If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

However, of course Jefferson didn't found the Republican Party, so none of that is true -- thank God!

"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican." -Susan Dunn, "Jefferson's Second Revolution."

 

[code1211]

No, that's an absurd oversimplification of the issues of the era in a blatant attempt to make Roosevelt's legacy look bad.

In addition to that question, which isn't really a question and that's why you cherry-picked it, there are at least the following:

1) Whether his policies reduced the suffering of the Depression and helped make things better than they would have been otherwise.

2) Whether, absent those reforms, things would have gotten so bad that a real risk of an overthrow of the government and imposition of either a fascist or a Marxist despotism would have existed.

3) Whether the long-term changes in economic policy introduced by Roosevelt contributed to the amazing prosperity of the nation after World War II.

None of these questions is subsumed in the one you asked.

None of them have to be. The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2. The boom time of the 50's and 60's was made possible by the utter destruction and defacto colonization of the the world.

Are you arguing that the policies of FDR served to end the Great Depression?

I cannot argue that they mollified it or not. I know from speaking with my parents who regarded FDR as a God, that he gave hope where there previously was none and for that he must be respected.

It's his policies and whether or not they were effective in ending the Great depression that I am questioning.

The Depression lingered for years and the unemployment was high and the lives of Americans were crushed by it. Otherwise talented and intelligent people were employed in manual labor with no hope of advancing. That is not economic recovery.

There is no evidence to suggest that the policies of FDR contributed toward any economic recovery. If it was impossible to correct absent WW2, we will never know. Most of his policies were to soften the suffering and none were to correct it.

What we do know is that his policies did not end the Great Depression. The problem with reality is that it's so real.

Until Hoover depressions/recessions were considered part of the business cycle and they were allowed to run their course. EXcept for Keynes there was no manual, no plans or blueprint for governments to cope or cure depressions. When the Great Depression hit Hoover broke the mold and tried to help by helping business, trickle-down, and it didn't work. FDR at first talked of balancing the budget as a treatment but quickly saw the madness of that with people starving and new governments being formed in Spain and Germany. FDR experimented, when this didn't work he dropped it. But above all he gave hope and with the hope programs. People at the time recognized what he was doing and believed in him.
Historians recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. Now what could Republicans do, but call him names and belittle his accomplishments. Maybe it's a truism that unless you live history it is difficult to understand the period. Those that lived it with FDR understood it.

And yet the Great Depression is referred to as the Great Depression. Whether the events were too much for any program or any set of policies or whether this one set of policies was the wrong set really will never be reconciled.

What we know for a fact is that the Great Depression gripped the nation and none of the policies, programs or initiatives put forth during the FDR tenure were successful in ending the Great Depression.

 

[code1211]

The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.

This is true, but as I said, what ENDED the Depression isn't the important question.

The boom time of the 50's and 60's was made possible by the utter destruction and defacto colonization of the the world.

This is false, for the simple reason that the "utter destruction of the world" is a myth and did not happen. Except for Germany, Japan, and (maybe) the Soviet Union, all the major combatants emerged from the war with bigger and stronger industrial capacity than they went into it. And of course, there were many industrial powers (Sweden and Switzerland for example) who were neutrals and were not even touched by the war.

Are you arguing that the policies of FDR served to end the Great Depression?

Please note that none of the questions I raised had anything to do with what ended the Depression. Therefore, obviously, I'm not arguing that -- I'm arguing something completely different and MUCH more important.

It's his policies and whether or not they were effective in ending the Great depression that I am questioning.

Why, when no one has seriously suggested that Roosevelt's policies ended the Depression? The claims for him lie elsewhere entirely, and I suggested them.

You responded to my post which was a response to a post in which that was exactly the question. You are free to change the subject, but why do so and deny the subject that originally existed?




