Was it necessary for the President to diss FDR to defend the too small stimulus?

[boston bean]

We didn’t actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible.

Plus, I don't think it's true, is it?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Please tell the President that FDR became prez in March of 1933

And the crash of 1929 was in...

wait for it...

1929

[boston bean]

2. The First Hundred Days - FDR

Setting priorities for his first term in 1933 was easy for President Franklin D. Roosevelt. He had to save America from economic ruin. He had to at least begin to pull us out of our Great Depression. He did, and he did it during his "first hundred days."

On his first day in office, March 4, 1933, FDR called Congress into a special session. He then proceeded to drive a series of bills through Congress that reformed the U.S. banking industry, saved American agriculture and allowed for industrial recovery.

At the same time, FDR wielded the executive order in creating the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Public Works Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. These projects put tens of thousands of Americans back to work building dams, bridges, highways and much needed public utility systems.

By the time Congress adjourned the special session on June 16, 1933, Roosevelt's agenda, the "New Deal," was in place. America, though still staggering, was off the mat and back in the fight.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bl100bush.htm

[PufPuf23]

53. Amen. Brilliant and moral by FDR.

I expected a return to reality by POTUS Obama.

Alas, we are a less free society.

POTUS Obama would likely be dead if he tried the same.

Similar answers are obvious now but have not been possible because of politics.

I don't think POTUS Obama gets economics (and has had poor advisors and political reality).

Yet the New Deal is what lead to the longest period of American prosperity.

Time is past to treat the uber-wealthy by taxation. The class has been croney, criminal, and ever growing stronger.

Our legal system is a mess -- too many $$ required, croney, unequal, and a sledgehammer of social engineering.

POTUS Obama has been limited to re-invigorating status quo when the answer for the USA (and for our impact on the World)would have been a 2008 re-write of FDR's 100 days.

Military, international corporations, and economic and other aristocracy lack restraint for a free and fair country.

The only similar crisis IMO was the Civil War but now we are targets internationally for behavior we condemned and punished from strength in the past and domestically have the batshit crazy, corrupted media,and bought political system.

One wonders what is going to happen.

I am older so doubt will see anything but misery and die before a hopefully division of the USA.

[DURHAM D]

35. I posted this below but thought you might miss it...

http://firedoglake.com/2010/10/28/obama-blames-insufficient-stimulus-on-ben-nelson-and-olympia-snowe-suggests-fdr-was-irresponsible/

Calls out Obama...

[katandmoon]

3. Every time I think Obama can't lower himself any further in my estimation he proves me wrong.

[CakeGrrl]

5. Wow...what's worse than being "despised"? Never mind, keep it to yourself. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

55. Why should we keep it to ourselves? Obama doesn't.

He continually makes excuses and places blame on ANY ONE available.

So much for the 'buck stops here'. :eyes:

[katandmoon]

57. No,

[Brickbat]

4. What the fuck?

What the hell is he talking about?

[boston bean]

6. it was in response to this question:

Q I want to go back to the idea of working with Republicans. And given the comments from McConnell and -- well, all of them -- I think that what a lot of people find frustrating is that our side compromises and continues to compromise just to get that one Republican on. We're going to get one of the Maine twins -- whatever. And it doesn't happen, and then by the time health care or whatever goes through we've compromised; we still don't get any Republicans.

I don't anticipate this changing in the next two years. I think it's going to get worse. How are you going to get Democrats to understand that compromise means the other side has to give something sometimes, one day?

President: And I'll give you one last example because I know this is a famous example in the blogosphere, is the stimulus. I mean, if folks think that we could have gotten Ben Nelson, Arlen Specter and Susan Collins to vote for additional stimulus beyond the $700 billion that we got, then I would just suggest you weren't in the meetings.

This notion that somehow I could have gone and made the case around the country for a far bigger stimulus because of the magnitude of the crisis, well, we understood the magnitude of the crisis. We didn't actually, I think, do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically because we thought that was irresponsible. We had to act quickly.

And getting 60 votes for what was an unprecedented stimulus was really hard. And we didn't have the luxury of saying -- first of all, we didn't have 60 votes at the time. We had 58. And we didn't have the luxury to say to the Senate, our way or the highway on this one.

So we did what we could in an emergency situation, anticipating that we were going to have to do more and hoping that we could continue to do more as time went on.

You can read the entire answer at http://www.freespeech.org/category/blog-categories/current-news-and-opinion

[BuelahWitch]

9. Wow, that's bad

[Brickbat]

10. Wow. Just...wow.

[bobbolink]

19. Let me guess.... that was Faux News, right?

No?

ooops......

That first step is a doozy, Mr. President.

[depakid]

48. This shows exactly why Reid & Obama are a day late and a dollar short on filibuster reform

That was the time to press the case- politically when you had the capital, economically when you had the ongoing crisis, and rationally based on what the models of the output gap and foreseeable effects on state budgets would be.

[boston bean]

50. I will be pleased if they change the filibuster rules. Better late than never.

[depakid]

52. Maybe, maybe not

It's a two edged sword, and if or when they come gunning for Social Security and Medicare, you might feel differently.

Personally, I think the way it's currently practiced is unconstitutional, and for that reason alone it has to be substantially reformed.

[boston bean]

54. Good food for thought. Thank you.

[leftstreet]

7. Oh wow, that's kind of an embarrassing statement

...someone should have thought that through

[bobbolink]

20. The friggin chessboard tilted.

[mix]

8. He got that dead wrong. nt

[BuelahWitch]

25. Indeed, FDR's first 100 days were unprecedented

Isn't that just common knowledge? :shrug:

[truedelphi]

11. FDR did not accomodate the bankers - and this President did.

And what is especially sad about all this is that had the President not been so eager to listen to the New World Order types and appoint Geithner at the Treasury, the fourteen trillion bucks that Geithner/Bernanke(Paulson) gave to the Upper One Percent of the Banking Elite might have gone to regional, state chartered banks in every area of the nation, with stipulations that the money had to be lent out to Main Street. The laws and other mechanisms necessary to accomplish this are already sitting ont he books, as they were instituted back in the late nineteen eighties at the time of the S & L crisis.

Instead the money went right into the pockets of upper management at Goldman Sachs, AIG, and a few others. Who have not lent it out but have used it to force banking mergers.

The banking merger game is the new "bubble" that is "sustaining" the "economic recovery." And interesting also: it is the one "bubble" that few of the middle class can participate in.

[fascisthunter]

46. excellent point... the differences between FDR and Obama are pretty Clear

[Radical Activist]

12. FDR was overly worried about deficit spending during his first two years.

He was not as perfect as some imagine him to be. The New Deal came in phases.

[boston bean]

15. Do you think it was necessary to knock FDR to defend a too small stimulus? nt

[Radical Activist]

16. Do you have a problem with someone stating facts?

Really, you're trying to hard to create a controversy. I think many people need to be educated about how politics works and that's what Obama was doing.

[boston bean]

18. So you think FDR let the nation suffer on purpose so he could get policies enacted?

And that it is a true fact that he did so?

[Radical Activist]

24. FDR scaled back the first phase of the New Deal due to concern over deficit spending.

He was determined to balance the budget. History tends to turn people into heroes but FDR made a lot of cynical political decisions based on the politics of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_Act

As Governor of New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt had campaigned for the Presidency, in part, on a pledge to balance the federal budget. On March 10, 1933, six days after his inauguration, Roosevelt submitted legislation to Congress which would cut $500 million ($8.181 billion in 2009 dollars) from the $3.6 billion federal budget by eliminating government agencies, reducing the pay of civilian and military federal workers (including members of Congress), and slashing veterans' benefits by 50 percent. Veterans benefits constituted a quarter of the federal budget at the time. The Act was written primarily by Lewis Douglas, Roosevelt's Director of the Budget, and Grenville Clark, a private attorney.

[boston bean]

27. He did that on purpose so people could suffer enough and then get his agenda passed?

[Radical Activist]

28. You're trying too hard.

And that's not what Obama said.

[boston bean]

30. I am? What did the President say then? nt

[Radical Activist]

39. If you wait long enough, you might see Obama blow his nose or sneeze.

Then you can write a post blaming him for infecting America with cold and flu! Won't that be fun?!

[boston bean]

41. Oh, that response was helpful......

I am asking a question, a question you cannot seem to answer.

[Radical Activist]

44. You're asking for what Obama said in a thread where you've already pasted the quote.

No, that was not a serious question. You're playing a game. Why not just stick to what he actually said? Because the point isn't to stick to what was actually said but to try as hard as you can to find a way to be offended by it. This entire thread is a fucking joke.

[boston bean]

45. I am not playing any game. I have stuck to what he said, your response is I don't understand

politics. You must agree with the President that FDR purposely waited 6 months until things got so bad that it would be an easier political sell to the American people and that he was irresponsible. No?

Instead of just saying the President should have never said it, you are the one making arguments that really have nothing to do with the issue at hand. The issueis the Presidents own words and his dissing FDR as irresponsible in defense of his actions during the stimulus debate and the actual stimulus.

[BzaDem]

59. I don't think Obama was saying FDR waited longer than he thought he had to purposefully

to make it easier. I think he's just saying that's what happened (he waited, and it became easier, but Obama didn't want to wait).

[cherokeeprogressive]

61. The fuck it isn't.

"We didn’t actually... do what Franklin Delano Roosevelt did, which was basically wait for six months until the thing had gotten so bad that it became an easier sell politically..."

Care to parse that for me in whatever language it is you speak?









'

[DURHAM D]

34. You are not going to like this...

FDL called it bizarre. That is polite. They could have called it by its real name - a lie.


http://firedoglake.com/2010/10/28/obama-blames-insufficient-stimulus-on-ben-nelson-and-olympia-snowe-suggests-fdr-was-irresponsible/

[Radical Activist]

36. Do people still read that site?

They don't have enough credibility for me to care what they think one way or the other.

[boston bean]

37. Do you think transcripts lack credibility? nt

[sabrina 1]

42. Of course they do. Did you really think that people cared about

the childish and hypocritical dissing of a blogger for having one bi-partisan association with Grover Norquist on an issue Norquist for once, a very rare thing, happened to be right about, when the President's own bi-partisan associations with Republicans are so numerous it's hard to keep count.

The hypocrisy is amazing. The same people who went berserck over a little known blogger following the president's example, defend it when the president does it!

Lol, you must think people are blind. How did you feel about 'drown-the-government-in-a-bathtub Norquist being invited to share his wisdom on Government Spending with the President's Deficit Commission? Have you railed against the President seeking the advice of Republicans like Judd Gregg or Alan Simpson, or Lindsey Graham among others?

You need to learn how politics work. :eyes:

[boston bean]

47. All that stuff doesn't matter, don't you get it yet?

Hypocrisy is totally acceptable even something to be admired.

[sabrina 1]

51. Yes, I know.

It makes me smile when people say 'you don't know how politics works' each time the administration changes its mind about something they were for in the Campaign, or caves in to Republicans.

We DO know how politics works, that is what we were hoping to change when we voted for the candidate who said he was going to change things in DC, change how politics works.

Are they saying that Obama didn't know how politics work? Is that why he changed his mind about Offshore drilling, mandated insurance, the PO etc after he was elected? Because only then he found out how politics works? I find that hard to believe but that IS what is being said when the defense for not fighting for something is 'you don't know how politics works'.

[Uncle Joe]

63. Your link has a nice summation of FDR's first 100 Days.

Here is a time-line of the “100 Days.”

March 4

Inauguration Day. Franklin Delano Roosevelt becomes President of the United States.

March 5

The President proclaims four-day Bank Holiday with the suspension of banking transactions and gold and currency exports.

March 9

Hundred Days Congressional session begins.

Congress passes the Emergency Banking Act.

March 15

Congress passes the Economy Act

March 31

Congress passes the Reforestation Relief Act, (establishing the Civilian Conservation Corps).

April 19

The President announces US departure from the gold standard.

May 12

Congress passes the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act.

Congress passes the Federal Emergency Relief Act.

The President signs the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

May 18

Congress establishes the Tennessee Valley Authority.

May 27

Congress passes the Federal Securities Act.

June 6

Congress passes the National Employment System Act.

June 13

Congress passes the Home Owners Refinancing Act.

June 16

The end of the Hundred Days session.

Congress passes the National Industrial Recovery Act, (setting up the National Recovery Administration), the Farm Credit Act, and the Banking Act of 1933.

Now that’s some change we can believe in — all in about 3 months! And that doesn’t include the repeal of Prohibition

It doesn't look to me as if FDR was waiting on anything to sell it.

[depakid]

49. The difference is that FDR was essentially flying blind & didn't have the benefit of modern economic

theory and experience with its application.

[sabrina 1]

38. I think maybe it is the people who care too much about 'how

politics work' than the good of the country, who need to be educated.

FDR waited until things got so bad? Was he president when that happened? I think maybe we should deal with facts, instead of always jumping to the defense of OUR team and ending up looking at best, like hypocrites and at worst ignorant.

If George Bush had made that statement, I am willing to bet that no one on the left would be attempting to defend it.

[boston bean]

40. that would seem to make sense. if nothing else it let's us know Obama thought it was

purely political. I mean we couldn't have him running all over the country letting us know that the stimulus was to small.

edit to add, that I dont' think it's been a complete failure. It should have been larger.

[truedelphi]

13. Please contrast what FDR said and HOW he said it,

With Obama's "Gee,it is all so complex and we did the best we could, Jon" but gosh oh gee, Boy and Girls, we had to give the bankers all the money or they might have collapsed the economy.


FDR and his stance on the banking class:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU

[Radical Activist]

22. FDR had a bank bailout too.

Maybe you're more interested in gestures, but FDR did some of the same things people are attacking Obama for.

[truedelphi]

56. No actually he did not. In fact, he only period in FDR's presidency when he took the

Equivalent of over 50 percent of the entire economy and sank it with Federal government spending was in the actual war years against Germany.

At one point while we were fighting Japan and Germany, FDR and Congress went and spent 144% of our economy on the war machine.

But we won the WWII on both fronts.

Obama (and to some extent) Bush's Bailout's are already at the twelve to fourteen trillion mark. And since twelve to thirteen trillion is the same amount as our entire economy for one year, (i.e. 100% of our entire economy in just over eighteen months) we should be experiencing a whole lot more than Bankers getting richer and no one else getting anything.

Plus we aren't really winning in Afghanistan.

[bobbolink]

23. I used to like to listen to that speech. It is too painful now.

What could have been,.................

[reggie the dog]

14. come on obama

if you want to dis FDR dont attack his awesome left wing economics, attack him for making the weed you used to love to smoke illegal!

[Fumesucker]

60. Obama wants the weed to remain illegal..

Apparently because he would be tempted to smoke more of it if it were legal.

[Divine Discontent]

17. I wish he'd talk as harshly about most of the rich trying to destroy the workers into being serfs

[Ignis]

26. And risk campaign donations from the rich and powerful?

Not likely. "Successful" politicians in America know very well on which side their bread is buttered.

[treestar]

21. He gets dissed enough himself, maybe he thinks the long dead FDR can handle it?

This is just silly. He may not even have been dissing FDR. What's with making FDR into some kind of god? It's as dumb as making Keith Olberman into one.

There is no reason to set up Obama v. FDR. And Obama was merely answering a question.

[Radical Activist]

29. FDR did many of the things people are attacking Obama for.

Like the bank bailout. They need to read up on their history.

[ipaint]

31. Is there anything or anyone neo-libs won't piss on to avoid accountability? nt.

[QC]

32. No. n/t

[boston bean]

33. Why would he make such a statement? I'm not looking forward to the deficit reduction commissions

report, where they are re-working FDR's new deal, as we speak.

[DURHAM D]

43. He is apparently running away from his own White House.

2012 is just around the corner and Axelrod and a couple of others have already left the WH for the campaign staff. Gotta kick it in to high gear.

[blindpig]

58. Obama is dissing the entire New Deal

The New Deal is utterly refuted by the New Democrats. No matter who wins next week, it is done, over, kaput.

[DFab420]

62. Was he perhaps talking about this??

By contrast, Roosevelt delayed most of the structural reforms that did not bear directly on the economic emergency. For example, he did not even propose a commission to consider social insurance until June of 1934. Social Security legislation was introduced six months later, in January 1935, and was not signed into law until August of that year, after the provisions relating to health care had been stripped out.

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0310_obama_galston.aspx