Obama is the Next FDR

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-09-2015, 12:43 PM)Ben Richards Wrote: Thanks Obama.

No...Thank you.

[JustWinBaby]

(06-06-2015, 11:21 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Revisionist history. It was the Bush Admins effort to deregulate which led to the recession to begin with. He did nothing to prevent it and did little to stop outside of bailing out corporations. That, along with his misguided war which cost billions, make him perhaps THE worst POTUS in modern history.

No, that is a fundamentally gross misunderstanding to how the financial crisis came about, and has its roots in banking and housing regulation signed by Clinton.  Another key factor was the fiscal/reinflation policy following the internet bubble and 9/11, similar policies used by Obama but put on steroids. You were reading it all daily, you just never understood what was really going on (again, back to the question what ARE you reading?!?)

Bush also asked Congress to reign in Fannie and Freddie in 2006.  The Democratic Congress refused.

There is no revisionist history, only the partisan history you support to prop-up Obama for some unknown reason.  The economy was stabilized before Obama took office.  The crisis was over, what was left to Obama was the recovery...and because that recovery has been so dismal we have people pushing the story that Obama saved us from a Great Depression. And you can blame Repubs for resisting recovery efforts and jobs bills all you want - Dems didn't need a single Repub vote to pass Obamacare.

What you call bailouts (you forgot to mention the UAW bailout, if you're going to call a spade a spade) are also called stabilization and liquidity injections...and the taxpayer made money, and continues to make money, on those "evil" bailouts (or what other people might call LOANS).

[fredtoast]

(06-06-2015, 05:58 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:  (although his fingerprints were all over robbing the equity and debt holders of GM and Chrysler to give to the UAW).

So you think the equity and debt holders would have been better off if GM had gone under?

The UAW made major concessions.  Retirees lost their insurance.  And the future success of the UAW fund is now tied directly to the success of GM.

Meanwhile I investors who held GM stock at a dollar a share in '09 now own GM stock at $35 a share.  I wish I could get "robbed" like that.

[BoomerFan]

(06-09-2015, 08:30 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Can you be more specific, since I already posted a detailed article that explains most of it wasn't even signed by Obama, but by Bush.

Are you saying that Bush singed most of the stimulus, not Obama? And that a single law bore two presidents' signatures?


> Obama can't come up with a plan for ISIS after nearly a year, but he throws together a massive auto bailout just weeks after taking office.  Ummkay.

I don't think anyone ever suggesting he authored the legislation -- even the second bailout. He did however sign the 2nd bailout and the stimulus. That is what Presidents do.

I'm also curious. If Hillary is elected and there is an economic boom, you'll be crediting the current Republican congress for that boom, right? I'm just curious as it seems you'll do anything to avoid crediting a Democratic politician.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-08-2015, 09:27 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I was going to really try to debate point by point and then I realized how pointless that would be after reading this above comment.  Trust me I know you believe that progressives are everything wrong with this country and therefore both FDR, and Wilson caused everything wrong with this country.  However in one sentence you just blamed two US presidents for the US's involvement in both world wars.  As if no other factors could've played into any of it. 

There are a lot of different ways those dot's can be connected, but it's certainly not nearly as simple as you believe they should be connected.

There is always contributing factors over years. Just like Bush didn't do everything that led up to Iraq.... But it's still his fault for pulling the trigger. Just like the policies of Wilson and FDR led us to war and led specific acts, like pearl harbour.

Now let's get back to FDR.... He passes the Export Control Act July 2, 1940... Allowing the president to restrict export of specific defense matierals.... Fuels, iron, steel, and lubricants were restricted.... We were Japan's top provider of these matierals... Next... On October 16, 1940 FDR slaps and embargo on scrap iron and steel to any country not Britain or in the western hemisphere.
.... These were done in part to stop Japanese. Aggression into China which FDR deemed the US sphere of commercial and political influence.

