A Democratic President, Senate, and House ended the Great Depression... and they'll do it again.
Many people have expressed concern, especially given the current depression-esque state of the economy, about Democrats controlling the White House, Senate and House. The suggestion is that spending will run rampant, socialism will ensue, and the country will disintegrate. However, the great depression ended with the Democrats in "full-control".
The years leading directly to the Great Depression were lead by Republican Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover and were supported by Republican controlled Congresses. As the saying goes, the Rich got Richer and the Poor got Poorer with the Republicans in total control and ultimately the economy collapsed due to the excesses of the rich. As illustrated by the timeline below, the Democrats fixed an economy that was broken by the Republicans. If history really does repeat itself, Obama will be President, the Democrats will control the House and Senate and our economy will be restored.
Do you think history will repeat itself?
Here is a brief timeline as seen on Hyperhistory.com...
1924 - The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation to the rest of the economy.
1925 - The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in the eight decades since World War I. 1933 - Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but is concerned with a balanced budget. The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1 percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.
1936 - Top tax rate raised to 79 percent. Economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent; unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.
1937 - Roosevelt fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0 percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.
One last thought... people lose track of time. And it's easy to look at a man of John McCain's age and think - "he knows what it was like to suffer because he grew up during the depression" - well, the fact is both McCain and Obama grew up after the depression.
Best regards,
Jay
Jay Allen
MovieVoice
jay@movievoice.net
Jay - do not re-write history. The thing that ended the Depression was World War II. EVERY history scholar recognizes that fact. There are a heck of a lot of people who believe that your Democrat President, Senate and House EXTENDED the depression by their meddling.
THANK YOU SIMON! NO RE WRITING HISTORY!
The economy began to recover soon after Roosevelt and the Democrats took control of Washington. WWII certainly helped GNP/GDP, but the economy had been moving in the right direction for years prior to U.S. involvement in WWII.
Yes ~ And Democrats back then were not the socialists of today. Nice Try Jay, rewriting history is a liberal thing.
For some reason, I think Simon and Nicholas had the same "history" book in grade school that went over Creationism.
Guys....check out a REAL history book and go back to the index and look up for something called "The New Deal". And just for you, Nicholas, it is just chalk full of goodies you like to call "socialism"
Contrary to popular conservative belief.....blowing up countries and killing people isn't the only way to economic recovery. (As McCain polishes the shiny red button that says 'Iran' on it)
Sorry, Jay...you won't be able to pin down whether or not democratic control of the white house and congress in the 1930's shortened or ended the depression, because it cannot be framed that way. Our great grandparents lived then, in an economic/political atmosphere, as we do now...,controlled by an oligarchy which amounted to a thug-ocracy respecting no borders. The actual political tug of war was between the elite who thought they could make more money, after 1934, by either siding with the Nazis; or with Britain and France. Aside from pursuit of profits and the political control they buyt, the game has not changed.
I have 1940 inserted for the search year of the google news archive for the term Pratt Whitney :
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=pratt+whitney&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&as_user_ldate=1940&as_user_hdate=1940
Change it to 1937, and you can see that this dominant aircraft engine producer was still struggling, but there were news reports describing new contracts it gained from the US War Dept. By 1940, the company had trippled it's capacity, and Pratte Whitney and Curtiss Wright had already delivered 3400 military aircraft to France....
This was reported in 1916...the "ramp up" went so similarly in the 1930's only the industry had changed...from armaments to combat aircraft. Consider that the US was fully preparing for transformation to military production by 1938, nearly four years before actually declaring war, just as this article about Remington Arms describes huge US investment by 1914, vs, declaring war only in Aprilm 1917:
OUR GREATEST ARMS PLANT; Remington-Union Cartridge Factory at ...
Entrance to the Remington Arms Plant at Bridgeport, Conn. ... Marcellus Hartley. They are all honorably discharged soldiers or sailors of the regular army ...
Click on the "Read full article box, after the NY Times page loads, it's an eye opener!
Do not overlook my post about the American Liberty League:
http://books.google.com/books?q=scri...G=Search+Books
The Scripps-Howard press and its United Press wire service, an exception to the
... a story headlined: "Liberty League Controlled by Owners of $37,000,000,000.
...as I posted here,10/24/2008 04:52 PM a former democratic party national chairman, Jouett Shouse, was president of the American Liberty League...
In addtion to Shouse's dual loyalty, Jay....are any of our presidents of either party, really true their public image and perception? Considering what I posted here,10/26/2008 06:42 PM what was up with Roosevelt or Truman, appointing John McCloy to ANYTHING....and FDR saying,
Ultimate Insider, Ultimate Outsider 2
"....In March 1945 Roosevelt greeted McCloy in the Oval Office with arm extended in a Nazi salute, saying, "Heil McCloy -- Hochkommissar fur Deutschland." McCloy declined the position, urging that Roosevelt pick a military man. But when Harry S. Truman offered him the same job four years later, he finally accepted, thus entering one of the most controversial periods of his long career..."
