Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2009 Posted January 21, 2009 It may have been his fault, but it was corrected while he was still president and before 1941. He didn't leave an economic mess for the next president to clean up. So let me ask you. Did Bush inherit a mess in 2001 that he cleaned up by 2003?
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 So let me ask you. Did Bush inherit a mess in 2001 that he cleaned up by 2003? The economy was doing great till 06,when Dem's got the house. That seems to be the great forgotten fact of history.
Alaska Darin Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 The economy was doing great till 06,when Dem's got the house. That seems to be the great forgotten fact of history. The fact that the economy is in the shitter has pretty much nothing to do with who controlled the Executive or the Congress in the short term. But keep trying to point those fingers anyway. That's the stupidity the two party system counts on.
Max Fischer Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 So, FDR made the Great Depression "worse?" That may come as a surprise to the generations of Americans who literally believed FDR saved their lives. You have no concept of what Americans and this country endured during that time.
Wacka Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 So, FDR made the Great Depression "worse?" That may come as a surprise to the generations of Americans who literally believed FDR saved their lives. You have no concept of what Americans and this country endured during that time. Proof that the American public was just as stupid then as they are now. What Obama wants to do now will have the same effect.
Boomer860 Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 So, FDR made the Great Depression "worse?" That may come as a surprise to the generations of Americans who literally believed FDR saved their lives. You have no concept of what Americans and this country endured during that time. Neither do you.
Fingon Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Unemployment numbers are pretty meaningless under FDR. We could have 0% unemployment if the government decided to spend a few trillion dollars.
/dev/null Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Unemployment numbers are pretty meaningless under FDR. We could have 0% unemployment if the government decided to spend a few trillion dollars. Or we could have no new jobs. This guy isn't even sure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtFwS2W3ITI
Max Fischer Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Neither do you. What, exactly, are you trying to say? The Great Depression was not a catastrophe, it did not impose a severe economic hardship on nearly every American household? Or, was it just a conspiracy to increase the role of government? How exactly did FDR make the Great Depression "worse?" How were American families worse-off under FDR's policies? What would have made the economy and the life of tens of millions of citizens better than what was prescribed overall? Do nothing? This shameful revisionist history defames what the people of this country went through.
Chump Change Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 The fact that the economy is in the shitter has pretty much nothing to do with who controlled the Executive or the Congress in the short term. But keep trying to point those fingers anyway. That's the stupidity the two party system counts on. Shhh, don't share the secret. It might require some critical thought on their part, which could be catastropic to their brain housing group.
Fingon Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 What, exactly, are you trying to say? The Great Depression was not a catastrophe, it did not impose a severe economic hardship on nearly every American household? Or, was it just a conspiracy to increase the role of government? How exactly did FDR make the Great Depression "worse?" How were American families worse-off under FDR's policies? What would have made the economy and the life of tens of millions of citizens better than what was prescribed overall? Do nothing? This shameful revisionist history defames what the people of this country went through. Ill tell you how. The New Deal's tax increases hit poor people harder than they did rich people, as much of them were consumption taxes.
Max Fischer Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Ill tell you how. The New Deal's tax increases hit poor people harder than they did rich people, as much of them were consumption taxes. Really? Please show us a credible article that supports your claim.
Adam Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 After watching a little more, it seems as if he did boost morale to help people get through the depression and helped set the stage for them to be ready to come out of it. His getting into the war helped pull us out of it, despite the fact he was re elected on the lie that he wasn't going to get into it. Looks like with FDR, you got good and bad....same with a lot of other presidents
Chump Change Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 After watching a little more, it seems as if he did boost morale to help people get through the depression and helped set the stage for them to be ready to come out of it. His getting into the war helped pull us out of it, despite the fact he was re elected on the lie that he wasn't going to get into it. Looks like with FDR, you got good and bad....same with a lot of other presidents 'Cept Bush...he's all Bad! don't you read the treads here?
Fingon Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Really? Please show us a credible article that supports your claim. the US treasury says "excise taxes were not sound economic policy and often fell disproportionately on the less affluent." http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-she...xes/ustax.shtml FDR used excise taxes "the federal government increased income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and “excess profits” taxes." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23view.html "The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity!" http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357
Fingon Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 After watching a little more, it seems as if he did boost morale to help people get through the depression and helped set the stage for them to be ready to come out of it. His getting into the war helped pull us out of it, despite the fact he was re elected on the lie that he wasn't going to get into it. Looks like with FDR, you got good and bad....same with a lot of other presidentsHis economic policies only prolonged the depression, though.
Max Fischer Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 the US treasury says "excise taxes were not sound economic policy and often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-she...xes/ustax.shtml FDR used excise taxes "the federal government increased income taxes, excise taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and “excess profits” taxes." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/business/23view.html "The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity!" http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357 This is laughable. Dude, you can't make 3+2 = 4 no matter how convoluted you arrange your "evidence."
Adam Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 'Cept Bush...he's all Bad! don't you read the treads here? Sometimes how you react to a crisis defines the term, sometimes the crisis itself defines the term. I don't think he had a good presidency, but none of the backseat executives would want to be in that office. I disagree with most of what he did, but he tried to serve his country as best as he could. I don't think Obama is all that great, but I just hope he can do better. I want to see our president do well, no matter who it is or what party he is from
Cornerville Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 The fact that the economy is in the shitter has pretty much nothing to do with who controlled the Executive or the Congress in the short term. But keep trying to point those fingers anyway. That's the stupidity the two party system counts on. +1
Fingon Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 This is laughable. Dude, you can't make 3+2 = 4 no matter how convoluted you arrange your "evidence." FDR used excise taxes to raise a large portion of tax revenue = fact Excise taxes hit the poor harder than the rich = fact These policies hurt the poor = fact there is no debating it. I'd like to see a response other than retardedness, but i guess that's asking too much.
Recommended Posts