Opinion of FDR's New Deal

[Bo]

hmmm

people here want to bash keynsian economics,but the post war boom saw the most economic expansion in this nations history, and this accompanied by the unprecedented recovery in the labor market. In any event the Great Depression didn't officially end until 1933-34,but it was the labor market that everyone worried about until the 40's.

The Great Depression petered out in July 1932. Then Roosevelt got in, delayed the recovery and basically created a dependency on government spending, resulting in another recession from 1937-1938.

In the early 30's GDP recovered but the labor market did not. The recession of 37-38 happened because FDR tried to balance the budget, when he should have just continued to spend money instead.

No, it happened because he scaled down spending and by that time, the US economy couldn't go cold turkey. Thus, the recession.

show me the evidence?

Well the fact that several of the New Deal's chief supporters and bosses later repudiated what they had done (What you Liberals claim as "achievement") is no positive mark for the New Deal Forces. Does Henry Morgenthau Jr. ring a bell?

that dude was wrong if he think the new deal failed to create jobs.

Not only did Morgenthau say that the New Deal did not create jobs, he also said it failed at nearly everything it attempted to fix at the cost of millions upon millions of dollars. The New Deal's burden on small business forced much fewer jobs to be created than would have happened. We would have had a much bigger recovery if it had not been for the New Deal.

appeal to authority, and you have not actually provided anything to back up such claims.

Even before WWII, FDR had huge job creation rates.

[KeeptheChange]

The New Deal accomplished one thing:  It caused an entire generation of Americans to have a sense of entitlement they lacked beforehand.  This was passed on to their children and then exacerbated by the equally catastrophic War on Poverty and Great Society.  Today, far too many Americans have no concept of what self-sufficiency and personal responsibility are.

I sincerely believe some Socialists truly mean well.  Perhaps FDR and LBJ were among those who honestly felt they were doing the right thing.  They just couldn't see the sense in getting people to stand on their own two feet. 

[k-onmmunist]

FDR was a great president. As long as you weren't rich, or desperately poor, or black, or a Japanese-American, or a young man who he planned to send off to die in his war. But yeah, other than that, great president

[RIP Robert H Bork]

FDR was a great president. As long as you weren't rich, or desperately poor, or black, or a Japanese-American, or a young man who he planned to send off to die in his war. But yeah, other than that, great president

Right, FDR was the one who started WWII

I mean, I am far from an FDR supporter (even though I do think of him more positively than some other Republicans here), but seriously? You think FDR was responsible for WWII? lol

[k-onmmunist]

FDR was a great president. As long as you weren't rich, or desperately poor, or black, or a Japanese-American, or a young man who he planned to send off to die in his war. But yeah, other than that, great president

Right, FDR was the one who started WWII

I mean, I am far from an FDR supporter (even though I do think of him more positively than some other Republicans here), but seriously? You think FDR was responsible for WWII? lol

He drove Japan into attacking them through the oil embargo.

[JSojourner]

FDR was a great president. As long as you weren't rich, or desperately poor, or black, or a Japanese-American, or a young man who he planned to send off to die in his war. But yeah, other than that, great president

Right, FDR was the one who started WWII

I mean, I am far from an FDR supporter (even though I do think of him more positively than some other Republicans here), but seriously? You think FDR was responsible for WWII? lol

He drove Japan into attacking them through the oil embargo.

In protest over Japan's brutality.  The Rape of Nanking comes to mind. I am often accused of being an isolationist myself, but the oil embargo was a perfectly acceptable and understandable  (and non-violent) reaction to some of the most chilling brutality in human history.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

FDR was a great president. As long as you weren't rich, or desperately poor, or black, or a Japanese-American, or a young man who he planned to send off to die in his war. But yeah, other than that, great president

Right, FDR was the one who started WWII

I mean, I am far from an FDR supporter (even though I do think of him more positively than some other Republicans here), but seriously? You think FDR was responsible for WWII? lol

He drove Japan into attacking them through the oil embargo.

