Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO... like I stated, you are quite the revisionist. But please, do go on... show us where you are getting that the Great Depression ended in 1933. Please.
Should Ronald Reagan Be Added to Mount Rushmore?
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
ROFLMAO... like I stated, you are quite the revisionist. But please, do go on... show us where you are getting that the Great Depression ended in 1933. Please.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
There were 'plans' for a great many things that never came to fruition. Like I stated, a 'brilliant' leader would have found a way. Whether going to public addresses to put pressure on Congress or he would have developed some sort of strategy. He did not. It took Pearl to get us in the war. Had the Japanese not attacked, we may have never been involved in the European theater.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Notice how SF gets in everyone's face on this thread except mine? He's scared shitless of me. He's even PM'd me in the past and asked me if I would not respond on a thread he was acting like a big fool on, as long as he didn't say anything to me on it. I was like, what? I had no idea what to make of that. I've gotten some strange PM's here, but this one might have taken the cake. Well, now that I remember the PM's yurt used to send me, maybe not.
But still...
But still...
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Actually his response to the obstructionists (the more things change huh?) was lend lease. You should read about it. BTW, congress declares war, and back then that actually meant something.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Uh, yeah, which is why I stated that he was inept when it came to convincing Congress. What part of that went over your head?
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
\
"or he would have developed some sort of strategy. He did not."
He did. Lend lease. Also, he knew that our entry into the war was inevitable and simply planned for it. Lend lease being a huge part of that as it allowed him to raise military spending and make weapons. He did exactly what a brilliant leader should do.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Meaning that other than public address, he would have found a way to convince Congress.
LMAO. Right. Like I stated, the mythological greatness liberals view FDR with is by far greater than what some on the right do with Reagan.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Even the mediocrities over at wikipedia recognize what lend-lease was:
Lend-Lease (Public Law 77-11)[1] was the program under which the United States of America supplied the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, China, Free France, and other Allied nations with materiel between 1941 and 1945. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941, a year and a half after the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939 but nine months before the U.S. entered the war in December 1941. Formally titled An Act to Further Promote the Defense of the United States, the Act effectively ended the United States' pretense of neutrality.
A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to $611 billion today) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain, $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France, and $1.6 billion to China. Reverse Lend-Lease comprised services such as rent on air bases that went to the U.S., and totaled $7.8 billion; of this, $6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. The terms of the agreement provided that the materiel were to be used until time for their return or destruction. Supplies after the termination date were sold to Britain at a discount for £1.075 billion using long-term loans from the U.S. Canada operated a similar program that sent $4.7 billion in supplies to the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.[2] The United States did not charge for aid supplied under this legislation.
This program was a decisive step away from non-interventionist policy, which had dominated United States foreign relations since the end of World War I, towards international involvement.
I have some books on FDR I can lend you if you want. I think you really need to read about his presidency.
As for the greatness of FDR being mythological, that is factually untrue since factually speaking, historians have always, and continue to, rate him among the top three Presidents. That's just how it is.
They do not rate Reagan there. And that's just how that is. It's inconvenient, but true.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
So what you are saying is that FDR didn't lead us out of the Great Depression? That it ended as he took office? That historians are all wrong? You ARE BRILLIANT. Really.
I'm not "saying" shit. The fact is that the Great Depression ended in 1933. There isn't any debate about that fact. Look it up. I did and I posted a link to the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is the authority on these matters. Recessions (and depressions) are measured from peak to trough. Once the economy begins growing again, the recession is over. You seem to want to conflate the recession and recovery periods as all constituting the "recession," but that's not accurate. (Though, when it comes to comparing the 1981 and most recent recession, you prefer to look only at the period of recession, but I digress).
As I said, of course the effects of the Great Depression were felt in the years that followed. The end of a recession isn't the beginning of good times. It just marks the time when the economy is no longer contracting. FDR led the robust recovery that followed the Great Depression and that is why he is one of the greatest presidents.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
so AGAIN, you are saying all historians are wrong. Thanks for the clarification. Because we all KNOW that when people refer to the Great Depression, they are talking about the technical economic definitions. Right Dung?
Also, as for that 'robust' recovery... by robust you mean double digit unemployment (most of the time 15%+) that lasted until WWII? That robust recovery?
The 'robust recovery' that took a decade to get back to pre-depression levels? Ten years to recover is 'robust' to you? You truly have a weird dictionary.
Actually, you are asserting that I am wrong by referring to "historians." If you have some data showing that the National Bureau of Economic Research is wrong and that the Great Depression did not end in March 1933, I'd be happy to consider it.
