name one program the FDR administration implemented and I will tell you why it failed

[Sheldon]

Another one of these objective Liberty threads?

You post your program and why it was successful and he replies FAIL Case Closed

Watch

Social Security

yeah... it sucks that 50% of old people aren't living in poverty anymore.

Very necessary program, as is medicare and medicaid, however, social security is failing. It has never been self-sustaining and is going bankrupt. Something has to be done. I sure as hell want social security alive when I get older. Hell I want it when my kids get older!

What's funny in a non-funny way is that SS was initially set up so you couldn't draw from it until you had passed life expectancy. Today that would make the retirement age something like 80 years old I think? It was self-sustaining back then. Of course back then the working-retired population ratio was something like 20:1. Now it's at around 4:1?

 

[Sallow]

The GI Bill.

Infrastructure-
Roads.
Sewer systems.
Electrical Systems.
Municipal power plants.

FDIC

The Creation of the Middle class.

You guess age and weight too?

 

[Liberty]

WPA:

As the Great Depression worsened, unemployment skyrocketed, and many began to ask, "How will the jobless get enough food to eat? What should be done about relief?"

Well, traditionally it is charity that helped those in need. The Founders all saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution didn't give the federal government a role in charity. Madison said, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." Madison also asked, "What are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the cause which they determine?"

The Red Cross and Salvation Army were set up in the 1800s to help people in hard times. Congress was tempted several times to play politics with charity. In 1887 a few counties in Texas lost crops due to a drought. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds to the farmers. After it passed, Grover Cleveland vetoed it, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution...[such aid would]...destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation. Federal aid, in such cases encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." Cleveland concluded, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

(Deleted like two paragraphs)

I have a lot of other examples but thats the gist, the WPA was just a leap into the arms of paternalism and furthered the decay of self responsibility. Sure, times are hard, but the Government has no business taking care of you. If it did, there would be an amendment.
Thus, the WPA may have helped people, but in the long run it hurt the "sturdiness of our national character" exactly how Cleveland said it would. The ends don't justify the means in this case.

 

[Liberty]

The GI Bill.

Infrastructure-
Roads.
Sewer systems.
Electrical Systems.
Municipal power plants.

FDIC

The Creation of the Middle class.

You guess age and weight too?

so, what program or policy are you referring to? NRA?
FDIC just put banks under the control of government and we all saw how that turned out...AIG/Freddie/Fannie,
although at the time it was appropriate I suppose. A ticking time bomb if anything.

 

[Liberty]

SS is easy. Life expectancy shot through the roof and SS never compensated for it. When SS was created the government was hoping you would die before you collect, and thus it would keep your money. I dont even have to mention constitutionality to show how SS is a failure.
I have a three point solution to the SS problem though.
1. If you are on it, you stay on it.
2. If you aren't on it, you get your money back if you want to.
3. If you aren't paying into it yet, you can opt out.

Easy.

Im out for a few hours, I'll check back tonight.

 

[del]

 

[Toro]

Going off the gold standard.

FDIC - Milton Friedman said it was a main reason why the Depression ended.

 

[whitehall]

FDR's legacy is living proof that liberals in the media write the history books and they don't give a damn about the truth. FDR was elected in 1932 with the promise of ending the recession. Under his leadership in his first two terms the recession turned into starving bodies on the side of the road depression. The fool didn't have the courtesy to step down after his two terms like a gentleman. He ran for a third term and a fourth while he was dying. FDR goaded the Japanese into an attack but he failed to guard the Fleet in Pearl Harbor or the Army in the Philippines which was captured barely four months into the War. Rumors circulated that FDR had suffered a stroke or a series of strokes just before or during the few months of his 4th term but his medical records disappeared from a locked vault after his death and nobody in the fawning slobbering left wing media even asked about the disappearance. The left wing environmentalists should hold his legacy in contempt for damming up the mighty Colorado river and altering the environment forever not to mention displacing sobbing families who had roots in the TVA for a hundred years. Progress was fine as long as there was a communist or two or ten or twenty or a hundred in the administration.

 

[rightwinger]

WPA:

As the Great Depression worsened, unemployment skyrocketed, and many began to ask, "How will the jobless get enough food to eat? What should be done about relief?"

