dagblog - Comments for "Ron Paul and the Lack of Choices On The Left"

Do we know what the Dept of

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:20:35 +0000

In reply to Just to provide a

Do we know what the Dept of Education does?

Aside from the unhelpful "No Child Left Behind", what do they do?

Would Alabama education, Texas textbooks or Kansas creationist teaching be any worse without the Dept of Education?

The "shovel ready jobs" bit

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 07:17:59 +0000

In reply to These are interesting and

The "shovel ready jobs" bit was a mirage from the get-go. Yes, they could have done that, but their focus was on tax breaks and oozing out the money to the rest - by the end of Dec 2009, maybe 1/4 of the non-tax break money was spent.

These are interesting and

Peter Schwartz — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 00:40:00 +0000

In reply to Google Michael Tomasky and

These are interesting and important points.

My point is somewhat different and Tomasky bows to it. It has to do with the economy gearing up and producing jobs.

I'm in favor of the government putting people to work, but it isn't the same, exactly, as the economy producing jobs. And it DID do that according to the figures, but less dramatically than the government.

As I recall, the stimulus DID try to put people back to work with shovel-ready jobs that, apparently, weren't all that numerous, or not so shovel ready. Don't know the reality of that.

Obama could have suggested programs like the WPA, where the government was the direct employer, but I question whether the Congress, especially the Republicans and Blue Dogs, who barely assented to the stimulus as it was, would have gone for that. Even when he had both houses, he didn't really.

Personally, I would've been happy had he done that. But I do think he needs to catch a bit of a break in terms of the anti-government trajectory we've been on since Reagan. Clinton represented a big retrenchment on this score. And before that, our last real, big government liberal president was LBJ.

And in light of that, I might say, ANY edging toward Ron Paul is going in the opposite direction to what you and others hoped Obama had done. The complete opposite. More opposite than Reagan and even Goldwater.

I know. I've been listening

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 22:21:39 +0000

In reply to Should be this comment

I know. I've been listening to him for years and to his followers for years. I have a good friend who's been a fan since Paul ran for president on the Libertarian ticket.

He is firmly against environmental regulations, stimulus of any kind, SS, Medicare, universal health care, paper money, foreign aid, the income tax, welfare of any kind, social programs of any kind, abortion, and most of the agencies in the government.

So if he's principled in practice as well as in theory, you can say good-bye to those things if he becomes president. People will fight him, and he may have to compromise. And then he'll be just like other politicians who go to Washington. I don't consider that a slur, by the way.

Thanks for the links.

Google Michael Tomasky and

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:47:53 +0000

In reply to Social Security didn't

Google Michael Tomasky and "Unemployment in the 30s: the real story" as one reasonable link

Should be this comment

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:37:53 +0000

In reply to Social Security didn't

Should be this comment summarizing some of the arguments, including graph & reference to articles (not sure why it wasn't showing up): http://dagblog.com/politics/ron-paul-and-lack-choices-left-12585#comment-144966

Size of the stimulus was panned by Krugman & others at the time. Obama I think dictated to his advisors what an acceptable stimulus should be, wanting to be Mr. Bi-partisan.

Ron Paul has been saying the same stuff for years as a politician - yes, he's principled whatever his other faults are - he didn't invent this stuff last week.

Social Security didn't

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 20:01:49 +0000

In reply to Social Security didn't

Social Security didn't initially "exclude" women and minorities - it covered jobs that few women & minorities participated in. So by extending SS to more professions, it naturally covered them.

PS: Same diff, no?

Dealing with the Dixiecrat issue in 1933 in the middle of The Great Depression is a pretty pointless attack, and you don't say what specifically he caved on, but frankly, getting down 30% unemployment was more important.

PS: By not taking it on. But I personally give him a pass on this. Just pointing out that, transported to today, many wouldn't.

I seem certain about him getting us out of depression say from the 2 articles I mentioned. Private non-farm unemployment came way down. Pay went way up. 1937 was a bit of a retrenchment, but we weren't in WWII until Dec 7, 1941, and the economic performance was functioning pretty well by then, even if WWII production kicked it into high gear. But Democrats like ragging on their own, so they'll lovingly pick apart FDR like crows.

PS: I don't, just acknowledging the controversy to get at what worked and what didn't. The official line for decades is that FDR DID get us out. I didn't notice the articles you referenced. Please pass them along again. If you pay people to do work, yes that's important, but I don't think it's the same as getting the economy moving on its own as it were.

Obama didn't have to take blame for this crisis. He chose not to stick Bush's nose in it, and he chose not to push for a greater stimulus. He got the lukewarm brand he asked for.

PS: At some point, he did stick Bush with it, but just came off as a whiner. If he'd done it sooner, he would've looked like he wasn't focused on where we go from here. Most people wanted a solution, not a blame layer. The size of the stimulus was what his advisors said would do the trick. Some wanted more, true; but advisors always disagree, right? He picked the wrong door or the door that wasn't maximal.

Wish Obama had been hypocritical on being bi-partisan rather than being hypocritical on war, social programs, universal health care, environment, human rights, etc.

PS: This will take a longer response than I can do right now. I wish so, too, except that he's moving pretty close to universal health care and people are starting to find that the plan is better than they thought from a personal standpoint.

As it is, Ron Paul comes out looking principled in a number of areas (others like a nut / bigot), while Obama just looks ephemeral. How Obama gets positively compared to FDR, I've no idea.

PS: When you've never been tested and there's not much hope of winning, it's easy to be principled. Why not? What do you have to lose? I don't think anyone compares Obama to FDR now; it was before when there was hope he'd be the next FDR. And if you care about social programs, universal health care, and the environment, you can kiss all of that good-bye, unless Paul turns out to be a hypocrite himself.

Social Security didn't

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:14:40 +0000

In reply to PP: 1) Social Security was

Social Security didn't initially "exclude" women and minorities - it covered jobs that few women & minorities participated in. So by extending SS to more professions, it naturally covered them.

Obama didn't have to take blame for this crisis. He chose not to stick Bush's nose in it, and he chose not to push for a greater stimulus. He got the lukewarm brand he asked for.

Wish Obama had been hypocritical on being bi-partisan rather than being hypocritical on war, social programs, universal health care, environment, human rights, etc.

As it is, Ron Paul comes out looking principled in a number of areas (others like a nut / bigot), while Obama just looks ephemeral. How Obama gets positively compared to FDR, I've no idea.

PP: 1) Social Security was

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:51:50 +0000

In reply to Awwww bullcrap. 1) Social

PP: 1) Social Security was more limited initially, but please explain what aspect of Social Security changed dramatically? And what was as objectionable as the corporate aspect of "health care reform" that hasn't actually contained costs nor prevented more cuts to Medicare et al?

PS: I guess it depends on how serious you think it was to exclude women and minorities and various job categories. My point is really that SS evolved, and I see no reason why HCR can't evolve. It's barely been implemented. I do think he made some mistakes with this--Medicare For All would have been better and may have had a better chance of easily passing. But he put points on the board on an issue that had eluded progressives for the entire century and deserves credit for it in my book. But I understand that that's a personal judgement and I can't "prove" it to you.

PP: 2) he "caved" to the racist southern party & didn't integrate the army? well he didn't go to the moon either. shame on him.

PS: This is silly, PP. But I dare say if we transported the Dixiecrat issue into today's arena, it would be considered a serious failing on the president's part. Certainly on par with knocking out terrorists with drones.

PP: 3) the US economy suffered a 1937 recession due to monetary tightening. It was fixed by 1939, long before we got into WWII. FDR got us out of the depression.

PS: That was two years into his second term, no? I believe he resolved much of the unemployment, but didn't necessarily get the economy going--two different things. Obama's job numbers from the time he took office show a pretty good picture, too. There seems to be a lot of discussion, even on the left, whether FDR got us out of the Depression, even if he did a lot to ameliorate its impact. You seem certain--why?

