The Real Story About What Ended The Great Depression

[Carla_Danger]

(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

This is coming from the idiot, Stephen Moore, who lied and said that in the 80's, the low income people saw the biggest gains. LOL!

 

[Moonglow]

As usual, another rw propaganda piece,...our daily does from der fuhrerof of bias Shortknaves...

as usual,we can always count on your ignorance surfacing.propaganda piece my ass.sorry you cant handle facts,

How else do you get a good ol' fashioned conspiracy nutter out of the wood work?

yep thats what you are a conspiracy nutter who believes anything the government tells him.

They told me you were a genius...

 

[Moonglow]

(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

This is coming from the idiot, Stephen Moore, who lied and said that in the 80's, the low income people saw the biggest gains. LOL!

I second that, Ha!

 

[LA RAM FAN]

two farts in a row from you moonglow.

 

[Moonglow]

two farts in a row from you moonglow.

Have to keep it on a level you will understand...

 

[bendog]

So do we now all agree that it was war time spending that ended the war not FDR spending, and do we all agree that FDR's spending was too little and wartime spending about right?

What's the point? Keynes is correct that if the govt "buys" everything an economy can produce, you have full employment. FDRs critics on the left argued that the new deal didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

However, the spending is just not sustainable.

 

[regent]

Why is it that wartime spending seems to be ok while spending to improve America's infrastructure is communism. If livre

So do we now all agree that it was war time spending that ended the war not FDR spending, and do we all agree that FDR's spending was too little and wartime spending about right?

What's the point? Keynes is correct that if the govt "buys" everything an economy can produce, you have full employment. FDRs critics on the left argued that the new deal didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

However, the spending is just not sustainable.

It is not meant to be sustainable it is an emergency measure taken when an enemy threatens our way of life no matter the enemy, be it a foreign nation or an economic recession/depression. We do have trouble, paying back the borrowed money, however, and maybe that will change when the people change. We have to remember, that to some extent having control over our economy is relatively a new concept.

 

[Picaro]

Pretty much the point I was trying to make in the old timers I talked to. FDR did give hope also besides helping with much needed income. More than one old timer said the wpa put guys to work and gave them well needed paychecks and also giving them a feeling of worth they had lost during years on unemployment. Some can't understand this feeling, I can.

Not only did he give relief to millions, he did it in a way that built American infrastructure and modernized the American Navy which payed off in WWII. The infrastructure benefited the nation for decades and much of it is still being used today. It was probably the most profitable investments made by American tax payers in American history other than the Louisiana Purchase and the purchase of Alaska. When conservatives are told this they tend to mock it and claim it's a liberal lie, but when you begin listing the projects that are still being used today they quickly go into denial and than run away.

And of course all these projects provided contracts for construction contractors and building supply companies, along with the dams and reservoir systems, electrification, and a hundred other significant improvements in U.S. infrastructure, which also aided in the country in the war years and long after. It was a truly magnificent political achievement, another big reason for the sociopaths and nutjobs to hate him and those who made it happen. Hoover thought Smoot-Hawley was the magic solution. lollerz.

 

[jasonnfree]

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%

You must get this information to the 238 noted historians that recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. In addition you might send copies to the hundreds of historians that have rated presidents since 1948 and never placed FDR lower that one of the top three American presidents. When the historians get this valuable information I'm sure they will change not only their ratings but rewrite their history books.
Are you suggesting as others have that Keynes works, and if FDR had only spent money as in a war the depression would have been cured?

historians work for the government and only tell the sheople what they want them to hear.corrupt presidents that were traiters to the american people like FDR and reagan,the true facts on them are always suppressed from the sheople so they naturally thinbk of these two traiter presidents as being one of the 5 best presidents ever all the time.

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%

You must get this information to the 238 noted historians that recently rated FDR as America's greatest president. In addition you might send copies to the hundreds of historians that have rated presidents since 1948 and never placed FDR lower that one of the top three American presidents. When the historians get this valuable information I'm sure they will change not only their ratings but rewrite their history books.
Are you suggesting as others have that Keynes works, and if FDR had only spent money as in a war the depression would have been cured?

historians work for the government and only tell the sheople what they want them to hear.corrupt presidents that were traiters to the american people like FDR and reagan,the true facts on them are always suppressed from the sheople so they naturally thinbk of these two traiter presidents as being one of the 5 best presidents ever all the time.

Since you're the expert among the sheeple, give us a list of some of your published works that we can get off Amazon and learn the real truth about history. Hopefully, your books are prime available.

 

[Picaro]

They told me you were a genius...

It's true. Somebody asked him once if he was and he said 'yes'.

 

[Picaro]

Why is it that wartime spending seems to be ok while spending to improve America's infrastructure is communism. If livre

So do we now all agree that it was war time spending that ended the war not FDR spending, and do we all agree that FDR's spending was too little and wartime spending about right?

What's the point? Keynes is correct that if the govt "buys" everything an economy can produce, you have full employment. FDRs critics on the left argued that the new deal didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

However, the spending is just not sustainable.

It is not meant to be sustainable it is an emergency measure taken when an enemy threatens our way of life no matter the enemy, be it a foreign nation or an economic recession/depression. We do have trouble, paying back the borrowed money, however, and maybe that will change when the people change. We have to remember, that to some extent having control over our economy is relatively a new concept.

Well, the 'free traders' have taken over and we're going down the path of Great Britain, looting our own economy in ridiculously lop-sided trade deals with other countries. 'Globalism' has proven to be just what the populists said it was, nothing but a labor racketeering scam and financial swindle.

 

[jasonnfree]

two farts in a row from you moonglow.

Looked at video. Now I know where you got your credentials. Alex Jones University. You sat through hours of this garbage to learn what I could have told you. Obama was backed by wall street.

 

[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.

Good graphs that support fact that Pearl Harbor ended Great Depression.

Military spending and employment is government spending and employment.

 

[Friends]

Giving businessmen tax cuts and expecting them to start hiring people is like pushing on a string. If they do not have customers they will put the money in the bank, or spend it on superfluous luxuries.

 

[bendog]

Why is it that wartime spending seems to be ok while spending to improve America's infrastructure is communism. If livre

So do we now all agree that it was war time spending that ended the war not FDR spending, and do we all agree that FDR's spending was too little and wartime spending about right?

What's the point? Keynes is correct that if the govt "buys" everything an economy can produce, you have full employment. FDRs critics on the left argued that the new deal didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

However, the spending is just not sustainable.

It is not meant to be sustainable it is an emergency measure taken when an enemy threatens our way of life no matter the enemy, be it a foreign nation or an economic recession/depression. We do have trouble, paying back the borrowed money, however, and maybe that will change when the people change. We have to remember, that to some extent having control over our economy is relatively a new concept.

Oh no argument. My point was that if the OP is "FDR didn't end the great depression," the OP is false, because govt spending did indeed end the great depression. That is, from an economic standpoint KEYNES WAS RIGHT. Milton Friedman had an ego, and I think he rightfully believed that monatarism's response to a credit meltdown is preferable to nationalizing an economy, but I haven't seen anything where he denied those facts.

That is Friedman was a better economist than Keynes but then he had the advantage of Keynes going first and then having 50 odd years to sort out the math and see where Keynes could have done better.

Now the new deal didn't cure the great depression. But the economic policies of Harding, Coolidge, Mellon and Hoover in terms of not supporting debt increases wouldn't have cure it either. And, given the effects of 29-32, it's undeniable that they gave worse results than the new deal.

 

[Friends]

Why is it that wartime spending seems to be ok while spending to improve America's infrastructure is communism. If livre

So do we now all agree that it was war time spending that ended the war not FDR spending, and do we all agree that FDR's spending was too little and wartime spending about right?

What's the point? Keynes is correct that if the govt "buys" everything an economy can produce, you have full employment. FDRs critics on the left argued that the new deal didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

However, the spending is just not sustainable.

It is not meant to be sustainable it is an emergency measure taken when an enemy threatens our way of life no matter the enemy, be it a foreign nation or an economic recession/depression. We do have trouble, paying back the borrowed money, however, and maybe that will change when the people change. We have to remember, that to some extent having control over our economy is relatively a new concept.

Oh no argument. My point was that if the OP is "FDR didn't end the great depression," the OP is false, because govt spending did indeed end the great depression. That is, from an economic standpoint KEYNES WAS RIGHT. Milton Friedman had an ego, and I think he rightfully believed that monatarism's response to a credit meltdown is preferable to nationalizing an economy, but I haven't seen anything where he denied those facts.

That is Friedman was a better economist than Keynes but then he had the advantage of Keynes going first and then having 50 odd years to sort out the math and see where Keynes could have done better.

Now the new deal didn't cure the great depression. But the economic policies of Harding, Coolidge, Mellon and Hoover in terms of not supporting debt increases wouldn't have cure it either. And, given the effects of 29-32, it's undeniable that they gave worse results than the new deal.

Republicans never liked Keynsian economic policies because they shifted wealth, prestige, and power from the business community to the government.

During the 1970's Republicans blamed the stagflation of the decade on Keynsianism. The real reason for the stagflation was the increase in petroleum prices that followed the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

The increases in oil prices were price fixing. When they became economically unsustainable after 1982, the world price in oil declined.

Historical Oil Prices InflationData.com

Milton Friedman became popular with Republicans during this time because he told Republicans what they wanted to believe, not because of the intrinsic merit of his economic theories.

Friedman liked to tell his students, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Then he violated this maxim by encouraging the American people to believe that they could have a tax cut, a better funded military, a higher standard of living, and a balanced budget without sacrificing popular middle class entitlement programs.

 

[bendog]

Why is it that wartime spending seems to be ok while spending to improve America's infrastructure is communism. If livre

So do we now all agree that it was war time spending that ended the war not FDR spending, and do we all agree that FDR's spending was too little and wartime spending about right?

What's the point? Keynes is correct that if the govt "buys" everything an economy can produce, you have full employment. FDRs critics on the left argued that the new deal didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

However, the spending is just not sustainable.

It is not meant to be sustainable it is an emergency measure taken when an enemy threatens our way of life no matter the enemy, be it a foreign nation or an economic recession/depression. We do have trouble, paying back the borrowed money, however, and maybe that will change when the people change. We have to remember, that to some extent having control over our economy is relatively a new concept.

Oh no argument. My point was that if the OP is "FDR didn't end the great depression," the OP is false, because govt spending did indeed end the great depression. That is, from an economic standpoint KEYNES WAS RIGHT. Milton Friedman had an ego, and I think he rightfully believed that monatarism's response to a credit meltdown is preferable to nationalizing an economy, but I haven't seen anything where he denied those facts.

That is Friedman was a better economist than Keynes but then he had the advantage of Keynes going first and then having 50 odd years to sort out the math and see where Keynes could have done better.

Now the new deal didn't cure the great depression. But the economic policies of Harding, Coolidge, Mellon and Hoover in terms of not supporting debt increases wouldn't have cure it either. And, given the effects of 29-32, it's undeniable that they gave worse results than the new deal.

Republicans never liked Keynsian economic policies because they shifted wealth, prestige, and power from the business community to the government.

During the 1970's Republicans blamed the stagflation of the decade on Keynsianism. The real reason for the stagflation was the increase in petroleum prices that followed the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

The increases in oil prices were price fixing. When they became economically unsustainable after 1982, the world price in oil declined.

Historical Oil Prices InflationData.com

Milton Friedman became popular with Republicans during this time because he told Republicans what they wanted to believe, not because of the intrinsic merit of his economic theories.

Friedman liked to tell his students, "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Then he violated this maxim by encouraging the American people to believe that they could have a tax cut, a better funded military, a higher standard of living, and a balanced budget without sacrificing popular middle class entitlement programs.

I don't blame Friedman for politicians using his theory to achieve their ends anymore than I blame Keynes for politicians saying deficits don't matter, and yes I realize that was the uber non-conservative Cheney who said that one. Anyone who believed Reagan was gonna balance the budget .... bwahhhhhaaa.

However, I don't think Keynes really had an answer for stagflation, which as you posted was basically caused by the increase in petroleum prices. But inflation really took on a life of its own. With Carter, we cut our dependence on for oil and increased domestic production. But still, inflation. Monatarism and Friedman (and Volker and Greenspan) argued increasing the discount rate for banks and interest rates in general. That effectively killed inflation by destroying demand for most everything. And the Bernank did exactly the opposite more recently.

The rift between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy was partially about using unemployment to halt inflation. Before Volker, we had stuff like wage price controls and Jerry Ford's hilarious WIN (whip inflation now) pins. And then there was the Iranian crisis, the 1979 oil price spike, the beginning of the recession ...... and Reagan.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

two farts in a row from you moonglow.

Looked at video. Now I know where you got your credentials. Alex Jones University. You sat through hours of this garbage to learn what I could have told you. Obama was backed by wall street.

hey dipshit,debunk the video,you cant.nobody ever has been able to idiot. you love kissing moonglows ass i see.

jasonfree? i have no doubt your that paid shill who trolls the boards at politicalforum where you post lies there all the time under the username jasonborne.a very well know paid government shill there.yep its you.lol.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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

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.

• 
  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

you handed these FDR apologists on here their asses to them on a platter taking them to school major big time.well done.


these FDR apologists clearly have been brainwashed by their history books from our corrupt school system. amazing how these FDR worshippers have been brainwashed that he served the bankers and continued what Hoover got started esculating it same as how Obama has contiuned and exapanded all Of bushs policys.somethings never change which is no surprise.history has a way of repeating itself.

 

[bendog]

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

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.

• 
  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

you handed these FDR apologists on here their asses to them on a platter taking them to school major big time.well done.


these FDR apologists clearly have been brainwashed by their history books from our corrupt school system. amazing how these FDR worshippers have been brainwashed that he served the bankers and continued what Hoover got started esculating it same as how Obama has contiuned and exapanded all Of bushs policys.somethings never change which is no surprise.history has a way of repeating itself.

Well, it's indisputable that unemployment went DOWN after the New Deal was passed. There are always what if's, but the historical detractors never account for the political reality that there was no possibility for a world wide response by the developed economies, which is what we have had since WWII ended. The soviets and Chinese were not on board, but neither of their economies were large enough to do much other than threaten the peaceful advance of classical liberalism