How come people consider FDR such a great President?

[Jhhnn]

FDR had a congress very unwilling to wage war, there was even a great deal of opposition to FDR's favoring the allies over the axis. He pulled a lot of tricks to aid the British, including lend-lease and use of american warships to escort convoys partway across the Atlantic prior to american entry into the war.

In that era, the executive's privileges were more sharply constrained by Congress, and they wanted to avoid war if possible...

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Hubris

Originally posted by: Xiety

Originally posted by: LordSegan

Originally posted by: ndee
who's FDR?

I hope you are kidding.

geez, check his info, he is not from the U.S.

FDR is not such an important person to know about.

Yeah, he's only the president that led us through WWII...

I would hope jsut about everyone would know FDR. I'm an American, yet I know who Stalin and Churchill are.

I know who Franklin D. Roosevelt is but I wasn't familiar with the abbreviation. Get over it.

 

[Dragnov]

You must still be reading off of W's go look up the real and come back when figure it out.

Do you have difficulty reading?
War Powers Act

The President has the abilty to use troops wherever/wahtever he chooses for up to 60 days w/o Congressional approval, only requiring him to report it within 48 hours. If not approved, he would have 30 days to remove them.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
- excutive order for the relocation/internment of Japanese Americans
- would not support the Spanish Republic against the fascists
- failed to act upon Hitler and his aggression (yes, other countries did also but so what... still a failure IMO). Still would not act, until attacked @ Pearl Harbor.
- threatened/attempted to pack the Supreme Court

Seemed to me he was a tool of (the often poor) public opinion...

His social programs? I think we can all agree, as good intentioned as they were, it was primarily the war that brought the US out of depression.

That's a sign of a great man that lesser men want to bash him all day long. He was bashed for trying to get the US into the war, now he is bashed for not doing it fast enough. This was a time of war and depression, and he lead the US through both. Now you might not agree with everything he did to get there, but the US emerged as an economic and global superpower as a result. As far as social programs, you can think in nice theoretical terms whether they are good or bad, but if you are in the middle of depression, poverty and suffering on a mass scale, that goes out of the window.

 

[phonemonkey]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK

In case you got handed W.'s copy of the Consitition, The real one says that Congress and not the president decided when to go to war.

In case you got handed W.'s copy of the Constitution, you would know that the President has several months to use troops overseas w/o the approval of Congress. Even more so, when when the President declares a national emergency.

And geez people, no I am not suggesting we should replace his figure on the dime w/ Reagan of all people.

I personally do not see how he "led us" through the war. He wouldn't react until we were attacked on our home soil...

Maybe you've never heard of the cash/carry (later known as lend/lease) program during WW2 (before we joined the war)? Sounds like he was trying to help out the other governments to the best of his power at the time (note that the war powers act wasn't enacted until 1973 - after WW2).

from your link: The War Powers Act of 1973

 

[Dragnov]

Maybe you've never heard of the cash/carry (later known as lend/lease) program during WW2 (before we joined the war)? Sounds like he was trying to help out the other governments to the best of his power at the time (note that the war powers act wasn't enacted until 1973 - after WW2).

from your link: The War Powers Act of 1973

The War Powers act clarified the relationship between Congress and the President. It wasn't something new that gave the President that power suddenly. I'm sure if a President really desired to do so back then, they could have quite easily. The President was a much more powerful figure back then as compared to currently.

Secondly, it sounds like people are justifying his actions. The only pro-active thing he did was the internment camps. The cash/carry program? Just about every country that doesn't want to get directly involved, is more than willing to exploit anothers countries needs by selling them war materials. Stalin supported the Spanish Republic somewhat, while all the democratic countries watched, does this mean Stalin was a great man?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Social Security was originally meant for elderly widows and the disabled, liberals in the 60's expanded is LBJ great society-style

FDR had to be pretty dam good, how else could he win FOUR elections until the curse of harrison killed him.

FDR was elected to 4 terms because THE PUBLIC IS STUPID. I think we all know that they can be manipulated, fooled and bent over a barstool VERY easily. Of COURSE FDR got elected 4 times; he was stealing from a few people and giving the money to a LOT of people.

One might also point out that FDR, your "great president", STOLE half the wealth of the United States. When he took us off the Gold Standard he gave everyone IOU's. "I owe you $50." Then he DEVALUED the currency by HALF, and what did you get? $50. Only now, of course, prices were twice as high, which meant you effectively got $25. The reason for this? FDR in his supreme wisdom decided that the depression was caused because PRICES WERE TOO LOW.

That's right, folks. This fascist bastard INTENTIONALLY gave us a huge rate of inflation, OVER NIGHT.

Wow, what a great man. That Goodness Congress created term limits after that SOB croaked. And, might I add, thank GOODNESS for the Electoral College.

Jason

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Social Security was originally meant for elderly widows and the disabled, liberals in the 60's expanded is LBJ great society-style

FDR had to be pretty dam good, how else could he win FOUR elections until the curse of harrison killed him.

FDR was elected to 4 terms because THE PUBLIC IS STUPID. I think we all know that they can be manipulated, fooled and bent over a barstool VERY easily. Of COURSE FDR got elected 4 times; he was stealing from a few people and giving the money to a LOT of people.

One might also point out that FDR, your "great president", STOLE half the wealth of the United States. When he took us off the Gold Standard he gave everyone IOU's. "I owe you $50." Then he DEVALUED the currency by HALF, and what did you get? $50. Only now, of course, prices were twice as high, which meant you effectively got $25. The reason for this? FDR in his supreme wisdom decided that the depression was caused because PRICES WERE TOO LOW.

That's right, folks. This fascist bastard INTENTIONALLY gave us a huge rate of inflation, OVER NIGHT.

Wow, what a great man. That Goodness Congress created term limits after that SOB croaked. And, might I add, thank GOODNESS for the Electoral College.

Jason

Calling America's greatest Generation stupid, this coming from someone who is probably a member of America's most worthless Generation!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Social Security was originally meant for elderly widows and the disabled, liberals in the 60's expanded is LBJ great society-style

FDR had to be pretty dam good, how else could he win FOUR elections until the curse of harrison killed him.

FDR was elected to 4 terms because THE PUBLIC IS STUPID. I think we all know that they can be manipulated, fooled and bent over a barstool VERY easily. Of COURSE FDR got elected 4 times; he was stealing from a few people and giving the money to a LOT of people.

One might also point out that FDR, your "great president", STOLE half the wealth of the United States. When he took us off the Gold Standard he gave everyone IOU's. "I owe you $50." Then he DEVALUED the currency by HALF, and what did you get? $50. Only now, of course, prices were twice as high, which meant you effectively got $25. The reason for this? FDR in his supreme wisdom decided that the depression was caused because PRICES WERE TOO LOW.

That's right, folks. This fascist bastard INTENTIONALLY gave us a huge rate of inflation, OVER NIGHT.

Wow, what a great man. That Goodness Congress created term limits after that SOB croaked. And, might I add, thank GOODNESS for the Electoral College.

Jason

The US was crushed, he took drastic action to save it.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You know, just because Tom Brokaw imagines that the WWII generation is the "greatest generation" doesn't mean it's true. So you think that because they fought in WWII that makes them the greatest? I'd say you're a madman (or just ignorant of history) if you are sincere in that belief.

As a matter of historical fact, the ONLY thing worthwhile the WWII generation did was...fight in WWII. And yes, that was a VERY noble cause and a lot of good men and women made great sacrifices to fight off the evil of Hitler's fascism and make the world safe again. Without the men and women of America fighting, WWII probably would have been lost to Hitler. Nevertheless, they did PLENTY of screwing up. They sold their children up the river to give themselves free Socialist security. They sold every working man and woman into slavery to pay for the existence of those who refused to work. They created *generations* long trains of welfare families. They allowed FDR to STEAL half the wealth of the United States and pull the rug out from under our economic foundation by pulling us off the gold standard and creating sweeping inflation.

No, if there is truly a "greatest generation", my friend, it's the generation that contained the minds of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and the other founding fathers, who were the FIRST generation in the history of mankind to declare the natural rights of man the supreme value of the land and created a government designed to protect those rights.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Might I add that it was the not quite "greatest generation" who ignored Patton's plea's to topple the Soviet Government, severely weakened by Hitler's war, and 50 MILLION people who could have enjoyed liberty and perhaps even prosperity of some measure, instead were slaughtered and starved by their own government.

Thank goodness for that generation! Oh wait, in those days they actually thought Communists were *good guys*. Glad they were so on top of things!

Jason

 

[sandorski]

It was a Generation that had to answer to 2 great calamities(Great Depression and WW2) and responded with great success. Now I suppose we could comb history for other greater generations, but this/that generation was named so as they actually still live(the whole "in living memory" aspect). I'm not sure why you are so hostile towards them, they made sacrifices that you can only imagine in your worst nightmares.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You mean like sacrificing the economic freedom of their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren so they could have Social Security, medicare and welfare? One might also point out that the "Great Depression" generation and the WWII generation are not one and the same. It's quite the nice, convenient little bridge you've built with your "in living memory" nonsense, but if you had read Brokaw's book you would know that he literally meant that the WWII generation was the greatest in American History, which is simply NOT the case.

Yes, the WWII generation did something extraordinarily brave and RIGHT in finally answering the threat of Nazi Germany. That is worthy of great respect and admiration, no questions asked. Nevertheless, that does NOT suspend the fact that it was this SAME generation that is the root of our present system of bloated, beaureaucratic government, socialized "safety nets" and other tools which ARE, make no mistake, the tools of the economic enslavement of the productive to the unproductive.

They helped save the world from a Fascist abroad, then kept a local Fascist in office for 4 terms as he stole, stole, stole from the producers to give, give, give to the looters and beggars. Do you think their contribution in WWII justifies their behavior in these other areas?

Jason

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You mean like sacrificing the economic freedom of their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren so they could have Social Security, medicare and welfare? One might also point out that the "Great Depression" generation and the WWII generation are not one and the same. It's quite the nice, convenient little bridge you've built with your "in living memory" nonsense, but if you had read Brokaw's book you would know that he literally meant that the WWII generation was the greatest in American History, which is simply NOT the case.

Yes, the WWII generation did something extraordinarily brave and RIGHT in finally answering the threat of Nazi Germany. That is worthy of great respect and admiration, no questions asked. Nevertheless, that does NOT suspend the fact that it was this SAME generation that is the root of our present system of bloated, beaureaucratic government, socialized "safety nets" and other tools which ARE, make no mistake, the tools of the economic enslavement of the productive to the unproductive.

They helped save the world from a Fascist abroad, then kept a local Fascist in office for 4 terms as he stole, stole, stole from the producers to give, give, give to the looters and beggars. Do you think their contribution in WWII justifies their behavior in these other areas?

Jason

What "economic freedom" has been sacrificed? The greatest economic growth periods in the US and the greatest growth in the middle class has occured while under that so called "sacrifice".

 

[DaWhim]

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
- His social programs? I think we can all agree, as good intentioned as they were, it was primarily the war that brought the US out of depression.

very good intention, but not in long term.
- his 1st new deal failed
2nd new deal failed (it will be many more new deals, if there was no ww2)

-social security is the largest scam in human history. it is just a matter of time when it runs out of money. once the baby boomers all retired, you know what will happen. another big recession yet to come.

- look at the tax rate before fdr and after. he expanded the government too much

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

What "economic freedom" has been sacrificed? The greatest economic growth periods in the US and the greatest growth in the middle class has occured while under that so called "sacrifice"

Let's begin with the fact that Roosevelt took the US off the Gold Standard, effectively making our money's value arbitrary instead of objectively determined. He issued IOU's when people turned in their Gold Certificates. If you turned in $50, you got a $50 IOU. Then he DEVALUED the currency by HALF and gave you back how much? $50. Of course now prices had doubled because of the adjustment, so you really got $25 back. In other words, he STOLE half the wealth of the United States.

He created welfare, a program under which money is taken from some people via taxation and given to others. In effect, he instituted a "Robin Hood" policy that virtually guaranteed out of control costs for decades to come. He enabled THOUSANDS of public service projects, many of them unnecessary, in order to "create jobs," yet another way of stealing from those who worked in the private sector to give to those who either a) didn't work at all (welfare) or b) worked for the government (and of course they got taxed, too, so it was a double dose of theft any way you look at it.)

No, I'm sorry, FDR was no hero. If anything he was the 20th centuries most diabolical villain, because unlike Hitler, no one even paid attention to what FDR was up to until it was far too late.

Jason

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

May you be heavily taxed

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

No, I'm sorry, FDR was no hero. If anything he was the 20th centuries most diabolical villain, because unlike Hitler, no one even paid attention to what FDR was up to until it was far too late.

Jason

And you have the gall to call me a Madman? LOL

 

[mfs378]

Yeah, the unproductive are really calling the shots around here, aren't they?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

What "economic freedom" has been sacrificed? The greatest economic growth periods in the US and the greatest growth in the middle class has occured while under that so called "sacrifice"

Let's begin with the fact that Roosevelt took the US off the Gold Standard, effectively making our money's value arbitrary instead of objectively determined. He issued IOU's when people turned in their Gold Certificates. If you turned in $50, you got a $50 IOU. Then he DEVALUED the currency by HALF and gave you back how much? $50. Of course now prices had doubled because of the adjustment, so you really got $25 back. In other words, he STOLE half the wealth of the United States.

Do you know WHY he set these policies? The country was in the midst of this thing called the "Great Depression". If he didn't set some harsh policies on the extremely wealthy, capitalism would have failed. I hope you know what was waiting in line to replace it...

