The Real Story About What Ended The Great Depression

[Pogo]

Under FDR's leadership, or lack of it, in an astonishing three terms the downturn in the economy under Hoover became a man killing, soup line, bodies in ditches depression. FDR's policies only made it worse until he managed to get us into a war which we weren't prepared for either.

So why did the American people vote for FDR four times in a row, and why have different sets of the America's best historians rated FDR as one of three best American presidents since 1948. And worse, recently rated FDR as America's best president? Besides the usual "historians are commies," do you have any other explanation that doesn't sound uneducated?

During the 30's the radio media and the print media was in the back pocket of liberal democrats. The media was the propaganda arm of the FDR administration and the poor fools who were struggling with the depression heard only promises of good times by a corrupt administration.

None of your assertions are true. FDR's policies didn't make the depression worse. Even his most stalwart critics don't make that claim, rather they claim it slowed down the recovery, which is only an opinion in and of itself. He didn't get us into WWII, Hitler and Hirohito did that. And the media of the 30's weren't in the pockets of the liberals. There was an abundance of anti FDR media in existence. Basically what you are saying is that what came to be know as the greatest generation began as a bunch of fools.

There simply was no "abundance" of anti-FDR media during the 30's. Every single mainstream print media or radio station was supportive of FDR policies during the 30's or risk losing their FCC license..

Never heard of Charles Coughlin huh? It didn't get more "abundant" than that-- you could literally just walk down the street and hear his voice from other people's radios. You didn't even need your own. At least 30 million listeners. Even Lush Rimjob doesn't claim that big an audience today.

 

[Politico]

OK let's take this step by step....
Stock market crash: Fall of 1929.
Roosevelt elected: Fall of 1932 (inaugurated 1933). By which time the Depression was 3½ years old.

See if you can put these events in order. Take your time.

Um, OK. FDR still have the worst 2 terms in Presidential history. 14% Average unemployment. He had Hitlers conquest of France to thank for US finally dropping below 14%

Yabbut this, yabbut that, excuses excuses. The fact is the unemployment rate was around 25% when he came in so -- good luck selling this canard.

The overall course of the Depression in the United States, as reflected in per-capita GDP (average income per person)
shown in constant year 2000 dollars, plus some of the key events of the period

(Both graphs from here)
​

Some histories are easier to revise than others. Graphs tend to give you kind of an uphill climb.

You may now resume your "yabbut yabbut" excuses in the noble cause of Eliminationist partisanship.

You posted a chart showing that after 2 whole terms UE under FDR was 15%, and you call that success???????

You seem to have a bit of trouble with beginnings.
When you're starting at 25, 15 is nine less. You get that right?
Maybe not.

And the trend reverses dramatically. That's uh, the whole point of graphs.
This was the biggest economic crisis in modern history. They don't go away in a week. It's not like the POTUS can walk up to the Strategic Economy Reserves and open a valve. You get that, right?

Maybe not.

Some people, you hand 'em a million bucks and all they do is complain about the color of the money.... because it's always about "my politics team", never about "my country".

Sorry Revisionistas --- your Ministry of Truth is gonna have a tough row to hoe rewriting this to work the refs. After further review, the play stands as called.

Deal with it.

So all you have to show for 7 whole years of FDR's Jihad on the US economy is a 15% unemployment?

Without WWII, how far into the future would 15% unemployment have been the acceptable norm? 10 years? 20?

It would have been a long time. The only reason it went down to 1.5 is because everyone was either strapping on a gun or making one..

 

[gipper]

FDR was a fool in so many ways, but his handling of the Great Depression was a perfect example.

10 Reasons why FDR was a fool...

1. Why did FDR triple federal taxes during the Great Depression? Federal tax revenues more than tripled, from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and “excess profits” taxes all went up. FDR introduced an undistributed profits tax. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.

2. Why did FDR discourage investors from taking the risks of funding growth and jobs? Frequent tax hikes (1933, 1934, 1935, 1936) created uncertainty that discouraged investment, and FDR further discouraged investors by denouncing them as “economic royalists,” “economic dictators” and “privileged princes,” among other epithets. No surprise that private investment was at historically low levels during the New Deal era.

3. Why did FDR channel government spending away from the poorest people? Little New Deal spending went to the South, the poorest region; most went to political “swing” states in the West and East, where incomes were more than 60% higher. The South was already overwhelmingly on FDR’s side.

4. Why did FDR make it more expensive for employers to hire people? By enforcing above-market wages, introducing excise taxes on payrolls and promoting compulsory unionism, the New Deal increased the costs of employing people about 25% from 1933 to 1940 — a major reason why double-digit private sector unemployment persisted throughout the New Deal era.

5. Why did FDR destroy all that food when millions were hungry? FDR promoted higher food prices by paying farmers to plow under some 10 million acres of crops and slaughter and discard some six million farm animals. The food destruction program mainly benefited big farmers, since they had more food to destroy than small farmers. This policy and subsequent programs to pay farmers for not producing victimized the 100 million Americans who were consumers.

6. Why did FDR make everything more expensive during the Depression? Americans needed bargains, but FDR signed the National Industrial Recovery Act to establish some 700 industrial cartel codes that forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services. Moreover, he banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).

7. Why did FDR break up the strongest banks? FDR broke up the strongest banks, which diversified with both commercial banking and investment banking. FDR’s federal deposit insurance didn’t stop bank failures, but it transferred the cost to taxpayers. About 90% of bank failures occurred because of unit banking laws that prevented small banks from diversifying through branches. Canada, free from branching restrictions, didn’t have a single bank failure during the Depression.

8. What was the point of New Deal securities laws that made it harder for employers to raise capital and didn’t help investors to do better? Employers desperately needed to raise capital, but FDR made this harder. New Deal securities laws led to costly regulations for issuing stocks. These laws impeded the raising of capital. The rate of return from new stock issues failed to improve after the SEC was established.

9. How did the Tennessee Valley Authority become a drag on the economy? FDR taxed 98% of the American people who didn’t live in the Tennessee Valley, then used this revenue for the TVA power-generating monopoly, exempt from federal and state taxes and regulations. But non-TVA Southern states such as North Carolina and Georgia grew faster than TVA states, because there was a faster exodus out of farming and into manufacturing and services, which offered higher incomes.

10. Why did FDR disrupt companies employing millions? In 1938, FDR authorized an unprecedented barrage of antitrust lawsuits against about 150 employers and industries. FDR had big employers tied up in court, discouraging investment for growth and jobs.

It’s ironic political historians give FDR credit for handling the political crisis of the 1930s, even though the most important factor in the crisis was double-digit private sector unemployment prolonged by FDR’s misguided policies.

Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal Cato Institute

 

[Friends]

Hmm... Black Tuesday: October 29, 1929... Roosevelt's first Presidential race: November 8, 1932.

FDR musta had one a them O'bama teleprompter time machines that forced a depression on his predecessor. Three years before the election even happened.

What a guy.

FDR didn't have a Depression during his entire first 2 terms????

OK let's take this step by step....
Stock market crash: Fall of 1929.
Roosevelt elected: Fall of 1932 (inaugurated 1933). By which time the Depression was 3½ years old.

See if you can put these events in order. Take your time.

Um, OK. FDR still have the worst 2 terms in Presidential history. 14% Average unemployment. He had Hitlers conquest of France to thank for US finally dropping below 14%

Yabbut this, yabbut that, excuses excuses. The fact is the unemployment rate was around 25% when he came in so -- good luck selling this canard.

The overall course of the Depression in the United States, as reflected in per-capita GDP (average income per person)
shown in constant year 2000 dollars, plus some of the key events of the period

(Both graphs from here)
​

Some histories are easier to revise than others. Graphs tend to give you kind of an uphill climb.

You may now resume your "yabbut yabbut" excuses in the noble cause of Eliminationist partisanship.

You posted a chart showing that after 2 whole terms UE under FDR was 15%, and you call that success???????

Life for most Americans kept getting better. That is why Roosevelt was reelected a second time.

 

[Friends]

America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.

During my radical youth I liked Roosevelt, but wished that Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party had won the elections Roosevelt and the Democratic Party had won.

After six years of President Obama I realize that good intentions are not good enough. If the government is to have a major role in the economy, as I want it to, the government has to be competently led. I would vote for Obama again against any Republican, but I am tired of making excuses for him.

The United States almost did not get the New Deal. After Roosevelt was elected, but before he was inaugurated, an attempt was made on his life. Roosevelt was not hurt, but a man he was with was killed. Roosevelt's running made was "Cactus" Jack Garner. Ole Cactus was a good ole boy from the courthouse gang in rural Texas. I used to know people like Cactus. They are not evil, but they are corruptible and they are incompetent.

