Roosevelt: Stupidity or Mendacity?

[Camp]

Your 'answer' is a fabrication. He was expansionist from the very first 100 days.

My answer explains all of his economic and political actions.

You have done as I predicted. While you acknowledge that I answered your question, you have labeled it a "fabrication" and again, as predicted, declared victory and informed us that you and only you have the answers.

Noticeably, and as usual, you ignore and fail to answer questions asked of you or challenges to your assertions. So your assertion that FDR used the same methods as Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin and the challenge made to you to prove it just gets ignored and left out of the discussion.

In regard to the question you claim is a fabrication, I suggest you or anyone in doubt of my analysis refer to E.O. 6166, signed by FDR on 10 June 1933 giving Douglas power over waving, and modifying apportionments and appropriations. When he was given even more authority with E.O. 6548 on 3 Jan 1934, there arose great protest from the Secretaries and Administration officials. Douglas had written a 10 page critical letter on 30 Dec. 1933. In it he predicted if FDR's policies and the policies his team had designed were followed there would be "years of intense suffering on the part of millions". Three days after E.O. 6548 the protest led to E.O. 6550 which canceled out 6548 and put restrictions on Douglas's authority. Douglas resigned within the year and was transferred to other positions in the administration of far less authority.

So my fabricated answer was based of factual data that can be retrieved and viewed by anyone. Now how about you answer some of the challenges made to you. Like the claim that FDR used forced labor camps and enslaved millions of citizens just like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin to fight the depression and boost the economy.

"You have done as I predicted. While you acknowledge that I answered your question, you have labeled it a "fabrication" and again, as predicted, declared victory and informed us that you and only you have the answers."


I didn't merely label your babble a fabrication.....I proved that it was.

And I don't mind doing so again:

1. Douglas's time as budget director proved frustrating."
Lewis Williams Douglas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait....Even a quick glance at the economic history of the Roosevelt administration would show no such fiscal conservatism.



2. Now then: did appointing Lewis Douglas mean that Roosevelt would carry out his promises?
Well....to begin with, in March of 1933, he didn't fill his cabinet with persons committed to a balanced budget. A pretty much poke 'in your eye.'

You haven't proven a thing. The conservative FDR put at the table and made a part of his administration was frustrated that his ideas were being rejected. FDR decided to reject all the conservative Democrat and Republican ideas and instead decided to build stuff. It was a great decision. We still are using a lot of that stuff today and will continue to use it for decades into the future.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=pQ3Ekn_QO6o]"Grand Coulee Dam" 1949 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Woody Guthrie - YouTube[/ame]

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have done as I predicted. While you acknowledge that I answered your question, you have labeled it a "fabrication" and again, as predicted, declared victory and informed us that you and only you have the answers.

Noticeably, and as usual, you ignore and fail to answer questions asked of you or challenges to your assertions. So your assertion that FDR used the same methods as Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin and the challenge made to you to prove it just gets ignored and left out of the discussion.

In regard to the question you claim is a fabrication, I suggest you or anyone in doubt of my analysis refer to E.O. 6166, signed by FDR on 10 June 1933 giving Douglas power over waving, and modifying apportionments and appropriations. When he was given even more authority with E.O. 6548 on 3 Jan 1934, there arose great protest from the Secretaries and Administration officials. Douglas had written a 10 page critical letter on 30 Dec. 1933. In it he predicted if FDR's policies and the policies his team had designed were followed there would be "years of intense suffering on the part of millions". Three days after E.O. 6548 the protest led to E.O. 6550 which canceled out 6548 and put restrictions on Douglas's authority. Douglas resigned within the year and was transferred to other positions in the administration of far less authority.

So my fabricated answer was based of factual data that can be retrieved and viewed by anyone. Now how about you answer some of the challenges made to you. Like the claim that FDR used forced labor camps and enslaved millions of citizens just like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin to fight the depression and boost the economy.

"You have done as I predicted. While you acknowledge that I answered your question, you have labeled it a "fabrication" and again, as predicted, declared victory and informed us that you and only you have the answers."


I didn't merely label your babble a fabrication.....I proved that it was.

And I don't mind doing so again:

1. Douglas's time as budget director proved frustrating."
Lewis Williams Douglas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait....Even a quick glance at the economic history of the Roosevelt administration would show no such fiscal conservatism.



2. Now then: did appointing Lewis Douglas mean that Roosevelt would carry out his promises?
Well....to begin with, in March of 1933, he didn't fill his cabinet with persons committed to a balanced budget. A pretty much poke 'in your eye.'

You haven't proven a thing. The conservative FDR put at the table and made a part of his administration was frustrated that his ideas were being rejected. FDR decided to reject all the conservative Democrat and Republican ideas and instead decided to build stuff. It was a great decision. We still are using a lot of that stuff today and will continue to use it for decades into the future.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=pQ3Ekn_QO6o]"Grand Coulee Dam" 1949 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Woody Guthrie - YouTube[/ame]

"...his ideas were being rejected. FDR decided to reject all the conservative Democrat and Republican ideas...."


Why, I never!


I never expected you to begin to incorporate the truth that I provide into your (new) explanations.

Good boy....Keep it up and I may actually allow you to be one of the six carrying my palanquin!


