# The Real Story About What Ended The Great Depression



## longknife (Sep 28, 2014)

(Hint: It Wasn’t the New Deal)


Warning! All liberals – ignore this article. It will only cause you heartburn and perhaps stir up the ulcers you have due to your life of negativity.




> The cruel irony of the New Deal is that the liberals’ honorable intentions to help the poor and the unemployed caused more human suffering than any other set of ideas in the past century.




More of the historical fabrication of FDR's presidency can be read @ The Real Story About What Ended the Great Depression


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2014)

Hitler ended FDR's Depression


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 28, 2014)

As usual, another rw propaganda piece,...our daily does from der fuhrerof of bias Shortknaves...


----------



## Pogo (Sep 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hitler ended FDR's Depression



Hmm... Black Tuesday: October 29, 1929... Roosevelt's first Presidential race: November 8, 1932.

FDR musta had one a them O'bama teleprompter time machines that forced a depression on his predecessor.  *Three years* before the election even happened.

What a guy.


----------



## HenryBHough (Sep 28, 2014)

It took a world war to end FDR's depression (OK, so perhaps his by inheritance) and it's gonna take another to end BHO's.

But, be patient, He's hard at work on that.  Still wanna hope He doesn't fail AGAIN?


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 28, 2014)

Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Treasury Secretary under FDR.  -

_"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."_


http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf

Henry Morgenthau Jr. - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Moonglow (Sep 28, 2014)

Then why did not spending money not rectify the situation before FDR was president by Hoover's policies not work?


----------



## percysunshine (Sep 28, 2014)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hitler ended FDR's Depression
> ...




"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened." –Joe Biden

Sorry Pogo...I couldn't help myself.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2014)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Hitler ended FDR's Depression
> ...



FDR didn't have a Depression during his entire first 2 terms????


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> Then why did not spending money not rectify the situation before FDR was president by Hoover's policies not work?



What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## Pogo (Sep 28, 2014)

percysunshine said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Suffice to say if Joe Biden posted here he'd get eaten alive.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




OK let's take this step by step....
Stock market crash: Fall of 1929.
Roosevelt elected: Fall of 1932 (inaugurated 1933).  By which time the Depression was 3½ years old.

See if you can put these events in order.  Take your time.  Because we know what happens when you don't take your time...


CrusaderFrank said:


> LBJ "I'll have them ****** voting Republican for the next 200 years"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2014)

"Nero was a fool and a megalomaniac, but a fool can also be charming and interesting. The thing he invented, which all demagogues after him repeated, was that he cherished the masses.' -- Andrea Carandini

Perfect explanation for FDR and for the exact same reasons


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2014)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Um, OK. FDR still have the worst 2 terms in Presidential history. 14% Average unemployment. He had Hitlers conquest of France to thank for US finally dropping below 14%


----------



## regent (Sep 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


You must get this information to the 238 noted historians that recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. In addition you might send copies to the hundreds of historians that have rated presidents since 1948 and never placed FDR lower that one of the top three American presidents. When the historians get this valuable information I'm sure they will change not only their ratings but rewrite their history books. 
Are you suggesting as others have that Keynes works, and if FDR had only spent money as in a war the depression would have been cured?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 28, 2014)

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Those historians sound a lot like the AGWCult. They don't care about the fact that FDR had the worst economic record in human history, they just need to fall in line


----------



## Friends (Sep 28, 2014)

percysunshine said:


> Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Treasury Secretary under FDR.  -
> 
> _"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … *I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started*. … And an enormous debt to boot."_
> 
> ...


----------



## Pogo (Sep 28, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yabbut this, yabbut that, excuses excuses.  The fact is the unemployment rate was around 25% when he came in so -- good luck selling this canard.










The overall course of the Depression in the United States, as reflected in per-capita GDP (average income per person)
shown in constant year 2000 dollars, plus some of the key events of the period

(Both graphs from here)​Some histories are easier to revise than others.  Graphs tend to give you kind of an uphill climb.

You may now resume your "yabbut yabbut" excuses in the noble cause of Eliminationist partisanship.


----------



## Friends (Sep 28, 2014)

Friends said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Treasury Secretary under FDR.  -
> ...



Morgenthau wrote that in 1939. 

When Franklin Roosevelt was inauguraged in 1933 the unemployment rate was 24.75 percent. By 1939 it had declined to 17.05 percent. It had gotten down to 14.18 percent in 1937. Unfortunately, Roosevelt made the mistake of reducing government spending and employment, in 1938, so unemployment went up.

Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

In other words, Morgenthau's statement was factually incorrect.

There was nearly as much growth in the per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars during Roosevelt's first term as there was during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. There was considerably more job creation. 

Singularity is Near -SIN Graph - Per-Capita GDP

United States Unemployment Rate 1920 ndash 2013 Infoplease.com 

When Roosevelt died in 1944 the unemployment rate was 1.2 percent.

The per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars grew from $4,804 in 1933 to $12,380 in 1944. 

The top tax rate grew to 94 percent.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf 

During the Roosevelt administration the United States taxed and spent its way to prosperity. That was big government. That was good government. The well to do paid extremely high taxes. The vast majority of the country benefited. FDR was reelected three times.


----------



## regent (Sep 28, 2014)

When the Great Depression hit there was no manual or instruction book on how to have prosperity. Hoover tried the trickle-down method with RFC and nothing. FDR thought the  old tried and true method of balancing the budget would work, it never did, but he tried. Conditions in America however called for something to be done and as FDR had said, he would experiment, and he did. We started on a recovery with the New Deal. As America began to recover it  frightened some fearing another depression. FDR stopped the New Deal, and the nation began to sink again. America started to sell war goods overseas and America started to recover again, but this time it didn't stop until sometime after the war. But the process indicated that Keynes may have been right, spend during a depression as we spent during the war, and pay the money back when we recover, which we never do.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 29, 2014)

regent said:


> Are you suggesting as others have that Keynes works, and if FDR had only spent money as in a war the depression would have been cured?



These types really don't understand why their economic ideologies are contradictory and stupid; they just like repeating dumb arguments they read somewhere else, and have no idea what they're talking about and don't care.

Re Morgenthau, he was an Establishment banker and wouldn't be sympathetic to the millions of families who benefited from FDR's policies, and was completely dedicated to his class prejudices and beliefs. He wouldn't have cared at all if many more millions of working class types had died or lost their farms and they and their children starved to death on the side of a road or in an alley somewhere ,just as modern right wingers wouldn't . Fortunately FDR and many others did. Even the more intelligent sociopaths, like Joe Kennedy, knew better, and backed FDR.


----------



## Friends (Sep 29, 2014)

regent said:


> When the Great Depression hit there was no manual or instruction book on how to have prosperity. Hoover tried the trickle-down method with RFC and nothing. FDR thought the  old tried and true method of balancing the budget would work, it never did, but he tried. Conditions in America however called for something to be done and as FDR had said, he would experiment, and he did. We started on a recovery with the New Deal. As America began to recover it  frightened some fearing another depression. FDR stopped the New Deal, and the nation began to sink again. America started to sell war goods overseas and America started to recover again, but this time it didn't stop until sometime after the war. But the process indicated that Keynes may have been right, spend during a depression as we spent during the war, and pay the money back when we recover, which we never do.


 
Roosevelt blamed businessmen for the Depression, raised their taxes, and encouraged their employees to join labor unions. Naturally businessmen hated Roosevelt. Most Americans loved him, because life for them began to improve almost soon as Roosevelt became president. They were more likely to have jobs. They benefited from a growing public sector of the economy paid for by high taxes on the rich.

Roosevelt raised taxes on the rich, used the money to buy votes, used the votes to get more power to raise taxes on  the rich even more. It was great fun, and it enabled the Democrats to dominate the country. As long as most Americans got more from the government than they paid in taxes the Democrats won elections. The Democrats need to do that again.