Hilarious. Look, you can fight that fight if you want, but I'm not going to entertain it. Knock yourself out. I realize there is a cottage industry of FDR revisionism among you and yours and you are free to partake, but I ain't going to be your dance partner.
I'd also note that the robust recovery was halted in 1937 when fiscal and monetary policy were both tightened, which is exactly what you and yours want to happen today in the apparently belief that it won't have the same effect as it had in 1937. (At least that the charitable view. The cynic in me thinks that halting the recovery is what you and yours have in mind, making it all the easier for a Republican to win this year).
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again moron, do try reading what is written. When referring to the Great Depression what timeframe do the vast majority of people and the vast majority of historians refer to? They are not looking at technical data you dolt and you know it.
Revisionism? Tell me genius... do you have a source that states unemployment wasn't in the double digits throughout the 1930's and that it didn't go under double digits until the ramp up for WWII?
Also, please take a look at GDP, it wasn't until 1941 that we RECOVERED to pre-Depression levels.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
tell us genius... what were the tax brackets looking like back then? You see any difference to today? We could easily drop back to 2007 spending levels. There is no justification for the insane levels we are spending today. It means that future tax rates HAVE to go up. That is what you and yours want. So much debt that we HAVE to raise tax rates back to insanely high levels. So that you and yours can have greater control over the lives of the citizens in this country. The more they take, the more control they have over where the money goes. When the money is instead in the hands of the people, WE control where the money will be spent. But you and yours don't want that. You want bigger government, more government control over our lives and you want NO personal responsibility. You just want them to spend spend spend and then send the bill to future generations. You and yours are the most selfish bunch of assholes to ever exist in this country.
I don't really care. The Great Depression ended in March 1933. Your statement that we had 10 years of depression under FDR was not correct. Sorry.
No, I don't. I didn't dispute that particular data point (although I don't see how shaving 10% off the unemployment rate over a four year period can be construed as anything other than a resounding success, but that's just me). What I dispute is the whole FDR revisionism nonsense that the right wing has engaged in over the past several years. See, for example, that dumbass book by Amity Shlaes published a short while ago. Like I said, no thanks.
Not so:
Apparently, I touched a nerve. The truth hurts, don't it?
Postscript: And liberals are the ones that appeal to emotion-based arguments? Hilarious.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
He rebuilt American infrastructure during the great depression via the CCC and the WPA and other New Deal Programs. That played a critical role in support the war effort and it made rapid mobilzation to a war time economy possible.
He fought against the isolationist and the limitations of the Neutrality act and saw the critical and strategic importance of doing so.
He understood the serious threat that Nazi Germany represented to America far ahead of most of the nation. He prepared the nation and guided them towards a war time footing via his fireside chats, press conferences and with his unflinching leadership sold the American public that we should be the arsenal for democracy.
He implemented an arms embargo against the axis powers in 1936.
IN 1937 in anticipation of war he secretly began to build up the US Navy's submarine service to be able to quarentine enemy naval forces. A decision that had substantial consequences against Japan and their naval forces.
In 1939 he implemented the "Cash and Carry" program in which he was able to supply our allies, particularly the British, the arms they needed to stave off German invasion.
IN 1940 he established the nations first peace time draft.
He also signed the Destroyers for Bases act in which he publicly defied the neutrality act and provided Britain with 50 destroyers in return for US Rights to carribean naval bases.
In 1941 he spear headed the passage of the Lend Lease Act through congress and began sending massive aid to Great Britain, China and later the Soviets. Lend Lease played a critical role in staving off defeat for both Great Britain and the Soviets.
FDR's focus prior to the US involvement in WWII on preparedness and aid to our allies played a critical role in defeating the Axis powers.
He implemented the "Shoot on Site" policy towards any German Submarine that entered a US Naval zone.
He lead and concluded the Atlantic Charter in 1941.
He ordered the war department in 1941 to begin planning for total American war involvement under the "Victory Program" which provided his administration the data that was needed for total mobilization. A plan which included the mobilization, training and supplying of 10 million men in arms.
He requested congress to enact legislation that would dramaticlly tax corporate and individual war profiteering that provided an additional 10 billion annually to the war effort.
He declared war on Japan after the Pearl Harbor attacks and roused the nation with one of the all time great speeches "A date which will live in infamy" in US History.
and this is just the beginning. This doesn't even list his war planning and strategy and the vision he had to invest billions in spending programs like the Manhattan project and the B29 Bomber project which ushered the US into the atomic age. Should I continue?