart comedy, you're hooked. Once his son came home and to everyone's shock, he was dressed as a "Goth", complete with black eyeliner, hair dyed black, black clothing etc. Frasier's response: "Freddy, I don't understand. The Visigoths were a ruthless, war mongering peoples and outside of your inclination to be a little aggressive with your Rooks at chess camp, I'm not seeing the connection." It cracks me up. I'd describe it as "high brow", in the world of television satire anyway, and my favorite after Seinfeld.
Well, the only problem is the reruns air exclusively on Lifetime. And I just can't bring myself to see the look on my son's face when they go to commercial for station identification. So, I purchased the 11 season series online at a fair price. And there was an interesting episode ...
It would seem that while at the ER to have bandaged a broken nose, a patient weary of waiting claimed to be "Frasier" when the nurse called his name, so as to skip ahead in line. Well that poor chap died. So the news release (Frasier plays a radio shrink with local popularity if you didn't know) that evening was that Frasier had died. An obituary was even written. And staring at his obituary in the cofee shop the next day Frasier remarked how he found it somewhat depressing. No where to be seen in the lay out of his life were all the "big" things he had planned on accomplishing in his youth. Writing a novel, learning Russian, running for public office. So he took to a "self actualizing exercise" as he described it. One is to sit down, write their own obituary, and then set about accomplishing all the tasks written therein. So as to have "no regrets" and shake you out of any potential rut.
I don't know, it seemed kind of creepy, the tempting of fate so to speak - like someone announcing, "if I got hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd die a happy man." One thing's for sure, if you see fit to say that I'd skip renewing my bus pass, if you know what I mean. But it is interesting. What would you want the obituary to say? I see them at Caesars routinely. The dealer population there has to be a median age well above the average. And there it is, pinned to our announcement board just above the toke book. The summary of a man's life in black and white. You read it, then a few days later, it's gone.
I don't know if I'm prepared to write such a thing. Short of it beginning with, "Former President of the United States ...", I don't know that it would be an enjoyable experience. Just a thought though ...
Well, off to bed.
PS> can you mix NyQuil with Vodka? Sort of a Russian bed time spritzer perhaps?
Kidding . . .
You may be surprised to hear this, but I'm a big fan of the television series Frasier. And it has nothing to do with his (Kelsey Grammer) campaigning for Republicans. I was a fan well before I knew his politics. The writing, well lets just say it's not Tool Time, ok? Scattered reference of the Byzantine Empire for a laugh here, a joke about being in the placebo group when laugh pills are handed out there, and if you like smart comedy, you're hooked. Once his son came home and to everyone's shock, he was dressed as a "Goth", complete with black eyeliner, hair dyed black, black clothing etc. Frasier's response: "Freddy, I don't understand. The Visigoths were a ruthless, war mongering peoples and outside of your inclination to be a little aggressive with your Rooks at chess camp, I'm not seeing the connection." It cracks me up. I'd describe it as "high brow", in the world of television satire anyway, and my favorite after Seinfeld.
Well, the only problem is the reruns air exclusively on Lifetime. And I just can't bring myself to see the look on my son's face when they go to commercial for station identification. So, I purchased the 11 season series online at a fair price. And there was an interesting episode ...
It would seem that while at the ER to have bandaged a broken nose, a patient weary of waiting claimed to be "Frasier" when the nurse called his name, so as to skip ahead in line. Well that poor chap died. So the news release (Frasier plays a radio shrink with local popularity if you didn't know) that evening was that Frasier had died. An obituary was even written. And staring at his obituary in the cofee shop the next day Frasier remarked how he found it somewhat depressing. No where to be seen in the lay out of his life were all the "big" things he had planned on accomplishing in his youth. Writing a novel, learning Russian, running for public office. So he took to a "self actualizing exercise" as he described it. One is to sit down, write their own obituary, and then set about accomplishing all the tasks written therein. So as to have "no regrets" and shake you out of any potential rut.
I don't know, it seemed kind of creepy, the tempting of fate so to speak - like someone announcing, "if I got hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd die a happy man." One thing's for sure, if you see fit to say that I'd skip renewing my bus pass, if you know what I mean. But it is interesting. What would you want the obituary to say? I see them at Caesars routinely. The dealer population there has to be a median age well above the average. And there it is, pinned to our announcement board just above the toke book. The summary of a man's life in black and white. You read it, then a few days later, it's gone.
I don't know if I'm prepared to write such a thing. Short of it beginning with, "Former President of the United States ...", I don't know that it would be an enjoyable experience. Just a thought though ...
Well, off to bed.
PS> can you mix NyQuil with Vodka? Sort of a Russian bed time spritzer perhaps?
Kidding . . .
Thursday, May 27, 2010
2nd Amendment lives HERE...
So, Liz is off this whole week, and she has me busting my hump cleaning and organizing and getting things ready for next week's yard sale. I'm opening boxes I haven't seen since the hurricane (most I never even opened during and after the move!), and I just can't believe what I'm finding...
The reason for the post, however, is that while I was cleaning out and consolidating containers and boxes throughout the house, I have discovered that I had ammunition squirrelled away in WAY more places than I originally thought. Luckily, almost all of it is for weapons I have on-hand here in PA (Jambo still has a few of my pieces in MS).
I have quite a few .308 rounds, nearly 3,000 .22 rounds (almost all of them good quality, too), 14 boxes of various sized 12 guage shells... and one slightly used box of .38-55 Ballard rounds for Jambo's prized rifle. In fact, the box is 2 shells short of full (for the two rounds he had to throw at the Kansas buck he took in '05)... 18 shiny silver-cased soft nosed ball rounds in a custom Winchester Ammunition box.
How the hell do I get these to him? Can I legally mail him these shells, without landing myself in the hoosegow for sending explosives through the mail system? Probably not. Nothing for it, man... you're just going to have to come and get the last 18 rounds for your rifle, or face the prospect of having another 20 made special for your next hunt.
I have to giggle... Liz has realized the importance of being able to "keep going" here at the house in the event of an extended power failure or really bad blizzard, so we often talk about what we need to have on hand "just in case". Sometimes, our friends will ask "in case of what?" and Liz always says the same thing: "In case the zombie apocolypse happens and we have to fend for ourselves against the flesh-eating hordes." It is a fun twist on a topic I take pretty seriously (as would anyone that had to live in a flooded-out house with no water or electricity for 39 days), and the best part is she doesn't think we have enough firepower in the house to ensure our safety and survivability in the event of the "zombie apocolypse".
Liz demands a usable (for her) semi-auto rifle, and I'd love to give each of the boys one, too. .22s all the way around, I think... with a decent hand gun thrown in for the house. Mine is still in MS at Jambo's, but it is only a .22 itself, and while it is a damn fine piece... I'd like something a little more substantial for when the zombies come knocking.
Anyway... Jambo, if you ever wonder, I definitely have the rounds for the Marlin, safe and sound here in NEPA. Won't help you much if the zombie apocolypse happens, but at least you know where they are.
The reason for the post, however, is that while I was cleaning out and consolidating containers and boxes throughout the house, I have discovered that I had ammunition squirrelled away in WAY more places than I originally thought. Luckily, almost all of it is for weapons I have on-hand here in PA (Jambo still has a few of my pieces in MS).
I have quite a few .308 rounds, nearly 3,000 .22 rounds (almost all of them good quality, too), 14 boxes of various sized 12 guage shells... and one slightly used box of .38-55 Ballard rounds for Jambo's prized rifle. In fact, the box is 2 shells short of full (for the two rounds he had to throw at the Kansas buck he took in '05)... 18 shiny silver-cased soft nosed ball rounds in a custom Winchester Ammunition box.
How the hell do I get these to him? Can I legally mail him these shells, without landing myself in the hoosegow for sending explosives through the mail system? Probably not. Nothing for it, man... you're just going to have to come and get the last 18 rounds for your rifle, or face the prospect of having another 20 made special for your next hunt.
I have to giggle... Liz has realized the importance of being able to "keep going" here at the house in the event of an extended power failure or really bad blizzard, so we often talk about what we need to have on hand "just in case". Sometimes, our friends will ask "in case of what?" and Liz always says the same thing: "In case the zombie apocolypse happens and we have to fend for ourselves against the flesh-eating hordes." It is a fun twist on a topic I take pretty seriously (as would anyone that had to live in a flooded-out house with no water or electricity for 39 days), and the best part is she doesn't think we have enough firepower in the house to ensure our safety and survivability in the event of the "zombie apocolypse".
Liz demands a usable (for her) semi-auto rifle, and I'd love to give each of the boys one, too. .22s all the way around, I think... with a decent hand gun thrown in for the house. Mine is still in MS at Jambo's, but it is only a .22 itself, and while it is a damn fine piece... I'd like something a little more substantial for when the zombies come knocking.
Anyway... Jambo, if you ever wonder, I definitely have the rounds for the Marlin, safe and sound here in NEPA. Won't help you much if the zombie apocolypse happens, but at least you know where they are.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Slow down there cheetoh ... this does follow.
I never once said the 29' Crash & ensuing years were not a "crisis." Far from it. I'm not even saying that there weren't actions the government could of taken to provide aspects of relief. What I specifically objected to, low these many years, were the activist government policies that made up New Deal, so don't put words in my mouth. That the times were excruciatingly difficult and constituted the single greatest economic crisis in our history in not in dispute - FDR's response is. So save your false assumptions & ill advised conclusions for someone who hasn't written reams of text about their position.
At any rate, my line of questioning was to address one simple point - your shocking (to me anyway) statement(s) that the economic crisis of the 30's was as great a threat to the US as the Axis Powers, the Japanese in specific. I am simply trying to establish that as horrible as the crash & ensuing years were it is erroneous to compare that economic crisis, or any economic crisis, to the threat posed to all free nations in WWII, especially at its' onset. That's all.
We do "nothing" at the federal level as a response to the Depression we "certainly" (to quote someone) come out ok, at some point. We do "nothing" as a response to Pearl, and there isn't a thing "certain" about our future. Thus one event is a greater threat than is the other, and your flawed posit that they were crisis of equal threat is exposed. :)
At any rate, my line of questioning was to address one simple point - your shocking (to me anyway) statement(s) that the economic crisis of the 30's was as great a threat to the US as the Axis Powers, the Japanese in specific. I am simply trying to establish that as horrible as the crash & ensuing years were it is erroneous to compare that economic crisis, or any economic crisis, to the threat posed to all free nations in WWII, especially at its' onset. That's all.
We do "nothing" at the federal level as a response to the Depression we "certainly" (to quote someone) come out ok, at some point. We do "nothing" as a response to Pearl, and there isn't a thing "certain" about our future. Thus one event is a greater threat than is the other, and your flawed posit that they were crisis of equal threat is exposed. :)
Isn't that a non sequitur?
Japan attacks the US, and kills 1,900 Americans, with Germany declaring war two days later... and we are to take an isolationist/pacifist position? Do you mean we surrender unconditionally on Dec 10, 1941 to the Axis powers?
You are trying to show me that the threat made by Japan/Germany was greater than that posed by the Crash of '29... I get it. However, as you so nicely pointed out, the two were not simultaneous in nature, were they? Neither Germany nor Japan were threatening American lives and interests in 1933, but the Dust Bowl and the effects of the Crash were... enough to displace 300,000 people and reduce our capacity to manufacture and produce necessary resources and products by as much as 65%. More than one in every four adults in this nation was unemployed and had no means by which to provide for themselves or their families... and all were old enough to vote for radical socialist or fascist platforms that were sweeping into power in Europe and South America, and any one of them could have taken up arms and joined in an open "rebellion" against the government.
Why is it so difficult for you to see that the nation was in a crisis? This crash was like no other we had ever "weathered" in the past, intervention or not, and I contend that it warranted a Federal response. I can think of no other "economic" crisis that so altered American society as the Great Depression... yet you make it sound like it was an over-blown bit of Democratic drama produced to give FDR and his party-mates the means and opportunity to take control of government and fundamentally change America.
I have ALWAYS agreed that "doing nothing" would eventually have seen America rebound, but my point has always been "At what cost?" How many Okies needed to die of disease or malnutrition before its "ok" for the Feds to make a difference? How many families need to be forced out of their homes or farms, with no where to sleep from then on except in a car or truck? Where is the faith in the American system, and the traditional Christian values that are its foundation, if the people had to watch (or live through) another year of economic free fall... or two... or four?
I have never questioned the need to spend money or expand government expenses in times of crisis brought about by war or the immanent threat of war... so you can stop with the poor analogy. Our argument is simply and completely that you do not see the Great Depression as a national crisis needing Federal intervention, where I do. If that is still true, then there is no more to discuss, is there? If that is NOT still true, then where am I wrong and you still right?
You are trying to show me that the threat made by Japan/Germany was greater than that posed by the Crash of '29... I get it. However, as you so nicely pointed out, the two were not simultaneous in nature, were they? Neither Germany nor Japan were threatening American lives and interests in 1933, but the Dust Bowl and the effects of the Crash were... enough to displace 300,000 people and reduce our capacity to manufacture and produce necessary resources and products by as much as 65%. More than one in every four adults in this nation was unemployed and had no means by which to provide for themselves or their families... and all were old enough to vote for radical socialist or fascist platforms that were sweeping into power in Europe and South America, and any one of them could have taken up arms and joined in an open "rebellion" against the government.
Why is it so difficult for you to see that the nation was in a crisis? This crash was like no other we had ever "weathered" in the past, intervention or not, and I contend that it warranted a Federal response. I can think of no other "economic" crisis that so altered American society as the Great Depression... yet you make it sound like it was an over-blown bit of Democratic drama produced to give FDR and his party-mates the means and opportunity to take control of government and fundamentally change America.
I have ALWAYS agreed that "doing nothing" would eventually have seen America rebound, but my point has always been "At what cost?" How many Okies needed to die of disease or malnutrition before its "ok" for the Feds to make a difference? How many families need to be forced out of their homes or farms, with no where to sleep from then on except in a car or truck? Where is the faith in the American system, and the traditional Christian values that are its foundation, if the people had to watch (or live through) another year of economic free fall... or two... or four?
I have never questioned the need to spend money or expand government expenses in times of crisis brought about by war or the immanent threat of war... so you can stop with the poor analogy. Our argument is simply and completely that you do not see the Great Depression as a national crisis needing Federal intervention, where I do. If that is still true, then there is no more to discuss, is there? If that is NOT still true, then where am I wrong and you still right?
Woah!
That was a long "yes."
(*as an aside, our argument over New Deal was always, as you took a whole 2 seconds to note, as a response to economic crisis. Not whether aspects of it proved fortuitous on a war then a decade in the offing)
With the idea that we would of "certainly" (your word) come out of the Depression "ok" without direct government interdiction, mobilization, and the hands on involvement firmly established, I have a follow up. Would we have come out "ok" on the other end of WWII without direct government interdiction? Meaning had on December 8th 1941 (or even the 10th, when Germany declared against us) we set upon an isolationist/pacifist course as a nation, would things have "certainly" turned out alright?
(*as an aside, our argument over New Deal was always, as you took a whole 2 seconds to note, as a response to economic crisis. Not whether aspects of it proved fortuitous on a war then a decade in the offing)
With the idea that we would of "certainly" (your word) come out of the Depression "ok" without direct government interdiction, mobilization, and the hands on involvement firmly established, I have a follow up. Would we have come out "ok" on the other end of WWII without direct government interdiction? Meaning had on December 8th 1941 (or even the 10th, when Germany declared against us) we set upon an isolationist/pacifist course as a nation, would things have "certainly" turned out alright?
A comment on Rand Paul...
The "Tea Party" favorite, Rand Paul, is all over the news with his "gaff" comments on what was wrong with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I wanted to throw in my two cents and be done with it, so here it is...
Paul seems to think that the government's regulation on who a businessman can or can't offer service to is wrong, regardless of what an individual's position on race or creed may be. This much I have no issue with, as it is a purely ideological position to take and, in an ideal world, would even make sense at a fundamental level of society.
However, Paul's stated comments were that the imposition of government regulation placed a limit on the free market system our Founding Fathers wanted to promote and protect. THIS is where Paul loses his credibility with me, and if he loses his election chances because of it, then it is nobody's fault but his own. Had Paul bothered to become familiar with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the circumstances that led LBJ to sign it into law, he'd have known better than to say what he did.