So...you now change your tune and agree that FDR 'rejected' the idea of balancing the budget.






Unfortunately, it was not "...the conservative Democrat and Republican ideas...." that he "rejected..."

Guess whose ideas he "rejected"?

"[Recession] arises from one cause only and that is the unbalanced budget at he continued failure of this administration to take effective steps to balance it! If that budget had been fully and honestly balanced in 1930, some of the 1931 troubles would have been avoided. Even if it had been balanced in 1931, much of the extreme dip in 1932 would have been obviated. Every financial man in the country knows why this is true."
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

His sworn promise.




Notice how he added this appeal to expertise: "Every financial man in the country knows why this is true."





Now, you are back at square one:

"...that FDR knew the correct way the recession should be dealt with....yet he chose to do the opposite, causing and extending a Depression.
Proven.
Why he did so remains to be answered.



I am the only one to answer it.



Warning: You can go blind from my pure awesomeness!

 

[regent]

"You have done as I predicted. While you acknowledge that I answered your question, you have labeled it a "fabrication" and again, as predicted, declared victory and informed us that you and only you have the answers."


I didn't merely label your babble a fabrication.....I proved that it was.

And I don't mind doing so again:

1. Douglas's time as budget director proved frustrating."
Lewis Williams Douglas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait....Even a quick glance at the economic history of the Roosevelt administration would show no such fiscal conservatism.



2. Now then: did appointing Lewis Douglas mean that Roosevelt would carry out his promises?
Well....to begin with, in March of 1933, he didn't fill his cabinet with persons committed to a balanced budget. A pretty much poke 'in your eye.'

You haven't proven a thing. The conservative FDR put at the table and made a part of his administration was frustrated that his ideas were being rejected. FDR decided to reject all the conservative Democrat and Republican ideas and instead decided to build stuff. It was a great decision. We still are using a lot of that stuff today and will continue to use it for decades into the future.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=pQ3Ekn_QO6o]"Grand Coulee Dam" 1949 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Woody Guthrie - YouTube[/ame]

"...his ideas were being rejected. FDR decided to reject all the conservative Democrat and Republican ideas...."


Why, I never!


I never expected you to begin to incorporate the truth that I provide into your (new) explanations.

Good boy....Keep it up and I may actually allow you to be one of the six carrying my palanquin!


So...you now change your tune and agree that FDR 'rejected' the idea of balancing the budget.






Unfortunately, it was not "...the conservative Democrat and Republican ideas...." that he "rejected..."

Guess whose ideas he "rejected"?

"[Recession] arises from one cause only and that is the unbalanced budget at he continued failure of this administration to take effective steps to balance it! If that budget had been fully and honestly balanced in 1930, some of the 1931 troubles would have been avoided. Even if it had been balanced in 1931, much of the extreme dip in 1932 would have been obviated. Every financial man in the country knows why this is true."
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

His sworn promise.




Notice how he added this appeal to expertise: "Every financial man in the country knows why this is true."





Now, you are back at square one:

"...that FDR knew the correct way the recession should be dealt with....yet he chose to do the opposite, causing and extending a Depression.
Proven.
Why he did so remains to be answered.



I am the only one to answer it.



Warning: You can go blind from my pure awesomeness!

If there was a correct way to handle a depression no one really knew what it was. There was no manual, no snappy handbook on how to cure an economy. If there had been a correct way why didn't Hoover use it?
When FDR took office he said he would experiment and he did, and 0so far the only answer we have, is spend money. That answer goes against common sense; in a depression a nation cuts back, balances the budget, lays off government workers and acts like a family that has overspent, but FDR spent and now Republicans say FDR didn't spend enough. It was war-time spending that ended the depression, and Republicans are still trying to figure out why war-time spending worked better than New Deal spending.

 

[Votto]

FDR was also known to barbecue poor orphan babies at Roosevelt family picnics.

Well he was a liberal. If you are going to kill babies then you might as well eat them as well.

 

[Bfgrn]

The US Recession of 1920–1921: Some Austrian Myths

The US recession of 1920–1921 is endlessly cited by Austrians as proof that Keynesian economic policies are not needed to stimulate an economy out of recession or depression. Unfortunately, Austrians are deeply ignorant about the recession of 1920–1921. This recession was atypical, occurred shortly after the WWI, and recent research shows that the GDP contraction was not especially severe.

Libertarians seem unaware that recent economic research has shown that the downturn of 1920–1921 was not as severe as previously thought. The widely accepted definition of a depression is a fall of 10% in output or GDP. In past estimates of the fall in national output, official Commerce Department data suggested that GNP fell 8% between 1919 and 1920 and 7% percent between 1920 and 1921 (Romer 1988: 108).

But Christina Romer has argued that actual decline in real GNP was only about 1% between 1919 and 1920 and 2% between 1920 and 1921 (Romer 1988: 109; Parker 2002: 2). So in fact real output moved very little, and this was not a depression on the scale of 1929–1933 or previous 19th century depressions. Libertarians cannot claim that 1920–1921 was an example of the free market quickly ending a downturn where output collapsed by 10% or more (a real depression). In reality, GNP contraction was relatively small, and the growth path of output was hardly impeded by the recession (Romer 1988: 108–112; Parker 2002: 2).

 

[Bfgrn]

Cambridge Journal of Economics 2012, 36, 155–160
doi:10.1093/cje/ber028

A note on America’s 1920–21 depression as an argument for austerity

Austerity proponents depend on the argument that substantial cuts to federal spending moved the economy to a recovery in 1921, but this understanding fails on multiple counts. The bulk of both fiscal and monetary austerity occurred immediately prior to the onset of the depression. Any austerity in policy decisions by the Wilson administration, the Harding administration or the Federal Reserve Board after the depression began were moderate compared with the considerable austerity measures taken by the Wilson administration and the Federal Reserve before the downturn. The evidence seems to suggest, even more clearly than in the case of the Great Depression, that postwar austerity may have even helped cause the 1920–21 depression. Subsequent monetary easing by the Federal Reserve occurred concurrently with the economic recovery, which itself was underway by the time Warren Harding took the oath of office.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You haven't proven a thing. The conservative FDR put at the table and made a part of his administration was frustrated that his ideas were being rejected. FDR decided to reject all the conservative Democrat and Republican ideas and instead decided to build stuff. It was a great decision. We still are using a lot of that stuff today and will continue to use it for decades into the future.

"Grand Coulee Dam" 1949 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Woody Guthrie - YouTube

"...his ideas were being rejected. FDR decided to reject all the conservative Democrat and Republican ideas...."


Why, I never!


I never expected you to begin to incorporate the truth that I provide into your (new) explanations.

Good boy....Keep it up and I may actually allow you to be one of the six carrying my palanquin!


So...you now change your tune and agree that FDR 'rejected' the idea of balancing the budget.






Unfortunately, it was not "...the conservative Democrat and Republican ideas...." that he "rejected..."

Guess whose ideas he "rejected"?

"[Recession] arises from one cause only and that is the unbalanced budget at he continued failure of this administration to take effective steps to balance it! If that budget had been fully and honestly balanced in 1930, some of the 1931 troubles would have been avoided. Even if it had been balanced in 1931, much of the extreme dip in 1932 would have been obviated. Every financial man in the country knows why this is true."
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

His sworn promise.




Notice how he added this appeal to expertise: "Every financial man in the country knows why this is true."





Now, you are back at square one:

"...that FDR knew the correct way the recession should be dealt with....yet he chose to do the opposite, causing and extending a Depression.
Proven.
Why he did so remains to be answered.



I am the only one to answer it.



Warning: You can go blind from my pure awesomeness!

If there was a correct way to handle a depression no one really knew what it was. There was no manual, no snappy handbook on how to cure an economy. If there had been a correct way why didn't Hoover use it?
When FDR took office he said he would experiment and he did, and 0so far the only answer we have, is spend money. That answer goes against common sense; in a depression a nation cuts back, balances the budget, lays off government workers and acts like a family that has overspent, but FDR spent and now Republicans say FDR didn't spend enough. It was war-time spending that ended the depression, and Republicans are still trying to figure out why war-time spending worked better than New Deal spending.

"If there was a correct way to handle a depression no one really knew what it was."

Now, why would you repeat what you know is untrue?


I've shown that Harding correctly cracked that nut.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The US Recession of 1920–1921: Some Austrian Myths

The US recession of 1920–1921 is endlessly cited by Austrians as proof that Keynesian economic policies are not needed to stimulate an economy out of recession or depression. Unfortunately, Austrians are deeply ignorant about the recession of 1920–1921. This recession was atypical, occurred shortly after the WWI, and recent research shows that the GDP contraction was not especially severe.

Libertarians seem unaware that recent economic research has shown that the downturn of 1920–1921 was not as severe as previously thought. The widely accepted definition of a depression is a fall of 10% in output or GDP. In past estimates of the fall in national output, official Commerce Department data suggested that GNP fell 8% between 1919 and 1920 and 7% percent between 1920 and 1921 (Romer 1988: 108).

But Christina Romer has argued that actual decline in real GNP was only about 1% between 1919 and 1920 and 2% between 1920 and 1921 (Romer 1988: 109; Parker 2002: 2). So in fact real output moved very little, and this was not a depression on the scale of 1929–1933 or previous 19th century depressions. Libertarians cannot claim that 1920–1921 was an example of the free market quickly ending a downturn where output collapsed by 10% or more (a real depression). In reality, GNP contraction was relatively small, and the growth path of output was hardly impeded by the recession (Romer 1988: 108–112; Parker 2002: 2).

Romer has been wrong often....notably on the value of taxation....she argued both sides.

Why do you think she no longer works for the boy-king?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cambridge Journal of Economics 2012, 36, 155–160
doi:10.1093/cje/ber028

A note on America’s 1920–21 depression as an argument for austerity

Austerity proponents depend on the argument that substantial cuts to federal spending moved the economy to a recovery in 1921, but this understanding fails on multiple counts. The bulk of both fiscal and monetary austerity occurred immediately prior to the onset of the depression. Any austerity in policy decisions by the Wilson administration, the Harding administration or the Federal Reserve Board after the depression began were moderate compared with the considerable austerity measures taken by the Wilson administration and the Federal Reserve before the downturn. The evidence seems to suggest, even more clearly than in the case of the Great Depression, that postwar austerity may have even helped cause the 1920–21 depression. Subsequent monetary easing by the Federal Reserve occurred concurrently with the economic recovery, which itself was underway by the time Warren Harding took the oath of office.

You have to be a real dope to look at the fact that Harding ended the same sort of recession that FDR botched badly, and whine 'did not, did not......."




I'm really easy to get along with once you people learn to worship me.

When will it dawn on you that I'm never wrong?




Since you're here, and you've already made a fool of yourself, how about an answer to the burning question:

"...FDR knew the correct way the recession should be dealt with....yet he chose to do the opposite, causing and extending a Depression.
Proven.
Why he did so remains to be answered."



I gave my answer....and, of course, I am correct....how about your nonsense....er, answer?

 

[Political Junky]

FDR won the South by huge margins, of course that was before they went republican following the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Bfgrn]

Cambridge Journal of Economics 2012, 36, 155–160
doi:10.1093/cje/ber028

A note on America’s 1920–21 depression as an argument for austerity

Austerity proponents depend on the argument that substantial cuts to federal spending moved the economy to a recovery in 1921, but this understanding fails on multiple counts. The bulk of both fiscal and monetary austerity occurred immediately prior to the onset of the depression. Any austerity in policy decisions by the Wilson administration, the Harding administration or the Federal Reserve Board after the depression began were moderate compared with the considerable austerity measures taken by the Wilson administration and the Federal Reserve before the downturn. The evidence seems to suggest, even more clearly than in the case of the Great Depression, that postwar austerity may have even helped cause the 1920–21 depression. Subsequent monetary easing by the Federal Reserve occurred concurrently with the economic recovery, which itself was underway by the time Warren Harding took the oath of office.

You have to be a real dope to look at the fact that Harding ended the same sort of recession that FDR botched badly, and whine 'did not, did not......."




I'm really easy to get along with once you people learn to worship me.

When will it dawn on you that I'm never wrong?




Since you're here, and you've already made a fool of yourself, how about an answer to the burning question:

"...FDR knew the correct way the recession should be dealt with....yet he chose to do the opposite, causing and extending a Depression.
Proven.
Why he did so remains to be answered."



I gave my answer....and, of course, I am correct....how about your nonsense....er, answer?

First of all, the economic events of 1920-21 and 1928-29 were caused by totally different circumstances. If you went to a doctor for a cold, would you question if he said that he is a surgeon, so he will have to amputate?

In 1920-21 America was transitioning from a war time to a peace time economy. Factors that economists have pointed to as potentially causing or contributing to the downturn include: troops returning from the war which created a surge in the civilian labor force, a decline in labor union strife, a shock in agricultural commodity prices, tighter monetary policy, expectations of deflation.

And it was a domestic event.

1929 Stock Market Crash was a world-wide event of much bigger proportions.

On October 29, 1929, Black Tuesday hit Wall Street as investors traded some 16 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange in a single day. Billions of dollars were lost, wiping out thousands of investors. In the aftermath of Black Tuesday, America and the rest of the industrialized world spiraled downward into the Great Depression (1929-39), the deepest and longest-lasting economic downturn in the history of the Western industrialized world up to that time.

Second, We now KNOW what NEVER works... what Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon did to bring on the Great Depression...liquidate, and austerity. They listened to the predecessors of the 'Austrian' school. Unless you also believe Medieval blood letting save lives?

Economic Policy Under Hoover

Throughout this decline—which carried real GNP per worker down to a level 40 percent below that which it had attained in 1929, and which saw the unemployment rise to take in more than a quarter of the labor force—the government did not try to prop up aggregate demand. The only expansionary fiscal policy action undertaken was the Veterans’ Bonus, passed over President Hoover’s veto. That aside, the full employment budget surplus did not fall over 1929–33.

The Federal Reserve did not use open market operations to keep the nominal money supply from falling. Instead, its only significant systematic use of open market operations was in the other direction: to raise interest rates and discourage gold outflows after the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in the fall of 1931.

This inaction did not come about because they did not understand the tools of monetary policy. This inaction did not come about because the Federal Reserve was constrained by the necessity of defending the gold standard. The Federal Reserve knew what it was doing: it was letting the private sector handle the Depression in its own fashion. It saw the private sector’s task as the “liquidation” of the American economy. It feared that expansionary monetary policy would impede the necessary private-sector process of readjustment.

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his country’s economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his memoirs about those who had advised inaction during the downslide:

The ‘leave-it-alone liquidationists’ headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon…felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: ‘Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate’.…He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: ‘It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people’.


The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 1929–33. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and “liquidate” the unprofitable portions of the private economy.

In adopting such “liquidationist” policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter.

Third, you keep forgetting that your right wing austerity approach doesn't work. FDR found that out. FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

 

[PoliticalChic]

Cambridge Journal of Economics 2012, 36, 155–160
doi:10.1093/cje/ber028

A note on America’s 1920–21 depression as an argument for austerity

Austerity proponents depend on the argument that substantial cuts to federal spending moved the economy to a recovery in 1921, but this understanding fails on multiple counts. The bulk of both fiscal and monetary austerity occurred immediately prior to the onset of the depression. Any austerity in policy decisions by the Wilson administration, the Harding administration or the Federal Reserve Board after the depression began were moderate compared with the considerable austerity measures taken by the Wilson administration and the Federal Reserve before the downturn. The evidence seems to suggest, even more clearly than in the case of the Great Depression, that postwar austerity may have even helped cause the 1920–21 depression. Subsequent monetary easing by the Federal Reserve occurred concurrently with the economic recovery, which itself was underway by the time Warren Harding took the oath of office.

You have to be a real dope to look at the fact that Harding ended the same sort of recession that FDR botched badly, and whine 'did not, did not......."




I'm really easy to get along with once you people learn to worship me.

When will it dawn on you that I'm never wrong?




Since you're here, and you've already made a fool of yourself, how about an answer to the burning question:

"...FDR knew the correct way the recession should be dealt with....yet he chose to do the opposite, causing and extending a Depression.
Proven.
Why he did so remains to be answered."



I gave my answer....and, of course, I am correct....how about your nonsense....er, answer?

First of all, the economic events of 1920-21 and 1928-29 were caused by totally different circumstances. If you went to a doctor for a cold, would you question if he said that he is a surgeon, so he will have to amputate?

In 1920-21 America was transitioning from a war time to a peace time economy. Factors that economists have pointed to as potentially causing or contributing to the downturn include: troops returning from the war which created a surge in the civilian labor force, a decline in labor union strife, a shock in agricultural commodity prices, tighter monetary policy, expectations of deflation.

And it was a domestic event.

1929 Stock Market Crash was a world-wide event of much bigger proportions.

On October 29, 1929, Black Tuesday hit Wall Street as investors traded some 16 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange in a single day. Billions of dollars were lost, wiping out thousands of investors. In the aftermath of Black Tuesday, America and the rest of the industrialized world spiraled downward into the Great Depression (1929-39), the deepest and longest-lasting economic downturn in the history of the Western industrialized world up to that time.

Second, We now KNOW what NEVER works... what Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon did to bring on the Great Depression...liquidate, and austerity. They listened to the predecessors of the 'Austrian' school. Unless you also believe Medieval blood letting save lives?

Economic Policy Under Hoover

Throughout this decline—which carried real GNP per worker down to a level 40 percent below that which it had attained in 1929, and which saw the unemployment rise to take in more than a quarter of the labor force—the government did not try to prop up aggregate demand. The only expansionary fiscal policy action undertaken was the Veterans’ Bonus, passed over President Hoover’s veto. That aside, the full employment budget surplus did not fall over 1929–33.

The Federal Reserve did not use open market operations to keep the nominal money supply from falling. Instead, its only significant systematic use of open market operations was in the other direction: to raise interest rates and discourage gold outflows after the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in the fall of 1931.

This inaction did not come about because they did not understand the tools of monetary policy. This inaction did not come about because the Federal Reserve was constrained by the necessity of defending the gold standard. The Federal Reserve knew what it was doing: it was letting the private sector handle the Depression in its own fashion. It saw the private sector’s task as the “liquidation” of the American economy. It feared that expansionary monetary policy would impede the necessary private-sector process of readjustment.

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his country’s economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his memoirs about those who had advised inaction during the downslide:

The ‘leave-it-alone liquidationists’ headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon…felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: ‘Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate’.…He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: ‘It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people’.


The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 1929–33. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and “liquidate” the unprofitable portions of the private economy.

In adopting such “liquidationist” policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter.

Third, you keep forgetting that your right wing austerity approach doesn't work. FDR found that out. FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

1. Let's begin with your admission that the steps Harding took on just as great a recession ....worked.


2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy,"
By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!

Lies meant to convince dolts like you.





3. Now let's show that the provenance of FDR's failures were all based on Liberal lies.




I have said that, in order for the FDR's 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these criteria must be met:

a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."


b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."


c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."

Those quotes are all FDR's





Time to slice and dice the Liberal propaganda.

d. In 1921, the top 5% earned 25.47% of the nation's income...in 1929, the top 5%'s share skyrocketed all the way up to ......26.09%!!!!

e. Corporate profits? They averaged 8.2% from 1900 to 1920. But what about from 1920 to 1929??? They remained at 8.2%.
For those in Rio Linda, that means that there was no upsurge in said profits during the decade.


f. But what about employee wages during the decade of the '20s?? They rose...from 55% to 60% of corporate income.

g. Wait...what about the percentage of GNP that went to consumption? Bet it fell, huh? Wrong.
It rose from 68% in 1920 to 75% in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
"Coolidge and the Historians," by Thomas B. Silver, p.124-136, and Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal," p.34-35



You've been raised like a mushroom....kept in the dark and fed you-know-what.




OK....last chance to answer the question I posed.

 

[Bfgrn]

You have to be a real dope to look at the fact that Harding ended the same sort of recession that FDR botched badly, and whine 'did not, did not......."




I'm really easy to get along with once you people learn to worship me.

When will it dawn on you that I'm never wrong?




Since you're here, and you've already made a fool of yourself, how about an answer to the burning question:

"...FDR knew the correct way the recession should be dealt with....yet he chose to do the opposite, causing and extending a Depression.
Proven.
Why he did so remains to be answered."



I gave my answer....and, of course, I am correct....how about your nonsense....er, answer?

First of all, the economic events of 1920-21 and 1928-29 were caused by totally different circumstances. If you went to a doctor for a cold, would you question if he said that he is a surgeon, so he will have to amputate?

In 1920-21 America was transitioning from a war time to a peace time economy. Factors that economists have pointed to as potentially causing or contributing to the downturn include: troops returning from the war which created a surge in the civilian labor force, a decline in labor union strife, a shock in agricultural commodity prices, tighter monetary policy, expectations of deflation.

And it was a domestic event.

1929 Stock Market Crash was a world-wide event of much bigger proportions.

On October 29, 1929, Black Tuesday hit Wall Street as investors traded some 16 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange in a single day. Billions of dollars were lost, wiping out thousands of investors. In the aftermath of Black Tuesday, America and the rest of the industrialized world spiraled downward into the Great Depression (1929-39), the deepest and longest-lasting economic downturn in the history of the Western industrialized world up to that time.

Second, We now KNOW what NEVER works... what Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon did to bring on the Great Depression...liquidate, and austerity. They listened to the predecessors of the 'Austrian' school. Unless you also believe Medieval blood letting save lives?

Economic Policy Under Hoover

Throughout this decline—which carried real GNP per worker down to a level 40 percent below that which it had attained in 1929, and which saw the unemployment rise to take in more than a quarter of the labor force—the government did not try to prop up aggregate demand. The only expansionary fiscal policy action undertaken was the Veterans’ Bonus, passed over President Hoover’s veto. That aside, the full employment budget surplus did not fall over 1929–33.

The Federal Reserve did not use open market operations to keep the nominal money supply from falling. Instead, its only significant systematic use of open market operations was in the other direction: to raise interest rates and discourage gold outflows after the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in the fall of 1931.

This inaction did not come about because they did not understand the tools of monetary policy. This inaction did not come about because the Federal Reserve was constrained by the necessity of defending the gold standard. The Federal Reserve knew what it was doing: it was letting the private sector handle the Depression in its own fashion. It saw the private sector’s task as the “liquidation” of the American economy. It feared that expansionary monetary policy would impede the necessary private-sector process of readjustment.

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his country’s economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his memoirs about those who had advised inaction during the downslide:

The ‘leave-it-alone liquidationists’ headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon…felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: ‘Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate’.…He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: ‘It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people’.


The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 1929–33. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and “liquidate” the unprofitable portions of the private economy.

In adopting such “liquidationist” policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter.

Third, you keep forgetting that your right wing austerity approach doesn't work. FDR found that out. FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

1. Let's begin with your admission that the steps Harding took on just as great a recession ....worked.


2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy,"
By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!

Lies meant to convince dolts like you.





3. Now let's show that the provenance of FDR's failures were all based on Liberal lies.




I have said that, in order for the FDR's 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these criteria must be met:

a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."


b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."


c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."

Those quotes are all FDR's





Time to slice and dice the Liberal propaganda.

d. In 1921, the top 5% earned 25.47% of the nation's income...in 1929, the top 5%'s share skyrocketed all the way up to ......26.09%!!!!

e. Corporate profits? They averaged 8.2% from 1900 to 1920. But what about from 1920 to 1929??? They remained at 8.2%.
For those in Rio Linda, that means that there was no upsurge in said profits during the decade.


f. But what about employee wages during the decade of the '20s?? They rose...from 55% to 60% of corporate income.

g. Wait...what about the percentage of GNP that went to consumption? Bet it fell, huh? Wrong.
It rose from 68% in 1920 to 75% in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
"Coolidge and the Historians," by Thomas B. Silver, p.124-136, and Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal," p.34-35



You've been raised like a mushroom....kept in the dark and fed you-know-what.




OK....last chance to answer the question I posed.

The only remaining question is, did you get to choose which limb to amputate or did you say "surprise me"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

First of all, the economic events of 1920-21 and 1928-29 were caused by totally different circumstances. If you went to a doctor for a cold, would you question if he said that he is a surgeon, so he will have to amputate?

In 1920-21 America was transitioning from a war time to a peace time economy. Factors that economists have pointed to as potentially causing or contributing to the downturn include: troops returning from the war which created a surge in the civilian labor force, a decline in labor union strife, a shock in agricultural commodity prices, tighter monetary policy, expectations of deflation.

And it was a domestic event.

1929 Stock Market Crash was a world-wide event of much bigger proportions.

On October 29, 1929, Black Tuesday hit Wall Street as investors traded some 16 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange in a single day. Billions of dollars were lost, wiping out thousands of investors. In the aftermath of Black Tuesday, America and the rest of the industrialized world spiraled downward into the Great Depression (1929-39), the deepest and longest-lasting economic downturn in the history of the Western industrialized world up to that time.

Second, We now KNOW what NEVER works... what Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon did to bring on the Great Depression...liquidate, and austerity. They listened to the predecessors of the 'Austrian' school. Unless you also believe Medieval blood letting save lives?

Economic Policy Under Hoover

Throughout this decline—which carried real GNP per worker down to a level 40 percent below that which it had attained in 1929, and which saw the unemployment rise to take in more than a quarter of the labor force—the government did not try to prop up aggregate demand. The only expansionary fiscal policy action undertaken was the Veterans’ Bonus, passed over President Hoover’s veto. That aside, the full employment budget surplus did not fall over 1929–33.

The Federal Reserve did not use open market operations to keep the nominal money supply from falling. Instead, its only significant systematic use of open market operations was in the other direction: to raise interest rates and discourage gold outflows after the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in the fall of 1931.

This inaction did not come about because they did not understand the tools of monetary policy. This inaction did not come about because the Federal Reserve was constrained by the necessity of defending the gold standard. The Federal Reserve knew what it was doing: it was letting the private sector handle the Depression in its own fashion. It saw the private sector’s task as the “liquidation” of the American economy. It feared that expansionary monetary policy would impede the necessary private-sector process of readjustment.

Contemplating in retrospect the wreck of his country’s economy and his own presidency, Herbert Hoover wrote bitterly in his memoirs about those who had advised inaction during the downslide:

The ‘leave-it-alone liquidationists’ headed by Secretary of the Treasury Mellon…felt that government must keep its hands off and let the slump liquidate itself. Mr. Mellon had only one formula: ‘Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate’.…He held that even panic was not altogether a bad thing. He said: ‘It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people’.


The Federal Reserve took almost no steps to halt the slide into the Great Depression over 1929–33. Instead, the Federal Reserve acted as if appropriate policy was not to try to avoid the oncoming Great Depression, but to allow it to run its course and “liquidate” the unprofitable portions of the private economy.

In adopting such “liquidationist” policies, the Federal Reserve was merely following the recommendations provided by an economic theory of depressions that was in fact common before the Keynesian Revolution and was held by economists like Friedrich Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and Joseph Schumpeter.

Third, you keep forgetting that your right wing austerity approach doesn't work. FDR found that out. FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

1. Let's begin with your admission that the steps Harding took on just as great a recession ....worked.


2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy,"
By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!

Lies meant to convince dolts like you.





3. Now let's show that the provenance of FDR's failures were all based on Liberal lies.




I have said that, in order for the FDR's 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these criteria must be met:

a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."


b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."


c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."

Those quotes are all FDR's





Time to slice and dice the Liberal propaganda.

d. In 1921, the top 5% earned 25.47% of the nation's income...in 1929, the top 5%'s share skyrocketed all the way up to ......26.09%!!!!

e. Corporate profits? They averaged 8.2% from 1900 to 1920. But what about from 1920 to 1929??? They remained at 8.2%.
For those in Rio Linda, that means that there was no upsurge in said profits during the decade.


f. But what about employee wages during the decade of the '20s?? They rose...from 55% to 60% of corporate income.

g. Wait...what about the percentage of GNP that went to consumption? Bet it fell, huh? Wrong.
It rose from 68% in 1920 to 75% in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
"Coolidge and the Historians," by Thomas B. Silver, p.124-136, and Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal," p.34-35



You've been raised like a mushroom....kept in the dark and fed you-know-what.




OK....last chance to answer the question I posed.

The only remaining question is, did you get to choose which limb to amputate or did you say "surprise me"?

Time's up.

That was your last opportunity to show any.....any.....cerebral capacity.

But sidestepping the question, you leave no doubt that my thesis is unassailable.

FDR had no desire to solve the suffering.....he used it to his political advantage.

While not to the degree that Stalin used the enforced starvation of the men, women, and children of the Ukraine, in the same manner.



Yet you genuflect to his name.


When the decline and demise of this great nation is written, folks like you will be prominently named as the cause.

 

[Bfgrn]

1. Let's begin with your admission that the steps Harding took on just as great a recession ....worked.


2. According to another Liberal star, Arthur Schlesinger, and to the others, the evil industrialists of the 1920s kept pay low and prices high, so that workers didn't have the money to buy the products they were making.

a. "Managements disposition [in the 1920s] to maintain prices...meant that workers and farmers were denied the benefits of increases in there own productivity. The consequences was the relative decline of mass purchasing power."
Arthur Schlesinger, "The Crisis of the Old Order." Understanding Bushonomics | Center for American Progress


b. " Insofar as one accepts the theory that underconsumption explains the Depression, and I do, then one can say that the Presidents of the 1920's are to blame...."
"The FDR Years: On Roosevelt and His Legacy,"
By William Edward Leuchtenburg, p.210

BTW, Professor Leuchtenburg trained more New Deal historians than any one!

Lies meant to convince dolts like you.





3. Now let's show that the provenance of FDR's failures were all based on Liberal lies.




I have said that, in order for the FDR's 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these criteria must be met:

a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."


b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."


c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."

Those quotes are all FDR's





Time to slice and dice the Liberal propaganda.

d. In 1921, the top 5% earned 25.47% of the nation's income...in 1929, the top 5%'s share skyrocketed all the way up to ......26.09%!!!!

e. Corporate profits? They averaged 8.2% from 1900 to 1920. But what about from 1920 to 1929??? They remained at 8.2%.
For those in Rio Linda, that means that there was no upsurge in said profits during the decade.


f. But what about employee wages during the decade of the '20s?? They rose...from 55% to 60% of corporate income.

g. Wait...what about the percentage of GNP that went to consumption? Bet it fell, huh? Wrong.
It rose from 68% in 1920 to 75% in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
"Coolidge and the Historians," by Thomas B. Silver, p.124-136, and Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal," p.34-35



You've been raised like a mushroom....kept in the dark and fed you-know-what.




