I've Been Consulted by Franklin D
.jpg) |
| Friday, 5 July 2013 - Photo by Andrea Steindorf |
As I've said too many times to count, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, NY is one of my favorite spots this side of the Milky Way. Since I live slightly less than forty miles from the place getting there is not too big a hassle for me. The museum has been closed down for several months for renovations and was reopened to the public last week. That was as good an excuse as any to head back up there. On Friday, July 5, my friend Andrea Steindorf and I spent a few hours jamming with the Frankster.
If you've even visited the FDR Library recently, it's time to head back up there. The refurbished museum is something to behold - particularly the new audio/video presentations. That's one of the truly remarkable things about living in "modern times". As much as we know about the life of Abraham Lincoln we can only take a wild guess as to what he sounded like; all that remains of him are frozen, ghostly images. Even his smile is lost to history. Not true with FDR. Less than two years from now will mark the seventieth anniversary of his passing, and yet thanks to the miracle of recorded sound and the motion picture, we can see him throw back his head in delight. We can hear the magnificent voice that reassured an economically paralyzed nation in its darkest, most desperate hour. Franklin D. Roosevelt lives.It was said of him at the time of his death on April 12, 1945, although he never regained the use of his legs - much as he wanted to, much as he tried - he taught a crippled nation how to walk again. Have I mentioned that he's my favorite president?
Ironically, America has forgotten the walking lessons that were provided to to us by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal. There are too few people left alive today who have a conscious memory of the living, breathing FDR. Consider this: My mother will be eighty-two years old on August 5. When Roosevelt died she hadn't yet entered high school. The youngest person to cast his or her vote for him on Election Day 1932 would today be one-hundred-and-one years old. That is, I believe, one of the reasons America finds itself in the slump that it's in today. We don't remember the economic lessons taught to us so long ago by the men (and one woman - Francis Perkins) that comprised the Roosevelt cabinet - the "Brain Trust" as they were called by the press of that time.
Whenever people come up to me bitching and wailing about the "extreme liberalism" of the Obama administration (and it happens damned-near everyday) I always have to restrain myself from slapping the silly bastards upside the head for no other reason than their abysmal lack of historical knowledge. The very notion of Barack Obama as a "wild-eyed socialist" (as he is constantly portrayed by the right wing media) doesn't even come close to passing the giggle test. Franklin Roosevelt wasn't merely a "liberal" - he was a radical. He's also on every list compiled by historians as one of the greatest presidents in the history of this damaged republic. Some place him second only to Lincoln; others put him at the top. That's not a coincidence. The vanishing middle class (which until only recently we took for granted in this country) didn't even exist when Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. I often wonder what this place would look like had Herbert Hoover won that election. I get the dry heaves just thinking about it. "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 of me - and I welcome their hatred."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Campaign of 1936
.jpg)
"We gain strength, and courage, and confidence by each experience in which we really stop to look fear in the face....we must do that which we think we cannot."
Eleanor Roosevelt
Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt did indeed have a perfectly radical idea. It was their belief that the whole purpose of representation in Washington was not merely to declare war and pass bad laws. They wanted a government that was in partnership with the people. As a result of their vision, they changed the sociological face of the United States forever. Today the right wing wants us to swallow the notion that "government is the problem" and that it should be done away with. We should be seeking the perfection of government - not its abolition.
.jpg) |
| Andrea Steindorf |
On the night of his election in 1932 he asked his son, Jimmy, to pray for him. "I've always been afraid of only one thing - fire" he told the young man, "Now I'm afraid of something else."
What's that, Father?" asked Jimmy.
"I'm afraid I won't have the strength to do the job."
He had the strength. Lucky us.
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
SUGGESTED READING:
No Ordinary Time
by Doris Kearns-Goodwin
The best book ever written about life in the Roosevelt White House. It sometimes reads like the plot of a screwball comedy! If it's not available from your friendly, independently-owned, neighborhood bookstore (There must be at lease one left!) here's a link to order it off Amazon.com:No Ordinary Time
It's a great read - every page of it.
SUGGESTED LISTENING:
The
Second Bill of Rights, as articulated by Franklin Roosevelt on January
11, 1944. Sadly, he passed away a year later. His dream for the eternal
economic security of the American people would never be fulfilled:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUL9tJmypI
He spoke to us then; he speaks to us still. It doesn't get any better than the Frankster. Seriously.
AFTERTHOUGHT:
A special word of thanks to Ranger Ken Slinger who gave Andrea and I the tour of the mansion. I learned a couple of things that even I didn't know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUL9tJmypI
He spoke to us then; he speaks to us still. It doesn't get any better than the Frankster. Seriously.
