PDA

View Full Version : Legal Let's talk about Hoover.


Direckshun
06-18-2010, 09:40 AM
Great president, or greatest president?

Kidding.

Hoover is largely credited with allowing the Great Depression to have occurred with poor economic policymaking.

Those of you who consider yourself more schooled on Hoover's record, what do you make of this claim?

mlyonsd
06-18-2010, 09:47 AM
Ask go bowe since he was probably alive then.

talastan
06-18-2010, 09:59 AM
From what I've studied Hoover was just as progressive as Wilson, and FDR. He expanded government and increased spending.

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

Policies
Hoover entered office with a plan to reform the nation's regulatory system, believing that a federal bureaucracy should have limited regulation over a country's economic system.[27] A self-described Progressive and Reformer, Hoover saw the presidency as a vehicle for improving the conditions of all Americans by regulation and by encouraging volunteerism. Long before entering politics, he had denounced laissez-faire thinking.[28] As Commerce Secretary, he had taken an active pro-regulation stance. As President, he helped push tariff and farm subsidy bills through Congress.

Hoover expanded civil service coverage of Federal positions, canceled private oil leases on government lands, and by instructing the Justice Department and the Internal Revenue Service to pursue gangsters for tax evasion, he enabled the prosecution of Al Capone. He appointed a commission that set aside 3 million acres (12,000 km˛) of national parks and 2.3 million acres (9,000 km˛) of national forests; advocated tax reduction for low-income Americans (not enacted); closed certain tax loopholes for the wealthy; doubled the number of veterans' hospital facilities; negotiated a treaty on St. Lawrence Seaway (which failed in the U.S. Senate); wrote a Children's Charter that advocated protection of every child regardless of race or gender; created an antitrust division in the Justice Department; required air mail carriers to adopt stricter safety measures and improve service; proposed federal loans for urban slum clearances (not enacted); organized the Federal Bureau of Prisons; reorganized the Bureau of Indian Affairs; instituted prison reform; proposed a federal Department of Education (not enacted); advocated $50-per-month pensions for Americans over 65 (not enacted); chaired White House conferences on child health, protection, homebuilding and homeownership; began construction of the Boulder Dam (later renamed Hoover Dam); and signed the Norris-La Guardia Act that limited judicial intervention in labor disputes.

On November 19, 1928, Hoover embarked on a seven-week goodwill tour of several Latin American nations to outline his economic and trade policies to other nations in the Western Hemisphere.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 10:18 AM
It's striking how similar Obama and Hoover are when you think about it. From his economic interventionism, his focus on volunteerism, progressive beliefs on taxing the rich to smithereens, and of course, general mismanagement - they are very similar when you look past Hoover being an R and Obama being a D. And I could easily see Obama pass a modern day Smoot-Hawley Tarriff to try and get Americans to eschew imports and buy American. Like Obama, Hoover believed in federal intervention into the economy. All his efforts ended up doing is hurting the poor by increasing prices on everything and slice our foriegn trade by over half - and worse, kicked off a worldwide trend of everyone increasing their own tarriffs. Hopefully Obama doesn't do something similar.

Hoover was a progressive through and through. His Revenue Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932) raised the top tax rate to over 60%, and doubled the estate tax. A lot of good that did. And then he was criticized for not doing enough! I think he did plenty! He also raised taxes on corporations. No one should be suprised by the unemployment that followed that move.

The funny thing is, Roosevelt campaigned against Hoover citing his "reckless and extravagant" spending and his runningmate, John Nance Garner, went so far as to accuse Obama - er Hoover of "leading the country down the path of socialism." That's pretty funny coming from the Roosevelt campaign, considering the socialist ponzi scheme that he instituted.

Progressives believe that the government can manipulate the economy and protect against market correction, and all they end up doing is making things worse - especially for the poorest.

I see Hoover and Obama as very similar... And the irony is that in the end, both will be criticized for not doing enough soon enough as the hallmark of their presidencies...

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 11:46 AM
Hoover was a progressive through and through. His Revenue Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932) raised the top tax rate to over 60%, and doubled the estate tax. A lot of good that did. And then he was criticized for not doing enough! I think he did plenty! He also raised taxes on corporations. No one should be suprised by the unemployment that followed that move.

Why do you say it was "his Revenue Act?" Because he signed it?

That was a great wikipedia article, by the way. You did your homework.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 11:54 AM
Why do you say it was "his Revenue Act?" Because he signed it?

That was a great wikipedia article, by the way. You did your homework.


Hoover was very proud of his Revenue Act. He was urged by thousands of eveonomists to take a different tact and cut expenditures and taxation. He called this "chaos." He reacted like a Portland, Oregon liberal, and threatened that such a move would mean turning prisoners out on the streets and abolishing the Army and Navy...

Hoover:
Your thesis is that the government expenses can be reduced by $2 billion—the amount of the tax decrease. This is . . . wholly impossible. It would mean we must give up the postal service, the Merchant Marine, protection of life and property and public health. We would have to turn 40,000 prisoners loose in this country; we would have to stop the maintenance of rivers and harbors; we would have to stop all construction work going on in aid of unemployment; it would mean abolishment [sic] of the Army and Navy. In other words it means complete chaos.



Go away son. Come back when you have something to say.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:06 PM
I didn't actually look at the wikipedia article, but Jenson piqued my curiosity... I thought this was amusing:

"Although Hoover had come to detest the presidency, he agreed to run again in 1932, both as a matter of pride, but also because he feared that no other likely Republican candidate would deal with the depression without resorting to what Hoover considered dangerously radical measures." (i.e. reducing taxes and cutting expenditures)


My oh my has the Republican party been wandering in the woods for such a long, long time.

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 12:18 PM
Hoover was very proud of his Revenue Act. He was urged by thousands of eveonomists to take a different tact and cut expenditures and taxation. He called this "chaos." He reacted like a Portland, Oregon liberal, and threatened that such a move would mean turning prisoners out on the streets and abolishing the Army and Navy...

Hoover:
Your thesis is that the government expenses can be reduced by $2 billion—the amount of the tax decrease. This is . . . wholly impossible. It would mean we must give up the postal service, the Merchant Marine, protection of life and property and public health. We would have to turn 40,000 prisoners loose in this country; we would have to stop the maintenance of rivers and harbors; we would have to stop all construction work going on in aid of unemployment; it would mean abolishment [sic] of the Army and Navy. In other words it means complete chaos.



Go away son. Come back when you have something to say.

Thousands of economists said that? Like who? And he led the crusade against their wishes? No one else urged his doing?

I don't think you're right that it was his Revenue Act. I think it originated like most bills -- in Congress, and specifically, in a Senate Committee. I don't think Hoover had any choice but to sign it, though he may have thought it was necessary.

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 12:22 PM
The funny thing is, Roosevelt campaigned against Hoover citing his "reckless and extravagant" spending and his runningmate, John Nance Garner, went so far as to accuse Obama - er Hoover of "leading the country down the path of socialism." That's pretty funny coming from the Roosevelt campaign, considering the socialist ponzi scheme that he instituted.
Wiki
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."[48] Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[49]

Ironically, these policies pale beside the more drastic steps taken under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration later as part of the New Deal.

What a coincidence.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:32 PM
Indeed. Only I would have loved to have had that bit about "centering control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible." I wish I had come across that little tidbit.

I'm not saying I didn't do any research to back my take on him. I'm just saying that Wiki wasn't my go-to source. Given that I missed that precious tidbit, it probably should have been.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:35 PM
Thousands of economists said that? Like who? And he led the crusade against their wishes? No one else urged his doing?

I don't think you're right that it was his Revenue Act. I think it originated like most bills -- in Congress, and specifically, in a Senate Committee. I don't think Hoover had any choice but to sign it, though he may have thought it was necessary.

It originated in congress! No kidding!

Wow. You're bringing the big guns today, kiddo. Thanks for the blast of knowledge.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:36 PM
By the way, of course he had a choice. He could have vetoed it with a few strokes of a pen.

It was most certainly his bill. He put his name right on it:

http://www.fadedgiant.net/assets/images/hoover_herbert_autograph_3.jpg

ClevelandBronco
06-18-2010, 12:39 PM
Great president, or greatest president?

Kidding.

Hoover is largely credited with allowing the Great Depression to have occurred with poor economic policymaking.

Those of you who consider yourself more schooled on Hoover's record, what do you make of this claim?

Why, I can make a hat or a brooch or a pterodactyl.

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 12:40 PM
Indeed. Only I would have loved to have had that bit about "centering control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible." I wish I had come across that little tidbit.

I'm not saying I didn't do any research to back my take on him. I'm just saying that Wiki wasn't my go-to source. Given that I missed that precious tidbit, it probably should have been.

LOL. You're pretty much a huge fake.

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 12:41 PM
It originated in congress! No kidding!

Wow. You're bringing the big guns today, kiddo. Thanks for the blast of knowledge.

So if it originated in Congress, why would it be his bill? We're still waiting for that. Do you have those facts or are you speculating or just making stuff up that fits your agenda?

mlyonsd
06-18-2010, 12:43 PM
So if it originated in Congress, why would it be his bill? We're still waiting for that. Do you have those facts or are you speculating or just making stuff up that fits your agenda?

Is this the tack you're going to take when the HC reform bill is proven to be an unsustainable monster?

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:45 PM
LOL. You're pretty much a huge fake.


*shrug*

Whatever you say kid. I know who I am and what I believe. I don't require your validation.

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 12:46 PM
Is this the tack you're going to take when the HC reform bill is proven to be an unsustainable monster?

Is this the historical tack you're going to take here? Since the HC bill originated with Obama, all bills must originate with the standing president.

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 12:47 PM
*shrug*

Whatever you say kid. I know who I am and what I believe. I don't require your validation.

We know who you are, too. That post pretty much validated it.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:48 PM
So if it originated in Congress, why would it be his bill? We're still waiting for that.


Who is "we" that is still waiting for that. You can get the answer from post #12, and also from #6.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:50 PM
We know who you are, too. That post pretty much validated it.

Fine with me. I dont feel threatened or intimidated by the likes of you.


Believe it or not, I think you're smarter than me. You shouldn't lose to me in a debate because of this. The only difference right now is I'm a little more educated than you. It helps being a current serious political science and history student.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:52 PM
It's not like you've even approached the substance of anything I said. Arguing over the semantics of who owns the bill that Hoover put his name on? Pish.

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 12:54 PM
Who is "we" that is still waiting for that. You can get the answer from post #12, and also from #6.

Me and my friends. Great evidence for why it originated with Hoover. "He signed it."

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:54 PM
Me and my friends. Great evidence for why it originated with Hoover. "He signed it."

Indeed it is.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:56 PM
Also, to be clear, you're the one introducing the semantical word "originate" into your masturbatory point. I'm talking of ownership.

mlyonsd
06-18-2010, 12:57 PM
Is this the historical tack you're going to take here? Since the HC bill originated with Obama, all bills must originate with the standing president.

The bill originated from Obama? Cool, I'll use that at a later date.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 12:59 PM
That wiki article is actually pretty great... Check this out and compare what people say and think about today's political environment:

"In his campaigns around the country, Hoover was faced with perhaps the most hostile crowds any sitting president had ever faced. Besides having his train and motorcades pelted with eggs and rotten fruit, he was often heckled while speaking, and on several occasions, the Secret Service halted attempts to kill Hoover by disgruntled citizens, including capturing one man nearing Hoover carrying sticks of dynamite, and another already having removed several spikes from the rails in front of the President's train. He lost the election by a huge margin, winning only six out of 48 states."

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 01:01 PM
It's not like you've even approached the substance of anything I said. Arguing over the semantics of who owns the bill that Hoover put his name on? Pish.

Pish. I'm arguing over the idea that Hoover was the leading impetus and originator of the Act. If he is, I will agree with you that it was "His" bill. If he wasn't, if he merely signed it, maybe even grudgingly, I'm not going to agree that it was his bill. Because I think that would be incorrect. The legislative branch debates and passes bills. The executive carries them through.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 01:02 PM
Ok. See if I care.

As far as I'm concerned, he put his name on that bill, thus it's his bill.

When I put my name on something, I'm making it mine.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2010, 01:02 PM
Great president, or greatest president?

Kidding.

Hoover is largely credited with allowing the Great Depression to have occurred with poor economic policymaking.

Those of you who consider yourself more schooled on Hoover's record, what do you make of this claim?

Parsing Hoover has already been done. He certainly wasn't the laissez-faire president the left makes him out to be but quite the contrary. There was a rise in govt intervention in the economy prior to the Great Depression.
Don't forget the Rs had it's own progressives too. Like Teddy Roosevelt for another. Hoover tried to fix the depression by artificially propping up prices and made it worse. Then FDR came in and followed suit to the tenth power making the Depression last over a decade. Obama idolizes FDR and is copying him.

What you were taught in your HS history books about this era is not true. That goes for Hoover too.

blaise
06-18-2010, 01:02 PM
I hope I never say, "Hey let's talk about Herbert Hoover."

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 01:02 PM
The bill originated from Obama? Cool, I'll use that at a later date.

He was a pretty serious motivator and originator of the bill. He played a huge role in it.

If Hoover played as much a role in this Revenue Act as Obama played in the HC bill, I'll get behind the idea that it was Hoovers child.

So, which is it?

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 01:05 PM
Ok. See if I care.

As far as I'm concerned, he put his name on that bill, thus it's his bill.

When I put my name on something, I'm making it mine.

I know you don't care. Owning up to things that goes against your agenda is not something that interests you. Challenging yourself is not something you care about. Everything needs to fit nicely into your box of dogma, and if it doesn't, you don't care about it.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 01:06 PM
It was Hoover's bill:


The Tax Increase
With a $2 billion deficit during annual year 1931, Hoover felt that he had to do something in the next year to combat it. Deficit spending is indeed an evil, but a balanced budget is not necessarily a good, particularly when the "balance" is obtained by increasing revenue and expenditures. If he wanted to balance the budget, Hoover had two choices open to him: to reduce expenditures, and thereby relieve the economy of some of the aggravated burden of government, or to increase that burden further by raising taxes. He chose the latter course. In his swan song as Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon advocated, in December, 1931, drastic increases of taxes, including personal income taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, and postal rates. Obedient to the lines charted by Mellon and Hoover, Congress passed, in the Revenue Act of 1932, one of the greatest increases in taxation ever enacted in the United States in peacetime. The range of tax increases was enormous.


http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter11.asp

ClevelandBronco
06-18-2010, 01:08 PM
It was Hoover's bill:


The Tax Increase
With a $2 billion deficit during annual year 1931, Hoover felt that he had to do something in the next year to combat it. Deficit spending is indeed an evil, but a balanced budget is not necessarily a good, particularly when the "balance" is obtained by increasing revenue and expenditures. If he wanted to balance the budget, Hoover had two choices open to him: to reduce expenditures, and thereby relieve the economy of some of the aggravated burden of government, or to increase that burden further by raising taxes. He chose the latter course. In his swan song as Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon advocated, in December, 1931, drastic increases of taxes, including personal income taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, and postal rates. Obedient to the lines charted by Mellon and Hoover, Congress passed, in the Revenue Act of 1932, one of the greatest increases in taxation ever enacted in the United States in peacetime. The range of tax increases was enormous.


http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter11.asp

Your source shall now be attacked.

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 01:09 PM
I understand your need to be spoonfed by libertarian websites, but can't we for once look at primary sources?

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 01:09 PM
Your source shall now be attacked.

A legitimate move. Actually, pretty necessary.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2010, 01:10 PM
I understand your need to be spoonfed by libertarian websites, but can't we for once look at primary sources?

I understand your need to be spoonfed by Progressive education, but can't we for once look at alternative sources?

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 01:11 PM
I understand your need to be spoonfed by Progressive education, but can't we for once look at alternative sources?

What's wrong with primary sources?

mlyonsd
06-18-2010, 01:11 PM
He was a pretty serious motivator and originator of the bill. He played a huge role in it.

If Hoover played as much a role in this Revenue Act as Obama played in the HC bill, I'll get behind the idea that it was Hoovers child.

So, which is it?

I really don't know.

I was more wondering if you were planning on absolving Obama from all sins when HC reform sends us further into the red. I can see from this post that isn't the case.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 01:12 PM
I know you don't care. Owning up to things that goes against your agenda is not something that interests you. Challenging yourself is not something you care about. Everything needs to fit nicely into your box of dogma, and if it doesn't, you don't care about it.

Owning up to what? What are you even talking about?

I wasn't born into your cushy situation. I was born into a mixed race household the son of two teenagers who angered their families by running off and doing something stupid. Macaroni, Spam, and powdered milk is what I remember eating as a kid. Not that I have any complaints. It's just that I wouldn't have gotten to the position that I am in in life if I shied away from challenging myself.

Say or think whatever you want about me. What does it matter to me? Go ahead and tell me how stupid you think I am. You think I'm going to believe you? You think I'm going to care?

I know who and what I am, and the journey that got me here.

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 01:12 PM
I really don't know.

I was more wondering if you were planning on absolving Obama from all sins when HC reform sends us further into the red. I can see from this post that isn't the case.

Stay focused, mylonsd. I'm personally not planning on doing any absolving of sins. I know my catechism well.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 01:13 PM
Your source shall now be attacked.

ROFL

Ladies and Gentlemen! The Amazing Kreskin!

Taco John
06-18-2010, 01:13 PM
What's wrong with primary sources?

Primary sources? What makes a source a "primary" source?

ClevelandBronco
06-18-2010, 01:14 PM
A legitimate move. Actually, pretty necessary.

It wasn't necessarily a negative criticism. Just a prediction based upon lengthy observation. I don't have a dog in the Hoover hunt.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 01:16 PM
By the way... 40 posts since my original post, and not a single thing on the substance of what I said. Just a bunch of nonsense on the semantics of whether setting an agenda and putting your name on the bill that gets created thanks to that agenda qualifies as "ownership" errrr, "origination" of that bill.

HonestChieffan
06-18-2010, 01:16 PM
Try this jenson http://lib.law.washington.edu/ref/fedlegishist.html

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 01:16 PM
Owning up to what? What are you even talking about?

I wasn't born into your cushy situation. I was born into a mixed race household the son of two teenagers who angered their families by running off and doing something stupid. Macaroni, Spam, and powdered milk is what I remember eating as a kid. Not that I have any complaints. It's just that I wouldn't have gotten to the position that I am in in life if I shied away from challenging myself.

Say or think whatever you want about me. What does it matter to me? Go ahead and tell me how stupid you think I am. You think I'm going to believe you? You think I'm going to care?

I know who and what I am, and the journey that got me here.

Write a diary, instead. I don't care about whatever American Dream story you went through.

I never said you were stupid. On the contrary, I've said you were smarter than me. Your quote shows it.

I am curious about what you think my cushy situation was. Let's hear it. (It was pretty good, by the way, but I don't what 'cushy' should be like)

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 01:18 PM
Primary sources? What makes a source a "primary" source?

For modern history, periodicals from the time in question, and (what would really be nice here), speeches from the president, executive branch reports, and government documents from Congress.

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 01:20 PM
It wasn't necessarily a negative criticism. Just a prediction based upon lengthy observation. I don't have a dog in the Hoover hunt.

It was a good prediction. Anytime anyone posts something from mises.org or wsws.org, some flags need to go off, because of their known serious bias.

mlyonsd
06-18-2010, 01:22 PM
Stay focused, mylonsd. I'm personally not planning on doing any absolving of sins. I know my catechism well.

Just checking. Although JMO but I think any bill a president signs automatically gives him some ownership. I'd say when that happens it changes from 'his' (somebody in congress) bill to 'their' bill.

petegz28
06-18-2010, 01:23 PM
The Legacy of Hoover

http://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/redhookhooverville.png

petegz28
06-18-2010, 01:24 PM
Just checking. Although JMO but I think any bill a president signs automatically gives him some ownership. I'd say when that happens it changes from 'his' (somebody in congress) bill to 'their' bill.

There is a reason a President has veto powers, no?

mlyonsd
06-18-2010, 01:25 PM
There is a reason a President has veto powers, no?

Right. And if the veto is overriden then I think a president can honestly say it's not 'his' bill.

petegz28
06-18-2010, 01:26 PM
Right. And if the veto is overriden then I think a president can honestly say it's not 'his' bill.

I would have to agree with such a statement.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 01:37 PM
For modern history, periodicals from the time in question, and (what would really be nice here), speeches from the president, executive branch reports, and government documents from Congress.



Well in that case here you go, from the Hoover 1931 State of the Union (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22933) (Just prior to the 1932 Act):


...We must face a temporary increase in taxes. Such increase should not cover the whole of these deficits or it will retard recovery. We must partially finance the deficit by borrowing... Even with increased taxation, the Government will reach the utmost safe limit of its borrowing capacity by the expenditures for which we are already obligated and the recommendations here proposed. To go further than these limits in either expenditures, taxes, or borrowing will destroy confidence, denude commerce and industry of its resources, jeopardize the financial system, and actually extend unemployment and demoralize agriculture rather than relieve it...

orange
06-18-2010, 01:42 PM
I have no idea why this argument is going on, other than Jenson71 is entrenched in his original claim (? or was it a question) and can't extricate himself. Just let it go, man.

The point is that revenue bill was stupid, because balancing the budget during a recession is stupid. But the Mises alternative of cutting spending would have been even more stupid. The proper approach - as has been shown repeatedly in EVERY recession/slowdown since 1932 - is deficit spending.

petegz28
06-18-2010, 01:45 PM
I have no idea why this argument is going on, other than Jenson71 is entrenched in his original claim (? or was it a question) and can't extricate himself. Just let it go, man.

