Historical deja vu with the republicans leaving office?

[Karthak]

[W]e are taking leave not merely of a single Administration. For twelve years the Republican Party has been in power. During ten of those years it controlled the executive and legislative branches of the government. When, a few years hence, an attempt is made to minimize the disaster of this last quadrennium, and to point to a preceding eight year period of material development and growth, let it be noted that in a purely material sense the American people are much worse off today than they were twelve years ago.

Far more than was gained has been swept away. Savings have been dissipated, lives have been blasted, families disintegrated. Misery and insecurity exist to a degree unprecedented in our national life. And spiritually the American people have been debauched by the materialism which made dollar-chasing the accepted way of life and accumulation of riches the goal of earthly existence.


The above was written when Hoover left office...in 1933, yet you only have to change the amount of years mentioned to make it look like it was written a month ago. Creepy.

[ruaidhri]

Yes! History sure does repeat itself.

Also note how similar the Republicans are reacting today compared with how they responded to FDR's New Deal.

I believe Obama's major error is in hoping that the Republicans will forget partisan politics and work together to fix our economy. From my perspective they are anything but the "loyal" opposition. The only thing they're loyal to is their own interests. What they've forgot is that the American people elected Obama its President and a Congress that is controlled by Democrats, not Republicans.

If the Republicans don't want to get on board with the only plan available to fix our economy then they aren't loyal; they're obstructionists at best and disloyal at worst. We've elected President Obama to steer us out of this mess. Instead of fighting every effort and displaying disunity, which only hurts any chance of success, we all need to get on track and work together because if we don't we'll all fail.

[Karthak]

Yes! History sure does repeat itself.

Also note how similar the Republicans are reacting today compared with how they responded to FDR's New Deal.

I believe Obama's major error is in hoping that the Republicans will forget partisan politics and work together to fix our economy. From my perspective they are anything but the "loyal" opposition. The only thing they're loyal to is their own interests. What they've forgot is that the American people elected Obama its President and a Congress that is controlled by Democrats, not Republicans.

If the Republicans don't want to get on board with the only plan available to fix our economy then they aren't loyal; they're obstructionists at best and disloyal at worst. We've elected President Obama to steer us out of this mess. Instead of fighting every effort and displaying disunity, which only hurts any chance of success, we all need to get on track and work together because if we don't we'll all fail.The thing that disturbes me the most is that nobody on the republican side seems capable of learning from past mistakes. No one who says, "hang on, haven't we been through this before, with less than stellar results?"

[Charrington]

Yes! History sure does repeat itself.

Also note how similar the Republicans are reacting today compared with how they responded to FDR's New Deal.

I believe Obama's major error is in hoping that the Republicans will forget partisan politics and work together to fix our economy. From my perspective they are anything but the "loyal" opposition. The only thing they're loyal to is their own interests. What they've forgot is that the American people elected Obama its President and a Congress that is controlled by Democrats, not Republicans.

If the Republicans don't want to get on board with the only plan available to fix our economy then they aren't loyal; they're obstructionists at best and disloyal at worst. We've elected President Obama to steer us out of this mess. Instead of fighting every effort and displaying disunity, which only hurts any chance of success, we all need to get on track and work together because if we don't we'll all fail.


By most accounts the new deal was a failure, even unconstitutional. And as far as I'm aware a stimulus package has never worked.

[ruaidhri]

Charrington, No, the New Deal was not a failure except in the imagination of diehard Republicans who can't let go of the fact that their policies caused the Great Depression of the 1930's and the Democrats were necessary to relieve the suffering and bring prosperity back to America.

I was born in 1941, my sister in 1929 and my brother in 1922. My father and mother were born in 1898 and 1902 respectively. The Depression, the recovery and Franklin D. Roosevelt were constant topics of conversation in my family. They, like most Americans, looked upon Roosevelt as their friend and only hope. The few Republicans that dared stick their heads out their asses spouted hatred for Roosevelt, his programs and the people the New Deal helped. Still, Roosevelt won the presidency again and again and again. He was the people's president.

Unconstitutional? True the nine old men of the Supreme Court did declare the NRA unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Recovery_Administration) only to have many of its provisions reappear
within the Wagner Act of 1935. If you read the article about the NRA in Wikipedia you'll discover that it was widely popular with the American People. Who opposed it? You guessed it: Fat cat Republicans.

I can still walk around town and find old buildings, foot bridges and old paths that were built by men and women working for Roosevelt's alphabet agencies.

I find it truly amazing that Republicans are still fighting a battle with a man who died almost 64 years ago. Sad. Truth be told, many of today's high and mighty Republicans wouldn't be here today if FDR had not been there for their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents back during the Great Depression.

One the high points of my life was going out for lunch one afternoon in 1960 with Eleanor Roosevelt and Eunice Kennedy Shriver. We talked about the country back in the 1930's and the hopes of Eunice's brother John Kennedy to lead America through the 1960's. They were good people that treated me, an awe struck young man of 19, with respect and kindness.