September 27, 1940 Japan agrees with germany and Italy to give mutual assurances to help each other of nuetral countries Attack ... Which was basically us... They did this because of FDR using the export control act.

1941 Japan was in China very deep and FDR told them to get out or else.... Funny coming from a nuetral nation that Japan has never attacked... And had been a reliable trade partner.

4 year war with China was coming to end because of lack of supplies... This failure to win brought on the anti West/USA leadership.... Add in Operation Snow to an already paranoid and suspect of FDR and the west .... They felt they had only one choice to Attack and hope or a quick negotiation.

Yes many things always play a factor.... But Japan was a friend and a great trade partner with the U.S. But this is what FDR did directly during his reign to aggravate a friend and partner into a paranoid nation suspect of any American movement or motives.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-08-2015, 10:22 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: http://www.japanfocus.org/-Richard_J_-Smethurst/3825/article.html


Lucie here is a more accurate look at how things lead up to WWI and WWII regarding Japan, China, Korea, and most of Asia.  But if we're going to play connect the dots, you may want to look as far back as 1853.  Yes it's long but history usually is. 

Even with 1853.... We should have let Japan do as they wished, we grew them up to make money off them .... What Japan was doing was not even close to what Germany was doing .... We should have let them handle their business unless they started putting people in camps.

As I remember the only ones putting people im concentrarion camps back then were Hitler and FDR.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-09-2015, 02:57 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I suggest you brush up on your reading:

http://thediplomat.com/2012/08/the-forgotten-soviet-japanese-war-of-1939/

The Japanese and Soviets fought in 1939. The Soviets, led by Georgy Zhukov, whipped the Japanese so badly at the Battle of Khalkhin Gol that the Japanese did not dare threaten Soviet territory during the rest of the war. This was where Zhukov made his early name.

Excellent read... But this kinda makes my point and shows the reason Stalin ran Operation Snow. At this point russia did not have a war with Germany. Stalin was able to fight 1 front. He knew he could not fight a 2 front war vs Germany an Japan.

Everything that happened after is because of blunders of FDR and our other leaders at the time.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-09-2015, 03:02 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Fixed it for you.

Not sure why you think I defend or are in favor of Bush or Cheney and their aggression in Iraq. Start a thread on Bush blunders and we can hash those out as well. He had plenty of issues and I think he was not a good president..... He down on that list...

[Bengalzona]

(06-09-2015, 01:25 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, that is a fundamentally gross misunderstanding to how the financial crisis came about, and has its roots in banking and housing regulation signed by Clinton.  Another key factor was the fiscal/reinflation policy following the internet bubble and 9/11, similar policies used by Obama but put on steroids.  You were reading it all daily, you just never understood what was really going on (again, back to the question what ARE you reading?!?)

Bush also asked Congress to reign in Fannie and Freddie in 2006.  The Democratic Congress refused.

There is no revisionist history, only the partisan history you support to prop-up Obama for some unknown reason.  The economy was stabilized before Obama took office.  The crisis was over, what was left to Obama was the recovery...and because that recovery has been so dismal we have people pushing the story that Obama saved us from a Great Depression.  And you can blame Repubs for resisting recovery efforts and jobs bills all you want - Dems didn't need a single Repub vote to pass Obamacare.

What you call bailouts (you forgot to mention the UAW bailout, if you're going to call a spade a spade) are also called stabilization and liquidity injections...and the taxpayer made money, and continues to make money, on those "evil" bailouts (or what other people might call LOANS).

For starters, the GM "bailout" (actually, it was a chapter 11 reorganization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization ) took place in June of 2009. Bush had nothing to do with that. Nor, being a good conservative, would he have had anything to do with it. Laissez faire, you know. Republicans at the time screamed bloody murder because the Federal government was bailing out a private business. As far as the government making money on that deal, they did not: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430 . They were $11 billion in the hole as of 2014. But GM and its shareholders made money, as Fred pointed out before: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/29/news/companies/gm-profit-bailout/ . So, the GM bailout was by no means a "Bush thing". It has been and always will be an "Obama thing". Did it help with recovery? It helped mitigate damages due to the recession and provide some degree of stability to the shaky economy by not adding to unemployment. Was it worth it? Depends upon whom you ask.

