Famous Liberals in our history

[Cecilie1200]

When compared to the republican braintrust of his time, FDR was superhuman

Republicans mouthed the same nonsense they do today..
Let things take care of themselves, poor people are poor because they deserve it

Isolate the US from the rest of the world, their war will not affect us

Thankfully, we had FDR to lead us through the depression and WWII

The Republicans were right about letting the economy correct itself. FDR's meddling extended the Great Depression by years. As for isolationism, that was hardly a "Republican vs Democrat" issue. The vast majority of the American public wanted nothing to do with another European war. Isolationism was a position advocated by a broad spectrum of public figures, including William Jennings Bryan, one of the more famous Democrats in 20th century American history.

FDR "led us through the Depression" only in the sense that he led us deeper into it.

Not by 1940/ And Byrant had been dead for 15 years.

By 1940 , a good many Americans thought it was necessary to help defeat the Axis.

Republicans were the great isolationists, by and large.

And how, pray tell, did you arbitrarily decide that the only year that mattered to this discussion was 1940? Because I certainly don't recall agreeing to that parameter.

 

[veritas]

They make stuff for hairballs fluffy. Or you could scarf down a can of Crisco.

 

[paperview]

Horseshit. Each and every freaking word is just complete, utter horseshit premised on a fairy tale that has nothing whatsoever to do with what actually happened in American history. This post is just breathtaking in its staggering amount of ignorance, misinformation, and outright naivete.

I just read through his post three times to see if I could find one bit of "complete and utter bullshit."

I can't find it.

Maybe you can actually tell us WHAT in there is incorrect.

Be specific.

Apparently, you're missing the concept of "every single word is complete and utter bullshit". It doesn't get any more specific than "every single word". I'm objecting to all of it, including "and" and "the".

No. Bullshit is what YOU are spouting.

Let's go through this line by line. My answers in red:

"FDR was willing to look at what happens if the average man is dealt a series of conditions that were beyond his ability to deal with.

A statement of opinion on FDR's motivations. You may disagree, but there is nothing wrong with the opinion. And the fact FDR was elected FOUR times seems to indicate a great many people thought he was doing the best for them.


The great depression was caused by greed and speculation. The ones who paid the price were the workers who found themselves without jobs.

What is bullshit about that? Did bankers and industrialists pay the price too? Sure, but the heaviest burden fell on the unemployed, who were drenched upon the land.

Retirement plans of that era consisted of either dying young or having enough kids so that someone would be there to care for you in your old age.

What's bullshit here? Did some people have pensions? Yes. Not that many and often times a small percentage of their previous wage. (smaller than today's pensions. Most worked on the farm. Some factory. No pensions for farmers. The family was who took care of you, for the most part.

Social Security, which conservatives fought as socialism, provided a safety net for those who worked their whole lives.

Conservatives didn't fight SS? It doesn't provide a safety net for the elderly? Wow. News to me.

Now tell me again? Where is the bullshit? And not some vague "cause it is."

 

[paperview]

The Republicans were right about letting the economy correct itself. FDR's meddling extended the Great Depression by years. As for isolationism, that was hardly a "Republican vs Democrat" issue. The vast majority of the American public wanted nothing to do with another European war. Isolationism was a position advocated by a broad spectrum of public figures, including William Jennings Bryan, one of the more famous Democrats in 20th century American history.

FDR "led us through the Depression" only in the sense that he led us deeper into it.

Not by 1940/ And Byrant had been dead for 15 years.

By 1940 , a good many Americans thought it was necessary to help defeat the Axis.

Republicans were the great isolationists, by and large.

And how, pray tell, did you arbitrarily decide that the only year that mattered to this discussion was 1940? Because I certainly don't recall agreeing to that parameter.

Maybe it was this line in your post that did it:
"The vast majority of the American public wanted nothing to do with another European war" - the next line referring to isolationism.

Duh.

 

[veritas]

I find it very interesting this recent trend to denigrate FDR and his New Deal. Do any of you know of somebody who knew FDR? I did. And this person was in such a position that if he didn't want to be associated with what FDR was doing, then he would have walked. But instead, they were good friends.

 

[jillian]

He was a radical because he fundamentally changed the course of history by promoting his new concepts of the Jewish religion. What many people do is confuse "change" for liberalism. Just because someone promotes a change in concept does not mean that they are a liberal. Hell, there are many people promoting a fundamental change in this countries tax code. Based on this and this alone, are they liberal?

My definition of liberalism IS change...and conservatism is the effort to keep things the same or slow down change. Both have their place.

As for Jesus. It is a misconception that he was promoting something new. He was simply promoting judaism without the san hedrin and warned that the priests were corrupt. In other words, in my view... he "fought the power" as it was. I know we both agree he was a radical... the type of radical he was is less important.

And it's also pretty obvious, to me at least, that trying to claim Jesus was either a liberal or conservative just simply does not work within today's framework of what a liberal or conservative is. For every example of his "modern" liberalism at work, there is an example of his actions that are defined nowadays as being a "modern" conservative concept.

I don't believe any group has a lock on Jesus... Frankly, I think we would do better if neither party felt they were *his* party. But I do think, given his beliefs as regards caring for those less fortunate that he would not be happy seeing some of the things going on today.

Jesus doesn't fit in a box, and either side that tries to claim Him as being "on their side of current events" either are being disingenuous or really do not know that much about Him.

Well.... the only thing I want to say to that is, how do you think the man who ate with paupers and whores would feel about efforts to discriminate against gays in his name?

All of this can make for an interesting discussion. One thing that we all can agree on however is dear Lord Jesus.....please save us from some of your followers.

Modern money changers in the temple is what 90% of them are.

I agree.... though I wouldn't say "dear Lord Jesus".

Sorry for the delay.

 

[Intense]

Just wondering what the alternative is to buying and selling. Government Distribution? Make sure you build more jails. Just gonna lay right down for Tyranny. Life, Liberty, Property, The Pursuit of Happiness, are just meaningless words to those whom play with other peoples money. Just force your will down our throats. Rewrite the text books again.


Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are suggesting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is a good model for government policy today.

Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities.

New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.

Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003).

More by Jim Powell
The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.

New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.

Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.

What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.


How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

 

[veritas]

Powell Deserves an F in Economics, November 29, 2007
By watzizname "watzizname" (Murfreesboro, Tennessee) - See all my reviews

This review is from: FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Paperback)
If Mr. Powell had submitted this as a paper in one of the college economics classes I taught, he would have received an F, for incompetent economic analysis and intellectual dishonesty. Mr. Powell picks his facts carefully, citing only those for which he can argue (almost always fallaciously) that FDR was wrong. Listing all his economic whoppers would become tiresome, but here are a few:

On page 41: "The fundamental fallacy in the high-wages doctrine was that it didn't increase the total purchasing power." BAD ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (BEA) Powell cleverly confuses instantaneous total purchasing power with total purchasing power over time. The same dollar (or $10, or $100) can make many times that many purchases over the period of a month or a year, with no change in the total instantaneous purchasing power. If Alice pays Brian $10 for something, Brian can spend that $10, as can those he pays it to, and so on. Economists call this the MULTIPLIER EFFECT, a term Powell never mentions.

On page 83, after admitting that only about 5% of Americans paid income tax during the Depression (carefully omitting that it was because wages weren't taxed) Powell says "these taxes surely discouraged employers from making investments." (BEA) Excess plant capacity and lack of demand, not taxes, were the major reasons for lack of investment. Even with zero taxes, who will invest in more plant capacity when their existing plant is operating at 20 or 25% of capacity and producing all the product they can sell?

On page 89: "Each dollar taxed meant a working person had a dollar less to spend on his or her own." INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY (ID) Powell knew (he mentioned it on page 83) that wages weren't taxed.

On page 96: "(again, not counting jobs destroyed by taxes that reduced private sector spending)" (BEA) Powell makes much of the theoretical possibility, but never cites even one job destroyed by taxes. It is, of course, difficult to obtain an accurate count of those job losses that didn't happen, and Powell prefers to ignore the jobs created by the government spending of that tax money.

On page 41: "In any case, public works projects tended to require people with construction skills, so they weren't an effective way to help poor people" (BEA) Skilled workers were needed IN ADDITION TO, NOT INSTEAD OF common laborers, which generally outnumbered any of the skilled trades.

On page 161: "business investment remained at historic lows throughout the Great Depression." (ID) Production was increasing almost thruout FDR's presidency, but very little new investment was needed until the production facilities approached capacity.

On page 179: [Social Security] "supposedly would involve contributions by employers. In truth, the entire payroll tax would come out of the pockets of working people, because the tax would be part of the cost of providing a job; and if the money weren't going to the government, it would be available for employee compensation." (BEA & ID) Powell understandably does not specify which employers would actually have paid that money to employees, were it not for FICA {Social Security) tax. One suspects the list would be embarrassingly short.

On page 183: "The advocates of Social Security must have realized that private retirement plans would offer a better deal," (ID) No doubt they would have OFFERED a better deal, but experience (in Chile and England, for example) indicates that it is unlikely that they would have DELIVERED a better deal. And every laundry detergent cleans better than any of the others.

on page 254: [Social Security] is a pay-as-you-go system without an investment fund yielding returns to help cover future obligations." (ID) An out-and-out lie. SS is not fully advance funded, like the New York State Employees' Retirement System, but unlike pay-as-you-go, it does include an investment fund sufficient to meet ALL obligations for nearly four years and growing. (Source: OASDI Trustees Report, 2007)

On page 187: "Labor unions were generally based on force and violence . . . ." (ID) A blatantly unfair, untrue, and prejudicial statement. While it is true that a minority of unions descended to unjustified force or violence, most of the violence was started by company goons or strikebreakers. And calling elected union officers 'bosses' is similarly prejudicial and generally, false.

On page 200: "General Motors car production plunged from 50,000 in December, 1935 fo 125 during the first week of February, 1936." (ID) Comparing dissimilar items, a month's production to a week's. This technique could have come straight from Darrell Huff's How to Lie With Statistics It would have been quite proper to say 'from an average of 12,500 a week in December,' but impressive as that 99% reduction is, Powell chose to make it seem four times as big. Not only dishonest, but downright silly.

On page 203: "UAW picketers fought with nonunion workers, and some people were stabbed." (ID) The 'some people' that were stabbed must have been union members, because had they been the strikebreakers, you can be sure Powell would have said so very clearly.

On page 245: "Personal income tax rates hit 91 percent . . . ." (ID) Deceptively, Powell fails to mention that this was the highest tax bracket, not the average tax rate, which was nowhere near 91%.

On page 273: "Maintaining wages above market levels is guaranteed to maintain unemployment at high levels." (BEA & ID) A 'guarantee' not worth the paper it is written on. Since the enactment of minimum wage laws, there have been many periods of full employment. The 'market levels' Powell envisions are the result of a monopsony market in which the sellers (workers) would be price-takers, forced to take whatever wages are offered or be unemployed and face starvation.

On a lighter note, on page 226: "October 19, 1937--which came to be called 'Black Tuesday'" I googled "Black Tuesday" to be sure there weren't two, but all the entries referred to October 29, 1929.

The above is but a small sampling of the lies, distortions, and bad economic analysis in Mr. Powell's book. FDR did indeed do some bad things, such as the blatantly racist internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII, and permitting the refusal to allow Jewish refugees from Germany to enter the United States, but he also did a great many more good things; the credit for bringing the nation out of the Great Depression is deservedly his, and Mr. Powell's mean-spirited hatchet job doesn't deserve even one star.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/product-reviews/0761501657/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_next_3?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=3&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending]Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

this thread is gay..........and highly irrlevant. As everyone knows by now, about 20% of the country considers themselves "liberal". So who cares who was a liberal = nobody........except the k00ks of course.
America is witnessing a stong rejection of liberal social policy as we speak........in fact, a referendum on the level of its fcukkedupedness.

Oh.....and did I mention todays Rasmussen #'s on Obama? Ummmm............try a new all time low = 53% Disapproval rating FTW!!!

 

[paperview]

...

How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

Peoplewho propagate the revisionist history of the Great Depression, the facts are not on your side:

 

[jillian]

this thread is gay..........and highly irrlevant. As everyone knows by now, about 20% of the country considers themselves "liberal". So who cares who was a liberal = nobody........except the k00ks of course.
America is witnessing a stong rejection of liberal social policy as we speak........in fact, a referendum on the level of its fcukkedupedness.

Hey, freak-a-zoid.... if what you were saying was true... your guys would be in the white house.

what's that you say? they aren't?

oops...

thanks for playing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I just read through his post three times to see if I could find one bit of "complete and utter bullshit."

I can't find it.

Maybe you can actually tell us WHAT in there is incorrect.

Be specific.

Apparently, you're missing the concept of "every single word is complete and utter bullshit". It doesn't get any more specific than "every single word". I'm objecting to all of it, including "and" and "the".

No. Bullshit is what YOU are spouting.

Let's go through this line by line. My answers in red:

"FDR was willing to look at what happens if the average man is dealt a series of conditions that were beyond his ability to deal with.

A statement of opinion on FDR's motivations. You may disagree, but there is nothing wrong with the opinion. And the fact FDR was elected FOUR times seems to indicate a great many people thought he was doing the best for them.


The great depression was caused by greed and speculation. The ones who paid the price were the workers who found themselves without jobs.

What is bullshit about that? Did bankers and industrialists pay the price too? Sure, but the heaviest burden fell on the unemployed, who were drenched upon the land.

Retirement plans of that era consisted of either dying young or having enough kids so that someone would be there to care for you in your old age.

What's bullshit here? Did some people have pensions? Yes. Not that many and often times a small percentage of their previous wage. (smaller than today's pensions. Most worked on the farm. Some factory. No pensions for farmers. The family was who took care of you, for the most part.

Social Security, which conservatives fought as socialism, provided a safety net for those who worked their whole lives.

Conservatives didn't fight SS? It doesn't provide a safety net for the elderly? Wow. News to me.

Now tell me again? Where is the bullshit? And not some vague "cause it is."

No, YOU go through it line by line. Nothing he said deserved a point-by-point refutation, because it was ALL shit, based on a faulty premise, and you going through and telling me WHY you think he's brilliant makes me no more inclined to waste my time explaining why unicorns don't exist and castles can't be built on pink, fluffy clouds.

Keep asking me where the bullshit is, and I'll keep telling you "the whole frigging post, AND the beliefs he based it on", no matter HOW many times you try to tell me what answer you will "allow" me to give you.

Where is the bullshit? The whole frigging post and his beliefs.

Where is the bullshit? The whole frigging post and his beliefs.

Where is the bullshit? The whole frigging post and his beliefs.

You want to ask me again? Same answer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not by 1940/ And Byrant had been dead for 15 years.

By 1940 , a good many Americans thought it was necessary to help defeat the Axis.

Republicans were the great isolationists, by and large.

And how, pray tell, did you arbitrarily decide that the only year that mattered to this discussion was 1940? Because I certainly don't recall agreeing to that parameter.

Maybe it was this line in your post that did it:
"The vast majority of the American public wanted nothing to do with another European war" - the next line referring to isolationism.

Duh.

Oh, OKAY. Because Americans developed their distaste for another war in 1940, and almost immediately went from the majority feeling that way, to just Republicans, apparently in a matter of weeks. It wasn't any sort of ongoing attitude over several years, or anything.

I'll tell you what. When I agree to a parameter of only one year, you'll know it by me actually MENTIONING that year, rather than having to assume it based on your curious belief that WWII developed out of nowhere in one year.

At least you can spell "Duh" correctly. This is good, since you must say it a lot.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it very interesting this recent trend to denigrate FDR and his New Deal. Do any of you know of somebody who knew FDR? I did. And this person was in such a position that if he didn't want to be associated with what FDR was doing, then he would have walked. But instead, they were good friends.

FDR was actually a very distant cousin of mine. Never met him personally (since he died long before I was born), nor do I think it necessary to have done so in order to think that his public policies were stupid. But hey, you know one guy who actually met him, and liked him, so THAT settles it.

As for the "recent" trend of denigrating the New Deal, it isn't recent, although it is enjoying a resurgence due to the increasing desire of leftists to paint FDR as the Second Coming. I guess you figure most of the people who can actually remember that time are dead now, so you don't have as much chance of argument. Wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...

How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People | Jim Powell | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

Peoplewho propagate the revisionist history of the Great Depression, the facts are not on your side:

Hey, one random chart. THAT certainly puts us in our place . . . oh, wait. It doesn't.

 

[paperview]

Apparently, you're missing the concept of "every single word is complete and utter bullshit". It doesn't get any more specific than "every single word". I'm objecting to all of it, including "and" and "the".

No. Bullshit is what YOU are spouting.

Let's go through this line by line. My answers in red:

"FDR was willing to look at what happens if the average man is dealt a series of conditions that were beyond his ability to deal with.

A statement of opinion on FDR's motivations. You may disagree, but there is nothing wrong with the opinion. And the fact FDR was elected FOUR times seems to indicate a great many people thought he was doing the best for them.


The great depression was caused by greed and speculation. The ones who paid the price were the workers who found themselves without jobs.

What is bullshit about that? Did bankers and industrialists pay the price too? Sure, but the heaviest burden fell on the unemployed, who were drenched upon the land.

Retirement plans of that era consisted of either dying young or having enough kids so that someone would be there to care for you in your old age.

What's bullshit here? Did some people have pensions? Yes. Not that many and often times a small percentage of their previous wage. (smaller than today's pensions. Most worked on the farm. Some factory. No pensions for farmers. The family was who took care of you, for the most part.

Social Security, which conservatives fought as socialism, provided a safety net for those who worked their whole lives.

Conservatives didn't fight SS? It doesn't provide a safety net for the elderly? Wow. News to me.

Now tell me again? Where is the bullshit? And not some vague "cause it is."

No, YOU go through it line by line. Nothing he said deserved a point-by-point refutation, because it was ALL shit, based on a faulty premise, and you going through and telling me WHY you think he's brilliant makes me no more inclined to waste my time explaining why unicorns don't exist and castles can't be built on pink, fluffy clouds.

Keep asking me where the bullshit is, and I'll keep telling you "the whole frigging post, AND the beliefs he based it on", no matter HOW many times you try to tell me what answer you will "allow" me to give you.

Where is the bullshit? The whole frigging post and his beliefs.

Where is the bullshit? The whole frigging post and his beliefs.

Where is the bullshit? The whole frigging post and his beliefs.

You want to ask me again? Same answer.

Well this pretty much defines for me the poster you are:
It's bullshit cause I say it's bullshit and that's it. Don't ask me why. It just is.

Okkkkay.

Thanks for giving me the heads up on letting me know you are no longer worth diddly squat of my time, bitter woman.

 

[Ringel05]

I find it very interesting this recent trend to denigrate FDR and his New Deal. Do any of you know of somebody who knew FDR? I did. And this person was in such a position that if he didn't want to be associated with what FDR was doing, then he would have walked. But instead, they were good friends.

Yup, and I know just as many people (still living) where you would not want to mention FDR in their presence, not if you don't want your ears ringing.

 

[Intense]

I'll bite.

Powell Deserves an F in Economics, November 29, 2007
By watzizname "watzizname" (Murfreesboro, Tennessee) - See all my reviews

This review is from: FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Paperback)
If Mr. Powell had submitted this as a paper in one of the college economics classes I taught, he would have received an F, for incompetent economic analysis and intellectual dishonesty. Mr. Powell picks his facts carefully, citing only those for which he can argue (almost always fallaciously) that FDR was wrong. Listing all his economic whoppers would become tiresome, but here are a few:

On page 41: "The fundamental fallacy in the high-wages doctrine was that it didn't increase the total purchasing power." BAD ECONOMIC ANALYSIS (BEA) Powell cleverly confuses instantaneous total purchasing power with total purchasing power over time. The same dollar (or $10, or $100) can make many times that many purchases over the period of a month or a year, with no change in the total instantaneous purchasing power. If Alice pays Brian $10 for something, Brian can spend that $10, as can those he pays it to, and so on. Economists call this the MULTIPLIER EFFECT, a term Powell never mentions. The money is taxed every time it changes hands. The purchasing Power declines as value inflates.

On page 83, after admitting that only about 5% of Americans paid income tax during the Depression (carefully omitting that it was because wages weren't taxed) Powell says "these taxes surely discouraged employers from making investments." (BEA) Excess plant capacity and lack of demand, not taxes, were the major reasons for lack of investment. Even with zero taxes, who will invest in more plant capacity when their existing plant is operating at 20 or 25% of capacity and producing all the product they can sell? Are you stating that sales are slack, the market is flooded and inventories are growing? Is there need? Is the product over priced? Is it a seasonal product? Could it possibly be that circumstance dictates what is affordable? I think that your claim of lack of demand is more related to priority spending and that is you that are being dishonest. The poor we're taxed when they spent, not when they earned. Powell clearly showed that. They starved for lack of Jobs, and means. FDR confiscated too much. He did not know when to stop.

On page 89: "Each dollar taxed meant a working person had a dollar less to spend on his or her own." INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY (ID) Powell knew (he mentioned it on page 83) that wages weren't taxed. Spending was taxed heavily. That is clearly shown. Why the disconnect?

On page 96: "(again, not counting jobs destroyed by taxes that reduced private sector spending)" (BEA) Powell makes much of the theoretical possibility, but never cites even one job destroyed by taxes. It is, of course, difficult to obtain an accurate count of those job losses that didn't happen, and Powell prefers to ignore the jobs created by the government spending of that tax money. Only someone who could not turn a profit in a Kool-Aid stand could justify that argument. ... Well ... maybe I'm exaggerating a tiny tiny bit. How can you doubt the relationship, Theoretical Possibility,

On page 41: "In any case, public works projects tended to require people with construction skills, so they weren't an effective way to help poor people" (BEA) Skilled workers were needed IN ADDITION TO, NOT INSTEAD OF common laborers, which generally outnumbered any of the skilled trades. They Apprenticed, at least FDR built things, Obama is just pissing it away.

On page 161: "business investment remained at historic lows throughout the Great Depression." (ID) Production was increasing almost thruout FDR's presidency, but very little new investment was needed until the production facilities approached capacity. For the life of me, I can't imagine why nobody wanted to invest. I'm gonna throw everything I have into Fannie and Freddie tomorrow.

On page 179: [Social Security] "supposedly would involve contributions by employers. In truth, the entire payroll tax would come out of the pockets of working people, because the tax would be part of the cost of providing a job; and if the money weren't going to the government, it would be available for employee compensation." That's a gem right there. So the money that the Employer is paying into Social Security is not his either because we have imagined a use for it and usurped it, taking all credit for a resource born of extortion. Try being Self employed paying both ends of that tax, and take a good look in the mirror. (BEA & ID) Powell understandably does not specify which employers would actually have paid that money to employees, were it not for FICA {Social Security) tax. One suspects the list would be embarrassingly short. You probably have never worked on merit or ability, so I can't fault you for not knowing any better. The embarrassment is taking what is not deserved, what has not been rightly earned.

On page 183: "The advocates of Social Security must have realized that private retirement plans would offer a better deal," (ID) No doubt they would have OFFERED a better deal, but experience (in Chile and England, for example) indicates that it is unlikely that they would have DELIVERED a better deal. And every laundry detergent cleans better than any of the others. Some people will believe anything.

on page 254: [Social Security] is a pay-as-you-go system without an investment fund yielding returns to help cover future obligations." (ID) An out-and-out lie. SS is not fully advance funded, like the New York State Employees' Retirement System, but unlike pay-as-you-go, it does include an investment fund sufficient to meet ALL obligations for nearly four years and growing.Paid for by the poorest, among us, so you can feel secure. (Source: OASDI Trustees Report, 2007)

On page 187: "Labor unions were generally based on force and violence . . . ." (ID) A blatantly unfair, untrue, and prejudicial statement. While it is true that a minority of unions descended to unjustified force or violence, most of the violence was started by company goons or strikebreakers. And calling elected union officers 'bosses' is similarly prejudicial and generally, false.I feel like I need waist deep boots to comment on this. You are so full of shit. You actually teach shit like this to gullible kids? Shame on You.

On page 200: "General Motors car production plunged from 50,000 in December, 1935 fo 125 during the first week of February, 1936." (ID) Comparing dissimilar items, a month's production to a week's. This technique could have come straight from Darrell Huff's How to Lie With Statistics It would have been quite proper to say 'from an average of 12,500 a week in December,' but impressive as that 99% reduction is, Powell chose to make it seem four times as big. Not only dishonest, but downright silly. Like unfunded mandates are silly, and expectations and demands with deadlines beyond Technilogical Capability? Comply or die? What the fuck is the UAW gonna do now? They are Parasites, not producers.

On page 203: "UAW picketers fought with nonunion workers, and some people were stabbed." (ID) The 'some people' that were stabbed must have been union members, because had they been the strikebreakers, you can be sure Powell would have said so very clearly. That is a real amazing deduction. Maybe I can use that reason to get disqualified from Jury Duty. Good foot work there.

On page 245: "Personal income tax rates hit 91 percent . . . ." (ID) Deceptively, Powell fails to mention that this was the highest tax bracket, not the average tax rate, which was nowhere near 91%. Hammurabi and Moses had it at about 10% of wealth, not income, taxed every other year if I remember it right. When is enough, enough. You don't see the Jealousy here, the want, the greed from Government.

On page 273: "Maintaining wages above market levels is guaranteed to maintain unemployment at high levels." (BEA & ID) A 'guarantee' not worth the paper it is written on. Since the enactment of minimum wage laws, there have been many periods of full employment. The 'market levels' Powell envisions are the result of a monopsony market in which the sellers (workers) would be price-takers, forced to take whatever wages are offered or be unemployed and face starvation. The Market sets the price. Not You not me Not Powell. Try selling something for more than it's worth, it's on you. By artificially corrupting the value of something, you screw up everything that is related to it. Everything it touches. Government needs to take off the God Hat and put the Referee hat back on.

On a lighter note, on page 226: "October 19, 1937--which came to be called 'Black Tuesday'" I googled "Black Tuesday" to be sure there weren't two, but all the entries referred to October 29, 1929.

The above is but a small sampling of the lies, distortions, and bad economic analysis in Mr. Powell's book. FDR did indeed do some bad things, such as the blatantly racist internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII, and permitting the refusal to allow Jewish refugees from Germany to enter the United States, but he also did a great many more good things; the credit for bringing the nation out of the Great Depression is deservedly his, and Mr. Powell's mean-spirited hatchet job doesn't deserve even one star.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/product-reviews/0761501657/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_next_3?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=3&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending]Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression[/ame]

The above is a pathetic (meaning me) rebuttal to your claims. I only wish Powell could answer your slander directly. I'm sure there are better souls here than me here, that owe you a spanking.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No. Bullshit is what YOU are spouting.

Let's go through this line by line. My answers in red:

"FDR was willing to look at what happens if the average man is dealt a series of conditions that were beyond his ability to deal with.

A statement of opinion on FDR's motivations. You may disagree, but there is nothing wrong with the opinion. And the fact FDR was elected FOUR times seems to indicate a great many people thought he was doing the best for them.


The great depression was caused by greed and speculation. The ones who paid the price were the workers who found themselves without jobs.

What is bullshit about that? Did bankers and industrialists pay the price too? Sure, but the heaviest burden fell on the unemployed, who were drenched upon the land.

Retirement plans of that era consisted of either dying young or having enough kids so that someone would be there to care for you in your old age.

What's bullshit here? Did some people have pensions? Yes. Not that many and often times a small percentage of their previous wage. (smaller than today's pensions. Most worked on the farm. Some factory. No pensions for farmers. The family was who took care of you, for the most part.

Social Security, which conservatives fought as socialism, provided a safety net for those who worked their whole lives.

Conservatives didn't fight SS? It doesn't provide a safety net for the elderly? Wow. News to me.

Now tell me again? Where is the bullshit? And not some vague "cause it is."

No, YOU go through it line by line. Nothing he said deserved a point-by-point refutation, because it was ALL shit, based on a faulty premise, and you going through and telling me WHY you think he's brilliant makes me no more inclined to waste my time explaining why unicorns don't exist and castles can't be built on pink, fluffy clouds.

Keep asking me where the bullshit is, and I'll keep telling you "the whole frigging post, AND the beliefs he based it on", no matter HOW many times you try to tell me what answer you will "allow" me to give you.

Where is the bullshit? The whole frigging post and his beliefs.

Where is the bullshit? The whole frigging post and his beliefs.

Where is the bullshit? The whole frigging post and his beliefs.

You want to ask me again? Same answer.

Well this pretty much defines for me the poster you are:
It's bullshit cause I say it's bullshit and that's it. Don't ask me why. It just is.

Okkkkay.

Thanks for giving me the heads up on letting me know you are no longer worth diddly squat of my time, bitter woman.

Wow. Coming from you, that means . . . absolutely nothing. I hope you weren't flattering yourself all the two weeks or whatever that you've been here that you were setting the board on fire and making people desperate to impress you.

Let me attempt to care . . . nope. Not happening.

 

[paperview]

I get the feeling you don't impress many folks here.\

Lack of knowing what the hell you're talking about can do that.

CYA CeCe.