FDR did not win in 1936 by telling people how wonderful the economy was.

[eridani]

Obama's initiatives have not fixed the economy now, just as FDR's initiatives had not fixed the economy in 1935. In both cases the initiatives were helpful, but woefully inadequate. FDR did not spout a bunch of happy happy cheery cheery Panglossian bullshit to win in 1936. He acknowledged the ongoing crisis, and put the blame for it where it belonged--on plutocrats and Republicans. He told the people he was on their side and he meant it.

When is Obama going to do this instead of pretending that more time is the only fix we need? That the prospect of our economy having a 25 year period of no net job growth is no big deal?The trends are that we are completely fucked for another 10 years at minimum unless much stronger action is taken. If he can't take those actions, he at least needs to attack the people preventing him from doing that.

[xchrom]

1. Du rec. Nt

[ProSense]

2. Well,

"When is Obama going to do this instead of pretending that more time is the only fix we need? That the prospect of our economy having a 25 year period of no net job growth is no big deal?The trends are that we are completely fucked for another 10 years at minimum unless much stronger action is taken. If he can't take those actions, he at least needs to attack the people preventing him from doing that.'

...that is about as wrong as Romney's insistence that Obama's policies have made things worse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137569

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002137284

[ClassWarrior]

6. Calling other posters "as wrong as Romney?" That's helpful.

NGU.

[ProSense]

10. It's accurate. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

11. It's also accurate to say that your messages are as clueless and divisive as GW Bush's.**

How do you like it?

NGU.

[ProSense]

12. And

you are entitled to your opinion.

"How do you like it?"

[ClassWarrior]

16. Yes, and it's an accurate opinion.

NGU.

[eridani]

7. "Moving in the right direction" does NOT fucking make 25 years with zero net job growth--

--acceptable!

[ProSense]

9. Where

"does NOT fucking make 25 years with zero net job growth acceptable!"

...the hell are you getting that number? No one is advocating 25 years without net job growth, and the current numbers do not support that.

[eridani]

14. At current rates of job growth and growth in new entrants to the labor force

--it will take 12 years to get back to the employment levels before the recession. The first decade of the millenium was ZERO net jobs. 2012 + 12 years = 2024--or nearly 25 years with no net job growth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002137453

[ProSense]

19. That's

At current rates of job growth and growth in new entrants to the labor force

--it will take 12 years to get back to the employment levels before the recession. The first decade of the millenium was ZERO net jobs. 2012 + 12 years = 2024--or nearly 25 years with no net job growth.

...flawed math. The current hole is 12 million, and the current jobs numbers support erasing the jobs deficit in 12 years not 25 years.

The jobs lost during the Bush years is why there was zero job creation in that decade. The 12 million includes the jobs that were lost and the population growth-to-jobs deficit cumulative of that period to date.

The OP implies that the President is saying 25 years without job growth is OK. That's not only inaccurate, but it also implies that Bush's record is a result of Obama's policies.

[eridani]

33. Yes, and we already have HAD twelve years of no job growth (2000-2012)

Adding another 12 years onto that (2012 to 2024) is 24 years. Bush dug the hole, but Obama should not be so blase about getting us out of it.

[freshwest]

46. And as Jim Hightower said, 'The issue isn't just jobs. Even slaves had jobs. The issue is wages.'

We've been in an era of wage reduction for working people since the Reagan days. There was a lot of money made by some which was endlessly cheered in the media, but millions lost their jobs as manufacturing went away. That is more than 25 years ago.

Wage reduction is a measure to demoralize and starve; the total job loss in the sectors that once employed people safely, even the public sector, is the execution. This was going on long before

Obama but he might be advised to speak more harshly. I'd say he's achieved a great deal that he will never get the credit for, working behind the scenes. I've seen the work that was created by funding greener industries, etc.

The forces who foisted the lousy Reaganomics on us is still there and not backing down one bit. Just as they starved the people and government on an individual and community level, they're prepared to execute the both.

Robert Gates said the 'starve the government' crowd had defunded so much that it was a national security issue, that government could hardly provide its necessary functions to protect people. The GOP did this, not the Democrats. And they aren't going to stop until we stop them.

[eridani]

50. Agreed.

And I wish Obama would attack that specifically.

[boston bean]

15. with the new tiering of replies

you do know that is unnecessary to copy and paste what you are replying to.

We are all smart enough to figure it out.

[ClassWarrior]

24. That, like so much of what the poster writes, is a childish attempt to get under...

...the skin of Dems. Ignore it.

NGU.

[ProSense]

28. Wow

"Ignore it. "

How does it feel to dispense advice that doesn't seem to apply to you?

When did you become DU's official police and psychologist?

[boston bean]

30. just a little helpful hint

thought maybe you hadn't noticed.

Gee Whiz, I won't try to be helpful anymore, and I'll make my own determinations on who to ignore. What are you the ignore police or psychologist.

[hootinholler]

65. This is funny

I am being ignored by one DUer. It happened right after I made an observation.

[bigtree]

31. if you mean 'get under the skin' of anti-Obama Dems

. . . you've pegged 'the poster' correctly. Worthy pursuit, in my opinion, at any rate.

[boston bean]

34. no one here is anti obama

they are anti some policies.

