THE FDR MYTH ....exposed

tinyTURTLE

Well-Known Member
too bad you people with all this inside knowlege are using THIS as a forum to get the info out.
i can see why, all the power policy makers in the world frequent this website.
you are kinda like the guy (beard, dirty clothes, boozey breath) who is CERTAIN that aliens are running
the governments of the world, but nobody will listen to him.
all this great knowlege is dust in the wind without a proper venue.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Here is your argument in a NUTshell Balzac..

FDR wasn't about the economy... :lol:

Okay.... FDR tried to HELP everyone by destroying the job market and taxing everything that moved. FDR dried up the entire private sector so the country would get better!!!

That is IDIOTIC!!!! Pure idiocy.............
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
You ever read FDR's Second Bill of Rights?
this is the same hogwash that the liberal establishment has been trying to cram down our throats for decades. the right to access to all these things already exists. the problem with declaring we all have the right to such things as a home, medical care, food and clothing is that these things all belong to or must be provided by someone else. demanding that those products and services be provided is an infringement on the rights of those others. these aren't things that are just lying around. a home must be built, food must be grown on someone's land and clothing must be made with materials that someone must somehow procure. everyone having everything they need is a wonderful dream that many of us are willing to make sacrifices for to attain. forcing anyone to make those sacrifices was made illegal in the words of the constitution and is immoral in the eyes of anyone with a conscience.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
What he doesn't realize is.... drum roll...... that is exactly what is in the OP!!! So either he didn't read the OP or he can't understand the OP. Try actually reading before you post next time.... :roll:

After FDR pretty much destroyed the country economically, he wanted to DOUBLE down (2nd bill of rights).... and his OWN PARTY said NO!!!

Let me repeat that for the slow liberals ( I know, repetitive)

THE DEMOCRATS SAID NO..!!

Only ur own lack of education makes it look like a good deal. Obama is very much counting on ur lack of education.... seems he might be on to something....but luckily the majority of the country is a bit brighter .... but it has taken them a long time to get there.... Cracker was there in June 2008....

FDR destroyed the country..... and tried to do it again.... but his own party stopped the nonsense.... and yet...here we are... back again with NONSENSE ECONOMICS!

Obama hasn't a clue how to fix the economy. Not a clue.
 

TheDemocrat

Active Member
What he doesn't realize is.... drum roll...... that is exactly what is in the OP!!! So either he didn't read the OP or he can't understand the OP. Try actually reading before you post next time.... :roll:

After FDR pretty much destroyed the country economically, he wanted to DOUBLE down (2nd bill of rights).... and his OWN PARTY said NO!!!

Let me repeat that for the slow liberals ( I know, repetitive)

THE DEMOCRATS SAID NO..!!

Only ur own lack of education makes it look like a good deal. Obama is very much counting on ur lack of education.... seems he might be on to something....but luckily the majority of the country is a bit brighter .... but it has taken them a long time to get there.... Cracker was there in June 2008....

FDR destroyed the country..... and tried to do it again.... but his own party stopped the nonsense.... and yet...here we are... back again with NONSENSE ECONOMICS!

Obama hasn't a clue how to fix the economy. Not a clue.
I don't think it was because anyone said no....I think it was because FDR died. The future is known. The past is yet to be determined.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
You haven't a clue have you..... holey mackerel.

FDR destroyed the free markets..... which destroyed any hope of a recovery.



Please.... FDR was SO about the economy..... that is a ridiculous thing to say. Why do you think he made all of the vast changes. To change the economy.... which according to Balzac....he wasn't about at all. FDR was like a big boy scout...helping them across the economic street.

BS!!! Let's not become completely naive now..... :lol:

FDR enacted unproven and as it turned out to be, a recovery killing economic model. This is the very same model Obama is using today.

The USA would have already been free of this mess if Obama hadn't been elected. TRILLIONS would NOT have been added to our debt bill. Much more is to come.....

but wake up (all except RED who is well.... slow) to the reality of what is happening.

When the facts are put in front of you and you go into denial.... it only means one thing. The problem isn't with the facts.

FACT: FDR delayed and damaged the country by destroying the free market system. Only after his plans were finally rejected, did the country recover.

What should have been a rough 5 years, turned into a rough 15 years..... thanks to Keynesian economics......


And Harvard grad Obama & Democrat Congress are doing the same thing....

They are so smart.... uhhh no.
this is where you are mistaken.

Obama is NOT following FDR's model. FDR's policies did not cause or extend the Great Depression.

the deregulated financial market, the unquestionable amount of greed, and a press that was too eager to cause a panic led to the great depression.

the country took so long to pull itself out of misery because of the sheer size of the economy.

FDR helped millions of americans get through the most miserable time in the history of the country.

you keep screaming Keynesyian economics blah blah blah... they don't work for every industry, we heard you the first time.

you forget that Adam Smith was also proven wrong. Laize-Faire, free markets, has been proven NOT to be the best route towards economic development.

you're wrong. try again.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
this is where you are mistaken.

Obama is NOT following FDR's model. FDR's policies did not cause or extend the Great Depression.

the deregulated financial market, the unquestionable amount of greed, and a press that was too eager to cause a panic led to the great depression.

the country took so long to pull itself out of misery because of the sheer size of the economy.

FDR helped millions of americans get through the most miserable time in the history of the country.

you keep screaming Keynesyian economics blah blah blah... they don't work for every industry, we heard you the first time.

you forget that Adam Smith was also proven wrong. Laize-Faire, free markets, has been proven NOT to be the best route towards economic development.

you're wrong. try again.
O RLY?

Then please explain how 1921 was a MUCH WORSE economic depression than 1929, BY FAR and yet because of the wise President Harding who cut government expenditures and downsized. He did nothing to bring about any social programs...Laissez-faire economic policy was his ideal. The country recovered in less than 18 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21
 

