:pepe-silvia:
The US was also a smaller country lmao, dramatically smaller. Of course the inflation adjusted dollars would be lower.
And we're not even gonna do the goddamn social spending bill at all. That's being killed right now
The US was also a smaller country lmao, dramatically smaller.
Also, they list First New Deal (1933). But what about Second New Deal? (1935) Or the Fair Employment Practices Act? (1941) Or the Lend-Lease Act?
Or, hell, is now a bad time to point out that the New Deal programs failed to end the Great Depression, which persisted well into the late 1930s? Although, I get the sense that this conversation would end with Neoliberals insisting we need to bomb China and kick off WW3.
Neoliberals insisting we need to bomb China and kick off WW3.
Damn I wonder if an entire economy that can only be sustained by periodic mass bloodshed is something we should perpetuate?
:fidel-sarcastic:
Exactly! Amerika’s GDP during the New Deal was literally 20x smaller lol
Real GDP (which is inflation-adjusted) in 1930 was somewhere around $800 billion. Also: the new established government programs that continued to run for decades, and even up to this day. The conservative movement of the 60s was still mad as hell at the new deal because tons of money was still being spent on it. You still have Forbes running articles talking about how "we still haven't paid off the new deal"
Another historical part of this libs have no understanding about:
FDR was ruthless in removing political opposition. There’s even some evidence he had politicians working against him assassinated.
When the supreme court ruled parts of the New Deal unconstitutional, Roosevelt immediately started the process of packing the supreme court with judges explicitly loyal to him. This scared the shit out of the Supreme Court and they suddenly decided the New Deal was constitutional after all. :thonk-cri:
He had to do all this even though he came from one of America’s wealthiest families and was a proud capitalist. This is the minimal level of intensity it takes to get anything changed in American electoral politics.
Edit: @W_Hexa_W also pointed out that in response to this a group of wealthy businessmen began plotting a fucking a coup against FDR.
I've heard about the business plot but I meant did FDR assassinate political opponents?
Huey Long was a populist senator from Louisiana who was assassinated. A number of the policies found in the New Deal were taken from his political platform in an effort to decrease his public support.
Long wasn’t a socialist, but a number of the policies he was pushing for were more radical than what was passed in The New Deal. He was also a very ruthless politician that did whatever it took to get shit done. His death prevented a possible 1936 presidential bid against FDR, who was the incumbent.
Just tried to google for it and I’m having trouble finding more details specifically around the FDR connection. Either way, what I read previously was speculative as a direct connection was (unsurprisingly) never proven.
I’m pretty sure I remember reading about it in “Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, & the Great Depression” by Alan Brinkley, but could be wrong. Sorry I can’t find more about it online, that’s pretty weird.
Decent article with more details on Long’s assassination from wikipedia.
Personally I also like the theory that when the business plot was discovered he got ahold of all the titans of industry involved and explained they could either get out of his way or they'd be hanged for treason, and that that's why the New Deal didn't get stopped.
FDR was ruthless in removing political opposition. There’s even some evidence he had politicians working against him assassinated.
When the supreme court ruled parts of the New Deal unconstitutional, Roosevelt immediately started the process of packing the supreme court with judges explicitly loyal to him. This scared the shit out of the Supreme Court and they suddenly decided the New Deal was constitutional after all
:gigachad:
:fidel-si:
The guy knew how to use power. Still a bastard, but interesting historically.
Don't you get it? It's your fault when the ghouls who get elected from promising you material improvements don't deliver shit. Really, you need to adjust your attitude and think about how hard they work to bring you nothing.
That 2 isn't even Manchin and Sinema, it's King and Bernie since they are technically independents.
I think libs like to use it to try to make their majority look even more dubious so it's not their fault things weren't passed or some shit.
Oh no, their bread gets buttered both sides. There's like 15 members of the Democrats that fucking love that they don't have to be the ones to do this.
Link: https://twitter.com/terrywatkinsjr1/status/1454221618742448130?s=21
I like the smug lib talking about how socialists don't get that the only reason Biden hasn't done much is because congressional margins are so slim getting into a fight with the other lib who thinks actually Biden is doing amazing
Suck my balls Terry, all the math and trivia in the world doesn't change the fact that the democrats are failing the American people. Nobody gives a fuck how you excuse it.
I love how their argument basically amounts to "we cant do anything due to legalist bullshit, nothing what so ever can be done".
Is that New Deal figure over 10 years as well, or are they seriously comparing a 10 year figure to a 1 year one?
The messaging on this bill was SO bad. I can't believe dems decided not to push the media on covering the 10 year cost. But then again, they probably wanted to lose.
At this point I’m surprised when Dems don’t fuck it up. That usually means whatever they’re passing is going to actually make things worse.
This is just a self own anyway.
"Oh well did you know we spent 6 times as much as FDR?"
Great but you did jack shit with it. So like you can waste money more quickly. Sweet.
Not to mention that the New Deal was almost budget neutral in the context of other reforms, and didn't nearly go far enough to end the crisis in the short term