----------



## Friends (Sep 29, 2014)

Picaro said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Are you suggesting as others have that Keynes works, and if FDR had only spent money as in a war the depression would have been cured?
> ...


 
Republicans frequently quote Morgenthau. I proved in my comment #19 that what he said was factually incorrect.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2014)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




You posted a chart showing that after 2 whole terms UE under FDR was 15%, and you call that success???????


----------



## jwoodie (Sep 29, 2014)

FDR was a masterful politician who sweet talked the public through the Depression, thereby avoiding potentially massive civil/political unrest.  He was also a great wartime cheerleader who let the military prosecute the war.  However, he was also a gullible Soviet sympathizer who allowed the enslavement of Eastern Europe for the next 50 years.


----------



## Pogo (Sep 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



You seem to have a bit of trouble with beginnings.
When you're starting at 25, 15 is nine *less*.  You get that right?
Maybe not.

And the trend reverses dramatically.  That's uh, the whole point of graphs.
This was the biggest economic crisis in modern history.  They don't go away in a week.  It's not like the POTUS can walk up to the Strategic Economy Reserves and open a valve.  You get that, right?

Maybe not.

Some people, you hand 'em a million bucks and all they do is complain about the color of the money.... because it's always about "my politics team", never about "my country".

Sorry Revisionistas --- your Ministry of Truth is gonna have a tough row to hoe rewriting this to work the refs.  After further review, the play stands as called.

Deal with it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2014)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



So all you have to show for 7 whole years of FDR's Jihad on the US economy is a 15% unemployment?

Without WWII, how far into the future would 15% unemployment have been the acceptable norm?  10 years? 20?


----------



## Picaro (Sep 29, 2014)

The Depression in the real economy, as opposed to the Wall Street 'economy', began in 1926-1927. An interesting study is how much of the slow-down and following Depression was due to the stock boom sucking money out of real capital investments and businesses to chase easy and highly leveraged returns in the stocks and the call money markets. This has been the pattern in all of the 'booms' and the inevitable Depressions that follow them, including those of the last 40 odds years.


----------



## longknife (Sep 29, 2014)

Did any of you live under the FDR administration?

Or is everyone spouting what so-called experts are saying?

I KNEW people who lived then and, to a person, they felt FDR was a tyrant who got the government involved in everything. Unemployment plummeted because so many people were working for the government!

Massive public works projects with so many alphabet names that it's nearly impossible to include in a single post.

Yes, public highways were improved.

Rural electrification resulted with many dams and generation plants built.

But, at what price.

Oh yes, a massive increase in jobs and production in the arms industry.


----------



## regent (Sep 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





longknife said:


> Did any of you live under the FDR administration?
> 
> Or is everyone spouting what so-called experts are saying?
> 
> ...





longknife said:


> Did any of you live under the FDR administration?
> 
> Or is everyone spouting what so-called experts are saying?
> 
> ...


I lived then and the people that lived then, voted for FDR four times, and Republicans in their zeal to blot out FDR made those four times a record. Historians that lived then voted FDR third greatest president. 
What more could a president ask for the people voting for him four times and historians have never rated FDR below third greatest president. Some posters may not like FDR now but who cares.

fdd


----------



## Picaro (Sep 29, 2014)

Ah .. now we're supposed to post all of our anecdotal stories we heard from somebody nobody else knows and pretend they mean something, and are refutations of something or other. I've talked with a lot of older people who lived through the Depression too, and the majority of them say they would have starved and their families broken up without programs like the CCC and others to give them and/or their teenagers jobs that sent money home, among other things. I also talked with a lot of descendants of the Okies who fled to California who explained to me exactly why the union movements took off, and how the same programs kept them alive as well.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 29, 2014)

Naturally none of the so-called 'free market' types have been able to explain why all those wealthy people didn't rescue the economy they themselves crashed, despite having some 5 to 6 years to do so; instead they hired private armies and barricaded themselves on their estates and in their penthouses and sat around sniveling like whiney brats, demanding the government use the military to kill all those nasty proles with bad attitudes and for making scary faces at them.

I guess they meant 'everybody else' was supposed to bail them out and get the economy rolling again, and then they would jump in as soon as they could get 200% returns a year on their investments like they got in the 'good ole days', before they tanked the whole country, as they seem to think they were entitled to, and do today as well. Huge amounts of cash sitting around and doing nothing; apparently all those tax breaks aren't remotely working as claimed, except for the occasional overseas sweatshop 'investments', anyway.


----------



## regent (Sep 29, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Naturally none of the so-called 'free market' types have been able to explain why all those wealthy people didn't rescue the economy they themselves crashed, despite having some 5 to 6 years to do so; instead they hired private armies and barricaded themselves on their estates and in their penthouses and sat around sniveling like whiney brats, demanding the government use the military to kill all those nasty proles with bad attitudes and for making scary faces at them.
> 
> I guess they meant 'everybody else' was supposed to bail them out and get the economy rolling again, and then they would jump in as soon as they could get 200% returns a year on their investments like they got in the 'good ole days', before they tanked the whole country, as they seem to think they were entitled to, and do today as well. Huge amounts of cash sitting around and doing nothing; apparently all those tax breaks aren't remotely working as claimed, except for the occasional overseas sweatshop 'investments', anyway.


As mentioned I lived through the Great Depression on the south side of Chicago, Englewood and the Yards, and nothing is more boring than depression stories unless it is WWII stories. But the one thing I have noticed is that history books ancedotes nothing can really recreate the period as the people that lived it experienced it. That is for any historical period. We have not yet found the secret of making history come alive or whatever. Fiction might come much closer but for a history book just to say people were hungry and scared just doesn't do it. Maybe it's not necessary but I feel we really miss the real history with our lack of convey the feelings of the people at the time.


----------



## Camp (Sep 29, 2014)

longknife said:


> Did any of you live under the FDR administration?
> 
> Or is everyone spouting what so-called experts are saying?
> 
> ...


Instead of asking at what price perhaps we should be asking at what profit to the nation. It's hard to imagine any American not being able to see or use one or more of the projects built during those alphabet soup programs days. Many are barely visible as small bridges made of stone that continue to see service on county roads and state highways. Many of the steel and concrete ones are still being used and the huge projects like the big twin span bridges are still being used. Add the thousands of Post Offices, civic centers that began as armories, town halls, etc. We can't afford to replace them. The investments in infrastructure has given us dividends for decades and will continue to do so far into the future.
High taxes caused the excessively wealthy to make huge contributions to non profits and charities that included not only scholarships to colleges, but a massive increase of construction on campuses as building were erected to make colleges bigger, better and able to educate larger numbers of students. Non profit hospitals were built and funded, museums were built and stocked and vast amounts of property were donated to become parks. City parks and huge state parks began to dot the landscape. The cost to the average citizen was accepting these things having names of the people who made them possible through their contributions.


----------



## regent (Sep 29, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.


----------



## jwoodie (Sep 30, 2014)

Geez, a lot of emotional investment in FDR.  Some people people seem to think that winning four elections makes someone a great President.  How about concealing terminal illness from the voters?


----------



## Picaro (Sep 30, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Geez, a lot of emotional investment in FDR.  Some people people seem to think that winning four elections makes someone a great President.  How about concealing terminal illness from the voters?



Who keeps bringing up these FDR threads? It's obvious who has a lot of emotional investment in these threads, and it isn't who you hope it is.


----------



## Camp (Sep 30, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Geez, a lot of emotional investment in FDR.  Some people people seem to think that winning four elections makes someone a great President.  How about concealing terminal illness from the voters?


The people who kept reelecting him thought he was great. That is why they kept reelecting him. They understood that he was transforming the American government from one that concentrated on serving the wealthy and big business to one that served the mass's. He laid down the foundation for creating the middle class. Every President, Republican and Democrat that followed him continued his concept and supported the transformation that FDR created until Reagan. Today's politics is all about retaining that concept and the transformation that occurred, or going back to the bad old days. It's a battle between the American style "aristocrats", the obscenely wealthy, big business leaders and the power elite vs. the mass's.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

"Nero was a fool and a megalomaniac, but a fool can also be charming and interesting. The thing he invented, which all demagogues after him repeated, was that he cherished the masses.' -- Andrea Carandini

FDR Cherished the toothless masses. He loved them, kept them unemployed and dependent on the government


----------



## Camp (Sep 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> "Nero was a fool and a megalomaniac, but a fool can also be charming and interesting. The thing he invented, which all demagogues after him repeated, was that he cherished the masses.' -- Andrea Carandini
> 
> FDR Cherished the toothless masses. He loved them, kept them unemployed and dependent on the government



Bullshit. Millions of American's like my grandfather learned valuable skills working on those FDR projects and programs. He learned the bricklayers trade and went on to build two three family homes in Queens, NY and financed a family farm on Long Island. He never received a dime of relief unless you count the pay he received while learning his trade.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2014)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > "Nero was a fool and a megalomaniac, but a fool can also be charming and interesting. The thing he invented, which all demagogues after him repeated, was that he cherished the masses.' -- Andrea Carandini
> ...



He needed FDR to learn how to be a bricklayer???????????????


----------



## Camp (Sep 30, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Millions of people learned trades under FDR programs. It's hard to make a living as a farmer when you don't have a farm. What do you think happened to all those farmers who lost their farms in the depression?


----------



## bendog (Sep 30, 2014)

Burns was pretty explicit that FDR's policies didn't really fix the thing, and WWII ended it.


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 30, 2014)

Gotta love FDR -


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

*The Real Story About What Ended The Great Depression*

The economic end of the GD came because of the war.  Relief and Reform came long  before 1941,


----------



## regent (Sep 30, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Geez, a lot of emotional investment in FDR.  Some people people seem to think that winning four elections makes someone a great President.  How about concealing terminal illness from the voters?


It may have been lucky for Republicans that FDR died from something.  Most Americans would probably still be voting for him had he lived.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

jwoodie, grow up.


----------



## gipper (Sep 30, 2014)

regent said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Geez, a lot of emotional investment in FDR.  Some people people seem to think that winning four elections makes someone a great President.  How about concealing terminal illness from the voters?
> ...



Only if they continued to be brainwashed fools....like you.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 30, 2014)

Under FDR's leadership, or lack of it, in an astonishing three terms the downturn in the economy under Hoover became a man killing, soup line, bodies in ditches depression. FDR's policies only made it worse until he managed to get us into a war which we weren't prepared for either.


----------



## jwoodie (Sep 30, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> jwoodie, grow up.



Ooh, that's a good one!


----------



## regent (Sep 30, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Under FDR's leadership, or lack of it, in an astonishing three terms the downturn in the economy under Hoover became a man killing, soup line, bodies in ditches depression. FDR's policies only made it worse until he managed to get us into a war which we weren't prepared for either.



So why did the American people vote for FDR four times in a row, and why have different sets of the America's best historians rated FDR as one of three best American presidents since 1948. And worse, recently rated FDR as America's best president? Besides the usual "historians are commies," do you have any other explanation that doesn't sound uneducated?


----------



## whitehall (Sep 30, 2014)

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Under FDR's leadership, or lack of it, in an astonishing three terms the downturn in the economy under Hoover became a man killing, soup line, bodies in ditches depression. FDR's policies only made it worse until he managed to get us into a war which we weren't prepared for either.
> ...



During the 30's the radio media and the print media was in the back pocket of liberal democrats. The media was the propaganda arm of the FDR administration and the poor fools who were struggling with the depression heard only promises of good times by a corrupt administration.


----------



## Camp (Sep 30, 2014)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


None of your assertions are true. FDR's policies didn't make the depression worse. Even his most stalwart critics don't make that claim, rather they claim it slowed down the recovery, which is only an opinion in and of itself. He didn't get us into WWII, Hitler and Hirohito did that. And the media of the 30's weren't in the pockets of the liberals. There was an abundance of anti FDR media in existence. Basically what you are saying is that what came to be know as the greatest generation began as a bunch of fools.


----------



## regent (Sep 30, 2014)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


You exhibit your lack of history of that period. There was the Hearst papers, the Chicago Tribune, Father Coughlin (sp) and tons of anti-FDR media, but it is true it was somewhat ignored by the American people.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 30, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Under FDR's leadership, or lack of it, in an astonishing three terms the downturn in the economy under Hoover became a man killing, soup line, bodies in ditches depression. FDR's policies only made it worse until he managed to get us into a war which we weren't prepared for either.



When you have something of note about this, let us know.  HH had four years and he did not handle it, yeah?  Folks had to try new things out the world, hummm?


----------



## whitehall (Sep 30, 2014)

Camp said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



There simply was no "abundance" of anti-FDR media during the 30's. Every single mainstream print media or radio station was supportive of FDR policies during the 30's or risk losing their FCC license.. What president in the entire history of the United States could get away with authorizing the confiscation of property of American citizens based on their ethnic background and rounding them up to be confined by barbed wire and armed guards unless it had total support from the media? The media writes the history books and the media was the propaganda arm of the FDR administration.


----------



## regent (Sep 30, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


What FDR did was talk sense to the American people, his radio chats were something that Hoover and others just could not equal. People sat and waited for FDR's speeches because his speeches made sense to a frightened people. In that sense FDR controlled the media, in particular the radio. Republicans simply could not compete with FDR's fireside chats and his ability to communicate has now become control of the media, and evil.


----------



## Camp (Sep 30, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


You're mixing up your decades and it is obvious you don't know anything about the media of the thirties. To be unaware of  Robert McCormick, the owner of the Chicago Tribune proves that. He was the most anti FDR newspaper owner in the country and his syndicated anti FDR articles were seen from coast to coast everyday. That is just the tip of the iceberg. But hey, you can't even get your decades straight.


----------



## whitehall (Sep 30, 2014)

regent said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




There was no venue for republicans to compete with FDR propaganda radio messages. The "chats" didn't have to make sense. All they had to do was reassure a panicked population that Blacks would not seek civil rights and that their miserable lives might get better if they voted democrat.


----------



## regent (Sep 30, 2014)

whitehall said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


Hoover gave the same rugged individualism, and prosperity is coming speech over and over and people ceased to listen. 
FDR also had press conferences, usually twice a week. As Hoover and a few other presidents had discovered the newsmen asked questions that were difficult, so Hoover made the newsmen write down their questions first and submit them. In the news conference Hoover then answered the questions he wanted. FDR's press conferences were open give and take, but FDR did ask the newsmen not to print some answers and the press did not. 
FDR's fireside chats made sense to the people that is why people listened. After FDR closed the banks to get them in order before opening, he talked to the people saying the banks were now safe and people could begin putting their money back in the banks again--and the people did just that, depositing their money again in the banks.


----------



## Pogo (Oct 1, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Never heard of Charles Coughlin huh?  It didn't get more "abundant" than that-- you could literally just walk down the street and hear his voice from other people's radios.  You didn't even need your own.  At least 30 million listeners.  Even Lush Rimjob doesn't claim that big an audience today.


----------



## Politico (Oct 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


It would have been a long time. The only reason it went down to 1.5 is because everyone was either strapping on a gun or making one..


----------



## gipper (Oct 1, 2014)

FDR was a fool in so many ways, but his handling of the Great Depression was a perfect example.

