http://dd.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/zs2n3...y_presidential/

502 Bad Gateway
nginx/1.0.2

Another lesser evil who will clearly be elected. Merrikuh.

nader 08 bitch

letters from iwo jima

Inspired by the New Deal programs that helped the U.S. out of the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Green New Deal proposes to provide similar relief and create an economy that makes communities sustainable, healthy and just.

Uh, no thanks. The first 100 days of the New Deal were an absolute mess, and unemployment remained extremely high until, DING we joined the fight in WW2.

What changes, if any, would you make to NASA’s budget?

This question was dodged.

Fuck this bitch.

that alone makes me want to vote for her

anything like the new deal cant make a difference in 100 days

are you for or against space travel?

I think you're missing the point Joe.

The first hundred days was a jumbled mess of legislation that by and large was contradictory and self defeating, as a result it lengthened the great depression by YEARS. What finally got us back to economic prosperity was WAR. clearly anything dealing with the New Deal.

Says the guy who always agrees with me on doubling NASA's budget.

anything as new and sweeping as that was clearly going to be smooth out of the gate, im clearly sure at all what the point even is but w/e yay austerity
and if you are implying the extension of the depression on the first 100 days of the new deal and conveniently ignore how austerity by hoover made it worse from the very start i dont think we can discuss this. but then again i think the austrian school is fucking full of their own feces so w/e

This post has been edited by blind_chief on Thu - Sep 13 2012 - 07:19:20

im against space travel. if god wanted us in space he would have given us wings.

we need to populate mars

this country is fucked by all the liberals who invented global warming

they should have invented bigger churches imo

instead we have the internet

The internet often tells me it's power comes from worship and adulation.

So making a bad situation worse is acceptable to you if the guy before sucked as well? Now that's an Obama defense we all can agree on!

For the record though, I can't bring myself in a million years to vote for Mitt and co.

This election cycle makes me want to move to Canada.

But too cold, and too many fat people, like Wisconsin.

how did we go from me criticizing your attack on the new deal to obama?
you win the dc.net tea bag argument of the year award

its clearly only mitt imo, its the entire gop thats off its rocker.
3rd party for life

haha im glad wisconsin is on there

Point was it's the same rhetoric thrown out by the apologists.

So clearly you believe making a bad situation worse is acceptable if the guy before you sucked.

no, my critique still stands. your view is overly simplistic and is one that aims at discrediting any government involvement poop depression while ignoring hoovers part in it and is an effort to further show how any government intervention is bad (unless tax breaks cuz jobs).

and what made wwii so effective was that we had essentially zero unemployment, more government spending than the new deal could imagine, and (get this, its crazy) taxes to pay for it. couple with that the fact that the rest of the free worlds manufacturing base was bombed to shit and we pulled through like a boss. to blame 100 days of new deal on lengthening it by years is comical to say the least (though it fits with a certain school of thought that is increasingly common for talking points which happens to piss me off immediately)

point is you cant attribute any one thing to a recovery from the great depression (or what we have now which is the great-depression-round-2-but-call-it-a-recession). ill give you the argument about austerity v government spending during a downturn though (even if i dont think it can tread water ill just leave it at that).

poop depression

Ah but it did. The war driver is a far better economic boon than just throwing money at people. Essentially that's what the first 100 days did. (Simplifying, yes, but then I'm clearly about to go through boxes of shit to find a 30 page paper that I wrote on this over a decade ago).

Was war government spending? OF COURSE IT WAS! I never claimed otherwise. However if you look at the historical record on unemployment during the 1930's, it paints a very dire picture. We were spending at a rapid rate pre WW2 involvement, but it wasn't doing much of anything to strengthen the economy at the time. I'm really clearly sure what exact windmill you're trying to tilt at here, other than for some reason you think looking back at history automatically means you're on a political slant.

I did throw the Obama barb in there, mainly because many (clearly all) are still playing the "look at the hand he was dealt". At some point accountability has to come into play.

Anyways, graphic of unemployment:



To further expand on why the 100 days wasn't as effective as many would like to believe, I highly recommend this book.

"The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from Roosevelt to Clinton"
By Fred I. Greenstein (2001).

My contention is the recovery was stalled by many of the acts passed in the first 100 days, due to several being completely contradictory. Acts further along in his tenure were just as baffling.

lol politics

Probably the most apt response in the toilet tbh.

By the way, the throwing money at people is a GROSS oversimplification. There were just as many acts that took away what they were giving in the first 100 days. But since I left it in there, feel free to call me to task on it. The point was clearly the money itself, but the way they went about it.

Much like the stimulus plan that Bush II created, and Obama was cornered into agreeing on. It was a huge mistake, and extremely contradictory with no plan in motion to make sure it had a shot of working.

are you referring to the first new deal? the one where his first 100 days were so productive that its been a benchmark to ever since? the one where total employment increased for the next 4 years? the one that ofc clearly everything was perfect, its still congress where everyone is trying to get rich off of the public and 10 terrible ideas are attached to the one good idea. one does clearly have to like everything single aspect of something to recognize the overall benefit of it. sure, the blue eagle program was lol (a testament of the true socialistic movement of the time that had clearly been real-world tested yet), but you cant deny the fdic and the glass-steagall helped stabilize an industry that left to its own devices is doomed to boom and bust (you can argue this is needed, i get that, but the people who suffer are clearly those playing the poker game at the table so the other side of that argument has a valid basis and you should be able to recognize the problem that we face).

as you are a libertarian i get that you fundamentally hate the new deal and anything even remotely similar to it. but this toilet was clearly about the new deal, only a new modern day approach that stole the name because people understand the principal of government funded investment into infrastructure which generally benefits individuals first and business second, and this proal entices the broken window theory in you and your loins are on fire at the mere mention of it!

still, what she is proposing cant and shouldnt be directly compared to what happened back then because everything about our economy and world is different

the stimulus was too small when compared to the downturn we faced (school of thought blah blah i get it). what we did was 2 sides compromise thus making sure neither side ever was happy yay american politics. there was enough pork on the bill to make ron paul smile. what we also did was make sure everyone invested in 401k didnt loose their life savings. like it or clearly it saved the economy more than "tax breaks" would have (for the average blue collar worker).

They aren't a benchmark, at all. I know it seems like blasphemy to say that, but most historians now regard the New Deal as rife with contradictions and rather counter productive. This is fact, clearly some sort of bias. However I see there is no point in continuing in this discussion because you've made your views on it crystal clear.

The New Deal itself was flawed due to implementation, much like the Stimulus plan was. I even bothered pooping that as an aside but my only guess is you had already gone through and were in the process of responding?

Read the book, look at a few more sources, that's all I'm asking. You always claim to be the non-dogmatic one, I gave you some follow up research of your own to do, using one of the most renowned political historians of our era, and you essentially laugh it off.

But yes, that is off topic. The name drew ire from me, what she'd plan to do I really don't know. I will even apologize for sidetracking this toilet.

Again, though you and I both know it always comes down to what congress will let happen. We're clearly going to see anyone utalize the Bully Pulpit, and the hidden hand presidential style cannot and will clearly ever work again with the media being what it is, soaring rhetoric and trying to appeal to the public won't work either. A strong president in all reality is most likely a thing of the past.


As for my own political leanings, I wouldn't even call myself a libertarian anymore. I don't know what I'd call myself, other than an informed and scientifically literate citizen.

You seriously grill daily, don't you?

FU, I'm going to go fry something now because I don't own a grill

>most historians
>most conservative/libertarian historians
you and i know this to be fact, and id still like to state that its clearly that i love the new deal but im clearly going to deny the benefit it had on the people nor about my belief that our economy is mostly demand driven (fuck you supply-siders).

with that said, the simple fact is there are far more people in todays world that want any government program to be seen a failure.
the powell memorandum has had a profound impact on todays schools of economic thought and the business worlds approach to government. its no secret that we are shifting more right over the last 30 years, its even somehow bad to clearly be conservative.

every few, i usually cook up a pound of chicken then have 4 nights of dinner

do i think government is the sole answer? no
do i think business is the sole problem? no
do i think the free market is the holy grail of solutions (if its even possible to exist)? nope
do i think the solution is a combination of business and government? yes

same.

I just took some cod and fried it up in olive oil, I didn't have any breading handy, so get this, I used hot and spicy pork rinds.

put in a little baggy, took the rolling pin to it, and then added cilantro, basil, garlic, ginger, and peppger. Waiting for it to cool a bit more before trying.

also done with the politics for the night.

IT was AMAZING

i like cajun seasoning whenst cooking cod/talipia and more elaborate stuff on salmon/tuna etc

Sort of what it tasted like (the first), I just really didn't expect ground up pork rinds to be such a viable coat.

ive never even considered this