The point is that revenue bill was stupid, because balancing the budget during a recession is stupid. But the Mises alternative of cutting spending would have been even more stupid. The proper approach - as has been shown repeatedly in EVERY recession/slowdown since 1932 - is deficit spending.

Deficit spending is ok if two things happen..

1. It doesn't push the current debt levels to levels that cannot be managed
2. The spending is actually implemented in ways to have the desired effect

You can't just say deficit spending is the answer, then spend out the wazoo (technical term) on a bunch of bullshit that does nothing to stiumalte growth.

RaiderH8r
06-18-2010, 01:56 PM
Well in that case here you go, from the Hoover 1931 State of the Union (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22933) (Just prior to the 1932 Act):


...We must face a temporary increase in taxes. Such increase should not cover the whole of these deficits or it will retard recovery. We must partially finance the deficit by borrowing... Even with increased taxation, the Government will reach the utmost safe limit of its borrowing capacity by the expenditures for which we are already obligated and the recommendations here proposed. To go further than these limits in either expenditures, taxes, or borrowing will destroy confidence, denude commerce and industry of its resources, jeopardize the financial system, and actually extend unemployment and demoralize agriculture rather than relieve it...

The following day's Budget Message to Congress:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=22935&st=budget+message&st1=


TAXES

We are now face to face with a situation where for a time the current revenues of the Government under our existing laws have fallen below the amounts required to meet the absolutely necessary expenses. This brings the question directly before us of the course that shall be pursued. As already stated the deficit for the fiscal year 1931 is $902,000,000 and the estimated deficits for 1932, $2,123,000,000, and 1933, $1,417,000,000, or a total of $4,442,000,000, which, after deducting statutory debt redemptions and increased cash in the Treasury, show for these three fiscal years a total probable net increase in the national debt of $3,247,000,000. Rightly or wrongly our tax system is very largely based upon business profits and in consequence is subject to great variables.

We can not maintain public confidence nor stability of the Federal Government without undertaking some temporary tax increases. It is obviously impossible to impose a degree of taxation which will balance the Budget for the current fiscal year. We should endeavor by increase of taxes and rigid curtailment of expenditures to balance the Budget for the next fiscal year except to the extent of the amount required for statutory debt retirements. We should assure its balance, including statutory debt retirements, for the fiscal year following.

I recommend that Congress provide for an increase in taxation for a definite limited period and upon the general plan of taxation which existed under the revenue act of 1924 with such changes as may be appropriate in the light of altered conditions. The Secretary of the Treasury has prepared recommendations along these lines which he will present at the proper time. It is proposed that this increase shall be definitely terminated in two years from next July. This plan, it is estimated, will realize $920,000,000 next year and thus meet the above conditions of balancing the Budget for the fiscal year 1933 except for the statutory debt retirement. It would balance the Budget including debt retirement in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1933. It would provide about $390,000,000 for the current year, leaving us with the necessity of borrowing an amount which will represent a net increase in the public debt by about $1,320,000,000.

The plan of approximately reenacting the revenue act of 1924 has the great advantage that the Government is equipped by experience with similar legislation for its systematic and economical collection. The public has paid such taxes in the past and has found them not intolerable and has found that they do not prevent increased prosperity. By providing a definite date for termination of the temporary increase it will allow taxpayers to look forward to definite relief.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 02:03 PM
I have no idea why this argument is going on, other than Jenson71 is entrenched in his original claim (? or was it a question) and can't extricate himself. Just let it go, man.

The point is that revenue bill was stupid, because balancing the budget during a recession is stupid. But the Mises alternative of cutting spending would have been even more stupid. The proper approach - as has been shown repeatedly in EVERY recession/slowdown since 1932 - is deficit spending.


Ah yes... Hayek's "Hair of the Dog."

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0nERTFo-Sk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/d0nERTFo-Sk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Taco John
06-18-2010, 02:50 PM
I have no idea why this argument is going on, other than Jenson71 is entrenched in his original claim (? or was it a question) and can't extricate himself. Just let it go, man.

The point is that revenue bill was stupid, because balancing the budget during a recession is stupid. But the Mises alternative of cutting spending would have been even more stupid. The proper approach - as has been shown repeatedly in EVERY recession/slowdown since 1932 - is deficit spending.

You would be right if the only plan was to cut spending... But you forgot an important variable in the equation: slashing taxes (and thus increasing savings, and thus creating capital).

Chiefspants
06-18-2010, 03:10 PM
Hoover was not a progressive, in fact, one of his biggest beliefs was that individuals should never receive direct help from the federal government. This idea is highlighted when it is seen that Hoover tried to combat the Depression by indirectly aiding the people.

However, as ridiculous as it is to say that Hoover is a progressive, it is even more ridiculous to say that Hoover caused the Depression after one year in office. The Great Depression was destined to hit the United States from our reckless policies of the 1920's. With little regulation and over speculation, a crash was going to happen no matter who was in office. It is for this reason that I believe that Hoover's image has been been treated unfairly when gazed upon in the pages of history.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 03:36 PM
Hoover was not a progressive....



Book: Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive (http://www.amazon.com/Herbert-Hoover-Joan-Hoff-Wilson/dp/0881337056)

Article:
The Presidency of Herbert Hoover: A Progressive Presidency Mired by a Great Depression (http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_presidency_of_herbert_hoover)

Video: Herbert Hoover was a Progressive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGjSoiZJEkA)

Article: Herbert Hoover: The Progressive Interventionist (http://kalapanapundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/herbert-hoover-progressive.html)

Wikipedia: The Efficiency Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_Movement) was a major dimension of the Progressive Era in the United States... and the most prominent figure was Herbert Hoover

Chiefspants
06-18-2010, 03:48 PM
Book: Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive (http://www.amazon.com/Herbert-Hoover-Joan-Hoff-Wilson/dp/0881337056)

Article:
The Presidency of Herbert Hoover: A Progressive Presidency Mired by a Great Depression (http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_presidency_of_herbert_hoover)

Video: Herbert Hoover was a Progressive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGjSoiZJEkA)

Article: Herbert Hoover: The Progressive Interventionist (http://kalapanapundit.blogspot.com/2009/10/herbert-hoover-progressive.html)

Wikipedia: The Efficiency Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_Movement) was a major dimension of the Progressive Era in the United States... and the most prominent figure was Herbert Hoover


Just because Hoover supported a single element of the Progressive movement does not mean he was a progressive. The equivalent is saying that Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend liberal because of his 1984 increase in energy taxes and his out of control deficit. But whether you want to label Hoover as a progressive is neither here nor there, because we find that overall, Hoover wanted to keep the government out of the economy, wanted to use government to aid business, and he attempted solve the great depression by giving aid to businesses, not to the people.

Looking at this, we can see that even if you want to label him as a progressive, it's foolish to pretend as if Hoover was not a conservative.

orange
06-18-2010, 03:49 PM
Herbert Hoover's 1959 statement to the Board of Trustees of Stanford University on the purpose and scope of the Hoover Institution continues to guide and define its mission in the twenty-first century:

"This Institution supports the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights and its method of representative government. Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise from which springs initiative and ingenuity.... Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves.... The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man's endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life. This Institution is not, and must not be, a mere library. But with these purposes as its goal, the Institution itself must constantly and dynamically point the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards of the American system."

orange
06-18-2010, 03:51 PM
Looking at this, we can see that even if you want to label him as a progressive, it's foolish to pretend as if Hoover was not a conservative.

Keep in mind you're talking to someone who thinks G. W. Bush was a leftist.

At least he hasn't called Hoover a "socialist" ... yet.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 03:54 PM
Just because Hoover supported a single element of the Progressive movement does not mean he was a progressive. The equivalent is saying that Ronald Reagan was a tax and spend liberal because of his 1984 increase in energy taxes and his out of control deficit. But whether you want to label Hoover as a progressive is neither here nor there, because we find that overall, Hoover wanted to keep the government out of the economy, wanted to use government to aid business, and he attempted solve the great depression by giving aid to businesses, not to the people.

Looking at this, we can see that even if you want to label him as a progressive, it's foolish to pretend as if Hoover was not a conservative.

I don't care what he wanted to do. We aren't what we want to do. We are what we actually do. Herbert Hoover governed as a progressive, and it was hardly by a single element.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 03:58 PM
Herbert Hoover as the Pardigmatic Progressive-liberal

Most people who have not read a biography of Herbert Hoover do not know that he was among the most assertive of the Progressives, and in many ways his ideas set the tone for much of progressive-liberalism in the eight decades that have ensued since his election to president...

...What made Hoover the prototypical Progressive-liberal was his belief (1) that rational planning guided by the state rather than markets can best solve problems and (2) that the state's role includes the positive inculcation of moral belief...

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/05/herbert-hoover-as-pardigmatic.html

Jenson71
06-18-2010, 04:13 PM
I have no idea why this argument is going on, other than Jenson71 is entrenched in his original claim (? or was it a qu

Post 5: clear question.

Taco John
06-18-2010, 06:15 PM
What's the deal here anyways? Let's talk about Hoover, and then Direckshun has nothing to say about Hoover?

BucEyedPea
06-18-2010, 06:23 PM
Keep in mind you're talking to someone who thinks G. W. Bush was a leftist.
Bush was a leftist. Just not as leftist as your guys or you.

At least he hasn't called Hoover a "socialist" ... yet.

An economic interventionist.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2010, 06:25 PM
Deficit spending is ok if two things happen..

1. It doesn't push the current debt levels to levels that cannot be managed
2. The spending is actually implemented in ways to have the desired effect

You can't just say deficit spending is the answer, then spend out the wazoo (technical term) on a bunch of bullshit that does nothing to stiumalte growth.

This is progressivism here too. It's a reiteration of Keynesian economics which relies on govt central planning such as deficit spending to create a "desired effect." Or shall I say manipulated outcomes.

BucEyedPea
06-18-2010, 06:28 PM
The point is that revenue bill was stupid, because balancing the budget during a recession is stupid. But the Mises alternative of cutting spending would have been even more stupid. The proper approach - as has been shown repeatedly in EVERY recession/slowdown since 1932 - is deficit spending.

In your opinion it was stupid. Every recession since 1932....but which just created another new boom followed by another bust. Now let's look at the depression we never hear much about a decade earlier: It lasted a year because there was no govt intervention or little. We'd have been out of this collapse by about 6 months ago if the bad debt was allowed to be liquidated and the those too big to fail were allowed to fail.

Progressives HATE a laissez-faire approach because it punishes all the right people.

The TRUTH will set us free.

Chiefspants
06-18-2010, 08:59 PM
I don't care what he wanted to do. We aren't what we want to do. We are what we actually do. Herbert Hoover governed as a progressive, and it was hardly by a single element.

Uh, to the contrary I would say that while Hoover may have campaigned as a Progressive, his actions to aid business during the Great Depression confirm that he was true to business at heart.

Perhaps Hoover made some policy decisions which seemed progressive during the Great Depression, however, I would compare this to Bush passing the Bailout at the end of his term. Do you honestly believe Bush would have done that at the beginning of his term?

Taco John
06-19-2010, 02:52 AM
Yes.

Calcountry
06-19-2010, 05:25 PM
Is this the historical tack you're going to take here? Since the HC bill originated with Obama, all bills must originate with the standing president.All this time, I thought it must originate with a sitting president. Dang it, thanks for the education.

Calcountry
06-19-2010, 05:32 PM
I have no idea why this argument is going on, other than Jenson71 is entrenched in his original claim (? or was it a question) and can't extricate himself. Just let it go, man.

The point is that revenue bill was stupid, because balancing the budget during a recession is stupid. But the Mises alternative of cutting spending would have been even more stupid. The proper approach - as has been shown repeatedly in EVERY recession/slowdown since 1932 - is deficit spending.All debt, that doesn't move the production possiblity curve outward, is inneficient and in the end will lead to eroded purchasing power.

For instance, it would be smart for a contractor to take on a modest amount of debt buying tools that will enable him to do twice as many jobs as he could otherwise. The marginal income received from the increased revenue streams from the resulting debt will more than offset the repayment of the debt.

Debt to pay government union workers a larger salary to do exactly the same thing they were doing yesterday, is inneficient, and will not increase productivity at all. In fact, it is likely to boost their fat arrogant egos enough to demand even more next time. The shirking goes on, not an extra ounce of goods and services are provided to the economy at large as a result of said debt. No good, this kind of debt.

banyon
06-20-2010, 12:12 PM
Herbert Hoover as the Pardigmatic Progressive-liberal

Most people who have not read a biography of Herbert Hoover do not know that he was among the most assertive of the Progressives, and in many ways his ideas set the tone for much of progressive-liberalism in the eight decades that have ensued since his election to president...

...What made Hoover the prototypical Progressive-liberal was his belief (1) that rational planning guided by the state rather than markets can best solve problems and (2) that the state's role includes the positive inculcation of moral belief...

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/05/herbert-hoover-as-pardigmatic.html

The desperation in this historical revisionism is palpable.

Other than this one tax bill, which MisesRockwell.com alleges (but does not verify) is one of the biggest tax increases in history, what other major "progressive' legislation did Hoover spearhead?

Even George HW Bush signed a tax bill when revenues were down, but it's sheer lunacy to label him as a socialist/progressive. Buth then again when we are working with vague/vapid definition of those terms like "people who do stuff I don't like" then it's not surprising that someone like Hoover gets misidentified.

This is someone who was lampooned and ridiculed for his refusal to act. People mocked his "prosperity is just around the corner" language as naive. The point was that people should wait (LAISSEZ FAIRE-STYLE) for things to improve, not that he was about to implement some massive New Deal styled stimulus. "Hoovervilles" were a commentary on Hoover not doing anything, which is what you usually advocate in these situations, they weren't a commentary on how his huge government programs were somehow putting people in shanty towns.


But you and the queen of ahistoria seem determined, no matter what the situation to make the square facts of history fit into the libertarian round holes. It's laughable that this passes for historical understanding.

The fact that you don't know the difference between a primary source and a secondary source without Jenson telling you underscores the paucity of historical understanding. That was a distinction I learned in my high school history class for f*cks sake.

banyon
06-20-2010, 12:17 PM
In your opinion it was stupid. Every recession since 1932....but which just created another new boom followed by another bust. Now let's look at the depression we never hear much about a decade earlier: It lasted a year because there was no govt intervention or little. We'd have been out of this collapse by about 6 months ago if the bad debt was allowed to be liquidated and the those too big to fail were allowed to fail.

Progressives HATE a laissez-faire approach because it punishes all the right people.

The TRUTH will set us free.

Booms and busts occurred prior to 1932 as well. In fact 1920-29 was the biggest boom/bust cycle. But we used to have panics, haven't heard that term lately. But the point of Keynesian fiscal/monetary policy was to smooth out the roughness of booms and busts, which it has. The only problem is that governments have been loath to implement the 2nd part of the smoothing mechanism, which is to taper off the boom by paying back the deficit borrowing. There's no electoral incentive to do so with our 2/4 year election cycle.

Chiefspants
06-20-2010, 12:46 PM
The desperation in this historical revisionism is palpable.

Other than this one tax bill, which MisesRockwell.com alleges (but does not verify) is one of the biggest tax increases in history, what other major "progressive' legislation did Hoover spearhead?

Even George HW Bush signed a tax bill when revenues were down, but it's sheer lunacy to label him as a socialist/progressive. Buth then again when we are working with vague/vapid definition of those terms like "people who do stuff I don't like" then it's not surprising that someone like Hoover gets misidentified.

This is someone who was lampooned and ridiculed for his refusal to act. People mocked his "prosperity is just around the corner" language as naive. The point was that people should wait (LAISSEZ FAIRE-STYLE) for things to improve, not that he was about to implement some massive New Deal styled stimulus. "Hoovervilles" were a commentary on Hoover not doing anything, which is what you usually advocate in these situations, they weren't a commentary on how his huge government programs were somehow putting people in shanty towns.


But you and the queen of ahistoria seem determined, no matter what the situation to make the square facts of history fit into the libertarian round holes. It's laughable that this passes for historical understanding.

The fact that you don't know the difference between a primary source and a secondary source without Jenson telling you underscores the paucity of historical understanding. That was a distinction I learned in my high school history class for f*cks sake.

No one cares what you learned in your communist public school system.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2010, 07:48 PM
No one cares what you learned in your communist public school system.

You're finally getting it. :clap: :D

Taco John
06-20-2010, 08:06 PM
The desperation in this historical revisionism is palpable.


Desperation? Funny that you're the one spitting and swearing.

Taco John
06-20-2010, 08:08 PM
Hoover was a progressive. Sorry if you progressives want to change history to try to distance yourselves from him, but I don't care about that. Facts are facts, and history is history.

Mitchell Langbert explained it very well:

"What made Hoover the prototypical Progressive-liberal was his belief (1) that rational planning guided by the state rather than markets can best solve problems and (2) that the state's role includes the positive inculcation of moral belief."

BucEyedPea
06-20-2010, 08:10 PM
Desperation? Funny that you're the one spitting and swearing.

Good observation. :clap: Mention the words free and market in one thread and watch what happens.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2010, 08:11 PM
Hoover was a progressive. Sorry if you progressives want to change history to try to distance yourselves from him, but I don't care about that. Facts are facts, and history is history.

Mitchell Langbert explained it very well:

"What made Hoover the prototypical Progressive-liberal was his belief (1) that rational planning guided by the state rather than markets can best solve problems and (2) that the state's role includes the positive inculcation of moral belief."

Like Orwell said, abuse of language plays a role in changing society over. Newspeak and Doublethink.

banyon
06-20-2010, 08:19 PM
Hoover was a progressive. Sorry if you progressives want to change history to try to distance yourselves from him, but I don't care about that. Facts are facts, and history is history.

Mitchell Langbert explained it very well:

"What made Hoover the prototypical Progressive-liberal was his belief (1) that rational planning guided by the state rather than markets can best solve problems and (2) that the state's role includes the positive inculcation of moral belief."

Sorry, stating it doesn't make it so. Remember Jenson's lessons on primary and secondary sources? Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with what Hoover actually SAID and DID.

orange
06-20-2010, 08:21 PM
Desperation? Funny that you're the one spitting and swearing.

Mitchell Lambert

Who???

I had thought I could make a difference with respect to the trajectory on which the nation is traveling, but I cannot. Political activity is a waste of time.

When the United States falls, there will be a push for greater centralization. I do not think that the American public is spiritually or intellectually prepared to resist this last incursion on their liberty. America has become a nation of serfs. It will continue its descent into national slavery. Political activity or debate is powerless now. Insane extremists are in charge, and Americans have acquiesced.

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/


Now THAT'S DESPERATION.

Direckshun
06-20-2010, 08:34 PM
It'd be nice for TJ to take on banyon's lengthy post head-on rather than dance around it.

banyon
06-20-2010, 08:38 PM
This campaign now draws near to a close. The platforms of the two

parties defining principles and offering solutions of various national

problems have been presented and are being earnestly considered by our

people.

After four months' debate it is not the Republican Party which finds

reason for abandonment of any of the principles it has laid down or of

the views it has expressed for solution of the problems before the

country. The principles to which it adheres are rooted deeply in the

foundations of our national life and the solutions which it proposed

are based on experience with government and a consciousness that it

may have the responsibility for placing those solutions into action.

In my acceptance speech I endeavored to outline the spirit and ideals

with which I would propose to carry that platform into administration.

Tonight, I will not deal with the multitude of issues which have been

already well canvassed, I propose rather to discuss some of those more

fundamental principles and ideals upon which I believe the Government of

the United States should be conducted.



Before I enter upon that discussion of principles I wish to lay before

you the proof of progress under Republican rule. In doing this I do not

need to review its seventy years of constructive history. That history

shows that the Republican party has ever been a party of progress. It

has reflected the spirit of the American people. We are a progressive

people. Our history of 150 years in the greatest epic of human

progress. Tonight to demonstrate the constructive character of our

Party, I need only briefly picture the advance of fundamental progress

during the past seven and a half years since we took over the Government

amidst the ruin of war.



First of all, let me deal with the material side. I do this because

upon the well-being, comfort and security of the American home do we

build up the moral and spiritual virtues as well as the finer flowers of

civilization and the wider satisfactions of life.



As a nation we came out of the war with great losses. We made no

profits from it. The apparent increases in wages were fictitious. We

were poorer as a nation when we emerged from it. Yet during these last

eight years we have recovered from these losses and increased our

national income by over one-third even if we discount the inflation of

the dollar. While some individuals have grown rich, yet that there has

been a wide diffusion of our gain in wealth and income is marked by a

hundred proofs. I know of no better test of the improved conditions of

the average family than the combined increase of life and industrial

insurance, building and loan assets, and savings deposits. These are

the financial agents of the average man. These alone have in seven

years increased by nearly 100 per cent to the gigantic sum of over 50

billions of dollars, or nearly one-six of our whole national wealth. In

addition to these evidences of larger savings our people are steadily

increasing their spending for higher standards of living. Today there

are almost 9 automobiles for each 10 families, where seven and a half

years ago only enough automobiles were running to average less than 4

for each 10 families. The slogan of progress is changing from the full

dinner pail to the full garage. Our people have more to eat, better

things to wear, and better homes. We have even gained in elbow room in

our homes, for the increase of residential floor space is over 25 per

cent with less than 10 per cent increase in our number of people. We

have increased the security of his job to every man and woman. We have

decreased the fear of old age, the fear of poverty, the fear of

unemployment and these are fears which have always been amongst the

greatest calamities of human kind.



All this progress means far more than greater creature comforts. It

finds a thousand interpretations into a greater and fuller life. In all

this we have steadily reduced the sweat in human labor. A score of new

helps save the drudgery of the home. In seven years we have added 25

per cent more electric power to the elbow of every worker, and farther

promoted him from a carrier of burdens to a director of machines. Our

hours of labor are lessened; our leisure has increased. We have

expanded our parks and playgrounds. We have nearly doubled our

attendance at games. We pour into outdoor recreation in every

direction. The visitors at our national parks have trebled and we have

so increased the number of sportsmen fishing in our streams and lakes

that the longer time between bites is becoming a political issue. In

these seven and one-half years the radio has brought music and laughter,

education and political discussion to almost every fireside.



Springing from our prosperity with its greater freedom, its vast

endowment of scientific research and the greater resources with which to

care for public health, we have according to our insurance actuaries

during this short period since the war lengthened the span of life by

nearly eight years. We have reduced infant mortality, we have vastly

decreased the days of illness and suffering in the life of every man and

woman. We have improved the facilities for the care of the crippled and

helpless and deranged.



From our increasing resources we have expanded our educational system in

eight years from an outlay of 1,200 millions to 2,700 millions of

dollars. The education of our youth has become almost the largest and

certainly our most important activity. From our ability to free youth

from toil we have increased the attendance in our grade schools by 14

per cent, in our high schools by 80 per cent, and in institutions of

higher learning by 95 per cent. Today we have more youth in these

institutions of higher learning twice over than all the rest of the

world put together. We have made progress in literature, art and in

public taste.



I do not need to recite more figures and more evidence. There is not a

person within the sound of my voice that does not know the profound

progress which our country has made in this period. Every man and woman

knows that their comfort, their hopes and their confidence for the

future are higher this day than they were seven and one-half years ago.



Your city has been an outstanding beneficiary of this great progress.

With its suburbs it has, during the last seven and a half years grown by

over a million and a half of people, until it has become the largest

metropolitan district of all the world. Here you have made abundant

opportunity not only for the youth of the land but for the immigrant

from foreign shores. This city is the commercial center of the United

States. It is the commercial agent of the American people. It is a

great organism of specialized skill and leadership in finance, industry

and commerce, which reaches every spot in our country. Its progress and

its beauty are the pride of the whole American people. It leads our

nation in the largest size of its benevolences, in art, in music,

literature and drama. It has come to have a greater voice, than any

other city in the United States.



But when all is said and done the very life, progress and prosperity of

this city is wholly dependent on the prosperity of the 110,000,000

people who dwell in our mountains and valleys across the 3,000 miles to

the Pacific Ocean. Every activity of this city is sensitive to every

evil and every favorable tide that sweeps this great nation of ours. Be

there a slackening of industry in any part of the country it affects New

York far more than the rest of the country. In a time of depression

one-quarter of all the unemployed in the United States can be numbered

in this city. In a time of prosperity the citizens of the great

interior of our country pour into your city for business and

entertainment at the rate of 200,000 a day. In fact so much is this

city the reflex of the varied interests of our country that the concern

of every one of your citizens for national stability, for national

prosperity and for national progress is far greater than any other

single part of our country.



CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROGRESS



It detracts nothing from the character and energy of the American

people, it minimizes in no degree the quality of their accomplishments

to say that the policies of the Republican Party have played a large

part in the building of this progress of these last seven and one-half

years. I can say with emphasis that without the wise policies which the

Republican Party has brought into action in this period, no such

progress would have been possible.



The first responsibility of the Republican Administration was to renew

the march of progress from its collapse by the war. That task involved

the restoration of confidence in the future and the liberation and

stimulation of the constructive energies of our people. It is not my

purpose to enter upon a detailed recitation of the history of the great

constructive measures of the past seven and a half years.



It is sufficient to remind you of the restoration of employment to the

millions who walked your streets in idleness to remind you of the

creation of the budget system; the reduction of six billions of national

debt which gave the impulse of that vast sum returned to industry and

commerce; the four sequent reductions of taxes and thereby the lift to

the living of every family; the enactment of an adequate protective

tariff and immigration laws which have raised and safeguarded our wages

from floods of goods or labor from foreign countries; the creation of

credit facilities and many aids to agriculture; the building up of

foreign trade; the care of veterans, the development of aviation, of

radio, of our inland waterways, our highways; the expansion of

scientific research, of welfare activities, safer highways, safer mines,

outdoor recreation, in better homes, in public health and the care of

children. Nor do I need remind you that Government today deals with an

economic and social system vastly more intricate and delicately adjusted

than ever before. It now must be kept in perfect tune if we would not,

through dislocation, have a breakdown in employment and in standards of

living of our people. The Government has come to more and more touch

this delicate web at a thousand points. Yearly the relations of

Government to national prosperity becomes more and more intimate. It

has only by keen large vision and cooperation by the Government that

stability in business and stability in employment has been maintained

during this past seven and a half years. Never has there been a period

when the Federal Government has given such aid and impulse to the

progress of our people, not alone to economic progress but to

development of those agencies which make for moral and spiritual

progress.



But in addition to this great record of contributions of the Republican

Party to progress, there has been a further fundamental contribution --

a contribution perhaps more important than all the others -- and that is

the resistance of the Republican Party to every attempt to inject the

Government into business in competition with its citizens.



After the war, when the Republican Party assumed administration of the

country, we were faced with the problem of determination of the very

nature of our national life. Over 150 years we have builded up a form

of self-government and we had builded up a social system which is

peculiarly our own. It differs fundamentally from all others in the

world. It is the American system. It is just as definite and positive

a political and social system as has ever been developed on earth. It

is founded upon the conception that self-government can be preserved

only by decentralization of Government in the State and by fixing local

responsibility; but further than this, it is founded upon the social

conception that only through ordered liberty, freedom and equal

opportunity to the individual will his initiative and enterprise drive

the march of progress.



During the war we necessarily turned to the Government to solve every

difficult economic problem -- the Government having absorbed every

energy of our people to war there was no other solution. For the

preservation of the State the Government became a centralized despotism

which undertook responsibilities, assumed powers, exercised rights, and

took over the business of citizens. To large degree we regimented our

whole people temporarily into a socialistic state. However justified it

was in time of war if continued in peace time it would destroy not only

our system but progress and freedom in our own country and throughout

the world. When the war closed the most vital of all issues was whether

Governments should continue war ownership and operation of many

instrumentalities of production and distribution. We were challenged

with the choice of the American system of rugged individualism or the

choice of a European system of diametrically opposed doctrines --

doctrines of paternalism and state socialism. The acceptance of these

ideas meant the destruction of self-government through centralization of

government; it meant the undermining of initiative and enterprise upon

which our people have grown to unparalleled greatness.



The Democratic administration cooperated with the Republican Party to

demobilize many of her activities and the Republican Party from the

beginning of its period of power resolutely turned its face away from

these ideas and these war practices, back to our fundamental conception

of the state and the rights and responsibilities of the individual.

Thereby it restored confidence and hope in the American people, it freed

and stimulated enterprise, it restored the Government to its position as

an umpire instead of a player in the economic game. For these reasons

the American people have gone forward in progress while the rest of the

world is halting and some countries have even gone backwards. If anyone

will study the causes which retarded recuperation of Europe, he will

find much of it due to the stifling of private initiative on one hand,

and overloading of the Government with business on the other.



I regret, however, to say that there has been revived in this campaign a

proposal which would be a long step to the abandonment of our American

system, to turn to the idea of government in business. Because we are

faced with difficulty and doubt over certain national problems which we

are faced -- that is prohibition, farm relief and electrical power --

our opponents propose that we must to some degree thrust government into

these businesses and in effect adopt state socialism as a solution.



There is, therefore submitted to the American people the question --

Shall we depart from the American system and start upon a new road. And

I wish to emphasize this question on this occasion. I wish to make

clear my position on the principles involved for they go to the very

roots of American life in every act of our Government. I should like to

state to you the effect of the extension of government into business

upon our system of self government and our economic system. But even

more important is the effect upon the average man. That is the effect

on the very basis of liberty and freedom not only to those left outside

the fold of expanded bureaucracy but to those embraced within it.



When the Federal Government undertakes a business, the state governments

are at once deprived of control and taxation of that business; when the

state government undertakes a business it at once deprived the

municipalities of taxation and control of that business. Business

requires centralization; self government requires decentralization. Our

government to succeed in business must become in effect a despotism.

There is thus at once an insidious destruction of self government.



Moreover there is a limit to human capacity in administration.

Particularly is there a limit to the capacity of legislative bodies to

supervise governmental activities. Every time the Federal Government

goes into business 530 Senators and Congressmen become the Board of

Directors of that business. Every time a state government goes into

business 100 or 200 state senators and assemblymen become directors of

that business. Even if they were supermen, no bodies of such numbers

can competently direct that type of human activities which requires

instant decision and action. No such body can deal adequately with all

sections of the country. And yet if we would preserve government by the

people we must preserve the authority of our legislators over the

activities of our Government. We have trouble enough with log rolling

in legislative bodies today. It originates naturally from desires of

citizens to advance their particular section or to secure some necessary

service. It would be multiplied a thousand-fold were the Federal and

state governments in these businesses.



The effect upon our economic progress would be even worse. Business

progressiveness is dependent on competition. New methods and new ideas

are the outgrowth of the spirit of adventure of individual initiative

and of individual enterprise. Without adventure there is no progress.

No government administration can rightly speculate and take risks with

taxpayers' money. But even more important than this -- leadership in

business must be through the sheer rise of ability and character. That

rise can take place only in the free atmosphere of competition.

Competition is closed by bureaucracy. Certainly political choice is a

feeble basis for choice of leaders to conduct a business.

banyon
06-20-2010, 08:38 PM
There is no better example of the practical incompetence of government

to conduct business than the history of our railways. Our railways in

the year before being freed from Government operation were not able to

meet the demands for transportation. Eight years later we find our them

under private enterprise, transporting 15 per cent more goods and

meeting every demand for service. Rates have been reduced by 15 per

cent and net earnings increased from less than 1 per cent on their

valuation to about 5 per cent. Wages of employees have improved by 13

per cent. The wages of railway employees are 2 per cent above pre-war.

The wages of Government employees are today . . . will check their

figure definitely tomorrow but probably about 70% per cent above pre-

war. That should be a sufficient sermon upon the efficiency of

Government operation.



But we can examine this question from the point of view of the person

who gets a Government job and is admitted into the new bureaucracy.

Upon that subject let me quote from a speech of that great leader of

labor, Samuel Gompers, delivered in Montreal in 1920, a few years before

his death. He said:



"I believe there is no man to whom I would take second position in my

loyalty to the Republic of the United States, and yet I would not give

it more power over the individual citizenship of our country. . . .



"It is a question of whether it shall be Government ownership or private

ownership under control. . . . If I were in the minority of one in this

convention, I would want to cast my vote so that the men of labor shall

not willingly enslave themselves to Government authority in their

industrial effort for freedom. . . .



