Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Mr.Nick]

But I don't even see how FDR is even a basis of argument considering Obama has done nothing but bailout unions and hold money over corporations heads if they didn't unionize or hire union labor or hire on the basis of race. Then he goes and hires union contractors that only hire on the basis of race....

So the stimulus is almost a joke....

This is while Obamafuck forces hard working people to pay for minorities to get free housing in a housing bubble, then he bails them out just as long as minorities get free housing...

Of course this is after the CRA...... Which was racist....

When will we be fucked again?

 

[Bfgrn]

But I don't even see how FDR is even a basis of argument considering Obama has done nothing but bailout unions and hold money over corporations heads if they didn't unionize or hire union labor or hire on the basis of race. Then he goes and hires union contractors that only hire on the basis of race....

So the stimulus is almost a joke....

This is while Obamafuck forces hard working people to pay for minorities to get free housing in a housing bubble, then he bails them out just as long as minorities get free housing...

Of course this is after the CRA...... Which was racist....

When will we be fucked again?

In a brief post you are able to showcase your amazing ignorance and brainwashed propaganda...

I heard Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries say the propaganda

coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.

 

[Bfgrn]

Baby Boom
The Population Baby Boom of 1946-1964 in the United States

Young males returning to the United States, Canada, and Australia following tours of duty overseas during World War II began families, which brought about a significant number of new children into the world. This dramatic increase in the number of births from 1946 to 1964 (1947 to 1966 in Canada and 1946-1961 in Australia) is called the Baby Boom.

In the United States, approximately 79 million babies were born during the Baby Boom. Much of this cohort of nineteen years (1946-1964) grew up with Woodstock, the Vietnam War, and John F. Kennedy as president.

 

[Bfgrn]

Hey Intense, does John Dean know you personally?

The Tea Party: Same Old Authoritarian Conservatives With a New Label

The Tea Party movement is an orchestrated undertaking that is underwritten by big corporate money, with hard-right corporate conservative views. The puppeteers here are pushing a radical agenda to remove, if possible, or significantly weaken, all government influence and regulation in the marketplace. The movement seeks to disrupt the processes, by gaming the system, in order to de-legitimatize government. They believe that, by making government fail, they will ensure that Democrats in general, and Barack Obama in particular, will lose future elections. And the Tea Party backers and supporters utterly despise our first African-American president.

Notwithstanding glib slogans and faux patriotism, the Tea Party thinks that government has only a few responsibilities (most, if not all, of which can be subcontracted out to the private sector), namely: keeping public order, protecting private property; defending the country against foreign enemies; permitting the marketplace to self-regulate; allowing the intelligent and shrewd to prosper while the less gifted, unlucky, or meek fail because we are not all equal; keeping all taxes to the absolute minimum while eliminating all “death taxes” so that wealth can be accumulated by the “job creators,” to be passed on to their progeny—to highlight but a few core principles of their thinking.


John Dean III is an American lawyer who served as White House Counsel to United States President Richard Nixon. He was a close friend of late Senator Barry Goldwater.

 

[peach174]

That's funny Van Jones said the same thing. Your both wrong Bf.
At least when the tea party protests it doesn't cost the taxpayer millions of dollars like the left does.
No extra force of police, no destruction of property and no city sanitation workers.
Perhaps this is the true purpose ,is to try and bankrupt our cities and states. Who are on very tight budgets right now.
I don't think that any of these people that are protesting right now even realize what the cost is.
Maybe they just don't care.
While protesting about the rich they cost the little guys much in taxes.
I see a whole bunch of very disrespectful people.

 

[Bfgrn]

That's funny Van Jones said the same thing. Your both wrong Bf.
At least when the tea party protests it doesn't cost the taxpayer millions of dollars like the left does.
No extra force of police, no destruction of property and no city sanitation workers.
Perhaps this is the true purpose ,is to try and bankrupt our cities and states. Who are on very tight budgets right now.
I don't think that any of these people that are protesting right now even realize what the cost is.
Maybe they just don't care.
While protesting about the rich they cost the little guys much in taxes.
I see a whole bunch of very disrespectful people.

Their policies will destroy this nation, but they are well behaved.

 

[peach174]

Big Government is what is destroying this nation.
Your little cartoon is absolutely wrong.
It's that the ideology's are different.

 

[Intense]

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

And WHAT are the Teapublicans calling for...AUSTERITY

Medieval bloodletting will save the patient THIS time. Let's shrink the GDP, chant it with me:
Shrink the GDP!
Shrink the GDP!!
Shrink the GDP!!!

Bfgrn::

You need to put down the numbers and step back.. Before someone gets hurt.. You have no idea what you're doin..

1) Year to year percent change in GDP has NOTHING to do with constant dollars or ancient dollars. It's all the same.

2) A 17% increase FROM THE BOTTOM of the depression is NOT impressive. In real dollars it would only equal about a 9% increase from where the GDP was in 1928.

It's like if last Sept only 4 homes sold in Las Vegas and this Sept 40 homes sold. That's a
900% increase in sales. But it could also be that this Sept sales is only 10% of a normal year. Stick with raw numbers and avoid the hype. When dealing with depressions, percentages are truly dishonest..

All that aside. We had to listen to Progressive arguments for DECADES where we were lectured that America only had 5% of the population but controlled 25% of the world's wealth. America only had 5% of the population but used 35% of the world's energy. Ad Nauseum. You know the Chomsky rhetoric don't you? And how unsustainable it was to demand yearly growth in the GDP..

Well now you progs have gotten all those issues fixed haven't you? Should be in hog heaven.. The GDP is flat-lined and the redistribution of American jobs and wealth to the REST of the world is in motion.. Why the hell aren't you guys celebrating the great victory for world justice???

By the way -- I'M not asking for simple austerity.. I'm asking for severe roll-backs of subsidies and unleashing domestic energy and cutting the uncertainty of never ending writing of open-ended bills like Dodd-Frank. Where if it DOESN'T get fixed, we won't know what's in it for years to come. That and writing REAL budgets, and having REAL tax policy, and a REAL energy policy, and a way to repatriot Trillions in off-shore capital.. Don't TELL me what I'm asking for..

I have news for you, progressives haven't had their way with policy since they boarded Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and rode off into political oblivion. We are now fully in the grips of conservative policies and conservative agenda.

Progressives couldn't even get a public option in the health care bill.

BTW Mr mathematics. A 17% increase FROM THE BOTTOM of the depression IS impressive, because it signals a drastic swing in the right direction and very effective policy moves. But even if I were willing to give you that point, the next year isn't measured FROM THE BOTTOM of the depression, now is it? And the next year and the next year that CONTINUE to build a tremendously successful recovery, even BEFORE we entered the war.

So, you are claiming that a Democratically Controlled Congress, and 3 Democratic Presidents haven't done anything Progressive since Bobby's Funeral? Are you sneaking into the medicine cabinet again?

 

[Bfgrn]

We already tried Teapublican austerity bloodletting. The Austrian School's shining moment...

“Liquidation” Cycles and the Great Depression

The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 1929–33. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and “liquidate” the unprofitable portions of the private economy. In adopting such “liquidationist” policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter. This paper reconstructs the logic of this “liquidationist” view, and argues that the perspective was carefully thought out (although not adequate to the Depression) and may have held some truth as applied to business cycles that came before the Great Depression.

The inaction of the United States government during the 1929–33 slide into the Great Depression is both astonishing and puzzling when viewed from any of the perpectives held today. All points of view today hold that governments should strive to provide a stable environment in which the private economy can operate, and should do this by keeping some broad nominal aggregate measure of spending or liquidity on a stable growth path. For monetarist economists, the measure to be stabilized is some definition of the nominal money supply.1 For Keynesians, the appropriate aggregate is total nominal demand itself.2

As the conduct of economic policy while a depression is pending is concerned, these differences of opinion are relatively minor, for they all teach one central lesson: the central bank should pour reserves and liquidity into the banking system as fast as possible3 in order to keep the money stock and demand from collapsing during depressions. Above all, the central bank should not aggravate depressions by unexpectedly imposing contractionary policy on an already weakening economy.

This, however, was not the policy followed during the Great Depression.4 The Federal Reserve did not push reserves into the banking system during the 1929–33 decline. It passively stood by while the nominal money stock fell by a third. The federal govenment did not increase its spending while allowing its tax revenues to fall. Instead, strenuous efforts were made to balance the budget and keep it balanced.

These policies were disastrous. They certainly did not stop the contraction in economic activity. They may well have severely aggravated it, and presumably played an important role in making the 1929–41 depression into the Great Depression.

