Scott Maddox enters Race for Governor!

[Florida]

^Oh Im not disappointed.

[monsoon]

Just how many people do you know who are old enough to recall being out of work and out of hope during the Great Depression ?

In any case, it may be nothing more than an enduring myth, the notion that Hoover did nothing to help beleagured Americans, whereas FDR was their savior. In his book FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression, Jim Powell outlines how interventionist policies prolongues the depression through the middle of WWII, whereas more sensible, less meddlesome policies might have ended the slump as early as 1936. interesting read.

And then of course FDR pretty much set a precedent for interventionist government, without which, it could be argued, America would be a far more prosperous and luminous society than it is at present.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was born in 1959, so I have known plenty who lived through that time. And without exception I have never met anyone who disagreed with what FDR did. In fact they were very very grateful for his programs. The fact that he won 4 terms is a testimate to his policies. FDR's WPA program put my grandfather back to work whose family was barely getting by after losing his job and his savings when the bank failed. And I have heard countless stories such as this. I have never heard anyone who actually lived through the Depression say otherwise.

You can choose to read what books you like and believe them. I'm sure Jim Powell makes money selling them. But as I mentioned above, go talk to people who survive that era. They will give you quite a different story. FDR most of all gave hope back to the country which saved it IMO, and put it into position to battle the Fascist governments that threatened to dominate the world.

Sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree to suggest that FDR's policies were bad for the USA. Without them, we may not even be here today.

[Dale]

I was born in 1959, so I have known plenty who lived through that time. And without exception I have never met anyone who disagreed with what FDR did. In fact they were very very grateful for his programs. The fact that he won 4 terms is a testimate to his policies. FDR's WPA program put my grandfather back to work whose family was barely getting by after losing his job and his savings when the bank failed. And I have heard countless stories such as this. I have never heard anyone who actually lived through the Depression say otherwise.

You can choose to read what books you like and believe them. I'm sure Jim Powell makes money selling them. But as I mentioned above, go talk to people who survive that era. They will give you quite a different story. FDR most of all gave hope back to the country which saved it IMO, and put it into position to battle the Fascist governments that threatened to dominate the world.

Sorry but you are barking up the wrong tree to suggest that FDR's policies were bad for the USA. Without them, we may not even be here today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/quote

I'm glad your grandfather found a means of sustenance during the depression. At the same time, I would not expect for people who received largess from the FDR generation to be among those concerned for the longstanding effects of FDR policies.

Aside from that, I don't know how do debate a man who tells me I'm barking up the wrong tree and who immediately casts aspersions on an author who brings a contrary point of view.

[monsoon]

I'm glad your grandfather found a means of sustenance during the depression. At the same time, I would not expect for people who received largess from the FDR generation to be among those concerned for the longstanding effects of FDR policies.

Aside from that, I don't know how do debate a man who tells me I'm barking up the wrong tree and who immediately casts aspersions on an author who brings a contrary point of view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am only addressing the information presented here. Anyone can write a book on what "could" have happened. But the reality of the situation was that the people had had enough of Hoover's policies and voted in an individual who did indeed fix the problem. It is history.

During FDR's term the country went from being on the brink of economic and societal collapse to becoming the most powerful industrial force in the entire world. The USA became a Superpower during his term. It is an achievement that has yet to be matched by any subsequent administration.

Capitalism had failed prior to FDR. FDR brought it back to life. The results cannot be disputed.

[Dale]

I am only addressing the information presented here.  Anyone can write a book on what "could" have happened.  But the reality of the situation was that the people had had enough of Hoover's policies and voted in an individual who did indeed fix the problem.  It is history.   

During FDR's term the country went from being on the brink of economic and societal collapse to becoming the most powerful industrial force in the entire world.  The USA became a Superpower during his term.  It is an achievement that has yet to be matched by any subsequent administration. 

Capitalism had failed prior to FDR.  FDR brought it back to life.  The results cannot be disputed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ironic that you should assert that FDR brought capitalism back to life. Some would argue that FDR's policies, however well-appreciated in their time, only served to establish a permant constituancy for socialism, as well as a broad dependent class.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said that, as soon as the people learn they can vote largess for themselves, the Republic will end ? Well, it's not at all surprising to me that people who receive jobs and money from a political leader would come to support him. After all, he's giving them jobs and money. but what of the long-term effects ?

Aeguably, interventionist policies fostered the Great Depression, prolonged it, and have had deletorious effects on the economy and society since.

[monsoon]

but what of the long-term effects ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well another famous quote from a very wise man. "Give a man a fish, he is fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, he is fed for life." FDR did this with his government programs.

I will repeat the long term effects again. The USA became a military and economic Superpower due to FDR's policies. And it continues to be the world's single superpower today. You simply can't argue with that long-term result. FDR saved capatilism as we know it.

[Dale]

Well another famous quote from a very wise man. "Give a man a fish, he is fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, he is fed for life."  FDR did this with his government programs. 

I will repeat the long term effects again.  The USA became a military and economic Superpower due to FDR's policies.  And it continues to be the world's single superpower today.  You simply can't argue with that long-term result.    FDR saved capatilism as we know it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can easily argue with the contention that FDR saved capitalism as we know it.

And FDR essentially put into place the practice of giving men fish every day so that there was no longer a need for men to fish.

[monsoon]

I can easily argue with the contention that FDR saved capitalism as we know it.

And FDR essentially put into place the practice of giving men fish every day so that there was no longer a need for men to fish. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I recommend that you do so then.

The WPA program that saved my Grandfather's family lasted in his area for 8 months. My grandfather lived for 4 more decades and did not receive any additional handouts from the government until he started collecting social security (another FDR program).

The experience he gained from the construction projects that he worked on in the WPA program allowed him to open a very successful business that lasted until he retired from it and passed the business on to my uncle and later it was passed to my cousin where it is still going today. My Grandfather was clearly taught to fish and passed that knowledge down the line. As I said earlier I have heard endless stories such as from people of my Grandfather's generation who praise FDR for what he did for this country.

You are clearly mistaken if you think that was a generation that existed from governmental handouts. This generation built the biggest economy on the earth.

[Dale]

I recommend that you do so then.

The WPA program that saved my Grandfather's family lasted in his area for 8 months.

[monsoon]

Well if you are bringing in examples of what was going on in other countries at the time in response to the effects of the depression, I notice that you ignored Germany. It too can be used as a guide for what could of happened in the United States. And three years later it almost destroyed England. Chile later fell to dictatorship and Australia had a smaller population than New York. Under FDR, we saved England, elminated the facists in Germany and created today's USA. Of the 3 countries you mention, I prefer what happened here.

You will need to explain what you mean by a permanent underclass and give some examples of what FDR did to created it and perpetuate it. I just dont see it.

[Dale]

Well if you are bringing in examples of what was going on in other countries at the time in response to the effects of the depression, I notice that you ignored Germany.  It too can be used as a guide for what could of happened in the United States.  And three  years later it almost destroyed England.  Chile later fell to dictatorship and Australia had a smaller population than New York.  Under FDR, we saved England, elminated the facists in Germany and created today's USA.  Of the 3 countries you mention, I prefer what happened here.

You will need to explain what you mean by a permanent underclass and give some examples of what FDR did to created it and perpetuate it.  I just dont see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The economic performance of countries which did not implement FDR-like policies is enough to demolish, I think, any pretensions that FDR's policies were appropriate prescriptions for the then ailing economy.

I'm not sure what Germany has to do with this.

And I am arguing, in broad terms, that FDR's interventionist approach set the stage for, established the precedent for policies and programs that foster dependence on government. Would you deny that many millions are not dependent on government ? Where did it begin ? For practical purposes, I would argue FDR.

Now let me hasten to add that I do not believe that FDR was a bad man. I would not even argue that his administration was wholly bad (but rather a mixed-bag).

[monsoon]

To answer your question on what does Germany have to do with it, I would counter that what does England have to do with it? You made the argument FDR's policies in the USA were lacking because England was doing better. I will argue that if England is relevant then so is Germany. They were both peers to the USA at the time and both were crumbling ruins when FDR passed away. I however think neither was relevant because the size and variety of the USA make it unique and neither can be used as a yardstick to as to how well FDR was doing.

Everyone is dependant on government that is very true. They are dependant upon government for building roads, providing defense, education, utilities, police, etc. etc. What is wrong with that? This did not start with FDR but with the signing of the Constitution. You can argue in broad terms but that does not support any argument that he created a permanent sense of entitlement in this country. The WWII generation was much more independant of government than we are today.

If you are going to condemn FDR, then again I ask for specific examples.

[Dale]

To answer your question on what does Germany have to do with it, I would counter that what does England have to do with it?  You made the argument FDR's policies  in the USA were lacking because England was doing better.  I will argue that if England is relevant then so is Germany.  They were both peers to the USA at the time and both were crumbling ruins when FDR passed away.  I however think neither was relevant because the size and variety of the USA make it unique and neither can be used as a yardstick to as to how well FDR was doing. 