AFTERTHOUGHT:
A special word of thanks to Ranger Ken Slinger who gave Andrea and I the tour of the mansion. I learned a couple of things that even I didn't know.
posted by Tom Degan @ 12:25 AM
72 comments
72 Comments:
Tom,
FDR brings out the best of your rants, and I am pleased you referenced Eleanor so well. I share your opinion about the book, “No Ordinary Time.” I had just turned 11 when FDR died. It was clear that we would win the war, and people were beginning to fear that we would slide back into the Great Depression with the expected rapid demobilization. In my opinion two great events were paramount in avoiding that slide. One was the GI Bill, and the other was Harry S. Truman. And, grudgingly, I now believe that Eisenhower continued the establishment of the great middle class.
I have long believed that if you have to choose between lucky and good, take lucky. After Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover we had Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. Now that’s lucky.
"Have I mentioned that he's(FDR) my favorite president?" Tom.
Maybe just one other time.
Next time your consulted by FDR, find out if he believes President Obama's postponing the law of the land, Obama is legal? I cant find in the Constitution where that is allowed. Maybe FDR could help.
Thanks.
Ananymous, what law of the land did Obama "Postpone"? Maybe you should sober up before posting. It was a nice article about FDR, please give your racism and hatred of the American people a rest for a while OK?
Why Mozart, the Law of the land
is his health care plan.
The President is delaying its going into effect. My question is one that should be of concern to you. Does the President have the power to delay a laws legal effective up date? Isn't that the role of Congress? I can not recall any other time that has happened.
Interesting how you took a legitimate question and concluded from it that my asking it that I am a racist and hate the American people. But liberals are not all about race, are they?
Obama didn't postpone any laws. The Supreme court already sad so and besides, how could it have been perfectly legal an accepted im Massechusetts all those years (under Romney) and suddenly be against federal law? Your ONLY opposition to this is based soley on haterd of Obama and anyone not makinig $500,000 a year. This is obvious because you have not broguht any actual facts into the conversation.
Supreme Court did what?
Ananymous needs to check the news beyond what Fox is reporting.The Supreme Court said AFA is not unconstitutional. It certainly wasn't when ROMNEY used it inMassechusetts. Why would it be against any existing law now?
Mozart, you truly are a liberal idiot. My post had nothing to do with the AFA being constitutional. My post was the AFA law states that on this and that date the following will happen. It's in the law moron, but because the President doesn't the want the impact of law hitting the public and effecting the outcome of the 2014 elections in a negative way, he without any legal right to do so is postponing the effective dates. He can not undo what the law says must be done. He is violating the law he help create and supported.
Understand now? Or are you going to wait for your savior in skirts, Dave D (a.k.a Just the facts) to come along and cover for you will you pull you size 10 shoe from your mouth? It wouldn't be the first time.
Do you realize what a knuckle head you sound like? First you claim my question proves I'm a racist and hate the American people(been listening to Special Ed Schultz much lately?). Then after you get clarification you still go after Romney as if that he has anything to do with delaying AFA. Duh, I bet of you watched Fox news you would at least know by now that Obama won the election.
Looks like liberals have a new card to go with their race card, it's the Romney Card!
Ananymous has used the time honored tactic of namecalling and insult when he knows his argument has failed. There is NOTHING unlawful at all about the AFA and if there were WHY WAS IT ALLOWED TO BE USED FOR SO LONG IN MASSECHUSETTS? Obama is allowing states who don't want to law at all (because they like the money they get from big insurance comapanies) to have more time to implement it. He passes a lwa you callhim "dictator". he compromises and you arttack him for that. Listen to Rush "oxycontin" Limbaugh much lately? You are parrot him like a good "Dittohead". Use some more meaningless catchphrases like "race card" and then tell us how you think for yourself. The AFA will help REAL PEOPLE get the healthcare they need. Why do you hate Americans so much?
Our messiah of a President is delaying major parts of the implementation of the ACA because his pompous big head finally knows it is a big fat government pig with lipstick!
Barry is getting feedback from Democrats running in the next midterm election, who want to keep their power running the Liberal Plantation of slavery, that the ACA may cost them their job!
Its costs and accounting are worse than Enrons!
Lets pass more laws without reading them so that we can later find out that they are big government pigs with lipstick on them!
Anonymous, I think by now you should be getting the idea that debating with someone with such poor reading skills as Mozart is a waste of time.
His inability to not insult you even when you are being civil to him makes Liberals look bad.
Here in Mass, if you accept health care from the state and get it for free due to a low income, the state takes your house when you die. Even if you never used the benefits, or was enrolled for just one year. I wonder if Obama care has the same provision?
James "Here in Mass, if you accept health care from the state and get it for free due to a low income, the state takes your house when you die."
1. {citation needed}
2. See 1.
I was reading the entire contract that a family member had signed for enrolling in the Common Wealth Care plan, it was in the fine print on the last page.
They could not believe their eyes so they took it to our CPA who confirmed that the state now owned their house.
