Obama & FDR

I first published this on October 26, 2010, so please bear that in mind. I'm republishing the article as it was then, with no updates, as it actually would require extensive editing now, because of the time that has now passed and the fact that we know the results of the 2010 election, which were held about a week AFTER this article was published. People in both parties can have short memories, often when they want to, but this should refresh some memories. I know many like the "Word History" segment, but be aware, this is the same "Word History," too.  By the way, I've left the original article in place also, as there was a comment by a reader. For anyone interested, I'll put the link to the original Oct. 26, 2010 posting below the notes and above the Word History further down  the page. Here is the article:

I think it is safe to say that all presidents get compared to other presidents or to other historical figures, sometimes favorably and sometimes not so favorably. When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, many Americans had high hopes about what he would accomplish. Some people compared him to Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka, "FDR"), especially since Obama was entering office at a time of serious economic trouble. The high hopes were probably unrealistic, and the comparison with FDR was just too premature, and no two eras are ever exactly the same.

For those unaware, FDR, a Democrat, was elected in November 1932, ousting the incumbent Republican, Herbert Hoover, who was beleaguered by his failure to halt, let alone reverse, the Great Depression. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by substantial majorities.* FDR took office on March 4, 1933.** Obama, a Democrat, took office January 20, 2009. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, with the Senate alignment similar to FDR's time, but with it being slightly less favorable for Obama, particularly because of the required 60 votes needed to pass most legislation, due to a more modern deal worked out between the two parties a while back on Senate rules. The House alignment was somewhat less favorable than during FDR's time, although not usually affecting the outcomes of key votes (see Note #1 below regarding House rules on bill passage). In fairness to Obama, Republican members of Congress had been so decimated in the previous two elections (2006 & 2008), that the "survivors" tended to be VERY conservative, coming from solid Republican districts or states, with a few exceptions, and therefore unwilling to compromise much on anything. Unlike the President, who has been blasted by conservatives as "radical," and by progressives as "too moderate;" thus getting little, if any, political credit, the congressional Republicans' hard line stance has earned them the cheers of their conservative base, a base now so energized for the upcoming election, that Democrats, now the unmotivated party, may lose seats in Congress in historic numbers, even though polls show the American public dislikes Republicans even more than they do Democrats!

Okay, so what is the difference between FDR's time and Obama's early time in office? First, and most importantly, FDR took office after 3 1/2 years of Hoover's failure to stem the developing economic depression. Hoover tried new ideas and traditional ideas, but the economic storm got worse,*** with millions out of work, and millions more reduced to part time. Not only did FDR and Democrats win big in the 1932 election, but Republicans were so discredited, that mounting major opposition to FDR was not easily done (he DID face opposition from various conservative factions, including the extreme right wing, and from conservative elements within the Democratic Party, primarily from some Southerners, who in those times, were Democrats). But the country wanted change, and the Great Depression era was a watershed, with many working class and middle class Americans so terrified and traumatized by the economic mess, that they were willing to forget ideology and support new ideas (unemployment reached a high of about 25%, but many other Americans had reduced work schedules, making the "effective" unemployment rate somewhere between 30 and 40%). Roosevelt and Democratic leaders rushed through legislation to try to change the psychology of the country. All did not pass easily, and it was not a "tea party" for FDR (ah...maybe I should change that line?), but gradually the tide was turned against the downward spiral; however, the struggle to repair the severely damaged economy took a decade, and unfortunately, it took World War Two to bring the U.S. back fully.

Unlike FDR, Obama took office only about a year after the actual recession began, and only MONTHS after the financial meltdown and the (2008) Wall Street crash began. In this case, he was more in the position of Herbert Hoover, than FDR. Hoover assumed the presidency only a couple of months before the economy went into recession, and less than seven months before the Wall Street Crash of 1929. With many structural problems in the American economy, there wasn't a hell of a lot he, or anyone, could do to halt the initial downturn, at least in the sense of what was considered proper government involvement back in 1929, which was essentially "no involvement." In this sense, Obama had more of the FDR situation on his side. Hoover, who believed in deficit spending to limit economic downturns, was, however, limited in that action by the political considerations of that time (and his own limitations), including those of his VERY conservative Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, who believed in balanced budgets, pretty much regardless of circumstance. Americans just didn't accept big government deficits in peace time, and major government involvement in the economy was a "no no," at least during the early part of the "Depression." Hoover's more activist programs, and especially FDR's major activism, paved the way for future presidents, including Obama, to take action against economic downturns, although, as we have witnessed in the last couple of years, many hard line Republican members of Congress have opposed virtually ANY intervention into the economy, including those interventions proposed by President Bush. The economic stimulus package passed by Congress in early 2009 and signed by Obama, helped keep the country from going over the cliff, but the President needed to take charge, and not farm out the work to Congress. The stimulus probably should have been bigger, and with MUCH more job-creating infrastructure programs. (Note****) & (Note ^)

Lastly, unlike Hoover, FDR was a politician of the first magnitude (and he had a superb political adviser in Louie Howe). He had a "feel" for what the public wanted and how far he could go on policies, especially early on. He had no qualms about blasting business and wealthy interests (virtually all men, back then), and in fact, he seems to have relished their nasty comments about him, which only served to bring additional scorn to these interests from a substantial part of the American public. Obama, on the other hand, never really took charge politically. As a result, he has had the worst of all political worlds; being called a "socialist," "fascist," or "communist" by right wingers (and those may be the "nice" terms they've used about him), but seen by his base supporters as being too timid, and seemingly unwilling to challenge the "laissez faire," "business is always right," "let's all be concerned about the plight of millionaires," "if you're not rich, the hell with you, you're on your own," system that has evolved during the conservative era we've been in. He chose to do "health care reform" almost from the start (which showed poor judgment, and poor political instincts, in my opinion, although I understand the moral argument, trust me), but then he refused to really do battle over essential cost controls (like the "public option"), or even to try to change the very insurance system itself; instead continuing with the same employer-based system that business people, even when Bush was president, complained has limited their abilities to compete with foreign countries, ALL OF WHICH HAVE SOME SORT OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM! Further, it retains a layer of costs, insurance company profits, to the overall system. Once he chose this battle however; he couldn't get out, as this would have weakened his overall position. The resulting year long battle played out in front of the television cameras on a daily basis. All the while Americans wondered who was minding the economic ship, as the captain they elected for the job was now at the helm of a different ship. Previously demoralized Republicans and their business allies went on the attack, and the President's ambitious agenda played right into what they began telling Americans; "The President and congressional Democrats are overreaching, and they're going to tax the hell out of you," "The health care bill will create 'death panels' to decide if elderly people will get expensive treatments for certain ailments, or be left to die," "The Democrats are spending trillions and they are bankrupting the country." While many of the attack lines were totally ridiculous, unlike the President, the conservative Republican machine was not the least bit squeamish about seizing the political initiative, using vast hyperbole, or letting little things, like facts, get in the way of their assault, including the fact that the country had been running budget deficits ("bankrupting the country") under Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan took office, and that the 2009 deficit was almost entirely inherited by Obama from President Bush. The President and the overall White House seemed absolutely overwhelmed by, and unprepared for, the attacks. With such a complex subject, the President and his supporters were unable to ever articulate a concise reason why Americans should support the health care bill, or why this divisive legislation was needed "right now." Polls showed a solid majority of Americans opposed to the measure. In the end, progressives, fearful of the consequences of a major legislative defeat for the President, rallied to the bill's support, even though it was not anywhere near what most of them wanted. A very limited (in my opinion, but it does have some good things in it) bill passed, but the President and congressional Democrats took an absolute pounding, and they have never recovered. The bill was so poorly crafted, that after a year of bruising, almost bare-knuckled brawling, most Democrats running in this year's midterm elections never bring up the health care law, unwilling to cite it as an achievement. On the other side, a number of Republican candidates are calling for repeal of the law, or at least parts of it, or of essentially killing parts of the law by not funding them, if Republicans take control of Congress.