Alternatives were considered. Factions within the Federal Reserve system did argue for expanding liquidity during the downslide.5 They were overruled by those who thought that the economy needed to go through a period of “liquidation” in order to lay the groundwork for renewed expansion. “Liquidationists” pointed to the short (but sharp) 1921 recession, argued that it had laid the groundwork for prosperity in the 1920’s, and pushed for similar deflationary policies—which they mistakenly hoped would assist the release of capital and labor from unproductive activities, and lay the groundwork for a similar boom in the 1930’s.6

The current of mind that underlay “liquidationism” was not a freak belief held by central bankers and makers of policy alone. Such a “liquidationist” theory of the function of depressions was in fact a common position for economists to take before the Keynesian Revolution, and was held and advanced by economists as eminent as Hayek, Robbins, and Schumpeter. In squeezing an already-weak economy, the makers of American economic policy were to some degree acting as John Maynard Keynes believed that policy makers always act: they were “madmen in authority” obeying voices in the air which were to some degree echoes of academic debates.7 Academic economics gave central bankers a warrant for their contractionary depression-era policies.

In the aftermath of the Great Depression, the intellectual rout of the liquidationists and the victory of the Keynesians was complete. Pre-Keynesian business cycle theory receives less than a footnote in post-World War II macroeconomic texts.8


*I wish to thank John Leahy, Murray Milgate, Robert Waldmann, and especially Barry Eichengreen and Randy Kroszner for helpful discussions, and Hoang Quan Vu for enthusiastic research assistance.

1 See Milton Friedman (1984).

2 See Robert Hall and John Taylor, Macroeconomics

3 And the fiscal authorities should cut taxes and accelerate spending as much as necessary.

4 See among others Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States, Lester Chandler, America’s Greatest Depression, Peter Temin, Did Monetary Forces Cause the Great Depression? and Lessons from the Great Depression, Barry Eichengreen, Golden Fetters: The Gold Standard and the Great Depression, and Charles Kindleberger, The World in Depression 1929–1939.

5 Friedman and Schwartz, Monetary History, Epstein and Ferguson, “Loan Liquidation…“ Temin, Lessons from the Great Depression.

6 Barry Eichengreen, Golden Fetters: The Gold Standard and the Great Depression.

7 John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London: Macmillan, 1936).

8 One of the few exceptions is Salant (1989).

Liquidation Cycles and the Great Depression

 

[Intense]

Hey Intense, does John Dean know you personally?

The Tea Party: Same Old Authoritarian Conservatives With a New Label

The Tea Party movement is an orchestrated undertaking that is underwritten by big corporate money, with hard-right corporate conservative views. The puppeteers here are pushing a radical agenda to remove, if possible, or significantly weaken, all government influence and regulation in the marketplace. The movement seeks to disrupt the processes, by gaming the system, in order to de-legitimatize government. They believe that, by making government fail, they will ensure that Democrats in general, and Barack Obama in particular, will lose future elections. And the Tea Party backers and supporters utterly despise our first African-American president.

Notwithstanding glib slogans and faux patriotism, the Tea Party thinks that government has only a few responsibilities (most, if not all, of which can be subcontracted out to the private sector), namely: keeping public order, protecting private property; defending the country against foreign enemies; permitting the marketplace to self-regulate; allowing the intelligent and shrewd to prosper while the less gifted, unlucky, or meek fail because we are not all equal; keeping all taxes to the absolute minimum while eliminating all “death taxes” so that wealth can be accumulated by the “job creators,” to be passed on to their progeny—to highlight but a few core principles of their thinking.


John Dean III is an American lawyer who served as White House Counsel to United States President Richard Nixon. He was a close friend of late Senator Barry Goldwater.

Why? Do you suspect he is cheating on you?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc]Howard Dean&#39;s Scream - YouTube[/ame]
Howard Dean's Scream

 

[Intense]

That's funny Van Jones said the same thing. Your both wrong Bf.
At least when the tea party protests it doesn't cost the taxpayer millions of dollars like the left does.
No extra force of police, no destruction of property and no city sanitation workers.
Perhaps this is the true purpose ,is to try and bankrupt our cities and states. Who are on very tight budgets right now.
I don't think that any of these people that are protesting right now even realize what the cost is.
Maybe they just don't care.
While protesting about the rich they cost the little guys much in taxes.
I see a whole bunch of very disrespectful people.

ACORN lives on in the form of numerous state entities and in such affiliated organizations as Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA), The Advance Group, The Black Institute, and Project Vote. In the words of Bertha Lewis, former chief executive officer of ACORN, "... these entities are carrying on ACORN's work of organizing low- and moderate-income folks... [We have created] bullet-proof community-organizing Frankensteins that they're going to have a very hard time attacking."