I am sure the contract is on line if you care to look it up, I have no reason to lie about it myself.
Mozart1220 as they say in western Pa is dumber than owl shit.
Hey Mozart you pants load, read this, but do it slowly and out loud. 2nd paragraph (that's the one right after the first paragraph) explains whats going on.
(CHICAGO) — In a surprise move, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is saying it’s time to change President Obama’s signature achievement: Obamacare.
Deadlines for not one but now two important pieces of Obamacare have been delayed a year. So when Durbin, the number two Democrat in the Senate, was asked if he’s alarmed, he said it’s time to “change and improve” Obamacare.
“What we need to have is a better definition of a full-time worker and how many will be affected by it,” Durbin said. “And the health insurance policy itself, the provisions that are included in it.”
Durbin is calling on Republicans to help change and improve Obamacare but many of them want to repeal it first and start over.
This is a major change in position for Durbin, who had supported Obamacare in the past. He even went so far as to say in 2011 that the administration should enforce the health care law back then federal judge Roger Vinson ruled it was unconstitutional.
Well James, we will have to read it to know what's in it, won't we now?
Here is a PDF about Mass health issuing liens against policy holders.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/MAliens.pdf
The situation is not as bad as I assumed from reading the contract. They only take from your estate to reimburse what they spent on you, the rest can go to your heirs. Of course if your house is worth 150,000 and you received 175,000 in care there is nothing left.
As a liberal, I can also fault Obama for caving in and "compromising with" those pig-snouted right wing saboteurs of America who don't really know the meaning of compromise and who have tried mightily to bring the American economy to its knees for the sake of hurting Obama's presidency.
Well, their actions do hurt, but largely because Obama paid them any mind at all. Had he stuck to his guns, the program might be already underway, with a public option (remember "Medicare for all?") and a healthcare system that keeps up with the rest of the civilized world. Instead, he caves in to them repeatedly with delays, damaging himself and what's left of his program in ways those saboteurs of the nation could only wish for if we had a stronger man in the White House. Or woman.
Speaking of which, this blog piece is about Franklin D. Roosevelt, a man who stuck to his guns, toughed out the opposition, and defeated right wing sociopaths all the way from Washington to Berlin.
I am old enough to remember when he was President. I am also old enough to remember coming out of MadisonSquare Garden after seeing the Ringling Brothers circus with my father. Everywhere on the street, people were weeping.
My father stopped a passerby and asked what was going on. "Haven't you heard it on the radio?" replied the man. "President Roosevelt died."
Sometimes toughness on behalf of the common man buys you more love than all the Republican platitudes in the world.
Very crankily yours,
The New York Crank
Let's see Mozart claims I'm a racist because I posted this nugget.
"July 16, 2009 - 4:47 PM
Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.
Oh, it's just Joe being Joe, you know lying through his teeth.
Mozart -
Obama recently suspended the employer mandate of the AFA. No one was arguing legality of AFA - just the legality of Obama's suspension (or postponement) of portions of it at his whim.
That's what Anon 7:41 was getting at. And that's fact - not Fox News.
Best to ask for clarification before you call someone a racist. At least then you can play the race card with better accuracy.
Also, YOU need to educate YOURSELF before stating that "Obama didn't postpone any laws." He absolutely did - good, bad, or indifferent.
Typical, though. You never have owned being 100% wrong in our discussion of Cruz'eligibility to run for POTUS. You likely won't own your mess here either.
You accuse people of namecalling and then namecall. And ask stupid question like "why do you hate Americans so much".
You need to step your game up.
You know what's sad is that Tom post some truly interesting and oftentimes insightful articles and its not very long before the comments go totally off topic. I'm not sure if its that people don't like what Tom wrote or simply don't understand it. It would be nice to stay on topic just once, who knows we all might learn something from one another.
Tom,
I don't know if you had seen this yet, the claim is it was just released.
The amazing thing is it was held secret so long.
www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/rare-footage-fdr-wheelchair_739209.html
James,
Thank you for supporting what you said with the information MO requested. An acknowledgement of same from MO would be nice, but unexpected based on past observations.
James "Here is a PDF about Mass health issuing liens against policy holders. The situation is not as bad as I assumed from reading the contract. They only take from your estate to reimburse what they spent on you, the rest can go to your heirs. Of course if your house is worth 150,000 and you received 175,000 in care there is nothing left."
And also it's Medicaid. If that didn't make you go "Oh. (pause) Medicaid? (pause) Ah, Medicaid." that little light bulb above your head is probably broken.
chuck Morre "An acknowledgement of same from MO would be nice, but unexpected based on past observations."
MO thinks Chuck Morre's memory is faulty, as MO replies.
MO takes time. MO works. MO also speaks about MO in the third person now, too. MO's so tired. Ever so tired.
MO,
Medicaid, you say? The only light bulb some have shows them Obama and the communistic “Obamacare” are to blame for the April 2005 Medicaid polices in Massachusetts.
