I'm Going to Kill This "FDR's New Deal was a flop" meme, once and for all.

[Joe Fields]

Want to get my blood boiling? Just dis FDR. These days, a lot of people are, and not just conservatives. I've heard some garbage from a few people here, and I'm standing up to say BULLSHIT.

Now, I don't rightly know the reason why anyone HERE would be dissing on President Roosevelt's efforts to fix an economy that was flatlined. I know why the repukes are beating this meme and it needs to be shattered, once and for all.

So, for anyone who thinks that FDR's New Deal programs were a flop and a drag on the economy, let's look at some facts, to get a little perspective.


What FDR inherited from Herbert Hoover's administration:

By 1932, more than 13 million American workers, almost 25% of the workforce had lost employment.

From 1929-33 almost 9,000 banks had failed. By mid March of 1933, around the time of Roosevelt's inauguration, ALMOST EVERY BANK IN THE COUNTRY had failed, or had closed it's doors at one time.

The Hawley-Smoot Act, which the Hoover administration had passed, raise tariffs prohibitively, sparking a wave of even higher tariffs placed against the U.S. by our trading partners. The end result was chaos, as international trade literally ground to a halt.

Farmers were taking it on the chin. Take wheat, for example; In 1920, farmers were paid an average of $2.50 per bushel. By the time Roosevelt took office, wheat went for less than 50 cents per bushel, far less than what it cost to produce.

From 1929-1933, U.S. personal income had declined by 44%, and real output had fallen by 30%.

From 1929-33 the number of non-farm foreclosures doubled, from 134,900 to 252,400.

From 1926-40, an average of 100,000 farms per year were foreclosed on.

And let's not forget the Dustbowl. We can't blame that on Hoover exactly, but it was a monumental problem for Roosevelt to deal with, all the same. By 1935, over 100 million acres of topsoil had blown away in the Southern Plains, from Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and Oklahoma to Texas. The Dustbowl officially continued until the Fall of 1939.


Now, all of this is what Franklin Roosevelt inherited in his first term in office, much like what President Obama faces now. Back then, just like now, there were two choices. Either he acted boldly and fully involve the government, or he could sit back and do nothing. Let's not forget that FDR had decisively beaten Hoover. And let's not forget that nearly everyone in America was clamoring for change. And so, in the first 100 days he, with the help of Congress:

Created the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, which paid out relief (welfare) and also paid out wages on public works projects.

Created the Civilian Conservation Corps.. This agency put over 3 million men and women to work building roads, maintaining forests and building flood control projects. By 1935, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and the CCC would merge into the WPA (Works Progress Administration)

Created the Home Owners Loan Corp., which the government pumped money into, to free up lending.

Created the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Administration), allowing for farm subsidies to allow farmers to stay on their farms.

Created the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) This Authority tamed the wild waterways, built dams, flood control projects, hydroelectric facilities and paved the way for rural electrification.


Those were just the highlights of Franklin Roosevelt's first 100 days.

What did these programs accomplish?

Let's see...When Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933, unemployment was almost 25%. Four years later, unemployment had dropped to 16.8%. In the first four years, FDR's policies had not only stopped the hemmoraging of jobs, but had put 3 million more people back to work, or roughly 7% of the 25% of unemployed workers! By 1941, unemployment had dropped to 9.6%, certainly not ideal numbers, but a far cry from 1932.


We must not forget, and we must not let Republicans, who continually try and spin history forget what caused the Great Depression. It was very much like now, and we cannot let them weasel out of their rightful responsibility for creating the mess we face today. We cannot allow republicans to forget what Franklin Roosevelt faced when he first took office. People lined the city streets for hand outs at soup kitchens. Desperate men and women sold pencils, fruit and various other items on street corners. Hoovervilles sprang up throughout the country, poorly equipped and completely unsanitary. And we cannot allow republicans to twist what came from Roosevelt's policies and all of the good they did. My father was eternally grateful for FDR. So was the lion's share of his generation. His policies have been the backbone of this country for almost 60 years. The last eight years have been used, in part to dismantle the New Deal Government. It is no mystery as to why Republicans are all of a sudden worried about spending and bailouts, and screaming socialism, and threatening to take America back through old true conservatism, etc...blah, blah, blah...

President Obama is faced with much the same decisions as FDR. He is making a commitment, as did FDR to do what is necessary to give this country a chance to right itself again. To do as Hoover did is certainly no option. For if nothing was done, then the outcome is most definitely certain, and it ain't gonna be good.

So, Republicans, which do you want, Hoovervilles, bloody riots in the streets, class warfare, or how about you all sit back and let our president try and clean up this damned mess you guys made? And quit trashing my man, Frank.


Joe Fields

references to all data within my article available upon request.

[anonymous171]

1. FDR= Best. President. Ever.

Let no one claim otherwise.

[Phred42]

63. That's why the Reich has to attack him (rather than his record)

[Prophet 451]

133. Debateable

Not disputing that FDR was one of the very best but, as a little academic excercise, what makes him a better president than, say, Lincoln?

[Texano78704]

156. Lincoln was only elected twice...

Okay, he really didn't have an opportunity to run more than twice, but that's beside the point. :)

[RaleighNCDUer]

207. Lincoln presided over the division of the country, which led to a

war which was more costly in American lives than ALL our other wars combined.

Roosevelt forestalled a communist revolution AND a fascist overthrow of the government, preserving the US as a liberal, democratic nation.

[Prophet 451]

211. Alright, you win n/t

[roguevalley]

145. HE saved us from the tidal wave of fascism that was swamping the

world, fascism, poverty and corruption. My mother beat a kid's ass who had the audacity to diss Franklin D(em) Roosevelt. She was seven at the time. THis too makes my blood boil.

[jhrobbins]

166. I'm not sure I think he was the 'best', but he was certainly in the running.

[flyingfysh]

190. at worst, he's #3

Lincoln is #1; he solved the slavery problem. And Washington is probably #2.

[MarianJack]

180. For what it's worth...

...I completely concur!

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. This historical revisionism has been a conservative project for the last sixty years

mission accomplished, when I hear the "kids" repeating the meme I want to strangle them too

[Still Sensible]

69. Bingo

Yep, the ingrained republican point of view. And now it will come back with a vengeance because their laissez-faire bullshit has led to another national crisis and they fear more decades in the wilderness.

[Ken Burch]

122. In fact, the GOP's obsession with "character campaigns" may possibly go back to Rooseveltophobia

Those guys go on and on about stuff in people's person lives because they STILL think FDR should have been disqualified from the presidency because he was unfaithful to Eleanor. Well, the truth is, nobody who was a good husband in those years would have done a better job of getting the country through the Depression.

Except Henry Wallace, of course, and I don't think the 'pugs would've preferred him.

[bigtree]

3. no reference needed

you told it true

[mrreowwr_kittty]

4. Goddamn fucking right!

Do NOT diss FDR! :patriot:

[jhrobbins]

168. Not that I need a reason, but when Ann Coulter starts in on Roosevelt, I want to smack her.

Like she wants to smack hecklers at the Repub convention-so I guess it's OK for me to feel this way.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

170. People think Ann Coulter is some kind of clown performer

And to a certain extent she is engaging in theater, but she's also a true believer in plutocracy. Her dad was a big time union buster so you can bet there were many conversations around the elegant dining room at the Coulter estate about how bad the New Deal and Roosevelt were.

[jhrobbins]

178. I must say that I am unfamiliar with Ann's family history-I never thought about it.

So, she is from a Brahmin(sp) family?

[Captain Hilts]

193. I assumed she crawled out from under a rock. nt

[rockymountaindem]

5. Preach!

[Hekate]

6. Kick, Rec, Bookmark. Thanks for the refresher course.

:kick:

[grantcart]

7. Strange among the recent biographies is Conrad Black's

who after he purchased large private papers published a great biography of FDR that established strong evidence that FDR saved Capitalism, the Democratic Party, The United States Political System and Western Civilization.

He also goes to great lengths that contrary to public memory FDR was a much better strategic head of government than Churchill and that when ever the two disagreed FDR was always proven right.


From Wikipedia

While Black was CEO of Hollinger International, the company spent millions of dollars purchasing collections of private papers of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt.<58>. Black subsequently completed a 1,280-page biography, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Champion of Freedom (ISBN 978-1586481841), in 2003.<59>

[Captain Hilts]

182. Black needed an editor to say 'no' to him. But, YES, FDR was a better strategist than Churchill...

and when he wasn't he had a good military staff that would say 'no' to him, chiefly George C. Marshall. Churchill had no such check on him. Read Lord Moran's diary excerpts about Churchill. He was WSC's personal physician. Moran also noted that into the 1950s WSC was having nightmares of Eleanor Roosevelt as prez of the US.

ER: Say 'Cheese'!
FDR: Cheese!
WSC: What?

[JDPriestly]

8. Wonderful. My mother remembers the Depression very clearly,

and has been grateful to Roosevelt ever since. My father worked for the WPA for a period of time. Both of them became dedicated Democrats.

I remember my grandmother telling me "We used to be Republicans, but the Republicans left us." A lot of Americans will be saying that about four years from now and for a long time after that.

[Joe Fields]

9. My father and grandfather both would have told you that it took

FDR to get us through the Depression and WWII. They didn't feel this country would have survived without him, and they were not alone in their feelings. I used to listen attentively to my dad tell "depression stories." There was a quality about Roosevelt that made everyone pull together for the common good. We need that quality in Obama. I hope and pray he can do it.

[dflprincess]

91. My mom and her sisters remember as well

Dissing FDR amounts to picking a fight with any of them.

Her dad had construction work through the PWA (Public Works Administration) that kept the family going. My dad's brother went into the CCC and the skills he learned there helped him start a very successful business after WWII (though he turned Republican once he made some money - something he and my dad always argued about. It nearly killed my grandpa who had been a Farmer Laborite).

For reasons no one ever understood my mother's brother also turned Republican. He and I were getting into one time when another uncle (technically my aunt's husband) who never discussed politics piped up with "My dad said we would have lost our farm if not for Roosevelt so I've always been a Democrat." The farm is still in their family, though they rent the land out to a neighbor for farming.

The family farms and businesses that were saved, the opportunities to learn skills and start new businesses, the public works programs like the REA that provided jobs and improved life in America for countless people - that's all anyone needs to know about Roosevelt. And that's why the Right wing is dissing him - they're afraid an updated New Deal might make life better for the middle and working classes who they've tried so hard to destory.

[jhrobbins]

169. My mother was achild when Roosevelt first became Prez and she used to say

that she grew up thinking that he was always gonna be the Prez-she didn't know anything else but Roosevelt.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. The repukes are trying to reframe this issue and use political linguisitcs to

their own purposes...yet once again.
Tonight Jon Stewart commented on the idiocy of the repukes claiming that the New Deal was a failure.

I hope that two things are true: First: There are enough people still alive that remember the New Deal and its
POSITIVE consequences. SECOND: The Democrats do not allow the repukes to do this once again. They take the bullshit by the horns and repudiate this lie. Virtually everything positive that has come to us after WWII, including the rise of the middle class, can be directly traced to the SUCCESS of the NEW DEAL.

If the repukes are going to use Frank Luntz's approach, then we must start making George Lakoff our most important adviser.

[Joe Fields]

15. Wow, what a coincidence! I almost never get to watch TDS anymore,

but I've been hearing the Limbaughs and the Hannity's of the world throwing this meme around lately, and I felt the need to address it. I agree with you about tactics.

[BrklynLiberal]

29. TDS was particularly funny and pungent tonight. I was laughing out loud.

I guess the repetition of the "New Deal was a failure" meme got to Jon Stewart too.

[GinaMaria]

105. You didn't need to live through the Depression to learn its lessons

That time period impacted and left its mark on generations of Americans. I'm certainly too young to remember, but I learned behaviors and heard stories from relatives that still carry forward. One behavior is hoarding. My mother always had way too many canned goods in the house, because canned stuff lasted a really long time and if food ever ran out, we wouldn't starve with our plethora of canned food. It's amazing how many times I catch myself 'stocking up' on canned goods. The Great Depression reverberates across many generations. Most would never think to dis FDR. Even my republican grandfather was all for Social Security. Those saftey nets protected and maintained our democracy. Without FDR, who knows where any of us would be right now?

[Blue_Roses]

114. wow--I never thought of that...

my mother, eighty-eight-years-old, has always been a pack-rat. But now that I think about it, she is a "hoarder" and living through the Depression explains it. I don't think it's a behavior she consciously thinks about but I know it did get on my dad's nerves. :P

I respect that generation so much. They went through hell and never whined half as bad as many do to this day.

[BrklynLiberal]

231. Absolutely true. We have all inherited the benefits that started with FDR.

[BrklynLiberal]

11. Obama's next biography to read...Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[Captain Hilts]

79. I like the Kenneth Davis set on FDR.

As the one volume ones go, Jean Smith's and Rex Tugwell's are the best.

[Lasher]

12. Smokescreen for Junior.

This is a time of reflection and the GOP noise machine is in high gear trying to deflect accountability for the catastrophe of the past 8 years: Clinton's fault. Carter's fault. FDR's fault. Reid's fault. Pelosi's fault. Junior was just an innocent bystander, presidents can't change anything. Blame Congress, and forget Democrats didn't have majority control there until 2 years ago. Wait until we're all dead to judge The Worst President of All Time. Spin spin spin.

And more generally, with the colossal failure of Reaganomics laid out for all to see, Democrats including FDR are being demonized so that the gullible will believe economic policies since 1981 have done nothing to lead us to our current plight. We're supposed to think the Invisible Hand really did trickle on our rising tide, or something.

Good OP. Long live the New Deal.

[Joe Fields]

16. Thanks, and spot on analysis, yourself.

A smokescreen that serves at least two purposes, with one purpose as you said, to deflect guilt and pin blame, and also to to keep new New Deal policies from taking shape.

[Lasher]

28. Gotta keep those tax cuts for billionaires coming.

It's a little harder these days to sell the supply-side fairy tales that simulate moral justification for cutting top marginal rates.

They like to call New Deal social programs the welfare state. Sounds kinda sinister that way, ya know. When we're standing in a Salvation Army soup line we'll be benefitting from a bold new faith-based initiative. That sounds great, doesn't it?

By attacking New Deal social programs (and preventing new ones), rightwingers hope to enable even more tax breaks for billionaires - literally taking from the poor to give to the rich. The last two elections have given me hope that most of us have had just about enough of that.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. No, I think it's geared at the future. Specifically, about Obama's economic policies.

The plan is to badmouth (and hopefully prevent) any action that includes non-filthy-rich people getting any kind of break.

[Lasher]

42. Same thing.

All this bullshit about Saint Ronnie, for example, has been more than just cult hero worship. If Reaganomics is a good idea, why not do it some more?

[Enthusiast]

117. That too. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

108. If Presidents Can't Change Anything. . . .

. . .ask them to explain their reverence for Reagan. After all, he couldn't have accomplished anything. Presidents can't change anything!

That'll mess with their tiny minds.
GAC

[Lasher]

128. Maybe presidents can't affect the economy much.

But the assumption that they can and do is so prominent in Republican rhetoric that they are stuck with it. So Junior promised in 2003 his tax cuts would result in prosperity for all. Now it's supposed to be unrealistic to have expected him to have had any impact on the economy whatever? I don't think so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20059-2005Apr1.html

[ProfessorGAC]

148. Exactly!

We're in complete agreement. They can't have it both ways, no matter how much they'd like it.
GAC

[AlbertCat]

163. They're delusional

Just listen to Cheney say he didn't do anything unusual or wrong. That Dubya was in charge all along. Listen to Wolfie say he had nothing to do with the failures in Iraq. Poor Sarah is a victim of the media. She didn't say anything stupid! It is either disingenuous in the extreme or delusional in the extreme.

It could be a mixture of both but sometimes I get the feeling they just don't get it. They just don't get that their ideas, which they have been implementing almost freely for decades now, their GOP ideas....DON'T WORK. They simply don't work. Period. They say "If we do "a", then "b" will happen." But "b" never happens. Across the board practically.

[nxylas]

179. The campaign to get Reagan on the dime is as much a diss of FDR as an example of Reaganolatry

The symbolism is that "FDR plunged us into socialism and St Ronnie led us back to the light". Wonder how many takers they'll get for that viewpoint now.

[Captain Hilts]

183. And the shit-for-brains who proposed it had NO IDEA why FDR was on the dime. Idjits. nt

[nxylas]

185. Actually, neither did I

But thanks to Wikipedia, I do now. I also didn't know that Nancy Reagan was opposed to replacing FDR's image with her husband's. A rare moment of class there.

[Captain Hilts]

188. Every January for FDR's birthday, there'd be several charity balls in DC and more elsewhere...

so, if you go to the Corbis photo site, you will see ER with just about every major movie star there is over the 12 years.

here's one from 1945; FDR, of course, never attended the Balls - or his inaugural balls either - but he received all the stars. In '45 he was at the Yalta conference. In her memoir, Myrna Loy talks about meeting ER.

[Enthusiast]

116. Perfectly well thought out, Lasher!

They are desperate! They are trying to salvage their image. They have created an alternate reality where up is down and down is up. They are taking the art of dishonesty to a new height.

[jhrobbins]

172. I know it's extremely naive of me, but I really think that the Repubs know that all

of the good programs in this country were initiated by Democrats/progressives. (Progressives weren't always Democrats, but their ideology is the same as Dems now)

[MidwestTransplant]

13. Isn't it amazing. These same morons argue that McCarthy saved America.

And in 50 years they will be arguing that W was the best president since Hoover and that the economic calamity was solved before he left office and that he inherited it from Clinton.

[truedelphi]

14. Here's their reframe -

Before anyone jumps on me for this, let me say that I admire Roosevelt and his policies greatly. But here's detailed accounting of the revisionist meme:

Immediately after the Stock Market crashed, a cerain minor segment of the US work force was put out of work.

But not until FDR got into office in 1933 were there record levels of unemployment. This was due to his pouring money into the economy, and also due to the Taft Hartley tariff bills, obstensibly passed to protect the local job market, but actually destructive.

What is wrong with this reframe is obvious if you think about it. Of course the Stock Market crash of 1929 did little to affect job loss numbers immediately. It took a trickle down effect of several years for the decrease in jobs to be noted.

First of all, since the economy had been roaring along, most states were able to provide for their citizens throughout fiscal year 1930. It was only in fiscal year 1931 that layoffs in the state and city governments affected the people all across the nation. School teachers, social workers, accountants, firemen, nurses, police etc all felt a pinch in terms of layoffs and hiring. Those people being laid off led to a further increase in jobs lost.

I have read several letters to the editor and it does make my blood boil when the discussion says that since the job loss numbers for 1933 were so high, Roosevelt is to blame. But usually, no President has any policy so powerful that his actions can make much of a difference in the first year of their Administration. If job loss numbers were at record highs in 1933, it is activities preceeding Roosevelt that caused the job losses, not his assuming the Presidency in March of that year.

[Joe Fields]

19. This is where they get us, because they don't really deal in fact.

So they spread these half-truths and outright lies on the airwaves and throughout the print media and the idiot lemmings eat it up. By then the damage is done. Usually, anything done by our side to correct any untruths just falls on deaf ears.

[truedelphi]

103. And Joe, ever notice that if our side makes one eesie weenie little mistake in something,

It is all over for our side of the argument.

There will be pie charts and graphs and the Talking Heads will resurrect Abe Lincoln to have it pointed out that one of our minor talking points was a bad one.

[Enthusiast]

118. We must shout our side that much louder!

Our position must be told.

[lies and propaganda]

17. I will admit right now, being 28..

I dont know enough about my history here at home as I should.

great post, thank you!

[Joe Fields]

20. my pleasure, thanks.

[jhrobbins]

173. Well, you must have gotten something right, because you're here. However, it is

your generation that is a product of our failing educational establishment and to get a good education in America nowadays, you have to really want one.

[Waiting For Everyman]

18. Thank you! Knocking FDR is beyond idiotic.

Americans rejected lies in this campaign and we have to keep doing it. RWers would like us to believe that nothing has ever worked. That's bullshit. Doing what works, you'd think, would be common sense. But it's lies like those about FDR (and also the re-painting of zeroes like Nixon, Reagan, and the rest of the Rethug losers) which suck new generations into the same old trap.

Facts are facts.

My parents and grandparents lived through it too, and they were not gezers when they were recounting it to me a mere 10-20 years later in the 1950s and '60s. I saw the real-time documentaries that were made about it, and read the photo essays of those who were there. I'm simply amazed at the audacity of even disputing this at all. It's on a level of stupidity with denying the Holocaust.

A large percentage of those who lived through the Depression and New Deal kept framed photos of FDR on their walls ALL THEIR LIVES afterward. That wasn't for nothing. And it wasn't a temporary improvement he achieved either, it led to the most sustained and stable prosperity we've ever had. That, I myself saw... up until Nixon.

[Joe Fields]

21. Well, they are unpatriotic and have no shame.

Aside from that they are decent folk.

Seriously, they are unpatriotic and have no shame. Yes, my grandpa kept a framed photo of Roosevelt and a framed photo of John Kennedy in his home for as long as he was alive. Like you said, it wasn't for nothing.

[Elwood P Dowd]

22. You are wrong on Smoot-Hawley

TARIFFS: The Smoot-Hawley Fairy Tale Updated at 1:33 PM

Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 01:35 PM by unlawflcombatnt
Tariffs:The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Fairy Tale

Once again, it's necessary to debunk the Globalist fairy tales about the "damage" caused by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Below is a copy of U.S. GDP from 1929 through 1939. These are official government figures from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BLS)
Printable Version of 1929 to 1940

There is a link to a chart below that has key figures highlighted. On that chart, the Trade Balance has been underlined in Red. Exports have been underlined in Blue. Imports have been underlined in Orange.





** Note on the above referenced charts: The 1929 Trade balance is listed as +$0.4 billion. This is a MISTAKE. It should be +$0.3 billion. Subtracting the $5.6 billion in imports from the $5.9 billion in exports gives a difference of +$0.3 billion, not +$0.4 billion.

Notice that there is a slight decline in both exports and imports by the end of 1930. The trade balance remained around 0 during the entire time. Exports bottomed in 1932 — 2 years before any revision or modification of Smoot-Hawley occurred.


The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Legislation was passed in 1934 that weakened the effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In effect, the 1934 legislation functionally repealed Smoot-Hawley. Thus, the effects of Smoot-Hawley cover only the period between June 17, 1930, and 1934. This is the time frame that should be focused on.

So in reviewing the chart, what evidence is there that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff "hurt" the economy?? Is there any evidence at all?

No, there is practically NO evidence that Smoot-Hawley hurt our economy.

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.

What happens if we focus on exports alone? Exports were $5.9 billion in 1929, and had declined to $2.0 billion in 1933, for a -$3.9 billion decline. This $3.9 billion decline was roughly 3.8% of our 1929 GDP, which had already declined by a whopping -46% over the same period of time. Thus, of the -46% GDP decline, only -3.8% of it was due to a fall in exports.

But the effects on trade must also include the reduction in Imports, which ADDS to GDP. (A decline in imports increases GDP). If the import decline is added back to the GDP total (to measure the net trade balance), the "loss" becomes only -$0.2 billion from our GDP — or less than 1⁄2 of 1% of the total GDP decline.

In other words, the document-able "loss" from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff — the "net export" loss — contributed less than 1⁄2 of 1% of our our -46% GDP decline. Overall, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused almost 0 damage to our economy during the Depression.

To put this in better perspective, let's compare all the GDP components together:

1929 .......................................................... 1933

GDP $103.6 billion--------------------->$56.4 billion ( decreased -$47.2 billion)
Consum. Expend $77.4 bil-------------> $45.9 billion ( decreased -$31.5 bill)
Private Invest $16.5 bil----------------> $1.7 billion ( decreased -$14.8 billion)
*Trade Balance +$0.3 bil-------------->+$0.1 billion ( decreased -$0.2 billion)
Exports $5.9 billion--------------------> $2.0 billion ( decreased -$3.9 billion)
Imports $5.6 billion--------------------> $1.9 billion ( decreased -$3.7 billion)

Again, to re-emphasize, how much difference to US GDP did the export loss make? The Trade Balance worsened by only -$0.2 billion, or about -0.19% of our 1929 GDP ( or less than 1/5th of 1% of 1929 GDP). Meanwhile, our total GDP decreased a whopping -45.5% (or -$47.2 billion).

How much effect did a 1/5th of 1% loss of GDP have on the Great Depression, especially when spread over a 4-year period?

Again, where's all the "damage" that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused?? (Was it was all in "off-balance sheet" accounts?)

From the actual statistics, the true "harm" caused by the Smoot-Hawley is completely fictional. The harmful effects exist only in the minds of self-serving Globalist propagandists, who hope no one will actually check the facts, and expose their disingenuous attempts to re-write history.

Based on available statistics, Smoot-Hawley had almost NO effect on the Great Depression. At the very most, caused a -3.8% decline in GDP from loss of exports. But factoring in the GDP increase from a decline in imports, it caused less than 1% of the GDP decline.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff did not cause the Great Depression, nor did it worsen it or extend it. Claims to the contrary are not only false, but easily refutable. The evidence to disprove those claims is abundant, overwhelming, and freely available to the public.

The Smoot-Hawley myth needs to be put to rest, once and for all. The claim that it worsened the Great Depression is nothing but a fairy tale.

[Joe Fields]

23. Are you to argue that it didn't set off an international trade war,

resulting in chaos and a near halt in trade? I don't call those circumstances a plus, by any standard. Besides, it was just one problem facing Roosevelt, but was a contributing factor. You seem to have overblown the importance I placed on Hawley-Smoot.

[Elwood P Dowd]

25. Smoot-Hawley didn't do shit.

It's a republican talking point.

[Joe Fields]

26. Smoot-Hawley had quite an effect. Sorry you don't think so.

The Bill was signed in 1930. Roosevelt didn't take office until March of '33 and it was revised in 1935. It caused a lot of trouble internationally, and contributed to a worldwide depression. Yes, it had a great effect on our economy, as well as the world. Republican talking point? Hardly. Look it up in any history book.

[Elwood P Dowd]

30. I don't have to look it up in a fucking history book.

My oldest uncle, an economist born in the 1890s, was working in Washington at that time. He was in his 90s during the debate between Gore and Perot and threw a fit over the false claims about Smoot-Hawley. It had almost NO effect on the depression. It's a fucking corporate/republican talking point that you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Look at the numbers in the post above. You cannot refute them, so stop pushing the same corporate trade lies that are leading us into the same mess we experienced when my uncle was alive.

edit to add: I agree with most of what FDR did to save this country, but the Smoot-Hawley claim is bullshit.

[Joe Fields]

32. I'll take the history books, (notice I said more than one) over your uncle, anytime.

What do you think about that?

On edit, was your uncle the one economist that advised Hoover Hawley Smoot was a good thing? All other economists were against it, and told Hoover not to sign it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

33. Then you're young

and believe anything the revisionist tell you. I'm in my 60s, and I read different history books than you. I also had relatives that lived through those times, and I seriously doubt you can make that claim.

[Joe Fields]

35. I am an independent thinker, and use multiple sources for

researching a topic and forming an opinion. I wouldn't just take the word of "an uncle who was there." I don't know what sources you use, but I can document mine. Can you say the same?

BTW, I'm in my fifties, and have relatives who lived through those times, also.

[Elwood P Dowd]

36. Well why don't you totally refute my post. Show me your numbers.

The numbers tell the truth and you speak in republican talking points when it comes to Smoot-Hawley. Smoot-Hawley had very little effect on the Great Depression and you can't prove it had a major effect with any facts and figures. All you have is those same ole tired republican talking points. Just how many jobs did it cost us? Just how many billions of dollars did it cost us? Just what percentage of GDP did it cost us? Show me the numbers.

Here is UC's original post with the REAL figures: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x48462

[Joe Fields]

37. fuck you and your republican meme bullshit, buddy. that's about the third time

you've either accused me of swallowing repuke talking points or have a republican frame of mind and you can piss off, asshole. Got it?

For one thing, your numbers are wrong. GDP was 56 billion. Exports was 2 billion. Thats almost 4%, not one fifth of one percent of GDP.

Now, let me get this straight; Smoot-Hawley, as you call it, raised tariffs to 49%, from 34%, and in so doing, pissed off the rest of the world, which caused the rest of the world to raise their tariffs against. us. We lock out other countries goods, and trigger a worldwide depression, and you sit there and try to tell me it didn't hurt us? I believe your words were, "it didn't do shit."

uh huh....

[Nederland]

165. The numbers do tell the truth

And according to your own numbers, the effect was substantial. Common sense tells us that when both imports and exports decline by 2/3, the effects can't be good for the economy. So let's look at more of your numbers. The GDP declined by 47.2 billion dollars, exports declined by 3.9 billion, and imports declined by 3.7 billion. Now while difficult to determine exactly what percentage of GDP is trade related from these numbers, it is hardly a small percentage. Even if we just take the raw numbers (which we shouldn't because the cumulative effect is much greater), the decline in trade accounts for 16% of the GDP decline. That's hardly what I'd call "insignificant".

[Elwood P Dowd]

186. From UC's data in my post (these are his numbers, not mine)

Note: UC is DUer unlawflcombatnt who posted these numbers last fall.

No, there is practically NO evidence that Smoot-Hawley hurt our economy.

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.

What happens if we focus on exports alone? Exports were $5.9 billion in 1929, and had declined to $2.0 billion in 1933, for a -$3.9 billion decline. This $3.9 billion decline was roughly 3.8% of our 1929 GDP, which had already declined by a whopping -46% over the same period of time. Thus, of the -46% GDP decline, only -3.8% of it was due to a fall in exports.

But the effects on trade must also include the reduction in Imports, which ADDS to GDP. (A decline in imports increases GDP). If the import decline is added back to the GDP total (to measure the net trade balance), the "loss" becomes only -$0.2 billion from our GDP — or less than 1⁄2 of 1% of the total GDP decline.

In other words, the document-able "loss" from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff — the "net export" loss — contributed less than 1⁄2 of 1% of our our -46% GDP decline. Overall, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused almost 0 damage to our economy during the Depression.

[pnorman]

149. I'm close to 80 myself, having been born a few months before that Smoot-Hawley Act.

And I've been reading so-called "revisionist" history from about age 17. I never have to make a special effort to see the "the side", since I'm usually hip-deep in it every time I turn around. It has NOT been a good "Career Move", but I feel comfortable with it. I've also defended it (with considerable success) in some pretty hostile venues.

Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (sometimes known as the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act)<1> was an act signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels. In the United States 1,028 economists signed a petition against this legislation, and after it was passed, many countries retaliated with their own increased tariffs on U.S. goods, and American exports and imports plunged by more than half. In the opinion of some economists, the Smoot-Hawley Act was a catalyst for the severe reduction in U.S.-European trade from its high in 1929 to its depressed levels of 1932 that accompanied the start of the Great Depression.<2><3>
.
.
.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Act

The seeds of the Great Depression were planted in 1920, when some world-class CROOKS took over the Republican Party and nominated/elected Harding. The rest was pretty well foreordained, and Hoover was more a victim of that than an enabler. The Depression was already well underway by 1930, and needed drastic action to arrest it. But that S-M Act greatly aggravated it rather than was "neutral".

pnorman

[AngryAmish]

54. Wrong

In figuring GDP one indeed does subtract imports from exports. By your reckoning it is better for a country to seal itself off completely and rely on natively produced items than run a slightly negative trade balance. That is an absurdity. Compare Indian GDP in the 70s when they pursued such a policy and now.

Some people and companies build better and more productive equipment than others. By stopping foreign trade we cut ourselves off from the better German or British machine tools (an example, I am not familiar with every industrial product and their value in the period) while cutting them off from American automobiles. The native substitute may not be as productive in every item or field.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

67. But figures show that Smoot-Hawley didn't have a significant impact on the Depression,

good or bad. By the time it was passed, the rest of the world's economy was beginning to tank so even if it weren't in place, international trade would have been curtailed.

No one seems to really know why things got as bad as they did. I suspect a lot of it was psychological - after all, this was the biggest blow to the American economy ever, and panic tends to engender panic.

[ProfessorGAC]

110. That's The Trick

There's no doubt that it set off a trade war of progressively higher and punitive tarriffs.

The doubt, as you said, is whether the trade would have been worth a darn anyway when everyone's productivity went south and currency values dropped dramatically.

At that point, the discussion is theoretical. Some have argued, with good research and modeling, that the only reason it wasn't disasterous was because of the currency and productivity conditions.

Others have published equally good arguments that it was a non-issue, because we cannot view that act as something in a vacuum, and that makes the argument moot.

So, it's been a reasonably argued point of contention for at least the 40 years i know about.
GAC

[Nederland]

167. Wrong

The numbers show that at least 16% percent of the decline in GDP was related to declines in trade.

[Zynx]

95. There are ripple effects throughout the economy not reflected from that.

For example, the loss of those export orders led to layoffs in shipping and manufacturing. The loss of imports led to losses among wholesalers and retailers and had an artificial inflationary impact, though that was certainly offset by rapid deflation.

[ropi]

24. just to add...

anyone who does research with county records, archives and such can thank the WPA and the New Deal. Without those jobs a lot of that could have been lost--furthemore, a New WPA could really benefit the country by making it possible to imput the records and information from the first WPA work into computers and other databases.

good work on this Joe.. thanks ;-)

[Joe Fields]

27. you're so right. and we can have that type of benefit again, and

it's sorely needed. Good idea on the old records, if they can be found and transcribed.

[pa28]

31. Kick for FDR.

He was a giant. The price of the wall street bailout is now similar in inflation adjusted dollars to the total price of the new deal.

I know what the new deal did - but what about the Bush/Paulson bailout? So far it has subsidized: a manhattan penthouse, bank acquisitions for profit, million dollar bonuses for those who boldly explored the frontiers of excessive leverage, "counterparty collateral" (aka flushed down the toilet) and that's without the unaccounted trillions the fed dispensed on it's own authority.

Funny how these RW DB's feel they are somehow qualified to lecture.

[Captain Hilts]

75. Kick for Eleanor. nt

[Flubadubya]

82. Kick for Fala

[Captain Hilts]

84. Kick for Eleanor's horse, Dot.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

215. I'd sooner have voted for Fala than George Dubya Dipshit.

Dead or alive.

[pnorman]

34. Rural Electrification Administration

Although nearly 90 percent of urban dwellers had electricity by the 1930s, only ten percent of rural dwellers did. Private utility companies, who supplied electric power to most of the nation's consumers, argued that it was too expensive to string electric lines to isolated rural farmsteads. Anyway, they said, most farmers, were too poor to be able to afford electricity.

The Roosevelt Administration believed that if private enterprise could not supply electric power to the people, then it was the duty of the government to do so. Most of the court cases involving TVA during the 1930s concerned the government's involvement in the public utilities industry.

In 1935 the Rural Electric Administration (REA) was created to bring electricity to rural areas like the Tennessee Valley. In his 1935 article "Electrifying the Countryside," Morris Cooke, the head of the REA, stated that

In addition to paying for the energy he used, the farmer was expected to advance to the power company most or all of the costs of construction. Since utility company ideas as to what constituted sound rural lines have been rather fancy, such costs were prohibitive for most farmers. < footnote>

Many groups opposed the federal government's involvement in developing and distributing electric power, especially utility companies, who believed that the government was unfairly competing with private enterprise (See the Statement of John Battle ). Some members of Congress who didn't think the government should interfere with the economy, believed that TVA was a dangerous program that would bring the nation a step closer to socialism. Other people thought that farmers simply did not have the skills needed to manage local electric companies.

By 1939 the REA had helped to establish 417 rural electric cooperatives, which served 288,000 households. The actions of the REA encouraged private utilities to electrify the countryside as well. By 1939 rural households with electricity had risen to 25 percent. The enthusiasm that greeted the introduction of electric power can be seen in the remarks of Rose Scearce.

When farmers did receive electric power their purchase of electric appliances helped to increase sales for local merchants. Farmers required more energy than city dwellers, which helped to offset the extra cost involved in bringing power lines to the country.

TVA set up the Electric Home and Farm Authority to help farmers purchase major electric appliances. The EHFA made arrangements with appliance makers to supply electric ranges, refrigerators and water heaters at reasonable prices. These appliances were sold at local power companies and electric cooperatives. A farmer could purchase appliances here with loans offered by the EHFA, who offered low-cost financing.
.
.
.

http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm

pnorman

[Joe Fields]

93. Can you even imagine how the republicans would scream, if the govt.

tried something akin to that now?

[pnorman]

120. They'll scream at ANYTHING, once they feel it's safe.

And that's why all this super-purist posturing here on Du, so pisses me off! Obama and his team will need all the cover and protection he can summon in the next few CRITICAL months. To all here who feel so "aggrieved" over various issues, consider the CONSEQUENCES of Obama having his momentum fatally bogged down in (largely malicious) trivia.

pnorman

[Enthusiast]

121. Exactly. They would scream "

"The private sector is the only way to create jobs!"

[Rhiannon12866]

38. K&R. Are the people who are saying this here channeling Brit Hume?!

:crazy:

[ColbertWatcher]

39. Thank you. Proudly kick and recommend. n/t

[B Calm]

40. The borrow and spend REPUBLICANS run up the deficit so high

when they are in office, that the only way to keep the country running is to tax the middle class and poor Democrats (and Republicans alike- hell, they don't care who they screw).

The only ones with the balls to do what is necessary is the Democrats. The REPUBLICANS screw up the system, then don't do anything to fix it. They sit on their asses and wait for the Democrats to take office to do what's needed to keep the country operating - then the REPUBLICANS that caused all the mess in the first place sit back on their fat pimply hemorrhoid asses and point their shit stained fingers at the totally innocent Democrats. Fucking Ass holes are war mongers as well. Make or twist laws as situations change. Most of them are Lawyers before they take office and run lawyer offices on the side when they are in office and take bribes from special interest groups. They don't know how to live within the rules of the game....they just change the rules to suit their own desires as the situation dictates. REPUBLICANS will have sex with animals and they jack off all the time with no lubrication while looking at MAD magazines! Sick SOBs! Since all the rich people are REPUBLICANS, the only ones left to bail out the country are the poor and middle class Democrats. If we KILL all REPUBLICANS, we could put the system back on track as it was originally intended. As long as there are REPUBLICANS around to screw things up, us poor and middle class Democrats will have to pay the bills for the bills they run up. I believe other countries call them COMMUNISTS! Screw the MFckng REPUBLICANS!!!! They are also the ones that invented credit cards and broke up Ma Bell. They also sit at the top of the oil company's. They rule, and we poor Democrats suffer from them worm shit eating REPUBLICANS!

If not for the REPUBLICANS, we would have clean air, the solar ice caps would not be melting, we would not be at war, would have no income tax at all, and would all retire millionaires! Unfortunately, the only way these hard headed animal screwing MFer's to get the message, is to drop dead and DIE!!!! Then, God will enlighten them and only then will they see all the screwed up shit they have caused in this country.....to include War, Pestilence, Greed, Obesity, the Flu, Walmart, and McDonald's.

[Joe Fields]

45. They talk about liberals as if we had horns and tails. They talk about us,

like we should be exiled from the country. The truth is that this country would be light years ahead, if it weren't for their neanderthal type thinking. I couldn't agree with you more.

[jhrobbins]

174. Ok B Calm, you need to quit equivocating and tell us what you really think.

:rofl: :sarcasm:

[DissedByBush]

205. "Since all the rich people are REPUBLICANS" ???

Huh? George Soros? Much of the Hollywood elite? #2 richest guy in America and Obama supporter Warren Buffet?

What are you smoking? Being rich doesn't automatically make you go Republican crazy.

[rosesaylavee]

43. K / R / Bookmarked

Thanks for posting. I am sure we can use this in the months ahead. Somehow I don't think this meme will going away any time soon.

[mod mom]

44. Historically, RWers hated FDR, heck they attempted a coup (including Prescott Bush):

Sorry for the repeat post, but so many are unaware of this event that I post it at every opportunity in hope you folks will be enlightened:

1934: The Plot Against America

BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED July 28, 2007

I’m back from the land of heather and thistles, not to mention wee drams and lukewarm ale, but on my way out a friend at the BBC alerted me to this, a not-to-miss program on the BBC this morning, accessible over the next several days by internet. It’s the story of the Plot Against America. I don’t mean the Philip Roth novel, nor even the Sinclair Lewis book, It Can’t Happen Here, but rather the historical events upon which these two works of fiction were based.

In November 1934, federal investigators uncovered an amazing plot involving some two dozen senior businessmen, a good many of them Wall Street financiers, to topple the government of the United States and install a fascist dictatorship. Roth’s novel is developed from several strands of this factual account; he assumed the plot is actually carried out, whereas in fact an alert FDR shut it down but stopped short of retaliatory measures against the plotters. A key element of the plot involved a retired prominent general who was to have raised a private army of 500,000 men from unemployed veterans and who blew the whistle when he learned more of what the plot entailed. The plot was heavily funded and well developed and had strong links with fascist forces abroad. A story in the New York Times and several other newspapers reported on it, and a special Congressional committee was created to conduct an investigation. The records of this committee were scrubbed and sealed away in the National Archives, where they have only recently been made available.

The Congressional committee kept the names of many of the participants under wraps and no criminal action was ever brought against them. But a few names have leaked out. And one is Prescott Bush, the grandfather of the incumbent president. Prescott Bush was of course deep into the business of the Hamburg-America Lines, and had tight relations throughout this period with the new Government that had come to power in Germany a year earlier under Chancellor Aldoph Hitler. It appears that Bush was to have formed a key liaison for the group with the new German government.

Prescott Bush, of course, went on to service as a U.S. Senator from Connecticut, and his son, George H.W. Bush emerged from World War II as a hero.

-snip

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000651



The Whitehouse Coup
Monday 23 July 2007



The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

[pnorman]

189. "The Plot to Overthrow FDR"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=628728631767818729

That History Channel video was based largely on the Jules Archer book, "The Plot to Seize the White House". It has gone out of print for a long time, but is now available again. Here it is at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Plot-Seize-White-House-Conspiracy/dp/1602390363/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231549725&sr=1-1

pnorman

[Odin2005]

46. Thank you. I just rany into one of these FDR bashers in another thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3679716

:banghead:

[gollygee]

47. We grew up with a picture of FDR on the wall

my grandparents had the same. They lived through the depression and raised a family through it. They thought he saved them AND our country. People who lived during that time, except maybe the ultra-rich, knew what was going on. Now people, generations later, are trying to revise history. It pisses me off. My grandma must be rolling in her grave. I'm surprised she never named a child Franklin she was such a fan.

[PVnRT]

48. K&R

:kick:

[meegbear]

49. The people who dis FDR worshiped Reagan ...

'Nuf sed.

[ozu]

70. Or

they realize that he was a flawed president that still managed to do a tremendous amount of good. He wasn't a deity.

Japanese concentration camps? Not his finest hour.

[Enthusiast]

124. No one claimed FDR was a deity

and no Democrat claims Obama is a messiah, only Repukes do that.

[Captain Hilts]

138. FDR sure as hell thought he was the Virgin Birth!!!

[Kansas Wyatt]

50. Republicans are on a campaign to change America's view of the New Deal.

I suspect that they know a Newer Deal is needed for the working class, but they don't want it to happen, just like they didn't want the New Deal to happen. So they are trying to label the New Deal as a failure to scare people away from following the same successful path towards a recovery for the economy, by actually building the middle class back up.

[Enthusiast]

125. You got it, Wyatt! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Franklin, and Eleanor, great Americans!

My folks were rural Depression kids. FDR was the nearest my Dad got to having a hero, but he liked Eleanor even more. Dad was sure that she was the genius, he was the frontman. Loved them both, madly. I grew up hearing quotes and stories of those two. I am a Franklin and Eleanor Democrat.

[Joe Fields]

94. Amen!

:toast:

And you can thank FDR for ending prohibition, also!

[Captain Hilts]

142. Me too, and you'll enjoy this story I heard about a week ago...

I was in B&N in Bethesda doing some writing and an older woman next to me asked what I was working on. We got to talking and it ended up that her dad was a major State Dept. official in the 30s-50s. She said on the couple of occasions he was in a meeting with ER, he was stunned by how super intelligent she was. She was the Smartest Guy in the Room.

Her dad also saw Eleanor Dulles table dancing at 3am at a party once. Still waters run deep.

[yellowcanine]

52. Three actions: "Social Security", "Bank Holiday" and "FDIC"

Even if nothing else worked, FDR would have been a success for the SS program. So just say that next time someone is trying to diss FDR.

And you can follow that up with "Bank Holiday" and FDIC
These actions restored trust in the banks without which the Depression would have been far worse.

And I would add the CCC and WPA programs.

If FDR is to be faulted for anything, it is that he didn't do enough. But remember, he had to get all these programs approved by a Congress and Senate which had lots of quite conservative Southern Democratic members - particularly the chairs of many of the committees.

[AtomTan]

60. self-delete

[Alcibiades]

53. Bush=Hoover

We've tried Republican policies of soaking the poor and rewarding the rich three times already, and every time it's ended in a global depression.

Can folks please not let them forget it this time?

[rurallib]

152. there is a little difference

Hoover had some redeeming qualities as a human. He headed up the European recovery after WWI and also contributed after WWII.
GW has NOT ONE FUCKING REDEEMING VALUE AS A HUMAN BEING. He is like the ultimate repug - total asshole.

[Gold Metal Flake]

55. If The Media Were "Liberal", Everyone Would Know This.

If there were a liberal media bias, there would be a Roots-style multi-night miniseries about FDR and the New Deal on ABC, NBC or CBS right now. Everyone would know the names of all of the players.

The Corporate controlled media is our greatest enemy. The current structure of the Corporate controlled conservative media must be destroyed.

[redqueen]

66. Wish I could rec this post.

Glad I'm in time to rec the thread at least. :thumbsup:

[Enthusiast]

127. Me too! nt

[Joe Fields]

72. so true. nice take. Yes, ABC would give the mini series a hell of a buildup.

[RufusTFirefly]

73. I second redqueen's endorsement of Opposite Reaction's post

The corrosive influence of corporate media in censoring important history and warping the opinions and perceptions of the American people is huge.

[librechik]

88. absolute fact. Until we have a true liberal media, or at least a fair share

instead of what, maybe 10%? the facts will continue to be twisted in their favor. Including the idea that liberals control the media. Utter BS.

[Prophet 451]

139. 10% is being generous

I'm a Brit so I'm seeing this from the outside but of your TV media, I'd say 50-60% has an identifiable idealogical bias. Of that, the only shows actively biased in a liberal direction are Countdown and Maddow which is, minus commercials, maybe an hour forty each day. I'm not counting Colbert and Stewert since they're satirists or Bill Maher who's a libertarian.

With Olbermann and Maddow doing gangbuster numbers and Olbermann's behind-the-scenes power at MSNBC growing, I live in hope that MSNBC will repackage themselves as the liberal network. That way, conservatives get Faux, liberals get MSNBC, CNN is forced back to scrupulously neutral reporting and every market segment is served.

[Enthusiast]

126. Why don't more point this out.

Every time the assholes scream "Liberal Media" no one asks "Where are the documentaries on the good of the New Deal?" The media is complicit in this push to rewrite history.

[Prophet 451]

137. Fair warning, I'm stealing that idea

One of my hobbies is writing screenplays that never get produced, I'm stealing that idea. I'm thinking eight hour-long episodes, following two seperate but complimentry storylines: One involving the passage of the New Deal in Washington and the political and power struggles behind that; the other would show the effects of those policies at ground level.

[nxylas]

226. "One of my hobbies is writing screenplays that never get produced"

Mind if I steal that line?

[Prophet 451]

235. Be my guest :) n/t

[stevedeshazer]

56. Way to go, Joe!

Highly recommended.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

57. If Roosevelt was so terrible

why did they make songs about him? No one sang a song called "We miss Hoover" :)This was written after he was elected the second time...

We've Got Franklin D. Roosevelt Back Again

Just hand me my old Martin for soon I will be startin'
Back to dear old Charleston far away
Since Roosevelt's been re-elected, we'll not be neglected
We've got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again

Back again, back again
We've got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again
Since Roosevelt's been re-elected
Moon liquor's been corrected
We've got legal wine, whiskey, beer and gin

I'll take a drink of brandy and let myself be handy
Good old times are coming back again
You can laugh and tell a joke, you can dance and drink and smoke
We've got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again
We've got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again
We'll have money in our jeans
We can travel with the queen
We've got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again

No more breadlines, we're happy to say the donkey won election
day
No more standing in the blowing, snowing rain
He's got things in full swing, we're all working and getting our
pay
We've got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again

We've got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again
Since Roosevelt's been re-elected
Moon liquor's been corrected
We've got Franklin D. Roosevelt back again

recorded by Bill Cox in 1936 one week after the election
also recorded by New Lost City Ramblers

[QueenOfCalifornia]

58. I just

recommended this OP.

Best thing on DU right now.

FDR walked into a disaster of monumental proportions.

I would like to add that Eleanor Roosevelt was one of best first ladies to live in the WH. She worked tirelessly to improve the lives of poor Americans and to further the civil rights crusade.

Peace.

[Joe Fields]

61. Absolutely. Eleanor was the crown jewel of first ladies.

She is the gold standard, by which all other first ladies are to be judged. Can't say enough about that wonderful woman.

[Captain Hilts]

76. Here you go...

[jhrobbins]

175. Yep, Yep, Yep!

[Uncle Joe]

59. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Joe Fields.:thumbsup:

[AtomTan]

62. "I welcome their hatred."

Imagine any politician now saying that he welcomes the hatred of the money changers. Can't you just hear the conniption? "Socialist!"

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html

"For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred."

[libnnc]

64. "Honey, Mr. Roosevelt saved this family..."

Per my 94 year-old great grandmother in 1980...spoken through tears to a ten-year old pig-tailed me.

I have NEVER forgotten the look on her face when she said that.

End of fucking story.

FDR = Lifesaver for us.

[bobbolink]

106. "Honey, Mr. Roosevelt saved this family..." That says it all, doesn't it?

Bless your grandmother!

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

65. I posted this elsewhere, but you might be interested in this:

The right likes to claim that the New Deal aggravated the Depression vis a vis the market crash of 1937. What they fail to note is that the crash occurred after several New Deal programs were struck down as unconstitutional. Now, did these programs cause the crash? No. What did was the wavering confidence of Republicans in Congress and Wall Street investors. The 1936 election had been rough on the New Deal as the wealth elite in the country launched an all-out attack against it and FDR. While their attacks failed to win them the Presidency, it did create a lingering doubt that multiplied into all-out panic when the Supreme Court made its move. This panic led to a massive sell-off on Wall Street and significant losses on the Dow Jones.

The crib notes: Republican panicking caused the 1937 crash, not the New Deal.

[geardaddy]

68. A-men and Hallelujah!

:applause:

[TheCML]

71. I think FDR was a great president.

But it has to be said that he was forced to do the things he did by the American people, he wouldnt have done it on his own, the same will have to be done with Obama. Also Japanese intermint camps and the atom bomb are horrible skid marks on the face of American history.

[Moonwalk]

81. Creation of the A-Bomb was FDR, dropping it was Truman

And granted, you're entirely right: FDR was certainly no saint and there's many things we, on this side of the fence, could and have taken him to task for.

However, if we're discussing purely the value of the New Deal in American Economics--and that's all that matters in our current situation--then his other sins are immaterial. We're not, after all, at war with an Asian country and discussing whether or not we should follow FDR's example in building camps or creating superbombs to destroy entire cities.

[Prophet 451]

141. Do you think FDR would have dropped the bomb?

Open question but I tend to think FDR would have used the threat of the bomb to end the war rather than actually using it.

[Captain Hilts]

146. Absolutely. He told his son in Jan '45 that there wasn't going to be an invasion of the mainland.

And if he'd been a vegetable, Eleanor would have dropped it, though she was more open to pressure from Enrico Fermi and Leo Slizard to have a demonstration of The Bomb first. She met with both and had an appt. with Slizard the afternoon FDR died.

But, in her correspondence with Harry Truman, in the 1950s she said that having been to Japan and seen what their defenses were, she was more certain than ever that dropping THE Bomb was a good thing. I think she was surprised the Japanese didn't surrender after one.

When Truman asked her to come to the White House in June '45 to talk about the Bomb, she said she came away thinking, "I always worried about that second bomb...."

[Captain Hilts]

74. Okay, heeeere you go!

ER: Oh Franklin, isn't that Joe Fields a dear?
FDR: Indeed he is!
ER: Let's take him with us...
FDR: Hop on in Joe!

[Joe Fields]

90. ROFLMAO!!! I love it...

:toast:

[sailor65]

77. Roosevelt's great shame was not the New Deal,

but his sellout of so much humanity vis-a-vis Stalin.

[Captain Hilts]

85. Check out a map of the location of Red Army troops. nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

129. Gee, it's just a shame we didn't have WW3 right on the heels of WW2, innit?

:eyes:

[riqster]

78. Thanks for providing this!

I will use it on all Reeps I encounter.

[aggiesal]

80. And the greatest social program which started in 1935, ...

was not even mentioned.

Social Security official started in 1935 under FDR, and is probably the main social program that the CONS want to kill in a big way. They'll repeat lie after lie that Social Security will be bankrupt in 2019, which is not the case.

With current output levels and input levels, in the year 2019, Social Security will start spending more dollars than it will be taking in. There are currently enough reserves in the Social Security system to continue with the negative spending until around
the years 2040 - 2045.

If we cash in the IOU's, that Bush I placed in the Social Security system, when he raided the coffer, the years are extended beyond approximately 2060.

It's pretty easy to guarantee that the Social Security system lasts beyond 2045 or even 2060, and thats to increase the maximum income that pays into the system. That way, the system would never start negative spending in 2019, and system will continue to receive more money then it pays out, forever.

[rpannier]

209. Let's not forget

Back in 82 they told us it would be bankrupt by 2000.
It wasn't.

They just pick a date that's far enough away that's hard to prove or disprove, but close enough to scare people.

[aggiesal]

222. Back in 82, the maximum salary that paid into Social Security ...

was $55,000. After $55K you paid $0.

How did they fix it? They raised the maximum salary slowly.
They've been doing it ever since.
Now the maximum salary is I think $102K

So those making over $102K only pay upto $102K, then after
$102K pay nothing.

They'll probably continue to increase it until about $200K to $250K.

[Ignis]

83. Thanks for the summary. Great post!

I, for one, am growing increasingly tired of the "South Park Libertarianism" that's creeping into a lot of DU posts. The attacks on FDR were the last fucking straw.

[Geek_Girl]

159. Did south park dis FDR?

I stopped watching that show years ago. Just wondering

[bvar22]

86. I know why "some" at DU trash FDR.

There is a wing of the Democratic Party that worships at the altar of:

*Supply Side Economics (Trickle Down Wall Street Bailouts)

*"Free" Trade

*Union Busting

*"Free" Markets

*de-regulation

*Privatizing government

*Imperial Wars.

*Military Spending

*Defunding the Social Safety Nets

*Privatizing Social Security (though they don't say this one out loud anymore. They DID in 2000, and it is still one of their goals)

*Not prosecuting White Collar Mega-Criminals and War Profiteers
.
.
.
.
.
Guess which wing of the Democratic Party supports ALL of these things.

[Enthusiast]

130. They are NOT Democrats! nt

[Pale Blue Dot]

87. Why you can't compare today's situation with what FDR inherited:

Urgent Questions from Readers

Q: I see disturbing similarities between this crisis and The Great Depression. Both were triggered by the bursting of massive debt bubbles, for instance. But this time, the government is doing so much more to pump up the economy. So is it safe to assume that this crisis will be a lot less severe than the 1930s?

A: No, it's not safe to make that assumption. True, the government's massive intervention is a major factor. But there are also powerful factors that can offset or even overwhelm the government's impact:

* Broader speculative bubbles. In the years prior to the Crash of 1929, the bubbles were limited primarily to stock speculation and restricted to a minority of the population. This time, the speculation has engulfed not only stocks but also millions of homes, commercial properties, local governments, corporations, and entire nations.

* More household debt. U.S. households are in far greater debt today with much less savings. In the 1930s, mortgages were rarer and less onerous. For all practical purposes, second mortgages, home equity loans, creative financing, and credit cards didn't even exist. Today, they are everywhere in our society.

* U.S. is now a debtor nation. In the 1930s, the U.S. had large surpluses of foreign reserves and was a creditor to the rest of the world. Now, it has minimal reserves and huge foreign debts. As a result, there's ultimately a limit to how much Washington can throw good money after bad to save the U.S. economy before foreign investors rebel, refusing to continue providing abundant credit.

* Derivatives. In the early 1930s, derivatives were virtually unknown — a tiny niche of little consequence. Today there are nearly $600 trillion in notional value derivatives globally, according to the Bank of International Settlements. The forced liquidation of many of these derivatives could frustrate government efforts to revive credit markets, driving the global economy into a deeper decline than would normally be expected.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article7996.html

[Joe Fields]

97. Very good points. I do think a comparison can be made, but in

different manners. In other words, little regulation of the finance industry, no oversight, to speak of, extreme leveraging, greed, bursting bubbles, all are in common with the two events. You are so right about the derivatives, and I wonder if we have come close to getting a handle on them. I think not, because the politicians are running so scared. They will never tell us how bad things really are, but you can tell by the way they act.

[myrna minx]

89. K&R n/t

[Jennicut]

92. Before FDR we had bread lines, the whole country had no net

Thanks to FDR people had hope and a government that cared. Rethugs are jealous of his legacy.

[Wednesdays]

96. A big Kay and Arr here

Kudos to the OP. What's more, FDR did all this in spite of a hostile Supreme Court packed with arch-conservatives and a VERY hostile plutocracy (much like what Obama will likely face, too).

[Joe Fields]

99. So hostile, they tried to have him offed, and a Bush was involved

in that, too!!!

[Enthusiast]

132. Ideologically Fascists, the Bushes. nt

[GinaMaria]

98. my life long conservative parents taught me that FDR

saved democracy in this country. Both parents were children in the 30s and the Great Depression left an imprint on them. Both Goldwater loving Ps, acknowledged that with unemployment as high as it was, with the number of homeless as high as it was, we were looking at revolution. They believed this was demonstrated throughout history high numbers in unemployment, homelessness, poverty led to uprising and usually not a pleasant one. Without FDR, our country would look very different.

[Joe Fields]

101. Thank you for that. In my life, I have NEVER heard a bad word

from ANYONE in my parents and grandparent's generation about FDR. Seriously, not once.

[GinaMaria]

107. It's the only nice thing I can say about my family's politics

:hi:
He saved our constitution, our democracy, our way of life and the American dream. Most of us are here now because of FDR.

[The Wizard]

100. The same Republicans

will tell you the Kaiser was a gentleman and Hitler was misunderstood.
I just tell them to shut the fuck up. I'm not in the mood for bullshit.

[baldguy]

102. The New Deal was obviously a failure

Because it didn't prevent the recession after the Vietnam War and couldn't survive 30 yrs of being undermined by Republican policies.

[Joe Fields]

104. LOL...I would rec this post if I could.

[ProfessorGAC]

112. Actually, Quite A Bit Still Has Survived

Despite the undermining you described! So, i'd say, pretty good!
GAC

[Blue_Roses]

109. Here,here and

well said:toast:

my parents lived during the Great Depression and they can't say enough good things about FDR. He truly cared about the little people.

[jhrobbins]

177. ANd given todays political landscape, I can't help but believe that TR would be a Democrat as well.

[stox]

111. A key aspect of the New Deal

If it weren't for the creation of the TVA, we would have not been able to develop the Atomic Bomb. If it weren't for the creation of highways, we would not have been able to mobilize to the extent we did for the Second World War at all. So, to put it bluntly, if it weren't for the New Deal, there is a good chance we might have lost the Second World War.

[deutsey]

113. Unfortunately, we Amurkans ain't into that fancy-pants historical record stuff

:evilfrown:

[Enthusiast]

115. You are so right, Joe!

The Republicans are trying desperately to rewrite history. Especially now that they will possibly be blamed for their second Great Depression. If any DUer objects to FDR, they are, in fact, a *Stealth Republican*. No Democrat has anything but the greatest admiration for the accomplishments of FDR.

[jpak]

119. Bookmarked

Thanks

:thumbsup:

[sazemisery]

123. I visited FDR's home and library @ Hyde Park

2 years ago. Even though I knew my history, I was awed by what was accomplished in the first 100 days. I look forward to President Obama and hope he can accomplish as much in so few days.

K&R

[Prophet 451]

131. Good luck

I agree with you entirely but the right has made rewriting history a hobby for about thirty years now and one of their articles of faith (Republicanism is rapidly becoming a religion) is that government intervention only harms. Their media echo machine parrots it relentlessly and DUers are no more immune to brainwashing than anyone else.

Like I said, I agree with you entirely but you're going to need a lot of luck to shut down this rewrite.

[Enthusiast]

134. Break up the media giants. nt

[Prophet 451]

143. Well yeah, that works too n/t

[Libertas1776]

135. ...

Republicans have despised FDR since he was president, referring to him then not as President Roosevelt but rather "that man in the White House."

FDR, greatest president ever!

[sinkingfeeling]

136. My 90 year-old mother would be very willing to have this debate with anybody who says the New Deal

didn't help. She was there and lived it.

[blindpig]

140. The New Deal failed not on it's merits but due to the opposition

of the rich. It was of course meant to save capitalism from itself. That it brought much relief to suffering Americans cannot be doubted, and that was what saved capitalism. But as soon as the crisis was averted and with the end of WWII the alliance with Communism no longer needed, the retrenchment began with the Red Scare and McCarthyism and reaching cruising speed with Reagan. With the true left broken and scattered there was nothing keeping the Democratic Party 'honest' so it drifted towards the right, where the power was. And here we are.

The lesson being as long as capitalism has teeth, money, it will seek ascendancy, for only that will guarantee increased profits. All regulation is temporary as long the beast of capitalism is allowed to live, and for that reason it must be killed.

[Political Heretic]

144. Obama's first stab at an economic proposal falls sadly short of FDR style greatness.

[Captain Hilts]

147. It's a different era. nt

[Fading Captain]

164. Maybe, but don't underestimate the importantance of infrastructure

many of the projects are the "silver bullet" communities have been pining for, in some cases for decades.

[Political Heretic]

195. I'm not. The fact that it doesn't more boldy emphasize infastructure is the problem.

[Shakespeare]

181. You should hold off on that pronouncement until his program is actually in final form.

A bit premature, there.

[Political Heretic]

196. Then maybe he should have held off the press conference anouncing it?

It's fair game now.

[Shakespeare]

225. Perhaps you should listen more closely.

Because during that press conference, he said quite clearly that they're still deciding on what, exactly, the plan will do, and are still open to suggestions from other experts. Ergo, it's still in draft stage.

[Political Heretic]

234. That's fantastic. In the mean time, I'll add my voice to those advocating for what they think works

And against what they think doesn't work.

Pretty reasonable, eh?

You can't make the point that its "open to feedback" and then be upset about feedback.

[Usrename]

150. Reality check!

Good synopsis!

:thumbsup:

[4_TN_TITANS]

151. Outstanding! k/r

The reason we are in this mess is that too few remember and those who do long since put down the microphone. FDR was a true American hero no matter how you slice it.

[8 track mind]

153. Bravo!!

My Grandmother passed away in 2006 at teh age of 92. A week before she died, she told me that Bush was just like Hoover and she thought that we were heading down the same path. Scary.

I had 4 great uncles work for the CCC. They were absolutley grateful to work.

All of the stories i heard growing up from my realitaves, not ONE of them had a bad thing to say about FDR. Anyone who has the gall to trash FDR obviously has never known what it's like to go without.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

154. K&R

My 88 year-old parents have stated many times, "Thank God for FDR and Medicare."

:toast:

[me b zola]

155. Check out today's DemocracyNow!

Nothing to Fear: Adam Cohen on “FDR’s Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America”

The current economic crisis has often been cited as the worst the country has seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt took his oath of office in March 1933, over 10,000 banks had collapsed, following the stock market crash of 1929. One-quarter of American workers were unemployed, and people were fighting over scraps of food. We speak with Adam Cohen, author of Nothing to Fear: FDR’s Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/9/nothing_to_fear_adam_cohen_on
Links to video plus trascript at this link.

[Marr]

157. The fact that this slogan is being advance by the people who sold us the current mess should be all

you need to discredit it.

[liberal N proud]

158. Here is hope Obama can recreate the FDR magic

and save this nation from it self again.

FDR was the perfect man for the times this nation was going through, I doubt anyone else would have been able to accomplish what he did.

[Donkeykick]

160. K&R

[4 t 4]

161. k&r n/t

[Two Americas]

162. agriculture

What FDR did for agriculture is not often talked about, but is particularly relevant to the current financial crisis.

Farming is probably the worse case scenario for cash flow, the need for capital, and dependence upon lending.

Recently at a big agriculture show, I stopped and talked to the farm credit people for a while. There is no financial crisis there, no credit crisis. Why? because of government programs that date back to FDR and that prevent the financial industry from preying on farmers and ensure availability of capital - that place the producers above the lenders and investors, unlike in almost every other segment of our economy now.

[Joe Fields]

191. Good lord, and that is something that is NEVER talked about.

Just that, by itself is worthy of high praise.

[anitar1]

171. Best President we've ever had, imo.

[Deep13]

176. FDR is the anti-bush.

He succeeded where Bush failed and under longer odds, against tougher enemies and with worse social problems.

FDR was the best president of the 20th century and at LEAST one of the top five we ever had. Excluding the revolutionary generation, it is a toss-up between him and Lincoln for Best. President. Ever.

[hay rick]

184. K & R

[Caliman73]

187. Great post.

I have said before once or twice, that conservatives want to go back to a time in this nation's history that never really existed, or possibly existed for a short time and was never the "good ole days" for anyone but the rich. Private enterprise has never been enough to keep any major nation going, ever. The truth is that rich people are rich because they don't spend more money than they take in. They spend other people's money, exploit labor, and reap a greater share of the rewards than the actual value they risk. Then they expect us to call it "opportunity". They throw around phrases like "rugged individualism" when they know it is bullshit. They slander leaders who want to raise everyone's level of income, education, and wealth threw collective action. Their agenda does not work. It never has. So they attack us where we are vulnerable. They tell us to have pride and take personal responsibility when they choke off any true opportunities that we have to really succeed.

There has to be a balance of personal effort and opportunity. If you find that you are doing everything you can to make it and you aren't making it, that is not tough luck, that is a ceiling put their by people who don't want to share the wealth. Hopefully Obama will work with us by making sure that the doors of opportunity open up for us while we do the work to better ourselves as a nation just like FDR did.

[Joe Fields]

194. Thank you. You know, yours should be a post all by itself.

[RoccoR5955]

192. The Repukes will diss FDR until Doomsday...

As someone who lives near FDR's home and library, I can tell you that the cornservatives here STILL don't like him. He never carried his home county in NY (Dutchess), but it's coming around, FINALLY! So many old tyme Republicans here still like Bush, for cryin' out loud. They think that FDR was the worst president and Dumbya was the best. I truly live in a Bizarro world. Fortunate for me, I live across the Hudson, where we KNOW that FDR was one of the best presidents this country has ever known!
K&R

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

197. How phenomenal is it that a thread about FDR and the New Deal gets 200 responses and 135 recs?!!!!

You ALL deserve a bow.

For knowing and caring enough about history to have this great discussion.
:7:toast::bounce::thumbsup::hi::kick::grouphug::pals::fistbump::headbang::yourock:
:applause::woohoo::patriot:

With special kudos to Joe Fields for being the host at this feast.

[Chisox08]

198. The only reason we haven't fallen into the second great drepression

is because of the reforms of the New Deal. The Riech Wing tells this lie so that they can finish destroying the last few remaining New Deal programs that are left. The way the economy is right now is exactly they way the Riech wing wanted it. Because it is easier to steal during chaos.
The Democrats in congress are to scared to fight back. They have the majority but they don't want to push through a progressive agend because they want to be bi-partisain. we the people can not afford that. Reid, Pelosi and the other spinless Congress critters needs to take off the pink tutus and fight back. Use the power that we have given them and do the peoples work instead of the corperations work.

[babylonsister]

199. Wow. You renewed my faith in you. Great post. nt

[Joe Fields]

204. Thanks. I'm a straight up, FDR Democrat all the way.

[Captain Hilts]

208. Me too and I'm accused of being not progressive enough by crumbgrabbers here. nt

[ekwhite]

200. K&R

As Paul Krugman has pointed out, Roosevelt's only mistake was in trying to balance the budget too early, causing a relapse in 1936. His policies not only alleviated the worst effects of the depression, they brought us benefits, such as roads, bridges, monuments, and public parks that we enjoy today.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

201. Awesome, GREAT history lesson.

Thank You!!!
:patriot:

[DissedByBush]

202. The economy was flatlined

And it stayed flatlined through FDR's administration until WWII pulled us out. Just ask FDR's own Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, an FDR loyalist. All it did in the end is leave us with a bunch of debt and some really cool photographs.

[Joe Fields]

203. That is such utter bullshit.

"All it did in the end is leave us with a bunch of debt and some really cool photographs."

I suggest you get yourself an education. This really doesn't even deserve a response.

[babylonsister]

206. You're not making sense. FDR got us out of a depression.

Too much Hannity? faux? Limpballs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

[DissedByBush]

212. He got us out so well

That we had a recession within a depression four years into the New Deal. Economies are like colds. When they are broke they have to run their course. Trying to act like everything is normal (keeping the jobs, big government spending) just prolongs the pain.

WWII got us out of the Great Depression, not FDR, unless you are a conspiracy theorist who thinks FDR got us into WWII. FDR just kept things afloat in a massive economic juggling act until WWII pulled us out.

[babylonsister]

214. Please. Yes, Roosevelt sucked. WW2 got us out of the Depression?

The depression started first. Oy.

[DissedByBush]

228. Roosevelt did not suck

Overall he was a great president and a very good one to have during WWII. It is only that his economic policies do not deserve the high praise they always get, especially not their credit for supposedly having pulled us out of the Great Depression. A President is not defined only by his economic policies.

[babylonsister]

218. Wow. You need to start a new thread to edumicate us.

I never knew.

How valid do you judge Bush for his fearless incursion into Iraq?

[anonymous171]

217. Why are you a democrat then?

I assume you are a democrat, because you are on this site. But if you think the New Deal failed, you can't really be a democrat can you?

[Wednesdays]

219. Bravo...

we need to start callin' them out more often!

[DissedByBush]

229. We have to play by some rule book?

JFK did not use a New Deal type program. He must not have been a Democrat.

I guess there are certain mantras you must chant in order to be in your little club?

So much for the party of openness. I thought it was the Republicans who liked to exclude those who didn't toe the party line.

[anonymous171]

230. Democrats believe that the government should help the people.

If you believe that then you are a democrat.

[DissedByBush]

232. Help, not hurt

Prolonging a depression as FDR did, estimated up to seven years longer, is not helping people. The Great Depression could have been over as early as 1936. It is good to help people through a depression, but trying to fix the depression itself the way Roosevelt did was doomed to failure.

There is also a lot to be said for creating an environment where people can help themselves. Making people dependent on the government for help hurts them. See the multi-generational welfare families as an example.

[Wednesdays]

220. Hey, I'd like to know a little bit more about you

Since FDR isn't one of them, who are your political idols, and why?

[DissedByBush]

233. About me

Political idols. I can't think of any. I consider most politicians to be power-hungry, pandering slime, owned by their masters no matter what they say. One will be on one side trying to take money and rights from your right pocket, and his opponent will castigate him for that, all the while trying to take money and rights from your left pocket. See Obama just hired the RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top DOJ spot? That's what I mean. I believed the hype. Damn.

The most I could possibly do is point out some good things that politicians did.

It's complex. Wait, I can give a current idol. I disagree with with much of Dennis Kucinich's platform, but I highly respect the man for not being owned by corporations, special interests or even the power elite of the Democratic Party. He always follows his conscience and bows down to pressure from no one. That deserves respect.

[fascisthunter]

223. Trying to Spread That Right Wing Propaganda...

...again

[hangman86]

210. Could this, by any chance be a response to a recent George Will column?

If so, more power to ya!:yourock:

[Joe Fields]

213. That particular column, Brit Hume and a few reich wing talk radio fools.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

216. Well said!

:applause:

[Tabasco_Dave]

221. FDR is my hero, thank you

:kick: :applause:

[fascisthunter]

224. here's another Kick

[nxylas]

227. Great analysis

Any chance you could do an equally detailed debunking of the usual follow-up line, "It was WW2, not the New Deal, that got us out of the depression"? War gooood, socialism baaaaad!

[AnnieBW]

236. Anybody who says this needs to watch "Black Blizzard"

on the History Channel. It's all about the Dust Bowl, what caused it, and the Agriculture Department's efforts to remedy the situation. They specifically mention FDR pushing through loans for farmers, and the DoA teaching new farming techniques, as well as the WPA photographers who chronicled the Dust Bowl.

[Joe Fields]

237. I watched that today. It was mindblowing.

I don't know how anyone could eat dirt for as long as those poor people did. I saw the experiment, where the man sat in a building, approximately like a one room schoolhouse in the 1930's. High powered fans blew dirt at the building. In no time the building filled up with a fine dust, and the man lasted only ten minutes. He had placed a cloth over his mouth, like many folks did. He said the silt was clogging his throat. After only ten minutes.

[AnnieBW]

238. Amazing what people will do

I'd have bugged out for California long before a lot of those folks did.

[.... callchet ....]

239. FDR

I grew up in the Ohio Valley in the fifties and sixties. It seemed that half the people I knew were named after FDR. Do you think that God

saw things getting so out of hand that he sent FDR. It defies logic that a guy in those times of so few civil rights and civil liberties could be in power. A time

controlled by corporate power and monetarily controlled political and judicial systems could have existed. Let alone become president long enough

to save this nation. Now . Let's not settle for mitigated and compromised solutions. Lets resound this country with vocal and demonstrable support

for Barack Obama. We have his back. Doesn't it seem like he was such an unlikely choice to be elected president. He is almost like the second

coming of FDR. When Barack uttered the words " spread the wealth " I thought that would be the last day of his campaign. It wasn't. Thank God, and

I really mean " Thank God ". I have no other conclusion, no matter how vulnerable to attack or ridicule but to think that this is again divine

intervention.