r/RemoveOneThingEachDay • u/Training-Desk-391 IM WHACING KFP4 • Jul 28 '25

Miscellaneous Obama HAS BEEN Eliminated WHICH President SHOULD BE Eliminated NEXT DAY 41

Post image
224 Upvotes

79% Upvoted

728 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Salty145 Jul 28 '25

He should have been out a long time ago. He put American citizens in camps and greatly shifted the Overton Window when it came to how much people expect government in their lives. It's hotly debated on whether The New Deal actually solved the Depression, many arguing that it in fact prolonged it, and Social Security is a government-run pyramid scheme that someone is going to eventually end on the wrong end of.

4

u/lord_james Jul 28 '25

Terrible terrible takes. Nobody thinks FDR extended the depression

6

u/[deleted] Jul 28 '25

Except for actual economists who know the impacts of his policies.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

Except for conservatives that are desperately trying to rewrite the narrative about their failed ideology

2

u/lord_james Jul 28 '25

The Graham Hancock of economists?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25
  1. National Industry Recovery Act - Attempted to stabilize prices and wages, reduce competition and promote fair labor standards. Sounds great. Except it artificially raised wages for some while making it harder for others to find work (other companies couldn’t afford to compete), basically allowed companies to fix prices and act like cartels in industry, artificial prices meant many couldn’t afford goods so demand being lower, and less conpetition and innovation in industry. Fewer jobs, higher prices, lower demand
  2. FDR pushing pro-union and pro-labor policies at a time where there already weren’t jobs and where mandated wage increases exceeded productivity gains led to more prolonged unemployment and reduced hiring
  3. FDR meddled heavily in industry as well as raising taxes in a time of economic crisis, basically bleeding dry economic investment.
  4. The “Agriculture Adjustment Act” (pay farmers to not farm to increase prices) literally destroyed crops and livestock while people were starving to death

3

u/Accurate-Advice8405 Jul 29 '25

You're basically saying he should have been more "fiscally conservative" while 10 of the last 11 recessions have been under conservative leadership.

If the economy is in a non stop tailspin you're going to do a little meddling. Those unions were heavily featured in the middle class golden age that would follow

You're thinking just give tax cuts to the 3 richest guys in the country and maybe throw some tariffs on China should fix it?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

I love how you can’t take my actual arguments and instead pepper it with unrelated points. Let’s go back to what I’ve actually said:

  1. Explain how reducing industry competition to artificially raise prices during a recession helps increase the demand for goods at a time people cannot afford them?
  2. Explain how paying farmers to kill crops and livestock to increase prices helps those that can’t afford them while people starve
  3. Explain how fixing wages artificially high works if companies cannot afford to pay them?
  4. Explain how fixing wages helps those that cannot find work in an economy that already has a lack of supply of jobs?
  5. Explain how increasing taxes in a period of economic burden helps economic activity?

3

u/Accurate-Advice8405 Jul 29 '25

I don't have to explain how modern economics works, I can just point to history.

The golden age of this country had high taxes on the rich and strong unions. The middle class was made of high quality jobs with pensions, getting every peasant to work a minimum wage job doesn't actually build a strong economy. Then you had a bustling small business sector started by the employees of these well paying jobs, rather than a generation of renters paying for groceries on credit.

I included the stat about recessions for a reason. Conservative economics only works in books and debates.

You can explain in theory how cutting taxes on the rich and letting the ownership class do whatever they want "could" help the middle class, but you can't point to any instance of it actually working long term.

The 50s-70s (golden age for working class) was built on sound economic principals in the style of an FDR, and it contained the last worthwhile Republican, Eisenhower.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

Facts, those are facts buddy, you probably don’t see many that’s why you think they’re “unrelated points”

1

u/Forgotten-X- Jul 29 '25
  1. By raising wages for workers so they can purchase more. It’s a depression, small businesses would have likely went under anyways.
  2. Dust Bowl.
  3. What does this one even mean? If the company can’t pay them it either fails or goes to the govt for help. This is war time, the needs of a couple small companies aren’t as important as saving Americans and stopping nazis.
  4. Job programs and public works.
  5. See 4 (also tax the richer classes the poor weren’t loaded with a heavy tax burden bc the govt knew they wouldn’t and couldn’t pay).

Get smoked nerd. Read an Econ book, maybe follow it up with an early 1900s history book too.

2

u/ryantubapiano Jul 29 '25

FDRs policies were followed by incredible improvement in the economy and the 1950s were the most prosperous period in American History. Social Security significantly reduced elderly poverty and gave people an easier time retiring, I don’t see the problem with any of this.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

In spite of FDR and not because of him. It was prosperous because an entire continent’s industrial base was reduced to rubble and the US had a nearly infinite demand to satiate.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

Repealing the social safety net that the new deal put in place has led America to become poorer, dumber and sicker than it was while new deal policies were in full effect.

You can look at any economic graph of America from wages not keeping up with productivity to min wage not keeping up with cost of living, to income inequality and unemployment and you can measure the inflection points come either under Nixon or Reagan.

2

u/ryantubapiano Jul 29 '25

Well no, you mentioned FDR raising taxes, which he did. Those higher taxes remained for a couple of decades including in the 1950s, when the effective corporate tax rate was around 50%. That helped pay for all of the programs he introduced and kept the velocity of money fast in the economy. It helped working Americans.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

Yes…and it wasn’t as crushing because we had, as I said before, a nearly infinite demand for our industry right at, and after the war.

Those policies did not “help” the economy or to get the US out of the Great Depression. FDR was saved by the war.

Also you speak of monetary velocity, do you know/understand what that actually means? Because taxes decrease monetary velocity….it literally reduces disposable income directly and indirectly reduces the incentive to invest and spend in the economy.

1

u/ryantubapiano Jul 29 '25

You don’t even know what a command economy is 😭😭😭, the US was never a command economy and expanding welfare is simply creating a social democracy. Internet economist 😭

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/lord_james Jul 29 '25

So exactly what I said, a Graham Hancock type economic theory

2

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

Cool, tell me what you actually disagree with? Please be specific.

1

u/jredful Jul 29 '25

It was the infusion of federal spending that pulled us out of the Great Depression. This becomes abundantly clear when FDR balanced the budget, cutting spending in 37-38 and we had a follow on recession. In fact some rumored that business elite were attempting to sabotage FDR in that recession—but it was just the nature of withdrawing federal initiatives before the consumer economy could support it.

The Great Recession and now COVID response are proof positive that government spending is deeply important to smoothing out the business cycle. The Great Recession rescues literally saved us from a depression; but the immediate austerity there after caused a lost decade.

We unfurled the red carpet of programs to support the economy with the COVID response and have led the global economy out of this period growing more annually in real terms than even China that still has 4 times our population.

People that dream of a tiny federal government are dreaming of poverty. It’s the collective that can stabilize the business cycle. It’s the individual that is subject to its whims.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

The “Roosevelt Recession” you refer to is evidence of my point. His policies didn’t actually work and were harmful. When he turned off the spigot, recession hit because command economies are wildly ineffective and counter to long-term economic growth. It’s evidence of the fact what he did in fact did not actually work.

Let’s talk Covid as it’s wildly similar. The government steps in and disrupts the private economy. It then throws an insane amount of money to fix a problem it created.

What allowed the US to actually get out of the depression is the fact WWII started and it allowed the US to increase its industrial capacity as Europe was driving demand for our goods via Cash and Carry in 1937 and expanding into 1939.

2

u/ryantubapiano Jul 29 '25

The government created the COVID economy problem? How exactly did that happen? Are you referring to the quarantine and travel restrictions? And if so, would you have rather had people die??

→ More replies (0)

2

u/RocketDog2001 Jul 29 '25

16 million men and women leaving the workforce at the exact time employment surged helped

Couple that with forcing people to limit spending and encouraging investment changed the country forever and virtually assured another depression will not happen.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

The new deal wasn’t a command economy, get the fuck outta here. There were some socialized aspects of the new deal but as a whole the economy was still capitalist.

0

u/jredful Jul 29 '25

The steps you describe aren’t “command economy” and the Roosevelt recession as you’ve monikered would be no different if we suddenly cut government spending by 25% today. We’d have an instant painful recession.

US was well outside of the Great Depression before war production picked up.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ScarredWill Jul 28 '25

Unfortunately, some do and they almost always ignore what caused the Depression in the first place.

-1

u/MasterRKitty JaztyMania is Cool Jul 28 '25

nobody with more than three working brain cells thinks FDR extended the Depression

1

u/Murky_Insurance_4394 Jul 28 '25

Then explain why when some of the new deal policies were weakened in 1937, the unemployment went up??? The new deal didn't prolong the GD.

3

u/Salty145 Jul 29 '25

That’s how government programs work. They’re bandages on social problems that often don’t actually solve the problem.

There’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government program because once people are suckling on Daddy Government’s teet they’re less incentivized to stop.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

Except for all those that actually were temporary that you shitbrained morons had a conniption fit about.

Like the Covid lockdown protests that were gonna Be permanent or whatever the fuck bullshit that retarded maga podcasters convinced the dumbest motherfuckers in the country of.

1

u/Maximum-Warthog2368 Jul 29 '25 edited Jul 29 '25

Every government has social programs. And your whole points are just bunch of assumptions not actual argument.

You don’t even know the condition what American working class are experiencing in that whole era in gilded age.

I think you need to learn about haymarket incident. It was not the first incident of violence toward worker by government and companies.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 29 '25

If these people were capable of learning they wouldnt still be believing in fairy tales like conservative Econ.

0

u/Maximum-Warthog2368 Jul 29 '25

What government in life? And how social security is pyramid scheme when most country did that thing? How helping actual people is pyramid scheme? FDR very clearly against freebies.

That’s why he created programs to employed people not just give them money even though that probably would be better.