FDR Prolonged Depression 7 Years: UCLA

[code1211]

My first question would be, what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China, my second question would be are you retarded or just stupid, my third question would be in regard to my second question, are you both.....


Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Eric Rauchway: Books
interesting for today
Project Syndicate

Here's my question.

Would your obnoxious response to the post be based on a sensitivity to the fact that Democrat policies have had deleterious effects on numerous occasions?

And specifically, the financial meltdown in which we find ourselves?

Further, while there were many good results of the FDR reign, ending the depression was not one, and many sources state exactly what the post claims. Here's one:
In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”

Under Reagan, the Left howled about Trickle Down Economics. What that meant was that there was wealth being created and allot of it was spread to everyone.

Under FDR, he was trying trickle up economics which is not creating wealth, but rather dividing the wealth that already exists. Reagan's recovery took two years. FDR's would still be faltering along if WW2 had not jump started the economy and destroyed the entire world eliminating competition and allowing unbrideled growth of industy.

In that environment, even Soviet Russia prospered.

 

[Iriemon]

My first question would be, what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China, my second question would be are you retarded or just stupid, my third question would be in regard to my second question, are you both.....


Summary
Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.

Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Eric Rauchway: Books
interesting for today
Project Syndicate

Here's my question.

Would your obnoxious response to the post be based on a sensitivity to the fact that Democrat policies have had deleterious effects on numerous occasions?

And specifically, the financial meltdown in which we find ourselves?

Further, while there were many good results of the FDR reign, ending the depression was not one, and many sources state exactly what the post claims. Here's one:
In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”

Under Reagan, the Left howled about Trickle Down Economics. What that meant was that there was wealth being created and allot of it was spread to everyone.

Under FDR, he was trying trickle up economics which is not creating wealth, but rather dividing the wealth that already exists. Reagan's recovery took two years. FDR's would still be faltering along if WW2 had not jump started the economy and destroyed the entire world eliminating competition and allowing unbrideled growth of industy.

In that environment, even Soviet Russia prospered.

The 1982 recession is not comparable to the 1929 depression.

1982 was a recession caused by a spike in interest rates resulting from the Fed tightening money to lick inflation. When the spiral broke and the interest rate equilibrium returned, so did the economy. Overal real gDP fell about 2%.

1929 was characterized by massive bank failures and a credit crisis, unlike 1982.

And ironically, I think conservatives at the time argued the tax cuts would provide fiscal stimulus to the economy. They made that argument in 2001 also.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

As usual, there is never a human aspect to the solutions of critics of FDR or Obama, and no REAL perspective of what or was (or is) happening "on the ground"...

The PEOPLE and their virtual survival is the FIRST and most important role of the government of WE, the PEOPLE...

The idiotic notion that doing "nothing" was (or is) the best course is investing in an ideology that has no regard for WE, the PEOPLE or any lick of common sense...it is in essence exactly what right wingers like to accuse liberals of... living in a dream world...belief in utopia... "laissez faire utopia"


"The admirable trait in Roosevelt is that he has the guts to try. ...He does it all with the rarest good nature. ...We have exchanged for a frown in the White House a smile. Where there were hesitation and vacillation, weighing always the personal political consequences, feebleness, timidity, and duplicity, there are now courage and boldness and real action."
Hiram Johnson - Republican US Senator from 1917 to 1945

The PEOPLE are better off not being burdened by a 15 year depression caused by foolish government policies.

The PEOPLE are a lot better off not being subjected to a 25% real decline in GDP because the Govt sat on its hands while the banking system collapsed.

Ahh if only Hoover hadn't sat on his hands and done nothing! Oh, he didn't, he was the first "New Dealer."

"The ideas embodied in the New Deal legislation were a compilation of those which had come to maturity under Hoover's aegis... We all of us owed much to Hoover." - Rexford Tugwell, economic adviser to FDR

 

[Iriemon]

The PEOPLE are better off not being burdened by a 15 year depression caused by foolish government policies.

The PEOPLE are a lot better off not being subjected to a 25% real decline in GDP because the Govt sat on its hands while the banking system collapsed.

Ahh if only Hoover hadn't sat on his hands and done nothing! Oh, he didn't, he was the first "New Dealer."

"The ideas embodied in the New Deal legislation were a compilation of those which had come to maturity under Hoover's aegis... We all of us owed much to Hoover." - Rexford Tugwell, economic adviser to FDR

Ahh the new "Hoover passed the new deal" historical myth.

As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.

Herbert Hoover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However did nothing meaningful to address the growing depression for two years while the economy spiraled downward. His administration finally proposed and enacted a few laws in 1932, Emergency Relief and Construction Act and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. But by the time these laws were passed in mid-1932, and had any effect later, the economy had already suffered the wort of the recession.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The PEOPLE are a lot better off not being subjected to a 25% real decline in GDP because the Govt sat on its hands while the banking system collapsed.

Ahh if only Hoover hadn't sat on his hands and done nothing! Oh, he didn't, he was the first "New Dealer."

"The ideas embodied in the New Deal legislation were a compilation of those which had come to maturity under Hoover's aegis... We all of us owed much to Hoover." - Rexford Tugwell, economic adviser to FDR

Ahh the new "Hoover passed the new deal" historical myth.

As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.

Herbert Hoover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However did nothing meaningful to address the growing depression for two years while the economy spiraled downward. His administration finally proposed and enacted a few laws in 1932, Emergency Relief and Construction Act and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. But by the time these laws were passed in mid-1932, and had any effect later, the economy had already suffered the wort of the recession.

No, I think history shows that FDR passed the actual New Deal, it's simply that he got many of his ideas for the New Deal from the policies Herbert Hoover had already begun.

Herbert Hoover's Depression by Murray N. Rothbard

 

[Iriemon]

Ahh if only Hoover hadn't sat on his hands and done nothing! Oh, he didn't, he was the first "New Dealer."

"The ideas embodied in the New Deal legislation were a compilation of those which had come to maturity under Hoover's aegis... We all of us owed much to Hoover." - Rexford Tugwell, economic adviser to FDR

Ahh the new "Hoover passed the new deal" historical myth.

As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.

Herbert Hoover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However did nothing meaningful to address the growing depression for two years while the economy spiraled downward. His administration finally proposed and enacted a few laws in 1932, Emergency Relief and Construction Act and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. But by the time these laws were passed in mid-1932, and had any effect later, the economy had already suffered the wort of the recession.

No, I think history shows that FDR passed the actual New Deal, it's simply that he got many of his ideas for the New Deal from the policies Herbert Hoover had already begun.

Herbert Hoover's Depression by Murray N. Rothbard

History may show it, but if so, it is not indicated in the cited article, which does not identify what "new deal" programs Hoover implemented and when.

 

[Red Dawn]

FDR Prolonged Depression 7 Years

I'm shocked the american people, overwhelmingly elected him four times in a row!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ahh the new "Hoover passed the new deal" historical myth.

As the economy quickly deteriorated in the early years of the Great Depression, Hoover declined to pursue legislative relief, believing that it would make people dependent on the federal government. Instead, he organized a number of voluntary measures with businesses, encouraged state and local government responses, and accelerated federal building projects. Only toward the end of his term did he support a series of legislative solutions.

Herbert Hoover - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However did nothing meaningful to address the growing depression for two years while the economy spiraled downward. His administration finally proposed and enacted a few laws in 1932, Emergency Relief and Construction Act and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. But by the time these laws were passed in mid-1932, and had any effect later, the economy had already suffered the wort of the recession.

No, I think history shows that FDR passed the actual New Deal, it's simply that he got many of his ideas for the New Deal from the policies Herbert Hoover had already begun.

Herbert Hoover's Depression by Murray N. Rothbard

History may show it, but if so, it is not indicated in the cited article, which does not identify what "new deal" programs Hoover implemented and when.

Perhaps the fact that Hoover believed wages and prices had to remain high to restore us to prosperity, and FDR made the same mistakes. Along with Hoover's interventionist policies in general, which FDR then took to the next level.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

FDR Prolonged Depression 7 Years

I'm shocked the american people, overwhelmingly elected him four times in a row!

I bet you're also shocked they elected George W. Bush twice, so that may not be the best measure of the effectiveness of a President.

 

[Iriemon]

No, I think history shows that FDR passed the actual New Deal, it's simply that he got many of his ideas for the New Deal from the policies Herbert Hoover had already begun.

Herbert Hoover's Depression by Murray N. Rothbard

History may show it, but if so, it is not indicated in the cited article, which does not identify what "new deal" programs Hoover implemented and when.

Perhaps the fact that Hoover believed wages and prices had to remain high to restore us to prosperity, and FDR made the same mistakes. Along with Hoover's interventionist policies in general, which FDR then took to the next level.

Please specify what interventionist program Hoover passed, and when, to prove your Hoover "new deal" claim.

I've found nothing meaningful passed prior to 1932 by the Hoover administration. By 1932 the economy had fallen about 15% real and was in free fall. Hoover's admin passed a couple laws in mid 1932, but that was about it. By the end of 32 the economy had fallen 25% real. Hoover's programs were too little, too late, and cannot be argued to have caused the great depression because it had already happened by the time they took effect.

 

[Red Dawn]

FDR Prolonged Depression 7 Years

I'm shocked the american people, overwhelmingly elected him four times in a row!

I bet you're also shocked they elected George W. Bush twice, so that may not be the best measure of the effectiveness of a President.

Uh, the american people voted for al gore in 2000, in case you don't remember.


Roosevelt won four landslides.


You can't be fucking serious to compare Bush's one electoral sqeaker over kerry, to FDR

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm shocked the american people, overwhelmingly elected him four times in a row!

I bet you're also shocked they elected George W. Bush twice, so that may not be the best measure of the effectiveness of a President.

Uh, the american people voted for al gore in 2000, in case you don't remember.


Roosevelt won four landslides.


You can't be fucking serious to compare Bush's one electoral sqeaker over kerry, to FDR

Oh God, I'm still LOL'ing over this.


George Bush lost the american people's vote in 2000 to Al gore, he barely sqeaked by John Kerry, he spent the last three and a half years in office as one of the most unpopular and reviled presidents in history, and he destroyed his party and the economy is a downward death spiral never seen in modern american politics.


And Kevin Kennedy is claiming that Bush's electoral performance was on a par with FDR who won four overwhelming victories with the american people, and unshered in an era of complete dominance by the democratic party for 40 years.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

- Forcing businesses to keep wages high, as I already mentioned.
- 13% of the total budget of 1929 went to public works spending.
- Agricultural Marketing Act (1929)
- Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930)
- Reconstruction Finance Corporation (1931/1932)
- Revenue Act (1932)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I bet you're also shocked they elected George W. Bush twice, so that may not be the best measure of the effectiveness of a President.

Uh, the american people voted for al gore in 2000, in case you don't remember.


Roosevelt won four landslides.


You can't be fucking serious to compare Bush's one electoral sqeaker over kerry, to FDR

Oh God, I'm still LOL'ing over this.


George Bush lost the american people's vote in 2000 to Al gore, he barely sqeaked by John Kerry, he spent the last three and a half years in office as one of the most unpopular and reviled presidents in history, and he destroyed his party and the economy is a downward death spiral never seen in modern american politics.


And Kevin Kennedy is claiming that Bush's electoral performance was on a par with FDR who won four overwhelming victories with the american people, and unshered in an era of complete dominance by the democratic party for 40 years.

Glad I made your evening.

 

[Tech_Esq]

As usual, there is never a human aspect to the solutions of critics of FDR or Obama, and no REAL perspective of what or was (or is) happening "on the ground"...

The PEOPLE and their virtual survival is the FIRST and most important role of the government of WE, the PEOPLE...

The idiotic notion that doing "nothing" was (or is) the best course is investing in an ideology that has no regard for WE, the PEOPLE or any lick of common sense...it is in essence exactly what right wingers like to accuse liberals of... living in a dream world...belief in utopia... "laissez faire utopia"


"The admirable trait in Roosevelt is that he has the guts to try. ...He does it all with the rarest good nature. ...We have exchanged for a frown in the White House a smile. Where there were hesitation and vacillation, weighing always the personal political consequences, feebleness, timidity, and duplicity, there are now courage and boldness and real action."
Hiram Johnson - Republican US Senator from 1917 to 1945

The PEOPLE are better off not being burdened by a 15 year depression caused by foolish government policies.

The PEOPLE are a lot better off not being subjected to a 25% real decline in GDP because the Govt sat on its hands while the banking system collapsed.

This assertion is popular in leftie circles but is factually incorrect. The fact is that FDR continued most of Hoover's policies and expanded them. The idea the Hoover "did nothing" is incorrect. He did more than he was allowed to do under the Constitution. The fact the FDR used the Constitution as toilet paper and went so far beyond his Constitutional powers as president and push Congress to exceed its Constitutional powers as the Congress, should hardly be held against Hoover.

Look at the jurisprudential history of the Roosevelt administration from 1933 to 1940. The Supreme Court, while it was still acting as a guardian of the Constitution held act after act of the Roosevelt administration unconstitutional, because it was and is.

The only way Roosevelt changed this was by first unethically announcing his plan to "pack the court" to change how the court vote. Why was this unethical? Because, as President, he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. As President, this plan was to push his agenda which was explicitly contrary to the limits on the Federal Government in the Constitution.

Second, FDR acted unethically in running for a third and then a fourth term in office. He flouted American tradition and acted as dictator for life. As he was in essence. You can flower it up if you like, but he acted no different than Hugo Chavez. This was strictly against the American vision of the Presidency. If anyone was going to do this it should have been Washington, not Roosevelt. Face it, FDR was a petty dictator obsessed with his own elitism. He was going to solve all the problems of the stupid little peons that inhabit America.

This wretch is what you lefties hold up as some kind of an icon? Great. Just Great.

 

[Iriemon]

- Forcing businesses to keep wages high, as I already mentioned.
- 13% of the total budget of 1929 went to public works spending.
- Agricultural Marketing Act (1929)
- Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930)
- Reconstruction Finance Corporation (1931/1932)
- Revenue Act (1932)

Agricultural Marketing Act was passed in early 1929 before the stock market crash, and therefore was not a response to the depression. The Act "created the Federal Farm Board from the Federal Farm Loan Board, with a stabilization fund of $500 million."
Chapter 4: Crisis and Activism: 1929-1940

Smoot Hawley was a Tariff, not a spending/stimulus program. FDR's New Deal was not characterized by enacting trade barriers, nor is Obama's.

The RFC, addressed in my previous post, was created in 1932 to address the GD, which was already in its third year by then. It was too late to be considered a cause of the GD.
It was a step in the right direction, but flawed in implementation, and too little too late.

Charles G. Dawes, a former vice president and ambassador to the Court of St. James, was named the first president of the RFC. In time, about $2 billion was loaned to the targeted organizations and, as hoped, bankruptcies in many areas were slowed. Congress seized on the encouraging news and pressed to extend RFC loans to other sectors of the economy. Hoover, however, resisted a broad-based expansion of the program, but did allow some loans to state agencies that sponsored employment-generating construction projects.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation

The RFC was bogged down in bureaucracy and failed to disburse much of its funds. It failed to reverse the growth of mass unemployment before 1933. Butkiewicz (1995) shows that the RFC initially succeeded in reducing bank failures, but the publication of the names of the recipients of loans beginning in August 1932 (at the demand of Congress) significantly reduced the effectiveness of its loans to banks because it appeared that political considerations had motivated certain loans.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FDR expanded the RFC and it was a component of the successful New Deal programs that turned the economy around in 1933.

The tax increase passed in mid 1932 came after the worst of the depression had passed because the Govt was running out of money . It was too late to be a cause of the depression, but didn't prevent the strong economic growth which ensued starting in 1934.

 

[Iriemon]

The PEOPLE are better off not being burdened by a 15 year depression caused by foolish government policies.

The PEOPLE are a lot better off not being subjected to a 25% real decline in GDP because the Govt sat on its hands while the banking system collapsed.

This assertion is popular in leftie circles but is factually incorrect. The fact is that FDR continued most of Hoover's policies and expanded them. The idea the Hoover "did nothing" is incorrect. He did more than he was allowed to do under the Constitution. The fact the FDR used the Constitution as toilet paper and went so far beyond his Constitutional powers as president and push Congress to exceed its Constitutional powers as the Congress, should hardly be held against Hoover.

Look at the jurisprudential history of the Roosevelt administration from 1933 to 1940. The Supreme Court, while it was still acting as a guardian of the Constitution held act after act of the Roosevelt administration unconstitutional, because it was and is.

The only way Roosevelt changed this was by first unethically announcing his plan to "pack the court" to change how the court vote. Why was this unethical? Because, as President, he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. As President, this plan was to push his agenda which was explicitly contrary to the limits on the Federal Government in the Constitution.

Second, FDR acted unethically in running for a third and then a fourth term in office. He flouted American tradition and acted as dictator for life. As he was in essence. You can flower it up if you like, but he acted no different than Hugo Chavez. This was strictly against the American vision of the Presidency. If anyone was going to do this it should have been Washington, not Roosevelt. Face it, FDR was a petty dictator obsessed with his own elitism. He was going to solve all the problems of the stupid little peons that inhabit America.

This wretch is what you lefties hold up as some kind of an icon? Great. Just Great.

The current revisionist history play by the righties. Hoover was not the "do nothing" president, FDR was.

The New Deal encompassed far far more than continuing the one or two meager programs Hoover had passed (see above). Let me know if you would like to see a list.

And the results speak for themselves:

Year - Real GDP $2000 - % chng
1929 865.2
1930 790.7 -8.6%
1931 739.9 -6.4%
1932 643.7 -13.0%
1933 635.5 -1.3% <- FDR elected implements New Deal
1934 704.2 10.8%
1935 766.9 8.9%
1936 866.6 13.0%
1937 911.1 5.1%
1938 879.7 -3.4%
1939 950.7 8.1%
1940 1,034.1 8.8%

 

[Red Dawn]

The PEOPLE are a lot better off not being subjected to a 25% real decline in GDP because the Govt sat on its hands while the banking system collapsed.

This assertion is popular in leftie circles but is factually incorrect. The fact is that FDR continued most of Hoover's policies and expanded them. The idea the Hoover "did nothing" is incorrect. He did more than he was allowed to do under the Constitution. The fact the FDR used the Constitution as toilet paper and went so far beyond his Constitutional powers as president and push Congress to exceed its Constitutional powers as the Congress, should hardly be held against Hoover.

Look at the jurisprudential history of the Roosevelt administration from 1933 to 1940. The Supreme Court, while it was still acting as a guardian of the Constitution held act after act of the Roosevelt administration unconstitutional, because it was and is.

The only way Roosevelt changed this was by first unethically announcing his plan to "pack the court" to change how the court vote. Why was this unethical? Because, as President, he took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. As President, this plan was to push his agenda which was explicitly contrary to the limits on the Federal Government in the Constitution.

Second, FDR acted unethically in running for a third and then a fourth term in office. He flouted American tradition and acted as dictator for life. As he was in essence. You can flower it up if you like, but he acted no different than Hugo Chavez. This was strictly against the American vision of the Presidency. If anyone was going to do this it should have been Washington, not Roosevelt. Face it, FDR was a petty dictator obsessed with his own elitism. He was going to solve all the problems of the stupid little peons that inhabit America.

This wretch is what you lefties hold up as some kind of an icon? Great. Just Great.

The current revisionist history play by the righties. Hoover was not the "do nothing" president, FDR was.

The New Deal encompassed far far more than continuing the one or two meager programs Hoover had passed (see above). Let me know if you would like to see a list.

And the results speak for themselves:

Year - Real GDP $2000 - % chng
1929 865.2
1930 790.7 -8.6%
1931 739.9 -6.4%
1932 643.7 -13.0%
1933 635.5 -1.3% <- FDR elected implements New Deal
1934 704.2 10.8%
1935 766.9 8.9%
1936 866.6 13.0%
1937 911.1 5.1%
1938 879.7 -3.4%
1939 950.7 8.1%
1940 1,034.1 8.8%

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

- Forcing businesses to keep wages high, as I already mentioned.
- 13% of the total budget of 1929 went to public works spending.
- Agricultural Marketing Act (1929)
- Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930)
- Reconstruction Finance Corporation (1931/1932)
- Revenue Act (1932)

Agricultural Marketing Act was passed in early 1929 before the stock market crash, and therefore was not a response to the depression. The Act "created the Federal Farm Board from the Federal Farm Loan Board, with a stabilization fund of $500 million."
Chapter 4: Crisis and Activism: 1929-1940

Smoot Hawley was a Tariff, not a spending/stimulus program. FDR's New Deal was not characterized by enacting trade barriers, nor is Obama's.

The RFC, addressed in my previous post, was created in 1932 to address the GD, which was already in its third year by then. It was too late to be considered a cause of the GD.
It was a step in the right direction, but flawed in implementation, and too little too late.

Charles G. Dawes, a former vice president and ambassador to the Court of St. James, was named the first president of the RFC. In time, about $2 billion was loaned to the targeted organizations and, as hoped, bankruptcies in many areas were slowed. Congress seized on the encouraging news and pressed to extend RFC loans to other sectors of the economy. Hoover, however, resisted a broad-based expansion of the program, but did allow some loans to state agencies that sponsored employment-generating construction projects.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation

The RFC was bogged down in bureaucracy and failed to disburse much of its funds. It failed to reverse the growth of mass unemployment before 1933. Butkiewicz (1995) shows that the RFC initially succeeded in reducing bank failures, but the publication of the names of the recipients of loans beginning in August 1932 (at the demand of Congress) significantly reduced the effectiveness of its loans to banks because it appeared that political considerations had motivated certain loans.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FDR expanded the RFC and it was a component of the successful New Deal programs that turned the economy around in 1933.

The tax increase passed in mid 1932 came after the worst of the depression had passed because the Govt was running out of money . It was too late to be a cause of the depression, but didn't prevent the strong economic growth which ensued starting in 1934.

You asked me to show what interventionist programs Hoover passed, and all those programs I posted show that Hoover was indeed not a laissez-faire "do-nothing" President. Also, many of those programs were encapsulated in FDR's New Deal, as FDR's own economic advisor, Rexford Tugwell, stated.

 

[Iriemon]

- Forcing businesses to keep wages high, as I already mentioned.
- 13% of the total budget of 1929 went to public works spending.
- Agricultural Marketing Act (1929)
- Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930)
- Reconstruction Finance Corporation (1931/1932)
- Revenue Act (1932)

Agricultural Marketing Act was passed in early 1929 before the stock market crash, and therefore was not a response to the depression. The Act "created the Federal Farm Board from the Federal Farm Loan Board, with a stabilization fund of $500 million."
Chapter 4: Crisis and Activism: 1929-1940

Smoot Hawley was a Tariff, not a spending/stimulus program. FDR's New Deal was not characterized by enacting trade barriers, nor is Obama's.

The RFC, addressed in my previous post, was created in 1932 to address the GD, which was already in its third year by then. It was too late to be considered a cause of the GD.
It was a step in the right direction, but flawed in implementation, and too little too late.

Charles G. Dawes, a former vice president and ambassador to the Court of St. James, was named the first president of the RFC. In time, about $2 billion was loaned to the targeted organizations and, as hoped, bankruptcies in many areas were slowed. Congress seized on the encouraging news and pressed to extend RFC loans to other sectors of the economy. Hoover, however, resisted a broad-based expansion of the program, but did allow some loans to state agencies that sponsored employment-generating construction projects.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation

The RFC was bogged down in bureaucracy and failed to disburse much of its funds. It failed to reverse the growth of mass unemployment before 1933. Butkiewicz (1995) shows that the RFC initially succeeded in reducing bank failures, but the publication of the names of the recipients of loans beginning in August 1932 (at the demand of Congress) significantly reduced the effectiveness of its loans to banks because it appeared that political considerations had motivated certain loans.

Reconstruction Finance Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FDR expanded the RFC and it was a component of the successful New Deal programs that turned the economy around in 1933.

The tax increase passed in mid 1932 came after the worst of the depression had passed because the Govt was running out of money . It was too late to be a cause of the depression, but didn't prevent the strong economic growth which ensued starting in 1934.

You asked me to show what interventionist programs Hoover passed, and all those programs I posted show that Hoover was indeed not a laissez-faire "do-nothing" President. Also, many of those programs were encapsulated in FDR's New Deal, as FDR's own economic advisor, Rexford Tugwell, stated.

Do you have a cite to Tugwell's full statement?