America as Farce

midcan5

liberal / progressive
Jun 4, 2007
12,740
3,513
260
America
"Those who do not learn the lessons of history are suffered to repeat them." "The farther back you can look, the farther forward you can see." "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."* Is history a useful prognosticator? Alex Rosenberg thinks not, '"Human history is a thoroughly Darwinian process. Like all other Darwinian processes, it can't repeat itself, not even as farce. It is always unpredictably producing novelty, which historical study can't anticipate. The lesson of history - both natural and human - is that there are no lessons to extract from it."

But we humans don't often accept reality, and ardently believe certain things, and argue for these things, and think these things mean something. Consider as you read the excerpt below that America had her best years after FDR's New Deal and read carefully the bold words and then ask your self, maybe history does repeat itself. Maybe today we are living in the time of farce.

"The thin veneer of civility between Roosevelt and the Liberty League did not last long. In dozens of speeches and pamphlets, the organization depicted the "ravenous madness" of the New Deal as a monstrous usurpation of power: "Businessmen are denounced officially as 'organized greed," unscrupulous money changers' who 'gang up' on the liberties of the people ... 'The dragon teeth of class warfare are being sown with a vengeance." The New Deal thwarted the Constitution, the league claimed, by elevating the federal government over the state governments, leading to a frightening, even "totalitarian" centralization of power. The policies of the New Deal were only exacerbating the economic downturn. As the chairman of the Illinois division insisted, "You can't recover prosperity by seizing the accumulation of the thrifty and distributing it to the thriftless and unlucky." The league asserted that the Federal government should keep out of the relief business, leaving it all to the Red Cross. Indeed, the New Deal bureaucracy a vast organism spreading its tentacles over the business and private life of the citizens of the country" - would ultimately prevent the return of any prosperity at all.

The league took special pleasure in attacking Social Security, arguing that the hastily planned system infringed on the rights of states, that it was fiscally unsound, and that it would hurt the economy. Social Security, said the president of the league, was far too heavy a burden for the delicate economy to bear. In 1936 one lawyer associated with the league sought to mount a legal challenge to Social Security, suing on behalf of a New Jersey milk company. His argument was that the effect of the law was "to take the property of employers and of certain employees for the benefit of a class," resulting in the "taking of property without due process of law."

Despite the league's claims to be coordinating a mass movement of the common man, when the Du Ponts sought to build their organization, they turned to other executives. 'There is no secret that one of the 'experiment's to endeavor to redistribute wealth, in fact, that is what the 'New Deal' really means," Irenee wrote to the president of Eastman Kodak..."

Except, page 11, 'Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan' by Kim Phillips-Fein

* Santayana, Churchill, Marx quotes.

'Liberty, constitution, class warfare, redistribute, thriftless. :lol:
 
Last edited:
demhistorycopy9ti.jpg
 
The New Deal averaged 20% unemployment for 8 years! Two whole terms of total failure!

The only thing that saved FDR was Hitler and WWII
 
See Spot run, run Spot run.

OMG again WTF, does anyone read with even an iota of understanding? The point was to read the words used then and now. Did anyone notice the similarity? Obviously not, as far as FDR and the 'great D' we have gone over that enough already. But a few links are below for those who can read with an open mind.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/180822-i-welcome-their-hatred-fdr-2.html#post4029337
http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/180822-i-welcome-their-hatred-fdr.html


'Liberty, constitution, class warfare, redistribute, thriftless.................................."
 
We had our "best years" after New Fail Deal...lol

You mean when soviet spies helped FDR get us into war with japan?
 
Still not a single wingnut comment on the use of language then and now. I even gave you all the words at the end of the OP, and still you wander off in some misguided neverland of imbecility. Now come on guys, you still use these words today, please pay attention. So far you are all flunking basic reading comprehension. Try harder or ask mommy.


"The period from the end of World War II to the early 1970s was a golden era of American capitalism. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this massive economic growth. Much of the growth came from the movement of low income farm workers into better paying jobs in the towns and cities—a process largely completed by 1960. Congress created the Council of Economic Advisors, to promote high employment, high profits and low inflation. The Eisenhower administration (1953–1961) supported an activist contracyclical approach that helped to establish Keynesianism as a bipartisan economic policy for the nation. " Economic history of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
If FDR died at the end of WWII how was he responsible for those New Deal good times? Delayed Reaction?
 
So the US should have just accepted Japanese hegemony in the Pacific and all-out extermination in the occupied countries, all at the cost of American interests? A true crusader wouldn't want that!
 
So the US should have just accepted Japanese hegemony in the Pacific and all-out extermination in the occupied countries, all at the cost of American interests? A true crusader wouldn't want that!