10 Reasons why FDR was a fool...



> 1. _Why did FDR triple federal taxes during the Great Depression?_ Federal tax revenues more than tripled, from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and “excess profits” taxes all went up. FDR introduced an undistributed profits tax. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.
> 
> 2. _Why did FDR discourage investors from taking the risks of funding growth and jobs?_ Frequent tax hikes (1933, 1934, 1935, 1936) created uncertainty that discouraged investment, and FDR further discouraged investors by denouncing them as “economic royalists,” “economic dictators” and “privileged princes,” among other epithets. No surprise that private investment was at historically low levels during the New Deal era.
> 
> ...


Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal Cato Institute


----------



## Friends (Oct 1, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
Life for most Americans kept getting better. That is why Roosevelt was reelected a second time.


----------



## Friends (Oct 1, 2014)

regent said:


> America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.



During my radical youth I liked Roosevelt, but wished that Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party had won the elections Roosevelt and the Democratic Party had won.

After six years of President Obama I realize that good intentions are not good enough. If the government is to have a major role in the economy, as I want it to, the government has to be competently led. I would vote for Obama again against any Republican, but I am tired of making excuses for him.

The United States almost did not get the New Deal. After Roosevelt was elected, but before he was inaugurated, an attempt was made on his life. Roosevelt was not hurt, but a man he was with was killed. Roosevelt's running made was "Cactus" Jack Garner. Ole Cactus was a good ole boy from the courthouse gang in rural Texas. I used to know people like Cactus. They are not evil, but they are corruptible and they are incompetent.

Cactus Jack would have cussed out the rich, and raised their taxes. Then he would have spread the wealth to his cronies. Unemployment would have increased, along with the national debt. The Republicans would have come roaring back. Laissez faire capitalism would have been restored.


----------



## gipper (Oct 1, 2014)

Friends said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.
> ...



I am willing to bet that Cactus Jack was a lot less corruptible than FDR.  That is a good bet, since FDR was the most corruptible POTUS ever, with a possible exception for Big Ears.  At least Garner supported a balance budget, opposed much of the stupid and ineffective New Deal programs, and opposed FDR's dictatorial move to pack the Supreme Court.

Imagine had FDR been murdered that day in Chicago.  Americans might not have had to endure the Great Depression for ten more years, WWII, and the USSR's rise and enslavement of half of Europe....and five decades of cold war.

Note of interest: JFK called Garner to wish him happy birthday on November 22, 1963, just hours before he was murdered in Dallas.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2014)

Friends said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



He had the worst economic track record not just in America, but in all of human history. The Bible reference 7 Lean years and FDR topped that!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2014)

Friends said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.
> ...



FDR called Stalin Uncle Joe AFTER Stalin starved the Ukraine to death murdering 3,000,000 children in the process. It's a shame the assassination attempt failed


----------



## jwoodie (Oct 1, 2014)

Friends said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.
> ...



There you have it.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 1, 2014)

Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.


----------



## jwoodie (Oct 1, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.



Pointing out that his policies may have extended the depression (sound familiar?) is not "demonizing" FDR.  On the contrary, his optimistic demeanor and assurances to the American public may have forestalled a political revolution.


----------



## Friends (Oct 1, 2014)

gipper said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


 
Roosevelt had the sense to realize that balancing the budget was incompatible with reducing unemployment, and that the voters would evaluate him on his success in reducing unemployment.


----------



## Friends (Oct 1, 2014)

jwoodie said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.
> ...


 
I do not believe that the alternative to the New Deal was something to the left of it, but something to the right of it. If he had not been successful in reducing unemployment the Republicans would have cut taxes for the rich, and crushed labor unions.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 1, 2014)

longknife said:


> (Hint: It Wasn’t the New Deal)
> 
> 
> Warning! All liberals – ignore this article. It will only cause you heartburn and perhaps stir up the ulcers you have due to your life of negativity.
> ...




...As told by one who was there. 

WWII ended the Depression.


----------



## Friends (Oct 1, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.


 
Life for most Americans kept getting worse under Hoover. Life for most Americans kept getting better under Roosevelt. That is why Roosevelt was elected president in 1932, and why he was reelected three times.


----------



## gipper (Oct 2, 2014)

Friends said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...



FDR's huge deficit spending and constant raising of taxes of all sorts, DID NOT REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT.  It kept unemployment rates up.

So....your belief that massive government spending reduces unemployment, is incorrect.  You might tell your buddy Obama who also does not understand economics.


----------



## bendog (Oct 2, 2014)

gipper said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Well, drafting everyone and blowing up the defict did cure unemployment.


----------



## Camp (Oct 2, 2014)

History has recorded FDR bringing unemployment down from 25% to below 15% and as low as 9.6%. Revisionist have created a way to contest the accepted numbers  by economist and historians for over 70 years. They have creatively and arbitrarily determined and decided that people who worked on government subsidized projects and programs were on relief and therefore actually unemployed, even though they were working at jobs and getting paid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 2, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.



Hoover was a Statist like FDR.  FDR took Hoover's bad ideas and put them on Steroids


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 2, 2014)

Camp said:


> History has recorded FDR bringing unemployment down from 25% to below 15% and as low as 9.6%. Revisionist have created a way to contest the accepted numbers  by economist and historians for over 70 years. They have creatively and arbitrarily determined and decided that people who worked on government subsidized projects and programs were on relief and therefore actually unemployed, even though they were working at jobs and getting paid.



So you're applauding a 15% unemployment rate, and that after 7 years of a Progressive Jihad on the US Economy

You're saying a 15% unemployment after 7 years and 20% average over two whole terms is a success story

Is that correct?


----------



## Camp (Oct 2, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > History has recorded FDR bringing unemployment down from 25% to below 15% and as low as 9.6%. Revisionist have created a way to contest the accepted numbers  by economist and historians for over 70 years. They have creatively and arbitrarily determined and decided that people who worked on government subsidized projects and programs were on relief and therefore actually unemployed, even though they were working at jobs and getting paid.
> ...


I'm saying your numbers are distorted and outright bullshit. By 1936 Roosevelt had the unemployment down to about 9.6 to 13%. This during a global depression and private industry had no way or motivation to pull us out. If you are going to use revisionist crap put out by non historian sources, but instead propagated by rw conservative hacks on blogs and talk radio, you need to be able to back the garbage up.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 2, 2014)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



My numbers?

Those aren't "My numbers"!!!

Those are FDR's numbers and clearly his idea to centrally plan the US Economy was a total failure

Harding and Coolidge let the US Economy work itself out of a bad situation and in under 2 years, UE almost didn't exist


----------



## bendog (Oct 2, 2014)

Is equating the recession of 1920 with 1928 now orthodoxy?


----------



## Politico (Oct 3, 2014)

Friends said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.
> ...


Is that what they're teaching in school now?


----------



## pinqy (Oct 3, 2014)

Camp said:


> History has recorded FDR bringing unemployment down from 25% to below 15% and as low as 9.6%. Revisionist have created a way to contest the accepted numbers  by economist and historians for over 70 years. They have creatively and arbitrarily determined and decided that people who worked on government subsidized projects and programs were on relief and therefore actually unemployed, even though they were working at jobs and getting paid.


Unemployment was not calculated back then on a regular basis. There was the 1920 Census, the 1930 Census, a 1936 postcard survey on unemployment, and the 1940 Census.  The monthly survey didn't start until 1942. The official numbers for unemployment before then were calculated by Stanley Lebergott, published in 1948 and have been adopted as official.  He included those in works programs as unemployed.  So it's not anything revisionist....the only official numbers included those on government works projects as unemployed.


----------



## Friends (Oct 4, 2014)

gipper said:


> FDR's huge deficit spending and constant raising of taxes of all sorts, DID NOT REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT.  It kept unemployment rates up.


 
From the time Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933 the unemployment rate made a steady decline, except for a year after 1937 when he made the mistake of reducing government spending and employment. When Roosevelt died in 1945 unemployment was 1.2 percent. 

United States Unemployment Rate 1920 ndash 2013 Infoplease.com


----------



## Friends (Oct 4, 2014)

Politico said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Picaro said:
> ...


