I don’t understand this BBC article
I thought the New Deal was supposed to have been a good thing?
There are a great many economists (perhaps most) who believe that the New Deal actually did more economic harm than good. Additionally, I think many people would say that the New Deal’s greatest attribute was its ability to instill optimism throughout the US.
Not from a far right conservative point of view, which Huck is trying to pretend to be.
The New Deal was a Democratic program. Huckabee is a Republican.
It’s heresy to the Republicans & conservatives.
For a given billion dollars, a Democrat would hike the taxes of the rich to raise it and then spend it on building bridges in the US. A Republican would drop taxes on the wealthy and then go into deficit building bombs to destroy bridges in another country.
It depends on if you were broke with no chance of a job. The new deal saved my parents house from foreclosure and provided food scripts. My mother worked for one dollar a day at a cleaners, and dad, not able to get a job anywhere, worked for the WPA digging a lake one shovel full at a time for food scripts. People today have no idea how bad it was.
In the hardest crystalline core of the far right (The Club For Growth, for example, and Grover Norquist) there is a burning need to wipe out every trace of The New Deal. For these people, GWB was not conservative enough. Montgomery Burns would be just about right.
Since we have a lot of dopers lambasting positions they don’t comprehend, I feel obligated to respond, albeit with trepidation and expectation of arousing their unjustified ire.
I am not a doctrinaire libertearian, nor really a libertarian of any stripe. I do have some sympathies that way. The essential problem of the New Deal, from their perspective is that it was (a) a response to problems the government itself created, (b) that it was largely unfunded and based off the expectation that future generations would bear the costs, (c) tempted the government with another bad for buying its way out of economic problems, (d) was often money poorly spent and largely wasted, and (e) can’t be got rid of.
On point (a), we see that the major cause of the Great Depression was the government’s idiotic Smoot-Hawley tarif, an abominable and incredibly moronic idea. Sure, there would have been a lean few years, but numerous other crises had come and gone in American history without long-term troubles.
On points (b) and (e), well, we pretty much deal with this today. Social Security, whatever its merits to an individual, is a constant thorn in the side of fiscal policy. It costs a grotesque amount in excahnge for a flying promise that you’ll get it back. Hence many Republicans wan to move toward a personal savings account system. It must constantly be tweaked, repaid, and managed, and is always the 800-pound gorilla in the room when tryin any long-range planning. It also created an entire class of people (AARP) who vote essentially just to maintain their SS benefits.
As far as it goes, I’ve pretty much decided I can’t rely on them being there when I retire, and will have to take care of myself. I will still be taxed on what is likely a false promise.
As to point (c) I won’t go into, as it would cover a lot of government problems. Most of these have to with local area issues which the federal government has never been good at dealing with, and really can only throw money at the problem. But that’s a poor method and often fails, and let’s not even start in on the Great Society.
Point (d) is another key stickler. The problem was that while the New Deal embraced some programs I like (TVA, for instance), there were an awful lot of makeshift work programs, which ultimately accomplished very, very little. The WPA and NYA were largely pointless excursions, and much of the Second New Deal’s legislation was blatant Union-vote-buying.
Edit to add:
There’s also the problem that it just plain didn’t work. until the wartime ramp up the economy remained in doldrums, and even once th war ended the economy was really pretty bad. It wasn’t until a year or so after the war, as manufacturing orders poured in round the world and the US committed itself to rebuilding half the planet that things took off again.
That pushed us over the edge, and I agree with your praise of it. 
However other things made the problem worse - the Stock Market bubble, financial practices, such as buying on margin, which magnified the impact of a decline, and the loss of confidence in banks before the FDIC.
AARP (which I haven’t joined) is a lobbyist like any other. There are more reasons for it then SS - it is active even when no one wants to mess with the benefits. The rest I’ll ignore since we’ve had plenty if discussions on it already. SS is a live wire issue - Bush ignored this, and got badly zapped.
If you reject the concept of stimulus packages, there is not much to say. Ditto for the concept of government helping people. Some Great Society programs were in response to specific problems (like hunger) which the free market and charity were not handling.
In my old part of the world, many buildings and improvements in national parks was WPA driven. I’ll not pretend it was all useful. Today we have serious infrastructure issues, from lack of attention to it due to tax cuts and the perception that smaller government is always better, so I think we could find plenty of worthy things to spend money on. Not bridges to nowhere, but the repair of bridges that people actually use.
I haven’t found the magnitude of the deficits run during the New Deal, just that they were a lot smaller than the wartime deficits. A lot of the boom after the war was from pent up demand also. But it was also from federal policy - in the program where Harry Truman talked about his life (a series, actually) he said that he lived through the recession at the end of WW I, and wanted to make sure there was no such thing at the end of WW II.
Social Security would work fine if the money was left there. The old locked box argument. But ,in order to make the economy look better the pols raided it. Then they promised to repay it.
You are so right. My grandfather was a plumber, and he was able to work again thanks to this. No matter how much conservatives try to tell us the New Deal was a failure, the common people at the time didn’t think so. My mother loved FDR like she loved no other politician, and she was not alone. The fatcats would go hiss Roosevelt at the TransLux, as the New Yorker cartoon had it, but the rest of the country felt that someone actually cared about their problems, unlike Hoover.
I would note that nowhere in the article does it actually attribute the belief of Huckabee talking heresy to any specific person…it just states as a matter of fact (or faith) that it is so. It’s a bit of a loaded word. As this is the first I’ve heard about it, I’m inclined to think the reporter might have put his own spin on it (which is what political analysis is, so no biggie).
As for the new deal, the left and right both have their haters. And economists are split nearly 50-50 on the matter as well.
Anyway, they spelled the word “defense” all funny-like.
I think this is misleading in the extreme. The Smoot Hawley tariff wasn’t passed until a year after the stock market crashed. I don’t think anyone will argue that the tariff helped, but to say that it caused the Great Depression isn’t even close to reality.
And then pay Halliburton 10 billion dollars to rebuild the bridges it just spent a billion dollars destroying.
The problem with Social Security is it’s a pyramid, a ponzi scheme if you will, and an outdated one at that. At it’s onset the grim reaper had an entire arsenal of weapons that kept most people from collecting, or collecting for very long.
Today, due to far increased life expectancies, there are more people collecting for a longer time, meanwhile there are less people paying in. This cannot go on.
As for the Depression, my Fathers Father (the grandpa I never met due to him dying in 1943) lost all 3 of his farms. Nothing helped him. Eventually those farms would have been passed to me. I know exactly where they are, and I’ve looked up their values on that counties treasures office web site! Several million dollars total!
[Sam Kinison scream]AAAAAAAAAAAAUGH!:mad:
Yes, the country’s poor did love FDR, I vividly remember the day he died. The country’s poor cried, literally cried. We need FDR today.
My reading has lead me to believe FDR was beloved by many and hated by quite a few also.
My Dad told me once about a joke that was common in those days:
A wealthy man stops at a news stand and looks at the headlines of the daily paper. The shop keeper asks if he wants to buy the newspaper. The man says “no, I’m just checking the obituaries”. The shop keep says* “But the obits aren’t on the front page”*. To which the man replies "The sonovabitch I’m waiting for will be!"
:rolleyes: Well…! Someone must have thought it funny back then!
Sounds to me like you’re complaining the New Deal didn’t go far enough!
One again, people aren’t reading what I wrote. Nowhere did I say it caused the depression. I said it caused the GREAT Depression, which is a different beast. It shut down foreign trade, as every other country in the west started a tit-for-tat program of high tariffs.
Intending no offense, but small improvements to national parks was not really a good use of tax money in my opinion, not during the GD.
There was a recession at the end of WW2. It was shorter, though, because the country was finally opening up, oversease trade was reviving, and the worst excesses of the New Deal were being swept away.
On the subject of Social Security, the problem was that it was unfunded. It essentially relied on a national Ponzi scheme, with new “investors” paying off old ones. The problem is that it only works as long as the new taxpayers are paying in sufficent amounts to cover the old. Hence the worry over the Boomers; too many people drawing money at the same time can break the bank. Plus, the federal government doesn’t lay any cash aside to cover future expenses, so it all has to come out of current taxes.