OK....last chance to answer the question I posed.

The only remaining question is, did you get to choose which limb to amputate or did you say "surprise me"?

Time's up.

That was your last opportunity to show any.....any.....cerebral capacity.

But sidestepping the question, you leave no doubt that my thesis is unassailable.

FDR had no desire to solve the suffering.....he used it to his political advantage.

While not to the degree that Stalin used the enforced starvation of the men, women, and children of the Ukraine, in the same manner.



Yet you genuflect to his name.


When the decline and demise of this great nation is written, folks like you will be prominently named as the cause.

When the history of America is written, Warren G. Harding will be a pimple on the ass of a fly. FDR will be seen as one of the greatest Presidents in history. A man who helped more people than all the conservatives combined who ever populated this country.

This hyperbole is just another right wing narrative drone...Liberals and Democrats wanted to hurt people or use people for their own selfish gain.

But I understand why it HAS to be the reason. It is because conservatives can only see things through their own set of morals. Which is absent when it comes to human beings.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

 

[Camp]

.

The only remaining question is, did you get to choose which limb to amputate or did you say "surprise me"?

Time's up.

That was your last opportunity to show any.....any.....cerebral capacity.

But sidestepping the question, you leave no doubt that my thesis is unassailable.

FDR had no desire to solve the suffering.....he used it to his political advantage.

While not to the degree that Stalin used the enforced starvation of the men, women, and children of the Ukraine, in the same manner.

You just don't get it. Your questions have been answered over and over, but you can't seem to comprehend the concept of making decisions and taking actions that lesson suffering and put people in front of profits is a viable option. To imply FDR had no desire to solve suffering is beyond ridiculous. His obvious concern for the mass's, the poor, the working man and those who wanted to work is one of the big reasons and cause for his greatness and why he was elected by the people four times.

In regards to the Holodomor, I suspect you have little understanding of it's cause. You seem to believe it was a Ukrainian thing and not have knowledge of it's occurrence in other parts of the USSR at the same time. You have the typical western propaganda concept of it and without the knowledge of what it was actually all about can not make the kind of judgments and comparisons you attempt to make.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The only remaining question is, did you get to choose which limb to amputate or did you say "surprise me"?

Time's up.

That was your last opportunity to show any.....any.....cerebral capacity.

But sidestepping the question, you leave no doubt that my thesis is unassailable.

FDR had no desire to solve the suffering.....he used it to his political advantage.

While not to the degree that Stalin used the enforced starvation of the men, women, and children of the Ukraine, in the same manner.

You just don't get it. Your questions have been answered over and over, but you can't seem to comprehend the concept of making decisions and taking actions that lesson suffering and put people in front of profits is a viable option. To imply FDR had no desire to solve suffering is beyond ridiculous. His obvious concern for the mass's, the poor, the working man and those who wanted to work is one of the big reasons and cause for his greatness and why he was elected by the people four times.

In regards to the Holodomor, I suspect you have little understanding of it's cause. You seem to believe it was a Ukrainian thing and not have knowledge of it's occurrence in other parts of the USSR at the same time. You have the typical western propaganda concept of it and without the knowledge of what it was actually all about can not make the kind of judgments and comparisons you attempt to make.

Oh! So sorry....I meant that the question had to be answered truthfully.

But....I thought that was understood.

So, you'd like to try again.....

...sorry again....your time is up.

 

[Unkotare]

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes.

So, now you're trying to say that FD-scumbag-R was a conservative? You and the guy you are plagiarizing are all kinds of wrong in all kinds of ways.

 

[Bfgrn]

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes.

So, now you're trying to say that FD-scumbag-R was a conservative? You and the guy you are plagiarizing are all kinds of wrong in all kinds of ways.

I understand you right wingers hate everything about liberals and Democrats. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not a 'scumbag'.

What FA Hayek aptly points out is that your right wingers don't hate government. You ONLY hate government when a liberal or Democrat is in power. When a right wing authoritarian like Bush and Cheney is in power, you LOVE government and vehemently defend despots like Bush and Cheney.

It is all because you really, REALLY hate democracy.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

 

[Decus]

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes.

So, now you're trying to say that FD-scumbag-R was a conservative? You and the guy you are plagiarizing are all kinds of wrong in all kinds of ways.

I understand you right wingers hate everything about liberals and Democrats. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not a 'scumbag'.

What FA Hayek aptly points out is that your right wingers don't hate government. You ONLY hate government when a liberal or Democrat is in power. When a right wing authoritarian like Bush and Cheney is in power, you LOVE government and vehemently defend despots like Bush and Cheney.

It is all because you really, REALLY hate democracy.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

You don't seem to understand that classical liberalism was a term used starting in the 18th century to describe a belief in individual rights, small government and a laissez-faire view of economic policy. None of which were apparent during FDR's time in office.

FDR was in fact the first president to understand the power of mass media and his 'fire-side chats' were masterful in portraying FDR as a man of the people. He also very quickly understood that making government the solution to all problems and creating dependency on his benevolence was a fool-proof way of staying in office.

FDR provided the roadmap for the politics we enjoy today. Really sad that anyone would want to thank the man for that.

.