“April 2005” is clearly on ALL 16 pages.
Don’t they even read the dates on stuff?
Or perhaps the real question is, “Don’t they even read?”
No wonder they blame Obama for the 2008 financial collapse under Bush that still leaves us the effects of deep recession.
Fortunately, some Americans still have some memory not deleted by tuning in to FOX(R) and Limbaugh.
Nearly seven in 10 Americans (69 percent) say they blame former president George W. Bush a “great deal” or a “moderate amount” for the nation’s economic problems, while 53 percent say the same thing about President Obama, according to a new Gallup poll .
Harley, I was not even 1% wrong about Cruz, and will therefore not be "owning" anything but victory in that particular discussion. The rest of your rant is just nonsense. Obama disn't postpone or suspend any state or federal laws. The right is so desparate to find a scandal in anything Obama does, it's becoming surreal
Ok, Mozart, let's conduct a test.
I say
(1) Cruz is elgible to run for President. (and I don't even care one way or the other for the record)
(2) The Obama Admin suspended a portion of the AFA relating to employer mandate. (and I don't even care one way or the other for the record)
I beg ANYONE to come to your aid and back you up that either of those assertions are wrong.
Life in Delusionland must be nice...
Hey Mod, You wanted an article explaining how Mass will come after your house after providing health care. You did not read it carefully enough, they specifically discuss Mass Health, the state run health care program. Here is a link that is unambiguous:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/46969942/Estate-Recovery---MassHealth-and-Commonwealth-Care
I believe I have proved my point.
Ted Cruz was born in Canada, making him ineligable to hold the office of POTUS. Obama did not suspend any laws no matter what Rush Limbaugh tells you to say, and I stand behind both those statements 100%.
Tom, to get back on the original subject before the conservative factions hijacked it...My wife and I are planning a road trip through the NE this fall to see the leaves turn and visit historical sites. We have added the Roosevelt Library to our itinerary.
Mozart1220,
Do us all a favor, and stay there.
Mozart, your Limbaugh comment is sophomoric and inaccurate. Stick to the issue and quite trying to wiggle out.
You "stand behind" your statements. My statements stand behind facts.
You have never offered so much as a hint of an argument on either issue that would disprove me.
I would leave off this ridiculous venture if it weren't so illustrative.
Harley, my "hint of an argument" is that Cruz was BORN IN CANADA. (He's also a certifiable lunatic, but that seems to be a conservative plus) That's it, end of story. And I stand behind my statements because they ARE "facts". And My Limbaugh comment was neither sophmoric nor innacurate. You parrot him like a good "dittohead". Why you are so ashamed of that is anyone's guess. I love how conservatives always brag about Fox news and Limbaugh's "ratings" but you can never find anyone that admits to watching.
James "Hey Mod, You wanted an article explaining how Mass will come after your house after providing health care."
In 2005. Before both Obamacare and Romneycare, based on legislation from the early Reagan era, expanded in the early Clinton administration *1.
"I believe I have proved my point."
You sure have.
Medicaid, the program (and this is somewhat of an exaggeration) for people with nothing, kind of sucks. You do know that you aren't supposed to have [much] capital before Medicaid kicks in, right? What your link essentially said is that "Masshealth can put a 'living lean' on the home of an institutionalized member where the homeowner is no longer living on said property (hence, institutionalized), to prevent transferal of the property which under normal Medicaid rules the homeowner should have sold to pay for his/her medical care before Medicaid kicked in. Masshealth will not seize the property if to do so would cause extreme hardship, as in the case of the institutionalized homeowner's spouse living on the property."*2
So, um, take that, Medicaid!
*1. (emphasis mine, first cite, page two, footnotes #4 and #5)
*2 (same link, same section, same page, first paragraph under "Background".
Mozart1220
Who's your Ghost Writer? They are dong a great job for you, even though your positions are still wrong.
Anonymous,
I write my own stuff. I know the idea of thinking for ones self is foreign to conservatives, but liberals do it all the time. We are not "dittoheads" like you are. And so far no one has come close to showing the slightest bit of evidence I'm wrong. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Prove that wrong.
Mozart -
You are an offensive person incapable of intellectual honesty. Believe me, you are way out of your element if you truly believe you have a grasp on reality. For your sake, I hope you're just being difficult.
Harley, your insults are a typical conservative tactic used when logic and reason do not support your argument. Sadly, you are not just "being difficult". It's clear you really are the way you seem.
As for the original topic, I look forward to visiting the memorial of America's greatest president ever.
Mozart -
This has nothing to do with logic. It's far more simple than that. It has to do with easily verifiable facts. That's why it is so humorous. You have zero ground on which to stand.