Nah, the Japanese and the USSR should have ducked it out.
 
There had already been fighting between the Russians and the Japanese and a General by the name of Zhukov showed them a few things about modern war that made them retire to lick wounds and leave the Bear alone.
Japan was quite happy to let the Germans fight Stalin and he did not want another war on his other flank.
If Germany had won, the US would have been at a huge disadvantage.
 
There had already been fighting between the Russians and the Japanese and a General by the name of Zhukov showed them a few things about modern war that made them retire to lick wounds and leave the Bear alone.
Japan was quite happy to let the Germans fight Stalin and he did not want another war on his other flank.
If Germany had won, the US would have been at a huge disadvantage.
Germany couldn't cross 50 miles of English Channel and had nothing resembling a carrier group.

The notion that they could've crossed the Atlantic doesn't fly.
 
Still not a single wingnut comment on the use of language then and now. I even gave you all the words at the end of the OP, and still you wander off in some misguided neverland of imbecility. Now come on guys, you still use these words today, please pay attention. So far you are all flunking basic reading comprehension. Try harder or ask mommy.
TRANSLATION:

"Somebody please agree with me! My fragile ego is desperate for validation from internet strangers! I'm entitled to your immediate and unquestioning approval!"


Boy, are YOU in the wrong place. I suggest DU.
 
"Those who do not learn the lessons of history are suffered to repeat them." "The farther back you can look, the farther forward you can see." "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce."* Is history a useful prognosticator? Alex Rosenberg thinks not, '"Human history is a thoroughly Darwinian process. Like all other Darwinian processes, it can't repeat itself, not even as farce. It is always unpredictably producing novelty, which historical study can't anticipate. The lesson of history - both natural and human - is that there are no lessons to extract from it."

But we humans don't often accept reality, and ardently believe certain things, and argue for these things, and think these things mean something. Consider as you read the excerpt below that America had her best years after FDR's New Deal and read carefully the bold words and then ask your self, maybe history does repeat itself. Maybe today we are living in the time of farce.

"The thin veneer of civility between Roosevelt and the Liberty League did not last long. In dozens of speeches and pamphlets, the organization depicted the "ravenous madness" of the New Deal as a monstrous usurpation of power: "Businessmen are denounced officially as 'organized greed," unscrupulous money changers' who 'gang up' on the liberties of the people ... 'The dragon teeth of class warfare are being sown with a vengeance." The New Deal thwarted the Constitution, the league claimed, by elevating the federal government over the state governments, leading to a frightening, even "totalitarian" centralization of power. The policies of the New Deal were only exacerbating the economic downturn. As the chairman of the Illinois division insisted, "You can't recover prosperity by seizing the accumulation of the thrifty and distributing it to the thriftless and unlucky." The league asserted that the Federal government should keep out of the relief business, leaving it all to the Red Cross. Indeed, the New Deal bureaucracy a vast organism spreading its tentacles over the business and private life of the citizens of the country" - would ultimately prevent the return of any prosperity at all.

The league took special pleasure in attacking Social Security, arguing that the hastily planned system infringed on the rights of states, that it was fiscally unsound, and that it would hurt the economy. Social Security, said the president of the league, was far too heavy a burden for the delicate economy to bear. In 1936 one lawyer associated with the league sought to mount a legal challenge to Social Security, suing on behalf of a New Jersey milk company. His argument was that the effect of the law was "to take the property of employers and of certain employees for the benefit of a class," resulting in the "taking of property without due process of law."

Despite the league's claims to be coordinating a mass movement of the common man, when the Du Ponts sought to build their organization, they turned to other executives. 'There is no secret that one of the 'experiment's to endeavor to redistribute wealth, in fact, that is what the 'New Deal' really means," Irenee wrote to the president of Eastman Kodak..."

Except, page 11, 'Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan' by Kim Phillips-Fein

* Santayana, Churchill, Marx quotes.

'Liberty, constitution, class warfare, redistribute, thriftless. :lol:

Still don't know anything about history, do you?
 
There had already been fighting between the Russians and the Japanese and a General by the name of Zhukov showed them a few things about modern war that made them retire to lick wounds and leave the Bear alone.
Japan was quite happy to let the Germans fight Stalin and he did not want another war on his other flank.
If Germany had won, the US would have been at a huge disadvantage.
Germany couldn't cross 50 miles of English Channel and had nothing resembling a carrier group.

The notion that they could've crossed the Atlantic doesn't fly.

This response is to what in the original post? Where is there any reference to Germany invading America? The issue was the situation in the Pacific.
 
FDR couldn't pull off an FDR New Deal today, not even if he was POTUS.

What this economy faces today is far different than the problems facing the US economy in 1932.
 

Forum List

Back
Top