# I Pit Tea Party Nation for Sabotaging America **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 31, 2011, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364 "2011-10-31T09:06:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/61 "2011-11-04T16:39:33Z")
@ **Kimstu** : of course, that model ignores laws/contracts that enforce certain conditions from the employer. At this point, of course, I feel that those laws/contracts are actually fairly negligible, but it is a potential point of contention. Just sayin’. Like, imagine a hypothetical law (I think France has something similar) where you are not allowed to fire certain types of workers for 5 years. That _could_ give reason for employers to go on strike, as the employees have a legal leg up on the employer. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/62 "2011-11-05T18:34:15Z")
I hire people when i need them. Not hiring someone who i would otherwise hire would mean doing the work myself. Anyone supporting something this stupid clearly has no clue whatsoever how small businesses actually work. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/63 "2011-11-05T22:43:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, maybe. Brookstone _is_ a small business owner - she runs a process server operation in Denver. I don’t know if she actually employs anyone, though. A Process Server business? And her business volume has dropped 70%? What did President Obama’s policies have to do with that decline? Did they somehow cause lawsuits in the country to decrease (I would think her political bedfellows would consider that a good thing)? Throw so many people out of work that she can’t find them to serve papers on? Maybe she’s just not very good at her job… ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/64 "2011-11-06T07:11:34Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > @ **Kimstu** : of course, that model ignores laws/contracts that enforce certain conditions from the employer. At this point, of course, I feel that those laws/contracts are actually fairly negligible, but it is a potential point of contention. Just sayin’. Like, imagine a hypothetical law (I think France has something similar) where you are not allowed to fire certain types of workers for 5 years. That _could_ give reason for employers to go on strike, as the employees have a legal leg up on the employer. Sure, I can see how the employers in such a case would have good reason to take some action, but I think it still wouldn’t be reasonable to call their action a “strike”. They wouldn’t be trying to change the terms of employment as negotiated between themselves and their workforce; they’d be trying to change legal regulations on employment. What the Tea Partiers are proposing, of course, is something even less strike-like and, in fact, basically inexplicable except as a deliberate strategy of destruction. An across-the-board resolution not to hire workers even when more workers are needed, specifically in order to prevent any improvement in the economy or employment levels so that voters will blame Obama, is to all intents and purposes mere partisan sabotage. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/65 "2011-11-06T07:45:18Z")
Red faction: OMG you like hate America and stuff! Blue faction: no u ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 9:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/66 "2011-11-06T09:06:45Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > Red faction: OMG you like hate America and stuff! > Blue faction: no u Lemme fix that for you. Red faction: OMG you like hate america and stuff! Blue faction: Wait, what? You’re the one tying a bomb to the jobs market! Stop that, you’re going to sabotage the nation! ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/67 "2011-11-06T20:25:58Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I think you’re mixing up the concepts of strikes and sabotage. Strikes are (a rather extreme) part of the collective bargaining process _between employers and employees_ to determine conditions of employment (wages, job duties, etc.). It’s a two way street. Strikes sabotage the employers business, in essence, blackmailing them. Now, I have no problem with people striking, as long as they’re also fine with the employer attempting to replace them. If the strikers are right, the employer will see the value of keeping the original workers and make concessions accordingly. If not, then there demands are unwarranted in the first place, being not so much about what is “right”, “fair”, or “necessary”, but what they “want”, i.e., “MORE”. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Employers are the ones who, by default, set the conditions of employment. That’s because the average employer, by virtue of having more financial resources and the ability to make decisions on hiring and so on and so forth, has much more effective power and control over the average employee than the average employee has over the average employer. In general, the worker has to do what the boss says, not vice versa, because it’s much more disruptive and devastating for a worker to lose a job than for a boss to lose one worker. The worker has ultimate power. They can decide to take the job or not. If a job is so bad or pays so poorly, no one will do it. If it’s marginal, people will do it for a short time and jump ship at the first opportunity. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Therefore, if employers set conditions that their employees are dissatisfied with but local labor markets aren’t bullish enough to provide lots of competition for the services of the whole population of local workers, then the only effective way that employees can influence those conditions is by collective action: namely, going on strike. They withhold their labor in order to change the bargain between themselves and their employers. Yes. But see my comments above. If the workers are in the right, they will win and gain concessions. If not, someone else will be doing their job. > [@Kimstu](#): > > But if employers are dissatisfied with one or more employees, they don’t need to take any kind of collective action or institute any kind of strike to change the bargain: they have the power to withhold employment from the employees individually, i.e., to fire them. So the concept of a “strike” on the part of employers really doesn’t make much sense. Keep in mind that any employee can quit at any time. And if a business owner is constantly getting beat up by workers, unions, etc., he has the right to fix his problem. He has the right to fire one guy, ten guy, or ten thousand guys. He has the right to move his company to a more favorable labor market in the next town, next state, or country. Keep in mind, that I arguing here for the right for the owner to take whatever steps he deems helpful in fixing the equation between himself and his workers. Whether they be small moves or big moves. I have the same position concerning workers. It don’t see why you think its okay for one to act int their own self interest and not the other. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Sabotage, on the other hand, is attempting to influence the political and/or economic status quo by destroying stuff. (E.g., the actions of the original _saboteurs_ after whom the term was named, who threw their wooden shoes (_sabots_) into textile manufacturers’ industrial machinery in order to destroy it and force them to re-hire more manual workers.) I don’t think you’re seeing anybody here condoning industrial or political sabotage on the part of dissatisfied workers, so there’s no hypocrisy involved in the criticisms put forth in this thread. This is always a nice story to hear again, but has no bearing on what we’re talking about. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Because what these Tea Partiers are advocating is much more along the lines of sabotage than of a strike. It’s not about business owners bargaining to determine their specific employment conditions: obviously, business owners aren’t employed by anybody and have nobody to bargain with in that regard. Rather, it’s about attempting to do as much damage as possible and hurt other people as much as possible, to prevent the implementation of policies that they happen not to like. Even if I accept your characterization, why shouldn’t they be able to seek to effect change in their own self-interest? Whether it’s productive or a dumb idea is another matter. But why is only one side allowed to stop workage in order to change things? And why is workers involved in a work stoppage “striking” and en employer who closes shop for a time “sabotaging”? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2011, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/68 "2011-11-06T23:44:16Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Oh please. You’re so painfully idiotically wrong about _everything_ that sometimes I think God must exist, simply because you assert he doesn’t. I wouldn’t trust you to add 2 and 2 if you had a calculator. Oh, come now. Are you seriously saying that our government SHOULD continue to spend like a drunken sailor? And you have the gall to call me stupid? Go sit in the corner and shut the fuck up. When come back, bring brain. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/69 "2011-11-07T05:24:50Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Oh, come now. Are you seriously saying that our government SHOULD continue to spend like a drunken sailor? And you have the gall to call me stupid? You know what the most common objection to Obama’s stimulus package was among economists? Not republicans, not politicians, _economists_. You know, the people who went to college for this crap? It wasn’t big enough, and it was watered down with tax breaks, which we know to be ineffective. When the government is in a demand-based recession like this, cutting taxes on the rich and upping supply is _not going to help_. When that fails, all the government really can do to help fix up the economy is to spend on infrastructure and jobs; pump money into the country in the hopes that things like construction firms, mining industries, and the like keep hiring people. The other option for increasing hiring is to _raise the corporate income tax_. Yes, you heard me right. Give such businesses a big-ass incentive to reinvest and hire more people rather than just pocket the profits. Don’t get me wrong, $14T in debt is, while not unsustainable, really not the ideal situation for our country to be in, regardless of how cheap credit is. But at the moment, cutting spending would only hurt our chances of an economic recovery by pulling more demand out of the system. We _need_ to spend now so that when we do recover, we can apply austerity measures without sending the country’s economy into a nosedive. > [@](#): > > Go sit in the corner and shut the fuck up. When