Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Dementia means he's getting younger by the day...at least in his own mind.Oh my God! How old are you? Here, for your education: www.britannica.com/event/New-Deal
Life's little contradiction
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Mao - www.communistvoice.org/20cChinaLeft.html
Stalin - www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Stalin/Lenins-successor
Lenin - www.history.com/articles/lenin-stalin-differences-soviet-union
Hitler - www.factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-a-left-wing-socialist-liberal/
Mussolini - www.britannica.com/question/What-were-Benito-Mussolinis-political-beliefs
Mugabe - www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Mugabe
Castro - www.britannica.com/event/Cuban-Revolution
Che Guevara - www.britannica.com/biography/Che-Guevara
Pol Pot - www.britannica.com/biography/Pol-Pot
Jong family - www.nkleadershipwatch.org/kim-family/
Maduro - www.britannica.com/biography/Nicolas-Maduro
I gave all the links for brief bios on the people you list. It shows a similar pattern for most .... people fighting against colonial imperialists and repressive monarchy or authoritarian governments. Socialism in some cases, communism in others were the vehicles used .... BUT the people listed became just a flip side of the very people/governments they fought against. Some were just POS straight out the gate.
Now I KNOW you'll just ignore any (if not all) of the information given because comprehensive reading, critical review/analysis is something you avoid like the plague. So you'll just blow smoke to just end up with the same erroneous conclusion you previously stated.
Which is why you miss the entire point of the OP. Some of the people on your list were soundly educated, yet they turned out the way they did. Here in America, you have Ivy league educated people in our gov't that spew the most absurd, convoluted bilge one finds among the rabid theocratic belivers and pseudo-fascist social economic practitioners. Carry on.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
You do know that over 90% of the New Deal was tossed out as unconstitutional until FDR was able to pack the Supreme Court with Justices that were his picked "Yes men" don't you?
Aside from that, the question stands and your link shows nothing about that.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Short answer: No — the claim that “90% of the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional until FDR packed the Court” is not supported by historical evidence. Only a small number of major New Deal programs were struck down, and FDR never succeeded in packing the Supreme Court.
Walk through what did happen, because the real history is actually more interesting — and more complicated — than the talking‑point version you saw in that forum thread.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, let's see:
The various 'make work' programs like the CCC were costly failures on the whole.
Social Security turned into a Ponzi scheme and gives Americans a shit retirement many don't recognize as the shit job it is.
Income tax stripped anywhere from $1.5 billion to $7 billion out of the economy for government welfare and make work programs. Throw in on top of that that FDR imposed "excise taxes" on many consumer goods driving down consumption and hurting both corporations and individuals who could afford less.
Those taxes drove unemployment up rather than down.
The National Labor Relations act led to lots of violent strikes by unions and forced membership of workers in many industries previously not unionized where they didn't get sufficiently better pay or benefits as a result due to the dues the union extracted.
Much of the New Deal spending went to states that supported FDR and Democrats or to ones for political leverage. If anything, the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression rather than brought America out of it. That occurred because of WW 2 and the lead up to that war.
Was the New Deal a Success?
An answer to the question, ‘was the New Deal a success?’, including an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the New Deal.
The New Deal actually depressed the US GDP all the way up to 1940.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
back at you, asshole
Everyone is smarter than you. You are just a waste of time troll.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
You aren't Uncensored.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yep, to counter the congenital class & race bigotry ingrained in America, and to give the working, lower middle and even some of the middle class a shot at a decent life. Here are the current benefits to all Americans (that includes you) from the New Deal:
www.livingnewdeal.org/why-the-new-deal-still-matters-today/
Currently, your Cheeto Jeezus has done a similar SCOTUS packing to systematically undo the New Deal. Maybe you should do some honest research as to how life was for Americans (including you) previous to its enaction.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
As usual, the devil is in the details:Well, let's see:
The various 'make work' programs like the CCC were costly failures on the whole.
Social Security turned into a Ponzi scheme and gives Americans a shit retirement many don't recognize as the shit job it is.
Income tax stripped anywhere from $1.5 billion to $7 billion out of the economy for government welfare and make work programs. Throw in on top of that that FDR imposed "excise taxes" on many consumer goods driving down consumption and hurting both corporations and individuals who could afford less.
Those taxes drove unemployment up rather than down.
The National Labor Relations act led to lots of violent strikes by unions and forced membership of workers in many industries previously not unionized where they didn't get sufficiently better pay or benefits as a result due to the dues the union extracted.
