While the New Deal is often remembered as a bailout for the little guy, the bailouts of Wall Street--launched by the Bush Administration and sustained by Obama--have been aimed at the affluent and have not merely made Americans skeptical of the explosion in spending but left them feeling shortchanged as well. Republican pollster Bill McInturff calls this "the notion that they're too big to fail and I'm too small to notice--that politicians have used the government to spend another trillion for the big banks and special interests but not me."

While the New Deal is often remembered as a bailout for the little guy,

#1 | Posted by rightisright

The NEW deal was a dismal failure.

The NEW deal was a dismal failure.

#2 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009-12-05 08:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

It gave America something to do until World War II revived the economy; first in arming England and Russia, and later in arming the U.S.

What we need now is to use the Danni Doctrine. She pines for the 1950s when America made everything from toasters to toys (because the rest of the world was a smoldering mess).

The new Danni Doctrine is that we should bomb every other country back to the stone age, and then sell them the stuff they need to recover.

If the federal government used business accounting standards, deficits would have averaged over $4 Trillion a year throughout the past decade. It would not be surprising if Obama at least doubles the deficit to over $8 Trillion. What cannot be sustained, won't. That leaves the feds with two options: default and/or inflate.

WW2 did revive the economy, but that was still through massive federal spending (on tanks and shit).

So, where were all you "fiscal conservatives" while the first $10 trillion in debt was accumulated?

ver, you got part of it right. I think she would give the stuff to the countries and not charge them for it. She is a lib, you know.

#6 | Posted by morris

I hope that you're not attempting to excuse the current dopes in charged via the 'Well they did it too' argument.....

.

in charge even....

2008, that is exactly what he is doing. He won't be dumb enough to deny it.

2008, that is exactly what he is doing.

Should we expect some defense using the word 'inherited' next.....that one is always a winner.....

.

Unprecedented inherited mess.

#8 | Posted by 2008ATL at 2009-12-06 04:49 PM |

Not at all.

I'm just suggesting that your objection to deficit spending depends entirely on who's in the White House.

There is no way out except Government spending. This does not mean and has never meant free money for financial fraudsters. They belong in jail.

Reagan & Nixon used Keynes to pull their economies out of a tailspin and win reelection.

A proper response is to undertake infrastructure projects for the sake of jobs and using our limited resources wisely for future generations. Much of what this country is today is a consequence of highway, education and water project spending in the fifties.

Prosecution reregulation is the only way to stop future fraud. Most Government spending is welfare for the Military Industrial Complex. A system of aggression with a poor track record. We can save a fortune, more than every other country in the world spends on "defense" just by closing our foriegn military bases and limiting that belligerence to the Navy & ICBMs.

There is always money to lend for the credit worthy. There are only two other ways out of this mess. Rising wages which will immediately improve every wage earners credit rating. Mortgage write-downs which will have the same effect.

There are only two other ways out of this mess. Rising wages which will immediately improve every wage earners credit rating. Mortgage write-downs which will have the same effect.

#14 | Posted by nutcase

I don't always agree with you but I do find your post thought provoking. I see a basic problem with the above statement. If you artificially raising wages above their actual worth it devalues the currency. If tomorrow everyone got a 100% raise you just devalued the dollar by 50%. Ironically your idea is not a new one. It's a symptom of a bad economy. In a healthy economy wages go up because the value of labor or skills goes up. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Do you see my point?

Dunbo doesn't understand that his overspending is bankrupting the country. He must have learned economics from the pay day loan crowd. He was begging the Chinese like those welfare fucks do at the pay day loan window.

The NEW deal was a dismal failure.

As was WW2. Viet nam however, was a stunning success. Hoover and Nixon were geniuses.

The New Deal saved America from the follies of the Republicans.

Just because the teabaggers say the New Deal failed doesn't make it so. They've been wrong on everything else, so there's no reason to believe them on this.

"Rising wages"??

Economics 101 -

Commodities, merchandise, services, etc., have "values". The real value of any one of these things is dependent on the demand for it, and the supply of it.

An ice cold gallon of water is "worth" enormously more to a man in the desert, than a man at a banquet.

Artificially high (i.e., "inflated") wages - such as we find created by labor unions for instance - are not a viable option. The piper must always be paid at some point down the line... as Obama's bailout and handout policies must.

And just how would an employer be expected to pay higher wages at the moment by the way? We are all stretched to the absolute breaking point as it is. It would necessitate lay offs -- and the rising costs need to be borne by someone. Guess who? The overstretched consumer/taxpayer AGAIN.

