Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Sworn In As 44th President of the US
Just before noon today, Eastern time, Barack Obama was sworn in before the US Capitol building as the 44th President of the United States (Whitehouse.gov has already been updated to reflect the new President), and offered an inaugural address which outlined some of the challenges that the country currently faces, both within the country's borders and abroad. Obama's election has been called "a civil rights triumph," and his candidacy has inspired perhaps the most visible political involvement of young voters of any candidate since John Kennedy. Here's your chance to discuss the newest occupant of the White House and what you'd like to see happen over the course of his presidency.
...not going to happen, under this or any administration I fear.
How soon are you going to see it?
... but when you're talking about a journey (of a committee, mind you, since it's not just the president running the country), it's going to be so easy for steps in the wrong direction to occur.
... what, really, can he do? What will he do? And in the end, will most of us be happier about it?
What exactly do you think is going to change?
For better or for worse?
I don't know. I'm just suddenly very pessimistic about the whole thing. Guantanamo is probably a step in the right direction
Don't get me wrong. I'm an American. Proudly so. I voted for Obama. But I just wonder
I talk about stuff.
"After a time, you may find that 'having' is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as 'wanting.' It is not logical, but it is often true."
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Otherwise, he's a party to discarding the rule of law.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You know, as a geek and an American who's concerned with his personal privacy, there was a single issue which I really took to heart during GWB's presidency and that was telecom immunity (a retroactive law mind you). When Obama went back and ended up supporting it and then continued to support it even into his presidency, I really had to take the whole "Change" mantra with a big grain of salt.
While I have been watching my Twitter log scroll by with people saying they are in tears over this historic moment and the supposed changing of the guard as President Bush left office, I just have to wonder how much really will "Change". And obviously, at least one very important issue, which should be a priority of all Americans, is being overlooked because someone is promising a whole bunch of shit which probably doesn't matter much.
Yet, something which goes against the Constitution is going to be swept under the rug as not all that important because we have a great speaker who appeals to the masses with his great voice, speeches that blow the out-going fool's away, and his supposed "fit" chest as was shown round the world via the media's obsession with the man.
I'm all for a new leader, God knows we needed someone better than GWB 4+ years ago. But man, "Change" is relative I guess. YMMV.
He used the words "data" and "statistics" in his inaugural address in a positive tone, without being the slightest bit derisive. He said that he would, "restore science to its rightful place." There is hope for the US.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
He acknowledged that nonbelievers are American citizens, and reaffirmed the separation of church/state and science.
"I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
Did you have something in particular in mind? I ask because a lot of "limit the government" types have curious ideas about what the constitution authorizes and forbids.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
We can't have a perfect union. But we can still try to make it a more perfect one, right?
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
I did the the old fashion way, and went home for a bit and watched on my TV. It's times like this where the internet just isn't setup to handle. TV is great at distributing the same stream to million and millions of people. While the Internet is built around the concept of everyone having a unique connection to services.
Its not what it is, its something else.
Informative tag.... only on Slashdot... ;-)
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in the mud. After a while, you realize the engineer enjoys it.
If you let the last eight years hold you back from being a real human being how much of a difference can the change of a president make?
And, seriously, since what is essentially the same congress is in session under Obama as was under Bush do you really think there is going to be a heavy swing in policy? They had a chance to at least fight Bush but nothing was really done.
I'll let the man do what he wants, I have no recourse in that matter anyhow, but I'm not going to blame everything in the last eight years on one man. Putting every failure in a nation of 300 million on the shoulders of one man isn't a very progressive way of thinking. And sadly enough to think that another single person is going to turn everything around isn't a very realistic way of thinking either.
Maybe if "The People" (as in The Constitution) weren't so complacent as to wait for the government to hold our hands we wouldn't be facing what is really the build up of decades of neglect. Again, one man didn't make this mess and one man isn't going to turn it around. He can sure inspire some people but that's about as good as people holding to a new years resolution.
Sounds like the Bush Doctrine applied to the new dissenters.
Change we can believe in.
Most of We The People wouldn't know the Constitution from the holes in their asses, pick and choose the parts of it they want to pay attention to and modify the meaning of other parts to their liking, or simply don't care what it has to say in the first place.
This is my signature.
soid st egr.hyTa rsiugm usnin
Any questions?