Unlike FDR, this President seems to lack that feel for politics, especially needed in the age of 24/7 news coverage, where virtually everything makes it to some news outlet, be it on television, or on the Internet. Some sort of "pension-type" program for elderly Americans was a priority for many progressives (in both parties) in FDR's time, but he didn't just wade into that battle right off. He built overall political support for himself and Democrats first, by dealing with the economy, which was THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, then later he pushed for the establishment of "Social Security," with even a good number of Republicans voting for the measure. President Obama, like with the "stimulus," farmed out the health care bill to Congress, unwilling, or unable, to even take charge of his own political party.

(A Word History is below the extensive notes)

* Democrats controlled the Senate initially 59 to 36, with one "Farm-Labor" senator, who was really a Democrat (The "Farm-Labor Party" was in Minnesota"), so the Dems had a majority of 60 to 36, and that number varied from time to time due to deaths or appointments to other offices, but essentially it was 60-36. Remember, in those days there were only 48 states, not the 50 of today; thus there were 96 senators. In the House of Representatives, which as today had 435 seats, the Dems were overwhelmingly the majority, essentially having a 316 to 117 superiority, with 2 vacancies (the Dem number includes Farm-Labor members). The number of vacancies frequently changed during this period (not an uncommon occurrence) and the alignment therefore changed periodically, but not all that drastically. It is important to remember, the rules of the House of Representatives requires only a simply majority vote to pass legislation; so, on any given issue, a bill only needs to have one more "yes" vote, than "no" votes, for passage. Remember too, even if a bill passes the House, it must also pass the Senate in the same exact form, and then be signed into law (with some exceptions) by the President to actually become law. Unlike today, there was much more bipartisanship in FDR's time, and it was not uncommon for some Republicans to support legislation backed by FDR, just as it was not uncommon for some Democrats to oppose his legislation, but it was a totally different era, when the two major political parties both had large numbers of conservatives and progressives.

** Up to that time, presidents were inaugurated on March 4, not January 20, as they are today. The 1933 presidential inauguration, however, was the last held on March 4, as the time between the election in early November and the inauguration (if for a new president) was considered to be too long. When the Constitution was first ratified, the four month period between elections and inauguration was much more necessary, as, for one thing, travel and communication could take quite some time back then (horseback and carriage were the main means of transport and communication), and a new president also had to assemble his staff and make cabinet appointments, also with communication and travel time having to be considered. Then when Lincoln was elected, southern states began to secede from the Union BEFORE Lincoln took office. With the new president not yet in office, and likewise with the new Congress, the situation took the course that it did (maybe it would have anyway, but we'll never know). The 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which changed the date to January 20, was ratified in January of 1933, but did not take effect until October 1933; thus FDR's March 4th swearing in. Almost as if to make a point, the time between FDR's election and his taking office saw a major banking crisis develop in the country, with hundreds of banks either failing, or being on the brink of failure. I wonder now if American conservatives, if they do indeed win big in the 2010 midterm elections, will try to go back to the March 4th date? After all, we continually hear from some of them that the Constitution is the Constitution, and that liberals and Democrats are always trying to change it. It says what it means and means what it says, damn it! (Oops, they probably say "darn it," fearful that a bolt of lightening will hit them otherwise.)

*** If interested, I did a whole series on "The Great Depression." You can access the series by clicking on "The Great Depression" in the "labels" listed at the bottom of this article. That will take you to all articles where I've done something on the "Depression." Scroll down until you come to those on the "Great Depression," which will be listed from last to first. You probably should read them in order, so just scroll to "Part One."

**** To be fair here, while I often disagreed with President George W. Bush and his administration on economic matters, my ego is not so fragile that I can't give credit to Bush and others in his economic circle to what they (finally) did right. While VERY unpopular, even with many Republicans, what came to be known as "the bank bailouts" was essential to preventing a total collapse of the American economy. It should have had "conditions" for the banks to meet in order to get the money, but it helped the country, and a good sum has been paid back to U.S. taxpayers, with interest, although there is an overall outstanding balance due. Obama and his economic team continued and expanded certain aspects of the basic policy, although now, many Republicans barely, if ever, acknowledge that it was Republican Bush who started the bailouts of banks, insurance companies, and auto companies. The argument that the Bush Administration should have enforced existing regulations more and taken measures to avert disaster is something I totally agree with. Their reliance on "free markets" to police themselves was total nonsense, and the notion, "let everyone do whatever they want to do, especially business people; after all, it's a free country," has brought us to the point where we are today.

^ Even though "stimulus" jobs would have, by nature, been limited by time, when Americans are working, they pay taxes. Taxes, in spite of this conservative nonsense that has been spouted for decades, do reduce deficits. So the investment would have had some payback, plus, it would have instilled far more confidence that the economy would steadily recover, something that is now lacking. The recent financial crisis in Europe hasn't helped matters here, though, and there's no question it has hampered the American recovery, as banks and businesses seemingly drew back. A larger stimulus, with more jobs, might have been able to supersede the European crisis in the overall psychology about the economy, but who knows?

LINK to original October 26, 2010 article:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2010/10/obama-fdr.html

WORD HISTORY:
Riddle-There are two distinct words, but with the same spelling. (1) The noun meaning "puzzle, mystery," goes back to the Indo European root "ar," which seems to have had something of a reverse form variant, "re," with the general notion of "fit together." (To solve a "riddle," we need to "fit together" clues.) This root gave Old Germanic "raedislijan," with the general meaning "advise, counsel" (it is also the ancestor of "read" and "rede," this being archaic, but meaning "advise, counsel"). This then gave Old English "raedels/raedelse," with meanings "counsel, conjecture, imagination, riddle." Later, the spelling changed to "redel/redels," before settling on the modern spelling. Close relatives are: German has "Rätsel," meaning "riddle, puzzle;" Dutch has "raadsel," with the same meaning.

Riddle (2)-meaning "fill with holes, perforate," as when a gunslinger warned, "I'm goin' ta riddle yer hide." Actually, the past tense usage is more common, "riddled." This goes back to Indo European "krei," which had the notion of "separating out, distinguishing between," which then gave the Old Germanic offshoot "khridan," and the variant "hridan," where the "k" sound was not present; this meant "sieve, sift" which retained the original notion of "separate" (This may initially have come from the related Old Germanic form "(k)hrid," which meant "to shake," presumably with the notion that when you "shake" something, it separates items, as when you "shake the dust off of your clothes). This gave Old English "hriddel," also meaning "sieve." Later the spelling changed to "ridelle" (and "ridelen," the verb form, "to sift"), before eventually moving to the modern spelling. German has "Reiter," also meaning "sieve," but it is not commonly used anymore, to my knowledge, although perhaps in some dialects. A variant of the Old Germanic word, however, eventually evolved into modern German "rein," which means "pure, clean" (again, "possibly" with the idea of "shaking" something clean, or perhaps "filtering/sifting" something until "pure"). The other Germanic languages all have some form of this word with the same basic meaning, however, at this time, I have not been able to find a related word in English.

Obama & FDR

I think it is safe to say that all presidents get compared to other presidents or to other historical figures, sometimes favorably and sometimes not so favorably. When Barack Obama was elected President of the United States, many Americans had high hopes about what he would accomplish. Some people compared him to Franklin D. Roosevelt (aka, "FDR"), especially since Obama was entering office at a time of serious economic trouble. The high hopes were probably unrealistic, and the comparison with FDR was just too premature, and no two eras are ever exactly the same.

For those unaware, FDR, a Democrat, was elected in November 1932, ousting the incumbent Republican, Herbert Hoover, who was beleaguered by his failure to halt, let alone reverse, the Great Depression. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by substantial majorities.* FDR took office on March 4, 1933.** Obama, a Democrat, took office January 20, 2009. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, with the Senate alignment similar to FDR's time, but with it being slightly less favorable for Obama, particularly because of the required 60 votes needed to pass most legislation, due to a more modern deal worked out between the two parties awhile back on Senate rules. The House alignment was somewhat less favorable than during FDR's time, although not usually affecting the outcomes of key votes (see Note #1 below regarding House rules on bill passage). In fairness to Obama, Republican members of Congress had been so decimated in the previous two elections (2006 & 2008), that the "survivors" tended to be VERY conservative, coming from solid Republican districts or states, with a few exceptions, and therefore unwilling to compromise much on anything. Unlike the President, who has been blasted by conservatives as "radical," and by progressives as "too moderate;" thus getting little, if any, political credit, the congressional Republicans' hard line stance has earned them the cheers of their conservative base, a base now so energized for the upcoming election, that Democrats, now the unmotivated party, may lose seats in Congress in historic numbers, even though polls show the American public dislikes Republicans even more than they do Democrats!

Okay, so what is the difference between FDR's time and Obama's early time in office? First, and most importantly, FDR took office after 3 1/2 years of Hoover's failure to stem the developing economic depression. Hoover tried new ideas and traditional ideas, but the economic storm got worse,*** with millions out of work, and millions more reduced to part time. Not only did FDR and Democrats win big in the 1932 election, but Republicans were so discredited, that mounting major opposition to FDR was not easily done (he DID face opposition from various conservative factions, including the extreme rightwing, and from conservative elements within the Democratic Party, primarily from some Southerners). But the country wanted change, and the Great Depression era was a watershed, with many working class and middle class Americans so terrified and traumatized by the economic mess, that they were willing to forget ideology and support new ideas (unemployment reached a high of about 25%, but many other Americans had reduced work schedules, making the "effective" unemployment rate somewhere between 30 and 40%). Roosevelt and Democratic leaders rushed through legislation to try to change the psychology of the country. All did not pass easily, and it was not a "tea party" for FDR (ah...maybe I should change that line?), but gradually the tide was turned against the downward spiral, however, the struggle to repair the severely damaged economy took a decade, and unfortunately, it took World War Two to bring the U.S. back fully.

Unlike FDR, Obama took office only about a year after the actual recession began, and only MONTHS after the financial meltdown and the (2008) Wall Street crash began. In this case, he was more in the position of Herbert Hoover, than FDR. Hoover assumed the presidency only a couple of months before the economy went into recession, and less than seven months before the Wall Street Crash of 1929. With many structural problems in the American economy, there wasn't a hell of a lot he, or anyone, could do to halt the initial downturn, at least in the sense of what was considered proper government involvement back in 1929, which was essentially "no involvement." In this sense, Obama had more of the FDR situation on his side. Hoover, who believed in deficit spending to limit economic downturns, was, however, limited in that action by the political considerations of that time (and his own limitations), including those of his VERY conservative Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, who believed in balanced budgets, pretty much regardless of circumstance. Americans just didn't accept big government deficits in peace time, and major government involvement in the economy was a "no no," at least during the early part of the "Depression." Hoover's more activist programs, and especially FDR's major activism, paved the way for future presidents, including Obama, to take action against economic downturns, although, as we have witnessed in the last couple of years, many hard line Republican members of Congress have opposed virtually ANY intervention into the economy, including those proposed by President Bush. The economic stimulus package passed by Congress in early 2009 and signed by Obama helped keep the country from going over the cliff, but the President needed to take charge, and not farm out the work to Congress. The stimulus probably should have been bigger, and with MUCH more job-creating infrastructure programs. (Note****) & (Note ^)

Lastly, unlike Hoover, FDR was a politician of the first magnitude. He had a "feel" for what the public wanted and how far he could go on policies, especially early on. He had no qualms about blasting business and wealthy interests (virtually all men, back then), and in fact, he seems to have relished their nasty comments about him, which only served to bring additional scorn to these interests from a substantial part of the American public. Obama, on the other hand, never really took charge politically. As a result, he has had the worst of all political worlds; being called a "socialist," "fascist," or "communist" by rightwingers (and those may be the "nice" terms they've used about him), but seen by his base supporters as being too timid, and seemingly unwilling to challenge the "laissez faire," "business is always right," "let's all be concerned about the plight of millionaires," "if you're not rich, the hell with you, you're on your own," system that has evolved during of the conservative era we've been in. He chose to do "health care reform" almost from the start (which showed poor judgment, and poor political instincts, in my opinion, although I understand the moral argument, trust me), but then he refused to really do battle over essential cost controls (like the "public option"), or even to try to change the very insurance system itself; instead continuing with the same employer-based system that business people, even when Bush was president, complained has limited their abilities to compete with foreign countries, ALL OF WHICH HAVE SOME SORT OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM! Further, it retains a layer of costs, insurance company profits, to the overall system. Once he chose this battle however; he couldn't get out, as this would have weakened his overall position. The resulting year long battle played out in front of the television cameras on a daily basis. All the while Americans wondered who was minding the economic ship, as the captain they elected for the job was now at the helm of a different ship. Previously demoralized Republicans and their business allies went on the attack, and the President's ambitious agenda played right into what they began telling Americans; "The President and congressional Democrats are overreaching, and they're going to tax the hell out of you," "The health care bill will create 'death panels' to decide if elderly people will get expensive treatments for certain ailments, or be left to die," "The Democrats are spending trillions and they are bankrupting the country." While many of the attack lines were totally ridiculous, unlike the President, the conservative Republican machine was not the least bit squeamish about seizing the political initiative, using vast hyperbole, or letting little things, like facts, get in the way of their assault, including the fact that the country had been running budget deficits ("bankrupting the country") under Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan took office, and that the 2009 deficit was almost entirely inherited by Obama from President Bush. The President and the overall White House seemed absolutely overwhelmed by, and unprepared for, the attacks. With such a complex subject, the President and his supporters were unable to ever articulate a concise reason why Americans should support the bill, or why this divisive legislation was needed "right now." Polls showed a solid majority of Americans opposed to the measure. In the end, progressives, fearful of the consequences of a major legislative defeat for the President, rallied to the bill's support, even though it was not anywhere near what most of them wanted. A very limited (in my opinion, but it does have some good things in it) bill passed, but the President and congressional Democrats took an absolute pounding, and they have never recovered. The bill was so poorly crafted, that after a year of bruising, almost bare-knuckled brawling, most Democrats running in this year's midterm elections never bring up the health care law, unwilling to cite it as an achievement. On the other side, a number of Republican candidates are calling for repeal of the law, or at least parts of it, or of essentially killing parts of the law by not funding them, if Republicans take control of Congress.

Unlike FDR, this President seems to lack that feel for politics, especially needed in the age of 24/7 news coverage, where virtually everything makes it to some news outlet, be it on television, or on the Internet. Some sort of "pension-type" program for elderly Americans was a priority for many progressives (in both parties) in FDR's time, but he didn't just wade into that battle right off. He built overall political support for himself and Democrats first, by dealing with the economy, which had THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, then later he pushed for the establishment of "Social Security," with even a good number of Republicans voting for the measure. President Obama, like with the "stimulus," farmed out the health care bill to Congress, unwilling, or unable, to even take charge of his own political party.

(A Word History is below the extensive notes)

* Democrats controlled the Senate initially 59 to 36, with one "Farm-Labor" senator, who was really a Democrat (The "Farm-Labor Party" was in Minnesota"), so the Dems had a majority of 60 to 36, and that number varied from time to time due to deaths or appointments to other offices, but essentially it was 60-36. Remember, in those days there were only 48 states, not the 50 of today; thus there were 96 senators. In the House of Representatives, which as today had 435 seats, the Dems were overwhelmingly the majority, essentially having a 316 to 117 superiority, with 2 vacancies (the Dem number includes Farm-Labor members). The number of vacancies frequently changed during this period (not an uncommon occurrence) and the alignment therefore changed periodically, but not all that drastically. It is important to remember, the rules of the House of Representatives requires only a simply majority vote to pass legislation; so, on any given issue, a bill only needs to have one more "yes" vote, than "no" votes, for passage. Remember too, even if a bill passes the House, it must also pass the Senate in the same exact form, and then be signed into law (with some exceptions) by the President to actually become law. Unlike today, there was much more bipartisanship in FDR's time, and it was not uncommon for some Republicans to support legislation backed by FDR, just as it was not uncommon for some Democrats to oppose his legislation, but it was a totally different era, when the two major political parties both had large numbers of conservatives and progressives.

** Up to that time, presidents were inaugurated on March 4, not January 20, as they are today. The 1933 presidential inauguration, however, was the last held on March 4, as the time between the election in early November and the inauguration (if for a new president) was considered to be too long. When the Constitution was first ratified, the four month period between elections and inauguration was much more necessary, as, for one thing, travel and communication could take quite some time back then, and a new president also had to assemble his staff and make cabinet appointments, also with communication and travel time having to be considered. Then when Lincoln was elected, southern states began to secede from the Union BEFORE Lincoln took office. With the new president not yet in office, and likewise with the new Congress, the situation took the course that it did (maybe it would have anyway, but we'll never know). The 20th Amendment to the Constitution, which changed the date to January 20, was ratified in January of 1933, but did not take effect until October 1933; thus FDR's March 4th swearing in. Almost as if to make a point, the time between FDR's election and his taking office saw a major banking crisis develop in the country, with hundreds of banks either failing, or being of the brink of failure. I wonder now if American conservatives, if they do indeed win big in the 2010 midterm elections, will try to go back to the March 4th date? After all, we continually hear from some of them that the Constitution is the Constitution, and that liberals and Democrats are always trying to change it. It says what it means and means what it says, damn it! (Oops, they probably say "darn it," fearful that a bolt of lightening will hit them otherwise.)

*** If interested, I did a whole series on "The Great Depression." You can access the series by clicking on "The Great Depression" in the "labels" listed at the bottom of this article. That will take you to all articles where I've done something on the "Depression." Scroll down until you come to those on the "Great Depression," which will be listed from last to first. You probably should read them in order, so just scroll to "Part One."

**** To be fair here, while I often disagreed with President George W. Bush and his administration on economic matters, my ego is not so fragile that I can't give credit to Bush and others in his economic circle to what they (finally) did right. While VERY unpopular, even with many Republicans, what came to be known as "the bank bailouts" was essential to preventing a total collapse of the American economy. It should have had "conditions" for the banks to meet in order to get the money, but it helped the country, and a good sum has been paid back to U.S. taxpayers, with interest, although there is an overall outstanding balance due. Obama and his economic team continued and expanded certain aspects of the basic policy, although now, many Republicans barely, if ever, acknowledge that it was Republican Bush who started the bailouts of banks, insurance companies, and auto companies. The argument that the Bush Administration should have enforced existing regulations more and taken measures to avert disaster is something I totally agree with. Their reliance on "free markets" to police themselves was total nonsense, and the notion, "let everyone do whatever they want to do, especially business people; after all, it's a free country," has brought us to the point where we are today.

^ Even though "stimulus" jobs would have, by nature, been limited by time, when Americans are working, they pay taxes. Taxes, in spite of this conservative nonsense that has been spouted for decades, do reduce deficits. So the investment would have had some payback, plus, it would have instilled far more confidence that the economy would steadily recover, something that is now lacking. The recent financial crisis in Europe hasn't helped matters here, though, and there's no question it has hampered the American recovery, as banks and businesses seemingly drew back. A larger stimulus, with more jobs, might have been able to supersede the European crisis in the overall psychology about the economy, but who knows?


WORD HISTORY:
Riddle-There are two distinct words, but with the same spelling. (1) The noun meaning "puzzle, mystery," goes back to the Indo European root "ar," which seems to have had something of a reverse form variant, "re," with the general notion of "fit together." (To solve a "riddle," we need to "fit together" clues.) This root gave Old Germanic "raedislijan," with the general meaning "advise, counsel" (it is also the ancestor of "read" and "rede," this being archaic, but meaning "advise, counsel"). This then gave Old English "raedels/raedelse," with meanings "counsel, conjecture, imagination, riddle." Later, the spelling changed to "redel/redels," before settling on the modern spelling. Close relatives are: German has "Rätsel," meaning "riddle, puzzle;" Dutch has "raadsel," with the same meaning.

Riddle (2)-meaning "fill with holes, perforate," as when a gunslinger warned, "I'm goin' ta riddle yer hide." Actually, the past tense usage is more common, "riddled." This goes back to Indo European "krei," which had the notion of "separating, distinguishing between," which then gave the Old Germanic offshoot "khridan," and the variant "hridan," where the "k" sound was not present; this meant "sieve, sift" which retained the original notion of "separate" (This may initially have come from the related Old Germanic form "(k)hrid," which meant "to shake," presumably with the notion that when you "shake" something, it separates items, as when you "shake the dust off of your clothes). This gave Old English "hriddel," also meaning "sieve." Later the spelling changed to "ridelle" (and "ridelen," the verb form, "to sift"), before eventually moving to the modern spelling. German has "Reiter," also meaning "sieve," but it is not commonly used anymore, to my knowledge, although perhaps in some dialects. A variant of the Old Germanic word, however, eventually evolved into modern German "rein," which means "pure, clean" (again, "possibly" with the idea of "shaking" something clean, or perhaps "filtering/sifting" something until "pure"). The other Germanic languages all have some form of this word with the same basic meaning, however, at this time, I have not been able to find a related word in English.

Paying The Piper-Part Four A-Does Obama Get It?

First, I hope the more partisan readers of whatever persuasion will read the ENTIRE article before getting too worked up. There will be two parts to this topic, this one is Four A, and since I'm a little slow, I've been having trouble coming up with a title for the second part, but I'm leaning to Four B. That's catchy.