[Charrington]

Charrington, No, the New Deal was not a failure except in the imagination of diehard Republicans who can't let go of the fact that their policies caused the Great Depression of the 1930's and the Democrats were necessary to relieve the suffering and bring prosperity back to America.


Economists today say the new deal extended the depression by 7-12 years.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

I would say FDR did get America out of the great depression, rather by involving us in WW2 thn his new deal policies though.

I was born in 1941, my sister in 1929 and my brother in 1922. My father and mother were born in 1898 and 1902 respectively. The Depression, the recovery and Franklin D. Roosevelt were constant topics of conversation in my family. They, like most Americans, looked upon Roosevelt as their friend and only hope. The few Republicans that dared stick their heads out their asses spouted hatred for Roosevelt, his programs and the people the New Deal helped. Still, Roosevelt won the presidency again and again and again. He was the people's president.

Unconstitutional? True the nine old men of the Supreme Court did declare the NRA unconstitutional (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...Administration) only to have many of its provisions reappear
within the Wagner Act of 1935. If you read the article about the NRA in Wikipedia you'll discover that it was widely popular with the American People. Who opposed it? You guessed it: Fat cat Republicans.

If the average person knew what was best for the country there wouldn't be an electoral college or a massive federal government.

I find it truly amazing that Republicans are still fighting a battle with
a man who died almost 64 years ago. Sad. Truth be told, many of today's high and mighty Republicans wouldn't be here today if FDR had not been there for their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents back during the Great Depression.

The battle is still relevant because similar policies are being proposed today. And I'm not a republican.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

So by economists you mean two of them from UCLA.

[Swede]

Economists today say the new deal extended the depression by 7-12 years.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409

I think that's being a bit misleading, using the general term "Economists today" when your article is talking about just 2 economists from UCLA. Not to belittle what they're saying, but it seems far from general consensus.



edit: Oh, FYP. you.

[darighaz]

Most of that report as i read it, focuses around their projections about what the economy should have been like given that FDR had been nothing. It completly ignores the human factors involved in the state of the economy, and also falls pray to the same problems with all computer models of humans. They're not very often right. Computer projections showed the prices of houses rising continuously year over year, inviting mass stupidity in lending. We can see how well that turned out.

[Charrington]

So by economists you mean two of them from UCLA.

Probably should have given a compendium of people who agree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression

[darighaz]

Quoted from your link

A 1995 survey of economic historians asked whether "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed 'with provisos' (what provisos the survey does not state) and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, only 27% agreed and 73% disagreed.[56]

Well done.

The next part talks about the 2 UCLA guys we just mentioned, and the 2 guys after that said the Cartelization provisos (which we aren't doing now btw) are what may have made it worse.

[MNJetter]

Economists today say the new deal extended the depression by 7-12 years.
FDR signed the New Deal into law 6 years before the great depression ended in the United States. Mathematically, he couldn't have extended it by even 7 years, much less 12.

[Jetsetlemming]

Fat cat Republicans.

This is why I'm a registered Republican.

[Swede]

This is why I'm a registered Republican.
http://images.paraorkut.com/img/pics/glitters/g/garfield-9063.gif

[ruaidhri]

I am not going to pretend that I am a historian. What I know I remember from the many conversations I had with my parents and others from their generation. America during the 1930’s was a land of unemployment and underemployment. Times were tough for most citizens and horrific for many.

FDR had a formidable task ahead of him when he said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. First, he had to provide relief and jobs for the many people out of work and unable to feed, house and clothe their families. Second, he had to restore confidence in American capitalism and restore a sound economy.

Corporations, large and small, generally had the army and the police on their side during labor disputes. It wasn’t uncommon for heads to be cracked on both sides. Communists took advantage of the tough times and their promises brought in many new members. I believe if it were not for FDR providing relief for the unemployed, underemployed, hungry and cold, Communism would have taken over the hearts of the working man and woman. If they had nothing to lose the appeal would have been strong.

My parents believed FDR saved America. I agree.

[stsparky]

Democrats always save the USA. Well, almost always — the problems come from trying to walk a Centrist path to placate the narrow minded who screwed over the nation due to their limited POV. Now I'm a crazed Progressive who wants to see an attempt to get to Swedish style entitlements for all without Swedish style taxes. One thing I'd like to see from this is the sack of the businesses of the Carlyle Group and Halliburton to begin to pay for all of it. If the hypocritical 1990's GOP politicians hadn't focused on a ridiculous blowjob instead of doing their actual jobs we'd be better off now. We're kinda fucked if we can't move beyond how screwed the Bush/Cheney administration left America. I say jail all of them in Gitmo unless they agree to give evidence against the traitors. I think these greedheads need to be isolated from the rest of society. What I'd do - and bear in mind we've known how to do most of the below for decades:

1. Let's build desalination/power plants on all our coasts, 3 or 4 per township.

2. Let's freeze and compress captured CO^2 gases and ship the frozen blocks north to the Arctic or South to the Antarctic. And return with properly harvested seaweed and fish products.

3. High speed Maglev trains cross country as part of fixing our transportation infrastructure and restart the iron/steel industry as micro forges. And then also use the tech to perfect build mass divers. Once done - we can then shoot unwanted radioactive waste to Venus or the Sun.

4. Build underground/overground Arcologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology) in places that need them.

5. Figure ways to create Single Cell Organic Protein (SCOP) as a food source for everyone in ways that don't have a major environmental impact.

6. Re-image the Space Station as a 365/24/7 working space colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society) and park it in a Lagrange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#Unspecified_Lagrange_Points) orbit. Colonize the moon.

Food, water, shelter & employment are thus addressed and we create an accessible frontier.

[D-pad]

:clap:

[SoulPlay]

Not that I consider myself a full-blown economist, but I will graduate this coming May with a degree in such matters. Given what I've studied I must say that it is widely believed by Keynesian economists (most of today consider ourselves Keynesian) that what dragged on the Great Depression was, in effect, the belief that "the market is self-correcting" and the invisible hand should take care of it. On top of that, a series of protectionist policies post-world war I and the massive failure of banks placed the American economy in position of distrust in the eyes of both American citizens and countries abroad. This helped to spread the effect of the depression beyond our borders. Now, I'm not precisely clear on what rescued the economy back then but it is my understanding that the embracing of Keynesian thought by the administration of the time did help kick the economy back into action.

It was at around this time that John Maynard Keynes came up with his theory of economic growth with the help of the government anyways. Actually, AFAIK much of what is thought to be modern macroeconomics today comes from Keynesian thinking, which is the believe that through fiscal policy and monetary policy governments can promote efficiency and sustainable growth.

To be honest, the idea that the New Deal proved in any way to be detrimental to economic growth of the time seems not only preposterous, but a bitter attack at those who took the task at hands and decided to do something about it.

[Charrington]

Democrats always save the USA. Well, almost always — the problems come from trying to walk a Centrist path to placate the narrow minded who screwed over the nation due to their limited POV. Now I'm a crazed Progressive who wants to see an attempt to get to Swedish style entitlements for all without Swedish style taxes. One thing I'd like to see from this is the sack of the businesses of the Carlyle Group and Halliburton to begin to pay for all of it. If the hypocritical 1990's GOP politicians hadn't focused on a ridiculous blowjob instead of doing their actual jobs we'd be better off now. We're kinda fucked if we can't move beyond how screwed the Bush/Cheney administration left America. I say jail all of them in Gitmo unless they agree to give evidence against the traitors. I think these greedheads need to be isolated from the rest of society. What I'd do - and bear in mind we've known how to do most of the below for decades:

1. Let's build desalination/power plants on all our coasts, 3 or 4 per township.

2. Let's freeze and compress captured CO^2 gases and ship the frozen blocks north to the Arctic or South to the Antarctic. And return with properly harvested seaweed and fish products.

3. High speed Maglev trains cross country as part of fixing our transportation infrastructure and restart the iron/steel industry as micro forges. And then also use the tech to perfect build mass divers. Once done - we can then shoot unwanted radioactive waste to Venus or the Sun.

4. Build underground/overground Arcologies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology) in places that need them.

5. Figure ways to create Single Cell Organic Protein (SCOP) as a food source for everyone in ways that don't have a major environmental impact.

6. Re-image the Space Station as a 365/24/7 working space colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society) and park it in a Lagrange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#Unspecified_Lagrange_Points) orbit. Colonize the moon.

Food, water, shelter & employment are thus addressed and we create an accessible frontier.

You seem to think there's some major difference between democrats and republicans.

[stsparky]

You seem to think there's some major difference between democrats and republicans.Are you asking if there are better and worse types of politician? Yes, I think all Reagan-style Republicans are demonic changelings suckling on the teats of EVIL. Reagan was EVIL. Bush I and II were both EVIL. Fractally so. So Yes, what seems to be the biggest difference between Dem and Rep bad apples is their poison. GOP assholes like boys, Democratic jerks go for girls.

Whereas, I like the ideas of some big L libertarians. I want to see things cost their actual worth. We live in an imperfect world I'm aware — but I tire of archreactionaries holding us back.

Go research Mass Driver 1, and see if you can help instead of snark,

[Trump]

Now look... to compare Obama to FDR is like comparing King John of England to Elizibeth I. FDR inspired hope, Obama inspires fear. I really do not believe there is a comparison. What I do see is Obama and a democratic congress ramming this crap down our throat because "there is no other way". That is total BS. FDR gave us options, Obama gives us only his path (which many think is wrong). We are the United States. We can do anything, and we can find a better way to deal with this situation than our corrupt politicians (both parties) are managing to find for us.

[MNJetter]

I think that if FDR had come upon today's situation, he would have taken a similar approach to Obama. Back in the 1940s, there was no internet -- no medium by which gobs and gobs of people could put forth their own opinions and choices for everyone to see instantly. The president and other "experts" who gained rights to speak on the radio were the sources of information. FDR had to deal with a populace that didn't know their options. Obama has to deal with one that's getting so many options that they are paralyzed by them and have no idea what to really think.

I'm not saying that Obama and FDR are the same. But I do think that their different approaches are more situational than anything on a personality level.

[ruaidhri]

I believe MNJetter is on the right track. The U.S. was indeed a very different country during FDR’s terms in office. Information was far more restricted. The average citizen was not as educated. And, most importantly, there were not as many “experts” providing, and effectively communicating, conflicting solutions to the same problems.

I certainly am not qualified to question the potential benefit of any plan to correct our financial crisis. What I do know is we have to do something to restore faith. Without optimism more businesses will layoff employees, more will cut hours and more will permanently close their doors. Meanwhile, more families will find themselves in dire straits. They will require relief and employment. Only the federal government is capable of making a reasonable effort to restore the confidence in the markets that is necessary to create jobs.

Right now, Barack Obama is our President, regardless of personal preferences in the last election. He alone is at the head of the Executive Branch. Likewise, the Democrats control both houses of the Legislative Branch. I support Barack Obama’s plan because it’s the only plan we’ve got. If McCain had won and if the Republicans had captured both houses I would be supporting their plan because their plan would be our only hope.

With our current situation, I believe the worst thing we can do is to throw roadblocks in the path of any plan that has the potential to restore faith and liquidity in the markets. I’m afraid that constant questioning and expressing doubt will only serve to ensure failure, which would be everyone failure resulting in the further collapse of our economy and all of our futures. Where’s the benefit in that?

It’s time to stop fighting and to start uniting.

[Trump]

I just don't know how to explain this without being terribly wordy and confusing. I guess my overall problem right now is our leaders are all doom and gloom and use fear instead of hope to inspire people right now. I mean, look at the last election, it was all fear instead of hope, and while several of the ones who were spouting fear aren't in office any more, many many still are.

"Our only hope" is it? Wow, how depressing!! I refuse to support "our only hope" because I have faith that Americans have the ingenuity to come up with more options and the strength to implement them. That is hope, that is what we should be focusing on. Not stimulus bills the size of China, so big even the authors probably don't know what makes them up any more. I even feel like Obama doesn't know what is in the bill any more and that he has the same attitude you do. He supports it because it is "the only hope"!! So overall I support our government but with reservations, becuse I believe they are making HUGE mistakes right now.

[Kai]

I don't like the message Obama and the Democrats are passing along as "You have to jump on our plan or else." I still didn't see much in this Stimulus package thats going to bring the economy back up on its feet and I doubt Obama was aware of what was all thrown into it either. Whether or not Obama and the Democratically controlled Congress have the solution is unknown yet. Their first critique will come in 2010.

Democrats always save the USA. Well, almost always — the problems come from trying to walk a Centrist path to placate the narrow minded who screwed over the nation due to their limited POV.

The Democrats are just as guilty of having a limited POV as the GOP. Tax & Spend.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

The Democrats are just as guilty of having a limited POV as the GOP. Tax & Spend.
Unlike the GOP, which is just spend.

[archdukezeb]

I don't like the message Obama and the Democrats are passing along as "You have to jump on our plan or else." I still didn't see much in this Stimulus package thats going to bring the economy back up on its feet and I doubt Obama was aware of what was all thrown into it either.

Haha. Are you saying you have a better idea of what's in the stimulus than Obama?

[SlickWilly440]

I think we can all agree on that "We can all self-stimulate ourselves more than this stimulus package."

[Kai]

Haha. Are you saying you have a better idea of what's in the stimulus than Obama?

I meant that I am skeptical that Obama knows whats all in the stimulus plan himself.

[Trump]

All I know is that Obama seems to have a political agenda that does not match up with the needs of the country as a functioning sovereign entity and it's going to kill us in the long run.

[D-pad]

I lol'd.

[Citizen]

World War II ended the Great Depression, tax cuts ended the recession of the late 70s (which was worse than our current recession, though most seem to have forgotten this). Massive porkbarrel/unchecked spending (Obama's stimulus package) will not end it. It's also worth noting that even Bush wasn't a big enough fuck up to cause this entire situation on his own; Clinton's God awful credit policies were the massive economic piledriver that started us down this path. It's been more than eight years since we've had a good president, don't fool yourself. A good president improves not only their own time period, but also ensures a brighter future for their nation. Times were good in the 90s, but Clinton laid a ticking timebomb under us for the 2000s.

The Democrats are just as guilty of having a limited POV as the GOP. Tax & Spend.

One is just as bad as the other, in most aspects. Boh sides have some more sensible members, and members who are more centrist/moderate, but in general, neither side is any less corrupt or any more effective than the other.

What I do know is we have to do something to restore faith. Without optimism more businesses will layoff employees, more will cut hours and more will permanently close their doors.

