Roosevelt: His Bankrupt Policies

[Camp]

You use the figure of 15% unemployment for 1939. That indicated you are referring to the old Lebergott method of calculating that counted those on relief programs as unemployed.

Because the Lebergott calculations are the official numbers, like it or not.

The later Darby method that counts the employees as people earning paychecks for work no matter where the funds came from is more accurate and accepted today.

It's not more accurate. The data sources are the same. A different definition doesn't make a calculation more accurate. There's nothing wrong with Lebergott's reasoning for including WPA workers as unemployed...that's just viewing the public works projects as unemployment checks.

The Lebergott numbers become inaccurate and misleading when used the way they are being used to make the implications the people using them in this thread are attempting to portray. Even you are distorting the meaning by inferring WPA checks earned by workers were like unemployment checks. People get unemployment checks when they are not working. The WPA workers were working and earning their pay checks. They were not unemployed. The only way to make Lebergottt's method accurate is to distort the key facror way you have. More than actually distort. Make a rather fraudulent claim that a paycheck for working is just like an unemployment check. The Lebergott numbers are only accurate in determining how many folks were unemployed in relationship to jobs in private industry and employment related to private industry, not as a test or factor in accessing the employment status of workers in the USA and relating those figures to the condition and status of the depression.

 

[pinqy]

You use the figure of 15% unemployment for 1939. That indicated you are referring to the old Lebergott method of calculating that counted those on relief programs as unemployed.

Because the Lebergott calculations are the official numbers, like it or not.

The later Darby method that counts the employees as people earning paychecks for work no matter where the funds came from is more accurate and accepted today.

It's not more accurate. The data sources are the same. A different definition doesn't make a calculation more accurate. There's nothing wrong with Lebergott's reasoning for including WPA workers as unemployed...that's just viewing the public works projects as unemployment checks.

The Lebergott numbers become inaccurate and misleading when used the way they are being used to make the implications the people using them in this thread are attempting to portray. Even you are distorting the meaning by inferring WPA checks earned by workers were like unemployment checks. People get unemployment checks when they are not working. The WPA workers were working and earning their pay checks. They were not unemployed..

But the WPA work was not part of the labor market. They were artificial and did not represent how the economy was actually doing.

 

[Camp]

You use the figure of 15% unemployment for 1939. That indicated you are referring to the old Lebergott method of calculating that counted those on relief programs as unemployed.

Because the Lebergott calculations are the official numbers, like it or not.

The later Darby method that counts the employees as people earning paychecks for work no matter where the funds came from is more accurate and accepted today.

It's not more accurate. The data sources are the same. A different definition doesn't make a calculation more accurate. There's nothing wrong with Lebergott's reasoning for including WPA workers as unemployed...that's just viewing the public works projects as unemployment checks.

The Lebergott numbers become inaccurate and misleading when used the way they are being used to make the implications the people using them in this thread are attempting to portray. Even you are distorting the meaning by inferring WPA checks earned by workers were like unemployment checks. People get unemployment checks when they are not working. The WPA workers were working and earning their pay checks. They were not unemployed..

But the WPA work was not part of the labor market. They were artificial and did not represent how the economy was actually doing.

That depends on who is doing the judging and whether they are judging the overall economy or the private industry economy. They were and are two different things. If the small town factory was closed the economy was horrible for both the factory owners and the people who lived in the area. If WPA projects got started building any single of combination of a new school, post office, armory, small airport, dam, or any other public works project, the economy was good to great to even booming for the folks in the area, but maybe not so good for the factory owners.
Anti New Deal folks like to use statistics that evaluate the status of private industry. Pro New Deal folks like to use statistic that evaluate the status of citizens. The Lebergott/Darby comparisons highlight the differences and is a good example to introduce people to the concept of dual economies and hence, dual methods of judging the economy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No president e discarded the Constitution. Strong presidents are often accused of discarding the Constitution such as Jefferson when he bought Louisiana, and Jackson when he told the Supreme Court to stuff their decision.

"No president e discarded the Constitution."

For clarity, so that I may address you correctly...are you a liar or a fool?



If you claim to be a fool......your education continues:

1. FDR cowed the Supreme Court, and he and they ended the guidance of the Constitution.


2. The 'Progressive Era' began prior to Saturday, March 4, 1933, the date ofFranklin Roosevelt's inauguration....but make no mistake: this friend of Joseph Stalin was central to the destruction of the Constitution.