He created welfare, a program under which money is taken from some people via taxation and given to others. In effect, he instituted a "Robin Hood" policy that virtually guaranteed out of control costs for decades to come. He enabled THOUSANDS of public service projects, many of them unnecessary, in order to "create jobs," yet another way of stealing from those who worked in the private sector to give to those who either a) didn't work at all (welfare) or b) worked for the government (and of course they got taxed, too, so it was a double dose of theft any way you look at it.)

As stated by Jhhnn in another thread, socialism is the glue that holds our society together. You can't deny its importance. What's so bad about domestic spending to revitalize an economy? FDR's plan worked out better than Hoover's plan.

No, I'm sorry, FDR was no hero. If anything he was the 20th centuries most diabolical villain, because unlike Hitler, no one even paid attention to what FDR was up to until it was far too late.

Jason

Too late for what? FDR made this nation the superpower it is today. He saved capitalism by conceding that there needed to be socialist elements introduced into it to make it stable. Sorry that isn't aligned with your radical right wing agenda, but he didn't follow any ideology and did what worked best for the country.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

He didn't follow an ideology, eh? Asked what his ideology was, FDR stated "I am a Christian and a Democrat." We ALL follow an ideology, whether we acknowledge it or not. The only difference is in whether you make a conscious study and choice or you just let your ideology be built up by the random catch phrases and notions that people you meet fill you with.

As for your idea that "Capitalism needs Socialism", that is complete and utter nonsense. FDR's assertion during the great depression, and the REASON why he stole half the wealth of the United States, was that he thought that the depression was caused because prices were TOO LOW. So his plan was set in motion to CREATE inflation such as had never been seen before.

Nevertheless, it was NOT this policy that pulled America out of the depression, it was the second World War, which rallied people both psychologically and physically in order to support the war effort. Millions went to work building bombs and planes and tanks and weapons of all sorts.

No, FDR did not "Save Capitalism," he *began* the assault on Capitalism which continues to this day. Capitalism is a process which liberates men, Socialism ties them together under a single noose. They are NOT compatible.

Jason

 

[mfs378]

Jason,

If socialism is not needed by capitalism, there should be plenty of examples of countries which are purely capitalistic. I wonder if you could provide me with one?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

There aren't any, and there *never have been*. So the bottom line is that you can't state conclusively that "Capitalism NEEDS Socialism" when the fact is that no one has ever tried Capitalism fully.

Too, there is another problem: What IS Capitalism? Unlike Socialism and Communism, Capitalism was *not* defined by any individual or group and put into practice. Instead it just *happened* as a consequence when the US government was established upon the notion that all men are created equal and free and should be allowed to pursue their own rational self interests. Capitalism, you see, isn't a system that was ever implemented, it was a *Consequence* of Liberty.

Jason

 

[mfs378]

You know, a lot of communists defend the failures of communist nations with the argument that true communism was never implemented correctly. Before the great depression and FDR we were about as close to pure capitalism as anyone has ever gotten, and we see quite clearly the mess that got us into. Now you may argue that true capitalism may have produced a different result, but in my mind, that puts you in the same boat as people who cling to communism as the answer.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Given that the level of government intrusion into business was (at that time) worse than ever before I fail to see how you can say that we were "as close to pure Capitalism as anyone has ever come." That simply isn't true. We were much closer 20-30 years before that and were doing better. It would also be irresponsible not to mention that there were more factors involved than just American policy in the Great Depression. Many other nations around the world were in dire straights as well, and the interconnectedness of all these economies naturally extended the consequences around the board. We'd probably feel the effects of such a problem less today because we're actually *more* interconnected. In either case, FDR's New Deal *DIDN'T* work.

Writes Christopher Westley of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute,

By the midpoint of FDR's second term, the failure of the New Deal policies was evident to all but the truly delusional. The unemployment rate again reached levels associated with the hated Hoover, while the public's tolerance of the pretentious New Dealers and their endless attempts to control the economy waned. Especially humiliating were statistics that showed the United States lagging far behind foreign countries in recovering from the Depression. American national income in 1937 was 85.8 percent of the 1929 high-water mark, while England's was 124.3 percent. Chile, Sweden, and Australia had growth rates in the 20-percent range. The United States figure was a dismal -7.0 percent .

The New Deal was exposed as a bad one, and the president's image looked irrevocably tarnished. A disconsolate FDR would confide to his associates his frustrations resulting from his lost political dominance: "[It is] a terrible thing to look over your shoulder when you are trying to lead-and finding no one there" (p. 67).

Jason