 
That is what nearly everyone knows who is old enough to have talked to people who were alive back then.


----------



## Friends (Oct 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > History has recorded FDR bringing unemployment down from 25% to below 15% and as low as 9.6%. Revisionist have created a way to contest the accepted numbers  by economist and historians for over 70 years. They have creatively and arbitrarily determined and decided that people who worked on government subsidized projects and programs were on relief and therefore actually unemployed, even though they were working at jobs and getting paid.
> ...


 
That is certainly correct. during the early 1930's demand had stabilized at a permanently low level, so government spending and employment was needed to raise demand. 

The reason unemployment remained above 10 percent as long as it did was because Congressional Republicans resisted the the massive government hiring and spending that was necessary to reduce unemployment. That came with the Second World War.


----------



## Friends (Oct 4, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.
> ...


 
Things got worse under Hoover. They got better under Roosevelt.


----------



## Friends (Oct 4, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> ...As told by one who was there.
> 
> WWII ended the Depression.


 
Government spending and government employment paid for by very high taxes on the rich ended the depression. It did not have to be military spending and employment. It did have to be _government_ spending and employment because the private sector was not hiring sufficiently.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 4, 2014)

Friends said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



I'll add that there was a sizable Congressional and Senate bloc of wealthy anti-Roosevelt Democrats hamstringing  necessary legislation as well, not just Republicans.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 4, 2014)

bendog said:


> Is equating the recession of 1920 with 1928 now orthodoxy?



The slowdown in the economy and the rise in unemployment began in 1926-1927, as evidenced by the criteria used by the more sophisticated stock market operators of the day, which were the quarterly reports of national shipping activity by the railroads and shipping lines to stockholders, along with the withering of new construction, another key indicator. It's also easy to track the amount of ready money corporations funneled into the call loan money markets of the time as well as stock speculations; the stock bubble contributed to the decline in capital investment in the real economy, drawing money in for the easier and higher short term returns in the numerous pyramid schemes available. Much the same thing is going on today, which is why bubbles are always followed by busts. The larger the bubble, the worse the inevitable crash following.

At the time, the usual margin was around 10% of the stock price. Compare that to the last bubble, where the banks and speculators were leveraged at 35 to 50 times the appraised underlying asset values, which of course were themselves grossly inflated.


----------



## gipper (Oct 4, 2014)

Friends said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > FDR's huge deficit spending and constant raising of taxes of all sorts, DID NOT REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT.  It kept unemployment rates up.
> ...



Oh please....unemployment was double digit for 10 years during FDR's reign of shit.  And you think this is acceptable and even commendable. 

FDR was not only Stalin's stooge, he was an economic ignoramus who prolonged the suffering until he forced a anti-war nation into war...by lying and deceiving. 

Hoover, who intervened massively in the economy, never did so at the level FDR did.  Yet the government run schools tell their pupils Hoover was a _*Laissez-faire *_president and a terrible leader, while claiming Stalin's stooge was GREAT!!!

CRAZY!!!


----------



## Politico (Oct 5, 2014)

Friends said:


> That is what nearly everyone knows who is old enough to have talked to people who were alive back then.


I talked to my many in extensive detail. But nice try.


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 5, 2014)

Politico said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > That is what nearly everyone knows who is old enough to have talked to people who were alive back then.
> ...



As did I.  We must have talked to different classes of people.  Most of the working class and small business owners like my great grandfather that lost his mill during the depression,  believed in FDR,  Which is why he won the presidency four times.  Of course Mitt Romney would say because of free stuff.     How un American, some conservatives will say, stealing from billionaires through taxation to help people in their time of need.


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 5, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...


----------



## Politico (Oct 6, 2014)

No we talked to the same people. Nice deflection. I did not argue that there are always clueless folks who vote for someone in office for the wrong reasons. I pointed out how revisionist history vs actual history works. The fact is all economic depressions begin to improve about six years after they start. So by the time the 1936 elections rolled around things naturally were getting better. And by the time the 1940 elections rolled around, with no limits in place and war on the horizon of course they elected him again. Same goes for the 1944 elections. People don't change leaders during wartime if they don't have to. So they elected him again. And subsequently because of the war the US went into a period prosperity which lasted for a decade and led to two Truman terms. The pathology is really quite simple.


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 6, 2014)

Politico said:


> No we talked to the same people. Nice deflection. I did not argue that there are always clueless folks who vote for someone in office for the wrong reasons. I pointed out how revisionist history vs actual history works. The fact is all economic depressions begin to improve about six years after they start. So by the time the 1936 elections rolled around things naturally were getting better. And by the time the 1940 elections rolled around, with no limits in place and war on the horizon of course they elected him again. Same goes for the 1944 elections. People don't change leaders during wartime if they don't have to. So they elected him again. And subsequently because of the war the US went into a period prosperity which lasted for a decade and led to two Truman terms. The pathology is really quite simple.



So the people the people that voted FDR into office several times did it for the wrong reasons and were clueless I believe you are saying.  Things would have gotten better even if republicans had stayed in office.  Got it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2014)

Friends said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Congressional Republicans were a rounding error during FDR's jihad on the economy.

Stop lying


----------



## jwoodie (Oct 6, 2014)

My take on the Great Depression is that it resulted from a "perfect storm" of downward business cycle trends.  Hoover didn't do anything to create it and FDR's efforts were largely ineffectual.  However, I wonder if his plethora of new government programs unknowingly prepared the country for a quick transition to a wartime economy?


----------



## HenryBHough (Oct 6, 2014)

FDR could not get nominated by today's Democrat Party.  Too much of a right wing extremist for their tastes.  Which sez more about their tastes than about his politics.


----------



## Politico (Oct 7, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> So the people the people that voted FDR into office several times did it for the wrong reasons and were clueless I believe you are saying.  Things would have gotten better even if republicans had stayed in office.  Got it.



Again a deflection. I said nothing abut political parties. Nor did I reference the great prosperity of the 50s under Eisenhower. Got it?


----------



## bendog (Oct 7, 2014)

Politico said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > So the people the people that voted FDR into office several times did it for the wrong reasons and were clueless I believe you are saying.  Things would have gotten better even if republicans had stayed in office.  Got it.
> ...


Well, help me out then.  The Milton Friedman youtube explanation of what caused the Great Depression has been linked so many times that it's becoming like schoolhouse rock and how a bill becomes a law.  Simply put, the gold standard failed because when gold flowed from one country to another, as a result of currencyvalue, the country receiving gold failed to expand their own currency, and that resulted in fewer dollars chasing goods which is deflation.  We have the ideological economic deniers who say "oh had we just following Coolidge and Harding," which ignores the key fact that 1929-32 was a global deflation.  Simply doing nothing, which is what Harding did, was exactly what we did under Hoover.  We didn't expand the fcking money supply.

Now if you choose to not go down the road of economic idiocy, as the Harding crew chooses, that's another issue, and it's a bit more subtle.  Friedman's criticism of Keynes is basically that that school allowed politicians to simply deficit spend with the defense "we're stimulating."  That doesn't mean there's no stimulus.  When Reagan exploded defense production it really did create a lot of jobs building shite.  Similarly, FDR really did put people to work in the CCC.

But the question that people like Friedman (or me for that matter) would ask is "well yes, you've put people to work, but are you building a sustainable economy?"  *That is, Hitler really did end the great depression in Germany with national socialism, ie the state consumed everything private industry could produce.  FDR did end the great depression in the US after Dec 7, 1941* when every able bodied male, and a good many females, were put to work in the war effort.  But, ultimately, where's that get us?  Communism?  What ended the soviets as much as anything was the fact that during the 70s they had to borrow billions from western banks to feed their masses because their economies were so inefficient.  And Truman certainly didn't go down that road, as the great accomplishment of his presidency was backing the govt out of consuming all the goods, getting the GIs privately employed and transitioning back into a capitalist economy.

