• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What a Democratic President about to win re-election looks like

C

Craig234

Lifer
One minute video clip of FDR in 1936:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUZGkNAUSvY

Three minute audio of FDR in 1936:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU

The debate then was defined by who better could help the American people prosper. Who would best help workers' wages, home ownership, employment.

So voters' choice was, 'who can better achieve things good for the people'.

Obama is quite different. The 2012 election so far has been about who can best pass Republican policies.

After decades of not being important under Republican presidents, the issue today is 'who can best cut spending? Who can best pass austerity?'

The Republican strategy of 'starve the beast' - use massive debt for their benefit, forcing the reduction in spending of programs for the people - is working well.

It's hard to picture Obama sounding like FDR above. And that's why he's such a poor Democratic leader - however less bad he is than the Republicans.

It's shocking when you think about how little we have had a Democrat elected a second time: since FDR, it has happened once, in 1996. One in 75 years.

One way for Obama to try to win re-election is by receiving massive amounts of corporate funding and buying another marketing effort. Another is like FDR.

Unfortunately, there's not much question which approach he's chosen - but we can learn from this for the next selection.
 
You frame the debate for 1936 correctly. The problem was the FDR's policies made the situation worse. In 1940 he didn't run on making the economy better but on keeping the USA out of Europe's war. That didn't work either.

FDR was all about control and power.
 
a777pilot said:
You frame the debate for 1936 correctly. The problem was the FDR's policies made the situation worse. In 1940 he didn't run on making the economy better but on keeping the USA out of Europe's war. That didn't work either.

FDR was all about control and power.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the laugh. Revisionist history is always entertaining.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Obama's rightward swerve, for better or worse, is just trying to give the voting public what they want. MMM, more corporate selling out, yum yum.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. It's trying to give his wealthy donors what THEY want; and those same donors are trying to get more voters to want their agenda at the same time.

What influences public opinion on these things?

Media - which is so corporate dominated, and friendly to the corporatist agenda?

Political leaders - which are so much more and more 'hired' by the rich, and therefore advocating the views for the rich? So 'what the voters want' is tricky.
 
FDR had socialists pulling him towards the left.

Obama has the Tea Party pulling him towards the right and a democratic base that's content to sit there and take it because they're too scared to challenge him in the primaries.
 
I want spending cuts. I will most likely vote for the candidate who I think is most serious about cutting spending.

See, I don't live in a fairy-tale world where the government is capable of controlling the job market. We've had 3 years of spending like mad, and what has that done for the unemployment?

And I'm not voting based on punishing someone for what other people did in the past. This is a total failure. Learn from the past, but it is the future that matters. Only the future can be reshaped.
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
Not exactly. It's trying to give his wealthy donors what THEY want; and those same donors are trying to get more voters to want their agenda at the same time.

What influences public opinion on these things?

Media - which is so corporate dominated, and friendly to the corporatist agenda?

Political leaders - which are so much more and more 'hired' by the rich, and therefore advocating the views for the rich? So 'what the voters want' is tricky.
Click to expand...

People make their own choices, they can choose to be led by corporate media or not. There's no excuse any more with the advent of the internet. We get exactly the politicians and policies we deserve. And sadly, what hope is there in a country where "mandating" purchase of corporate health insurance = government takeover of health care?
 
Craig234 said:
Not exactly. It's trying to give his wealthy donors what THEY want; and those same donors are trying to get more voters to want their agenda at the same time.

What influences public opinion on these things?

Media - which is so corporate dominated, and friendly to the corporatist agenda?

Political leaders - which are so much more and more 'hired' by the rich, and therefore advocating the views for the rich? So 'what the voters want' is tricky.
Click to expand...

The fact that political leaders are power hungry, greedy, and lean their ear to corporate america is called human nature. Your beloved progressives would do the same in spite of what they say now. Human nature isnt any different in progressives.

And I hope you havent forgotten the vote from the guy on welfare is just as powerful as the guy sitting on a multimillion dollar pension. If we're electing the wrong people into office, its not the rich's fault. It's the PEOPLE'S fault for being lazy (not researching candidates).
 