"Let the future tell the story of who is right or who is wrong; who has

stood for freedom and who has been willing to submit their fate

industrially to the Government."




I would amplify Mr. Gompers' statement. These great bodies of

Government employees would either comprise political machines at the

disposal of the party in power, or alternatively to prevent this the

Government by stringent civil-service rules must debar its employees

from their full rights as free men. If it would keep employees out of

politics, its rules must strip them of all right to expression of

opinion. It is easy to conceive that they might become so large a body

as by their votes to dictate to the Government and their political

rights need be further reduced. It must strip them of the liberty to

bargain for their own wages, for no Government employee can strike

against his Government and thus the whole people. It makes a

legislative body with all its political currents their final employer.

That bargaining does not rest upon economic need or economic strength

but on political potency.



But what of those who are outside the bureaucracy? What is the effect

upon their lives of the Government on business and these hundreds of

thousands more officials?



At once their opportunities in life are limited because a large area of

activities are removed from their participation. Further the Government

does not tolerate amongst its customers the freedom of competitive

reprisals to which private corporations are subject. Bureaucracy does

not spread the spirit of independence; it spreads the spirit of

submission into our daily life, penetrates the temper of our people; not

with the habit of powerful resistance to wrong, but with the habit of

timid acceptance of the irresistible might.



Bureaucracy is ever desirous of spreading its influence and its power.

You cannot give to a government the mastery of the daily working life of

a people without at the same time giving it mastery of the peoples'

souls and thoughts. Every expansion of government means that government

in order to protect itself from political consequences of its errors and

wrongs is driven onward and onward without peace to greater and greater

control of the country's press and platform. Free speech does not live

many hours after free industry and free commerce die.



It is false liberalism that interprets itself into the Government

operation of business. The bureaucratization of our country would

poison the very roots of liberalism that is free speech, free assembly,

free press, political equality and equality of opportunity. It is the

road, not to more liberty, but to less liberty. Liberalism should be

found not striving to spread bureaucracy, but striving to set bounds to

it. True liberalism seeks freedom first in the confident belief that

without freedom the pursuit of all other blessings and benefits is vain.

That belief is the foundation of all American progress, political as

well as economic.



Liberalism is a force truly of the spirit, a force proceeding from the

deep realization that economic freedom cannot be sacrificed if political

freedom is to be preserved. Even if governmental conduct of business

could give us more efficiency instead of giving us decreased efficiency,

the fundamental objection to it would remain unaltered and unabated. It

would destroy political equality. It would cramp and cripple mental and

spiritual energies of our people. It would dry up the spirit of liberty

and progress. It would extinguish equality of opportunity, and for

these reasons fundamentally and primarily it must be resisted. For a

hundred and fifty years liberalism has found its true spirit in the

American system, not in the European systems.



I do not wish to be misunderstood in this statement. I am defining a

general policy! It does not mean that our government is to part with

one iota of its national resources without complete protection to the

public interest. I have already stated that where the government is

engaged in public works for purposes of flood control, of navigation, of

irrigation, of scientific research or national defense that, or in

pioneering a new art, it will at times necessarily produce power or

commodities as a by-product. But they must be by-products, not the

major purpose.



Nor do I wish to be misinterpreted as believing that the United States

is free-for-all and the devil-take-the-hindmost. The very essence of

equality of opportunity is that there shall be no domination by any

group or trust or combination in this republic, whether it be business

or political. It demands economic justice as well as political and

social justice. It is no system to laissez faire.

There is but one consideration in testing these proposals -- that is

public interest. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who advocate

these methods of solving our problems. I believe they will give equal

credit to our honesty. If I believed that the adoption of such

proposals would decrease taxes, cure abuses or corruption, would produce

better service, decrease rates or benefit employees; If I believed they

would bring economic equality, would stimulate endeavor, would encourage

invention and support individual initiative, would provide equality of

opportunity; If I believed that these proposals would not wreck our

democracy but would strengthen the foundations of social and spiritual

progress in America -- or if they would do a few of these things -- then

I would not hesitate to accept these proposals, stupendous as they are,

even though such acceptance would result in the governmental operation

of all our power and the buying and selling of the products of our farms

or any other product. But it is not true that such benefits would

result to the public. The contrary would be true.



I feel deeply on this subject because during the war I had some

practical experience with governmental operation and control. I have

witnessed not only at home but abroad the many failures of government in

business. I have seen its tyrannies, its injustices, its undermining of

the very instincts which carry our people forward to progress. I have

witnessed the lack of advance, the lowered standards of living, the

depressed spirits of people working under such a system. My objection

is based not upon theory or upon a failure to recognize wrong or abuse

but because I know that the adoption of such methods would strike at the

very roots of American life and would destroy the very basis of American

progress.



Our people have the right to know whether we can continue to solve our

great problems without abandonment of our American system. I know we

can. We have demonstrated that our system is responsive enough to meet

any new and intricate development in our economic and business life. We

have demonstrated that we can maintain our democracy as master in its

own house and that we can preserve equality of opportunity and

individual freedom.

In the last fifty years we have discovered that mass production will

produce articles for us at half the cost that obtained previously. We

have seen the resultant growth of large units of production and

distribution. This is big business. Business must be bigger for our

tools are bigger, our country is bigger. We build a single dynamo of a

hundred thousand horsepower. Even fifteen years ago that would have

been a big business all by itself. Yet today advance in production

requires that we set ten of these units together.



Our great problem is to make certain that while we maintain the fullest

use of the large units of business yet that they shall be held

subordinate to the public interest. The American people from bitter

experience have a rightful fear that these great units might be used to

dominate our industrial life and by illegal and unethical practices

destroy equality of opportunity. Years ago the Republican

Administration established the principle that such evils could be

corrected by regulation. It developed methods by which abuses could be

prevented and yet the full value of economic advance retained for the

public. It insisted that when great public utilities were clothed with

the security of part monopoly, whether it be railways, power plants,

telephones or what not, then there must be the fullest and most complete

control of rates, services, and finances by governmental agencies.

These businesses must be conducted with glass pockets. In the

development of our great production industry, the Republican Party

insisted upon the enactment of a law that not only would maintain

competition but would destroy conspiracies to dominate and limit the

equality of opportunity amongst our people.



One of the great problems of government is to determine to what extent

the Government itself shall interfere with commerce and industry and how

much it shall leave to individual exertion. It is just as important

that business keep out of government as that government keep out of

business. No system is perfect. We have had abuses in the conduct of

business that every good citizen resents. But I insist that the results

show our system better than any other and retains the essentials of

freedom...

As a result of our distinctly American system our country has become the

land of opportunity to those born without inheritance not merely because

of the wealth of its resources and industry but because of this freedom

of initiative and enterprise. Russia has natural resources equal to

ours. Her people are equally industrious but she has not had the

blessings of 150 years of our form of government and of our social

system. The wisdom of our forefathers in their conception that progress

must be the sum of the progress of free individuals has been reenforced

by all of the great leaders of the country since that day. Jackson,

Lincoln, Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt, Wilson, and Coolidge have stood

unalterably for these principles. By adherence to the principles of

decentralization, self-government, ordered liberty, and opportunity and

freedom to the individual our American experiment has yielded a degree

of well-being unparalleled in all the world. It has come nearer to the

abolition of poverty, to the abolition of fear of want that humanity has

ever reached before. Progress of the past seven years is the proof of

it. It furnishes an answer to those who would ask us to abandon the

system by which this has been accomplished.



There is a still further road to progress which is consonant with our

American system -- a method that reinforces our individualism by

reducing, not increasing, Government interference in business.



In this country we have developed a higher sense of cooperation than has

ever been known before. This has come partly as the result of

stimulation during the war, partly from the impulses of industry itself.

We have ten thousand examples of this cooperative tendency in the

enormous growth of the associational activities during recent years.

Chambers of commerce, trade associations, professional associations,

labor unions, trade councils, civic associations, farm cooperatives --

these are all so embracing that there is scarcely an individual in our

country who does not belong to one or more of them. They represent

every phase of our national life both on the economic and the welfare

side. They represent a vast ferment toward conscious cooperation.

While some of them are selfish and narrow, the majority of them

recognize a responsibility to the public as well as to their own

interest.



The government in its obligation to the public can through skilled

specialists cooperate with these various associations for the

accomplishment of high public purposes. And this cooperation can take

two distinct directions. The first is in the promotion of constructive

projects of public interest, such as the elimination of waste in

industry, the stabilization of business and development of scientific

research. It can contribute to reducing unemployment and seasonal

employment. It can by organized cooperation assist and promote great

movements for better homes, for child welfare and for recreation.



The second form that this cooperation can take is in the cure of abuses

and the establishment of a higher code of ethics and a more strict

standard in its conduct of business. One test of our economic and

social system is its capacity to cure its own abuses. New abuses and

new relationships to the public interest will occur as long as we

continue to progress. If we are to be wholly dependent upon government

to cure every evil we shall by this very method have created an enlarged

and deadening abuse through the extension of bureaucracy and the clumsy

and incapable handling of delicate economic forces. And much abuse has

been and can be cured by inspiration and cooperation, rather than by

regulation of the government.



Nor is this any idealistic proposal. For the last seven years the

Department of Commerce has carried this into practice in hundreds of

directions and every single accomplishment of this character minimizes

the necessity for government interference with business.



All this is possible because of the cooperative spirit and ability at

team play in the American people. There is here a fundamental relief

from the necessity of extension of the government into every avenue of

business and welfare and therefore a powerful implement for the

promotion of progress.



I wish to say something more on what I believe is the outstanding ideal

in our whole political, economic and social system -- that is equality

of opportunity. We have carried this ideal farther into our life than

has any other nation in the world. Equality of opportunity is the right

of every American, rich or poor, foreign or native born, without respect

to race or faith or color, to attain that position in life to which his

ability and character entitle him. We must carry this ideal further

than to economic and political fields alone. The first steps to

equality of opportunity are that there should be no child in America

that has not been born and does not live under sound conditions of

health, that does not have full opportunity for education from the

beginning to the end of our institutions, that is not free from

injurious labor, that does not have stimulation to accomplish to the

fullest of its capacities.



It is a matter for concern to our Government that we shall strengthen

the safeguards to health, that we shall strengthen the bureaus given to

research, that we shall strengthen our educational system at every

point, that we shall develop cooperation by our Federal Government with

state governments and with the voluntary bodies of the country that we

may bring not only better understanding but action in these matters.



Furthermore, equality of opportunity in my vision requires an equal

opportunity to the people in every section of our country. In these

past few years some groups in our country have lagged behind others in

the march of progress. They have not had the same opportunity. I refer

more particularly to those engaged in the textile, coal and in the

agricultural industries. We can assist in solving these problems by

cooperation of our Government. To the agricultural industry we shall

need advance initial capital to assist them, to stabilize and conduct

their own industry. But this proposal is that they shall conduct it

themselves, not by the Government. It is in the interest of our cities

that we shall bring agriculture into full stability and prosperity. I

know you will cooperate gladly in the faith that in the common

prosperity of our country lies its future.