Quote: Originally Posted by Sallow
Quote: Originally Posted by EdwardBaiamonte
Quote: Originally Posted by Peach
*FINDING. FDR kept this country together when Communism and Fascism were genuine threats.

kept it together by prolonging the Depression for 10 years that caused WW 2? If BO prolongs this recession for 10 years will he be your hero too?
The Depression didn't cause WWII. And it wasn't "prolonged" by FDR's policies. You may want to study history a bit. The disparity in wealth was leading to a rise in populist movements in this country..like Communists and Fascists. This place was ripe for a revolution. FDR tamped down those angry voices by implementing social programs in a package called "The New Deal". The economic calamity faced in this country was caused by Laissez-faire capitalism..and it was a tough slog getting out of it.


The question is simply whether or not the the policies of FDR hurried us out of the Depression or not.

His policies did not get us out of the Depression so getting us out of the Depression is not a debatable point. It's a little like the Obama "recovery".

If Obama's recovery was like the Bush economy that he derided, he'd probably be elected king.

It's not. the Big 0 is failing. FDR did fail. We can argue whether or not his policies were right for the time or not, but it cannot be argued that his policies corrected the problem. We know that the policies used by FDR failed and we know the there same updated policies used by the Big 0 are failing.
__________________

 

[code1211]

You keep on and on with the limited government thing as if that is the key to liberal/conservatism. But the size of government is not a core value of either liberal or conservatism. The fact that conservatives harp today on small government is a passing thing, a campaign gimmick, as it was at one time when the liberals demaded small government. Generally the party out of power wants a small powerless administration, but of more import to each, is the type of govenment, which side the governnment supports that is important.

Actually, there's a little more to it than that. Agrarian liberalism is different from industrial liberalism. Agrarian liberals do want a very limited central government, not as a core value, but as a means to an end.

Liberalism is ALWAYS about equality, and hence about liberty. Or vice-versa: liberty, and therefore equality. Because it's gross inequality that is the main threat to liberty; when one person is vastly more powerful than another person, he is able to impose his will on the weaker person and compel obedience. But exactly how that mechanic operates, and therefore what to do about it, is different in an agrarian economy than in an industrial one.

In an agrarian economy, a strong central government can and usually does enforce the privilege of the landed elite: very wealthy owners of large amounts of good land, who work that land by means of forced labor (usually slavery but sometimes a kind of bonded peasantry or serfdom instead). Liberals oppose it for that reason. Also, agrarian liberals feared the rise of a capitalist industrial economy and the elevation of a super-wealthy commercial elite, which a strong central government could facilitate through central banking, high tariffs, and subsidies.

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc. opposed a strong central government but only as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. Classical liberals were quite willing to use government force where it served the ends of equality and liberty.

Industrial liberalism seeks the same things as classical liberalism -- liberty and equality -- but does so by different means because it occupies different circumstances. On land, you walk; in the water, you swim; both are done for the purpose of moving. In an industrial economy, a strong central government is unavoidable and the only question is whether it serves the interests of the commercial/capitalist elite or those of the people as a whole.

Neither modern liberals nor conservatives oppose "big government," but neither do they advocate it as an end in itself. As always, the ends of liberals are liberty and equality, and so liberals advocate government activities that serve these ends while opposing government activities that oppose them.

Liberty and equality sound like good things. The question is liberty to do what and equality of what?

If I am free to work and achieve, am I also free to reap the reward? If I am free to be indolent and lazy, am I also free to be supported others? If yes, who is "free" to support me?

If all things are equal, we know for certain they are not, but if they are, then there is no individuality. We know that there are different strengths and weaknesses that comprise every individual. You may have a beautiful singing voice and i may have a real knack for throwing a football.

Are we equal? No.

Do you demand that I have the same audiences that your talent commands As I sing like a croaking frog? Do you demand that you have the right to start at Quarterback for the Giants?

What is your equality, then? Is it equal opportunity or equal outcomes?

What is your liberty? Is it only the limitation of the powerful's actions or is it the equal and universal ability of all to most completely develop that which makes them individuals?

The way you describe Liberty and Equality sound to me like Heavy government regulation of any achievement and forced restraint of the exceptional outcome.