The Act was passed to correct an unjust system of laws known as the doctrine of "separate but equal", and taught to school children as the "Jim Crow Laws" of Southern segregation. These laws are seen today as an aspect of Southern racism codified and institutionalized by southern States and their all-white leadership and all-white constituencies. History, however... actual, factual history... tells us differently.
In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States passed down the decision for Plessy v. Ferguson. This case made the doctrine of "separate but equal" the de facto law of the land, and institutionalized segregation for nearly the next 60 years, coast to coast, border to border, in all the States of the Union. "Jim Crow" was determined by the SCotUS as "Constitutional" and any and all laws stemming from that decision were acceptable in the eyes of the Federal government.
Thus, I maintain (and I feel history is on my side) that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was fixing a problem within the Federal government itself, and not something native to the "old South". If Paul wants to say that it was wrong for the Feds to regulate who a white businessman can or can't serve, then he needs to not blame LBJ for signing the Civil Rights Act, but instead blame the SCotUS for handing down the "very bad" decision in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which institutionalized the very same regulation Paul is blaming LBJ for.
THIS is why I'll never be a Libertarian Party member...
Paul seems to think that the government's regulation on who a businessman can or can't offer service to is wrong, regardless of what an individual's position on race or creed may be. This much I have no issue with, as it is a purely ideological position to take and, in an ideal world, would even make sense at a fundamental level of society.
However, Paul's stated comments were that the imposition of government regulation placed a limit on the free market system our Founding Fathers wanted to promote and protect. THIS is where Paul loses his credibility with me, and if he loses his election chances because of it, then it is nobody's fault but his own. Had Paul bothered to become familiar with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the circumstances that led LBJ to sign it into law, he'd have known better than to say what he did.
The Act was passed to correct an unjust system of laws known as the doctrine of "separate but equal", and taught to school children as the "Jim Crow Laws" of Southern segregation. These laws are seen today as an aspect of Southern racism codified and institutionalized by southern States and their all-white leadership and all-white constituencies. History, however... actual, factual history... tells us differently.
In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States passed down the decision for Plessy v. Ferguson. This case made the doctrine of "separate but equal" the de facto law of the land, and institutionalized segregation for nearly the next 60 years, coast to coast, border to border, in all the States of the Union. "Jim Crow" was determined by the SCotUS as "Constitutional" and any and all laws stemming from that decision were acceptable in the eyes of the Federal government.
Thus, I maintain (and I feel history is on my side) that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was fixing a problem within the Federal government itself, and not something native to the "old South". If Paul wants to say that it was wrong for the Feds to regulate who a white businessman can or can't serve, then he needs to not blame LBJ for signing the Civil Rights Act, but instead blame the SCotUS for handing down the "very bad" decision in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which institutionalized the very same regulation Paul is blaming LBJ for.
THIS is why I'll never be a Libertarian Party member...
Of course its possible...
In fact, it is probably a certainty that the US would have recovered fully from the Great Depression even if no government intervention was ever taken. I feel certain that the US has seen and recovered from greater instances of hardship, at least on local and regional levels.
But if you are going to play this game, you can't do it without asking yourself what cost to the society as a whole that course would have demanded. Most of the farms (roughly 65%) in Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado and the Dakotas was unusable due to the Dust Bowl-effects that started in 1930 and lasted through 1935. Millions of acres of the most productive soil in North America had turned to dust and blown away across the continent, leaving dry, sandy plots of land that couldn't grow anything but more dust.
There were 300,000 American refugees moving west out of the "dust bowl" to California, hoping to find work and a place to live once life on the farm in Oklahoma became untenable. These "Okies" were housed and fed and eventually put to work under Federal programs, but in your scenario, that doesn't happen. What becomes of these 300,000 Americans with no means to feed themselves and nowhere to live?
Finally, I ask you again (because this has come up before): What is the best guess at how much longer our war effort lasts when, at the outbreak of the war, we don't have the dams, canals, roads, levies, railroads, and power lines that the New Deal programs gave us? Oak Ridge was built by New Deal programs, and we could build it because of TVA and the power it provided. Productions centers like Wichita, Tulsa, Shreveport, Jacksonville all received power needed to build the bombers, rifles, ammunition and boots from hydroelectric facilities that would not have been built without New Deal. The benefits the nation gets from the improvements to infrastructure are immeasurable, in my opinion, but perhaps you feel differently. We didn't do what was done to win a war we didn't know about... but the improvements were good for the nation and the economy, both short term and long term.
Oh, and one more thing... then I'll stop. How many times over have things like Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate, TVA, the expanded electrical power grid, the Mississippi flood control levies, Chicago's South-side Canal, the Huey Long bridge, port improvements at places like Morgan City, LA; Gulfport, MS; San Diego, CA; Tampa, FL; and Galveston, TX paid for themselves since they were built between 1933 and 1939? I know there were silly projects dreamed up during the New Deal, but this is something we always have to watch and monitor when government is spending our tax dollars, depression or otherwise... but the money spent on improvements to our infrastructure are not frivolous expenses, they were and are an investment in the future that is ALWAYS money well spent.
That's my thoughts, anyway.
But if you are going to play this game, you can't do it without asking yourself what cost to the society as a whole that course would have demanded. Most of the farms (roughly 65%) in Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado and the Dakotas was unusable due to the Dust Bowl-effects that started in 1930 and lasted through 1935. Millions of acres of the most productive soil in North America had turned to dust and blown away across the continent, leaving dry, sandy plots of land that couldn't grow anything but more dust.
There were 300,000 American refugees moving west out of the "dust bowl" to California, hoping to find work and a place to live once life on the farm in Oklahoma became untenable. These "Okies" were housed and fed and eventually put to work under Federal programs, but in your scenario, that doesn't happen. What becomes of these 300,000 Americans with no means to feed themselves and nowhere to live?
Finally, I ask you again (because this has come up before): What is the best guess at how much longer our war effort lasts when, at the outbreak of the war, we don't have the dams, canals, roads, levies, railroads, and power lines that the New Deal programs gave us? Oak Ridge was built by New Deal programs, and we could build it because of TVA and the power it provided. Productions centers like Wichita, Tulsa, Shreveport, Jacksonville all received power needed to build the bombers, rifles, ammunition and boots from hydroelectric facilities that would not have been built without New Deal. The benefits the nation gets from the improvements to infrastructure are immeasurable, in my opinion, but perhaps you feel differently. We didn't do what was done to win a war we didn't know about... but the improvements were good for the nation and the economy, both short term and long term.
Oh, and one more thing... then I'll stop. How many times over have things like Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate, TVA, the expanded electrical power grid, the Mississippi flood control levies, Chicago's South-side Canal, the Huey Long bridge, port improvements at places like Morgan City, LA; Gulfport, MS; San Diego, CA; Tampa, FL; and Galveston, TX paid for themselves since they were built between 1933 and 1939? I know there were silly projects dreamed up during the New Deal, but this is something we always have to watch and monitor when government is spending our tax dollars, depression or otherwise... but the money spent on improvements to our infrastructure are not frivolous expenses, they were and are an investment in the future that is ALWAYS money well spent.
That's my thoughts, anyway.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Query
(jeeeze, I hope I spelled that right, couldn't remember if it was an "e" or an "a.")
I wanted to ask ... is it "possible" (you can say more then likely or yes, but I'm base lining it at "possible" for the widest possible range), is it possible that the US could of recovered from the Great Depression, come out the other side "ok", without direct government interdiction?
I wanted to ask ... is it "possible" (you can say more then likely or yes, but I'm base lining it at "possible" for the widest possible range), is it possible that the US could of recovered from the Great Depression, come out the other side "ok", without direct government interdiction?
Sorry, I got interupted...
To continue my post...
I have gone over my understanding of the very complicated theory that is Keynesian economic theory in the past, but I'll do it one more time here, for clarity's sake... so there are no misunderstandings.
When the economy is strong and clicking along like a machine, taxes should be high enough (or spending low enough) to ensure a balanced budget. When the economy reaches a recession-level slow down, then taxes should be reduced (or spending increased) to keep the money in the pockets of those most able to positively effect the recovery.
This does not mean spending for spending's sake in a down economy, however (I can't seem to get that through to you, Ryan). If the taxes are lowered, then more earned income remains with the consumers (corporate and private) and is cycled back into the economy without ever passing through the hands of the Fed. If taxes remain the same (static and unchanged, that is), then more government money (revenues already collected from the population, for example) should be used by the Fed through spending to put it back into the economy. If that means that infrastructure improvements can be made by contracting civilian companies to build or repair highways and bridges, then that is more money into the economy through the contracts to those companies. If that means more border patrol officers or greater military expenditures, then that is more people working for a solid wage via the Federal government. While not an "enumerated power" by any means, the Federal government has the opportunity, at any time, to be a HUGE piece of the market for corporate or commercial manufacturers and producers and the general work force as a whole. We know things need to be done, why not plan on doing them when the economy needs the boost, rather than when the economy is strong and State or local agencies can spend the money themselves.
I agree that the ideal would be to keep taxes low and keep the dollars where they are best spent, but I also recognize (in my opinion) the necessity of Federal spending when trouble arises... be it disaster, war, famine, or (if its bad enough) economic troubles. I don't buy the "too big to fail" theory at all, and I wasn't a fan of any of the Bush or Obama bail outs... but what Reagan did to make sure our military was ready-to-go WHILE AT THE SAME TIME guarantying billions of dollars that would be funnelled into the American defense industry via greater government spending was a CLASSIC example of Keynesian economic planning. He reduced wasted spending by cutting ED, Agriculture, welfare and Interior budgets, while increasing Defense and NASA funding across the board. All this while making sure that the American consumer kept as much cash as possible in his own pockets until such time as the budget could be balanced via the pre-planned end of his tax cuts OR reductions in deficit spending by the Fed itself in order to balance the books.
Reagan was a Keynesian, and he showed us how to do it RIGHT. FDR had Keynesians working under him, but didn't choose to listen to or apply what they were saying to his agendas. What he did do was to establish and promote a level of infrastructure that hasn't been paralleled since, and when we find that people need jobs due to a lagging economy, perhaps a good way to put people back to work would be to schedule and BUDGET for Interstate highway improvements NOW, when the spending is needed and can do some good. This to me makes FAR MORE sense than plugging one leak in a crumbling dam that is GM, or Bank of America, or Ford with money we will never get back and won't see any immediate return from anyway.
Finally, you need never justify your position, opinion or values to anyone, especially me. If you can back your opinions and views up with hard, reasonable facts then I trust that you aren't getting them second-hand from a pundit somewhere. As I have already said, if I gave offense, I apologize abjectly and without reservation. I won't make the same mistake again, and will simply wait to see your evidence presented in its own good time. Even when I don't agree with you, I value your views and opinions more than I can say, so you should never have to feel like you need to justify it at all... even when I am joking.
I have gone over my understanding of the very complicated theory that is Keynesian economic theory in the past, but I'll do it one more time here, for clarity's sake... so there are no misunderstandings.
When the economy is strong and clicking along like a machine, taxes should be high enough (or spending low enough) to ensure a balanced budget. When the economy reaches a recession-level slow down, then taxes should be reduced (or spending increased) to keep the money in the pockets of those most able to positively effect the recovery.
This does not mean spending for spending's sake in a down economy, however (I can't seem to get that through to you, Ryan). If the taxes are lowered, then more earned income remains with the consumers (corporate and private) and is cycled back into the economy without ever passing through the hands of the Fed. If taxes remain the same (static and unchanged, that is), then more government money (revenues already collected from the population, for example) should be used by the Fed through spending to put it back into the economy. If that means that infrastructure improvements can be made by contracting civilian companies to build or repair highways and bridges, then that is more money into the economy through the contracts to those companies. If that means more border patrol officers or greater military expenditures, then that is more people working for a solid wage via the Federal government. While not an "enumerated power" by any means, the Federal government has the opportunity, at any time, to be a HUGE piece of the market for corporate or commercial manufacturers and producers and the general work force as a whole. We know things need to be done, why not plan on doing them when the economy needs the boost, rather than when the economy is strong and State or local agencies can spend the money themselves.
I agree that the ideal would be to keep taxes low and keep the dollars where they are best spent, but I also recognize (in my opinion) the necessity of Federal spending when trouble arises... be it disaster, war, famine, or (if its bad enough) economic troubles. I don't buy the "too big to fail" theory at all, and I wasn't a fan of any of the Bush or Obama bail outs... but what Reagan did to make sure our military was ready-to-go WHILE AT THE SAME TIME guarantying billions of dollars that would be funnelled into the American defense industry via greater government spending was a CLASSIC example of Keynesian economic planning. He reduced wasted spending by cutting ED, Agriculture, welfare and Interior budgets, while increasing Defense and NASA funding across the board. All this while making sure that the American consumer kept as much cash as possible in his own pockets until such time as the budget could be balanced via the pre-planned end of his tax cuts OR reductions in deficit spending by the Fed itself in order to balance the books.
Reagan was a Keynesian, and he showed us how to do it RIGHT. FDR had Keynesians working under him, but didn't choose to listen to or apply what they were saying to his agendas. What he did do was to establish and promote a level of infrastructure that hasn't been paralleled since, and when we find that people need jobs due to a lagging economy, perhaps a good way to put people back to work would be to schedule and BUDGET for Interstate highway improvements NOW, when the spending is needed and can do some good. This to me makes FAR MORE sense than plugging one leak in a crumbling dam that is GM, or Bank of America, or Ford with money we will never get back and won't see any immediate return from anyway.
Finally, you need never justify your position, opinion or values to anyone, especially me. If you can back your opinions and views up with hard, reasonable facts then I trust that you aren't getting them second-hand from a pundit somewhere. As I have already said, if I gave offense, I apologize abjectly and without reservation. I won't make the same mistake again, and will simply wait to see your evidence presented in its own good time. Even when I don't agree with you, I value your views and opinions more than I can say, so you should never have to feel like you need to justify it at all... even when I am joking.
Point taken...
Look, I'm not going to respond to each point you made... its pointless. Here is exactly where we diverge in our positions on New Deal, FDR and the rest:
You have stated that the US Federal government does not have the authority, enumerated or otherwise, to spend outside of a balanced budget in any event outside of national defense and security. Thus, in the event of a natural disaster like the 1906 San Francisco earthquake or Hurricane Katrina, all assistance from the Feds must be appropriated through legislative budgetary means before it can ever be applied to relief or recovery. Flooding on the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers will become the sole responsibility of the States effected, and no assistance or funding should be made from Federal sources, no matter how much of Memphis, Cleveland or New Orleans is underwater. According to your views, unless we are invaded, attacked or overtly threatened by a foreign power or insurgent domestic rebellion from within, there is no need, call or right for the Feds to spend one dollar more than they are budgeted to spend. IF that is your position, and I have correctly summed it up, then I can respect the view and will expect you to hold to it, regardless of circumstances.
I, on the other hand, maintain that ANY threat to our society and its means of existence constitutes a "national security threat" and warrants Federal attention, if needed and requested by the individual States. Since MS, LA, and AL don't have the means to print their own money the way the Feds do, immediate deficit funding isn't always available in the same way it is with the Federal government. Thus, when a Cat 5 hurricane comes and wipes another 25 counties worth of American homes, businesses, police and fire departments, infrastructure and communications off the face of the earth, these States depend on the availability of Federal funding to immediately begin relief and recovery efforts. The same is true for earthquakes in CA, flooding in the Midwest, ice storms in the Northeast. If American lives are in danger, be the cause natural, foreign or domestic... I say the Feds have a responsibility to answer the calls for assistance by the individual States. That is EXACTLY the kind of response I feel was justified in the New Deal efforts of the first 100 days of FDR's terms, and any programs or policies that have survived since the end of WWII have already been determined to be Constitutional and need only be repealed by a conservative majority in both Houses.
It would seem our biggest difference is in defining the scope of the Great Depression. If you agree that American lives at risk is a national security issue, then you must not think anyone's lives (or the security of the nation) were at risk during the Great Depression. I'm not saying you're wrong... economic crisis is a very different thing than the threat of invasion by the Imperial Japanese Navy. I, however, think the former was the more immanent threat than the latter, that is all. Furthermore, I contend that when our economy is as weak and fragile as it was in 1930, and as many American lives were in turmoil as they were, then we were in a "national emergency" that warranted intervention.
