5 ms·

Precisely. Eisenhower/FDR style "New Deal" policies would be ridiculed as Communism in today's political arena. Modern politicians are just prudent businessmen

by FD3SA 12y ago

Precisely. Eisenhower/FDR style "New Deal" policies would be ridiculed as Communism in today's political arena. Modern politicians are just prudent businessmen who only care about the needs of their most affluent customers.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Precisely. Eisenhower/FDR style "New Deal" policies would be ridiculed as Marxism in today's political arena. Which is different to how critics responded to them at the time...how? The New Deal wasn't exactly universally acclaimed and non-controversial when it was proposed.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >The New Deal wasn't exactly universally acclaimed and non-controversial when it was proposed. It was far more accepted though -- as were other kind of policies, and even unions back then. It was a different climate. The fact that it was not "universally acclaimed" then, doesn't mean everything is the same regarding how the public and the pundits react to such things then and now. The deegre and the quality of the disagreement for one, can change over time.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > It was far more accepted though Sure, in the depth of a massive depression, it was accepted enough as a possible solution that some of it survived, but even then it was bitterly opposed, attacked as anti-American and socialist by its opponents, parts of it didn't make it through Congress (with defections even from the President's party), and of those that did, several were struck down by the Supreme Court, in what were described by supporters of the New Deal as political rather than legally-driven rulings that were the impetus for the "court packing" scheme. And even more were winded down early as the opponents, always numerous, gained more power in Congress in the early 1940s. You say they would be "ridiculed as Marxism" today -- and they would. By people who are the ideological heirs of the same people that were ridiculing them as Marxism when they were proposed. > The fact that it was not "universally acclaimed" them, doesn't mean everything is the same regarding how the public and the pundits react to such things then and now. Things are a lot more the same than they are different. You really seem to be looking at the past through rose colored glasses.
    - FD3SA 12y ago
      All great points. Yet Eisenhower defeated his opponents, both abroad and at home. Eisenhower was a champion of his era. He was a soldier who had seen war and death firsthand, and understood the costs. He also understood the severe costs of allowing a nation to be robbed of its dignity by a parasitic oligarchy intent on bringing common working folk to their knees via the machinations of capital. It's not "capitalism" or "laws" that hold a nation together, it's trust. Also known as the social contract. Go travel and learn about places like Brazil, China, Russia, India and any other developing country in the world. Do you know what they lack as societies? Trust. The oligarchs have rigged the game, and everyone knows it, yet the masses are powerless. America was once the only place where the game was not so heavily rigged. This was a time long ago, and I doubt we shall ever see it again.
      - fleitz 12y ago
        He also spoke quite extensively of the evils of the military industrial complex (I believe he coined the term)
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Yet Eisenhower defeated his opponents, both abroad and at home. I'm not really sure what Eisenhower has to do with the New Deal other than not actively ending the programs that had survived to his Presidency (which were, naturally, the least controversial ones, and ones that by the time he was elected the controversy that had been associated with them had faded.) > America was once the only place where the game was not so heavily rigged. No, America -- for most of its history up through WWII (ironically, the New Deal was a major factor in starting to break this up, and the Civil Rights movement did more to unsettle it) -- was once a place where the game was much more heavily rigged, where most states were virtual one-party states, and where national politics was mostly backroom deals between elites that were unchallenged in their own domains. To the extent there are kinds of visible divisiveness and distrust than before, its not because the game is more rigged than in the time you seem to idealize (apparently from Roosevelt's election through Eisenhower's presidency), its because the game is less rigged, and more actively contested. Even the setbacks (like Citizens United) that are credited with stacking the deck for the elites today are strikes against attempts to limit longstanding ways in which elites have stacked the deck since the dawn of the Republic, not new advanced by elites.
adventured 12y ago
Hardly. The Fed has been spending a trillion dollars per year in stimulus to bail out home owners and investors (and businesses and banks too) to prop up the economy. That's a massive new deal style program. It amounts to a hand-out to the vast majority of Americans in one form or another, to the tune of trillions of dollars. Obama fired off a $800 billion stimulus program in 2009, with broad support. Bush passed Medicare Part D, a trillion dollar program, with broad support. Bush also increased the size of the federal government by nearly 60% in eight years. Obama & Congress passed the ACA, which will end up being a several hundred billion dollar per year program with time. Social Security Disability and Food Stamp costs have skyrocketed, basically doubling in six or seven years. That's a trillion dollars worth of new expenses over ten years. How much more new deal could you possibly get exactly than the free spending ways of the last 14 years? Much of that spending has been in the form of welfare programs and hand-outs.
- Retric 12y ago
  Social Security Disability has skyrocketed as a measure by the states to move costs from the states to the federal budget. Food stamp costs have increased due to poor economic conditions and free trade gutting the lower middle class along with poor immigration policy providing ~1 million unskilled laberers. The 800 Billion stimulus package was tiny in federal terms with little actual new spending and zero long term budget implications, to put it in perspective there are weapon systems that cost far more than that let alone something like Medicare part D with trillions in long term costs. PS: The federal budget get's a lot of commentary, but there so much cost shifting between states and the federal budget a lot of the numbers are almost meaningless without a lot of context. Ex: We spend more on education and loan interest than national defense and social security.
  - FD3SA 12y ago
    Not to mention that returns to capital have enjoyed the greatest 50 years since the roaring 20's. Thomas Piketty has exposed this fact in great detail in his new book. Robert Reich has even made a documentary about this very book. If "The American Dream" means that if you're born rich, you'll die far richer, then it's alive and well. Nothing American about that however. It's called an oligarchy and is the dominant form of human society throughout our long and troubled history. It appears America is desperate to regress to the historical mean, and nothing you or I say can change this, not even in a community dedicated to entrepreneurship. It appears entrepreneurs just want to join the oligarchy, rather than distribute power and wealth more evenly. We cannot stem the tides of the tsunami that is human nature.

by FD3SA 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Precisely. Eisenhower/FDR style "New Deal" policies would be ridiculed as Marxism in today's political arena. Which is different to how critics responded to them at the time...how? The New Deal wasn't exactly universally acclaimed and non-controversial when it was proposed.

coldtea 12y ago
>The New Deal wasn't exactly universally acclaimed and non-controversial when it was proposed. It was far more accepted though -- as were other kind of policies, and even unions back then. It was a different climate. The fact that it was not "universally acclaimed" then, doesn't mean everything is the same regarding how the public and the pundits react to such things then and now. The deegre and the quality of the disagreement for one, can change over time.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > It was far more accepted though Sure, in the depth of a massive depression, it was accepted enough as a possible solution that some of it survived, but even then it was bitterly opposed, attacked as anti-American and socialist by its opponents, parts of it didn't make it through Congress (with defections even from the President's party), and of those that did, several were struck down by the Supreme Court, in what were described by supporters of the New Deal as political rather than legally-driven rulings that were the impetus for the "court packing" scheme. And even more were winded down early as the opponents, always numerous, gained more power in Congress in the early 1940s. You say they would be "ridiculed as Marxism" today -- and they would. By people who are the ideological heirs of the same people that were ridiculing them as Marxism when they were proposed. > The fact that it was not "universally acclaimed" them, doesn't mean everything is the same regarding how the public and the pundits react to such things then and now. Things are a lot more the same than they are different. You really seem to be looking at the past through rose colored glasses.
  - FD3SA 12y ago
    All great points. Yet Eisenhower defeated his opponents, both abroad and at home. Eisenhower was a champion of his era. He was a soldier who had seen war and death firsthand, and understood the costs. He also understood the severe costs of allowing a nation to be robbed of its dignity by a parasitic oligarchy intent on bringing common working folk to their knees via the machinations of capital. It's not "capitalism" or "laws" that hold a nation together, it's trust. Also known as the social contract. Go travel and learn about places like Brazil, China, Russia, India and any other developing country in the world. Do you know what they lack as societies? Trust. The oligarchs have rigged the game, and everyone knows it, yet the masses are powerless. America was once the only place where the game was not so heavily rigged. This was a time long ago, and I doubt we shall ever see it again.
    - fleitz 12y ago
      He also spoke quite extensively of the evils of the military industrial complex (I believe he coined the term)
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Yet Eisenhower defeated his opponents, both abroad and at home. I'm not really sure what Eisenhower has to do with the New Deal other than not actively ending the programs that had survived to his Presidency (which were, naturally, the least controversial ones, and ones that by the time he was elected the controversy that had been associated with them had faded.) > America was once the only place where the game was not so heavily rigged. No, America -- for most of its history up through WWII (ironically, the New Deal was a major factor in starting to break this up, and the Civil Rights movement did more to unsettle it) -- was once a place where the game was much more heavily rigged, where most states were virtual one-party states, and where national politics was mostly backroom deals between elites that were unchallenged in their own domains. To the extent there are kinds of visible divisiveness and distrust than before, its not because the game is more rigged than in the time you seem to idealize (apparently from Roosevelt's election through Eisenhower's presidency), its because the game is less rigged, and more actively contested. Even the setbacks (like Citizens United) that are credited with stacking the deck for the elites today are strikes against attempts to limit longstanding ways in which elites have stacked the deck since the dawn of the Republic, not new advanced by elites.

adventured 12y ago

Hardly. The Fed has been spending a trillion dollars per year in stimulus to bail out home owners and investors (and businesses and banks too) to prop up the economy. That's a massive new deal style program. It amounts to a hand-out to the vast majority of Americans in one form or another, to the tune of trillions of dollars. Obama fired off a $800 billion stimulus program in 2009, with broad support. Bush passed Medicare Part D, a trillion dollar program, with broad support. Bush also increased the size of the federal government by nearly 60% in eight years. Obama & Congress passed the ACA, which will end up being a several hundred billion dollar per year program with time. Social Security Disability and Food Stamp costs have skyrocketed, basically doubling in six or seven years. That's a trillion dollars worth of new expenses over ten years. How much more new deal could you possibly get exactly than the free spending ways of the last 14 years? Much of that spending has been in the form of welfare programs and hand-outs.

Retric 12y ago
Social Security Disability has skyrocketed as a measure by the states to move costs from the states to the federal budget. Food stamp costs have increased due to poor economic conditions and free trade gutting the lower middle class along with poor immigration policy providing ~1 million unskilled laberers. The 800 Billion stimulus package was tiny in federal terms with little actual new spending and zero long term budget implications, to put it in perspective there are weapon systems that cost far more than that let alone something like Medicare part D with trillions in long term costs. PS: The federal budget get's a lot of commentary, but there so much cost shifting between states and the federal budget a lot of the numbers are almost meaningless without a lot of context. Ex: We spend more on education and loan interest than national defense and social security.
- FD3SA 12y ago
  Not to mention that returns to capital have enjoyed the greatest 50 years since the roaring 20's. Thomas Piketty has exposed this fact in great detail in his new book. Robert Reich has even made a documentary about this very book. If "The American Dream" means that if you're born rich, you'll die far richer, then it's alive and well. Nothing American about that however. It's called an oligarchy and is the dominant form of human society throughout our long and troubled history. It appears America is desperate to regress to the historical mean, and nothing you or I say can change this, not even in a community dedicated to entrepreneurship. It appears entrepreneurs just want to join the oligarchy, rather than distribute power and wealth more evenly. We cannot stem the tides of the tsunami that is human nature.