"Lessons Of The Greatest Generation, Now Forgotten By Too Many" Part Three

First published in July 2014


Americans had fought, and contributed greatly to, the winning of World War Two, but upon their return from distant battlefields, where they had fought the hatred and the desire to return to some glorified past of reactionary fascism, they re-entered a nation still fraught with injustices. The major issue was about race, more especially about the treatment of Black Americans, a part of the population over whose enslavement a civil war had been fought, but also a part of society kept segregated from others, with the accompanying discrimination, mistreatment and hatred. Unfortunately, some who had fought fascist hatred in World War Two, returned to America only to support hatred against other Americans, a nasty failing quickly exploited by those seeking to gain or to retain power; our very own reactionary fascists.

The greediest of the greedy and the most reactionary elements of the country gradually chipped away at protections for Americans put in place during the Great Depression, or added later as the legacy of the reforms of the Great Depression. To roll back advances and attempts to right wrongs to American society, reactionaries often used the states to whittle down federal power. This approach, by its very nature, divides the nation, as in the Civil War era, and gradually an anti-Uncle Sam campaign was mounted and financed by those seeking something of which there is obviously not a sufficient supply on this planet for them, MONEY, and the POWER that money can bring. Eventually the banking laws of the Great Depression were repealed. Why? Fewer and fewer people of "the greatest generation" survived to remember those times, by then long past. Further, "some," certainly not all, of their children and grandchildren, many of whom had taken up gallant causes to make the U.S. a better place by fighting racism, bigotry, pollution, militarism, and monopolistic business interests, among other things, during the 1960s and 1970s, decided that making money and accumulating more and more wealth was more important than promoting a fairer country.* The marked decline of activism and the forgotten lessons of the past most certainly contributed to the rise of those who had been waiting for just such an opportunity, and they gained power, along with their philosophy of self interest and greed.

So as, what has been called, "conservatism" became the prevailing philosophy from the 1980s forward, more and more state and local power was pushed, as well as the power of money and the power of those who have money ... lots and lots of money. This corrupting notion has permeated everything from business, to government, to the court system, ever since. Money, or wealth in some form, has always been around, and likely always will be, but when it is unleashed with few restraints, the egomaniacs driving its engine are bound to try to soothe their egos on the backs of others. Can catastrophe be far behind? In recent years, after an economic meltdown that almost brought about a collapse of the world economy, the Great Recession, the perpetrators of the collapse: businesses that moved plants and other facilities overseas, oil speculators, bankers and others with ties to the financial system, generally escaped unscathed from their manipulations and outright deceit. Millions of others lost their jobs, but wealthy bankers and Wall Street brokers whined when they were asked to take smaller bonuses, or when the prospect of slightly higher taxes for them were proposed. Lack of perspective here folks, so "sacrifice" became a word for poor and middle class Americans, not for the super rich. In the world of such egomaniacs, Robin Hood was no hero, but a villain. So instead of shared sacrifice we've seen the wealthiest Americans reap virtually all of the benefits of a gradually recovering economy. The "too big to fail" banks of the initial crisis** are now larger than EVER. This is all pretty much the OPPOSITE of how "the greatest generation" dealt with the economic catastrophe of the 1930s. Instead of pulling together and finding common ground when the crisis developed, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and others chose to try to keep Americans divided, a tactic that has worked, at least to some degree, and government action has been somewhat paralyzed to the delight of the reactionaries, who now await their return to power over the entire system. When a BP oil spill sent a huge spewing of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, one Republican congressman publicly announced that "we" should apologize to BP for the treatment they were receiving from angry Americans wanting the mess cleaned up and the Gulf's wildlife and ecosystem protected.

* The 1960s saw a major increase in activism, often led by younger people, but having lived through that era, the idea that younger people were very liberal, is not truly accurate, in my opinion. To this day, people's political views, including those of young people, are "often" influenced by the area of the country where they live and by the views of their elders. Let's be honest, people of any age vote for or against certain candidates or issues for a wide variety of reasons, some of which don't always make sense, but that's part of being able to vote the way you choose. Just try not to be misguided or to hold onto nasty views out of the false pride that changing your views shows weakness. That philosophy equals, "I'd rather be wrong, than to change," or "2 + 2=5, and I'm sticking with it, no matter what the rest of the world says."  

WORD HISTORY:
Burst (Bust)-Before I go into the history, "bust" is simply the same word as "burst," when the "r" sound died out in some dialects in America during the mid 1700s (see the entry for Low German, below). In this case, this is NOT the same word as "bust," meaning, "the chest of a woman," or, "a sculpture of the upper body of a person." "Burst" goes back to Indo European "bhrest," which had the notion "to split, to break apart." This then gave its Old Germanic offspring "brestanan," which had the same general meaning. As the West Germanic offshoot developed from Old Germanic, the vowel and "r" sounds changed places (called "metathesis''). This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "berstan," meaning "to break apart suddenly," and this then became "bersten," before the modern version. The noun form was derived from the verb and also meant "damage, injury." The other Germanic languages have (verb forms): German "bersten," Low German "barsten" and "bassen" (the "r" sound has died out), Dutch "barsten," West Frisian "barste," Norwegian and Danish "briste," Swedish "brista." In Icelandic I found the noun "brestur," meaning "a crack, a break, a fracture."

What We Got With Obama/Halting The Economic Collapse

First published in July 2013


What We Got With Obama/Halting The Economic Collapse

Barack Obama has now been president for four and one half years. So what about him? What of the comparisons of Obama to Franklin Roosevelt, at least early on? I will be doing "at least" two parts to this evaluation of President Obama, a man we now know far more about now than we did in 2008, but we tend to learn more about any president after they've been in office for awhile. Chester Arthur became president upon the assassination of President James Garfield in the early 1880s.* Arthur had developed his political career through the (then) Republican political machine in New York.** To the surprise of both machine politicians and reformers alike, as president, Arthur pursued reform policies that went completely against his former support of the corrupt existing spoils system. While Barack Obama still has more than three years left in his second term, where is he now, and what did we get in 2008 and again in 2012?

First, it is important to remember, Barack Obama had a fast rise in American politics, with his first elected office being as a state senator in the Illinois State Senate in 1996, a position he retained until 2004, when he was elected by a large margin to the United States Senate from Illinois. He experienced one bump in the political road, that being a failed run for a congressional seat, when he was decisively defeated in the Democratic primary by the incumbent. He held his U.S. Senate seat until just after he was elected President of the United States in November 2008. Obama came to the presidency at a time when the country, and indeed the world, were reeling from a major economic downturn and financial crisis. Further, many Americans had grown weary, and downright skeptical, of the war in Iraq, as that war had overshadowed the war in Afghanistan and the search for Osama bin Laden, the overall leader of Islamic terrorist group Al Qaeda. More than anything, Americans were worried about the economy, which had been in a major plummet since the fall of 2008, complete with bank failures and skyrocketing unemployment. For my Republican friends who like to believe that without the economic collapse, John McCain may have won the 2008 election, I just want to say, "if" there hadn't been a Great Depression, Herbert Hoover likely would have won a second term. Anyway, here's my take on President Obama:

Due to the circumstances when he took office, President Obama was often compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt, aka "FDR" (from here on, I'll use "FDR" when mentioning Roosevelt). First, it's never completely fair to compare presidents, because they never all have the same challenges nor the same circumstances during their time in office. FDR took office after 3 1/2 years of an economic collapse the likes of which the country had never seen. Unemployment was around 25%, there were many other workers on part time, and prices were falling, as major deflation gripped the nation. Further, when FDR took the oath of office, the country was in the midst of a major bank panic. FDR and his advisers had had those 3 1/2 years of the Great Depression to see how Herbert Hoover tried to deal with the collapse. FDR's advisers liked some of Hoover's programs and plans in general, but they did not like Hoover's limitations and implementations of his programs. They took many of Hoover's ideas, but they reformulated them to their own ways of thinking.

Barack Obama came to office as the economy was still plunging downward at an alarming rate. The recession which started in late 2007 had taken on ominous proportions in the fall of 2008, as the nation's banking and overall financial system, overwhelmed by massive numbers of bad mortgages, wavered and threatened to come crashing down; thus bringing about what later came to be called, "the Great Recession." Obama and his advisers didn't have quite the "luxury" of watching George W. Bush trying to deal with the collapsing economy on the scale that FDR had watched Hoover, but Obama did have an advantage unavailable to FDR ... HISTORY. The incoming Obama administration knew from the history of the Great Depression and the time thereafter how to try to stem an economic collapse. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke also knew the history of the Great Depression, as he had made it a part of concentrated effort in his educational studies. The answer was ... SPENDING. While they knew the answer, the problem was, the Bush administration had run huge deficits for years; cutting taxes (especially for the wealthiest Americans), fighting wars, adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, and shoring up the security of the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. As I noted, Bush cut taxes, and Americans were never asked to help pay for all of the the new spending during his two terms as president. In spite of Republican attempts to act as if the history of federal deficits began on January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama took office, George W. Bush bequeathed a federal deficit of more than a trillion and a third dollars to Obama on that day. This meant the Obama administration would have to TOTALLY borrow the money to combat the economic plunge the country was experiencing. The Bush administration initiated bailouts for the auto industry and major bailouts for the American banking industry, fearful it would collapse. The bank bailout law allocated a maximum of $700 billion.*** The auto bailouts were much smaller and were done to tide the companies over until the new administration came into office. For the banks, through other maneuvers in addition to the bailout law, the Federal Reserve provided trillions of dollars (I'm not sure we actually know to this day how many trillions). Bernanke, a Republican appointed to head the Federal Reserve by George W. Bush, advocated major spending by the federal government, at one point saying that the threat of deflation (generally falling prices such as happened during the Great Depression) had to be combated, even if money had to be dropped out of airplanes.

