ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Wars typically end. You won't get the healthcare genie back in the bottle. Even better. That is exactly my thinking why the right are screaming like little school girls. NEWSFLASH: Like it or not, we are a lot better society because of the New Deal. There is no reason to go back, times were worse... Just as they are now.
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Even better. That is exactly my thinking why the right are screaming like little school girls. NEWSFLASH: Like it or not, we are a lot better society because of the New Deal. There is no reason to go back, times were worse... Just as they are now. And there are pleny of people a lot smarter than you that say the New Deal prolonged the depression. FDR prolonged the depression "Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies." Interesting. The above quote was from 2004.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 And there are pleny of people a lot smarter than you that say the New Deal prolonged the depression. FDR prolonged the depression Interesting. The above quote was from 2004. Ya... Probably the ones that weren't standing in soup lines.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 I was just reading a nice article about the Upper MS river in our newsletter and the New Deal work that was being done... About the 9 foot channel and locks and dams that were built during the 1930's... All of them came "online" (except LD 19) just in time for the war... 75 Years and Counting
Magox Posted December 21, 2009 Author Posted December 21, 2009 NEWSFLASH: Like it or not, we are a lot better society because of the New Deal. Repeat after me "Just because I say it's so, doesn't it make it so", "Just because I say it's so, doesn't it make it so", "Just because I say it's so, doesn't it make it so"
Alaska Darin Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 NEWSFLASH: Like it or not, we are a lot better society because of the New Deal. Wrong, as usual. We're a lot better society because WWII built up the infrastructure of this country while devastating the infrastructures of our closest economic competitors. The "New Deal" is bankrupting this country.
GG Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Wrong, as usual. We're a lot better society because WWII built up the infrastructure of this country while devastating the infrastructures of our closest economic competitors. The "New Deal" is bankrupting this country. And imagine that, a few generations after they were devastated they've returned as viable competitors and people have a choice other than to buy American. Never mind the very basic funding of New Deal was premised on highly positive birth rates and average life expectancy of well under 70 in the '30s and '40s. Sounds like very sound financial footing for this century's slowing birth rates, declining workforce and life expectancy in the '80s. Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus and his name is Barack.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Wrong, as usual. We're a lot better society because WWII built up the infrastructure of this country while devastating the infrastructures of our closest economic competitors. The "New Deal" is bankrupting this country. Nice revising on your part. Ya... Wrong on your part as usual. What do you think, some of these things (especially the waterways) sprang up over-night. WWII just happened to be convenient... The Great Flood of 1927 did a lot in many ways too... Socially also. The upper MS infrastructure was operational just in time for the war (WWII). Now with regard to the Intercoastal Waterway, that was authorized after the close of WWI (1919) and was greatly helped by New Deal, again... Just in time for WWII... How convenient considering the situation with shipping in the Atlantic and the German U-Boats.
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Nice revising on your part. Ya... Wrong on your part as usual. What do you think, some of these things (especially the waterways) sprang up over-night. WWII just happened to be convenient... The Great Flood of 1927 did a lot in many ways too... Socially also. The upper MS infrastructure was operational just in time for the war (WWII). Now with regard to the Intercoastal Waterway, that was authorized after the close of WWI (1919) and was greatly helped by New Deal, again... Just in time for WWII... How convenient considering the situation with shipping in the Atlantic and the German U-Boats. So what you're saying is that the New Deal not only ended the depression it won WWII? Awesome.
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2009 Posted December 21, 2009 Nice revising on your part. Ya... Wrong on your part as usual. What do you think, some of these things (especially the waterways) sprang up over-night. WWII just happened to be convenient... The Great Flood of 1927 did a lot in many ways too... Socially also. The upper MS infrastructure was operational just in time for the war (WWII). Now with regard to the Intercoastal Waterway, that was authorized after the close of WWI (1919) and was greatly helped by New Deal, again... Just in time for WWII... How convenient considering the situation with shipping in the Atlantic and the German U-Boats. Conveniently ignoring the fact that both heavy industry and the labor pool were grossly under-utilized until the Brits and Frogs started screaming for help and Congress passed the Naval Expansion Act in 1940. And don't try to sell me that the only reason industry had the capacity to meet that expansion was the New Deal - industry didn't have the capacity. Most of it was created in response to war-time demand, not in anticipation of it.
IDBillzFan Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Wicked opinion piece from WSJ about Obamacare. I particularly like the article because it helps folks like me get a real sense of just how they are trying to sell this garbage while spending a lot of time talking in front of microphones about how historic it is. The author put it this way, very nicely I might add: "After a nearly century-long struggle we are on the cusp of making health-care reform a reality in the United States of America," Mr. Obama said on Saturday. He's forced to claim the mandate of "history" because he can't claim the mandate of voters. And ends his opinion piece rather well: Never in our memory has so unpopular a bill been on the verge of passing Congress, never has social and economic legislation of this magnitude been forced through on a purely partisan vote, and never has a party exhibited more sheer political willfulness that is reckless even for Washington or had more warning about the consequences of its actions. These 60 Democrats are creating a future of epic increases in spending, taxes and command-and-control regulation, in which bureaucracy trumps innovation and transfer payments are more important than private investment and individual decisions. In short, the Obama Democrats have chosen change nobody believes in—outside of themselves—and when it passes America will be paying for it for decades to come.
bills_fan Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Wicked opinion piece from WSJ about Obamacare. I particularly like the article because it helps folks like me get a real sense of just how they are trying to sell this garbage while spending a lot of time talking in front of microphones about how historic it is. The author put it this way, very nicely I might add: And ends his opinion piece rather well: A small, but ever growing, part of me hopes the world tells us to shove it with respect to funding our annual deficits and debt. Force the US to spend only what it brings in. And yes, I know that riots will be the likely result due to a combination of massive tax increases and massive cuts in service. I do, however, think the end result will be a much smaller government and folks with have to make do for themselves. Either that or we will all be communists.
outsidethebox Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 A small, but ever growing, part of me hopes the world tells us to shove it with respect to funding our annual deficits and debt. Force the US to spend only what it brings in. And yes, I know that riots will be the likely result due to a combination of massive tax increases and massive cuts in service. I do, however, think the end result will be a much smaller government and folks with have to make do for themselves. Either that or we will all be communists. I was told I look good in red!
Alaska Darin Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Conveniently ignoring the fact that both heavy industry and the labor pool were grossly under-utilized until the Brits and Frogs started screaming for help and Congress passed the Naval Expansion Act in 1940. And don't try to sell me that the only reason industry had the capacity to meet that expansion was the New Deal - industry didn't have the capacity. Most of it was created in response to war-time demand, not in anticipation of it. Eric is now arguing FOR "the Bridge to Nowhere" based upon the genius of the New Deal.
KD in CA Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 The "New Deal" is bankrupting this country. Be fair. LJB's 'war on poverty' helped too. Another ill advised 'war' that we can't win and can't get out of. As far as balancing the buget, let's start with laying off 20% of all government workers, increasing the health insurance contribution rate to 25% for the rest, and suspending all pension contributions for 3 years (this is exactly what my company has done and somehow no one is eating garbage or living in a box). Let me know how the numbers look after that.
Magox Posted December 22, 2009 Author Posted December 22, 2009 A small, but ever growing, part of me hopes the world tells us to shove it with respect to funding our annual deficits and debt. Force the US to spend only what it brings in. And yes, I know that riots will be the likely result due to a combination of massive tax increases and massive cuts in service. I do, however, think the end result will be a much smaller government and folks with have to make do for themselves. Either that or we will all be communists. It may already be starting http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/print.asp?id=423054 This was a comment made from Zhu Min, deputy governor of the People's Bank of China on the 18th of this month. In a discussion on the global role of the dollar, Zhu told an academic audience that it was inevitable that the dollar would continue to fall in value because Washington continued to issue more Treasuries to finance its deficit spending. He then addressed where demand for that debt would come from. "The United States cannot force foreign governments to increase their holdings of Treasuries," Zhu said, according to an audio recording of his remarks. "Double the holdings? It is definitely impossible." "The US current account deficit is falling as residents' savings increase, so its trade turnover is falling, which means the US is supplying fewer dollars to the rest of the world," he added. "The world does not have so much money to buy more US Treasuries."
IDBillzFan Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 It may already be starting http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/print.asp?id=423054 This was a comment made from Zhu Min, deputy governor of the People's Bank of China on the 18th of this month. But hey...the world likes us now, so that's something.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 So what you're saying is that the New Deal not only ended the depression it won WWII? Awesome. It helped... Think of the devasting floods prior to 1930... Then the droughts... Now think of the Upper MS and how much raw material was safely transported right down to the gulf... Not to mention the security of shipping materials along the InterCoastal. Pretty good vision they had... Then WWII comes stumbling along. Yet, the signs of war were alwyas there for some time. Again... These projects did not just spring up... It took decades for some.
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Conveniently ignoring the fact that both heavy industry and the labor pool were grossly under-utilized until the Brits and Frogs started screaming for help and Congress passed the Naval Expansion Act in 1940. And don't try to sell me that the only reason industry had the capacity to meet that expansion was the New Deal - industry didn't have the capacity. Most of it was created in response to war-time demand, not in anticipation of it. I am not disputing that to an extent. Think about it... One of the biggest civil infrastructure projects that came of the New Deal were the inland waterways... The Upper MS, Ohio, Illinois... Authorized by Congress much earlier in 1919 and expanded on during the New Deal years was the InterCoastal.. Yes... Industry did not have the capacity... Yet, when they did... They were able to get the product rapidly out of this country... And safely, that means without environmental inpediment like floods and drought. Again... Think about it, where was America's industrial complex. Isn't wasn't until 1959 that the Seaway was open and that route became reliable. Ore coming out of the Mesabi to the steel plants in BFLO, CLEV, IND, and PITT... Then steel could now be easily and safely transported anyway in the country. Even the rapids at Rock Island didn't pose a impediment to arms coming off the arsenal. Yes... The capacity wasn't there, but the infrastucture to handle that future increase in capacity was there just in time for war.
DC Tom Posted December 22, 2009 Posted December 22, 2009 Yes... The capacity wasn't there, but the infrastucture to handle that future increase in capacity was there just in time for war. Which would be a more compelling argument if you didn't quote an example from 1959.
Recommended Posts