That links to a registration page but it likely doesn't matter. We probably have to go back to Calvin Coolidge to find a Presidential little spender and Coolidge was 'assailed' as a do-nothing. The art of politics is to steal from people as much of their money as you can while feeding some of it back to them in politically expedient fashion.
Not quite THAT far back; Herbert Hoover was a relatively little spender and was rightly accused of being a "do nothing". I don't mind Congress spending so much money (remember, please, that Congress, not the President alone, spends money). What I mind is the incredible fiscal irresponsibility of the government as a whole.
Spend a little time in Libertarian Land and you might change your mind about that. Hoover began much of what Franklin "I'll get government off your back" Roosevelt became known for.
Nosborne: Is the link coming up for you at all? I comes up for me. From what I remember, are we not supposed to cut and paste an article into a post? Abner
Not true... Hoover was widely considered one of the best and smartest men ever to ascend to the Presidency. He is unjustly accused of being a cause of the Depression and having done nothing to stop it. This is grossly unfair for several reasons: a. The events leading up to the depression (WW1, hyperinflation in Germany, etc.) predated him. He had no control whatsoever in the policies which caused those factors. He had only been in office for 9 months or so when the crash of 29 occurredand had not been part of formulating the treties which ended WW1. b. The laws which caused the hyper speculation leading up to the stock market crash of 29 predated him as well. JFK's daddy, a notorious short seller and stock manipulator, had a big hand in the crash and he was the father of another president idolized by Americans. c. The biggey charge is that he did nothing to halt the depression. This is gratuitously false for two reasons. First, the depression did not happen over night. The country slipped into the depression over a period of 12-14 months and actually had a mini recovery before the troubles in Europe caused our economy to finally crash. His early calls to work our way out of the slump gave way to a more FDR type approach after he realized the Depression was here to stay for a while. Second, once the depth of the Depression became apparent, he actually did quite a lot. Much of what he did as far as raising taxes is said by some to have made things worse on a global basis (the tariffs hurt Europe which could have been what caused our mini-recovery to fail). However, it was the increased revenue that allowed he to start ,and FDR to continue to fund, the massive public works projects which employed millions of people. It was those projects which made FDR a hero to all of our great-grand parents but they were started by Hoover. Much of what is credited to FDR was actually started under Hoover, FDR simply took them over and expanded on them to make himself a hero. FDR demonized Hoover in his campaign for president and the people took everything at face value since they wanted someone to blame (human nature). He blamed Hoover for taxing and spending and for putting too many people on the dole. Of course, almost everything he fingered Hoover for he did and more after he took office. Fact is, Hoover was a transition President from Boom - Bust cycles and was doomed to take most of the blame and none of the credit regardless of what he did. I think the most telling commentary comes from Truman. Truman had no love at all for Republicans, even calling the Republican congress a bunch of do-nothings. However, Truman made a point of rehabilitating Hoover during his presidency because he knew more than anyone that FDR had slandered the man for no other reason than to attain the Presidency. FDR was by no means the saintly man everyone thinks he was.....
Roosevelt's "hundred days" demonstrated what could be done to keep people from starving to death. Hoover could have taken such action but refused. Revisionism has its place, no doubt, but so does mainstream history.