The real question for Obama voters -- will he still respect us in the morning?
Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
Do you believe that there is any difference between the best Presidents we've had and the worst?
If you say "yes", then change is possible.
If you say "no", then change is not possible.
I say that there is a HUGE difference between the best and the worst. But the problem is not just the Presidency. The best President can be hampered by the worst Congress. Obama may be a good President. He may even be a great President. But he's hampered by Congress. And I believe that this Congress is one of the worst.
Sounds rather like "You're either with us or against us... "
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
A Human Right
Removing "dont ask don't tell" and changing it to "tell, who cares". Obama is pro-gay, but he isn't beholden to just the gay community either. He is beholden to every citizen in the country, regardless if they voted for him. If he picked some openly gay pastor, you'd be happy but Obama would have pissed off another segment of our country.
But seriously, I might not agree with Mr. Warren's views and I might not be of the same faith as he, but you have to admit he gave a hell of a prayer.
I think the thing I'd most like to see is a tempering of the utter insanity that is the TSA. We aren't safer because we have to take off our shoes to board an airplane. We aren't safer because we make pilots go through metal detectors. We aren't safer because we're now required to having a driver's license to fly. We aren't safer because we aren't allowed to take our toothpaste (except in teeny tiny tubes) with us. The TSA spends so much time and energy policing our shampoo container size that it can't help but detract from their ability to actually catch potential bombs. Obama has spoken about changing our foreign response to September 11th, but I'd like to see a change in our domestic response as well. I'd like to see more common sense.
Okay, I'm not a Roberts fan, but let's be real. The Roberts administered the oath, got nervous, Obama handled it gracefully, and the job is done. Roberts goes back to not having to speak in front of a ridiculously large number people.
I expect that the abuse Roberts will get from Antonin Scalia alone will be more than enough punishment for getting nervous while administering the oath.
Good job Obama for being cool and on task.
That's what I want to see. Too long has the government attempted to fight the free market by throwing money at enforcement. We've spent too many billions on punishing otherwise nonviolent, law-abiding taxpayers. For all the time and treasure we've spent, is there any end in sight? Is there anyone who believes that drug enforcement is reducing the demand for drugs?
In Mexico right now, we've got drug cartels fighting a paramilitary war with the police and Mexican army; that's ongoing. In California, we have national parks and public water supplies being polluted by unregulated growing operations.
We have an out of control national debt, and an opportunity to create a domestic industry, tax it, and stop spending the billions on enforcing these out of date laws. Pretending what we're doing is working, or pretending the problem doesn't exist, doesn't change the facts of the situation. The longer we wait, the more powerful the organized crime syndicates get (just like the mob during alcohol prohibition).
Tax it, regulate it, don't sell it to minors, and bust people for driving under the influence of it. Just stop pretending you can beat it by cracking down on suppliers or users; supply exists where demand exists, and demand will always exist, because people are human.
Don't forget industrial hemp, too, because there's a lot that could be done with it. That would be a huge boon to the country, especially considering that we need new energy mediums and materials for various applications; hemp has one of the longest track records in human civilization as a useful industrial material, and prohibiting it because of marijuana is simply pointless.
That's why I want to see Prohibition 2.0 (hemp/marijuana) ended. I'd also like to see a complete end to the War on Drugs, because like the War on Terror, it's not a war we can ever win. But, that's another post for another time.
So Obama picked a popular yet controversial minister to give the prayer at his inauguration. That does not necessarily mean that Obama shares his views. Part of new administration that Obama has said he would bring would be inclusion especially to opposing viewpoints. That is vastly different from the "you're with us or you're with the terrorists" and the "you're not a patriot if you disagree with the administration" view that we've had the last 8 years.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Unfortunately, the constitution is VAGUE.
It doesn't even outline what the supreme court is supposed to do. What strict constitutionalists fail to realize is that the constitution is not a document written by a group of well meaning men with no political bias or agenda. Quite the opposite, it's the product of intense political bargaining. the 3/5ths Majority, the Missouri compromise, the commerce compromise... This document that we are governed by is meant to try to appease both federalists(with clauses stating that Congress has the power to provide for "general welfare" as well to do everything "necessary and proper" to do that. This is balanced by the 10th amendment placating antifederalists. The founding fathers did not have you in mind when they wrote the Constitution, they had their own interests and agendas in mind.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
We know what the constitution, read literally, says. We just disagree what it actually *means*.