Everyone is dependant on government that is very true.  They are dependant upon government for building roads, providing defense, education, utilities, police, etc. etc. What is wrong with that?  This did not start with FDR but with the signing of the Constitution.  You can argue in broad terms but that does not support any argument that he created a permanent sense of entitlement in this country.  The WWII generation was much more independant of government than we are today.   

If you are going to condemn FDR, then again I ask for specific examples.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You could characterize my omission of Germany as a dodge, I suppose, if Germany was a bastion of free-market economics, which of course it was not. My point with England is that it thrived, relative to America, because it eschewed so many of FDR's interventionist policies. In fact, it is fascinating to compare and contrast FDR's and Churchill's attitudes on governance, which were very different, Churchill coming across as more of what I would envision a true conserative would be like.

But getting back to FDR, it is ironic that you credit him with vanquishing fascism, especially since he was an aedent admirer of Mussolini and hos policies, or so I'm given to understand. And he did not stop with admiration. his National Recovery Act gave him virtual dictatorial powers over industry and business.

And not only can I argue that FDR policies enshrined a sense of entitlement on the part of the citizenry, I can argue that no one man did more to accomplish such in the history of our nation, beginning with his Social Security Act of 1935 (out of which spun the ADC, then the ADFC, which seeded an explosion of dependent mothers and children). Now, sure, I suppose you could argue that entitlement has worsened since. Again, I am arguing that none more than FDR gave liscense to this nasty frame-of-mind.

Then you had the FDIC, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Emergency Banking Relief Act, the TVA, the Federal Securities Act, the National Labor Relations Act (to name a few), all of which had the net effect of usurping individual liberties as well as responsibility. He even seized the people's gold !

FDR's only thinly-veiled socialism gave rise to Statism, and a state-of-affairs as far from the vision of the Founding Fathers as I can imagine.

[Dale]

Oh, and do I think that Bush and the Republicans govern *as if* they repudiate FDR's statist ideals ?

Sadly, clearly, no.

[monsoon]

Hmm, doesn't England have national health care now? And the FDR inspired safety nets that we have in this country pale compared to those in Europe. Europe took what FDR did and elevated to a level never seen in this country. I am reminded of your words of "broad dependant class" What you argue and the reality of what happened again do not match.

I am not sure where you got your history from but I recommend that you read up on FDR. FDR did not admire fascism, but he did admire Mussolini's seemingly ability to make the trains run on time. A big difference. FDR was terrified of German fascism and what it would mean to the USA if Germany succeeded in defeating Britian. He wanted for months to enter the war on the side of Britian but a very reluctant isolationist Congress would not let him. It was only the bombing of Pearl Harbor that changed everything. Fortunately he had had the foresight to beging building a military that was left in a shambles from the Hoover days.

If you have a beef with unwed mothers and their children relying on welfare that is your right, but it doesn't address what we were discussing above. But since you brought it up please provide some numbers to back what you call an explosion.

Now back to the subject we were actually discussing. You were going to tell me why FDR did not save capitalism as we know it. So far you have avoided this question that you said you could easily answer.

[Dale]

Hmm,  doesn't England have national health care now?  And the FDR inspired safety nets that we have in this country pale compared to those in Europe.  Europe took what FDR did and elevated to a level never seen in this country.  I am reminded of your words of "broad dependant class"  What you argue and the reality of what happened again do not match. 

I am not sure where you got your history from but I recommend that you read up on FDR. FDR did not admire fascism, but he did admire Mussolini's seemingly ability to make the trains run on time.  A big difference.  FDR was terrified of German fascism and what it would mean to the USA if Germany succeeded in defeating Britian.  He wanted for months to enter the war on the side of Britian but a very reluctant isolationist Congress would not let him.  It was only the bombing of Pearl Harbor that changed everything.  Fortunately he had had the foresight to beging building a military that was left in a shambles from the Hoover days. 

If you have a beef with unwed mothers and their children relying on welfare that is your right, but it doesn't address what we were discussing above.  But since you brought it up please provide some numbers to back what you call an explosion.

Now back to the subject we were actually discussing.  You were going to tell me why FDR did not save capitalism as we know it.  So far you have avoided this question that you said you could easily answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, England has become the perfect nanny-state of late. Bit of course I was comparing the U.S. of FDR to the England of Churchill.

You've opened up a can of worms as regards WWII and FDR. And I'm not sure I want to go there (you think I'm unorthodox on FDR and economy...).

And it's not so much that I have a beef with helping unwed mothers as it is that I have a beef with people (FDR included) who will not trust me to help (or not help) others in a manner I deem fit. But I should think you'd have to agree that there has been a positive correlation between welfare and the kind of conditions thought to warrant welfare, also known as subsidizing bad behavior.

And upon further reflection, I just don't know that it makes much sense to say that 'FDR saved capitalism as we know it.' Or maybe one could argue that he is hugely instrumental in shaping the kind of economical system often mistaken for capitalism.

[RiversideGator]

monsoon: Hoover was a fine man who did not intervene to help revive the economy because he did not believe that was the Constitutionally allowed role of the federal govt. (which I happen to agree with). The truth is, if Roosevelt had simply done nothing, the economy would have been back on track by 1932 or so, just as it had after every previous depression (or "Panic" as they called them back then). Roosevelt's "help" prolonged, repeat prolonged, the Depression. And the idea that Roosevelt saved capitalism in America by moving us towards socialism is one of the hoariest myths out there. How do you save someone from something by moving halfway there??

As Dale suggested, the proper role of the govt in the economy is to set up a system of sound money, protections of contract (i.e. to prevent people from defrauding each other and cheating), protections of property rights, unfettered interstate commerce, and national defense. A safety net for those truly unable to work is not a bad thing either. Anything beyond this harms the economy. Remember M-boi, it is your hated capitalists who are conducting all this urban development...

[RiversideGator]

And, as for FDR, I will say he was a somewhat reprehensible figure. It is well documented that he was a compulsive liar, lying to various constituencies when it suited him. He also clearly lied in the campaign of 1940 when he promised not to get us into WWII when meanwhile he was already aiding the British and embargoing the Japanese (which is an act of war, by the way). Now, my family fought in WWII and it probably had to be done, but he wasnt honest about getting us entangled in it.

As to the WPA, while it surely helped those it employed, it wouldnt have been necessary but for FDR's meddling in the economy in the first place. He sustained the unemployment with his wrongheaded policies. I simply find it amazing after the complete and utter disaster that Communism and Socialism have proven to be that any intelligent person still argues for their implementation.

[Dale]

RiversideGator -

Phew ! Now maybe you can take the heat for a while, while I get back to another forum where I' arguing that there is no such thing as 'mental illness'.

[Florida]

Hmm,  doesn't England have national health care now?  And the FDR inspired safety nets that we have in this country pale compared to those in Europe.  Europe took what FDR did and elevated to a level never seen in this country.  I am reminded of your words of "broad dependant class"  What you argue and the reality of what happened again do not match. 

I am not sure where you got your history from but I recommend that you read up on FDR. FDR did not admire fascism, but he did admire Mussolini's seemingly ability to make the trains run on time.  A big difference.  FDR was terrified of German fascism and what it would mean to the USA if Germany succeeded in defeating Britian.  He wanted for months to enter the war on the side of Britian but a very reluctant isolationist Congress would not let him.  It was only the bombing of Pearl Harbor that changed everything.  Fortunately he had had the foresight to beging building a military that was left in a shambles from the Hoover days. 

If you have a beef with unwed mothers and their children relying on welfare that is your right, but it doesn't address what we were discussing above.  But since you brought it up please provide some numbers to back what you call an explosion.

Now back to the subject we were actually discussing.  You were going to tell me why FDR did not save capitalism as we know it.  So far you have avoided this question that you said you could easily answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

^This is more inline with what I learned. I'm with you Metro.

[monsoon]

^This is more inline with what I learned. I'm with you Metro.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why thanks. Sorry for letting your thread get hijacked.

[Dale]

^This is more inline with what I learned. I'm with you Metro.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which brings up the very good point that we're taught lots of myths in government schools. It's a bit like a religion - faith in government. And FDR tends to be portrayed as a messiah-like figure.

[Florida]

^What type of school did you go to Dale?

[Dale]

^What type of school did you go to Dale?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My name is Dale, and I'm a recovering former government school student.

[Aessotariq]

I was never taught blind faith in government. In fact it was the total opposite. Question everything, faith in nothing, demand accountability and transparency. Government's role is a necessary one and there are certain things that only the public sector can do, but it should be monitored cautiously. No one should be given carte blanche to do anything. That's probably why I'm such a cynic. That and my baby-boomer father (part of one of the most lied-to generations ever), who reinforced this curiosity and awareness.