Other players included three Progressives already on the Court: Louis Brandeis, who provided the mechanism for Woodrow Wilson's election in 1912, and Harlan Stone, and Benjamin Cardozo.

The fading hopes for Americarested on the shoulders of four Madisonian justices: Pierce Butler,James McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter.
In the middle, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.


3. Two cases beganthe evisceration: in Article 1, section 10, which stated that no state may pass any " Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,..."

a. In the 1934 U.S. Supreme Court caseHome Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell,the “Four Horsemen” — the Madisonians — banded together in an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the forces of statism and collectivism, the Progressives.

Did the Minnesota redemption law impair the loan contract between the building and loan association and the Blaisdells? It would seem rather obvious that it did. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held otherwise:it ruled in express contravention of the constitutional prohibition. And their leader, Franklin Roosevelt, was leading their charge on a national level.




4.The court also ruled against in Article 1, section 10 in finding that Congress's retroactive voiding of 'gold clauses' in contracts was constitutional.

Congress was following Roosevelt's plan to take America off the gold standard, and remove the ability of Americans to hold, and use, gold: at the time,"gold clauses" were common,and they give creditors the option of receiving gold in payment of debts.


Four cases came before the Court in 1935, the "Gold Clause Cases," and in each the Court found it constitutional to 'impair loan contracts.'



The above is a perfect example ofProgressive's use of the term 'interpret' the Constitution, when they actual rule counter to it.
(Covered in Charles Murray's "By The People")

Don't hesitate to ask if you require further remediation.

Perhaps the Court was cowed more by the American people and America's economic plight than FDR? Then again, FDR was a strong president and had the American people behind him, and so it goes in politics.

The issue at hand was the shredding of the Constitution by Roosevelt and his Court.

You've changed the subject....tried to.

That must mean that you know the truth whereof I speak.

I accept your concession.

The lawless Franklin Roosevelt knew that the only legal way to change the Constitution was the amendment process.

You know it, as well.


So....why do you lie?

Call it what you will but the Constitution has been altered hundreds of time since it was ratified. Perhaps the biggest change to the Constitution was done with Marbury. The procedure to amend the Constitution is difficult in a political world, and after the Bill of Rights was added it has only been changed 17 times. In the meantime the Alabama Constitution has been amended hundreds of times. Presidents, the Court, the Congress have all altered our Constitution to meet changing conditions with some regularity.

I see you are doing your best to take the focus off the anti-constitutionalist, Franklin Roosevelt, but...

1.... the clear import of your post is that I am correct about FDR obviating the Constitution...and...

2. ...you are dead wrong about the extent to which prior administrations behaved similarly.


1. Until Franklin Roosevelt, America functioned via the Constitution, and the Founder's guidance. During Roosevelt's term, that changed. It's most clearly seen is comparison with the man who had the second greatest number of vetoes....Grover Cleveland. Cleveland refused to allow expenditures on endeavors not authorized under the enumerated powers....including charity.

Around the time of Cleveland's veto of the Texas Seed Bill, a British scholar, James Bryce, wrote of American society:
"The term "ground-ideas" does not happily describe the doctrines that prevail in the United States, for the people are not prone to form or state their notions in a philosophic way. There are, however, certain dogmas or maxims which are in so far fundamental that they have told widely on political thought, and that one usually strikes upon them when sinking a shaft, so to speak, into an American mind.

Among such dogmas are the following: " Certain rights of the individual, as, for instance, his right to the enjoyment of what he has earned, to the free expression of opinion, are primordial and sacred. All political power springs from the people, and the most completely popular government is best....

Where any function can be equally well discharged by a central or a local body, it ought by preference to be entrusted to the local body...The less government the better."
James Bryce, "The American Commonwealth," (1903), p. 536-537


2. Cleveland's view of the authority of the President echoed that of Jefferson, both representing America prior to the Progressives.

In the comparison with Roosevelt, one can see that the federal government lost it's legitimacy during the constitutional revolution that took place during Roosevelt's reign....and ended America, as it was founded, during the 1960s.

""It is by that historical understanding that many of us who ae devoted to limited government have thought of ourselves as living in a post-American country, governed by people who mouth the clichés about America as the land of the free without understanding what freedom means."
Charles Murray, "By The People," p. 122.



In short....which do you love more....Franklin Roosevelt, or the United States Constitution?

Don't be afraid to answer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

You just did a bait and switch after ignoring the refute I handed you. FDR was right in what he told Hill. The 1937 bill turned out to be constitutional. You are simply ignoring the refute and continuing to use a 1937 letter about a specific bill as if it were written in 1935 about a different bill to make your point. It is dishonest and even after being shown it is dishonest you continue. Chances of an honest debate with you are hopeless.

This is why her name is PoliticalShit.

One can always tell when a Liberal feels that they have lost the argument by the descent to vulgarity.
My advice: continue to do what you do best,...lie, and make others despise you.

 

[Statistikhengst]

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

You just did a bait and switch after ignoring the refute I handed you. FDR was right in what he told Hill. The 1937 bill turned out to be constitutional. You are simply ignoring the refute and continuing to use a 1937 letter about a specific bill as if it were written in 1935 about a different bill to make your point. It is dishonest and even after being shown it is dishonest you continue. Chances of an honest debate with you are hopeless.

This is why her name is PoliticalShit.

One can always tell when a Liberal feels that they have lost the argument by the descent to vulgarity.
My advice: continue to do what you do best,...lie, and make others despise you.

Tsk, Tsk.

Enjoy your fantasy world.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unemployment wasn't 17.2 percent in 1939, it was 11.3 percent. Your own link explains why it was 11.3 percent. 19 million people were employed by the government,

you idiot, libturd govt can always print money, create make-work jobs, and report unemployment at 0% but they are not real jobs. You think Morganthau lied??????

****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's these kind of batshit crazy, fact free statements that make a strong case FOR progressivism.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

You just did a bait and switch after ignoring the refute I handed you. FDR was right in what he told Hill. The 1937 bill turned out to be constitutional. You are simply ignoring the refute and continuing to use a 1937 letter about a specific bill as if it were written in 1935 about a different bill to make your point. It is dishonest and even after being shown it is dishonest you continue. Chances of an honest debate with you are hopeless.

This is why her name is PoliticalShit.

liberal don't like anyone who supports freedom as our Founders did and they hate anyone who supports our Constitution which was designed to make liberalism illegal in America.

Its no suprise that our liberals spied for Stalin and Hitler and some of them on USMB support Castro's liberal concentration camp island.

 

[imawhosure]

1. It doesn't make any difference which political party a President comes from. They can do absolutely asinine things, or very good things. So to say a President must be awful just because he is a republican or a democrat is ridiculous.

2. If we are Americans and as such believe in our country, then we should be all about following the rules of the constitution. Why? Because even if we get what we want by a President of our party breaking the rules, this opens the door for a President not of our way of thinking to screw us later.

3. There has been more than 1 President who has tried to usurp the constitution. The biggest hater of the constitution in reasonably modern times was Woodrow Wilson. The one who tried to go around it the most though, was certainly FDR. The point isn't if his ideas ended up being good, bad, or indifferent, but rather if the decisions made could pass constitutional muster. I am sure it has already been brought up that he tried to expand the supreme court and pack it so he could have his way. It was so bad that even his vice-President voted against the idea, which should tell you how far off the rails he actually was.

4. FDRs legacy; just like all progressive socialists, is to promise great things to people that can never be paid for. It all sounds good until the bill comes due. In his personal defense though, I must admit that many of his programs have been expanded beyond his wildest dreams that have the effect to make them fail faster. With this, he had nothing to do. That doesn't mean his ideas were fiscally sound, just that we wouldn't be in this position yet.

5. Just like all progressive socialists, those of today (including some rinos) promise the people who have the least, something for nothing. Who would not take that deal? Honestly! The supporters of these sooth saying people throughout time either believed their words, or knew better and just didn't care what it did to this great country after they assumed room temperature. Ask yourself this..........how many of these great progressive programs are revenue neutral? How many are in the black and not the red? And yet they want MORE programs, but have no money to pay for them. Why would we listen? One thing a progressive never wants to do is tell you how they are going to pay for an idea. The only thing they dare come up with is a non-committal cut to defense. As soon as they quantify how much it REALLY costs, everyone understands the idea can't work, no matter how wonderful it sounds. And then the conversation turns to............how about you pay for all your other ideas that are in the red BEFORE you propose another budget buster if you can come up with that kind of cash.

6. That is the legacy of FDR more than anything besides his ignoring the constitution, HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT! Even progressives know this, which is why they always claim it saves money, (Obamacare) but never does. Again, why would we listen to them? If we educate most of the populace on what their past wonderful ideas have actually wrought upon us, nobody else will listen either!!!!!!!!