JM

stir,

Its simpler than that. You can't stop rewarding real productivity, just restrict immigrant labor on every front. Wages will readjust, as demand for labor rises. Most countries do this. Make the banks and bondholders take a haircut. The Treasury and Federal Reserve refuse to do this even as they pretend employment, wage and price stability are their prime responsibility. Its all bullshit and its bad for you.

If Obama doesn't want his presidency to be held hostage by a string of nail-biter votes in Congress, he needs to recognize that he overestimated the public's appetite for taxpayer-funded solutions.

Why RiR felt the need to post this line twice is any ones guess, but it is nothing if not obvious anyway. What is ironic is that his presidency is already being held hostage by people that don't understand the basic concept of cash flow.

I read the remarks of the armchair conservatives that think the government should be run like a business and I laugh at their naivety. Nothing could be worse then a government that is run like a business. That is the definition of true communism.

The whole purpose of government is pretty well stated in the preamble to the Constitution, particularly section8. None of these things can function at a profit. Take the post office for example. How much do you think you would have to pay Fedex or UPS to ship a letter across country and still make a profit? I can assure you it would be a lot more then 47 cents.

Where we took a wrong turn was when we let a Republican president (Nixon) take us off the gold standard, which I believe was unconstitutional.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

What that did was start the ball of inflation rolling into what is now a massive disaster waiting to happen. In a sense Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard spot. The economy must have cash flow to survive, as any businessman worth his salt knows, but because bankers created wealth out of interest instead of savings (or buying gold), the dollar amounts necessary to keep it all in balance is now astronomical and fast becoming beyond our reach as a nation.

So, when fools like RiR point the finger at Obama, I can only say he could do no better. The only fair solution is to take back the massive profits from the super wealthy and get that cash flowing again in the working classes. It's a bitter pill for the conservatives, but the alternative is soon to be a new world government where free enterprise is no longer tolerated by anyone but the elites.

It is already happening. Companies like Walmart, Monsanto and Exxon Mobile are all beyond the control of the Americans who started them and regulated them to serve Americans best interest.

Our constitution has been breached by globalism and both parties are equally responsible for this loss of control over commerce in our own country.

Obama was elected in the hope he would be able to change some of this insanity. Unfortunately for us all, he is beginning to look like all the rest, thanks to the opposition of the Republican party and the know nothing tea baggers who don't realize that welfare and health care is cash flow too, while they supported wars that are not. To suggest that this gross lie perpetuated by the tea parties that spending government funds on the health and welfare of the nation is dragging us all down is utterly ludicrous. It is the gross waste of resources and lives ruined that is caused by perpetual war that has bankrupt this nation. We can thank the Republicans for that.

Our nations next great dilemma in waiting is the looming environmental disasters the world will face, just like the economic crisis we are now facing. Guess where the Republicans will stand on that issue too. They will cry about the money they ruined, as usual.

Unfortunately for us all, he is beginning to look like all the rest, thanks to the opposition of the Republican party and the know nothing tea baggers who don't realize that welfare and health care is cash flow too, while they supported wars that are not.

translation = "I will never hold a democrat accountable for his/her actions. I can always blame republicans"

Hold on to that ideology Ringmaster. It's obvious you need that security blanket, otherwise you might freeze to death.

#3 | Posted by vernon
It gave America something to do until World War II revived the economy; first in arming England and Russia, and later in arming the U.S.

What we need now is to use the Danni Doctrine. She pines for the 1950s when America made everything from toasters to toys (because the rest of the world was a smoldering mess).

The new Danni Doctrine is that we should bomb every other country back to the stone age, and then sell them the stuff they need to recover.
---------------------
If only the Historians spoke the truth.

So true.

"Unprecedented inherited mess."

True, but Obama's actions have made this excuse irrelevent.

He's continuing Bush's policy of huge deficits and nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You don't get to whine about inheriting a mess when you continue the same policies that created the mess.

translation = "I will never hold a democrat accountable for his/her actions. I can always blame republicans"

This is not true at all. You are reacting to the term tea bagger, a term I did not coin.

I voted for Bush first term because of the Enron scandal, the White Water lies, Vince Foster's death and finally the lying before congress in a civil matter by Bill Clinton. I would have never voted for Hilary Clinton even with a wild card joker like McCain running. She's a liar and a snaky lawyer.