But, as to FDR, first he did end the depression.  Secondly, and *more importantly* imo, any criticism of him ultimately goes to he didn't appreciate monetarism and the necessity of the first tier economies to have strong central banks that could use interest rates and put money into banks that would lend.  Of course, monetarism and the central banking structure didn't exist in 1932.


----------



## Bush92 (Oct 7, 2014)

Pogo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Good graphs that support fact that Pearl Harbor ended Great Depression.


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 7, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



A good example of government spending ending unemployment it looks like (stimulus).  There was no spending like war spending.


----------



## guno (Oct 7, 2014)

longknife said:


> (Hint: It Wasn’t the New Deal)
> 
> 
> Warning! All liberals – ignore this article. It will only cause you heartburn and perhaps stir up the ulcers you have due to your life of negativity.
> ...


----------



## regent (Oct 7, 2014)

So do we now all agree that it was war time spending that ended the war not FDR spending, and do we all agree that FDR's spending was too little and wartime spending about right?


----------



## Picaro (Oct 7, 2014)

Many of the New Deal programs were trying to put food on the tables of people who needed it and some income *right then*, not 6 or 7 years down the road, so of course most of the 'arguments' against them are just bullshit and desperately avoid addressing existential realities. Sorry, but nobody but clueless sociopaths in those days were going to accept letting millions perish just because of some imaginary free market economic theory invented to pander to sniveling millionaires.


----------



## Politico (Oct 8, 2014)

regent said:


> So do we now all agree that it was war time spending that ended the war not FDR spending, and do we all agree that FDR's spending was too little and wartime spending about right?


No bendog does not agree.


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 8, 2014)

Picaro said:


> Many of the New Deal programs were trying to put food on the tables of people who needed it and some income *right then*, not 6 or 7 years down the road, so of course most of the 'arguments' against them are just bullshit and desperately avoid addressing existential realities. Sorry, but nobody but clueless sociopaths in those days were going to accept letting millions perish just because of some imaginary free market economic theory invented to pander to sniveling millionaires.



Pretty much the point I was trying to make in the old timers I talked to.  FDR did give hope also besides helping with much needed income. More than one old timer said the wpa put guys to work and gave them well needed paychecks and also  giving them a feeling of worth they had lost during years on unemployment.    Some can't understand this feeling, I can.


----------



## Camp (Oct 8, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > Many of the New Deal programs were trying to put food on the tables of people who needed it and some income *right then*, not 6 or 7 years down the road, so of course most of the 'arguments' against them are just bullshit and desperately avoid addressing existential realities. Sorry, but nobody but clueless sociopaths in those days were going to accept letting millions perish just because of some imaginary free market economic theory invented to pander to sniveling millionaires.
> ...


Not only did he give relief to millions, he did it in a way that built American infrastructure and modernized the American Navy which payed off in WWII. The infrastructure benefited the nation for decades and much of it is still being used today. It was probably the most profitable investments made by American tax payers in American history other than the Louisiana Purchase and the purchase of Alaska. When conservatives are told this they tend to mock it and claim it's a liberal lie, but when you begin listing the projects that are still being used today they quickly go into denial and than run away.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 8, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> As usual, another rw propaganda piece,...our daily does from der fuhrerof of bias Shortknaves...


as usual,we can always count on your ignorance surfacing.propaganda piece my ass.sorry you cant handle facts,


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 8, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > As usual, another rw propaganda piece,...our daily does from der fuhrerof of bias Shortknaves...
> ...


How else do you get a good ol' fashioned conspiracy nutter out of the wood work?


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 8, 2014)

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 historians work for the government and only tell the sheople what they want them to hear.corrupt presidents that were traiters to the american people like FDR and reagan,the true facts on them are always suppressed from the sheople so they naturally thinbk of these two traiter presidents as being one of the 5 best presidents ever all the time.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 8, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


 yep thats what you are a conspiracy nutter who believes anything the government tells him.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 8, 2014)

longknife said:


> Did any of you live under the FDR administration?
> 
> Or is everyone spouting what so-called experts are saying?
> 
> ...





Picaro said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Geez, a lot of emotional investment in FDR.  Some people people seem to think that winning four elections makes someone a great President.  How about concealing terminal illness from the voters?
> ...


 
well for a refreshing change at least its not that troll political chic who has an obsession over him.she does expose his corruption all the time.That I have no problem with.However she has such an obsession on the corruption of the democrats ESPECIALLY with FDR,that she never talks about the corrption of republican presidents though which is what I do have a problem with on her.republican presidents like eisenhower and reagan can do no wrong in her mind  and are her heros.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 8, 2014)

bendog said:


> Burns was pretty explicit that FDR's policies didn't really fix the thing, and WWII ended it.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> *The Real Story About What Ended The Great Depression*
> 
> The economic end of the GD came because of the war.  Relief and Reform came long  before 1941,


 
exactly.well said.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 8, 2014)

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



the people that kept voting for him were indeed brainwashed fools.thats an understatement.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 8, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Under FDR's leadership, or lack of it, in an astonishing three terms the downturn in the economy under Hoover became a man killing, soup line, bodies in ditches depression. FDR's policies only made it worse until he managed to get us into a war which we weren't prepared for either.


 
amazing.I cant believe it.for once whitehall has done his homework and actually tells it like it really was.Im impressed.

I cant believe I am actually praising him for the first time ever.lol.

During the 30's the radio media and the print media was in the back pocket of liberal democrats. The media was the propaganda arm of the FDR administration and the poor fools who were struggling with the depression heard only promises of good times by a corrupt administration.

economy under Hoover became a man killing, soup line, bodies in ditches depression. FDR's policies only made it worse until he managed to get us into a war which we weren't prepared for either.
Click to expand...
So why did the American people vote for FDR four times in a row, and why have different sets of the America's best historians rated FDR as one of three best American presidents since 1948. And worse, recently rated FDR as America's best president? Besides the usual "historians are commies," do you have any other explanation that doesn't sound uneducated?
Click to expand...
During the 30's the radio media and the print media was in the back pocket of liberal democrats. The media was the propaganda arm of the FDR administration and the poor fools who were struggling with the depression heard only promises of good times by a corrupt administration.
Click to expand...
None of your assertions are true. FDR's policies didn't make the depression worse. Even his most stalwart critics don't make that claim, rather they claim it slowed down the recovery, which is only an opinion in and of itself. He didn't get us into WWII, Hitler and Hirohito did that. And the media of the 30's weren't in the pockets of the liberals. There was an abundance of anti FDR media in existence. Basically what you are saying is that what came to be know as the greatest generation began as a bunch of fools.
Click to expand...
There simply was no "abundance" of anti-FDR media during the 30's. Every single mainstream print media or radio station was supportive of FDR policies during the 30's or risk losing their FCC license.. What president in the entire history of the United States could get away with authorizing the confiscation of property of American citizens based on their ethnic background and rounding them up to be confined by barbed wire and armed guards unless it had total support from the media? The media writes the history books and the media was the propaganda arm of the FDR administration.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 8, 2014)

longknife said:


> (Hint: It Wasn’t the New Deal)
> 
> 
> Warning! All liberals – ignore this article. It will only cause you heartburn and perhaps stir up the ulcers you have due to your life of negativity.
> ...





This is coming from the idiot, Stephen Moore, who lied and said that in the 80's, the low income people saw the biggest gains.  LOL!


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 8, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > 9/11 inside job said:
> ...


They told me you were a genius...


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 8, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > (Hint: It Wasn’t the New Deal)
> ...


I second that, Ha!


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 8, 2014)

two farts in a row from you moonglow.


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 8, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row from you moonglow.


Have to keep it on a level you will understand...


----------



## bendog (Oct 8, 2014)

regent said:


> So do we now all agree that it was war time spending that ended the war not FDR spending, and do we all agree that FDR's spending was too little and wartime spending about right?


What's the point?  Keynes is correct that if the govt "buys" everything an economy can produce, you have full employment.  FDRs critics on the left argued that the new deal didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

However, the spending is just not sustainable.


----------



## regent (Oct 8, 2014)

Why is it that wartime spending seems to be ok while spending to improve America's infrastructure is communism. If livre


bendog said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > So do we now all agree that it was war time spending that ended the war not FDR spending, and do we all agree that FDR's spending was too little and wartime spending about right?
> ...


It is not meant to be sustainable it is an emergency measure taken when an enemy threatens our way of life no matter the enemy, be it a foreign nation or an economic recession/depression. We do have trouble, paying back the borrowed money, however, and  maybe that will change when the people change. We have to remember, that to some extent having control over our economy is relatively a new concept.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 8, 2014)

Camp said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty much the point I was trying to make in the old timers I talked to.  FDR did give hope also besides helping with much needed income. More than one old timer said the wpa put guys to work and gave them well needed paychecks and also  giving them a feeling of worth they had lost during years on unemployment.    Some can't understand this feeling, I can.
> ...



And of course all these projects provided contracts for construction contractors and building supply companies, along with the dams and reservoir systems, electrification, and a hundred other significant improvements in U.S. infrastructure, which also aided in the country in the war years and long after. It was a truly magnificent political achievement, another big reason for the sociopaths and nutjobs to hate him and those who made it happen. Hoover thought Smoot-Hawley was the magic solution. lollerz.


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 8, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...





9/11 inside job said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Since you're the expert among the sheeple, give us a list of some of your published works that we can get off Amazon and learn the real truth about history.    Hopefully, your books are prime available.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 8, 2014)

Moonglow said:


> They told me you were a genius...



It's true. Somebody asked him once if he was and he said 'yes'.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 8, 2014)

regent said:


> Why is it that wartime spending seems to be ok while spending to improve America's infrastructure is communism. If livre
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> ...



Well, the 'free traders' have taken over and we're going down the path of Great Britain, looting our own economy in ridiculously  lop-sided trade deals with other countries. 'Globalism' has proven to be just what the populists said it was, nothing but a labor racketeering scam and financial swindle.


----------



## jasonnfree (Oct 8, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> two farts in a row from you moonglow.



Looked at video.  Now I know where you got your credentials.  Alex Jones University.  You sat through hours  of this garbage to learn what  I could have told you.  Obama was backed by wall street.


----------



## Friends (Oct 8, 2014)

Bush92 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 
Military spending and employment is government spending and employment.


----------



## Friends (Oct 8, 2014)

Giving businessmen tax cuts and expecting them to start hiring people is like pushing on a string. If they do not have customers they will put the money in the bank, or spend it on superfluous luxuries.


----------



## bendog (Oct 9, 2014)

regent said:


> Why is it that wartime spending seems to be ok while spending to improve America's infrastructure is communism. If livre
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> ...


Oh no argument.  My point was that if the OP is "FDR didn't end the great depression," the OP is false, because govt spending did indeed end the great depression.  That is, from an economic standpoint KEYNES WAS RIGHT.  Milton Friedman had an ego, and I think he rightfully believed that monatarism's response to a credit meltdown is preferable to nationalizing an economy, but I haven't seen anything where he denied those facts.

That is Friedman was a better economist than Keynes but then he had the advantage of Keynes going first and then having 50 odd years to sort out the math and see where Keynes could have done better.

Now the new deal didn't cure the great depression.  But the economic policies of Harding, Coolidge, Mellon and Hoover in terms of not supporting debt increases wouldn't have cure it either.  And, given the effects of 29-32, it's undeniable that they gave worse results than the new deal.


----------



## Friends (Oct 9, 2014)

bendog said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that wartime spending seems to be ok while spending to improve America's infrastructure is communism. If livre
> ...



Republicans never liked Keynsian economic policies because they shifted wealth, prestige, and power from the business community to the government.

During the 1970's Republicans blamed the stagflation of the decade on Keynsianism. The real reason for the stagflation was the increase in petroleum prices that followed the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

The increases in oil prices were price fixing. When they became economically unsustainable after 1982, the world price in oil declined.

Historical Oil Prices InflationData.com

Milton Friedman became popular with Republicans during this time because he told Republicans what they wanted to believe, not because of the intrinsic merit of his economic theories.

Friedman liked to tell his students, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Then he violated this maxim by encouraging the American people to believe that they could have a tax cut, a better funded military, a higher standard of living, _and a balanced budget_ without sacrificing popular middle class entitlement programs.


----------



## bendog (Oct 9, 2014)

Friends said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



I don't blame Friedman for politicians using his theory to achieve their ends anymore than I blame Keynes for politicians saying deficits don't matter, and yes I realize that was the uber non-conservative Cheney who said that one.  Anyone who believed Reagan was gonna balance the budget .... bwahhhhhaaa.

However, I don't think Keynes really had an answer for stagflation, which as you posted was basically caused by the increase in petroleum prices.  But inflation really took on a life of its own.  With Carter, we cut our dependence on for oil and increased domestic production.  But still, inflation.  Monatarism and Friedman (and Volker and Greenspan) argued increasing the discount rate for banks and interest rates in general.  That effectively killed inflation by destroying demand for most everything.  And the Bernank did exactly the opposite more recently.

The rift between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy was partially about using unemployment to halt inflation.  Before Volker, we had stuff like wage price controls and Jerry Ford's hilarious WIN (whip inflation now) pins.  And then there was the Iranian crisis, the 1979 oil price spike, the beginning of the recession ...... and Reagan.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 9, 2014)

jasonnfree said:


> 9/11 inside job said:
> 
> 
> > two farts in a row from you moonglow.
> ...


hey dipshit,debunk the video,you cant.nobody ever has been able to idiot. you love kissing moonglows ass i see.

jasonfree? i have no doubt your that paid shill who trolls the boards at politicalforum where you post lies there all the time under the username jasonborne.a very well know paid government shill there.yep its you.lol.


----------



## LA RAM FAN (Oct 9, 2014)

gipper said:


> FDR was a fool in so many ways, but his handling of the Great Depression was a perfect example.
> 
> 10 Reasons why FDR was a fool...
> 
> ...


 

I am willing to bet that Cactus Jack was a lot less corruptible than FDR. That is a good bet, since FDR was the most corruptible POTUS ever, with a possible exception for Big Ears. At least Garner supported a balance budget, opposed much of the stupid and ineffective New Deal programs, and opposed FDR's dictatorial move to pack the Supreme Court.

Imagine had FDR been murdered that day in Chicago. Americans might not have had to endure the Great Depression for ten more years, WWII, and the USSR's rise and enslavement of half of Europe....and five decades of cold war.

Note of interest: JFK called Garner to wish him happy birthday on November 22, 1963, just hours before he was murdered in Dallas.


FDR's huge deficit spending and constant raising of taxes of all sorts, DID NOT REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT. It kept unemployment rates up.
So....your belief that massive government spending reduces unemployment, is incorrect. You might tell your buddy Obama who also does not understand economics
 
you handed these FDR apologists on here their asses to them on a platter taking them to school major big time.well done.


these FDR apologists clearly have been brainwashed by their history books from our corrupt school system. amazing how these FDR worshippers have been brainwashed that he served the bankers and continued what Hoover got started esculating it same as how Obama has contiuned and exapanded all Of bushs policys.somethings never change which is no surprise.history has a way of repeating itself.


----------



## bendog (Oct 10, 2014)

9/11 inside job said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > FDR was a fool in so many ways, but his handling of the Great Depression was a perfect example.
> ...


Well, it's indisputable that unemployment went DOWN after the New Deal was passed.  There are always what if's, but the historical detractors never account for the political reality that there was no possibility for a world wide response by the developed economies, which is what we have had since WWII ended.  The soviets and Chinese were not on board, but neither of their economies were large enough to do much other than threaten the peaceful advance of classical liberalism


----------



## regent (Oct 10, 2014)

Well, like it or not, FDR, since 1948, was rated by American historians as one of the top three American presidents and recently rated as the  best US president. So much for the historians but what of the people? Well the people elected FDR four times in a row, so who does that leave? It leaves some posters, most of whom never experienced the Great Depression trying to cast doubt on the historians and on the people of that era. So what hurts them so much, that they have to call the historians commies and the people of the Greatest Generation, stupid?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 10, 2014)

regent said:


> Well, like it or not, FDR, since 1948, was rated by American historians as one of the top three American presidents and recently rated as the  best US president. So much for the historians but what of the people? Well the people elected FDR four times in a row, so who does that leave? It leaves some posters, most of whom never experienced the Great Depression trying to cast doubt on the historians and on the people of that era. So what hurts them so much, that they have to call the historians commies and the people of the Greatest Generation, stupid?



FDR was awful. Totally God Awful


----------



## gipper (Oct 10, 2014)

regent said:


> Well, like it or not, FDR, since 1948, was rated by American historians as one of the top three American presidents and recently rated as the  best US president. So much for the historians but what of the people? Well the people elected FDR four times in a row, so who does that leave? It leaves some posters, most of whom never experienced the Great Depression trying to cast doubt on the historians and on the people of that era. So what hurts them so much, that they have to call the historians commies and the people of the Greatest Generation, stupid?



It is hard to say who was the worst POTUS, since there were so many bad ones, but FDR is right up there....without question.


----------



## regent (Oct 10, 2014)

gipper said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Well, like it or not, FDR, since 1948, was rated by American historians as one of the top three American presidents and recently rated as the  best US president. So much for the historians but what of the people? Well the people elected FDR four times in a row, so who does that leave? It leaves some posters, most of whom never experienced the Great Depression trying to cast doubt on the historians and on the people of that era. So what hurts them so much, that they have to call the historians commies and the people of the Greatest Generation, stupid?
> ...


No, I think it is with question. Who put FDR in the bad catagory?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 11, 2014)

> Well, like it or not, FDR, since 1948, was rated by American historians as one of the top three American presidents and recently rated as the best US president.



Well, since the majority of history professors are leftists it isn't hard to see how they would rate a socialist President as one of the top 3 Presidents...as time goes by and hopefully one day history professors become more rational and less partisan then fdr will be seen for what he was...the guy who prolonged the Great Depression by lefty theories of interfering with the economy...


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 11, 2014)

And before you ask...here is a survey of American history professors and their ideological leanings...

Survey finds that professors already liberal have moved further to the left insidehighered



> *Here are the data for the new survey and the prior survey:*
> 
> 
> *2010-11**2007-8*Far left12.4%8.8%Liberal50.3%47.0%Middle of the road25.4%28.4%Conservative11.5%15.2%Far right0.4%0.7%
> ...



You can pretty much assume that the "middle of the road" are lefties as well...they just like to pretend to be fair...

So wow...that left wing history professors would say the biggest socialist until bill "the serial sexual predator" clinton and barak "nero" obama was one of the best Presidents...not a surprise...


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 11, 2014)

> Who put FDR in the bad catagory?



people who study actual history without trying to put a leftist bias into it...


----------



## HenryBHough (Oct 11, 2014)

Once we get past November and World War III becomes official the Great Obamacession will quickly end and there'll be full employment.  Only question is whether that full employment will be in The U.S. or in China- where most stuff is manufactured now that American industry has been dismantled.


----------



## Camp (Oct 11, 2014)

HenryBHough said:


> Once we get past November and World War III becomes official the Great Obamacession will quickly end and there'll be full employment.  Only question is whether that full employment will be in The U.S. or in China- where most stuff is manufactured now that American industry has been dismantled.


We need Mitt in 2016. Maybe he can get some of the factories he sent over there returned to the US.


----------



## Picaro (Oct 11, 2014)

Camp said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > Once we get past November and World War III becomes official the Great Obamacession will quickly end and there'll be full employment.  Only question is whether that full employment will be in The U.S. or in China- where most stuff is manufactured now that American industry has been dismantled.
> ...



Bain Capital's record as a PE firm is atrocious; something like 50% of those companies they took 'private' and 'reorganized' went bankrupt. Not a 'business' record that makes one feel like he's a great choice for anything. I certainly wouldn't want him running any company I had a piece of. He's perfect for the ignorant types who believe in 'free trade' and other fantasies, of course. Labor racketeering and shell games is what 'globalism' and 'free trade' is all about.


----------



## regent (Oct 11, 2014)

So which comes first, the liberalism and then the history, or the history and then the liberalism?


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 12, 2014)

I hope Mitt sits out 2016...


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 12, 2014)

The RWnuts make this argument all the time without realizing that when they claim that WWII ended the depression,

they are referring to the biggest government spending program in the history of the republic.


----------



## gipper (Oct 12, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> The RWnuts make this argument all the time without realizing that when they claim that WWII ended the depression,
> 
> they are referring to the biggest government spending program in the history of the republic.



Following your convoluted logic one would have to conclude that Obama's massive spending would work....but it has not.

Oh well...what we need is a world war that kills millions to end the Great Recession.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 12, 2014)

gipper said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The RWnuts make this argument all the time without realizing that when they claim that WWII ended the depression,
> ...



We've been out of recession since 2009.


----------



## gipper (Oct 12, 2014)

NYcarbineer said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Yeah good for you...keep believing the lies of the state.


----------



## regent (Oct 12, 2014)

So what is the best response Republicans have come up with regarding FDR's place in history? 
A.  Historians are commies.
B.  Historians are socialists.
C.  Historians work for universities.
D.  Historians should not have opinions regarding past presidents.
E.  Historians should not have opinions regarding history.
F.  Historians have little concept of America's past.
G. Historians should ask poster's opinions first, before ventilating their own opinion.


----------



## bendog (Oct 13, 2014)

regent said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Not me.  (-:


----------



## longknife (Oct 18, 2014)

*What Really Ended the Great Depression – Redux*


This is a continuation of a previous post by this author. It seems to me that he made some very good points to include the large increase in production due to Lend Lease and then WWII. That and the shrinkage of government afterward.


Read more @ What Really Ended the Great Depression


----------



## 2aguy (Oct 18, 2014)

part of it...at the end of the war...every other economy had been destroyed..Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan....and we helped all of them rebuild....our Manufacturing base had not been touched....


----------



## Unkotare (Oct 26, 2014)

It was the END of WWII that well and truly ended the Great Depression when artificial controls over the economy were lifted and the natural recovery that FDR had fought against had a chance to occur. That fucking scumbag FDR only lengthened and exacerbated the depression.


----------



## themirrorthief (Jun 24, 2021)

Moonglow said:


> Then why did not spending money not rectify the situation before FDR was president by Hoover's policies not work?


Hoover had no say in the depression...when banks were borrowed heavily by european nations fighting like hell in ww1...they werent paid back and thus the depression hit hard


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 24, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> It was the END of WWII that well and truly ended the Great Depression when artificial controls over the economy were lifted and the natural recovery that FDR had fought against had a chance to occur. That fucking scumbag FDR only lengthened and exacerbated the depression.


.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 24, 2021)

Unkotare said:


> It was the END of WWII that well and truly ended the Great Depression when artificial controls over the economy were lifted and the natural recovery that FDR had fought against had a chance to occur. That fucking scumbag FDR only lengthened and exacerbated the depression.




Yep.....also, the industrial capacity of Europe was destroyed......leaving only the United States with any sort of industrial power.....so we became economically powerful.......and blasted out of the Roosevelt prolonged depression after the war....


----------