You have stated that the US Federal government does not have the authority, enumerated or otherwise, to spend outside of a balanced budget in any event outside of national defense and security. Thus, in the event of a natural disaster like the 1906 San Francisco earthquake or Hurricane Katrina, all assistance from the Feds must be appropriated through legislative budgetary means before it can ever be applied to relief or recovery. Flooding on the Mississippi or Ohio Rivers will become the sole responsibility of the States effected, and no assistance or funding should be made from Federal sources, no matter how much of Memphis, Cleveland or New Orleans is underwater. According to your views, unless we are invaded, attacked or overtly threatened by a foreign power or insurgent domestic rebellion from within, there is no need, call or right for the Feds to spend one dollar more than they are budgeted to spend. IF that is your position, and I have correctly summed it up, then I can respect the view and will expect you to hold to it, regardless of circumstances.
I, on the other hand, maintain that ANY threat to our society and its means of existence constitutes a "national security threat" and warrants Federal attention, if needed and requested by the individual States. Since MS, LA, and AL don't have the means to print their own money the way the Feds do, immediate deficit funding isn't always available in the same way it is with the Federal government. Thus, when a Cat 5 hurricane comes and wipes another 25 counties worth of American homes, businesses, police and fire departments, infrastructure and communications off the face of the earth, these States depend on the availability of Federal funding to immediately begin relief and recovery efforts. The same is true for earthquakes in CA, flooding in the Midwest, ice storms in the Northeast. If American lives are in danger, be the cause natural, foreign or domestic... I say the Feds have a responsibility to answer the calls for assistance by the individual States. That is EXACTLY the kind of response I feel was justified in the New Deal efforts of the first 100 days of FDR's terms, and any programs or policies that have survived since the end of WWII have already been determined to be Constitutional and need only be repealed by a conservative majority in both Houses.
It would seem our biggest difference is in defining the scope of the Great Depression. If you agree that American lives at risk is a national security issue, then you must not think anyone's lives (or the security of the nation) were at risk during the Great Depression. I'm not saying you're wrong... economic crisis is a very different thing than the threat of invasion by the Imperial Japanese Navy. I, however, think the former was the more immanent threat than the latter, that is all. Furthermore, I contend that when our economy is as weak and fragile as it was in 1930, and as many American lives were in turmoil as they were, then we were in a "national emergency" that warranted intervention.
Point of order ...
In speaking with Jambo he informed me that your chief irritation/frustration with me on New Deal was that I seem to accept and champion Reagan, and his deficit spending us into prosperity, while disapproving of FDR's. That given the only difference was Reagan learned the lesson of lowering taxes during his spending, I should give FDR at least some credit for getting part of the equation right. Here is my response ...
1.) I need to preface with this ... in my opinion deficit spending for the sake of economic recovery does not fall withing the purview of the office of President of The United States, or the government in general (he has the authority to effect duly passed and signed law, I'm just arguing that's not a proper "role", I hope that makes sense). You noted that the president must look at an economic crisis as a clear and present danger ON THE SAME LEVEL as he would a national security crisis or war. You put the deadly, dire effects of the Great Depression on par with the war mongering Japanese. I simply disagree. And not just with that direct comparison (although that too). The idea that the President, as the chief executive of our government, would look at an economic crisis and believe he has the same authority, power, and prerogative to intervene as he would in war making or national defense makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. The only thing scarier is a citizenry that believes it to be true. To put it bluntly, his powers within the scope of national defense are clear and unambiguous. His powers (or proper role) to involve the government in economic recovery "acts" are murky, at best. If you disagree, that's fine. As I said before its a debate that is much older then the two of us (even you). Our core personal philosophies about the proper role of government are merely more different then I assumed.
2.) To say that Reagan simply got his deficit spending "stimulus" right by including tax cuts and this is what separates him from FDR's deficit spending is, in my opinion, to grossly misrepresent the two men and their policy. First, deficit spending was not the only aspect to New Deal, thus using this comparison of presidencies I find to be a tad inadequate. Massive new regulation within the (perverted in my opinion) scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause, price fixing, etc were all as much a part of the New Deals as spending. But to focus on spending in this comparison - Reagan was not a Keynesian. History shows that he was a balanced budget advocate, except in times of war. And he allowed as a political compromise Tip & the boys to continue to spend on social programs as long they agreed to his defense budgets and tax cuts, that was the political compromise. This is hardly the stuff of New Deal. And by the way, taxes were not central to Keynesian philosophy as I recall. There were 2 primary drivers - massive government deficit spending and low interest rates. But lets not get side tracked on the definition of Keynesian, suffice it to say FDR deficit spent in the red, and so did Reagan. But that's where the similarities end. Reagan did not deficit spend for the purpose of stimulating the economy. In fact I don't believe his deficit spending did significantly stimulate the economy. I asked Jambo that question and he said he thinks it "sparked" the economy to begin to crawl out of recession. I am not willing to even go that far. I don't recall any economic model that shows the 80's boom was a result of Reagan's deficit (defense) spending. Tax cuts combined with the interest rates returning from the sky high 70's created the availability of venture capital which greased everything from the stock market to real estate. There's your boom source. Reagan deficit spent to win the Cold War. To beat the Russians, that was the impetus, not putting people back to work like a WPA, for example. Surely there were individual communities that benefited from the Reagan military/defense budget, but spark a national economic recovery? I really think that's a stretch. And if so, so is the comparison which says that FDR & Reagan followed similar recovery models on spending, just Reagan employed tax cuts. That's comparing oranges and bowling balls. Unless you can show me that it was the Reagan defense spending (which was his deficit spending) that sparked the 80's boom; that his defense budget was on par with New Deal dollars as a percentage of GDP; and that it was Reagan's intent to deficit spend us into prosperity (versus wanting to simply win the Cold War & causing a happy economic side effect in specific communities), then I find that comparison unuseful. The spending and economic models of the 2 men are simply worlds away.
3.) I'm not an advocate of non defense (war) deficit spending. I don't think it works as an economic recovery model. To stimulate the private market with federal dollars the feds must first, in one way or another, take the money out of the private market, so it can then put it back in, so that it ... do you see my point? Leave the money there in the first place. There is no private sector money not already in use. The idea that the government knows better how to spend those dollars, and where, well, I don't see any evidence that warrants such faith. And isn't that what you're ultimately advocating? If you contend that the government must in times of economic crisis stimulate the economy by massive deficit spending, prime the pump so to speak, aren't you taking a great leap of faith that whoever is in the White House/congress at the time of such a crisis will do it the "right" way? You're trusting the government to stimulate the economy by spending our money the "right" way, at the "right" time, in the "right" amount. That's just a bridge too far for me, and I don't want to afford the government (no matter what Party controls the seats of power) that sort of latitude, on principle. And in practice it clearly has questionable results, precisely because the government doesn't get spending right (especially that amount of money) very often, even within areas for which there authority is absolute - anybody recall $400 hammers at the Pentagon? There should be no such thing as a peace time budget that "isn't ready to be balanced", as you contend was the mistake causing the 38' recession. You see the folly there don't you? Without WWII (which reorganized our economy with forced savings, etc) what's the New Deal end game on balancing the budget? If not ready in 37' or 38', then when? Do you see? Once government puts its foot in the economic door and props the economy up artificially, its hard to pry that foot away without sending shock waves throughout the market place. So what's the plan? Leave government there, spending in perpetuity? That's national suicide. Like I said, a New Deal approach is a bad role for the government to play. A role which history shows they very nearly never get right.
4.) If you do still contend that deficit spending is the way (or a chief part of the formula) out of recession/depression, can I ask you, does it matter on "what" the money is spent on? I asked Jambo and he answered that he honestly didn't know. And does it matter "how" it's spent, the strings attached? In other words defense contracts were issued to private companies, who employed people as private citizens in a private firm. It wasn't a case of direct government employment as with public works, the WPA, and so on. Does that matter? And what's the "right" amount? How long should the government continue to spend that right amount before it's time to pull back and balance the budget (remember, we're talking all peace time here)? Do you see the MASSIVE amount of faith one must invest in government to get all of that just right? Are we willing to allow bureaucrats such as Tim Geitner to set those "right" amounts? Is he that bright? Before we ended the conversation I got Jambo to agree that it does, ultimately, matter what the money is spent on. I used Obama's "stimulus" plan as Exhibit A. It's what? A trillion dollars when all is said and done? And I do believe none of us here think that is anything but a gigantic boondoggle that will do nothing to pull us out. So it clearly matters how, when and where the money is spent. I just don't see what warrants the faith that the federal government will answer those questions efficiently.
An aside here ... why? Why would you like me to post on where I disagree with the conservative chattering class, the conservative intelligentsia? Given I listen to 1 or 2 out of the dozens of popular pundits I would of course first have to start listening before I made such a post. But even if you focus on my one or two, why do you need to hear where I disagree with them at? As I've stated, I listen to them for enjoyment/informative purposes, as I prepare for work, or do household chores, etc. The idea that I need post various refutations doesn't make sense to me. Do I list them as my sources here? Do I reference their quotes? Do I advertise their programs as necessary listening? No, no and no. The truth is most of the time I agree with Beck. Not always, but most. But we are both conservative Mormons. I hardly find it irregular that we would agree more often then not. You mentioned that you peruse various sites as part of your morning news routine. And you've mentioned you were one of the three people tuning into watch Oberhmann from time to time. Have I asked to see where you refute any of those sources? Why this need for me to explain here, on this site, where I differ with a pundit I listen to? What does it matter? This request assumes that either A.) I have come off as someone that agrees with them 100%(which is ludicrous for neither I nor you are familiar with 100% of what they have said) or B.) I haven't any original political/historical thought of my own. So which is it? Just thinking about such a request still pisses me off. What's the f*cking point of such a request? Can you tall me that?
1.) I need to preface with this ... in my opinion deficit spending for the sake of economic recovery does not fall withing the purview of the office of President of The United States, or the government in general (he has the authority to effect duly passed and signed law, I'm just arguing that's not a proper "role", I hope that makes sense). You noted that the president must look at an economic crisis as a clear and present danger ON THE SAME LEVEL as he would a national security crisis or war. You put the deadly, dire effects of the Great Depression on par with the war mongering Japanese. I simply disagree. And not just with that direct comparison (although that too). The idea that the President, as the chief executive of our government, would look at an economic crisis and believe he has the same authority, power, and prerogative to intervene as he would in war making or national defense makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. The only thing scarier is a citizenry that believes it to be true. To put it bluntly, his powers within the scope of national defense are clear and unambiguous. His powers (or proper role) to involve the government in economic recovery "acts" are murky, at best. If you disagree, that's fine. As I said before its a debate that is much older then the two of us (even you). Our core personal philosophies about the proper role of government are merely more different then I assumed.
2.) To say that Reagan simply got his deficit spending "stimulus" right by including tax cuts and this is what separates him from FDR's deficit spending is, in my opinion, to grossly misrepresent the two men and their policy. First, deficit spending was not the only aspect to New Deal, thus using this comparison of presidencies I find to be a tad inadequate. Massive new regulation within the (perverted in my opinion) scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause, price fixing, etc were all as much a part of the New Deals as spending. But to focus on spending in this comparison - Reagan was not a Keynesian. History shows that he was a balanced budget advocate, except in times of war. And he allowed as a political compromise Tip & the boys to continue to spend on social programs as long they agreed to his defense budgets and tax cuts, that was the political compromise. This is hardly the stuff of New Deal. And by the way, taxes were not central to Keynesian philosophy as I recall. There were 2 primary drivers - massive government deficit spending and low interest rates. But lets not get side tracked on the definition of Keynesian, suffice it to say FDR deficit spent in the red, and so did Reagan. But that's where the similarities end. Reagan did not deficit spend for the purpose of stimulating the economy. In fact I don't believe his deficit spending did significantly stimulate the economy. I asked Jambo that question and he said he thinks it "sparked" the economy to begin to crawl out of recession. I am not willing to even go that far. I don't recall any economic model that shows the 80's boom was a result of Reagan's deficit (defense) spending. Tax cuts combined with the interest rates returning from the sky high 70's created the availability of venture capital which greased everything from the stock market to real estate. There's your boom source. Reagan deficit spent to win the Cold War. To beat the Russians, that was the impetus, not putting people back to work like a WPA, for example. Surely there were individual communities that benefited from the Reagan military/defense budget, but spark a national economic recovery? I really think that's a stretch. And if so, so is the comparison which says that FDR & Reagan followed similar recovery models on spending, just Reagan employed tax cuts. That's comparing oranges and bowling balls. Unless you can show me that it was the Reagan defense spending (which was his deficit spending) that sparked the 80's boom; that his defense budget was on par with New Deal dollars as a percentage of GDP; and that it was Reagan's intent to deficit spend us into prosperity (versus wanting to simply win the Cold War & causing a happy economic side effect in specific communities), then I find that comparison unuseful. The spending and economic models of the 2 men are simply worlds away.
3.) I'm not an advocate of non defense (war) deficit spending. I don't think it works as an economic recovery model. To stimulate the private market with federal dollars the feds must first, in one way or another, take the money out of the private market, so it can then put it back in, so that it ... do you see my point? Leave the money there in the first place. There is no private sector money not already in use. The idea that the government knows better how to spend those dollars, and where, well, I don't see any evidence that warrants such faith. And isn't that what you're ultimately advocating? If you contend that the government must in times of economic crisis stimulate the economy by massive deficit spending, prime the pump so to speak, aren't you taking a great leap of faith that whoever is in the White House/congress at the time of such a crisis will do it the "right" way? You're trusting the government to stimulate the economy by spending our money the "right" way, at the "right" time, in the "right" amount. That's just a bridge too far for me, and I don't want to afford the government (no matter what Party controls the seats of power) that sort of latitude, on principle. And in practice it clearly has questionable results, precisely because the government doesn't get spending right (especially that amount of money) very often, even within areas for which there authority is absolute - anybody recall $400 hammers at the Pentagon? There should be no such thing as a peace time budget that "isn't ready to be balanced", as you contend was the mistake causing the 38' recession. You see the folly there don't you? Without WWII (which reorganized our economy with forced savings, etc) what's the New Deal end game on balancing the budget? If not ready in 37' or 38', then when? Do you see? Once government puts its foot in the economic door and props the economy up artificially, its hard to pry that foot away without sending shock waves throughout the market place. So what's the plan? Leave government there, spending in perpetuity? That's national suicide. Like I said, a New Deal approach is a bad role for the government to play. A role which history shows they very nearly never get right.
4.) If you do still contend that deficit spending is the way (or a chief part of the formula) out of recession/depression, can I ask you, does it matter on "what" the money is spent on? I asked Jambo and he answered that he honestly didn't know. And does it matter "how" it's spent, the strings attached? In other words defense contracts were issued to private companies, who employed people as private citizens in a private firm. It wasn't a case of direct government employment as with public works, the WPA, and so on. Does that matter? And what's the "right" amount? How long should the government continue to spend that right amount before it's time to pull back and balance the budget (remember, we're talking all peace time here)? Do you see the MASSIVE amount of faith one must invest in government to get all of that just right? Are we willing to allow bureaucrats such as Tim Geitner to set those "right" amounts? Is he that bright? Before we ended the conversation I got Jambo to agree that it does, ultimately, matter what the money is spent on. I used Obama's "stimulus" plan as Exhibit A. It's what? A trillion dollars when all is said and done? And I do believe none of us here think that is anything but a gigantic boondoggle that will do nothing to pull us out. So it clearly matters how, when and where the money is spent. I just don't see what warrants the faith that the federal government will answer those questions efficiently.
An aside here ... why? Why would you like me to post on where I disagree with the conservative chattering class, the conservative intelligentsia? Given I listen to 1 or 2 out of the dozens of popular pundits I would of course first have to start listening before I made such a post. But even if you focus on my one or two, why do you need to hear where I disagree with them at? As I've stated, I listen to them for enjoyment/informative purposes, as I prepare for work, or do household chores, etc. The idea that I need post various refutations doesn't make sense to me. Do I list them as my sources here? Do I reference their quotes? Do I advertise their programs as necessary listening? No, no and no. The truth is most of the time I agree with Beck. Not always, but most. But we are both conservative Mormons. I hardly find it irregular that we would agree more often then not. You mentioned that you peruse various sites as part of your morning news routine. And you've mentioned you were one of the three people tuning into watch Oberhmann from time to time. Have I asked to see where you refute any of those sources? Why this need for me to explain here, on this site, where I differ with a pundit I listen to? What does it matter? This request assumes that either A.) I have come off as someone that agrees with them 100%(which is ludicrous for neither I nor you are familiar with 100% of what they have said) or B.) I haven't any original political/historical thought of my own. So which is it? Just thinking about such a request still pisses me off. What's the f*cking point of such a request? Can you tall me that?
Monday, May 24, 2010
How sad is this?
Man, there was a day when your friends could call you a "fascist"... in the pit... and never get more than a chuckle out of you. Now, when I say clearly that I'm speaking "tongue-in-cheek" and "throwing another barb", its all over and you don't want to participate ever again.
The most I will admit to is my absolute inability to understand how you can be so willing to consider the "other side" of any situation or discussion except any deviation from the Ryan School of Conservative Politics. When I hit that wall over and over again, I begin to wonder where the rationale behind your reasoning comes from... and I see it reflected (I specifically said NOT parroted) in the talk-radio pundits like Beck and Limbaugh. What I said I WANTED to see was you disagreeing with something the pundits say, rather than simply running down the hot-topic list that you all share opinions and views on. Next I can expect to hear your opinions concerning the similarities between the Obama Administration and the rise of National Socialism in Germany, right? That seems to be the new "connection" that Savage, Limbaugh and Beck all see as they share their deep insight into the world of historical perspective. I never said you "copy" them... but I've never heard you say you disagree with ANYTHING they say, either. Forgive me if experience has taught me that your voiced opinion on what is "right and true" has proven to be flawed in the past, lest we bring up the "Gospel according to Ann Coulter" known to the world as Treason.
Otherwise, my calling you a "talking head" (which I didn't) is no more of a mouthful of fun to have to swallow than when I read you and Jambo's projected fantasies about "Trevor, the flaming touch-hole". I was trying (very unsuccessfully) to get a bit of a rise out of you after a multi-post debate over something we are NEVER going to agree on... I certainly wasn't trying to intentionally piss you off. If I did, I apologize.
I'm ending this post so I can go watch Fox News and get a jump on what Ryan's going to respond with now...
The most I will admit to is my absolute inability to understand how you can be so willing to consider the "other side" of any situation or discussion except any deviation from the Ryan School of Conservative Politics. When I hit that wall over and over again, I begin to wonder where the rationale behind your reasoning comes from... and I see it reflected (I specifically said NOT parroted) in the talk-radio pundits like Beck and Limbaugh. What I said I WANTED to see was you disagreeing with something the pundits say, rather than simply running down the hot-topic list that you all share opinions and views on. Next I can expect to hear your opinions concerning the similarities between the Obama Administration and the rise of National Socialism in Germany, right? That seems to be the new "connection" that Savage, Limbaugh and Beck all see as they share their deep insight into the world of historical perspective. I never said you "copy" them... but I've never heard you say you disagree with ANYTHING they say, either. Forgive me if experience has taught me that your voiced opinion on what is "right and true" has proven to be flawed in the past, lest we bring up the "Gospel according to Ann Coulter" known to the world as Treason.
Otherwise, my calling you a "talking head" (which I didn't) is no more of a mouthful of fun to have to swallow than when I read you and Jambo's projected fantasies about "Trevor, the flaming touch-hole". I was trying (very unsuccessfully) to get a bit of a rise out of you after a multi-post debate over something we are NEVER going to agree on... I certainly wasn't trying to intentionally piss you off. If I did, I apologize.
I'm ending this post so I can go watch Fox News and get a jump on what Ryan's going to respond with now...
Really? That's how you see me?
I'm some Fox News cap wearing, Limbaugh, or Beck, parroting retard? Not that his listeners are retards, just that to listen to a pundit, then come to this site and present the argument as my own is retarded. We've argued New Deal since day 1. But because beck is now espousing his opinions in a way that garners high enough ratings for you to notice you assume I am simply picking up his baton & running it here? I was arguing these principles and many of these positions before I (or you) knew who the hell he was.
Let me clue you in on something chief ...
The 5,000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed The World.
New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.
Liberal Fascism: The History of The Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.
George Washington, Founding Father.
These are all books I've been reading in recent months. I chose them because they were footnoted with primary source material by accredited authors (all but one has made academia their life's work). I catch Beck's show roughly 2 times a week on radio, and 1 on television. I like him. I like him in the way I like Savage - I think they are intelligent men whom are veracious readers, who then report back their opinions on what they've read and pondered, and in an entertaining way. Which I thought was something of what we did here. I've mentioned Beck or championed his show NOT BECAUSE my library and mind are bare!! But because I find in him someone LIKE US! Someone who has an IQ, unlike Hannity who hasn't read so much as his vcr manual from 1987! AND I have mentioned my dislike of Hannity's presentation way back in the Grand days. That he was heavy with the platitudes and light on history and original commentary. The opposite of a Beck & Savage, of us. Half the time Savage is out of his gord - BUT AT LEAST ITS ORIGINAL THOUGHT laced with a familiarity of history. Unlike Fox N' Friends, which makes me want to puke, repeatedly. They are unlike anything Hannity does (he's a nice guy, just a political simpleton in my view). Unlike Rush, who while smart is obsessed with the daily political drip rather then a historical perspective.
MY POINT BEING - I read and research my own material. Posit my own thoughts. I listen to Beck & Savage because they're not boring, use history, and seem bright, even when I think they may be wrong. REMIND YOU OF ANY BLOG? Or my opinion of anyone here?
So I have to "go off" this or that network (I barely watch Fox news, I use my tv for dvd, netflix, etc), and not listen to AM talk (which I do about a total of 5 or 6 hours a week)? Huh? Is that the deal? See if I think FDR is an angel then? See if I can muster a single thought on my own?
Let me ask you something. You think Beck is knocking down massive ratings discussing Smoot-Hawley? When I link to sites in any of my various posts, do any of them lead you to Beck's site? Has even ONE, ever?
That's fine though. Since this is the impression my friends have of me I'll burn my books. I'll get rid myself of the fax machine Beck & Fox news use to send me the text of my posts here. I'm sure O'Reilly will be relieved to stop writing my material, one less to-do, he's a busy guy.
The people within the media with the highest salaries, highest ratings, and most real world influence in 2010 happen top be conservatives. God forbid a conservative on the radio or TV should have the same opinion as F. Ryan, that's crazy. I mean why would two CONSERVATIVES both object to FDR? That's kooky talk.
Look, piss on your request. I'm no drone. I listen to Beck & Savage while I get ready for work, or work out because I enjoy it. They talk like we would to each other, and they have even read a book or two. I don't listen so that I can sit with pen in hand hoping to gleam some notion of what I think today, and then post it here.
By the way - all the rantings (and very occasional praise) I spout off about NPR - where do you think I get that? From Fox? I probably listen to NPR 2nd most in my listening day. But you neglected that. My rantings about an NPR broadcast, report or special, my critiques of the BBC, I must have gotten that from where? SPIKE TV? ESPN? It couldn't be I listened to those stations, could it? Of course not. I'm huddled in a corner, rocking back and forth murmuring "socialist, socialist" like I'm fresh from a shower at Silkwood. Clinging to my guns, Fox News, and Glenn Beck, waiting for the conservative mother ship to come down so that Elvis and the ghost of William F. Buckley can take my hand and show me to my seat.
Glad to know what you think of me. See, the difference is I respect the 2 of you too much to ever question whether your thoughts are your own. I never ask you to justify your own intellect by "not watching" a show or network (which I barely have the time to do anyway) for 30 days or even 30 seconds. And this despite the fact that I am the only one within this group who's ideology and personal philosophy has basically remained 100% intact. I haven't had some sudden "awakening" that the 2nd Amendment is "important." I haven't voted for abortion-supporting, morally reprehensible candidates in conflict with the tenants of my own faith. I don't ask anyone to list, source and identify their web news resources so I can gauge whether they have posited an idea out of whole cloth, or are under an alien influence. And I SURE AS HELL don't ASSUME I KNOW what source they even use! It's ludicrous.
But that's ok. Beck makes a few comments that mirror my own position and suddenly I'm his defacto puppet. Alright. To be honest, I've never heard Beck, or anyone else, ask in FDR was a depsot. I simply came around to asking that question after reading Roosevelt's 44' SoTU. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up, so I asked the question. But again, Beck made me do that "somehow" to be sure (much like New Deal "somehow" stopped all future depressions). It's not that I've formed the habit lately of comparing the most left wing presidents to texts on the founders, and drawn the conclusion that these presidents were perverting our Constitution, and thus ranked very low on my list, no where near a top 5 spot. OOOOPS, I mean Beck's top 5. Couldn't possibly have come up with that on my own.
Like I said, piss off.
And since you need only to turn on FOX programming to get MY opinion (you can even probably catch it before they fax me my day's agenda), there is no need for me to continue to express them here.
Let me clue you in on something chief ...
The 5,000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed The World.
New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.
Liberal Fascism: The History of The Left From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.
The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression.
George Washington, Founding Father.
These are all books I've been reading in recent months. I chose them because they were footnoted with primary source material by accredited authors (all but one has made academia their life's work). I catch Beck's show roughly 2 times a week on radio, and 1 on television. I like him. I like him in the way I like Savage - I think they are intelligent men whom are veracious readers, who then report back their opinions on what they've read and pondered, and in an entertaining way. Which I thought was something of what we did here. I've mentioned Beck or championed his show NOT BECAUSE my library and mind are bare!! But because I find in him someone LIKE US! Someone who has an IQ, unlike Hannity who hasn't read so much as his vcr manual from 1987! AND I have mentioned my dislike of Hannity's presentation way back in the Grand days. That he was heavy with the platitudes and light on history and original commentary. The opposite of a Beck & Savage, of us. Half the time Savage is out of his gord - BUT AT LEAST ITS ORIGINAL THOUGHT laced with a familiarity of history. Unlike Fox N' Friends, which makes me want to puke, repeatedly. They are unlike anything Hannity does (he's a nice guy, just a political simpleton in my view). Unlike Rush, who while smart is obsessed with the daily political drip rather then a historical perspective.
MY POINT BEING - I read and research my own material. Posit my own thoughts. I listen to Beck & Savage because they're not boring, use history, and seem bright, even when I think they may be wrong. REMIND YOU OF ANY BLOG? Or my opinion of anyone here?
So I have to "go off" this or that network (I barely watch Fox news, I use my tv for dvd, netflix, etc), and not listen to AM talk (which I do about a total of 5 or 6 hours a week)? Huh? Is that the deal? See if I think FDR is an angel then? See if I can muster a single thought on my own?
Let me ask you something. You think Beck is knocking down massive ratings discussing Smoot-Hawley? When I link to sites in any of my various posts, do any of them lead you to Beck's site? Has even ONE, ever?
That's fine though. Since this is the impression my friends have of me I'll burn my books. I'll get rid myself of the fax machine Beck & Fox news use to send me the text of my posts here. I'm sure O'Reilly will be relieved to stop writing my material, one less to-do, he's a busy guy.
The people within the media with the highest salaries, highest ratings, and most real world influence in 2010 happen top be conservatives. God forbid a conservative on the radio or TV should have the same opinion as F. Ryan, that's crazy. I mean why would two CONSERVATIVES both object to FDR? That's kooky talk.
Look, piss on your request. I'm no drone. I listen to Beck & Savage while I get ready for work, or work out because I enjoy it. They talk like we would to each other, and they have even read a book or two. I don't listen so that I can sit with pen in hand hoping to gleam some notion of what I think today, and then post it here.
By the way - all the rantings (and very occasional praise) I spout off about NPR - where do you think I get that? From Fox? I probably listen to NPR 2nd most in my listening day. But you neglected that. My rantings about an NPR broadcast, report or special, my critiques of the BBC, I must have gotten that from where? SPIKE TV? ESPN? It couldn't be I listened to those stations, could it? Of course not. I'm huddled in a corner, rocking back and forth murmuring "socialist, socialist" like I'm fresh from a shower at Silkwood. Clinging to my guns, Fox News, and Glenn Beck, waiting for the conservative mother ship to come down so that Elvis and the ghost of William F. Buckley can take my hand and show me to my seat.
Glad to know what you think of me. See, the difference is I respect the 2 of you too much to ever question whether your thoughts are your own. I never ask you to justify your own intellect by "not watching" a show or network (which I barely have the time to do anyway) for 30 days or even 30 seconds. And this despite the fact that I am the only one within this group who's ideology and personal philosophy has basically remained 100% intact. I haven't had some sudden "awakening" that the 2nd Amendment is "important." I haven't voted for abortion-supporting, morally reprehensible candidates in conflict with the tenants of my own faith. I don't ask anyone to list, source and identify their web news resources so I can gauge whether they have posited an idea out of whole cloth, or are under an alien influence. And I SURE AS HELL don't ASSUME I KNOW what source they even use! It's ludicrous.
But that's ok. Beck makes a few comments that mirror my own position and suddenly I'm his defacto puppet. Alright. To be honest, I've never heard Beck, or anyone else, ask in FDR was a depsot. I simply came around to asking that question after reading Roosevelt's 44' SoTU. It made the hair on the back of my neck stand up, so I asked the question. But again, Beck made me do that "somehow" to be sure (much like New Deal "somehow" stopped all future depressions). It's not that I've formed the habit lately of comparing the most left wing presidents to texts on the founders, and drawn the conclusion that these presidents were perverting our Constitution, and thus ranked very low on my list, no where near a top 5 spot. OOOOPS, I mean Beck's top 5. Couldn't possibly have come up with that on my own.
Like I said, piss off.
And since you need only to turn on FOX programming to get MY opinion (you can even probably catch it before they fax me my day's agenda), there is no need for me to continue to express them here.
Thanks...
The best wishes are much appreciated (the "old guy" jokes less so) and I'm looking forward to a nice day. Liz has promised that the "to do" list doesn't count today, so I'm trying to think what I might want to do... a Spartacus marathon might be in order, actually.
Jambo's comment about our "hedonistic" lifestyle here in NEPA was funny. We do seem to draw people to the house damn near every weekend, and luckily for us it is always family and good friends. I'd like to clarify, though, that while there does always seem to be some alcohol consumed, the nights when I go to bed "tipsy" are fairly few and far between. I was moving with a purpose on Saturday night, though... and my ramblings yesterday on the Bund may prove the fact. Once I started with the porter, I should have stuck with it... but the bottle of Jameson that I got as a gift was calling to me, I swear.
Oh, and Ryan's comments on not being an apologist for Ike... you can feel free to bone up on Dwight D. all you want, but all the information you need concerning Ike's policies and programs supporting and expanding New Deal projects, his 91% tax rates, and the details of new Interstate program have been linked on this page in just the last month, I'd bet. The Presidential paradigm didn't change from Hoover in 1930 until Reagan gets inaugurated in 1981, and I don't care what letter is behind the man's name, either. Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter... all kept to the "New Deal" model that FDR started (for good or bad) of ever expanding government and more entitlement programs. Any one of them could have changed this direction (as seen by Reagan), or even have stopped the process from growing (I think Ford tried this, but ran out of time)... but it didn't happen. And once Reagan was out of office, Bush Sr. began the process of moving back to the "New Deal" model again, which was taken up with gusto by Clinton and Bush Jr.
BUT, since you wanted no mas, I'll let it go...
One more barb, though... (hehe)
Jambo and I talked a bit yesterday, and he had just read my posts. Seems he caught the "Glenn Beck" stab I threw in, and recognized it for what it was. I know Ryan sees it too, and that it is painful for him to hear someone suggest that the ideas falling from his mouth aren't his own. This isn't a fair thing to do to our friend (but it is fun, sometimes!), so we both thought that a good solution would be to make the following suggestion:
Ryan must give up any and all television and radio programing for one month. No watching FOX News or listening to Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or any other pundit rabidly apologizing for the conservative agenda for at least 30 days. His only recourse to current events/news/opinions should be online resources or newspapers. That way, when someone gives a speech or makes a comment, it can be read and followed up on by Ryan, rather than by the pundit feeding the analysis and opinion onto the airwaves.