Companies don't make their decisions based on faith, they make them based on their current profits and stock values. If anything, Obama has made companies more likely to layoff employees, as every time something significant has happened in relation to Obama, the stock market has gone down.

I support Barack Obama’s plan because it’s the only plan we’ve got.

Being the only plan to have been signed into law does not make it the only plan we have. Here are some other plans that have been floating around:

1. Tax cuts (worked in the 70s)
2. Do nothing (many people subscribe to the "market fixes itself" mentality)
3. A better stimulus package, with money actually going to infrastructure and consumers, rather than pork.

I believe the worst thing we can do is to throw roadblocks in the path of any plan that has the potential to restore faith and liquidity in the markets.

Mindlessly abiding by things you believe are hurting the nation is not the American way, nor is it intelligent. Many of the people who fought against the stimulus package did so because they honestly believed it to be a disaster. Were they wrong to do so? Any moreso, perhaps, than the Democrats who fought Bush's awful decisions, or who voted against McCain?

Democrats always save the USA.

They do? That's news to me. Historically, both parties have gotten us out of recessions, and both parties have had their massive failures. I guess that's what I get for not buying into far-left, revisionist history.

Haha. Are you saying you have a better idea of what's in the stimulus than Obama?

Have you seen what's in the stimulus package?

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

If you're going to call the stimulus package "massive porkbarrel" spending you could at least identify in the stimulus package what you consider to be pork and why you do, otherwise your post isn't much different from some no-effort editorial piece in a newspaper. Also $288 billion of the package will be tax cuts, and $111 billion to infrastructure and science (Not counting energy, another $43 billion).

It's been more than eight years since we've had a good president, don't fool yourself
How about it's been more than thirty years, instead.

Also, just let to let you know, this guessing game of whether or not Obama knows what's in the stimulus package is dumb as hell. It's much more likely that he's looked into it in much more detail than any of you have and this "gotcha" question of "Well, have you seen what's in it?" as though Obama is your everyday joe on the internet is laughable. Besides you can see what's in it pretty easily.

Many of the people who fought against the stimulus package did so because they honestly believed it to be a disaster.
Not really, I could easily argue it was just politics on the part of the Republicans. There was an article recently with Specter saying how his colleagues were telling him good job for voting on the stimulus when they wouldn't because they had primaries coming up. Maybe some of them did, maybe some of them didn't, but you can't really back it up either way and it's a red herring to even bring it up.

[Citizen]

If you're going to call the stimulus package "massive porkbarrel" spending you could at least identify in the stimulus package what you consider to be pork and why you do, otherwise your post isn't much different from some no-effort editorial piece in a newspaper.

Funny how things like that don't seem to concern you when you make your own snarky and/or baseless posts.

Anyway, the money I'm referring to is the roughly $350 billion that gets slowly chipped away by things that won't stimulate the economy, aid to foreign war veterans, new uniforms for airlines, new company cars for various businesses, frisbee golf, and "green" sciences, to name a few. That's not to say that these things are bad, they simply don't make sense in an economic stimulus package.

How about it's been more than thirty years, instead.

Is more than thirty also not more than eight?

Besides you can see what's in it pretty easily.

A shame it wasn't so easy to do so before the vote.

Not really, I could easily argue it was just politics on the part of the Republicans. There was an article recently with Specter saying how his colleagues were telling him good job for voting on the stimulus when they wouldn't because they had primaries coming up. Maybe some of them did, maybe some of them didn't, but you can't really back it up either way and it's a red herring to even bring it up.

I'm confused. Were politicians they only people to voice opinions for or against the package?

[ruaidhri]

Bottom line, all arguing aside, Obama is President and the Democrats control both houses of Congress. The stimulus package was passed by Congress, signed by the President and is already the law. There is no other plan. This is it! Instead of criticizing what’s been done maybe we’d all be better served if we all supported President Obama and his plan. Fighting it now will only encourage its failure.

I lived through the big recession of the 1970’s and yes indeed it was bad. We were going through a period following Vietnam and the War on Poverty where the economy was stagnating at the same time the dollar was falling and prices were rising. Interest rates were skyrocketing as the government attempted to fight inflation. The stock market was crashing as the dollar tomorrow was worth less than the dollar today.

The government desperately needed to reduce prices and inflation. First, they reduced or eliminated regulation, which increases the cost of manufacture and distribution. Next, they opened the doors to products produced overseas at lower costs. Then, they needed to get more dollars in the hands of consumers to purchase the lower priced commodities. They reduced taxes.

What we have today is deflation not inflation. Prices aren’t going up. Salaries aren’t going up. Home prices aren’t going up. Home interest rates are not skyrocketing. Instead, we have falling prices as items remain unsold on shelves and retail stores are unloading whatever they can at lower and lower prices. With prices falling the dollar tomorrow is worth more than the dollar today. Workers are not fighting for higher pay as they did in the late 1970’s. Instead, every day they are being laid off in huge numbers. Others are seeing their hours and salaries cut. Today is very different from the 1970’s. Both are bad.