My interpretation? The constitution is the framework in which we have debates in this country. It defines *how* we deal things, not *what* those things we deal with should be.
There is nothing in the constitution about stem cell research, but the constitution will tell us the proper way to resolve the controversies brought forward by its advances. The constitution tells us the president cannot write a law that bans it, the congress writes said law and passes it to the president for approval. The constitution doesn't say "no stem cell research". Same with gay marriage. Same with giving blacks and women the right to vote. The constitution only provides us a process to follow, not the solution.
I agree and find it odd that the media has gone on and on about it while invoking MLK at the same time. Personally I think MLK would be disappointed that minority voters only felt compelled to stand up and have their votes counted because the candidate was of a minority race. I think King's real dream was that people didn't let the race aspect hold them back from being a participant in the system. Just like I'm sure he'd frown on the idea that people used the excuse of finally having a minority in the White House be a reason they suddenly feel they could do anything. People who really get his message should have felt this way all along.
I just don't see this as the milestone the media claims it is and I'd like to think if Dr. King was alive today he'd agree with me on this.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
It really depends if you what view of the commerce and general welfare clauses, as well as the enumerated powers being exhaustive.
"Curious" isn't the view. They limited-government types are interested in a limited government. Too often, when society changed to the point that some people view government powers need expansion, necessitating a Constitutional amendment, they opt instead to ignore/reinterpret the founding document. This has two effect: that part of the document is neutered by the rerouting and the document becomes more distant to current realities instead of being amended in a sufficient manner - so that once it's proposed to follow it, the old interpretation seems "quaint" and out-of-touch.
I'm not sure about you, but I think government running a trillion dollar deficit, bailing out businesses/people left and right is hardly limited.
I don't need a government telling me I should wear a seat belt
But do you want a government who will make sure there's a hospital to fix your broken skull? And a government who will make sure there's quick transportation and trained EMTs?
Developers: We can use your help.
I was told dissent is patriotic.
I dissented with some things (rather vigorously) during the 43rd Presidency. I dissented with a lot of things during the 42nd Presidency.
The 44th President is going to get my dissent as well.
Welcome to the United States of America. I can see you just arrived.
Yes, I know it's a bold thing to liken Obama to Kennedy and King but, I'm sorry, I get flashes of both great men when I watch Obama speak. He possesses an enormous amount of charisma and motivates people and fills them with hope.
If you believe he's just another politician; if you believe he's going to be a big flop and disappoint and all that garbage, do yourself a favour and, more importantly, do everyone around you a favour and shut up. Keep your thoughts to yourself. You're allowed to have them and I won't take that away from you but, at a time when people are filled with hope and idealism, let them be. Don't try to shatter that hope.
Sure he inspires. Yes King inspired. Kennedy inspired. So did Mussolini and Jim Jones. They also filled people with hope.
The fact that he talks well doesn't imply good or evil. It merely makes him more capable of doing whichever he chooses to do. I hope you don't mind if I keep my eyes and mind open, and speak when I see things happening that disturb me. A failure to speak up can shatter hope too.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
He possesses an enormous amount of charisma and motivates people and fills them with hope.
So do faithhealers, used car salesmen, and other con artists. I purposely avoided listening to the speeches of Obama, McCain, and the man for whom I ultimately voted, Nader, so I was not swayed by their charisma. I read speeches the day after, and Obama's have just been vague ramblings about hope and change with absolutely no substance. When you remove his gazes, body language, and pauses-for-effect, there's just nothing left. There was even an article on here a while back about how researches measured "spin" (ie, lying) and found Obama to have the most in his speeches.
I have instead looked at their actions, or lack thereof in Obama's case. He's done little to nothing of significance in his career besides be black and has consistently supported the rights and interests of corporations over the interests of the American people. For those of you who think he's to going to make great changes, please point to ONE thing he has done, not said.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Most of We The People wouldn't know the Constitution from the holes in their asses, pick and choose the parts of it they want to pay attention to and modify the meaning of other parts to their liking, or simply don't care what it has to say in the first place.
Coincidentally, you could say the exact same thing about the Bible. Of course, many people seem to think the Bible is also a governing document of this nation, so I suppose it's fitting that they would treat the two the same way.
He possesses an enormous amount of charisma and motivates people and fills them with hope
So did Hitler.
Being a great public speaker doesn't make someone automagically a great person.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
You do realize that the inauguration parties are funded by donations, right? Still insanely over the top, but at least it's paid for by tax dollars. Having said that Obama could have scored some points early on by asking that donations be redirected to more important issues, but that would decrease the intensity of the spotlight on Big O, and we can't have that, can we?
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
We elect a president, not a king.
I would rather he go though proper channels than show a blatant abuse of power as you propose.
Gone!
You know, that's one of the funny things I see when looking at America from some thousands of kilometres away.
So supposedly, the sacred right to bear arms is there to keep the government in line, in case it oversteps its constitutional bounds. Lemme see, the Bushies did:
- effectively suspending habeas corpus,
- used torture,
- starting a war of aggression, and justified it by
- outright lying about the evidence, (plus, see two paragraphs above, it turns out that all the "witnesses" they had, had been waterboarded until they said what the Bushies wanted to hear,)
- massive surveillace of its own citizens, down to data-mining grocery bills,
- politicizing every branch of the government they could lay their hands on,
- trying to keep official emails from the _legal_ mandated openness, by using private accounts for government business, or by just making excuses (apparently they didn't make backups, ya know)
- saying out loud that the constitution is just a piece of paper and doesn't apply to them,
Etc.
Did I see the gun-loving right at least hinting about the possibility of a revolt over it? (Yes, at the end of the series of other boxes, but still.) Nah, they voted for him again.
But here comes a president which at least promises to undo some of that evil, and restore at least _some_ of those constitutional rights. (Whether he'll keep that promise, remains to be seen.) What does the gun-loving right immediately fear? "OMG, he might take our guns away."
It seems to me that the gun lovers care _only_ about exactly _one_ piece of the constitution: the second amendment. No more, no less. Wipe your ass with the rest constitution if you will, they sure won't mind it. So exactly how does that work as a constitutional safeguard, then?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The hedonism in the gay community that leads to unsafe sex, rampant drug use and the like is exacerbated if not caused in part by denying them the right to unite as a family of their own choosing under the social contract.
This statement is outright false. You are making excuses for the actions of individuals who make poor choices (not being gay, but rather in the words of the parent "unsafe sex, rampant drug use and the like"). If you think being able to sign a piece of paper and declare yourself "married" will solve these problems than you are sorely mistaken. For evidence, just look to the rate of divorce in the US, which is staggering. Marriage will not prevent these woes from affecting the gay community. The "unsafe sex, rampant drug use and the like" stems from an ideology that a person should be free to do whatever they want, any time they want, so long as it doesn't affect someone else's rights. If I want to have sex with someone, get into a relationship with that person, and then while in that relationship go have sex with someone else...why not? I'm free to do whatever I want. If I want to have sex with a different person every night...why not? I'm free to do whatever I want. If I want to go and do drugs...why not? I'm free to do what I want (so long as I don't get caught). This is what causes the "unsafe sex, rampant drug use and the like" that you speak of. (note: whether or not homosexuals should be allowed the right of marriage is not the subject of this post)
Why should he be denied what the previous guy in office, who helped get us to this mess, got?
It's also paid for by private funds - not tax dollars.
It also generates revenue (tourism dollars, media ad buys, etc)
It also makes people happy to see the president they elect take the oath
It also lets the world know there is a new sheriff in town.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
(and a healthy one too). My opinion? We simply cannot be competitive as a nation with a "weak" federal government in concert with "strong" state governments. There has to be a balance, yes. But one must realize that our competition doesn't want to negotiate with 50 little states, they want to negotiate with a single big one. I suppose, though cannot back it up, that this was the logic behind the formation of the EU--each country just couln't compete in a modern global market so they had to unite.
The wording of this amendment is intentionally vague. If it was overly strict, the constitution would quickly become irrelevant as the times changed. For example, what if the constitution was formed when people thought radio was a novelty and they included "the federal government should not regulate radio". You and I might not agree with everything about the FCC, but you have to admit that it would be a mess if every state had it's one mini-FCC regulating our radio spectrum. And if the language in the constitution was as strong and strictly worded as "no radio", you'd need to re-amend the constitution to overturn such a ill-thought piece of legislation.