ViRedd

New Member

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Home | About | Columnists | Blog | Subscribe | Donate[/FONT]​
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The Roosevelt Myth
A Review of FDR, 1892–1945: A Centenary Remembrance, by Joseph Alsop
[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]by Murray N. Rothbard
by Murray N. Rothbard
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]First published in [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Inquiry, April 12,1982.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Antidote to Alsop[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]When Ronald Reagan highlighted a quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt in his acceptance speech at the 1980 Republican convention, it seemed like a clever tactical ploy to gain the votes of blue-collar workers with long memories. But it has since become clear that this was a mark of genuine devotion, and that FDR truly serves as a presidential model for Reagan. In this Roosevelt centennial year, moreover, the conservative, movement, led by journalists George Will and Vermont Royster, has hastened to celebrate what Will has called "the splendid legacy of FDR" and what Royster has termed – in the pages of the Wall Street Journal no less – the "greatness" of FDR, "that quality of being larger than other men, seeming larger than life." While not exactly a conservative, Joseph Alsop is at least a Rockefeller Republican, and so it is fitting that this kinsman of FDR should now be performing the major act of integrating Roosevelt into the pantheon of American heroes. A gushing memorial valentine, Alsop’s book has been excerpted, cited, and generally treated as the official line on Franklin Roosevelt.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What’s going on here? How can men who aim to Get The Government Off Our Backs apotheosize the very man who entrenched the welfare state in America? Surely the perfervid conservative embrace of the shade of FDR suggests far more than the usual centennial pieties and the fact that, with the striking exceptions of Hitler and Stalin, the mere passage of time for most Americans seems to cast a fuzzy bipartisan glow upon all defunct heads of state.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In fact, there is a far more sinister process at work. Americans have long shown an inclination to invest The President with mythic powers and significance not even accurately attributable to absolute monarchs and tribal chiefs of yore. Whatever happens in any era, in the economy, the society, or the culture as well as to all individual goals and aspirations is loaded onto this chimerical figure. The president becomes the embodiment of the entire country, even of much of the globe. But in that case, for us to be great, we must have a Great President; hence the continuing quest for chief executives who can be made to fit the mold of the mythic hero. We have heard much in recent decades of the dangers of "elitist history"; but this is elitist history gone berserk.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]All this, of course, fits with the modern buildup of the Imperial Presidency, of which FDR is the founder and grand exemplar. If one reads the simpering tributes of Reagan and other conservatives, as well as of liberals, centrists, and the myriad other worshippers at the Rooseveltian shrine, one sees always the theme of the Leader: "He brought us hope." "He saw us through hard times." "He brought greatness to the presidency."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]For Ronald Reagan himself, the role model is even clearer. Reagan sees FDR as his prototype, the Great Communicator. What "Ronnie" is to the age of television, FDR was to the age of radio. He was virtually Mr. Radio, as Roosevelt’s mellifluous voice, in the unfamiliar patrician tones that Americans admire, played on his audience in masterly fashion. Reagan gushes in remembrance: "When he came on, it was the biggest radio audience ever…. This was one of his great strengths…his ability to communicate." One consummate actor salutes another.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]A hallmark of myth is that the mythmakers don’t seem to care that their generalizations cannot be grounded in hard facts. Roosevelt brought us hope in the depression? Perhaps. But in the concrete all he brought us was a decade more of depression, which we did not get out of until World War II. If we wished to be unkind, we might surmise that Reagan is enchanted with FDR’s ability to hang the Depression as an albatross around the neck of Herbert Hoover forever, and to absolve himself of all responsibility, while he basked in the glow of appreciation for bringing us the tinsel of good cheer in hard times. Reagan is attempting the similar ploy of blaming Jimmy Carter and other predecessors for his own record deficits, but this time the hokum doesn’t seem to wash.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]None of the mythmakers excels Joseph Alsop in sundering the glittering and dearly cherished generality from the hard facts. Thus, in summing up FDR’s personality, Alsop reveals an unlovely picture: a man who enjoyed encouraging his subordinates to fight it out in public; a man who discarded people "when they ceased to be useful to him"; an obtuse and insensitive husband; an enigmatic pragmatist interested only in "results"; and – what Alsop doesn’t sufficiently stress – a politician notorious even in that hypocritical company for giving any man he saw the strong impression that the two of them were in complete agreement. But, after that damning litany, Alsop leaps to the conclusion that FDR was a "truly good man." Why? In an unconscious self-parody, because Roosevelt "was the unrelenting enemy of misery, poverty, oppression, cruelty… and every other form of nastiness and source of unhappiness that human beings and their societies are given to, and he was the stout friend of plenty, generosity, decency" and on and on. "In truth," Alsop concludes, "he loved the light and loathed the darkness.…" Will the friends of misery, darkness, cruelty, and nastiness, and the enemies of plenty, generosity, and decency please stand up? The author of this mawkish claptrap is called by his publishers "coolly admiring" of FDR; one would hate to see what Viking Press might consider an excess of hot-eyed adulation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In one of his most bizarre judgments, solemnly repeated by Time magazine, Alsop asserts – again without the slightest evidence – that Roosevelt put an end to WASP rule in America and brought the Catholic ethnics into the American system. How he is supposed to have done so, Alsop keeps to himself. And one can only comment that when Alsop goes on to attribute all opposition to Roosevelt to the virus of WASP bigotry, he forgets that there were a host of Catholic ethnics second to none in their intransigent hostility to FDR.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]One test of the mettle of any Roosevelt biographer is how he handles the Warm Springs Foundation story. Alsop repeats the self-serving half-truth trumpeted by FDR himself that he lost two-thirds of his personal funds investing in the Warm Springs spa for polio victims. What he conspicuously fails to add is that Roosevelt’s condition for running for governor of New York in 1928 was that DuPont magnate John J. Raskob, the major backer of Democratic presidential candidate Al Smith, bail out his Warm Springs losses. Nor is there any mention of FDR’s pioneering the kind of spying on law-abiding American citizens that became notorious among his successors. As political scientist Allen Weinstein pointed out in a refreshing article in the Washington Post, the recently discovered fact that Roosevelt secretly bugged the Oval Office and discussed with aides the possibility of using "dirty tricks" on Wendell Willkie in the 1940 campaign should be seen in a wider context: the use of secret agents and wiretapping to keep track of and harass his political opponents. Roosevelt, for instance, had a wiretap as well as an informer planted in the offices of the great anti-interventionist paper, the Washington Times-Herald. Other critics of Roosevelt’s war policy were similarly bugged; and J. Edgar Hoover was given instructions to monitor the affair going on between young John F. Kennedy and Inga Arvad, a young reporter on the Times-Herald. In short, many of the excesses we associate with the subsequent baddies in the Oval Office have their real origin in the "great" FDR.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But Reagan and his fellow conservatives are not merely engaged in embracing the Imperial Presidency. In hailing FDR they are symbolizing their enthusiastic acceptance of the whole welfare-warfare state, which a domineering executive power has built in America. Standing on the shoulders of his political mentor, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt was the premier figure in converting America from roughly a land of individualism to a country dominated by a Big Government wielding imperial power at home and abroad. Despite all the rhetoric about Getting Government Off Our Backs, the conservative movement intends nothing of the kind. In the course of a paean to FDR, George Will hails Roosevelt’s irrevocable redefinition of the relationship of the citizen to the central government." The "redefinition" was in fact a restructuring of an entire country. Once a land where the citizen had been sovereign and the government at least apparently his servant, FDR above all others forged a nation where the government is master and the citizen a hapless pawn.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]As Will puts it, before Roosevelt "government had acknowledged only a duty to produce ‘conditions’ in which people could pursue happiness." But since FDR, government "has the final responsibility for the well-being of its citizenship"; it is an "agency for delivering a measure of happiness." I don’t know how much happiness government has brought to any of us lately, but in any case if government has final responsibility it must have the ultimate power to tell us what to do and to make sure that we do it. In that sort of a post-Rooseveltian world, our happiness and well-being are highly problematic; but the power over us is not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
But it is the world empire Roosevelt gave us that truly enchants conservatives of every stripe, from Will to Reagan to Alsop. As George Will rhapsodizes: "When FDR died in 1945 America was more supreme than Great Britain after Waterloo, than the France of Louis XIV – than any power since the Roman Empire. And it had a central government commensurate with that role." That’s what the current apotheosis of FDR is all about. Conservatives may quarrel with the details of what Roosevelt did with the American empire, but they can forgive him everything for the mighty power that he has secured. (Both Will and Alsop dismiss Roosevelt’s dealings with Stalin as of little moment, though Will is a bit more critical. Alsop manages to shift the blame to FDR’s fatigue and ill-health combined with pro-Soviet misinformation disseminated by the New York Times.)
[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Reaganites might subtract a few food stamps here and add a few missiles there, they might transpose a few of the formerly designated "good nations" and "bad nations," but they are clearly content with the legacy of Big Government at home and abroad that Franklin Roosevelt left us. Conservatives, liberals, and all breeds in between are content to salute the centennial and dance together around the Maypole of the status quo.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.[/FONT]



[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Copyright © 2005 Ludwig von Mises Institute
All rights reserved.
[/FONT]​
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Murray Rothbard Archives [/FONT]​
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page[/FONT]​
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Wow, great thread CJ, and iamstoned fer the fact of the matter!


.
very informative. good arguments in here too.
Your welcome Fuzzy ...glad you enjoyed it

IMO the only way we as humans have devised a way to get out of massive debt is by killing other people, taking over their country and selling their resources. We WILL have another world war due to all of this fraud and debt in the system.
Certainly the USA went out of its way to avoid getting involved with the European corruption which was taking place in the late 30's, and as the OP points out...WW2 did not pull us out of anything. The massive debt we have accumulated is basically because of the entitlement mentality which started in the 60's and is now in overdrive. It is our swinging back and forth with different economic models which get us nowhere.
If the USA would simply and officially trash Keynesian economics, you would see a dramatic difference in a short time.

Follow the path of the Tea Party patriots....for their path is the ONLY one which can lead us out of the dark forest of mediocrity. Right now, they are the ONLY group out there making any sense at all.
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
Your welcome Fuzzy ...glad you enjoyed it



Certainly the USA went out of its way to avoid getting involved with the European corruption which was taking place in the late 30's, and as the OP points out...WW2 did not pull us out of anything. The massive debt we have accumulated is basically because of the entitlement mentality which started in the 60's and is now in overdrive. It is our swinging back and forth with different economic models which get us nowhere.
If the USA would simply and officially trash Keynesian economics, you would see a dramatic difference in a short time.

Follow the path of the Tea Party patriots....for their path is the ONLY one which can lead us out of the dark forest of mediocrity. Right now, they are the ONLY group out there making any sense at all.
very similar rhetoric to the one spewed in church:

'only the path of god will lead to....'

only god can save you from.....

it's dogmatic, fanatic, and lacking in any real intellectual value.

bongsmiliebongsmiliebongsmiliebongsmiliebongsmilie:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The absence of regulation in the stock market is what caused the great depression. As seen today with the deregulation of the housing market. Thanks Bush!
In a free market supply and demand act as "regulators". When an artificial 3rd party is inserted (government) the market becomes skewed.

Inhibitions and prohibitions serve to cause false happenings in a government regulated market. What do you think would happen to the price of Cannabis if the government got out of "regulating" it? The consumer benefits when unregulated markets are allowed...true competition drives prices down.

I don't believe the housing market crash has anything to do with the idiot Bush.
Why do you believe he caused it?
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
O RLY?

Then please explain how 1921 was a MUCH WORSE economic depression than 1929, BY FAR and yet because of the wise President Harding who cut government expenditures and downsized. He did nothing to bring about any social programs...Laissez-faire economic policy was his ideal. The country recovered in less than 18 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21
Yes cutting taxes and government spending by 40 percent in 2 years time did the trick. We went from 11 percent unemployment to 7 to under 4 in 2 years.
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
I'm sure you have all grown up and heard over and over again, that no matter what else...FDR did end the depression. If I heard that once, I heard it a hundred times..... This also ties into a statement often heard that it was WW2 which helped pull us out as well...which is a very small consolation prize since 100's of thousands had to die to bring it about.... if it's true.

But is it actually the truth of the matter? The answer is an unequivocal NO. In fact, it is just the opposite. So let's look at the period of US history when Keynesian economics was in full swing.

It's the same with the WW2 comment.... the answer is NO, the war did NOT pull us out of the depression and any positives were very limited. Building tonnage of war equipment is an awful way to bring about prosperity. You can't drive a half track down a highway to get to work.... it goes on the scrap heap typically as soon as peace thankfully arrives.
Agreed. The war caused a command economy not a free market economy. People look at the jobs and think all was well with the economy. Now, as in then, you should ask, at what cost.

There is no way our war effort was cost effective and efficient. Tons of waste and corruption during the wartime economy. Also "individual production" was down. Our best workers were overseas fighting. During the war the work was done by unskilled labor, meaning women and teenagers. This was the 40's women didn't have much work experience outside the home and the few that did could not do the physical work at the same efficiency as men. Once the war ended and our troops came home the economy stabilized.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
In a free market supply and demand act as "regulators". When an artificial 3rd party is inserted (government) the market becomes skewed.

Inhibitions and prohibitions serve to cause false happenings in a government regulated market. What do you think would happen to the price of Cannabis if the government got out of "regulating" it? The consumer benefits when unregulated markets are allowed...true competition drives prices down.

I don't believe the housing market crash has anything to do with the idiot Bush.
Why do you believe he caused it?
The democrats are working very hard to take away "costs" from the consumer.... which drives costs UP in the long run. How many ppl DON'T take the free mints when they leave the restaurant after dinner. some take just one...but most take a handful. That is why Keynesian always fails to do anything good in the long term. It's just another economic nail in our coffin.

Agreed. The war caused a command economy not a free market economy. People look at the jobs and think all was well with the economy. Now, as in then, you should ask, at what cost.

There is no way our war effort was cost effective and efficient. Tons of waste and corruption during the wartime economy. Also "individual production" was down. Our best workers were overseas fighting. During the war the work was done by unskilled labor, meaning women and teenagers. This was the 40's women didn't have much work experience outside the home and the few that did could not do the physical work at the same efficiency as men. Once the war ended and our troops came home the economy stabilized.
Yes, Parker....correct. We stabilized because FINALLY even a Democrat Congress had had enough of FDR'S inane policies. Their rejection of it saved the country.

We must REJECT it again if we are going to leave anything to our future population to build upon.

Banks gave twice as much to democrats in the last election cycle too..... Democrats are now the FAT CAT political party, not the Republicans. This insane Dodd bill must be defeated.
 
Top