And I didn't insult you. I never called you a "dittohead" (I don't listen to Limbaugh by the way). I never called you a lunatic as you did Cruz. I did not tell you to "sober up". I did not ask you why you "hated Americans". That's what you do.
I called you out for what you are - an offensive namecaller, incapable of carrying on an argument using facst, unwillingness to admit you are wrong, and out of your element.
We clearly need a mediator. Curious that no one on this liberal blog is rushing to your defense. I'm still waiting. My experiment is now a couple days old...
Please if I'm wrong and Mozart is right, I'd like someone to point it out.
One of us needs correction.
Oh Harley, such anger. I see you have not refuted what I said, only leveled accusations and acted like the victim. Listen to Cruz speak, He needs medication. Ansd since it is a FACT that he was born ion canada, he is not eligable to become POTUS. Of course, it's all moot, sine he'd never get past a couple primaries in "whacko" states like texas. yes, I said it. Texas is full goos bozo 100% f-in NUTS. Proof? The allowed George W Bush and Rick Perry to "lead" them.
I love how conservatives cry "freedom" and then advocate censorship of anyone they can't hold a conversation with. I'm sure Tom is just entertaining himself watching this play out.
FDR, Greatest American President ever. No wonder conservatives are so desparate to rewrite history.
Harley,
I’d love to mediate, knowing I would be at risk of being accused of letting someone “hide behind” my “skirts”. Know what I mean?
Apart from the “offensive person incapable of intellectual honesty” bit, you’ve refrained from name calling.
Let’s say “character assessments” have gone both ways.
Now to the issues.
The argument started with an unspecified and general assertion.
“Obama's postponing the law of the land” as “the Law of the land is his health care plan. The President is delaying its going into effect.”
The specific issue is:
The controversial provision that requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide coverage or face fines is being delayed by a year.
It is the enforcement of this provision that is postponed. Future compliance is still on the books. So the broader issue of “law of the land”, Obamacare as a whole, is not really postponed and is continuing its implementation. For good and for ill.
And that initial assertion was followed by:
“Your ONLY opposition to this is based solely on hatred of Obama”
Seeing as Obama’s actions were in response to requests by businesses, one could think a conservative may be somewhat understanding, but not if you hate Obama. Double standards, perhaps.
You are correct on point (2) “The Obama Admin suspended a portion of the AFA relating to employer mandate.”
Point one is a bit less than black and white. (1) “Cruz is elgible to run for President.”
The conservative National Review stated:
“Though he was born in Canada, he and his advisers are confident that they could win any legal battle over his eligibility. Cruz's mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and he considers himself to be a natural-born citizen.”
(Obama's mother was born in Kansas and a US citizen, so why didn't that work for him?)
Hatred and racism might also be factors there. Double standards again, perhaps.
McCain’s eligibility was based on his birth in the Canal Zone on a US installation. His parents were citizens under US jurisdiction. This is not the case for Cruz.
If parental citizenship alone qualifies a candidate, then Cruz is eligible. So far, there’s no Supreme Court clarification on this.
If we consider the input from Politifact:
So legally, the question is unsettled. Perhaps it will be if Cruz ever becomes a presidential contender.
OK, let the personal attacks on me begin.
Whenever there is a controversy involving two private citizens you should involve yourself directly, and take sides with the party who most closely resembles you.
- B. H. Obama
This explains a lot about Obama's actions. He is after all AMERICA'S FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT and is only doing as he himself recommends we all do.
"You are correct on point (2) “The Obama Admin suspended a portion of the AFA relating to employer mandate.”
STOP THE Press's, a conservative has been told he is correct by a liberal on Tom's blog. Holy Fans of FDR Batman, who would ever had thought that could happen!!
So, what are the thoughts of liberals about Obama breaking a law he signed into place and supports. Doesn't matter to me if Obama is doing this per the requests of business or his own party's cause they fear the train wreck it will cause in the 2014 elections. This is a nation of laws not of men or political party for that matter. Obama is violating the law by not enforcing it on it's due date. Who cares why?
Should Obama be held accountable to the people for his illegal action, IE breaking the law? What does our law in place now say the penalty should be for a President breaking a law? Does it say enforcement should not be applied if the President is the first Black man? Does it say if the President is from Arkansas it should not apply to him? Does it say it should not apply if the President is rich?
No it doesn't, then why isn't the law being enforced?
Should Obama be held accountable to the people for his illegal action, IE breaking the law?
What law did Obama break? What is your charge? Be specific. You know there are, and have been, a lot of laws that go unenforced, many rightfully so.
By your standard, the list of criminals is growing.
Should Bush have been held accountable for breaking the law? He lied to Congress about Saddam having ties to al-Qaeda, "biological labs" and aluminum tubes for nuclear weapons construction. How about his warrantless surveillance of Americans?
Obama and others "legalized" his crime after the fact with the FISA Amendment. Does that make it cool? So what if Obama does the same thing?
When you demand justice for Bush's crimes, I'll listen to your case against Obama.
Why did FDR channel government spending away from the poorest people? Research by Gavin Wright (Stanford University), Robert Tollison (Clemson University), John J. Wallis (University of Maryland), Jim F. Couch (University of North Alabama), William F. Shughart II (University of Mississippi) and others documented how political influences skewed New Deal spending away from the poorest people. The South, America's poorest region, received significantly less than would have been the case if New Deal spending were allocated according to the amount of poverty. More New Deal spending went to political "swing" states in the West and East, where incomes were more than 60% higher.
Why did FDR discourage investors from taking the risks of funding growth and jobs? As Robert Higgs (Independent Institute) pointed out, frequent tax hikes (1933, 1934, 1935, 1936) created uncertainty that discouraged investment, and FDR further discouraged investors by denouncing them as "economic royalists," "economic dictators" and "privileged princes," among other epithets. No surprise that private investment was at historically low levels during the New Deal era.
Dozens of economists, including two Nobel Prize winners, have evaluated the consequences of New Deal policies. Empirical research at many universities raises suggests that the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression.
Why did FDR triple federal taxes during the Great Depression? Federal tax revenues more than tripled, from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and "excess profits" taxes all went up. FDR introduced an undistributed profits tax. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.
Why did FDR make it more expensive for employers to hire people? By enforcing above-market wages, introducing excise taxes on payrolls and promoting compulsory unionism, the New Deal increased the costs of employing people about 25% from 1933 to 1940 -- a major reason, as Richard K. Vedder (Ohio University) and Lowell E. Gallaway (Ohio University) showed, why unemployment averaged 17 percent during the New Deal era. Demanding that employers pay above-market wages created incentives for employers to introduce more machines, go with part-timers or independent contractors or otherwise avoid expanding full-time payrolls.
Why Tom Degan, Why?
Maybe you can ask FDR the next time you are at the 1 percenters mansion.
Why did FDR destroy all that food when millions were hungry? FDR promoted higher food prices by creating scarcity -- paying farmers to plow under some 10 million acres of crops and slaughter and discard some 6 million farm animals. The New Deal food destruction program mainly benefited big farmers, since they had more food to destroy than small farmers. This policy and subsequent New Deal programs to pay farmers for not producing victimized the 100 million Americans who were consumers. As William E. Leuchtenburg (University of North Carolina) reported, "Only the war rescued the New Deal farm program from disaster."
Obama has broken the law by not enacting the law as the law calls for.
BTW, Bush is not longer the President, just in case you were not aware of the last two elections.
History Buff,
Great stuff, keep it coming, but you forgot to blame conservatives and GWB for the FDR failures.
I believe FDR did not give the South as much aid as he did other regions of the country for political reasons.
His programs rewarded those who supported his socialist programs with more of money and punished those who opposed it with less money. Our first example of "the Chicago way" of doing business?
I would recommend that all who are really opened minded read chapter 11 of "New Deal or Raw Deal" titled "The IRS: FDR'S Personal Weapon". Or just Google FDR and Hamilton Fish. I would be very surprised if FDR's library has much to say about that.
"Why did FDR destroy all that food when millions were hungry? FDR promoted higher food prices by creating scarcity -- paying farmers to plow under some 10 million acres of crops and slaughter and discard some 6 million farm animals"
That sounds like superior intellectual progressive thought by an academic "brain trust" with no business experience! Millions were starving and Franklin DICTATOR Roosevelt and the "shit for brains trust" were destroying food. What MORONS.
Progressive thought like that is comparable to "Pass the Law so that we can find out later what is in it."
The question was: What law did Obama break? What is your charge? Be specific.
You didn't answer.
No surprise. Righties NEVER answer questions. Must be comforting to be so self confident in ones righteousness that answering questions is beneath them. Like cult members.
So Bush's crimes are forgiven after he left office? Seems so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau,_Jr.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."
Henry Morgenthau, Jr.
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Yeah, Tom. Why don’t you answer “History Buff’s” questions?
Looks like “History Buff”, Anonymous, “Harry” and Chuck is all excited about “his” questions.
Except those are not his questions. They are plagiarized (to steal and pass off the ideas or words of another as one's own) from Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, whose words were lifted form his review of The Forgotten Man. Go to Amazon and see for yourself.
Once again we see the utter lack of good faith and honesty from the Right. Thank you for showing once again your inability to think for yourself.
Now about Mr. Powell’s questions.
Why did FDR do what he did?
Good questions. Another good question is, “Why is the Right obsessed with the demonizing FDR and promoting revisionist history?”
That is exactly the agenda of the ones FDR called "economic royalists," "economic dictators" and "privileged princes."
A real history buff does not adhere to politically motivated propaganda. They report facts. And they don’t plagiarize.
