FDR said what!!!!

[Polk]

Hoover did a lot of economic intervention that made things worse but Rosevelt continued them for 12 years which kept America down when other countries were recovering.

Hoover's so-called intervention was on such a small scale as to be meaningless. Roosevelt combined fiscal stimulus with dumping gold convertibility and the economy took off like a rocket.

It must have been a delayed launch because nothing happenned for 16 years.

You should really learn some history instead of relying on talk radio to think for you. Industrial and farm production increased by huge amounts from 1932 to 1936 and unemployment was cut in half. The reason the economy fell back into recession in 1937 is because FDR foolishly listened to the conservatives of his day and slashed spending.

 

[sealybobo]

He is exactly what Obama is emulating. And did you just hear that FDR wasn't really any more successful than Hoover was at ending the recession?

Why do people keep repeating this even though it's untrue?

What isn't true? That Obama is doing his own New Deal or that FDR wasn't much more successful than Hoover? I didn't say anything untrue. You just have a different spin on things I bet. Lets here it.

PS. Now the History Channel is talking about Bush 1. They talked about how Bush lost his second election. No New Taxes. But in retrospect, it helped lead to the balanced budget and Decade long boom our economy went through.

Now for once I'm going to agree with right wingers that something they did helped Clinton and the economy.

But what they did was raise taxes. And it was only HW Bush, not the GOP. No doubt the GOP were outraged that he raised taxes.

Now they are talking about Clinton and Newt and NAFTA.

Gingrich tried to get Clinton to make concessions on medicaid and social security. As big of a sellout Clinton was, he did not totally go along with the GOP, otherwise the middle class would be gone.

 

[Polk]

Hoover did a lot of economic intervention that made things worse but Rosevelt continued them for 12 years which kept America down when other countries were recovering.

Hoover's so-called intervention was on such a small scale as to be meaningless. Roosevelt combined fiscal stimulus with dumping gold convertibility and the economy took off like a rocket.

More like took off like a rock, into a double-dip depression.

That's really stretching the meaning of double-dip. Double-dips occur in rapid fire order, not with a four year lag. Also, that dip comes from listening to moronic goldbugs who were worried about non-existent inflation. Wonder who holds those sorts of positions today...

 

[Polk]

He is exactly what Obama is emulating. And did you just hear that FDR wasn't really any more successful than Hoover was at ending the recession?

Why do people keep repeating this even though it's untrue?

What isn't true? That Obama is doing his own New Deal or that FDR wasn't much more successful than Hoover? I didn't say anything untrue. You just have a different spin on things I bet. Lets here it.

PS. Now the History Channel is talking about Bush 1. They talked about how Bush lost his second election. No New Taxes. But in retrospect, it helped lead to the balanced budget and Decade long boom our economy went through.

Now for once I'm going to agree with right wingers that something they did helped Clinton and the economy.

But what they did was raise taxes. And it was only HW Bush, not the GOP. No doubt the GOP were outraged that he raised taxes.

Now they are talking about Clinton and Newt and NAFTA.

Gingrich tried to get Clinton to make concessions on medicaid and social security. As big of a sellout Clinton was, he did not totally go along with the GOP, otherwise the middle class would be gone.

FDR was far more successful that Hoover, unless you consider declining production and rising unemployment to be interchangeable with increased production and declining unemployment.

 

[ihopehefails]

The Congress granted FDR broad executive powers. What happen to the dictatorship? Ihopehefails?


Or that is right--FDR was so popular that he died in office, similiar to a dictator except that the people return FDR to office 4 consecutive time!!! It is still a republic if you must constantly face re-election.

I believe congress in incapable of granting its powers to another branch or for that fact no branch can grant a power to the other or you will be destroying the three branches of government concept.

He did get legally re-elected but American fascism took on an American tone which is why some people in the FDR administration referred to it as Jeffersonian fascism. It was different than Italian Fascism or NAZIism but still had its core idea that nations were not borders or govenernment but organic structures that were deeply connected to the spiritual nature of the populace.

Actually--congress can grant certain powers it has to another branch, department, or group by consenting to allow that organization to take over a certain roll reserved to congress through the Constitution. Only the Legislature branch can do this. Such exmples include the mananging of the national debt--granted to the treasury(executive branch), conditional triggers to declare War(as seen in the Case to the 2nd Iraq war).

