Comrade Brian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- NE, Minnesota
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Probably not to most Americans, but to W. Europe, many would consider him conservative.Yea, Chirac and his lot are real conservatives
Depends on which area. W. and N. Europe is higher, E. and S. Europe is lower.GDP per capita isn't higher.
Che said:Uh, Not Wrong. Depression was serverly hurt when FDR proposed New Deal. Look at CWA, PWA, CCC, and TVA. Employed millions! That's the biggest crap I've heard in the past week. It was Hoover's "it's gonna end eventually" and trickle down policies that worsened the depression. Your facts are screwed because the upturn happened when The New dal was proposed. If you think that Supreme Courts ruling of NIRA and AAA being unconstitutional produced good results then think again my friend. Direct aid to people actually helps NOT hurts.
Che said:More people live comfortably in France compared to here. Although we have only 5% unemployment rate, there is at least a 15% poverty rate which is just as dangerous. In France that doesn't exsist.
I think the minority groups in France aren't acutally that bad. Conneticutter, you obviously have no idea how horrible conditions are in minority communities today. There is drug deals and deaths daily. This isn't what happens in France.
Connecticutter said:Direct aid does not help. In order to provide this direct aid, FDR and Hoover had to take money out of the economy, which costs jobs. Government is a zero-sum game. I don't know why you can't see this.
Read this essay by Enlightenment French thinker Frederic Bastiat:
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
First of all, don't you make assumptions about what I know and what I don't know about conditions in this country. That's a typical tactic from left-wingers that has no substance, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.
Secondly, as far as I know the only European country with the higher GDP per capita is Luxembourg. The drug problem is a direct result of the war on drugs, not capitalism. French society is being torn apart both on the economic side with their socialistic and state-run practices (which Chirac for the most part continues), and on the cultural side where they ban religious symbols and the like.
Che said:What economy? Millions were jobless? Common Stock was worth nothing. An anonomous quote goes as following "10 men can buy the world. 10 million can't even buy enough to eat". We needed jobs and relief for people without money. Unfortunately, we couldn't just forget about them as Conneticutter seems to imply. We needed jobs, relief, housing, and faith in the future. FDR brought us that because we were in a time of disaster.
Che said:Capitalism is bitch to the other half my friend. People who have a public school education have a minimal chance of becoming rich.
Che said:Those who can't afford private schools will have a very small chance of making it to college. Thus the average job for this person will be a janitor or garbageman. No one likes being poor and many will take drugs or alchohal for there misery. Then others will work to provide the drugs because they have high value. This little community of fiends and dealers will form and government doesn't try to do anything to stop it compared to France.
Che said:Why does this not happen in France? Because Public schools are better run and have more money pumped into them.
Che said:Public education is very good in France and colleges are affordable. More people get good jobs, and those who can't get good jobs will get better support and easier opportunities to find jobs.
Connecticutter said:And it didn't work, as has been well documented. So what's so good about FDR's policies? If you think that pushing socialist policies is good regardless of the consequences, then you are the one who is "forgetting about them."
That's because there is no competition in the public schools and the unions keep it that way. If they were opened up to competition, they would improve, as has been shown in any area that has a truly competitive voucher system.
First of all, many people in public schools go on to college.
Secondly, I take issue with this whole buisiness of being trapped in poverty. Look at the statistics. If you graduate high school, avoid having kids out of wedlock, and hold onto any job for a single year, it's been shown that you will almost certainly not be poor.
It's also been shown that those earning at the bottom 20% have almost all moved up after 10 years, so in the next census there's a different bottom 20%. This has mostly to do with age.
The drug problem, like I said, is due to the black market created by the war on drugs, and is not a symptom of poverty.
Our failing public schools are paying $10,000 per student!!! Money is not the issue here. Here's an interesting expose:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Which is why unemployment is twice as large? and minority communities are marginalized and impoverished? I can't keep going around and around like this! Get your facts straight.
Che said:Here's a document stating that The New Deal helped. When removed to Economy plunged again.
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Lesson_90_Notes.htm
Che said:Here's a link showing how your wrong about the New Deal not Working and how I'm right :lol:
http://www.co.broward.fl.us/library/bienes/lii10204.htm
"the WPA eventually employed approximately one-third of the nation’s 10,000,000 unemployed, paying them about $50.00 a month."
keep in mind that this is only one program and that $50 was alot of money back then because you could go to the movies for a quarter.
Che said:Unions are good because they stop teachers from being paid $5.15 an hour to teach in a room of 40 kids.
Che said:Not nearly as many that come from private and the graduation rate is many times below 30%.
Che said:You act like getting a job is easy...
Che said:Which is why BBC reported that people in Poverty in America are on the rise each year and as of 2004, 37 million were under the poverty line.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4198668.stm
Che said:Yes it's that but also I sometimes think of it like this: when you have a hard day you'll come home from work sit on the couch and have beer. When you have a hard life and every day is hard, you may decide to take something more than a beer...