Well, traditionally it is charity that helped those in need. The Founders all saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution didn't give the federal government a role in charity. Madison said, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." Madison also asked, "What are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the cause which they determine?"

The Red Cross and Salvation Army were set up in the 1800s to help people in hard times. Congress was tempted several times to play politics with charity. In 1887 a few counties in Texas lost crops due to a drought. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds to the farmers. After it passed, Grover Cleveland vetoed it, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution...[such aid would]...destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation. Federal aid, in such cases encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." Cleveland concluded, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

(Deleted like two paragraphs)

I have a lot of other examples but thats the gist, the WPA was just a leap into the arms of paternalism and furthered the decay of self responsibility. Sure, times are hard, but the Government has no business taking care of you. If it did, there would be an amendment.
Thus, the WPA may have helped people, but in the long run it hurt the "sturdiness of our national character" exactly how Cleveland said it would. The ends don't justify the means in this case.

Is that the crux of your argument? I expected better, so will your professor

Government does not have to assist it's less fortunate because charity will?
How does one develop more character in taking money from a private charity rather than the government?

Still trying to claim it's unconstitutional after 70 years of challenges?

Lame....just lame

 

[konradv]

What about the CCC? Men able to feed their families by building things we still use today!

 

[Liberty]

WPA:

As the Great Depression worsened, unemployment skyrocketed, and many began to ask, "How will the jobless get enough food to eat? What should be done about relief?"

Well, traditionally it is charity that helped those in need. The Founders all saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution didn't give the federal government a role in charity. Madison said, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." Madison also asked, "What are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the cause which they determine?"

The Red Cross and Salvation Army were set up in the 1800s to help people in hard times. Congress was tempted several times to play politics with charity. In 1887 a few counties in Texas lost crops due to a drought. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds to the farmers. After it passed, Grover Cleveland vetoed it, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution...[such aid would]...destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation. Federal aid, in such cases encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." Cleveland concluded, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

(Deleted like two paragraphs)

I have a lot of other examples but thats the gist, the WPA was just a leap into the arms of paternalism and furthered the decay of self responsibility. Sure, times are hard, but the Government has no business taking care of you. If it did, there would be an amendment.
Thus, the WPA may have helped people, but in the long run it hurt the "sturdiness of our national character" exactly how Cleveland said it would. The ends don't justify the means in this case.

Is that the crux of your argument? I expected better, so will your professor

Government does not have to assist it's less fortunate because charity will?
How does one develop more character in taking money from a private charity rather than the government?

Still trying to claim it's unconstitutional after 70 years of challenges?

Lame....just lame

Like I said I have a plethora of sources to back this up of many fields and many angles, it can not really be refuted.

 

[del]

WPA:

As the Great Depression worsened, unemployment skyrocketed, and many began to ask, "How will the jobless get enough food to eat? What should be done about relief?"

Well, traditionally it is charity that helped those in need. The Founders all saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution didn't give the federal government a role in charity. Madison said, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." Madison also asked, "What are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the cause which they determine?"

The Red Cross and Salvation Army were set up in the 1800s to help people in hard times. Congress was tempted several times to play politics with charity. In 1887 a few counties in Texas lost crops due to a drought. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds to the farmers. After it passed, Grover Cleveland vetoed it, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution...[such aid would]...destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation. Federal aid, in such cases encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." Cleveland concluded, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

(Deleted like two paragraphs)

I have a lot of other examples but thats the gist, the WPA was just a leap into the arms of paternalism and furthered the decay of self responsibility. Sure, times are hard, but the Government has no business taking care of you. If it did, there would be an amendment.
Thus, the WPA may have helped people, but in the long run it hurt the "sturdiness of our national character" exactly how Cleveland said it would. The ends don't justify the means in this case.

Is that the crux of your argument? I expected better, so will your professor

Government does not have to assist it's less fortunate because charity will?
How does one develop more character in taking money from a private charity rather than the government?

Still trying to claim it's unconstitutional after 70 years of challenges?

Lame....just lame

Like I said I have a plethora of sources to back this up of many fields and many angles, it can not really be refuted.

true, you can't fix stupid.

 

[GHook93]

yeah... it sucks that 50% of old people aren't living in poverty anymore.

Very necessary program, as is medicare and medicaid, however, social security is failing. It has never been self-sustaining and is going bankrupt. Something has to be done. I sure as hell want social security alive when I get older. Hell I want it when my kids get older!

What's funny in a non-funny way is that SS was initially set up so you couldn't draw from it until you had passed life expectancy. Today that would make the retirement age something like 80 years old I think? It was self-sustaining back then. Of course back then the working-retired population ratio was something like 20:1. Now it's at around 4:1?

The problem is that we become most "expensive" to keep around when we get older. Medical care, nursing care alone would bankrupt most.

Something has to give. However, for one say that social security wasn't a great FDR adm program is probably a young conservative not close to retirement or a rich talking head on the radio,

Something needs to be done. Americans are living longer and costing more. Social Security needs to account for that. I mean when I am at 65 I will of course have a different view point. Why not let that money be invested like 401(k) and defined pension plans are? That would help at least hedge inflation! But raising retirement age is a must!


However, I can't see one good arguement that social security isn't necessary!

 

[rightwinger]

WPA:

As the Great Depression worsened, unemployment skyrocketed, and many began to ask, "How will the jobless get enough food to eat? What should be done about relief?"

Well, traditionally it is charity that helped those in need. The Founders all saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution didn't give the federal government a role in charity. Madison said, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." Madison also asked, "What are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the cause which they determine?"

The Red Cross and Salvation Army were set up in the 1800s to help people in hard times. Congress was tempted several times to play politics with charity. In 1887 a few counties in Texas lost crops due to a drought. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds to the farmers. After it passed, Grover Cleveland vetoed it, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution...[such aid would]...destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation. Federal aid, in such cases encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." Cleveland concluded, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

(Deleted like two paragraphs)

I have a lot of other examples but thats the gist, the WPA was just a leap into the arms of paternalism and furthered the decay of self responsibility. Sure, times are hard, but the Government has no business taking care of you. If it did, there would be an amendment.
Thus, the WPA may have helped people, but in the long run it hurt the "sturdiness of our national character" exactly how Cleveland said it would. The ends don't justify the means in this case.

Is that the crux of your argument? I expected better, so will your professor

Government does not have to assist it's less fortunate because charity will?
How does one develop more character in taking money from a private charity rather than the government?

Still trying to claim it's unconstitutional after 70 years of challenges?

Lame....just lame

Like I said I have a plethora of sources to back this up of many fields and many angles, it can not really be refuted.

Show me the source that shows that private charities have the resources to provide for the financial needs of all poor Americans.

Show me the court cases where the WPA or any welfare was found to be unconstitutional

You have provided opinions not sources.......your professors will not be happy

 

[MikeK]

Ok I will get to this. standby.
(I am writing a history thesis on the economic failures of the New Deal, so this will be fun.)

You're writing a thesis on failure of the New Deal?

I suggest you develop your skill at flipping burgers because you're going to need it to remain competitive in the event your neo-Conservative mentors are successful at eliminating the middle class.

 

[Sheldon]

Very necessary program, as is medicare and medicaid, however, social security is failing. It has never been self-sustaining and is going bankrupt. Something has to be done. I sure as hell want social security alive when I get older. Hell I want it when my kids get older!

What's funny in a non-funny way is that SS was initially set up so you couldn't draw from it until you had passed life expectancy. Today that would make the retirement age something like 80 years old I think? It was self-sustaining back then. Of course back then the working-retired population ratio was something like 20:1. Now it's at around 4:1?

The problem is that we become most "expensive" to keep around when we get older. Medical care, nursing care alone would bankrupt most.

Something has to give. However, for one say that social security wasn't a great FDR adm program is probably a young conservative not close to retirement or a rich talking head on the radio,

Something needs to be done. Americans are living longer and costing more. Social Security needs to account for that. I mean when I am at 65 I will of course have a different view point. Why not let that money be invested like 401(k) and defined pension plans are? That would help at least hedge inflation! But raising retirement age is a must!


However, I can't see one good arguement that social security isn't necessary!

I won't be surprised if there ends up being some kind of means testing for drawing from the funds.

