Can somebody give me one reason why we cannot have a New "New Deal"...

[tmyers09]

...directly creating hundreds of thousands of jobs? Just one reason. I've been wondering this for ages. Sure, we're seeing a bit of job growth; but it just seems logical to directly create jobs in a comprehensive effort to rebuild our roads, bridges, infrastructure, and energy grid?

[jdlh8894]

1. Duh? No money in the coffers?n/t

[Phlem]

3. plenty for

2 wars though and bank bailouts, and bondage club retreats, etc, etc...

-p

[AnArmyVeteran]

5. You forgot the trillion dollar giveaway to the rich in huge tax cuts.

And just like always, the poor and middle class make up the difference and carry the rich on their backs....

[Greyhound]

18. One non-reason down... n/t

[gleaner]

23. Yeah. One reason. Obama. n/t

[bobbolink]

34. Duh, you think FDR had access to unlimited bucks?

Duh.... :crazy:

[Better Believe It]

37. Yes he did! How do you think FDR financed World War II expenditures? Duh!

The government ran a much bigger deficit as part of GDP than today.

I don't think that deficit was totally paid down until the 1960's.

[bobbolink]

39. Duh, yourself. That is the point. Obama can do it just as well as FDR.

It just isn't on his agenda.

Neither are people like me, but I knew that and its why I didn't vote for him.

:nuke:

[LiberalEsto]

49. Maybe the Pentagon could spare a few trillion

As Will Pitt pointed out, the military is paying huge bucks for defective equipment. The waste is staggering.

[Phlem]

2. That could possibly

create growth in the middle class sector which might lead to a more educated populous adversely effecting the top 1%'s control over the USA.

Truth or not. ;0)

-p

[Foo Fighter]

7. Can't have that now, can we? n/t

[Cleita]

4. As long as the crooks and liars are controlling things, it will

be a long shot. I'm not speaking of the White House or even Congress, just the zillion of lobbyist interests who seem to be in charge.

[TheWatcher]

12. You beat me to it.

Until we actually take our country back from those who have stolen it, nothing will ever change.

To me, it has ceased to be about "Left VS. Right."

They are both Dogs with Different Fleas.

NEITHER Side is on OUR Side.

[Sebastian Doyle]

6. Because that road has been blocked

by the Delusional Liars and Cowards who destroyed the Democratic party.

[Mojambo]

8. Because the "economic royalists", who Roosevelt was desperately warning us about, won. n/t

[laughingliberal]

9. +1 nt

[progressoid]

10. Oh we're getting a new deal alright.

But this time the deal ain't for us peons on the bottom. This time it goes to the top and (supposedly) trickles down to us.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Because conditions are not nearly as bad as they were in the 1930's

If the New Deal had not been put in place there probably would have been a violent uprising and the constitution would have been replaced with a dictatorship. America is a largely libertarian anti-taxation country and Reagan made that sentiment a lot worse. Things can change but only in desperate times. Right now things are not nearly as desperate as they were in the 30's.

[troubledamerican]

13. A victim of the New Deal's success -- Americans are comfortable

[Hippo_Tron]

15. I think that's true

If people were doing as bad as they were during the 1930's (or during the 1890's for that matter) they would not be voting for Republicans based on social issues. They would almost be demanding far more populist stances from Democrats. They largely have the social safety net that FDR created to thank for the fact that they aren't as bad off.

[troubledamerican]

14. Because FDR was a communist

according to the campaign to demonize FDR that the Left should've seen coming for the last 10 fucking years and possibly preemptively made movies or wrote songs or done something to raise consciousness about FDR and promoted a garrison against the inevitable smear campaign (of course not).

[Scuba]

16. The rich don't want to help the poor. They like cheap labor.

[Stevepol]

17. Nope. But I can give 100 reasons we SHOULD!

[Dr Morbius]

19. Yeah. And I'm sorry, but it's a very good reason.

We're not willing to raise taxes in this country. Until we grow the stones to actually raise taxes, we should definitely not spend more. Spending more than we have is part of what caused us to be in the predicament we're in. Yes, we should implement a massive program (but I'd model it closer to Apollo than New Deal), but definitely NOT until we raise the freaking taxes. If the maximum tax rate was 39% right now, would all the millionaires and billionaires really be leaving the country? I doubt it. And folks who make more than 8 figures a year can pay a higher rate still.

MORE debt? Sorry, not an option.

[whattheidonot]

32. correct.

Correct, something will have to give eventually. The private economy is not going to create these jobs. That will leave a situation where the government has to step in. Taxes have to go up The government cannot continue with high unemployment. The funds are just not there now for either private or public work.

[B Calm]

20. We have no manufacturing base anymore, We have an aging population

with a high cost/high benefit workforce, a mature consumer base, the easy natural resources have been mined or exploited.

As far as industries are concerned, there are cheaper and more plentiful natural resources elsewhere to exploit, cheaper labor and younger developing consumer markets outside the US that present more attractive investment opportunities. Industry would prefer not to make any further investments into the US, thus capital flight is inevitable.

[ima_sinnic]

21. the wealthy elites don't want it, and that is that. period. (n/t)

[salguine]

22. It doesn't make the people who actually own this country richer, that's why.

[Scuba]

24. Nailed it.

[MrMickeysMom]

42. If you had a renter who was unable to pay rent...

... wouldn't you want he/she to become solvent again?

So, why wouldn't that make the "people who actually own this country richer"?

[miscsoc]

25. We have a much more developed propaganda machine on the part of the ruling classes.

So the democratic legitimacy the New Deal depended on isn't as easy to find - a lot of the sort of people who would have been open to radical ideas seventy or eighty years ago have already been colonized ideologically by the right wing media infrastructure and won't countenance any substantial government action to improve their situation.

[BootinUp]

26. Because it comes with a Great Depression? nt

[Vinca]

27. Because the Chinese need the work.

Americans don't seem to matter much anymore. Rather than manufacturing components here for our new "green" jobs, all but a few are being imported from China. The "New Deal" for Americans might be the new sandwich at Burger King they're allowed to assemble.

[ck4829]

28. K&R

[yowzayowzayowza]

29. Insufficient US Senators supporting such an endeavor. n/t

[Better Believe It]

40. And a reluctant President who doesn't want to lean on them ....

or who just doesn't support big "New Deal" type government programs and "entitlements".

President Obama will be cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits next year if he can get Congress to approve those cuts.

[MadBadger]

30. Blue Dog Democrats

[NorthCarolina]

43. You can also add DLC/New Dems to that. n/t

[hack89]

31. How about another war like WWII that destroys all the competing economies?

since we are looking to the past to solve our problems.

[Odin2005]

33. Because the Corporatists are in complete control of the government.

[bobbolink]

35. Get back to me when you can care about those who are too old,, too sick, or too injured to work.

We do exist, you know, and we ARE actually human...

[tmyers09]

36. What this country has done to its safety net, and how it takes care of its own, is sickening.

The fact that the "richest country in the world" allows people to be living on the streets and hungry, is quite frankly unacceptable and wrong.

[bobbolink]

38. When "progressives" begin to care, I will probably faint from shock.

Thanks for voicing it... it is obvious, but escapes the notice of the majority of "progressives".

[MrMickeysMom]

41. There is NO reason, tmyers09

That there are no real reasons we cannot, makes me wonder about YES WE CAN. I'm not the only one.

It takes major, major big ones, but how many examples do you have to have before growing the pair necessary?

[William Z. Foster]

44. two reasons

First, the wealthy are opposed.

Secondly, you can never get to a New Deal by advocating for a New Deal. That is not how it was achieved the first time. The New Deal was a compromise reached, after a long and hard battle, between the working people and the wealthy. That required organized Labor and a powerful and radical left wing, people much more radical and militant than we are, people who were at least as radical and militant in advancing the interests and needs of the working people as the wealthy are in advancing their own needs. But today we attack, dismiss, and marginalize left wing people.

Many are hoping for a New Deal magically appearing by all of us taking no more radical position then "we want a New Deal." That cannot happen. It is akin to being in favor of nice ripe vegetables while not being willing to do the hard and dirty work of tilling the soil and tending the crop, and while attacking all who call for doing that work or pick up a hoe.

So, we have determined and vicious opposition from those who control all of the wealth, and we have those among us continually cutting our feet out from under us.

[Yo_Mama]

45. We can't afford it

Our national debt is too high.

If we do very much more we will be Greece in a few years, and then things will get far worse than they are now.

We spent too much already and the retirement boom is just cycling up; we have to borrow money to pay for retirements, even with cuts, and so we have to be very careful about our debt load from here on.

[Brickbat]

46. Lack of leadership and fear of being labeled. The same things that have held Democrats back for

decades.

[Taitertots]

47. Stupid people think "socialism" is bad

So they would prefer a prolonged depression to policy that opposes their ideology.

[LiberalEsto]

48. Because the corporations are in charge

and the corporations want us scared and broke and willing to work 60-hour weeks for peanuts.

They want our lazy asses to keep increasing our productivity, doing more and more work with fewer people, in the name of profits.

And when we get a little bit old and (heaven forbid) into a higher salary level, they sack us so they can hire cheaper workers and starting salaries.

[Toucano]

50. First we need a new Square Deal.

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

The Square Deal was President Theodore Roosevelt's domestic program formed upon three basic ideas: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection.<1> Thus, it aimed at helping middle class citizens and involved attacking the plutocracy and trusts while at the same time protecting business from the extreme demands of organized labor.

[donheld]

51. Because someone put out a Contract on America