What if all US presidents simply have worked for the interests of the same elite, public pandering to the US electorate not withstanding?
I don't like John T. Flynn, but I have no idea how much of his assessment of FDR is true,,,,,do you>
[PDF]
Country Squire in the White House
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
squire. His estate was a very large one, so that the son was .... of a young country squire. He put in much of his time at. Hyde Park and, in the summer,
Mike Obama has an Iran button to but he wears it on his lapel
Hugh, does that button look like the one Reagan wore on his lapel?
Hugh, does that button look like the one Reagan wore on his lapel?
YES JAY!!! Best comment of the month!!!
Jay - there are numerous economic experts who regard FDR as the architect of an extended depression. WWII in fact saved the US from further economic woes. And before you accuse me of finding Conservative sources for this claim (and there are many of them), I decided to go to UCLA.
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."
Let's repeat that last line because it should scare the pants off of all of us:
"We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
Simon - Just like the "ill-conceived stimulus policy" that McCain also voted for?
"Numerous economic experts" = Simon Conway, Nicholas Goglucci & Hugh Krone LOL
Mike - yes just like the economic stimulus package McCain and Obama voted for. A true disgrace! In a capitalistic society, not only is failure an option, failure MUST BE an option.
So UCLA is not a good enough source for you? How many would you like? I'll be happy to provide them. It is widely accepted that FDR prolonged the crisis and economically speaking the US was saved by WWII. READ Mike. It's quite an interesting way to gain education. Of course if you prefer, then stand on the sidelines and throw stones at people who care about this country.
Simon - I'll guarantee for every economist you conjure up to say FDR prolonged the depression, I'll throw one back at you to say he got the country out of it. Moot point. Just more partisan B.S. like we're throwing here.
So now UCLA professors are Conservatives? Now I think I really have heard everything on this site. But at least you stopped throwing stones.
When a politicans tells me they are going to make my life better with this or that bill, this or that program, or they are going to fix our 70,000+ page tax code I really start feeling sick. If the federal government wants to help, the pass the Fairtax and butt out of our business.
But the reality is politicans are in it for the power and not to make our lives better. Democrats are socialist, Republicans are fascist, the Libertarians are confused, and the Green Party is a joke.
One could make a very good case that Adolph Hitler ended the great depression. The economies of Europe and the U.S. grew their GNP primarily because of a build up of war materials. Roosevelt instituted a series of controls that artificially inflated wages and cut production, especially in agricultureto raise prices.
He created the NRA, which, fortunately was declared unconstitutional in 1935. It was attempting to institute policies, much like Mussolini did in Italy, on business that would have resulted in some form of nationalization. It even had it's own set of thugs to enforce it's inane laws and regulations, such as no night work.
You also forgot to mention that because of some of Roosevelt's policies unemployment soared again to over 19% only to be relieved U.S. preparation and entry into WWII.
It wasn't until 1946 that, even with the influx of millions of military back into the labor pool, that the economy really took off and unemployment returned to normal levels. Oh yeah, many of Roosevelts governmental controls of the economy were also removed.
FDR was a great admirer of Mussolini - and so was his administration. The following from Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939. By Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Metropolitan Books, 2006
Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. "'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'" (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest ... most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious" (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).
Simon - Mussolini was a darling of the progressives during the 20's and the 30's.
Simon and Mike S. ~ You are completely destroying the ideals of Jay and Mike D. with education and facts.
I hope that doesn't mean the Democrats are going to lead us into another World War in order to end the current economic state of things. Because from what I understand from history, World War II is what helped pull us out of the Great Depression. FDR spent 12 years at it and couldn't pull us out of Depression on his own. And Obama is no FDR.
Mike - you are accurate as usual. If it wasn't for WWII, I doubt that FDR would be looked upon so generously.
Nick - those pesky facts always seem to get in the way of the Liberal arguments. Most of them don't even understand the dark connotations of the word "progressives" and what they tried to accomplish.
I'm not a fan of FDR and I disagree with your conclusion.
If I am walking across a freeway and cars are whizzing around me and I dont get hit....is it luck, is it divine intervention or is it good drivers?
It's all of the above perhaps.
Meaning, many things have to fall into place for success to occur and I don't believe you can point to one action or man and say that he is the cause of the success.
Mike, FDR tried to balance the budget in 1937 and cut spending - this resulted in recession.
Simon, if it wasn't for a two-term Clinton administration, Reagan would not be looked upon so generously.
History shows that the GOP kisses up and kicks down - huge deficits from the 1920s, 1980s, and 2000s have all been created by Republican deregulation and their love for the top 1%. The 1930s, 1990s, and Lord willing the 2010s have been and will be decades for the Democrats to save our economy.
Jay - as I just stated, those pescky facts do get in the way don't they? And no comment on FDR and Mussolini??
Jay - you have proven my point, it was a false economy built upon government spending and when the government cut back, because it had already tripled the deficit, the economy could not sustain itself. It was not a consumer driven economy. That is why the soviet union collapsed, a government driven economy, and the lesson that China learned.
Roosevelts deficits were by far larger than any republican deficit. Roosevelt and his advisors were Keynesian. Under Keynesian theory those deficits should be good for the economy. Again, the economy did not really recover until 1946 when it became a consumer driven economy.
Jay, if that is true, explain to me why the rich Hollywood millionaires are voting democrat? They are in that "hated" top 1%. Are ya going to try and convince me that it's because they don't like being pampered or because they were being treated like Kings and Queens by Republicans and didn't enjoy it?
No, they are all just so concerned about the needy that they are willing to pay more Obama taxes. Yeah, right.
Jay,
I am pretty sure that Prosac ended Depression as we know it. Ain't medical science wonderful?
Simon, those pesky facts should prevent the adoption and legitimization of McCain's "welfare for the top 1%" policies.
I have not read the book you referenced - if you read it, what is the context for FDR's infatuation with Mussolini? If you find an FDR-Mussolini connection troubling, what do/did you think of Ronald Reagan's support of Saddam Hussein?
Cheri', movie stars and athletes are paid based on how much revenue they generate for their employer. If Johnny Depp stars in movies that consistently generate hundreds of millions of dollars, then it's obvious that he is worth at least tens of millions to the studios.
In most cases, movie stars and athletes were not born into a privileged lifestyle like George Bush or John McCain - they came from humble backgrounds like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Therefore, they appreciate the value of a dollar, care about the less fortunate, and support Democrats. The GOP helps the "Wall Street" rich to gain their support and exploits religion to gain the support of middle and lower class America.
Cheri - Hmmmm....those that can afford to extend a helping hand by using their assets to lift up the many that aren't as fortunate as they are. That sounds like something some socialist liberal idiot like Jesus would do!
Jay - what was the privileged lifestyle that McCain was born into? As for Barack Obama, please, humble backgrounds. I am familiar with Punahou school, it ain't humble. I will give you Clinton, for humble beginnings, but certainly not Obama.
And the left exploits envy to gain the support of the middle and lower class America.
Mike ~ This is fruitless conversation with the blind followers of Obama and his humble beginnings.
Mike Dobranski - obviously you don't understand that socialist idiot you are talking about. Never, in any of his sermons, lessons, actions, did he call for the taking of assets from one group to give to another. Yes, he encouraged charity and sharing. But he never encouraged envy and taking. Quite the opposite.
In the parable of the workers Jesus, as the landowner states "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?" to those who are envious of what he pays other workers.
And Jesus was in no way liberal, again, you just show your ignorance of the Gospels.
Wow....this exchange is intense! I am quite amazed and impressed at the amount of research you all do, and the intensity (and sometimes ferocity) by which you present your respective sides.
I caught myself actually holding my breath reading this exchange.
Do you guys ever talk on the phone ---- this would make a great panel discussion. All the news media should tap into Active Rain and get you guys to be on TV to represent real people, instead of talking heads with talking points.
Kudos to all for the wealth of information and breadth of research you provided.
Nicholas, why do you consistently question the intelligence of Obama supporters ("blind followers")? There are plenty of stupid people voting for both candidates.
Mike, would being a son and grandson of Navy Admirals not have a few perks? It's also interesting to note that it's much easier to find childhood photos of Obama than of McCain (and yes, plenty of cameras were around when McCain was a child). Is McCain hiding his privileged childhood?
Jay - being the son and grandson does have it's perks, but it certainly wasn't the privileged childhood that you are implying, no more priveleged than Obama's. Certainly moreso than mine or Clinton's. But, I guess the difference between us (you and I) is that I don't begrudge either McCain or Obama their childhoods, although I would rather have grown up in Hawaii than Southern Cal, the surf is much better there.
As a side note, it is probably also easier to find childhood photos of Obama, or McCain, than it is of me. Guess what, that doesn't mean jack sh*t!
Maybe McCain's childhood pictures are in sepia tones ;)
Why should childhood or privileged childhood have anything to do with this race? Are we going to again bring up the division of the rich versus the poor? If so, is someone going to raise the background of the Rockefellers, the Roosevelts, the Kennedys, etc? What would that accomplish?