 

[MikeK]

What's funny in a non-funny way is that SS was initially set up so you couldn't draw from it until you had passed life expectancy. Today that would make the retirement age something like 80 years old I think? It was self-sustaining back then. Of course back then the working-retired population ratio was something like 20:1. Now it's at around 4:1?

Sheldon,

I'm not disputing the basic premise of your comment, which is failure of the Congress to adjust the eligibility age for drawing from Social Security and the consequent numerical effect. But the formulas used to derive those comparative ratios typically fail to take into account how many individual contributors to FICA do not live long enough to qualify. So the negative projections are usually off by a considerable number. The simple fact is quite a few American workers die before age 65.

 

[Sheldon]

WPA:

As the Great Depression worsened, unemployment skyrocketed, and many began to ask, "How will the jobless get enough food to eat? What should be done about relief?"

Well, traditionally it is charity that helped those in need. The Founders all saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution didn't give the federal government a role in charity. Madison said, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." Madison also asked, "What are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the cause which they determine?"

The Red Cross and Salvation Army were set up in the 1800s to help people in hard times. Congress was tempted several times to play politics with charity. In 1887 a few counties in Texas lost crops due to a drought. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds to the farmers. After it passed, Grover Cleveland vetoed it, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution...[such aid would]...destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation. Federal aid, in such cases encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." Cleveland concluded, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

(Deleted like two paragraphs)

I have a lot of other examples but thats the gist, the WPA was just a leap into the arms of paternalism and furthered the decay of self responsibility. Sure, times are hard, but the Government has no business taking care of you. If it did, there would be an amendment.
Thus, the WPA may have helped people, but in the long run it hurt the "sturdiness of our national character" exactly how Cleveland said it would. The ends don't justify the means in this case.

The WPA is being equated to charity?

I would like to see the Red Cross et al during the GD come up with $11b in funding for public works projects that puts 8m people to work over a 4 year period. You haven't even demonstrated a casual relationship between the WPA and declining "national character", how ever that's even defined.

 

[Sheldon]

WPA:

As the Great Depression worsened, unemployment skyrocketed, and many began to ask, "How will the jobless get enough food to eat? What should be done about relief?"

Well, traditionally it is charity that helped those in need. The Founders all saw relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution didn't give the federal government a role in charity. Madison said, "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity." Madison also asked, "What are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the cause which they determine?"

The Red Cross and Salvation Army were set up in the 1800s to help people in hard times. Congress was tempted several times to play politics with charity. In 1887 a few counties in Texas lost crops due to a drought. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds to the farmers. After it passed, Grover Cleveland vetoed it, "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution...[such aid would]...destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation. Federal aid, in such cases encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." Cleveland concluded, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

(Deleted like two paragraphs)

I have a lot of other examples but thats the gist, the WPA was just a leap into the arms of paternalism and furthered the decay of self responsibility. Sure, times are hard, but the Government has no business taking care of you. If it did, there would be an amendment.
Thus, the WPA may have helped people, but in the long run it hurt the "sturdiness of our national character" exactly how Cleveland said it would. The ends don't justify the means in this case.

Is that the crux of your argument? I expected better, so will your professor

Government does not have to assist it's less fortunate because charity will?
How does one develop more character in taking money from a private charity rather than the government?

Still trying to claim it's unconstitutional after 70 years of challenges?

Lame....just lame

Like I said I have a plethora of sources to back this up of many fields and many angles, it can not really be refuted.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

I have a lot of other examples but thats the gist, the WPA was just a leap into the arms of paternalism and furthered the decay of self responsibility. Sure, times are hard, but the Government has no business taking care of you.

Dear moron. You aren't going to do well on this paper if you don't actually study the HISTORY of the programs.... Take the TVA for example... Did you know that one of the main reasons FOR the TVA in the first place, was to supply the ALCOA aluminum plant that was making WARPLANES - providing electricity for an impoverished and rural area was just an added bonus. I thought all you righties were chicken-hawks. Sweet Jesus on a cracker. Are you going to one of those dumbed-down xtian schools?

Does it also matter to you the building of the railroads and interstates increased your beloved commerce? Does it matter to you that my parents are still getting their electricity from the TVA, and they pay 40% LESS than I do??? Sounds like a good thing to me.