As far as the Great Recession, the crisis was far from over when Obama took office. The National Bureau of Economic Research cites the duration of the recession itself as between December 2007 and June 2009. But unemployment and lack of faith in the financial system have lingered. Crises that led to the recession started earlier: The Housing Bubble in 2006 and Credit Crisis in in 2007. I agree with you that part of the blame goes back to Clinton in the 90's and his admin's efforts to put "everyone in a home". But that is only part of the blame. The other half is with the Bush Admin for further encouraging bad lending by deregulation. And both Admin's were supported by "Let the good times roll" Congresses which eschewed watchdog efforts. Regulations from the Great Depression era were relaxed to allow shadow banking and sub-prime loans.

As far as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bush didn't want to just reign them in. His admin, like Republicans since 1938, wanted to get rid of them altogether. They still do. They did play a role in the financial crises. But they were not the major instigators. They were followers. The main players initially were private lenders who were encouraging sub-prime loans and other "new" financial products. This started in the 90's. More and more, money began to flow to these companies from foreign investors through shadow banking. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't become active in these types of loans until the early 2000's. Their involvement was like adding gas to the fire. It hastened and increased the Housing Bubble and the Credit Crisis. But they were not the initial cause. And as far as reigning in the agencies in 2006, Bush did call for that. But by that time it didn't matter much anyway, the housing bubble had already burst. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reigned themselves in, just as all other financial institutions tried to do at that time.

For the record, I do not claim that Obama "saved us from the Recession". In fact, I am of the opinion that him and Congress could have done much more during his first four years to improve the recovery. Also, I generally see ObamaCare for what it really is: a piece of Nixon-era legislation re-introduced and championed by Obama as a promise to Ted Kennedy in return for his political support. But Bush doesn't come out of this smelling like a rose. Both he and Clinton have manure on their hands regarding the recession. So, yeah, I rail against pro-Bush comments regarding this.

[Bengalzona]

Oh, and one more thing. Congress does not come out of this "smelling like a rose" either. If anything, they have been hauling the manure. And there are no roses, only turnips as far as I'm concerned.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-09-2015, 10:36 AM)Beaker Wrote: Japan had decided to align itself with the axis powers as far back as the end of WWI when they were our allies and were snubbed at the Treaty of Versailles. It was a huge dishonor to them and was instrumental in setting them on a course of never having to be beholding to another country. Their aggression in the pacific was due mainly to acquiring resources such as rubber and oil that they did not have access to as a small island nation. Japan had already begun this policy years before the US stopped trading with them.

In Richmonds link there were specific numbers on what the U.S. provided them.... I wanna say 57-60% of their steel/iron .... (Could be off a little, but I am in the ballpark of a reasonable discussion). Once FDR passed and used the export control act then followed up with an embargo.... That backed them into a corner.

Btw a side note.... progressives doing what progressives do.... FDR passed a law and got his pen and his phone and did what he wanted. He followed in Wilson's ideology of centralizing power with the executive. Now we have the same problems today.... Yet no one wants to acknowledge where these all came .....

[StLucieBengal]

(06-09-2015, 10:55 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: For starters, the GM "bailout" (actually, it was a chapter 11 reorganization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Chapter_11_reorganization ) took place in June of 2009. Bush had nothing to do with that. Nor, being a good conservative, would he have had anything to do with it. Laissez faire, you know. Republicans at the time screamed bloody murder because the Federal government was bailing out a private business. As far as the government making money on that deal, they did not: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/30/us-autos-gm-treasury-idUSBREA3T0MR20140430 . They were $11 billion in the hole as of 2014. But GM and its shareholders made money, as Fred pointed out before: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/29/news/companies/gm-profit-bailout/ . So, the GM bailout was by no means a "Bush thing". It has been and always will be an "Obama thing". Did it help with recovery? It helped mitigate damages due to the recession and provide some degree of stability to the shaky economy by not adding to unemployment. Was it worth it? Depends upon whom you ask.

