N766AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1436 times:
I would like to hear what you all think... Many [leftists] would probably say that FDR brought America out of it, and I would like to hear your argument. But many (mainly conservatives) think that the wartime economy boost ended the great depression. What do you think? A parallel to this topic is the current economic boom. Do you think that the Clinton/Gore administration is responsible for it? I would also like to hear your argument. Or do you think the American people as a whole and Congress are responsible? As a reference point: records show the economic boom of the 90s started in Spring, 1992- even Algore himself has admitted that point. Would like to hear what you have to say, whether from a left or right point of view.
AU-Aviator From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1379 times:
World War 2 certanly finished off the great depression; however, I think FDR's programs where an excellent help to a country in a troubled state. Yes, some people would argue that giving out government jobs to pretty much anybody is bordering on socialism, but I think it is the responsibility of a government representing its citizens to help them out in such times. This put money back into circulation helping everybody out. Furthermore, giving people jobs seems far better than simply giving them checks. New Deal programs brought great things to the United States. Progects that wheren't urgent, but where nontheless usefull. All while stimulating the economy and putting Americans to work.
As for Clinton/Gore being responsible for the good times we've enjoyed, it seems very foolish to me to blame or give credit to any single person for something as complicated as the global economy. Sure they have done an excellent job of taking advantage of these prosperous times, but like I said they shouldn't be given complete credit for the cyclical ups and downs of the economy coinsiding with Clinton's term. Don't get me wrong, I think Al Gore is great and I will be first in line to vote for him, I just don't think he and Clinton brought these good times on single handedly. -greg
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7780 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1379 times:
This is a fairly simple question to answer, and it is not really based in any sort of political ideology. The fact of the matter is that WWII ended the Great Depression. It was not until early 1943 when umemployment finally fell below pre-depression levels. During WWII Americans on the homefront now had disposible income of the likes many had never seen before. Many complained of the lack of consumer products to purchase during the war, which some considered a hardship. While FDR did take some of the advice of Sir John Maynard Kenyes, FDR still strongly believed in a balanced budget. He was unwilling to do the kind of deficeit spending, like what was spent in WWII, that would adequately stimulate the economy. By 1937, while things were significantly better than in the darkest days of 1932 there was a great deal of fear of a relapse. But at that time neither a 1930's Republican nor a 1930's Democrat was willing to spend the kind of money needed to bring the nation to a full recovery... it took a war to do that.
As for the current economic boom, many people take credit for it. The careers of Clinton and Bush in Texas have benefited from it greatly. However as to how much they actually did, it was probably very little. We should probably thank Alan Greenspan for this to be honest. I would imagine that the Clinton administration did some things to support the growing economy, but did not spur it on. As well the congress, with varying mixes of Democrats and Republicans, had a role. The long and short of it is that no single party really can make that claim. Whoever enters the Oval office in January will probably continue a very similiar fiscal policy... Bush might focus more on tax cuts, Gore more on saving social security, but much will be the same.
And if there are any points of dispute on FDR I will dig out my notes and my books and reference some materials should that need arise.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29802 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1372 times:
WWII ended the depresion for good...There was some recovery in the year before it though..
Clinton had very little to do with the current boom....He is a loudmouth that likes to talk about himself. The 94 congress deserves a lot of the credit along with Greenspan. About the two people who had the least to do with it is Gore and G.W. Bush.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
NKP S2 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1714 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (14 years 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1366 times:
Righto L188!...especially the second paragaph. While the economy is not bad, the "booming" nonsense is just the syncophant media boosting white house hubris--and apathetic "sheeple" parroting same. 2-2.5% growth spurred by credit and cheap chi-com goods. Whomever the next administration will be, he'll be saddled with the mess when the cumulative result of short term thinking causes the house to come crashing down. What ends depressions or recessions is cash flow...either wartime or peacetime via tax cuts to spur economic activity ( ala Reagan ). Changing the economy during peacetime is like turning an oil tanker.....nothing happens till long after policies are implemented...whether good or bad....a lot of "inertia" involved due to the huge size(s).