Tens of millions of dollars in ACORN's funds and other assets are still unaccounted for. The attorney general's office for the state of Louisiana and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, as well as Judicial Watch, continue to investigate what happened to these missing resources.

Judicial Watch discovered that the Obama administration continues to bankroll ACORN and its affiliates in defiance of the federal government's funding ban. For example, on March 1, 2011, ACORN Housing Corporation--renamed Affordable Housing Centers of America (though it retained the same headquarters and many of the ACORN officers)--received a $79,819 grant from the Obama Department of Housing and Development (HUD).

Judicial Watch Releases Special Report: "The Rebranding of ACORN" - MarketWatch

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-8Uz_nMaQ]What is classical liberalism? - YouTube[/ame]
What is classical liberalism?

 

[Bfgrn]

Big Government is what is destroying this nation.
Your little cartoon is absolutely wrong.
It's that the ideology's are different.

My cartoon is right on the money. The financial crash of our economy was brought about by the private sector. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are because Wall Street controls the insurance industry.

More from John Dean...

These authoritarians are a notoriously nasty crew. If you have not noticed, they are delighted with what is happening in Washington, the chaos they have created. Actually, they are thrilled that they have been able to turn the Nation’s Capital upside down, as they actively work to screw up federal government in the hope of literally destroying it.

If you look closely, it is obvious that most of these Tea Party people have no real idea about the potential consequences of their actions, and they do not care to inform themselves. These are people who will pick a fight for the sake of picking a fight, refusing to compromise about anything that conflicts with their collective agenda, just because that feels to them like the right thing to do.

Who Are the Tea Party People?

They call themselves the Tea Party patriots, apparently seeing themselves in the tradition of the American colonists who resisted Parliament’s Tea Act tax in 1773 by dumping three boatloads of tea in the Boston Harbor, rather than returning it. The Tea Party’s effort to find a historical connection, however, does not work.

There is no real Tea Party, by any definition of the term “party.” This is merely a label, a colorful (albeit historically-distorted) rebranding of the GOP’s right wing. The Tea Party is really a new amalgamation of radical conservative groups who have been around a long time: evangelical bible-thumpers of the religious right; extreme anti-abortion and anti-women’s-rights groups; those who want guns (if not well-stocked arsenals) in every home and office with annual tithes to the National Rife Association; the sons and daughters, as well as a few grandchildren, of the John Birch Society loonies (who knew all along that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist); people who oppose any inter-marriage of races, and, God forbid, same-sex marriages between those they see as perverts; groups who would end the separation of church and state; and people who get most of their political information from right-wing radio, the Fox News Channel, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, their prayer groups, or a few select right-wing Internet sites. Ironically, few in this movement understand that those who provide the money that is spreading the messages that are manipulating them probably believe them to be fools for following an agenda that is not in their best interests.

 

[Intense]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT7tIE5qTLQ&feature=related]Progressives&#39; Programs - YouTube[/ame]
Progressives' Programs

 

[Intense]

Big Government is what is destroying this nation.
Your little cartoon is absolutely wrong.
It's that the ideology's are different.

My cartoon is right on the money. The financial crash of our economy was brought about by the private sector. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are because Wall Street controls the insurance industry.

More from John Dean...

These authoritarians are a notoriously nasty crew. If you have not noticed, they are delighted with what is happening in Washington, the chaos they have created. Actually, they are thrilled that they have been able to turn the Nation’s Capital upside down, as they actively work to screw up federal government in the hope of literally destroying it.

If you look closely, it is obvious that most of these Tea Party people have no real idea about the potential consequences of their actions, and they do not care to inform themselves. These are people who will pick a fight for the sake of picking a fight, refusing to compromise about anything that conflicts with their collective agenda, just because that feels to them like the right thing to do.

Who Are the Tea Party People?

They call themselves the Tea Party patriots, apparently seeing themselves in the tradition of the American colonists who resisted Parliament’s Tea Act tax in 1773 by dumping three boatloads of tea in the Boston Harbor, rather than returning it. The Tea Party’s effort to find a historical connection, however, does not work.

There is no real Tea Party, by any definition of the term “party.” This is merely a label, a colorful (albeit historically-distorted) rebranding of the GOP’s right wing. The Tea Party is really a new amalgamation of radical conservative groups who have been around a long time: evangelical bible-thumpers of the religious right; extreme anti-abortion and anti-women’s-rights groups; those who want guns (if not well-stocked arsenals) in every home and office with annual tithes to the National Rife Association; the sons and daughters, as well as a few grandchildren, of the John Birch Society loonies (who knew all along that Dwight Eisenhower was a communist); people who oppose any inter-marriage of races, and, God forbid, same-sex marriages between those they see as perverts; groups who would end the separation of church and state; and people who get most of their political information from right-wing radio, the Fox News Channel, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, their prayer groups, or a few select right-wing Internet sites. Ironically, few in this movement understand that those who provide the money that is spreading the messages that are manipulating them probably believe them to be fools for following an agenda that is not in their best interests.

You shouldn't drink so early.

 

[Intense]

PROGRESSIVISM (1900-1920)

Overview

Progressivism was not so much an organized movement as it was a general spirit of reform embraced by Americans with diverse goals and backgrounds during the early twentieth century (1900-20). Progressives sought the advancement of humanity (progress was defined here in Darwinian terms; i.e., the actually improvement of mankind in an evolutionary sense). Progressives sought advancement through the liberation of human energies and potential from both the fading restraints of past ages and the new restraints imposed by modern industrialism. Progressivism was, thus, both forward-looking and backward-looking in its outlook.

There were four general areas in which the progressives tried to reform American society. As you are reading Tindall and Shi, America: A Narrative History, note the discussion of these areas and the specific reforms that were a part of each area:

Democracy

Many progressives hoped to make government in the U.S. more responsive to the direct voice of the American people by instituting the following institutional reforms:

Initiative-A procedure whereby ordinary citizens could propose laws for consideration by their state legislatures or by the voters directly.

Referendum-A procedure whereby citizens could vote directly on whether to approve proposed laws.

Recall-A procedure by which a public official could be removed from office by a direct vote of the citizens.

Secret Ballot-A procedure by which citizens could keep their votes secret. Previously, voting was a public act witnessed by others. The voting records of individual citizens were recorded and made public. Many progressives argued that public voting allowed for voter intimidation. An employer, for instance, might require his employees to vote for certain candidates on pain of losing their jobs.

Direct primary-A procedure whereby political party nominations for public office were made directly by a vote of rank-and-file members of the party rather than by party bosses.

Direct election of U.S. Senators-A procedure to allow the citizens in each state to directly elect their Senators. Previously, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures. Direct election of Senators was achieved with the addition of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1913).

Women's Suffrage-Granting to women the right to vote. Women's Suffrage was achieved with the addition of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1920).

The progressives achieved their greatest and most enduring successes in the effort to make governments more democratic.

Efficiency

Many progressives hoped to make American governments better able to serve the people's needs by making governmental operations and services more efficient and rational. Reforms included:

Elite, professional administrators-Many progressives argued that governments would function better if they were placed under the direction of trained, professional administrators. One example of progressive reform was the rise of the city manager system, in which paid, professional administrators ran the day-to-day affairs of city governments under guidelines established by elected city councils.

Centralization of decision-making process-Many progressives sought to make government more rational through centralized decision-making. Governments were reorganized to reduce the number of officials and to eliminate overlapping areas of authority between departments. City governments were reorganized to reduce the power of local wards within the city and to increase the powers of the city council. Governments at every level began developing budgets to help them plan their expenditures (rather than spending money haphazardly as needs arose and revenue became available). The drive for centralization was often associated with the rise of professional administrators.

Movements to eliminate governmental corruption-Corruption represented a source of waste and inefficiency in government. Many progressives worked to cleanup local governments by eliminating the power of machine politicians and urban political bosses. Often this was associated with the effort to restructure the ward system. Power was transferred from urban bosses to professional administrators.

Note that the progressives' quest for efficiency was sometimes at odds with the progressives' quest for democracy. Taking power out of the hands of elected officials and placing that power in the hands of professional administrators reduced the voice of the people in government. Centralized decision-making and reduced power for local wards made government more distant and isolated from the people it served. Progressives who emphasized the need for efficiency sometimes argued that an elite class of administrators knew better what the people needed than did the people themselves.

Regulation of Large Corporations and Monopolies

Many progressives hoped that by regulating large corporations that they could liberate human energies from the restrictions imposed by industrial capitalism. Progressives disagreed over which of the following four solutions should be used to regulate corporations:

Laissez-Faire-Some progressives argued that marketplace forces were the best regulators of all. A company which paid low wages or maintained an unsafe work environment would be forced to change its policies by the loss of workers. A company which made an unsafe product would eventually lose customers and go bankrupt. In the long run, a free market would best protect the public interest.

Trust-busting-Some progressives argued that industrial monopolies were unnatural economic institutions which suppressed the competition which was necessary for progress and improvement. The federal government should intervene by breaking up monopolies into smaller companies, thereby restoring competition. The government should then withdraw and allow marketplace forces once again to regulate the economy.

Regulation-Some progressives argued that in a modern economy, large corporations and even monopolies were both inevitable and desirable. With their massive resources and economies of scale, large corporations offered the U.S. advantages which smaller companies could not offer. Yet, these large corporations might abuse their great power. The federal government should allow these companies to exist but regulate them for the public interest.

Socialism-Some progressives believed that privately owned companies could never be made to serve the public interest. Therefore, the federal government should acquire ownership of large corporations and operate them for the public interest.

The laissez-faire and socialist approaches were less popular among progressives than the trust-busting and regulatory approaches.

Social Justice

Many progressives supported both private and governmental action to help people in need (such action is called social justice). Social justice reforms included:

Development of professional social workers-The idea that welfare and charity work should be undertaken by professionals who are trained to do the job. (Notice again the progressives' concern for efficiency through professionalism.)

The building of Settlement Houses-These were residential, community centers operated by social workers and volunteers and located in inner city slums. The purpose of the settlement houses was to raise the standard of living of urbanites by providing schools, day care centers, and cultural enrichment programs.

The enactment of child labor laws-Child labor laws would prevent overwork of children in the newly emerging industries. The goal of these laws was to give working-class children the opportunity to go to school and to mature more naturally, thereby liberating the potential of humanity and encouraging the advancement of humanity.

Support for the goals of organized labor-Progressives often supported such goals as the eight-hour work day, improved safety and health conditions in factories, workman's compensation laws, minimum wage laws, and unionization.

Prohibition laws-Progressives adopted the cause of prohibition. They claimed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind's potential for advancement. Progressives achieved success in this area with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919.

Progressivism

So, which should the Progressive Movement throw under the bus next?

 

[Oddball]

So, which should the Progressive Movement throw under the bus next?

Whomsoever it takes to keep them in power....They don't care...Their general attitude is "where the hell else are the socialists in this or that identity group going to go?"

This excerpt from The Road to Serfdom, though it applies to progressives/socialists and faux "conservatives" alike, is a particularly poignant look into the mindset of the committed collectivist authoritarian:

The Road to Serfdom

 

[flacaltenn]

PROGRESSIVISM (1900-1920)

Overview

Progressivism was not so much an organized movement as it was a general spirit of reform embraced by Americans with diverse goals and backgrounds during the early twentieth century (1900-20). Progressives sought the advancement of humanity (progress was defined here in Darwinian terms; i.e., the actually improvement of mankind in an evolutionary sense). Progressives sought advancement through the liberation of human energies and potential from both the fading restraints of past ages and the new restraints imposed by modern industrialism. Progressivism was, thus, both forward-looking and backward-looking in its outlook.

There were four general areas in which the progressives tried to reform American society. As you are reading Tindall and Shi, America: A Narrative History, note the discussion of these areas and the specific reforms that were a part of each area:

Democracy

Many progressives hoped to make government in the U.S. more responsive to the direct voice of the American people by instituting the following institutional reforms:

Initiative-A procedure whereby ordinary citizens could propose laws for consideration by their state legislatures or by the voters directly.

Referendum-A procedure whereby citizens could vote directly on whether to approve proposed laws.

Recall-A procedure by which a public official could be removed from office by a direct vote of the citizens.

Secret Ballot-A procedure by which citizens could keep their votes secret. Previously, voting was a public act witnessed by others. The voting records of individual citizens were recorded and made public. Many progressives argued that public voting allowed for voter intimidation. An employer, for instance, might require his employees to vote for certain candidates on pain of losing their jobs.

Direct primary-A procedure whereby political party nominations for public office were made directly by a vote of rank-and-file members of the party rather than by party bosses.

Direct election of U.S. Senators-A procedure to allow the citizens in each state to directly elect their Senators. Previously, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures. Direct election of Senators was achieved with the addition of the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1913).

Women's Suffrage-Granting to women the right to vote. Women's Suffrage was achieved with the addition of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1920).

The progressives achieved their greatest and most enduring successes in the effort to make governments more democratic.

Efficiency

Many progressives hoped to make American governments better able to serve the people's needs by making governmental operations and services more efficient and rational. Reforms included:

Elite, professional administrators-Many progressives argued that governments would function better if they were placed under the direction of trained, professional administrators. One example of progressive reform was the rise of the city manager system, in which paid, professional administrators ran the day-to-day affairs of city governments under guidelines established by elected city councils.

Centralization of decision-making process-Many progressives sought to make government more rational through centralized decision-making. Governments were reorganized to reduce the number of officials and to eliminate overlapping areas of authority between departments. City governments were reorganized to reduce the power of local wards within the city and to increase the powers of the city council. Governments at every level began developing budgets to help them plan their expenditures (rather than spending money haphazardly as needs arose and revenue became available). The drive for centralization was often associated with the rise of professional administrators.

Movements to eliminate governmental corruption-Corruption represented a source of waste and inefficiency in government. Many progressives worked to cleanup local governments by eliminating the power of machine politicians and urban political bosses. Often this was associated with the effort to restructure the ward system. Power was transferred from urban bosses to professional administrators.

Note that the progressives' quest for efficiency was sometimes at odds with the progressives' quest for democracy. Taking power out of the hands of elected officials and placing that power in the hands of professional administrators reduced the voice of the people in government. Centralized decision-making and reduced power for local wards made government more distant and isolated from the people it served. Progressives who emphasized the need for efficiency sometimes argued that an elite class of administrators knew better what the people needed than did the people themselves.

Regulation of Large Corporations and Monopolies

Many progressives hoped that by regulating large corporations that they could liberate human energies from the restrictions imposed by industrial capitalism. Progressives disagreed over which of the following four solutions should be used to regulate corporations:

Laissez-Faire-Some progressives argued that marketplace forces were the best regulators of all. A company which paid low wages or maintained an unsafe work environment would be forced to change its policies by the loss of workers. A company which made an unsafe product would eventually lose customers and go bankrupt. In the long run, a free market would best protect the public interest.

Trust-busting-Some progressives argued that industrial monopolies were unnatural economic institutions which suppressed the competition which was necessary for progress and improvement. The federal government should intervene by breaking up monopolies into smaller companies, thereby restoring competition. The government should then withdraw and allow marketplace forces once again to regulate the economy.

Regulation-Some progressives argued that in a modern economy, large corporations and even monopolies were both inevitable and desirable. With their massive resources and economies of scale, large corporations offered the U.S. advantages which smaller companies could not offer. Yet, these large corporations might abuse their great power. The federal government should allow these companies to exist but regulate them for the public interest.

Socialism-Some progressives believed that privately owned companies could never be made to serve the public interest. Therefore, the federal government should acquire ownership of large corporations and operate them for the public interest.

The laissez-faire and socialist approaches were less popular among progressives than the trust-busting and regulatory approaches.

Social Justice

Many progressives supported both private and governmental action to help people in need (such action is called social justice). Social justice reforms included:

Development of professional social workers-The idea that welfare and charity work should be undertaken by professionals who are trained to do the job. (Notice again the progressives' concern for efficiency through professionalism.)

The building of Settlement Houses-These were residential, community centers operated by social workers and volunteers and located in inner city slums. The purpose of the settlement houses was to raise the standard of living of urbanites by providing schools, day care centers, and cultural enrichment programs.

The enactment of child labor laws-Child labor laws would prevent overwork of children in the newly emerging industries. The goal of these laws was to give working-class children the opportunity to go to school and to mature more naturally, thereby liberating the potential of humanity and encouraging the advancement of humanity.

Support for the goals of organized labor-Progressives often supported such goals as the eight-hour work day, improved safety and health conditions in factories, workman's compensation laws, minimum wage laws, and unionization.

Prohibition laws-Progressives adopted the cause of prohibition. They claimed the consumption of alcohol limited mankind's potential for advancement. Progressives achieved success in this area with the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1919.

Progressivism

So, which should the Progressive Movement throw under the bus next?

That's got to be one of the slickest, most carefully pruned descriptions of "Progressive" movement I've ever seen.. And I notice it's from a College course.. Nothing like purging the recruiting material of all the ugly and embarrassing stuff like Margaret Sanger and eugenics for instance.. Maybe I'll go pull an ACTUAL history of the Progressive movement in the 20th Century America. You know -- the stuff that's been purged from the GeorgeTown College curricula..

 

[flacaltenn]

Bfgrn::

My cartoon is right on the money. The financial crash of our economy was brought about by the private sector. Skyrocketing healthcare costs are because Wall Street controls the insurance industry.

I gave you some REAL reasons for healthcare crisis and you ignore those.. (about 4 posts back).. And then you continuously make your assertions that "the private sector" brought on the crash, and the healthcare crisis is created by the insurance companies..

You know --- ONE of us is right. History will figure it out. But this isn't a conversation if you ignore replies and keep spouting the same ole leftist drivel... I'm here for the truth.. Not to play GroundHog Day with a bunch of primadonnas.

Let's try to divine an answer to either one of your assertions. I'll start --- So the following GOVT actions had NO BEARING on the housing bubble that caused the last crash..

1) Abnormally low interest rates for an absurdly long time.

2) The govt establishing goals and quotas for making loans to subprime borrowers in Red lined neighborhoods.

3) Fanny/Freddy being pressured politically to "prioritize their portfolio" to include increasing numbers of sub-prime loans. And being among the 1st bundlers in the nation to "hide the junk" amongst the normal loans.

4) Barney Frank never told the regulators to stop picking on Fanny/Freddie and to go home. Never asserted that "Fanny/Freddie would never cost the taxpayers a nickel". Even when he KNEW they were taking on HUGE amounts of sub-prime paper and being pushed to approve more..

Let's just start there. And see whether ANYONE in their right mind can REFUSE to accept that GOVT ineptness and incompetence and maybe graft played a leading role in setting up the crisis...

 

[flacaltenn]

How stupid and sloppy of me to leave out the other Propane tank that the Govt tossed on the fire while the bubble was building.. Let me fix that..

Let's try to divine an answer to either one of your assertions. I'll start --- So the following GOVT actions had NO BEARING on the housing bubble that caused the last crash..

1) Abnormally low interest rates for an absurdly long time.

2) The govt establishing goals and quotas for making loans to subprime borrowers in Red lined neighborhoods.

3) Fanny/Freddy being pressured politically to "prioritize their portfolio" to include increasing numbers of sub-prime loans. And being among the 1st bundlers in the nation to "hide the junk" amongst the normal loans.

4) Barney Frank never told the regulators to stop picking on Fanny/Freddie and to go home. Never asserted that "Fanny/Freddie would never cost the taxpayers a nickel". Even when he KNEW they were taking on HUGE amounts of sub-prime paper and being pushed to approve more..

5) First time Home Buyer tax credits to scorch the bottom levels of a market that was ALREADY over-stimulated..

Let's just start there. And see whether ANYONE in their right mind can REFUSE to accept that GOVT ineptness and incompetence and maybe graft played a leading role in setting up the crisis...

Just for back-up and links.. THIS is from a 1999 press release proudly announcing that the GOVT was prepared to redefine how low-end market mortgages would be written in the future...

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - NYTimes.com

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

Fannie's Perilous Pursuit of Subprime Loans

"By entering new markets -- especially Alt-A and subprime -- and guaranteeing more of our customers' products at market prices, we met our goal of increasing market share from 22 to 25 percent," Mudd wrote in a 2006 year-end report to the Fannie Mae board dated Jan. 3, 2007.

In other internal documents, there was a common refrain: One of Fannie Mae's objectives for 2006 was to "increase our penetration into subprime."

Buying Alt-A and subprime mortgages was part of Fannie Mae's effort to meet the challenge. Fannie Mae sought to reap the rewards and protect itself from the downside of the investments through a feat of financial engineering it called its "Risk Transformation Facility," which was meant to transfer the riskiest elements to other investors.

"We engaged in the subprime market, for the first time closing deals to guarantee and securitize subprime loans, with help from the new facility that allows us to sell off the riskiest layers," Mudd wrote. By October, the company had signed $3 billion of such deals.

Holy Cow Batman!! A "RISK TRANSFORMATION FACILITY" ??? Now that doesn't sound like devious Wall Street invention does it? Existing at Ground Zero in our very own Government Sponsored Enterprise "junk-bundling" facility..

Go ahead Bfgrn: Make that assertion again that Wall Street is SOLELY or even PRIMARILY responsible for the meltdown.. Make that assertion ANYTIME you please.. We will respond to your inability to properly assess the causes of the meltdown..