come back, bring brain. This actually bothers me, because you’ve clearly come into this discussion with either as much honesty or the same level of knowledge in regards to the economy as the republican party–neither reflects well on you as a person, I gotta say. And then you claim that _we_ have no idea what we’re talking about? No. No, that’s not okay. You are _wrong_, and lack even a basic understanding of supply and demand economics. Just to make this plainly obvious: when the problem in a market is the lack of demand, cutting demand is a _bad idea_. When you cut government spending, you are _cutting demand_. See also: Germany '29-'34, Germany '06-'08 (where we, you know, learned from our mistakes), The USA '29-'45 (if you want to claim that it was anything other than massive government spending that got us out of the recession, I’m really wondering what you think that is). The reason we call you stupid is because that’s become a synonym for a loudmouth who feels justified in spouting his incredibly uneducated opinion on the topic yet has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. Perhaps “Ignoramus” would be a more fitting term. I’m sorry, there’s no nicer way of putting this: in regards to basic economics, you have the understanding of a 5-year-old, and the willingness to speak out despite this ignorance of an arrogant redneck. You’re like one of those creationists who insists that they’re right and then can’t figure out why people call them stupid when they demand to know why monkeys still exist. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/70 "2011-11-07T07:47:59Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Oh, come now. Are you seriously saying that our government SHOULD continue to spend like a drunken sailor? And you have the gall to call me stupid? > > Go sit in the corner and shut the fuck up. When come back, bring brain. Holy shit, you actually responded to a post instead of running away like a bitch like you always do. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, though; my post was pretty insubstantial and easy to respond to. I doubt you’re ever going to honestly engage **BPC** , who smacked you down far more capably than I could. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/71 "2011-11-07T13:53:50Z")
I’ve been working on my verbal bitchslap for the better part of two years. Expect it to fucking sting. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/72 "2011-11-07T16:22:25Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Case in point. Yes, because cutting spending during a depression _has always worked so well_. :rolleyes: You in fact _need_ to spend your way out of a depression. That said, I suppose you’re also against raising the (almost criminally low) tax rate and fixing the ridiculously broken tax code… Yes, you provide a perfect case study of someone who has not even a basic understanding of economic policy nor how the market works. > > …snip… > You are an idiot. Hmmm. I’m called an idiot because I understand the basic economic concepts better than most. No wonder the SDMB has gone downhill over the last several years; clowns like you abound. You got one thing almost right: > [@](#): > > You in fact _need_ to spend your way out of a depression. Except it’s not the government that needs to be doing the spending, it’s the private sector that needs to spend. Government spending does not create wealth. Government gets its money by taking it away from the public or by running the printing presses; neither of those is indicated to stop a depression. What is needed is for private businesses to hire and individuals to spend their salaries. And business is not going to hire because with the current pack of inmates running the asylum in Washington, business has no confidence in future predictions. Until business gains confidence in government, they won’t open the pocketbooks because things look too glum. We’ve seen this already: > [@](#): > > Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. > > After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years. > > “Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.” > **[Newsroom](https://newsroom.ucla.edu)** But every day in every way, we prove George Santayana to be a prophet extraordinaire: > [@](#): > > Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/73 "2011-11-07T16:26:40Z")
Actually, those who refuse to remember the past condemn the rest of us to repeat it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/74 "2011-11-07T16:30:18Z")
Wow, what a groundbreaking paper! That should certainly shut those liberals weenies up! But, seven years ago? Where’s all the hoopla? Must be that liberal media, huh? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/75 "2011-11-07T17:07:34Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Hmmm. I’m called an idiot because I understand the basic economic concepts better than most. You don’t understand it at all. You’re an inept, misinformed stooge. > [@](#): > > Except it’s not the government that needs to be doing the spending, it’s the private sector that needs to spend. Government spending does not create wealth. Government gets its money by taking it away from the public or by running the printing presses; neither of those is indicated to stop a depression. You’re factually incorrect. The recession causes a reduced amount of _demand_. Say it with me, _demand_. This means that the widget factory can produce 100 widgets a day, but only 70 are selling. So they lay off people so they can meet the \*demand \*of 70 a day. If this is happening all over, no business is going to hire people. Even a stupid yokel like you should be able to understand this. Didn’t you used to be a cop? Don’t cops have to think in Texas? If businesses have capacity they aren’t using (remember, the widget factory can produce 100 a day, but it’s only selling 70), then the government can stimulate the economy. They can create a few jobs, which means people are working. Working people buy stuff. This increases _demand_. When the widget factory starts selling 80 widgets a day, they hire more people. Then those people increase demand further. And so on. The trouble with people on the right, is they think that Dems are saying that stimulus always works. No, it works when there is low demand. It worked in the depression and it will work now. Except stupid yokels like you are pushing your party to block attempts to fix things. > [@](#): > > What is needed is for private businesses to hire and individuals to spend their salaries. And business is not going to hire because with the current pack of inmates running the asylum in Washington, business has no confidence in future predictions. Until business gains confidence in government, they won’t open the pocketbooks because things look too glum. No, that’s nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/76 "2011-11-07T17:16:12Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Hmmm. I’m called an idiot because I understand the basic economic concepts better than most. No wonder the SDMB has gone downhill over the last several years; clowns like you abound. Thank you for maintaining the respecting tone in conversations! :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > You got one thing almost right: > > Except it’s not the government that needs to be doing the spending, it’s the private sector that needs to spend. Government spending does not create wealth. Government gets its money by taking it away from the public or by running the printing presses; neither of those is indicated to stop a depression. Lemme ask you a question… _Do you believe that the government can create demand_? > [@](#): > > What is needed is for private businesses to hire and individuals to spend their salaries. And business is not going to hire because with the current pack of inmates running the asylum in Washington, business has no confidence in future predictions. Do me a favor and compare Obama’s record against Bush’s, in terms of financial stability. Can we agree that the problem is _probably_ not things like exhorbitantly high taxes and ridiculously privileges among the employees (in case you’re wondering why I’m so sure, it’s because _these things don’t exist)_? I’m really wondering what you think “those inmates” would do to upset businesses. Taxes are _still_ at an all-time low. Regulations haven’t been ramped up by any meaningful way, and it doesn’t seem to be happening. So… what could’ve happened to scare the businesses? Hmm… “More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011,” Now I wonder what _that_ was all about… Certainly it had nothing to do with the republicans… Nah, those holy angels can do no wrong. :rolleyes: Seriously, what exactly did the government do to scare business? Can you cite it to me? Anything? Or is it just that they all hate the democrats? Yeah, that’s it, they all hate democrats, because we were doing _so_ horribly under Clinton… > [@](#): > > Until business gains confidence in government, they won’t open the pocketbooks because things look too glum. > > We’ve seen this already: > > [Newsroom | UCLA](http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx) Completely different situation. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/77 "2011-11-08T02:58:45Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Completely different situation. Sorry, that last comment was too funny to let go by. The sad thing is that you probably think that it really is a different situation. It’s not. It was an economic meltdown then, it’s an economic meltdown now. Government spending screwed up the recovery then, government spending is screwing up the recovery now. The only difference is that we should have learned from our mistakes then instead of repeating them now. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/78 "2011-11-08T03:16:07Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Sorry, that last comment was too funny to let go by. The sad thing is that you probably think that it really is a different situation. > > It’s not. It was an economic meltdown then, it’s an economic meltdown now. Government spending screwed up the recovery then, government spending is screwing up the recovery now. The only difference is that we should have learned from our mistakes then instead of repeating them now. The only mistake I see is relying on misleading right wing reports. > **[The right-wing New Deal conniption fit - Salon.com](https://www.salon.com/2009/02/02/the_new_deal_worked/)** > > Revisionist historians and economists keep trying to stomp on FDR's legacy. But declaring that WPA workers were unemployed is just silly. > [@](#): > > Defenders of the New Deal will find much to argue with in Cole and Ohanion’s account, but for simplicity’s sake, I am going to zero in on just one point — the impact of the New Deal on unemployment. > > Cole and Ohanian: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn’t restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. > > > > ``` > > How can one make this claim? Unemployment reached 25 percent in the Great Depression, and fell steadily until World War II (although there were some bumps up along the way). Ah, but the revisionist position is that unemployment did not fall as much as it should have. And this argument is based on an interesting interpretation of the available data. As Amity Shlaes, currently the premier anti-New Deal historical revisionist writing for a popular audience, explained proudly in her own Wall Street Journal opinion piece in November, “The Krugman Recipe for Depression,” a necessary step is to not count as employed those people in “temporary jobs in emergency programs.” > > That means, everyone who got a job during the Great Depression via the Works Progress Administration (WPA) or Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), or any other of Roosevelt’s popular New Deal workfare programs, doesn’t get counted as employed in the statistics used by Cole, Ohanian and Shlaes. > [@](#): > > The bottom line conservative position on the New Deal is that, theoretically speaking, the economy would have returned to “normal” more quickly if FDR had refrained from interfering with the workings of the free market through his vast array of interventionist programs. Sadly for them, we never got a chance to find out, because the situation in 1933, when Roosevelt took office, demanded government action. Twenty-five percent of the nation was unemployed. Human suffering was immense. If the market had been left to work its problems out all by itself, further suffering in the near term would have been unimaginable. And not just unimaginable — but also politically unacceptable. > > If the New Deal actually extended the Great Depression, we might wonder, why was Roosevelt reelected three times? One explanation would be that the general public is an idiot, and I must confess, I’ve leaned toward that point of view myself after viewing the aftermath of Election Day in the U.S. on a number of occasions over the last three decades. But another explanation could be that a majority of voters experienced material improvements in the quality of their lives as a result of New Deal programs. This is a point of enduring frustration to conservatives, and they’ve expended vast effort over the years in their attempt to rewrite history and convince us that what our grandparents knew was wrong — to the point that they’ve even tried to tell us that the people who built the fantastic Art Deco structures at the high school my daughter is currently attending were “unemployed.” > > I do not think those workers would have agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/79 "2011-11-08T03:38:12Z")
> [@](#): > > That means, everyone who got a job during the Great Depression via the Works Progress Administration (WPA) or Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), or any other of Roosevelt’s popular New Deal workfare programs, doesn’t get counted as employed in the statistics used by Cole, Ohanian and Shlaes. Christ, talk about idiotic reasoning; They want to show that government programs do not reduce unemployment, so they simply _don’t count_ jobs created by government programs! Voila! They have just proved their point! ---
**Author:** ![scratch\_llll](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@scratch\_llll](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scratch_llll)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364/80 "2011-11-08T03:59:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > . > Even if I accept your characterization, why shouldn’t they be able to seek to effect change in their own self-interest? Whether it’s productive or a dumb idea is another matter. But why is only one side allowed to stop workage in order to change things? And why is workers involved in a work stoppage “striking” and en employer who closes shop for a time “sabotaging”? The fact is employers ARE able and allowed to destroy the local and national economy by work stoppage or not hiring or moving within the country or moving companies overseas for their own self interests. What they can’t do is to claim patriotism while they do so because that entails loyalty to a particular people. They also cannot expect those people hurt by their actions to laud thier self serving actions that cause harm to so many for the purpose of benifiting only themselves which is a much smaller number. Are you asking why people who have their ability to feed themselves taken away not happy to starve so that some one person can add a few million more to their personal fortune? Also the simplest way to concieve of money in the economy is to understand that money does not trickle down but instead gushes up and once up pools at the top. In uncertain times money added to the top by tax cuts for the rich does no good because the rich sit on it until times are more certain as they can afford to wait to invest in business expansion (what is going on now) but money applied to the bottom gets spent because the poor and middle class have to spend it to survive. It moves back through the economy and winds up with the rich anyway but does some good along the way because it spurs growth by the competition to get those dollars by businesses. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-tea-party-nation-for-sabotaging-america/601364.md?page=5)