Is there any perfect plan? Of course, there isn’t. I believe the Republicans would criticize any plan brought forward by President Obama and the Democratic Congress. In my opinion, with the Congressional Republicans, it’s politics as usual and the country be damned. As time goes on and they continue down this same path they will be identified by more and more people as obstructionists.

[Citizen]

Prices aren’t going up.

Where are you buying your stuff? Because virtually everything I buy, especially food, is going up. I could use some extra money.

I believe the Republicans would criticize any plan brought forward by President Obama and the Democratic Congress. In my opinion, with the Congressional Republicans, it’s politics as usual and the country be damned. As time goes on and they continue down this same path they will be identified by more and more people as obstructionists.

I agree. I also believe the Democrats would criticize any plan brought forward by a Republican President or a Republican Congress. In my opinion, with most Republicans or Democrats, it would be politics as usual and the country be damned. As time goes on and they both continue down this same path they will be identified by more and more people as obsctructionists.

I'm amazed by the fact that people make such a division between two parties that use the same general tactics and have the same general motivations.

[ruaidhri]

Citizen, Yes, I agree, some, but not all, food prices are rising. But, I believe increases in food prices are not a product of the economic crisis but rather because of the basic law of supply and demand. The problem is higher prices discourage sales and that puts farmers and food producers out of business.

Regardless, the prices I’m talking about are real estate, energy, clothing and electronics and anything sold by the big stores having bankruptcy sales. As vast numbers of people lose their jobs and those currently employed fear the future most avoid unnecessary purchases. They buy cheap wherever possible. This reduces demand and overstocking reduces prices.

Yes, both parties are often more interested in winning the next election than serving their country. But, if I remember correctly during the big crisis of the late 1970’s early 1980’s, following the election, the Democrats did rally behind Ronald Reagan. It was a time of crisis and they responded. I don’t see the same concern today.

The point I made earlier is that if McCain had won and his solution had become the law of the land, I would support it because it then would have been our only salvation. That’s the case today with Obama’s. Fighting our only hope doesn’t seem wise to me.

[Trump]

I have major problems with all this, and it has nothing to do with which party is which controls congress etc.

1) The way this package is being sold. The advertising that has been done by the president and congress has been an ultimatum. Do this or else!!! Doom!! Fear!!! We are the US. We never have only one option. This attitude really makes me suspect the motives of those writing and passing the plan. Since we must have more options, Congress must be ignoring them on purpose. They don't even seem to want to discuss other options. I can only ask why, and every time I hazard an answer it involves a political agenda or greed or corruption or pretty much anything that isn't concern for the country.

2) Bailouts are exactly opposite what we need. You just mentioned stock has built up so the supply is high and demand is low. So companies stop making things until supply drops enough to increase the price make it profitable again. But when a company gets a bailout, they usually keep simply keep producing. They certainly aren't going to pay their employees to do nothing! So it just digs us deeper into the hole! It is almost like we need to do what they did with agriculture during the great depression. I don't remember what it is called, but the government bought up tons of food and just let it rot. But it reduced inventories, kept prices up, and let farmers keep working. That is certainly not like the bailouts of today!

Overall I feel the stimulus plan is very short sited. And you still want us to work with it? Some of my co-workers have emailed our representatives in congress. Do you know what the response was? It wasn't rationale behind the votes or anything, it was more to the effect of "your opinion doesn't matter". How exactly are we supposed to support these politicians? I sure as hell won't.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, you appear very angry and frustrated concerning our current economy. I understand. The problem is so huge and so long in the making that no solution is flawless. Both political parties are indeed responsible for what has happened. You’re correct; both parties do play politics over service to their country. But, in the past, when true crisis struck both have come together. That’s what I expect, but that’s not what I see today.

The American people elected President Obama to lead. That’s exactly what he’s doing. Of course there were many other options. President Obama, his administration and Congress considered those options and rejected them for the recovery plan that is now law. The time for debate is over. Like it or not, this is what we have to work with.

You are an engineer and are very familiar with identifying problems and finding solutions. With the economy, I’m afraid, every solution creates a new problem. That’s what I believe put us into this mess. Short term fixes left to fester.

Everything we do or don’t do is an action with consequences. Most likely, those that argue leaving the market alone to correct itself offer the best long-term solution for the market but not necessarily for the people affected by the market. This complicates fixing the economy because it’s the people not the market that elect the President and the members of Congress.

When the market comes crashing down on the heads of workers and investors, particularly small investors, they expect help from their government to fix the ills they are personally experiencing because of the vicissitudes of the market. They need relief, food, housing and, most importantly, jobs. This, the members of the government must provide if they are to remain in office.

You objected to bailouts. They don’t exactly please me either. But, keeping the banks open and their stocks from becoming worthless does offer time for the market to correct itself. Besides, what level of hysteria could we expect if a number of large banks and insurance companies suddenly went kaput? How would the electorate feel about their representatives in Washington if that happened?