PP: 4) FDR's New Deal was monstrous in its creativity and effect. All Obama had to do was throw a few trillions at banks, and voila, our recovery. Sadly, he didn't do much for mortgages or job programs, but such are our conservative times when we're all Hooverites.

PS: Well, to be fair, I think there was a lot of uncertainty as to the best course of action. I'm not sure most people understood the problem or what to do until after they'd thought about it awhile. Of course, some people had it right from the beginning. But some people are always right, aren't they? I agree, FDR was far more creative than Obama. But he also had less debt and more lattitude from Congress to be creative. But yes, Obama, once in office, proved himself to be too cautious. I agree.

PP: 5) FDR had the "advantage" of being elected after people had tried for 4 years to cure a worldwide problem. Oh joy, what a lucky guy to walk into the depression in March 1933 - such career possibilities. Which button is "go"?

PS: He had the advantage of seeing what did not work. He also had the advantage of not carrying any of the blame for the crisis. Because of the timing, it was clearly Hoover's depression. The same can't be said for this recession. In Obama's case, they made the mistake of thinking that the recession was like the Depression, when different forces (over indebtedness) were at work and would need different solutions. It was perhaps a natural assumption, but wrong. He's come to understand the crisis late and faces the difficult problem of convincing people that the cure for too much spending and debt is even more spending and debt. This is hard for the average person to grok. It's counter-intuitive.

PP: 6) I really don't give a shit about Obama's personal life, and the reception he got coming into office including a grossly undeserved Nobel Peace Prize, shows his uphill battle wasn't terribly uphill (PS - he was raised by the VP of a bank and a furniture store owner and went to a cherry prep school - can we ditch the poor young black child growing up in the south meme already?) - the majority of America plus the rest of the world was rooting for him, and his failures have been from timidity, lack of creativity and caviling to the opposition that obviously didn't want him to succeed from the get-go. Bad strategy. (Yes, Hillary warned him that there wouldn't be a new day in Washington with manna from heaven, and that he'd have to take it to the people. But he didn't listen because she's a chick. And he dismantled his popular ground organization and focused on imitating Bush to look like he's "serious" and "bi-partisan"

PS: He made bad choices, I agree. And? I disagree on the personal life impact, especially if you compare the lives of the two men. He ran on a bi-partisan platform. It was a great part of his appeal. It may even have accounted for his election. And I think it's what he believed and maybe still does. It would've been hypocritical for him to have abandoned that stance right away or even after signs of trouble. I think he hung on to that hope for too long, but I'm not him.

PP: 7) And Democrats had a majority in both houses when he was elected. Yes, he had Blue Dogs among those, so it wasn't as simple as FDR's super majority. But I can't think of anything Obama did that showed real out-of-the-box thinking on any of the issues (aside from cutting spending in the middle of a recession as a prelude to some supposed jobs program that has no chance of passing). Everything has been milque-toast and ineffective compromise and loads of excuses and coulda-shoulda-woulda.

PS: He has been too cautious, IMO. Mostly, he let the opposition set the terms of the debate on spending and cutting. I don't know how much of that was due to what he actually thought and how much of it was due to miscalculation about the virulence and determination of the opposition.

PP: Maybe he can try for a good presidency this term.

PS: Hopefully, yes. But not if his supporters abandon him. We'll see. One advantage of a Romney presidency will be a more unified left.

Well somehow when you start

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:53:12 +0000

In reply to Thanks for your response.

Well somehow when you start slamming the giant of liberal Democratic success in the 20th century, you better have some pretty solid points. Comparing Obama with him just seems like hubris - they're playing in different leagues.

Here's FDR's jobs recovery (peak unemployment 1933):

That dotted line with >30% unemployment in 1933 at top is private non-farm unemployment up to 1940, 2 years before the war, as can be found here: http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/

(and more here with Michael Tomasky who explains that the official unemployment rate didn't include people on jobs programs like WPA - a pretty huge omission)

Here's our jobs recovery since Jan 2009, when unemployment was 7.6% - heckuva job, Barry - feel the power: