Best Presidents Poll: Pick 7 all time. (Europeans, Hoover, peace, countries)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, we live in his impact, a bad one. It is amazing he gets such a free pass in the history books. His terrible economic "fixes" were a disaster. Between him and Hoover there is no question that big government fails when it comes to pulling us out of a recession or depression. I do think FDR did a decent job on the banks, but not much beyond that.
Labor rights is a myth. The business community takes the risks and people need to learn that quickly. What growth did FDR enjoy? He was concerned with gaining power rather than letting the economy pull itself out of a recession/depression. Did we not just have a depression after WWI and the government pretty much let the economy right itself.
Social Security was sold on a lie. It never was insurance but just a tax. The government finally admitted that in the 1950's during a court case. People were taking out more than they put in from nearly day one so it was just a massive ponzi plan with Uncle Sam getting a nice chunk of your cash for decades.
Now where are we with Social Security? Massive debts that cannot be paid. Eventually, the age will have to rise and taxes raised. More money taken out of the economy and put into the vast corrupt federal government machine that can't get a simple web page (Obama Care) online.
FDR never should have run for that 4th term. He gave away Eastern Europe to the Russians or has he said "Old Joe". The biggest mass killer in the history of mankind FDR tossed millions of people under his reign of terror. Of course, you can blame his "useful idiots" or "fellow travelers" that he had for advisers but at the end of the day, he was the President and must take all the blame.
UN such a great organization? More like a massive corrupt failed organization that is a playground for failed 3rd world countries. It is long overdue for a massive downsizing and relocation to someplace in Europe.
FDR took office in 1933. The stock market crashed in 1929 after the government "let the economy right itself" post-WWI. GDP crashed from 1929 - 1933. In 1933 it held roughly steady. It rose 10.8%, 8.9%, and 12.0% in '34, '35, and 36. When FDR cut federal spending in '36-'37, there was a GDP contraction. Responding to that contraction, FDR subsequently increased spending and GDP rose 10.9% in 1939. Unemployment dropped steadily (except for a '38-'39 blip) under the FDR administration until it collapsed completely during the war years. The economic indicators, in short, were extremely positive under FDR and afterwards. In fact, growth was record-breaking.
Feel free to dislike Social Security, but you are decidedly in the minority. Even today we do not have unsustainable Social Security debts. Itself, it is a manageable program. There have only been 11 years--since 1937--where Social Security outlays for retirement and disability exceeded receipts.
Labor rights are certainly not a myth, unless you think that 12 year old children should work in mining (and that miners should have no compensation for contracting black lung disease). Minimum wage laws were instituted under the New Deal, which is certainly a labor right. The NLRA was passed, creating a series of labor rights, including protection against unfair employment practices and rights to labor organization.
The Soviets occupied Eastern Europe with their military. There was no giveaway. Instead of warring with the Soviets, the Allies collectively agreed on boundaries for the two emergent blocs. Short of warring with the Soviet Union (which was not an option with the Pacific War ongoing), there simply was no alternative.
The United Nations has provided a forum for the resolution of many disputes and provided opportunities for multilateral cooperation. It has also been an effective implement of US foreign policy.
FDR took office in 1933. The stock market crashed in 1929 after the government "let the economy right itself" post-WWI. GDP crashed from 1929 - 1933. In 1933 it held roughly steady. It rose 10.8%, 8.9%, and 12.0% in '34, '35, and 36. When FDR cut federal spending in '36-'37, there was a GDP contraction. Responding to that contraction, FDR subsequently increased spending and GDP rose 10.9% in 1939. Unemployment dropped steadily (except for a '38-'39 blip) under the FDR administration until it collapsed completely during the war years. The economic indicators, in short, were extremely positive under FDR and afterwards. In fact, growth was record-breaking.
Feel free to dislike Social Security, but you are decidedly in the minority. Even today we do not have unsustainable Social Security debts. Itself, it is a manageable program. There have only been 11 years--since 1937--where Social Security outlays for retirement and disability exceeded receipts.
Labor rights are certainly not a myth, unless you think that 12 year old children should work in mining (and that miners should have no compensation for contracting black lung disease). Minimum wage laws were instituted under the New Deal, which is certainly a labor right. The NLRA was passed, creating a series of labor rights, including protection against unfair employment practices and rights to labor organization.
The Soviets occupied Eastern Europe with their military. There was no giveaway. Instead of warring with the Soviets, the Allies collectively agreed on boundaries for the two emergent blocs. Short of warring with the Soviet Union (which was not an option with the Pacific War ongoing), there simply was no alternative.
The United Nations has provided a forum for the resolution of many disputes and provided opportunities for multilateral cooperation. It has also been an effective implement of US foreign policy.
These guys did a pretty good research paper on FDR.
Hoover and FDR were big government guys. Hoover pushed through a massive tax increase when taxes should have been lowered. FDR doubled down with more taxes and regulations and wanted a 100 percent tax on income over 25k in 1942, which was reduced by Congress to 90 percent. Remember, FDR's "New Dealers" arrested a tailor for pressing pants for 35 cents when he should have been charging 40 cents. Now, tell me, this is a economic plan and planners we can trust?
FDR and his failed WPA, CCC, AAA, NRA programs were a joke. Run by people in government that never ran anything in the private sector they just dug a hole, filled it in, then dug another hole. Total waste of taxpayer money.
Child Labor - poor families then did not have much of a choice. Everyone worked. The economy needed cheap, low skilled labor, and it was work or go hungry. Not a great way of life but to a hungry family they did what they could to survive.
Min. Wage - Bad idea then and terrible now. It eliminates entry level jobs for many people. Only the economy can determine a person's wages based on their skills. Once to tell a business owner what wages he has to pay then you will see that business owner not hire low skilled workers and not expand his business.
Unions - FDR gave his union supporters what they wanted but they cut their children's throats in the long term. By the mid 1970's all the unionized industries, steel, auto, air, transportation were in massive decline. Today they are only 11 percent of the workforce with many of those jobs never to return to America. Bad idea.
Social Security - in the middle of a depression lying to the American people about the wonders of Social Security Insurance..which was a tax. How did that actually help anyone? Lie to them? Take more money out of economy during a depression. Why not tell the truth? It was a tax and then the government spent the money. So now we have a massive Ponzi game going on via the US government with the taxpayers holding the bag.
FDR was at death's door during the Yalta Meeting with Stalin. He let his Sec. State do the talking who let Alger Hiss do all the detailed work. Of course, later we find out that Hiss was a spy for the Soviets (Venona Files). He gave away Eastern Europe and doomed tens of millions of people to live in pure hell of Communism for another 40 years. A different choice? Yes. Just say no to Stalin and call his bluff.
UN - A joke that needs to go away. Here we have an organization that cut deals with Iraq during the food for oil program. Massive fraud. Have they helped poverty in the world? Not much. It is an organization that welcomed a terrorist (wearing a gun) to give a speech. To them, Castro is a hero and his never ending revolution. How long has that revolution been going on? 50 some years now? Where is the UN? They embrace this thug as some sort of great hero. They have done little if anything postive and need to be relocated and downsized.
Look at Obama and the depression we have been in despite trillions of dollars in government fixes. We have 90 some million people not working and only 64 percent of the people in the labor market. How can this be? 49 million people on food stamps. Pelosi said food stamps provides a great stimulus and same with people on unemployment for 3 years. Massive stimulus but where are the jobs? This is our future? With a budget of nearly 4 trillion dollars a year!. Near zero interest rates for years!. Still, we are in the dumps.
FDR gets a free pass but take a few layers off this onion and he was not such a great leader. He seems to more about lies and a guy stuck on gaining power rather than doing the right thing for the nation.
An interesting article, but certainly not without faults. This paper is short on data and details, but from the text it appears that they are measuring the Depression by unemployment. They argue that aspects of the New Deal extended the Depression because they apparently have a model in which unemployment would have fallen faster without those elements of the New Deal. There are a few problems with this analysis. First, they take issue with price supports and collective bargaining/minimum wage, but not, apparently, with other aspects of the New Deal. In other words, they are proposing that it would have been great if FDR had instituted some of the same policies, but not all of them. That is not so much an argument against FDR's economic leadership (the worst kind of armchair quarterbacking), as a lesson for the future.
Second, their analysis seems to ignore the rise of the GDP in the FDR years, along with the observation that employment tends to be a trailing economic indicator (i.e., production increases tend to precede employment increases, production decreases tend to precede employment decreases).
Finally, the analysis focuses on optimization of wages and prices for market conditions, but does not analyze the possibility that increased wages and prices served as a private market stimulus.
Part of the problem is that this article is just a press release for a larger academic article. And there are certainly other scholarly views about the state of the economy in the 1930s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
Hoover and FDR were big government guys. Hoover pushed through a massive tax increase when taxes should have been lowered. FDR doubled down with more taxes and regulations and wanted a 100 percent tax on income over 25k in 1942, which was reduced by Congress to 90 percent. Remember, FDR's "New Dealers" arrested a tailor for pressing pants for 35 cents when he should have been charging 40 cents. Now, tell me, this is a economic plan and planners we can trust?
FDR and his failed WPA, CCC, AAA, NRA programs were a joke. Run by people in government that never ran anything in the private sector they just dug a hole, filled it in, then dug another hole. Total waste of taxpayer money. [/quote]
FDR was generally fiscally conservative, but approved of an emergency budget for programs to promote economic recovery. It should not be terribly surprising that FDR wanted increased taxes to finance America's war efforts in 1942. It is disingenuous to suggest that a 1942 tax proposal was intended for the Depression (which was essentially over) rather than WWII.
You are also offbase on percentages and income level. The top tax bracket was nominally $200k in 1942, which, adjusted for inflation, was about $2.8 million in today's dollars. The tax bracket for a nominal income of $25k ($309k in today's dollars) was 58%. The tax bracket for $25k in today's dollars, which was less than $2,000 in 1942, was the lowest rate--19%.
Economists are certainly divided on the impact of various programs and spending by the FDR administration and its impact on the Depression and long-term. But we can't actually see what would have happened without those programs (or with a different set of programs). What we can see is that the US economy rose rapidly under FDR, and unemployment steadily declined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
Child Labor - poor families then did not have much of a choice. Everyone worked. The economy needed cheap, low skilled labor, and it was work or go hungry. Not a great way of life but to a hungry family they did what they could to survive.
It is certainly the case, however, that child labor was finally fully regulated in 1938, and people did not starve as a result. And, looking back, there were oppressive conditions of child labor that needed to be corrected--not as a matter of economic efficiency, but as a matter of human rights and dignity. Ultimately, early child labor laws continued to allow children to work from the age of 12 in certain jobs for limited times. It was a popular reform even then, and today is completely uncontroversial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
Min. Wage - Bad idea then and terrible now. It eliminates entry level jobs for many people. Only the economy can determine a person's wages based on their skills. Once to tell a business owner what wages he has to pay then you will see that business owner not hire low skilled workers and not expand his business.
The economy works within the laws by which it is required to operate. Today, CBO estimates that increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016 would either very slightly decrease the number of jobs, or eliminate about 500,000 jobs. In either case, the higher minimum wage would increase earnings for about 16.5 million workers who would rise to the minimum, and another subset of workers would also see pay increases because of increased demand. Even if half a million jobs were lost, Americans would see a real wage increase of about $2 billion with such an increase, according to CBO.
Economists more broadly do not generally see decreased employment resulting from minimum wage increases.
In short, no minimum wage is an extremist position. Minimum wage jobs are often of the type that cannot be easily relocated, because they demand locality. And minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, is currently quite low.
A business owner who chooses not to expand a business (because of minimum wage or other reasons) is a business owner who is soon to lose the business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
Unions - FDR gave his union supporters what they wanted but they cut their children's throats in the long term. By the mid 1970's all the unionized industries, steel, auto, air, transportation were in massive decline. Today they are only 11 percent of the workforce with many of those jobs never to return to America. Bad idea.
It is quite something to suggest that unionization rates 40 and 80 years after the New Deal is tantamount a rejection of those policies. A lot has happened in the time in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
Social Security - in the middle of a depression lying to the American people about the wonders of Social Security Insurance..which was a tax. How did that actually help anyone? Lie to them? Take more money out of economy during a depression. Why not tell the truth? It was a tax and then the government spent the money. So now we have a massive Ponzi game going on via the US government with the taxpayers holding the bag.
What exactly is the lie? There is a tax involved to fund the Social Security program. That is not some big secret. The program has been running successfully for almost 80 years. It will continue to run equally successfully until 2035, at which point benefits will diminish about 25% if we don't do anything to fix the program (like raise the cap on SSI taxable income, increase the retirement age, or increase the SSI tax rate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
FDR was at death's door during the Yalta Meeting with Stalin. He let his Sec. State do the talking who let Alger Hiss do all the detailed work. Of course, later we find out that Hiss was a spy for the Soviets (Venona Files). He gave away Eastern Europe and doomed tens of millions of people to live in pure hell of Communism for another 40 years. A different choice? Yes. Just say no to Stalin and call his bluff.
There were facts on the ground. The Red Army had taken up positions throughout Eastern Europe and more than halfway through Germany. The Soviets were allies with the United States, Britain, and France. It was not sensible to war with the Soviet Union over the division of Europe at this time. Yalta confirmed that the Soviets would declare war on Japan and join the Pacific theater. Eastern Europe was already under Soviet control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
UN - A joke that needs to go away. Here we have an organization that cut deals with Iraq during the food for oil program. Massive fraud. Have they helped poverty in the world? Not much. It is an organization that welcomed a terrorist (wearing a gun) to give a speech. To them, Castro is a hero and his never ending revolution. How long has that revolution been going on? 50 some years now? Where is the UN? They embrace this thug as some sort of great hero. They have done little if anything postive and need to be relocated and downsized.
The UN does a great deal of work that you ignore. It serves as a forum for the resolution of disputes and the building of global partnerships. It is imperfect and not all international disputes can be resolved in its corridors. But it has an extensive list of successes.
-UN peacekeeping force to resolve Suez crisis
-UN peacekeeping mission in Cyprus
-UN negotiations regarding El Salvador's civil war
-UN peacekeeping mission in Namibia
-UN election observations, including post-apartheid South Africa and post-Pol Pot Cambodia
-UN support for protecting Kuwait in 1st Gulf War
-UN involvement in the Sierra Leone Civil War
-UN intervention in Kivu
These are without touching on the social organizations of the UN, the International Court of Justice, the human rights organizations, and the economic institutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by totsuka
Look at Obama and the depression we have been in despite trillions of dollars in government fixes. We have 90 some million people not working and only 64 percent of the people in the labor market. How can this be? 49 million people on food stamps. Pelosi said food stamps provides a great stimulus and same with people on unemployment for 3 years. Massive stimulus but where are the jobs? This is our future? With a budget of nearly 4 trillion dollars a year!. Near zero interest rates for years!. Still, we are in the dumps.
FDR gets a free pass but take a few layers off this onion and he was not such a great leader. He seems to more about lies and a guy stuck on gaining power rather than doing the right thing for the nation.
We are not in a depression. We have had GDP growth in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 (and are on track for 2014 growth, as well). Unemployment is falling steadily. That is not really about FDR, but feel free to make the comparison, if you like.
... Nixon would fall into the same category.. It think if you remove Watergate from the equation, Nixon does get some serious consideration as a top-10 president..
His beginnings by riding on the coattails of McCarthyism and his paranoia keeps him from my list. Wage and hour rate freeze was terrible economics. I don't give him credit for China, either. that was luck that China decided to open up during his term. To his credit, he didn't screw it up.