Here's the idea behind Bernanke's statement and the general idea of spending to combat an economic downturn. During the Great Depression so many Americans had little or no money, there was a lack of demand for goods and services, which only brought more layoffs and business failures; that is, a downward spiral. Government spending tried to make up some of the loss of purchasing power, but back then, this was all something of a new theory, and it took study of the lessons of the Great Depression to put the ideas into a more concrete plan of action for the future. As I mentioned earlier, Bernanke had done significant study of the Great Depression through much of his life and he used this knowledge to combat the Great Recession, along with support for the Obama administration's efforts, including up to the present about the federal budget. Some Republicans and business people screamed, shouted and stomped their feet in protest to the Bernanke and Obama anti-recession program, much like some Republicans, some conservative Democrats and business people screamed, shouted, and stomped their feet against FDR in the 1930s. In my opinion, the business-type ideas that have developed over the centuries and the idea that they can never be wrong has just been carried to extremes by some. Of course they screamed and shouted, and I'm sure many American bankers did the same, until THEY needed their asses bailed out. The idea is, to be quite honest, when Uncle Sam dispersed money during the Great Depression, the greediest of the greedy didn't have direct access to much of that money, as some went to provide public service jobs in a variety of ways, so they called it "wasteful," and .... they screamed, shouted and stomped their feet in a tantrum. Folks, they want YOUR MONEY! That's what all of this kind of stuff is about, including all the nonsense about privatizing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any government money. They want their cut! If you get help in some way from government, at whatever level, federal, state or local, they're pissed, because they didn't get their cut. Government can go around them and they don't like it.

President Obama kept and generally adhered to the bank bailout law, signed into law by President George W. Bush. Further, the Obama administration proposed a "stimulus package" of about $800 billion to inject money into the economy through tax cuts and public spending, and they got larger bailouts for General Motors and Chrysler in the auto industry. In return, Uncle Sam took stock in the auto companies, a move which brought cries of "socialism" from the political right, as if the sun would never shine again. As I type this, I can't look out the window, because the sunlight is too bright. Further, the auto companies agreed to reorganize, in part by a scale back in the number of vehicle models they had. Gradually the economic plunge began to slow and the economy stabilized, although it faced strong headwinds from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which shut down a fairly large sector of the economy, as first the spill and then the clean up proceeded. Republicans pounced, but I believe most Americans realized the oil spill had damaged not only the Gulf coast, but the entire American economy. At least I didn't hear Americans echoing what Republican Congressman Joe Barton said in a public hearing. The Congressman said that the deal reached between the Obama administration and BP for the oil giant to put $20 billion into a fund for compensation to victims of the disaster was a "shakedown" of BP by the White House and he apologized to BP for such!

The economy has continued to recover to this day, but the pace has been slow to steady, not overwhelming, and unemployment has gradually dropped into the mid 7% range. Part of the slow recovery, in my opinion at least, has had to do with the scale back of state and local governments hard hit by the recession and the corresponding revenue drop, at least until more recently. Private business began rehiring, albeit slowly, but simultaneously state and local governments cut payrolls, often making for something of a trade off. It's also important to remember, that while the Great Recession pales in comparison to the Great Depression of the 1930s, it took until about 1941 to fully recover from that depression, which started in 1929! Of course, if you've been out of work for a couple of years, it doesn't matter how much we compare our recent history with the 1930s, YOU'RE HURTING, and neither history nor statistics does anything for you. Another thing is, many American business people, always driven by the bottom line, prefer to invest in their business facilities in other countries. This is not a one way street, as American-made products are also sold to other countries, but when American companies choose to produce goods they once made here in overseas locations and then ship those products back here, it hurts! They also seem to keep money in banks outside of the U.S., so as not to have to pay taxes on it. Now you can say that's smart, but America continues to crumble, and while you might like some of those low prices you get for certain foreign made products, we'll see how well you like working for foreign wages. Eventually that's what's going to happen for many. Why do you think Romney didn't want to release much information on his income and taxes? Whether he did anything illegal, I can't say, but I'm sure it was because he knew how bad it would look. They always like their scamming the system to get tax breaks and such, until they have to face the American public, then they don't want you to know, because they know exactly what you're going to think, so they've got to hide it from you.

So on combating the Great Recession, I'd give President Obama a "B+," but there are other things tied to the economy I'll be covering in the next installment and his grade may not be so high.  

* President Garfield was born in what was to later become suburban Cleveland, Ohio. He is buried in Cleveland at Lake View Cemetery, located by the Little Italy neighborhood in the general area of the University Circle section of town. For those interested: http://www.universitycircle.org/

** Both parties had political machines in New York and elsewhere, so this was not just Republicans.

*** All of the 700 billion was not dispersed to financial institutions, and Congress (Democrats then controlled both houses) and the Obama administration lowered the total amount to $475 billion from the $700 billion. The U.S. Treasury reports on the money to Congress, and the report from earlier this year indicates that only $418 billion was actually dispersed, and that the Treasury has received $405 billion in return, leaving a relatively small balance yet owed. The "incoming" money has come from a variety of sources, including dividends and interest, but the biggest amount by far has come from companies paying back the money they received. The auto industry got about $80 billion total and currently about $51 billion has been returned to the Treasury. 

WORD HISTORY:
Pimento-This is a really interesting word. Watch how and why the meanings evolved over time. This word goes back to Indo European "peig/peikh," which meant "to cut, to carve," the notion of which led to "to carve decorations into an object." This gave its Italic/Latin offspring "pingere," and the idea of "decorate or adorn" broadened further into "decorate with color;" thus came the meaning, "to paint." This then spawned the Latin noun "pigmentum," which meant "color, paint," but also later it took the meaning "vegetable juice," because of the bright color of the juice. Vegetable juice was often added to foods for color and flavor, and  Spanish, a Latin-based language, had its version of the word as "pimenton," which made the "vegetable juice" meaning into the more specific "red pepper," but this later broadened into "sweet peppers of any color." The idea of using peppers to season food also gave Spanish "pimienta," to mean "black pepper." English borrowed the word from Spanish in the late 1600s or early 1700s, likely from of the islands in the Caribbean, as the word meant both "red sweet pepper" (the vegetable), but also "tropical dried berry used as a spice" ("allspice," so called in English because of its seeming blend of spice flavors). German also borrowed the word, but from French, as "Piment," and it's the German word for "allspice."

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.

Erased Wealth For Some, Gains For Guess Who?

Federal Reserve data released earlier this month showed a huge drop in the net worth of American families; a drop of 39% from 2007 to 2010. This only tells us "the Great Recession" was "greater" than many at first realized. The interesting part of this is, middle class families took much of the blow from those three years of  "the Great Recession.." While middle class people and the poor took a beating, the wealth of one segment of American society actually rose somewhat. I'll bet you'd never guess it was the wealthiest families in America. So you've been losing ground while they've been gaining ground amid the worst times since the 1930s and the Great Depression. Still want to give them more tax cuts? Better think about all of this folks, as it would amount to another transfer of wealth from YOU to people who DO NOT need it! This is NOT a tough one! 

WORD HISTORY:
Wether- This is NOT a misspelling.  I came across this word quite by accident, which then prompted me to check into it. To my recollection, I had never heard of it (keep reading). It certainly is not common in the U.S., but perhaps it is still used in England? Or by people involved with animals, especially with sheep? Anyway let's broaden our language knowledge at bit. The word now means "a male sheep (ram) or goat, usually one that has been castrated." Originally it meant "an animal (usually a lamb) of one year or less." It goes back to the Indo European root "wet," which meant "year." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wethruz" or "wethraz." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) wether "male sheep, ram." Above, I mentioned that I didn't recall ever hearing of the term, but during my research on the word, I found that it is the second part of "bellwether," a term still much in use, usually as to "leader in trends" or regarding election results. The original meaning of "bellwether" was "a male sheep or goat with a bell around its neck, which led the rest of the herd." German has "Widder," with similar meaning to its English cousin. Apparently the word has died out, or is of very limited use, in other Germanic languages, as for instance, both English and Dutch now use "ram" in common speech.

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.