Hell, what if that amendment said "The federal government should not create nor regulate the roads used by horseless carriages"? No highway system would have been built.
The constitution is vague for a reason. Democrats vs Republicans vs Libertarians are not debates about "are you loyal to the constitution", but really debates carried out under the constitution about how to deal with modern issues. The constitution is what gives us the ability *to* debate the issues.
Yeah... Wow... Just, wow.
You really don't know how the Presidency is supposed to work, do you? I'd give you the School House Rock version, but I think it'd fall on deaf ears. Any President powerful enough to, single handedly, do what you want, is no President, but a Tyrant.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
I disagree. And that's historically been one of the big problems with really tackling the issue of racism, both in the USA and worldwide. We can't just magically jump to a point where race doesn't matter any more. And pretending that we can by trying to ignore the issue of race altogether is not going to work. There's just too many social and economic realities that are woven directly into race for the issue to just disappear and work itself out.
There's been some interesting stories over the past couple months about how many European countries have always considered themselves far more progressive in terms of race than the US, but are now being forced to realize that a minority citizen would never be elected to their highest offices. They haven't solved racism any more than the USA has, they merely did a better job of pretending that it wasn't an issue.
The demographics and particulars of American history have kept racism a bit more apparent in the US, and as a result, we've worked through it to the point where we now have a black man in the oval office. Things have often times been messy and ugly along the way, but that's how progress generally goes.
Ideally, we want race to be a non-issue in our civilization. But race is a big deal. And it'll have to become a bigger deal before it can become an non-issue. That's just how it works.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
What's so vague about this? If it ain't in the Constitution, the government has no right to do it.
But the constitution did not explicitly say "whether you're a man or woman, black or white, gay or straight", did it? I mean, even read literally, it doesn't matter what the constitution says if you don't consider blacks to be humans.
The fourteen amendment was only created after the civil war, don't forget. We fought a war with ourselves to resolve that issue.
I purposely avoided listening to the speeches of Obama, McCain, and the man for whom I ultimately voted, Nader, so I was not swayed by their charisma.
Well then, you intentionally kept yourself ill-informed.
As our head of government, being a persuasive communicator is just about the most important qualification Obama can bring to office; as our head of state, even more so.
Wait, what? That's a wide net to throw. For instance, look at the transition from Washington to Adams. It was smooth as silk.
Actually, Bush's own press secretary (Ari Flichter) discredited with those allegations in the briefing room and in his book.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The real big question is, how long will Slashdot's daily 2-minutes of hate orgy be able to last now that Bush is gone?
I think your post contributed quite nicely to the hate orgy. Looks like we will be able to maintain the hate orgy after all.
We missed you.
Love,
The Rest of The Modern World.
ps. Any chance you could have a word with Australia about internet censorship? That'd be swell.
Classical Liberalism: All your base are belong to you.
FDR did not take us out of the Depression. Japan did that when they bombed Pearl Harbor and gave the nation motivation to start building tanks and planes and ships and bombs non-stop for the next three years.
It works as a constitutional safeguard against them taking the guns away.
But, yeah. It's amazing how people who were convinced that FEMA had been given the power, under Clinton, to declare an emergency and detain people without habeas corpus sure started singing a different tune under Bush.
What they were talking was it's ability to quarantine people, which is a perfectly reasonable function of the government, and has never, in the entire history of this country, been abused. The government has the right to detain various people outside the criminal justice system, like suicidal people and mentally incapacitated people and infectious people, but the right made out like this was some huge constitutional violation.
That power has existed as an inherent power of the government so long that it's not even in the Constitution, and just sorta assumed. Just like the right of habeas corpus is assumed. Like I said, there's no documented cases of this power ever being abused. (There are documented cases of 'mentally ill' people being detained to shut them up, but not of people being being quarantined maliciously.)
What has always been frowned on, however, and subject to strict regulation, is any attempt to lock 'lawbreakers' up outside of the criminal justice system. Which Bush just decided to do without any Congressional authorization. (Which they couldn't have give anyway, but whatever.)
