That's fair, although had it been another human being it would have been flattering. Maybe he should start ripping an actual oppinion from whomever it may be.
Alpha male can't read.
Actually you started all this drama because I stated an opinion on the thread topic. You hypocritically claimed that my post was irrelevant because I was not asked directly to make one.
You were not asked directly to make your first post in this thread either, genius.
Now you and Darrin are comparing notes about me rather than discussing what I was discussing in this thread before you made it about me.
Good job.
Iggy is right that boutons take on the history is absurdly simplistic but his own is pretty sketchy too.
My own opinion is that the OP is too incoherent to really pass comment on.
Appears to be garden variety fear mongering; the welfare state might get trimmed, but it isn't going anywhere.
The danger, anyway, is vastly overemphasized. We've been a welfare state for a long time, and will continue to be one for another long time.
Agreed. Who knows where either was going in their respective tirades?
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 07-10-2011 at 03:33 PM. Reason: grammar police
Whatever the level of Hoover's interventions, it was perceived as not enough or just the wrong thing to do at the time -- and he was pretty ideologically bound from doing much of anything else. His mishandling of the Bonus Army situation pretty much cemented his reputation as a man who didn't give a about or was actively working against the people who were hurt by the Depression.
FDR wasn't hampered by such a strict ideology, as gtown pointed out before he lost his . He tried many different approaches to help the economy and the people affected by it; perhaps more importantly he looked like he was working in the interest of the common American and looking out for him. Sure, some of his programs and schemes were ineffective or counterproductive in retrospect or downright dangerous to democracy, but given the alternatives of civil unrest and possible revolutionary movements, what's worse?
there was no revolt in Hoover's period. Besides, what FDR did was criminal, impeachable, and if you compare to Europe, we were in a depression for longer and it's all because of FDR. Unemployment didn't skyrocket until the passage of the Smoot Howley Tariff Act, infact a month after the crash, unemployment was a 6%. What Harding/Coolidge did in the 1920 crash was minimal to no intervention, infact tax cuts and letting interest rates rise got them out of the crash within a year. This had to do with the market reallocating it's resources to more productive sectors and letting the bad sectors fail. It worked splendidly compared to the 29 crash. Infact, some facts about those times, taxes were at 24 percent and skyrocketed to 64 percent with Hoover's revenue act. FDR had a complicit press and propagandist help with covering up for his failure.
Not to mention, FDR sacrificed the lives of american soldiers intentionally to draw us into war. FDR is s .
mine's sketchy, provide proof. I've done my job to bolster my case.
thanks for pointing that out, genius.
That was signed into law two years before FDR was elected, and the revenue act was before his time too.Besides, what FDR did was criminal, impeachable, and if you compare to Europe, we were in a depression for longer and it's all because of FDR. Unemployment didn't skyrocket until the passage of the Smoot Howley Tariff Act
You contradicted yourself.
Um.. i already stated that hoover signed the smoot howley act and the revenue in a previous post, (Infact that was my whole argument about how Hoover was an interventionist)I don't know how you got that i said FDR, did all that. So obviously i was adressing the whole depression era as a whole. You're not into this conversation anyway, you've proven that you have nothing to offer to this conversation,and you've gone back to being a . .
You contradicted yourself.
Look, you made a blanket statement about FDR's being solely responsible for worsening the depression, then completely contradicted yourself by blaming pre-FDR laws for worsening the depression.
Just make up your mind and quit whining for once.
If you remember, i was responding to your claim that FDR had it so bad that riots would have ensued, so i had to show that hoover had already gone through the rough parts and he didn't encounter such things. So i had to bring on a time line to address the situation of the GD. Nowhere did i attribute this all to FDR.
I've blamed both Hoover and FDR for the depression. The whole reason i brought up the Howley tarriff and revenue act was to contrast those govt actions with the Harding/Coolidge years. Stick to arguing the topic and stay away from hyperbole.
The hyperbole was yours.Take your own advice.we were in a depression for longer and it's all because of FDR
Okay, i see you can't take responsibility for your actions. And yeah, FDR did prolong the depression. Dispute that. IF hoover started it, FDR prolonged it. What's so hard about that?
Who was in charge when the great depression started? I'm asking you.
I see you can't take responsibility for yours.
It's fun to watch though. The walkback has already begun.
The funniest part is I agree with most of what you posted about FDR and Hoover -- without the dramatic cartoon vilification of course -- but it wouldn't be a gtown thread without drama. You just couldn't let your anger go even once.
"we were in a depression for longer and it's all because of FDR"
bull ing . The depression in US was MUCH deeper, and compounded by the Dust Bowl drought and destruction of 1000s of farms when farming was not yet taken over by the corps.
You've really bought the demonization of FDR from the Cato, Hoover, Heritage, AEI, and all the VRWC stink tanks.
And I'm still waiting for you, above all, expert economist, to tell me what FDR should have done, and what Barry should do.
and Europe, esp Germany, did have the Keynesian fiscal stimulus of huge industrialization and arming for war, just like FDR Keynesian fiscal stimulus on entering WWII (btw, US blockade of Pacific shipping scared the out of sea-dependent, small island Japan, who felt they HAD to attack the US fleet in defensive retaliation)
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-10-2011 at 08:07 PM.
, i guess you're implying Obama should arm for war.
Cut taxes, cut spending starting with any aid (sorry, en lements) to the poor, balloon the debt, and pray the rich 'trickle-down'. Is there any other GOP economic plan?
long term, as far as the economy goes, three things come to mind. The US govt. has a responsibility to
1. prevent financial fraud. That means the SEC has got to stop being the banking industry's little and throw some asshole bankers in jail. But that won't happen till......
2. raise capital requirements on banks....by a lot. To the point they can hardly make any money. Creating money should be treated as a sacred duty, not a money making machine for bankers.
3. no more bailouts. America is already experiencing an economic armegeddon. Let the ers jump.
cutting spending is the only way to erase debt, you could raise more revenue, but only to a point. But history only shows that when we raise revenues we increase spending, so it's a moot point. Cut spending.
History shows there's no interest in erasing debt, whether it's by any spending cuts or increase in revenue. Both parties apply the same Keynesian stimulus, one by granting tax cuts the other by directly writing checks. It all gets kicked forward on the national credit card.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote