Big government is in full force in this movie, with the Department of Agriculture collective as the family's saving grace. Don't forget the Communist undertones as well, with the people sharing resources and organizing at the community level to survive. Goddamn socialists!
shareSince the movie is so pro-union I would think that Obama, who is supported by all the unions, would hate this movie.
shareThat doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't Obama, if he is supported by unions as you say, then like this movie because it strengthens the case for his support-base?
shareSince the movie is so pro-union I would think that Obama, who is supported by all the unions, would hate this movie.
I agree - what a dumb statement that was! So Obama would hate a movie that endorses the very same unions that propped him up? Yeah, that's drawing a real logical conclusion, isn't it? :]
"How could a man love anything except a blonde?"
-Captain Phoebus, 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame'
People doing things for themselves has nothing to do with big government. Just because only you can think of things being organized by the government doesn't mean that everyone else has to.
If anything it seems to be the left who dislikes the people working on their own without government intervention. The entire "it takes a village" philosophy is based on government having their fingers in every aspect of life.
Where on Earth do you people come from?! Go back to sleep. Or go join a chat room. Please.
shareI recently had my parents visiting, both of whom lived through the depression, and it occurred to me that it might be beneficial for my 9 yr. old daughter to see it while they were here. My Dad's family lived exactly that life; as migrant laborers. My local blockbuster had all copies rented. I don't know if that means anything or not but whatever it means, it's probably not good.
shareNice rebuttal. Sound like someone who has no idea of their own.
shareIdeas of your own? Do you actually believe that YOU invented the fact-free "ideas" you parrot?
Clue: the rights you lunatic fringers jabber about wouldn't exist were it not for law -- regulation -- which secures and protects them.
And how does it protect your rights? By gov't "intervention" between you and those bent on doing you harm.
Either stop being stupid, or STFU.
No, I will not "STFU."
Regulation in and of itself means nothing. It's the degree of regulation. If you can't agree to that concept than I'm afraid we'll have nothing to discuss. It shows me that your foundation is weak if you can't discuss the issue without crying 'Accept what I say as truth or say nothing at all!!!!one!!!'.
Seems most of you can't see past your own partisanship to see it wasn't government that was the problem here but free market laissez faire economics which caused the Great Depression in the first and was also responsible to landing us in this mess now that will only get worse before it gets better.
shareActually, "this mess", as you call it, was caused by government forcing banks to lend money to people whether or not those people were acceptable credit risks.
shareYeah, JP Morgan et al were 'forced' to reap all those billions of dollars. Brilliant. Blame govt but don't forget your govt. And it ain't us.
shareYou were given the option of continuing to be stupid if you didn't want to STFU. It's obvious which one you've chosen.
shareIf only you knew who looks stupid here. Thanks for adding nothing to the conversation but your venom.
shareMy pleasure. STFU - you must get that a lot.
Meh.
shareFunny, I always thought Cartman must have been modeled after a right wingnut idiot--and then I saw Steve Bannon and knew he was the one they would have used if they saw him back when they invented the character. Now we see wingnuts adopting Cartman's persona.... LOL Perfect.
Wingnuts hated this movie and the book ever since written. Just as they were lured into hating FDR--tho we were never able to get a coherent reason for the passion from anyone in my mom's family, or her either.
The Great Depression was caused by the behavior of wealthy investors who did things like insider trading, monopolies, etc. FDR hired Joe Kennedy and others who had made all the money to draft laws to allow the Securities Exchange Commission--the SEC--to prohibit such dangerous behavior, outlawing what they had done that brought down the economy. And it prevented another stock market crash until "deregulation" repealed those laws. It was not solely Republicans who were responsible--Bill Clinton backed the stupidity too.
And after the crash that those repeals allowed (no, the govt never forced Wall Street to sell mortgages to the poor. The govt merely opened the door and allowed it, and allowed those "packages" of mortgages to be sold...banks were allowed to invest federally insured deposits of unknowing people to be used to buy packages of mortgages, which to be fair, the packagers created to hide the dirty ones, allowed banks to gamble investor's FDIC-insured funds), Obama and Democrats adopted a milder form of regulations (all they could get thru Congress) that kept us safe since 2008--but now Trump cannot wait to repeal this regulatory scheme, instead of strengthening it.
It's insane--what wealth is left in the middle class will be eliminated, essentially wiping it out--since taxpayers are always left holding the bag, not the rich. Trump told his idiot fans he wanted to reduce taxes on the richest (which actually is raising taxes on a lot of lower income/middle-class people--for ex, a single mom with 2 kids who earns $75,000/yr would see her taxes go up by a striking $2400/yr! To give the top 1% a huge windfall! And move toward zero taxes for businesses--who are the ones who use govt services such as airports, harbors, roads, inspectors, courts, job training benefits, etc.
It's obscene trying to return us (esp those who foolishly voted for the ignorant lunatic) to a time 100 yrs ago--which is why the graduated tax system is called "progressive." The understanding that everyone must have and spend a certain amount for food, shelter, heat, clothing, medical care, and transportation, but the money one has above that amount should be taxed at a higher rate, since it is not subject to survival needs coming out of it. Trump seems to think that those uber-wealthy (who actually shield much of that money from any taxes) should pay the same percent or more than a young family who is struggling to buy enough food, and rent an apt with heat, light, etc? It's a robber baron mentality (or ignorance) that flies in the face of accumulated knowledge for the last century or more.
The same goes for MediCare, Social Security and the safety net deemed essential to a capitalist system by its founder Adam Smith, not that Trump seems to have a clue. The reason we don't see those migrant workers having to crisscross the country trying to find a way to feed families, just to stay alive. The reason the elderly are not the class of persons MOST likely to be living in poverty. But although Trump promised not to touch these programs--the most successful and popular ones we have--they are drafting legislation now to "privatize" MediCare--when most people would create "MediCare for all." They want to give it to Wall Street--They tried 10-12 years ago...and voters rejected the idea--or it would all be gone now!
Trump wants to increase spending on defense--it seems the moron has not read the reports that we already spend more than the next 8 or 12 or 14 countries combined! That is the U.S. already spends more than Russia + China + U.K. + France + Italy + India + Brazil + Saudi Arabia + Japan + a lot more perhaps, all put together! Anyone smell a scam here?
Trump and Republicans want to raise middle class taxes on some people and trash the safety net that keeps a roof over the heads of families who get laid off and old people whom we absolutely know have no other source of income! It is obscene thatb anyone thinks we need MORE weapons and less care for our citizens, less education, less training for jobs--the way we we compete against other countries in the 21st century is not with nuclear bombs but with an educated healthy patriotic, proud populace. That is what other countries are doing--all of them. But Repugs keep squeezing the bulk of the country--Trump wants to end the minimum wage while everyone else raises it! UNINSURE millions of Americans (many will die, don't fool yourself, and many will again go bankrupt. lose their home--but none of that top 1% Trump is so insanely, inanely concerned about will ever lose their home because they get cancer, or their children are born with a disease or get leukemia at 4... The concentration of wealth has been a concern of true capitalists since Adam Smith who warned it would threaten the very existence of capitalism. And it is threatening actual govts around the world, causing people to join ISIS! But Trump doubles down certain he can police Americans.
In 80 yrs, if we are still a planet and a nation, will we watch movies that show us getting rid of medical care for those who need it most letting the chronically ill and oldsters die or become homeless to treat grandma like we now watch those barbarians in the Grapes of Wrath throw families off their land, shoot at them in homeless camps and pay them insufficient pay to even buy a day's food, much less a roof over their heads? Will they ask how could we take away literacy from Americans--giving it to religious schools who teach creationism instead of evolution, ban birth control (yes, that is the first of the plans to get rid of ObamaCare--birth control won't be covered by insurance (yet the old farts still will have their 4-hour erections at everyone's expense) and employers will be able to ban employees from using birth control as the employer's religious rights. They are already preparing for it--making the ownership class the focus of all constitutional rights, not the mass of people. It will be their constitutional right to not let you have any rights.) And everyone will watch movies and shake their heads at the uncivilized ignorant people of 2017.... How could they let people live like that? How could they treat people like that?
The Depression was resolved ONLY because of gov't intervention. Which simply means that the gov't, which is We the people, responded properly to the citizens it is to serve.
And it was the UNregulated so-called "free market" that CAUSED the Depression.
You have a choice: you can learn the actual history; or you can gullibly swallow and lazily parrot the gibberish "economics" of firnge nuts which fosters redistribution of wealth from the many to the few. From you to those who have you duped.
So then learn the history. It was the gov't intervention that prolonged the depression. It sucked up resources (labor) thereby handicapping private industry from fighting its way out of the depression. It took the build up to WWII to come out of the depression as private industry exploded for the war effort and the WPA and infrastructure projects fell by the wayside.
shareAccording to the revisionist history pumped out by the Faux Fascyst Noise propaganda department.
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.
@estcst-3
Actually, no, it isn't, and you would know that if you'd actually done some research, and stop saying thing you know nothing about,apparently. The term is an actualy African saying which refers to the fact that it takes a whole community to make sure a child grows up to turn out to be a decent and productive human being. That's what it means. And without the government we pay taxes to, we wouldn't have all these roads,dams, bridges and a whole lot of other things built. Tired of all this stupid government-hating mentality anyway, which is ridiculous to some extent,and fueled by paranoid conspiracy right-wing nuts anyway. What always kills me is that the loudest voices against government are Republican politicians who work for the government. They'll holler, b****, and scream about how bad government anything supposedly is, but they sure as hell don't have any problems accepting those government benefits that come with the job,do they now? Ha ha ha!
If you'd bother to read the entire thread you'd realize that I'm neither a republican nor a government hater. Thanks for the lack of insight.
shareI just finished reading "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Schlaes and had no idea that there were so many socialists that had access to and influence on FDR. I would recommend it to anyone.
shareThe basis of society -- of civilization -- is the unique human creation "fairness". Fairness does not a "socialist" make.
Moreover, dupe: these four of the US's staunchest allies consist of monarchy, democratically elected parliament, and SOCIALIST economy:
Britain.
Denmark.
Norway.
Sweden.
Now tell us, Einstein: are those four US allies "tyrannies"? No, they are not; but if you believe they are, you have been duped by criminal pickpockets who are laughing behind your back.
Really you need to quit denigrating people when you don't fully understand what you are saying.
Each of those countries is a constitional monarchy not a monarchy. Big difference. Each has a parlimentary form of gov't with a prime minister as the executive branch and the parliment as the legislative branch. The king or queen is head of state and the position is largely ceremonial in nature.
Are they Socialist economies? No they are not. I believe the Scandinavian countries have a very high tax rate which serves to redistribute wealth and create a welfare state but there is no common ownership of property. If there were then there wouldn't be corporations in those countries (IKEA).
Now settle down and quit calling people stupid or inferring that they are less intelligent than you are.
Agree with your basic premise.
Ironically, McCain has been asked a number of times what his favorite movies are, and he has responded that one of them is, "VIVA ZAPATA". A movie where the hero is a WEALTH REDISTRIBUTOR ( land for the peasants) and REVOLUTIONARY against the established order.
Side note. The Screenplay for "VIVA ZAPATA" was written by none other than.....JOHN STEINBECK. Go figure.
I guess by your own standards that every person who enjoyed Brokeback Mountain is a homosexual too? Or that everyone who enjoyed Gandhi is a Hindu? Or everyone who enjoyed The Grapes of Wrath is a displaced farm worker?
I find that way of thinking very narrow minded. You took from it what you wanted and forced your perception of that on everyone else who also enjoyed the film. I wonder what you think of people who's film collection you get to browse through.
speaking of taking what you wanted and forcing perceptions...you just did that to his/her argument. so i guess by your own standards...you're narrow minded?
"you're a handsome devil. what's your name?"
--grosse pointe blank
The only thing I took from it was that they judged people from the films they liked and they admitted to it. What's there to discover here? Thanks for patting yourself on the back for pointing out what the original poster pointed out without the benefit of my post.
shareAll the original poster pointed out was her/his own perception of this movie, upon which s/he bases a GUESS as to what John McCain "must" feel. That's ridiculous. Most people's politics are a minimal part--if any--of their appreciation of a movie. McCain might disagree with whatever politics are implied by the story; I seriously doubt he "hates" this movie.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
[deleted]
Bro, he said that as a counter-example to another argument. It's supposed to be false, that's how you show an inconsistency in logic through examples. Read the WHOLE post, not just one sentence.
sharedwatts09
I think Republicans want people to forget that the Great Depression ever happened, seeing as FDR was the most successful Democrat ever.
"I think Republicans want people to forget that the Great Depression ever happened, seeing as FDR was the most successful Democrat ever."
So you buy into the tired MYTH that Roosevelt pulled the country out of the Great Depression? WWII and WWII ALONE did that! FYI the BOOK was written in 1939 and the MOVIE was shot in 1940. Does it seem like the depression was licked??? Actually the depression DEEPENED as the 30's wore on. Try a bit of history. It tells the real story.
I guess you're unfamiliar with the New Deal. You should look it up.
shareYOU must be unfamilar with the New Deal to not know that the NRA, CCC, and the other "make work" programs were totally ineffective in rebooting the economy. By 1939 the depression was getting WORSE, not better. If the New Deal worked, why did Steinbeck write this book in 1939, 10 years after the stock market crash? I thought I made that clear in my OP.
Looks like the Republicans have managed to rewrite history, at least in your case.
But remember:
"Before F.D.R., the U.S. had had a depression every 20 years or so. The built-in economic stabilizers of the New Deal, vociferously denounced by business leaders at the time, have preserved the country against major depressions for more than a half-century."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,988153-1,00.html
On EARTH, it's an incontrovertable FACT that the New Deal was entirely ineffective in even moderating the Great Depression, let alone ending it. Apparently, on YOUR planet, somewhere in the Cronosynclastic Infundibulum, it is believed that prosperity was restored before WWII!
BTW, did the Obama stimulous plan work on YOUR planet, or do you also still have double digit unemployment and government spending its way into bankrupcy?
Right, a government-funded job creation program failed to bring the economy out of depression. Instead it was WWII that stimulated growth which was not funded by the government. Right?
shareAre you, by chance, suggesting that WWIII is the answer to our current woes? Because WWII was NOT a govt. program to help the economy. The booming economy of the 50's was a BY PRODUCT of the war. God help you if your statement was seriously intended. It shows a viewpoint utterly devoid of any understanding of war, the economy, or politics.
No, it was just proof that government spending stimulates the economy, byproduct or not. That was all I was saying.
share"No, it was just proof that government spending stimulates the economy, byproduct or not. That was all I was saying. "
That's like saying rain moistens the ground. An obvious truth that signifies................................................ nothing!
So if that's so "obvious" as you say, then the New Deal (government spending) stimulated the economy too.
shareWhy will you NOT understand that the New Deal did almost NOTHING to restore the economy? The market crashed in '29. Ten years later, 1939 the Depression had gotten WORSE. That's the year Steinbeck WROTE "The Grapes of Wrath"!!! It was only after Hitler invaded Poland in Sept. '39, and European powers started placing HUGE orders for weapons, that the Depression finally lifted as US industries began hiring people to make these weapons. Unless you think that "TGOW" was a celebration of the success of FDR and the New Deal.....
America's economy started growing, and unemployment started falling almost right after FDR took power, and this carried on almost consistently except for the notorious 1937 recession, when FDR, er, CUT government spending.
If WWII had not happened, and the trajectory of economic growth had been maintained, unemployment would have fallen to acceptable levels sooner or later. WWII just hastened the process.
The fact remains that all of America's shrinkage took place under Hoover, but growth started as soon as the New Deal began.
People like you ought to stop trying to rewrite your country's history for partisan ends. You disgust me.
While things initially improved a bit under F.D.R., the country would NOT have survived using JUST the New Deal. A revolution would have eventually ("sooner or later")overthrown the democratic system, from either the right or the left. The simple fact was that after 7 years of N.D. the country was no better off than in 1932. Why then, did Steinbeck write "TGOW" in 1939? Because things had gotten so PEACHY? You ASSUME that things would have gotten back to normal! Based on what evidence? And I'M the one rewritting history??!! I guess that REALLY disgusts you.
MrPie, how many circles do you want me to dance around? Let's summarize.
You said that WWII ended the depression.
I agreed.
I said that WWII was a form of government spending.
You agreed.
I said therefore, by principle, government spending stimulates the economy.
You even agreed to that.
I said the New Deal was a form of government spending and thus, by principle it should stimulate the economy.
You vehemently disagreed.
So far I haven't expressed any real opinions, only axioms and theorems. Please explain where I went wrong.
"I said the New Deal was a form of government spending and thus, by principle it should stimulate the economy."
The New Deal DID stimulate the economy. It had little if any effect on ending the Depression. Your mistake is in equating WWII and the New Deal. If you think WWII was PART of the New Deal, then you are right. If you seen WWII as a European event that we became involved in, then you oppose every historian and sociologist for the last 75 years.
And while we're at it, let's talk numbers.
