# The Roosevelt Myths vs. The Facts



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.


*Why not admit the truth? *

Answer: because once any truth is admitted, the flood gates would open and their most closely held beliefs and worldview, i.e., Roosevelt and collectivist governance, would dissolve, like sand castles when the tide rolls in.




1*. It is a fact* that the economic downturn that Republican Warren Harding face was at the least comparable to the one that Franklin Roosevelt face. Harding's plan,  *"...tax cuts, spending cuts and relatively non-interventionist economic policy,..." ended the recession in a year and a half.*

*And Roosevelt knew all of it.*


*2. Republicans prior to Hoover provided prosperity for the nation. It was called "The Roaring Twenties." Roosevelt knew this, but, instead, imposed Benito Mussolini's Fascist Corporatism on the United States.
*

*a. It is a fact* that none of the New Dealers were constitutionalists. Roosevelt's economist, Rexford Tugwell said: "Any people who must be governed according to the written codes of an instrument which defines the spheres of individual and group, state and federal actions must expect to suffer from the constant maladjustment of progress. A life' which changes and a constitution for governance which does not must always raise questions which are difficult for solution."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p.63

Roosevelt had the very same view of the Constitution.


3*. It  is a fact* that the New Deal was Roosevelt's copy of Mussolini's Fascist policies.  Rex Tugwell was opposed to any private business not controlled by the government. General Hugh Johnson was working with Tugwell on a bill to create the NRA, and gave Francis Perkins, Roosevelt's Sec'y of Labor, the book by Rafaello Viglione, "The Corporate State," in which the neat Italian system of dictatorship for the benefit of the people was glowingly described."  
Francis Perkins, "The Roosevelt I Knew." 

The NRA was *copied from Mussolini's corporative system. *

a. Francis Perkins questioned whether Johnson 'really understood the democratic process..."New Dealers had no problem with the fascist nature of their plans." 
Again?
*FDR had no problem with imposing Fascism.*


b. *It is a fact* that the New Deal was copied from Mussiolini's Fascism and
" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington
until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
Manly, Op. Cit., p. 48



Had Hitler not attacked his ally, Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt would have continued his amiable relationships with other dictators.
*That's a fact.*


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

.


----------



## Claudette (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.
> 
> 
> *Why not admit the truth? *
> ...



Oh how right you are.

Roosevelt should have taken a page out of Harding's playbook. The depression would never have lasted anywhere near as long as it did.

WWII stopped it. Everything FDR did prolonged it.

He was a great war time POTUS but as just a POTUS he sucked.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)




----------



## bullwinkle (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.
> 
> 
> *Why not admit the truth? *
> ...


Wow, MS. Chic.  Your hindsight evidently equals your foresight, and I fear not even your oculist can help you.  Your "facts" are not facts, but unproven speculations.  For one, FDR and Stalin were NEVER friends, but the necessity of creating a second front was vital to gaining time to train and equip, to buildup in the British Isles and keep Hitler on the east side of the channel and off English soil.  All the rest looks like speculations to me also, especially the part about how FDR was instrumental in dragging out of a very deep depression...I was THERE!  These musings by critics are codswallop!


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.
> 
> 
> *Why not admit the truth? *
> ...


The opening statement is simply wacko. FDR's programs and ideas have outlasted the 20th Century and continue into the 21st Century. No other President of the 20th Century can compare to the lasting influence and legacy of FDR.
The opening statement is simply PoliticalChic telling everyone that if they would simply accept her warped and distorted opinions, everyone would understand and realize what a horrible leader FDR was and reject the opinions of the world's leading historians as well as the folks who lived during his era and re-elected him over and over.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

bullwinkle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.
> ...





bullwinkle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.
> ...




"Your "facts" are not facts, but unproven speculations."

Excellent.
You serve as a perfect example of every Roosevelt-aficionado who responds to the facts I post.

I fervently searched for documentation in your post....but....alas....there is none.

As usual, as typical...you drones simply offer "is not....is noooooottttttt!" as a valid rebuttal.

It isn't.


But....do take another swing......
....I'll bet you strike out again.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> .





At your advanced age, one would imagine that you recognize this truth:

*Reality is defined by actions, not by words.*


Prior to the 'Great Depression,' this nation had over thirty economic downturns.
They lasted 1-2 years.

Roosevelt, by design, in order to undermine our nation's foundings, extended the depression by a factor of four or five....along with the agony inflicted on the people.



So....quoting words merely is simply an exercise in what you always do.....lie.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> .


Roosevelt made damn sure people had very little his first two terms


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.
> ...




I sent this invitation to you earlier.....
Yet you've conceded this early????


1. You, whining 'is not, isssss  nottttttt!' hardly constitutes my losing. I never lose.

2. "Regurgitate one you fantasize blah blah blah..."  Don't you know what 'fantasize' means? No? Well....let me educate you on that, as well....fantasize means indulge in daydreaming. As I always......always....quote accurately, link and source all material.....clearly you are lying in a feeble attempt to shield your idol.

3. You leave me no choice but to produce another scholarly, well documented and supported, series of revelations about the wanna-be dictator, Franklin Delano Roosevevelt.
*And I challenge you to dispute my facts.*
a. For your edification: Fact..... a thing that is indisputably the case."



I purposely wrote *facts in the OP *so you couldn't miss the targets.

But...sadly, you've, once again, proven to be a failure.


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


The Great Depression had begun with the market crash of 1929, so it was already almost four yours old when FDR came into the Presidency. Reality is that a monster of a depression was created and in place before he had any opportunity to influence it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Untrue, you dunce.

America’s greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed Woodrow Wilson who got America into World War I, ...*Harding inherited the mess, in particular the post-World War I depression – almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933, that FDR inherited and prolonged. Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, in their book Out of Work (1993), noted that the magnitude of the 1920 depression "exceeded that for the Great Depression of the following decade for several quarters." *

The estimated gross national product plunged 24% from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million in 1920 to 4.9 million in 1921.

Harding beat it in a year and a half.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2016)

It's a sure sign of mental flaccidity when one allows the opinions of strangers to overwhelm the facts right at your fingertips


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

*2. Republicans prior to Hoover provided prosperity for the nation.*
*But Hoover only gave Americans, the Great Depression, then did nothing about it, and Americans were pissed, so, no GOP president was elected till the 1950's...*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

*Think about the fact: *Franklin *Roosevelt imposed Mussolini's Fascist *Corporatism on the United States of America.

Is the sort of government, a dictatorship, which Fascist Corporatism required, the sort of governance that our Founders willed us?


4. "As an economic system, fascism is *socialism *with a capitalist veneer. ... In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful *competition*, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary *Marxism*, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie.

.... *Mussolini praised the New Deal* as “boldly . . . interventionist in the field of economics,” and *Roosevelt complimented Mussolini for his “honest purpose of restoring Italy” and acknowledged that he kept “in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” *

Also, Hugh Johnson, head of the National Recovery Administration, was known to carry a copy of Raffaello Viglione’s pro-Mussolini book,_The Corporate State,_with him, *presented a copy to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and, on retirement, paid tribute to the Italian dictator." *
Fascism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty



*These are facts,* and understanding them is key to understanding Franklin Roosevelt.

Roosevelt....the friend of Fascism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


>


...and by Uncle Joe, I will make you all as poor and miserable as possible until you come around to see I'm right"


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Your point?

The Depression was already going for three years when FDR took office. Hoovers "Prosperity is just around the corner" was a myth...it took FDR to actually DO something

The greatness of FDR was that he realized that the depression was more about the suffering of the poor than about the profits for the rich


----------



## Freewill (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> .



We provide?  Who is the we in that scenario?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> *2. Republicans prior to Hoover provided prosperity for the nation.
> But Hoover only gave Americans, the Great Depression, then did nothing about it, and Americans were pissed, so, no GOP president was elected till the 1950's...*



Funny.....Roosevelt went right on instituting Hoover's policies and program.

*Roosevelt ran for election, and promised the public, to reverse Hoover's programs and spending..*..but:

"Historians now acknowledge*[Hoover's] progressive inclinations,* and his commitment to counter-cyclical planning and the belief that the nation ought to have a reservoir of big projects in the planning stages that could be executed when the time was right.
*Programs begun during the Hoover years, such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, were forerunners of the New Deal, and years later New Dealer Rexford Tugwell acknowledged that -- even though no one would say so at the time -- "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."WGBH American Experience . Golden Gate Bridge | PBS



Get that?
"....practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."


But....but.....Roosevelt said he would do the opposite!!!

Roosevelt: Why lie?*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> *2. Republicans prior to Hoover provided prosperity for the nation.
> But Hoover only gave Americans, the Great Depression, then did nothing about it, and Americans were pissed, so, no GOP president was elected till the 1950's...*


So you're saying Republicans have the Roaring 20's, the Greatest Generation and Morning in America while Democrats have the Great Depression, Malaise and Public Housing?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> *2. Republicans prior to Hoover provided prosperity for the nation.
> But Hoover only gave Americans, the Great Depression, then did nothing about it, and Americans were pissed, so, no GOP president was elected till the 1950's...*



Hoover was the fall guy for the Great Depression

Seven months into his term, the market crashed. It was eight years of Republican deregulation, speculation and greed that created the Depression


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.
> 
> 
> *Why not admit the truth? *
> ...


This is not even close to being a fact. The depression faced by Roosevelt began with a market crash that brought unemployment up to over 20%. The market fell drastically in 1920, but it did not crash and the unemployment only reached 11.7% at its highest. 
Once again, as you like to ignore, the depression of 1920 did not have to grapple with the Dust Bowl storms which FDR had to deal with beginning in his first years in office.


----------



## Freewill (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.
> ...



Could you name one or two of FDR's programs that have outlasted the 20th century?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

Freewill said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Our economy

A great economy is not one that ensures the rich make more money but one that ensures the poor are taken care of


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




My point?

At your advanced age, one would imagine that you recognize this truth:

*Reality is defined by actions, not by words.*


Prior to the 'Great Depression,' this nation had over thirty economic downturns.
They lasted 1-2 years.

Roosevelt, by design, in order to undermine our nation's foundings,* extended the depression by a factor of four or five times.*...along with the agony inflicted on the people.



So....quoting words merely is simply an exercise in what you always do.....lie.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > *2. Republicans prior to Hoover provided prosperity for the nation.
> ...


But doing nothing is what should have happened, because intervention in the market was unheard of.. That is the premise of the ejaculatory oral interpretation one gets from Polislic..


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Why did the Great Depression not  last more than a year or two when the GOP was in control?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > *2. Republicans prior to Hoover provided prosperity for the nation.
> ...




....ended slavery, gave the vote to blacks and women, ended the Evil Empire without firing a shot.....

Republicans.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > *2. Republicans prior to Hoover provided prosperity for the nation.
> ...


No, I am saying that the GOP had control when the market crashed for almost 4 years, yet the depression was not miraculously over by 4 years of ignoring the plight of the consumers or producers..


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


That has nothing to do with the GOP failure to end the depression started under their watch and who was in control for almost 4 years..


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




The 'rich'????

You mean the folks who actually earned their wealth?

1. According to a study by Prince & Associates, less than 10% of today’s multi-millionaires cited “inheritance” as their source of wealth. 
The Decline of Inherited Money - The Wealth Report - WSJ
The Decline of Inherited Money

2. Most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich. How is it possible for people from modest backgrounds to become millionaires in one generation? Why is it that so many people with similar socioeconomic backgrounds never accumulate even modest amounts of wealth? 
washingtonpost.com: The Millionaire Next Door



The ones you Leftists hate???
The ones whose wealth you want to 'spread around' to buy votes???
Those folks?


----------



## Freewill (Feb 25, 2016)

Here is an interesting graph, note when the great depression turned around.

Note, great depression turned BEFORE FDR took office and apparently his policies created another recession.  Good for FDR WW2 bailed him out.







rightwinger said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And that is what we do.


----------



## bullwinkle (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


MS. Chic, what I recognize is a charter member of the None So Blind club of disgruntled Republicans.  I'll bet your nose ring even has fake rhinestones.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...




If FDR hadn't decided on "intervention in the [housing] market " there never would have been a mortgage meltdown.

More good work, like extending the Depression for a decade.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Why did the Depression last a decade under FDR?

Answer: because he wanted it to.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Still can't cover your parties dropping of the ball, can you...What happened to that chicken in every pot ??


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I guess Hoover wanted it to last that long also..


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The Great Depression was already three years old when FDR took office, so your 1-2 years was already past

FDRs policies were directed at easing suffering, putting people back to work and taking care of those who needed it. He really didn't care if stock portfolios returned as quickly as possible

Like FDR said.....People don't eat in the long run


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...





*"If this crash had been like previous ones, the hard times would have ended in two or three years at the most,*and likely sooner than that. But unprecedented political bungling instead*prolonged the misery for over 10 years*. Unemployment in 1930 averaged a mildly recessionary 8.9 percent, up from 3.2 percent in 1929. It shot up rapidly until peaking out at more than 25 percent in 1933. " 
Great Myths of the Great Depression | Lawrence W. Reed


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

bullwinkle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





So....you're passing up another opportunity to find any error in my OP?

You're content to post "is not, issss nooottttttt!"

OK.

See ya.'


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...





You sure don't want to talk about the terrible job Roosevelt did, huh?

No wonder why.


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

Freewill said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Freewill said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Social Security
Tennessee Vally Authority
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Communications Commission
SEC and the Security Act of 1933
FDIC
National Labor Relations Act
Fair Labor Standards Act (Established 40-hour work week)


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Then the same goes with FDR... It was unlike all others because we had become a world exporter in markets ruined by WWI...We were also lending money to Germany in the 1920's to help their economy...


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You know I never read your OPs
Tedious, deceptive and boring as all shit

Everyone reads my FDR quotes though


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2016)

The facts and the truth of FDRs wretched performance speak for themselves. That's why we calmly keep presenting them to you. 

The Progressives reflexive defense is to say, "but historians say he's great" as if that supercedes the facts.

We'll be waiting here when you finally wake up


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





"FDRs policies were directed at easing suffering, putting people back to work..."

In that case, he was a horrible failure.


1. Here is an interesting visual: imagine a triple line of the unemployed, three across, consisting of those unemployed under Hoover, in 1931. The line would have gone*from Los Angeles, across the country, to the border of Maine.*

What effect did Roosevelt have on the line?

Well, eight years later, in 1939, the length of the line would have gone further, from the Maine border, south to Boston, then on to New York City, then to Philadelphia, on to Washington, D.C.- and finally, into Virginia.
Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal"


Think Folsom was wrong?

Check it out at the US Bureau of the Census, 'Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970, I-126 andUnemployment Statistics during the Great Depression



2. "_ “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!”_
 Morgenthau Diary, May 9, 1939, Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library


3.  March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” 

This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I believe that your hindsight is 20/20, but living in the times is much harder to see... You are judging only one man and a party.. I don't see the need for divisiveness over an issue which has long been over and the USA is the better for the leadership of the times...Both sides made mistakes, that is part of a learning experience that every generation has made..


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The facts and the truth of FDRs wretched performance speak for themselves. That's why we calmly keep presenting them to you.
> 
> The Progressives reflexive defense is to say, "but historians say he's great" as if that supercedes the facts.
> 
> We'll be waiting here when you finally wake up


With baited breath...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


>




The worker was well paid all along, you dunce.

1. Here is that view from demagogue Roosevelt, himself:
 "Now it is worth remembering, and the cold figures of finance prove it, that during that time *there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay, although those same figures proved that the cost of production fell very greatly; corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,* and by no means an adequate proportion was even paid out in dividends--the stockholder was forgotten."
Roosevelt's Nomination Address, Chicago, Ill.,  July 2, 1932



2.Here's the truth:
a. In 1921, the top 5% earned 25.47% of the nation's income...in 1929, the top 5%'s share skyrocketed all the way up to ......26.09%!!!!

b. Corporate profits? They averaged 8.2% from 1900 to 1920. But what about from 1920 to 1929??? They remained at 8.2%.
For those in Rio Linda, that means that there was no upsurge in said profits during the decade.


c. But what about *employee wages during the decade of the '20s?? They rose...from 55% to 60% of corporate income.*

d. Wait...what about the percentage of GNP that went to consumption? Bet it fell, huh? Wrong.
It rose from 68% in 1920 to 75% in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
"Coolidge and the Historians," by Thomas B. Silver, p.124-136, and Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal," p.34-35


For clarity....are you a liar, or simply really, really dumb????


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > bullwinkle said:
> ...





This is the lie you tell when you are being thoroughly thrashed.

It's a 'tell' I look forward to.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


>


...says the President who averaged 20% unemployment for his entire first 2 terms


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Thanks to the GOP do nothing regime...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...




"I believe that your hindsight is 20/20, but living in the times is much harder to see..."

FDR was warned, advise, and had studied Harding.

He knew what he was doing.

Case in point:
1. He did appoint Lewis Douglas as budget director. "A conservativeDemocrat, Douglas advocated fiscal responsibility ... a reputation as a man of principle. During theGreat Depressionhe adhered to the economic orthodoxy of his time, arguing that low tariffs and a balanced federal budget were essential requirements for an economic recovery..... Douglas's time as budget director proved frustrating."
Lewis Williams Douglas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Now then: did appointing Lewis Douglas mean that Roosevelt would carry out his promises?

Well....to begin with, in March of 1933, he didn't fill his cabinet with persons committed to a balanced budget. A pretty much poke 'in your eye.'


a. Nah....instead the bunch put together the huge spending and administrative expansion of his first hundred day, Douglas knew the real deal.


b. Roosevelt expanded the federal government and ran up deficits much greater than those of Hoover.


3. Poor Douglas....Roosevelt would promise him cuts, then go to Rexford Tugwell and Harry Hopkins and give them whatever they wanted. Of course, the 'Brain Trust' was made up of socialists, fascists and communists....but, what the heck.

Douglas quit.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



A picture is worth a thousand Political Chic cut and pastes


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The facts and the truth of FDRs wretched performance speak for themselves. That's why we calmly keep presenting them to you.
> ...




Bated.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Not for a master-baiter fishing guide..


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Let's have Schlesinger interpret it for you:

1.  Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in _The National Experience, _in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about* the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression:* national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



No question FDR bungled the 1937 crash. He was believing his numbers and thought he had the depression licked. He gave in to the right and slashed spending to balance the budget (sounds like Republicans today doesn't it?). The result was a hike in unemployment by 9%

FDR learned not to listen to Republicans again


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




" He gave in to the right..."

OMG....you're reduced to this obvious lie?????

He ran on class warfare....he hated and attacked the right, the business community at every opportunity.



 "Roosevelt did indeed make a difference, though probably not the sort of difference for which the country had hoped.*He started off on the wrong foot when, in his inaugural address, he blamed the Depression on “unscrupulous money changers.”*He said nothing about the role of the Fed’s mismanagement and little about the follies of Congress that had contributed to the problem.*As a result of his efforts, the economy would linger in depression for the rest of the decade."
Great Myths of the Great Depression | Lawrence W. Reed

*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

The more one studies political and economic history, one begins to understand that there are no real or significant differences between *socialism, Marxism, communism, Progressivism, Fascism....or this:*


5. The National_sozialistische_Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National_Socialist_German Workers' Party, commonly abbreviated as *"Nazis"* ...was simply a variation on the theme.


After all, what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?


*So, it should not surprise that not only was Roosevelt copacetic with Mussolini, but he was equally so with Hitler.*The National Socialists hailed FDR's ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:

a. May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”

b.And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’

c. And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”

d. The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”

In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: “Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…”  cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2


Franklin Roosevelt's economic policies were in line with those of other dictators.

*These are the facts.*


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The facts and the truth of FDRs wretched performance speak for themselves. That's why we calmly keep presenting them to you.
> 
> The Progressives reflexive defense is to say, "but historians say he's great" as if that supercedes the facts.
> 
> We'll be waiting here when you finally wake up


You are not presenting facts. You are presenting the anti-New Deal myths that are opinions or outright misinterpretations and even lies. Your opinions are not facts and you provide no objective academic links to support your opinions. You mention "FDR's wretched performance" but offer no documentation to substantiate your opinion. What you available are political agenda driven commentaries and opinion, not objective academic works. If you do not know what that means, refer to the links I have provided to debunk PoliticalChics claims. Those are academic and objective links. The one about the Dust Bowl Storms and era may be argued as slanted to favor FDR, but there are endless links available about the Dust Bowl. I picked one because it had a short video and good photo's for folks who might not have knowledge about the Dust Bowl.
Note that PoliticalChic has not academically challenged my debunking of her nonsense claim of providing facts. And who posted that stupid comment and lie that the generation of the roaring twenties was the "Greatest Generation"? That is an ongoing lie to deflect from the fact that what is known as the "Greatest Generation" is the era of the FDR time frame. The Greatest Generation chose FDR as it's leader.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


So you are saying that Henry Ford was a righty??? Oh my...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The facts and the truth of FDRs wretched performance speak for themselves. That's why we calmly keep presenting them to you.
> ...




1.  "You mention "FDR's wretched performance" but offer no documentation to substantiate your opinion."
A lie.
Documentation throughout the thread.


2. "Note that PoliticalChic has not academically challenged my debunking of her nonsense claim of providing facts."
More 'is not, is nooottttttt!' 

3. As usual, you have proven an unmitigated failure.
Much like Roosevelt.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




How about you try to stick to what I actually say.

Roosevelt hated the successful because he never was one in business.
He attacked the right, the business community and engaged in class warfare.
Facts.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


>




And he said this, too...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of *President* of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Seems he lied a lot.....like you.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I believe that FDR was rich and raised as such..His was not having to be anything more than what he wanted, a public servant...


----------



## Claudette (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I wouldn't worry about Campass. Hell. His sig line was IN FDR WE TRUST.

Shows what a clueless moron he is.

All anyone has to do is Google FDR to see how his polices prolonged the GD.

He had all kinds of projects to put people to work the problem was they were Govt. projects that needed tax dollars to fund them.

Hell. That asshat raised taxes as much as 90% on businesses. It was no wonder there were no jobs. No one could afford to pay anyone.

Harding, on the other hand, did everything right hence the Roaring 20's.

In FDR we trust my ass.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

Claudette said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


If he did everything right then the market would not have crashed...


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


You have been debunked on this over and over. It has been plainly explained that the workers in the New Deal programs were included in this fraudulent .example. Over 3 1/2 million workers would have had to get in line and not got to work to make this silly story about a line work. 

Explain why you continue to use the irrelevant method of Lebbergott to calculate unemployment when it was neither designed nor meant to portray actual unemployment numbers. It was designed to show how many workers were absent from private industry and did not include government workers.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Taking a hand a fiction writing?

Dems owned Congress during the Jihad on Free Enterprise and the Constitution know as the "FDR Presidency"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yes, FDR really did average 20% Unemployment during his first two terms. See how US finally dips in 1940? Had WWII not started it probably would have gone on as long as he was in office


----------



## gipper (Feb 25, 2016)

Very good lecture from Mark Weber exposing the lies of FDR and the statists who admire him.  If only all Americans would learn and accept the truth about Stalin's Stooge.


----------



## Moonglow (Feb 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Ahem, the depression occurred during GOP Hoover in office,(1929), FDR didn't hit the skids till Jan., 1933.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Hoover was a Progressive that Coolidge derisively nicknamed "Wonder Boy" for his stupid "Government knows all!" ideas


----------



## gipper (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Of course fool.  No one said otherwise.

Now lets see if you know second grade math...Hoover had 4 years of Great Depression....FDR had 9 years of Great Depression.  Which president had more years of Great Depression?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Did a damned good job didn't he?

Such a great job that he was elected in landslides four straight times


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I don't understand where Conservatives get this "average unemployment" statistic to trot out every time they give an incoming Democrat double digit unemployment


----------



## gipper (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


So in your Leftnutter mind, a POTUS should only be evaluated on their election results.  Then you must think Reagan and Nixon GREAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTT!!!!


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


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


You do not offer documentation to confirm your opinions as facts, rather you offer documentation to explain how you derived your opinion. That is not the same as providing actual data to prove a point. 
You still have not challenged the points I raised to debunk your nonsense. I challenged you on your first two points of the OP. All you have done is your usual deflecting and flooding the thread with more nonsense and distorted out of context quotes.


----------



## Claudette (Feb 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yup. The Dems controlled the whole Govt. from the POTUS through Congress.

Guess Moonbat should read a little history.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I remember Gomez Adams from the "Adams Family" once bragging how he took a struggling company and plunged it into bankruptcy. He could have been FDR's economic advisor


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...




1. That's because you know so little.
I'm about to relieve some of that ignorance.


*2.  Franklin Roosevelt had a visceral animosity toward businessmen, entrepreneurs, successful capitalists. And he had a way with words, in describing them.  "*unscrupulous_*money changers*_..." the greed and shortsightedness of bankers and_*businessmen*_," "..rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence"  "we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."  "there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing."

Wow! What the heck was that about? He was besmirching his fellow Americans, many of whom were responsible for the progress of society.

I'm about to tell you.


3. Franklin Roosevelt came from a very wealthy family, so one may puzzle at the *vituperation he leveled at similar folks.* Perhaps that very background is the reason, as with the politician George McGovern,* he never learned how business worked, or how to earn money.*
 His mother Sara reported: "Money was never discussed at home....All his books and toys were provided for him. We never subjected the boy to a lot of don'ts." "BEFORE THE TRUMPET: Young Franklin Roosevelt, 1882-1905," by Geoffrey C. Ward, p.125-126

a. Then again...how could they teach him about finance, after all, *his father, James, inherited his fortune...and almost lost it by way of poor investments.* His mother's father, Warren Delano, made his money selling opium illegally to Chinese addicts. When he retired to legitimate business, he didn't do much better than Franklin's father. Delano went back to the Opium trade, which is why Sara spent early years in China. 
Ward, Op. Cit., p. 71.



4. Based on the hagiography, one can't help but be surprised at *how mediocre young Franklin was at just about everything.*
Prep school was Groton, college, Harvard....excelling at neither sports nor academics. "I can't understand this thing about Frank.* He never amounted to much at school." *
Ward, Op. Cit., p. 180-181

a. A  'C to C+' student; not much for homework, study, or research....but he focused on social-political clubs, debates and journalism.

b. *Not the only rejection, but a significant one*, was his attempt to join Porcellian, the oldest and most elite social club at Harvard. Theodore Roosevelt and other members of the Roosevelt family belonged to the club, but Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was president of the _Harvard Crimson_, never managed to be elected a member. At some time,* in his late thirties, he told his relative Sheffield Cowles that this had been "the greatest disappointment in his life".* 
Frances Richardson Keller,_Fictions of U. S. History : A Theory & Four Illustrations_, p. 116.


*Porcellian members were future entrepreneurs, businessmen, bankers, and corporate lawyers. 
And they had rejected Franklin Roosevelt.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




That really makes no sense.

This is what you FDR-groupies are reduced to.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





"You have been debunked on this over and over."

'Is not, is noootttt" is in no way 'debunking.'


Still waiting.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




He had to reverse course, and come begging to the business community through fear of war.

1.  Careful students of the Roosevelt presidency knew that war must be near because *FDR had decided to change the tone* of the political debate in Washington. For almost eight years, Wall Street bankers and corporate leaders had been *his favorite scapegoats *for explaining why the Great Depression was persisting.  The premise of his New Deal, after all was that businessmen had failed and that government should regulate, plan and direct much of the American economy to break the hold of the Great Depression.”


2.  *On May 16, 1940,* Roosevelt had addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense, with a commitment for fifty thousand military aircraft. He knew, also, that *he needed the good will of business to win the war: no longer would he call them “privileged princes…thirsting for power.”*


3. * On May 26, 1940 his Fireside Chat signaled a new relationship with business: he would insure their profits, and assuage their fears that he would nationalize their factories.*
a.  “…we are calling upon the resources, the efficiency and the ingenuity of the American manufacturers of war material of all kinds -- airplanes and tanks and guns and ships, and all the hundreds of products that go into this material. The Government of the United States itself manufactures few of the implements of war. Private industry will continue to be the source of most of this material, and private industry will have to be speeded up to produce it at the rate and efficiency called for by the needs of the times….Private industry will have the responsibility of providing the best, speediest and most efficient mass production of which it is capable.” On National Defense - May 26, 1940


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Moonglow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...





Can't you read????

FDR won by promising to reverse Hoover's policies and programs....then went right on and continued them!

 Tugwell, writing to Moley, said of Hoover: “[W]e were too hard on a man who really invented most of the devices we used.”
Letter from Rexford G. Tugwell to Raymond Moley, January 29, 1965, Raymond Moley Papers, “Speeches and Writings,” Box 245-49, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, as cited in Davis W. Houck, “Rhetoric as Currency: Herbert Hoover and the 1929 Stock Market Crash,” _Rhetoric & Public Affairs_ 3, 2000, p. 174.


There was no accident in the Depression....FDR knew exactly what he was doing.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





About as good a job as those who tried to educate you did.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

gipper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




That's how they....imagine.

 "Principle is nothing to liberals. Winning is everything." 
Coulter


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

6. Typical of Marxist jargon, Roosevelt stressed

a. class warfare, and

b. attacks on capitalism, capitalists, and wealth.

In short....the typical totalitarian.


"He started off on the wrong foot when, in his inaugural address, he blamed the Depression on “unscrupulous money changers.” He said nothing about the role of the Fed’s mismanagement and little about the follies of Congress that had contributed to the problem. *As a result of his efforts, the economy would linger in depression for the rest of the decade. *

In his first 100 days, he swung hard at the profit order. *Instead of clearing away the prosperity barriers erected by his predecessor, he built new ones of his own. He struck in every known way at the integrity of the U.S. dollar through quantitative increases and qualitative deterioration. He seized the people’s gold holdings and subsequently devalued the dollar by 40 percent."                          *Hans F. Sennholz, “The Great Depression,” The Freeman, April 1975, p. 210




The clear implication, one more hallmark of totalitarian doctrine, is that only by overarching, unlimited government could save common folk from the greedy rich.

And *keeping the public suffering, keeping the Depression going...was in the interests of his control.*

At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: *“Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” *http://www.freedomsite.net/93-549.htm



And, notice how Roosevelt did everything he could to see that Stalin's Soviet Communist regime survived and succeeded.


----------



## regent (Feb 25, 2016)

Chic, I have suggested a number of time that you get your facts to the nation's historians as soon as possible. The historians, even those that claim to be conservative, are still rating FDR as one of America's best presidents. When they see your facts they will have to immediately change their ratings of FDR.
I only wish I could see those historian's faces when they read your fact sheet about FDR. Convincing a few posters is a waste of time, they don't write history books, nor are their presidential ratings given much credence.
Do it now, Chic, or those historians will continue putting out history books praising FDR, and just as bad is how the people that lived through that era got their facts wrong.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

bullwinkle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.
> ...




 "For one, FDR and Stalin were NEVER friends, but the necessity of creating a second front was vital to gaining time to train and equip, to buildup in the British Isles and keep Hitler on the east side of the channel and off English soil."
You might want to take a look at post #92

And this:

 So....what, exactly, did Stalin want from American foreign policy? The call was for *an Anglo-American 'second front,' in Western Europe, to draw German forces away from their attack on mother Russia, the putative 'first front.'*

The astute should have noted that*the real 'first front' was Poland, which had been attacked in 1939 by both Hitler and Stalin.*
But, put that aside....


a. After Pearl Harbor, wasn't t*he South Pacific*a second front?


b. Ten thousand American and Filipino troops were killed, and 20,000 wounded, at*Bataan.*
How about a 'front' there?

c. How about*North Africa*?
In June, 1942, Rommel accepted surrender of the British, Tobruk, Libya. Rommel took more than 30,000 prisoners, 2,000 vehicles, 2,000 tons of fuel, and 5,000 tons of rations. Harry Hopkins and George Marshal 'vigorously opposed' any operation in North Africa, as it would delay the 'second front.'



Starting to get the picture?
The only "second front" that counted, according to Stalin and Roosevelt, was the one that Stalin named as the "second front."

Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


Yup!
'Russia Uber Alles'


Turns out you are dead wrong about FDR's relationship with Stalin.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

regent said:


> Chic, I have suggested a number of time that you get your facts to the nation's historians as soon as possible. The historians, even those that claim to be conservative, are still rating FDR as one of America's best presidents. When they see your facts they will have to immediately change their ratings of FDR.
> I only wish I could see those historian's faces when they read your fact sheet about FDR. Convincing a few posters is a waste of time, they don't write history books, nor are their presidential ratings given much credence.
> Do it now, Chic, or those historians will continue putting out history books praising FDR, and just as bad is how the people that lived through that era got their facts wrong.




You're a fool...but at least you recognize facts.


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

regent said:


> Chic, I have suggested a number of time that you get your facts to the nation's historians as soon as possible. The historians, even those that claim to be conservative, are still rating FDR as one of America's best presidents. When they see your facts they will have to immediately change their ratings of FDR.
> I only wish I could see those historian's faces when they read your fact sheet about FDR. Convincing a few posters is a waste of time, they don't write history books, nor are their presidential ratings given much credence.
> Do it now, Chic, or those historians will continue putting out history books praising FDR, and just as bad is how the people that lived through that era got their facts wrong.



PC has little interest in facts
She is interested in playing USMBs version of Ann Coulter and seeing how many liberals she can piss off

Watch me everybody.....FDR was a commie and the worst President in history
Wanna see my "facts"?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Chic, I have suggested a number of time that you get your facts to the nation's historians as soon as possible. The historians, even those that claim to be conservative, are still rating FDR as one of America's best presidents. When they see your facts they will have to immediately change their ratings of FDR.
> ...




"PC has little interest in facts."

Why don't you provide examples of my posts that are not facts....

...after all...you don't want folks to think you're a liar....do you?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Sorry .....but opinions do not qualify as facts
Neither do Conspiracy Theories


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I did not challenge the first portion of this thread by saying "Is no, is noootttt". Nor has that been the basis of any other challenge I have made. You are deflecting and evading by dishonestly inferring that I did not make specific and detailed challenges with objective, reliable and academic links.

You have been specifically challenged on your use of a method of calculating general unemployment figures that were not designed for general unemployment figures (Lebbergott) and your ignoring the method designed for calculating general unemployment figures (Darby). You also fail to explain the logic or reason for using these distorted numbers.

You have evaded answering why you refuse to include the Dust Bowl Storms that began shortly after FDR took office. Like other anti-New Dealers, you refuse to acknowledge the natural disasters that plagued the Roosevelt administration.

Those are just two of the debunkings or challenges you have evaded confronting. They happen to be some of the first claims made in your thread. Answer them and we can quickly move on to each one of your distorted claims.

People get tired of you demanding evidence that your claims of facts are wrong or disputed because you pull the same routine you have used for years. You evade and deflect and never acknowledge that you may be mistaken or wrong. Your response is always false bravado and the claim you are never wrong.


----------



## regent (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Chic, I have suggested a number of time that you get your facts to the nation's historians as soon as possible. The historians, even those that claim to be conservative, are still rating FDR as one of America's best presidents. When they see your facts they will have to immediately change their ratings of FDR.
> ...


Are historical facts similar to scientific facts?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Why don't you provide examples of my posts that are not facts....

...after all...you don't want folks to think you're a liar....do you?[


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




Why is it you are unable to find anything in my posts that isn't correct?

Why?


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Facts have been repeatedly provided and you act like a kid with her hand stuck in a cookie jar and deny, deny, deny.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

7. Well, one may say about Roosevelt's mistakes....such were the policies necessary to rescue America. 
Really?
To make that a successful argument it is necessary to point out how fruitful, how triumphant the policies were.

They were not. They multiplied the length of most American economic downturns by a factor of four or five.



This, for example....
Crisis gripped the banking system when the new president assumed office on March 4, 1933.* Roosevelt’s action to close the banks and declare a nationwide “banking holiday” *on March 6 (which did not completely end until nine days later) is still hailed as a decisive and necessary action by Roosevelt apologists..... 

The Smoot-Hawley tariff and the Fed’s unconscionable monetary mischief were primary culprits in producing *the conditions that gave Roosevelt his excuse to temporarily deprive depositors of their money, and the bank holiday did nothing to alter those fundamentals. 

Now get this:
“More than 5,000 banks still in operation when the holiday was declared did not reopen their doors when it ended, and of these, over 2,000 never did thereafter,”...                                                                                                                 * Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1963; 9th paperback printing by Princeton University Press, 1993), p.330



 “Almost all the failed banks were in states with 15 unit banking laws” — laws that prohibited banks from opening branches and thereby diversifying their portfolios and reducing their risks.

 “Although the United States, with its unit banking laws, had thousands of bank failures, Canada, which permitted branch banking, didn’t have a single failure.”
Jim Powell, FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, p. 32.


Canada didn't have FDR as President.

And, another Roosevelt policy....
 Strangely, critics of capitalism who love to blame the market for the Depression never mention that fact.....* Roosevelt also single-handedly torpedoed the London Economic Conference in 1933, which was convened at the request of other major nations to bring down tariff rates and restore the gold standard.*.. Roosevelt’s *rejection of it [the gold standard] *removed most of the remaining impediments to limitless currency and credit expansion.                 Great Myths of the Great Depression  | Lawrence W. Reed



I hope the Roosevelt-whiners recognize* the facts* above.


