David Boaz: Roosevelt v. Reagan on CNBC

[IceCreamRueckert]

I think a big difference between Reagan and FDR was where they put the money and where we are putting it today. Reagan cut taxes plenty, but spent on the war on drugs and defense like there was no tomorrow. FDR put it in the right place, but it didn't SOLVE the problem though it did improve a lot of things in the economy.

[perdondaris]

Reagan and his minions destroyed America. No amount CPR is going to resuscitate America from the egg Reagan dropped. Perhaps that is a good thing. America has become a force for evil in the world like czarist Russia. America today is a backward nation haunted by a do nothing capitalist class. The autocratic regimes that libertarians like Boaz crave led to the disastrous 20th century. Right wing libertarianism is a forfeiture-"I quit"-let God (or his stand in "the market") solve the problem.

[HoldingOnToLiberty]

@UBSCARED The solution to the 1920 crash would have also worked on the 1929 crash regardless of any differences or similarities. Both crashes were caused by the Fed so we begin with ending the Fed. Then we get the gov't control freaks out of the gov't and let the market be free.

If the Dems in Congress hadn't constantly sent spending bills to Reagan then his policy would be more Austrian and less Keynesian.

[HoldingOnToLiberty]

So Heather Boushey is basically suggesting that because FDR depression and Obama's recession are so similar that we should do the same things that FDR did. If that is the case we're in for a world of hurt.

So why did no one mention the stock market crash that happened at the end of 1919 that was very similar to 1929? Harding used a more Reaganesque approach and that resulting depression lasted about 18 months.

Heather and the rest of the nitwit Keynesians and Marxist just want to spend.

[leftbehind81]

Roosevelt and Reagan faced the same sort of crisis???? Do you not know anything about history??? Unemployment lowered throughout FDRs term. Rediculous.

[stealthswimmer]

UCLA economists actually showed Roosevelt's polices made the Depression worse and longer lasting than it otherwise would have been. He basically did what Hoover did but on a much larger scale and with the result of dragging out the Depression.

[leftbehind81]

Hoover cut spending and raised taxes in an effort to keep the deficit low. Lookup the "bonus army" where he stopped paying the pensions of the wwi vets, they marched on washington, then he called out the national guard on them. This deficit phobia only worsened the depression.

Depressions are caused by markets unraveling eg I cant afford to pay my rent, then my landlord cant afford to pay the bank, then the bank cant afford to cash paychecks so there is a run on the bank, and on and on.

[stealthswimmer]

yes, the big problem was the rise in spending...but he also convinced business owners to keep wages high...and in a deflation, this mean that more people were priced out of employment than there otherwise would be. The Smoot-Hawley tariff also made things worse by imposing protectionism and messed up trade.

And, depression are caused by bank credit expansions beyond the rate of actual savings and loaning out the credit longer than people are willing to wait before withdrawing money from the bank

[jlucks123]

errrrrrrnt, wrong

[DontTreadOnLiberty]

Ugh, FDR was a economic failure. Reagan cut taxes without cutting enough spending which lead to his increase of the deficit. So how about we don't use either plan.

[yak6ex]

Spending was increased because Congress would not cut spending.

[freeVmike]

ha! those bozos on CNBC need a little spanking from true economists. I say bring in David Boaz, Marc Faber, Jim Rogers, and Peter Schiff and teach them what true economics should be. it should give those folks at Center for American Progress a run for their money.

[Seiku]

Damn, Heather loves BIG spending.

[Salsa23PR]

Who do these politicians think they are thinking that they can 'fix' the economy?

Wow! The politicians are going to give us all free health care, lower gas prices and provide us with an adequate education...I guess this kind of 'public security' is worth it since the importance of freedom is no longer popular in American political life .

WTF?!

[leftbehind81]

I am not sure how public health care and public education inhibits freedom. When I think of freedom, I think of the ability to marry whoever I want, choose to have children or not, and the ability to organize without having to face retaliation by the employer. Health care was never promised as free and the responsibility of receiving an 'adequate' education will always be in the hands of the students.

[Salsa23PR]

@leftbehind81 @leftbehind81

Your speaking about personal freedoms and I agree with what you wrote on that., like the right to choose a spouse or to organize and bargain collectively .

[Salsa23PR]

@leftbehind81

However, when government provides educational or health care services to the public don't forget that those same services cost MONEY to run in the first place. As a result, economic FREEDOM is hampered since taxes are taken from our paychecks (and by other means) to fund and support all those costly government programs that the public recieves and takes for granted.

[leftbehind81]

@Salsa23PR all public services cost money... so don't all public services hamper economic freedom? Police, Firefighters, Roads etc? All government services are established by the legislative branch and ran by the executive branch. Both of which are ultimately elected by the citizenry. It is our democracy that makes the government able to provide services without hampering freedom.

[Salsa23PR]

Yes all public services cost money, and no not all public services hamper economic freedom because they are essential to protecting our liberties. Police services and a military exist ONLY to Protect and Serve the public from imminent danger posed by foreign enemies or domestic criminals, and roads are used by the public to travel so yes for those things we give up some liberty for safety for preserving our rights, a social contract you may say.

[Salsa23PR]

There is a difference between allowing some in power (whom we elect) to spend our money the way they see fit v.s. the individual citizen deciding on what services or products to buy for his or her own personal benefit. No one spends anybodys money better than he does his own, and to think otherwise is just ignorant and irrational.



[Salsa23PR]

@leftbehind81

Leftbehind81, shouldn't we get to decide on how we spend our own money rather than leave it the hands of a few bureaucrats?

[aires12345678]

this year feel like it going to a be a long slow year....

[Elasaltaculos]

"Jumpstart" the economy?

I am sorry, but it is hard to jumpstart something when there is no engine.

[x37green]

I agree with Elasaltaculos that you can't jumpstart something with no engine. And I believe that manufacturing is the engine that drives the economy. We need something American that our service economy can service. With out more blue collar jobs, our economy will be a hollow shell.

[Elasaltaculos]

I think that the only way that our service economy would be viable, would be to have a massive tourism industry. And I mean massive

[sniper6081]

Except for Biaz they have no idea what they're talking about, especially Boaz's opponent. She doesn't even realize that we're broke.

[wogsland]

This should be retitled "Dumb Girls Debate Boaz".

[Basaltq]

@wogsland Great ad hominem there mister. You must be proud of yourself.

[MooseOfReason]

Reagan didn't do any of those things.

Spending increased. There were no balanced budgets. No government agencies were "dismantled." He talked about getting rid of the Department of Education, didn't he?

Now we have the same problems. We're spending about three times what we were spending in the 80's, and part of the 90's, about twice of 95. No balanced budgets. Departments are double in size, and we have more departments.

How about a real conservative in office for a change!?

[overmind25]

Ronald Reagan was a CREDIT CARD!

[cnerd2025]

The Fed set the rate to 0 during the Depression? They didn't even target the so-called "Federal Funds Rate" during the 1930s. When did they start? Oh, yeah, the 1980s under Volker. Lack of effective open market operations got us into the depression - the Fed shrank the money supply instead of keeping it steady or increasing it. What did we get? The most severe economic contraction in US history. Current Fed policy actually has some reasonable shot of working, though I still dislike the Fed.

[RenShiWu]

Reagan and FDR both faced similar economic crises, but Reagan solved his. Why then is FDR's head on the dime? During the 1930s, unemployment never dropped below 17%. It was at 33% during the period of immediate government action i.e. the first hundred days of the New Deal.

[davidmesaaz]

The recessions of 1946 1960 1980 and 1995 all had common themes. They all cut taxes they all had free trade deals and they all deregulated... Uh so that won't work now?

Clinton in 1994 passed the largest free trade deal. He cut the capital gains tax 1996 deregulated the economy and had welfare reform 1996. Spending was limited to .04 percent. Why don't we return to that strategy?

Even FDR during the Great Depression had a free trade deal the reciprocal trade agreement of 1934.

[printo69]

google: austrian business cycle theory

that is why we have recessions and depressions

[CountArtha]

So sad that to this day people don't know what the New Deal did to this country.

[Isawanangel1X]

obama is jimmy carter

[socksfan360]

One of the great attributes of the New Deal that helped to curb unemployment was its speed of action.

It's ironic that the sprawling bureaucracy that we have today has been shooting itself in the foot repeatedly with the red tape that has been going up over the years - in the name of the Keynesian theory that was behind the New Deal in the first place.

The 1930's "stimulus plan" was next to instantaneous in its implementation. 2009's "stimulus plan" will take 4+ years. Now that's progress.

[TracyII77]

What speed of action? Unemployement did not go down until WWII. That's 10 years. People were rationing even through the war, so in reality our economy did not turn around until AFTER the war. Which means our economy did not turn around until after FDR was already dead. So how can we attribute any of the economy's turn around to that man?

[socksfan360]

I was not arguing to the effectiveness of the New Deal (or lack thereof!):

Because it did not work does not change the fact that people were put back to work within 6 months of passage. I was just merely pointing out how that model has changed over the years to the point that it will take 4+ years to accomplish the same feat today.

[TracyII77]

"the fact that people were put back to work within 6 months of passage"

Then why didn't the unemployment rate go down? If people were put back to work, that means the unemployment rate went down. It didn't. That is the fact.

[socksfan360]

Well no...the unemployment rate DID go down for the years after the creation of the WPA, even before US involvement in WW2. It obviously didn't fix the problem, but again --- that isn't my point.

The programs put 8 million people back to work within 100 days of its passage (notwithstanding any other effects on the economy). I am just remarking how Obama 80 years later, using that same model, has to wait 4+ years to feel the effects his plan because of all the red tape that has been going up.

[TracyII77]

Where are you getting your figures from?

Think about it. If unemployment went down, those years would not have been labeled as part of the depression. It is common sense.

[socksfan360]

The figures are from the BLS. The unemployment rates fluctuated during the "depression" from as high as 25% to as "low" as 14% - particularly during the years after the creation of the WPA.

As I said, the new deal obviously didn't fix the depression. The point is that the WPA employed 8 million people, starting from 100 days of its creation - a feat that will be impossible in Today's world.

If you think I support the new deal, you are swinging at wind mills :).

[SlaveStorm]

Q What is an Economic Stimulus Payment A It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers Q Where will the government get this money A From taxpayers Q So the government is giving me back my own money A Only a smidgen Q What is the purpose of this payment A The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set a analog to digital converter box or a new computer thus stimulating the economy Q But isn't that stimulating the economy of China A Shut up

[RPFS2008]

It wont come out of taxation. It'll be borrowed and printed ;)

It'll hurt everyone, not just taxpayers, but the kicker is, it'll hurt those that get the money straight away , the banks and corporations, the least.

The fact she calls it an "economic recovery plan" just goes to show that she doesn't know what she is talking about.

[TheZappersdoopable]

@SlaveStorm I agree with you,,, They should just let us keep our money...

[SuperGuitarman69]

@SlaveStorm Lol I love that.

[DavidCaddock]

I love the irony of the first FDR quote given. He said we must not allow speculation with other people's money, but what is government spending and government "job creation" other than speculation with other people's money? Socialism has no firm philosophical or economic footings. It is a sham, a destruction of personal liberty, and a horrible idea.

[t4705mb6]

The push to move the U.S. toward an oligarchical totalitarian state began in earnest with the murders of JFK & RFK. Not a single president since JFK has worked in the best interest of the American people. Not one.

The Club of Rome and illuminati and their organizations have been the handlers of our presidents since JFK was killed. Reagan bucked the system and he was nearly "taken out" by the Hinkleys, close friends & neighbors of the Bush family. If Americans don't act, the U.S. is done.

[Blackhalo325]

Once again the gentleman from Cato makes complete sense and explains his reasons while everyone else who opposes spouts off rhetoric that they can't back up.

I hate it when other guests interrupt when someone is trying to give their point. Wait your turn little girl, they'll get to you. Geez... I thought we learned sharing and taking turns in kindergarten...

[mpost81]

That woman is a total zombie who likes to hear her own voice.

I love how the socialist ignore the historical facts to push their own agenda.

And still the people sleep.

[rockandrock44]

I love the whole 'if the amount of money we're throwing at the economy doesn't work, we should throw even more!' philosophy.

It makes total sense, right? Sure...

[snipa4lyfe]

These New Dealers make me sick.