If you hate the New Deal, which parts would you eliminate?

Cypress

Well-known member
If you have professed hatred for the FDR's New Deal, which part(s) of it would you have oppossed, and would eliminate?

1) Repeal of Prohibition
2) Prohibition of Child Labor
3) Minimum Wage Law
3) Banking reform and regulation (e.g., FDIC)
4) Stock market regulation (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission)
5) Stronger Collective Bargaining (Labor) Laws
6) Rural Electrification Program
7) Dam-building, road-building, infrastrucure building programs
8) Public Work Projects (WPA, CCC)
9) Agricultural Subsidies and regulation
10) Fiscal Austerity Measures: (cutting salaries and pensions of Government employees and veterans)
 
If you have professed hatred for the FDR's New Deal, which part(s) of it would you have oppossed, and would eliminate?

1) Repeal of Prohibition
2) Prohibition of Child Labor
3) Minimum Wage Law
3) Banking reform and regulation (e.g., FDIC)
4) Stock market regulation (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission)
5) Stronger Collective Bargaining (Labor) Laws
6) Rural Electrification Program
7) Dam-building, road-building, infrastrucure building programs
8) Public Work Projects (WPA, CCC)
9) Agricultural Subsidies and regulation
10) Fiscal Austerity Measures: (cutting salaries and pensions of Government employees and veterans)


I wouldn't use the word hate, that's kind of a loaded word. But disagreeing with policies of the New Deal and there effects is legitimate in my opinion.

I think this article sums up well the effect policies had during the '30's.


How FDR's New Deal Harmed Millions of Poor People
by Jim Powell

Jim Powell, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is author of FDR's Folly, How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (Crown Forum, 2003).


Democratic presidential candidates as well as some conservative intellectuals, are suggesting that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal is a good model for government policy today.

Mounting evidence, however, makes clear that poor people were principal victims of the New Deal. The evidence has been developed by dozens of economists -- including two Nobel Prize winners -- at Brown, Columbia, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, the University of California (Berkeley) and University of Chicago, among other universities.

New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.

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! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs.

New Deal taxes were major job destroyers during the 1930s, prolonging unemployment that averaged 17%. Higher business taxes meant that employers had less money for growth and jobs. Social Security excise taxes on payrolls made it more expensive for employers to hire people, which discouraged hiring.

Other New Deal programs destroyed jobs, too. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) cut back production and forced wages above market levels, making it more expensive for employers to hire people - blacks alone were estimated to have lost some 500,000 jobs because of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) cut back farm production and devastated black tenant farmers who needed work. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) gave unions monopoly bargaining power in workplaces and led to violent strikes and compulsory unionization of mass production industries. Unions secured above-market wages, triggering big layoffs and helping to usher in the depression of 1938.

What about the good supposedly done by New Deal spending programs? These didn't increase the number of jobs in the economy, because the money spent on New Deal projects came from taxpayers who consequently had less money to spend on food, coats, cars, books and other things that would have stimulated the economy. This is a classic case of the seen versus the unseen -- we can see the jobs created by New Deal spending, but we cannot see jobs destroyed by New Deal taxing.

For defenders of the New Deal, perhaps the most embarrassing revelation about New Deal spending programs is they channeled money AWAY from the South, the poorest region in the United States. The largest share of New Deal spending and loan programs went to political "swing" states in the West and East - where incomes were at least 60% higher than in the South. As an incumbent, FDR didn't see any point giving much money to the South where voters were already overwhelmingly on his side.

Americans needed bargains, but FDR hammered consumers -- and millions had little money. His National Industrial Recovery Act forced consumers to pay above-market prices for goods and services, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act forced Americans to pay more for food. Moreover, FDR banned discounting by signing the Anti-Chain Store Act (1936) and the Retail Price Maintenance Act (1937).

Poor people suffered from other high-minded New Deal policies like the Tennessee Valley Authority monopoly. Its dams flooded an estimated 750,000 acres, an area about the size of Rhode Island, and TVA agents dispossessed thousands of people. Poor black sharecroppers, who didn't own property, got no compensation.