And what makes that a worthy pursuit to hound, berate, irritate other DU posters. If that is what she is doing purposely, she ought to be banned.

[bigtree]

39. a little skin probing never hurt anyone

. . . much.

It's absurd to expect that folks can insult and misrepresent our Democratic president here and not be subject to a rebuttal-in-kind. A strident defense of our Democratic administration against detractors shouldn't be surprising or seen as an anathema to debate on a Democratic discussion board.

[boston bean]

54. who is insulting the president on DU?

and what you call misrepresent is a difference of opinion.

Boy people really need to just get a grip.

[bigtree]

57. you need to get a grip

You have a problem with my perception and view of my experience here, tough shit. I don't need to defend those observations to you. You're absolutely clueless, asking 'who is insulting the president on DU?' Who do you think you're defending? Amazing to think you'd actually dismiss or defend some of the crap that flies around here.

Again, there's absolutely nothing wrong with aggressively defending our Democratic president against the insults and lies that pepper many of the posts here. If that gets under your skin, so be it.

[boston bean]

58. here we are again, having a disagreement

that is all it is, a disgreement.

[bigtree]

59. different perceptions

different experiences . . .

[boston bean]

60. all of the above.

so get a grip.

[bigtree]

61. walk a mile in my shoes

[boston bean]

63. or you can walk in mine.

[hootinholler]

66. Please show them to me.

Show me posters who are anti-Obama who are still active.

[ProSense]

25. Hmmm?

"We are all smart enough to figure it out."

Be smart enough to ignore me.

[arely staircase]

3. i believe president obama has said we need fewer republicans - not just more time. nt

[great white snark]

8. Exactly, he's never stated all we need is just more time.

"Bad Obama" OP's should at least have a factual premise.

[eridani]

20. Where has he indicated any sense of urgency at all?

Where does he say that we need massive government action in order to even have a prayer at attaining an economy that functions for most people?

[bigtree]

29. don't pretend that you've actually looked for the answer

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

It's obvious that you don't have a clue about what the President has said and done about the economy and jobs. It's ridiculously easy to find out.

[eridani]

36. Yes, it's very easy to find out that he thinks that private sector jobs are the only ones that count

Naturally the Republicans won't let him expand the public sector, but he ought to be going after them for that.

[bigtree]

40. most of those government jobs are state and local positions

The President has made a very public and persistent defense of those positions by proposing grants to the states in his Jobs bill that would help retain positions like teachers, firefighters, and the like who've been subjected to a sharp drop in funding on the local level.

[eridani]

42. This is undercut by bragging about cutting taxes

It is low taxation that is mainly responsible for the post 2000 economic debacle, and for the loss of public jobs.

[bigtree]

45. it's undercut by republican obstruction and inaction

. . . and by spending on war.

I'd like to see some confrontation over spending priorities before I accept anyone telling me I'm responsible for some economic shortfall because I don't pay enough taxes. it's easy to attack the working man and keep demanding we pay more and more to the government and sublimely convenient for some folks than first finishing the job of holding politician's feet to the fire on what they use our money for.

[eridani]

48. It's the rich that don't pay enough taxes

Even so, I was earning $5000/year in 1969 and paying $1000 in taxes. I was much better off economically then than since 1980. Most working people were far better off as well.

[WiffenPoof]

62. Excellent Point...

Let's see...
Massive Unemployment
Crumbling Infrastructure

Duh! It doesn't take a genius to figure out what to do.

-P

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Unemployment dropped by 40% in FDR's first term

And GDP growth averaged 8% per year.

[eridani]

5. But unemployment remained outrageously high n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Roughly the same as today

If counting the same way.

Point is, we need strong Liberal action if we're to pull out of our morass.

[SidDithers]

17. This is not 1936...nt

Sid

[eridani]

38. No, in 1936 we still had a manufacturing base n/t

[PVnRT]

98. ...and unions

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. When did Obama say the economy was wonderful? He has not stated that. He has stated that it has

IMPROVED, but we have a LONG way to go...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. He said "we have a LONG way to go"? Sounds like planned job security for no-drama Obama

instead of a call for immediate action.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. Actually, the truth is that we DO have a long way to go.

And if the Republicans had not obstructed all of the Democrats' job proposals, we would have seen more success getting there.

And if you think the Republicans give a shit about this country or its economy, then go ahead and continue to subscribe to this anti-Obama rhetoric and see where that gets us. It's counter-productive, and quite frankly, tiring and pathetic.

It was Fox News that peddled this lie about Obama stating that the economy is doing great...a lie that was debunked by Media Matters. It's sad when folks on DU start embracing these lies!

-------

Fox Nation Fabrication: Obama Did Not Call 8.5 Percent Unemployment Rate "A Success"

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201080001

January 08, 2012 2:46 pm ET by Zachary Pleat

Fox Nation is distorting comments President Obama made about the economy to suggest that he called an 8.5 percent unemployment a "success." In fact, Obama made clear in his comments that he believes "we have a lot more work to do" to continue improving the economy.

On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that employment rose by 200,000 jobs in December and that the unemployment rate "continued to trend down" to 8.5 percent. In comments later that day, President Obama said: "we're making progress. We're moving in the right direction."