Cactus Jack would have cussed out the rich, and raised their taxes. Then he would have spread the wealth to his cronies. Unemployment would have increased, along with the national debt. The Republicans would have come roaring back. Laissez faire capitalism would have been restored.

 

[gipper]

America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.

During my radical youth I liked Roosevelt, but wished that Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party had won the elections Roosevelt and the Democratic Party had won.

After six years of President Obama I realize that good intentions are not good enough. If the government is to have a major role in the economy, as I want it to, the government has to be competently led. I would vote for Obama again against any Republican, but I am tired of making excuses for him.

The United States almost did not get the New Deal. After Roosevelt was elected, but before he was inaugurated, an attempt was made on his life. Roosevelt was not hurt, but a man he was with was killed. Roosevelt's running made was "Cactus" Jack Garner. Ole Cactus was a good ole boy from the courthouse gang in rural Texas. I used to know people like Cactus. They are not evil, but they are corruptible and they are incompetent.

Cactus Jack would have cussed out the rich, and raised their taxes. Then he would have spread the wealth to his cronies. Unemployment would have increased, along with the national debt. The Republicans would have come roaring back. Laissez faire capitalism would have been restored.

I am willing to bet that Cactus Jack was a lot less corruptible than FDR. That is a good bet, since FDR was the most corruptible POTUS ever, with a possible exception for Big Ears. At least Garner supported a balance budget, opposed much of the stupid and ineffective New Deal programs, and opposed FDR's dictatorial move to pack the Supreme Court.

Imagine had FDR been murdered that day in Chicago. Americans might not have had to endure the Great Depression for ten more years, WWII, and the USSR's rise and enslavement of half of Europe....and five decades of cold war.

Note of interest: JFK called Garner to wish him happy birthday on November 22, 1963, just hours before he was murdered in Dallas.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

FDR didn't have a Depression during his entire first 2 terms????

OK let's take this step by step....
Stock market crash: Fall of 1929.
Roosevelt elected: Fall of 1932 (inaugurated 1933). By which time the Depression was 3½ years old.

See if you can put these events in order. Take your time.

Um, OK. FDR still have the worst 2 terms in Presidential history. 14% Average unemployment. He had Hitlers conquest of France to thank for US finally dropping below 14%

Yabbut this, yabbut that, excuses excuses. The fact is the unemployment rate was around 25% when he came in so -- good luck selling this canard.

The overall course of the Depression in the United States, as reflected in per-capita GDP (average income per person)
shown in constant year 2000 dollars, plus some of the key events of the period

(Both graphs from here)
​

Some histories are easier to revise than others. Graphs tend to give you kind of an uphill climb.

You may now resume your "yabbut yabbut" excuses in the noble cause of Eliminationist partisanship.

You posted a chart showing that after 2 whole terms UE under FDR was 15%, and you call that success???????

Life for most Americans kept getting better. That is why Roosevelt was reelected a second time.

He had the worst economic track record not just in America, but in all of human history. The Bible reference 7 Lean years and FDR topped that!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.

During my radical youth I liked Roosevelt, but wished that Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party had won the elections Roosevelt and the Democratic Party had won.

After six years of President Obama I realize that good intentions are not good enough. If the government is to have a major role in the economy, as I want it to, the government has to be competently led. I would vote for Obama again against any Republican, but I am tired of making excuses for him.

The United States almost did not get the New Deal. After Roosevelt was elected, but before he was inaugurated, an attempt was made on his life. Roosevelt was not hurt, but a man he was with was killed. Roosevelt's running made was "Cactus" Jack Garner. Ole Cactus was a good ole boy from the courthouse gang in rural Texas. I used to know people like Cactus. They are not evil, but they are corruptible and they are incompetent.

Cactus Jack would have cussed out the rich, and raised their taxes. Then he would have spread the wealth to his cronies. Unemployment would have increased, along with the national debt. The Republicans would have come roaring back. Laissez faire capitalism would have been restored.

FDR called Stalin Uncle Joe AFTER Stalin starved the Ukraine to death murdering 3,000,000 children in the process. It's a shame the assassination attempt failed

 

[jwoodie]

America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.

During my radical youth I liked Roosevelt, but wished that Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party had won the elections Roosevelt and the Democratic Party had won.

After six years of President Obama I realize that good intentions are not good enough. If the government is to have a major role in the economy, as I want it to, the government has to be competently led. I would vote for Obama again against any Republican, but I am tired of making excuses for him.

There you have it.

 

[Picaro]

Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.

 

[jwoodie]

Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.

Pointing out that his policies may have extended the depression (sound familiar?) is not "demonizing" FDR. On the contrary, his optimistic demeanor and assurances to the American public may have forestalled a political revolution.

 

[Friends]

America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.

During my radical youth I liked Roosevelt, but wished that Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party had won the elections Roosevelt and the Democratic Party had won.

After six years of President Obama I realize that good intentions are not good enough. If the government is to have a major role in the economy, as I want it to, the government has to be competently led. I would vote for Obama again against any Republican, but I am tired of making excuses for him.

The United States almost did not get the New Deal. After Roosevelt was elected, but before he was inaugurated, an attempt was made on his life. Roosevelt was not hurt, but a man he was with was killed. Roosevelt's running made was "Cactus" Jack Garner. Ole Cactus was a good ole boy from the courthouse gang in rural Texas. I used to know people like Cactus. They are not evil, but they are corruptible and they are incompetent.

Cactus Jack would have cussed out the rich, and raised their taxes. Then he would have spread the wealth to his cronies. Unemployment would have increased, along with the national debt. The Republicans would have come roaring back. Laissez faire capitalism would have been restored.

I am willing to bet that Cactus Jack was a lot less corruptible than FDR. That is a good bet, since FDR was the most corruptible POTUS ever, with a possible exception for Big Ears. At least Garner supported a balance budget, opposed much of the stupid and ineffective New Deal programs, and opposed FDR's dictatorial move to pack the Supreme Court.

Imagine had FDR been murdered that day in Chicago. Americans might not have had to endure the Great Depression for ten more years, WWII, and the USSR's rise and enslavement of half of Europe....and five decades of cold war.

Note of interest: JFK called Garner to wish him happy birthday on November 22, 1963, just hours before he was murdered in Dallas.

Roosevelt had the sense to realize that balancing the budget was incompatible with reducing unemployment, and that the voters would evaluate him on his success in reducing unemployment.

 

[Friends]

Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.

Pointing out that his policies may have extended the depression (sound familiar?) is not "demonizing" FDR. On the contrary, his optimistic demeanor and assurances to the American public may have forestalled a political revolution.

I do not believe that the alternative to the New Deal was something to the left of it, but something to the right of it. If he had not been successful in reducing unemployment the Republicans would have cut taxes for the rich, and crushed labor unions.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

(Hint: It Wasn’t the New Deal)


Warning! All liberals – ignore this article. It will only cause you heartburn and perhaps stir up the ulcers you have due to your life of negativity.

The cruel irony of the New Deal is that the liberals’ honorable intentions to help the poor and the unemployed caused more human suffering than any other set of ideas in the past century.

More of the historical fabrication of FDR's presidency can be read @ The Real Story About What Ended the Great Depression

...As told by one who was there.

WWII ended the Depression.

 

[Friends]

Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.

Life for most Americans kept getting worse under Hoover. Life for most Americans kept getting better under Roosevelt. That is why Roosevelt was elected president in 1932, and why he was reelected three times.

 

[gipper]

America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.

During my radical youth I liked Roosevelt, but wished that Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party had won the elections Roosevelt and the Democratic Party had won.

After six years of President Obama I realize that good intentions are not good enough. If the government is to have a major role in the economy, as I want it to, the government has to be competently led. I would vote for Obama again against any Republican, but I am tired of making excuses for him.

The United States almost did not get the New Deal. After Roosevelt was elected, but before he was inaugurated, an attempt was made on his life. Roosevelt was not hurt, but a man he was with was killed. Roosevelt's running made was "Cactus" Jack Garner. Ole Cactus was a good ole boy from the courthouse gang in rural Texas. I used to know people like Cactus. They are not evil, but they are corruptible and they are incompetent.

Cactus Jack would have cussed out the rich, and raised their taxes. Then he would have spread the wealth to his cronies. Unemployment would have increased, along with the national debt. The Republicans would have come roaring back. Laissez faire capitalism would have been restored.

I am willing to bet that Cactus Jack was a lot less corruptible than FDR. That is a good bet, since FDR was the most corruptible POTUS ever, with a possible exception for Big Ears. At least Garner supported a balance budget, opposed much of the stupid and ineffective New Deal programs, and opposed FDR's dictatorial move to pack the Supreme Court.

Imagine had FDR been murdered that day in Chicago. Americans might not have had to endure the Great Depression for ten more years, WWII, and the USSR's rise and enslavement of half of Europe....and five decades of cold war.

Note of interest: JFK called Garner to wish him happy birthday on November 22, 1963, just hours before he was murdered in Dallas.

Roosevelt had the sense to realize that balancing the budget was incompatible with reducing unemployment, and that the voters would evaluate him on his success in reducing unemployment.

FDR's huge deficit spending and constant raising of taxes of all sorts, DID NOT REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT. It kept unemployment rates up.

So....your belief that massive government spending reduces unemployment, is incorrect. You might tell your buddy Obama who also does not understand economics.

 

[bendog]

America had no revolution, no change in her economic system, no change in her political system, though there were calls for all. When the smoke cleared after WWII the nation was still intact and now a world power. A new president had taken over and all was done peacefully, The Civil War and many other events in America were greater threats, and for that we should thank FDR, and maybe that's why historians rate him so highly.

During my radical youth I liked Roosevelt, but wished that Norman Thomas and the Socialist Party had won the elections Roosevelt and the Democratic Party had won.

After six years of President Obama I realize that good intentions are not good enough. If the government is to have a major role in the economy, as I want it to, the government has to be competently led. I would vote for Obama again against any Republican, but I am tired of making excuses for him.

The United States almost did not get the New Deal. After Roosevelt was elected, but before he was inaugurated, an attempt was made on his life. Roosevelt was not hurt, but a man he was with was killed. Roosevelt's running made was "Cactus" Jack Garner. Ole Cactus was a good ole boy from the courthouse gang in rural Texas. I used to know people like Cactus. They are not evil, but they are corruptible and they are incompetent.

Cactus Jack would have cussed out the rich, and raised their taxes. Then he would have spread the wealth to his cronies. Unemployment would have increased, along with the national debt. The Republicans would have come roaring back. Laissez faire capitalism would have been restored.

I am willing to bet that Cactus Jack was a lot less corruptible than FDR. That is a good bet, since FDR was the most corruptible POTUS ever, with a possible exception for Big Ears. At least Garner supported a balance budget, opposed much of the stupid and ineffective New Deal programs, and opposed FDR's dictatorial move to pack the Supreme Court.

Imagine had FDR been murdered that day in Chicago. Americans might not have had to endure the Great Depression for ten more years, WWII, and the USSR's rise and enslavement of half of Europe....and five decades of cold war.

Note of interest: JFK called Garner to wish him happy birthday on November 22, 1963, just hours before he was murdered in Dallas.

Roosevelt had the sense to realize that balancing the budget was incompatible with reducing unemployment, and that the voters would evaluate him on his success in reducing unemployment.

FDR's huge deficit spending and constant raising of taxes of all sorts, DID NOT REDUCE UNEMPLOYMENT. It kept unemployment rates up.

So....your belief that massive government spending reduces unemployment, is incorrect. You might tell your buddy Obama who also does not understand economics.

Well, drafting everyone and blowing up the defict did cure unemployment.

 

[Camp]

History has recorded FDR bringing unemployment down from 25% to below 15% and as low as 9.6%. Revisionist have created a way to contest the accepted numbers by economist and historians for over 70 years. They have creatively and arbitrarily determined and decided that people who worked on government subsidized projects and programs were on relief and therefore actually unemployed, even though they were working at jobs and getting paid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Still no explanations of why the Hoover admin and all the 'free market capitalists' who owned Wall Street didn't rescue America from the Depression. We'll wait for the excuses and nonsensical narratives; they're bound to be as hilarious as the silly attempts at demonizing FDR. As for Garner, he was a joke indeed; more on that later, maybe.

Hoover was a Statist like FDR. FDR took Hoover's bad ideas and put them on Steroids

 

[CrusaderFrank]

History has recorded FDR bringing unemployment down from 25% to below 15% and as low as 9.6%. Revisionist have created a way to contest the accepted numbers by economist and historians for over 70 years. They have creatively and arbitrarily determined and decided that people who worked on government subsidized projects and programs were on relief and therefore actually unemployed, even though they were working at jobs and getting paid.

So you're applauding a 15% unemployment rate, and that after 7 years of a Progressive Jihad on the US Economy

You're saying a 15% unemployment after 7 years and 20% average over two whole terms is a success story

Is that correct?