Barack Obama came to the presidency with lots of good will from the American public. Race has been an ever present issue in this country from its very beginning, and many Americans seemed to believe, while many others hoped, that with Obama's entering the highest office in the land, this divisive issue would finally be put to rest and the country would move forward truly as "The UNITED States." Further, he was young, energetic, intelligent, charismatic, and could give a hell of a speech. He seemed to want to get along with the opposition party, among other high-minded ideals. With the country in economic peril the likes of which hadn't been seen since the Great Depression, with terrorists hatching endless plots to kill Americans and other "Westerners," with two ongoing wars that were never paid for, and with countries which previously looked favorably upon America seemingly frowning upon many of our policies, we needed a real stand-up leader to right the listing ship. Did we get that leader?

While he has only been in office less than two years, my gut feeling is, no. The President has seldom seemed to be "in charge" of getting the policies he seems to advocate. The "stimulus" plan, which was seen by many people as a means of halting the sliding economy, as well as bolstering confidence that would then turn the economy around and add jobs, was handed over to Congress to hammer out. While the President advocated the plan, he seemed detached. The bill that passed had spending strung out over a couple of years, lessening, in my opinion, its impact. In spite of figures touted by the White House on jobs created or "saved," it is nearly impossible, again in my opinion, to come up with accurate numbers for such, although I'm sure it has had an effect.

Then came the health care...ah...debate? Is that the right word? Maybe "ugly" would be better. Again though, the President announced he was "for" health care legislation that would insure more Americans, but he left it to Congress to come up with the details. That is pretty much leaving a lit match in charge of dynamite. And it blew up! My sense was, the President and his advisers never anticipated the reaction they got, even from Republicans. They were thrown back on their heels by what happened to members of Congress last summer in their home states or districts,* and while they finally got a bill passed, they really never recovered, even to this day. Further, the longer the "debate" dragged on, it sure looked like they would have accepted ANY legislation, just to say they got it, and that the terrible battle shown in the news every day would end. The public wanted the economy to be "priority number ONE," and while the President said that health care legislation was important to the economy, he was never able to convey just how it would do so. The legislation for such an undertaking was huge and complex, something he and other supporters could not fully explain to an at times "detached" and increasingly skeptical American public, let alone put into slogans or catch phrases to garner support. Opponents had no such problem; they called it "socialism," "fascism," "communism," "big government," and some things I can't print here. When they ran out of names to call it, they invented something to use against it, "death panels."** After about a year of what many Americans thought was time wasted, as the economy still needed tending, the bill passed, but at a terrible cost to the President and many members of Congress, especially Democrats. The President touted the new law, but it may yet prove to be a problem that could blow up, perhaps even on him (if he runs and wins a second term) or on a future president, as there are not many cost saving measures in this law, in my opinion. I hope I'm wrong. I could go on about some other things that have transpired, but you get the overall point. So now, what about Obama's performance? (A Word History is below the notes)

* Even some Republican members of Congress had difficulty, with Mike Castle of Delaware coming to mind. The overall situation in many of these meetings was NOT one of America's shining examples to the world, as speakers were shouted down, and even members of the audience were taunted, including a handicapped woman in a wheel chair. Hmm, let's see, I did question if "debate" was the right word.

** For those who have been living some place other than "Mother Earth," put simply, the alleged government "death panels" were supposed to decide who lived and who died among elderly Americans in need of expensive treatments in order to hold down health care costs. No matter that the President had recently lost his elderly grandmother, polls showed an alarming number of Americans believed it, although I do believe those numbers dropped somewhat a bit later, but still remained awfully high for a public that had loads of information to the contrary available to it. In just the last few months, a Republican congressman, I believe from North Carolina, whose name escapes me just now, publicly acknowledged that the "death panel" charge was phony, and that most Republican members of Congress knew it was phony.

WORD HISTORY:
Four-This numerical word apparently traces back to Indo European "kwetwor/kwetwer," which meant "four." I say "apparently," because the Old Germanic offshoot, "fetwor/petwor," is assumed to have been derived from the Indo European root. The Germanic form gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "feower," which then became "fower" (seemingly pronounced "foe-er") later on, before evolving to the modern form. The other Germanic languages have similar forms: German and Dutch have "vier" (pronounced similarly to our word "fear"), Norwegian and Danish have "fire" (not, I believe, pronounced like our word "fire," but rather like "fear-eh"), Swedish has "fyra," Icelandic has "fjórir."

The New Deal Era & Now, Part Two

U.S. automakers have been struggling for the past number of years to remain profitable, but the economic downturn has put them flat on their backs.*** The automakers were literally losing millions of dollars each day!!! In September, 2008; that is, under the previous Congress and the Bush Administration, 25 billion dollars were authorized as loans to the three main American automakers; Ford, Chrysler and General Motors, for retooling to produce more energy efficient vehicles. This money was included as part of a major bill of more than 600 billion dollars, funding many aspects of government operations, and, therefore, there was not a separate vote on the auto loans.
Then in the middle of December 2008, Bush Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson loaned several billion dollars to both General Motors and Chrysler, to prevent them from going bankrupt. In all, General Motors, along with its finance arm, GMAC, has received over 63 billion dollars. Chrysler, along with its finance arm, Chrysler Finance Service, has received more than 16 billion dollars. (These figures from "Propublica.org") These funds came from the 700 billion amount voted on for banks previously, so again, there was no separate vote on this money. While Ford hasn't received any of the money (only the "retooling loan" money), they, too, have been losing billions, but in the last few months, they have been losing at a lower rate than GM and Chrysler. Recently, Wall Street cheered when analysts predicted that Ford would report a 10 billion dollar loss, and they actually "only" lost 9 billion. Don't pop the champagne corks yet! And I'll come back to the auto companies again shortly.
Enter the Obama Administration, January 20, 2009 (The new 111th Congress took office earlier in January, with both houses controlled by Democrats.):
Congress passes what most Americans know as the "economic stimulus bill." It provides 787 billion dollars (that's "billion," with a "B") for a wide variety of projects over a two year period. Some economists say it was not enough, while others say it was too much. There were two separate bills passed, one by the House and a slightly different version by the Senate (not an unusual situation). Then a conference committee, with members from both the House and the Senate and members from both parties, presented a new "compromise" bill for a final vote in both houses. The bill passed and was signed by President Obama in February. The final vote totals were:
House-246 FOR (all Democrats)-183 AGAINST (7 Democrats and 176 Republicans)
Senate-60 FOR (56 Democrats-2 Republicans-2 Independents)-38 AGAINST (All Republicans)
To be continued... (A word history is below the note)

***It should be noted that "foreign owned" automakers in the U.S. market have also experienced significant drops in sales during this downturn. Initially, the American companies took the major hits, prompting some commentators on CNBC (a cable business channel, owned by NBC) to proclaim that this problem in the auto industry was an American problem, and that the American companies should be allowed to file bankruptcy or liquidate. When other commentators asked if America wanted to still have American auto companies, the answer from the previous groups was, "We'll still have American auto companies; they're called 'Toyota' and 'Honda.' " The above is not a true word for word exchange, but rather a summary of things that were said.

Word History:
Switch-verb form-This was derived from the noun. See Part One of the above article for the noun's history at this link: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/06/new-deal-era-now-part-one.html

During the 1600s, the verb meant "to beat with a switch;" that is, beat with a riding whip or thin flexible twig. You don't hear this meaning used much anymore, but when I was a kid, it was not uncommon to hear another kid say, "I got switched last night!" Let me tell you, they didn't mean they got switched at the hospital either, but rather....YEOW!!! Further, the noun meanings transferred to the verb. I guess you could say they were "switched." Okay, back to the word. The noun also gave the meaning "to switch something on or off," or "to divert a train from one track to another." The notion of "swapping" didn't come about until the latter part of the 1800s.

The Government & The Stimulus Money

Just a few comments about the stimulus money that was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

First, the package passed by Congress spreads the stimulus money, mainly for infrastructure building/repair, over a two year period. Why? Well we all want some kind of accountability for the money, and you can't just start handing out billions of bucks without some strings attached. The package has been criticized for not being "front loaded;" that is, with most of the infrastructure spending being dished out in a matter of months. Simultaneously, members of both political parties want controls on the money, so that waste is kept low. Remember, Congress, like it or not, represents us, and we are subject to such split personalities, too. I'm not sure they (Congress and the Obama Administration) or WE, in the public, can have things both ways: fast spending to pump up the economy and jobs, but also a close accounting of how the money is being spent.

Second, I tune into CNBC, a cable business channel, at various times to listen to the business issues of the day, so to speak (I DON'T stay glued to the television, however, during their discussions), and just in the last day or two I heard something to the effect how China has done such a better job of "front loading" their stimulus money, as compared to our own program. Hmm, this is a bit puzzling to me, as so many business and wealthy people seem to hate government. The key word is "seem." One thing, in my opinion, that wealthy people do very well is....ADAPT!!! They will do, say, or be whatever they need to do, say or be in order to come out ahead of the game. We've heard much contempt for government since about the 1960s, with the anti-government rhetoric being especially harsh in the past thirty years. Businesses and the wealthy told us how government "should get out of the way and let free enterprise flourish." After getting much of their wish, free enterprise not only came to a screeching halt, but went into a nosedive, costing millions of Americans their jobs, homes, medical care. Many have had their lives ruined for whatever number of years they still have to live. The anti-government talk of some business people ceased, and they preferred to offer an open palm to Uncle Sam, with the hope that their now favorite long lost uncle might lay some cash on them (and he did, in some cases!).

So now, China, a country so hated by many of these same folks (or the likes) over the last 60 years, has a government that works better than ours? Is that the message?* I never heard the question asked, "To avoid wasteful spending, are they watching how the money is being spent?"


* For those unaware, China has moved in a significant way toward a free economy, but the overall country is still under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, and that includes the stimulus money they have put forward.

Word History:
Trough-While the spelling and modern pronunciation don't match (one of the major headaches for people trying to learn English is our non standard spelling, or is it our non standard pronunciation? Whatever the hell it is!!!), in times past, the "gh" sound WAS pronounced, and only later did the "f" sound take over. It seems that most linguists agree that it goes back to Indo European "drukos," which was formed by the root word "dru," which meant "tree, wood." The Germanic branch of Indo European took this as "trugoz," for "a holder, container or vessel made from wood." Old English continued this line with "trog," and close English relatives modern German and Dutch still have "Trog." The hollowed out shape of a "trough" began the notion of a weather trough, or an economic dip.

Can We Get Out Of This Mess? Part Two

Going back a few years, virtually all of the so called “experts” didn’t see the problems of the truck gathering speed coming down the highway toward the economy. The drum beat of “free markets” seems to have warped their minds. Like fanatics in anything, they put their minds into suspended animation and allowed themselves to be blinded by their total belief in the system that had been concocted in their imaginations. Further, they were so disconnected from what was happening to real live Americans, who were basically unassociated with Wall Street or corporate board rooms, that they couldn’t grasp the hardships that were befalling many of their countrymen.*** When signs of economic trouble began to become more apparent, they chose to hide behind the nonsense of their free market slogans. They said to those who tried to sound the alarm, that they were nothing more than like “Chicken Little,” claiming that the sky was falling. Thus began the “period of denial.”

Denial led many of the “experts” to underestimate what was and is going on. This whole process continues, as, in my own opinion, even the new Obama Administration doesn’t quite get it. They get it more than the Bush Administration, but the sky could have fallen on Bush, and he’d have probably seen it as some new signal from God. Beware of people who claim to hear from God or gods. We can excuse the religious writers from ancient times for claiming to hear from deities, as they didn’t know any better. Folks, today hearing voices and getting secret messages from a deity is called “mental illness.” That’s the name for it. At least when Bush was drinking, he’d have had a better excuse. And Bush claimed to be fighting against “Muslim religious extremists,” which they are, but it also takes one to know one.

So far, Obama permitted the “stimulus package” to be crafted outside of his own oversight. While I understand the big picture, it doesn’t mean that the Republicans and some Democrats didn’t have some very valid points about some silly parts to this package. For such an important piece of legislation, and one that may well go a long way towards defining his presidency, Obama let this one get away from him. The idea that $10-$15 more a week in most people’s pay (due to tax cuts) will somehow save the Republic from the catastrophe we’re in, is nonsense!!!^^^ And to get the tax cut, you have to have a paycheck; something millions of American workers no longer have!!! Do you want to smack Pelosi and Reid, or do you want me to do it?

Obama’s basic premises are correct, in my opinion; that is, rebuild American infrastructure, give a major boost to renewable energy sources and expand this energy segment into a major job producer, upgrade the electric grid, provide financial aid to states so that they don‘t have to layoff workers and cut services.+++ The bill that went through Congress was pretty much lacking in imagination, except for pet projects by many Democrats in Congress. There needed to be far MORE money, for example, for infrastructure, as most of the folks who have made studies of America’s infrastructure problems say that it will take 2 to 3 TRILLION dollars to bring the country up to some acceptable standard.

While I didn’t exactly expect all of that in this bill, it only provides about a cup of water in a five gallon bucket. Now, they can always come back later and say, “The original bill was just a down payment, and we need....(fill in the amount) to do more.” That’s not to let the Republicans off the hook. After the bill passed, a couple of Republican congressmen released statements to their constituents about projects in the package for their own districts, while failing to note that they had voted AGAINST the bill. Talk about having it both ways!!! Okay, these are politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, and that’s what they do, and we shouldn‘t be surprised by it. The idea that somehow politics will be transformed because of economic calamity is wishful thinking. Which brings me to another political situation that has garnered much media attention...bipartisanship.

I think its good that the president tried to court Republicans, but this can only go so far. They were able to peel off the three moderate Republicans in the Senate,~!~* but House Republicans remained united in opposition to the bill. I’m not naive, and there was lots of political positioning by both sides during the whole process. Again, the bipartisan outreach can only go so far, as some Republicans, especially those many on the far right, will NEVER go along with Obama’s proposals. We saw this during the Clinton years. Clinton was far from some leftwing ideologue, and many of his proposals were not what a number of Democrats in Congress really favored, but the Republican rightwing opposed the plans anyway. Polls show that Americans want the politicians to work together, but there are major philosophical differences at times, and bridging that gap, unless absolutely necessary, may cause more problems that what it would be worth.

Anyway, down the highway comes that speeding truck. So far, the response has been “Let’s throw some orange barrels in front of it to stop it.” The Obama Administration is proposing a way to help on foreclosures and another way to help the financial system. It remains to be seen exactly what the proposals are, and their potential to stem the onrushing truck. To me, if they don’t get out of the economic orthodoxy, and quit the free market malarkey, and start thinking outside the box, they may not be able to stop that speeding truck from running over all of us.