Another question would be, “Who do conservatives want to roll us back to the depression caused by the deregulated 1920’s?” Those were the days when the "economic royalists," "economic dictators" and "privileged princes" had it all their way.
A few propaganda points:
1. Why did FDR channel government spending away from the poorest people? The South, America's poorest region, received significantly less
2. frequent tax hikes (1933, 1934, 1935, 1936)
3. Consumers had less money to spend/ By enforcing above-market wages (Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway)
4. why unemployment averaged 17 percent during the New Deal era
5. Why did FDR destroy all that food when millions were hungry? FDR promoted higher food prices by creating scarcity
Propaganda Point 1: Why did FDR channel government spending away from the poorest people?
What’s this? A newfound compassion for the poor? Well, of course not. It is the Republican Party policy that aims to “channel government spending away from the poorest people”. This is called projection.
From Wiki:
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Created by congressional charter in May 1933 to provide navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly affected by the Great Depression
TVA was envisioned not only as a provider, but also as a regional economic development agency that would use federal experts and electricity to rapidly modernize the region's economy and society.
TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. It was the first large regional planning agency of the federal government and remains the largest.
So what part of the country is the TVA located?
To be continued...
Continue:
Propaganda Point 2: . frequent tax hikes (1933, 1934, 1935, 1936)
Tax hikes? Boo hoo. Jobs were created. Government programs provided jobs. Taxation is good the Republic. In fact it’s called for in the US Constitution. You DO like the Constitution, right?
And what happened during those years? Unemployment went down from the GOP’s 24.9% in 1933 to 14.3% in 1937. And what happened after no tax hikes, and other concessions to the GOP, in 1937? Unemployment crept back up to 19% in 1938. FDR shouldn’t have listened to Republicans.
FDR Unemployment rates (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Propaganda Point 3: Consumers had less money to spend/ By enforcing above-market wages (Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway)
These points are nullified by contradiction. So which way do you want it? Why, both ways, of course, less money to spend AND above-market wages.
Propaganda Point 4: unemployment averaged 17 percent during the New Deal era
That’s waaay better than what the 24.9% Republicans left him, isn’t it? The fact is FDR’s efforts shrank unemployment. Want to see the numbers? Go to the link above.
Propaganda Point 5: Why did FDR destroy all that food when millions were hungry? FDR promoted higher food prices by creating scarcity
Let’s ask some farmers :
...much of the New Deal was intended to help farmers. In the alphabet soup of agencies, several were intended to help farmers, and the impact of these New Deal programs continues today.
• AAA, the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933
• CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps of 1933
• FSA, the Farm Security Administration of 1935 and 1937
• SCS, the Soil Conservation Service of 1935
• And the REA, Rural Electrification Administration
Now let’s ask a history site:
Farmers in America did well out of the New Deal. The farmers of America did not prosper in the so-called Roaring Twenties. They were simply too successful in that they produced far too much for the American market. With western Europe as a market effectively closed to them as a result of a tariff war, the farmers could only sell in America. Too much product for too few people caused prices to plummet. Farmers had to sell to whoever would offer a price for their goods. Bankruptcy followed bankruptcy among farmers in the mid-West.
“I would recommend that all who are really opened minded read”... more than just Right Wing claptrap. LOL! Fat chance.
More like:
“I would recommend that all who are really opened minded read” Rev. Sun Myung Moon, cult leader, Republican founder of Washington Times and Bush family friend.
He’ll tell you all you need to know. Just like Rush.
Morgenthau was wrong; See BLS numbers.
As a progressive I would like to say that FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 which mandated the destruction of crops and killing farm animals while millions were starving is not very progressive at all.
If I could blame this regressive behavior on Bush somehow, I would.
So Bush's crimes are forgiven after he left office? Seems so.
Yup, just like FDR's were.
With the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, Roosevelt paid farmers with tax dollars to stop growing crops on some of their land, artificially propped up the prices of various (politically selected) agricultural products, and unleashed thousands of bureaucrats to enforce the Byzantine controls. The bureaucrats were, of course, paid to reduce agricultural output and increase prices through taxes on food processors that were passed along to consumers.
And yet some people continue to praise FDR as an enlightened, "progressive" president, despite the profound harm of his stunningly stupid programs.
Thread tally:
Questions answered by "Good Conservatives":
Zero.
Non-plagiarized facts offered by "Good Conservatives":
None, other than one from Harley.
Doesn't that just make you want to jump over to the Party of "economic royalists", "economic dictators" and "privileged princes"?
Their number one mission is to channel government spending away from the poorest people, and give tax breaks, no-bid contracts, subsidies, and favorable legislation to the "economic royalists", "economic dictators" and "privileged princes".
The effectiveness of Right Wing propaganda is amazing. So many non-wealthy dupes buy into the scam.
Not one of them will tell us how their political beliefs differ from the narrow agenda of the elites.
