Nice and easy... no need to freak out... I'll take them one at a time, just as you presented them...
The Numbers
1) I can't say why or where the "Great Depression" got its name, but if I had to make a guess, it would be to identify it from other catastrophic depressions in our history, like the Long Depression. I do not discount, however, the fact that while the 1929 depression didn't last even as long as the longest 20th Century depression, it was the most severe in its impact on American society. 38% unemployment, one out of every four banks failing completely, and 3/4 of all mortgaged farms falling into foreclosure. The scope and effect that this contraction had was categorically worse than anything we had suffered previously, surely you must see that? Then, add to the mess the unprecedented drought that hit 14 Midwestern states from 1930 to 1935, and the US is facing, for the first time ever, the very real prospect of a famine of biblical proportions.
I can't deny that Harding did choose to NOT follow Hoover's advice and offer Federal intervention in 1920, and instead reduced both taxes and spending (more on this in a minute) to balance the budget. The economy did recover, as you said, in less than two years. This is a very good model for your argument that interventionist policies contribute to the problem more than they help resolve them.
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.
This leads me to the direct association between Harding/Coolidge/Hoover "conservatism" and Ronald Reagan's "ideal" model of government: Reagan understood the importance of keeping money where it was best used... in the hands of American business and consumers by lowering taxes. Where he and his Roaring Twenties predecessors differed, however, was in making sure that the ability of government to play the role of consumer wasn't reduced in the process. That means that government must continue to SPEND money even when revenues are reduced artificially. This is even more true in today's world than it was in the 1920's, since the size and scope of government make it a huge consumer of both private and commercial resources as a matter of course.
2) I do not (nor can I) deny that our economy is cyclic in nature and will always have a series of ups and downs to contend with. That is, as you said, the very nature of "free market" economics. I fail to see where such governmental regulations as those imposed by Reagan in the 80s (specifically the speculation pricing regulations on crude oil), which do nothing but curb the extremes of the cycle, can't be seen as a good thing for all involved. True laissez faire policy would mean that only the market itself regulates the economy, and such security or national interest policies as exist today in the realm of child labor, controlled substances, restricted technology or resources, and unfair trading practices are extraneous and self-defeating... which we have all agreed they are not. Again, if it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.
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 that brought us both the unmitigated bonanza that was the Roaring Twenties (seven years of unprecedented growth and wealth accumulation) and the Great Depression (three and a half years of the most rapid and wide-spread economic panic in the last 150 years).
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. FDR didn't support each and every bill that came through the pipe, you know... and the GOP, while reduced in power and ability, still initiated legislation and fought that which they felt was bad for the country.
3) I agree that arguing statistics is painful and nearly pointless if one of us (ahem) refuses to accept the other's as factual in any way, shape or form. "Malaise" is not generally accepted as an economic indicator of national recovery or domestic strength and growth, yet you routinely use that term to define why, in spite of unemployment being the ONLY indicator that wasn't WORSE than its 1929 level by 1936, New Deal failed utterly. When the economy again retracted in 1937 ("taking it off the teet" as you say), I have shown clearly and plainly that it was due to government's (and specifically the new GOP majority in the Senate) insistence on balancing a budget that wasn't ready to be balanced. Knowing the climate that Reagan came into the White House with, you didn't hear HIM calling for a balanced budget in 1982, or even 1986... he only focused on keeping taxes low and promoting a growth climate within the economy. Anything more would have been nothing but opposition politics and doomed to fail, as I think you will readily admit.
4) 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".
Soup kitchens, temporary housing, price subsidies and bank holidays were "relief" for the immediate symptoms of the depression and its vast scale and depth. The "ABC" programs were part of the "recovery" process, putting people into paying jobs working for the government in one capacity or another. SSI, Medicare, FDIC, the FTC (not New Deal, I know... but a focus of the Roosevelt plans) were all part of the "reform" process that would make sure the Great Depression didn't repeat ten years later, with even greater impact (if that was possible). Not every program worked, and not every program was legitimate, but the recovery was complete (with the exception of unemployment, I know) economically by 1936, and the Roosevelt recession didn't last longer than the fiscal budget that caused it (in my opinion). New Deal, as instituted in 1933, was over and done by 1945. Calling a President or an economic policy "New Deal" after that is simply to stereotype the plan as similar in scope or intent, for good or bad. That's not to say that SSI, TVA, FDIC aren't New Deal in origin... they are... but they are the exception to the rule, and can or could have been overturned or repealed at any time since, given the popularity of the intention. All have been weighed against the findings of the Supreme Court, and all have been found to be Constitutional in nature and scope. If enough of America hasn't come to see the insidious nature of these programs, then it is the fault of conservatives everywhere for not making the case clear enough in the decades since their implementation.
The Ideology
1) Your general point seems to be that implementation of an entitlement policy or program automatically means it is a permanent feature in our society. Reality says this is probably true, in a broad, general sort of understanding. However, this isn't strictly limited to entitlement programs, either. When the Federal government established its first income tax codes after the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the top marginal rate was 7%, and there were only three rates total. It doesn't get much simpler than that, does it? However, Wilson's administration took that top marginal rate all the way to 78% in less than four years, and while it has come down in the interim years to as low as 24% and is currently at 38%, I am confident in saying that it will never again be as low or as simple as its original 7%. I do not feel this is because of entitlement programs and bloated government brought about by Democratic agendas and policies, but rather by an uninterrupted train of Presidents and Congresses that have looked to increase scope and authority of government in this nation since (at the very least) Lincoln's inauguration in 1861... regardless of party affiliation.
2) Your indictment of FDR is clear and well laid out, but as you said in your post, it isn't limited only to him, or even to his party. The difference I see in what FDR was able to accomplish is that during his first term ('33 to '37) America elected such a majority of Democrats into power that we were as close as we have ever been to a "One Party" system. Vast majorities in both Houses, and a committed "reformer" in the White House, left only the very conservative Supreme Court to balance the powers of the Federal government, and they were only able to do so much. Even the Reconstruction Era didn't see as stacked a Congress as we had in '33 and '35. While I feel this adequately explains your presented evidence for the sweeping changes that occurred at the Federal level over these years, it doesn't equate to FDR single-handedly changing the face of American politics or the Constitution itself.
3) Your question is "What was FDR reforming?" I feel he was working to remove the possibility that such a disaster as the Great Depression would ever happen again. I do not deny that much of what he said and supported smacked of socialism, but I feel that I must go out on a limb here and make a point about "ideology" that seems to be lacking in your opinions on FDR.
All of America was watching as socialism and radical communism was sweeping countries every bit as ravaged by the depression as the US. Italy, Spain, Germany, Hungary, Greece, China, and Brazil were controlled by socialistic regimes where democratic government was replaced with totalitarian repression or were experiencing insurgencies and civil wars fought over the same issues. Fascism and socialism were growing in popularity even here in the US with every year of economic hardship that passed after the initial crash in 1929. Taking the "hands off" approach that the Harding/Coolidge/Hoover Administrations had to such sentiments was every bit as dangerous as what you are suggesting FDR did do after his inauguration, in the eyes of many since then... myself included.
You can decry the "reform" all you want, from your position 75 years in the future, but I say the threat to America's safety, security and well being was far greater had we done nothing to institute "relief and recovery" when and how we did, and those couldn't have been completed had "reform" not followed to show the promise that the situation wouldn't repeat in the very near future, as it had throughout our history.
If you continue to feel that all that FDR stood for and accomplished as President was "anti-American" in its nature, even after I have tried to show alternative interpretations of the same facts and figures, then nothing I can say here will do anything anyway. All I can say is that if you don't want the problem to compound or repeat with our current CIC, then you had better find clear, unambiguous means to show your case to be irrefutable to the rest of the voting population before it is "too late" and Obama's latest round of entitlement programs and policies become just as entrenched as you see FDR's are. History provides the proof, you simply have to make it clear and apparent to the rest of America.
And that includes me, by the way.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Refutations over eggs ...
... you wont find that on the Denny's menu. First, Jambo, I can imagine the adrenaline rush. Titus is right, they're supposed to identify themselves to avoid just such an accident. "You called us" could be an over zealous pizza delivery boy. And I would advise checking the peephole prior to racking a shell. But given your recent break in, I find your contemplation of grabbing the gun first quite a reasonable one.
Ok ... I would like to ask a few fundamental questions regarding New Deal. And let me be clear. I proceed with a calm voice, a sincere dialogue, asking real rather then rhetorical questions with a "shi**y attitude" nary in sight. As I attempted a bit of humor mixed with honest passion in my last post, and it was mistaken for something else, I felt that preface necessary to furthering this discussion.
First, for Jambo: you noted that if New Deal was so bad, "Then why did FDR get elected to 4 terms?" Now come on Jambo, and I mean this sincerely, you understand the folly in such a statement. Obama was elected in a wave of popularity. Does that justify his programs? Reelected, that the standard? I offer you Wilson. He was reelected, and if I remember correctly you see him as the absolute worst CIC in history. Get my meaning? And by the way, why the rush to limit the terms a president can serve right after Roosevelt? I mean if it was so grand why did the nation collectively say, "lets not do that again!"
So lets get to the questions. My thrust is 2 parts - numbers, then ideology/the man himself.
"The numbers"
1.) Titus ... Your chart is quite correct. I thought you meant a depression every 7 to 9 years, which must have been an incorrect assumption on my part because your chart encompasses much more then that narrow definition. There are varying versions, but lets go with yours. I counted 28 previous different "downturns" (you defined them not just as a depression or recession, but also simply "stagnate growth", so I use that phrase, downturn) to the 1929 crash. Why is it that the 29'+ event is referred to as the "Great Depression?" I mean, if we're talking duration the 1873 hit wins hands down. And please don't give me the advanced technology of news coverage either, because the Civil War predates the 29' crash by nearly 6 decades and that was covered quite adequately by the press of the day. Just consider this - is it at all possible that unlike Harding and Coolidge who dealt with the 1920 depression by cutting taxes, and spending by 50% (a staggering figure) resulting in the roaring twenties, FDR used the blunt hammer of government? The 1920 crash was big, but lasted only 18 months. Is at least "possible" that the level of spending, programs, taxation, new business regulations, etc under New Deal served to prolong a depression that should have ended much sooner? You concede lower taxes, less spending is the optimal way out, don't you? Why would the opposite not serve opposite results?
2.) It is clear that our economy suffers from "cycles." Things go up, then down. Not a mystery, that's the way business under free markets work. I counted 12 downturns, including the current one, since the 29' entry. The New Deal clearly did not dissuade this cycle. It continues on, up, down, up again. To say that we have had no serious economic downturn since the Great Depression is to not fully appreciate the economic woes of the late 70's, early 80's, nor our current "malaise." Do you get my meaning? Your chart was correct to a fault. Clearly the cycles continue. And it's nonsensical to say "well, we haven't had another Great Depression, New Deal must of worked", because there was only ONE Great Depression, in the total existence of our country. Do you see the inherent flaw in that argument? There wasn't a "Great Depression" prior either. So I could argue the absence of New Deal staved of "a/the" Great Depression for far longer then did the existence of New Deal - I have the preceding 150+ years to demonstrate that, you have but the last 70.
3.) We can argue until we are grey headed on New Deal stats. You say the marked improvements in certain sectors, within identifiable quarters shows New Deal worked. I say they happened in spite of New Deal, and the 37' Roosevelt Recession (the economy was clearly still on life support) plus unemployment demonstrates that argument. My attempt at sorting out who's right and who's wrong inevitably leads me to your conflictng (to me anyway) posit that the fastest road to national recovery in times of economic crisis is lower taxes, less spending, not its' opposite. And less spending by definition precludes an alphabet soup of programs. You also accept that simply "giving the people what they want" is not justification for policy, making the idea that FDR was simply responding to demands of government action not a reasonable defense. In addition it is clear that New Deal was not the stop gap against future economic crisis. They clearly continued, by your own chart, unabated. So with your acceptance of these points on principle and in fact, why would you maintain that New Deal was a overall success? It didn't stop future crisis; it didn't allow for a functioning economy without the government tit well into 1937; it didn't solve unemployment; and most of all, you concur on principle that lower taxes and less government is the proper road to recovery, so why in this one instance would the opposite have worked?
4.) Furthermore, if you still maintain that New Deal was the stop gap on future economic crisis (I don't know how you would given your own chart, but I'm trying to cover all bases here). Then what specifically can you point to in New Deal, that continued on past the court purges and future presidents , which you can point to and say "HERE", "this policy, this program made all the difference." Can you honestly draw a straight line from any particular surviving program to America's post 1945 economic health? And if you can is it not reasonable for me to make the same argument, yet my line ending in the one of 12 downturns? I ask sincerely.
On the ideology ...
Titus wrote: "Reform" Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Johnson and Obama are another matter, however. I can agree with Ryan that FDR (among others) saw a vision of America that was not reflected in the Constitution of the United States, even if it was shared with a majority of voting Americans (I can say much the same for Obama, too). However, a President's first duty is NOT to the people of the United States (as claimed by Obama repeatedly), but instead it is to defend and maintain the status quo as defined by the Constitution. I found this a particularly interesting comment. First, look at the company FDR falls in with when it comes to "reform" presidents. But that aside ...
1.) Responsible for continuing a predecessor's program or policy is not the point (my point anyway). At Reagan's exit the Dept of education was still in place, so a mere continuance certainly does not denote approval for said program. My point was more wide - once FDR puts in place New Deal as the activist government gold standard (ironic since he confiscated the nations gold at risk of 10 years imprisonment), this set us on a course of new expectations concerning what the govt should do on our behalf with one hand, and with the other allowed the flourishing of big government ideology within the political lexicon which unthinkable prior, paved the way for the Great Society, Obama, etc.
Allow me to further refine this point ....
2.) Let me ask a basic question. "Reform" presidents. What were they reforming? Teddy clearly was set to break up monopolies. Almost his sole domestic "reform." That's an easy one. But what of Johnson? What of FDR? Obama? What do they portend to "reform?" Is it not reasonable to access they found our Constitution, the way our society is ordered in need of "reform?" To put it another way, did they not seek to "fundamentally transform " America? Obama is more like FDR then we care to admit. Do you remember my post on the 2000 Chicago Public Radio interview with Obama? You can google it and hear the audio, read the transcript (within our own blog even). He discusses the Bill of Rights as being "inadequate." A "charter of negative liberties", is the way he put it. That it says, "what government can't do to you, but not what it must do for you, on your behalf." You remember that? How we scoffed? How head shaking maddening that was? I offer the following, from the State of The Union Address, 1944:
It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
See, I see this as his last ode' to what he had been trying to accomplish since the beginning. He had the flu, he perhaps knew this might be his last State address, and I feel he was summing up and giving meaning to his efforts over the course of 4 terms as president.
3.) Away from numbers, judging the man on his intent, his ideology, his vision for America, something vital to top 5 ratings and report cards in my opinion, how does this figure in? This is why I'm asking what FDR was reforming? Teddy went after monopolies, ok. What was FDR going after? What was he seeking to reshape, redo, realign? The "right" to a house? And not just a house, but a "decent" house? What if Obama were to give that speech (and we all know he would sorely love to)? What would be our reaction? If Obama is reelected, does that make his healthcare right? You see, I'm starting to get why people like "Ray" & my grandfather on my father's side (for whom I am named), viscerally hated FDR. Because it appears to me he was seeking to "reform" America herself. Reform what it meant to be an American. Reform our freedoms. Reform our individual responsibility. He sought to redefine what America was - no wonder Ray & F. Glenn were pissed. They didn't recognize this as "American." There is no question that FDR's vision was 180 degrees from the Founders. 180 degrees from prizing individual good over the good of the collective. 180 degrees from our grandfathers. THIS more than another thing is what drives my rejection of FDR - he simply did not approve of the way the Constitution was set up. He saw our experiment in democracy as fundamentally flawed. Which of course is why he, and Obama, sought fundamental transformation. Is this not a reasonable posit?
4.) From court packing, to interstate commerce perversion, to New Deal policies themselves, to his length in office, to his summarily declaring the supreme charter of our land inadequate, does FDR not strike you as the closest we ever came to despotism? What if he had not died in 45'?
In summary:
This man clearly and utterly rejects the founding principles of our nation. He unquestionably saw the Constitution as not something to be upheld, but rather molded into his own image. He seeks to garuntee happiness itself, rather then its' pursuit. And be it through programs, policy, court packing, taxes, or new law, he sought to redefine the Founders charter, into his own vision of a just society. His economic policy saw failure after failure, particularly at the kitchen table as unemployment never fully recovered and the economy still "required" government assistance. The level of spending was unprescedented, arguably a theft of my labor. During a national crisis he set his jaw to pushing money, time, programs and regulation at every problem, at every turn, attempting to fundementally reshape our nation into his vision of the proper American dream.
I purposely mixed past and present tenses ... I want you to decide for yourself whether the man I just described was FDR, or Obama. And if you're not sure, are you still prepared to list FDR in the top 5?
Ok ... I would like to ask a few fundamental questions regarding New Deal. And let me be clear. I proceed with a calm voice, a sincere dialogue, asking real rather then rhetorical questions with a "shi**y attitude" nary in sight. As I attempted a bit of humor mixed with honest passion in my last post, and it was mistaken for something else, I felt that preface necessary to furthering this discussion.
First, for Jambo: you noted that if New Deal was so bad, "Then why did FDR get elected to 4 terms?" Now come on Jambo, and I mean this sincerely, you understand the folly in such a statement. Obama was elected in a wave of popularity. Does that justify his programs? Reelected, that the standard? I offer you Wilson. He was reelected, and if I remember correctly you see him as the absolute worst CIC in history. Get my meaning? And by the way, why the rush to limit the terms a president can serve right after Roosevelt? I mean if it was so grand why did the nation collectively say, "lets not do that again!"
So lets get to the questions. My thrust is 2 parts - numbers, then ideology/the man himself.
"The numbers"
1.) Titus ... Your chart is quite correct. I thought you meant a depression every 7 to 9 years, which must have been an incorrect assumption on my part because your chart encompasses much more then that narrow definition. There are varying versions, but lets go with yours. I counted 28 previous different "downturns" (you defined them not just as a depression or recession, but also simply "stagnate growth", so I use that phrase, downturn) to the 1929 crash. Why is it that the 29'+ event is referred to as the "Great Depression?" I mean, if we're talking duration the 1873 hit wins hands down. And please don't give me the advanced technology of news coverage either, because the Civil War predates the 29' crash by nearly 6 decades and that was covered quite adequately by the press of the day. Just consider this - is it at all possible that unlike Harding and Coolidge who dealt with the 1920 depression by cutting taxes, and spending by 50% (a staggering figure) resulting in the roaring twenties, FDR used the blunt hammer of government? The 1920 crash was big, but lasted only 18 months. Is at least "possible" that the level of spending, programs, taxation, new business regulations, etc under New Deal served to prolong a depression that should have ended much sooner? You concede lower taxes, less spending is the optimal way out, don't you? Why would the opposite not serve opposite results?
2.) It is clear that our economy suffers from "cycles." Things go up, then down. Not a mystery, that's the way business under free markets work. I counted 12 downturns, including the current one, since the 29' entry. The New Deal clearly did not dissuade this cycle. It continues on, up, down, up again. To say that we have had no serious economic downturn since the Great Depression is to not fully appreciate the economic woes of the late 70's, early 80's, nor our current "malaise." Do you get my meaning? Your chart was correct to a fault. Clearly the cycles continue. And it's nonsensical to say "well, we haven't had another Great Depression, New Deal must of worked", because there was only ONE Great Depression, in the total existence of our country. Do you see the inherent flaw in that argument? There wasn't a "Great Depression" prior either. So I could argue the absence of New Deal staved of "a/the" Great Depression for far longer then did the existence of New Deal - I have the preceding 150+ years to demonstrate that, you have but the last 70.
3.) We can argue until we are grey headed on New Deal stats. You say the marked improvements in certain sectors, within identifiable quarters shows New Deal worked. I say they happened in spite of New Deal, and the 37' Roosevelt Recession (the economy was clearly still on life support) plus unemployment demonstrates that argument. My attempt at sorting out who's right and who's wrong inevitably leads me to your conflictng (to me anyway) posit that the fastest road to national recovery in times of economic crisis is lower taxes, less spending, not its' opposite. And less spending by definition precludes an alphabet soup of programs. You also accept that simply "giving the people what they want" is not justification for policy, making the idea that FDR was simply responding to demands of government action not a reasonable defense. In addition it is clear that New Deal was not the stop gap against future economic crisis. They clearly continued, by your own chart, unabated. So with your acceptance of these points on principle and in fact, why would you maintain that New Deal was a overall success? It didn't stop future crisis; it didn't allow for a functioning economy without the government tit well into 1937; it didn't solve unemployment; and most of all, you concur on principle that lower taxes and less government is the proper road to recovery, so why in this one instance would the opposite have worked?
4.) Furthermore, if you still maintain that New Deal was the stop gap on future economic crisis (I don't know how you would given your own chart, but I'm trying to cover all bases here). Then what specifically can you point to in New Deal, that continued on past the court purges and future presidents , which you can point to and say "HERE", "this policy, this program made all the difference." Can you honestly draw a straight line from any particular surviving program to America's post 1945 economic health? And if you can is it not reasonable for me to make the same argument, yet my line ending in the one of 12 downturns? I ask sincerely.