The Bush Administration, along with Fed Chairman Bernanke, fooled around with these banks far too long. They ended up taking the step of partially nationalizing some of the most troubled banks, but every time we heard how things were fixed, another crisis arose. The time has come (long since, in my opinion) to nationalize the banks. If the government is just going to keep throwing money at them, take the damned things over!!! Later, when things stabilize (I hope that’s not wishful thinking on my part), they can be sold off again, in whole or in part, to private investors. All of this crap to try to preserve some semblance of free market capitalism has done little to halt that speeding truck. I guarantee the free marketers, if the banks are nationalized, I WON’T wear a little red socialist flag on my shirt. We’ve had this hand wringing by the capitalists before in our history, for instance, when Roosevelt closed the banks in a “bank holiday.” The world didn’t end, and Americans didn’t don little red flag pins then either.

Well, this is going to require a "Part Three," if not "Part Four," (Hey, what can I say? I'm verbose!) but I promise to post the word histories first, hopefully by tomorrow.

***My absolute disdain for these people leads me to offer the opinion that they wouldn’t have cared what was happening to their fellow Americans anyway, as they were/are focused on one thing and one thing only...their self gratification at mo’ money, mo’ money, mo’ money!!!

^^^I hope I’m wrong, and I’ll be more than happy to admit such in the future when we can evaluate something of the effects of this package.

+++Take note, Obama and his people have basically been careful to say that the package will “create or save” 3 to 4 million jobs.

~!~*There was more political posturing here, in my opinion, as the idea that shaving off about $50billion from the bill will save the country from financial disaster is ludicrous, especially when the income tax cut was lessened. I thought that’s what Republicans wanted, more tax cuts. The original proposal, which was pretty much Obama’s campaign promise tax cut, was whittled down in the final bill. So help me, you can’t take your eye off of them for three seconds, and I mean people in both parties. That’s my bipartisanship for today. Franklin Roosevelt didn't worry much about the discredited Republicans of his time. In fact, as to the wealthy, he made reference to them in a somewhat famous speech where he mentioned how they hated him, but that, "I welcome their hatred!!!" That's the attitude we need now, and I echo FDR's sentiment!!!

The President Learns A Lesson (Hopefully)

We're learning more details about how the current situation developed over the "stimulus bill." First, according to many stories on cable news channels, then President-Elect Obama gave Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats an outline of what he wanted in the bill to be submitted to Congress. Pelosi and others then filled in the details, that was "Mistake #1." As I noted in my previous article, a president is the leader of his/her political party. The bill needed to be fully designed by the incoming administration and the economic team that Obama had assembled up to that point. Congressional leaders needed to be put on a leash to support the president's bill when it was introduced in the House. (Again, I understand the "separation of powers," but while civics classes are nice, this is the REAL world of politics, not a classroom.)

What I don't quite understand as yet is, did Obama's economic team "sign off" on the bill that was to be introduced in the House of Representatives? Did Rahm Emanuel, a long time political insider, and the new White House Chief of Staff sign off on it? If so, he especially should have seen the potential red flags in the House bill. If neither the economic team, nor Emanuel gave their blessing to this bill, then they should have told the president of the potential pitfalls, or said, "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!" One way or the other, this was "Mistake #2." Legislation that has such a strong attachment to a president needs to be steered through Congress at every turn. The White House let this bill get out of their control.

Congress is filled with 535 egos; 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate. Turn them loose and you can have an absolute mess. The House of Representatives tends to be a bit more partisan than the Senate, and while Democrats included tax cuts more fervently supported by Republicans, the Democratic leaders knew all along that they did not need Republican votes for the package, as Democrats have a fairly substantial majority. By putting questionable items in the bill, like the now infamous millions of dollars for contraceptives, the Democratic leaders opened the whole bill to attack.*** In fairness, Pelosi removed certain items from the House bill, but by then the damage had been done.

President Obama made a major effort to court Republican votes, and polls show that the public likes that. Here again, however, this is not a civics lesson or camping trip where all hold hands and sing songs they know by heart. This is rough and tumble politics, as the new president has now found out. Republicans have taken a real drubbing in the last two elections, and they are looking for a way to right their sinking ship. House Democrats gave them some ammo. The adminstration virtually ceded the stage to Republicans and allowed them to focus attention on relatively small parts and shortcomings of the bill, but it certainly worked, and we in the public paid attention.+++ Republicans really have nothing to lose by making lots of noise about this bill. If the bill passes in some form, and I think it probably will, and the economy is righted within the next year or so, Democrats will get credit, and Republicans will probably not win many elections for quite some time. If it passes with most Republicans opposing it, and the economy still languishes in recession, they'll be able to claim that they were against it from the start and that Democrats are to blame, which will be true!

Now the bill is in the Senate, where at least three Republicans have announced support for a stripped down version of the House bill. While many folks, including me, have wanted the bill to be trimmed of certain things, the question now is, "Did they strip out money that was necessary?" From what has been made public, a great deal of money to aid beleaguered states has been given the ax. Further, money for education has also gone under the knife. I realize that the country will have to borrow the money for whatever amount ends up in this bill when it finally passes, but the idea that perhaps fifty to a hundred billion dollars is going to save the Republic from bankruptcy is nonsense. From various guests on CNBC (a cable business channel), the economy has taken hits to the tune of between like 15 and 20 trillion dollars in the last year or two. When you see it in those terms, 50 or 100 billion pales. Congress needs to get the silly nonsensical things out (and many Democrats agree with that) and get the bill passed and signed into law; with or without major Republican support.

*** Understand, I'm not attacking contraceptives, or lawn seed for the D.C. Mall, or any of the other provisions that have been under attack in this bill. Many or all may be worthy causes, but they didn't belong in this bill.

+++ Then again, this is how it works. Republicans showed us the nonsense.

Word History:
Thug-noun-This is an interesting word, and I'll bet you didn't know that it is NOT an original English, or even a Germanic, word, but its roots do seem to come from Indo European. It came to English from India!!! India was a British colony for a couple of hundred years, and Hindi (an Indo European language related to English much, much further down the family tree) had "thag," (I believe the "a" sound is like "ah," and thus we have the closely pronounced "thug" in English) which means "cheat, swindler." During British rule in India, there was a large gang of these "thags" who robbed and murdered their captives by strangulation. The word caught on in English. It is believed by many linguists that the Hindi word goes back to Sanskrit (an ancient Indo European language) "sthaga," which meant "cunning or fraudulent," perhaps from the verb "sthagayati," which meant "to cover, conceal." This in turn went back to Indo European "steg," which meant "cover." The "s" sound died out, or perhaps because it wasn't prominently pronounced anyway. When I mention that a sound died out, don't forget, we do it all of the time in spoken English. For example, we have "appreciate," but it is not uncommon to hear folks give the retort for a favor as, "Thanks, I 'preciate it." Further, don't forget, at one time we pronounced the "k" in a number of words like, "knock" and "knight" (the "k" sound is still pronounced in close English relative German "knock/knack" and "Knecht," which are the same words).

How To Attack The Root Problem

The bailout of Wall Street failed to pass the House of Representatives. Whether you were for it, against, disinterested, or what ever is now immaterial. The question is, how to halt the root cause(s) of the problem? Here are some things to think about, and I'm not claiming that I'm right, I'm just throwing them out there:

All sides seem to agree that the main problem is the housing market and foreclosures. Now, I'm NOT an economist, but what if the mortgage holders were forced to take less money from the homeowners, and payments were made affordable for the homeowners? What I'm getting at is, if I owe you $100,000, and I can't pay you back, would you rather get $75,000, and take the $25,000 hit, or would you prefer to foreclose, and when all is said and done, get $35,000 or $50,000? You write off the rest and move on with your life. For those homeowners who can't pay at pretty much any rate (perhaps due to the death or illness of the main income earner, for instance), then there would have to be another solution, including "possibly" some government involvement.

