NationStates Jolt Archive

What's your opinion of Roosevelt, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the worst, 10 being the best? Hopefully we can have an interesting, intelligent, flame-free debate.

I'm a huge Roosevelt fan. He gets a 9 instead of a 10 because of Japanese internment.

I'm a huge Roosevelt fan. He gets a 9 instead of a 10 because of Japanese internment.

Yeah, that was bad. he also interned Italians and Germans.

Yeah, that was bad. he also interned Italians and Germans.
Not in camps and not on such a large scale. I'll agree that also wasn't good.

8 because of Japanese Internment Camps, and the fact he married his cousin.

Awesome things:
Private Spy Network
Got us out of the Great Depression
Got us through WWII
Had Polio, and was still able to run the country, and no one noticed
Cool Name

I gave him an 8.
Im sort of split on the Japanese internment thing though. Perhaps it was a good idea, since it seems just as likely that it would have been post 9/11 X 1,000,000, resulting in a massacre of any Japanese living in the US.
Perhaps FDR didnt see it that way though.

*waits for roachie to give FDR a 1*

8 because of Japanese Internment Camps, and the fact he married his cousin.

Awesome things:
Private Spy Network
Got us out of the Great Depression
Got us through WWII
Had Polio, and was still able to run the country, and no one noticed
Cool Name

Disqualified Awesome things:

Rode out of the great depression just like everyone else on the back of WWII
No, our Military fighting men and those that supported them got us through WWII
Went out of his way to hide the fact that he had polio so no one would notice. Could have been of great benefit to those afflicted with this terrible disease but chose not to for political reasons. Really sad.

Combined with your reasons = Total score 3

*waits for roachie to give FDR a 1*

Who the hell is "roachie?"

:confused:

Who the hell is "roachie?"

:confused:
Roach-Busters.

Roach-Busters.

Roach-Busters ain't around anymore though, I heard.

Well, I dont know of anybody else that could be refered to as 'roachy'...

8 because of Japanese Internment Camps, and the fact he married his cousin.

Awesome things:
Private Spy Network
Got us out of the Great Depression
Got us through WWII
Had Polio, and was still able to run the country, and no one noticed
Cool Name

Adolf Hitler and Beni Mussolini got us out of the depression. All he did was create dozens of new taxes, destroyed the power of the states, and attempt to make us socialist.

He also called Stalin a kind Christian gentleman (I mean what the heck), married his cousin, mistreated Japanese Americans, and broke the two term tradition.

I will not give the father of most of America's problems more than a three.

Adolf Hitler and Beni Mussolini got us out of the depression. All he did was create dozens of new taxes, destroyed the power of the states, and attempt to make us socialist.

He also called Stalin a kind Christian gentleman (I mean what the heck), married his cousin, mistreated Japanese Americans, and broke the two term tradition.

I will not give the father of most of America's problems more than a three.

Not to mention Lend-Lease and Operation Keelhaul.

I give him a 5

Good:
Those things mentioned above... the programs he created were great for that time, in terms of getting us out of the Great Depression.

Bad:
Introduced us to socialism. Okay, so Woodrow Wilson, another Democrat, gave us our first income tax, but FDR raised taxes way high to pay for all those programs. Expanded the redistribution of wealth program that still saps our economy today.

I'm not an American, but I think he was the best president. He tried to improve the lot of the poor efficiently, after the disgrace of Hoover. If that makes him a "socialist", so be it.

Historical innaccuracies in disqualified awesome things:
Liverbreath']Rode out of the great depression just like everyone else on the back of WWII
Wrong. A few days after taking office, FDR organized the Bank Holiday, where he shut down every bank in the country and gave it a few days to sort itself out. Right after the banks reopened, they began functioning again. The "alphabet soup" New Deal organizations were essential in creating jobs and boosting the American economy. In fact, the only time during FDR's term where the economy went down was when he abandoned the New Deal. New Deal programs gave the US the ability to mobilize its work force for WWII so effectively. So he set up the infrastructure that allowed the US economy to finish its recovery during WWII.

Liverbreath']No, our Military fighting men and those that supported them got us through WWII
FDR took a strong stance against the Axis, and convinced the American public that it should do so as well. His leadership maintained support for the war throughout its duration, and gave the American people the hope they needed to think they could win. Think that qualifies under your supported thing.

Liverbreath']Went out of his way to hide the fact that he had polio so no one would notice. Could have been of great benefit to those afflicted with this terrible disease but chose not to for political reasons. Really sad.
Except that given other biases of the day, he never could have been elected if he was open about it. Blame the time, not the person.

Liverbreath']Combined with your reasons = Total score 3
Rethink that.

I gave him a 7, because he was not the greatest leader of all time or anything but he did rise to the occasion when the US finally had no choice but to join in WWII. He did make a deal with the devil so to speak (Stalin) so he lost points with me there. They were already cutting up East Europe before the war ended. But he was an over-all good President in a time of war. Part of the greatest generation and that earned him points from me. I think a 7 is a good balance of the good & the bad decisions he made. So, over-all a pass in my books.

Liverbreath']Disqualified Awesome things:
Went out of his way to hide the fact that he had polio so no one would notice. Could have been of great benefit to those afflicted with this terrible disease but chose not to for political reasons.

After he got into office he also put aid into programs to help others with Polio. Does Warm Springs ring a bell.

Sure he wasn't Perfect, no person can be.

He did do alot of things though.

And his wife was one of the most active First Lady in history. Since he was wheelchair bound she did alot of the going places, a rare thing for a woman to do back then.

I gave him a 1. He is quite possibly the only socialist president that this country has ever had. Not only did he institute the internment camps, not only did he sell out to Stalin at Yalta, not only did he arogantly disregard the precedent of only running for two terms that had been going since Washington, but most of all, he instituted the New Deal, much of which was later ruled unconstitutional. Such programs as the AAA were not only a huge threat to the environment, but they are textbook socialism, if not communism. Paying farmers not to produce? Also, much of the New Deal was increadably oppresive to minorities and others. Overall, he instituted the age when government rules peoples lives as we have seen since. What happened to the 19th century when the average person encountered government only a few times in their lives. By the way, he also instituted a flawed social security system, but I'm not going to go there, and also steeply graduated the income tax which is inherently unfair. For this, he deserves not only a "1", but the distinction of being the most detrimental president to American Ideals.

Not in camps and not on such a large scale. I'll agree that also wasn't good.

Over 11,000 Germans and German-Americans were sent to internment camps. Some were held all the way until 1950!

This is a great website for information on this often ignorned historical fact. (http://www.foitimes.com/)

Also, see the map of all of the internment camps here. (http://www.foitimes.com/internment/small.html)

In addition, here are some personal stories. (http://www.foitimes.com/internment/Stories.htm)

Wrong.

Over 11,000 Germans and German-Americans were sent to internment camps. Some were held all the way until 1950!

This is a great website for information on this often ignorned historical fact. (http://www.foitimes.com/)

Also, see the map of all of the internment camps here. (http://www.foitimes.com/internment/small.html)
I mean, you could very well be right. I'd like to see where the information that site uses comes from. I don't know much about that situation, to be fair.

0

I really don't know where to begin with the erroneous beliefs about this man. I think the worst thing about his presidency is that he managed to fool so many people, and it seems that more people hold him in high regard today than did during his presidency. Many people have called the man a socialist, but his motivations were not idealogical. If you really examine his policies they were a mix of socialism, facism, out-right tyranny, and unbelievable stupidity. At a time when people could barely afford to eat, this man ordered food to literally be destroyed to 'help the economy'. I could write a book listing the horrible things he did, and perhaps I should.

I mean, you could very well be right. I'd like to see where the information that site uses comes from. I don't know much about that situation, to be fair.
Off-Topic: Edited the post. Wording was too harsh.

On-Topic:

It's accurate (I know because other sources say the same number), but I need to research more to find offical numbers.

I really don't know where to begin with the erroneous beliefs about this man. I think the worst thing about his presidency is that he managed to fool so many people, and it seems that more people hold him in high regard today than did during his presidency. Many people have called the man a socialist, but his motivations were not idealogical. If you really examine his policies they were a mix of socialism, facism, out-right tyranny, and unbelievable stupidity. At a time when people could barely afford to eat, this man ordered food to literally be destroyed to 'help the economy'. I could write a book listing the horrible things he did, and perhaps I should.
List them here. I guarantee that the majority of them are historically innacurate at the very least.

It's accurate (I know because other sources say the same number), but I need to research more to find offical numbers.
Huh. I'd like to see those. It annoys me given the vast quantity of books I've read on the topic that very few if any at all mention this.

I'm a huge Roosevelt fan. He gets a 9 instead of a 10 because of Japanese internment.
Why am I not surprised? :p

I hate that son of a bitch FDR. I really could spend a lot of time explaining why, but I just woke up and I have.....more important things to attend to. I gave him a 1. A little harsh, probably, but I want to make a point.

Why am I not surprised? :p

I hate that son of a bitch FDR. I really could spend a lot of time explaining why, but I just woke up and I have.....more important things to attend to. I gave him a 1. A little harsh, probably, but I want to make a point.
Why, in turn, am I not suprised? :D

We both know why we disagree on this one.

Btw, if it's ok with you, I'm letting the other thread go as you suggested.

I'm bush like. I dont like fdr because he was a "laberal". We cant have laberals everywhere runnin the country. He spread the evils of capitalizim. You know busines. Busines has got the word sin in it. You know. He served 4 terms. 4 awful terms of laberalism, laberal, laberal, laberal. I should serve 4 terms. Because I'm W. I'm the greatest president there has ever been. Not some sick ole' polio infest man.

The man knew how to lead! His evil policies (the extension of the depresion. internment, etc.) aside, that gets him something.

(KKKLincoln gets a 4-5, for those who are interestred.)

Why, in turn, am I not suprised? :D

We both know why we disagree on this one.

Btw, if it's ok with you, I'm letting the other thread go as you suggested.
Fine by me, philosophy can be a very taxing thing to discuss. I think that thread served it's purpose, we both discovered the core differences in our epistemology; there isn't much we can do beyond that anyway. You know, aside from just waiting for ya to come around on your own. ;)

Fine by me, philosophy can be a very taxing thing to discuss. I think that thread served it's purpose, we both discovered the core differences in our epistemology; there isn't much we can do beyond that anyway. You know, aside from just waiting for ya to come around on your own. ;)
I'm still waiting for you :P

I'm sure we'll enter into some other philosophical debate at some point in the future.

I gave him a 5 because he was nothing more than a big fake. Many years after his death Truman said in an interview when asked about FDR that he never cared for anyone besides himself. Truman also said that FDR kept him out of the loop about everything so he had no idea what was going on in the whitehouse.

Huh. I'd like to see those. It annoys me given the vast quantity of books I've read on the topic that very few if any at all mention this.

Here's a reliable source on Italian-American "forced movement":
http://www.cnn.com/US/9709/21/italian.relocation/index.html

German-American sources are harder to find. But here's a reliable one on German Jews who were detained in the US:
http://www.foitimes.com/internment/xchange.htm (Same website as my first post, but this time it cites sources)

Here's an AP article on "European-American" internment:
http://www.asianweek.com/2001_08_24/news_germintern.html

FDR took a strong stance against the Axis, and convinced the American public that it should do so as well. His leadership maintained support for the war throughout its duration, and gave the American people the hope they needed to think they could win. Think that qualifies under your supported thing.
FDR did take a strong stand against the Axis - but he didn't convince the American public to do so. Until Pearl Harbor the American public largely favored no involvement in the war.

I gave him a 7, which is probably the highest rating I would ever give any American president. FDR did many wrong things (starting with the Japanese Internment, and ending with funding the nuclear program) but it was he, and not WWII that ended the depression in America. Even before WWII America was in much better shape than it had been. He provided millions of jobs with his public works projects (Grand Coulee Dam anyone?) and was responsible for backing up the banks.

If fixing America's so called "Free" market and making it work makes him a socialist, then I guess one should be proud to be a socialist.

8 because of Japanese Internment Camps, and the fact he married his cousin.

Second. I even mentioned that in a paper I did on him in my American Presidency class.

Awesome things:

Cool! What did he do?

Private Spy Network

Name?

Got us out of the Great Depression

Wrong. World War II did that more than what he did. Actually, he prolonged the Great Depression with his Economic policies. If he hadn't touched the economy the way he did, we would've been out of it sooner.

Got us through WWII

Yep!

Had Polio, and was still able to run the country and no one noticed

Because there wasn't TV back then.

Cool Name

If you say so.

I'm not an American, but I think he was the best president. He tried to improve the lot of the poor efficiently, after the disgrace of Hoover. If that makes him a "socialist", so be it.

What did Hoover do that was disgraceful? Not his fault that the Economy collapsed. It was actually starting to recover under his administration in reality but the people blamed him because he was the President at the time.

Liverbreath']
Went out of his way to hide the fact that he had polio so no one would notice. Could have been of great benefit to those afflicted with this terrible disease but chose not to for political reasons. Really sad.

Combined with your reasons = Total score 3

Please.

Nobody would elect a man in a wheel chair. Why do you think Cheney will never run for President. Nobody will elect a man that has heart problems.

If he had freely shown he was in a chair. He would not have been elected and simply would have been a tag somewhere that he ran.

Historical innaccuracies in disqualified awesome things:

:confused:

Wrong. A few days after taking office, FDR organized the Bank Holiday, where he shut down every bank in the country and gave it a few days to sort itself out. Right after the banks reopened, they began functioning again. The "alphabet soup" New Deal organizations were essential in creating jobs and boosting the American economy.

His new deal programs that you are vaunting PROLONGED the Depression.

In fact, the only time during FDR's term where the economy went down was when he abandoned the New Deal. New Deal programs gave the US the ability to mobilize its work force for WWII so effectively. So he set up the infrastructure that allowed the US economy to finish its recovery during WWII.

I suggest you go back through your history again. If the New Deal Programs didn't go into affect, the economy would've recovered on its own as it was during the later portion of the Hoover Administration. His New Deal programs prolonged the depression and it took World War II to bring us out of this.

FDR took a strong stance against the Axis, and convinced the American public that it should do so as well. His leadership maintained support for the war throughout its duration, and gave the American people the hope they needed to think they could win. Think that qualifies under your supported thing.

Considering all he could muster was Lend-Lease prior to the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor. Why? The American people didn't want to get involved. However, Lend-Lease actually broke the neutrality laws of the country since we were supporting one of the belligerents in a war.

Except that given other biases of the day, he never could have been elected if he was open about it. Blame the time, not the person.


Rethink that.

I think you need to rethink somethings

List them here. I guarantee that the majority of them are historically innacurate at the very least.

Someone here is sure of himself.

I give him 10 for his economics, war leadership and communication with the American People.

:confused:
Ignore that part. It made sense in full context of two other posts.

His new deal programs that you are vaunting PROLONGED the Depression.

I suggest you go back through your history again. If the New Deal Programs didn't go into affect, the economy would've recovered on its own as it was during the later portion of the Hoover Administration. His New Deal programs prolonged the depression and it took World War II to bring us out of this.
I made arguments; you're making assertions. Give me evidence for this to counter the evidence I gave you. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Any response I post here would sound like "No, you're wrong."

Considering all he could muster was Lend-Lease prior to the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor. Why? The American people didn't want to get involved. However, Lend-Lease actually broke the neutrality laws of the country since we were supporting one of the belligerents in a war.
This supports my view of FDR as someone willing to combat the bad people. These are all good things. Isolationism was a terrible idea; he did all he could given public support.

:confused:
His new deal programs that you are vaunting PROLONGED the Depression.

My grandfather would argue with you over that. He got one of those jobs because the general impression was that things were not getting better.

Meh. As he once said. It's interesting all these claims are made by people who didn't live during the times.

I gave him a 5 because he was nothing more than a big fake. Many years after his death Truman said in an interview when asked about FDR that he never cared for anyone besides himself. Truman also said that FDR kept him out of the loop about everything so he had no idea what was going on in the whitehouse.

A pretty accurate statement. Truman didn't even know about our Nuclear Bomb program. That was very idiotic of FDR to keep Truman out of the loop on that.

Someone here is sure of himself.

Said the kettle to the pot! ;)

A pretty accurate statement. Truman didn't even know about our Nuclear Bomb program. That was very idiotic of FDR to keep Truman out of the loop on that.

Well do we have why FDR did that?

I give him 10 for his economics, war leadership and communication with the American People.

1. His economics Policies prolonged the Great Depression. The economy was beginning to recover before he took office than launched his new deal programs that didn't grow the economy. It stifled growth actually and it took a thing called World War II to bring us out of it.

2. War Leadership: What did he do? The Generals led the war, not FDR. He just approved of whatever plans they came up with.

3. I'll grant you this one.

A pretty accurate statement. Truman didn't even know about our Nuclear Bomb program. That was very idiotic of FDR to keep Truman out of the loop on that.


Yes it was. Imagine how Truman felt when he found out about the Manhattan project. He probably wet himself.

My grandfather would argue with you over that. He got one of those jobs because the general impression was that things were not getting better.

Economists would argue with you. The economy stayed the way it was till WOrld War II got into full swing. If FDR left well enough alone, the economy would've taken less time to recover than it did.

Meh. As he once said. It's interesting all these claims are made by people who didn't live during the times.

And I can say that we can look back at the history of it and see if it succeeded or not. It didn't.

Roosevelt chastised Hoover for being "the greatest spendthrift in history." FDR then proceeded to spend three times as much as his 31 predecessors combined. He chastised Hoover for not balancing the budget. Yet, thanks to Roosevelt, we plunged into far deeper debt than ever before. In 1938, unemployment was 11,800,000- more than it was when Roosevelt was first elected.

Economists would argue with you. The economy stayed the way it was till WOrld War II got into full swing. If FDR left well enough alone, the economy would've taken less time to recover than it did.

Exactly. When America suffered a serious recession in the early 20s, what did President Harding do? Not a damn thing. The economy was back on its feet and hopping within a year.

Economists would argue with you. The economy stayed the way it was till WOrld War II got into full swing. If FDR left well enough alone, the economy would've taken less time to recover than it did.

Ahh but which ones? That are many who don't like socialism and many viewed the New Deal as socialistic so of course they would be predisposed to saying it was bad.


And I can say that we can look back at the history of it and see if it succeeded or not. It didn't.

Again to the people that were THERE, it did.

The man knew how to lead! His evil policies (the extension of the depresion. internment, etc.) aside, that gets him something.

(KKKLincoln gets a 4-5, for those who are interestred.)
Last time I saw someone say that he prolonged the depression, they claimed that unemployment averaged 17%. I then pointed out that he took office at 25%, and at that rate and 6 years of him with the depression it would have been 9% in 1939.

They didn't reply.

Exactly. When America suffered a serious recession in the early 20s, what did President Harding do? Not a damn thing. The economy was back on its feet and hopping within a year.

Bad example.

Harding never did anything.

Recession != depression

I made arguments; you're making assertions. Give me evidence for this to counter the evidence I gave you. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Any response I post here would sound like "No, you're wrong."

Give me proof that it didn't prolong the Depression. I'm sorry my friend but here, your out gunned. It is unfortunate that he got his new deal programs through because the economy was actually starting to recover. When FDR's New Deal programs went into affect, the economy became stifled and not much growth was coming forth. His New Deal Programs were not all that great. And that is coming from economists and not from me.

This supports my view of FDR as someone willing to combat the bad people. These are all good things. Isolationism was a terrible idea; he did all he could given public support.

I'll grant you that but remember that we wanted to stay out of European Affairs. We did too. Our declaration of War was on Japan only and not on Germany and Italy. It wasn't till a couple of days later that Germany and Italy declare war on us. That was a bad mistake on Hitler's part. He shouldn't have done that and neither should have Italy.

Well do we have why FDR did that?

Nope we don't have a reason as to why he did.

Bad example.

Harding never did anything.

Recession != depression

A good example. It proves the wisdom of not intervening in the economy.

Give me proof that it didn't prolong the Depression. I'm sorry my friend but here, your out gunned. It is unfortunate that he got his new deal programs through because the economy was actually starting to recover. When FDR's New Deal programs went into affect, the economy became stifled and not much growth was coming forth. His New Deal Programs were not all that great. And that is coming from economists and not from me.


Actually you are the one that needs to provide proof that it prolonged the depression. Basic history classes have always spoke kindly of the New Deal.

Provide your evidence.....

Liverbreath']Disqualified Awesome things:

Rode out of the great depression just like everyone else on the back of WWII
No, our Military fighting men and those that supported them got us through WWII
Went out of his way to hide the fact that he had polio so no one would notice. Could have been of great benefit to those afflicted with this terrible disease but chose not to for political reasons. Really sad.

Combined with your reasons = Total score 3

From your above comments, you don't know a thing about Roosevelt.
Rode out the great depression? Ever heard of the banking crisis? He handled that. That's just one example of how he got us out through reforms. Another is... ah, I forget the name, but that organization that gave people jobs to build roads and other things.

And true, the men got us through WWII, but who got the funds to train them? Who paid them? Who helped Britain and Russia enough so that we could win the war? Ultimate credit goes to the top - not always the president, but in this case the president.

And it's good he hid his polio. He didn't hide it purposefully - He was so charismatic and energetic that people didn't notice it. It's brilliant really. And how could he have used it? People wouldn't vote for him for pity, if he kept saying "oooh, look, I'm in a wheel chair, ooooh, help polio victims". that would have just disgusted people. And people wanted a strong leader. In numerous occasions, he got out of his chair and hobbled to the podium, and everyone cheered him, because it symbolized success. No republican could have gotten us through that depression. And imagine Bush in WWII. Man, that would have been disastrous.

Actually you are the one that needs to provide proof that it prolonged the depression. Basic history classes have always spoke kindly of the New Deal.

Provide your evidence.....

Because most historians are Marxist-Leninist gangsters, idiots, or a combination of the two.

Last time I saw someone say that he prolonged the depression, they claimed that unemployment averaged 17%. I then pointed out that he took office at 25%, and at that rate and 6 years of him with the depression it would have been 9% in 1939.

I also want you to know something else RNP! He took office in the middle of the Great Depression. That explains why the unemployment rate was as high as it was. Also, look at his type of spending. Its not surprising the unemployment rate went down but if you look at the overall economy, it was still not growing. It only grew when money was being pumped into war spending and to assist our allies prior to full military involvement.

They didn't reply.

I just did.

Actually you are the one that needs to provide proof that it prolonged the depression. Basic history classes have always spoke kindly of the New Deal.

Provide your evidence.....

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1623

A good example. It proves the wisdom of not intervening in the economy.

Well you will have a chance to live your theory.

As cheap labor pulls away high paying jobs, we will see what our economy handles it.

If my company was an example, we created 60 Engineering jobs in India and it allowed us to create 2 accounting jobs.

Actually you are the one that needs to provide proof that it prolonged the depression. Basic history classes have always spoke kindly of the New Deal.

Considering I did a paper on him was how I found out that his New Deal programs didn't help the economy. Now you need to provide proof that it did.

Provide your evidence.....

Since people are making assertions that it did help, you need to provide proof.

Well you will have a chance to live your theory.

As cheap labor pulls away high paying jobs, we will see what our economy handles it.

If my company was an example, we created 60 Engineering jobs in India and it allowed us to create 2 accounting jobs.

Outsourcing is a result of intervening in the economy. If we didn't have business regulations or minimum wage laws, companies wouldn't outsource.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1623


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Ahh the Lincoln hater.

He is funny to read.

Got somebody who is a little more neutral in his search for answers?

You just provided proof to my claim of somebody weighing history from a biased point of view.

The economy was beginning to recover before he took office than launched his new deal programs.

There were still enourmous problems - farmers could not afford to transport their produce to sell, and so thousands of people in the cities were starving. The banking system stood on the brink of collapse. There was still a terrible maldistribution of wealth between the cities and rural areas, and 25% of the workforce were unemployed and about 10% of rural communities had electricity. Even if laissez faire would have solved these problems (which seems extremely unlikely) it seems undoubtable that thousands of people would have died in the meantime, there may even have been a socialist revolution. America needed what FDR did at the time he did it.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Ahh the Lincoln hater.

He is funny to read.

Got somebody who is a little more neutral in his search for answers?

You just provided proof to my claim of somebody weighing history from a biased point of view.

Way to dismiss an article just because of who wrote it, without reading it or looking at his sources. :rolleyes:

Im giving him 8 because of putting some Japaneese and other ethnicities into camps. That makes it a nine, than for 8 the marying of a distant relative (wasn't his first cousin).

But overall he was a brilliant, strong leader and even though I disagree with buerocracy. During that time it was the right thing to do.

Yeah I know I cant spell.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Ahh the Lincoln hater.

He is funny to read.

Got somebody who is a little more neutral in his search for answers?

You just provided proof to my claim of somebody weighing history from a biased point of view.

You probably judged him without even reading the The Real Lincoln and its hundreds upon hundreds of footnotes, am I right? How sad.

Outsourcing is a result of intervening in the economy. If we didn't have business regulations or minimum wage laws, companies wouldn't outsource.

Wowwwww minimum wage laws made companies outsource to India?????? Here I thought we were sending engineering and computer jobs to India and in reality it was the jobs from McDonalds and Starbucks.

You learn something new everyday [/sarcasm]

Yea those damn regulations like the anti-monopoly laws, worker safety, etc.

Are you are one of those business never does anything wrong types?

Wait.... We're saying that Herbert "Let them eat cake" Hoover could have done anything to fix the great depression? The bloody man caused it by refusing to interfere with inflation! It was Hoover who refused to even get rid of White House staff while the government was falling into debt because it would "Make the people worry."

His hands off policy would have made things worse. FDR might have been bad for civil rights in America, but his economic policies (Including Social Security) had a huge positive effect on America's economy. Once again, look at the jobs he made with his public works, which still benefit America today. It was FDR who put the banks in order. It was FDR who managed to make America's tax system fair and not weighted against the lower class.

You probably judged him without even reading the The Real Lincoln and its hundreds upon hundreds of footnotes, am I right? How sad.

Actually I judged him from a few papers and interviews. Rather then providing counter arguements to claims, he tended to toss insults.

That is sad because that kind of sends a signal your book isn't worth reading.

You want Proof?

http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-29-03.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim1.html
http://www.warroom.com/fdrrawdeal.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/720542/posts

I gave him a 1. He is quite possibly the only socialist president that this country has ever had. Not only did he institute the internment camps, not only did he sell out to Stalin at Yalta, not only did he arogantly disregard the precedent of only running for two terms that had been going since Washington, but most of all, he instituted the New Deal, much of which was later ruled unconstitutional. Such programs as the AAA were not only a huge threat to the environment, but they are textbook socialism, if not communism. Paying farmers not to produce? Also, much of the New Deal was increadably oppresive to minorities and others. Overall, he instituted the age when government rules peoples lives as we have seen since. What happened to the 19th century when the average person encountered government only a few times in their lives. By the way, he also instituted a flawed social security system, but I'm not going to go there, and also steeply graduated the income tax which is inherently unfair. For this, he deserves not only a "1", but the distinction of being the most detrimental president to American Ideals.

American being republican? BS

It's good that he payed farmers, first of all. He had to drive prices up. You know what the prices were? -3 cents. Yes, people were losing money every time they sold something. If he didn't do that, America would have to import a lot more food, meaning higher taxes... think it out.

New Deal ruled unconstitutional? By whom?

My god you have messed up views. The new deal was the only way we could get out of the depression with minimal consequenses. Proof - look at hoover. Look at the banking crisis. Look at how he gave work to millions of Americans. Higher taxes = higher benefits. Personally, I'd choose higher benefits, although you probably wouldn't. in this way, everyone is more equal, making minorities actually have an easier time.

And big government was going to happen anyway. Due to technology. Radio was invented, as was Television, and the internet. Globalization happned. It was unpreventable. Cowboys are obsolete.

You're gonna blame him for running more than two terms? There was no law at the time. And, obviously, people supported him. I'm glad the law was enacted though - constitutional amendment, actually - otherwise we might have died due to Reagen.

I'm afraid you live in a world 130 years in the past, my friend.

And socialist isn't bad. Call me communist, call me liberal ( :eek: ) I really don't care. Bush has been more detremental. We are now a major human rights offender, Bush's "Patriot Act", an extreme constitution violator, might be made permanent. We have lost the support of the international community when a few years before we were loved. I mean, look at this. Look how much hate this has spawned. Look how much cheating there is. Look how Americans have lost faith both in their leaders and their futures. Bush is definitely most detrimental.

Socialism is the only thing that could get us through the depression. If you wanna seen what the opposite did, look at Hoover. Nothing. It just got worse, until FDR came along. Your hate for socialism has, I'm afraid, clouded your reason.

You want Proof?

http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-29-03.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim1.html
http://www.warroom.com/fdrrawdeal.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/720542/posts


Every one of your sources is biased...

1 & 2 are by a guy who is in charge of "Lasseiz Faire Books"

3 & 4 are clearly by very conservative groups.

Find me a list of demonstrable facts which aren't dug wildly for, ignoring the better parts of FDR's plan.

Since people are making assertions that it did help, you need to provide proof.

Okay...

1) After the first fireside chat, $1 billion was returned to banks in a matter of weeks.
2) Before the GD bank failiures numbered in the hundreds every year. After the ND it was in the tens.
3) 1933-37; annual money supply grew at an annual rate of 11% (following decision to come off the gold standard)
4) 1933-36; unemployment fell by 8%
5) 1946; industrial output was twice that of 1932
6) Thanks to the AAA cotton prices rose by 3.5c per pound from 1932-33.
7) 1933-35; GDP rose by $15 billion
8) Hoover himself concluded that the newly created Securities Exchange Commission was 'outstanding'.

I recognise that FDR was by no means perfect, but you have to give him at least some credit for his achievements.

Sorry 5) should say 1936 NOT 1946

Considering I did a paper on him was how I found out that his New Deal programs didn't help the economy. Now you need to provide proof that it did.

Since people are making assertions that it did help, you need to provide proof.

Ok then post your paper sources.

Again. Basic history classes talk about the New Deal and the depression. You are saying it didn't help, so you have to provide the proof to your argument.

Even if we look at the people here I think you are in the minority as to the New Deal hurting people.

So just provide your references.

From my studies of the Great Depression for GCSE History (British history is far too boring for us brits to study :p ) FDR was a great politician, although he did try to fiddle with the Supreme Court, which was technically acting constitutionally.

The CCC and TVA produced jobs and connected farmers to the national grid, which helped America's then ailing farming industry. I think the AAA didn't last long enough to have too much of an impact.

The HOLC also helped people who were ruined by the banks, which was the biggest effect of the Crash.

He was also a popular guy, but I think after Hoover a chimp could be elected if it didn't say Prosperity is Around the Corner...so i'd give him a '9'

Well, that's what gave me an A* at a British GCSE last year :rolleyes: Don't know what an American would think of that...

Economists would argue with you. The economy stayed the way it was till WOrld War II got into full swing. If FDR left well enough alone, the economy would've taken less time to recover than it did.

I don't often post here, but I'm a bit of an economist, so let me explain why Roosevelt did precisely the right thing in the Depression.

The primary problem with the Great Depression was a massive lack of demand in the economy. Unfortunately, this demand was not cyclical, as the Hoover administration proved. As they cut back on spending to try to maintain a balanced budget, they put government employees out of work, which in turn put unemployment even higher than it had already been. Unfortunately, the people didn't see the benefits of the cuts in spending in the forms of tax cuts that would encourage them to spend because the greater unemployment meant less tax revenue for the government overall, which created a downward spiral of less and less demand coupled with higher employment.

F.D.R. started to fix this by following the advice of John Maynard Keynes. *watches all the conservatives in the room shudder* Let me say that name once more, just for effect: John Maynard Keynes. Keynes pointed out that if the government borrowed money to spend on public works, as F.D.R. did, this would create jobs. These working people would not only be producing something for the economy, which was good, but they would also be getting paid, which was money they would turn around and spend, thus creating even more demand in the economy. For those not aware with this phenomenon, it's called the multiplier effect. Most will note that the Depression took its most dramatic downturn under F.D.R. when he thought the economy had recovered enough and cut back on the spending a little. It hadn't, and it began to sink back down again. You can fault him for this misstep if you're still looking for a reason to hate him, but overall his policies were working.

The problem most conservative economists have is that they assume the depression was cyclical and that the economy would pull out on its own, but as I explained, this wasn't the case. Had the government continued to cut spending, the demand in the economy would have been reduced more and more drastically. Remember, the issue wasn't that the ability to produce had been compromised, but rather the ability to demand to what had been produced. People had no money, so businesses had no target market, so businesses were closing, which in turn was putting people out of work and meant those people had no money. Notice the cycle?

For the record, a monetary policy of printing more money would have been capable of saving the economy in today's world, but America was still attached to the gold standard at the time, which made this difficult. Lowering interest rates wouldn't have done anything because no one was keeping their money in banks anyway. This left only fiscal policy, and considering that in many ways the currency was actually going through deflation, the trade-off of spending away unemployment and picking up some inflation was win-win. The only two issues Roosevelt had to worry about were accumulating a debt, which would be easily paid off if he could get the economy to expand, and experiencing a crowding-out effect, which was not going to happen because there was no investment on the private side anyway.

So that's why Roosevelt acted as he did, at least from the economic theory point of view. How well did all of this work in reality? Well history showed an uprturn in the economy consistently throughout his depression years with the exception of around 1937 where he began to cut spending again. This would seem to indicate that he was taking the right action. As for the rest of what the did, he may not have reflected American values, but he certainly reflected Canadian values, which I've always thought to be better anyway, so I'll give him an eight. He loses one point for internment and one for cutting spending in '37.

FDR was probably the best US President ever. Without him the world would be ruled by Nazis, Japenese imperialists and Communists.

I'm against the Japanese internment camps and his stance against Jewish immigration.

I'm pretty amazed at how US Republicans hate FDR so much, compared to Churchill in Britain. It's not as if Labour and Liberal Democrats in the UK hate Churchill. Also, FDR's foreign policy was similar to the current Neocon policy, so you would think that common ground could be found there.

Liverbreath']Disqualified Awesome things:

1. Rode out of the great depression just like everyone else on the back of WWII

2. No, our Military fighting men and those that supported them got us through WWII

3. Went out of his way to hide the fact that he had polio so no one would notice. Could have been of great benefit to those afflicted with this terrible disease but chose not to for political reasons. Really sad.

Combined with your reasons = Total score 3
Let me guess you're one of these isolationist guys who thinks that Stalina nd Hitler should have just been permitted to battle it out over Europe's blood-soaked soil without US intervention?

Your points:

1. If it wasn't for him, if the conservatives had their way, the US would not even be involved in WW2, and thus no economic boom.

2. This is a no-brainer. Nobody is claiming that Roosevelt personally fought the Nazis and Japanese himself. He sent the military to fight the fascist enemy.

3. Weak, unimportant reason.

Ragbralbur, you're a jolly good man! :D

*snip*
Thanks. I didn't feel like getting into that level of depth/you explained it much more lucidly than I would have.

Random fact, 64.40% of the people who've voted in this poll have a favorable view of FDR (6 or above).

He started the welfare state and sold over 1 billion people into communism.

I'm bush like. I dont like fdr because he was a "laberal". We cant have laberals everywhere runnin the country. He spread the evils of capitalizim. You know busines. Busines has got the word sin in it. You know. He served 4 terms. 4 awful terms of laberalism, laberal, laberal, laberal. I should serve 4 terms. Because I'm W. I'm the greatest president there has ever been. Not some sick ole' polio infest man.

this must be a joke, because:

a)bush is pro-capitalism (most repubs are)

and

b)FDR was not really pro-capitalism... or at least, some of his policies could be described accurately as socialist, which is sort of the antithesis of capitalism.

this must be a joke, because:

a)bush is pro-capitalism (most repubs are)

and

b)FDR was not really pro-capitalism... or at least, some of his policies could be described accurately as socialist, which is sort of the antithesis of capitalism.
of course it's a joke. No one is that stupid except for W.

Wowwwww minimum wage laws made companies outsource to India?????? Here I thought we were sending engineering and computer jobs to India and in reality it was the jobs from McDonalds and Starbucks.

You learn something new everyday [/sarcasm]

Yea those damn regulations like the anti-monopoly laws, worker safety, etc.

Are you are one of those business never does anything wrong types?

Yes, minimum wage laws are responsible. The businessman's way of thinking is: Why should I hire workers here, when I can hire them abroad, and pay them as little as I want?

FDR was probably the best US President ever. Without him the world would be ruled by Nazis, Japenese imperialists and Communists.

What the fuck? FDR is responsible for the world almost being ruled by communists! Ever heard of Lend-Lease, Yalta, etc.?

Yes, minimum wage laws are responsible. The businessman's way of thinking is: Why should I hire workers here, when I can hire them abroad, and pay them as little as I want?


ok. Where is the link between a wage of *I don't know what the current wage limit is now* and what a software engineer makes?

Ok then post your paper sources.

My paper is in a plastic container down stairs. I do remember though that I did use wikipedia for some of the paper. Books on the new deal for some of it.

Again. Basic history classes talk about the New Deal and the depression.

Nah reall?

You are saying it didn't help, so you have to provide the proof to your argument.

Most of it didn't.

Even if we look at the people here I think you are in the minority as to the New Deal hurting people.

Not the first time I'm in a minority of something but you also know that just because your in the majority doesn't make you right just like being in the minority doesn't make you wrong.

So just provide your references.

I will as soon as I can get to it.

From my studies of the Great Depression for GCSE History (British history is far too boring for us brits to study :p ) FDR was a great politician, although he did try to fiddle with the Supreme Court, which was technically acting constitutionally.

Technically it was but Congress overruled him. Thank God.

The CCC and TVA produced jobs and connected farmers to the national grid, which helped America's then ailing farming industry. I think the AAA didn't last long enough to have too much of an impact.

I believe AAA was ruled to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

The HOLC also helped people who were ruined by the banks, which was the biggest effect of the Crash.

And since some people may not know what HOLC means, care to provide the info?

He was also a popular guy, but I think after Hoover a chimp could be elected if it didn't say Prosperity is Around the Corner...so i'd give him a '9'

LOL!

Well, that's what gave me an A* at a British GCSE last year :rolleyes: Don't know what an American would think of that...

Good job on getting an A.

FDR: America's Benito Mussolini.

1 out of 10

Bad:
Introduced us to socialism. Okay, so Woodrow Wilson, another Democrat, gave us our first income tax, but FDR raised taxes way high to pay for all those programs. Expanded the redistribution of wealth program that still saps our economy today.
To be fair, trust-buster Theodore Roosevelt was the first US Pres to introduce socialism.

Actually it was Wilson who first raised taxes to 77% at the top rate.

What do you think of FDR's foreign policy?

What happened to the 19th century when the average person encountered government only a few times in their lives.
What's so great about that? Life was hell for the average person in the 19th century.

This supports my view of FDR as someone willing to combat the bad people. These are all good things. Isolationism was a terrible idea; he did all he could given public support.
You see Cornlieu is against isolationism when it's Bush waging war, but because FDR was one of them thar evil Democrats, he should have respected isolationism.

1. His economics Policies prolonged the Great Depression. The economy was beginning to recover before he took office than launched his new deal programs that didn't grow the economy. It stifled growth actually and it took a thing called World War II to bring us out of it.

2. War Leadership: What did he do? The Generals led the war, not FDR. He just approved of whatever plans they came up with.

1. The US wouldn't have been involved in WW2 if it were not for FDR.

2. Funny how this principle does not apply to the "great wartime leader" Bush in your mind.

Give me proof that it didn't prolong the Depression. I'm sorry my friend but here, your out gunned. It is unfortunate that he got his new deal programs through because the economy was actually starting to recover. When FDR's New Deal programs went into affect, the economy became stifled and not much growth was coming forth. His New Deal Programs were not all that great. And that is coming from economists and not from me.

You haven't provided any proof either.

Which economists?

The burden of proof is on you. He on;y "outgunned" because you say he is.

Considering I did a paper on him was how I found out that his New Deal programs didn't help the economy. Now you need to provide proof that it did.

Since you supposedly "did a paper" on him, you should have plenty of evidence lying conveniently around to post for us.

Outsourcing is a result of intervening in the economy. If we didn't have business regulations or minimum wage laws, companies wouldn't outsource.
That's true, but without minimum wage laws and regulations we would all be slaves and life would be hell anyway. (See the third world.)

You see Cornlieu is against isolationism when it's Bush waging war, but because FDR was one of them thar evil Democrats, he should have respected isolationism.

I do? Nice of you to put words into my mouth.

1. The US wouldn't have been involved in WW2 if it were not for FDR.

Pearl Harbor had something to do with that I think. I also supported Lend Lease too.

2. Funny how this principle does not apply to the "great wartime leader" Bush in your mind.

I always said that Generals know more about war than the Presidents. Let the Generals do the fighting and keep the buracracy out of it.

You haven't provided any proof either.

:rolleyes:

Which economists?

Those that have actually studied the new deal.

The burden of proof is on you. He on;y "outgunned" because you say he is.

I provided it but since no one bothered to read it, that ain't my problem. To that person that said that one came from a conservative site, the article came from the Chicago Sun Times. :rolleyes:

Since you supposedly "did a paper" on him, you should have plenty of evidence lying conveniently around to post for us.

In a file folder in a plastic container along with the report I wrote. Ironic that my American Presidency Professor, a democrat, actually agreed with my assessment on FDR's new deal and the economy. I'll post that when I get to it.

First of all, FDR was not a Communist...Just because you favor reforms through the system does'nt make you a Communist, and anyone who says such a thing is spewing nothing more than rhetoric, dogma, and untreated sewage.


If FDR was a Commie, do you know what he would'nt have done?



D-Day.


That's right, FDR and the Generals put together the D-Day operation in order to prevent the Soviet Union from steamrolling all of Europe after taking over Germany, which the Soviet Union almost certainly would've done if he'd have been given the chance, which he was'nt given, thanks to the success of the D-Day invasion.


If he were lazy, or commie, he would've sat back and said "Meh, let Uncle Stalin handle the clean-up, we're outta there...", but he did'nt.


I give him a 9, subtracting a point for fiddling with the Supreme Court.

I'm neutral on his treatment of Japanese and other foreign citizens...On one hand, it certainly was hard to live in a shack in the middle of a desert, on the other, the move may have saved them from lynching by other U.S citizens.

LOL

omg this thread...

25% of the freakin country was unemployed at the time... FDR introduced programs to help relieve those in need... and then he gets branded as an evil socialist?? omg what kind of logic is that... sounds like a george w voter to me!

He gets a 9 from me.. mainly because he cares about the general welfare of the american ppl. he was a man on a mission, and that mission was to save the integrity of the nation..

some of you seriuosly need to have your logic nodes checked.. and double checked.. and TRIPLE CHECKED

You people and your so-called "Intellegent Thought" are laughable. So you give him a 1 because he was psudo-socialist? I do believe that's political bias. Roosevelt inspired the people to come out of the Great Depression. "You Have Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself". They didn't call it the Great Depression for nothing, how are you ever going to get out of a slump if you have no will-power? That's why businesses hire Motovational Speakers when you have a sales slump, to inspire productivity. Roosevelt may have created some programs that we may consider unessicary now, but back in the '30s, they were urgently needed. If you look at the records, 1932 was the year of the highest unemployment rate in American History. In 1933, when FDR took over, the rate drastically declined. I don't think FDR was the best President in American History(That's Jefferson), but he did some really great things for America.

WWII, not Roosevelt saved the country from the depression. He was simply lucky that massive calls for arms and food from the allies saved his degenarate New Deal. For the purpose of argument, lets say his programs were necessary to end the depression (which I don't believe). Why then didn't he disband them once the war began and they were blatantly no longer needed and in some cases got in the way?

As a side note, could someone answer for me why the citizens and government make "Deals" such as the New Deal in the first place? American Democracy prides itself in the fact that its citizens essentially run the country through representatives. If this is the case, why is government on the same field as individuals and in a position to make deals? The whole notion is contrary to our contry's foundation.

4 at best. He deserves credit for WWII, but sold out to Russia at Yalta, did little to help end the Depression, attempted to sieze power via the Supreme Court, and laid the foundations for a burdensome welfare state via his Social Security program. He also spent a fortune on public works and created a huge government bureaucracy. Only his ability to unite the US behind the Allied cause gives him a 4.

65.52 percent of NSers polled gave FDR a 6 or above.

Certainly not in the ranks of a Washington, Lincoln, or Teddy, but for the times he worked out nicely. Like most Presidents, I give him a 5. Not bad, but not necessarily very creative, or moderate, two things I hold in higher regard.

If Stalin were alive, it's a safe bet he'd vote for option '10.'

If Stalin were alive, it's a safe bet he'd vote for option '10.'

Well, FDR gave half of Europe to him... not like the people's opinion on being subjugated to a ruthless tyrant who killed tens of millions of people mattered or anything. :rolleyes:

If Stalin were alive, it's a safe bet he'd vote for option '10.'
Actually, I seriously doubt that. They got into major spats at Tehran and Yalta.

Outsourcing is a result of intervening in the economy. If we didn't have business regulations or minimum wage laws, companies wouldn't outsource.I wouldn't go that far. Market interventions do indeed cause market participants to go elsewhere, but employers will outsource anytime it's more profitable to do so.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Ahh the Lincoln hater.

He is funny to read.

Got somebody who is a little more neutral in his search for answers?

You just provided proof to my claim of somebody weighing history from a biased point of view.I don't know that I'd call him a Lincoln 'hater', but yes, Mr. DiLorenzo's portrayal of Lincoln is highly inconsistant with his deification by establishment historians. The notion that anyone can be 'neutral' and that only such neutral people are worthy sources of information is absurd. Everyone has opinions.

Well, FDR gave half of Europe to him... not like the people's opinion on being subjugated to a ruthless tyrant who killed tens of millions of people mattered or anything. :rolleyes:

I agree. A very good point. :)

Medical records have shown that not only was FDR in no position to attend many of the conferences that he did later in life, but also that he knew this and disregarded them. The results: The Cold War.

I don't know that I'd call him a Lincoln 'hater', but yes, Mr. DiLorenzo's portrayal of Lincoln is highly inconsistant with his deification by establishment historians. The notion that anyone can be 'neutral' and that only such neutral people are worthy sources of information is absurd. Everyone has opinions.

Did I say completely neutral?

There is a difference by starting research with the premise that Lincoln was a scumbag and posting the question "Was he?"

"establishment historians."

Ahhh you like him don't you?

Hey yall!! lets try something new: staying ON topic.

F.D.R. was one of the best men that ever ran this place, hes right up there with Lincoln and Reagen.

Well, FDR gave half of Europe to him... not like the people's opinion on being subjugated to a ruthless tyrant who killed tens of millions of people mattered or anything. :rolleyes:

Because as we all know, FDR had complete control over Stalin and should have told Stalin that if he wanted Eastern Europe, then he could go **** himself. And as we also all know, it's FDR's fault that Stalin broke his promise to allow Eastern Europe free elections.

The ignorance of people who use your argument never ceases to amaze me.

A 5 for playing the role he played regarding the war.

The New Deal is overrated. Both of them are.

0

If you really examine his policies they were a mix of socialism, facism, out-right tyranny, and unbelievable stupidity.
I guess back then, most Americans were socialists, facists, and unbelievably stupid? After all, they did elect FDR to FOUR terms.

I guess you would have been out of step with everybody else back then?

I voted 9, need another president like him to show up in '08 and beyond.

Why was this thread dragged up from the grave?

I gave him a 6. I think he was too trusting of Stalin and fell to easily to Stalin's charm. That mistake (and an inability to understand European politics) meant that Eastern Europe would be condemned to life behind the Iron Curtain until the 1990s.

I guess back then, most Americans were socialists, facists, and unbelievably stupid? After all, they did elect FDR to FOUR terms.

That's because he was giving out "free" money. The democrats jumped on that back then, and more recently, the republicans have joined the ranks of vote buying.

I voted '8', but should have gone for '7'. Exactly what was Roosevelt meant to down with Stalin? Start another war? There was absolutely no political of public will for such an action. Hitler was (rightly) regarded as a greater evil; there was little anyone could have done to mitigate the effects of WWII. The fact is, everyone was fucked every which way they turned.

Oh, and El Caudillo: your disregard for historians is utterly without foundation and, frankly, is absurd in the extreme. Should I write off all economists? No. Get a grip.

he was good at short term problem fixing, but it has screwed us 30-50 years later.

Liverbreath']Disqualified Awesome things:

Rode out of the great depression just like everyone else on the back of WWII
No, our Military fighting men and those that supported them got us through WWII
Went out of his way to hide the fact that he had polio so no one would notice. Could have been of great benefit to those afflicted with this terrible disease but chose not to for political reasons. Really sad.

Combined with your reasons = Total score 3

Your history ignorance is astounding.

1. While WWII completed the job of pulling America out of the Depression, FDR's New Deal programs greatly helped improved the situation.

2. However, FDR was largely responsible for support of the war among civilians. I'm also amazed that you seem to have forgotten that it was FDR who prevented Britain from falling during the Blitz.

3. Again, I'm shocked by your poor grasp on history. Have you ever heard of the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation? FDR helped many people suffering from polio at his home in Warm Springs.

I give him an 8.

I loved his domestic policies. No other president did more for the poor, the dispossesed and the disenfranchised than FDR. His programs alleviated suffering for millions while creating both jobs and expanding our infrastructure. He helped make wealth distribution more equal with his programs as well. We could use another FDR. Someone to put people above corporate profit. He gets points off for Japanese/German/Italian Internment though. Not cool man, not cool. Also the court-packing scheme was a little sleazy. But I still agree wholeheartedly with his policies.

Our only (physically ;) ) disabled President. He ran the nation (well) while fighitng a losing battle with a horrible disease. Extra points.

He was able to cultivate an amazing relationship with the media. So much so that they would rather give up a scoop than shame/dishonor him, especially with his polio.

I am ambivalent towards his foriegn policy. If he hadn't allowed an embargo on Japan, it is very unlikely Japan would have attacked the US. Points off. He did however support his allies, keeping Britain afloat while she was cut off from her Empire. He also oversaw a war against one of history's greatest evils - Hitler.

You gotta love the A day that will live in Infamy speech. Extra points.

Overall, I'd give him an 8. He wasn't God incarnate, and he does get some points off, but he was a very good President, very close to my personal ideology, who genuinely cared about his people and the world. I'd vote for him any day of the week. Unfortunately politicians of that class seem to be an endangered species today.

Your history ignorance is astounding.

1. While WWII completed the job of pulling America out of the Depression, FDR's New Deal programs greatly helped improved the situation.

Several of his programs were deemed unconstitutional and then he tried to pack the court and that didn't fly with the US Senate. Besides that, it didn't help over the long term, only short term. In economics, you can't look at the short term. Most of his programs hurt us in the long term than in the short term and it took World War II to bring us out. No New Deal Program ever came close to bringing us out.

2. However, FDR was largely responsible for support of the war among civilians. I'm also amazed that you seem to have forgotten that it was FDR who prevented Britain from falling during the Blitz.

The Blitz was an air war and not a naval war. We gave them ships and supplies to keep the war going and this was in violation of the Neutrality Act making us beligerants on the side of Britain. The Civilian Support wasn't there till December 7, 1941.

3. Again, I'm shocked by your poor grasp on history. Have you ever heard of the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation? FDR helped many people suffering from polio at his home in Warm Springs.

This is a truth that I can not dispute but he didn't do it for political reasons which is what the poster was indicating.

Good man -- we have many of the National Parks to thank him for, with the CCC public works programs. Eleanor was an amazing woman, too.

Good man -- we have many of the National Parks to thank him for

Teddy Roosevelt is the man to look to when thinking of National Parks.

;)

Franklin who?

Franklin who?

*clubs you with a chair*

*clubs you with a chair*

Well, it's not the first time, and it sure as hell won't be the last! Anyway, this Rooservelt guy sounds important.....

I gave Captain Douchebag a 2. I was feeling generous this morning.

I'd say somewhere between 6 and 8. He waited two years to declare war. He wouldn't bomb the concetration camps(neither would any other leader for that matter). But, he did take the risks that brought us out of the GD and did eventually press for war.

Being allowed to live in barracks with at least some food and getting $20 on your way out is nothing like being shot, gassed, worked to death, cramped naked in small bunks, fed watery soup, and regularly tortured. Please stop comparing them.

I'd say somewhere between 6 and 8. He waited two years to declare war. He wouldn't bomb the concetration camps(neither would any other leader for that matter). But, he did take the risks that brought us out of the GD and did eventually press for war.

Being allowed to live in barracks with at least some food and getting $20 on your way out is nothing like being shot, gassed, worked to death, cramped naked in small bunks, fed watery soup, and regularly tortured. Please stop comparing them.

...bombing the concentration camps? One would have to be remarkably stupid to bomb camps full of innocent people.

The greatest president these United States has seen that wasn't named Reagan.

Bombing them would have shut them down. New ones would have had to have been built. It's like the Hiroshima bomb. Kill a few to prevent many more.

I voted 9, need another president like him to show up in '08 and beyond.


Why wait till '08? We have a leader of his caliber already! A man with the forthright foreign policy to goo to war when a suprise attack against our country has the people so incenced that to do otherwise would get you thrown out of ofice. The strength of will domestically to run a government over budget that is as intrusive as possible. A man with the prudence to inter racial minorities ignoring their civil rights.
FDR gets a 2
GW would get a 1 after all FDr did'nt invade Spain for no apparent reason with Hitler still on the loose!

Several of his programs were deemed unconstitutional and then he tried to pack the court and that didn't fly with the US Senate. Besides that, it didn't help over the long term, only short term. In economics, you can't look at the short term. Most of his programs hurt us in the long term than in the short term and it took World War II to bring us out. No New Deal Program ever came close to bringing us out.

You're right. In economics you can't just look at the short term. So let's look at how the New Deal programs worked and why they did begin to counter the effects of the Depression:

The primary problem with the Great Depression was a massive lack of demand in the economy. Unfortunately, this demand was not cyclical, as the Hoover administration proved. As they cut back on spending to try to maintain a balanced budget, they put government employees out of work, which in turn put unemployment even higher than it had already been. Unfortunately, the people didn't see the benefits of the cuts in spending in the forms of tax cuts that would encourage them to spend because the greater unemployment meant less tax revenue for the government overall, which created a downward spiral of less and less demand coupled with higher unemployment.

F.D.R. started to fix this by following the advice of John Maynard Keynes. *watches all the conservatives in the room shudder* Let me say that name once more, just for effect: John Maynard Keynes. Keynes pointed out that if the government borrowed money to spend on public works, as F.D.R. did, this would create jobs. These working people would not only be producing something for the economy, which was good, but they would also be getting paid, which was money they would turn around and spend, thus creating even more demand in the economy. For those not aware with this phenomenon, it's called the multiplier effect. Most will note that the Depression's most dramatic downturn under F.D.R. occured when he thought the economy had recovered enough and cut back on the spending a little. It hadn't, and it began to sink back down again. You can fault him for this misstep if you're still looking for a reason to hate him, but overall his policies were working.

The problem most conservative economists have is that they assume the depression was cyclical and that the economy would pull out on its own, but as I explained, this wasn't the case. Had the government continued to cut spending, the demand in the economy would have been reduced more and more drastically. Remember, the issue wasn't that the ability to produce had been compromised, but rather the ability to demand to what had been produced. People had no money, so businesses had no target market, so businesses were closing, which in turn was putting people out of work and meant those people had no money. Notice the cycle?

For the record, a monetary policy of printing more money would have been capable of saving the economy in today's world, but America was still attached to the gold standard at the time, which made this difficult. Lowering interest rates wouldn't have done anything because no one was keeping their money in banks anyway. This left only fiscal policy, and considering that in many ways the currency was actually going through deflation, the trade-off of spending away unemployment and picking up some inflation was win-win. The only two issues Roosevelt had to worry about were accumulating a debt, which would be easily paid off if he could get the economy to expand, and experiencing a crowding-out effect, which was not going to happen because there was no investment on the private side anyway.

So that's why Roosevelt acted as he did, at least from the economic theory point of view. How well did all of this work in reality? Well history showed an uprturn in the economy consistently throughout his depression years with the exception of around 1937 where he began to cut spending again. This would seem to indicate that he was taking the right action.

Note: This has been posted before in a slightly different form on this thread, but while no one disagreed with it at the time it was posted, it would seem that some people aren't doing that much back-reading before they post.

Bombing them would have shut them down. New ones would have had to have been built. It's like the Hiroshima bomb. Kill a few to prevent many more.

Do you realize how many Jews would have been killed if we were to bomb the Concentration Camps? Doing that would be about as logical as dropping napalm on a POW camp full of American soldiers.

Why wait till '08? We have a leader of his caliber already! A man with the forthright foreign policy to goo to war when a suprise attack against our country has the people so incenced that to do otherwise would get you thrown out of ofice.

Bush was completely right in going to war with Afghanistan.

FDR had some good points and some bad points.
Good:
1. Lessened the effects of the Great Depression
Explanation: WWII did end the Great Depression but FDR's policies would have ended it eventually, but he provided work for millions of people so he "lesssened the effects"
2. Started basic socialism in the US
Explanation: Hey I know some people think this is a bad thing, but what about the kid who is born to the deadbeat parents, why does he get screwed, socialism is the way out.
3.Great Speaker and 'People Person'
FDR's fireside chats were hugely popular during his presidency and helped contribute to his 4 terms

Bad:
1. Japanese Internment
Explantion: Doesn't mean much, so you know my Grandmother was in one of these camps and a Senator from Carolina had the balls a couple of years ago to say that it was justified. Fucker.
2. Adulturer
Explantion: He had a long term affair that his wife knew about, in fact he died while on Vacation with his mistriss

As to other issues:
Truman: Truman had only been president for a few months and the vice president isn't really involved in policy, no its no surprise that he didn't know about the bomb.
The Bomb: although it started the nuclear age no one could realize the significance of this weapon at that time. In fact the bomb actually saved lives in Japan. Japan had a standing army of a few million and a national guard of 20 million more, many more would have died if we had invaded. According to the Bushindo code millions of Japanese would have used "human wave" tactics to defend their homeland. Plus it wasn't like Normandy, they knew the land and how to use it. Also, more people died in one fire bombing raid of tokyo from b29 Superfortresses than died in the Atomic bombs and being burned alive is a lot more painful than instant incineration.

Being allowed to live in barracks with at least some food and getting $20 on your way out is nothing like being shot, gassed, worked to death, cramped naked in small bunks, fed watery soup, and regularly tortured. Please stop comparing them.
No they weren't as bad. But a few things, First of all they weren't all barrracks, my grandmother lived in a FUCKING HORSE STALL YOU DICK! Just because they weren't as bad as the Nazi concentration camps doesn't make them not concentration camps. What makes it even worse is that most Germans were ignorant of the concentration camps, Americans were not and even supported them, thats what discusts me. The US government even had the balls to go recruiting in the internment camps and you know what, THEY WERE THE MOST DECORATED UNIT OF THE WAR! The 442nd had more Medal of Honor winners than any other unit in WWII, and where were their families? LIVING IN FUCKING HORSE STALLS!

If it wasn't for his power hungry ambition, I might have rated him very highly. He gets a 2 out of me though. Only reason its as high as a two is because he did help the nation in WW2 and Social Security was a good deal.

His crap like pulling 4 terms, trying to add additional supreme court judges (18? Jeez) that would rubber stamp his decisons, Japanese interment camps, and other dumb stuff really rubs me the wrong way. He had no regard for the Constitution.

Do you realize how many Jews would have been killed if we were to bomb the Concentration Camps? Doing that would be about as logical as dropping napalm on a POW camp full of American soldiers.

Actually, they were bombed, as most also had factories (where the inmates were forced to work) connected to them. Only the factory complexes were bombed, but the casualties were usually high as the Nazi's wouldn't let them take shelter.

No they weren't as bad. But a few things, First of all they weren't all barrracks, my grandmother lived in a FUCKING HORSE STALL YOU DICK! Just because they weren't as bad as the Nazi concentration camps doesn't make them not concentration camps. What makes it even worse is that most Germans were ignorant of the concentration camps, Americans were not and even supported them, thats what discusts me. The US government even had the balls to go recruiting in the internment camps and you know what, THEY WERE THE MOST DECORATED UNIT OF THE WAR! The 442nd had more Medal of Honor winners than any other unit in WWII, and where were their families? LIVING IN FUCKING HORSE STALLS!
Still, though, the US wasn’t out to kill Japanese.
The Nazis were out to kill Jews.
If you aren’t trying to exterminate an ethnic group, it isn’t like the Nazis concentration camps, period.

If it wasn't for his power hungry ambition, I might have rated him very highly. He gets a 2 out of me though. Only reason its as high as a two is because he did help the nation in WW2 and Social Security was a good deal.

His crap like pulling 4 terms, trying to add additional supreme court judges (18? Jeez) that would rubber stamp his decisons, Japanese interment camps, and other dumb stuff really rubs me the wrong way. He had no regard for the Constitution.

What's wrong with him having 4 terms?

*snip*

FDR fixed nothing. Keynesian economics encourages the use of deficits as a short-term to fix to recessionary gaps, which quite clearly didn't occur under FDR; for all of his deficits, unemployment and production remained the same throughout almost all of the 1930's.


And public works programs are not always good ideas. Do the taxpayers of Florida really need a 16 lane highway that connects Bumble****, Indiana to Nowhere, Ohio?

I can't say he's the best... nor can I say he's the worst... he is the most visible in his policies. Besides, I reserve my lower ratings for the Cold War Presidents and a few earlier presidents... I'd give him a 7. Socialism wasn't necessarily bad, for example, Social Security as a whole may have changed the dynamics of the economy, but it's hard to argue against it when one is unable to find work because of physical condition and/or economic downturn. As for 4th terms, the people had many chances to vote against it, but they haven't, why blame the president for being elected?

What's wrong with him having 4 terms?

Okay, try this experiment--substitute FDR with Bush. Still okay with four terms in office?

I can't say he's the best... nor can I say he's the worst... he is the most visible in his policies. Besides, I reserve my lower ratings for the Cold War Presidents and a few earlier presidents... I'd give him a 7. Socialism wasn't necessarily bad, for example, Social Security as a whole may have changed the dynamics of the economy, but it's hard to argue against it when one is unable to find work because of physical condition and/or economic downturn. As for 4th terms, the people had many chances to vote against it, but they haven't, why blame the president for being elected?

A few problems with Social Security:

1) It doesn't pay out due to economic downturn (it's not unemployment insurance)

2) It can be stopped at any time, according to two rulings by the Supreme Court of the US--it's just a tax like any other, and the government can choose not to pay out (yes, even right now). It is got guaranteed in the Constitution, therefore it is not guaranteed at all--the the SCOTUS has confirmed that.

3) When it was created, there were over 100 people working, supporting a retired person--we're down to 3 per 1 now. In the next decade or two, we're going to see an inversion, where there will be more retired folk than working adults--where does the SS come from then?

Okay, try this experiment--substitute FDR with Bush. Still okay with four terms in office?

I didn't know Bush is serving 4 terms in office. What amendment said he could?

I didn't know Bush is serving 4 terms in office. What amendment said he could?

I was making a point to Marcks--FDR spent four terms in office, and Marcks was wondering what was wrong with that. The reason the amendment to the constituiton was put in place was due to FDR's four terms in office.

I just wanted Marcks to imagine 16 years of Bush, and was hoping he'd see the problem with presidents "serving" more than two terms.

I was making a point to Marcks--FDR spent four terms in office, and Marcks was wondering what was wrong with that. The reason the amendment to the constituiton was put in place was due to FDR's four terms in office.

Correct but the people thought he was doing a fine job though if it wasn't for the war and his promise to remain neutral (which he violated with Lend-lease). At the time, I wouldn't have a problem with it either but I do support the Constitutional Amendment that limits terms. Now if we can get one for congress......