We've known you for ten years now, Ryan... and I can tell you that while we have argued and debated the merits of New Deal programs since day one, it wasn't until Glenn Beck began painting FDR as a radical socialist reformer bent on circumventing the Constitution by any means possible that you started suggesting it, too. Complaining about SSI is legitimate, because the entire country has known since 1988 that eventually the program would run out of money if not radically changed. Questioning the integrity of FDR for social agendas and programs, but claiming the integrity and legacy of Andrew Jackson is "sacred" and beyond question even in light of his support for questionable (at best) national policies towards hundreds of thousands of Americans seems a tad hypocritical, and especially suspicious when tied so closely with the growing popularity of one Glenn Beck.
This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, my friend, and I'm not suggesting you "parrot" Beck... but I'd love to hear some honest, grounded opinion stemming from "Ryan's research" rather than what the latest talk radio topic is raging through the speakers. Have you ever heard something come out of these people's mouths that made you think "What a load of CRAP!" THAT is what I want to hear about... just once in a while, too. Call it my "birthday wish".
Anyway... there's still lots of whiskey, porter, beer and wine here at the house if you guys want to stop over and tip a few back. We've got hotdogs and some pork chops we can grill, and the pool is finally open for business (cool... but not cold).
Jambo's comment about our "hedonistic" lifestyle here in NEPA was funny. We do seem to draw people to the house damn near every weekend, and luckily for us it is always family and good friends. I'd like to clarify, though, that while there does always seem to be some alcohol consumed, the nights when I go to bed "tipsy" are fairly few and far between. I was moving with a purpose on Saturday night, though... and my ramblings yesterday on the Bund may prove the fact. Once I started with the porter, I should have stuck with it... but the bottle of Jameson that I got as a gift was calling to me, I swear.
Oh, and Ryan's comments on not being an apologist for Ike... you can feel free to bone up on Dwight D. all you want, but all the information you need concerning Ike's policies and programs supporting and expanding New Deal projects, his 91% tax rates, and the details of new Interstate program have been linked on this page in just the last month, I'd bet. The Presidential paradigm didn't change from Hoover in 1930 until Reagan gets inaugurated in 1981, and I don't care what letter is behind the man's name, either. Ike, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter... all kept to the "New Deal" model that FDR started (for good or bad) of ever expanding government and more entitlement programs. Any one of them could have changed this direction (as seen by Reagan), or even have stopped the process from growing (I think Ford tried this, but ran out of time)... but it didn't happen. And once Reagan was out of office, Bush Sr. began the process of moving back to the "New Deal" model again, which was taken up with gusto by Clinton and Bush Jr.
BUT, since you wanted no mas, I'll let it go...
One more barb, though... (hehe)
Jambo and I talked a bit yesterday, and he had just read my posts. Seems he caught the "Glenn Beck" stab I threw in, and recognized it for what it was. I know Ryan sees it too, and that it is painful for him to hear someone suggest that the ideas falling from his mouth aren't his own. This isn't a fair thing to do to our friend (but it is fun, sometimes!), so we both thought that a good solution would be to make the following suggestion:
Ryan must give up any and all television and radio programing for one month. No watching FOX News or listening to Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or any other pundit rabidly apologizing for the conservative agenda for at least 30 days. His only recourse to current events/news/opinions should be online resources or newspapers. That way, when someone gives a speech or makes a comment, it can be read and followed up on by Ryan, rather than by the pundit feeding the analysis and opinion onto the airwaves.
We've known you for ten years now, Ryan... and I can tell you that while we have argued and debated the merits of New Deal programs since day one, it wasn't until Glenn Beck began painting FDR as a radical socialist reformer bent on circumventing the Constitution by any means possible that you started suggesting it, too. Complaining about SSI is legitimate, because the entire country has known since 1988 that eventually the program would run out of money if not radically changed. Questioning the integrity of FDR for social agendas and programs, but claiming the integrity and legacy of Andrew Jackson is "sacred" and beyond question even in light of his support for questionable (at best) national policies towards hundreds of thousands of Americans seems a tad hypocritical, and especially suspicious when tied so closely with the growing popularity of one Glenn Beck.
This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, my friend, and I'm not suggesting you "parrot" Beck... but I'd love to hear some honest, grounded opinion stemming from "Ryan's research" rather than what the latest talk radio topic is raging through the speakers. Have you ever heard something come out of these people's mouths that made you think "What a load of CRAP!" THAT is what I want to hear about... just once in a while, too. Call it my "birthday wish".
Anyway... there's still lots of whiskey, porter, beer and wine here at the house if you guys want to stop over and tip a few back. We've got hotdogs and some pork chops we can grill, and the pool is finally open for business (cool... but not cold).
Agreed... no mas
I just want to say Ive never been an Ike apologist, and Id have to review his tenure as CiC much more then I have to engage in that discussion.
Happy birthday by the way! Are you getting discounts at the movies yet or what?
Happy birthday by the way! Are you getting discounts at the movies yet or what?
Happy Birthday Titus!
42 today.
Man he's old.
I know you already had your party, living the hedonistic life in PA that you do... But I hope today is good for you.
Man he's old.
I know you already had your party, living the hedonistic life in PA that you do... But I hope today is good for you.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Good thing I like Escher, huh?
No, I don't think FDR was the closest we have come to a despot. Despots, by their historical definition, hold absolute and unlimited power and authority over their nations, answering to no one but God and themselves. Thus, I feel like your question was comparing FDR to other, contemporary "despots" like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc. and I answered accordingly. FDR was chosen by the popular voting majority and our established electoral process as the chief executive of our republic, who would work within his established enumerated powers in conjunction with the legislative branch and under the watchful eye of the judicial branch to help guide, promote and protect the nation against all threats, foreign and domestic.
I find it unfortunate that you feel that the only time government has the authority to intervene in American economic affairs is when the nation has military personnel committed in combat situations, whether the situations are declared wars or not. There was very little shooting going on during the Reagan years, yet he deficit spent quite happily to help fix the economic crisis that the previous three Presidents had left him.
I have made the point quite clearly and loudly in the past that Reagan had the "formula" right, where FDR and the New Deal Congress had it wrong: Reagan cut taxes, but continued to spend into the red. FDR did raise taxes, substantially too (especially after 1938) and spent more money than he was taking in. This was a FLAW in the New Deal planning and execution that I have recognized and admitted to from the very beginning. It is why I can call myself (and Reagan) REAL Keynesian economic advocates, and why I don't think FDR was. So, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, stop saying that my opinions concerning New Deal's success or failure is contrary to my stated economic and fiscal opinions, because they are NOT. I have said all along that FDR should have spent the money to provide the relief, recovery and reform... but he should have lowered (or left unchanged) the marginal tax rates to better keep money earned in the hands of people that would put it to the best use. Like the NRA, it is simply a facet of the New Deal that didn't work, as history has shown us quite clearly.
Why are you so quick to point to FDR's policies, but you've never responded to my questions about how you felt about Eisenhower's public works projects, 91% tax rates, and 17% GDP deficits when he WASN'T a war-time President? Was Ike's Presidency as much a failure as Roosevelt's? How much better would the American economy have been had he championed a top marginal rate of even 54% rather than 91%? Why should we all vilify FDR's New Deal programs when Ike increased SSI regulation and created the Cabinet seat for Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, which would oversee and promote every single surviving New Deal program still running (few though they were)? To suggest that he was simply "following his predecessor's lead" in continuing and promoting New Deal policies, and signing some very "New Deal-like" programs into law himself, would then mean that Reagan's refusal to continue the paradigm is far less meaningful than even I have credited him with, wouldn't it?
If Ike could see the benefit that the Interstate Highway System would have to the nation's economy and chose to okay the projects as Federal works to be funded, directed, and managed by the Federal government (meaning more money and bigger government), shouldn't I read your follow up post telling me how wrong he was for doing that? How is the money spent on the Interstates better than what was spent on the TVA, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate, or the national electric power grid? Ike had no more insight into the Soviet's plans to drop nukes on American cities than FDR did with the needs that the TVA would fulfill during WWII, so surely that isn't your response, right?
You know what, though? As much fun as I have sparring with you over this sort of debate, as long as you accuse me of contradictory logic while I accuse you of maintaining your double standard, we aren't going to get anywhere. So, whenever you feel you've had enough, we can let this go until such time as it rears its ugly head again and needs to get flogged into the dirt once more.
I find it unfortunate that you feel that the only time government has the authority to intervene in American economic affairs is when the nation has military personnel committed in combat situations, whether the situations are declared wars or not. There was very little shooting going on during the Reagan years, yet he deficit spent quite happily to help fix the economic crisis that the previous three Presidents had left him.
I have made the point quite clearly and loudly in the past that Reagan had the "formula" right, where FDR and the New Deal Congress had it wrong: Reagan cut taxes, but continued to spend into the red. FDR did raise taxes, substantially too (especially after 1938) and spent more money than he was taking in. This was a FLAW in the New Deal planning and execution that I have recognized and admitted to from the very beginning. It is why I can call myself (and Reagan) REAL Keynesian economic advocates, and why I don't think FDR was. So, please, for the love of all that is good and holy, stop saying that my opinions concerning New Deal's success or failure is contrary to my stated economic and fiscal opinions, because they are NOT. I have said all along that FDR should have spent the money to provide the relief, recovery and reform... but he should have lowered (or left unchanged) the marginal tax rates to better keep money earned in the hands of people that would put it to the best use. Like the NRA, it is simply a facet of the New Deal that didn't work, as history has shown us quite clearly.
Why are you so quick to point to FDR's policies, but you've never responded to my questions about how you felt about Eisenhower's public works projects, 91% tax rates, and 17% GDP deficits when he WASN'T a war-time President? Was Ike's Presidency as much a failure as Roosevelt's? How much better would the American economy have been had he championed a top marginal rate of even 54% rather than 91%? Why should we all vilify FDR's New Deal programs when Ike increased SSI regulation and created the Cabinet seat for Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, which would oversee and promote every single surviving New Deal program still running (few though they were)? To suggest that he was simply "following his predecessor's lead" in continuing and promoting New Deal policies, and signing some very "New Deal-like" programs into law himself, would then mean that Reagan's refusal to continue the paradigm is far less meaningful than even I have credited him with, wouldn't it?
If Ike could see the benefit that the Interstate Highway System would have to the nation's economy and chose to okay the projects as Federal works to be funded, directed, and managed by the Federal government (meaning more money and bigger government), shouldn't I read your follow up post telling me how wrong he was for doing that? How is the money spent on the Interstates better than what was spent on the TVA, Hoover Dam, Golden Gate, or the national electric power grid? Ike had no more insight into the Soviet's plans to drop nukes on American cities than FDR did with the needs that the TVA would fulfill during WWII, so surely that isn't your response, right?
You know what, though? As much fun as I have sparring with you over this sort of debate, as long as you accuse me of contradictory logic while I accuse you of maintaining your double standard, we aren't going to get anywhere. So, whenever you feel you've had enough, we can let this go until such time as it rears its ugly head again and needs to get flogged into the dirt once more.
Like an MC Escher painting ...
... this discussion is. You can get lost in it and not realize you've been at it for hours..
I'm going to make just a few points.
1.)If labels like "despot" are going to be tossed around willy-nilly at the whim of caustic emotional reactions to policy that conflicts with how we feel today, then who among our "greatest" Presidents is safe from such labels? Lincoln? Jefferson? Madison? Jackson? Reagan?
Clearly had you read my last without prior consumption of copious amounts of Guinness you would have noted that I never made the claim, "FDR was a despot." In fact I went painfully out of my way to put forth the interrogative without saying such. Reread the last few paragraphs of my last post if you doubt this (preferably with a clear head, ahem). I simply asked if FDR was the "closest" we ever got to seeing despotism in the US presidency, especially had he lived for years more. Lincoln's actions were a good example, but I am willing to make all kinds of exemptions (historically especially) during times of war. Lincoln's actions, were you to compare them to FDR at all, were more akin to the Japanese internment camps of the 40's, not New Deal.
At any rate, my point for asking is not in a vacuum and this was not some ideological, Glenn Beck informed monologue (by the way, do I accuse you guys of parroting a talking head when your points or ideology happen to sync up or parallel? I'll stop claiming you're simply nostalgic for the WPA as soon as you stop doing that buddy). FDR sought what none of his 30 predecessors sought. He believed what none of his 30 predecessors believed. He refused to honor the example set by George Washington - 2 terms and turn power over. And don't give me "crisis." Washington turned over power when they were begging him, literally, to stay, thinking he the only man possible to Shepard our new yet fledgling nation. It was thought, not in theory, but true fear, that the Republic would not survive were he to step down. Since then no matter the crisis or popularity, every single two term president (obviously, not assassinated) stepped down ... until FDR. So between FDR's clear antagonist view towards the constitution's "inadequacies" (read: it didn't include HIS view of inherent rights, the arrogance is staggering) AND the fact that he was the only THIRD TERM, and the only FOUR TERM president (whom was stopped from seeking a 5th term only by his own poor health) means I don't think it's "willy nilly" to ask, AND I STRESS ASK, if he was as close as this Republic ever saw to a despot? Jumping to Hitler and Stalin is rhetorical bomb throwing. I remember Jambo asking if a certain (her name escapes me) author claiming Bush met "the 10 criteria" for despotism had a point, and you didn't bat an eye. Sheeeesh.
2.) If it is okay to see the Feds spend and regulate with unabashed abandon during times of war, why is it wrong for them to do so during the single worst economic disaster in American history? The prospect of Americans dying at the hands of German or Japanese soldiers in 1942 was more real than the threat of people starving or freezing to death in 1932? Do you see the point I am making?
Yes. And here's my answer. The Constitution specifically provides "limited and enumerated powers" to the federal government, among them are national defense. In other words the need for government interventionism during times of war is clearly within the scope of of these powers - federal deficit spending in times of economic hardship is not.
And please, with the "official declaration of war", I never stated that, it's a silly point, we all know when we are "at war" whether congress has the spine to declare it or not.
You can say (as you did) that The Great Depression "was every bit as much" a threat, or a problem to the American people as WWII, but you'd be wrong (and I'm curious if after finishing The Pacific if Jambo agrees with you). You just are, Titus. Both in the direct comparisons (which I found surprising and smacked of a mind well hung over - sorry, but drought was not as lethal as the Japanese Imperial Fleet and their aims) and wrong in the "clear" responsibility of the government to interdict during times of economic hardship. One is clearly a power reserved to the federal government while the other is debatable (at best, in my opinion).
You will undoubtedly counter with "promote the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility." At which point you and I are entering into an argument as old as the Republic herself. And I am completely comfortable with simply leaving it at diverging personal philosophies on what that phrase means and what government's responsibility to the citizenry during times of economic crisis is (although if you feel New Deal justified under the premise of government's inherent responsibility to intercede during economic crisis, on the level of war making, then I'm less likely to listen to you bitch about the bail outs).
I will note this however: the federal government's interdiction & deficit spending in order to properly wage war is not something that is in question. That's not something any of us within this nation question or squabble over. The justification of the wars themselves are fought over to be sure, but whose responsibility it is to wage them is not at issue, even by Obama accolades. Whereas your assertion that the feds have every bit the duty to intercede (in New Deal fashion or otherwise) as a response to economic crisis is very much in question. It is hottly debated, as it is here. Of the two posits, mine is not the one with room for ambiguity.
Which leads me finally to this ...
I have looked at your cyclical chart. I have read your posts. Investigated New Deal policy and the economic indicators of the time period. If I remember correctly from that chart only one of all the downturns lasted as long, (in fact longer) as the Great Depression. And as you can not identify what about New Deal staved off future depressions, or if it was New Deal at all, then I find it reasonable to posit that were an opposite course plotted we would have recovered quicker. And you're right, I'm arguing a negative. I will hasten to add though that we all here seem to be of the mindset that lower taxes and less government interdiction are the fastest, clearest, most obvious path to boom times, and out of national economic hardship. So I can only assume this was as true in 1930 as it was in 1962 (Kennedy cuts); 1983 (Reagan); and 2000 (Bush cuts). I just don't see justification for the opposite working "this one time", as if the 30's were some special bubble in time that required activist public solutions to save the private sector (no more then I saw it necessary or justified under the Bush/Obama bailouts). I do think that FDR, as with Bush (and perhaps Obama), truly wanted to lessen people's pain. And as such decided upon a "pain killer course." They applied their version of a topical analgesic to the economy in hopes that it would soften the blow, ease the fall, and tied people over until a real, full (read: not artificial/government propped) recovery could be had. I'm not questioning their motives. I'm simply saying such a course is doomed to hinder such a recovery rather then speed it along. Rather then take a horrific 2 to 3 years they are opting (meaning to or not) for a very bad 10. In these cycles I submit we should take our lumps, and rip the bandaid off. Rather then have government give us a Loritab at each centimeter's pull of the strip. I submit this both on principle regarding the proper role of government in the individuals life, and in real world, practical results - it just works better. And even while agreeing with me on principle, you still contend that New Deal was not just an attempt at a pain killer, that it was in fact sound, effective economic policy towards aiding our national recovery. That high taxes and government interdiction in this one special moment in economic suspended animation did not slow the private recovery, but aided it (rather then seeing New Deal for what it was - an earnest but misguided attempt at "pain relief" whose inherent nature is prohibitive to a free market recovery). That it "somehow", some way prevented a depression for the next 75 years. Holding those 2 positions simultaneously (agreeing on basic economic principle with me yet championing New Deal as sound economic recovery policy) is simply untenable in my opinion.