Then we need some kind of further stimulus plan to get money into the hands of the "non rich." No rebates or tax cuts for the rich. They got plenty from this current administration. They will benefit when Americans spend the money at their businesses. Further, there needs to be a beefed up job training/retraining program for people who have lost jobs in industries that are in decline due to technology changes. There needs to be an extensive rebuilding of America: roads, bridges, waterways, the electric supply system, etc. This should help employ many, many people. And let's not forget new and developing energy sources, like wind, solar power and other things. This helps push these new energy sources along, and it diminishes our dependence on foreign sources of energy and in the current environmentally unfriendly energy sources.

When it comes down to it, it will cost a bundle, but it will go to the non rich, initially, at least. We've just seen that most Americans do NOT seem to want to give more money to the rich directly, either in tax cuts, which were proposed by the House Republicans, or in any bailout of big financial interests, which was just proposed by the Bush Administration.

An Expanded Stimulus Plan

Here is a link to an article about the Senate plan to stimulate the economy. The problem I have with this plan is that they want to raise the income limit substantially from the House-passed version (So $300,000 dollar incomes are the middle and low incomes suggested by Bernanke?). To me, shame on the Senate Democrats for allowing this in the package. They should have held their ground to see if the Republicans could take the heat for holding up such an important piece of legislation. In an election year, I'll bet they can't! So,


http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/category/topicarticle.aspx?feed=AP&Date=20080131&ID=8024968&topic=TOPIC_ECONOMIC_INDICATORS&isub=3

Interest Rate Cuts and A Stimulus Package

“A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.” We’ve all heard that expression numerous times throughout our lives. So what might happen with the economy in the coming months? Well as you might or might not know, stock markets around the world have generally been falling, even plummeting on some days. In response to this dismal turn of events, the Federal Reserve has lowered interest rates by three-quarters of a point in a special teleconference the other day. Prior to the rate cut, which was announced about an hour before American markets opened, the Dow was heading for an opening of about 500 points to the downside. The analysts say that the Fed, as it is frequently called, will lower rates again in about a week when they hold their regular meeting.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has offered a plan to “stimulate” the economy with a combination of rebates and tax cuts; totaling about 150 billion dollars. Democratic leaders in Congress seem to generally agree, with some negotiations ongoing with the administration to adjust some of the details.

Okay, now what? Well the conventional wisdom says that retailers should especially benefit from the rebates; after all, the Government will send us money and we will go shopping. There’s probably a good deal of truth in that, but for many hard pressed Americans, they will use the money to make payments on overdue bills of all types. Whether the Fed rate cuts and the stimulus package can keep the economy from sinking into a severe recession, I’m not sure. I go back to the opening here, about the weakest link. So many folks are in distress, that after the initial rebate “bounce,” will they still be in the same predicament as before the stimulus money got into their hands? Further, will some who may not be as bad off just decide to hold onto this “bonus” money, as a rainy day fund.


I believe the above actions by the government will help, but we need the Fed and the Bush Administration to push for the credit industry to lower rates immediately, not months and months from now, as they have done in the past when interest rates were lowered by the Fed. What do I mean? Well, in the past, if “XYZ Credit Card” was charging an average of 25% interest on credit card debt, and the Federal Reserve lowered rates, it could take “XYZ” a couple of months or more to bring down their rates to consumers. If the government gives us money and the credit industry just keeps rates high, they’re going to get a fair amount of the stimulus money, not J.C. Penny, or Kmart, or Target. And then the administration has to finally get off this free market mantra and “jawbone” oil and gas prices down***, or just like the credit card companies, the oil industry will end up pocketing a substantial amount of the stimulus money, and the whole collective action by the government will probably pretty much go for naught.

These are the things that are crippling many Americans and the American economy. The whole housing mess will continue, in my opinion, for quite some time, but as the debts are refinanced at lower rates, the crisis there might begin to recede. The thing is, Americans are in too deep, and until or unless a substantial amount of that debt is eliminated, things aren’t really going to improve much, in my opinion. Understand, what has been happening in housing, and increasingly with credit card debt and other debts, is that consumers default, and that eliminates the debt the hard way, as the lenders have been incurring huge losses. What seems to have happened, at least with some credit card companies (that is, banks), is they have been trying to cut their losses by charging higher interest rates to their PAYING customers, thus forcing more of those customers into late payments or default. The same thing is happening with this adjustable rate mortgage stuff. Lenders have jumped interest rates on homeowners by huge amounts, resulting at times in hundreds of more dollars being added to some people’s mortgage payment. Guess what happens then? Many can’t pay the higher rate, they default, the lender forecloses, the house is “dumped” out onto the already terrible housing market forcing prices down even more, the lender takes a hit, those who bought the mortgages as investments, or who held bonds backed by mortgages take a hit, these companies report big financial losses, the stock market reacts negatively, and the whole thing keeps churning on in a vicious cycle.

Just a little bit about these “sub-prime” mortgages; this term doesn’t always mean that some working class family went out and bought a house for $75,000 and now they can’t pay for it. It also means that people took on mortgages (and were GIVEN these mortgages by lenders) at far higher levels than they could normally afford. Maybe some folks needed that $75,000 home, but instead they got a house priced at twice that, while others could afford a $200,000 home, but took out a mortgage for a home priced at $400,000. The other day on some television station, they showed a house of a “sub prime borrower” valued at $750,000, and was in foreclosure!!! My point here is to show that not all sub prime foreclosures are the result of working class people defaulting on mortgages.

And one more thing; the "free marketers" don't seem to be protesting GOVERNMENT action to try to avert a serious economic downturn. As I've noted before, they love the free markets as long as they're making money. When the asses get their butts (get it?) into trouble, they want Uncle Sam to come to the rescue. So don't EVER think it is only poor or average folks who want government help.

*** "Jawboning" is a term you don't hear much anymore, but in the past it was frequently used in reference to government officials making public statements to encourage some entity to do something the government wanted. For example, if a major strike was threatened, the president or other administration officials might make public statements encouraging the two sides to negotiate more. Sometimes, a president might even threaten to use troops, like I believe Harry Truman once did.

John Maynard Keynes Lives!

John Maynard Keynes, the British economist credited with influencing governments to spend money to overcome economic downturns, is alive in spirit and living in the bodies of Ben Bernanke and George W. Bush (That rumble you hear is Keynes turning over in his grave. Sorry about that John Maynard!). In testimony given today, Bernanke has actually endorsed giving money to low/moderate income Americans!!! (That Plop! Plop! Plop! noise you hear are the rich money managers and investors hitting the floor after fainting at betrayal by one of their own.) Now, please don't you readers faint on me, but hold onto the arms of your chair tightly, as it seems that none other than George W. "Aren't The Free Markets Wonderful For The Rich" Bush has also signed onto such a plan. (Give me a moment, because I'M holding onto the arms of my chair!) Okay, I criticize when I feel it is appropriate, so I have to give credit when I feel the bigwigs do something that is right (No "credit" crunch here; get it? No "credit crunch?" Alright, so that wasn't such a good one.) The link below should take you to the actual story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22705103/

Recently posted on this topic:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2008/01/some-quick-thoughts-on-economy.html