Che said:Which is why I support federal academic requirements. I've written to my congressman about it (although I not sure he got it) and I urge you to do so to. There may be 10,000 per student if all averaged out, but take into account that the neighborhoods that have more money get better schools while the ones without don't get good schools. Also if you give three schools 1000 dollars each, one may use it for construction one may use it to deal with unions, and others may use it to build basketball court.
Che said:Our minority communities are just as bad if not worse. My facts are straght. We have more people in poverty, and they have a larger middle class
Che said:Not nearly as many that come from private and the graduation rate is many times below 30%.
Che said:You act like getting a job is easy...
Che said:Which is why BBC reported that people in Poverty in America are on the rise each year and as of 2004, 37 million were under the poverty line.
And maybe all of Asia has a higher GDP than the US, they aren't very comparable numbers. You need to use GNI to compare areas with difference populations.Chi said:The euro socialists actually have a higher GDP then us.
Except when deficit spending, where you essentially take money from the future economy.Che said:Direct aid does not help. In order to provide this direct aid, FDR and Hoover had to take money out of the economy, which costs jobs. Government is a zero-sum game. I don't know why you can't see this.
He helped a lot, and gave the American people hope. But when we look at the facts, little else but created a long lasting needless bureaucracy.Che said:What economy? Millions were jobless? Common Stock was worth nothing. An anonomous quote goes as following "10 men can buy the world. 10 million can't even buy enough to eat". We needed jobs and relief for people without money. Unfortunately, we couldn't just forget about them as Conneticutter seems to imply. We needed jobs, relief, housing, and faith in the future. FDR brought us that because we were in a time of disaster.
My parents both went to public school, and got into college. I went to public school, and before I even graduate from high school I'll probably have my associates degree. And it was easy, cheap, and entirely possible.Che said:Capitalism is bitch to the other half my friend. People who have a public school education have a minimal chance of becoming rich. Those who can't afford private schools will have a very small chance of making it to college. Thus the average job for this person will be a janitor or garbageman....
Why does this not happen in France? Because Public schools are better run and have more money pumped into them. Public education is very good in France and colleges are affordable.
He gave the people hope by conspicuously making jobs and handing out money. He gave thousands jobs, and had he lived, WWII never broke out, and he never tried to take more power, he probably could have had the country back in order by the mid 50's, maybe. That's not to say that the excessive bureaucracy created by FDR's policies wouldn't be a rather large problem, but the US would probably not be in a depression. It's a partisan (and flawed) view of history where FDR did nothing to help the economy.Connecticutter said:And it didn't work, as has been well documented. So what's so good about FDR's policies? If you think that pushing socialist policies is good regardless of the consequences, then you are the one who is "forgetting about them."
It is if you're lazy, of course. The rest of us do fine. Maybe you can't get a $20 an hour job with no education, but if you're expecting that, then you are (I'm sorry to say) quite the idiot.Che said:You act like getting a job is easy...
-Demosthenes- said:He gave the people hope by conspicuously making jobs and handing out money. He gave thousands jobs, and had he lived, WWII never broke out, and he never tried to take more power, he probably could have had the country back in order by the mid 50's, maybe. That's not to say that the excessive bureaucracy created by FDR's policies wouldn't be a rather large problem, but the US would probably not be in a depression. It's a partisan (and flawed) view of history where FDR did nothing to help the economy.
I would have to agree.Connecticutter said:Well, I don't think that FDR caused the great depression. I think that there are many factors going into it which include the breakdown of international trade and policies of the federal reserve. I think if we had fixed those two problems, the depression would not have materialized out of the recession.
I think that to pretend that the depression was created by the free market and then it's new deal interventionism to the rescue is a partisan and flawed view.
XShipRider said:Once he left office it became politics! He may not have accomplished much
but keeping the loose-knit confederation of newly independent states together
was a handful.
My hat is off to him. Every one since has been nothing more than a politico
for one party or another.
Merely the writer of the Declaration of Independence, the ideas came from the Continental congress. John Adams would shudder to hear that history sees Jefferson as the primarily responsible for the Declaration of Independence.Picaro said:Jefferson gets a lot of deserved credit for his writings, but he was a disaster as a President.
Picaro said:Washington is also overrated; he was only a 'rebel' because legal problems involving land swindles were catching up with him in England.
-Demosthenes- said:Merely the writer of the Declaration of Independence, the ideas came from the Continental congress. John Adams would shudder to hear that history sees Jefferson as the primarily responsible for the Declaration of Independence.
You would definitely be in the minority when it comes to US historians. We're not sure why he was so popular, but it allowed him to lead the cause in the war. And he retired as General right after it was over because he thought the people would make him king, they elected him against his will, and he refused to be considered the third time. All so a monarchy-like government wouldn't take over, even one with him in charge.
Sound like a guy who's fighting over land?
Picaro said:He wrote a lot more than the Declaration.
Picaro said:Sounds like a man covering his *** in uncertain political times, and who wanted to retire to his fine plantation of some 20,000 plus acres of prime riverbottom that cost him nothing, and loaf around.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?