Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama: "can't just go back to the New Deal policies and think they'd work in the 21st century"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:15 PM
Original message
Obama: "can't just go back to the New Deal policies and think they'd work in the 21st century"

The White House
For Immediate Release
February 03, 2010

Remarks by the President at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee Issues Conference

-Excerpt-

So the point I'm making -- and Blanche is exactly right -- we've got to be non-ideological about our approach to these things. We've got to make sure that our party understands that, like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can't be demonizing every bank out there. We've got to be the party of business, small business and large business, because they produce jobs. We've got to be in favor of competition and exports and trade. We don't want to be looking backwards. We can't just go back to the New Deal and try to grab all the same policies of the 1930s and think somehow they'd work in the 21st century.

All right, so even if we eliminated all foreign aid and all earmarks, it doesn't solve our problem. And as far as the arguments that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making, I think it's important to explain to people that in order for us to balance the budget while exempting entitlements, no new revenues, you'd have to cut non-discretionary defense spending by 60 percent -- cut it by 60 percent. That's everything -- student loans, NASA, veterans programs -- you name it, we'd have to cut by 60 percent -- six, zero.

That's just not going to happen. That's why we called for the commission, because we've got to look at some tough, long-term policy objectives. And that's why we've got to -- and I will personally do this, I will say to my Republican friends, I want to solve it. I don't want to play politics on it, but you've got to step up, you've got to fill these slots with this commission that we're going to set up, put these people in a room, and actually solve some of these problems. And I hope they do.

Transcript at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-senate-democratic-policy-committee-issues-conference



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. A lot of New Deal programs were closed to blacks and women
Just keep that in mind, all you people who want to replay the Roosevelt years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. So who is proposing New Deal type jobs programs that would exclude minorities and women?
Edited on Wed Feb-03-10 05:19 PM by Better Believe It
Can you name any liberal/progressive politician, organization or activist that has proposed such exclusionary, racist and sexist programs?

Name just one.

If you can't, why did you suggest that's what supporters of bold New Deal type programs that would regulate capitalism and help ALL working people have proposed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Some critics of current policy speak favorably of the New Deal
Edited on Wed Feb-03-10 04:27 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
Hence the New Deal was evil.

I agree with you... it's a weird, weird comment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. That's quite silly
Do you have reason to think that segregation made the programs more effective, and thus they wouldn't work today?

If not, the comment is senseless.

I don't think we would need to chose between hydro-electric power and teaching evolution, but evolution wasn't taught in 1930s Tennessee when we set up the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Just keep that in mind, all you people who want to replay the TVA.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Well, that's as good an argument for plutocracy as I've heard. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
15. Desperate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Yeah...
And what percisely does that have to do with progressive economic policies?

I'm pretty sure the Dixiecrats left the Democratic party back in the 60's.

And as a previous poster pointed out, or rather queried: Which progressive is calling for a return to racism?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ignore what works
By all means, turn a deaf ear to Glass-Steagall, which worked so well for 66 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. Whenever a politician says a decision will be 'tough' - we're screwed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dajoki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
4. We need a 21st Century version of The New Deal n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Posteritatis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Yep.
I've seen a lot of references to things that happened in the 1930s or the 1910s or the 1840s with this firm, final-sounding "therefore" following it. Yes, we should learn from past events, but to assume that something did (or didn't) work at Time X means that the exact same thing will (or won't) work at Time Y is usually a little broken.

An ND-esque thing needs to happen, I think, but it'd also need to be a product of our time as much as Roosevelt's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here's his full statement in response to Senator Lincoln:
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the -- look, there's no doubt that this past year has been an uncertain time for the American people, for businesses and for people employed by businesses. Some of that certainty just had to do with the objective reality of this economy entering into a freefall. So let's just be -- let's remind ourselves that if you've got an economy suddenly contracting by 6 percent, or a loss of trillions of dollars of wealth basically in the blink of an eye, or home values descending by 20 percent, that that's going to create a whole lot of uncertainty out there in the business environment and among families.

And part of what we've done over the course of this year is to put a floor under people's feet. That's what the Recovery Act did. That's what the interventions and the financial markets did. It broke the back of the recession, stabilized the markets. Nobody is talking about a market meltdown at this point. And people haven't recovered all that they had lost in their 401(k)s, but they're feeling a little better when they open that envelope now than they did six months ago. State budgets were in freefall; that was stabilized. States are still going through incredible pain, but they did not have to lay off teachers and firefighters and cops at the levels that they would have to otherwise lay them off. That provided some stability and some certainty.

So the steps you've taken as a Congress, the steps we've taken as an administration, have helped to stabilize things.

Now, moving forward, Blanche, what you're going to hear from some folks is that the way to achieve even greater economic growth -- and keep in mind the economy is now growing at a 6 percent clip, so the question is when do businesses actually start hiring, because they're now making a profit -- what you're going to start hearing is the only way to provide stability is to go back and do what we'd been doing before the crisis.

So I noticed yesterday when we were -- there was some hearing about our proposal to provide additional financing to small businesses and tax credits to small businesses. Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle said, "This won't help at all. What you have to do is to make sure that we continue the tax breaks for wealthiest Americans. That's really what's going to make a difference."

Well, if the agenda -- if the price of certainty is essentially for us to adopt the exact same proposals that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression -- we don't tinker with health care, let the insurance companies do what they want, we don't put in place any insurance reforms, we don't mess with the banks, let them keep on doing what they're doing now because we don't want to stir up Wall Street -- the result is going to be the same.

I don't know why we would expect a different outcome pursuing the exact same policies that got us into this fix in the first place. Michael Bennet articulated it very well. Part of the reason people are feeling anxious right now, it's not just because of this current crisis -- they've been going through this for 10 years. They've been working and not seeing a raise. Their costs have been going up, their spouses going to the workforce -- they work as hard as they can. They're barely keeping their heads above water. They're trying to figure out how to retire. They're seeing more and more of their costs on health care dumped in their lap. College tuition skyrockets.

They are more and more vulnerable, and they have been for the last decade, treading water. And if our response ends up being, because we don't want to -- we don't want to stir things up here, we're just going to do the same thing that was being done before, then I don't know what differentiates us from the other guys. And I don't know why people would say, boy, we really want to make sure that those Democrats are in Washington fighting for us.

So the point I'm making -- and Blanche is exactly right -- we've got to be non-ideological about our approach to these things. We've got to make sure that our party understands that, like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can't be demonizing every bank out there. We've got to be the party of business, small business and large business, because they produce jobs. We've got to be in favor of competition and exports and trade. We don't want to be looking backwards. We can't just go back to the New Deal and try to grab all the same policies of the 1930s and think somehow they'd work in the 21st century.

So Blanche is exactly right that sometimes we get ideologically bogged down. I just want to find out what works, and I know you do, too, and I know the people in Arkansas do, too. But when you're talking to the folks in Arkansas you also have to remind them what works is not just going back and doing the same things that we were doing before. And, yes, there's going to be some transition time. If we have a serious financial regulatory reform package, will the banks squawk? Yes. Will they say this is the reason we're not lending? Yes. The problem is we know right now they're not lending, and paying out big bonuses. And we know that the existing regulatory system doesn't work.

So we shouldn't be spooked by this notion that, well, is now the time to take seriously in an intelligent way, not in a knee-jerk way, the challenge of financial regulatory reform so that you don't have banks that are too big to fail and you're not putting taxpayers at risk and you're not putting the economy at risk -- now is the time to do it.

The same is true with health care. The same is true with health care. There are, I promise you, at least as many small businesses out there, if you talk to them, who will say, I just got my bill from my health insurance and it went up 40 percent. And we've got to do something for them. All right? (Applause.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
provis99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
6. The New Deal, and Keynesian economics, worked brilliantly.
Edited on Wed Feb-03-10 04:22 PM by provis99
But it benefits us peasants more than it does the rich; that's the real reason our politicians are opposed to redoing the New Deal and Great Society programs. Our politicians care only about corporations and billionaires.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. We need more New Deal -- and less capitalism . . . capitalism is criminal --
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. it`s so last century to be a liberal democrat....
we are now last century`s liberal/east coast republican!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
13. Ok... can we have something that fucking works in the 21st century, then?
A word for the President, since we are looking at the limitations of the New Deal.

The New Deal failed to end the depression because it was too fucking small.

Thank about that, Sir.

It has implications.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
14. Why? Centrists, "Pro-Business pragmatists," and corporate shills never answer this
"We can't be like that."

"Why not?"

"Because dammit!!"


Obama is such a disappointment to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
17. Not only disgusting . . . but pitiful . . . Glass-Steagall and re-regulation of capitalism . ..!!!
UNREGULATED CAPITALISM IS MERELY ORGANIZED CRIME ---

THE NEW DEAL WAS THE ANSWER TO CORPORATE THEFT AT THAT TIME AND IT'S THE ANSWER

STILL TODAY --

But, first one has to acknowlege the criminal nature of capitalism!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. Yes...this is quite disappointing coming from him..
Hell, you could "adapt" New Deal policies for the current time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Did you see the Jeff Cohen video on the HOME page???? It's a "must watch" . . .
Unfortunately, Obama is a corporatist --

and it is unlikely that we are going to be able to change the party!

What now?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I will watch it.....Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Hey Defend....I just sent you a pm...Just to let you know. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. Exactly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
19. If he wants to help small and large business (jobs creation)
start by passing single payer. All the rest of the conversation is just cotton candy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
20. Who the F is unreccing this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
22. Well, if there was ever any doubt where his loyalties lay, this should clear it up.
It's all about the corporations. 'Trickle down' and all that bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
23. Capitalist tool

eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
24. Of course Obama didn't say that when he made the SOTU speech.
Edited on Wed Feb-03-10 04:54 PM by earth mom
People would have seen him for the corporatist he really is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
26. Of course a 21st century New Deal or Great Society would
be different in specifics but Keynesian economic policies ARE the answer.

Any ecologist should be able to tell you that "trickle down" or "disaster" economics cause short term positive spikes and longer term harm to the ecosystem in fecundity, inventory, diversity, and resilience/"health"/stability.

Feed the predator class at the cost of the bottom of a pyramid system is short sighted folly. Build the habitat and prey and predators cleanse and obtain the positive impacts.

More "economists" should "get" this.

Trickle down is throwing cow carcasses at wolves because the tundra and caribou are failing when the fix in a vibrant tundra and abundant caribou.

We need to fix the distribution of income and wealth to sanity - the situation we are in lends itself to economic crisis, war, and social instability in general.

Too much privatization, too much demonizing of intellect and education, too many lives, resources and cultures lost to violence (war) IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ddeclue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
28. yes you can Mr. President. going away from them is what has wrecked our country in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
29. another broken campaign promise
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ipaint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
31. Why not? The banks went back to being full blown 20th century robber barrons.
Seems to be working for them.

Why can't we reign them in 20th century style.

There is no such thing as a 21st century neo-liberal new deal.

Did reagan's presidency ever end?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
32. he's right
the special interests - big banks, big Pharma, big insurance - are far more powerful now and would never allow it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-03-10 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
33. Sound off like an apologist for Blanche and the banksters-
while 7 an 8 figure bonuses are being handed out and high unemployment continues unabated. Brilliant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC