Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What Would Roosevelt Do?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 05:06 PM
Original message
What Would Roosevelt Do?

What Would Roosevelt Do?

By ROBERT J. SHILLER
Published: July 31, 2010

ACROSS the United States, thousands of federally financed stimulus projects are under way, aimed at bolstering the economy and putting people to work. The results so far have not been spectacular.

Why not? There’s nothing wrong with the idea of fiscal stimulus itself. We need more stimulus, not less — but we need to focus much more on actually putting people to work.

<...>

Consider one of the most applauded of Roosevelt’s programs, the Civilian Conservation Corps, from 1933 to 1942. The program was open to young men, initially those 18 to 25, a group that was quite vulnerable economically. The C.C.C. emphasized labor-intensive projects like planting trees.

<...>

Congress has recently set plans for tripling the size of AmeriCorps, the modern counterpart of the C.C.C., which now takes both sexes and has no age cap. At its peak, the C.C.C. employed 500,000 young men. Under current plans, AmeriCorps would top out at 250,000 people in 2017, even though the nation now is two and a half times larger. We ought to be bolder.

Big new programs to create jobs need not be expensive. Suppose the cost of hiring a single employee were as high as $30,000 a year, several times typical AmeriCorps living allowances. Hiring a million people would cost $30 billion a year. That’s only 4 percent of the entire federal stimulus program, and 0.2 percent of the national debt.

Why don’t we just do it?


The programs are already in place, but they are being ignored.


Job Subsidies Providing Help to Private Side

<...>

About 247,000 workers will have been placed in these subsidized jobs by the end of September, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research organization. The jobs cover everything from assembly-line work to white-collar positions like business development, and typically pay $8 to $15 an hour, according to LaDonna Pavetti, a director at the center. There are exceptions: San Francisco, for example, pays up to $74,000 in annual salary, which employers can also supplement with additional pay.

So far just over a billion dollars has been approved to create subsidized employment programs in 36 states and the District of Columbia, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. The biggest year-round program is run by Illinois, which has put 22,000 workers in subsidized jobs (and 5,000 in subsidized summer youth jobs) and has 30,000 people on its waiting list.

Most states pay 100 percent of workers’ wages up to a certain point. To qualify for the subsidy, workers must have a low household income. They must also have minor children, or be under age 21 themselves. Employers seem to hear about the programs largely through word of mouth, and some states actively help match eligible workers with companies.

<...>


Also, ripe for funding is YouthBuild Investing in youth to rebuild our future


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dennis Donovan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
1. The NYA was also wildly successful - it made a difference in the lives of those who...
...ultimately had to go and fight the war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Roosevelt freaked out, taking austerity measures in 1937.
He effectively put the economy into a recession. It was only the massive spending of WWII that finally brought us out, so I'm not sure you really want to point at FDR so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dennis Donovan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. FDR was FORCED into austerity by a hostile congress...
You have to remember that defecit spending was unheard of back then...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I understand the forces at play.
I am not up enough on my history to know how Roosevelt came to his decision to pursue austerity and if you have anything on that I'd be interested. Your theory can certainly fit my definition of "freaked." So the Congress freaked him into it somehow? It doesn't really matter.

And in any event, what is the Congress doing now? It sure does sound similar and I am an avid reader of Paul Krugman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedesmond Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Hostile congress? With 75 Democratic Senators and 15 Republicans?
Edited on Sun Aug-01-10 05:42 PM by stevedesmond
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dennis Donovan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Conservative Dixiecrats - they weren't on FDR's side...
Edited on Sun Aug-01-10 06:11 PM by Dennis Donovan
On edit - welcome to DU!:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedesmond Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. But why didn't they boycott his policies prior to 1937
Edited on Sun Aug-01-10 06:13 PM by stevedesmond
When the number of Democrats wasn't as large?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dennis Donovan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. He lost a lot of support between 1933 and 1937 - one reason was...
...because of the SC packing plan. Another was they thought he'd gone too far in spending and, as I said before, defecit spending was unheard of back then....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. But he also won re-election in a landslide.
Though I don't doubt what you're saying here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dennis Donovan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. He ran against Alf Landon - a man with a personality defecit...
Presidential election results don't always translate to having a friendly congress...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stevepol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. FDR was worried about deficit spending himself but he quickly got back on course
Edited on Sun Aug-01-10 06:59 PM by Stevepol
And the idea that the US only got out of the depression when WWII began ignores a very important fact. Except for the anomaly of the 1937 hiccup (due to loss of faith in the deficit spending plan being followed), the 1930's, that period, experienced the second highest rate of growth in employment of any period in American history (second to the early 1940s of course). There was a steady and strong recovery in all areas of the economy going on the whole time. When WWII started and all the soldiers went to WWII, obviously that solved the employment problem big time. And all the military spending starting in the 1940s rocketed the economy forward since the spending was almost all domestic, aimed to a great extent at manufacturing, and wasn't wasted in bribing war lords or letting private contractors defraud the government in other countries. When Reagan completely renovated the Navy during the 80s, this probably provided a good deal of the engine for the modest recovery from the recession that he probably helped create or which he made worse early on with his trickle-down voodoo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hawkowl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. Because it's "socialism"
Meaning crony capitalists can't profit by stealing from taxpayers thru "contracting". Direct employment by the government cuts out the middle man, the "industrialist", and is closely monitored to prevent fraud, abuse, and provides adequate wages and benefits in most cases.

It is clear, through his attacks on teachers, that Obama is very much anti government employees. It is clear through his continued use of contractors that he is opposed to creating more federal employees. My favorite example is the air traffic controllers. There is a massive shortage of air traffic controllers because they are all retiring at the same time (because Reagan fired them en masse), and in the face of this shortage the FAA slashed wages and benefits and trashed work rules. Why? To make the public system of air traffic control fail so that it could then be "privatized" i.e; sold off to thieves and cronies. I believe that was the purpose of No Child Left a Dime as well. Destroy the public system to enrich a few corrupt wealthy bastards.

Obama has dirt all over his hands, up to his armpits in supporting the anti government forces as well as "free trade".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. How about advertising the programs on TV more often
before ball games, American idol etc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Maybe they should
Edited on Sun Aug-01-10 05:38 PM by ProSense
Herbert wrote about the existing program. Jared Berstein wrote about it. Every article about the program and the fact that it expires in September has been largely ignored.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Public relations is rather sparse
public broadcasts on radio and TV before big programs can give people ideas especially those who are desperate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. It isn't even popular here. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dennis Donovan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. I thought the Ad Council received free advertising?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. Hyperlink to stories that indicate things are already in place so he could coast?
Point to mistakes others have made to point out the inperfection of man so he could avoid the struggle to take needed bold new actions?

Ramp up a very expensive war against a country with an equal airforce and navy as the average guy on the street and less than that of some middle to upper middle class individuals?

Berate liberals?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-01-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Oh brother.
How about pointing out that programs need to be expanded and funded?

"Point to mistakes others have made to point out the inperfection of man so he could avoid the struggle to take needed bold new actions?

I get that you think the President isn't perfect, but where in the OP does it say no bold new action is needed? Even the article is talking about expanding AmeriCorp.

"Berate liberals?"

WTF are you talking about?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smalll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
19. Pretend not to be wheelchair-bound, and cheat on his wife?
SORRY!!!!

Look, FDR was a GREAT President. But it was a different era. Expecting Obama to be able to do the same kind of things is just silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-02-10 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
20. If he'd lived, one of his first acts would have been to drop atomic bombs on Japan
:nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC