Fdr

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Krill

Originally posted by Zkribbler Wall Street reform -- ended the boom-bust cycles...at least until the Reagan-Bush rollback of these safeguards, which lead to the banking crunch, the S&L scandals, massive airline bankruptcies, the Enron et al corporate scandals, the dot.com bust, the mortgage bust, the credit crisis, etc.

The dot.com bust started before bush came to power iirc...

nice troll though.

He said Reagan-Bush so he was probably not referring to W.

[David Floyd]

His charisma kept the U.S. from going Red.

FDR was basically Red himself. OK, that's an exaggeration, but he was extremely left wing and his WW2-era policies were extremely pro-Stalin/pro-USSR, when they did not need to be.

As for the US going Communist, Chegitz, there was never any real danger of that, even during the Depression. The Communist/Socialist vote combined never amounted to more than a pinprick, nationally, and the rolls of registered Communists/Socialists never even approached the number of registered Republicans or Democrats.

Let's look at what FDR REALLY did - he and his cronies in Congress passed a number of unconstitutional laws. I say they were unconstitutional because the Supreme Court, up through around 1935-1936, consistently struck them down. Well, FDR got tired of this, and threatened to "pack the Court", by appointing an additional Associate Justice for every Justice over the age of 70 who refused to step down (the main reason some of the older Justices didn't want to step down, by the way, is because of FDR's assault on the Constitution and the certainty that he would appoint Justices to the Court who would vote his way). Abuse of power? Yes. Very real infringement upon the Separation of Powers? Absolutely. It's something he could never have gotten away with if Congress hadn't been on his side - and actually, this move was so controversial, many in his own party refused to support it. In the end, rather than allow FDR to set a precedent of the Executive Branch controlling the Judicial Branch simply by appointing unlimited Justices, one member of the Court simply decided to start voting the other way, and 5-4 decisions against New Deal programs suddenly because 5-4 decisions in favor.

Good political manipulator? Absolutely. But what floors me is that people accuse the Bush Administration of being duplicitous - Bush don't have nuthin' on FDR.

And by the way - did these New Deal programs end the Depression? Not really. Although unemployment was approximately 7% lower in 1939 than in 1933, consider this: Even with SCOTUS consistently striking down New Deal programs, unemployment fell from 24% in 1933 to 16% in 1936, but was back up to over 17% by 1939. Hmmm.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by David Floyd

And by the way - did these New Deal programs end the Depression? Not really.

Nope. What they did do is, after WWII, built up the middle class until the U.S. was the richest nation in the world. They also stablized the boom-bust cycles of the stock market until the Reagan Counterrevolution began to kick out all the safeguards.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by David Floyd


FDR was basically Red himself. OK, that's an exaggeration, but he was extremely left wing

Err, by whose standards ? Lenin's ? Trotsky's ? Mao's ?

Marx's ? (Karl, not Groucho).

Unlike many other politicians from his social background, F.D.R. was introduced to what urban poverty meant by his future wife who worked for various charitable/pressure groups dealing with the human and social effects and consequences of unbridled capitalism.

The experiences were harrowing enough to make F.D.R. the humanitarian he became.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

How is social security supposed to pay for itself?

Well, it wasn't supposed to be raided to fund the regular budget.

Source?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Money paid in by new members is combined with interest and paid out to retirees.

The only people getting paid interest are the debt holders. The "interest" in the fund is just for accounting purposes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
FDR was basically Red himself. OK, that's an exaggeration, but he was extremely left wing and his WW2-era policies were extremely pro-Stalin/pro-USSR, when they did not need to be.

As for the US going Communist, Chegitz, there was never any real danger of that, even during the Depression. The Communist/Socialist vote combined never amounted to more than a pinprick, nationally, and the rolls of registered Communists/Socialists never even approached the number of registered Republicans or Democrats.

This is the most contradictoy thing I've seen posted. According to you the people overwelmingly elected a Red as president of the US, but there was never any danger of communism.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Socail Security ain't no Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is one which pays a return on investment so high that the only way to pay old investors is to divert the monies being invested by new investors. Thus, it requires and ever-increasing number of investors to survive (i.e. a pyramid), and because the number of investors is not infinite, it is foredoomed to fail.

It isn't a Ponzi scheme, rather it is a robbing Peter to pay Paul scheme.

[David Floyd]

Zkribbler,

Nope. What they did do is, after WWII, built up the middle class until the U.S. was the richest nation in the world. They also stablized the boom-bust cycles of the stock market until the Reagan Counterrevolution began to kick out all the safeguards.

I'd say that the fact that after WW2, the US was responsible for over 50% of the world's manufacturing, produced close to 50% of the world's combined GNP, held 2/3rds of the world's gold supply, and was basically the only major nation untouched on it's home soil by the war had a lot to do with it as well.

molly,

Unlike many other politicians from his social background, F.D.R. was introduced to what urban poverty meant by his future wife who worked for various charitable/pressure groups dealing with the human and social effects and consequences of unbridled capitalism.

The experiences were harrowing enough to make F.D.R. the humanitarian he became.

FDR was independently wealthy. What he could and should have done was to donate, say, 90% of his own wealth to charity if he was truly concerned. While that would have been less relief for poor people than some of the national programs he introduced, at least it would have been legal.

Kid,

This is the most contradictoy thing I've seen posted. According to you the people overwelmingly elected a Red as president of the US, but there was never any danger of communism.

The "Red" comment was a)an exaggeration I admitted to immediately, and b)much of what that comment referred to was his willingness to bend over backwards to prop up the most brutal regime in history (Stalinist USSR). Of course I don't think FDR was an actual Communist - he was simply the closest thing to communism that could ever have been elected in the US. Henry Wallace, who was probably an ACTUAL Communist, was so despised by the Democratic Party that FDR had to dump him from the ticket in 1944.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The "Red" comment was a)an exaggeration I admitted to immediately, and b)much of what that comment referred to was his willingness to bend over backwards to prop up the most brutal regime in history (Stalinist USSR). Of course I don't think FDR was an actual Communist - he was simply the closest thing to communism that could ever have been elected in the US. Henry Wallace, who was probably an ACTUAL Communist, was so despised by the Democratic Party that FDR had to dump him from the ticket in 1944.

Doesn't creating huge government for the poor count for anything? Of course, it might have been illegal in your eyes, but there's no way the government could have gotten away with not doing something for the poor without creating some kind of fascist state to force the government onto the people, but then that would be illegal also wouldn't it?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Zkribbler,

I'd say that the fact that after WW2, the US was responsible for over 50% of the world's manufacturing, produced close to 50% of the world's combined GNP, held 2/3rds of the world's gold supply, and was basically the only major nation untouched on it's home soil by the war had a lot to do with it as well.

While your response is true, it misses the point I was trying to make. Let me try another way.

Since 1980, the wealth of the U.S. has doubled, but the wealth of the middle class has remained the same. All the new wealth has gone to the richest Americans.

Following WWII, their was a huge increase in both the numbers of the middle class and in the wealth of its members. When Kruschev flew into L.A. in the 60's, and his plane did a turn over the San Fernando Valley, he could not believe that those miles and miles of houses, each with its own swimming pool, belonged to the working class.

[David Floyd]

Kid,

Doesn't creating huge government for the poor count for anything? Of course, it might have been illegal in your eyes, but there's no way the government could have gotten away with not doing something for the poor without creating some kind of fascist state to force the government onto the people, but then that would be illegal also wouldn't it?

What is legal and illegal in my eyes isn't relevant. What is relevant is that the New Deal was illegal in the eyes of the Supreme Court, up until the point that FDR threatened to appoint around 6 extra ultra-liberal justices in order to subvert the independence of the court. It's a gross abuse of power, and if Bush did the same thing in order to prosecute an unlimited War on Terror, you'd say the same thing.

Zkribbler,

Well, the massively expanding middle class in the '50s and '60s also had a lot to do with the GI Bill, as well as the existence of a huge amount of inexpensive housing built for and targeted to veterans, both of which the 12+ million men and women who served in the US Armed Forces in WW2 were able to take advantage of. Becoming a college graduate and a home owner is a much quicker route to middle class prosperity than a continued dependence on government handouts.

One can perhaps argue that the New Deal helped SOME Americans for a short amount of time, but the New Deal didn't solve unemployment, and without WW2 and the immediate aftermath thereof (see above), wouldn't have done diddly squat about poverty and income disparity, either.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Social Security -- so successful it broke the back of the assuption that old age = poverty.

new labor laws -- which gave the U.S. the most robust middle-class in the world.

TVA -- Electrified the Tennessee Valley.

Wall Street reform -- ended the boom-bust cycles...at least until the Reagan-Bush rollback of these safeguards, which lead to the banking crunch, the S&L scandals, massive airline bankruptcies, the Enron et al corporate scandals, the dot.com bust, the mortgage bust, the credit crisis, etc.

The Manhattan Project...

S&L happened 78-82. And the basic system underlying what happened with S&L went back 2 decades.

Originally posted by Geronimo
Pay as you go is surely shortsighted but it seems the Social Security Administration has a
rebuttal to accusations that it is a Ponzi scheme.

except that people live longer, draw more, and so on. In order for the conveyor analogy to hold wages must remain constant or rise,population of payers must remain constant or rise, and life expectancy must not change.

None of those is really true.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
What is legal and illegal in my eyes isn't relevant. What is relevant is that the New Deal was illegal in the eyes of the Supreme Court, up until the point that FDR threatened to appoint around 6 extra ultra-liberal justices in order to subvert the independence of the court. It's a gross abuse of power, and if Bush did the same thing in order to prosecute an unlimited War on Terror, you'd say the same thing.

I don't compare the War on Terror with the Great Depression. So I think it would be justified to call Dubya's action a gross abuse and FDRs the president taking charge of a crisis. Of course, you may still think that the government caused the Great Depression in the first place and all that needed to be done was let the market correct itself, so I can see why you think FDRs actions were a gross abuse of power.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Whoha
except that people live longer, draw more, and so on. In order for the conveyor analogy to hold wages must remain constant or rise,population of payers must remain constant or rise, and life expectancy must not change.

None of those is really true.

"except that"?

You just agreed with everything I said. Are you saying this would somehow make the system a ponzi scheme rather than merely shortsighted?