Do you really think that justified Pearl Harbor?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

lol instead of talking about the new deal, people just rather bash FDR.

[Bo]

lol instead of talking about the new deal, people just rather bash FDR.

Why do you expect Republicans and conservatives would do? Talk about the facts? It's like Reagan said "Facts are stupid things."

[President Mitt]

lol instead of talking about the new deal, people just rather bash FDR.

Why do you expect Republicans and conservatives would do? Talk about the facts? It's like Reagan said "Facts are stupid things."

What facts would you like to talk about? The FACT of FDR throwing hundreds of thousands of Japanese, German, and Italian Americans in Concentration Camps? The FACT of FDR trying to increase the number of supreme court justices just so he could have more power in the judicial branch? The FACT of FDR bypassing the Constitution and appointing "dictators" to head several parts of Government? Anymore FACTS you wanna discuss?

[Anthony]

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implemented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implemented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lying talking point? It's simply not true. The economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The thread is about the new deal and FDR's economic policies, and thus attacking FDR for things like Japanese internment camps is not really relevant.

[Marokai Backbeat]

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lying talking point? It's simply not true. The economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal.

There's no way to prove that.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lying talking point? It's simply not true. The economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal.

There's no way to prove that.

History, and basic economic logic both make it clear.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So you'll be offering no specific points.

Gotcha.

[Anthony]

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lying talking point? It's simply not true. The economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal.

There's no way to prove that.

History, and basic economic logic both make it clear.

I'm repeating the same talking point because it is true. And what history or "basic economic logic" is there that proves that the economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal. If anything, it is you who is lying, not me, since you can't prove that it would have recovered faster had it not been for the New Deal. You might as well stop calling me a liar until you can provide actual proof.

[President Mitt]

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lying talking point? It's simply not true. The economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal.

There's no way to prove that.

History, and basic economic logic both make it clear.

I'm repeating the same talking point because it is true. And what history or "basic economic logic" is there that proves that the economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal. If anything, it is you who is lying, not me, since you can't prove that it would have recovered faster had it not been for the New Deal. You might as well stop calling me a liar until you can provide actual proof.

And you can't prove that the United States would have been in much worse shape without the New Deal as you previously stated. So, the feeling is mutual.

[KeeptheChange]

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lying talking point? It's simply not true. The economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal.

There's no way to prove that.

History, and basic economic logic both make it clear.

I'm repeating the same talking point because it is true. And what history or "basic economic logic" is there that proves that the economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal. If anything, it is you who is lying, not me, since you can't prove that it would have recovered faster had it not been for the New Deal. You might as well stop calling me a liar until you can provide actual proof.

Many think tanks have proven Libertas's point.  Does he need to do all the work for you?  I realize liberals believe in hand holding and having someone do everything for the lazies in our society, but really...look it up yourself.  I am sure someone at Cato or Heritage or AEI has something on file that you can download.

[Anthony]

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lying talking point? It's simply not true. The economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal.

There's no way to prove that.

History, and basic economic logic both make it clear.

I'm repeating the same talking point because it is true. And what history or "basic economic logic" is there that proves that the economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal. If anything, it is you who is lying, not me, since you can't prove that it would have recovered faster had it not been for the New Deal. You might as well stop calling me a liar until you can provide actual proof.

And you can't prove that the United States would have been in much worse shape without the New Deal as you previously stated. So, the feeling is mutual.

Here are the unemployment numbers per year of the first years of the Depression:
1929 - 3.2%
1930 - 8.7%
1931 - 15.9%
1932 - 23.6%
1933 - 24.9%
1934 - 21.7%
1935 - 20.1%
1936 - 16.9%

Here's the link if you don't believe me: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Notice how the unemployment rate was rising rapidly throughout Hoover's presidency, and how it stopped rising, and started falling after the New Deal was enacted. Coincidence?

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lying talking point? It's simply not true. The economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal.

