FDR Opposed Collective Bargaining for Government Employees

[The Hatter]

Wilson was just as idiotic as Neville Chamberlain.

Wilson was a idiot, Chamberlain was not.

6 Historic Villains You Didn't Know Had Incredible Careers | Cracked.com

Not Remembered For: Everything Else He Did.

Before winning the Prime Minister position, Chamberlain was a successful MP, Postmaster General and Minister of Health. He was even Chancellor of the Exchequer twice (the second most important guy in British politics--like the American Vice President, except he does a bit more than just nod solemnly and give the occasional comforting neck-rub). He later passed the Factories Act, which improved the horrifying work conditions in factories and cut back on child labor. He was extremely popular and even made the cover of TIME in America.

If you're saying, "Sure, he was popular until he sold out to fucking Hitler!" you're wrong. After he made the deal in Munich his popularity shot up to 68 percent--20 points higher than what Barack Obama gets right now in the USA. Above all else, the people did not want to get into another freaking war.

That's one thing some historians are trying remind everyone about Chamberlain these days. Making the deal with Hitler looks bad now, because we know how the movie ends. Not so easy at the time, when Chamberlain was at the head of a country whose military was in no shape to fight, and the only ones who had offered to stand with him if he threw down against the Nazis were the freaking French. There were no good options on the table.

So instead, he came back home from making the deal with Hitler having bought a period of peace that he spent rapidly building the military that would eventually be strong enough to repel the Nazis. And by the way, the main reason they were able to mobilize so quickly was because of an earlier national program to modernize the nation's factories. A program put in place by... Neville Chamberlain.

The debate rages among historians (and will probably rage in the comments) but the guy probably deserves better than to have his name thrown around as the political equivalent of "pussy."

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I do not like Chamberlain, but he was screwed at Munich. If he'd made a choice to go to war then the European theater in WW2 literally wouldn't have existed. He couldn't win at that time, so he had to sign.

I would add he had no one to blame but himself for being in that position. Hitler should have been stopped much earlier when he was flaunting the terms of Versailles. Not stopping him then meant Chamberlain was screwed by Munich.

 

[boedicca]

Bub. Nobody who claims to be a conservative supports the massive growth of government spending performed by EITHER party.

Where did I say Conservative=GOP?

You didn't. I said Conservative for a reason - you seem to insinuate that just because a president if a Republican, he gets a pass on big spending.

That is not the case.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Bub. Nobody who claims to be a conservative supports the massive growth of government spending performed by EITHER party.

Where did I say Conservative=GOP?

You didn't. I said Conservative for a reason - you seem to insinuate that just because a president if a Republican, he gets a pass on big spending.

That is not the case.

He may not get a pass, but often big spending GOP presidents get elected. The Democrat alternative is often worse (Kerry) and the spending buys the votes from the middle.

 

[kaz]

Look at Bush's and Reagan's policies versus the stuff FDR actually did, and get back to me. There hasn't been a small government Republican in at least 50+ years. Most of FDR's stuff is pretty tame compared to Bush's expansion of the Fed.

I'm not defending the Republicans, particularly W who was one of the worst Presidents in our history and no friend of small government. Though I'm not sure what you're referring to with Reagan. But to compare that to FDR, you need to learn more about what he did. Starting with Social Security, one of the greatest evils ever perpetrated on the American people by our own government. FDR buried State rights. He and Woodrow Wilson were the two worst Presidents in our history. Wilson started us on the path of joining the "World Community" and FDR ended individualism as a government protection. To compare the Republicans to that is just a failure to recognize perspective. Wilson and FDR are the two sides of Neocon, military to spread democracy and big government spending.

You need to look up Bush's attempts to undermine California's states rights. And you can't seriously claim that FDR's motives in WW2 were any different from Bush's motives in Iraq. Bush actually expanded entitlements with the Medicare prescription pla, so there is that strike too.

Reagan wasn't much better. Theres some sort of historical amnesia about him that overlooks his massive expansion of government spending I have never understood.

Fact is, no GOP president has actually shrunk the government in 50+ years if not more. Saying FDR would be a republican today isn't a slam on the GOP, but a statement of how few real differences there are now.

This doesn't contradict what I said. And I didn't address their "motives" at all, I addressed what they did. W and FDR both undermined my liberty, FDR just did more. I said Bush was one of the worst, but FDR and Wilson were THE worst. Figuring out what their motives were is for God, not me. How they affected my life on Earth is for me.

As for Reagan, still asking for examples, which you didn't provide as well.

 

[boedicca]

Where did I say Conservative=GOP?

You didn't. I said Conservative for a reason - you seem to insinuate that just because a president if a Republican, he gets a pass on big spending.

That is not the case.

He may not get a pass, but often big spending GOP presidents get elected. The Democrat alternative is often worse (Kerry) and the spending buys the votes from the middle.

The real problem is that we have, over time, developed structurally huge and insolvent government. FDR's New Deal is a big root cause. Much of Federal spending consists of "untouchable" entitlements. Unless we solve this problem, nibbling at discretionary spending is just "rearranging deck chairs".

 

[kaz]

Btw, to be clear, I agree on Wilson. He is justifiably one of the five worst Presidents in History. It's all but impossible to read of the way he handled the great influenza outbreak and WW1 and not get angry. And he botched Versailles so badly we fought another war over it. He list of things he did wrong would take hours to type up.

When I think of Wilson I think he's the worst and when I think of FDR he is. But for just the shear destruction of our liberty no one approaches them as the top two. LBJ was probably the most immoral. Buchanan and Hoover are up there as well. Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln did some good things, but some very bad things. But we've just had a horrible run with HW, Slick, W and Obama. The American people have accepted the lie that government is there to help us and we're going to pay for this if we don't wake up and realize it's just not.

 

[The Hatter]

When I think of Wilson I think he's the worst and when I think of FDR he is. But for just the shear destruction of our liberty no one approaches them as the top two. LBJ was probably the most immoral. Buchanan and Hoover are up there as well. Teddy Roosevelt and Lincoln did some good things, but some very bad things. But we've just had a horrible run with HW, Slick, W and Obama. The American people have accepted the lie that government is there to help us and we're going to pay for this if we don't wake up and realize it's just not.

Not sure why you left out Carter and Reagan on the horrible run. I would of left Clinton off that list though. As for Obama, although it doesn't look good, his legacy remains to be seen.

 

[shintao]

Unlike the right the left doesnt hold him up as an infallible god.

What he feared never panned out did it.

However Obama was compared to him now wasn't he?

The comparison of Obama to FDR has been looming in the background for the past two years. Time magazine, in the cover of its post-election edition, superimposed Barack Obama's head onto a memorable photo of FDR seated in his convertible following his 1932 landslide victory. The expectation was that Obama, like FDR, would lead Democrats to further gains in the ensuing midterm and then onwards and upwards to an era of Democratic dominance.

Source

You were saying?

And so he was compared? Really? I recall Bush being compared to Hitler. So what? LMAO! That doesn't mean anything. Obama says he emulates Lincoln, so work on that will ya?

 

[Agit8r]

So did Lenin. Who cares? o_0

 

[Dr.Traveler]

@kaz: I fail to find FDR's offenses any worse than Bush's. Both stomped all over personal liberty and states rights. Both expanded government. Both went to war in cases they thought were just.

As for Reagan, I'm specifically thinking about expanded government spending and his neocon foreign policy. I'll see if I can link you some stuff once I get to my computer. Right now I'm on my iPod, and linking is sketchy at best.

 

[boedicca]

Bush didn't start a massive entitlement program. But don't worry, Obama has amped that up for you.

 

[The T]

Unlike the right the left doesnt hold him up as an infallible god.

What he feared never panned out did it.

However Obama was compared to him now wasn't he?

The comparison of Obama to FDR has been looming in the background for the past two years. Time magazine, in the cover of its post-election edition, superimposed Barack Obama's head onto a memorable photo of FDR seated in his convertible following his 1932 landslide victory. The expectation was that Obama, like FDR, would lead Democrats to further gains in the ensuing midterm and then onwards and upwards to an era of Democratic dominance.

Source

You were saying?

And so he was compared? Really? I recall Bush being compared to Hitler. So what? LMAO! That doesn't mean anything. Obama says he emulates Lincoln, so work on that will ya?

And currently he's On Reagan...what wrong with the 'O' being himself? Are Obama and those whom lick his boots so insecure of their ideals and principles that they have to make comparisons to those that came before him?

I wonder how Obama will be judged, and what future POTUS will compare themselves to the petulant manchild that is Obama?

Noodle that for awhile geeks...

 

[boedicca]

Obama is so devoid of internal content that he's always on a desperate quest to absorb the identify of someone who actually did something.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Bush didn't start a massive entitlement program. But don't worry, Obama has amped that up for you.

Medicare prescription drug plan.

That is a massive unfunded entitlement program that rivals social security. At least social security had a plan to pay for it on paper.

And the first stimulus came about under Bush.

Thats why I'm puzzled at the resistance to the idea that FDR would be a GOP today. He and bush were pretty close to the same guy.

 

[The T]

Obama is so devoid of internal content that he's always on a desperate quest to absorb the identify of someone who actually did something.

As I stated in another thread? What's WRONG with being just 'Obama'?

Apparently plenty that he and his bootlicker hangers-on have to assign personalities of Dead and gone Presidents to him.

I too wonder (again) how many future Presidents will assgn Obama to themselves when describing how best their principles meet. So far? Obama has struck out. (Evidence? He keeps changing...currently he's assumed the role of Reagan when the two are polar opposites).

 

[boedicca]

Bush didn't start a massive entitlement program. But don't worry, Obama has amped that up for you.

Medicare prescription drug plan.

That is a massive unfunded entitlement program that rivals social security. At least social security had a plan to pay for it on paper.

And the first stimulus came about under Bush.

Thats why I'm puzzled at the resistance to the idea that FDR would be a GOP today. He and bush were pretty close to the same guy.

Prescription drugs are a drop in the bucket compared to FDR's SS and LBJ's Medicare.

And you are mistaken if you think that any conservative supports the spending increases under Bush.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Obama is so devoid of internal content that he's always on a desperate quest to absorb the identify of someone who actually did something.

He has had a few quite disturbing moments so far where he has shown a real lack of leadership. I never liked Bush, but I could respect that he had a set of principles by which he governed. With Obama, I can't tell what he's up to or what he stands for.

That's why I think if the GOP runs a reasonable candidate in 2012, they will win. Obama is more Wilson than FDR ot Bush, and that is a terrible model to follow.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Bush didn't start a massive entitlement program. But don't worry, Obama has amped that up for you.

Medicare prescription drug plan.

That is a massive unfunded entitlement program that rivals social security. At least social security had a plan to pay for it on paper.

And the first stimulus came about under Bush.

Thats why I'm puzzled at the resistance to the idea that FDR would be a GOP today. He and bush were pretty close to the same guy.

Prescription drugs are a drop in the bucket compared to FDR's SS and LBJ's Medicare.

And you are mistaken if you think that any conservative supports the spending increases under Bush.

SS had a plan to pay for it on the table, and still does. The Prescription drug plan never did, and is going to end up being far more than a "drop in the bucket."

And again, I never claimed that Conservatives support what W or FDR did. Just that the GOP certainly does. That puts a true conservative in a really tough spot.

 

[boedicca]

You are sorely mistaken if you think I sport any entitlement program

SS, to date (although ObamaCare will give it a good run for the money) is the most toxic in that the surplus fueled by boomer taxes has enabled the government to borrow and spend at toxic levels. Medicare never really made a pretense of having a surplus - it's just another big spending binge entitlement with corrupt accounting.