According to Craig, FDR is so amazingly wonderful because he campaigned on "Who would best help workers' wages, home ownership, employment."

Worker annual wages:
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1936.html
1936: $1,713
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1940.html
1940: $1,725


home costs:
(links above)
avg. cost of house 1936: $3,925
avg. cost of house 1940: $3,920

home ownership rates:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
1930: 47.8%
1940: 43.6%


employment:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm
1936: 17%
1937: 14%
1938: 19%
1939: 17%


By your *own* standards, FDR was a FAILURE.
 
If Americans want austerity, they are going to get it. Zero growth and high unemployment is par for the course in an austerity situation.
 
See, campaigns are not about who can say the most magical wonderful things. It needs to be who actually has a viable plan for improving this country, a plan that is based in the real world, not in textbooks.
 
Carmen813 said:
Thanks for the laugh. Revisionist history is always entertaining.
Click to expand...

It's not revisionist at all.

FDR's policies made the depression worse. In fact there was an official recession during the depression. I believe it was in 1938. You could look it up.

In 1940 The big issue was the war in Europe. It was FDR's campaign promise...to keep us out of Europe's war. How did that work out?

Facts are facts.....unless you are a Liberal/Democrat then they are what you say they are....at the time you say them.

LOL!
 
cubby1223 said:
According to Craig, FDR is so amazingly wonderful because he campaigned on "Who would best help workers' wages, home ownership, employment."

Worker annual wages:
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1936.html
1936: $1,713
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1940.html
1940: $1,725


home costs:
(links above)
avg. cost of house 1936: $3,925
avg. cost of house 1940: $3,920

home ownership rates:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
1930: 47.8%
1940: 43.6%


employment:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm
1936: 17%
1937: 14%
1938: 19%
1939: 17%


By your *own* standards, FDR was a FAILURE.
Click to expand...

damn you used to be able to buy a home with 2 years of average wages? Fuck me.
 
a777pilot: It's not revisionist at all.

M: You can't just say something wasn't revisionist and expect others to believe it. You need to provide reasons and better one than these:

a7: FDR's policies made the depression worse. In fact there was an official recession during the depression. I believe it was in 1938. You could look it up.

M: This does not mean FDR's policies made the depression worse. This is a matter of profound political contention where one faction accepts it as fact but others disagree. Your assertion is empty for anybody that can think.

a7: In 1940 The big issue was the war in Europe. It was FDR's campaign promise...to keep us out of Europe's war. How did that work out?

M: Pretty good. We won. We set ourselves up as a world power on the side of right and rode the moral victory though the cold war to the defeat of the soviet union. We made heroes out of Marines and created in them perhaps excessive self confidence and ego. Being good at one thing doesn't directly translate over to political wisdom or argumentative acumen, for example.

a7: Facts are facts.....

M: That is not in contention and could never be. We all understand the meaning of an equal sign. The issue is that what you call facts may in fact not be.

a7: unless you are a Liberal/Democrat then they are what you say they are....at the time you say them.

M: Which is what you did throughout this post of yours.

a&: LOL!

M: Exactly!
 
Moonbeam said:
a777pilot: It's not revisionist at all.

M: You can't just say something wasn't revisionist and expect others to believe it. You need to provide reasons and better one than these:

a7: FDR's policies made the depression worse. In fact there was an official recession during the depression. I believe it was in 1938. You could look it up.

M: This does not mean FDR's policies made the depression worse. This is a matter of profound political contention where one faction accepts it as fact but others disagree. Your assertion is empty for anybody that can think.

a7: In 1940 The big issue was the war in Europe. It was FDR's campaign promise...to keep us out of Europe's war. How did that work out?

M: Pretty good. We won. We set ourselves up as a world power on the side of right and rode the moral victory though the cold war to the defeat of the soviet union. We made heroes out of Marines and created in them perhaps excessive self confidence and ego. Being good at one thing doesn't directly translate over to political wisdom or argumentative acumen, for example.

a7: Facts are facts.....