Or agreeing to allow the continuance of an act AFTER the executive branch performed said act(See desert storm---the first Iraq War)

That would destroy the whole point of three separate and independent branches of government. Imagine if the same people that create an unconstitutional law such as banning free speech can also judicate if it is unconstitional? Do you think they would declare their own law unenforceable?

 

[ihopehefails]

Hoover's so-called intervention was on such a small scale as to be meaningless. Roosevelt combined fiscal stimulus with dumping gold convertibility and the economy took off like a rocket.

It must have been a delayed launch because nothing happenned for 16 years.

You should really learn some history instead of relying on talk radio to think for you. Industrial and farm production increased by huge amounts from 1932 to 1936 and unemployment was cut in half. The reason the economy fell back into recession in 1937 is because FDR foolishly listened to the conservatives of his day and slashed spending.

We never recovered to where we were in 1929 until after WWII and the fact that when he cut government spending cut the economy only shows that it was his stimilous that was falsely propping up the economy.

 

[ihopehefails]

Why do people keep repeating this even though it's untrue?

What isn't true? That Obama is doing his own New Deal or that FDR wasn't much more successful than Hoover? I didn't say anything untrue. You just have a different spin on things I bet. Lets here it.

PS. Now the History Channel is talking about Bush 1. They talked about how Bush lost his second election. No New Taxes. But in retrospect, it helped lead to the balanced budget and Decade long boom our economy went through.

Now for once I'm going to agree with right wingers that something they did helped Clinton and the economy.

But what they did was raise taxes. And it was only HW Bush, not the GOP. No doubt the GOP were outraged that he raised taxes.

Now they are talking about Clinton and Newt and NAFTA.

Gingrich tried to get Clinton to make concessions on medicaid and social security. As big of a sellout Clinton was, he did not totally go along with the GOP, otherwise the middle class would be gone.

FDR was far more successful that Hoover, unless you consider declining production and rising unemployment to be interchangeable with increased production and declining unemployment.

Did rosevelt's policies ever bring us back to full employment?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Umm FDR is no longer president.

He is the guy that so many liberals want the current president to emulate.

You are a moron.

 

[sealybobo]

My employer has the right to offer wages or employment that they wish to offer for whatever reason they choose and I am not arguing for golden parachutes. In fact, I don't have a say if they should get them since I am not a stockholder in the companies that offer them.

You however seem upset that they are getting them. Fine. That is your right to be upset but tell me where you get the right to decide how someone else will get compensated and if the government has that right to do so then doesn't it also have the right to do so for the "worker bees"?

Under your thinking we are tansferring the right of a corp to offer compensation to its employees from a private entity (and the individuals that compose them) to the government itself. What you are advocating for is the loss of rights of any citizen to do with their property as they see fit.

Not true at all Glen Beck.

No, everyone with a brain has a problem with a failure CEO walking away with a golden parachutte. If you lose your job, do you get a severance? In union jobs, they get PAID when the company decides they don't need them anymore. And right wingers seem to cry when they hear labor gets big buy outs. Why is that? Don't they see labor's value?

And, I'm an American voter. If we decide that corporations and CEO's are out of control, we have the power to break em up and reign them in. They don't have rights. But the GOP wants to give corporations the rights of people.

See, this is too deep to explain to right wingers who just don't get it at all. There's too much you are unwilling to admit, so arguing with you is like running in a circle.

You aren't upset that a CEO goes to work for a company, runs that company into the ground, goes bankrupt, and then the CEO gets to walk away with $5 million dollar bonus for 5 years served? On top of his salary? You don't think that's excessive? And by the way, the Board of Directors are all CEO's at their own companies. Its a good old boys club.

And then the company got to renig on any pensions they promised before the CEO ran the company into the ground? If the Dem government sees that this is what the GOP set up for corporations when they were in power between 2000-2006, then the Dems have a responsibility to undo what the GOP did.

But $30 hr for a factory worker is too much?

It is my right as an American to organize. It used to be a more powerful right before Reagan started breaking the unions and taking power away from labor.