And the right, the 'you'll never take us alive because we have guns' right just bent over and took it.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I'm definitely not a Bush supporter, but I admire how he's handled the transition, even if it was due to very low approval ratings and wanting the last presidential coverage of him to be positive.
Wait, what? That's a wide net to throw. For instance, look at the transition from Washington to Adams. It was smooth as silk.
How does Washington to Adams even qualify as a "transition"? That's as much a transition as the "transition" from Reagan to Bush Sr. was, in every sense (Adams was Washington's vice president, for one).
The first transition of power ever in the U.S. was in 1800, also known as "Revolution of 1800".
Maybe casting this as the "smoothest transition ever" is a somewhat large claim to make, but compared to the liberal media claiming Cheney was the worst VP in history (never mind that there were a few before Cheney with actual criminal convictions) or Bush was the worst president in history, this is nothing but a fishing pole, not even a net.
How is this informative? The Clinton staffers didn't do it at all. It was thoroughly debunked within a month of the allegations coming out. And former President George W Bush himself stated specifically that it did not happen.
What do we need as evidence? A specific letter from Dick Cheney that it didn't happen? The not signed with the blood of former AG John Ashcroft? At some point it becomes paranoid delusion, and I think we've hit that point.
No, republicans "borrow and spend". Democrats "tax and spend". The republican approach is even worse than the democratic approach.
Bush ran up even higher relative deficits than Reagan, and that is saying something!
BTW, I think that the time for dogmatic democrat vs. republican dogma is no longer appropriate.
Well, that and the fact that much of the industrial capacity of the western world was demolished during the course of the war except for ours.
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Not THAT insightful, mods. The stock market crashed in 1929, the depression's worst year was 1933. The economy got steadily better through the depression, although the war was a big bump out of the doldrums.
Free Martian Whores!
Someone mod parent up please. I hate it when people try to claim WWII got us out of the depression. I mean should we be thankful we have the Afghan and Iraq war? If it weren't for those two wars, would the economy really be in the shitter? I think not.
Govt. wasteful spending is the biggest cause of inflation. That is what's wrong with the whole "stimulus" crapshoot.
Unfortunately, it's also a sad fact that the only thing that has any chance of making the national debt manageable is that very same inflation. Government wants inflation (albeit preferably at a steady, predictable rate). Take a look at the debt we incurred (as a % of GDP) at the tail end of WW2. The debt essentially faded into nothingness while GDP grew only gradually, the majority of its growth being largely as a result of inflation. What it comes down to is that if you can tread water long enough, floating your debt close to the rate of inflation, you (theoretically) can bank on paying it back when your revenues grow with GDP. This assumes GDP will grow forever in the long term, though, which is the same sort of thinking that resulted in overvalued real estate and overvalued stocks. Fortunately, if GDP crashes like the housing market did, we'll likely be reduced to burning our government bonds for heat in the winter and our W-2's as cleaning patches for the rifles we defend our survivalist bunkers with anyway, so who cares...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Well, FDR actually began to put the US on a wartime economic footing well before Pearl Harbor. Perl Harbor, as everybody knows, was Dec 7, 1941. Lend-Lease started nine months earlier.
Furthermore, real GDP growth had resumed by the end of FDR's first term.
In 1929, GDP was at an all time high of 101.4 billion dollars. Subsequently, under the Hoover administration it fell each of the next four consecutive years to a low of 68.3 billion 1929 dollars in 1933. That was the first year of FDR's presidency, which of course took place largely under a Hoover budget and Hoover economic policies.
From 1934 on, under Roosevelt budgets, GDP growth resumed, with the exception of 1938. The exception in 1938 was because 1937 was an outlier, with a GDP of 103.9 billion. Leaving that aside, growth through the first two terms of Roosevelt's administration was consistently on the order of 7.2 billion/yr, reaching 126.2 billion in 1941. This compares favorably to the 4.1 billion/yr of the roaring twenties. Note that ll this was before the war, given that Dec 7 was rather late to have any effect on economic figures for that year.
Now the initial effect of WW2 was a reduction in GDP. GDP resumed growth the next year, and continued to grow throughout WW2, but soared after the conclusion of the war, from 130.2 billion dollars to 151.9 billion the following year (adjusted to 1929 dollars).
