Thank you FDR

[gipper]

Some Americans that were for removing Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the coastal areas were Secretary of War. Stimson; Earl Warren, governor of California and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy; General DeWitt head of the Western Defense Command; Daughters and Sons of the Golden West, Mayor of San Francisco, Portland City Council; Governor of Colorado, and many citizens.
Fear was the great motivator and politicians use fear for their own ends.
Today, we fear Muslims, among other fears, and there is the rumor that Obama is not a citizen and is a Muslim and Muslims have training camps on American soil ready to make war. No politician of note would allow those fears to be spread today, nor would any American citizen believe them, right?

Is this an effort to justify FDR's actions?

 

[Camp]

FDR didn't do dick to lower the unemployment, thank your other Fascist Hitler for that

FDR did NOTHING to lower unemployment

Another way to put it, is FDR's policies RESULTED in high unemployment. Much like Obama has done, FDR's constant interventions into the world's most powerful and efficient economy, caused terrible joblessness. But again, the truth is not taught...lies are taught.

You can not back your nonsense up. You are just using agenda driven political commentary instead of academic sources. You don't want to admit that government intervention can resolve economic crisis by lowering unemployment.

FDR created systems that allowed for loans to be made to the individual states who in turn built infrastructure. The loans were secured by using US gold reserves as collateral, an idea that was criticized and objected to by his opponents. It was viewed as gambling with the nations "life savings". In the end, all of the states were able to pay the federal government back for the loans.
Between the fed jobs and the jobs created by loaning funds to the states for projects, large numbers of workers were able to earn incomes and feed the economy. That lifted the economy for private industry as workers spent the pay checks. The difference between our recent stimulus and the New Deal programs is that during the FDR days the funds were tightly and strictly administered into shovel ready infrastructure jobs and not used to prop up failing state and local governments.

The issue of the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal gained renewed attention with the recent crisis and proposals for stimulus packages. Great effort and expense were dedicated to misleading the public about the success of the New Deal and what have been perceived as socialist programs being allowed to compete with capitalist private interest.

And all that worked so well that it required a world war to reduce unemployment. How does one become so blind?

How does one become so ignorant as to make such a post after being given so much data to prove your contention is bullshit. You have been given data accepted by the harshest and most critical opponents of FDR and the New Deal, the unemployment numbers calculated by the Lebergott method that included workers in public projects as unemployed and it still shows a decrease of 10% in the unemployment figures. Yet here you are insisting there was no reduction in unemployment until WWII based on nothing more than you comment. Just a lie you refuse to stop telling.

So, is it your position that unemployment was not a problem prior to WWII?

What was the "real" unemployment figure in 1940?

Of course unemployment was a problem prior to WWII. It was big problem. And not just in this country. The Great Depression was a global catastrophe that gave rise to Fascist Italy and Germany.

I agree that the depression in the US did not finally end until WWII and the production of war materials. I am not and have not contended that FDR resolved the unemployment problem in the period between his taking office and the beginning of WWII. My contention has always been that the New Deal programs reduced the overall unemployment and made life more comfortable if not at least more bearable at the lowest ends of the economy while they fulfilled a dual purpose of preparing the nations industries and work force for the coming war.

Real unemployment in 1940 is easy a assess. Depending on the method of calculating it stood at 14.6 or 9.5. Using that method the figure went as low as 14.3% in 1937. That is by the Lebergott method of calculating. When the Darby method is used the number is 9.5%.

Let me explain the difference in the methods again, even though I have provided a link at least three times on the thread
Let us assume you live in a town with 100 workers. Only 80 of them can find work. Hence the unemployment figure in your town is 20% using both the Lebergott and Darby methods of calculating. Now let us assume that the government has offered to build a system of bicycle paths throughout your town and the surrounding area. They agree to pay all the cost for both labor and material. When the project begins 10 workers are hired to do the work. They are all hired from the local community and from that original 100 available workers number. The Lebergott method will continue to show a 20% unemployment figure because the 10 workers hired to build the bicycle paths are still not in the private business work force. They are supported by government checks. Lebergott is designed to show how many workers are employed and sustained by private business and industry. The Darby method will show the unemployment reduced by 10%, hence the unemployment figure is not 20%, but instead 10%. Darby is not concerned who the employer is. Darby is only concerned about the worker receiving a pay check for employment.

 

[regent]

Some Americans that were for removing Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the coastal areas were Secretary of War. Stimson; Earl Warren, governor of California and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy; General DeWitt head of the Western Defense Command; Daughters and Sons of the Golden West, Mayor of San Francisco, Portland City Council; Governor of Colorado, and many citizens.
Fear was the great motivator and politicians use fear for their own ends.
Today, we fear Muslims, among other fears, and there is the rumor that Obama is not a citizen and is a Muslim and Muslims have training camps on American soil ready to make war. No politician of note would allow those fears to be spread today, nor would any American citizen believe them, right?

Is this an effort to justify FDR's actions?

This is in response to the pressure put on FDR to make the coastal areas safe. It is also a suggestion that fear can produce some different types of behavior. The movie "1941" was built around the almost panic behavior, fear caused after Pearl Harbor. Many mistakes are made when fear abounds, even to a change of government, and many politicians use fear for their own ends. Are most political campaigns based on an element of fear.
Of course, when the fear has been gone for seventy years, people can look back wondering why the stupid behavior.

 

[gipper]

Some Americans that were for removing Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the coastal areas were Secretary of War. Stimson; Earl Warren, governor of California and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy; General DeWitt head of the Western Defense Command; Daughters and Sons of the Golden West, Mayor of San Francisco, Portland City Council; Governor of Colorado, and many citizens.
Fear was the great motivator and politicians use fear for their own ends.
Today, we fear Muslims, among other fears, and there is the rumor that Obama is not a citizen and is a Muslim and Muslims have training camps on American soil ready to make war. No politician of note would allow those fears to be spread today, nor would any American citizen believe them, right?

Is this an effort to justify FDR's actions?

This is in response to the pressure put on FDR to make the coastal areas safe. It is also a suggestion that fear can produce some different types of behavior. The movie "1941" was built around the almost panic behavior, fear caused after Pearl Harbor. Many mistakes are made when fear abounds, even to a change of government, and many politicians use fear for their own ends. Are most political campaigns based on an element of fear.
Of course, when the fear has been gone for seventy years, people can look back wondering why the stupid behavior.

So, it does justify FDR's tyrannical and racist actions.

Either we require the political class to abide by the Constitution, or we will abide by the whims of the political class. What FDR did was terribly wrong and he desires much criticism for it....but your beloved statists historians won't criticize him.

 

[gipper]

Another way to put it, is FDR's policies RESULTED in high unemployment. Much like Obama has done, FDR's constant interventions into the world's most powerful and efficient economy, caused terrible joblessness. But again, the truth is not taught...lies are taught.

You can not back your nonsense up. You are just using agenda driven political commentary instead of academic sources. You don't want to admit that government intervention can resolve economic crisis by lowering unemployment.

FDR created systems that allowed for loans to be made to the individual states who in turn built infrastructure. The loans were secured by using US gold reserves as collateral, an idea that was criticized and objected to by his opponents. It was viewed as gambling with the nations "life savings". In the end, all of the states were able to pay the federal government back for the loans.
Between the fed jobs and the jobs created by loaning funds to the states for projects, large numbers of workers were able to earn incomes and feed the economy. That lifted the economy for private industry as workers spent the pay checks. The difference between our recent stimulus and the New Deal programs is that during the FDR days the funds were tightly and strictly administered into shovel ready infrastructure jobs and not used to prop up failing state and local governments.

The issue of the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal gained renewed attention with the recent crisis and proposals for stimulus packages. Great effort and expense were dedicated to misleading the public about the success of the New Deal and what have been perceived as socialist programs being allowed to compete with capitalist private interest.

And all that worked so well that it required a world war to reduce unemployment. How does one become so blind?

How does one become so ignorant as to make such a post after being given so much data to prove your contention is bullshit. You have been given data accepted by the harshest and most critical opponents of FDR and the New Deal, the unemployment numbers calculated by the Lebergott method that included workers in public projects as unemployed and it still shows a decrease of 10% in the unemployment figures. Yet here you are insisting there was no reduction in unemployment until WWII based on nothing more than you comment. Just a lie you refuse to stop telling.

So, is it your position that unemployment was not a problem prior to WWII?

What was the "real" unemployment figure in 1940?

Of course unemployment was a problem prior to WWII. It was big problem. And not just in this country. The Great Depression was a global catastrophe that gave rise to Fascist Italy and Germany.

I agree that the depression in the US did not finally end until WWII and the production of war materials. I am not and have not contended that FDR resolved the unemployment problem in the period between his taking office and the beginning of WWII. My contention has always been that the New Deal programs reduced the overall unemployment and made life more comfortable if not at least more bearable at the lowest ends of the economy while they fulfilled a dual purpose of preparing the nations industries and work force for the coming war.

Real unemployment in 1940 is easy a assess. Depending on the method of calculating it stood at 14.6 or 9.5. Using that method the figure went as low as 14.3% in 1937. That is by the Lebergott method of calculating. When the Darby method is used the number is 9.5%.

Let me explain the difference in the methods again, even though I have provided a link at least three times on the thread
Let us assume you live in a town with 100 workers. Only 80 of them can find work. Hence the unemployment figure in your town is 20% using both the Lebergott and Darby methods of calculating. Now let us assume that the government has offered to build a system of bicycle paths throughout your town and the surrounding area. They agree to pay all the cost for both labor and material. When the project begins 10 workers are hired to do the work. They are all hired from the local community and from that original 100 available workers number. The Lebergott method will continue to show a 20% unemployment figure because the 10 workers hired to build the bicycle paths are still not in the private business work force. They are supported by government checks. Lebergott is designed to show how many workers are employed and sustained by private business and industry. The Darby method will show the unemployment reduced by 10%, hence the unemployment figure is not 20%, but instead 10%. Darby is not concerned who the employer is. Darby is only concerned about the worker receiving a pay check for employment.

WTF man? What the hell are you arguing with me about if you agree unemployment was still a problem in 1940???? Even after all of FDR's dumb machinations and interventions....it was still a F**KING problem.

Read my posts before jumping into my shit...please.

 

[Camp]

You can not back your nonsense up. You are just using agenda driven political commentary instead of academic sources. You don't want to admit that government intervention can resolve economic crisis by lowering unemployment.

FDR created systems that allowed for loans to be made to the individual states who in turn built infrastructure. The loans were secured by using US gold reserves as collateral, an idea that was criticized and objected to by his opponents. It was viewed as gambling with the nations "life savings". In the end, all of the states were able to pay the federal government back for the loans.
Between the fed jobs and the jobs created by loaning funds to the states for projects, large numbers of workers were able to earn incomes and feed the economy. That lifted the economy for private industry as workers spent the pay checks. The difference between our recent stimulus and the New Deal programs is that during the FDR days the funds were tightly and strictly administered into shovel ready infrastructure jobs and not used to prop up failing state and local governments.

The issue of the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal gained renewed attention with the recent crisis and proposals for stimulus packages. Great effort and expense were dedicated to misleading the public about the success of the New Deal and what have been perceived as socialist programs being allowed to compete with capitalist private interest.

And all that worked so well that it required a world war to reduce unemployment. How does one become so blind?

How does one become so ignorant as to make such a post after being given so much data to prove your contention is bullshit. You have been given data accepted by the harshest and most critical opponents of FDR and the New Deal, the unemployment numbers calculated by the Lebergott method that included workers in public projects as unemployed and it still shows a decrease of 10% in the unemployment figures. Yet here you are insisting there was no reduction in unemployment until WWII based on nothing more than you comment. Just a lie you refuse to stop telling.

So, is it your position that unemployment was not a problem prior to WWII?

What was the "real" unemployment figure in 1940?

Of course unemployment was a problem prior to WWII. It was big problem. And not just in this country. The Great Depression was a global catastrophe that gave rise to Fascist Italy and Germany.

I agree that the depression in the US did not finally end until WWII and the production of war materials. I am not and have not contended that FDR resolved the unemployment problem in the period between his taking office and the beginning of WWII. My contention has always been that the New Deal programs reduced the overall unemployment and made life more comfortable if not at least more bearable at the lowest ends of the economy while they fulfilled a dual purpose of preparing the nations industries and work force for the coming war.

Real unemployment in 1940 is easy a assess. Depending on the method of calculating it stood at 14.6 or 9.5. Using that method the figure went as low as 14.3% in 1937. That is by the Lebergott method of calculating. When the Darby method is used the number is 9.5%.

Let me explain the difference in the methods again, even though I have provided a link at least three times on the thread
Let us assume you live in a town with 100 workers. Only 80 of them can find work. Hence the unemployment figure in your town is 20% using both the Lebergott and Darby methods of calculating. Now let us assume that the government has offered to build a system of bicycle paths throughout your town and the surrounding area. They agree to pay all the cost for both labor and material. When the project begins 10 workers are hired to do the work. They are all hired from the local community and from that original 100 available workers number. The Lebergott method will continue to show a 20% unemployment figure because the 10 workers hired to build the bicycle paths are still not in the private business work force. They are supported by government checks. Lebergott is designed to show how many workers are employed and sustained by private business and industry. The Darby method will show the unemployment reduced by 10%, hence the unemployment figure is not 20%, but instead 10%. Darby is not concerned who the employer is. Darby is only concerned about the worker receiving a pay check for employment.

WTF man? What the hell are you arguing with me about if you agree unemployment was still a problem in 1940???? Even after all of FDR's dumb machinations and interventions....it was still a F**KING problem.

Read my posts before jumping into my shit...please.

You are just being a sore loser.
I have read your post, particularly the ones where you try to deny that the alphabet work programs like WPA didn't have a positive effect on the unemployment numbers. You are still doing it, changing the bar now to imply that because FDR didn't completely solve the unemployment problem all of his efforts were somehow wasted. He brought down the unemployment numbers 10% in private industry and 15% overall nationwide and he did it by implementing what are today considered to have been socialist inspired programs.
You just do not want to concede that the New Deal was a great success. It would mean you would be admitting that government intervention with economic stimulus works. I means socialist programs have a place in balancing the economic failures of capitalism when capitalism becomes unregulated and abused.

 

[regent]

You can not back your nonsense up. You are just using agenda driven political commentary instead of academic sources. You don't want to admit that government intervention can resolve economic crisis by lowering unemployment.

FDR created systems that allowed for loans to be made to the individual states who in turn built infrastructure. The loans were secured by using US gold reserves as collateral, an idea that was criticized and objected to by his opponents. It was viewed as gambling with the nations "life savings". In the end, all of the states were able to pay the federal government back for the loans.
Between the fed jobs and the jobs created by loaning funds to the states for projects, large numbers of workers were able to earn incomes and feed the economy. That lifted the economy for private industry as workers spent the pay checks. The difference between our recent stimulus and the New Deal programs is that during the FDR days the funds were tightly and strictly administered into shovel ready infrastructure jobs and not used to prop up failing state and local governments.

The issue of the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal gained renewed attention with the recent crisis and proposals for stimulus packages. Great effort and expense were dedicated to misleading the public about the success of the New Deal and what have been perceived as socialist programs being allowed to compete with capitalist private interest.

And all that worked so well that it required a world war to reduce unemployment. How does one become so blind?

How does one become so ignorant as to make such a post after being given so much data to prove your contention is bullshit. You have been given data accepted by the harshest and most critical opponents of FDR and the New Deal, the unemployment numbers calculated by the Lebergott method that included workers in public projects as unemployed and it still shows a decrease of 10% in the unemployment figures. Yet here you are insisting there was no reduction in unemployment until WWII based on nothing more than you comment. Just a lie you refuse to stop telling.

So, is it your position that unemployment was not a problem prior to WWII?

What was the "real" unemployment figure in 1940?

Of course unemployment was a problem prior to WWII. It was big problem. And not just in this country. The Great Depression was a global catastrophe that gave rise to Fascist Italy and Germany.

I agree that the depression in the US did not finally end until WWII and the production of war materials. I am not and have not contended that FDR resolved the unemployment problem in the period between his taking office and the beginning of WWII. My contention has always been that the New Deal programs reduced the overall unemployment and made life more comfortable if not at least more bearable at the lowest ends of the economy while they fulfilled a dual purpose of preparing the nations industries and work force for the coming war.

Real unemployment in 1940 is easy a assess. Depending on the method of calculating it stood at 14.6 or 9.5. Using that method the figure went as low as 14.3% in 1937. That is by the Lebergott method of calculating. When the Darby method is used the number is 9.5%.

Let me explain the difference in the methods again, even though I have provided a link at least three times on the thread
Let us assume you live in a town with 100 workers. Only 80 of them can find work. Hence the unemployment figure in your town is 20% using both the Lebergott and Darby methods of calculating. Now let us assume that the government has offered to build a system of bicycle paths throughout your town and the surrounding area. They agree to pay all the cost for both labor and material. When the project begins 10 workers are hired to do the work. They are all hired from the local community and from that original 100 available workers number. The Lebergott method will continue to show a 20% unemployment figure because the 10 workers hired to build the bicycle paths are still not in the private business work force. They are supported by government checks. Lebergott is designed to show how many workers are employed and sustained by private business and industry. The Darby method will show the unemployment reduced by 10%, hence the unemployment figure is not 20%, but instead 10%. Darby is not concerned who the employer is. Darby is only concerned about the worker receiving a pay check for employment.

WTF man? What the hell are you arguing with me about if you agree unemployment was still a problem in 1940???? Even after all of FDR's dumb machinations and interventions....it was still a F**KING problem.

Read my posts before jumping into my shit...please.

Some Americans that were for removing Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the coastal areas were Secretary of War. Stimson; Earl Warren, governor of California and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy; General DeWitt head of the Western Defense Command; Daughters and Sons of the Golden West, Mayor of San Francisco, Portland City Council; Governor of Colorado, and many citizens.
Fear was the great motivator and politicians use fear for their own ends.
Today, we fear Muslims, among other fears, and there is the rumor that Obama is not a citizen and is a Muslim and Muslims have training camps on American soil ready to make war. No politician of note would allow those fears to be spread today, nor would any American citizen believe them, right?

Is this an effort to justify FDR's actions?

This is in response to the pressure put on FDR to make the coastal areas safe. It is also a suggestion that fear can produce some different types of behavior. The movie "1941" was built around the almost panic behavior, fear caused after Pearl Harbor. Many mistakes are made when fear abounds, even to a change of government, and many politicians use fear for their own ends. Are most political campaigns based on an element of fear.
Of course, when the fear has been gone for seventy years, people can look back wondering why the stupid behavior.

So, it does justify FDR's tyrannical and racist actions.

Either we require the political class to abide by the Constitution, or we will abide by the whims of the political class. What FDR did was terribly wrong and he desires much criticism for it....but your beloved statists historians won't criticize him.

Some Americans that were for removing Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the coastal areas were Secretary of War. Stimson; Earl Warren, governor of California and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy; General DeWitt head of the Western Defense Command; Daughters and Sons of the Golden West, Mayor of San Francisco, Portland City Council; Governor of Colorado, and many citizens.
Fear was the great motivator and politicians use fear for their own ends.
Today, we fear Muslims, among other fears, and there is the rumor that Obama is not a citizen and is a Muslim and Muslims have training camps on American soil ready to make war. No politician of note would allow those fears to be spread today, nor would any American citizen believe them, right?

Is this an effort to justify FDR's actions?

This is in response to the pressure put on FDR to make the coastal areas safe. It is also a suggestion that fear can produce some different types of behavior. The movie "1941" was built around the almost panic behavior, fear caused after Pearl Harbor. Many mistakes are made when fear abounds, even to a change of government, and many politicians use fear for their own ends. Are most political campaigns based on an element of fear.
Of course, when the fear has been gone for seventy years, people can look back wondering why the stupid behavior.

So, it does justify FDR's tyrannical and racist actions.

Either we require the political class to abide by the Constitution, or we will abide by the whims of the political class. What FDR did was terribly wrong and he desires much criticism for it....but your beloved statists historians won't criticize him.

Professional historians go through a number of other social sciences beside history and I would suspect their view of history is influenced by the other sciences, They might understand why, seventy years ago, FDR did what he did. There is no question that the camps were wrong, and the Court later found them so, but the 3500 that had renounced their citizenship to the United States also decided they were wrong and asked for their citizenship back.
The question is always, would we do the same thing to another group today under similar circumstances or did we all learn a lesson.

 

[Unkotare]

Spinning to play apologist for an inexcusable scumbag. ^^^^^^

Dude, the scum bags were the ones who attacked us on Dec. 7, 1941 and went on to overrun our Pacific territories and bases, capture all the American civilians and military personnel, and torture, murder and enslave them in camps that made the Nazi concentration death camps look like vacation resorts.
They proved themselves to be more racist and hateful than the worst of the Nazi's. We rounded up Japanese who many, including military advisers, thought were a potential threat. We didn't torture and murder them or starve them. We didn't stand around and joke as some of them died of thirst and heat stroke under a hot tropical sun. The scum bags were the Jap's who did those things to Americans, including civilians and including women.
At least the Jap's we rounded up were given housing and fed and clothed. The children attended schools and the people were allowed to grow gardens and participate in leisure activities. There is simply no comparison.

After the Japanese attack the US under the command of FDR gave authority and power to the meanest, toughest most competent soldiers, sailors, Marines and Airmen available. They really were not worried about hurting some guys feeling 80 years into the future. They were not interested in having nice neat tribunals to hear individual Japanese cases in California to determine if they could be trusted or not as your Ringle report suggested. They definitely were not interested in leaving the policing and security from sabotage to a Japanese created special police unit as that same Ringle report suggested. They took the 100% reliable solution of rounding everyone up and getting them far away from where the sabotage and spying was most likely, the west coast.

There's another example of logical fallacy in action ^^^^^^^^^

 

[Unkotare]

Some Americans that were for removing Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the coastal areas were Secretary of War. Stimson; Earl Warren, governor of California and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy; General DeWitt head of the Western Defense Command; Daughters and Sons of the Golden West, Mayor of San Francisco, Portland City Council; Governor of Colorado, and many citizens.....

More logical fallacy ^^^^^^^^

 

[Unkotare]

Some Americans that were for removing Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the coastal areas were Secretary of War. Stimson; Earl Warren, governor of California and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy; General DeWitt head of the Western Defense Command; Daughters and Sons of the Golden West, Mayor of San Francisco, Portland City Council; Governor of Colorado, and many citizens.
Fear was the great motivator and politicians use fear for their own ends.
Today, we fear Muslims, among other fears, and there is the rumor that Obama is not a citizen and is a Muslim and Muslims have training camps on American soil ready to make war. No politician of note would allow those fears to be spread today, nor would any American citizen believe them, right?

Is this an effort to justify FDR's actions?

This is in response to the pressure put on FDR to make the coastal areas safe......

THE coastal areas? There is a coast on the eastern side too.

 

[Unkotare]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

 

[regent]

Some Americans that were for removing Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the coastal areas were Secretary of War. Stimson; Earl Warren, governor of California and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy; General DeWitt head of the Western Defense Command; Daughters and Sons of the Golden West, Mayor of San Francisco, Portland City Council; Governor of Colorado, and many citizens.
Fear was the great motivator and politicians use fear for their own ends.
Today, we fear Muslims, among other fears, and there is the rumor that Obama is not a citizen and is a Muslim and Muslims have training camps on American soil ready to make war. No politician of note would allow those fears to be spread today, nor would any American citizen believe them, right?

Is this an effort to justify FDR's actions?

This is in response to the pressure put on FDR to make the coastal areas safe......

THE coastal areas? There is a coast on the eastern side too.

Yes and an attempt was made to make that coastal area safe too. The threat on the Eastern coast was Germany and U boats.

 

[Unkotare]

Some Americans that were for removing Japanese and Japanese-Americans from the coastal areas were Secretary of War. Stimson; Earl Warren, governor of California and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Frank Knox, Secretary of the Navy; General DeWitt head of the Western Defense Command; Daughters and Sons of the Golden West, Mayor of San Francisco, Portland City Council; Governor of Colorado, and many citizens.
Fear was the great motivator and politicians use fear for their own ends.
Today, we fear Muslims, among other fears, and there is the rumor that Obama is not a citizen and is a Muslim and Muslims have training camps on American soil ready to make war. No politician of note would allow those fears to be spread today, nor would any American citizen believe them, right?

Is this an effort to justify FDR's actions?

This is in response to the pressure put on FDR to make the coastal areas safe......

THE coastal areas? There is a coast on the eastern side too.

Yes and an attempt was made to make that coastal area safe too. The threat on the Eastern coast was Germany and U boats.

Let's see, how many German and Italian Americans were 'invited' into the scumbag FDR's concentration camps and how many Americans of German and Italian ancestry were living on the East Coast? Hmmm....I wonder where such an enormous discrepancy with what happened on the other side of the country stemmed from? Whatever could it have been?

 

[gipper]

And all that worked so well that it required a world war to reduce unemployment. How does one become so blind?

How does one become so ignorant as to make such a post after being given so much data to prove your contention is bullshit. You have been given data accepted by the harshest and most critical opponents of FDR and the New Deal, the unemployment numbers calculated by the Lebergott method that included workers in public projects as unemployed and it still shows a decrease of 10% in the unemployment figures. Yet here you are insisting there was no reduction in unemployment until WWII based on nothing more than you comment. Just a lie you refuse to stop telling.

So, is it your position that unemployment was not a problem prior to WWII?

What was the "real" unemployment figure in 1940?

Of course unemployment was a problem prior to WWII. It was big problem. And not just in this country. The Great Depression was a global catastrophe that gave rise to Fascist Italy and Germany.

I agree that the depression in the US did not finally end until WWII and the production of war materials. I am not and have not contended that FDR resolved the unemployment problem in the period between his taking office and the beginning of WWII. My contention has always been that the New Deal programs reduced the overall unemployment and made life more comfortable if not at least more bearable at the lowest ends of the economy while they fulfilled a dual purpose of preparing the nations industries and work force for the coming war.

Real unemployment in 1940 is easy a assess. Depending on the method of calculating it stood at 14.6 or 9.5. Using that method the figure went as low as 14.3% in 1937. That is by the Lebergott method of calculating. When the Darby method is used the number is 9.5%.

Let me explain the difference in the methods again, even though I have provided a link at least three times on the thread
Let us assume you live in a town with 100 workers. Only 80 of them can find work. Hence the unemployment figure in your town is 20% using both the Lebergott and Darby methods of calculating. Now let us assume that the government has offered to build a system of bicycle paths throughout your town and the surrounding area. They agree to pay all the cost for both labor and material. When the project begins 10 workers are hired to do the work. They are all hired from the local community and from that original 100 available workers number. The Lebergott method will continue to show a 20% unemployment figure because the 10 workers hired to build the bicycle paths are still not in the private business work force. They are supported by government checks. Lebergott is designed to show how many workers are employed and sustained by private business and industry. The Darby method will show the unemployment reduced by 10%, hence the unemployment figure is not 20%, but instead 10%. Darby is not concerned who the employer is. Darby is only concerned about the worker receiving a pay check for employment.

WTF man? What the hell are you arguing with me about if you agree unemployment was still a problem in 1940???? Even after all of FDR's dumb machinations and interventions....it was still a F**KING problem.

Read my posts before jumping into my shit...please.

You are just being a sore loser.
I have read your post, particularly the ones where you try to deny that the alphabet work programs like WPA didn't have a positive effect on the unemployment numbers. You are still doing it, changing the bar now to imply that because FDR didn't completely solve the unemployment problem all of his efforts were somehow wasted. He brought down the unemployment numbers 10% in private industry and 15% overall nationwide and he did it by implementing what are today considered to have been socialist inspired programs.
You just do not want to concede that the New Deal was a great success. It would mean you would be admitting that government intervention with economic stimulus works. I means socialist programs have a place in balancing the economic failures of capitalism when capitalism becomes unregulated and abused.

You have heard the saying you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. That in essence, is what you are trying to do with FDR's economic record.

He intervened massively and continuously resulting in sustained high unemployment like nothing the nation had ever seen before...yeah he did manage to lower it somewhat, and for this you think he deserves credit. Not me. He was POTUS of the world's largest manufacturing nation, largest creditor nation, largest exporting nation, largest agricultural producing nation...and which had up to his time developed unbelievable inventions...was the envy of the world.

Apparently, I hold a POTUS to a higher standard than you do.

 

[gipper]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

That is a nice summation of FDR's economic policies. Thanks to statist historians, many Americans are under the misconception that his economic policies got us out of the Great Depression. Of course, he did get the nation out of the Great Depression, by involving us in WWII.

 

[Camp]

How does one become so ignorant as to make such a post after being given so much data to prove your contention is bullshit. You have been given data accepted by the harshest and most critical opponents of FDR and the New Deal, the unemployment numbers calculated by the Lebergott method that included workers in public projects as unemployed and it still shows a decrease of 10% in the unemployment figures. Yet here you are insisting there was no reduction in unemployment until WWII based on nothing more than you comment. Just a lie you refuse to stop telling.

So, is it your position that unemployment was not a problem prior to WWII?

What was the "real" unemployment figure in 1940?

Of course unemployment was a problem prior to WWII. It was big problem. And not just in this country. The Great Depression was a global catastrophe that gave rise to Fascist Italy and Germany.

I agree that the depression in the US did not finally end until WWII and the production of war materials. I am not and have not contended that FDR resolved the unemployment problem in the period between his taking office and the beginning of WWII. My contention has always been that the New Deal programs reduced the overall unemployment and made life more comfortable if not at least more bearable at the lowest ends of the economy while they fulfilled a dual purpose of preparing the nations industries and work force for the coming war.

Real unemployment in 1940 is easy a assess. Depending on the method of calculating it stood at 14.6 or 9.5. Using that method the figure went as low as 14.3% in 1937. That is by the Lebergott method of calculating. When the Darby method is used the number is 9.5%.

Let me explain the difference in the methods again, even though I have provided a link at least three times on the thread
Let us assume you live in a town with 100 workers. Only 80 of them can find work. Hence the unemployment figure in your town is 20% using both the Lebergott and Darby methods of calculating. Now let us assume that the government has offered to build a system of bicycle paths throughout your town and the surrounding area. They agree to pay all the cost for both labor and material. When the project begins 10 workers are hired to do the work. They are all hired from the local community and from that original 100 available workers number. The Lebergott method will continue to show a 20% unemployment figure because the 10 workers hired to build the bicycle paths are still not in the private business work force. They are supported by government checks. Lebergott is designed to show how many workers are employed and sustained by private business and industry. The Darby method will show the unemployment reduced by 10%, hence the unemployment figure is not 20%, but instead 10%. Darby is not concerned who the employer is. Darby is only concerned about the worker receiving a pay check for employment.