FDR might not have intended to harm millions of poor people, but that's what happened. We should evaluate government policies according to their actual consequences, not their good intentions.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357
 
If you have professed hatred for the FDR's New Deal, which part(s) of it would you have oppossed, and would eliminate?

1) Repeal of Prohibition
2) Prohibition of Child Labor
3) Minimum Wage Law
3) Banking reform and regulation (e.g., FDIC)
4) Stock market regulation (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission)
5) Stronger Collective Bargaining (Labor) Laws
6) Rural Electrification Program
7) Dam-building, road-building, infrastrucure building programs
8) Public Work Projects (WPA, CCC)
9) Agricultural Subsidies and regulation
10) Fiscal Austerity Measures: (cutting salaries and pensions of Government employees and veterans)

Again, I don't fit the criteria of the person you are loooking to answer this as you want someone who "hates" the New Deal. I don't hate the New Deal but as one who has disagreements with it here is some of my unasked for two cents.

5) Unionism

Compulsory unionism led to discrimination
against blacks because it gave monopoly power to union
bosses who often didn’t want them hired.

9) Agricultural subsidies and regulation

Most farm subsidies went to major land owners, not small-time
farmers. Required reductions in farm acreage devastated
poor sharecroppers. Efforts to keep farm prices high led to
the destruction of food while millions of families went
hungry.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf
 
If you have professed hatred for the FDR's New Deal, which part(s) of it would you have oppossed, and would eliminate?

1) Repeal of Prohibition - maintain states rights on this issue...

2) Prohibition of Child Labor - this one is ok as long as it continues to allow kids to work for minimum wage

3) Minimum Wage Law - should absolutely eliminate it on a federal level. It should be decided by states as there is too much disparity between cost of living standards.

3) Banking reform and regulation (e.g., FDIC) No problem with this as long as the states maintain most control over enforcement.

4) Stock market regulation (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission) Absoultely keep the SEC acts of 33 and 34.

5) Stronger Collective Bargaining (Labor) Laws : helped lead to the downfall of many unions.... so more power to it

6) Rural Electrification Program - should have been left to states, but not going to object to this one.

7) Dam-building, road-building, infrastrucure building programs- no problem with interstate highways, but intrastate should be left up to the states.... NO BIG DIG... NO BRIDGE TO NOWHERE.

8) Public Work Projects (WPA, CCC)- pretty broad category... but as far as I recall, most were beneficial to the infrastructure of the country, so no problem with this

9) Agricultural Subsidies and regulation- regulation should be left to states with fed oversight. Subsidies should be eliminated, just as the corp subsidies should.

10) Fiscal Austerity Measures: (cutting salaries and pensions of Government employees and veterans) Actually not familiar with this one so i will abstain.

answers above.
 
Again, I don't fit the criteria of the person you are loooking to answer this as you want someone who "hates" the New Deal. I don't hate the New Deal but as one who has disagreements with it here is some of my unasked for two cents.

5) Unionism

Compulsory unionism led to discrimination
against blacks because it gave monopoly power to union
bosses who often didn’t want them hired.

9) Agricultural subsidies and regulation

Most farm subsidies went to major land owners, not small-time
farmers. Required reductions in farm acreage devastated
poor sharecroppers. Efforts to keep farm prices high led to
the destruction of food while millions of families went
hungry.


http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf


Well, that's a pretty small list.

I'm going to assume, that broadly speaking, you pretty much agreed with the rest of the New Deal agenda that I outlined. Though you might tinker at the margins on implementation.
 
Well, that's a pretty small list.

I'm going to assume, that broadly speaking, you pretty much agreed with the rest of the New Deal agenda that I outlined. Though you might tinker at the margins on implementation.

In about fifteen minutes I'm going to go celebrate the 1st one.
 
Umm I think several of them have been mostly undone lately.....
3,4,5 and 10 fer sure.
 
Last edited:
Yeah it still sucked for Balcks but did not suck as bad.
Kinda like bush giving the avg person a 1 k tax break and the top 1% a 500K break.
Note:figures are not actual.
 
Yeah it still sucked for Balcks but did not suck as bad.
Kinda like bush giving the avg person a 1 k tax break and the top 1% a 500K break.
Note:figures are not actual.

Wow. You have got to be kidding. How is that even comparible? How did it not suck as bad for blacks?
 
fascinating.

I've tried this experiment on another board.

I often hear Cons say the New Deal was "a piece of shit", or otherwise express extreme hostility for the New Deal...in lexicon that seems to suggest it was one of the worse things that ever happned to america.

But, when the specifics of the New Deal reforms are laid out, there's really not much Cons object too. Sure, a few things. And they might tinker around the margin, in terms of implementation. But, broadly speaking, Cons can't ever say that they fundamentally disagree with most of the reforms of the New Deal.
 
fascinating.

I've tried this experiment on another board.

I often hear Cons say the New Deal was "a piece of shit", or otherwise express extreme hostility for the New Deal...in lexicon that seems to suggest it was one of the worse things that ever happned to america.

But, when the specifics of the New Deal reforms are laid out, there's really not much Cons object too. Sure, a few things. And they might tinker around the margin, in terms of implementation. But, broadly speaking, Cons can't ever say that they fundamentally disagree with most of the reforms of the New Deal.

Read the article I posted up above. There are plenty of complaints (notice I said complaints, not hate) about the New Deal.
 
Read the article I posted up above. There are plenty of complaints (notice I said complaints, not hate) about the New Deal.


There's barely any information in there at all. It's mostly assertions about how the New Deal "Didn't Work!".

they say nothing about which of the broad agenda items I listed, should NOT have been tried or implemented.

Okay, they hated agricultural subsidies, and stronger collective bargaining laws. They didn't say whether we should have just left everything like is was in 1929, or whether we should at least done or tried. some of these reforms.
 
If you have professed hatred for the FDR's New Deal, which part(s) of it would you have oppossed, and would eliminate?

1) Repeal of Prohibition
2) Prohibition of Child Labor
3) Minimum Wage Law
3) Banking reform and regulation (e.g., FDIC)
4) Stock market regulation (e.g., Securities and Exchange Commission)
5) Stronger Collective Bargaining (Labor) Laws
6) Rural Electrification Program
7) Dam-building, road-building, infrastrucure building programs
8) Public Work Projects (WPA, CCC)
9) Agricultural Subsidies and regulation
10) Fiscal Austerity Measures: (cutting salaries and pensions of Government employees and veterans)

The NRA, the WPA, and the agricultural subsidies are the things I dislike. I still oppose agricultural subsidies, which are even worse today.
 
I think people that "hate" FDR are a rather small minority, even in the conservative movement. George Will, for instance, once wrote a column that was rather harsh towards them.

I used to love FDR and worship him as God when I was a socialist, whenever I became a libertarian I became kind of disillusioned with him and associated him with demagagaury and authoritarianism. I've come to have a more moderate stance on him. Grind will say that he's the worst president ever.
 
Last edited:
fascinating.

I've tried this experiment on another board.

I often hear Cons say the New Deal was "a piece of shit", or otherwise express extreme hostility for the New Deal...in lexicon that seems to suggest it was one of the worse things that ever happned to america.

But, when the specifics of the New Deal reforms are laid out, there's really not much Cons object too. Sure, a few things. And they might tinker around the margin, in terms of implementation. But, broadly speaking, Cons can't ever say that they fundamentally disagree with most of the reforms of the New Deal.
If not for the new deal, TVA and highways we would maybe have lost the war in Europe. How do you think they made the aluminum for the airplanes and transported all the war materials ?

Also the Oak Ridge enrichment facility was powered by hydro power from the TVA....
 
The Rural electrification act also helped the econmy grow. How do you sell electrical appliances to people without electricity ?
 
If not for the new deal, TVA and highways we would maybe have lost the war in Europe. How do you think they made the aluminum for the airplanes and transported all the war materials ?

Also the Oak Ridge enrichment facility was powered by hydro power from the TVA....

US, that was Eisenhower, not FDR.
 
umm eisenhower was pres after the war I think.....
check your timetable there WM.
Maybe the REA was after the war but the TVA was before.
 
Back
Top