Much of the New Deal spending went to states that supported FDR and Democrats or to ones for political leverage. If anything, the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression rather than brought America out of it. That occurred because of WW 2 and the lead up to that war.
Was the New Deal a Success?
An answer to the question, ‘was the New Deal a success?’, including an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the New Deal.historylearning.com
The New Deal actually depressed the US GDP all the way up to 1940.
www.historic-times.com/franklin-roosevelt-the-new-deal-and-a-nation-reborn/
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, lets see... From your link:
The New Deal built the three pillars of modern government in the United States. The first is Social Security
Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's crumbs for the stupid and lazy. People that actually had real jobs and careers get retirement plans, 401K's, IRA's and save some money. Sure, if you spend your life being a barista at Starbucks or a fry cook at Micky D's, Social Security may be all you get, but that's on you and your problem, nobody else's.
One grandkid that's already in a trade and working has a 401K, a big savings account, and is doing well. If he keeps that up, he'll have a comfortable retirement decades from now--No Social Security needed.
As retirement plans go, social security sucks. The ROI on it is nonexistent. That alone argues that it was devised and run by idiots.
The second pillar is Workers Rights.
Henry Ford was the progenitor of the 40 hour work week, not Unions, not the government, not the Left. Ford wanted his employees to have a reasonable work week and paid them sufficiently to buy one of his cars. That's smart capitalism at work, not Leftist politics. All FDR did was codify what was already being widely practiced by industry.
Unions are another problematic issue. Yes, there are times and places where unions are a necessity but on the whole, they are a net negative for workers. Today, unions get about 6% better pay than non-union workers. Dues eat up virtually all of that difference. Unions play politics that as much as half their members disagree with. The union is often corrupt to one degree or another. Unions often call arbitrary strikes and fight managers and owners over the most trivial bullshit.
Many unions also don't try to improve worker skills, flexibility, or encourage promotion. Doing this means they are likely to lose the member as they grow and rise in position.
On the whole, that's why unions today are in serious decline. They contribute little or nothing to improving worker's lives and often make them worse.
The third pillar is public investment.
This is a mixed bag. Government can contribute, but often it is the capitalist that does such things. The Carnage Libraries for example. The US railroad system was privately owned, and most of it still is. Yes, the government builds roads, but often it is private capitalists who put in the infrastructure then hand it over to government to operate in return for a tax break on the profits they make from developing land.
Then there's this dreck:
"...a time of deep despair and loss of faith in democratic government. In Europe that led to fascism,"
This shows the author of that piece is an historical illiterate. Fascism in Germany, the usual case held up as an example, was born out of brutal revenge, particularly by France, for WW 1. France and Britain wrecked the German economy with forced, massive, reparations for that war. The French, in particular, then squandered much of that on socialist programs that were utter and complete failures.
Spain and Italy were faced with serious radical Leftist, communist, uprisings which fascism offered a more palatable, nationalist, alternative. If anything, socialism and Leftist governments of the 20's and 30's in Europe caused much of the economic disasters that befell that region of the world.
zzzzzzzzzzz
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Well, let's see:
The various 'make work' programs like the CCC were costly failures on the whole.
Social Security turned into a Ponzi scheme and gives Americans a shit retirement many don't recognize as the shit job it is.
Income tax stripped anywhere from $1.5 billion to $7 billion out of the economy for government welfare and make work programs. Throw in on top of that that FDR imposed "excise taxes" on many consumer goods driving down consumption and hurting both corporations and individuals who could afford less.
Those taxes drove unemployment up rather than down.
The National Labor Relations act led to lots of violent strikes by unions and forced membership of workers in many industries previously not unionized where they didn't get sufficiently better pay or benefits as a result due to the dues the union extracted.
Much of the New Deal spending went to states that supported FDR and Democrats or to ones for political leverage. If anything, the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression rather than brought America out of it. That occurred because of WW 2 and the lead up to that war.
Was the New Deal a Success?
An answer to the question, ‘was the New Deal a success?’, including an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the New Deal.
The New Deal actually depressed the US GDP all the way up to 1940.
90% of the New Deal was not tossed out as alleged above.
Short answer: No — the claim that “90% of the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional until FDR packed the Court” is not supported by historical evidence. Only a small number of major New Deal programs were struck down, and FDR never succeeded in packing the Supreme Court.
Walk through what did happen, because the real history is actually more interesting — and more complicated — than the talking‑point version you saw in that forum thread.