And I'm not looking to force companies to pay anything. I'm looking to improve the job market. That means tariffs, fixing nafta, some protectionism, regulations, taxes and bringing jobs home. That will improve wages.

A strong economy will improve wages.

But in 2006 and 2007, the corporations were showing record profits and labor lagged behind. Whether you know it or not, it is class warfare. So when will the masses start seeing

Yes, your employer has the right to pay you whatever they want, within the law.

But doesn't it bother you that in the future, NAFTA and unfettered globalization will most certainly mean less jobs available and so lower wages?

No because that has never been true. NAFTA has been around for a long time yet we have always had jobs. Isn't that an amazing coincidence?

Most of your other points revolved around the idea that if I think a company can offer compensation to people to whatever they like then I am endorsing it. No. I am saying that if two parties such as CEOs and stockholders agree to something then third parties such as you or I don't have a right to interfere with that.

"Yes, your employer has the right to pay you whatever they want, within the law." The most revealing thing about your way of thinking is the "within the law" part. People's rights are not a matter of existing within the law but they exist without the law and in the absense of government or can you explain to me why you need a law to speak freely. Is it the law that enables you to do so as in some grand command that say 'you may now speak' and like a puppet begin to speak or do you have that ability naturally?

I was not speaking of a corporation's rights within the law but their rights inherent to them by their natural existence as in natural law.

In case you haven't noticed, the economy has slowly gotten worse since NAFTA. And in part BECAUSE of NAFTA.

What do you mean NAFTA's been around for a long time and we've always had jobs? What does that mean? In case you haven't noticed, we go through good economies and we go through recessions. NAFTA didn't help us during the 2000 recesssion.

The Recession we are in now didn't happen overnite. And if NAFTA wasn't bad enough, the Tom Delay/Bush run government between 2002-2006 really pushed the envelope by passing even more tax breaks for companies going overseas. That made things for American labor even worse.

Are you guys still denying this? Just like McCain refused to admit what our problems really are, seems so do you.

Then the GOP put in loopholes to bypass trade laws. For example, the chinese are flooding our market with their tires.

 

[ihopehefails]

He is exactly what Obama is emulating. And did you just hear that FDR wasn't really any more successful than Hoover was at ending the recession?

Why do people keep repeating this even though it's untrue?

What isn't true? That Obama is doing his own New Deal or that FDR wasn't much more successful than Hoover? I didn't say anything untrue. You just have a different spin on things I bet. Lets here it.

PS. Now the History Channel is talking about Bush 1. They talked about how Bush lost his second election. No New Taxes. But in retrospect, it helped lead to the balanced budget and Decade long boom our economy went through.

Now for once I'm going to agree with right wingers that something they did helped Clinton and the economy.

But what they did was raise taxes. And it was only HW Bush, not the GOP. No doubt the GOP were outraged that he raised taxes.

Now they are talking about Clinton and Newt and NAFTA.

Gingrich tried to get Clinton to make concessions on medicaid and social security. As big of a sellout Clinton was, he did not totally go along with the GOP, otherwise the middle class would be gone.

They are both true because Obama is doing Keynsian economics such as stim spending and some are talking about a job's programs. And yes FDR wasn't much more successful than HOOVER. The great depression proved it.

 

[Oddball]

That's really stretching the meaning of double-dip. Double-dips occur in rapid fire order, not with a four year lag. Also, that dip comes from listening to moronic goldbugs who were worried about non-existent inflation. Wonder who holds those sorts of positions today...

Yeah...We have to redefine terms, yet again.

FDR's depression busting was sooooo successful that it caused another depression!

 

[ihopehefails]

Not true at all Glen Beck.

No, everyone with a brain has a problem with a failure CEO walking away with a golden parachutte. If you lose your job, do you get a severance? In union jobs, they get PAID when the company decides they don't need them anymore. And right wingers seem to cry when they hear labor gets big buy outs. Why is that? Don't they see labor's value?

And, I'm an American voter. If we decide that corporations and CEO's are out of control, we have the power to break em up and reign them in. They don't have rights. But the GOP wants to give corporations the rights of people.

See, this is too deep to explain to right wingers who just don't get it at all. There's too much you are unwilling to admit, so arguing with you is like running in a circle.

You aren't upset that a CEO goes to work for a company, runs that company into the ground, goes bankrupt, and then the CEO gets to walk away with $5 million dollar bonus for 5 years served? On top of his salary? You don't think that's excessive? And by the way, the Board of Directors are all CEO's at their own companies. Its a good old boys club.

And then the company got to renig on any pensions they promised before the CEO ran the company into the ground? If the Dem government sees that this is what the GOP set up for corporations when they were in power between 2000-2006, then the Dems have a responsibility to undo what the GOP did.

But $30 hr for a factory worker is too much?

It is my right as an American to organize. It used to be a more powerful right before Reagan started breaking the unions and taking power away from labor.

And I'm not looking to force companies to pay anything. I'm looking to improve the job market. That means tariffs, fixing nafta, some protectionism, regulations, taxes and bringing jobs home. That will improve wages.

A strong economy will improve wages.

But in 2006 and 2007, the corporations were showing record profits and labor lagged behind. Whether you know it or not, it is class warfare. So when will the masses start seeing

Yes, your employer has the right to pay you whatever they want, within the law.

But doesn't it bother you that in the future, NAFTA and unfettered globalization will most certainly mean less jobs available and so lower wages?

No because that has never been true. NAFTA has been around for a long time yet we have always had jobs. Isn't that an amazing coincidence?

Most of your other points revolved around the idea that if I think a company can offer compensation to people to whatever they like then I am endorsing it. No. I am saying that if two parties such as CEOs and stockholders agree to something then third parties such as you or I don't have a right to interfere with that.

"Yes, your employer has the right to pay you whatever they want, within the law." The most revealing thing about your way of thinking is the "within the law" part. People's rights are not a matter of existing within the law but they exist without the law and in the absense of government or can you explain to me why you need a law to speak freely. Is it the law that enables you to do so as in some grand command that say 'you may now speak' and like a puppet begin to speak or do you have that ability naturally?

I was not speaking of a corporation's rights within the law but their rights inherent to them by their natural existence as in natural law.

In case you haven't noticed, the economy has slowly gotten worse since NAFTA. And in part BECAUSE of NAFTA.

What do you mean NAFTA's been around for a long time and we've always had jobs? What does that mean? In case you haven't noticed, we go through good economies and we go through recessions. NAFTA didn't help us during the 2000 recesssion.

The Recession we are in now didn't happen overnite. And if NAFTA wasn't bad enough, the Tom Delay/Bush run government between 2002-2006 really pushed the envelope by passing even more tax breaks for companies going overseas. That made things for American labor even worse.

Are you guys still denying this? Just like McCain refused to admit what our problems really are, seems so do you.

Then the GOP put in loopholes to bypass trade laws. For example, the chinese are flooding our market with their tires.

I have noticed that we are in a recession right now and that is not the fault of NAFTA because how do you explain the fact we have had any ups since then.

BTW, I like buying chinese stuff. I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[sealybobo]

Umm FDR is no longer president.

He is the guy that so many liberals want the current president to emulate.

You are a moron.

Better emulate FDR than Reagan.

If he likes Reagan, then that proves he doesn't get what went wrong with our economy today, because Reaganomics started the process that led us where we are today.

FDR did things that were good. Reagan just sounded good to the typical ignorant voter. He was an actor. He sold us on his leadership. Turns out, Reagan sucked.

 

[ihopehefails]

That's really stretching the meaning of double-dip. Double-dips occur in rapid fire order, not with a four year lag. Also, that dip comes from listening to moronic goldbugs who were worried about non-existent inflation. Wonder who holds those sorts of positions today...

Yeah...We have to redefine terms, yet again.

FDR's depression busting was sooooo successful that it caused another depression!

I don't think they have a solid definition of any word in their vocabulary.

 

[sealybobo]

No because that has never been true. NAFTA has been around for a long time yet we have always had jobs. Isn't that an amazing coincidence?

Most of your other points revolved around the idea that if I think a company can offer compensation to people to whatever they like then I am endorsing it. No. I am saying that if two parties such as CEOs and stockholders agree to something then third parties such as you or I don't have a right to interfere with that.

"Yes, your employer has the right to pay you whatever they want, within the law." The most revealing thing about your way of thinking is the "within the law" part. People's rights are not a matter of existing within the law but they exist without the law and in the absense of government or can you explain to me why you need a law to speak freely. Is it the law that enables you to do so as in some grand command that say 'you may now speak' and like a puppet begin to speak or do you have that ability naturally?

I was not speaking of a corporation's rights within the law but their rights inherent to them by their natural existence as in natural law.

In case you haven't noticed, the economy has slowly gotten worse since NAFTA. And in part BECAUSE of NAFTA.

What do you mean NAFTA's been around for a long time and we've always had jobs? What does that mean? In case you haven't noticed, we go through good economies and we go through recessions. NAFTA didn't help us during the 2000 recesssion.

The Recession we are in now didn't happen overnite. And if NAFTA wasn't bad enough, the Tom Delay/Bush run government between 2002-2006 really pushed the envelope by passing even more tax breaks for companies going overseas. That made things for American labor even worse.

Are you guys still denying this? Just like McCain refused to admit what our problems really are, seems so do you.

Then the GOP put in loopholes to bypass trade laws. For example, the chinese are flooding our market with their tires.

I have noticed that we are in a recession right now and that is not the fault of NAFTA because how do you explain the fact we have had any ups since then.

BTW, I like buying chinese stuff. I don't see anything wrong with it.

You don't see the thousands of jobs that have left for cheaper labor as a contributing factor to the recession we are in? You don't see how it ties into unemployment, wages, consumer confidence, the debt, etc?

Really???

Ok, go back to the kiddy table then because the adults are talking.

 

[ihopehefails]

He is the guy that so many liberals want the current president to emulate.

You are a moron.

Better emulate FDR than Reagan.

If he likes Reagan, then that proves he doesn't get what went wrong with our economy today, because Reaganomics started the process that led us where we are today.

FDR did things that were good. Reagan just sounded good to the typical ignorant voter. He was an actor. He sold us on his leadership. Turns out, Reagan sucked.

Is what is wrong with our economy today the fact that we ain't taxed enough? I keep being told that higher taxes have no impact on the economy well then explain to me why lower taxes hurts the economy and if it has no negative or positive effect then what is the harm in lowering them or getting rid of them completely since they are a zero impact item.

 

[sealybobo]

That's really stretching the meaning of double-dip. Double-dips occur in rapid fire order, not with a four year lag. Also, that dip comes from listening to moronic goldbugs who were worried about non-existent inflation. Wonder who holds those sorts of positions today...

Yeah...We have to redefine terms, yet again.

FDR's depression busting was sooooo successful that it caused another depression!

I don't think they have a solid definition of any word in their vocabulary.

FDR won by a landslide his second term. So will Obama.

And you like bying Chinese? Me too. The difference is that I understand the negatives to doing it.

Doesn't affect you? Don't you have kids, neighbors and friends who might not all be as successful as you? Don't you care about them? You only care about yourself? Typical righty.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reaganism and the privatization of government services has weakened the middle class, enriched the corporatists beyond their wildest dreams, and has victimized the most defenseless in our society -- children in foster homes, the mentally ill who have been put in "outpatient" services and end up on the streets, and so many other categories. Anybody who supports 'reaganism' either is dense, a loon, uneducated, or malignant.

 

[Oddball]

Reaganism and the privatization of government services has weakened the middle class, enriched the corporatists beyond their wildest dreams, and has victimized the most defenseless in our society -- children in foster homes, the mentally ill who have been put in "outpatient" services and end up on the streets, and so many other categories. Anybody who supports 'reaganism' either is dense, a loon, uneducated, or malignant.

Spoken like the expert of experience.

 

[Polk]

That's really stretching the meaning of double-dip. Double-dips occur in rapid fire order, not with a four year lag. Also, that dip comes from listening to moronic goldbugs who were worried about non-existent inflation. Wonder who holds those sorts of positions today...

Yeah...We have to redefine terms, yet again.

FDR's depression busting was sooooo successful that it caused another depression!

No need to redefine terms. I leave denial of reality to people like you. It's a fact that slashing spending in 1936 in an attempt to appeal to goldbugs bitching about non-existent inflation is what caused the decline in 1937. You're forced to ignore that, because if you admit the truth, it would show how absurd your arguments are.