If you hate the New Deal, which parts would you eliminate?

uscitizen said:
If not for the new deal, TVA and highways we would maybe have lost the war in Europe. How do you think they made the aluminum for the airplanes and transported all the war materials ?

Also the Oak Ridge enrichment facility was powered by hydro power from the TVA....
Click to expand...

If not for the new deal, the South might still have remained an impoverished economic backwater akin to a third world country, for decades and decades after the 1930s.
 
Cypress said:
If not for the new deal, the South might still have remained an impoverished economic backwater akin to a third world country, for decades and decades after the 1930s.
Click to expand...

FDR basically ignored the South during the '30's. He already had their votes locked up and spent most of his time in other parts of the country.
 
Watermark said:
He did? The TVA?
Click to expand...

"""For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side."""
 
cawacko said:
"""For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side."""
Click to expand...

Caw, of course most of the money went to large states in the east and west. THat's where most of the people were. Can you say they received more income per capita? I know New York recieves more federal dollars in total than Mississippi. But Mississippi receieves about twice as much as New York per capita (because of it's poverty).
 
uscitizen said:
Yep per capita spending....

Aplalachia got more per capita spending than NY or CA did.
Click to expand...
And they still do.

Damned Red States are sponges, soaking up the labor of the responsible (Blue) states. Blue states all, without exception, provide more in federal taxes than they receive in federal assistance. Red states, on the other hand, freeload off the sweat of honest people in the civilized parts of the nation.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
And they still do.

Damned Red States are sponges, soaking up the labor of the responsible (Blue) states. Blue states all, without exception, provide more in federal taxes than they receive in federal assistance. Red states, on the other hand, freeload off the sweat of honest people in the civilized parts of the nation.
Click to expand...

Most blue states are rich and most red states are poor - what would you expect? Do you wanna stop handing out welfare to poorer states to make everything even?

I know, I AM being pedantic. Thankyou. :)
 
Well when cons say they intend to cut govt spending they only mean on blue states. So they can route more to their supporters in Red states.

Always watch what they do, do not listen to what they say.
With cons what they do not say is the most important things.
btw those last 2 lines apply to all politicians.
 
uscitizen said:
Well when cons say they intend to cut govt spending they only mean on blue states. So they can route more to their supporters in Red states.

Always watch what they do, do not listen to what they say.
With cons what they do not say is the most important things.
btw those last 2 lines apply to all politicians.
Click to expand...

Take the USC out of your name please. You embarass my school. "Red States" like LA for example have "blue" mayors in their big cities and Democratic Senators. "Think" claims to be your theme but you don't follow it so well Sir.
 
uscitizen said:
Well when cons say they intend to cut govt spending they only mean on blue states. So they can route more to their supporters in Red states.

Always watch what they do, do not listen to what they say.
With cons what they do not say is the most important things.
btw those last 2 lines apply to all politicians.
Click to expand...

US, 90% of the funding that goes to states and such goes directly to individuals, and so the senators would have no way to tell which state it was going to. Maybe a few senators get more pork than others - this is like 1% of the budget.

Red states get more money because of the south and all the poor people there. It would be counterintuitive to reduce the amount of money going to states where the people are poorest and increase it where the people are richest just so that it would all be even to states. States are irrelevant in diveling out money.
 
Probably. It's a loaded list anyway. Not particularly representative of all facets of the New Deal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top