What we should concern ourselves with is that these folks choose to serve... albeit from different perspectives and ideologies...but in their way, they are committed to do what they think is good for the country.
Jay - this is not about one book - there is a multitude of information in books and on the net about FDR's admiration of Mussolini. The Progresives were in love with him.
Mike, your logic is usually sound and I agree, in terms of this election, the number of photos of you or me on the web doesn't mean "jack sh*t" - because we're talking about McCain and Obama, two internationally recognized figures.
Jay - hopefully you are aware of the rule in Silent Majority regarding large cut and paste stuff. None of us know who Ed is, but even if we did, this is just way too much. He needs to blog his own thoughts. SO - that means you either need to delete his comment; have him revise it; or remove the entire post from Silent Majority. It's a shame because I thought this was a great discussion.
Jay - the number of childhood pictures of either candidate has no bearing on this election has as much meaning as the availability of pictures of my childhood, none at all.
I agree with Simon on the Ed stuff, he contributes little to nothing but does clutter up the page and the servers. Also, he has not the courage to leave the cloak of anonymity.
The Republicans of today closely resemble the Roosevelt Democrats.
That is how far to the center left the Republican Party has come in many respects. The Democrats have gone even further to the left. You can only go so far before you need to change the name. Socialist Party is just a few inches away.
Ed, I have to agree with Simon, your comments contain far too much copied content and are simply too long. Therefore, I have deleted your last post. I welcome comments from anyone, anonymous or not, but it's important to present your ideas in a reasonably concise manner.
Jay - something we agree upon!
Mike, I think we're now averaging about one agreement per week!
Jay, these "volk" made unfounded accusations that progressives were "in love" with Mussolini. I know that premise to be most hypocritical and a chore to substantiate, because the same volk voted for and still support the father and son US presidents most tied....by the strength of the evidence....to fascist collaborators and sympathizers, for four generatiions.
Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie allowed his campaign to be bought by the Nazis, ironically by a Nazi American agent who turned out to be democratic Calif. governor, Gray Davis' grandfather, in hopes of using their financial aid to beat FDR in 1940, and the Bushes were and are....associated with and in support of and in the confidence of....fascists and their descendants, then and now.
I'll limit this post to just one link for those who want to read examples of the evidence:
Examples of the Relations of the US Right with Fascism
Just for "ha ha's".... I challenge anyone to credibky refute any of the accusations in my statement in this post, or in the documentation displayed on the page at the above link. I am open to new information....but I've done my homework....I'd love to see somebody make me eat any of my words!
...and Jay...is this fascism? You seek to have an informed discussion with people who are planning to put Sara Palin one very physically compromised heartbeat away from the US presidency, How can a discussion about whether FDR, implemented policies that pulled the country out of economic depression, 70 years ago, when we could never hope to reach a consensus about whether the man who was voted into the presidency 20 years ago, was or wasn't a covert op. If he was, and he hid it from us during that 1988 campaign, and since, is that a fascist coverup?
What about Bill Clinton, cozying up to him, more recently? He could have checked into GHWB's background, anytime during his eight years as president.
They telegraph the play, Jay....we just won't observe and consider the signals they transmit to us. Remember when it was reported that Bill and Hil were guests at the Kennbunkport compound? We didn't know what to think of that....so we didn't.
'63 F.B.I. Memo Ties Bush to Intelligence Agency - New York Times
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE7D81F3FF932A25754C0A96E94
The documents mentioned, in the above article, are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapata_Corporation#FBI_and_CIA_memos
Look over the Zapata Corp. wiki entry at the link above, and consider that anyone who can support an edit of that page with cited,legitimate sources, can make edits that will stick. It's a very odd and disturbing compilation of the business career of a man who served as our president and VP for 12 years, isn't it?
....and I got a real "kick" out of reading this:
Mistaken Identity Seen Likely In 1963 FBI Memo on Bush
New York Times - Jul 20, 1988
The agency has identified a George William Bush, who worked at the CIA's headquarters ... George William Bush left the CIA in 1964 to work for the Defense
Secret Societies: Inside the World's Most Notorious Organizations - Google Books Result
by John Lawrence Reynolds - 2006 - History - 320 pages
This appeared to deflect suspicion about the presidential candidate's hidden career as a spook, but only until George William Bush emerged from obscurity...
Affadavit of George William Bush:
<!--m-->[PDF]
918 F . C . 20004 88-2600 2 . 1963 1964 3 . 4 . 29, 1963
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
foregoing Affidavit to be his free act and deed . Taken, subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day. of September 1988 by George William Bush . ...
Jay - there is some common ground, people need to quit emphasizing the differences and focusing on what connects rather than divides