I'm going to make just a few points.
1.)If labels like "despot" are going to be tossed around willy-nilly at the whim of caustic emotional reactions to policy that conflicts with how we feel today, then who among our "greatest" Presidents is safe from such labels? Lincoln? Jefferson? Madison? Jackson? Reagan?
Clearly had you read my last without prior consumption of copious amounts of Guinness you would have noted that I never made the claim, "FDR was a despot." In fact I went painfully out of my way to put forth the interrogative without saying such. Reread the last few paragraphs of my last post if you doubt this (preferably with a clear head, ahem). I simply asked if FDR was the "closest" we ever got to seeing despotism in the US presidency, especially had he lived for years more. Lincoln's actions were a good example, but I am willing to make all kinds of exemptions (historically especially) during times of war. Lincoln's actions, were you to compare them to FDR at all, were more akin to the Japanese internment camps of the 40's, not New Deal.
At any rate, my point for asking is not in a vacuum and this was not some ideological, Glenn Beck informed monologue (by the way, do I accuse you guys of parroting a talking head when your points or ideology happen to sync up or parallel? I'll stop claiming you're simply nostalgic for the WPA as soon as you stop doing that buddy). FDR sought what none of his 30 predecessors sought. He believed what none of his 30 predecessors believed. He refused to honor the example set by George Washington - 2 terms and turn power over. And don't give me "crisis." Washington turned over power when they were begging him, literally, to stay, thinking he the only man possible to Shepard our new yet fledgling nation. It was thought, not in theory, but true fear, that the Republic would not survive were he to step down. Since then no matter the crisis or popularity, every single two term president (obviously, not assassinated) stepped down ... until FDR. So between FDR's clear antagonist view towards the constitution's "inadequacies" (read: it didn't include HIS view of inherent rights, the arrogance is staggering) AND the fact that he was the only THIRD TERM, and the only FOUR TERM president (whom was stopped from seeking a 5th term only by his own poor health) means I don't think it's "willy nilly" to ask, AND I STRESS ASK, if he was as close as this Republic ever saw to a despot? Jumping to Hitler and Stalin is rhetorical bomb throwing. I remember Jambo asking if a certain (her name escapes me) author claiming Bush met "the 10 criteria" for despotism had a point, and you didn't bat an eye. Sheeeesh.
2.) If it is okay to see the Feds spend and regulate with unabashed abandon during times of war, why is it wrong for them to do so during the single worst economic disaster in American history? The prospect of Americans dying at the hands of German or Japanese soldiers in 1942 was more real than the threat of people starving or freezing to death in 1932? Do you see the point I am making?
Yes. And here's my answer. The Constitution specifically provides "limited and enumerated powers" to the federal government, among them are national defense. In other words the need for government interventionism during times of war is clearly within the scope of of these powers - federal deficit spending in times of economic hardship is not.
And please, with the "official declaration of war", I never stated that, it's a silly point, we all know when we are "at war" whether congress has the spine to declare it or not.
You can say (as you did) that The Great Depression "was every bit as much" a threat, or a problem to the American people as WWII, but you'd be wrong (and I'm curious if after finishing The Pacific if Jambo agrees with you). You just are, Titus. Both in the direct comparisons (which I found surprising and smacked of a mind well hung over - sorry, but drought was not as lethal as the Japanese Imperial Fleet and their aims) and wrong in the "clear" responsibility of the government to interdict during times of economic hardship. One is clearly a power reserved to the federal government while the other is debatable (at best, in my opinion).
You will undoubtedly counter with "promote the general welfare and ensure domestic tranquility." At which point you and I are entering into an argument as old as the Republic herself. And I am completely comfortable with simply leaving it at diverging personal philosophies on what that phrase means and what government's responsibility to the citizenry during times of economic crisis is (although if you feel New Deal justified under the premise of government's inherent responsibility to intercede during economic crisis, on the level of war making, then I'm less likely to listen to you bitch about the bail outs).
I will note this however: the federal government's interdiction & deficit spending in order to properly wage war is not something that is in question. That's not something any of us within this nation question or squabble over. The justification of the wars themselves are fought over to be sure, but whose responsibility it is to wage them is not at issue, even by Obama accolades. Whereas your assertion that the feds have every bit the duty to intercede (in New Deal fashion or otherwise) as a response to economic crisis is very much in question. It is hottly debated, as it is here. Of the two posits, mine is not the one with room for ambiguity.
Which leads me finally to this ...
I have looked at your cyclical chart. I have read your posts. Investigated New Deal policy and the economic indicators of the time period. If I remember correctly from that chart only one of all the downturns lasted as long, (in fact longer) as the Great Depression. And as you can not identify what about New Deal staved off future depressions, or if it was New Deal at all, then I find it reasonable to posit that were an opposite course plotted we would have recovered quicker. And you're right, I'm arguing a negative. I will hasten to add though that we all here seem to be of the mindset that lower taxes and less government interdiction are the fastest, clearest, most obvious path to boom times, and out of national economic hardship. So I can only assume this was as true in 1930 as it was in 1962 (Kennedy cuts); 1983 (Reagan); and 2000 (Bush cuts). I just don't see justification for the opposite working "this one time", as if the 30's were some special bubble in time that required activist public solutions to save the private sector (no more then I saw it necessary or justified under the Bush/Obama bailouts). I do think that FDR, as with Bush (and perhaps Obama), truly wanted to lessen people's pain. And as such decided upon a "pain killer course." They applied their version of a topical analgesic to the economy in hopes that it would soften the blow, ease the fall, and tied people over until a real, full (read: not artificial/government propped) recovery could be had. I'm not questioning their motives. I'm simply saying such a course is doomed to hinder such a recovery rather then speed it along. Rather then take a horrific 2 to 3 years they are opting (meaning to or not) for a very bad 10. In these cycles I submit we should take our lumps, and rip the bandaid off. Rather then have government give us a Loritab at each centimeter's pull of the strip. I submit this both on principle regarding the proper role of government in the individuals life, and in real world, practical results - it just works better. And even while agreeing with me on principle, you still contend that New Deal was not just an attempt at a pain killer, that it was in fact sound, effective economic policy towards aiding our national recovery. That high taxes and government interdiction in this one special moment in economic suspended animation did not slow the private recovery, but aided it (rather then seeing New Deal for what it was - an earnest but misguided attempt at "pain relief" whose inherent nature is prohibitive to a free market recovery). That it "somehow", some way prevented a depression for the next 75 years. Holding those 2 positions simultaneously (agreeing on basic economic principle with me yet championing New Deal as sound economic recovery policy) is simply untenable in my opinion.
I'm feeling better now...
So I thought I'd make one or two clarifications about the current discussion.
Ryan keeps saying that reduced spending (smaller government) is a must EXCEPT in times of war. He uses our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, and also includes the Cold War (at least from 1981 to 1989) as another... yet none of these are declared "wars" as defined by the Constitution, are they? So, the last time the US could deficit spend, according to the letter of "Ryan's Rules" for sound fiscal policy was prior to Aug, 1945... because that was the last time we were actually fighting a declared war.
I agree with Ryan that the wars being fought now, and including the Cold War and all its "hot" issues like Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Beirut, etc, are legitimate crisis points in American history and needed to be confronted with the full weight of what the American society could bring to bear to resolve them. I do NOT feel that a formal declaration of war is the ONLY means by which America should be able to defend her interests abroad.
"Defending her interests abroad" is, however, only part of the problem. We are also expected to defend and protect the interests of the United States "at home", which I take to mean domestically. Not every domestic threat is a bomb-throwing terrorist... ensuring that our society continues to be able to function in times of natural disaster, plague, or economic crisis is every bit as important as being able to repel invaders from our shores and frontiers... and I would expect the same level of commitment and effort be expended to successfully conclude such a crisis.
Ryan maintains that the level of intervention taken by the New Deal policies of FDR were unprecedented and unnecessary. I agree 100% that they were unprecedented, because the crisis was more than anything we had ever seen before... but if THAT is true, then the claim that they efforts were "unnecessary" must be false, right? If the crisis constituted a threat to American society as a whole, and the lives and safety of Americans were at risk, how can that not constitute a threat that could (at the very least) warrant some unprecedented action by the Federal government?
The unprecedented actions taken by Thomas Jefferson in 1803 when he spent, without authorization from Congress, the equivalent of three years of domestic budgetary expenses to purchase all French Imperial territory in North America... does that constitute a "despotic" act by Jefferson? Or was he acting outside his enumerated powers as President, in the best interests of the country as he saw them AT THE TIME?
When Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus after the commencement of hostilities in 1861 and imprisoned most of the Maryland legislative assembly to prevent them from voting for secession, was he following Constitutional authority? Where was the precedent he was following when he imprisoned 12,000 "suspects" of treason with no formal charges or trials? Was this "despotism" or was this the actions of a President doing whatever he felt necessary to protect and defend the United States in the time of a national crisis?
Let's pretend that the 22nd Amendment is never written, and Ronald Wilson Reagan faces the prospect of running for a third term in 1988... I am convinced he could have won (rather easily, too). Would the Ryan-of-today take that to mean he was hoping to achieve "despotic authority" and to rewrite our governmental norms, or could he have only wanted to finish what he felt still needed to be done to set the country on the path away from "New Deal" policies and back to "real conservatism"?
My point is simply that you have chosen to look at FDR as a "singular" instance in American history, and I say that is something that doesn't actually exist. No President worth the time to study hasn't made some precedent-setting policy or action while in office, and all that have faced a national crisis have had to make tough choices or take tough actions. This does not mean they are anti-American tyrants... they were only doing the job they felt they were elected to do.
If we can't demonize Jefferson or Lincoln for what they did as President, and we admit that we might have supported a three-term Presidency for someone we like but oppose it for someone we don't, doesn't that indicate that there might just be a touch of hypocrisy in our attitudes about FDR and the New Deal effort?
Ryan keeps saying that reduced spending (smaller government) is a must EXCEPT in times of war. He uses our current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as examples, and also includes the Cold War (at least from 1981 to 1989) as another... yet none of these are declared "wars" as defined by the Constitution, are they? So, the last time the US could deficit spend, according to the letter of "Ryan's Rules" for sound fiscal policy was prior to Aug, 1945... because that was the last time we were actually fighting a declared war.
I agree with Ryan that the wars being fought now, and including the Cold War and all its "hot" issues like Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Beirut, etc, are legitimate crisis points in American history and needed to be confronted with the full weight of what the American society could bring to bear to resolve them. I do NOT feel that a formal declaration of war is the ONLY means by which America should be able to defend her interests abroad.
"Defending her interests abroad" is, however, only part of the problem. We are also expected to defend and protect the interests of the United States "at home", which I take to mean domestically. Not every domestic threat is a bomb-throwing terrorist... ensuring that our society continues to be able to function in times of natural disaster, plague, or economic crisis is every bit as important as being able to repel invaders from our shores and frontiers... and I would expect the same level of commitment and effort be expended to successfully conclude such a crisis.
Ryan maintains that the level of intervention taken by the New Deal policies of FDR were unprecedented and unnecessary. I agree 100% that they were unprecedented, because the crisis was more than anything we had ever seen before... but if THAT is true, then the claim that they efforts were "unnecessary" must be false, right? If the crisis constituted a threat to American society as a whole, and the lives and safety of Americans were at risk, how can that not constitute a threat that could (at the very least) warrant some unprecedented action by the Federal government?
The unprecedented actions taken by Thomas Jefferson in 1803 when he spent, without authorization from Congress, the equivalent of three years of domestic budgetary expenses to purchase all French Imperial territory in North America... does that constitute a "despotic" act by Jefferson? Or was he acting outside his enumerated powers as President, in the best interests of the country as he saw them AT THE TIME?
When Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus after the commencement of hostilities in 1861 and imprisoned most of the Maryland legislative assembly to prevent them from voting for secession, was he following Constitutional authority? Where was the precedent he was following when he imprisoned 12,000 "suspects" of treason with no formal charges or trials? Was this "despotism" or was this the actions of a President doing whatever he felt necessary to protect and defend the United States in the time of a national crisis?
Let's pretend that the 22nd Amendment is never written, and Ronald Wilson Reagan faces the prospect of running for a third term in 1988... I am convinced he could have won (rather easily, too). Would the Ryan-of-today take that to mean he was hoping to achieve "despotic authority" and to rewrite our governmental norms, or could he have only wanted to finish what he felt still needed to be done to set the country on the path away from "New Deal" policies and back to "real conservatism"?
My point is simply that you have chosen to look at FDR as a "singular" instance in American history, and I say that is something that doesn't actually exist. No President worth the time to study hasn't made some precedent-setting policy or action while in office, and all that have faced a national crisis have had to make tough choices or take tough actions. This does not mean they are anti-American tyrants... they were only doing the job they felt they were elected to do.
If we can't demonize Jefferson or Lincoln for what they did as President, and we admit that we might have supported a three-term Presidency for someone we like but oppose it for someone we don't, doesn't that indicate that there might just be a touch of hypocrisy in our attitudes about FDR and the New Deal effort?
I'll have to go slow here...
... and that isn't a slam on Ryan. I'm grossly hung over and sleep-deprived, with a 7-year-old chattering away next to me and the rest of the house sleeping peacefully. In other words, I'm not at my best right this minute.
First of all, to address the "Bund Fact" (I like that tag... very nice) concerning my link to Harding's tariff mistakes. I was NOT referring to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, I was referring to the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922, which Harding championed and signed into law as a means to maintain revenue after his 1921 tax cuts to the top marginal rates (which isn't entirely fair... he did cut taxes across the board, but the biggest cuts went to the top 20% of earners, but I digress). The GOP as a whole was very tariff-happy in those days, and it is another good indicator that Reagan understood what WORKED from that period and what didn't in that he was a supporter of free trade over protectionist tariffs. Had you followed the provided link, you'd have seen exactly what I was referring to. So, Bund Fact established, yes?
You claim I have reversed or altered my argument, and I assert clearly and loudly that I have not. You base your claim on your assumptions that I am making my case a priori or without empirical evidence. I say that my argument is a posteriori, or based on the entirely empirical fact that all evidence supports my claim. My a posterirori is as follows:
My admitting that I can't cite the specific chapter and verse of American legal code which regulates the factors that have helped avoid a repeat of the "GD" (or any other depression) in the last 75 years doesn't mean anything other than I'm not an expert in macroeconomics. You, on the other hand, have often explained that the New Deal prolonged the misery and suffering of the depression, but cannot offer proof or empirical evidence because you cannot prove a negative. That is the classic definition of an a priori argument... you are making an absolute claim with absolutely no means to absolutely prove the point.
I do not make the case that New Deal "worked" because we avoided another depression, but it is a contributing factor in my claim that some aspects of New Deal did work, and were, in fact, necessary to provide a more economically secure future for the country. It is NOT NOW, nor has it ever been, my only piece of evidence to support this position. It is simply the one you focus on the most. In my many attempts to show you (just you, no one else) why I think the way I do, I am forced over and over again to make my case in the most unambiguous way I can. I admit that it is NOT a valid argument to make, but it is plain, simple and one that I would hope could be understood for what it is... an expedient short-cut used to avoid tedious detail in a very broad and usually quite general argument.
Your posit that greater and more intricate global economic ties has given us a more secure and broad support base for our national economic machine is perfectly valid, and is undoubtedly a large piece of the puzzle... but it doesn't explain why economic crisis in other parts of the world have also NOT caused us to cycle down. Japan has had four major depressions since 1955, and the UK has had two since the end of WWII... we have had none. All three use very similar free market models, but only OURS has been depression free.
I can't give you the absolute reasons because I don't know them... but not because they don't exist at all. Perhaps it is the strength of our monetary standard and the regulation of the Federal Reserve that has kept the dollar so strong while the Yen has stagnated at times. Perhaps it is the greater freedom our markets enjoy that has kept them ticking along while the London Exchanges have crashed under the weight of greater socialist regulation. I don't know, but both the strength of our monetary standard and the very limited regulation in our exchange markets can be DIRECTLY credited to the "New Deal" and the efforts of those men who worked to make sure we never saw another "GD".
Another point you make is that Hoover wasn't the "conservative" I made him out to be, so how could FDR be the success I make him out to be? Again, I ask why you are giving so much credit to FDR and so much blame to Hoover?
Yes, Hoover signed into law the tariffs and spending bills that brought us Smoot-Hawley and the Hoover Dam, but I am CONVINCED that Hoover hated the idea public works, and only signed the bill into law because 1) he was facing the prospect of reelection in 1932 and 2) he realized the scope of the disaster was going to call for SOME sort of intervention, if only to prevent the DEATHS of Americans who simply were unable to feed and shelter themselves through no fault of their own. Hoover worked for Harding, and they shared many similar beliefs (the benefit of tariffs for one), and while I admit that Hoover did actually advocate intervention in 1921, I think he felt that Harding had proved the error in that process and resisted it for the first 30 months of the "GD", hoping the non-interventionist policies would turn things around (which they did not). Obviously, Hoover didn't TELL me this, so I have no direct evidence that this is how his thoughts were running... but it is the most plausible answer to the question of WHY that I can imagine. That does not make my "guess" less valid or plausible... it only means it remains a theory rather than a fact.
Again, I don't DENY that FDR made mistakes and that not all of New Deal was good or necessary, but as you repeatedly point out in your arguments, it was the "reshaping of the American economy" brought about by the world war we were fighting that finally, once and for all, fixed all that had broken in 1929. Who paid for that reshaping? Who did the reshaping? Who mandated that remodelling of our infrastructure, means of manufacturing and production and distribution? Who dictated the manner in which it would be accomplished?
The Federal Government of the United States of America. Who financed that effort? The American tax payer (in one way or another).
If it is okay to see the Feds spend and regulate with unabashed abandon during times of war, why is it wrong for them to do so during the single worst economic disaster in American history? The prospect of Americans dying at the hands of German or Japanese soldiers in 1942 was more real than the threat of people starving or freezing to death in 1932? Do you see the point I am making? Please point out to me another economic disaster (peacetime or otherwise) of the same scope and scale as the "GD", and how alternative Federal handling of the issues resulted in more satisfactory results than we saw with the New Deal.
I'm not debating what was said in the SotU address you quoted... it is a telling insight into what FDR seems to have felt the role of government was in American society, and I do not agree that his vision is the best vision for America. I do think it was an extension of his plainly expressed belief in the "Four Freedoms" which he first presented in his 1941 SotU address. The last of these four freedoms are Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. I have no problem expressing the firmest belief in these freedoms, but I don't think they are something the Federal government MUST provide to us. Instead it is the role of government to ensure that all of us have the same opportunity to secure these freedoms for ourselves, and that in times of crisis (be it war, disaster or domestic violence), the means to protect and defend these freedoms is provided and promoted by the government for the people.
I see the New Deal, as a whole and complete effort, as one example of how this was done and mistakes or failures that might have occurred during this effort can be explained and understood as the result of never having attempted it before. If you want to continue to argue the viability or legality of any specific program or policy, I will gladly continue this debate as such. However, I simply cannot bring myself to argue for or against the assumed intentions of a man that has been dead for 65 years, or the success or failure of the New Deal effort of the entire Federal government based on the "what if" scenarios Glenn Beck keeps coughing up on his radio and TV shows.
FDR was not a despot. Had he been, he could have made the "changes" to American government that he both openly admitted to wanting to make, and those that you think he intended or wished to make. When his policies and programs were shown to be unconstitutional, they were thrown out with the trash, just like our system was designed to do. FDR was elected (four times) to do a job he promised to do... relief, recovery and reform. I contend that he accomplished this promise to the best of his ability, with the good of the nation first in his mind, and NOT in an attempt to remake America into his personal ideal.
Hitler was a despot. Stalin was a despot. Mussolini, Franco, Codreanu, Tito, Tojo... all despots contemporary with FDR, and not ONE of them was willing to face the prospect of a free and democratic election or work in conjunction with a legislative, representative body the way FDR was at every step of the way during his tenure as CIC.
If labels like "despot" are going to be tossed around willy-nilly at the whim of caustic emotional reactions to policy that conflicts with how we feel today, then who among our "greatest" Presidents is safe from such labels? Lincoln? Jefferson? Madison? Jackson? Reagan?
I'd like you to stop pointing at my assumed "nostalgic" view of FDR when I have so plainly and painfully made the effort to be fair and objective when discussing such Presidents as Reagan or Bush, whom I have numerous "issues" with when it comes to policy and agenda. To continue to do so is unfair to me and makes you look petty.
First of all, to address the "Bund Fact" (I like that tag... very nice) concerning my link to Harding's tariff mistakes. I was NOT referring to the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, I was referring to the Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922, which Harding championed and signed into law as a means to maintain revenue after his 1921 tax cuts to the top marginal rates (which isn't entirely fair... he did cut taxes across the board, but the biggest cuts went to the top 20% of earners, but I digress). The GOP as a whole was very tariff-happy in those days, and it is another good indicator that Reagan understood what WORKED from that period and what didn't in that he was a supporter of free trade over protectionist tariffs. Had you followed the provided link, you'd have seen exactly what I was referring to. So, Bund Fact established, yes?
You claim I have reversed or altered my argument, and I assert clearly and loudly that I have not. You base your claim on your assumptions that I am making my case a priori or without empirical evidence. I say that my argument is a posteriori, or based on the entirely empirical fact that all evidence supports my claim. My a posterirori is as follows:
My admitting that I can't cite the specific chapter and verse of American legal code which regulates the factors that have helped avoid a repeat of the "GD" (or any other depression) in the last 75 years doesn't mean anything other than I'm not an expert in macroeconomics. You, on the other hand, have often explained that the New Deal prolonged the misery and suffering of the depression, but cannot offer proof or empirical evidence because you cannot prove a negative. That is the classic definition of an a priori argument... you are making an absolute claim with absolutely no means to absolutely prove the point.
I do not make the case that New Deal "worked" because we avoided another depression, but it is a contributing factor in my claim that some aspects of New Deal did work, and were, in fact, necessary to provide a more economically secure future for the country. It is NOT NOW, nor has it ever been, my only piece of evidence to support this position. It is simply the one you focus on the most. In my many attempts to show you (just you, no one else) why I think the way I do, I am forced over and over again to make my case in the most unambiguous way I can. I admit that it is NOT a valid argument to make, but it is plain, simple and one that I would hope could be understood for what it is... an expedient short-cut used to avoid tedious detail in a very broad and usually quite general argument.
Your posit that greater and more intricate global economic ties has given us a more secure and broad support base for our national economic machine is perfectly valid, and is undoubtedly a large piece of the puzzle... but it doesn't explain why economic crisis in other parts of the world have also NOT caused us to cycle down. Japan has had four major depressions since 1955, and the UK has had two since the end of WWII... we have had none. All three use very similar free market models, but only OURS has been depression free.
I can't give you the absolute reasons because I don't know them... but not because they don't exist at all. Perhaps it is the strength of our monetary standard and the regulation of the Federal Reserve that has kept the dollar so strong while the Yen has stagnated at times. Perhaps it is the greater freedom our markets enjoy that has kept them ticking along while the London Exchanges have crashed under the weight of greater socialist regulation. I don't know, but both the strength of our monetary standard and the very limited regulation in our exchange markets can be DIRECTLY credited to the "New Deal" and the efforts of those men who worked to make sure we never saw another "GD".
Another point you make is that Hoover wasn't the "conservative" I made him out to be, so how could FDR be the success I make him out to be? Again, I ask why you are giving so much credit to FDR and so much blame to Hoover?
Yes, Hoover signed into law the tariffs and spending bills that brought us Smoot-Hawley and the Hoover Dam, but I am CONVINCED that Hoover hated the idea public works, and only signed the bill into law because 1) he was facing the prospect of reelection in 1932 and 2) he realized the scope of the disaster was going to call for SOME sort of intervention, if only to prevent the DEATHS of Americans who simply were unable to feed and shelter themselves through no fault of their own. Hoover worked for Harding, and they shared many similar beliefs (the benefit of tariffs for one), and while I admit that Hoover did actually advocate intervention in 1921, I think he felt that Harding had proved the error in that process and resisted it for the first 30 months of the "GD", hoping the non-interventionist policies would turn things around (which they did not). Obviously, Hoover didn't TELL me this, so I have no direct evidence that this is how his thoughts were running... but it is the most plausible answer to the question of WHY that I can imagine. That does not make my "guess" less valid or plausible... it only means it remains a theory rather than a fact.
Again, I don't DENY that FDR made mistakes and that not all of New Deal was good or necessary, but as you repeatedly point out in your arguments, it was the "reshaping of the American economy" brought about by the world war we were fighting that finally, once and for all, fixed all that had broken in 1929. Who paid for that reshaping? Who did the reshaping? Who mandated that remodelling of our infrastructure, means of manufacturing and production and distribution? Who dictated the manner in which it would be accomplished?
The Federal Government of the United States of America. Who financed that effort? The American tax payer (in one way or another).
If it is okay to see the Feds spend and regulate with unabashed abandon during times of war, why is it wrong for them to do so during the single worst economic disaster in American history? The prospect of Americans dying at the hands of German or Japanese soldiers in 1942 was more real than the threat of people starving or freezing to death in 1932? Do you see the point I am making? Please point out to me another economic disaster (peacetime or otherwise) of the same scope and scale as the "GD", and how alternative Federal handling of the issues resulted in more satisfactory results than we saw with the New Deal.
I'm not debating what was said in the SotU address you quoted... it is a telling insight into what FDR seems to have felt the role of government was in American society, and I do not agree that his vision is the best vision for America. I do think it was an extension of his plainly expressed belief in the "Four Freedoms" which he first presented in his 1941 SotU address. The last of these four freedoms are Freedom from Want and Freedom from Fear. I have no problem expressing the firmest belief in these freedoms, but I don't think they are something the Federal government MUST provide to us. Instead it is the role of government to ensure that all of us have the same opportunity to secure these freedoms for ourselves, and that in times of crisis (be it war, disaster or domestic violence), the means to protect and defend these freedoms is provided and promoted by the government for the people.
I see the New Deal, as a whole and complete effort, as one example of how this was done and mistakes or failures that might have occurred during this effort can be explained and understood as the result of never having attempted it before. If you want to continue to argue the viability or legality of any specific program or policy, I will gladly continue this debate as such. However, I simply cannot bring myself to argue for or against the assumed intentions of a man that has been dead for 65 years, or the success or failure of the New Deal effort of the entire Federal government based on the "what if" scenarios Glenn Beck keeps coughing up on his radio and TV shows.
FDR was not a despot. Had he been, he could have made the "changes" to American government that he both openly admitted to wanting to make, and those that you think he intended or wished to make. When his policies and programs were shown to be unconstitutional, they were thrown out with the trash, just like our system was designed to do. FDR was elected (four times) to do a job he promised to do... relief, recovery and reform. I contend that he accomplished this promise to the best of his ability, with the good of the nation first in his mind, and NOT in an attempt to remake America into his personal ideal.
Hitler was a despot. Stalin was a despot. Mussolini, Franco, Codreanu, Tito, Tojo... all despots contemporary with FDR, and not ONE of them was willing to face the prospect of a free and democratic election or work in conjunction with a legislative, representative body the way FDR was at every step of the way during his tenure as CIC.
If labels like "despot" are going to be tossed around willy-nilly at the whim of caustic emotional reactions to policy that conflicts with how we feel today, then who among our "greatest" Presidents is safe from such labels? Lincoln? Jefferson? Madison? Jackson? Reagan?
I'd like you to stop pointing at my assumed "nostalgic" view of FDR when I have so plainly and painfully made the effort to be fair and objective when discussing such Presidents as Reagan or Bush, whom I have numerous "issues" with when it comes to policy and agenda. To continue to do so is unfair to me and makes you look petty.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Stunning!
I'll get to what I found stunning in just a moment. First, I want to address something before it becomes "Bund fact" or something to that effect. You wrote:
I would make my own assertion, though, that while the "hands off" policies of Harding did nothing to prolong the problem, they also did nothing to prevent the problem from happening again. In fact, I think a good case can be made that, in the government's attempt to regain revenue lost in the tax cuts of 1920-1921, their implementation of tariff legislation not only did nothing to fix short-term problems but directly contributed to the disaster that was waiting in 1929.
First off, the wealth of our nation is not a finite pie in terms of raising tax revenue. You can lower taxes and raise revenue to the Treasury, as did Reagan, so tariffs or any other form of taxation should not be seen as "recovering lost revenue" due to tax cuts. It's a fundamental misperception on how our economy works. Now, Perhaps I'm wrong but the tariff I assume you're talking about is Smoot-Hawely. And yes it did directly contribute the woes of the Great Depression (hence forth summarized as "GD"), but it was signed into law the summer of 1930. It didn't contribute to the coming 29' crash. Hoover was attempting, misguidedly so, to stave off unemployment, post crash, by "protecting" American jobs. It made things worse, much much worse. This is why I find folly in the argument, "we tried laizze faire as a response to the GD, it didn't work." We did not. Hoover implemented public works (Hoover Dam) and higher taxes (the tariff for starters) as a response. FDR then came in and amped such efforts up to unprecedented levels. In other words Hoover's response was "FDR light." Tariffs and public works certainly aren't my definition of "hands off" nor "conservatism."
Now, to what I found stunning in your response ...
I have always contended that business was cyclical. Natural highs and lows (although I was unaware of the specific time table in your chart, but since its' acceptance it has only served to bolster my case, in my opinion). I contend that in times of economic crisis the fundamentals of lower taxes, less regulation, less spending (on behalf of govt) is the clear path out. And as such, New Deal, in its various incarnations not only did not solve the problems of the GD, but deepened them (by the way, you basically agree that this is the formulae for a path out but in this one instance of New Deal contend the opposite worked & I still don't know how you reconcile holding those 2 opinions simultaneously, but I digress ...).
We then go on to disagree about the numbers of the 1930's; what they portend; what the Roosevelt Recession revealed; the Constitutionality of various programs; the wisdom or lack thereof of SSI, and so on. And all that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree about such a mammoth time on our nation's history. But then you routinely assert something, and in such an impassioned tone, that I have taken it to represent the back bone of your argument, in that its' what you always go back to as your trump card (as you see it). And it is this: New Deal clearly worked because we haven't had a depression since, (later adding) after suffering them every decade since our founding."
So finally I said, ok, how? Chronological correlation does NOT denote causation I said. So I asked, what was it about New Deal that staved off all future depressions through to this this very moment in time. What about it stopped cold a ten year cycle of the previous 150+? Now bare in mind, this has become your proverbial "Ace in the hole" argument, as I have taken its' meaning. Yet here was your answer: "something." So as not to take it out of context let me display the statement in its' entirety:
"To argue that there is no difference between the economic climate before 1929 and that which came after is simply wrong. If you do even a little hunting, you can find that we suffered a depressed economy (rather than simply a recessed economy) at least once every 10 years since 1797... but haven't had even ONE since 1933 (the end of the '29 depression). Recessions yes, depressions no. Something in our regulation and control of market factors changed between 1928 and 1934 that has allowed the markets to continue to cycle, but without the extremes of scale ..."
Now I read on, expecting to find what that "something" was. But I instead was stunned by this:
"I do not even claim that it was "New Deal" that brought this change... only that it happened somewhere inside of the historical period marked by the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt ... "
"As already stated, I can't point to any ONE item on the list of New Deal programs or policies that fixed the "depression-boom" cycle (I'm using very general terms here... I don't contend that the cycle was ever broken, you understand). I am simply saying that something at a regulation-level has allowed our economy to continue to grow at a steady, even pace over the last 75 years without ever falling into a "depression" (again, in the technical sense of the term), and with recessions only lasting, on average, less than 24 months (until the current one, that is). Very little of the New Deal survived the end of WWII... as you pointed out... but NOT because they were overturned by the SCOTUS or later administrations. They were intended to be temporary measures, with limited scope and duration, as part of the three-step New Deal promise of "relief, recovery and reform."
You even seemingly suggested that perhaps the GOP was responsible for this "something." Well hells bells Titus, this isn't what you've been arguing. You didn't differentiate that "something" happened during the tenure of Roosevelt that forever changed our nation's 10 year depression cycle. You stated quite clearly in the most unambiguous terms, "New Deal worked because we haven't suffered a depression since." Not that "SOMETHING HAPPENED." For the love of Pete, how would that argument go over were I to champion the Reagan era? Many people have tried to convince me that Gorbachev was the saviour, that it was he that freed the peoples of the USSR and brought down the Soviet Empire. Would a competent response to this revisionist tripe about the old line commie be, "Reagan won it." My adversary asks, "how?" I say, "well, something happened during the 80's, so Reagan policy must have been responsible." WHAT??? Until this post of yours your posit wasn't that there existed a chronological coincidence, but rather a founding tenant, a leg in the stool you sat upon to champion New Deal was that it was New Deal itself that staved off future depressions, and thus it must have worked. How many thousands of times have you said as much? Now it's "something?" And perhaps not even FDR nor New Deal, now it's "something?"
May I posit something? You have no freaking idea why we haven't suffered a depression since, at least not at the time of your post, otherwise you would have stated such.
And look, I'm not knocking you for not knowing every intricacy of the world's most dynamic economy and the reasons we have not suffered a depression since WWII. If I had to reason such an answer off the top of my head I would assert that the globalization of the world's economies, the melding as it were, has had much to do with it. The "Mutually Assured Economic Destruction" as posited post WWII so as to prevent the world's armies from going to war has connected us in such a way that preventing any of the world's major economies from going into free fall has become defacto policy for 1st world nations (see the Greece bailout, for example).
To be honest I was set to counter your idea that New Deal was responsible for preventing future depressions by noting that most of New Deal didn't survive WWII, that they were temporary (most of them) programs in nature, so, "how could temporary programs protect the nation for 70 years?" was to be my point. Then I read your post and not only did you state such yourself, you flat out reverse your claim, and pre-concede that neither New Deal nor FDR may be responsible for staving off pre 1929 cycles of actual depressions these last 70 years. Like I said, I find this stunning since you have routinely used such a claim as one of the premier legs of defense in the New Deal stool.
Again, I interpret the Roosevelt Recession differently then you. FDR wasn't in a time of war, meaning a "healthy" economy should have not gone into spasms at the idea of a balanced budget. In fact a balanced federal budget typically has the opposite effect. The exception I would note is times of war - which is exactly how Reagan saw the US during his tenure. You are just flat wrong when you say he did not publicly advocate a balanced budget. He was supremely behind this (in fact if I remember correctly a balanced budget amendment originated with his "revolution"). His exception was times of war, such as the Cold War, which was as real as any in his view. In times of peace a balanced federal budget should not just be palatable to the private market, but welcomed.
LET ME SUMMARIZE: my interpretation of the 37'-38' recession is simply this - once FDR put the economy on government life support there was no clear path off without sending the economy into shock, which is why you don't do it in the first place. If New Deal was meant to be temporary (& work), then 7 years (roughly) after its original stages of implementation it should have been able to be withdrawn without the economy going into heroine withdrawals. Enter WWII as the sober tank in terms of dramatically reshaping the US economy. You can point to marked improvements throughout his tenure, but we can also cut a $1 million dollar check to each of the families living below the poverty line, and "solve" poverty too. The point is government propped economies, be they work programs etc, are all temporary, & their relief artificial, even to the point of prohibiting private (read: real) recovery. And simply left in place the end game is Greece.Thus govt interventionism in the name of "saving" the private market is doomed to failure long term. Whether we agree on the effects of New Deal specifically during the 30's or not I hope we can agree that New Deal oriented policy is NOT an effective long term solution to economic crisis. You also noted as #1 on your list, of what separated the GD and made it "great", was unemployment. Well, between my afore stated interpretation on the 37-38' recession; the fact that New Deal did not effectively tame or stabilize unemployment throughout FDR's pre WWII tenure; because the economic truism that New Deal style policy is not an effective long term strategy (& clearly had he lived, he would have gone into New Deal II, see that SoTU); and due to the fact that you have openly admitted New Deal did not stave off future depressions (only that "something" did), I find the term failure to describe FDR's domestic efforts a very apt term.
On the ideology ...
It is clear to me that FDR didn't just "smack" of socialism, he was a socialist. That SoTU address clearly states governments role in securing the means of production, for what other mechanism is there for "guaranteeing as a RIGHT" a descent home, a "useful and renumartive job", clothes, food, etc etc. I wasn't claiming that FDR was "anti-American", I'm claiming that he was saw the Constitution of the United States as fundamentally flawed document. I mean, did you not read that SoTU? I truly believe that he saw this second bill of rights as the true expression of quintessential Americanism. I'm saying that be it Ray, F. Glenn or me (& believe me, I'm not equating myself to them), that we don't recognize that as "American" in principle (& I doubt you do either). His vision was contrary to the American dream as constituted, not that he "hated" America, not that his heart was "anti" American," but rather what he layed out as his vision of America is contrary (I 9;d argue the exact opposite) of what the nation stood for as founded. That he was more than willing to sacrifice economic liberty for economic "security", and that is antithetical to the American ideal, as I see it.
But you didn't answer one question. You're right that socialism, communism and fascism were sweeping the world as a reaction to the global depression. I noted to James that soon after FDR's death we hurried to pass the XXII Amendment. Read that SoTU Address from 1944 again. Think of the power to get reelected before the war FDR possessed, and how amplified it would have been coming out on the other side as the successful CIC of WWII. If FDR lives well past the war, is it possible we may have lost the Republic? Easy to scoff and say "no" all these decades removed. But I urge you, really consider the power the man wielded, how unstoppable he would have been after winning the war in both theaters. And try to fully appreciate just how radical that 44' state of the union address was. Then ask yourself that question I did in my last - was FDR the closest we ever came to seeing a despot, had he lived?
I would make my own assertion, though, that while the "hands off" policies of Harding did nothing to prolong the problem, they also did nothing to prevent the problem from happening again. In fact, I think a good case can be made that, in the government's attempt to regain revenue lost in the tax cuts of 1920-1921, their implementation of tariff legislation not only did nothing to fix short-term problems but directly contributed to the disaster that was waiting in 1929.
First off, the wealth of our nation is not a finite pie in terms of raising tax revenue. You can lower taxes and raise revenue to the Treasury, as did Reagan, so tariffs or any other form of taxation should not be seen as "recovering lost revenue" due to tax cuts. It's a fundamental misperception on how our economy works. Now, Perhaps I'm wrong but the tariff I assume you're talking about is Smoot-Hawely. And yes it did directly contribute the woes of the Great Depression (hence forth summarized as "GD"), but it was signed into law the summer of 1930. It didn't contribute to the coming 29' crash. Hoover was attempting, misguidedly so, to stave off unemployment, post crash, by "protecting" American jobs. It made things worse, much much worse. This is why I find folly in the argument, "we tried laizze faire as a response to the GD, it didn't work." We did not. Hoover implemented public works (Hoover Dam) and higher taxes (the tariff for starters) as a response. FDR then came in and amped such efforts up to unprecedented levels. In other words Hoover's response was "FDR light." Tariffs and public works certainly aren't my definition of "hands off" nor "conservatism."
Now, to what I found stunning in your response ...
I have always contended that business was cyclical. Natural highs and lows (although I was unaware of the specific time table in your chart, but since its' acceptance it has only served to bolster my case, in my opinion). I contend that in times of economic crisis the fundamentals of lower taxes, less regulation, less spending (on behalf of govt) is the clear path out. And as such, New Deal, in its various incarnations not only did not solve the problems of the GD, but deepened them (by the way, you basically agree that this is the formulae for a path out but in this one instance of New Deal contend the opposite worked & I still don't know how you reconcile holding those 2 opinions simultaneously, but I digress ...).
We then go on to disagree about the numbers of the 1930's; what they portend; what the Roosevelt Recession revealed; the Constitutionality of various programs; the wisdom or lack thereof of SSI, and so on. And all that's fine. Reasonable people can disagree about such a mammoth time on our nation's history. But then you routinely assert something, and in such an impassioned tone, that I have taken it to represent the back bone of your argument, in that its' what you always go back to as your trump card (as you see it). And it is this: New Deal clearly worked because we haven't had a depression since, (later adding) after suffering them every decade since our founding."
So finally I said, ok, how? Chronological correlation does NOT denote causation I said. So I asked, what was it about New Deal that staved off all future depressions through to this this very moment in time. What about it stopped cold a ten year cycle of the previous 150+? Now bare in mind, this has become your proverbial "Ace in the hole" argument, as I have taken its' meaning. Yet here was your answer: "something." So as not to take it out of context let me display the statement in its' entirety:
"To argue that there is no difference between the economic climate before 1929 and that which came after is simply wrong. If you do even a little hunting, you can find that we suffered a depressed economy (rather than simply a recessed economy) at least once every 10 years since 1797... but haven't had even ONE since 1933 (the end of the '29 depression). Recessions yes, depressions no. Something in our regulation and control of market factors changed between 1928 and 1934 that has allowed the markets to continue to cycle, but without the extremes of scale ..."
Now I read on, expecting to find what that "something" was. But I instead was stunned by this:
"I do not even claim that it was "New Deal" that brought this change... only that it happened somewhere inside of the historical period marked by the Presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt ... "
"As already stated, I can't point to any ONE item on the list of New Deal programs or policies that fixed the "depression-boom" cycle (I'm using very general terms here... I don't contend that the cycle was ever broken, you understand). I am simply saying that something at a regulation-level has allowed our economy to continue to grow at a steady, even pace over the last 75 years without ever falling into a "depression" (again, in the technical sense of the term), and with recessions only lasting, on average, less than 24 months (until the current one, that is). Very little of the New Deal survived the end of WWII... as you pointed out... but NOT because they were overturned by the SCOTUS or later administrations. They were intended to be temporary measures, with limited scope and duration, as part of the three-step New Deal promise of "relief, recovery and reform."
You even seemingly suggested that perhaps the GOP was responsible for this "something." Well hells bells Titus, this isn't what you've been arguing. You didn't differentiate that "something" happened during the tenure of Roosevelt that forever changed our nation's 10 year depression cycle. You stated quite clearly in the most unambiguous terms, "New Deal worked because we haven't suffered a depression since." Not that "SOMETHING HAPPENED." For the love of Pete, how would that argument go over were I to champion the Reagan era? Many people have tried to convince me that Gorbachev was the saviour, that it was he that freed the peoples of the USSR and brought down the Soviet Empire. Would a competent response to this revisionist tripe about the old line commie be, "Reagan won it." My adversary asks, "how?" I say, "well, something happened during the 80's, so Reagan policy must have been responsible." WHAT??? Until this post of yours your posit wasn't that there existed a chronological coincidence, but rather a founding tenant, a leg in the stool you sat upon to champion New Deal was that it was New Deal itself that staved off future depressions, and thus it must have worked. How many thousands of times have you said as much? Now it's "something?" And perhaps not even FDR nor New Deal, now it's "something?"
May I posit something? You have no freaking idea why we haven't suffered a depression since, at least not at the time of your post, otherwise you would have stated such.
And look, I'm not knocking you for not knowing every intricacy of the world's most dynamic economy and the reasons we have not suffered a depression since WWII. If I had to reason such an answer off the top of my head I would assert that the globalization of the world's economies, the melding as it were, has had much to do with it. The "Mutually Assured Economic Destruction" as posited post WWII so as to prevent the world's armies from going to war has connected us in such a way that preventing any of the world's major economies from going into free fall has become defacto policy for 1st world nations (see the Greece bailout, for example).
To be honest I was set to counter your idea that New Deal was responsible for preventing future depressions by noting that most of New Deal didn't survive WWII, that they were temporary (most of them) programs in nature, so, "how could temporary programs protect the nation for 70 years?" was to be my point. Then I read your post and not only did you state such yourself, you flat out reverse your claim, and pre-concede that neither New Deal nor FDR may be responsible for staving off pre 1929 cycles of actual depressions these last 70 years. Like I said, I find this stunning since you have routinely used such a claim as one of the premier legs of defense in the New Deal stool.
Again, I interpret the Roosevelt Recession differently then you. FDR wasn't in a time of war, meaning a "healthy" economy should have not gone into spasms at the idea of a balanced budget. In fact a balanced federal budget typically has the opposite effect. The exception I would note is times of war - which is exactly how Reagan saw the US during his tenure. You are just flat wrong when you say he did not publicly advocate a balanced budget. He was supremely behind this (in fact if I remember correctly a balanced budget amendment originated with his "revolution"). His exception was times of war, such as the Cold War, which was as real as any in his view. In times of peace a balanced federal budget should not just be palatable to the private market, but welcomed.
LET ME SUMMARIZE: my interpretation of the 37'-38' recession is simply this - once FDR put the economy on government life support there was no clear path off without sending the economy into shock, which is why you don't do it in the first place. If New Deal was meant to be temporary (& work), then 7 years (roughly) after its original stages of implementation it should have been able to be withdrawn without the economy going into heroine withdrawals. Enter WWII as the sober tank in terms of dramatically reshaping the US economy. You can point to marked improvements throughout his tenure, but we can also cut a $1 million dollar check to each of the families living below the poverty line, and "solve" poverty too. The point is government propped economies, be they work programs etc, are all temporary, & their relief artificial, even to the point of prohibiting private (read: real) recovery. And simply left in place the end game is Greece.Thus govt interventionism in the name of "saving" the private market is doomed to failure long term. Whether we agree on the effects of New Deal specifically during the 30's or not I hope we can agree that New Deal oriented policy is NOT an effective long term solution to economic crisis. You also noted as #1 on your list, of what separated the GD and made it "great", was unemployment. Well, between my afore stated interpretation on the 37-38' recession; the fact that New Deal did not effectively tame or stabilize unemployment throughout FDR's pre WWII tenure; because the economic truism that New Deal style policy is not an effective long term strategy (& clearly had he lived, he would have gone into New Deal II, see that SoTU); and due to the fact that you have openly admitted New Deal did not stave off future depressions (only that "something" did), I find the term failure to describe FDR's domestic efforts a very apt term.
On the ideology ...
It is clear to me that FDR didn't just "smack" of socialism, he was a socialist. That SoTU address clearly states governments role in securing the means of production, for what other mechanism is there for "guaranteeing as a RIGHT" a descent home, a "useful and renumartive job", clothes, food, etc etc. I wasn't claiming that FDR was "anti-American", I'm claiming that he was saw the Constitution of the United States as fundamentally flawed document. I mean, did you not read that SoTU? I truly believe that he saw this second bill of rights as the true expression of quintessential Americanism. I'm saying that be it Ray, F. Glenn or me (& believe me, I'm not equating myself to them), that we don't recognize that as "American" in principle (& I doubt you do either). His vision was contrary to the American dream as constituted, not that he "hated" America, not that his heart was "anti" American," but rather what he layed out as his vision of America is contrary (I 9;d argue the exact opposite) of what the nation stood for as founded. That he was more than willing to sacrifice economic liberty for economic "security", and that is antithetical to the American ideal, as I see it.
But you didn't answer one question. You're right that socialism, communism and fascism were sweeping the world as a reaction to the global depression. I noted to James that soon after FDR's death we hurried to pass the XXII Amendment. Read that SoTU Address from 1944 again. Think of the power to get reelected before the war FDR possessed, and how amplified it would have been coming out on the other side as the successful CIC of WWII. If FDR lives well past the war, is it possible we may have lost the Republic? Easy to scoff and say "no" all these decades removed. But I urge you, really consider the power the man wielded, how unstoppable he would have been after winning the war in both theaters. And try to fully appreciate just how radical that 44' state of the union address was. Then ask yourself that question I did in my last - was FDR the closest we ever came to seeing a despot, had he lived?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