And what has been the result of the American system? Our country has become the land of opportunity to those born without inheritance, not merely because of the wealth of its resources and industry but because of this freedom of initiative and enterprise. Russia has natural resources equal to ours.... But she has not had the blessings of one hundred and fifty years of our form of government and our social system.

By adherence to the principles of decentralized self-government, ordered liberty, equal opportunity, and freedom to the individual, our American experiment in human welfare has yielded a degree of well-being unparalleled in the world. It has come nearer to the abolition of poverty, to the abolition of fear of want, than humanity has ever reached before. Progress of the past seven years is proof of it....

The greatness of America has grown out of a political and social system and a method of [a lack of governmental] control of economic forces distinctly its own our American system which has carried this great experiment in human welfare farther than ever before in history.... And I again repeat that the departure from our American system... will jeopardize the very liberty and freedom of our people, and will destroy equality of opportunity not only to ourselves, but to our children.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2010, 08:41 PM
It'd be nice for TJ to take on banyon's lengthy post head-on rather than dance around it.

Why? How many times have they had the same arguments paraphrased and in different topics. It's a complete waste of time at this point in time.

banyon
06-20-2010, 08:42 PM
It'd be nice for TJ to take on banyon's lengthy post head-on rather than dance around it.

That's par for the course.

banyon
06-20-2010, 08:44 PM
Why? How many times have they had the same arguments paraphrased and in different topics. It's a complete waste of time at this point in time.

If a topic has ever been discussed before, then it is off limits for further discussion, unless it is BEP doing the discussing. Right?

Oh, and in 99% of those threads, it usually ends with my asking some pretty basic questions and then Taco finding things that require less analysis in other threads or you pulling the "fake ignore" game.

banyon
06-20-2010, 08:47 PM
Also, if Hoover was this "ultimate progressive" (that very conservative Republican business leaders were somehow duped into supporting for 2 campaigns), then why was FDR even running against him, shouldn't he have just joined his ticket?

BucEyedPea
06-20-2010, 08:54 PM
* crickets *

Taco John
06-20-2010, 09:02 PM
Sorry, stating it doesn't make it so. Remember Jenson's lessons on primary and secondary sources? Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with what Hoover actually SAID and DID.

You're way behind. I already did that, straight out of his own state of the union.

Taco John
06-20-2010, 09:02 PM
Also, if Hoover was this "ultimate progressive" (that very conservative Republican business leaders were somehow duped into supporting for 2 campaigns), then why was FDR even running against him, shouldn't he have just joined his ticket?

For the same reason that Obama ran against George Bush's record and then carried on with the same policies.

Taco John
06-20-2010, 09:03 PM
It'd be nice for TJ to take on banyon's lengthy post head-on rather than dance around it.

Uh, **** you, seagull poster. I'm not going to waste too much of my Sunday evening responding to Banyon's belated hysterics.

Taco John
06-20-2010, 09:07 PM
Sorry, stating it doesn't make it so. Remember Jenson's lessons on primary and secondary sources? Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with what Hoover actually SAID and DID.

Of course "stating" it doesn't make it so. It's the things he actually did that make it so.

ClevelandBronco
06-20-2010, 10:57 PM
Who???

I had thought I could make a difference with respect to the trajectory on which the nation is traveling, but I cannot. Political activity is a waste of time.

When the United States falls, there will be a push for greater centralization. I do not think that the American public is spiritually or intellectually prepared to resist this last incursion on their liberty. America has become a nation of serfs. It will continue its descent into national slavery. Political activity or debate is powerless now. Insane extremists are in charge, and Americans have acquiesced.

http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/


Now THAT'S DESPERATION.

Nah. That's just resignation, at least from where I sit.

I decided fairly recently that I'm going to retire my vote. It was an honor to be a part of this experiment, but I don't see any reason to keep pretending that the patient isn't dead.

Taco John
06-20-2010, 11:00 PM
Orange is really good at Google and all, but I don't see what that post has anything to do with the point Langbert made about Hoover's progressivism.

Chiefspants
06-20-2010, 11:04 PM
You're finally getting it. :clap: :D

Lol, I was going to put /Taco John, Buceyedpea behind it as a joke, I had a feeling you'd appreciate that ;).

ClevelandBronco
06-20-2010, 11:11 PM
Fucking Herbert Hoover. Good grief. No wonder we lost.

orange
06-21-2010, 01:32 AM
Orange is really good at Google and all, but I don't see what that post has anything to do with the point Langbert made about Hoover's progressivism.

Nothing really; I just looked up his name to see why you were touting him. That turned out to be today's entry on his blog. Rather fitting, speaking of desperation.

It does sort of illustrate how out there he is.

orange
06-21-2010, 02:11 AM
Here's something from someone who's read a lot more about it than I ever intend to:

April 11, 2009
Jonathan Chait: Herbert Hoover, Still Not a Liberal

Herbert Hoover, Still Not a Liberal - The Plank: In budget hearings today, Kent Conrad decried "Hoover economics." This prompted National Review's David Freddoso to trot out the conservative vogue belief that Hoover was actually a big government liberal. I adressed this in my review of Amity Shlaes' influential New Deal revisionist tome "The Forgotten Man":

Shlaes's answer is to implicate Hoover as a New Deal man himself:

Hoover had called for a bank holiday to end the banking crisis; Roosevelt's first act was to declare a bank holiday to sort out the banks and build confidence.... Hoover had spent on public hospitals and bridges; Roosevelt created the post of relief administrator for the old Republican progressive Harry Hopkins. Hoover had loved public works; Roosevelt created a Public Works Administration. ... Hoover had known that debt was a problem and created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation; Roosevelt put Jones at the head of the RFC so he might address the debt.... Hoover had deplored the shorting of Wall Street's rogues; Roosevelt set his brain trusters to writing a law that would create a regulator for Wall Street....

There is indeed a revisionist scholarship that recasts Hoover as an energetic quasi-progressive rather than a stubborn reactionary. William Leuchtenburg, in his short new biography Herbert Hoover, makes some allowance for the revisionist case, but finally he settles on a more traditional conclusion. Leuchtenburg shows that Hoover's history of activism consistently left him with the belief in the primacy of voluntarism and the private sector, a faith that left him unsuited to handle a catastrophe like the Depression.

Leuchtenburg also provides a handy rebuttal to Shlaes's preposterous conflation of the two presidents. Hoover's National Credit Corporation, he explains, "did next to nothing." Hoover and Roosevelt would be amused to hear that his bank holiday aped Hoover's, given that Hoover denounced the Emergency Banking Act as a "move to gigantic socialism." (Does this ring a bell?) Shlaes's attempt to equate Hoover's disdain for short-sellers and Roosevelt's regulation of the market presumes that there is no important difference between expressing disapproval for something and taking public action against it.

Yes, Hoover created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. But (I am quoting Leuchtenburg) "at Hoover's behest, RFC officials administered the law so stingily that the tens of thousands of jobs the country had been promised were never created. By mid-October, the RFC had approved only three of the 243 applications it had received for public works projects." Hoover's head of unemployment relief said that "federal aid would be a disservice to the unemployed." Hoover was a staunch ideological conservative who remarked, in 1928, that "even if governmental conduct of business could give us more efficiency instead of less efficiency, the fundamental objection to it would remain unaltered and unabated." This was not, to put it mildly, Roosevelt's philosophy.

Hoover himself would have found the notion that Roosevelt mostly carried on his work offensive. During the campaign of 1932 he warned that, if the New Deal came to fruition, "the grass will grow in the streets of a hundred cities, a thousand towns." This was not mere campaign rhetoric. After Roosevelt won, Hoover desperately sought to persuade him to abandon his platform. He spent the rest of his years denouncing Roosevelt's reforms as dangerous Bolshevism. Leuchtenburg records that Hoover wrote a book about the New Deal so acerbic that his own estate suppressed its publication to avoid further tainting his reputation.

Of course, the transition from one presidency to another always involves some level of continuity. The world never begins completely anew with a presidential inauguration. But the break between Roosevelt and Hoover was certainly sharper than that between any president and his predecessor in American history.

April 11, 2009 at 03:53 PM in Economics, History, Journamalism, Utter Stupidity | Permalink

http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/04/jonathan-chait-herbert-hoover-still-not-a-liberal.html

orange
06-21-2010, 02:13 AM
I particularly like this comment on the article; it cuts to the heart of the matter quite well:

Leuchtenburg shows that Hoover's history of activism consistently left him with the belief in the primacy of voluntarism and the private sector, a faith that left him unsuited to handle a catastrophe like the Depression.

I agree with this, more or less. When I defend Hoover (because I have!), I'm defending him from his enemies on the right who accused him of being some kind of socialist. Those would be the same people that accused FDR of engaging in Communism.

To put it another way, Amity Shlaes (or Hayek, or von Mises), considered Hoover dangerously activist and a large chunk of elite opinion (hello, Andrew Carnegie Mellon) agreed with him.

That said, I would say that if you are set on Not Doing Enough and actively intend to prevent Doing Enough, then there is an argument to be made that you Might As Well Not Bother to Do Anything, since you're screwed anyways, and the short sharp shock may be preferable to the long, dragged out terminal illness.

I would say that that means you need to commit to Doing Whatever It Takes.

max

banyon
06-21-2010, 09:28 AM
You're way behind. I already did that, straight out of his own state of the union.

Apparently you're behind, because I already commented on that in post 78 (my first post in this thread) and asked you to identify what he DID besides one tax increase (which plenty of non-progressive presidents have done) that was so "progressive".

Did you read the rest of the State of the Union?

Did you understand the context that it was given in 1931 in the heights of the Depression, AFTER his prior policies had been roundly panned and proven to be insufficient and his popularity had taken a massive blow?

Even in the middle of this, he found time to say:

"In these measures we have striven to mobilize and stimulate private initiative and local and community responsibility. There has been the least possible Government entry into the economic field, and that only in temporary and emergency form. Our citizens and our local governments have given a magnificent display of unity and action, initiative and patriotism in solving a multitude of difficulties and in cooperating with the Federal Government."

banyon
06-21-2010, 09:29 AM
For the same reason that Obama ran against George Bush's record and then carried on with the same policies.

Yeah, Hoover, FDR, same thing, same policies. No difference. Both socialiofascists. :facepalm:

banyon
06-21-2010, 09:34 AM
Of course "stating" it doesn't make it so. It's the things he actually did that make it so.

Right, we're asking about those, several times now in this thread.

The "desperation" I was referring to earlier might have been better characterized as OCD, for your perpetual need to revise historical figures to make sure that all the villains are on the other side of the ledger. I'm sure we could play this silly excercise with Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, anybody if we keep picking enough cherries out of context and broadbrushing.

Taco John
06-21-2010, 09:40 AM
Right, we're asking about those, several times now in this thread.



