Obama Is A Peanut Farm Away from Carter

[The Mad Monk]

Re: Re: Obama Is A Peanut Farm Away from Carter

Originally posted by Oerdin


Is this Limbaugh's latest line? Forgive me but you do love repeating Rush.

Nah, this is my own delusion.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ronald Reagan acted absolutely treasonously encouraging the Iranians not to let the hostages go until after the election.

Bull. I'd expect even you to not buy into such patent nonsense.

[Lancer]

I kind of doubt he does.

[Cyclotron]

I worked for Carter last year; I had lunch with him a few months ago. I voted for Obama but he certainly doesn't seem much like Carter to me. Any parallels seem more like wishful thinking.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I've always thought that. There's not much you can say about his presidency -- his handling of the Bonus Army alone pretty much trumps anything good there -- but his overall career was quite admirable, especially the European relief effort.

Well the entire mythos of "do nothing" was basically a creation. Hoover did try to use the government to help alleviate some of the effects of the Depression. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, for one, was a precursor to New Deal programs. Hoover was actually lambasted by a lot of people for spending too much (as the size of non-military government spending drastically did increase under him).

Of course it wasn't enough, but it didn't mean he was doing nothing.

The amusing thing is that in 1920, the Dems (including FDR and Woodrow Wilson) were trying to recruit Hoover as their Presidential candidate.

And amusingly:

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

Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible," and of leading "the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history." Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".

[DanS]

I invite everybody to listen to FDR's first inaugural address.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fdrfirstinaugural.html

In it, FDR says many shocking things for somebody who loves democracy. For one, he takes upon himself the powers of a wartime president, even though we were not at war. He speaks of central planning downright glowingly as well.

With the fortune of hindsight, we can say that Hoover acted assiduously within the constitution and FDR had much less use for it.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Colon™
I have to say I don't understand Obamania. Didn't the US already just have a president that promised to straddle the partisan divide and railed against the corrupt Washington establishment?

It helps that Obama pronounces all of those big words correctly. Plus he's genuinely charismatic as opposed to kind of cute in a lame, folksy sort of way.

[Barnabas]

Isnt George W Bush one peanut away from replacing Carter as worst president ever?

[Dinner]

Naw, Carter wasn't the worst; that was Hoover or maybe Grant. Either way a Republican.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I didn't know that James Buchanan was a Republican.

Besides, Hoover gets a completely over the top bad rap. If you wanted to pick another Republican, you should have gone with Harding.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Isnt George W Bush one peanut away from replacing Carter as worst president ever?

We've had some real doozies. Bush isn't even close to worst.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hoover was a good president. After 1931, the recovery had already begun. I don't get why he was considered a do nothing president. Sure the worst years of the depression coincided with his term, but he did the right things to pul out of it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's quite a long ass slow as Hell recovery then .

What, 1931 to 1942ish? Before the economy became healthy and that only due to wartime production?

[Ben Kenobi]

That's quite a long ass slow as Hell recovery then .

Well, that's the problem with Roosevelt. It was in his benefit to delay the recovery, because that ensured his election.

What, 1931 to 1942ish? Before the economy became healthy and that only due to wartime production?

GDP rose again, slightly in 1932. Yes, it took awhile to return to the level of 1929, but the question you have to ask yourself is why it took so long? Why did it take Roosevelt 2 terms to make any practical recovery when he inherited an economy on the upswing?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, that's the problem with Roosevelt. It was in his benefit to delay the recovery, because that ensured his election.

Um...

How would he have delayed the recovery before he was elected President? Did he have supereco powers?

GDP rose again, slightly in 1932. Yes, it took awhile to return to the level of 1929, but the question you have to ask yourself is why it took so long? Why did it take Roosevelt 2 terms to make any practical recovery when he inherited an economy on the upswing?

Trending upward?



Wha choo talkin about, Willis?