Obama’s ‘New Deal’ Not Likely to Cure Economy or Unemployment Rate, Free Market Econo

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,332
    Likes Received:
    786
    President-elect Barack Obama has announced an economic plan comprised of massive public works programs to stimulate the economy and create 2.5 million jobs, at an estimated cost of $1.2 trillion.

    Some analysts are callling it a New New Deal, comparing it to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal response to the 1930s Depression. But government data show that FDR's programs did not substantially reduce unemployment, and some economists think such programs actually prolonged the Depression and kept unemployment high.


    More Here
     
  2. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    even more spending? not a cut in spending.
    which will mean he's going to need money to pay for it. guess where thats coiming from. yep, the same people he says he's trying to help will pay big for it, more taxes all around.
     
  3. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    It will be paid for by taxes but taxes on the grandkids, not taxes on this generation's old people.
     
  4. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Roosevelt's New Deal extended the depression until he got us involved in WWII.
     
  5. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats just great isn't it, this si what my grandkids inherit, obamas higher taxes.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,907
    Likes Received:
    295
    His government spending spree will most likely extend the recession just as FDR's extended the depression.

    It may even cause a real depression.
     
  7. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    They're also inheriting Bush's huge debt and probably won't collect on Social Security or Medicare.
     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    It was the democrats under Johnson who started robbing Social Security. Bush made a valiant effort at reform but got no help!
     
  9. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wrong... But you know that.
     
  10. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought Teddy Roosevelt did the new deal so FDR must have done the new, new deal so this must be the new, new, new deal.

    Whenever an article says "some economist" that means the claim is disputable and that not all economist agree. Sounds like a Left/Right split on how successful it was.
     
  11. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Ignorance [of history] is no excuse!:laugh::laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
     
  12. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where was/is the fussing and complaining about how Bush has given our kids a debt that will be hard for them to pay in their lifetime?

    Why is it that now Obama is getting ready to get in office everyone wants to watch spending and yet for the last 8 years we have done nothing but spend?

    Kind of one sided don't you think?
     
  13. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was surprised to see the deficit Reagan ran up.
     
  14. dragonfly

    dragonfly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's somehow different when a republican does it.
     
  15. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,907
    Likes Received:
    295
    It is a historical fact that the depression lasted years longer in the U.S. than in Europe.

    Roosevelt's policies were the reason
     
  16. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,907
    Likes Received:
    295
    Back atcha.

    Why is is democrats have been carping about the Bush deficits for years while at the same time loading every spending bill with tons of pork and now spending trillions of dollars without a thought for the deficit?

    Makes Republicans look like amateurs at wasting money.
     
  17. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Like it or not, it the Congress which has always controlled the purse:

    It's the Congress that says which programs get what.

    The only power the President has is to ask for money for a program: Congress can either agree or deny.

    Unfortunately, congress often uses such efforts to pass their own pork programs attached so that the President can sign or veto........ but either way he's caught in a trap. Congress does divide over party lines.... and has used its powers both to manipulate between the parties within and to manipulate for or against the President's policies and obligations.
     
  18. windcatcher

    windcatcher
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Messages:
    2,764
    Likes Received:
    0
    My Father and I agree on this point: The Depression continued until WWII which brought increases in industry, investment, debt, employment, and the economy of death.

    The New Deal employment program, the CCCamps, gave young men, like my dad, an opportunity for employment and development of work discipline and hope: As my dad recalls, the living in a camp and discipline of hard labor, rather military style, provided employment for the youth but very little income: However, it was sufficiently supported in military style (which was very frugal at that time) that it did offer a man the chance of sending a few dollars home to help his struggling family: Many young men left home and sent monies back, like my father, to help their parents and younger siblings. My dad sees the camps of his day as being a build up of discipline which would be useful for war, which he thinks now, was already being premeditated as a way to jump-start the economy. In November, 1940 he joined the Navy, and was on the E. coast, having just done a tour in Hawaii, when WWII started breaking in 1941.

    In the past, war has been the solution to restarting the economy: I refer to it as the economy of death because in the past so many soldiers, both young and old, have died, while the economy of war realigned nations and their industries and the demographics of their people. Modern warfare is proving to be much different than the past. More soldiers return live from the field but casualties of war injuries: They need a support system which is slow in responding to their need. Realisticlly, this is also an obligation that a nation owes those who serve and is part of the cost of war...... whether or not the nation wants to pay or is capable of paying.

    I hope another WW is not in our future..... but I suspect that it is ..... and that it will be nastier than any seen before in terms of mass death of both civilian and military populations. If not this, then a more sinister design may be planned to eliminate the restless, struggling, unemployed masses, to 'reduce' the cry and demands upon economies and government...... and to insure the survival of those elite people which we entrust to take care of our welfare. (Well.... I don't but so many do have this trust.):tear:

    There may not be other solutions viable to Obama, than to try what's been tried in the past: Our young people don't have the experiences of my dad's generation, of hard farm work, strict and corporal discipline in the home, and the values of life and respect for property.... whether its yours or a stranger. Employment and discipline in military styled camps may be an answer....not a good answer..... but the answer to the energy of youth which needs to be focused in a constructive (hopefully) way. However, governments have never been effective in building, except through endoctrination and nationalistic propaganda, the values of a lost generation in which it was part of destroying the influence within the home or the influence of the community upon its local education institutions.:tear:
     
  19. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    SO the Democrats are the only ones piling on the pork? I don't think so, it's both parties...

    They all waste money, more than we could ever think of...

    I still don't get the point that people are complaing about what Obama will or won't spend when he isn't even in office and yet we have a current President that has spent and spent and he goes unchecked.

    It just seems one sided to me...

    For the record, I have stated this before and will continue to stand by it. ALL politicans are corrupt so until we remove them all and start over again it will always be more of the same no matter which party is in the White House. Sadly...
     
  20. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not a fact and it's not a fair statement, that is conjecture from the right and those who endorse a pure form of free market economy. Your main reason for trying to make this point is to say Obama plan will make things worse and not better.

    The facts are clear, there is no quick cure to any depression or recession. There is no loan that can be given, company created or legislation passed that can undo what took years to do. So what has to be measured is the direction of the economy and the progress. You don't measure when things are back to the pre-depression levels, you measure when they turned around.

    The direction of the economy when FDR began his new deal was going down. It had been getting worse for a while. The depression didn't begin one day, it was a long slow road like the one we currently travel. FDR took office when unemployment was 25% and by WWII it was down to 15%. I consider halting unemployment then reducing unemployment by 10% is a success. It takes a very critical person not to agree. I guess you think it could have been turned around quicker if we'd done nothing.

    Europe entered the war a few years before the US. That is why their numbers changed sooner. They were sending men to war which brought the unemployment rates way down. Like you said, once we started sending troops overseas our unemployment rates went way down also. If we started the draft today, unemployment would go way down. Especially in a day and time when only the men were counted.

    Another thing FDR did was sold war making goods to the allies that were at war. Liberty ships, tanks, planes etc... all boosted the economy as well. I didn't like his system of creative financing but he did put folks to work.

    You're trying to take a narrow view of a large period of our history and it isn't fair to the people who did their best to make a difference in the lives of American's. We will see the same in this current situation, things won't change overnight. Recovery is a long and slow and we'll need every inch of that road. What I look to see first and what I will call a success is if we can halt the rate of unemployment and stabilize the job market. We must stop the economy from going down before we ever see it go up one bit.

    As long as we're loosing hundreds of thousands of jobs each month, things are only getting worse. The first step is reduce job loss, that means our current industries have stabilized and we found the bottom of the recession. We are a long way from seeing improvement. We are talking years away.
     

Share This Page

Loading...