In the Great Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created New Deal programs to help people who were out of work and, in many cases, didn’t have anything to eat. Talk to someone who lived through it and they’ll tell you how bleak their lives were. There were no food stamps, there was no public housing, no government subsidized health care. You were on your own.
Back then, people were eager to work but simply had no jobs. Two of Roosevelt’s signature programs — the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration — gave them the opportunity to earn a little money. But you had to go to work to get it. I remember my grandmother telling me that my grandfather earned $50 a month working for the WPA. He was glad to get it — and willing to work to earn it.
Fast forward to today’s economy, and President Barack Obama’s big stimulus package. I’m watching TV right now and they’re talking about how $75 billion is being devoted to helping people who got subprime mortgages and can no longer afford those payments. These people aren’t going hungry; they’re living in houses that in most cases are probably bigger than mine, and probably worth much more. As a responsible person who has always lived within my means and made owning my own home a financial priority — foregoing expensive vacations and new vehicles – why should my tax dollars be used to bail out irresponsible people?
I read yesterday that the stimulus plan will result in the Social Security Administration sending one-time $250 checks to people who are disabled or on Social Security. It’s being called an “economic recovery payment.” Nothing against folks in either of those categories, but it’s a real stretch to claim that this is a way to create or preserve jobs. It’s not exactly building roads or bridges.
My point is that all the comparisons of today’s crisis to the Great Depression are not valid. Today the government is helping people stay in expensive homes, whereas in the the 1930s many people didn’t have a home at all. And the government is sending checks to people who aren’t working, whereas before you had to work for your money.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Paul.
I have owned my home since I was 23 years old.
I have never asked anyone for anything, because I was raised to do things for myself, because yourself is the only one you can depend on when the going gets tough.
Another thing about the Great Depression is that people had nothing to lose, because most had lost everything.
They started their own businesses. My grandparents started to mine coal on their own property and sold it to neighbors a lot cheaper than any where else.
They didn’t do it to get rich, but to keep from starving.
FDR knew about the planned attack on Pearl Harbor and allowed Japan to do it instead of stopping them.
WWII is what pulled us out of the Great Depression, the New Deal pushed us deeper down.
The question is: Will Obama allow us to be attacked to pull us out of this recession?
I hope not, but this “stimulus” bill doesn’t help the working class, it only helps the people who make a living off of the working class.
Bush did the right thing by giving money directly to the people to stimulate the economy, because the peopl took their money and spent it locally.
Giving billions to banks help no one, but the banks.
My bank didn’t forgive my mortgage when they got their big bailout, so it didn’t help me.
Also, I don’t have a problem with people on true social security or SDI (people who worked and earned a disability check) getting some money, because they have earned their checks and they will spend that money locally.
But, I do have a problem with people on SSI who get a check because they are obese, addicted to drugs or alcohol, claim to have a bad back and who did not earn that check by working in the past.
A fat person is going to continue to eat, if you give them free money with no strings attached.
An addicted person is going to continue to drink or do drugs if you continue to give them free money with no strings attached.
Let’s start attaching strings to these free checks.
Make the fat person attend counseling and force them on to an exercise program or no more checks.
Same with dope heads and alcoholics. Force them into rehab and give them drug tests or no more free checks.
Heck, we can even force the women who continue to have disabled babies to different guys, just to get a check to have their tubes tied.
People might think that is cruel, but we can’t afford to support a woman and her 10 disable kids just so she can collect $600 per month for each kid.
I have to get a license to get married, cut hair, drive a car, carry a gun, sell insurance, inspect cars, be an auctioneer, etc, but any fool can go out and make a baby.
Oh my, you wanted comments, they will be flying after this one.
By: CJ on February 21, 2009
at 11:34 am
CJ,
The debate over whether Roosevelt’s New Deal helped end the Great Depression will apparently go on forever. Here’s all I care about: FDR at least put in place programs to give people meaningful work — and a much-needed paycheck — as opposed to the Republicans whose solution was “do nothing.”
It’s easy to “do nothing” when you’re not the one whose belly is growling, or the one who has no place to live. For actually recognizing that something needed to be done, with 25 or 30 percent of people out of work, Roosevelt deserves high praise.
The same principle applies today: At least Obama and the Democrats are trying to do something. I don’t necessarily agree with everything in their plan, but its a better approach than the Hoover-esque crew who still say “do nothing.”
Also, a big parallel concerns the sheer greed at the top that led to both economic crises. They called them the “Roaring 20s” for a reason.
By: paulsunyak on February 21, 2009
at 12:02 pm
We’re almost idealogical twins Paul. Your comments about Roosevelt and Obama at least doing something about our current economic woes as opposed to the Bobby Jindal obstructionist types who would do nothing except prepare for the 2012 presidential election hit the nail right on the head.
I say almost because I believe that some of the mortgages which you label as irresponsible were actually ill advised. All human beings (children and adults) are not created equal. Just as some children will be left behind, some adults will be left behind. Even so, we should not ignore them or take advantage of them. We, as a society, should help them as far as possible toward an honest and productive goal.
Instead, in this hyperactive housing market, the unscrupulous bankers, derivative broker pigs, and real estate agents saw dollar signs in the confused looks of some of their mortgage clients. Instead of guiding these people toward an informed decision, in many cases, they said sign on the dotted line, everything will be OK. They then, licked their chops, and deposited their commission.
The borrowers weren’t stupid or bad people, they just didn’t have as much economic knowledge as some others have and so the “better class” took advantage of them.
The last argument I need to hear is that the evil liberals FORCED the financial types to make these bad loans. I defy any right wing genius to quote me a LAW that says that mortgages MUST BE PROVIDED to unqualified or low income borrowers. This is pure bull kaka and is just one of the excuses to disguise moral corruption.
I also do not want my taxes to go toward paying an ill-gotten or ill-conceived mortgage, but if the borrower was duped or was led toward ruin by a shyster crook, I’ll take part of the responsibility for allowing my society and government to put such moral perverts in positions of authority and financial control.
We all need to wake up and open our eyes and pay attention.
By: JBG on February 21, 2009
at 4:04 pm