Don't bother to ask. Put on your reading glasses. I've provided plenty here in this thread. Amusing that you've missed it in your hysterics.

banyon
06-21-2010, 09:50 AM
Don't bother to ask. Put on your reading glasses. I've provided plenty here in this thread. Amusing that you've missed it in your hysterics.

What's amusing is your intentional obtuseness in the face of the same question.

What post #? Where?

Taco John
06-21-2010, 10:21 AM
What's amusing is your intentional obtuseness in the face of the same question.

What post #? Where?


You know, you could have at least had the courtesy to read the thread and respond to the posts that were already here before going into hysterics.

I don't have time to lead you by the nose through Friday's thread.

banyon
06-21-2010, 12:35 PM
You know, you could have at least had the courtesy to read the thread and respond to the posts that were already here before going into hysterics.

I don't have time to lead you by the nose through Friday's thread.

I *did* read the thread. A couple of times prior to asking the initial question.
It would be a simple matter to identify the post or just reiterate what you said instead of this silly charade, wouldn't it?

Perhaps in your head you misremembered and thought you had done this at some point, but in this thread, which is available for anyone to review, you didn't.

JohnnyV13
06-21-2010, 01:09 PM
According to the Austrian Economists, isn't Hoover and Roosevelt the cause of the depression?

Let's see if I got this right:

1) The stock market crash and the dust bowl weren't really the cause. Had the government just gotten out of the way the market would have corrected itself in a year.

2) Hoover, then Roosevelt took a downturn and turned it into a depression with increasing levels of government malinvestment.

3) Calvin Cooledge was one of the best presidents in US history. He was an Austrian wet dream. His 6 years of ignoring the increasingly risky behavior of Wall Street without reigning it in was wise and insightful. Its just the idiots who followed him that caused the problems.

4) The Wall Street crash happened spontaneously. Despite a federal government with total revenues of 4% GDP, a president committed to state's rights and non-interventionism, and despite paying down 1/4 of the national debt from WWI, somehow there was a crash on Wall Street. Nothing could have stopped it. The Wall Street crash happened even though our government had sound policies that could do nothing but lead to prosperity except for: the Federal Bank.

5) The only possible remaining cause of the Crash is the existence of the Federal Bank, even though inflation was a non existant problem in the 20's. Apparently, without creating any overspending (hey, the fed was 4% of GDP, how much capital could the fed absorb?) nor tying up any significant amount of capital, apparently the future potential malinvestment magically transported itself to Wall Street in order to create a crash.

KC native
06-21-2010, 02:42 PM
According to the Austrian Economists, isn't Hoover and Roosevelt the cause of the depression?

Let's see if I got this right:

1) The stock market crash and the dust bowl weren't really the cause. Had the government just gotten out of the way the market would have corrected itself in a year.

2) Hoover, then Roosevelt took a downturn and turned it into a depression with increasing levels of government malinvestment.

3) Calvin Cooledge was one of the best presidents in US history. He was an Austrian wet dream. His 6 years of ignoring the increasingly risky behavior of Wall Street without reigning it in was wise and insightful. Its just the idiots who followed him that caused the problems.

4) The Wall Street crash happened spontaneously. Despite a federal government with total revenues of 4% GDP, a president committed to state's rights and non-interventionism, and despite paying down 1/4 of the national debt from WWI, somehow there was a crash on Wall Street. Nothing could have stopped it. The Wall Street crash happened even though our government had sound policies that could do nothing but lead to prosperity except for: the Federal Bank.

5) The only possible remaining cause of the Crash is the existence of the Federal Bank, even though inflation was a non existant problem in the 20's. Apparently, without creating any overspending (hey, the fed was 4% of GDP, how much capital could the fed absorb?) nor tying up any significant amount of capital, apparently the future potential malinvestment magically transported itself to Wall Street in order to create a crash.

/thread

gblowfish
06-21-2010, 07:29 PM
To quote that great philosopher and forward thinker from Kefauver High School, Herbert Louis Wisenheimer:

"Make Like a Hoover on My Wing-Wang."

BucEyedPea
06-21-2010, 10:01 PM
At about 5:12 of the tape. Regarding the 1920's and the Great Depression that Soros mentions as a need for bailouts and govt intervention. "That's because Hoover intervened too much."

The Chinese know about the depression of 1920/21, moral hazard, how too much money creates a bubble then a bust, the correcting qualities of markets etc. These former Commies school the liar Soros on how his ideas don't work in the real world. China goes Austrian. I think I know who kcnative really is now.


Around 6:24-25 I swear I can hear through the Chinese the words "total bullshit". Really listen closely.ROFL


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_BP9ilq6Teg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_BP9ilq6Teg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Taco John
06-21-2010, 10:45 PM
Presidential policies leave economic breadcrumbs. Hoover is what he left behind: increased progressive government.

BucEyedPea
06-22-2010, 06:27 AM
Presidential policies leave economic breadcrumbs. Hoover is what he left behind: increased progressive government.

Bush was Hoover II. Obama is FDR II.

KC native
06-22-2010, 10:54 AM
At about 5:12 of the tape. Regarding the 1920's and the Great Depression that Soros mentions as a need for bailouts and govt intervention. "That's because Hoover intervened too much."

The Chinese know about the depression of 1920/21, moral hazard, how too much money creates a bubble then a bust, the correcting qualities of markets etc. These former Commies school the liar Soros on how his ideas don't work in the real world. China goes Austrian. I think I know who kcnative really is now.


Around 6:24-25 I swear I can hear through the Chinese the words "total bullshit". Really listen closely.ROFL


Ah this is awesome. You know how clueless this makes you look? China goes Austrian? Just admit it, you don't know jack shit about economics. ROFL

Also, I'd say Soros' ideas work quite well as he is successful investor who has made Billions of dollars.

banyon
06-22-2010, 12:11 PM
Presidential policies leave economic breadcrumbs. Hoover is what he left behind: increased progressive government.

you ever figure out what those programs were?

banyon
06-22-2010, 12:12 PM
Bush was Hoover II. Obama is FDR II.

didn't realize Hoover had passive one of the largest entitlement expansions in history and had also paid banks hundreds of billions in bailout $.

Taco John
06-22-2010, 01:03 PM
you ever figure out what those programs were?


Yes, of course... Noted in my original post #4 and discussed throughout this thread.

banyon
06-22-2010, 01:06 PM
Yes, of course... Noted in my original post #4 and discussed in depth throughout this thread.

Are you trying to pass of this allegation as "discussing programs in depth"?:

From his economic interventionism, his focus on volunteerism, progressive beliefs on taxing the rich to smithereens, and of course, general mismanagement -


What "program"? and

what other posts did you think you discussed anything other than the one tax proposal?

Taco John
06-22-2010, 01:39 PM
You should hire someone to read post #4 for you very carefully.

Direckshun
06-22-2010, 02:56 PM
You could, you know, just restate your argument if you think you're being misunderstood.

Taco John
06-22-2010, 03:13 PM
You could, you know, just restate your argument if you think you're being misunderstood.


Hey! Look! The guy who started the thread and had nothing to say at all in it! What the fuck do you want?

I said all I needed to say in this thread. You think I'm trying to convince Banyon or Jenson or KCNaive of anything? Bwaha! Everything I said in this thread was for the benefit of Bush and McCain voters, not Obama voters. I said waht I needed to say and made the points that I needed to make.

I don't have any complaints about being misunderstood. I'm sure that I made my points.

banyon
06-23-2010, 08:18 AM
You should hire someone to read post #4 for you very carefully.

You should just identify what "programs" or specific historically-based legislation you were talking about (that obviously isn't in post #4) or STFU.

I don't know how you got this analytically lazy, but I guess logical rigor isn't emphasized on the fringe websites, is it?

banyon
06-23-2010, 08:23 AM
You could, you know, just restate your argument if you think you're being misunderstood.

Restate it? He didn't state it in the first place. He just alleged with some vague generalities that he now wants to try to fraudulently pass off as if he referred to actual historical facts.

Taco John
06-23-2010, 09:49 AM
Restate it? He didn't state it in the first place. He just alleged with some vague generalities that he now wants to try to fraudulently pass off as if he referred to actual historical facts.

*shrug*

Hoover's revenue tax act and the Smoot Hawley Tarriff are historical facts. Hoover's legacy of progressive government is well documented that anyone can google and find a wealth of information on (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=Herbert+hoover+progressive).
Your hysterics are well known around here, and your preaching to your choir doesn't change any minds. First of all, nobody really cares, second of all, you haven't really said anything yourself.

I can understand why you progressives are trying to change history (http://www.google.com/search?q=Herbert+hoover+progressive&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&prmd=v&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=RS0iTPfjCpKmnQeHsITBDw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=13&ved=0CGQQ5wIwDA) though.

banyon
06-23-2010, 10:03 AM
*shrug*

Hoover's revenue tax act and the Smoot Hawley Tarriff are historical facts. Hoover's legacy of progressive government is well documented that anyone can google and find a wealth of information on (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=Herbert+hoover+progressive).
Your hysterics are well known around here, and your preaching to your choir doesn't change any minds. First of all, nobody really cares, second of all, you haven't really said anything yourself.

I can understand why you progressives are trying to change history (http://www.google.com/search?q=Herbert+hoover+progressive&hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&prmd=v&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=RS0iTPfjCpKmnQeHsITBDw&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=13&ved=0CGQQ5wIwDA) though.

Wow you created a google link. Awesome. I think you've created a new type of fallacy here that I have not previously considered. The fallacy of "google result" = proof of premise.

Herbert Hoover the Conservative (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=herbert+hoover+conservative&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=C4C0_Mi8iTMbXApG6hATl18nSBQAAAKoEBU_QnEbj)

We already talked about the tax, but yet you refer to it again as if I hadn't asked about other progressive programs.

The Smoot-Hawley Tarrif was proposed by none other than (wait for it) Smoot and Hawley and was certainly not a presidential directive from President Hoover. In any event, tariffs are not really a hallmark of "progressive" legislation. For years, the Republican conservatives (particularly in Hoover's day) were the isolationists and protectionists. That's the basic historical context that you lack. Even up until recently, you had Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, etc, advocating Buy American and against the free trade agreements.

Hoover opposed the bill and called it "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious" because he felt it would undermine the commitment he had pledged to international cooperation. Later events would reveal Hoover was right: the international community levied their own tariffs in retaliation after the bill had become law. However, in spite of his opposition, Hoover yielded to influence from his own party and business leaders and signed the bill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

So I ask again: WHAT PROGRAMS? He's some giant progressive icon, and you have a unquantified tax increase and a tarriff reluctantly signed off on? That's it?

Pretty watery mustard from you, but no surprise. If the knowledge isn't available from a brief Google search, it won't be forthcoming from you.

Calcountry
06-23-2010, 01:26 PM
Bush was Hoover II. Obama is FDR II.Reagan was Coolidge II??

Naw, Obama is like the offspring of Woody Wilson and James Earl Cartier.