M: That is not in contention and could never be. We all understand the meaning of an equal sign. The issue is that what you call facts may in fact not be.

a7: unless you are a Liberal/Democrat then they are what you say they are....at the time you say them.

M: Which is what you did throughout this post of yours.

a&: LOL!

M: Exactly!
Click to expand...

Pretty good. We won.
Click to expand...

Good tell that to the tens of millions that died in that war.

You can start by telling my cousin Francis Mostel, Pfc, USMC, KIA, 7 DEC 1941 and still standing his post abroad the USS Arizona.

You have no idea what war is, do you?

Fuck you and all like you.
 
cubby1223 said:
According to Craig, FDR is so amazingly wonderful because he campaigned on "Who would best help workers' wages, home ownership, employment."

Worker annual wages:
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1936.html
1936: $1,713
http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1940.html
1940: $1,725


home costs:
(links above)
avg. cost of house 1936: $3,925
avg. cost of house 1940: $3,920

home ownership rates:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
1930: 47.8%
1940: 43.6%


employment:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm
1936: 17%
1937: 14%
1938: 19%
1939: 17%


By your *own* standards, FDR was a FAILURE.
Click to expand...

What a nice surprise, a response actually attempting to discuss facts.

Unfortunately, it's not that accurate, but that's still a nice thing to see.

I'll leave it to better research mostly to find other numbers, but for example, from Wikipedia:

Deficit spending had been recommended by some economists, most notably by John Maynard Keynes of Britain. The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime. However, the economic recovery did not absorb all the unemployment Roosevelt inherited. Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he took office to 14.3% in 1937.
Click to expand...

These speeches are about his 1936 re-election campaign, when he had reduced unemployment greatly; it wasn't all about increasing housing, which he wanted to do, but preventing the continued crash; he provided mortgage relief to millions of homeowners in his first term.

Unfortunately, during his second term, congress effectively changed hands to be able to block his measures to a coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats; his programs were significantly reduced by that and by Supreme Court decisions and there was a new recession as his stimulus approach was reduced.

But it's also not just about the increases he had in these areas - it was a choice which party could do better. And the results of Republicans were well recalled.

Farm income was up 50% in his first term, for example. The people broadly understood these things were his agenda.

And that's the point - the difference between the agenda of the election between the public interest, and the interests of the rich as it is now.

Roosevelt wanted to do a lot more that would have increased wages, home ownership etc. that was not approved by Congress.

His economic bill of rights, suggested in his 1944 State of the Union, was one of the greatest for the public interest:

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.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.
Click to expand...
 
JSt0rm said:
damn you used to be able to buy a home with 2 years of average wages? Fuck me.
Click to expand...

During the liberal era, the norm was for working class Americans to be able to have a home and raise a family on one income.

Since 1980, when Reagan was elected, all the growth in the economy after inflation has gone to the top - zero for the bottom 80%, the top 0.01% up hugely.

During that period, the top 1% have more than doubled their share of the nation's income. Private debt for the non-wealthy and the public debt have skyrocketed.
 
senseamp said:
If Americans want austerity, they are going to get it. Zero growth and high unemployment is par for the course in an austerity situation.
Click to expand...

So it's your thesis that only government spending drives our economy? Taking from people that are productive and giving to those that aren't doesn't seem like a great way of stimulating an economy.
 
a777pilot said:
Good tell that to the tens of millions that died in that war.

You can start by telling my cousin Francis Mostel, Pfc, USMC, KIA, 7 DEC 1941 and still standing his post abroad the USS Arizona.

You have no idea what war is, do you?

Fuck you and all like you.
Click to expand...

lmao this guy is a comedian. 😀
 
Greenman said:
So it's your thesis that only government spending drives our economy? Taking from people that are productive and giving to those that aren't doesn't seem like a great way of stimulating an economy.
Click to expand...

Sigh, the ignorance here is incredible. The government is the only source for INCREASING spending during a terrible economy.

How many businesses are going to make huge new hiring investments knowing they'll lose money? How many consumers are going to spend a ton more with less income?

I'll repeat, there are three economic legs - business, consumer, government; when the first two are not spending, the only one left - temporarily to recover - is government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top