 

[Camp]

Unemployment wasn't 17.2 percent in 1939, it was 11.3 percent. Your own link explains why it was 11.3 percent. 19 million people were employed by the government,

you idiot, libturd govt can always print money, create make-work jobs, and report unemployment at 0% but they are not real jobs. You think Morganthau lied??????

****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

Tens of millions of people went to work today by driving on over bridges and through tunnels or out of airports still in service after over 70 years by the people you just claimed didn't have real jobs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT!

$20 trillion in debt with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and so far Hilary is promising free college and free pre K. A liberal is always buying votes and subverting our democracy. We don't have to pay for it, its an investment that will pay for itself!!

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
-Benjamin Franklin

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Tens of millions of people went to work today by driving on over bridges and through tunnels or out of airports still in service after over 70 years by the people you just claimed didn't have real jobs.

so what you liberal idiot the Romans were building
bridges and tunnels 2000 years ago some of which still function today!!

notice the way you lie and try to change the subject rather than tell us if Morganthau lied??

 

[imawhosure]

Unemployment wasn't 17.2 percent in 1939, it was 11.3 percent. Your own link explains why it was 11.3 percent. 19 million people were employed by the government,

you idiot, libturd govt can always print money, create make-work jobs, and report unemployment at 0% but they are not real jobs. You think Morganthau lied??????

****Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

Tens of millions of people went to work today by driving on over bridges and through tunnels or out of airports still in service after over 70 years by the people you just claimed didn't have real jobs.

LOL, Stalin offered jobs too. It was called FORCED LABOR because his socialist economic ideas didn't work, just like FDRs. Shame, shame, shame on you. Don't you know that a conservative republican named Lincoln freed the slaves? Typical. A progressive tries to tell all of us how a progressive President because of socialist ideas FORCED people to have to work for the government, but it was all good. You just can't make this stuff up! Carry on progressives.

P.S. How many people died under forced labor to eat on the Hoover Damn? Oh, Stalin, FDR. Yep, I get it now!

 

[Statistikhengst]

"....fact free statements..."

Watch me ram this post back down you throat, you imbecile:

1. "Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. …
Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]


2. In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional.

Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."

This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.


"....fact free statements..."
Now you say what, you imbecile?

Thanks you dopey fool. This is a post you timed perfectly to show how dishonest your source Manly was. The acts or bills being discussed are two bills called the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 followed by the Bituminous Coal Act of 1937. The first on was called the Guffy-Snyder Act. It was ruled unconstitutional. The bill dealt with price controls of bituminous coal and labor regulations. The one FDR was writing about that was written to Congressman Hill that was used by Manly and now, you as you quote him, was written in regards to a follow up called the Guffy-Vinson as an assurance to Hill that the constitutional issues had been addressed. Sure enough, the Guffy-Vinson Act was passed and approved by the SCOTUS. The new Act retained the price controls but discarded controversial labor regulations. Hence, Roosevelt had given accurate and honest advice to Congressman Hill, not as you and Manly portray as dishonest advice and lobbying to pass unconstitutional law.

Note: Sources are small print legal reviews from academic sources. The above can be found in less complicated form at Wikipedia searching for Bituminous Coal Act 1935. Navigation to other more accepted resources are found there also.

Here is the exact bill FDR was writing about to Hill, the one the court fount constitutional.

nber.org/chapters/c2882.pdf

"..."I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."
In your face, dope.

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the New Deal repudiation of gold payments in government contracts and private contracts .... Justice McReynolds declared in a dissenting opinion that "the Constitution as we have known it is gone."
The Brookshire Times from Brookshire Texas Page 2


And this:

"Nebbia v. New York,...(1934),was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the state of New York could regulate (set and/or otherwise control) the price of milk for dairy farmers, dealers, and retailers.

Justice James C. McReynolds dissented from the majority opinion. His dissent was joined by JusticeWillis Van Devanter, Justice George Sutherland, and Justice Pierce Butler. These four Justices became nicknamed the Four Horsemen for their rejection of New Deal regulation.

McReynolds.... ultimately concluded that although “regulation to prevent recognized evils in business has long been upheld as permissible legislative action…fixation of the priceat which A, engaged in an ordinary business, may sell, in order to enable B, a producer, to improve his condition,has not been regarded as within legislative power,” adding “This is not regulation, but management, control, dictation.”"
Nebbia v. New York - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



"....but management, control, dictation."
Recognize what he was saying?
Government dictatorship.

De rigueur for Progressives.

That was the legacy of the Roosevelt Supreme Court.

You just did a bait and switch after ignoring the refute I handed you. FDR was right in what he told Hill. The 1937 bill turned out to be constitutional. You are simply ignoring the refute and continuing to use a 1937 letter about a specific bill as if it were written in 1935 about a different bill to make your point. It is dishonest and even after being shown it is dishonest you continue. Chances of an honest debate with you are hopeless.

This is why her name is PoliticalShit.

liberal don't like anyone who supports freedom as our Founders did and they hate anyone who supports our Constitution which was designed to make liberalism illegal in America.

Its no suprise that our liberals spied for Stalin and Hitler and some of them on USMB support Castro's liberal concentration camp island.

Oh, please do moan and groan some more. It's very entertaining.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Oh, please do moan and groan some more. It's very entertaining.

typical liberal without IQ for substance

 

[Camp]

Tens of millions of people went to work today by driving on over bridges and through tunnels or out of airports still in service after over 70 years by the people you just claimed didn't have real jobs.

so what you liberal idiot the Romans were building
bridges and tunnels 2000 years ago some of which still function today!!

notice the way you lie and try to change the subject rather than tell us if Morganthau lied??

You asked two questions and I answered one. I have already answered the Morgentheu question in this thread. I have in fact answered both question several time and provided links with my responses. Your generic cut and pace post was an exact replica of one PoliticalChic uses all the time. You must both go to the same rw site to plagiarize post material. The question about the Morgentheu statement was controversial and debated a half century ago. You are just regurgitating and old debating point.

I explained the two standards or differences in judging data just a few post back when I explained and provided a link to show how there were different standards used for judging the economic affects on industry and the affects on the citizens as a whole. I gave you the example of the small factory town. The factory was closed down the the economy sucked. When the WPA projects came to town the citizens did good. The economy was good. Folks had jobs and received pay checks that they went on to spend in the town stores and places of business. The factory however stayed closed and the factory owners said the economy sucked. Morgenthau represented the factory owners. FDR represented the citizens. Morgenthau and Roosevelt had differing priorities. FDR had patience and was willing to wait out the world wide depression. He knew the USA was limited in the 30's as to how it could influence the global economy. If you refuse to accept these simple facts and insist on stubbornly sticking to old agenda driven talking points that omit data not attractive or helpful to your position and distorted quotes you will never learn beyond what you get from opinion dominated commentaries.

BTW, you asked how many people died building the Hoover Dam while comparing working at the Hoover Dam to Stalin's forced labor. Millions died under Stalin's forced labor. 96 people died while building the Dam.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When the WPA projects came to town the citizens did good.

100% stupid, 100% liberal, 100% illiterate of course. The taxes to pay for one town, shut down another; that's why the Depression never ended till FDR thankfully died. That's why Morganthau( FDR's own Sec. of Treasury) stated the fact that total unemployment never went down because the idiotic liberal programs couldn't possibly work.

Does the low IQ liberal understand now??

 

[Camp]

When the WPA projects came to town the citizens did good.

100% stupid, 100% liberal, 100% illiterate of course. The taxes to pay for one town, shut down another; that's why the Depression never ended till FDR thankfully died. That's why Morganthau( FDR's own Sec. of Treasury) stated the fact that total unemployment never went down because the idiotic liberal programs couldn't possible work.

Does the low IQ liberal understand now??

Show a link where taxes to pay for one town shut down another. Explain how building the Blue Ridge Parkway closed down towns. That parkway is still supporting hundreds of little towns and communities 75 years after it was built. One of the projects that you claim didn't work.

Show a link that gives evidence the depression lasted until FDR died. Anyone can google Great Depression and have access to pages and pages of datelines and histories. They all say what I told you, again, just a few post back, the depression ended between 1939 and 1941 according to all those sources.

You are making bold statements while you call someone stupid and imply they have a low IQ. Back up your statements. Provide a link to where you are getting this data that enables you to make such statements. I think you are a talker. I told you in a previous post you were a person who talked the talk but could not walk the walk. Walk walk and prove your case.

 

[Camp]

Why has the second string showed up. This game has been over for days.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Show a link where taxes to pay for one town shut down another.

100% stupid and liberal. If tax money can sustain one town, then taking that money away can destroy it too. America had a million towns suffering in the FDR's Depression

Is that simple enough for your liberal IQ?