There are many among us who are superior in various ways. The rest of us may strive to be like them or simply admire their talents. Real liberty celebrates the inequality of individuals and encourages the exceptional greatness where it rises. Forced equality condemns the exceptional and penalizes the genius.

 

[code1211]

The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.

Sorry but that is mistaken. If war production and execution ended the Depression then of course the Depression would have come back full steam the instant the war stopped.

Also if that worked we just make tons of planes and tanks and dump them into the sea

If WW2 did not end the Great Depression, demonstrate what ended it.

 

[regent]

But above all he [FDR] gave hope

So did Hitler Stalin and Mao??? FDR gave hope but only to fools. What he did was deliver 10 years of Depression and 5 years of world war.

People at the time recognized what he was doing

of course that's idiotic. If they knew he was prolonging the Depression for 10 years and planting the seeds of world war they would have recognized only that at best he was a perfect liberal fool .

?

. Now what could Republicans do, but call him names and belittle his accomplishments.

of course one has to be perfectly, 100% brainwashed to say Depression and WW 2 are accomplishments. Now you can see why millions followed Hitler Stalin and Mao. For humans thinking is often just not necessary.

That's the whole point, America did not change to a Hitler, Stalin or Mao, they continued with Capitalism, and democracy but did change many of those characteristics that caused so much suffering.
But a question, if you accept the premise that the Great Depression has, in fact, ended, what caused the Great Depression to end?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The depression was ended by the dedication of the nation to the production for and execution of WW2.

Sorry but that is mistaken. If war production and execution ended the Depression then of course the Depression would have come back full steam the instant the war stopped.

Also if that worked we just make tons of planes and tanks and dump them into the sea

If WW2 did not end the Great Depression, demonstrate what ended it.

how could World War 2 two possibly end the Depression unless they kept making planes and tanks and dumped them into the sea??

It was ended because FDR and much of his socialism was dead, Europe Russia China Japan had been destroyed while we had the only economy left standing on the planet and were 100% ready to switch to a capitalistic consumer driven peacetime economy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That's the whole point, America did not change to a Hitler, Stalin or Mao,

What??? you said FDR gave hope. I said so what Hitler Stalin Mao did too.

they continued with Capitalism, and democracy but did change many of those characteristics that caused so much suffering.

what caused the suffering of the Great Depression was liberal interference in the economy. Did you think the Depression was caused by the Girl Scouts??

But a question, if you accept the premise that the Great Depression has, in fact, ended, what caused the Great Depression to end?

how could World War 2 two possibly end the Depression unless they kept making planes and tanks and dumped them into the sea??

It was ended because FDR and much of his socialism was dead, Europe Russia China Japan had been destroyed while we had the only economy left standing on the planet and were 100% ready to switch to a capitalistic consumer driven peacetime economy.

 

[regent]

Sorry but that is mistaken. If war production and execution ended the Depression then of course the Depression would have come back full steam the instant the war stopped.

Also if that worked we just make tons of planes and tanks and dump them into the sea

If WW2 did not end the Great Depression, demonstrate what ended it.

how could World War 2 two possibly end the Depression unless they kept making planes and tanks and dumped them into the sea??

It was ended because FDR and much of his socialism was dead, Europe Russia China Japan had been destroyed while we had the only economy left standing on the planet and were 100% ready to switch to a capitalistic consumer driven peacetime economy.

Well finally we have an answer as to why the Great Depression ended, and the cause of the end was the death of FDR's socialism. So when did FDR's socialism die, and why did it die? Did Truman kill it or maybe Ike? And what happened to all FDR's socialist programs, like Social Security, FDIC, SEC and that whole Schmear that conservatives are still screaming is destroying America are those dead too? And one more, are we still in that consumer driven capitalistic economy?

 

[Dragon]

And yet the Great Depression is referred to as the Great Depression. Whether the events were too much for any program or any set of policies or whether this one set of policies was the wrong set really will never be reconciled.

What we know for a fact is that the Great Depression gripped the nation and none of the policies, programs or initiatives put forth during the FDR tenure were successful in ending the Great Depression.

And if you have a fixation on discrediting Roosevelt, the New Deal, and liberalism in general, you can use that as an excuse to do so. What you can't do is use it as a good reason, because it's not one. I already explained why.

 

[Dragon]

Liberty and equality sound like good things. The question is liberty to do what and equality of what?

Very good questions, yes. The answer is liberty to do as much as possible for as many as possible, recognizing that one person's liberty often conflicts with another's and so compromise is necessary in a civilized society. And equality of power is the important part, but that entails equality of wealth, too.

Not, of course, complete equality as that is impracticable. But there are limits beyond which inequality cannot be tolerated, as Jefferson observed in his time in France.

If I am free to work and achieve, am I also free to reap the reward? If I am free to be indolent and lazy, am I also free to be supported others? If yes, who is "free" to support me?

You ask that as if it were a serious question, as if aid to the poor (especially to the "lazy and indolent" poor) were more than a molecule of water in the ocean when it comes to resources supporting people. As if it weren't a completely, utterly trivial "problem," if one insists on regarding it as a problem at all.

Are you free to reap the reward for your work and achievement? Generally speaking, no. Most people cannot support themselves independently and so must work for someone else, and that someone else reaps the lion's share of the reward for their work. People lose a lot bigger share of the fruits of their labors to their employers than they do to the government. The less power organized labor has in the economy, the more that's true -- and right now it's VERY true. And unlike welfare, that is anything but a trivial problem.

If all things are equal, we know for certain they are not, but if they are, then there is no individuality.

Equality of everything is not even worth discussing. Equality of power would not lead to a loss of individuality but, for almost everyone, to an increase in it.

What is your equality, then? Is it equal opportunity or equal outcomes?

I explained it above, but here I'll merely say that no one who talks about "equality of opportunity" and opposed to "equality of outcomes" actually believes in equality of opportunity. If you did, you would oppose all private schools, impose a 100% estate tax, and provide everyone a TRULY equal shot at success.

What is your liberty? Is it only the limitation of the powerful's actions or is it the equal and universal ability of all to most completely develop that which makes them individuals?

For everyone except the most powerful, the two are one.

 

[code1211]

Sorry but that is mistaken. If war production and execution ended the Depression then of course the Depression would have come back full steam the instant the war stopped.

Also if that worked we just make tons of planes and tanks and dump them into the sea

If WW2 did not end the Great Depression, demonstrate what ended it.

how could World War 2 two possibly end the Depression unless they kept making planes and tanks and dumped them into the sea??

It was ended because FDR and much of his socialism was dead, Europe Russia China Japan had been destroyed while we had the only economy left standing on the planet and were 100% ready to switch to a capitalistic consumer driven peacetime economy.

Which of the causes that you cite are not directly resultant from WW2?

 

[code1211]

And yet the Great Depression is referred to as the Great Depression. Whether the events were too much for any program or any set of policies or whether this one set of policies was the wrong set really will never be reconciled.

What we know for a fact is that the Great Depression gripped the nation and none of the policies, programs or initiatives put forth during the FDR tenure were successful in ending the Great Depression.

And if you have a fixation on discrediting Roosevelt, the New Deal, and liberalism in general, you can use that as an excuse to do so. What you can't do is use it as a good reason, because it's not one. I already explained why.

You did not deal with that specific point. The economic one.

I am not discrediting FDR. All I am saying is that his policies did not end the Great Depression. Are you disagreeing with that one very specific point?

 

[Dragon]

I am not discrediting FDR. All I am saying is that his policies did not end the Great Depression. Are you disagreeing with that one very specific point?

It's pretty clear from your other posts that that is indeed your motivation, so don't deny it.

No, I am not disagreeing with that one very specific point. What I am doing is calling it what it is: trivial and irrelevant.

 

[code1211]

Liberty and equality sound like good things. The question is liberty to do what and equality of what?