I just wanted Marcks to imagine 16 years of Bush, and was hoping he'd see the problem with presidents "serving" more than two terms.

I would support him until someone better came along :D

Correct but the people thought he was doing a fine job though if it wasn't for the war and his promise to remain neutral (which he violated with Lend-lease). At the time, I wouldn't have a problem with it either but I do support the Constitutional Amendment that limits terms. Now if we can get one for congress......


'twould be aces, sir.


I would support him until someone better came along :D

Well....that's where you and I will diverge in opinion. That whole power corrupts thing--and that's exactly what happened. He tried to do a whole bunch of unconstitutional things, then tried to load the bench so he could get away with it. Not kosher in my book. :(

What's wrong with him having 4 terms?

He is not a king. To much power and to much time with that power tends to cause that person to allow more abuses of the power given to him. His disregard for precedent only shows his callous regard for the principles of the republic.

The ONLY reason you never hear FDR talked about like a prick is because WW2 and Social security. If it wasn't for those two things, he'd be another damned embarrassment to the country.

FDR fixed nothing. Keynesian economics encourages the use of deficits as a short-term to fix to recessionary gaps, which quite clearly didn't occur under FDR; for all of his deficits, unemployment and production remained the same throughout almost all of the 1930's.


And public works programs are not always good ideas. Do the taxpayers of Florida really need a 16 lane highway that connects Bumble****, Indiana to Nowhere, Ohio?

Okay, so I explained the theory, which you've chosen to ignore.

Let's try statistics (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm):
The one's you are looking for are right the bottom. It gives you the year, how much the federal government spent, how much the economy grew, and what unemployment was.

Okay, so I explained the theory, which you've chosen to ignore.

Let's try statistics (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm):
The one's you are looking for are right the bottom. It gives you the year, how much the federal government spent, how much the economy grew, and what unemployment was.
Retracting the statement about the production. It did increase during the mid 1930's, though it should be noted that, taken as a whole, the 1930's saw no economic growth.
I have no idea what was running through my mind when I wrote that. :(


Okay, down to business:
I understand the theory perfectly well. It states that every dollar spent by the government will raise production by whatever the income multiplier is. And it makes perfect logical sense until one realizes that it completely undermines the economy’s capacity for long-term growth, since it consists of taking money and resources from one place and sending it to Bumble****, Indiana. And the same mathematics the Keynesians use suggest the economy will always grow as long as government spending grows and maintains a balanced budget.

And World War II deficit spending differs from Great Depression deficit spending for multiple reasons:
1. Dollars spent for bombs are dollars spent increasing the actual production capacity of the economy, as opposed to spending dollars on a damn in the middle of nowhere or for people who do not work.
2. During war, there is HUGE incentive for technological progress, a foundation for economic growth that closing recessionary gaps simply ignores. Thus, the deficit spending during the Great Depression created only short term “growth”, whereas the war spending created technologies that continued to pay dividends for years.
3. Rationing and War Bonds greatly reduced the effects of government investment crowding out private investment and extreme inflationary pressures during World War II. (Yes, those government debts have to come from somewhere. Printing more money just causes inflation)

FDR did NOT end the Great Depression. Another decade of him and the economy would’ve been experiencing sky high inflation, which would eventually lead to sky high unemployment and inflation, and the economy would be back in depression. Except, of course, printing more money would solve nothing since every dollar was already being used.


And Hoover wasn't much different than FDR, except by party name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover#Hoover_and_the_economy)

I'd give him a five. I don't want to rate him as bad, for I admire his genius in politics. He played the game well enough to die (naturally) in office. He also led us through WWII, and the massive wartime production he helped orchrastrate probably was the main force between freedom and slavery. On the other, he introduced America to socialism, something this country never really got rid of, even to this day.

Now this is getting interesting:

Okay, down to business:
I understand the theory perfectly well. It states that every dollar spent by the government will raise production by whatever the income multiplier is. And it makes perfect logical sense until one realizes that it completely undermines the economy’s capacity for long-term growth, since it consists of taking money and resources from one place and sending it to Bumble****, Indiana. And the same mathematics the Keynesians use suggest the economy will always grow as long as government spending grows and maintains a balanced budget.

And World War II deficit spending differs from Great Depression deficit spending for multiple reasons:
1. Dollars spent for bombs are dollars spent increasing the actual production capacity of the economy, as opposed to spending dollars on a damn in the middle of nowhere or for people who do not work.
2. During war, there is HUGE incentive for technological progress, a foundation for economic growth that closing recessionary gaps simply ignores. Thus, the deficit spending during the Great Depression created only short term “growth”, whereas the war spending created technologies that continued to pay dividends for years.
3. Rationing and War Bonds greatly reduced the effects of government investment crowding out private investment and extreme inflationary pressures during World War II. (Yes, those government debts have to come from somewhere. Printing more money just causes inflation)

FDR did NOT end the Great Depression. Another decade of him and the economy would’ve been experiencing sky high inflation, which would eventually lead to sky high unemployment and inflation, and the economy would be back in depression. Except, of course, printing more money would solve nothing since every dollar was already being used.

I understand exactly what you are saying, but I think you're still making a few assumptions that aren't as well-founded as they could be.

First, I'm not saying Keynes' proposed solution to the Great Depression would have made economic sense over the long run. I agree that deficit spending like that is not economically sustainable. That said, it is common economic policy for governments to spend more than they have during economic downturns and save up/pay off debt in times of prosperity. Some governments take it too far, but given the extreme nature of the circumstances regarding the Great Depression, I would say that's a great example of a time when a government would be well-advised to run a short-term deficit to push America out of the depression. I believe Keynes knew this as well, as his economic policy was more that the government should be prepared to intervene than that the government must constantly intervene, as it is commonly misunderstood.

Second, Keynes did not believe that government spending and a balanced budget would always grow the economy. As you mentioned earlier, the crowding-out effect does come into consideration in his policies. That said, at the time of the Great Depression, private investment was practically non-existant, which is FDR ignored the risk of reducing private investment when he started to spend more. Simply put, somebody had to create the initial investment to kick-start private investment, which is precisely how and why the government stepped in. Again, the additional spending was not supposed to be permanent. It was merely supposed to be a kick-start. This is why FDR tried cutting back in '37, which I think you'll agree turned out rather disastrously.

Third, it doesn't matter what the government project is as long as it creates jobs and produces something. It's easy to say those roads from x to y didn't really do all that much, but consider exactly what the bombs did during the war. They exploded, and that was it. At least those roads are still here today. The most you can find of a WWII bomb is shrapnel. My point isn't to comment on WWII, rather to point out that it didn't really matter at all what the government spent money on as long as it created jobs that would put money into the country. That's precisely, ignoring the crowding-out effect for a moment, why government spending is more effective than a tax cut.

I would like to add a fourth point to this debate as explanation for why the situation improved more rapidly under the war than under the New Deal, as I don't believe that answer is based upon any government economic policies. We all know that most beliefs held by the populace about the future of the economy are self-fulfilling. Bearing this in mind, it has been said that the Great Depression was a time of irrational pessimism, in contrast to the roaring 20's and their irrational optimism. This, I believe, was one of the most forceful obstacles to economic recovery during this time, and part of the reason why economic recovery did take so long: the people simply didn't believe anything would work, and that became self-fulfilling. At the outbreak of WWII, however, national patriotism was stirred and people quite suddenly began to have pride in their country, which led them to have pride in the economy. This optimism, well-founded or not, in turn affected the economy, which is why the economy seemed to recover so much quicker during the war. The belief that war spending was any different from New Deal spending is a fallacy, in my opinion. Rather, the war's great contribution to the economy was that it drastically changed public opinion, making prosperity infinitely more accessible.

EDIT: Also note that unemployment went down during the New Deal.

Okay, try this experiment--substitute FDR with Bush. Still okay with four terms in office?

If it was legal and if Bush kept getting reelected, then sure. I wouldn't really like having to deal with him for 16 years, but I also don't like having to deal with him for 8 years. ;)

The ONLY reason you never hear FDR talked about like a prick is because WW2 and Social security. If it wasn't for those two things, he'd be another damned embarrassment to the country.

The reason FDR is talked about is becasue he was a great and very popular president who was also in charge during a very significant time.

If it was legal and if Bush kept getting reelected, then sure. I wouldn't really like having to deal with him for 16 years, but I also don't like having to deal with him for 8 years. ;)

The reason FDR is talked about is becasue he was a great and very popular president who was also in charge during a very significant time.

He wasn't great. WW2's crisis made him something people looked to for hope. If there was no WW2, or social security, he would have been forgotten OR remembered by historians for being a very power hungry president who DID try to manipulate his power to abuse the system.

In short, there is evidence of him being a corrupt president.

If it was legal and if Bush kept getting reelected, then sure. I wouldn't really like having to deal with him for 16 years, but I also don't like having to deal with him for 8 years. ;)


That's the point. Washington gave it up after only two terms because he knew, just like the rest of the founding fathers, that someone would get in, stay too long at the party, get drunk on the power, and then try to do perform illegal actions, to mold the country as ONE person saw fit--exactly what FDR did.


The reason FDR is talked about is becasue he was a great and very popular president who was also in charge during a very significant time.

Because he has a lot of spin artists STILL working for him. He did the most damage of any president, to the Constitution and freedom of the individual (what the US was BASED on), by pointing the US ship toward socialism. I will always despise him for that.

He wasn't great. WW2's crisis made him something people looked to for hope. If there was no WW2, or social security, he would have been forgotten OR remembered by historians for being a very power hungry president who DID try to manipulate his power to abuse the system.

In short, there is evidence of him being a corrupt president.

I'm not sure what your point is. You're basically saying "Well if FDR hadn't done good things, he would have been a bad president". You can use that argument about pretty much anything. For example: If it weren't for slavery and the civil war, Lincoln would be remember as a totalitarian president who tried to intrude on states' rights.

That's the point. Washington gave it up after only two terms because he knew, just like the rest of the founding fathers, that someone would get in, stay too long at the party, get drunk on the power, and then try to do perform illegal actions, to mold the country as ONE person saw fit--exactly what FDR did.

By "illegal actions", are you refering to the court packing? Because that happened during FDR's first two terms...

Because he has a lot of spin artists STILL working for him. He did the most damage of any president, to the Constitution and freedom of the individual (what the US was BASED on), by pointing the US ship toward socialism. I will always despise him for that.

I guess then that we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I have no problem with America having some socialist policies.

By "illegal actions", are you refering to the court packing? Because that happened during FDR's first two terms...


All the worse then... :mad:


I guess then that we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I have no problem with America having some socialist policies.

I guess we will at that.

I'm not sure what your point is. You're basically saying "Well if FDR hadn't done good things, he would have been a bad president". You can use that argument about pretty much anything. For example: If it weren't for slavery and the civil war, Lincoln would be remember as a totalitarian president who tried to intrude on states' rights.

No. I am saying WW2 was such a pivotal point that it completely changed American history. FDR was a known figure at that time who happened to be president during that time. If he died before the war began or stepped down, he would have been a minor historical figure in our history. The president who was the leader during WW2 automatically gets recognition if we won the war as we did. Because he IS the commander in Chief during the biggest war America fought ever.

On Lincoln, you are correct. Though HIS position was more justifyable because the nation was so divided, even D.C. and the rest of Maryland had the potential for seceeding leaving him a president IN rebel territory. But things turned out ok. As someone who disliked the fact Lincoln did have to violate rights. His position WAS justifyable, plus the South seceeded as SOON as he got it. He didn't have any chance to prove his presidency to begin with. He only wanted to prevent futher states from becoming slave states. The south took his election as an act of war. You can't really blame Lincoln for what he did. He didn't instigate the crisis with action to begin with. So Lincoln gets recognition for holding the union together.



By "illegal actions", are you refering to the court packing? Because that happened during FDR's first two terms...

He had a right to nominate OPEN court positions that opened up during his first two terms. A president has that right. What FDR wanted to do was institute even MORE positions. He wanted to put up to 18 goddamned Supreme Court judges because the ones he did nominate didn't end up becoming his rubber stamping organization as he hoped. His actions alone on this one issue are practically boardering on treason. He was violating the Constitution which is a guarantee to US citizens that the government is going to behave in a way that a single person doesn't have to much power that can eventually be used to violate our civil liberties. This is why people who understand what the Constitution means dislike FDR so greatly. Socialism doesn't bother us nor is it a threat to us. A power hungry bastard though is.

I guess then that we'll just have to agree to disagree, since I have no problem with America having some socialist policies.

Dude, I don't care much about particular policies. As long as it follows guidelines set down to protect citizens and our civil liberties from dictators and guidelines to prevent government powers from becoming to big. One of those guidelines is the checks and balance system.

He had a right to nominate OPEN court positions that opened up during his first two terms. A president has that right. What FDR wanted to do was institute even MORE positions. He wanted to put up to 18 goddamned Supreme Court judges because the ones he did nominate didn't end up becoming his rubber stamping organization as he hoped. His actions alone on this one issue are practically boardering on treason. He was violating the Constitution which is a guarantee to US citizens that the government is going to behave in a way that a single person doesn't have to much power that can eventually be used to violate our civil liberties. This is why people who understand what the Constitution means dislike FDR so greatly. Socialism doesn't bother us nor is it a threat to us. A power hungry bastard though is.

You know, you've actually changed my mind on FDR. I would now take off another point for court-packing, which would give him seven. The other two places where he lost a point were for Japanese internment and cutting spending to cause the recession in 1937.

FDR was one of the most brilliant presidents in US history. 10.

However... in a direct comparison between all canadian prime ministers.

Wilfred Laurier, Louis St. Laurent, Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Trudeau would all get 11.

10 points for being so badass - 4 points for the Japanese internment + 3 points for the whole trying to walk thing... 9/10

In my opinion FDR was one of our greatest presidents. He saw us through the Great Depression and WWII. I know some people have questioned the fact that he married his cousin. However Elenore was only a distiant cousin. Also I think FDR handled Pearl Harbor rather well. Or at least as well as anyone could ask. After Pearl Harbor the majority of Americans hated the Japanese. I know that its not a good thing to hate people, but many people lost love ones in Pearl Harbor. We forget that hign sight is 20:20. At the time the putting the Japanese in interiment camps seemed like the best thing. Looking back we feel differently. I say WE because WE were the ones who put them there. WE elected Roosevelt to office. WE were the ones who were outraged at Japan(for good reason I might ad). WE were the ones who at the time didn't do anything to stop the Japanese interiment. Its only afterward looking back that we are mad at the way the Japanese were treated.
What about the Japanes Americans who were internied at those camps what do they think of FDR? Or what about the familys of those who died as a result of the attack that occurred on Americas "day in infamy". What do they think of FDR. Also what about the WWII vets, the people who were employed by the PWA and TVA, or the Polio victims that looked up to him for courage. What do all of them think of FDR.
One last thing. What about the frightened America that was in the midist of a Great Depression that found not only comfort and support but courage in the imortial word spoken that cold rainy January morning that where spoken on the steps of the US Capital Buldg. The imortial words

"there is nothing to fear, but fear its self"
FDR

What about America who found hope and inspiration in those inmortial words. What do they think of FDR?


Just for the record I gave FDR a 10. What about you?

In my opinion FDR was one of our greatest presidents. He saw us through the Great Depression and WWII. I know some people have questioned the fact that he married his cousin. However Elenore was only a distiant cousin. Also I think FDR handled Pearl Harbor rather well. Or at least as well as anyone could ask. After Pearl Harbor the majority of Americans hated the Japanese. I know that its not a good thing to hate people, but many people lost love ones in Pearl Harbor. We forget that hign sight is 20:20. At the time the putting the Japanese in interiment camps seemed like the best thing. Looking back we feel differently. I say WE because WE were the ones who put them there. WE elected Roosevelt to office. WE were the ones who were outraged at Japan(for good reason I might ad). WE were the ones who at the time didn't do anything to stop the Japanese interiment. Its only afterward looking back that we are mad at the way the Japanese were treated.
What about the Japanes Americans who were internied at those camps what do they think of FDR? Or what about the familys of those who died as a result of the attack that occurred on Americas "day in infamy". What do they think of FDR. Also what about the WWII vets, the people who were employed by the PWA and TVA, or the Polio victims that looked up to him for courage. What do all of them think of FDR.
One last thing. What about the frightened America that was in the midist of a Great Depression that found not only comfort and support but courage in the imortial word spoken that cold rainy January morning that where spoken on the steps of the US Capital Buldg. The imortial words

"there is nothing to fear, but fear its self"
FDR

What about America who found hope and inspiration in those inmortial words. What do they think of FDR?


Just for the record I gave FDR a 10. What about you?

I give him a 2. Again why I did:

He had a right to nominate OPEN court positions that opened up during his first two terms. A president has that right. What FDR wanted to do was institute even MORE positions. He wanted to put up to 18 goddamned Supreme Court judges because the ones he did nominate didn't end up becoming his rubber stamping organization as he hoped. His actions alone on this one issue are practically boardering on treason. He was violating the Constitution which is a guarantee to US citizens that the government is going to behave in a way that a single person doesn't have to much power that can eventually be used to violate our civil liberties. This is why people who understand what the Constitution means dislike FDR so greatly. Socialism doesn't bother us nor is it a threat to us. A power hungry bastard though is.

If your going to learn about FDR, read the history that isn't summerized in high school.

If I may, Constitution Shmonstitution.

If I may, Constitution Shmonstitution.
You can say it, but nobody really gives a damned what your uneducated opinion is of it.

You can say it, but nobody really gives a damned what your uneducated opinion is of it.

Uneducated, thanks.

Here's the thing though. The American Constitution places and unbelievable amount of faith in the people that founded the United States. In many cases this is a good idea, because the Founding Fathers were quite smart. In other cases, however, this has caused problems. The simple reason is that the constitution is not flexible. An excellent is example of this comes actually from the Great Depression. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to make a federal bank, which is why you've set up the Federal Reserve Board which acts just like a central bank but isn't one in name. However, another one of the provisions is that a bank must have its home headquarters in the state it is operating in. This means that banks can only operate in one state, unlike the Canadian system where banks can operate anywhere in Canada. What does this mean? It means that banks have less resources at their disposal and have to cater more to regional interests. Granted, this can be good at times, but this is where the Great Depression comes in. During the Great Depression, countless American banks failed. This is why FDR started his "bank holiday" to save the remaining ones. Canada, while going through all of the same problems with the Great Depression, didn't have a single bank fail. This was because Canadian banks were larger institutions and capable of handling regional downturns. This is a great example of putting too much faith in the constitution.

I'm not saying the constitution is always bad, and I agree that FDR's loading of the courts would have been bad had it been passed, but notice that it was not passed, an indication that democracy still worked. A president has a right to bring any bill before Congress for a vote. That's not treason. If it gets voted down, you can't turn around and attack the president for introducing it. FDR proposed a solution to a problem that required desperate measures. No one liked this part of his proposed solution, but that doesn't make him a traitor, just wrong in this case.

Uneducated, thanks.

Here's the thing though. The American Constitution places and unbelievable amount of faith in the people that founded the United States. In many cases this is a good idea, because the Founding Fathers were quite smart. In other cases, however, this has caused problems. The simple reason is that the constitution is not flexible. An excellent is example of this comes actually from the Great Depression. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to make a federal bank, which is why you've set up the Federal Reserve Board which acts just like a central bank but isn't one in name. However, another one of the provisions is that a bank must have its home headquarters in the state it is operating in. This means that banks can only operate in one state, unlike the Canadian system where banks can operate anywhere in Canada. What does this mean? It means that banks have less resources at their disposal and have to cater more to regional interests. Granted, this can be good at times, but this is where the Great Depression comes in. During the Great Depression, countless American banks failed. This is why FDR started his "bank holiday" to save the remaining ones. Canada, while going through all of the same problems with the Great Depression, didn't have a single bank fail. This was because Canadian banks were larger institutions and capable of handling regional downturns. This is a great example of putting too much faith in the constitution.

I'm not saying the constitution is always bad, and I agree that FDR's loading of the courts would have been bad had it been passed, but notice that it was not passed, an indication that democracy still worked. A president has a right to bring any bill before Congress for a vote. That's not treason. If it gets voted down, you can't turn around and attack the president for introducing it. FDR proposed a solution to a problem that required desperate measures. No one liked this part of his proposed solution, but that doesn't make him a traitor, just wrong in this case.Well said.

American being republican? BS

It's good that he payed farmers, first of all. He had to drive prices up. You know what the prices were? -3 cents.

Negative prices? You mean farmers would pay people to take their crops? Daaaaaaaaamn.

<snip>
Bad:
2. Adulturer
Explantion: He had a long term affair that his wife knew about, in fact he died while on Vacation with his mistriss
<snip>


Can you really blame him? The First Lady had an addition built onto the White House to accomodate trysts with her mistress... not a whole lot of room for Franklin, you see.

I'm confused... What does a man's love life have to do leading a nation's government and his performance as president?

I'm confused... What does a man's love life have to do leading a nation's government and his performance as president?

Are you secretly Bill Clinton?

Are you secretly Bill Clinton?No but I am a huge fan of his and what he did for America.

Uneducated, thanks.

Here's the thing though. The American Constitution places and unbelievable amount of faith in the people that founded the United States. In many cases this is a good idea, because the Founding Fathers were quite smart. In other cases, however, this has caused problems. The simple reason is that the constitution is not flexible. An excellent is example of this comes actually from the Great Depression. The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to make a federal bank, which is why you've set up the Federal Reserve Board which acts just like a central bank but isn't one in name. However, another one of the provisions is that a bank must have its home headquarters in the state it is operating in. This means that banks can only operate in one state, unlike the Canadian system where banks can operate anywhere in Canada. What does this mean? It means that banks have less resources at their disposal and have to cater more to regional interests. Granted, this can be good at times, but this is where the Great Depression comes in. During the Great Depression, countless American banks failed. This is why FDR started his "bank holiday" to save the remaining ones. Canada, while going through all of the same problems with the Great Depression, didn't have a single bank fail. This was because Canadian banks were larger institutions and capable of handling regional downturns. This is a great example of putting too much faith in the constitution.

I'm not saying the constitution is always bad, and I agree that FDR's loading of the courts would have been bad had it been passed, but notice that it was not passed, an indication that democracy still worked. A president has a right to bring any bill before Congress for a vote. That's not treason. If it gets voted down, you can't turn around and attack the president for introducing it. FDR proposed a solution to a problem that required desperate measures. No one liked this part of his proposed solution, but that doesn't make him a traitor, just wrong in this case.

The Constitution is quite flexible to the extent it needs to be. Only under serious circumstance must situations be taken into the context that they are unique and must be addressed accordingly.

Here's another example you seemed to have not known otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the federal bank issue. During Washington's presidency the very same issue was brought up regarding a federal bank. The situation then was far more dire than it was during the great depression because the US HAD NO MONEY to pay off its creditors. The only glue holding the country together was arguably Washington himself. To deal with the massive debt issue, Washington had to make a decision. Jefferson argued against the federal bank being unconstitutional, while Hamilton famously used the "necessary and proper" clause to detail the fact that creating a federal bank was in the best intrests of the nation. He pointed to that phrase and made a convincing point for the creation of the bank. Washington then acted on it and allowed for the creation of the federal bank.

The reason we didn't have the bank later was due to Jackson abolishing it.

Your "point" in the homestead of the bank only points out the make up of those who created the bill. I do NOT see any valid argument that hold the Constitution you mock responsible. So again, perhaps you would like to register a better argument to criticize the Constitution.

And the reason his attempt to make the courts his rubberstamping organization failed is because of proper resistance to what I call tyranical behavior that was present in the American leaders of that time. It wasn't just democracy, it was respect for republican principle of checks and balances that helped shape their opinions to stick with what works and not be goddamned yes men. A trait you don't seem to share. I only hope your not a US citizen.

Yes, he had the "right" to propose it as he has the right to put a proposal making him a ****ing king, but if you SERIOUSLY believe his intentions were justified, clever, or not a serious matter; and not the work of a power hungry individual who posed a internal threat to this republic's make up, you still have a lot to learn about human history.

The only time it is justified in re-evaluating the Supreme Court's make up and behavior is because if there is a highly radical change in the country's make up (massive expansion of territory/provinces that would for some goddamned reason actually warrent it).

Let's break this into three parts, because they're good points that should be dealt with individually. Hopefully my "uneducated brain" will be able to at least hold its own against you.

The Constitution is quite flexible to the extent it needs to be. Only under serious circumstance must situations be taken into the context that they are unique and must be addressed accordingly.

Here's another example you seemed to have not known otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the federal bank issue. During Washington's presidency the very same issue was brought up regarding a federal bank. The situation then was far more dire than it was during the great depression because the US HAD NO MONEY to pay off its creditors. The only glue holding the country together was arguably Washington himself. To deal with the massive debt issue, Washington had to make a decision. Jefferson argued against the federal bank being unconstitutional, while Hamilton famously used the "necessary and proper" clause to detail the fact that creating a federal bank was in the best intrests of the nation. He pointed to that phrase and made a convincing point for the creation of the bank. Washington then acted on it and allowed for the creation of the federal bank.

The reason we didn't have the bank later was due to Jackson abolishing it.

Actually, I was quite aware of this. Similarly, I think FDR would have been better off using the "necessary and proper" clause rather than trying to change the framework of American democracy. It was a mistake, but as far as mistakes go, especially considering this one never even took effect, it's not a bad one.

Your "point" in the homestead of the bank only points out the make up of those who created the bill. I do NOT see any valid argument that hold the Constitution you mock responsible. So again, perhaps you would like to register a better argument to criticize the Constitution.

My "point" (love the quotation marks, by the way) was that lawmakers make mistakes, even Founding Father lawmakers. Strict interpreters versus loose interpreters are another great example of that. People see two different ways to interpret the Constitution, only one of which is right in many circumstances. Consider that very argument between Jefferson and Hamilton. You hold that the Constitution is pretty darn near perfect, but people have been disagreeing over it from day one. I would contend that the most important thing for a country is for it to work well, not for it to follow its Constitution to the letter, but then again, I come from a different society than you.

And the reason his attempt to make the courts his rubberstamping organization failed is because of proper resistance to what I call tyranical behavior that was present in the American leaders of that time. It wasn't just democracy, it was respect for republican principle of checks and balances that helped shape their opinions to stick with what works and not be goddamned yes men. A trait you don't seem to share. I only hope your not a US citizen.

Yes, he had the "right" to propose it as he has the right to put a proposal making him a ****ing king, but if you SERIOUSLY believe his intentions were justified, clever, or not a serious matter; and not the work of a power hungry individual who posed a internal threat to this republic's make up, you still have a lot to learn about human history.

Actually, I believe he seriously cared about America and was trying to do what was best for it. Sure, he made mistakes along the way, but everyone does. The fact that I frequently disagree with George Bush doesn't mean that I don't think he is honestly trying to do what is best for his country. By that same token, I think it would be more reasonable of you to point out that you disagree with FDR's methods and fault him for that if you want rather than attack the man himself as power-hungry and tyrannical. Why? Because you have no way of knowing if he was. It's a blind assertion, which is why I don't think I'm particularly ignorant of human history; I just think we happen to disagree.

Actually, I was quite aware of this. Similarly, I think FDR would have been better off using the "necessary and proper" clause rather than trying to change the framework of American democracy. It was a mistake, but as far as mistakes go, especially considering this one never even took effect, it's not a bad one.

You brought up the "mistake". I'm still just waiting for a reasonable arugment as to how you used the historical point to try to fault the US Constitution.

Let me explain it differently. A good analogy is you blaming the gun maker's instruction booklet because the buyer accidently shot his foot off because he decided to screw around. I'm still wondering why you are blaming the gun maker's booklet. Other people didn't shoot their foot when reading the book. Yet your saying something along the lines of saying the book should have put lines saying "don't try to turn on your TV with the bullet".

My "point" (love the quotation marks, by the way) was that lawmakers make mistakes, even Founding Father lawmakers. Strict interpreters versus loose interpreters are another great example of that. People see two different ways to interpret the Constitution, only one of which is right in many circumstances. Consider that very argument between Jefferson and Hamilton. You hold that the Constitution is pretty darn near perfect, but people have been disagreeing over it from day one. I would contend that the most important thing for a country is for it to work well, not for it to follow its Constitution to the letter, but then again, I come from a different society than you.

Yes they make mistakes, but again why is the Constitution at fault? The document is an outline that is detailed enough to follow the basics, vague enough to be open to cultural interpetation, and open enough to allow for future changes. It isn't perfect, but it isn't overly flawed if people in power decide to follow the damned thing's points and its intentions better.

For me personally, it is just an amazing piece of human achievement. I mean it was written 200+ years ago and people still follow its basic outlines while others such as myself believe in its purpose on moral standpoint. (I seriously doubt someone like you who makes a mockery of it as if it is toilet paper could even on your best days concieve of something as well written that millions have followed, lived by, sacrificed and died for.) As I see it the document is fine, perhaps you are mistaking the Constitution for current statutory laws that change quicker over time?

It is actually GOOD for two sides to argue and discuss for a lax (liberal) and unlax (conservative) decision. People like me balance out those who would go ass wild with government because they have no concern for it or what the document is intended to guarantee our citizens. For me to be liberal with the document such as the gay marriage issue, I need a DAMNED good Constitutional argument for allowing, approving, or condoning a gay marriage ammendment. (And I have heard one enlightened fellow argue one that was intelligent enough to be considered seriously. From what I know, banning all together is unconstitutional.) Its the first thing I ask for. If I don't get it, then there is no reason to agree if they can't even come up with a valid and sensible Constitutional reason.

Actually, I believe he seriously cared about America and was trying to do what was best for it. Sure, he made mistakes along the way, but everyone does. The fact that I frequently disagree with George Bush doesn't mean that I don't think he is honestly trying to do what is best for his country. By that same token, I think it would be more reasonable of you to point out that you disagree with FDR's methods and fault him for that if you want rather than attack the man himself as power-hungry and tyrannical. Why? Because you have no way of knowing if he was. It's a blind assertion, which is why I don't think I'm particularly ignorant of human history; I just think we happen to disagree.

He was a ****ing power hungry politican till Japanese and Nazi's started trying to kill everybody in his continent in my honest opinion. Maybe the presence of a real threat finally turned him into a decent American worth saluting. Before that, he basicly spat on our republic. What the argument boils down to is this; you make excuses for him, I don't.

No but I am a huge fan of his and what he did for America.

Even though he jeopordized United States Security?

Even though he jeopordized United States Security?He did no such thing.

He did no such thing.

Yes he did but I don't expect you to figure out HOW he jepordized US National Security. Those of us who didn't like Clinton (AKA Outsiders) can very well see what he did to jepordize National Security.

I'm not going quote everything you said because you make a great deal of sense already, but I will pick up on two things.

Firstly, I wouldn't use your Constitution as toilet paper, as you so eloquently put it, and the original Consitution Schmonstitution comment was to get people going on this thread, which I have found quite interesting, though apparently the only who noticed was you, and all you do was take offense to it. I don't mind the Constitution, but at the same time, I don't revere it in real way. Maybe that's because I'm Canadian and my country hasn't spent years following the same document. The Constitution does not always reflect the values I have been brought up with or currently hold, for example gun control, but that's neither here nor there.

Secondly, and more importantly, as such, we have different views on how society should be run. Your first priority, it would seem to be, is to establish the constitutionality of the action that is going to be taken. My first one is to establish if said action would work. Usually constitutionality is a way of establishing if something would work, but at times the two are at odds, most noticeably right now during FDR's administration. There's no way of telling, in my opinion, which is better, but it is quite clear that the two are different, perhaps part of the reason why we seem to disagree. That said, we've ended having a lot more in common than we've had different as we've gone through each others arguments.

As for FDR, I still believe that to call him power hungry is merely a matter of opinion, and you seemed to indicate you agree with when you added that your thoughts on him were just your opinion in this case. Maybe he was just another crook like Harding, but I look at it as a man overwhelmed by his circumstances just trying to make the country he cared about work. If you'd like, I can post the economic theory behind the New Deal again so you can see how, if you leave the constitutionality out for a moment, it would work.

Yes he did but I don't expect you to figure out HOW he jepordized US National Security. Those of us who didn't like Clinton (AKA Outsiders) can very well see what he did to jepordize National Security.When Clinton turned over power to Bush, the Bush administration asked straight up, "What is the greatest single threat to US security?" Clinton's administration responded straight up, "Osama Bin Laden".

When Clinton turned over power to Bush, the Bush administration asked straight up, "What is the greatest single threat to US security?" Clinton's administration responded straight up, "Osama Bin Laden".

Then why didn't he take up Sudan's offer to get Osama? We would've had him already if it wasn't for Clinton turning down that offer.

Then why didn't he take up Sudan's offer to get Osama? We would've had him already if it wasn't for Clinton turning down that offer.What offer?

Here's a question for you. Why where there more troops hunting down Saddam and Bath party members than Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda?

BTW Clinton tried to nail Saddam way back in 1998. Meanwhile the PNAC was sending letters to the Whitehouse urging the Clinton administration to overthrow Saddam. John Bolton signed many such letters.

What kind of priorities are these?

What offer?

Sudan offered up Osama Bin Laden while he was in hiding in their nation. Clinton said no.

Here's a question for you. Why where there more troops hunting down Saddam and Bath party members than Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda?

Because we've disrupted the Al Qaeda network. They've diversified into Al Qaeda linked splinter groups that are not fully under his control. he's pretty much taken out of the loop and you really need specialized units to search those mountain whereas in Iraq, you didn't.

BTW Clinton tried to nail Saddam way back in 1998.

Actually, he attacked Saddams alleged WMD factories and storage facilities. Did he even have them i n 1998 though?

Meanwhile the PNAC was sending letters to the Whitehouse urging the Clinton administration to overthrow Saddam. John Bolton signed many such letters.

We should've done it then or in 1991. We didn't!

What kind of priorities are these?

What type of leader ignores an offer to get a terrorist?

Sudan offered up Osama Bin Laden while he was in hiding in their nation. Clinton said no.Bull.

Because we've disrupted the Al Qaeda network. They've diversified into Al Qaeda linked splinter groups that are not fully under his control. he's pretty much taken out of the loop and you really need specialized units to search those mountain whereas in Iraq, you didn't.Bush hasn't disrupted anything. Al-Qaeda has re-organized and they are still fully functional. Madrid, London, Bali, Tunisia and Egypt are perfect examples of that.

Actually, he attacked Saddams alleged WMD factories and storage facilities. Did he even have them i n 1998 though?Woops... I meant Osama. My mistake. He tried to nail Osama in 1998. He made no attempt to overthrow Saddam by force.

We should've done it then or in 1991. We didn't!That's not clinton's fault.

What type of leader ignores an offer to get a terrorist?Saddam has no links with Terror that ever attacked the US. Bin Laden was the priority. For Bush before and even after 9/11 the priority remains Saddam and Iraq. If you believe terror has anything to do with that you are either incredibly naive or stupid.

Bull.

Sudan did offer up Bin laden and Clinton said no. That is a fact.

Bush hasn't disrupted anything. Al-Qaeda has re-organized and they are still fully functional. Madrid, London, Bali, Tunisia and Egypt are perfect examples of that.

London was homegrown. Several of those attacks were splinter groups of Al Qaeda. Notice that none of them said Al Qaeda was responsible? Notice that the people that know this said they were splinter groups of Al Qaeda? Why are they splinter groups and not the group itself?

Woops... I meant Osama. My mistake. He tried to nail Osama in 1998. He made no attempt to overthrow Saddam by force.

Hitting an empty training camp is not what I call trying to get him. Did you know that the CIA had Drones with missiles that had Bin Laden in sight and Clinton said don't attack?

That's not clinton's fault.

No it wasn't. I blame GHWB and the UN for that one. UN resolutions only said to kick him out of Kuwait and nothing more. Alwell. The military knew we'd be back into Iraq. They were right.

Saddam has no links with Terror that ever attacked the US. Bin Laden was the priority. For Bush before and even after 9/11 the priority remains Saddam and Iraq. If you believe terror has anything to do with that you are either incredibly naive or stupid.

I never blamed Saddam for helping 911 though some of the Oil For food money might've helped finance it. That is speculation though so I'm not stating that is fact. However, Saddam did have terror ties to other terror groups. He also harbored a known terrorist that was wounded in our attack in Afghanistan.

Sudan did offer up Bin laden and Clinton said no. That is a fact.Sudan financed and protected Bin Laden and the Clinton administration pressured for a change in Sudanese policy. Sudan offered the USA to keep him in the country but it was unclear exactly what kind of a relationship they had going on.

London was homegrown. Several of those attacks were splinter groups of Al Qaeda. Notice that none of them said Al Qaeda was responsible? Notice that the people that know this said they were splinter groups of Al Qaeda? Why are they splinter groups and not the group itself?Al-Qaeda is still responsible. The splinters and sleeper cells is simply how they function.

Hitting an empty training camp is not what I call trying to get him. Did you know that the CIA had Drones with missiles that had Bin Laden in sight and Clinton said don't attack?I'm sure that didn't happen.

No it wasn't. I blame GHWB and the UN for that one. UN resolutions only said to kick him out of Kuwait and nothing more. Alwell. The military knew we'd be back into Iraq. They were right.Yes they where and it had nothing to do with either terror, nation building or WMD's.

I never blamed Saddam for helping 911 though some of the Oil For food money might've helped finance it. That is speculation though so I'm not stating that is fact. However, Saddam did have terror ties to other terror groups. He also harbored a known terrorist that was wounded in our attack in Afghanistan.Meanwhile a man who was a wanted dead or alive during the War in Iraq is now involved in negotiating the constitution.

Sudan financed and protected Bin Laden and the Clinton administration pressured for a change in Sudanese policy. Sudan offered the USA to keep him in the country but it was unclear exactly what kind of a relationship they had going on.

Sudan offered up to the Clinton Administration Bin Ladin. When he said no, they kicked him out of the country. Now what type of leader turns down an opportunity to get a bossman of a terrorist organization?

Al-Qaeda is still responsible. The splinters and sleeper cells is simply
how they function.

And why do they hvae to function as splinter cells? Because the main organization got disrupted when we hit Afghanistan. Thanks for proving it.

I'm sure that didn't happen.

Yep it did.

Yes they where and it had nothing to do with either terror, nation building or WMD's.

No just enforcing 17 UN resolutions that the UN didn't back up. Also, it was about Terror since Saddam did have links to terror.

Meanwhile a man who was a wanted dead or alive during the War in Iraq is now involved in negotiating the constitution.

And that man would be?

I give him a four, but only because I'm feeling charitable.

Sudan offered up to the Clinton Administration Bin Ladin. When he said no, they kicked him out of the country. Now what type of leader turns down an opportunity to get a bossman of a terrorist organization?They didn't offer him up. They offered to keep him in the country. They where financing his fucking private army while he was there, and he only left Sudan due to American pressure.

And why do they hvae to function as splinter cells? Because the main organization got disrupted when we hit Afghanistan. Thanks for proving it.The 9-11 attack was conducted by splinter/sleeper cells. :rolleyes: All Al-Qaeda attacks are conducted by splinter/sleeper cells. Cutting off the links is the key to their "success".

Yep it did.Then present your proof/source.

No just enforcing 17 UN resolutions that the UN didn't back up. Also, it was about Terror since Saddam did have links to terror.Wrong again. It has to do with carrying out the PNAC's emperialist foreign policy, while they make it look like they're actually doing something else.

And that man would be?It's an arabic name that I cannot recall. It was quoted by Wolf Blitzer during a live interview on CNN with the American ambassador in Iraq, whose name I cannot recall either. The said ambassador struggled and stumbled when Wolf questioned him about this situation presenting a quick shot of the wanted criminal in negotiations with the Iraqi president concerning the constitution. I have reason to believe he is heading one of Iraq newly created political parties, hence taking place in negotiations.

I gave him a 1 because he didn't fight the war nearly as effectively as he could have. He left the British in the thick of it many times, especially at Arnham, and compromised far too much with Old Joe. Yes, the Soviets may have won the war, but still...

Criticising FDR or Truman or any other American or British for what Stalin ended up with has got to be one of the most disturbingly ridiculous things that anyone could possibly come up with.

What's your opinion of Roosevelt, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the worst, 10 being the best? Hopefully we can have an interesting, intelligent, flame-free debate.
He put American citizens in camps, tried to pack the supreme court and violated the U.S. Constitution numerous times, just to start.

He was crap.

What's your opinion of Roosevelt, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being the worst, 10 being the best? Hopefully we can have an interesting, intelligent, flame-free debate.


FDR- YAY!

( 9 because he intered Jappense Americans and wasn't QUITE tough enough on Stalin)

No Bush was crap. He not only ruined the nation's economy but also it's reputation.

FDR despite a few things was the most brilliant leader your nation has had to date. What he pulled off with the US in a depression was nothing short of a miracle.

Criticising FDR or Truman or any other American or British for what Stalin ended up with has got to be one of the most disturbingly ridiculous things that anyone could possibly come up with.

The way in which FDR communicated with Stalin during the war years is widely regarded as one of the reasons for Soviet Imperialism. Read a fucking book.

The way in which FDR communicated with Stalin during the war years is widely regarded as one of the reasons for Soviet Imperialism. Read a fucking book.I dispense your advice... Stalin and his Nation conquered most of Europe by himself. They sacrificed a helluva lot more than the US in the process also. Stalin had the upper hand in negotiations and the USSR stood to gain more. So they did. Consider yourselves lucky that they where able to hang on to what they did.

Well at least I got them to stop saying his economic policy sucked...

I dispense your advice... Stalin and his Nation conquered most of Europe by himself. They sacrificed a helluva lot more than the US in the process also. Stalin had the upper hand in negotiations and the USSR stood to gain more. So they did. Consider yourselves lucky that they where able to hang on to what they did.

Indeed, but FDR's diplomatic impotence enabled Stalin to exercise the full extent of his might more easily. Don't lecture me, I am an historian. Well aware of the complex happenings of the last century.

Firstly, I wouldn't use your Constitution as toilet paper, as you so eloquently put it, and the original Consitution Schmonstitution comment was to get people going on this thread, which I have found quite interesting, though apparently the only who noticed was you, and all you do was take offense to it. I don't mind the Constitution, but at the same time, I don't revere it in real way. Maybe that's because I'm Canadian and my country hasn't spent years following the same document. The Constitution does not always reflect the values I have been brought up with or currently hold, for example gun control, but that's neither here nor there.

I never expected you to revere it. I just expect you to understand why we follow it for guidence in our government. Seeing how our whole government is set up to follow its outlines for specific behavior and control. It would be self evident as to why we look to see if what decisions we make now reflect how the engine is supposed to run. The problem with the society is the general American citizen simply aren't trained or taught to be republic minded stewarts. Thus fuck ups are the norm.

Secondly, and more importantly, as such, we have different views on how society should be run. Your first priority, it would seem to be, is to establish the constitutionality of the action that is going to be taken. My first one is to establish if said action would work. Usually constitutionality is a way of establishing if something would work, but at times the two are at odds, most noticeably right now during FDR's administration. There's no way of telling, in my opinion, which is better, but it is quite clear that the two are different, perhaps part of the reason why we seem to disagree. That said, we've ended having a lot more in common than we've had different as we've gone through each others arguments.

The reason I evaluate why "action that works" is Constitutional is simple. I want my civil liberties for myself and my heirs to be ensured. Period. When all is said and done, I want my offspring to live with the knowledge that their civil right people died for are still intact. If such "action that works" is going to be applied to our democratic republican system of government, I'm going to want to know in detail whether it will keep those principles in tact. If it doesn't, I'll send it to Canada if that makes you feel better.

If you'd like, I can post the economic theory behind the New Deal again so you can see how, if you leave the constitutionality out for a moment, it would work.

Post if you like. The whole issue of the Supreme Court of that time with some of the new deal programs was preventing the federal government from regulating the economy to much. However, the Constitution ALLOWS Congress to regulate the economy between states and foreign nations. Again, the political actions of men, not the fault of the document in either. And I do doubt the New Deal worked well. It was WW2 that jump started the economy. It made unemployment vanish, and put nitro glycerine into textile production's engine. Hell, by the end of WW2 our economy was only just begining to get warmed up.

No Bush was crap. He not only ruined the nation's economy but also it's reputation.

I ignored your other post because it wasn't worth responding too because apparently, you don't know your history as well as you think you do. In regards to this, our economy is BOOMING and isn't in ruins.

FDR despite a few things was the most brilliant leader your nation has had to date. What he pulled off with the US in a depression was nothing short of a miracle.

If he left well enough alone, the economy would've gotten better a hell of a lot faster than it did. It took an Attack on Pearl Harbor to pull us out of the depression. He violated the Constitution and the Supreme Court called him on it and he tried to pack the Supreme Court that was dismissed by BOTH political parties.

I ignored your other post because it wasn't worth responding too because apparently, you don't know your history as well as you think you do. In regards to this, our economy is BOOMING and isn't in ruins.http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1124533082256&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705923364&t=TS_Home&DPL=IvsNDS%2f7ChAX&tacodalogin=yes

If he left well enough alone, the economy would've gotten better a hell of a lot faster than it did. It took an Attack on Pearl Harbor to pull us out of the depression. News Flash... the depression was over and done with well before the war started in 1939 let alone when pearl harbor went down in 1941.

He violated the Constitution and the Supreme Court called him on it and he tried to pack the Supreme Court that was dismissed by BOTH political parties.Nobody is perfect.

News Flash... the depression was over and done with well before the war started in 1939 let alone when pearl harbor went down in 1941.

No it wasn't over and done with before 1939. We were still in it when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It took that attack to jump start the US economy. It put people to work in the war plants and ship yards and people were joining the Army in droves. That is what brought us out of the Depression!

Nobody is perfect.

Remember that. I agree with you too.

9/10 because he never made string cheese a huge US industry ;P

No it wasn't over and done with before 1939. We were still in it when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It took that attack to jump start the US economy. It put people to work in the war plants and ship yards and people were joining the Army in droves. That is what brought us out of the Depression!The depression hit rock bottom in 1933. With Roosevelt's leadership it was a one way trip to the top. The Depression hit Canada just as hard as it did in the US and one way to recognize and acknowledge Roosevelt's work is to simply compare how long it took Canada to get out of the depression with Mackenzie King (whom I generally dislike) as Prime Minister.

The depression hit rock bottom in 1933. With Roosevelt's leadership it was a one way trip to the top. The Depression hit Canada just as hard as it did in the US and one way to recognize and acknowledge Roosevelt's work is to simply compare how long it took Canada to get out of the depression with Mackenzie King (whom I generally dislike) as Prime Minister.

Dude, let me tell you something! It took World War II to bring us out of the depression. That is a known fact. It wasn't over before 1939. It took World War II to end it. Why? Because it put people to work in the war plants. People went into the Army. Women went to work in the war plants as well. Shipyards began to construct ships. None of this didn't happen prior to 1939.

Dude, let me tell you something! It took World War II to bring us out of the depression. That is a known fact. It wasn't over before 1939. It took World War II to end it. Why? Because it put people to work in the war plants. People went into the Army. Women went to work in the war plants as well. Shipyards began to construct ships. None of this didn't happen prior to 1939.That was simply the consolidation. The return to existing economic values that existed prior to 1929. The path to recovery had been layed out long before WW2.

That was simply the consolidation. The return to existing economic values that existed prior to 1929. The path to recovery had been layed out long before WW2.

Through unconstitutional programs? Sorry C6 but no, it wasn't.

Through unconstitutional programs? Sorry C6 but no, it wasn't.Spare me. :rolleyes:

While I immensely respect Roosevelt, he had some really bad ideas. Fortunately for the US (and other places as well) he died before they could be implemented. For example, he considered it a decent option to split Germany up into seven bits for the rest of time.