There's no way to prove that.

History, and basic economic logic both make it clear.

I'm repeating the same talking point because it is true. And what history or "basic economic logic" is there that proves that the economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal. If anything, it is you who is lying, not me, since you can't prove that it would have recovered faster had it not been for the New Deal. You might as well stop calling me a liar until you can provide actual proof.

Many think tanks have proven Libertas's point.  Does he need to do all the work for you?  I realize liberals believe in hand holding and having someone do everything for the lazies in our society, but really...look it up yourself.  I am sure someone at Cato or Heritage or AEI has something on file that you can download.

The Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute are all either conservative or libertarian think tanks who are simply trying to give talking points to people who don't agree with liberal policies, without actually using any actual facts or economic statistics. Unless of course you can show me with an actual file that has any economic statistics that would prove Libertas's point, I doubt there is much proof that the talking points they come up with are accurate.

Odds are, I don't believe any of you will actual care about what I wrote and realize that what I'm saying is true. Nor do I believe what I wrote will stop you from continuing to post talking points that cannot be proven to be true. But I've made my point, and I think that I have provided enough evidence that shows that what I'm trying to say is true.

[JSojourner]

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lying talking point? It's simply not true. The economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal.

There's no way to prove that.

History, and basic economic logic both make it clear.

I'm repeating the same talking point because it is true. And what history or "basic economic logic" is there that proves that the economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal. If anything, it is you who is lying, not me, since you can't prove that it would have recovered faster had it not been for the New Deal. You might as well stop calling me a liar until you can provide actual proof.

And you can't prove that the United States would have been in much worse shape without the New Deal as you previously stated. So, the feeling is mutual.

Here are the unemployment numbers per year of the first years of the Depression:
1929 - 3.2%
1930 - 8.7%
1931 - 15.9%
1932 - 23.6%
1933 - 24.9%
1934 - 21.7%
1935 - 20.1%
1936 - 16.9%

Here's the link if you don't believe me: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Notice how the unemployment rate was rising rapidly throughout Hoover's presidency, and how it stopped rising, and started falling after the New Deal was enacted. Coincidence?

FDR's New Deal helped the economy begin to recover. Before the New Deal was implented, the unemployment rate rose from 3% to 25%. After it was implented, unemployment fell from 25% to 3%. It wasn't until FDR felt confident in the recovery, and decided to cut spending when the economy fell back into recession. If anything, the only negative impact FDR had on the economy was when he decided to cut back on his own recovery program.

How many times are you going to repeat the same lying talking point? It's simply not true. The economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal.

There's no way to prove that.

History, and basic economic logic both make it clear.

I'm repeating the same talking point because it is true. And what history or "basic economic logic" is there that proves that the economy would have recovered faster without the New Deal. If anything, it is you who is lying, not me, since you can't prove that it would have recovered faster had it not been for the New Deal. You might as well stop calling me a liar until you can provide actual proof.

Many think tanks have proven Libertas's point.  Does he need to do all the work for you?  I realize liberals believe in hand holding and having someone do everything for the lazies in our society, but really...look it up yourself.  I am sure someone at Cato or Heritage or AEI has something on file that you can download.

The Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute are all either conservative or libertarian think tanks who are simply trying to give talking points to people who don't agree with liberal policies, without actually using any actual facts or economic statistics. Unless of course you can show me with an actual file that has any economic statistics that would prove Libertas's point, I doubt there is much proof that the talking points they come up with are accurate.

Odds are, I don't believe any of you will actual care about what I wrote and realize that what I'm saying is true. Nor do I believe what I wrote will stop you from continuing to post talking points that cannot be proven to be true. But I've made my point, and I think that I have provided enough evidence that shows that what I'm trying to say is true.

You have.  And you've won the debate.  But in a world where the road and bridge fairies magically make infrastructure appear...and where the better angels of human nature automatically emerge just as soon as the evil influence of government regulation is eliminated, facts aren't important.