For many years the strength of GM, Ford and Chrysler have been a symbol of America strength and power. The auto industry has always held a special position in America. We are in love with our cars. Should we help the industry survive against stiff foreign competition despite their many bad decisions? If we don’t more workers will lose their jobs and benefits not only in the auto industry itself but also in those companies that supply the auto giants. The people that would lose their jobs or see their hours or their wages and benefits cut are the people that elected the President and Congress. Would that electorate appreciate the government’s inaction when they lost their houses and cars and opportunities to send their children to college? Wouldn’t America’s pride be hurt to lose the icons of American industry?

Truth be told, I also am angry and frustrated. Regardless, I believe our only viable course is to present a united country behind President Obama. If divided, we will fall.

[Citizen]

The point I made earlier is that if McCain had won and his solution had become the law of the land, I would support it because it then would have been our only salvation. That’s the case today with Obama’s. Fighting our only hope doesn’t seem wise to me.

Speaking out against it does, however, help ensure that it does not happen again in the future. Besides, with a bill like this, people speaking out against it really can't hurt it much. It involves giving pre-determined amounts of money to pre-determined parties for pre-determined things. It will work or fail based on how many new jobs are created and how much spending is increased, not based on people formulating opinions on it. I'm saying it's a bad idea, not boycotting every company that was given money and refusing to pay taxes. If those were what people were doing, then yes, we would be affecting the bill's chances of success.

Either way, I consider it to be far more harmful to remain quiet or mindlessly conform when you think the government is making a mistake.

[ruaidhri]

Citizen, responding to your last post is very difficult because I have always believed that we all have not only a right but also an obligation to speak out against government actions with which we disagree. That, of course, is exactly what you’re doing.

So what’s my objection? I believe the Congressional Republicans have been contrary for the very purpose of preventing President Obama from achieving his goals and winning reelection in 2012. While that may serve their purpose, I believe it does harm to the American people. I get frustrated when I hear individuals voicing some of the very objections voiced by the Republican leadership because any recovery plan depends largely on the faith of the American people and investors that it will work. Criticism works against that faith.

Still, your right to speak out trumps my objections even if what you said and wrote had a direct effect on the outcome. Regardless, that doesn’t change my original point that (in my opinion) fighting our only hope doesn’t seem wise to me.

edited for spelling

[stsparky]

For the record - I seriously don't see many local politicians as looking out for even the people who voted for them.

It's that the GOP today isn't comprised of the tough pragmatic heroes of yesteryear like Teddy R. and Taft who broke up monopolies. I've only seen the Republicans give us gussied up crooks who hid behind a false facade of patriotism, puppet figureheads, and one out and out evil mastermind since Eisenhower left office. Whereas, the Democrats have given us two charismatic horndogs, a brilliant legislative mind, and a well meaning loon who let the above mentioned evil mastermind screw him over. I'm more than willing to give Obama a chance.

[Trump]

This situation really wants to make me rip may hair out. Because I can't even really understand or explain the dread I feel. Maybe that is just it, I really cannot explain the actions of our government right now. Trust me, I understand how complicated everything is. I know that it all interacts with everything and one solution causes other problems. What I don't know is that when Congress considers the options they choose the best answer for me, the best answer for the country.

For example, Obama claims to be working to cut wasteful spending but then this huge spending bill comes out...


Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, identified almost 8,600 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion; Democrats say the number is $3.8 billion.

"This is last year's business," Orszag said, offering an acknowledgment that Obama would sign a bill that doesn't conform with his campaign vows. "We want to just move on. Let's get this bill done, get it into law and move forward."

Source: Associated Press: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090301/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_spending;_ylt=Apl9vhUtwBgzCpqP47qUaGiyFz4D

WTF. Seriously... WTF. Am I really supposed to have faith in this administration? I really want to, I do. But then crap like this keeps coming out. It hasn't even been just once, it has been a repeated barrage of things that have nothing to do with what the country needs.

You say the Republicans are purposely trying to screw around so all of this fails. I counter saying the Democrats are (also) purposely trying to play favorites so they get elected next time. I don't blame just one side, they are both totally out of line. They are running out of second and third chances here! I think my feeling of dread may be that I believe this stimulus will fail. It will fail not because it is a huge spending stimulus plan, but because it is a huge grab for money while one party has control.

[stsparky]

Give the stimulus a chance. And do stuff that invests in you. Save money, and learn how to do something you never thought you'd try.

[japanat]

You say the Republicans are purposely trying to screw around so all of this fails. I counter saying the Democrats are (also) purposely trying to play favorites so they get elected next time. I don't blame just one side, they are both totally out of line. They are running out of second and third chances here! I think my feeling of dread may be that I believe this stimulus will fail. It will fail not because it is a huge spending stimulus plan, but because it is a huge grab for money while one party has control.I'm really curious why everyone is surprised by this. I mean, think about it for a second. Their job is to, first and foremost, look out for their constituents. That is why senators are elected state-by-state, and not in a nationwide ballot.

Sure, I wish they'd keep some of that pork barrel spending out, especially since none of it will help me, living in Japan. But I'm not surprised in the least. And if I worked for a wooden-arrow manufacturer, or a big-3 automaker, or anyone else being supported by these bills and their addendums, I'd be damned grateful.

[ruaidhri]

Japanat, how true! Only our President and Vice President are elected with a nation-wide constituency. Senators represent their states and Representatives, Congressional Districts. If they wish to be reelected they will serve their constituents and their local economies.

One way they can do this is to ensure that the federal government pumps money into their local economies. To accomplish this they sell their votes in consideration for amendments that provide their districts and states favored treatment. In the process, they do serve their constituents by providing jobs and services.

Yes, it is counter-productive to turning around our national economy. Can we eliminate pork barrel spending? Both parties do it and I doubt it will ever go away.

[ruaidhri]

Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail. Michael Steele, the head of the RNC, won't say he agrees or disagrees.

What happens if Obama fails? We all fail.

This just confirms my position that the Congressional Republicans and the RNC are not the loyal opposition. They are obstructionists at best and traitors to the American people at worst.

edit: Here's a news source from Fox, even they appear to be flabbergasted. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504406,00.html

[Citizen]

You also have to remember that Rush is just an IRL troll and exists mainly to entertain and make money. Also keep in mind that if even Fox and the leader of the Republican party are turned off by what he said, then in this instance he probably isn't representing any sort of majority in the Republican party, thankfully. Of course it is a shame that there are slack-jawed morons who actually make their voting decisions and whatnot based on what he says, but the truth of the matter is that both major parties have plenty of really awful media outlets that stupid people use as a crutch, rather than doing their own research and formulating their own opinions.

Still, I do agree that it's rather disturbing for him, as an American, to actually want Obama to fail. I think Obama will fail, but I sure as hell don't want him to.

[ruaidhri]

Citizen, yes, I agree; Rush Limbaugh does not represent all Republicans. Still, he does represent a rather large group within the party, a group necessary to win elections. So, even though individuals within the Republican Party’s leadership may not agree with Limbaugh’s sensationalized rambling, they don’t want to alienate his followers. That, in my opinion, implicates them and their party because by failing to separate themselves they become part of the message. They want Obama and America to fail.

Besides, Limbaugh has active supporters for his comments within the Republican Party leadership, including two individuals mentioned as having presidential aspirations, namely Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin.

Perhaps responsible conservatives should seek another political party to represent them.

[stsparky]

I think we're going to see the GOP attempt to re-invent themselves. Different interest groups hold VERY complex conflicting core values such as Libertarians and Conservatives. I see this evidenced by the nut jobs who thought Palin was perfect and those who were holding their nose and voting for McCain though everyone knew he was a third rate untrustworthy philandering gambling fraternity boy with a temper and a potty mouth.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/NastRepublicanElephant.jpg/800px-NastRepublicanElephant.jpg

I want to see smart ex-Republicans find groups like the Modern Whig Party to bolster.

[ruaidhri]

Stsparky, you are a very interesting person. You are intense in your beliefs and you do not temper your emotions or your words. I like that. I do believe you’d fit very well into my mother’s side of the family. She was very quick with her tongue and a fun ally in a heated argument. We would have had a lot of fun talking around a kitchen table.

Yes, I agree. I expect the Republicans will attempt to reinvent themselves. However, I doubt they’ll be successful because they now share the same curse as the Democrats. They have too many conflicting constituencies. Every Republican has someone within his or her own party with whom he or she vehemently disagrees. That makes it impossible to present a united front.

As far as John McCain is concerned, I used to like him before I better understood who he really was. This past election enlightened me. While I wouldn’t use the exact words you voiced, I would not (as my mother would say) vote for him if he were running for dogcatcher.

[Swede]

Stsparky, you are a very interesting person. You are intense in your beliefs and you do not temper your emotions or your words. I like that. I do believe you’d fit very well into my mother’s side of the family. She was very quick with her tongue and a fun ally in a heated argument. We would have had a lot of fun talking around a kitchen table.

Yes, I agree. I expect the Republicans will attempt to reinvent themselves. However, I doubt they’ll be successful because they now share the same curse as the Democrats. They have too many conflicting constituencies. Every Republican has someone within his or her own party with whom he or she vehemently disagrees. That makes it impossible to present a united front.\


Well said ruaidhri. I agree with both of you, and I think it's obvious that's what they're trying to do at the moment, by attempting to put their 3 minority members out for display at every opportunity they get, even if the majority of them seem to manage to embody the 'old white guy' image the GOP is trying to shake off.

I think this is a pretty good example (http://www.hulu.com/watch/59624/late-night-with-jimmy-fallon-jack-mcbrayers-response-the-republican-response-to-the-presidents-address#s-p1-sa-i1) of what I mean.