He was also somewhat too self assured. Whenever something happened with Germany, he relied on his own experiences in Germany from his youth, even though they were totally irrelevant. For example, he believed that the center strength, the driving force behind the Nazi movement was Prussian, and while the Wehrmacht was indeed controlled by Prussian officers, the Nazi Movement itself was controlled by Bavarians by and large. He also was somewhat too friendly towards the Soviet Union, which could have been very bad for the global situation after the end of the war.

Other decisions he made ended up being quite lucky. For example, he put Truman on the ticket in '44 instead of Wallace and that turned out to be a good thing (Truman was right about the Soviets being mean sonsabitches, wallace thought otherwise.)

Roosevelt's most notorious for his internment of Japanese-Americans, almost all of whom were completely loyal (and many showed immense bravery in the European theater,) is one of his biggest fuckups. That and his refusal to up the immigration numbers for Jewish refugees from occupied Europe rate as much bad mistakes. But when compared to how he handled the war, they are forgivable, if not regrettable.

I don't really rate the new deal as having done all that much for the economy. Hell, if it wasn't for the war, I suspect that depression would have outlived Roosevelt. Just the way the world works, eh? You got to give him credit though, he gave the American people hope and pride without the use of the foul demagougery of Mussolini or Hitler. He was able to help Americans get over the past and focus on making the future better themselves, and not blame past failures on others.

Spare me. :rolleyes:

*shrugs*

Believe what you will.

News Flash... the depression was over and done with well before the war started in 1939 let alone when pearl harbor went down in 1941.

No. We we had NOT recovered from the great depression before the war. The war turned it around almost completely. It removed unemployment, ensured manufacturers had work because of one constant customer wanted war materials, and everybody with money was buying bonds so the government could buy more.

Roosevelt sold out Eastern Europe to the Soviets. Thanks for the Cold War. You get a 4 for being related to Teddy.

Roosevelt sold out Eastern Europe to the Soviets. Thanks for the Cold War. You get a 4 for being related to Teddy.

And to be honest, Teddy was a better President than his cousin.

Roosevelt sold out Eastern Europe to the Soviets. Thanks for the Cold War. You get a 4 for being related to Teddy.Eastern Europe was never american to begin with.

Eastern Europe was never american to begin with.

Where did this line come from?

Where did this line come from?The Russians conquered practically everything east of germany by themselves with outrageous amounts of bloodshed in comparison with the American/British/Canadian/French western front war effort. The Americans and British had very little negotiating leverage (particulary concerning eastern europe) when it came down to discuss the spoils of war.

What are you refering to when you mention a line? :confused:

The Russians conquered practically everything east of germany by themselves with outrageous amounts of bloodshed in comparison with the American/British/Canadian/French western front war effort. The Americans and British had very little negotiating leverage (particulary concerning eastern europe) when it came down to discuss the spoils of war.

What are you refering to when you mention a line? :confused:


I at least know who and what I'm quoting. You Canada6 made a generic comment about it! "Never American" Your right, it was never american but neither was it Russian to begin with. If we wanted too, we could've used what we had and attacked Russia and include Germany in that attack. Patton was advocating that. To bad we didn't. Could've ended the cold war before it even started.

FDR fell for Stalin's subterfuge because Stalin had no intention of giving it up and rig elections in favor of communists. FDR caved in to easily in this regard. If he pushed the issue, who knows what would've happened.

I at least know who and what I'm quoting. You Canada6 made a generic comment about it! "Never American" Your right, it was never american but neither was it Russian to begin with. If we wanted too, we could've used what we had and attacked Russia and include Germany in that attack. Patton was advocating that. To bad we didn't. Could've ended the cold war before it even started.So you defend that America should've backstabbed and attacked an ally before the war had even capitulated (Yalta Conference), and criticise Roosevelt for not having done that?

:D Helluva way to treat allies you got there.

The Cold WAR was wasn't necessarily a bad thing for America if you take away most of the paranioia and a few other things. Eastern europe struggled with communism but they would've struggled without it just the same. Communism might've even kept them out of war because of soviet protection.

So you defend that America should've backstabbed and attacked an ally before the war had even capitulated (Yalta Conference), and criticise Roosevelt for not having done that?

In this case? Yes!

:D Helluva way to treat allies you got there.

We may have been allies during World War II but we never did fully trust them.

The Cold WAR was wasn't necessarily a bad thing for America if you take away most of the paranioia and a few other things. Eastern europe struggled with communism but they would've struggled without it just the same. Communism might've even kept them out of war because of soviet protection.

Look at the history of both nations during the cold war. We are still feeling the effects of it even today. Our way of thinking needs to change now but it can't because its still stuck in Cold War mode. That isn't healthy in today's world.

.......Tax.......Federal....GNP.......Unemp.
Year...Receipts..Spending...Growth....Rate
-------------------------------------------------
1929......--.......--.........--......3.2%..< Hoover era, Great Depression begins
1930.....4.2%.....3.4%.....- 9.4%.....8.7
1931.....3.7......4.3......- 8.5.....15.9
1932.....2.9......7.0......-13.4.....23.6
1933.....3.5......8.1......- 2.1.....24.9 < FDR, New Deal begins; shrinking ends March
1934.....4.9.....10.8......+ 7.7.....21.7
1935.....5.3......9.3......+ 8.1.....20.1
1936.....5.1.....10.6......+14.1.....16.9
1937.....6.2......8.7......+ 5.0.....14.3 < recession begins, May
1938.....7.7......7.8......- 4.5.....19.0 < recession ends, June
1939.....7.2.....10.4......+ 7.9.....17.2
1940.....6.9......9.9
1941.....7.7.....12.1
1942....10.3.....24.8
1943....13.7.....44.8
1944....21.7.....45.3
1945....21.3.....43.7

Table courtesy of here (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm).

Perhaps one of the most difficult periods of recent history to comprehend was the Great Depression and how it was solved. Some say Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal should be credited with the emergence of the American economy from the pains of The Great Depression, while others say that Roosevelt was an idiot and that all credit should go to World War Two. Not only is the latter option worrisome, as it indicates that war is an acceptable means of saving an economy from depression, but it is also wrong. Here’s why:

The primary problem with the Great Depression was a massive lack of demand in the economy. Unfortunately, this demand was not cyclical, as the Hoover administration proved. As they cut back on spending to try to maintain a balanced budget, they put government employees out of work, which in turn put unemployment even higher than it had already been. Unfortunately, the people didn't see the benefits of the cuts in spending in the forms of tax cuts that would encourage them to spend because the greater unemployment meant less tax revenue for the government overall, which created a downward spiral of less and less demand coupled with higher employment.

F.D.R. started to fix this by following the advice of John Maynard Keynes. Keynes pointed out that if the government borrowed money to spend on public works, as F.D.R. did, this would create jobs. Keynes did not believe that government spending and a balanced budget would always grow the economy. The crowding-out effect does come into consideration in his policies. That said, at the time of the Great Depression, private investment was practically non-existant, which is why he told FDR to ignore the risk of reducing private investment when he started to spend more. Simply put, somebody had to create the initial investment to kick-start private investment, which is precisely how and why the government stepped in. The additional spending was not supposed to be permanent. It was merely supposed to be a kick-start. This is why FDR tried cutting back spending in 1937, which turned out rather disastrously.

It didn't matter what the government project was as long as it created jobs and produced something. It's easy to say those roads from x to y didn't really do all that much, but consider exactly what the bombs the US made did during the war. They exploded, and that was it. At least those roads are still here today. The most one can find of a WWII bomb is shrapnel. It didn't really matter at all what the government spent money on as long as it created jobs that would put money into the country. That's precisely why, ignoring the crowding-out effect for a moment, government spending is more effective than a tax cut. These working people were not only producing something for the economy, which was good, but they were also getting paid, which was money they turned around and spent, thus creating even more demand in the economy. For those not aware with this phenomenon, it's called the multiplier effect.

The problem most conservative economists have is that they assume the depression was cyclical and that the economy would pull out on its own, but as explained, this wasn't the case. Had the government continued to cut spending, the demand in the economy would have been reduced more and more drastically. Remember, the issue wasn't that the ability to produce had been compromised, but rather the ability to demand to what had been produced. People had no money, so businesses had no target market, so businesses were closing, which in turn was putting people out of work and meant those people had no money. Notice the cycle?

Keynes' proposed solution to the Great Depression would not have made economic sense over the long run. Deficit spending like that is not economically sustainable. At the same time, it is common economic policy for governments to spend more than they have during economic downturns and save up/pay off debt in times of prosperity. Some governments take it too far, but given the extreme nature of the circumstances, the Great Depression is a great example of a time when a government was well-advised to run a short-term deficit to push its country out of a downturn. Keynes knew this as well, as his economic policy was more that the government should be prepared to intervene than that the government must constantly intervene, as it is commonly misunderstood.

For the record, a monetary policy of printing more money would have been capable of saving the economy in today's world, but America was still attached to the gold standard at the time, which made this difficult. Lowering interest rates wouldn't have done anything because no one was keeping their money in banks anyway. This left only fiscal policy, and considering that in many ways the currency was actually going through deflation, the trade-off of spending away unemployment and picking up some inflation was win-win. The only two issues Roosevelt had to worry about were accumulating a debt, which would be easily paid off if he could get the economy to expand, and experiencing a crowding-out effect, which was not going to happen because there was no investment on the private side anyway.

So why did the war revitalize the economy faster than The New Deal? Most beliefs held by the populace about the future of the economy are self-fulfilling. Bearing this in mind, it has been said that the Great Depression was a time of irrational pessimism, in contrast to the roaring 20's and their irrational optimism. This was one of the most forceful obstacles to economic recovery during this time, and part of the reason why economic recovery did take so long: the people simply didn't believe anything would work, and that became self-fulfilling. At the outbreak of WWII, however, patriotism was stirred and people quite suddenly began to have pride in their country, which led them to have pride in the economy. This optimism, well-founded or not, in turn affected the economy, which is why the economy seemed to recover so much quicker during the war. The belief that war spending was any different from New Deal spending is a fallacy. Rather, the war's great contribution to the economy was that it drastically changed public opinion, making prosperity infinitely more accessible.

So that's why Roosevelt acted as he did, at least from the economic theory point of view. How well did all of this work in reality? Well history showed an upturn in the economy consistently throughout his depression years with the exception of around 1937 where he began to cut spending again. This would seem to indicate that he was taking the right action.

Ragbralbur thanks a bunch for the info and for proving my point. :)

Ragbralbur thanks a bunch for the info and for proving my point. :)

Technically, World War II started in 1937 and not 1939. Care to tell me why I say 1937?

Beats me Corneliu... :confused:

Perhaps the sino-japanese war or the Anschluss... anyway... nothing happened that year in terms of the buildup of the conflict, that might've had any positive or negative effect on the American economy.

Beats me Corneliu... :confused:

Perhaps the sino-japanese war or the Anschluss... anyway... nothing happened that year in terms of the buildup of the conflict, that might've had any positive or negative effect on the American economy.

Actually, the Chinese-Japanese war that started in 1937 led to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. So yes, it had an affect on the United States. It had profound ramafacations on Foreign Relations.

Also in 1938, Germany invaded Austria and then took control of the Czechoslovakia. If you want to get technical, that was when the European War technically got started.

Anyway, the point is, if it wasn't for World War II, the depression would've been extended. Even my own grandmother knows this since she was alive during this period in our history!

Actually, the Chinese-Japanese war that started in 1937 led to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. So yes, it had an affect on the United States. It had profound ramafacations on Foreign Relations. Obviously, but not in 1937, and much less on the economy.

Anyway, the point is, if it wasn't for World War II, the depression would've been extended.What was left of it anyway. Once again I say that FDR did a remarkable job in recovery. The best way to fully understand what he did is, as I've stated before, compare how Canada under Mackenzie King tried to handle the depression. Recovery took much much longer in Canada than it did in the states. This was due to poor leadership and decision making.

Obviously, but not in 1937, and much less on the economy.

Now how would you know?

What was left of it anyway. Once again I say that FDR did a remarkable job in recovery. The best way to fully understand what he did is, as I've stated before, compare how Canada under Mackenzie King tried to handle the depression. Recovery took much much longer in Canada than it did in the states. This was due to poor leadership and decision making.

Excuse me for believing people who actually lived through the Great Depression and not those that haven't.

Now how would you know?American involvement in the War in arms manufacturing began in 1939 as you've repeatedly stated and is common knowledge.

Excuse me for believing people who actually lived through the Great Depression and not those that haven't.The War boosted the American economy to incredible heights that made the recovery years seem like they where simply part of the depression. (Hence your Grandma) Heck my grandma remembers many things that are historically and cronologically incorrect.

But the fact of the matter, (in case you haven't read that huge post full of information and stats) is that the post depression/pre-war recovery was real. It happened.

In Canada however it never happened. There was no recovery and the depression lasted full blast until the start of the War. Mackenzie King did a few good solid things but it wasn't enough. And his political style of passiveness and not wanting to make decisions, (totally contrasting FDR) was to blame for that.

American involvement in the War in arms manufacturing began in 1939 as you've repeatedly stated and is common knowledge.

Actually, that was lend-lease that was instituted in 1939.

But the fact of the matter, (in case you haven't read that huge post full of information and stats) is that the post depression/pre-war recovery was real. It happened.

Maybe in the cities but not out in the boondocks where it was still occuring. It wasn't until WWII that brought all of us out of the depression. That is a fact my friend.

In Canada however it never happened. There was no recovery and the depression lasted full blast until the start of the War. Mackenzie King did a few good solid things but it wasn't enough. And his political style of passiveness and not wanting to make decisions, (totally contrasting FDR) was to blame for that.

And this has what to do with FDR?

And this has what to do with FDR?An example of two nations that where both hit hard by a suddon depression after a decade of prosperity and growth, and the two different paths that where chosen, and two different results that were obtained.

The conclusion is that Mackenzie King was an imbecile compared to FDR. In case you need another example is perhaps comparing Hoover's presidency to FDR's. In the face of the depression and incredibly tough times he opted to sit on his hands, just like our friend from up North, Mackenzie King, affraid of making decisions that might have been unpopular (due to socialist movements, communist movements, union movements, riots etc) or that would've made matters worse. It isn't fair comparing Hoover anyway because he got the worse part of the depression during his term.
However...
FDR had the political courage and the intellect (himself and his team), to get the job done. He did go overboard with the constitution a few times, but like I've said, nobody is perfect. That's a fair criticisism. But criticising for his work during the depression is like criticising Gorbachev for not having brought communism down quicker.

Anyway, the point is, if it wasn't for World War II, the depression would've been extended. Even my own grandmother knows this since she was alive during this period in our history!

As nice as I'm sure your grandmother is, I'd contend that simply being alive at the time of the event doesn't give you the skill necessary to correctly analyze it. Are we winning or losing in Iraq? We've all been alive through the war; we should be able to come to an answer we agree with, but we won't.

Remember that FDR's ideas for saving the economy at the time were new and radical, even though today they have become quite common. They were met with a great deal of skepticism, and I would imagine your grandmother, if she's anything like you, tended to accept the right-wing's arguments against the New Deal just as quickly as you did when you said it wasn't working in the beginning. The statistics show it working, even before the Sino-Japanese War. In fact, the war occured at the same time as a recession (see graph), which would indicate that it was having a very small effect on the economy, or if it was having any effect, it was probably a negative one. Again, FDR's cut in spending in 1937 before the country had enough private investment on its own was what caused the recession at that point in time. When he started spending again in 1938 the improvement starts up again. I would say this has a much stronger link to economic recovery than the Sino-Japanese War.

Liverbreath']Disqualified Awesome things:

Rode out of the great depression just like everyone else on the back of WWII
No, our Military fighting men and those that supported them got us through WWII
Went out of his way to hide the fact that he had polio so no one would notice. Could have been of great benefit to those afflicted with this terrible disease but chose not to for political reasons. Really sad.

Combined with your reasons = Total score 3


Well the new deal was a great thing. The polio issue, he was the prime reason behind the vaccine that came out 5 years after his death. The reason he hid his disease was to not show America a weak leader. Was it right? For the time I think it was. Today maybe not. But you need to put it into context of the era. I gave TR a 8 even though there were some shady dealings but can be overlooked because of the situation at the time.