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic uses this distorted method of calculating unemployment. In fairness, many have used them unknowingly, because, until the figures were investigated by an economist named Darby, they were the figures generally accepted. It means that many of the quotes used by PC are derived from the faulty method. What is dishonest is that some insist on using the old distorted figures without acknowledging the newer more accurate figures. 

Here, again, is the difference between the two methods and why the method used by PC and her sources are obsolete and distorted.

fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/melter/maremp93.pdf


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


What did you say about my wife? Clarify yourself.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic uses this distorted method of calculating unemployment. In fairness, many have used them unknowingly, because, until the figures were investigated by an economist named Darby, they were the figures generally accepted. It means that many of the quotes used by PC are derived from the faulty method. What is dishonest is that some insist on using the old distorted figures without acknowledging the newer more accurate figures.
> 
> Here, again, is the difference between the two methods and why the method used by PC and her sources are obsolete and distorted.
> 
> fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/melter/maremp93.pdf





Where is any quote of mine you are disputing?????
Where???

See* the facts *in post #104?

*Facts,* you dope.

Wadda you say?


----------



## rightwinger (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Been there, done that...bought the T Shirt

Not about to stoop to reading one of your cut and paste diatribes


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





Now you're reduced to fake outrage?????

Here's the quote:
"Like he's protesting his wife's virtue....when her name is written on bathroom walls all over town."

It's you, pretending to defend the indefensible: Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his abject, total, unremitting failures.



But I will say this about your actual wife: she's long suffering.


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic uses this distorted method of calculating unemployment. In fairness, many have used them unknowingly, because, until the figures were investigated by an economist named Darby, they were the figures generally accepted. It means that many of the quotes used by PC are derived from the faulty method. What is dishonest is that some insist on using the old distorted figures without acknowledging the newer more accurate figures.
> ...


I told you to clarify your nasty insult to my wife lady. Clarify your crude statement and insult.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





Translation: you can find no way to dispute *the facts t*hat I post.

QED...Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his abject, total, unremitting failures.


I know....this post is too long, you didn't read it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




You know very well it was about Franklin Delano Roosevelt.


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Your facts have been accurately and fairly disputed and shown to be wrong with reliable explanation and links. 
You show yourself to be not only a dishonest liar but a slimy kind of creature that gets a sense of false bravado by insulting a person's wife. 
Backpeddle all you want, it is obvious who you were insulting. Don't worry, the mods will ignore your behavior. They favor right wing fanatics.


----------



## Syriusly (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> *That's a fact.*



Whenever PC says 'That's a fact'- I always check my pocket to see if my wallet is still there.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




"Your facts have been accurately and fairly disputed ..."

Not a one.

Else you'd have provided an example.

You're a liar, and you've been thoroughly thrashed.


Further...I never insulted your wife....that's your excuse.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *That's a fact.*
> ...




Well, then....find a fact that is in dispute.

Or....admit that I am never wrong.


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > When* the facts are revealed*, those who have been raised on hagiography, the "Roosevelt is God" groupies, don't try to deny the facts...the squeal like stuck pigs, they obfuscate, they attack the one revealing the facts.
> ...





PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



You simply do not address responses that show you are being dishonest or that your facts are wrong. This challenge was made in regards to the opening statement to this thread and it has still not been addressed. The claim was also made that the depression or downturn of 1920 was comparable to what FDR faced was disputed but like the opening statement is not addressed.

Additionally, you have failed to address your misuse of unemployment figures and respond to specific questions about why you use the Lebbergott method of calculating when the Darby method is the appropriate method to be used in the circumstances being discussed. You want to present an economic thesis but are unable or unwilling to address purely economic issues. 

Still hanging out there is your continued use of Chesly Manly as a reference source when you have repeatedly failed to explain who and what Manly was. Chesly Manly, the pen name for the isolationist libertarian that leaked and exposed American European war contingency plans two days before Pearl Harbor and whose article from the Chicago Tribune was used by Hitler in his Declaration of War against America.


----------



## Syriusly (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I admit that you are always wrong. 

And that pointing out facts to you is a waste of time.

So I will just point and laugh at your obsession with attacking FDR.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




I clearly marked *facts* throughout the thread, and you were given every opportunity to dispute any of them.

We both know why you couldn't: I am never wrong.

And you have been an excellent witness to that* fact.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




"And that pointing out facts to you is a waste of time."

A pretty flaccid excuse as to why you couldn't find a single one of my facts to dispute.

You, also, have proven an excellent witness proving my accuracy, and veracity.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Now, then....let's get back to the* facts.*

Many fail to recognize that *Roosevelt's contemporaries recognized his consubstantial affinities with fascists, Nazis, and communists.*...and that he was a wanna-be dictator.


8. ".... Roosevelt always had his critics, and they would grow more numerous as the years groaned on. One of them was the inimitable “Sage of Baltimore,” H.L. Mencken, who rhetorically threw everything but the kitchen sink at the president.

 Paul Johnson sums up Mencken this way:   Mencken excelled himself in *attacking the triumphant FDR, whose whiff of fraudulent collectivism filled him with genuine disgust.* He was *the “Fuhrer,”* the “Quack,” surrounded by “an astonishing rabble of impudent nobodies,” “a gang of half-educated pedagogues*, nonconstitutional lawyers,* starry-eyed uplifters and other such sorry wizards.” 
*
His New Deal was a “political racket,” a “series of stupendous bogus miracles,” with its “constant appeals to class envy and hatred,”* treating government as “a milk cow with 125 million teats” and marked by “frequent repudiations of categorical pledges.”
 Paul Johnson, A History of the American People (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p. 762.


Pretty good characterization of the little 'Fuhrer' and his New Deal collectivists, huh?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

9. The last half century has produced a chorus of academics proclaiming the wonders of Roosevlet*,....ignoring the facts*. But some are becoming brave enough to confront the Roosevelt acolytes......

a. In an insightful analysis, John A. Garraty *compared Roosevelt’s New Deal with aspects of the Third Reich: *a strong leader; an ideology stressing the nation, the people and the land; *state control of economic and social affairs*; and the quality and quantity of *government propaganda*.  
Garraty, “The New Deal,  National Socialism, and the Great Depression,” American Historical Review, vol. 78 (1973) p. 907ff.


Garraty reminds that to compare is not the same as to equate.

Yet, many still find Garraty’s analysis too hot to handle.

And probably, far too intuitive.


----------



## bullwinkle (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Now, then....let's get back to the* facts.*
> 
> Many fail to recognize that *Roosevelt's contemporaries recognized his consubstantial affinities with fascists, Nazis, and communists.*...and that he was a wanna-be dictator.
> 
> ...


Sounds more like somebody's opinion to me.  FACTS are actual events that happened, not some critic's opinion.  Mencken may have thrown the kitchen sink, but that doesn't make facts, that makes party politics.  Got any Father Coughlin quotes?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

*The facts* are plain: Franklin Roosevelt brought the totalitarian concept to the United States.

10. Comparisons of the* New Deal with totalitarian ideologies *were provided from all sides. A Republican senator described the NRA as having gone “*too far in the Russian direction,”* and a Democrat accused FDR of trying “*to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this country.”  *Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals,” p. 27.


a. Herbert Hoover: “We must fight again for a government founded on individual liberty and opportunity that was the American vision. If we lose *we will continue down this New Deal road to some sort of personal government based on collectivist theories. Under these ideas ours can become some sort of Fascist government.”
*

b. “*The similarities of the economics of the New Deal to the economics of Mussolini’s corporatist state or Hitler’s totalitarian state* are both close and obvious.” Norman Thomas, head of the American Socialist Party.


c. “Schivelbusch occasionally overreaches, as when he writes that Roosevelt once referred to Stalin and Mussolini as “his ‘blood brothers.’ ” (In fact, it seems clear in Schivelbusch’s source—Arthur Schlesinger’s _The Age of Roosevelt_—that FDR was saying communism and fascism were blood brothers to _each other_, not to _him_.) But overall, this is a formidable piece of scholarship.” Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt 
Note the quibble words 'it seems clear.'
Really??  To whom?




d. *Here's the money-quote*, from the Roosevelt administration:

Roosevelt’s Sec’y of the Interior, proclaimed: *“What we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany.” *Confirmed:Roosevelt Ended the Great Depression When He Died



These opinions from all sides, *citing Roosevelt as the totalitiarian* wanna-be that he was, are based on their observations of Roosevelt's actions.

He did not honor the Constitution, nor did he advance liberty and freedom.

Hence: Roosevelt Myths vs. *The Facts.*


----------



## Camp (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> *The facts* are plain: Franklin Roosevelt brought the totalitarian concept to the United States.
> 
> 10. Comparisons of the* New Deal with totalitarian ideologies *were provided from all sides. A Republican senator described the NRA as having gone “*too far in the Russian direction,”* and a Democrat accused FDR of trying “*to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this country.”  *Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals,” p. 27.
> 
> ...


Hence, another completely dishonest garbage thread where a liar endlessly distorts quotes to promote an anti-New Deal/FDR cut and paste disinformation campaign while refusing to respond to challenges about her imagined facts.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *The facts* are plain: Franklin Roosevelt brought the totalitarian concept to the United States.
> ...




Are you lying out of embarrassment...or because that's what you do?