[quote=TheCityTheBridge;36595329]An interesting article, but certainly not without faults. This paper is short on data and details, but from the text it appears that they are measuring the Depression by unemployment. They argue that aspects of the New Deal extended the Depression because they apparently have a model in which unemployment would have fallen faster without those elements of the New Deal. There are a few problems with this analysis. First, they take issue with price supports and collective bargaining/minimum wage, but not, apparently, with other aspects of the New Deal. In other words, they are proposing that it would have been great if FDR had instituted some of the same policies, but not all of them. That is not so much an argument against FDR's economic leadership (the worst kind of armchair quarterbacking), as a lesson for the future.
- FDR got a free pass for decades but more and more economists and writers are reviewing the data and show his economic "fixes" did not fix much and did more harm than good. We did not see much of a recovery until after WW2 which makes sense because companies produced products that consumers here and around the world wanted to buy...with little government help in deciding what products to make, how to make them and what price to sell them for.
Hoover wanted a balanced budget and FDR ran on that plan too until he got elected. Then he ran up the spending which some people feel is needed during a economic recession or depression. But did the government stimulus work? Not much then and certainly not much now.
FDR did have a mean streak when it came to the rich. His very childish and foolish want of attacking the rich or business community as the root of all the economic problems during a economic depression was disgraceful and certainly not Presidential. He did have a deep seated grudge against Mellow too despite no evidence that Mellow was guilty of any crimes. However, FDR did not pay his taxes which was revealed a few years ago.
FDR was generally fiscally conservative, but approved of an emergency budget for programs to promote economic recovery. It should not be terribly surprising that FDR wanted increased taxes to finance America's war efforts in 1942. It is disingenuous to suggest that a 1942 tax proposal was intended for the Depression (which was essentially over) rather than WWII.
Financing the war efforts by taking most of the capital is not a sound economic policy. He himself admitted his government planners in 1940, 41 could not build tanks, planes, etc....in a timely or efficient manner and had to turn over the entire R&D, production etc to Knudsen and his fellow industrialists. They saved the nation and won the war.
Can we imagine how quickly the Depression would have been solved if FDR turned to the business community vice his left leaning advisers?
Economists are certainly divided on the impact of various programs and spending by the FDR administration and its impact on the Depression and long-term. But we can't actually see what would have happened without those programs (or with a different set of programs). What we can see is that the US economy rose rapidly under FDR, and unemployment steadily declined.
But we can see how the results of FDR's programs which are very similar to today's government programs to 'get people working". They did not work then and are not working now. Shall we believe that a government official(s) actually know what project to build vs what project is actually needed? Certainly then like now, political corruption will determine what is built and where it is built. Then toss in some private sector corruption and wham!. Wasted funds.
So, what if FDR had not done those silly little make work projects and just let the private sector run wild and build what sells. Build what is needed vice what some political hack wants built.
Sure, there are going to be abuse in labor, child labor..happened then and happens now. But we have to very careful about how much government interference actually works. Does welfare programs actually provide a more degree of human rights and dignity? I think not if you look at the destruction of the black families the last 50 years, mostly due to the massive welfare state.
The CBO only goes by numbers it is given and was wrong about Obama Care. Take a look at it from a guy that owns a small business. You raise the wage to 15 dollars an hour it is actually higher because of FICA, Workman Comp. and Unemployment insurance. So that is what 17-20 dollars an hour. What does he do if he can't raise his prices? What does he do? Lay someone off, not expand or go under. So the growth in the economy comes from small employers which will be stunted since they can't just raise their prices each time.
Who gains? Well..the big companies do. They have the economy of scale to weather wage increases and in some areas dominate the market. This crony capitalism type of economy will eventually fail due to less competition and few choices for consumers. Is that a good way to go?
Is it not the basic idea to get as many people working as quickly as possible? The more workers the less the tax burden on everyone and it instills a sense of pride and dignity for people to earn their own way. Start the climb up the economic ladder. Most people dont' stay poor forever, just like most people don't stay rich forever. It's a constant state of flux.
Unions had a purpose but got greedy. We see it in the public sector unions in WI last year that rioted at the mere suggestion of paying a little bit more for their own medical insurance and retirement. Why are they exempt from the changing economics of America?
Yes, Social Security Insurance was sold as a insurance and not tax. This was finally disclosed in the 1950's by the government in a case about Social Security. The government has the right to level taxes and that is how they won. To millions of Americans then and now they think of it as Social Security Insurance. I was raised to think that way too.
So, is it a sound economic idea? Take the tax the employee pays and the tax the employer pays and give it to the government vice leaving it in the economy? Who is a better steward of your money? You or some corrupt government agency and/or political hack? Have we not seen trillions of dollars wasted over the last 70 some years?
Trying to raise that age limit is going to be difficult. Already people are scaming the system and getting disability, all time high. I think the only answer is to raise the ceiling on the taxable income.
Sure, the Red Army was in place but to give away Eastern Europe, especially Poland which was nearly destroyed by the Germans was criminal. Blame FDR for that and his selfish act of running for a 4th term.
The UN? Not much of a good track record. Scandal after scandal...massive bloated workforce with little if any concern about success...only in love with the process.
The Suez crisis was solved by IKE who told the Brits and French to get out.
Cyprus, Gaza, - still there and no solution. South Africa and Rhodesia were doing very well before the UN showed up. Now both countries are disasters. Especially Rhodesia which is being run by some failed dictator. Post Pol Pot Cambodia is being ruled by former Khumer Rouge commanders.
We are in a depression. If we have recovered why is the administration pushing more Food Stamps and long term unemployment insurance? WFPR of 64 percent, 90 some million Americans not working. Massive spending programs with little regard for anything that works. How long can we run on nearly zero interest rates? How much longer do we have to bail out Wall Street? Talk about a massive scam on the American people.
What will happen when the fed, hopefully raises interest rates? Wham!. It's easy to base your economy on credit but eventually the bond owners are going to demand higher returns on their bonds. Can you imagine how people would freak out of the interest rates when back to the normal 5-6 percent? 8 percent home loans?
There is growth in the oil/natural gas sector despite government attempts to stop it. Most of the oil/gas coming from private lands.
We see China embracing a much less regulated economy and enjoy a much higher GDP while we seek a much more regulated economy with lower GDP/Job growth.
You have to admit Obama was compared (Time Maganize Cover) to FDR. He even mentioned another "New Deal" along with a New Bill of Rights. Both of these guys never worked in the private sector and both did terrible jobs managing economic downturns. Both "never let a crisis go to waste" and used the economic crisis for social changes. Both are major disappoints and liars.
What will happen when the fed, hopefully raises interest rates? Wham!. It's easy to base your economy on credit but eventually the bond owners are going to demand higher returns on their bonds. Can you imagine how people would freak out if the interest rates when back to the normal 5-6 percent? 8 percent home loans?
the so-called "Federal Reserve" is not going to raise interest rates. Maybe ever. The new paradigm
is Keynesian only.. print the bank credits, digitize the bank credits, use them to push the stock
market, use them to finance monetary control over the planet, and control civilization permanently.
Inflation is policy. It is the only way they can sustain the illusion of "growth". Not going anywhere.
There is growth in the oil/natural gas sector despite government attempts to stop it.
Yes, and there will be "growth" in the oil and gas sector for generations, because the fiscal elite
control structure demands it. Superior technologies and methods which could resurrect true
progress are kept under wraps and suppressed by the power elite. They will continue to force us
to use 19th century methods for electrical power and transportation. Money is only part of the
reason why. They don't want to share Tesla technology and other advanced systems with the
public. Petroleum-based power gives them control in many ways over the planet's territories
and political structures. The method is similar to the ways they maintain the war machine
infrastructure. Trillions spent on machines to kill, think-tank, board-appointed boogeyman
nemeses inculcated to keep the common folk in a state of perceived dependence on the power
structure, for safety and jobs.
Washington
Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Dwight Eisenhower
FDR
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