As far as the Great Recession, the crisis was far from over when Obama took office. The National Bureau of Economic Research cites the duration of the recession itself as between December 2007 and June 2009. But unemployment and lack of faith in the financial system have lingered. Crises that led to the recession started earlier: The Housing Bubble in 2006 and Credit Crisis in in 2007. I agree with you that part of the blame goes back to Clinton in the 90's and his admin's efforts to put "everyone in a home". But that is only part of the blame. The other half is with the Bush Admin for further encouraging bad lending by deregulation. And both Admin's were supported by "Let the good times roll" Congresses which eschewed watchdog efforts. Regulations from the Great Depression era were relaxed to allow shadow banking and sub-prime loans.

As far as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Bush didn't want to just reign them in. His admin, like Republicans since 1938, wanted to get rid of them altogether. They still do. They did play a role in the financial crises. But they were not the major instigators. They were followers. The main players initially were private lenders who were encouraging sub-prime loans and other "new" financial products. This started in the 90's. More and more, money began to flow to these companies from foreign investors through shadow banking. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't become active in these types of loans until the early 2000's. Their involvement was like adding gas to the fire. It hastened and increased the Housing Bubble and the Credit Crisis. But they were not the initial cause. And as far as reigning in the agencies in 2006, Bush did call for that. But by that time it didn't matter much anyway, the housing bubble had already burst. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reigned themselves in, just as all other financial institutions tried to do at that time.

For the record, I do not claim that Obama "saved us from the Recession". In fact, I am of the opinion that him and Congress could have done much more during his first four years to improve the recovery. Also, I generally see ObamaCare for what it really is: a piece of Nixon-era legislation re-introduced and championed by Obama as a promise to Ted Kennedy in return for his political support. But Bush doesn't come out of this smelling like a rose. Both he and Clinton have manure on their hands regarding the recession. So, yeah, I rail against pro-Bush comments regarding this.

The argument between bush and obama is funny because they have so many similar policies.... Just slight differences where they spend the money. But they both spend, both bailout, and both have been negligent.

Both progressives.... Both spend like crazy. Neither could quit spending when it was obvious they were wrong.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-09-2015, 10:58 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Oh, and one more thing. Congress does not come out of this "smelling like a rose" either. If anything, they have been hauling the manure. And there are no roses, only turnips as far as I'm concerned.

Couldn't agree more.

[Bengalzona]

(06-09-2015, 11:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The argument between bush and obama is funny because they have so many similar policies....  Just slight differences where they spend the money.   But they both spend, both bailout, and both have been negligent.  

Both progressives....   Both spend like crazy.    Neither could quit spending when it was obvious they were wrong.

Yeah. I see it as an addiction too.

(06-09-2015, 11:10 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Couldn't agree more.

For us to agree twice in one day is rare, but I'm cool with it.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-09-2015, 11:27 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah. I see it as an addiction too.


For us to agree twice in one day is rare, but I'm cool with it.

Once we drill down on the root of things I would bet we have much more in common than either of us think....

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-09-2015, 10:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Even with 1853....  We should have let Japan do as they wished, we grew them up to make money off them .... What Japan was doing was not even close to what Germany was doing ....  We should have let them handle their business unless they started putting people in camps.    

As I remember the only ones putting people im concentrarion camps back then were Hitler and FDR.

I am going to start here because you keep bringing up and it's very misleading.

Yes Hitler had concentration camps which he used as a tool for mass genocide, effectively executing and eliminating all undesirables killing 6 million people known as the holocaust.

FDR? Japanese (and to a lesser extent German) camps yes. Mass Genocide? Absolutely not.  Now I'm not saying it was right, and I don't know anyone that would.  However you absolutely can not compare or even try compare FDR's actions to Hitler.  To try and do so would be completely disingenuous. 

