Thursday, September 23, 2021
HomeFeatured EntriesObama promises FDR-like experimentation during second Great Depression

Obama promises FDR-like experimentation during second Great Depression

I guess the private sector was doing fine then too, since the poor got to hear periodic fireside chats on the latest anti-business experiment

Last night, during his indoor speech accepting the presidential nomination of the Democrat Party in Charlotte, we finally got the non-Hope & Change truth from Barack Obama:

And the truth is, it will take more than a few years for us to solve challenges that have built up over decades. It will require common effort, shared responsibility, and the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.

First, former Democrat President Bill Clinton, and now, current Democrat President Barack Obama tell us it turns out it was impossible for any president’s policies to restore the economy to an acceptable level in “just” 3-4 years. Never mind Obama’s promises that the Stimulus bill would prevent unemployment from ever reaching 8%. He discovered only later that the matters were worse than he thought before his Inauguration.

Of course, every recession/financial crisis is different, but why is it that the current so-called “recovery” has more in common with the Great Depression (think double digit un- and under-employment and anemic GDP) than other recoveries? Why did Republican Presidents Harding (pictured), Reagan and even George W. Bush find it possible to end inherited recessions with sharp V-shaped recoveries worthy of the name? Harding in the 20th and most all American presidents in the 19th Century did so by essentially letting the economy heal itself. JFK, Reagan and Dubya had to act because inherited policies and laws had made government the impediment to recovery.

Are Democrat Presidents ignorant of what fosters economic recoveries? I won’t insult members of my former party that way. No, they understand that if government gets out of the way, relatively speaking via less taxes and regulation, that Americans will exercise their Liberty to pursue happiness via job-creating private business profits; and Voila!, Recovery happens! But are happy and prosperous citizens living free lives their first priority? It doesn’t seem so, judging by their actions.

Beginning with President Woodrow Wilson and continuing through his party successors FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton and Obama; Democrats prefer “reform before recovery” if they can get away with it and be re-elected. Hence President Obama’s obsession with a government takeover of the health care and insurance industries while 1/5 of American men left the work force.

FDR, to a certain extent, “got away with it,” if by that term we mean, got re-elected despite ongoing economic failure, mainly because the unemployment rate did drop from 25% to 17% right before the Election of 1936. Thanks to more of FDR’s mostly anti-business “experimentations,” the unemployment rate never dropped below 14% before 1941, and a double-dip of the Depression occurred in 1937-9. Even many of his Keynesian/Brain Trust gurus, including John Maynard himself, bemoaned his “reform before recovery” agenda, as recounted in Jim Powell’s, FDR’s Folly.

Does Obama think he can get away with failure despite the rise in the number of under-employed, unemployed and disabled? Somehow, the rich aristocrat managed to connect with average Americans, despite the evil of being born into money. Has the Hawaiian-born, Indonesian-raised middle-class, ACORN lawyer/Community Organizer shown a capacity to so connect? Did his stimulus build any public works ala FDR’s alphabet soup, other than green and white signs announcing local Recovery Act spending? Is killing Osama bin Laden after months of knowing where he was the equivalence of McArthur’s War in the Pacific or Ike’s Battle of the Bulge? We don’t think so.

The liberals in academia, Hollywood and the Press got very mad when their eggheads were discredited by Whittaker Chambers and Richard Nixon. They made sure that the suffering that went on from 1929-1941 was depicted thru a lens of Hoover, bad; FDR, good. Yes, we saw the Grapes of Wrath, but wasn’t the scene of the WPA or CCC bathrooms supposed to hint that a caring government was all that was necessary? That and nuclear families huddled around radios and the fireplace listening to an Upstate New Yorker chat?

Mr. Obama, speeches don’t feed a hungry child now and they didn’t from 1929-1941. Get out of the way, please and let We the People bail ourselves out.

Finally, even FDR saw the economic light after he saw the German military machine blitzkrieg across Europe and over England. Against the wishes of his New Dealers, as recounted in Arthur Herman’s, Freedom’s Forge. So, Mr. President, you would have been better advised to call Paul Ryan two years ago and taken his advice rather than drag in the Big Creep that tried to pass Obamacare back when Hillary could still get by with wearing her hair long.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor of  Hillbilly Politics and Co-Founder and Editor of Political Daily

Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Mike gamecock DeVine
A trial lawyer for two decades in South Carolina; owner of Ati Vista LLC since 2002 now associated with Lupa Law Firm; VP & Counsel for Buddy Allen Roofing & Construction Inc. since 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia; and a freelance writer, DeVine was the conservative voice of the Charlotte Observer from 2006-8 and has been the owner of HillbillyPolitics.com since 2009. www.devinelawvista.com

9 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

9 COMMENTS

  1. This is one of your best, gamecock. When one looks up the definition of experiment, it is an attempt at something new or different; an effort to be original. Nothing new from the Dems. They keep attempting the things that history has shown to be failures. One important point the movie, 2016, makes is that countries that chose Marx and Lenin economics failed while countries that chose Adam Smith and Milton Friedman economics succeeded. This election provides a very clear choice for the voters.

    • You made my day Pil’, and amen on what history shows…which causes me to conclude that the leaders and many of the followers, but not all, want what history shows that Marxism leads to (at least until wealth to spread around runs out), i.e. more dependents on government and their govt jobs.

    • Amen to what Pilgrim said. We are not combating socialism here, we are combating stupidity. Win the one, the other is a cinch. Even the lazy know once the teat and treasury run dry their world changes immesurably for the worse. The stupid often never know this even after hellazapoppin.

    • It’s not just they keep attempting things that history has shown to be failures but they are literally incapable of thinking of anything new. They have destroyed the education system that used to reward innovative thinking, not just in elementary school but throughout into post-graduate work.

      And because of their own incompetence due to the policies they put in place, they squash the same in the private sector where most such innovation comes from; can’t have competitiveness, you know because it would make the less equal feel bad.

  2. The mere mention of FDR should scare the heck out of everyone. It is rapid govt expansion like we’ve never seen, including taxing the heck out of everyone even more. Obama is tripling down on failed policy. SCARY. At least clinton gave in to the Gingrich Revolution.

  3. Unfortunately we have to find and convince all the Peggy Josphs out there that Obama isn’t gonna pay for her mortgage and gas. Haven’t heard from Peggy since 2008. I am taking that as a good sign she is disillusioned and has told others.

  1. This is one of your best, gamecock. When one looks up the definition of experiment, it is an attempt at something new or different; an effort to be original. Nothing new from the Dems. They keep attempting the things that history has shown to be failures. One important point the movie, 2016, makes is that countries that chose Marx and Lenin economics failed while countries that chose Adam Smith and Milton Friedman economics succeeded. This election provides a very clear choice for the voters.

    • You made my day Pil’, and amen on what history shows…which causes me to conclude that the leaders and many of the followers, but not all, want what history shows that Marxism leads to (at least until wealth to spread around runs out), i.e. more dependents on government and their govt jobs.

    • Amen to what Pilgrim said. We are not combating socialism here, we are combating stupidity. Win the one, the other is a cinch. Even the lazy know once the teat and treasury run dry their world changes immesurably for the worse. The stupid often never know this even after hellazapoppin.

    • It’s not just they keep attempting things that history has shown to be failures but they are literally incapable of thinking of anything new. They have destroyed the education system that used to reward innovative thinking, not just in elementary school but throughout into post-graduate work.

      And because of their own incompetence due to the policies they put in place, they squash the same in the private sector where most such innovation comes from; can’t have competitiveness, you know because it would make the less equal feel bad.

  2. The mere mention of FDR should scare the heck out of everyone. It is rapid govt expansion like we’ve never seen, including taxing the heck out of everyone even more. Obama is tripling down on failed policy. SCARY. At least clinton gave in to the Gingrich Revolution.

  3. Unfortunately we have to find and convince all the Peggy Josphs out there that Obama isn’t gonna pay for her mortgage and gas. Haven’t heard from Peggy since 2008. I am taking that as a good sign she is disillusioned and has told others.

Must Read