On the ideology ...
Titus wrote: "Reform" Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Johnson and Obama are another matter, however. I can agree with Ryan that FDR (among others) saw a vision of America that was not reflected in the Constitution of the United States, even if it was shared with a majority of voting Americans (I can say much the same for Obama, too). However, a President's first duty is NOT to the people of the United States (as claimed by Obama repeatedly), but instead it is to defend and maintain the status quo as defined by the Constitution. I found this a particularly interesting comment. First, look at the company FDR falls in with when it comes to "reform" presidents. But that aside ...
1.) Responsible for continuing a predecessor's program or policy is not the point (my point anyway). At Reagan's exit the Dept of education was still in place, so a mere continuance certainly does not denote approval for said program. My point was more wide - once FDR puts in place New Deal as the activist government gold standard (ironic since he confiscated the nations gold at risk of 10 years imprisonment), this set us on a course of new expectations concerning what the govt should do on our behalf with one hand, and with the other allowed the flourishing of big government ideology within the political lexicon which unthinkable prior, paved the way for the Great Society, Obama, etc.
Allow me to further refine this point ....
2.) Let me ask a basic question. "Reform" presidents. What were they reforming? Teddy clearly was set to break up monopolies. Almost his sole domestic "reform." That's an easy one. But what of Johnson? What of FDR? Obama? What do they portend to "reform?" Is it not reasonable to access they found our Constitution, the way our society is ordered in need of "reform?" To put it another way, did they not seek to "fundamentally transform " America? Obama is more like FDR then we care to admit. Do you remember my post on the 2000 Chicago Public Radio interview with Obama? You can google it and hear the audio, read the transcript (within our own blog even). He discusses the Bill of Rights as being "inadequate." A "charter of negative liberties", is the way he put it. That it says, "what government can't do to you, but not what it must do for you, on your behalf." You remember that? How we scoffed? How head shaking maddening that was? I offer the following, from the State of The Union Address, 1944:
It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.
See, I see this as his last ode' to what he had been trying to accomplish since the beginning. He had the flu, he perhaps knew this might be his last State address, and I feel he was summing up and giving meaning to his efforts over the course of 4 terms as president.
3.) Away from numbers, judging the man on his intent, his ideology, his vision for America, something vital to top 5 ratings and report cards in my opinion, how does this figure in? This is why I'm asking what FDR was reforming? Teddy went after monopolies, ok. What was FDR going after? What was he seeking to reshape, redo, realign? The "right" to a house? And not just a house, but a "decent" house? What if Obama were to give that speech (and we all know he would sorely love to)? What would be our reaction? If Obama is reelected, does that make his healthcare right? You see, I'm starting to get why people like "Ray" & my grandfather on my father's side (for whom I am named), viscerally hated FDR. Because it appears to me he was seeking to "reform" America herself. Reform what it meant to be an American. Reform our freedoms. Reform our individual responsibility. He sought to redefine what America was - no wonder Ray & F. Glenn were pissed. They didn't recognize this as "American." There is no question that FDR's vision was 180 degrees from the Founders. 180 degrees from prizing individual good over the good of the collective. 180 degrees from our grandfathers. THIS more than another thing is what drives my rejection of FDR - he simply did not approve of the way the Constitution was set up. He saw our experiment in democracy as fundamentally flawed. Which of course is why he, and Obama, sought fundamental transformation. Is this not a reasonable posit?
4.) From court packing, to interstate commerce perversion, to New Deal policies themselves, to his length in office, to his summarily declaring the supreme charter of our land inadequate, does FDR not strike you as the closest we ever came to despotism? What if he had not died in 45'?
In summary:
This man clearly and utterly rejects the founding principles of our nation. He unquestionably saw the Constitution as not something to be upheld, but rather molded into his own image. He seeks to garuntee happiness itself, rather then its' pursuit. And be it through programs, policy, court packing, taxes, or new law, he sought to redefine the Founders charter, into his own vision of a just society. His economic policy saw failure after failure, particularly at the kitchen table as unemployment never fully recovered and the economy still "required" government assistance. The level of spending was unprescedented, arguably a theft of my labor. During a national crisis he set his jaw to pushing money, time, programs and regulation at every problem, at every turn, attempting to fundementally reshape our nation into his vision of the proper American dream.
I purposely mixed past and present tenses ... I want you to decide for yourself whether the man I just described was FDR, or Obama. And if you're not sure, are you still prepared to list FDR in the top 5?
On the PD post...
I can't cite Federal law (but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist), but in PA any State, county or municiple law enforcement officer MUST identify him/herself as such when responding to an emergency call (meaning a 911 call, I assume). If they are in civilian attire or "plain clothes", they must display their identification as law enforcement prominently (meaning physically and verbally).
I'd say that, without criticizing Biloxi's finest, those officers made an error in the manner in which they responded to a call. "You called us" is not an acceptable means of identification, I am sure.
I'd say that, without criticizing Biloxi's finest, those officers made an error in the manner in which they responded to a call. "You called us" is not an acceptable means of identification, I am sure.
Hmmm... another good question...
This is the third time I've started this post, in an attempt to avoid more confusion about what I am saying.
I see Jambo's point, but I want to clarify the question before I detail my response.
Jambo (I think) is asking if we need to measure the efforts of a President to maintain bad policy as a matter of course... meaning as part of the status quo... regardless of whether or not it was signed into law by his hand.
Every President from Washington to Lincoln perpetuated slavery in one way or another as part of the American fabric of society, be it through compromise or support for pro-slavery legislation or whatever. Compromise was important in that it kept the Union together when it otherwise would have collapsed under the pressure of the slavery question, and thus I feel it was justified as an inherent duty of the President's office: to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States and the Union that it forms. I would go so far as to even suggest that slavery would have survived Lincoln had it not been for the breaking of the Union after his election. After all, Lincoln didn't abolish slavery after being elected... he abolished slavery after 13 States seceded from the Union and waged war on the rest of the country. He was fighting a war to maintain the status quo, not to end slavery.
"Reform" Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Johnson and Obama are another matter, however. I can agree with Ryan that FDR (among others) saw a vision of America that was not reflected in the Constitution of the United States, even if it was shared with a majority of voting Americans (I can say much the same for Obama, too). However, a President's first duty is NOT to the people of the United States (as claimed by Obama repeatedly), but instead it is to defend and maintain the status quo as defined by the Constitution.
Even having said that, though, I have to repeat the statement I have made repeatedly in the past that FDR didn't do anything more than champion a political view or position that was reflected in the legislation passed by Congress... which he then signed into law. It is neither just nor fair to "blame" the communist nature of SSI solely and exclusively on FDR... all he did was sign the bill into law after both Houses of Congress had approved the bill and sent it to his desk. That said, I repeat that Obama would be simply another historical tick on the clock were it not for a sympathetic Congress dominated by liberal-leaning Democrats who have an agenda of their own to follow. The same goes for Teddy. Teddy's role as a monopoly-buster means nothing if Congress doesn't give him the anti-trust bills to sign into law.
As further proof of my point, I give you Bill Clinton. Clinton's legacy as a "fiscally responsible" President that balanced the budget and eliminated the deficit had NOTHING to do with his executive policies or agendas, but EVERYTHING to do with the Gingrich/Lott majority in Congress that dominated Clinton's spending for the last 6 years of his terms. Kudos to Clinton for not vetoing the bills... nothing more.
So, to get back to Jambo's point: Should we be taking into account a President's track record on maintaining and protecting the status quo as part of his Legacy grade on the report cards?
Perhaps we should. I know we all fall into the trap of blaming or crediting a President with more than he is actually responsible for, because a President is a single individual that has always had such a focus of attention placed on him. President's only spend what Congress allows them to spend, and NO President enacts laws that aren't pre-determined to be the will of the People by Congress... that is a fundamental principle of our system of republican government.
Thoughts?
I see Jambo's point, but I want to clarify the question before I detail my response.
Jambo (I think) is asking if we need to measure the efforts of a President to maintain bad policy as a matter of course... meaning as part of the status quo... regardless of whether or not it was signed into law by his hand.
Every President from Washington to Lincoln perpetuated slavery in one way or another as part of the American fabric of society, be it through compromise or support for pro-slavery legislation or whatever. Compromise was important in that it kept the Union together when it otherwise would have collapsed under the pressure of the slavery question, and thus I feel it was justified as an inherent duty of the President's office: to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States and the Union that it forms. I would go so far as to even suggest that slavery would have survived Lincoln had it not been for the breaking of the Union after his election. After all, Lincoln didn't abolish slavery after being elected... he abolished slavery after 13 States seceded from the Union and waged war on the rest of the country. He was fighting a war to maintain the status quo, not to end slavery.
"Reform" Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Johnson and Obama are another matter, however. I can agree with Ryan that FDR (among others) saw a vision of America that was not reflected in the Constitution of the United States, even if it was shared with a majority of voting Americans (I can say much the same for Obama, too). However, a President's first duty is NOT to the people of the United States (as claimed by Obama repeatedly), but instead it is to defend and maintain the status quo as defined by the Constitution.
Even having said that, though, I have to repeat the statement I have made repeatedly in the past that FDR didn't do anything more than champion a political view or position that was reflected in the legislation passed by Congress... which he then signed into law. It is neither just nor fair to "blame" the communist nature of SSI solely and exclusively on FDR... all he did was sign the bill into law after both Houses of Congress had approved the bill and sent it to his desk. That said, I repeat that Obama would be simply another historical tick on the clock were it not for a sympathetic Congress dominated by liberal-leaning Democrats who have an agenda of their own to follow. The same goes for Teddy. Teddy's role as a monopoly-buster means nothing if Congress doesn't give him the anti-trust bills to sign into law.
As further proof of my point, I give you Bill Clinton. Clinton's legacy as a "fiscally responsible" President that balanced the budget and eliminated the deficit had NOTHING to do with his executive policies or agendas, but EVERYTHING to do with the Gingrich/Lott majority in Congress that dominated Clinton's spending for the last 6 years of his terms. Kudos to Clinton for not vetoing the bills... nothing more.
So, to get back to Jambo's point: Should we be taking into account a President's track record on maintaining and protecting the status quo as part of his Legacy grade on the report cards?
Perhaps we should. I know we all fall into the trap of blaming or crediting a President with more than he is actually responsible for, because a President is a single individual that has always had such a focus of attention placed on him. President's only spend what Congress allows them to spend, and NO President enacts laws that aren't pre-determined to be the will of the People by Congress... that is a fundamental principle of our system of republican government.
Thoughts?
Presidential Report Cards
I have a question about Legacy.
Is the said President being graded held accountable for the way future administrations deal with his policies?
For as much badmouthing as Ryan does to FDR concerning New Deal and how it casts this dark specter shadow across the landscape of 20th Century America, the much more serious specter of slavery hung like the Sword of Damocles from Washington to Lincoln... And blackens the eye of three of the top five Presidents on our list... (If you had Adams on there. I did and I thought everyone else did as well.)
What Washington, Adams and Jefferson do for this nation is inarguable. The black eye of slavery is accurate but in the light of history unavoidable. They weren't kings, they couldn't wave a scepter or a wand and make it so. Compromise after compromise leads eventually to war. It took seventy-six years but the system survived.
So here we are 65 years after the death of FDR looking at a society that DOES NOT have a similiar sword hanging above its head, that IS NOT facing a civil war, that IS NOT about to fail and turn into something the Founding Fathers wouldn't recognize (i.e. a second, seperate nation consisting of almost half the original colonies and well over a third of the geography of the nation at the time) and the main, primary criticism of the man are the SPIRIT of his policies carried to excesses by subsequent administrations. Is what Johnson and Carter enact the fault of FDR? Are Johnson's and Carter's failures FDR's black eye?
If FDR was so bad (as Glenn Beck would have us believe) why was he elected four times? If what FDR did in terms of domestic economics so damaging why did Eisenhower do it eight more years with no problems? (with enormous popularity?)And if he was such a financial idiot, why has there been no depression since 1937?
Were the ideas of Camelot, The Great Society, the War on Poverty, and just about every domestic program that Carter signed off on FDR's fault?
Is the said President being graded held accountable for the way future administrations deal with his policies?
For as much badmouthing as Ryan does to FDR concerning New Deal and how it casts this dark specter shadow across the landscape of 20th Century America, the much more serious specter of slavery hung like the Sword of Damocles from Washington to Lincoln... And blackens the eye of three of the top five Presidents on our list... (If you had Adams on there. I did and I thought everyone else did as well.)
What Washington, Adams and Jefferson do for this nation is inarguable. The black eye of slavery is accurate but in the light of history unavoidable. They weren't kings, they couldn't wave a scepter or a wand and make it so. Compromise after compromise leads eventually to war. It took seventy-six years but the system survived.
So here we are 65 years after the death of FDR looking at a society that DOES NOT have a similiar sword hanging above its head, that IS NOT facing a civil war, that IS NOT about to fail and turn into something the Founding Fathers wouldn't recognize (i.e. a second, seperate nation consisting of almost half the original colonies and well over a third of the geography of the nation at the time) and the main, primary criticism of the man are the SPIRIT of his policies carried to excesses by subsequent administrations. Is what Johnson and Carter enact the fault of FDR? Are Johnson's and Carter's failures FDR's black eye?
If FDR was so bad (as Glenn Beck would have us believe) why was he elected four times? If what FDR did in terms of domestic economics so damaging why did Eisenhower do it eight more years with no problems? (with enormous popularity?)And if he was such a financial idiot, why has there been no depression since 1937?
Were the ideas of Camelot, The Great Society, the War on Poverty, and just about every domestic program that Carter signed off on FDR's fault?
Biloxi PD Blue
While you girls spat about New Deal, arguing Archie Bunker vs Glenn Beck, I've got REAL issues.
1:38Am my door gets pounded on. And I'm not exaggerating. POUNDED on. No identification, no warning, just four very loud rapps. I open the door to a mag light shining in my eyes and a "You called us," answer to "What can I do for you?"
In the fifteen seconds I had before I opened the door I contemplated going into the bedroom (I had been at the computer, reading your latest bitchfest) and getting the shotgun. I opted not to, a decision that very well may have saved my life.
Now I'm not badmouthing Biloxi PD. They got sent to the wrong address. It happens. They apologized. NO harm done. But had I made a DIFFERENT call that could have been one ugly little piece of morning news. And I think THAT'S why I'm wide awake with my heart thudding STILL, some thirty minutes later.
Damn.
1:38Am my door gets pounded on. And I'm not exaggerating. POUNDED on. No identification, no warning, just four very loud rapps. I open the door to a mag light shining in my eyes and a "You called us," answer to "What can I do for you?"
In the fifteen seconds I had before I opened the door I contemplated going into the bedroom (I had been at the computer, reading your latest bitchfest) and getting the shotgun. I opted not to, a decision that very well may have saved my life.
Now I'm not badmouthing Biloxi PD. They got sent to the wrong address. It happens. They apologized. NO harm done. But had I made a DIFFERENT call that could have been one ugly little piece of morning news. And I think THAT'S why I'm wide awake with my heart thudding STILL, some thirty minutes later.
Damn.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
I can't believe you are serious...
Dude... what the hell was that?
I was making an observation that yours wasn't the first comment I had heard blaming our troubles on the Baby Boomer generation, and I wrote my comments accordingly. Call it utterly self-indulgent egotism, but I was simply allowing the thought process that works within my mind to spill out onto the computer screen this morning as I enjoyed my coffee. I was not refuting, arguing or debating ANYTHING you said in your post. I thought I'd made that point rather clearly, in fact.
I was also rather pointed in my statement that I wasn't arguing (for or against) New Deal. If anything, I was making YOUR point that it was the opening of the flood gates for the entitlement government model we have maintained ever since. You can question my facts all you like (and you routinely do so, I know)... but facts they remain.