Oh and sorry I'll respond to the rest when I can.  I just got home from the Reds game and Votto's 3 homers tonight.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-09-2015, 10:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Even with 1853....  We should have let Japan do as they wished, we grew them up to make money off them .... What Japan was doing was not even close to what Germany was doing ....  We should have let them handle their business unless they started putting people in camps.    

As I remember the only ones putting people im concentrarion camps back then were Hitler and FDR.

Ahhh...the "rape of Nanking" is ok, but putting people in camps is pushing things too far?  BTW they did have labor camps all over Asia to get those raw materials they desperately needed.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(06-09-2015, 10:16 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: There is always contributing factors over years.   Just like Bush  didn't do everything that led up to Iraq.... But it's still his fault for pulling the trigger.  Just like the policies of Wilson and FDR led us to war and led specific acts, like pearl harbour.  

Now let's get back to FDR....  He passes the Export Control Act July 2, 1940... Allowing the president to restrict export of specific defense matierals....  Fuels, iron, steel, and lubricants were restricted.... We were Japan's top provider of these matierals...  Next... On October 16, 1940 FDR slaps and embargo on scrap iron and steel to any country not Britain or in the western hemisphere.  
.... These were done in part to stop Japanese. Aggression into China which FDR deemed the US sphere of commercial and political influence.  

September 27, 1940 Japan agrees with germany and Italy to give mutual assurances to help each other of nuetral countries Attack ... Which was basically us...  They did this because of FDR using the export control act.  

1941 Japan was in China very deep and FDR told them to get out or else.... Funny coming from a nuetral nation that Japan has never attacked... And had been a reliable trade partner.  

4 year war with China was coming to end because of lack of supplies...  This failure to win brought on the anti West/USA leadership....  Add in Operation Snow to an already paranoid and suspect of FDR and the west .... They felt they had only one choice to Attack and hope or a quick negotiation.      

Yes many things always play a factor.... But Japan was a friend and a great trade partner with the U.S.   But this is what FDR did directly during his reign to aggravate a friend and partner into a paranoid nation suspect of any American movement or motives.

Japan was not a friend, in fact they resented us.

The story of the transition from aggression in China in 1937 to the attack on Pearl Harbor is a complex one that includes an alliance with Germany and Italy—the alliance of the nations that believed they were excluded from full membership in the Western imperialist order--and the fall of France. But it is very important to keep in mind that the war in China was central to the Japanese decision to go to war with Britain and America. Since Japan’s generals could not accept the fact that the Japanese imperial army could not defeat Chiang Kai-shek’s and Mao Zedong’s soldiers in an army-versus-army conflict (although they should have understood the problems of pacifying a country with a continental scale), they had to find another explanation for Japan’s inability to achieve victory in China. The answer they came up with was Anglo-American support of China. The way to defeat China was to cut off its supply lines from the West—in other words, move into Hong Kong and Southeast Asia. There were other reasons that the Japanese army decided to move into French Indo-China, and then to attack the American, British and Dutch colonies—but one important reason was to outflank China, to cut off its connections with the allied powers.