Very good questions, yes. The answer is liberty to do as much as possible for as many as possible, recognizing that one person's liberty often conflicts with another's and so compromise is necessary in a civilized society. And equality of power is the important part, but that entails equality of wealth, too.

Not, of course, complete equality as that is impracticable. But there are limits beyond which inequality cannot be tolerated, as Jefferson observed in his time in France.

.

The portion in red above is a real WOW moment for me.

To me, liberty is allowing any individual to do as that individual desires. Within a society, it is understood that my freedom to swing my arm ends where your nose begins. Liberty by my understanding is an individual thing and is allowed by the act of Government simply staying out of the way.

Your words say, "The answer is liberty to do as much as possible for as many as possible...".

I do not understand how doing something for somebody is liberty for the benefitted person. If he is receiving charity, that would fit this description. Doing for somebody is not liberty and is control. This is how parents control children. Depriving anybody of those things that are essential or at least desired is a method of control.

If I am controlled, I do not have liberty.

Is your vision of Liberty a vision of state control of the individual?

Equality of wealth is the basis of Liberty? This is not a valid train of thought. Forgive my butchering of this from Thoreau who said words to the effect that all men are rich in terms of what they can live without.

In many ways, the liberty of a person is abridged by the wealth and the authority he holds. If you do not understand this, you understand very little.

 

[code1211]

If I am free to work and achieve, am I also free to reap the reward? If I am free to be indolent and lazy, am I also free to be supported others? If yes, who is "free" to support me?

You ask that as if it were a serious question, as if aid to the poor (especially to the "lazy and indolent" poor) were more than a molecule of water in the ocean when it comes to resources supporting people. As if it weren't a completely, utterly trivial "problem," if one insists on regarding it as a problem at all.

Are you free to reap the reward for your work and achievement? Generally speaking, no. Most people cannot support themselves independently and so must work for someone else, and that someone else reaps the lion's share of the reward for their work. People lose a lot bigger share of the fruits of their labors to their employers than they do to the government. The less power organized labor has in the economy, the more that's true -- and right now it's VERY true. And unlike welfare, that is anything but a trivial problem.


.

Another WOW Moment.

The question here is not about labor unions or division of the country's wealth or any macro economic considerations. It is about the individual.

Is an individual free to enter into an agreement to exchange his labor for a compensation that agreed upon or not? When that individual has done this, is he free to enjoy the fruits of his labor or not as defined by the agreement that he has arrived at with his employer?

You seem to think that the individual is not responsible for his actions, his thoughts, his agreements or his own personal welfare.

If you think that the individual is a hapless and impotent pawn unable to cope with the world, then you are a person who is free of pride, hope and initiative. I can think of no other belief system that would allow you to abandon all responsibility for your own welfare.

Where did the notion of Labor unions come from in this?

 

[Dragon]

I do not understand how doing something for somebody is liberty for the benefitted person.

You really have an obsession with aid to the poor, don't you? Why do you think that's important or in any way defining?

Equality of wealth is the basis of Liberty?

It is indeed. And I'm not going to go into Thoreau, who had a wonderful heart and some great insights but who should not be taken as offering practical suggestions for anyone (nor as having followed them himself; look into how he was supported while he was at Walden sometime).

Not, as I said already, complete equality, but limited inequality. You cannot be free without the economic means to be free. You cannot be free, simply put, unless you can survive without holding a job working for someone else. As long as you are working for someone else, you are under that person's authority, you have a boss, and so you are not free. Now, there's a qualifier: If you don't NEED the job, if you can get by fine without it, and are therefore genuinely holding the job by your own voluntary choice, then yes, you are free. But for the overwhelming majority of people, that's not the case.

Excessive inequality of wealth reduces most people to servitude. When wages are very high, a person can go a long time between jobs and his freedom is thereby increased. When they are not, he is at the mercy of his employer and is thus not free. Moreover, huge inequality of wealth means a huge imbalance of political power, too, and the very wealthy suborn the government to act in service to their own ends -- which is the very definition of tyranny.