A list of recessions/depressions from 1787 to the present:
Start of recession / Durations of recession-depression
1797 / 3 years
1802 / 2 years
1807 / 3 years
1812 / 6 months
1815 / 6 years
1822 / 1 year
1825 / 1 year
1828 / 1 year
1833 / 1 year
1836 / 2 years
1839 / 4 years
1845 / 1 year
1847 / 1 year
1853 / 1 year
1857 / 18 months
1860 / 8 months
1865 / 3 years
1869 / 2 years
1873 / 22 years (this is the Long Depression, lasting roughly from 1873 to 1896 of nearly uninterrupted of stagnant or negative growth)
1899 / 18 months
1902 / 2 years
1907 / 1 year
1910 / 2 years
1913 / 2 years
1918 / 1 year
1920 / 18 months
1923 / 1 year
1926 / 1 year
1929 / 3 years, 7 months (Oct 1929 to March 1933)
1937 / 1 year
1945 / 6 months
1949 / less than a year
1953 / less than a year
1958 / less than a year
1960 / less than a year
1969 / 1 year
1973 / 1 year
1980 / 2 years
1990 / 1 year
2001 / 1 year
2007 / (ongoing)
This is "History 101" my friend... I'm not making this up. In the last 60 years (using the end of WWII as the benchmark to avoid ruffled feathers), we have had less than 8 years of recession, and at no point have we had an actual "depression". In the time between WWI and WWII, we had nine years worth of recession/depression (actual economic terms, too... I'm not talking about "eras" the way you insist on doing).
I'm not juvenile enough to "blame" the Founding Fathers for failing to find the manner in which to avoid such economic crisis in the nation's future development, but I give them all the credit in the world for allowing for the growth and development of government to better handle issues and problems that they couldn't possibly have foreseen when drafting the Constitution.
Rant and rave all you want, buddy. I'm not speaking my "opinion" when I talk about the history of recession in this nation, now when I make my case that the New Deal was not the communist or fascist attempt at taking over American government in the shape of FDR. You say it failed, I say some of it failed and some of it worked. I feel I'm consistent in my standards and evaluations, and I feel you are not, since you can't admit that the very same economic planning and support that FDR made for the economy of the '30s is what Reagan was doing in the '80s. Undoubtedly, you feel exactly the opposite.
So, let's forget I wrote anything, and I'll make it a point in the future to NOT put up any of my personal musings or thoughts lest they fall under the eyes of someone unable to understand what is being presented and why it is presented in the way it is.
I was making an observation that yours wasn't the first comment I had heard blaming our troubles on the Baby Boomer generation, and I wrote my comments accordingly. Call it utterly self-indulgent egotism, but I was simply allowing the thought process that works within my mind to spill out onto the computer screen this morning as I enjoyed my coffee. I was not refuting, arguing or debating ANYTHING you said in your post. I thought I'd made that point rather clearly, in fact.
I was also rather pointed in my statement that I wasn't arguing (for or against) New Deal. If anything, I was making YOUR point that it was the opening of the flood gates for the entitlement government model we have maintained ever since. You can question my facts all you like (and you routinely do so, I know)... but facts they remain.
A list of recessions/depressions from 1787 to the present:
Start of recession / Durations of recession-depression
1797 / 3 years
1802 / 2 years
1807 / 3 years
1812 / 6 months
1815 / 6 years
1822 / 1 year
1825 / 1 year
1828 / 1 year
1833 / 1 year
1836 / 2 years
1839 / 4 years
1845 / 1 year
1847 / 1 year
1853 / 1 year
1857 / 18 months
1860 / 8 months
1865 / 3 years
1869 / 2 years
1873 / 22 years (this is the Long Depression, lasting roughly from 1873 to 1896 of nearly uninterrupted of stagnant or negative growth)
1899 / 18 months
1902 / 2 years
1907 / 1 year
1910 / 2 years
1913 / 2 years
1918 / 1 year
1920 / 18 months
1923 / 1 year
1926 / 1 year
1929 / 3 years, 7 months (Oct 1929 to March 1933)
1937 / 1 year
1945 / 6 months
1949 / less than a year
1953 / less than a year
1958 / less than a year
1960 / less than a year
1969 / 1 year
1973 / 1 year
1980 / 2 years
1990 / 1 year
2001 / 1 year
2007 / (ongoing)
This is "History 101" my friend... I'm not making this up. In the last 60 years (using the end of WWII as the benchmark to avoid ruffled feathers), we have had less than 8 years of recession, and at no point have we had an actual "depression". In the time between WWI and WWII, we had nine years worth of recession/depression (actual economic terms, too... I'm not talking about "eras" the way you insist on doing).
I'm not juvenile enough to "blame" the Founding Fathers for failing to find the manner in which to avoid such economic crisis in the nation's future development, but I give them all the credit in the world for allowing for the growth and development of government to better handle issues and problems that they couldn't possibly have foreseen when drafting the Constitution.
Rant and rave all you want, buddy. I'm not speaking my "opinion" when I talk about the history of recession in this nation, now when I make my case that the New Deal was not the communist or fascist attempt at taking over American government in the shape of FDR. You say it failed, I say some of it failed and some of it worked. I feel I'm consistent in my standards and evaluations, and I feel you are not, since you can't admit that the very same economic planning and support that FDR made for the economy of the '30s is what Reagan was doing in the '80s. Undoubtedly, you feel exactly the opposite.
So, let's forget I wrote anything, and I'll make it a point in the future to NOT put up any of my personal musings or thoughts lest they fall under the eyes of someone unable to understand what is being presented and why it is presented in the way it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