WTF man? What the hell are you arguing with me about if you agree unemployment was still a problem in 1940???? Even after all of FDR's dumb machinations and interventions....it was still a F**KING problem.

Read my posts before jumping into my shit...please.

You are just being a sore loser.
I have read your post, particularly the ones where you try to deny that the alphabet work programs like WPA didn't have a positive effect on the unemployment numbers. You are still doing it, changing the bar now to imply that because FDR didn't completely solve the unemployment problem all of his efforts were somehow wasted. He brought down the unemployment numbers 10% in private industry and 15% overall nationwide and he did it by implementing what are today considered to have been socialist inspired programs.
You just do not want to concede that the New Deal was a great success. It would mean you would be admitting that government intervention with economic stimulus works. I means socialist programs have a place in balancing the economic failures of capitalism when capitalism becomes unregulated and abused.

You have heard the saying you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. That in essence, is what you are trying to do with FDR's economic record.

He intervened massively and continuously resulting in sustained high unemployment like nothing the nation had ever seen before...yeah he did manage to lower it somewhat, and for this you think he deserves credit. Not me. He was POTUS of the world's largest manufacturing nation, largest creditor nation, largest exporting nation, largest agricultural producing nation...and which had up to his time developed unbelievable inventions...was the envy of the world.

Apparently, I hold a POTUS to a higher standard than you do.

I judge Presidents by the legacy they leave. I judge them by what lasting accomplishments or failures they leave behind for the generations that follow them. I take a pragmatic approach of laying the cards on the table and ignoring the hype, the rhetoric, the attempt to connect ideological and agenda driven commentary into evaluating current events. Things get twisted and distorted to easily.

You provide a list of American strengths such as the largest manufacturing nation, but ignore the market crash of 1929 that shut down manufacturing all across the country and gave FDR the 25% unemployment rate he inherited when he came into office four years later in 1933.

You also mention the US being the largest agricultural producing nation. People tend to forget about this agriculture nugget of information and kind of leave it out of the equation. Surely you do not blame FDR for this. He had to deal with it during his entire terms during the 30's.
history.com/topics/dust-bowl
On top of the market crash he inherited he had to deal with the worst natural disaster in American history (note: the cause of the dust bowl included poor farming methods that were use for generations before the climate conditions combined with them to cause the disaster)

There are only a handful of Presidents of the 20th century that we look at as having left tangible legacies and accomplishments that have had long lasting positive effects. Teddy Roosevelt gave us National Parks and saved the most beautiful landscapes and preserves in America for the people who enjoy them today and far into the future. His doctrine towards monopolies still influences even though it seems to be constantly under attack. Eisenhower gave us the interstate highway system we are still using today. Even though it was originally an FDR concept and built by numerous Presidents after Eisenhower left office, it was he that championed it and created the motivation to build it. Kennedy made the challenge and started the space program that launched us into the technological era we still live in. FDR built the infrastructure that saw us through the 20th Century and is still being used today. We still get electricity from his dams, and still use thousands of buildings he built that include schools and post offices all across the country. At least two dozen of the bridges he built were incorporated into the interstate highway system and are still being used today. And generations have benefited from a program he started. Millions of Americans still benefit. It is called Social Security.

 

[gipper]

So, is it your position that unemployment was not a problem prior to WWII?

What was the "real" unemployment figure in 1940?

Of course unemployment was a problem prior to WWII. It was big problem. And not just in this country. The Great Depression was a global catastrophe that gave rise to Fascist Italy and Germany.

I agree that the depression in the US did not finally end until WWII and the production of war materials. I am not and have not contended that FDR resolved the unemployment problem in the period between his taking office and the beginning of WWII. My contention has always been that the New Deal programs reduced the overall unemployment and made life more comfortable if not at least more bearable at the lowest ends of the economy while they fulfilled a dual purpose of preparing the nations industries and work force for the coming war.

Real unemployment in 1940 is easy a assess. Depending on the method of calculating it stood at 14.6 or 9.5. Using that method the figure went as low as 14.3% in 1937. That is by the Lebergott method of calculating. When the Darby method is used the number is 9.5%.

Let me explain the difference in the methods again, even though I have provided a link at least three times on the thread
Let us assume you live in a town with 100 workers. Only 80 of them can find work. Hence the unemployment figure in your town is 20% using both the Lebergott and Darby methods of calculating. Now let us assume that the government has offered to build a system of bicycle paths throughout your town and the surrounding area. They agree to pay all the cost for both labor and material. When the project begins 10 workers are hired to do the work. They are all hired from the local community and from that original 100 available workers number. The Lebergott method will continue to show a 20% unemployment figure because the 10 workers hired to build the bicycle paths are still not in the private business work force. They are supported by government checks. Lebergott is designed to show how many workers are employed and sustained by private business and industry. The Darby method will show the unemployment reduced by 10%, hence the unemployment figure is not 20%, but instead 10%. Darby is not concerned who the employer is. Darby is only concerned about the worker receiving a pay check for employment.

WTF man? What the hell are you arguing with me about if you agree unemployment was still a problem in 1940???? Even after all of FDR's dumb machinations and interventions....it was still a F**KING problem.

Read my posts before jumping into my shit...please.

You are just being a sore loser.
I have read your post, particularly the ones where you try to deny that the alphabet work programs like WPA didn't have a positive effect on the unemployment numbers. You are still doing it, changing the bar now to imply that because FDR didn't completely solve the unemployment problem all of his efforts were somehow wasted. He brought down the unemployment numbers 10% in private industry and 15% overall nationwide and he did it by implementing what are today considered to have been socialist inspired programs.
You just do not want to concede that the New Deal was a great success. It would mean you would be admitting that government intervention with economic stimulus works. I means socialist programs have a place in balancing the economic failures of capitalism when capitalism becomes unregulated and abused.

You have heard the saying you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. That in essence, is what you are trying to do with FDR's economic record.

He intervened massively and continuously resulting in sustained high unemployment like nothing the nation had ever seen before...yeah he did manage to lower it somewhat, and for this you think he deserves credit. Not me. He was POTUS of the world's largest manufacturing nation, largest creditor nation, largest exporting nation, largest agricultural producing nation...and which had up to his time developed unbelievable inventions...was the envy of the world.

Apparently, I hold a POTUS to a higher standard than you do.

I judge Presidents by the legacy they leave. I judge them by what lasting accomplishments or failures they leave behind for the generations that follow them. I take a pragmatic approach of laying the cards on the table and ignoring the hype, the rhetoric, the attempt to connect ideological and agenda driven commentary into evaluating current events. Things get twisted and distorted to easily.

You provide a list of American strengths such as the largest manufacturing nation, but ignore the market crash of 1929 that shut down manufacturing all across the country and gave FDR the 25% unemployment rate he inherited when he came into office four years later in 1933.

You also mention the US being the largest agricultural producing nation. People tend to forget about this agriculture nugget of information and kind of leave it out of the equation. Surely you do not blame FDR for this. He had to deal with it during his entire terms during the 30's.
history.com/topics/dust-bowl
On top of the market crash he inherited he had to deal with the worst natural disaster in American history (note: the cause of the dust bowl included poor farming methods that were use for generations before the climate conditions combined with them to cause the disaster)

There are only a handful of Presidents of the 20th century that we look at as having left tangible legacies and accomplishments that have had long lasting positive effects. Teddy Roosevelt gave us National Parks and saved the most beautiful landscapes and preserves in America for the people who enjoy them today and far into the future. His doctrine towards monopolies still influences even though it seems to be constantly under attack. Eisenhower gave us the interstate highway system we are still using today. Even though it was originally an FDR concept and built by numerous Presidents after Eisenhower left office, it was he that championed it and created the motivation to build it. Kennedy made the challenge and started the space program that launched us into the technological era we still live in. FDR built the infrastructure that saw us through the 20th Century and is still being used today. We still get electricity from his dams, and still use thousands of buildings he built that include schools and post offices all across the country. At least two dozen of the bridges he built were incorporated into the interstate highway system and are still being used today. And generations have benefited from a program he started. Millions of Americans still benefit. It is called Social Security.

FDR left a legacy alright...most of it bad.

 

[Camp]

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

That is a nice summation of FDR's economic policies. Thanks to statist historians, many Americans are under the misconception that his economic policies got us out of the Great Depression. Of course, he did get the nation out of the Great Depression, by involving us in WWII.

This is not a summation of FDR's economic policies. It focuses on what was well known and accepted during the era. First, it is about how wages affected business interest and hindered growth of private industry. There were two ways to judge progress during that era. There was the progress of the masses and working people and there was the progress of private business. FDR focused on the masses and working people. As the article says, he raised wages from 1929 rates 25%. This indeed slowed private industry growth, but the loss of jobs was made up by the infrastructure projects made possible by government loans and financing. The priority was not to build up and rescue private businesses with government handouts, it was to build up and prioritize the masses and working and small merchants and trades people of America. It worked.

 

[Picaro]

What 'growth in private industry' happened under Hoover? None. The wealthy financiers ran off and hid on their estates behind private armies, all the while sniveling for the Army to kill all those nasty proles littering the streets and highways. The economy didn't make a single move upward until 2 to 3 months after Roosevelt was elected, and kept rising steadily all the way to 1937, took a small dip, and then started rising again. The 'private sector' didn't do squat except follow FDR's lead. As has been pointed out in another thread, the flaw in FDR's plan was that he didn't spend nearly enough, mostly because of anti-Roosevelt Democrats and those sniveling crooks hiding on their estates mentioned previously.

 

[regent]

I wonder if anti-FDR posters really think they are going to change America's image of FDR? And I wonder why it is so important that they feel they must change the image?
The people that lived and voted in the FDR era believed FDR was the best, and voted for him four times in a row. The historians that have rated presidents rated FDR the best president in our history, so all the anti's have is trying to find something that connects with America today, and so far many think Trump might be that answer. When the next president leaves office after Obama, FDR will still be rated number one, top of the heap, the best.