There is no liberty without property. (I forget who said that, but it's true.) This means that, if most people are denied property, then they are also denied liberty. And please, please, PLEASE don't go off on a tangent again about people being "given" property who haven't worked for it; the problem we have is people being denied the property they HAVE worked for, having it stolen by rich and powerful men who take their labor and keep the property it makes, too. While there are certainly people who cannot earn their way, the real problem we face is that too many people are not being allowed to earn their way, in order to maximize the wealth accruing to the richest.

 

[Dragon]

Another WOW Moment.

The question here is not about labor unions or division of the country's wealth or any macro economic considerations. It is about the individual.

All of those are bound together. There is no liberty without property.

Is an individual free to enter into an agreement to exchange his labor for a compensation that agreed upon or not?

No one who HAS to take a job does so freely, or is capable of entering into a free agreement.

Here's an analogy. Suppose you and I and a third person are standing in my living room, which is a mess. I offer you a dollar to clean my room for me. You begin to decline, whereupon the third person whips a gun out, puts it to your head, and screams, "Clean Dragon's room NOW. And be thankful he's paying you ANYTHING!"

I don't say anything. I don't threaten, I don't make any hostile move. You clean my room, and I pay you a dollar.

I did not personally coerce you into doing anything, did I? Nevertheless, did you do it freely? Was the agreement to clean my room for a dollar freely made? Of course not. And that's a good analogy for the "free agreements" made by people to take jobs.

Don't bother with the cheap imitation spirituality, please. I don't consider that worthy of a response.

 

[code1211]

Equality of everything is not even worth discussing. Equality of power would not lead to a loss of individuality but, for almost everyone, to an increase in it.

What is your equality, then? Is it equal opportunity or equal outcomes?

I explained it above, but here I'll merely say that no one who talks about "equality of opportunity" and opposed to "equality of outcomes" actually believes in equality of opportunity. If you did, you would oppose all private schools, impose a 100% estate tax, and provide everyone a TRULY equal shot at success.

.

Equality of opportunity means that all are free to excel. Equality of outcome means that none do.

Eli Manning was the MVP of the Super Bowl. You were no (I assume) and I was not. He was the MVP because he was the most important and effective player on the field and by extension in the world. It's pretty likely that, given the same opportunity, there are about 10 people on the planet that could have gained that honor in that situation on that day.

We all had the opportunity and only he succeeded in gaining the honor. He started pretty much from the day he was born to hone the skills and take advantage of his physical gifts to gain that honor.

Do you demand that everyone on the planet gain that reward or that he be stripped of it? Those are the only two options for equality of outcome.

Why ban private schools? Do you propose that we also ban all universities public and private because not everyone can use them? How about classes for gifted and for challenged students? Athletics? Choir? Orchestras? How limited do you demand that our society become in the name of equality?

Everyone has an equal shot at whatever they choose to shoot at. Did Bill gates have an equal shot at success with the most favored in our society? Was he crippled by his relative lack of opportunity?

A 100% estate tax? Another WOW Moment. Does no individual have the right to his own property in your vision of the world?

Without property rights, there are no rights.

 

[Dragon]

[
Equality of opportunity means that all are free to excel.

And that is exactly what you don't believe in.

Actually, it's impossible for everyone to excel, by definition. Only the best can. But if we maximize the freedom to excel, then we also minimize the freedom of most to do reasonably well.

Why ban private schools? (Note that I'm not suggesting any of this as a practical measure, just pointing out what "equality of opportunity" would really mean.) Because they give the children of the wealthy a superior education, and thus a superior opportunity. Why a 100% estate tax? Because anything else gives those with inheritances an advantage, and again we don't have "equality of opportunity."

Everyone DOES NOT have "an equal shot at whatever they choose to shoot at." In our society, that's arrant nonsense.

I'm not saying I really believe in absolute equality of opportunity, myself -- I don't really want to ban private schools or have a 100% estate tax. But what I do believe in is limited inequality -- and that's as true of outcome as it is of opportunity, necessarily. You can't have one without the other.