The Japanese Empire, 1870-1942

One should keep in mind that it was in fact Japan, not China, that had benefited from these countries’ support. Japan’s primary source of raw materials like petroleum and scrap iron for its war in China, and of high-end technology like machine tools was the United States. In 1938 the United States (57.1 per cent), the United Kingdom and its empire (Malaya, Canada, India, Australia, 20.7 per cent), and the Dutch and Dutch East Indies (8.6 per cent) supplied 86.4 per cent of Japan’s imported war materials. The United States produced 60% of the world’s oil; the Dutch East Indies less than 10%; 55% of Japan’s oil came from the United States, 14% from the Soviet Union, and 10% from the Dutch Indies. I have a photograph of a dinner party held on December 7, 1939, at the Duquesne Club in Pittsburgh, at which George T. Ladd, Chairman of United Engineering Foundry Company, entertained Colonel S. Atsumi of the Imperial Japanese Army and his entourage. UEF had built a factory to produce rolling mill machinery in Japan in 1938.
When Japan moved into the French colony in Indo-China in the summer of 1941, the United States responded by freezing Japanese assets in US banks, cutting Japan off from American scrap iron, petroleum, and technology—illustrating Takahashi’s warning about Japan’s dependence on the West. Denied access to US petroleum and iron, Japan had to look elsewhere: British Malaya for iron ore and the Dutch East Indies for oil. This led to the decision to attack Southeast Asia, and the United States bases in the Philippines and Hawaii to protect the Japanese navy’s flank. One mistaken step led inexorably to another, and the Japanese in 1941, while still bogged down in China, went to war with a country that had an industrial capacity nine times theirs—in fact, one American city, Pittsburgh, produced three times more steel than all of Japan did during World War II. Manchuria, envisaged as Japan’s industrial base for war, at the peak of its steel production in 1943, was out-produced by Pittsburgh, by forty times.
Which brings us back to the beginning. The Western imperialist impact on Japan set in motion a series of events: the rise of Japanese nationalism, of Japanese economic and military power, of Japan’s quest for empire, of Japanese emigration to America and elsewhere, and of the Western reaction to all of these things, that led almost a century later to Pearl Harbor. One cannot say that Pearl Harbor was the “inevitable delayed rejoinder” to Perry’s visit of 1853—far from it. In fact, as we have seen, Japan took two basic approaches Japan in its relations with the British and Americans. We have described them as the cooperative and the autarkic approaches. Unfortunately for Japan and the Asia-Pacific, those who advocated an autonomous, independent, militarized approach to dealing with the world won out after 1936, leading Japan into a cataclysmic and vastly destructive war that it was not economically, materially, or technologically equipped to fight. Only after Japan’s defeat in 1945, did its postwar leaders return to the cooperative policies of men like Takahashi

[StLucieBengal]

(06-10-2015, 12:41 AM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I am going to start here because you keep bringing up and it's very misleading.

Yes Hitler had concentration camps which he used as a tool for mass genocide, effectively executing and eliminating all undesirables killing 6 million people known as the holocaust.

FDR? Japanese (and to a lesser extent German) camps yes. Mass Genocide? Absolutely not.  Now I'm not saying it was right, and I don't know anyone that would.  However you absolutely can not compare or even try compare FDR's actions to Hitler.  To try and do so would be completely disingenuous. 

Oh and sorry I'll respond to the rest when I can.  I just got home from the Reds game and Votto's 3 homers tonight.

Never said anything about mass killings.   Yes big difference between what FDR and what hitler did...  But we still rounded up a specific group of people nationwide and trapped them in camps because they were themselves.    Progressives have a history of this in america.    

But yes your right....  There is a diffence between Hitler and FDR/Wilson.... But we certainly don't treat FDR and Wilson the same as we do .... Southern white slave owners who also rounded up a particular group ..... Not sure what's worse.... That private citizens did this ..... Or the federal government.... Led by men who believe the power should be taken away from the legislature and given to the executive branch .....

And glad you had fun at the game ))

[fredtoast]

(06-10-2015, 02:01 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Never said anything about mass killings.   Yes big difference between what FDR and what hitler did...  But we still rounded up a specific group of people nationwide and trapped them in camps because they were themselves.    Progressives have a history of this in america.    

But yes your right....  There is a diffence between Hitler and FDR/Wilson.... But we certainly don't treat FDR and Wilson the same as we do .... Southern white slave owners who also rounded up a particular group ..... Not sure what's worse.... That private citizens did this ..... Or the federal government.... Led by men who believe the power should be taken away from the legislature and given to the executive branch .....

And glad you had fun at the game ))

So slaveholders were progressives?  How are you defining "progressive" now?  

Were the American Indians also placed on reservations by "progressives"?