In 1930, federal spending was 3.4% and GNP growth was -9.4%
In 1931, federal spending was 4.3% and GNP growth was -8.5%
In 1932, federal spending was 7% and GNP growth was -13.4%
In 1933, federal spending was 8.1% and GNP growth was -2.1% (when the New deal began)
In 1934, federal spending was 10.8% and GNP growth was 7.7%
In 1935, federal spending was 9.3% and GNP growth was 8.1%
In 1936, federal spending was 10.6% and GNP growth was 14.1%
In 1937, federal spending was 8.7% and GNP growth was 5%
In 1938, federal spending was 7.8% and GNP growth was -4.5%
In 1939, federal spending was 10.4% and GNP growth was 7.9%
So according to this data:
- GNP was rising before WWII
- Other than the recession in 1938, GNP was rising after the New Deal began
- You make up facts out of thin air
All this "growth" is based on a destroyed economy. If these numbers were based on a "real" ie. normal GNP, there WAS no depression. We IMAGINED it all. Grow up.
If we take all the positive numbers and add, them minus 1938 we end up with about 38%. Now would you say that 38 cents on the dollar was recovery??? Try living on 1/3 of your salary!
So, for you to think that the New Deal worked, by 1934 or 1935, the economy should have been similar to 1928?
shareOn EARTH, it's an incontrovertable FACT that the New Deal was entirely ineffective in even moderating the Great Depression, let alone ending it. Apparently, on YOUR planet, somewhere in the Cronosynclastic Infundibulum, it is believed that prosperity was restored before WWII!
By your logic, if I write a book about WWII, then that must mean it is still going on for me to care enough to write it.
share Forget party labels. People who had something then wanted to hang on to it. People who had nothing wanted 'something' and, if hungry enough would take it.
All of the action in the film took place before there was any sort of social safety net. No welfare, no food stamps, no Aid to Families with Dependent Children, nothing.
Today we can't imagine such an elemental struggle for the most basic means of survival. There are Food Banks and all sorts of social service agencies set up to help out and that enjoy the support of all political types.
The fact that there are very few really good conservative films made makes it necessary to treat all serious film (which inevitably is always left-wing liberalism of one sort or another) as a piece of beauty to be admired. I may not agree with most movies' sentiments, but I'll be damned if I ever say they aren't great works of art. John Ford, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, François Truffaut, and Federico Fellinni are the only directors whose work never clashed with my personal views. I am not Republican, by the way (at this point I don't consider I could be called a full Republican), nor am I full conservative politically. My philosophy on art coincides with Oscar Wilde's. Read "The Picture of Dorian Grey".
What if I was to kick the ever-loving *beep* outta ya?
Wilde abhorred all politics. He believed in the purity of ideas, and he said so. The signature quotation I've used for years comes from "The Picture of Dorian Grey."
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
Exactly. Although movies are always full of politics (the great ones, anyway), they are also full of beauty, and that is what I appreciate. Just like Wilde and you!
Winged freak... terrorizes... wait till they get a load of me. Ooooooop. Oop. Ha ha ha ha ha!
Actually, the novel does a good job explaining why unions are important. That doesn't mean to say Steinbeck would agree with the degree of power they have in countries like South Africa today.
In fact, Steinbeck was quite conservative in his politics.
wasn't John Ford a Republican?
shareJohn Ford was a lifelong conservative Republican. He was attracted to the story less for its ideology than its human drama. That is what makes it such a great film.
shareWrong. John Ford was a liberal. John Wayne was a Republican.
share***Wrong. John Ford was a liberal. John Wayne was a Republican.***
Actually John Ford was much like Ronald Reagan: he started out as a more or less liberal Democrat, and became a Republican as he grew older.
He supported Barry Goldwater in 1964 and later was a Nixon supporter....and supported the Vietnam war, too.
You might want to check your facts. In 1967, Ford stated, "I am a liberal Democrat and a rebel." It is true that he credited Nixon with bringing home the Vietnam POWs, and expressed ethusiastic appreciation for this. However, his favorite presidents were Lincoln, FDR, and JFK. He never became the anti-union, pro-business, anti-government fanatic that Reagan became. Most of us become somewhat more conservative as we get older, but few undergo as extreme a transformation as Reagan, going from a union president to a union buster. I know there are conservatives who would like to claim Ford as one of their own, but he really was quite liberal, and whatever righward movement his politics may have taken as he aged occurred after his productive career was essentially over.
shareA Republican then isn't the same as a today Republican. Today's GOP is run by the former Dixiecrats who left the Dems in the 60s. It's an almost exclusively southern remnant of what used to be a national party.
share