So, yes, it was Roosevelt that turned around the Great Depression. Of course, GDP doesn't tell the whole story: WW2 certainly helped establish full employment.
The idea that Roosevelt's economic reputation was due to the "luck" of WW2 happening during his administration is a Republican fairy tale. They hated him, because he fixed what they broke. They hated his pragmatism, which made him in their eyes a class traitor. Anything less than undiluted laissez faire capitalism they called "socialism". They didn't see that Roosevelt was a capitalist. By addressing the legitimate economic concerns of ordinary people, he saved American capitalism, and kept the myopic, brain dead plutocrats from being lined up against the wall and shot in an American Bolshevik revolution.
Most of all, they hated him because he demonstrated that what G.K. Chesterton said about aristocracy applied to them:
There are no wise few. Every aristocracy that has ever existed has behaved, in all essential points, exactly like a small mob.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
OK,
1. I can't help but know he's charasmatic from all the media coverage. I don't need to listen to his speeches to know that.
2. Sure, being charismatic is an important characteristic in a leader, but perhaps having some political experience would help. Or having stood his ground on a key issue, or having written key legislation. Or something. But frankly I'm not seeing anything of substance other than the aforementioned charisma and being black.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Actually, we're getting offtopic, but the 9/11 hysteria is another... interesting thing.
See, the USA had _one_ such incident in _years_. If you look at the number of terrorist attacks in the USA, say, the year _before_ that, you'll notice there were exactly zero. In fact, I can't remember any major act of terrorism there before 9/11 all the way to the Unabomber.
After that, also zero. Now you could justify the ones after that as being because of increased security (theatre), but it's hard not to notice that there were exactly zero without that security theatre too, and before giving up any liberties.
So America agreed to have its liberties trampled over... a one-off (if spectacular) act of terrorism.
By comparison, the Brits didn't suspend their liberties over _decades_ of shelling and bombing by the IRA. (And those guys knew how to bomb. There were attacks with batteries of improvised mortars mounted in a van even on the PM's residence.) Admittedly, recently they seem to have imported the USA idea that they can turn more totalitarian over even more ridiculous "bombing attempts", like some guy loading a sack of nails in his car and setting it on fire. (It just burned, btw.)
Spain didn't suspend its liberties over some pretty spectacular bombings, some pretty recent. Japan didn't move towards totalitarianism after, say, the Tokyo poison gas attacks in the subway. Etc.
Heck, Israel is bombed _daily_ by various radical Islamist groups. If they had moved towards authoritarianism for each major incident as much as the USA did for 9/11, they'd be a complete dictatorship by now. AFAIK, they aren't.
But in the USA you (at least as in, "you the poster I answer to") seem to think that _one_ terror incident warrants re-electing a guy who's just about wiped his arse with the constitution in the name of that one attack. Interesting.
So, no, I had not forgotten. I was genuinely surprised that _that_ lame excuse worked. Again.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
That research dates from the era when John Maynard Keynes was still out of fashion. ;-)
You can tell by the faith in the unerring, benevolent effectiveness of the market's "self-correcting forces". Which is not to say that markets don't self-correct, over a sufficiently long timescale, when every grain of human economic irrationality to the contrary has been ground into dust. Keynes, like Socrates, was not so much brilliant at being right was being brilliant at figuring out how wrong conventional wisdom is.
2007 was probably the high water mark of the post Reagan anti-Keynes movement that believed that government intervention only slowed down the market's marvelous rapid self-correction powers. Somehow, though, those powers didn't work for Hoover, but nobody wants to talk about him.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Heterosexual people have the right to marry whoever they chose.
Homosexual people don't.
Homosexual people find themselves in exactly the same position "interracial" marriages found themselves decades ago: with state governments curtailing their freedoms to pursue happiness as they see fit.
The time will come when people will not understand how such barbaric impositions were in place.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Or that firing US Attorneys is something that only Bush did and it is unprecedented.
Nice try, Karl Rove. The way that Bush did it is unprecedented, because only certain Attorneys were fired. Clinton, for example, fired ALL 90-something of them. There's a fine line between sweeping out everyone, and sweeping out just the ones that aren't "loyal Bushies". That phrase in quotes alone ought to make you throw up in your mouth a little bit, if you have any respect for what these people are supposed to do.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."