----------



## bullwinkle (Feb 25, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> *The facts* are plain: Franklin Roosevelt brought the totalitarian concept to the United States.
> 
> 10. Comparisons of the* New Deal with totalitarian ideologies *were provided from all sides. A Republican senator described the NRA as having gone “*too far in the Russian direction,”* and a Democrat accused FDR of trying “*to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this country.”  *Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals,” p. 27.
> 
> ...


You have it backwards.  You are quoting the myths published by FDR critics and posting them as facts.  Schivelbusch?  Norman Thomas?  Herbert Hoover?  That's like Fox & Friends posting "facts" about Obama, as when they sighted the "terrorist fist-bump" he & Michelle exchanged early in his first term.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 25, 2016)

bullwinkle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *The facts* are plain: Franklin Roosevelt brought the totalitarian concept to the United States.
> ...




And....just to establish that, like so many Roosevelt groupies, you are talking through your hat.....have you read 
*"Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939,"*
by Wolfgang Schivelbusch?


No?

Case closed.


----------



## bullwinkle (Feb 26, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


The case is NOT closed, just your mind.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

bullwinkle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > bullwinkle said:
> ...





So....we find that after dismissing the scholar, Schivelbusch, out of hand,you never read *"Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939."

How usual...a Liberal with strong views based on zero knowledge.




It's not too late to change your avi to 'MoreHotAir.'

Although...there are probably lots of Liberals vying for the name.....



*


----------



## bullwinkle (Feb 26, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Yep!  I have to admit that I never heard of Schivelbusch, nor have I ever felt the urge to muse on the 'reflections' you choose to call facts.  

Lets end this, chic.  Neither of us gives a rat's rump what the other thinks, and I am at a disadvantage.  I can't match your vitriol against those who think differently.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

bullwinkle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > bullwinkle said:
> ...




1.  Your post: "Yep!  I have to admit that I never heard of Schivelbusch, nor have I ever felt the urge to muse on the 'reflections' you choose to call facts."

Yet, this was your earlier post:
"You have it backwards. You are quoting the myths published by FDR critics and posting them as facts. Schivelbusch? Norman Thomas? Herbert Hoover? That's like Fox & Friends posting "facts" about Obama, as when they sighted the "terrorist fist-bump" he & Michelle exchanged early in his first term.



So....as I just proved....you are in danger of the same fate as befell the Hindenburg...and for the very same reasons.


2. The facts I post are linked to the words of experts, and scholars....and we have just seen what your opinions are.

3. "I can't match your vitriol against those who think differently."
Let's make that more accurate: I certainly hope to evince vitriol against those political views that aim to both deprive people of liberty, and have no problem with slaughtering innocents.
They include the shameful six:
Communism, socialism, Liberalism, Fascism, Progressivism, and Nazism.

You're dismissed.


----------



## regent (Feb 26, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


It doesn't take long to get on to Chic's facts. She blends a fact in with opinions and most can see what's coming; an entire debate trying to separate fact from opinion, resulting in a total waste of time.


----------



## Syriusly (Feb 26, 2016)

bullwinkle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > bullwinkle said:
> ...



No one can match PC's batshit craziness.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

regent said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Oh, my....another 'I hate you' post from an inconsequential dunce who can't find any specific to dispute.

Earthshaking.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



And yet....another 'I hate you' post from an inconsequential dunce who can't find any specific to dispute.
The profanity really makes it meaningful.

What a bore.


----------



## Camp (Feb 26, 2016)

bullwinkle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > bullwinkle said:
> ...


PC is distorting Shivebush. He compared, but he did not equate the way the anti-FDR people like PC does. While he compares, he also points out the differences. PC's cherry picking only the comparisons is a good example of how she and those she tries to mimic distort.
The book is actually made available for online reading from The FDR Library.
Here is a two-page review;

articles.latimes.com/2006/oct/29/books/bk-wiener29


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

Camp said:


> bullwinkle said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Nice try...at being relevant.

I read the book, you didn't.

Second....I am always 100% accurate.
That can be seen by anyone who notices that you were afraid to actually quote anything I said that you could claim "distorted Schivelbusch"

BTW...you spelled it "Shivebush."
I got a kick out of that.



Here is what I posted:

c. “Schivelbusch occasionally overreaches, as when he writes that Roosevelt once referred to Stalin and Mussolini as “his ‘blood brothers.’ ” (In fact, it seems clear in Schivelbusch’s source—Arthur Schlesinger’s_The Age of Roosevelt_—that FDR was saying communism and fascism were blood brothers to_each other_, not to_him_.) But overall, this is a formidable piece of scholarship.”Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt

Note the quibble words 'it seems clear.'
Really??
 To whom?"


I gave a quote, and the link to the Cato article, and their suggestion: ".... it seems clear in Schivelbusch’s source—Arthur Schlesinger’s_The Age of Roosevelt_—that FDR was saying communism and fascism were blood brothers to_each other_, not to_him_.)"

AND....noted my disagreement, that it was more 'clear' to me that Stalin and Mussolini were Roosevelt's  ‘blood brothers.’


After all....Roosevelt copied, wholesale, Mussolini's fascist economic plans.....made clear in Schivelbusch's tome....

....and the numerous bows that Roosevelt made to Stalin, militarily, economically, politically, and even socially.


Revealing you to be a lying dunce has become sort of a parlor game for me....
...and an eminently simple one....like you, simple.....at that.


----------



## Camp (Feb 26, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > bullwinkle said:
> ...


I had no problem giving a suggestion on where to find and read the book online and a direct link to a review. Let readers determine for themselves if you have indeed distorted Shivelbush's work.  Why are you so upset that interested persons can validate my critique of your distortions with data I provided. The two-page quick read review pretty much proves that you have distorted the author's original intent and thesis in my opinion.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




" Let readers determine for themselves if you have indeed distorted Shivelbush's work."

WHAT????

You want me to rub your face in it again????

No prob!

Let's prove, again, how right I am!!!


English and French commentators* routinely depicted Roosevelt as akin to Mussolini.* A more specific reason why, in 1933,* the New Deal was often compared with Fascism* was that with the help of a massive propaganda campaign, Italy had transitioned from a liberal free-market system to a state-run corporatist one. And corporatism was considered by elitists and intellectuals as the perfect response to the collapse of the liberal free-market economy, as was the national self-sufficiency of the Stalinist Soviet Union. The National Recovery Administration was comparable to Mussolini’s corporatism as both had state control without actual expropriation of private property. 
*"Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939," chapter one,  *
*by Wolfgang Schivelbusch *
Mussolini wrote a book review of Roosevelt’s “Looking Forward,” in which he said “…[as] Roosevelt here calls his readers to battle, is reminiscent of the ways and means by which Fascism awakened the Italian people.” Popolo d’Italia, July 7, 1933.
In 1934, Mussolini wrote a review of “New Frontiers,” by FDR’s Sec’y of Agriculture, later Vice-President, Henry Wallace: “Wallace’s answer to what America wants is as follows: anything but a return tyo the free-market, i.e., anarchistic economy. Where is America headed? This book leaves no doubt that it is on the road to corporatism, the economic system of the current century.”                                                                  Marco Sedda, Il politico, vol. 64, p. 263.

*Comparisons of the New Deal with totalitarian ideologies* were provided from all sides. A Republican senator described the NRA as having gone “too far in the Russian direction,” and a Democrat accused FDR of trying “to transplant Hitlerism to every corner of this country.” Schivelbusch, “Three New Deals,” p. 27.



Franklin Roosevelt....bringing Fascism to America!
Question...
If you defend FDR.....are you a Fascist???
'Fess up!



I love doing this!

Come back soon for another beating!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

Waldo Frank’s analysis in 1934: 
*"The NRA is the beginning of American Fascism.* But unlike Italy and Germany, democratic parliamentarianism has for generations been strong in the Anglo-Saxon world; it is a tribal institution. Therefore, a Fascism that disposes of it, rather than
sharpens and exploits it, is not to be expected in North America or Britain. *Fascism may be so gradual in the United Statesthat most voters will not be aware of its existence. The trueFascist leaders will not be present imitators of German Fuhrerand Italian condottieri, prancing in silver shirts. They will bejudicious, black-frocked gentlemen; graduates of the best universities; disciples of Nicholas Murray Butler and WalterLippmann."*
http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-facism/page/7/0


1934....who was the dictator...er, President in 1934???


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

Hey....Cramp.....where did you go???

Here's another quote that figured prominently in a post of mine...


"d.*Here's the money-quote*, from the Roosevelt administration itslf:

Roosevelt’s Sec’y of the Interior, Harold Ickes, proclaimed:*“What we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany.”                                              *Confirmed:Roosevelt Ended the Great Depression… When He Died"


How come you left this one out, too????


So far we have the 'four tops'.....*Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini!!!!*


I'm beltin' 'em out of the park!!!!!


----------



## regent (Feb 26, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hey....Cramp.....where did you go???
> 
> Here's another quote that figured prominently in a post of mine...
> 
> ...


So what's the implication of the Ickes quote?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hey....Cramp.....where did you go???
> ...





The members of the quartet are *Roosevelt, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini!!!!


If you are happy with the fact, I'm happy to reveal it.
*


----------



## Camp (Feb 26, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hey....Cramp.....where did you go???
> 
> Here's another quote that figured prominently in a post of mine...
> 
> ...


Looks like you are debating yourself. Nations affected by the Great Depression after the American market crash of 1929 and its impact into the 1930's looked at all the efforts made by different nations to reform and reinforce their economies that were totally dependent on free market capitalism and suffered for being so dependent on that free market capitalism. That led to the adoption of socialist-like policies and programs at various levels of governance and at various degrees of blending into the wished for better controlled and regulated free market capitalism. Germany and Italy turned into totalitarian nightmares and got trampled into the dungheap of losers in history while the USA under FDR turned into the strongest economy with the most powerful military in history. FDR knew which programs to keep and which ones to throw away while he kept the populace secure as possible and preserved democracy. America under the guidance of FDR won both against the depression and WWll. Italy and Germany, not so much. Stalin stayed in the game, but at the expense of tens of millions of USSR citizens. These facts are the ones that are real, not that dopey conspiracy theory crap you push while you to try and revise history.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hey....Cramp.....where did you go???
> ...




question: Why did other nations recover from the depression quicker than the United States?

answer: Franklin Roosevelt.


----------



## regent (Feb 26, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


So is that what Ickes meant or is that your interpretation of what Ickes meant?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 26, 2016)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Let's see if I can help you navigate through your personal fog, to reality.

Here's the statement:
Roosevelt’s Sec’y of the Interior, Harold Ickes, proclaimed:*“What we are doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany.” *Confirmed:Roosevelt Ended the Great Depression… When He Died"


Here's the hermeneutic key:
"Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" ("The community comes before the individual") concretizes the collectivist belief that individuals have no rights and that "the greater good" is the only standard of value. Under such a system, man is not an end to himself, only a tool to be sacrificed for the Führer, autocrat or ruling mob.

Only capitalism regards man as a sovereign individual with an inalienable right to his own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Government recognition and protection of individual rights is the hallmark of a moral, peaceful, productive society.
Sipsey Street Irregulars: The lie before the crime.  "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" ("The community comes before the individual")


D'you figure it out yet?


----------



## Camp (Feb 26, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


It was the American stock market crash that caused the global depression. The other countries were only affected in as much as they were tied to the Amerian economy. Additionally, those countries did not have to deal with devastating Dust Bowl Storms repeatedly during the 1930's.
No doubt you have numerous post of cut and paste nonsense ready to post which will put the blame squarely on the Devils disciple FDR, but sometimes the correct answer is the logical and easy to understand one.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



This was the query...
Why did other nations recover from the depression quicker than the United States?


Why are you avoiding it, Cramp?


----------



## Camp (Feb 27, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I responded 8 minutes after you posted your question. You re-posted it in your post this morning. It is re-quoted in this post.  Now start posting your dopey cut and paste nonsense to demonize FDR as you attempt to annihilate my simple to understand responding post. Be sure to include some name calling and lame meaningless insults to cover the distraction from the irrelevance of your post.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Feb 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hey....Cramp.....where did you go???
> ...



Germany has already begun to adopt New Deal type programs such as Old Age insurance....in 1889.

Lot of good that did them.  They knew which programs to keep....?????


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



1. Remember how I destroyed your attempt to claim I 'distorted' Schivelbusch?
And you couldn't even spell his name correctly?
Gads, that was fun.

2. Now...I asked "Why did other nations recover from the depression quicker than the United States?"

And you're trying to tap-dance your way out.


Why is that?



Don't you want to unburden yourself, and admit that Roosevelt was an unmitigated failure in domestic policy....just as Obama is???

The truth will set you free.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 27, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yep.

The intellectual descendants of those who worshipped Bismarck’s Prussia or Mussolini’s Ministry of Corporations, namely the New Dealers…latched on to the lodestar of 'enlightened economic policy'….in a quest for the holy grail of government-business ‘collaboration.’

It's corporatism, crony capitalism, and collectivism.

Turns out that 'spreading the wealth' is the recipe for failure.


----------



## Camp (Feb 27, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


It was not worshipping. It was intellectual experimentation and a search for pragmatic solutions. It is easy to look back and bloviate about how if some other policies or programs were used things would have turned out better. The trouble is that that is nothing more than self-aggrandizing speculative opinionating with no attempt to outline what policies and programs, efforts and plans would have done better or resolved the problems of the day. 
FDR came into office with the worst economy in American history. So bad it saw stock brokers diving out of high rise Wall Street building and masses of citizens completely dependent on soup kitchens. While this was happening the Axis nations were building huge technologically advanced militaries that threatened the very survival of America. 
In 12 years FDR managed to end the depression and beat America's enemies, in large part by his insightful support of developing advanced weapons that including advanced aircraft carriers and aircraft. From the atom bomb to the Garand infantry rifle, FDR guided the development of the weapons that shortened the war, reduced American casualties and brought victory against both Germany and Japan, resulting in America becoming the richest and most powerful nation in world history. But of course, there are those today that claim they could have done a better job, they just can explain how.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...




"FDR came into office with the worst economy in American history."

Really?

Or....did he make it the worst?


1.* "America’s greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding.* An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed Woodrow Wilson who got America into World War I, ..*.Harding inherited the mess, in particular the post-World War I depression – almost as severe, from peak to trough, as the Great Contraction from 1929 to 1933, that FDR inherited and prolonged.* 

2. Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, in their book Out of Work (1993), noted that *the magnitude of the 1920 depression "exceeded that for the Great Depression of the following decade for several quarters."* The estimated gross national product plunged 24% from $91.5 billion in 1920 to $69.6 billion in 1921. The number of unemployed people jumped from 2.1 million in 1920 to 4.9 million in 1921.

3. Compared to FDR, Harding had a much better understanding of how an economy works. Harding, wrote historian Robert K. Murray, in The Harding Era (1969), "always decried high taxes, government waste, and excessive governmental interference in the private sector of the economy. In February 1920, shortly after announcing his candidacy, he advocated* a cut in government expenditures and stated that government ought to ‘strike the shackles from industry.’ ‘We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation,’* he said. Surprisingly, big business took very little notice of him at the time."

4. With Harding’s tax cuts, spending cuts and relatively non-interventionist economic policy, the gross national product rebounded to $74.1 billion in 1922. *The number of unemployed fell to 2.8 million – a reported 6.7% of the labor force – in 1922. So, just a year and a half after Harding became president, the Roaring 20s were underway! The unemployment rate continued to decline, reaching a low of 1.8% in 1926 –* an extraordinary feat. Since then, the unemployment rate has been lower only once in wartime (1944), and never in peacetime."
America’s Greatest Depression*Fighter by Jim Powell

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim4.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226645/not-so-great-depression/jim-powell



So...I must ask again....and demand an answer:
Are you a fool or a liar????


Speak up!


----------



## Camp (Feb 27, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I answered your question. You are just doing your usual routine of deflecting away from an answer and reverting to changing the subject by posting a new list of cut and paste distortions. The proper response from  you should be to challenge my response in an academic fashion. 
I made two points about why some countries recovered from the depression quicker than America. The first was to point out that America was ground zero because the depression began with the market crash of 1929 in America and hence would have varying degrees of impact on other nations. The second point was the impact of the Dust Bowl storms that crippled vast regions of America beginning in 1934 and lasting until 1940, causing massive agriculture losses and unemployment each time one hit. 
You have evaded addressing the answers I provided to your questions.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 27, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



1. You couldn't deny that other nations recovered more swiftly than the United States.
2. You tried to blame everything but the obvious.....the megalomaniac President, Franklin Roosevelt.

You're a fraud.....and I do enjoy exposing you as such.


----------



## Camp (Feb 27, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Good example of how you distort. The question was whether FDR inherited the greatest depression and economy in American history. You actually admit the comment is true in #1 of your post. The way you distort is to change the subject by making the discussion about who was the best at handling a depression. You are able to prove with facts that Harding successfully handled the depression after WWl, which of course has nothing to do with FDR inheriting the Great Depression.


----------



## Camp (Feb 27, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Of course, the European nations seemed to recover quicker. The also became weak and ignored preparing for WWII or building their infrastructure the way FDR did in America. Europe chose a quick but weak recovery even though the depression had a lesser impact in many ways. America chose a slower recovery, but one that created strength and durability. 
You still are not responding with anything other than opinions and have yet to address the Dust Bowl influence which Europe did not have to contend with. Would Europe have recovered the way it did if it had had devasting storms that destroyed vast regions of the continent for six years? Would the destruction of agriculture regions the sizes of entire countries have slowed down their recovery?

Imagine this happening in Europe while in the middle of recovering from the Great Depression. Right wingers hate to hear about the Dust Bowl Storms. They make believe they never existed.
www.history.com/topics/dust-bowl


----------



## Camp (Feb 27, 2016)

library.uoregon.edu/ec/wguthrie/dustbowl.html

www.thegreatdepressioncauses.com/dust-bowl/

drought.unl.edu/DroughtBasics/DustBowl/EconomicsoftheDustBowl.aspx

Three more links of University academic level to support the facts and impacts of the Dust Bowl storms in the Great Depression.


----------



## regent (Feb 27, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Well you did remind me of H.L. Menken writing about Harding calling Harding the bloviator. Menken also included a line from a Harding speech, and it would be rude not to include it in any mention of Harding and Menken:

"I would like government to do all it can to mitigate, then, in understanding, in mutuality of interest, in concern for the common good, our tasks will be solved."   
I wonder where historians rate Harding?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Feb 27, 2016)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



Who cares ?

Harding was very popular while he was president.

It was the scandals of his administration that have cost him in history.


----------



## Socratesrevenge (Feb 27, 2016)

The very first fireside chat by Roosevelt, stated, 'this is what the bankers are doing to fix it'.


----------



## regent (Feb 27, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


States were responsible for relief but they could no longer afford it, so the national government stepped in feeding people. But FDR wanted people to work so programs were started WPA, PWA, CCC and so forth so that people earned their money. Highways, airports, post offices, parks, schools, dams and TVA were built but the people had to work for their money. Kids no longer went through garbage dumps looking for food as they had before FDR. No wonder the people voted for FDR four times in a row and might still be voting for him--but he died.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2016)

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



FDR loved keeping people dependent on government for their survival. People who voted for him were terrified that he would starve them to death like his mentor Uncle Joe killed the Kulaks


----------



## Camp (Feb 28, 2016)

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



New Deal accomplishments are benefiting us to this very day and will continue to do so far into the future. Thousands of examples like the one I am providing links to in this post are scattered across the nation in every state. Infrastructure created, built and paid for over 75 years ago. The legacy of FDR is not a myth.

Here is a theater that still serves the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama. When it was built it provided jobs for the unemployed. It continues to provide jobs for Tuscaloosa today.

livingnewdeal.org/projects/bama

The project and how it serves today

bamatheatre.org/history.php


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2016)

Socratesrevenge said:


> The very first fireside chat by Roosevelt, stated, 'this is what the bankers are doing to fix it'.



...and then FDR made the Depression last his entire first 2 terms, only saved by the start of WWII


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 28, 2016)

Camp said:


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



Sounds like Obama's Failed Shovel-Ready Stimulus


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 28, 2016)

regent said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





One can be a bloviator and still be far more successful in domestic policy than a fraud and dictator-wanna be who was elected four time.

The evidence is clear: even you have to admit that solving the recession/Depression in 1-2 years is far, far better than extending it a decade.


Do you need 'decade' defined?


After you look up that definition....look up "Roaring Twenties."


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 28, 2016)

Socratesrevenge said:


> The very first fireside chat by Roosevelt, stated, 'this is what the bankers are doing to fix it'.




Welcome to the board, Soc....

I would appreciate it if you could articulate your position, view, understanding of the era.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 28, 2016)

regent said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Now for your education....

Is it possible that a politician could care so little for this nation that he would shred the national character to accrue power???

Introducing Franklin Roosevelt.
He nationalized charity, welfare....giving us the cottage industry we have today.

*1. But wait, you say....the Depression was exceptional! Some the million unemployed??? How would they survive? "[Hoover] was heartened by the work of private charities in handling the overwhelming number....As of the fall of 1931, and into 1932, Americans raised over $100 million for charity..." *
*"Federal Aid for Relief (Columbia University Studies in the Social Sciences), "by Edward A. Williams, p. 33.*


2. From the earliest times following the inception of the United States *charity was a local function: civic leaders, clergy, and private citizens carefully considered the legitimacy of people's needs.* Such was the tradition: the face-to-face benefitted both the receiver and the giver. It discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic. 
"A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada,"by Mark A. Noll

a. The Founders saw charity as local and as voluntary,* nor did the Constitution provide a roll for the federal government.*


3. “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity."
 James Madison, Federalist #10

a. *Madison was warning that if relief were to become a federal function, politicians and deadbeats would trade votes for food stamps.*

b. "Living Constitution" judges feel that they can rewrite, or substitute their views for the Founders because they are so much wiser.....read the above and consider that view.

4. For a lesson in handling such attempts, consider "Texas Seed Bill" (February 16, 1887) ... Members of Congress wanted to help suffering farmers in the American West, but Cleveland rejected their bill, citing the limited mission of the general government and arguing that private charity and already-existing government programs should furnish the necessary aid..... the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people." Veto of the Texas Seed Bill
"After vetoing the bill, he encouraged newspapers to carry the story.  This may shock some of you, butover $100,000 in private donationsflowed in to the farmers of West Texas. " Texas Seed Bill, Chris Christie is No Cleveland


5. Oh...and Roosevelt?

 Economist Jim Powell, in “FDR’s Folly,” notes that* a disproportionate amount of FDR’s relief and public works spending “went not to the poorest states such as the South, but to western states were people were better off , apparently  because there were ‘swing’ states which could yield FDR more votes in the next election.”

That basis for charity and welfare continues to this day!*


----------



## Camp (Feb 28, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


The end result to the Roaring Twenties and the economic policies of that era of unregulated profiteering was the market crash of 1929 that caused the Great Depression.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 28, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




The recession was caused by Smoot-Hawley.
The Depression was caused by Roosevelt, who knew exactly how to end it....he learned that from Harding.....but simply continued to do what Hoover did, to make certain that the downturn continued.

"When it was all over, I once made a list of New Deal ventures begun during Hoover’s years as Secretary of Commerce and then as president. . . . The New Deal owed much to what he had begun."—FDR advisor Rexford G. Tugwell

"When we all burst into Washington . . . we found every essential idea [of the New Deal] enacted in the 100-day Congress in the Hoover administration itself. The essentials of the NRA [National Recovery Administration], the PWA [Public Works Administration], the emergency relief setup were all there. Even the AAA [Agricultural Adjustment Act] was known to the Department of Agriculture. Only the TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority] and the Securities Act was [sic] drawn from other sources. The RFC [Reconstruction Finance Corporation], probably the greatest recovery agency, was of course a Hoover measure, passed long before the inauguration."  FDR advisor Rexford G. Tugwell

"Decades later, Tugwell, writing to Moley, said of Hoover: “[W]e were too hard on a man who really invented most of the devices we used.”16 Members of Roosevelt’s inner circle would have every reason to disassociate themselves from the policies of their predecessor; yet these two men recognized Hoover’s role as the father of the New Deal quite clearly."
Hoover's Economic Policies: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty




Now.....why would FDR have wanted the crisis to continue???


Hint: Rahm Emanuel


----------



## Socratesrevenge (Feb 28, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Socratesrevenge said:
> 
> 
> > The very first fireside chat by Roosevelt, stated, 'this is what the bankers are doing to fix it'.
> ...



FDR was just another politician who worked for the babylonian banksters at the expense of the people, albeit he was a bankster himself.  FDR was the worst potus, even worse than Woodrow Wilson.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 28, 2016)

Socratesrevenge said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Socratesrevenge said:
> ...





Well...I'll go part way with you.

But his heart...if he had one...was with the totalitarian dictators Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin....
...certainly not with the bankers or businessmen.


He was certainly a detriment to the America of the Founders.


----------



## regent (Mar 1, 2016)

Just can't seem to do much with FDR's number one ranking in history eh? The framers based our Constitution on the liberalism of their age, and FDR followed suit with more liberalism in his age of the Great Depression. A future president will probably add 50cc of more liberalism when conditions demand. It is the nature of progress.


----------



## Camp (Mar 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> The recession was caused by Smoot-Hawley.
> The Depression was caused by Roosevelt, who knew exactly how to end it....he learned that from Harding.....but simply continued to do what Hoover did, to make certain that the downturn continued.



The distortion and misinformation now being promoted by the OP are that the Great Depression did not begin with the market crash of 1929. The new revisionism is now that the crash only caused a "recession". Look at any history of the Great Depression and you will see the 1929 market crash and the high unemployment rate that followed as the beginning of the Depression. Up to a fourth of the population were unemployed by the time FDR came into office in 1933. Harding had predicted the economy would improve within a few months in January of 1931. A month later food riots began as the population saw no improvement.

Harding didn't have just a downturn. He had an economic crash and failed to fix it in four years. He had neither the courage or political skills to make his experimental programs have significant impacts on the economy. It took Roosevelt to take the reigns of control to begin lowering the unemployment rolls, which he began immediately.

This link shows a timeline for the Great Depression. More documentary than academic, but it can be skimmed though to confirm dates.
pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/rails-timeline

A short documentary and article that confirms dates.
history.com/topics/great-depression

Amazing that a revisionist and conspiracy theorist would go so far as to change the dates and causes of such a well known and studied historical event, but without doing so the revisionist hasn't much to build the hateful misinformation and rhetoric on.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 2, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The recession was caused by Smoot-Hawley.
> ...







"Harding didn't have just a downturn. He had an economic crash and failed to fix it in four years."


As a novel approach....how about you stick to the truth?


"....* just a year and a half after Harding became president, the Roaring 20s were underway! *The unemployment rate continued to decline, reaching a low of 1.8% in 1926 – an extraordinary feat. Since then, the unemployment rate has been lower only once in wartime (1944), and never in peacetime.
*Harding had the depression of 1920 licked in a year and a half, *but under the "progressive" FDR, the Great Depression would persisted throughout the 1930s, until FDR began conscripting millions of young men for the armed forces."
America’s Greatest Depression*Fighter by Jim Powell
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim4.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226645/not-so-great-depression/jim-powell


----------



## Camp (Mar 2, 2016)

PoliticalChic said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Correct, I named Harding instead of Hoover, but that doesn't change the revisionist rhetoric of implying Roosevelt inherited the depression and not a recession. Obviously, over a decade and two Presidents separated Harding and FDR.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 2, 2016)

Camp said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





" the revisionist rhetoric of implying Roosevelt inherited the depression and not a recession."

Calm down.

You've got this one backwards, too.

If anything...I'd say Roosevelt inherited a recession and made it into a Depression.Haven't I posted that several times????


Facts:
1. Roosevelt ran on a platform of reversing Hoover's policies and programs.
2.  He broke his promise to the people...and doubled down on Hoovers' programs.

3. Having seen Harding's success....he knew how to end the downturn...yet he did no such thing.
4. Ineluctable conclusion: he wanted the economic scourge to continue. Why? So he could eviscerate the Constitution, and end the America of our Founders.
And he did.


----------