I voted for Kerry second term because Bush was a mass murder with his false flag attacks and the preempted war in Iraq based on lies and deception. In short, I am an equal opportunity asshole.

I am not defending Obama, read the post again. I am blaming republicans and tea baggers for interference with Congress when, what the country needs is bipartisanship in times as difficult as these.

At any rate, I'm not directing this post to the old farts like you eberly. The tea baggers will never get it. They are old and incontinent for the most part and can't except the challenges of the future, but the young may yet get it yet if they can learn to put down their gadgets long enough to think about their own future.

True, but Obama's actions have made this excuse irrelevent.

He's continuing Bush's policy of huge deficits and nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for the deficit spending, that's all he can do. The tea baggers don't want to pay for the mess their leaders created. Obama certainly can't raise taxes on the rich. They own the congress and any president needs money to accomplish any goals. Just ask Bush.

As for the nation building, it's too early in the game to tell yet, but for the record, I think it's a bad move to stay in Afghanistan, but invading Iraq was a terrible move and the troop have begun pulling out as I write.

"As for the deficit spending, that's all he can do. The tea baggers don't want to pay for the mess their leaders created. Obama certainly can't raise taxes on the rich. They own the congress and any president needs money to accomplish any goals. Just ask Bush."

Not true. He didn't need to send massive bailouts to corporate crooks (he even voted for the Bush bailout). There is plenty of fat to cut and instead he passed through a huge stimilus package as fast as he could without bothering to check where the money was going. We will never have a full a full accounting of where that money went. How do you claim he "had to" spend all that money when nobody can tell us where all the money went? And I'm not against public healthcare but I'm against starting massive spending programs at a time when we are going broke. Obama is trying to pass through a huge program precisely at the time it could cripple us. He doesn't give a shit about spending just like Bush never cared.

"As for the nation building, it's too early in the game to tell yet, but for the record, I think it's a bad move to stay in Afghanistan, but invading Iraq was a terrible move and the troop have begun pulling out as I write."

We should be mostly out of both already. And his decision on Afghanistan is inexplicably ignorant to the entire recorded history of that "nation".

As for the nation building, it's too early in the game to tell yet, but for the record, I think it's a bad move to stay in Afghanistan, but invading Iraq was a terrible move and the troop have begun pulling out as I write.

#25 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-12-07 02:22 PM

Newsflash: Americans have always been leery of federal spending.

Remember, the federal government has *no* money. It only has OUR money. Federal spending does not add to the economy, it just moves things around in a horribly inefficient and politically motivated way.

"Obama is trying to pass through a huge program precisely at the time it could cripple us."

Maybe he realizes that if we don't so something to stem the runaway medical inflation, it definitely WILL cripple us.

Health care is like no other product: the government is on the hook for -- currently -- 40% of the insured, with that number only headed upwards as the baby boomers move through retirement. If military costs were rising at 4 times inflation, you'd better believe we'd be screaming for the government to do something about it. If we don't slow the pace of medical inflation, we're doomed: the country is aging, and the ratio of payers-to-users is about to drop precipitously.

We will never have a full a full accounting of where that money went. How do you claim he "had to" spend all that money when nobody can tell us where all the money went?

#26 | Posted by Sully

It's right there on the internets/Googles:

Recovery.gov

Obama has promised all along to leave some troops in Iraq. We may reduce our foot print there, but we're not leaving. I believe he termed it residual force in the campaign.

Residual force of up to 50,000.

He didn't need to send massive bailouts to corporate crooks (he even voted for the Bush bailout).

Says who, you? I think he saw the writing on the wall. The financial institutions were and still are on the brink of disaster, but did not totally collapse yet, so something had to give and it was the taxpayers, not the tax dodgers. It sucks, but a total collapse of the financial industry would have resulted in civil war. Is that what you would prefer?

"Says who, you?"

Yes, just me, Einstein. Everyone else on the planet thinks bailing out proven failures with money you don't have is just a peachy idea.

"I think he saw the writing on the wall. The financial institutions were and still are on the brink of disaster, but did not totally collapse yet, so something had to give and it was the taxpayers, not the tax dodgers. It sucks, but a total collapse of the financial industry would have resulted in civil war. Is that what you would prefer?"

The idea that allowing failures to fail would be a total disaster to this country is ludicrous. The system we have doesn't work if you keep bailing out failures. You must allow failures to fail so that more competent people and organizations can replace them. All this sky is falling stuff about certain shitty corporations being "too big to fail" is nonsense. It would have caused some short term hurt for a long term gain and a fraction of the bailout money could have been used to help out citizens negatively effected by the short term problems. Our spending is way more likely to ruin our financial industry than allowing corporations who literally produce nothing to go under..

"Maybe he realizes that if we don't so something to stem the runaway medical inflation, it definitely WILL cripple us."

So the answer to "medical inflation" is enacting policies that are proven to lead to REAL INFLATION?

Give me a break. He decided to to throw a ton of pork at his corporate masters just like Bush would have done. And he didn't think about having money left over for health care when he did it. Now he's painted us into a corner because we are broke. And instead of waiting for the paint to dry, he's gonna keep painting.

Sorry if I'm not optimistic about the expected result.

RING,

Compared to what, total collapse of manufacturing?
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) all depend on a strong economy to operate. Even though manufacturing cannot get started without finance, finance is still a subordinate activity, paper pushing. They make no tangable products. Yet, by manipulating the political system they have succeeded in moving from 2% of US Corporate profits to 40%. This is very good for them in the short term, and bad for the country short and long term. The problems go beyond political bribery, which is unfortunately legal, and enter the realm of organized crime. These criminals should not only have been allowed to fail but prosecuted and imprisoned for fraud. Otherwise they are going to do it again.

"So the answer to "medical inflation" is enacting policies that are proven to lead to REAL INFLATION?"

Prove it. Common sense tells us if there is something like a public option only raising rates 3-4% a year, it will be tough for the private companies to raise it 13-14% a year.

"Sorry if I'm not optimistic about the expected result."

I'm not either, but I'm certain another decade of health costs running at 4X inflation will doom us.

"The new Danni Doctrine is that we should bomb every other country back to the stone age, and then sell them the stuff they need to recover."

The stupidity which is Vernon thinks you have to destroy things and replace them instead of build new and better things that didn't exist before.
We don't need a war but we do need the same kind of energy with which we fought WWII to rebuild our economy. We need the same taxes, the same patriotic fervor, the same collective energy or else America, as we know it, is history.

"Prove it. Common sense tells us if there is something like a public option only raising rates 3-4% a year, it will be tough for the private companies to raise it 13-14% a year."

Prove what, that when governments spend way more money than they have, it leads to inflation? And you're telling me about common sense? This has been proven over and over. The healthcare thing is a problem. Runaway inflation due to out of control spending means that people can't eat.

"but I'm certain another decade of health costs running at 4X inflation will doom us."

Real inflation does the same thing only quicker. You think its a bigger problem if sick people can't see a doctor or if both sick and healthy people can't afford groceries?

I'm just suggesting that your objection to deficit spending depends entirely on who's in the White House.

#13 | POSTED BY MORRIS AT 2009-12-06 06:08 PM

Bingo!

A 10 trillion debt on Jan 20, 2009, due to invading/occupying/nation building countries that didn't attack us, deregulation, off shore tax shelters, welfare, bankruptcy and nafta for corporations and tax cuts for the richest 1% who average 7.4 million a year.....no problem for the neocon/repug supporters......"Stay the Course" they screamed, right off the cliff.

But a dem comes into office, attempts to help working Americans struggling to pay their mortgage, eat AND pay for medicine/healthcare.......asks for 900 Billion to insure all Americans have healthcare for 10 years......they scream like little babies......like "chickenhawk littles" if you will.....

Their priorities are so skewed against the people and have led to policy failures at every level. They love to privatize and underfund everything govt, then stand back and pontificate about how govt doesn't work......yet they never saw a tax break for the rich or a pentagon expenditure they didn't love......

NO ONE should be listening to these pathetic losers due to their abject FAILURES over the last 8-40 years, yet their is a constant stream of their bullshit on every TV and radio network and their little indoctrinated flying monkeys are on every "liberal" blog, clogging it up with misinformation/lies, smears and FEARS......or as one of their own used to say:

"Nattering nabobs of negativity"
William Safire

I'm not either, but I'm certain another decade of health costs running at 4X inflation will doom us.

#37 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-12-07 04:07 PM

That scenario would seem to be a democrat progressive wet dream. You know, Darwin, survival of the fittest, evolution. Come on, see there.... not as bad as you thought afterall, eh?

You don't do taxes for poor people anyway..... chill out.

"That scenario would seem to be a democrat progressive wet dream. You know, Darwin, survival of the fittest, evolution. Come on, see there.... not as bad as you thought afterall, eh?"

I'm curious, Washboard...can you taste the stupid when you post something like that?