Indeed, the BLS reported that the unemployment rate has dropped 0.6 percentage points since August and employment in the private sector increased by 1.9 million jobs in 2011, marking the strongest employment growth in the private sector since 2005.

Fox Nation is treating Obama's comments as some type of victory lap, suggesting that he called the 8.5 percent unemployment rate a "success":

Obama did no such thing.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

100. More strawmen. If your complaint is about something that Faux News said, but I did not,

you need to take it up with them or somebody who is repeating what Faux News said.

I did not.

My diagnosis: You need to watch Faux News a little less. Too much Faux News will drive you crazy.

It's not your fault, unless you choose to watch Faux News after being aware of the problem.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

101. Based on your responses to me and everyone else's posts, I've decided

that you are being disruptive and your posts lack any intellectual rigor or honesty; therefore, you're not worth an additional response, and I will be ignoring you from here on out.

Good luck to you...

[bigtree]

21. you've completely misrepresented the Obama admin. position and statements

pointless though to debate such a circular query.

the President discussed the new jobs figures:

This morning, we learned that American businesses added another 212,000 jobs last month. Altogether, more private sector jobs were created in 2011 than any year since 2005. And there are a lot of people that are still ... hurting out there. After losing more than 8 million jobs in the recession, obviously we have a lot more work to do. But it is important for the American people to recognize that we’ve now added 3.2 million new private sector jobs over the last 22 months -- nearly 2 million jobs last year alone. So after shedding jobs for more than a decade, our manufacturing sector is also adding jobs two years in a row now. So we’re making progress. We’re moving in the right direction.

But as the economy starts to rebound, the President said, we have a responsibility to do more than just get back to where we were before the financial crisis. We have to remake the system so that the middle class knows that hard work pays off, that everyone plays by the same set of rules. To make sure that the big banks on Wall Street play by the same rules as community banks on Main Street. To make sure that the rules of the road are enforced, and that a few bad actors in the financial sector can’t break the law, can’t cheat working families, can’t threaten our entire economy all over again.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/president-obamas-meets-cfpb


The fact is, our economic problems weren’t created overnight, and they won’t be solved overnight. The President will continue to look for every opportunity to work with Congress to move this country forward and create jobs. And he’ll continue to take steps to rebuild an economy where hard work and responsibility pay off, and everybody has a chance to succeed.

Most importantly, Congress needs to extend the middle class payroll tax cut and pass other pieces of the American Jobs Act. It’s time to get to work and pass the bipartisan pieces like putting construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads and bridges, keeping teachers in the classrooms and cops and firefighters on the streets.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/numbers-22-months


As articulated in his Strategy for American Innovation, President Obama’s approach to innovation emphasizes the idea that we must harness the inherent ingenuity of the American people to ensure that our economic growth continues to be rapid, broad-based, and sustained. “We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time,” President Obama said in his 2011 State of the Union address. “We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.” And we must do so in a way that is fiscally responsible by investing in what makes America stronger, cutting what doesn’t, and reforming how our government operates so that it focuses on promoting our economic growth and preparing for the challenges of a new century.

Building on that strategy, today’s report calls for sustained Federal support for basic research and robust efforts to transfer research from the lab into commercial products. It also underscores the importance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education and a sustained Federal commitment to spurring innovation through the development of 21st century infrastructure -- including a modern electric grid and broadband Internet access to all corners of America.

As President Obama explained to a joint session of Congress in September, the Administration is focused on “the urgent need to create jobs right away.” But, the President explained: “we can’t stop there. . . we have to look beyond the immediate crisis and start building an economy that lasts into the future – an economy that creates good, middle-class jobs that pay well and offer security. We now live in a world where technology has made it possible for companies to take their business anywhere. If we want them to start here and stay here and hire here, we have to be able to out-build and out-educate and out-innovate every other country on Earth.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/06/new-report-investing-innovation-crucial-economic-growth-and-competitiveness


Last week, President Obama signed a bill reauthorizing the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs for another six years. This long-term reauthorization is good news for the innovative small businesses that these programs support. SBIR and STTR invest about $2.5 billion a year in America’s most promising small research and development companies. Through SBIR and STTR, federal agencies with large R&D budgets provide competitive awards to help small businesses bring their best innovations from the drawing board to the marketplace. SBIR and STTR operate in three phases, providing support for research, development, and commercialization.

Over the years, SBIR and STTR have played a role in the growth of firms like Qualcomm, Symantec, and others. From 2002 to 2006, about 25% of R&D Magazine’s top 100 annual innovations came from companies that had received an SBIR grant at some point in their history.

Despite this track record, the future of SBIR and STTR had been subject to repeated short-term funding from Congress over the past ten years. This new, long-term reauthorization provides certainty and stability for the small businesses that leverage these programs to create jobs. In fact, it strengthens SBIR and STTR, proving more funding for small businesses to drive innovation, create jobs, and grow our economy. It increases the amount these programs can award to small businesses, shortens the timeline for award decisions, and improves the focus on commercializing the innovative products that will change the world.

SBIR and STTR are a win-win. Federal agencies are able to meet their R&D needs, while small businesses get the chance to bring their innovations into the marketplace. The reauthorization ensures that small businesses will have access to much needed investments. Money from these programs will go directly to small businesses to help them drive innovation, strengthen U.S. competitiveness, and create good jobs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/03/helping-small-businesses-drive-innovation


Today, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development released the report “Federal Rental Alignment: Administrative Proposals” which lays out a broad vision for improving the delivery and operation of affordable housing across the country. The initiatives in this report – many of which are already being implemented - will streamline federal housing requirements to support more efficient delivery of affordable housing, and help state and federal agencies’ staff to better serve low-income families who rent their homes. The Administration's goal is to make government work better by reducing the unintended consequences associated with the reality of housing finance today – multiple overlapping public investments on a given rental property.

The report includes ten initiatives proposed by the Rental Policy Working Group that will more efficiently align rental programs across government agencies, including inspections, financial reporting, appraisals, energy efficiency standards, and fair housing compliance enforcement, among others. And every one of these improvements can be done without legislation or new funding, through a combination of education, outreach, issuing Agency guidance, and rule changes.

This effort dates back to 2010 when the White House Domestic Policy Council created the interagency Rental Policy Working Group (RPWG) with the Departments of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and the Treasury. The RPWG convened several conferences at the White House with local and state housing agencies and property owners and developers to discuss best practices in affordable housing delivery.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/12/30/improving-affordable-housing-delivery-across-federal-agencies

[eridani]

35. Not seeing anything about the public sector shedding jobs rapidly

Is he applauding that by omission? The payroll tax cut is nothing to be proud of--it is an attack on Social Security.

[bigtree]

43. The President is alone in proposing an additional $30 billion in spending to state and local govts.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers reported that as of 2Q 2010 the stimulus preserved or created between 2.5 and 3.6 million jobs, as state and local governments suffered increased budgetary problem.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/cea_4th_arra_report.pdf

[eridani]

44. I'm talking about favoring tax cuts over such spending

A statement such as "Sorry about all the tax cuts--I know that compared to aiding local governments they are pretty useless, but they were all the Republicans would let me have" would be most welcome.

[bigtree]

47. that's just your opinion

not supported by anything you've posted here.

[frazzled]

23. Just how did FDR blame the Republicans, when ...

the Senate in 1935 consisted of 70 Democrats and only 23 Republicans; and the House a whopping 322 Democrats to 103 Republicans? Unless you mean in 1935 FDR was still blaming Hoover for the lack of progress nearly four years later. And if that's the case, you should certainly acknowledge that Obama blames the Republicans as well, not just for "getting us into this mess," as he suggests at nearly every turn, but for their current obstructionism. His speech in Ohio last month clearly addressed the plutocrats. Or did you not listen to that one?

Your only way out of the fact that Obama has done exactly what you said FDR did with respect for "putting the blame on things" is that, apparently, FDR "meant" what he said while Obama does not really "mean" it. Wow, that's a new low in psychologizing, Mr. Mesmer.

I call bull on your general argument. Obama is not going around telling people how wonderful the economy is every day. That's just a lie. He welcomed the very latest jobs numbers, but he always tempers these tidbits of good news with a proviso about how it's not good enough and more has to be done.

I'd say your OP is pretty much a happy happy cheery cheery plate of Panglossian bullshit about FDR, set up to fool those who don't know history very well in order to promulgate false analogies with the current president.

[One of the 99]

72. Well said! nt

[MFrohike]

76. Fair point

The FDR style of argument would have castigated the "business thinking" model of government while pointing out exactly which party was clearly identified with that style and omitting the support in his own party, from his own VP. FDR was a master at creating a narrative that resonated with the hard experience of the American people both during the Depression and the faux-boom runup to it in the decade before the crash. His argument was less about partisanship than about practical reality. He didn't denounce the GOP as the source of evil. That would have been nothing but rah-rah, cheering on your team bullshit. He denounced them for being the bootlicking, yes-sirring, buttkissing handmaidens of evil. There is a clear difference.

The difference with FDR, and you get this from his speeches and fireside chats of the era, was that he always had a clear opponent in mind. His opponent was Veblen's "leisure class." He opposed "those sixty families," as he put it, that controlled the majority of the wealth in the country and used it to buy policies to the detriment of the rest of the country. His narrative didn't allow him to waste time dealing with his official political opponents as equals (e.g. Boehner, Cantor, McConnell). It had to be used not at the underlings, but at their paymasters. He rarely named his domestic opponents even by party name, he always talked of the forces of greed and selfishness when he mentioned his opposition. Forget treating them as equals, HE NEVER LET THEM ON THE PLAYING FIELD.

How does this apply to Obama? He mistook his actual opponents for their lackeys.

[eridani]

88. FDR kept running against Hoover

Obama refuses to run against Bush. Odd, since Republicans are going way out of their way not to mention the shrub either.

[pampango]

91. "Roosevelt's supporters believed their candidate understood and sympathized with them."

The Campaign and Election of 1936

FDR entered the 1936 election with a strong, but not invincible, hand. The economy remained sluggish and eight million Americans still were without jobs. Critics from various points on the political spectrum—such as Father Coughlin and Dr. Francis Townsend—had spent much of the previous two years attacking the President. (They supported Representative William Lemke of the newly formed Union Party in the 1936 election.) Likewise, by 1936 FDR had lost most of the backing he once held in the business community because of his support for the Wagner Act and the Social Security Act.

Republicans, though, had few plausible candidates to challenge FDR in 1936. They settled on Alfred "Alf" Landon, a two-term governor of Kansas who was the only Republican governor to win reelection in 1934. Nominated on the first ballot at the Republican convention in Cleveland, Landon was a moderate conservative—and notoriously lackluster public speaker—who the party hoped could take votes from FDR in the rural Midwest. Unfortunately for Landon, his moderation was often drowned out during the campaign by the conservative clamor emanating from the Republican Party, as well as from his running mate, Chicago publisher Frank Knox.

Roosevelt seemed to relish the attacks of Republicans, maintaining that he and his New Deal protected the average American against the predations of the rich and powerful, Referring to "business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking," FDR crowed, "Never before have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred." Roosevelt's supporters believed their candidate understood and sympathized with them. As one worker put it in 1936, Roosevelt "is the first man in the White House to understand that my boss is a son of a (expletive.)" FDR won the election in a walk, amassing huge majorities in the popular vote and in the Electoral College.

What the 1936 election made most clear was that because of FDR and the New Deal, the Democratic Party was now the majority party in the nation. Roosevelt had put together what came to be called the "New Deal Coalition," an alliance of voters from different regions of the country and from racial, religious and ethnic groups. The coalition combined southern Protestants, northern Jews, Catholics and blacks from urban areas, labor union members, small farmers in the middle west and Plains states, and liberals and radicals. This diverse group, with some minor alterations, would power the Democrats for the next thirty years—and it was Roosevelt who put it together.

http://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt/essays/biography/3

Fr. Charles Coughlin

"After the 1936 election, Coughlin increasingly expressed sympathy for the fascist policies of Hitler and Mussolini as an antidote to Bolshevism. His weekly broadcasts became suffused with antisemitic themes. He blamed the Depression on an "international conspiracy of Jewish bankers", and also claimed that Jewish bankers were behind the Russian Revolution."

But before the 1936 election "Early in his career Coughlin was a vocal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and his early New Deal proposals, before later becoming a harsh critic of Roosevelt as too friendly to bankers. In 1934 he announced a new political organization called the National Union for Social Justice. He wrote a platform calling for monetary reforms, the nationalization of major industries and railroads, and protection of the rights of labor. The membership ran into the millions, resembling the Populist movement of the 1890s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin

Dr. Francis Townsend

"Dr. Francis Everett Townsend (January 13, 1867–September 1, 1960) was an American physician who was best known for his revolving old-age pension proposal during the Great Depression. Known as the "Townsend Plan," this proposal influenced the establishment of the Roosevelt administration's Social Security system.

In 1935, partly in response to the continued growth of the Townsend Plan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed his own old-age policy, which was less generous than Townsend and Clement's proposal. The president's policy included a program for poor older people with matching payments from the federal government, known as Old Age Assistance, and a national old-age annuity program that later was called by all Social Security. The president's programs were included in the Social Security Act, which passed in August 1935.

The Townsend Plan continued to agitate for higher benefits after the Social Security Act's passage and reached its peak of support in the months after it was enacted. The Townsend organization could plausibly claim that the benefits were far less than what the American public wanted. The average Old Age Assistance benefit was about $20 per month as late as 1939, and the program known as Social Security was not due to take effect until 1942, despite the fact that opinion polls indicated that the American public thought that $40 per month was fair for the elderly.

Although the Townsend Plan was hampered by Dr. Townsend's personal control over his organization and his vendetta against Roosevelt, by continued political pressure, augmented by other pension organizations, such as California's Ham and Eggs, the Townsend Plan helped to induce amendments to the Social Security Act in 1939. These amendments greatly upgraded old-age benefits for both programs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Townsend

FDR had many critics on the left leading up to the 1936 election who claimed that he was not doing enough and that his New Deal programs were not progressive and generous enough.

[MjolnirTime]

27. Economic Progress is not enough. You want Huey Long.

[eridani]

37. Gradual progress is utterly inadequate n/t

[frazzled]

53. Except for FDR's gradual progress ... right?

Jeebus, the pretzels people are twisting themselves into in this thread are remarkable. Good stretching exercises for your New Year's fitness resolutions.

[eridani]

69. The whole point of the OP was that FDR CAMPAIGNED ON gradual progress not being enough

He was very emphatic that despite progress in the right direction, the US economy was still a major disaster area.

[frazzled]

73. And Obama has said exactly the same thing over and over again

Every speech for the last 3 years has included the phrase, "but it's not nearly enough; more has to be done; too many are still hurting."

But no one here ever seems to listen to a thing he says. The clown show over in Republicanville seems to be much more engaging.

[eridani]

87. That quote is extremely weak

"More has to be done" is nowhere near saying that "indicators like foodstamps, foreclosures, homelessness and long term unemployment indicate an ongoing DISASTER that Republicans refuse to let us address."

[DCBob]

32. Good grief.. Obama is not going to be telling anyone that the economy is "wonderful"..

What he will say is that despite all the headwinds we are making good progress in the right direction... and no thanks to the Republicans who have been fighting tooth and nail every piece of legislation aimed to help the economy.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

41. No, he won because of infrasturcture spending plans,

No, he won because of infrasturcture spending plans,

modern-day watered-down versions of which both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich supported in last nights NH Republican debate.

I hope Presidnet Obama points out this support from likely Presidential Election rivals in his State of the Union message. If Republicans in Congress do not stop blocking infrastructure spending, surely Democrats can make them suffer in November if even likely candidate Romney supports it.

The WPA was set up in 1935 and was a source of most of the political controversy over FDR's economic policies through 1938.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration :

"Employment

The goal of the WPA was to employ most of the unemployed people on relief until the economy recovered. Harry Hopkins testified to Congress during January 1935 why he set the number at 3.5 million, using Federal Emergency Relief Administration data. Estimating costs at $1200 per worker per year, he asked for and received $4 billion.

In 1935 there were 20 million persons on relief in the United States. Of these, 8.3 million were children under sixteen years of age; 3.8 million were persons who, though between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five were not working nor seeking work. These included housewives, students in school, and incapacitated persons. Another 750,000 were persons sixty-five years of age or over. Thus, of the total of 20 million persons then receiving relief, 13 million were not considered eligible for employment. This left a total of 7 million presumably employable persons between the ages of sixteen and sixty-five inclusive. Of these, however, 1.65 million were said to be farm operators or persons who had some non-relief employment, while another 350,000 were, despite the fact that they were already employed or seeking work, considered incapacitated. Deducting this two million from the total of 7.15 million, there remained 5.15 million persons sixteen to sixty-five years of age, unemployed,
looking for work, and able to work.

Because of the assumption that only one worker per family would be permitted to work under the proposed program, this total of 5.15 million was further reduced by 1.6 millionâ Žthe estimated number of workers who were members of families which included two or more employable persons. Thus, there remained a net total of 3.55 million workers in as many households for whom jobs were to be provided.

The WPA employed a maximum of 3.3 million in November 1938. Worker pay was based on three factors: the region of the country, the degree of urbanization, and the individual's skill. It varied from $19/month to $94/month. The goal was to pay the local prevailing wage, but limit the hours of work to 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week; the stated minimum being 30 hours a week, or 130 hours a month."

[eridani]

49. I'd say as much for ADVOCATING them as implementing them

Not to mention naming the 1% as his enemy. I wish we could get some strong VALUES statements from Obama that public goods are GOOD, instead of just laundry lists.

[treestar]

51. The economy is improving however

If it was not in 1936 then it made sense not to campaign on that.

[eridani]

70. The economy was improving in 1936, but it was still a major disaster

FDR campaigned on that.

[dems_rightnow]

52. I didn't vote for him.

Any of the times he ran.

[onenote]

55. FDR didn't tell people the economy was wonderful in 1936 and Obama isn't saying that now

If you have an example, any example, of the President describing the economy as "wonderful," I'd be interested in seeing it.

[bornskeptic]

56. You seem to have problems distinguishing between apples and oranges.

No net job growth does not mean the unemployment level does not change. Because there was no net job growth in the last twelve years, unemployment rose from 4% in December 1999 to 8.5% in December 2011. No net job growth in the next 12 years, then, would probably bring it up to about 13%. Adding 200,000 jobs per month would allegedly bring the unemployment rate down to what it was before the recession, which was about 4.5%. Adding 200,0000 jobs a month would actually mean adding 28.8 million net jobs over 12 years. Of course more needs to be done, as President Obama has been emphasizing for the last four months. Only the American electorate can cause more to be done. As long as Republicans continue to have the numbers to block progressive legislation, we'll have to live with a low recovery.

[TheKentuckian]

64. They block the shit out of their own recycling bin, constructive solutions are not even offered

and so it is impossible to build support for them and therefore fairly difficult to gather up an onslaught of candidates to support the yet to be presented ideas.

We have to actually ask for the tools required to fix the problems and acknowledge the problems and acknowledge that the Reaganomics options available are not up to the task.

We also have to be willing to go after our own that oppose changing the paradigm, including the willingness to lose rather than to surrender. We aren't about to Republican our way out of the hole, none of their historical tools are designed to cope with the task, they are built from the ground up to create these circumstances. Ever they seek to put ask resources and power into the hands of the few.

[99Forever]

67. I consider it my Patriotic Duty..

.. as a Foot Holder to make absolutely certain they are close to the fire. VERY close.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

68. If there is an apparent lack of urgency, doesn't that show that Obama is taking the view

that no urgent action is required?

What requires some urgency? A campaign season?

FDR, to focus upon the economic problem and show that the FDR Administration was concerned and was taking action, regularly had fireside chats. He did this on a regular basis. He didn't wait until campaign season. There were no happy, pro-FDR supporters who were telling unhappy Democrats that the economy was so much better because of FDR that they should just STFU.

When's the last time that Obama even had a press conference?

[eridani]

71. "No happy, pro-FDR supporters who were telling unhappy Democrats that the economy

--was so much better because of FDR that they should just STFU. " BINGO!!

[frazzled]

75. Try google

Obama held press conferences (not counting special ones on bin Laden or other topics) February 15, April 13, June 29, July 15, October 6 of this year; he gave a rare and significant speech to a Joint Session of Congress on jobs July 25; he traveled to give major speeches on economy Sept. 8, and Dec. 6; in addition to many small trips (to alternative energy plants, etc.) where the discussion was about economy.

Just because you don't listen to them doesn't mean he doesn't give them.

And you were there to know what supporters of FDR were saying to critics of FDR's economic policies? Wow, you must be freakin' ancient. My 95 year old father can't even remember that: he was only 20 in 1936. Critics from the left, included the following, and I can't imagine they were all embraced by mainstream Democrats at the time:

Carter Glass, Senator from Virginia, came from his death bed to the 1940 Democratic Convention to nominate Franklin Roosevelt's campaign manager James Farley as the Democratic Party's candidate for the Presidency. Glass was against Roosevelt's third term candidacy.

William Lemke, North Dakota congressman, who ran a third-party Presidential campaign against Roosevelt in 1936 on the ad-hoc Union Party ticket. Lemke argued that the New Deal did not go far enough in redistributing wealth in the United States.

John L. Lewis, leader of the powerful coal miners labor union and Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO); supported 1940 Republican Presidential candidate Wendell Willkie over Roosevelt in a power struggle with FDR for control of the Democratic Party.

Huey Long, populist Democratic Governor and Senator from Louisiana. Long criticized the New Deal for not going far enough to redistribute wealth; Long proposed a more radical economic plan called Share Our Wealth, in which all American citizens would not earn more than a million dollars a year or less than $4,000 a year. His slogan was "Every Man a King".[1] Assassinated in 1935 by a political opponent.

Max Shachtman, James Cannon and their respective Workers Party and Socialist Workers Party, were or had been followers of Leon Trotsky who argued that Roosevelt instituted these reforms in order to salvage capitalism (see entry for Howard Zinn, below), saw World War II as an imperialist war and the Communist Party's Popular Front as a class-collaborative betrayal.

Francis Townsend, a retired California doctor who proposed a guaranteed income plan for senior citizens; his plan proved to be so popular that FDR adopted the Social Security Act to halt the growth of Townsend's movement.

Burton Wheeler, Democratic Senator from Montana; broke with Roosevelt in 1937 over his court packing plan; later opposed Roosevelt as an isolationist wanting to avoid involvement in World War II.

Howard Zinn, historian at Columbia University whose book A People's History of the United States criticizes Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal for not going far enough to redistribute wealth in the U.S. during the Great Depression. Zinn argues that the New Deal was primarily concerned with saving American capitalism, and that it should have been more radical in nationalizing American industry and promoting economic socialism. Other historians such as Eric Foner, Michael Crossman and Alan Brinkley have made similar criticisms of the New Deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_critics_of_the_New_Deal

You can't just make stuff up and expect to get away with it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

77. FDR held 1,020 press conferences, an average of 7 per month.

[frazzled]

79. Things have changed since the 1930s, more than 80 years ago.

The number of press conferences (aside from the loquacious Bill Clinton) has declined steadily over the years, because it is simply not the most effective way presidents have of getting out their message. http://blogs.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2009/02/10/a-primer-on-presidential-press-conferences/

Roosevelt, as you know, had very different ground rules for his "press conferences": he could refuse to answer questions, reporters could directly quote him only with WH permission; information was given on background--no references to WH permitted; "off the record" remarks were not permitted to be repeated to non-present members of the press.

"The press conference, for FDR, was a means of channeling the flow of information to the press." (Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate
By Kathleen Hall Jamieson, David S. Birdse, pp. 107-8; http://books.google.com/books?id=tZuHDG-EbRkC&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=FDR++press+conferences+not+broadcast&source=bl&ots=p6rOymBKqK&sig=yOwKvbX2cHw0ynaMTnNho-O2Vxo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V3oKT_22BdTAgQfm842mAg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=FDR%20%20press%20conferences%20not%20broadcast&f=false

These were not televised affairs. There is no such thing as a "presidential press conference" today that is not televised, such that a president cannot say he will not answer; there is no such thing as "off the record" remarks at an official press conference today. The public will hear everything that is said. So you cannot in any way compare Roosevelt's press conferences (more like today's daily briefings with the press secretary, but even less public than that) to the modern televised press conference. So ... apples and oranges.

Furthermore, it is false that Obama has given fewer press conferences than other presidents. Here's a refutation of that from well more than a year ago:

Regarding his time in office, President Obama, through Sept. 10, 2010, has held 37 press conferences (16 solo and 21 joint), according to data compiled by Dr. Martha Joynt Kumar, a political science professor at Towson University. Obama has held 67 short question-and-answer sessions, 216 interviews and 820 addresses and remarks.
He has averaged about two press conferences per month. Where does that rank when it comes to "any recent president?"
It's slightly less than former President George W. Bush, who average 2.2 per month over eight years; it's the same as former President Clinton, who also averaged 2.0 per month; and four times as many as former President Reagan, who held just an average of 0.5 per month. In fact, Obama in less than two years, has given just 10 fewer total press conferences than Reagan did in eight years (36 vs. 46).
President George H.W. Bush gave an average of 3.0 per month; Carter just 1.2 a month; Ford 1.3; Nixon 0.6; Johnson 2.2; Kennedy 1.9; Eisenhower 2.0; Truman 3.4; Hoover 5.6; Coolidge 7.8; Wilson 1

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/24/5344485-fact-check-obama-less-press-conferences-than-any-recent-president

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. Your claim that "it is false that Obama has given fewer press conferences than ..." is a strawman

and irrelevant.

You are arguing with yourself.

If I would have said that "Obama has given fewer press conferences than other presidents," and I did not, then your refutation of that would have been appropriate.

But if I would have done so, it would have been literally true because Obama has given fewer press conferences than FDR. I expressly referred to FDR.

Even Calvin Coolidge, who I did not mention nor did you, gave more press conferences than Obama: 520 during his presidency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Coolidge

What are you trying to prove by creating a strawman on your issue of whether "Obama has given fewer press conferences than other presidents" and then refuting, or partially refuting it? How is that relevant to anything?

What is relevant is his apparent lack of a sense of urgency. His relative lack of press conferences, when compared with FDR who was dealing with an economic disaster with some sense of urgency and showed it by having press conferences on the issue, is one way that Obama is showing the general public that he doesn't have the sense of urgency that many people (including the OWS crowd) reasonably expect him to have.

[frazzled]

96. You said: "When's the last time that Obama even had a press conference?"

The implication being that he has not even held any to speak of. That kind of misleading statement needs correction. Sorry, but it was no strawman, given the gantlet you threw down.

This continuing attempt to falsely equate situations from 80 years ago to today's media environment is what is the strawman argument. You are giving a personal judgment that you don't think the president is showing enough sense of urgency. That's not a fact, it's an impression that you have. Others have different impressions. It's not an argument: it's a moving target based on specious, unprovable statements: first, "he doesn't really mean what he says when he says it, like Roosevelt did"; next, "well, he doesn't show sufficient urgency." Frankly (no pun intended), it's getting silly.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

99. Yes, those were the words. If you have a comprehension problem, that's not my fault.

My words mean exactly what they say.

I did not say that "Obama has given fewer press conferences than other presidents." You said that.

I did not imply what you said that you inferred.

Actually, I believe that you are giving a pat answer, a Pavlovian response to a reference to the phrase press conference whether or not the reference to press conference calls into question whether "Obama has given fewer press conferences than other presidents."

My posting has nothing to do with your claim and refutation that "Obama has given fewer press conferences than other presidents." That is an example of a strawman. You raise your own argument, and then you knock it down = strawman.

Given Obama's apparently lack of concern for urgent action, asking about when anybody can remember his last press conference (and implicitly when he had his last press conference on the issue) is perfectly appropriate. The OWS crowd can make an effort to peacefully complain about the great economic injustice, and can do so even in the face of police goons. He can go, and continue to go to $50,000-a-plate dinners. But he can't hold a memorable press conference demonstrating his awareness of an economic crisis which demands immediate action? So, you used Google to determine when he had press conferences. If he would have had a press conference last week, the week before, or the week before that while demanding immediate action, you would have been able to respond to your own "gantlet" (i.e., gauntlet) instead of recommending "try google."

I can give you an explanation. I cannot give you understanding.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

84. "Things have changed since the 1930s." True. We had a President who gave a damn about the public and

showed it.

How many $50,000-a-plate dinners did FDR attend?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

94. See Frazzled's response to your question about Obama's press conferences ( post #75)

Also, I suggest that you pay attention to the president's weekly addresses. Remember those?

Just becuase you choose to ignore when the president speaks--and some in the Corporate Media as well--doesn't mean that he hasn't done so. Not only are there weekly addresses, Nancy Pelosi gives her jobs update every single Friday (check it out). And, the president has been traveling across the country doing "fire side chats" with ordinary citizens.

PAY ATTENTION!!

[Whisp]

74. ""happy happy cheery cheery Panglossian bullshit""

where the friggen hell did you dig that one up?

that is just a plain old raw Lie.

[Number23]

78. Somebody learned a new word last month and just can't use it enough

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=825706&mesg_id=826202

[a2liberal]

80. K&R (n/t)

[woo me with science]

82. You are absolutely correct.

I hear this a lot from people--that Washington (not just Obama, but most certainly including him) does not understand the depth of the pain out here and the urgency of the need for solutions.

Obama is certainly not out there, a la FDR and his Fireside Chats, making any sort of sustained push and public argument for specific and bold progressive interventions. His last highly publicized press conferences were about slashing the budgets, something that over 300 economists warned him should not be done during an economy like this. His biggest media push since then has been to continue an already existing payroll tax cut that has yielded weak results at best and that threatens Social Security in the long run. We are certainly not hearing a clarion call for a bold, new progressive agenda. We are not even hearing him say what bold things he would like to do, that Republicans are obstructing.

We hear a lot about being on the right track, for sure, but for those still in great pain, such words can be a gut punch rather than encouraging. It is difficult to inspire confidence that you will solve a problem, if you fail to convey to those suffering that you understand the urgency of their challenges and instead argue that you are already doing just fine in solving them.

[EFerrari]

95. We're lucky Ron Paul is such an idiot when it comes to the economy.

All he would have to do is start sounding like he gave a damn about jobs and Obama would be in big, big trouble.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

85. "Panglossian bullshit" seems to be the exact right phrase.

[mmonk]

89. Yes, he had in many ways.

GDP hit a new record in 1936.

[Whisp]

92. this is what Fox news is saying...

[eridani]

102. They also say that the remedy is doing a whole lot more of the same crap that caused the problem

Where did I say that?

[Wind Dancer]

97. K & R!

Excellent article - thanks for sharing.