Not one.
These are just the facts.
Franklin DICTATOR Roosevelt
And there you go. Cult Lunacy on parade.
I bet THAT one converted a thousand liberals over to the cult. ;-)
"Propaganda Point 3: Consumers had less money to spend/ By enforcing above-market wages (Richard K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway)
These points are nullified by contradiction. So which way do you want it? Why, both ways, of course, less money to spend AND above-market wages."
So if taxes increased greater than wages people would have more money to spend? You progressives sure are challenged with math.
So if taxes increased greater than wages people would have more money to spend?
Big if. Show us the evidence of your scenario. Bet you can't.
What's better, more jobs with higher taxes, or less jobs with lower taxes?
More facts:
FDR Unemployment rates (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
1933 - 24.9%
1934 – 21.7%
1935- 20.1%
1936 – 17%
1937 - 14.3%
Right Wing Propaganda point straight from Reverend Moon! (even though it is true):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau,_Jr.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."
Henry Morgenthau, Jr.
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started
False. Can't you read numbers?
Talk about two-bit bean counters who think they're going to be rich...
What famous Right Winger said something about if you repeat a lie enough times, it will be believed?
I bet "good conservatives" go for a paper hanger corporal if he lied and harangued against commies enough.
Still no facts from them, and more of just the facts from me.
After Roosevelt developed jobs programs unemployment dropped every year of his first term. Employment improved throughout all his terms except for one year. Unemployment went up in 1938 after the Dems caved to GOP pressure. Roosevelt feared an unbalanced budget and cut spending for 1937. FDR shook off the party that accused him of being an “enemy to his class” and resumed programs and policies that put America back to work.
Here are the BLS figures:
1932 – 23.6%
1933 – 24.9% FDR inherits peak GOP unemployment rate thanks to tax cuts and deregulation (A Failure for America every time)
1934 - 21.7%
1935 – 20.1%
1936 – 17%
1937- 14.3% FDR caves to GOP on taxes and ends programs
1938- 19% Americans lose jobs as a result of GOP influence.
1939- 17.2% FDR continues programs and taxes
1940- 14.6%
1941- 9.9%
1942 – 4.7% US goes to war
Let's see more fact-free arguments, please. Or maybe it's time to call me some kind of such and such.
Anything but fact and reason, right? Maybe a new fake name, like Dave W.
Whatever form required, defending the agenda of "economic royalists", "economic dictators" and "privileged princes" will be hateful, dishonest, ignorant or just crazy.
I gotta go now, so have fun, junior defenders of the corrupt Party of the Rich. It's hard work promoting theft from the poor and giving more breaks to the rich.
Hey, I know, let's cut out food stamps. That'll teach 'em.
Win one for Mammon.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Only then will Amerika have Democracy free from the Koch Brothers and the Plutocracy!
"Let's see more fact-free arguments, please."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Only then will Amerika have Democracy free from the Koch Brothers and the Plutocracy!
Like trained parrots. LOL!
Just the Facts is really Dave Dubya.
Tell you what folks, you want to bring out the foaming at the mouth liberal, just be critical of FDR and worse yet back up your critical view with supporting scholarly evidence.
The ensuing rage will provide you a clear glimpse into the soul of a liberal today and it is a socialist one.
Anonymous is really "Dave W." and "Chuck Morre", and "Ananymous" and "Harry" and "Just Some More Facts" and "Henery Morganthou Jr" and "History Buff"...
Just in this thread.
"After Roosevelt developed jobs programs unemployment dropped every year of his first term. Employment improved throughout all his terms except for one year. Unemployment went up in 1938 after the Dems caved to GOP pressure. Roosevelt feared an unbalanced budget and cut spending for 1937. FDR shook off the party that accused him of being an “enemy to his class” and resumed programs and policies that put America back to work."
Dave "The Foaming Mouth" Dubya sure knows how to paint pretty pictures. I bet it was George Bushes fault that FDR's policies failed and kept Amerika in a depression for decades! The Socialist Policies fail only because not enough money was spent lol! I bet Dave could put lipstick on a pig to make her look pretty!
Dave could put lipstick on a pig to make her look pretty! He tried, but Mozart wouldn't stand for it.
Zimmerman not guilty
Rev Sharpton blames failure to convict on Democrat Judge.
JTF -
Thanks for the post Friday. Fair points.
While the Cruz issue isn't 100% black and white, it's pretty much agreed by constitutional experts that a native born mother makes one a "natural born" citizen. I've always said even if Obama had been born in Kenya, he'd likely have been eligible due to his mother's status.
Anyway, to be on topic. FDR is a complicated issue for me - thus no trite response. Not a fan of a lot he did. BUT, also, much of what ills our country was put in place by so-called conservatives before his presidency took place.
Harley
(problems with logon again)
Post a Comment
<< Home