What a load.... No one was starving when Roosevelt started his one-hundred days. In fact, during his campaign Roosevelt criticised Hoover for putting people on the dole so those people you say Hoover left to starve were in fact on welfare. The money to fund Roosevelts hundred days come from the taxes Hoover increased. Revisionist histroy favors FDR not Hoover. Need to look at history with a non-biased eye. Here are the facts. By the time the Depression had solidified Hoover's term was almost done and he would not be given a chance for another. FDR benefitted from his early efforts and had none of the blame so it was very easy for him to be portrayed as a hero. Even after the "New Deal" programs, by 1937, after FDR's reelection, unemployment was still twice what it was in 2002 when people were screaming the US's economy was in the pits. Then, in 1938 a period sometimes known as the "second depression" started with unemployment going up 6 points. After that, the USA really just cruised along and the Depression was not considered officially over until the run up to the war in 1941. This begs to ask the question of just what FDR did to end it, start the war? The things FDR did that truly benefitted the country long term provided jobs and built a lot of infrastructure that benefits the USA today. The sad truth, however, was that they really didn't bring us out of the Depression. They just allowed us to get through with less pain. It is not historical revision to refuse to label Hoover a do-nothing president. Here is a bit from a paper at Yale's web site: "The ‘first New Deal” was therefore not much different in purpose and philosophy from Hoover’s efforts to stem the depression. During this early period, too, Roosevelt resembled Hoover in seeking support of the business community. He spoke of an alliance of “business and banking, agriculture and industry, and labor and capital”. His purpose throughout his entire presidency was to save the capitalist system. The difference from the previous administration was in the magnitude and variety of legislation and in a much greater willingness to call on full powers of the federal government." Need to look at the real facts.....
DTechBA, That is simply not true. People WERE starving. I invite you to peruse the microfiche newspapers of the time and you will see it. It IS true that Hoover said no one was starving. These statements were met with public derision from the press. Why do you think "Grapes of Wrath" met such acclaim?
Get your timelines together.... People were starving even before the depression. People were starving after FDR entered office and did so almost up to the very end of his presidency. Different time and place. However, steps had already taken place to stop wholesale starving and it is one of the reasons the Libertarians hate Hoover. He started the country down the path to the big government they are against. They seem to hate Hoover even more than FDR since they at least expected it out of a Democrat like FDR. Grapes of Wrath was more about the Dust Bowl than the Depression and wasn't published until 1939, seven years after FDR was elected to President and 1 year before he was reelected to his 3rd TERM. He didn't even start writing it until about 1937 so let's be for real here!!!! It is difficult to debate with someone who is debating on perceptions rather than facts. Something isn't so just because people say it is. Aren't you a lawyer?
Let me give you a more convenient place to look. Read the first two or three chapters of William Manchester's "The Glory and the Dream" for a popular but well researched description of the conditions at the time. Manchester deals exactly with Hoover's "No one is starving" claim. He also shows pretty convincingly why Roosevelt did what he did and why the country might not have survived in any recognizable form had he not done what he did. I think, DTechBA, that your parents must still be pretty young. Mine grew up and became adults in the Great Depression. Their stories are (well, were, since they have died) pretty scary. Don't accept uncritically the Right's battering ram attack on Roosevelt's legacy. It is necessary for them to convince us that Roosevelt was a fake and none of this was necessary in order for the Right to dismantle the federal social safety net. They will say whatever they need to say, I think, and memories are growing dim enough now that there are few left to challenge them. Once you've read Manchester (it won't take but an hour or two and the book is readily available) perhaps we can revisit the issue.
You have the wrong perspective.... Let me get this right, I defend Hoover and you automatically assume I am battering FDR? How do you come by that? You need to start looking at history absent your bias. You have a real problem with that. It is also peeing me off that you think I get my information from the right wing and you know more on this than I do because you have older parents and have read some non-pertinent literature . What my defense really shows is that I know about the topic than you. Your knowledge seems to be based on fiction writings like the Grapes of Wrath and non-fiction from non-economists like Manchester (oh, I am not being critical of him either, just of his ability to comment on the causes of the Depression.) I am not battering Roosevelt's legacy at all beyond saying he demonized Hoover to win an election and then went on to use some of Hoover's programs and ideas to build his own legacy. He was a president not afraid to do something , he made mistakes but he hit some home runs and that is what I expect of a president. My dissertation is loaded with laudatory information on the REA and his push for universal phone service. Some of his other programs built infrastructure which serves to make our country great today. However, as depression fighting methods they were more of a band-aid than measures which beat the depression. Those are the facts, period. However, you expect me to be blindly critical of Hoover and the facts do not bear that out. You are so partisan for FDR you simply cannot give any credit elsewhere. You need to realize a defense of one is not necessarily a criticism of someone else. Your are being blindly partisan when you are unable to give someone else credit and it cheapens your argument. Manchester was born in 1922. He would have been 7 when the Depression started and 19 when it ended. My grandfather actually served in the CCC with my neighbor and are a wealth of information about that time. To say Manchester has more information on the times than they is naive at best. He was also a journalist and a historian, not an economist so to say he would no more about the causation of the depression than an economist is worse than naive. I have seen some of your other postings on this board and they are hopelessly tainted with liberal rhetoric. Facts are not strong in them and indicate a knowledge one obtains from media outlets (loosely based on facts but not necesarily factual). You have reinforced that impression with the two references you use to support your debate points. One wasn't even based on what you said it was but was on the Dust Bowl years after the fact. When your parents were born is immaterial. Unless your parents are in their 90's or older they have a child's perception of the events and not an adults. To assume they know anything of what caused the Depression beyond rumor mill is naive as well. Again, this is not a condemnation of them. It is just a fact, they were young then and youth does not bestow knowledge on all matters. Here is another fact for you, absent Social Security the so called safety net you are lauding didn't come about until the 1960's. Bush isn't wanting to do away with Social Security. He is saying make it optional. Last time I checked being able to make ones own decisions is what this country stands for. Maybe I am mistaken. Here is another fact, Social Security inordinately benefits the wealthy as they live the longest and benefit the most from its largesse. The poor pay into it all of their lives, get minimal pay back and then leave nothing behind. Since it is a safety net that is what it is meant to be but to say the poor benefits more than the middle class is ridiculous. The Democrats are shamelessly demagoging the issue but where is their plan? I haven't heard one yet and you won't because the real fixes mean taking from some to give to others and that will cost them votes in the short term. Pathetic......
I did not accuse you of anything, DTechBA. If you are unwilling to actually look at the sources themselves or consider the writings of those who comment upon them, that's really none of my business. I certainly have no desire to upset you further.
On Spending... The history lesson is actually appreciated...it's telling how skewed one's view of essentially the same historical evidence can be. I found these links through a simple google search on "spending congressional 2005" and "bush spending".... It's clear that the current government (all of 'em!) are spending a ton of money, comparatively. However, there was 911 and the subsequent, albeit unfruitful and frivolous War on Terror, to justify most of the Defense money. I maintain that purported liberals and conservatives will both spend as much as possible in any given year...since the Repubs have a majority and the Executive (and the courts), they will get the lionshare of the blame for now....There's still too much pork though....Other than vote via a hackable diebold box...what do we do about it? "With a record deficit and growing debt, Congress continues to feed at the federal trough. " http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_porkbarrelreport "Report: PR spending doubled under Bush" http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-26-williams-usat_x.htm "Bush signs $82 billion war funds bill" http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/10/war.funds/ "Return of Big Government: Bush Presiding over the Grand Old Spending Party" http://www.cato.org/new/05-05/05-03-05r.html "'Conservative' Bush Spends More than 'Liberal' Presidents Clinton, Carter" http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html "On Spending, Bush Is No Reagan" http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-01-03.html
I read Grapes of Wrath forever ago..... I read the Grapes of Wrath over 30 years ago. While I have not read your second reference I have read many, many, many other pieces of literature on the time. One writer, especially one like Manchester, does not a fact make. The Depression is one of my favorite topics and I have read everything I ever got my hands on concerning it. Hoover is another interest of mine. I first became fascinated with him when I read "Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America". His conduct during it was one the reasons he was elected President. Harry Truman is another icon of mine and his faith in Hoover also speaks volumes to me......
Re: On Spending... That is one of my pet peeves. They spend a fortune to spin everything they do. PR firms should be off limits to politicos. Or at least have limits on when they can use them.
Truman's faith in Hoover remains an astonishing, but explicible thing. HST was well aware of Hoover's work in post WWI European relief work. HST focused on Hoover's considerable expertise.
