This sentence, "FDR's political party had nothing to do with it whatsoever," demonstrates that it is who who are ignorant of "what happened in the 30's and 40's." I have explained what happened, documenting my arguments with facts drawn from credible organizations: the rich were taxed heavily; the rest benefitted.

 

Insults like that would disqualify you in a formal debate. Unfortunately, insults and cliches seem all you are capable of.

 

The political cartoon that explains Republican economics:

 

Your documentation was one sided at best and flat wrong at the least. The programs of the FDR administration were met with bipartisan support both in the Congress and in statehouse across the country, it was not anything like what you painted. From Social Security to the WPA, to the build up of the industrial might, it was a proud time to see our two party system at work.

You current crop of socialist=liberal hangers on, are heretics in our midst.

 

I can see both you and TG in a debate...doggo, you'd start it off, the audience would be interested for a mo but then more bored until they start to nod off.....TG would limp in on his wooden leg, drop a few facts, crack a joke or two at doggo's expense, the audience would wake up and have a giggle.

Debate over, everyone would go home and none the wiser.... How a debate should be.

 

Yeah, Winston Churchill said something similar about socialists. Have you ever wondered why the common socialist wants to suffer along with the rest of the common socialists, but the leaders always live in splendor.

 

"He's a traitor to his class!" was the rallying cry of many rich Republicans during the New Deal.

Roosevelt was accused of being a socialist. Nevertheless, back then many Congressional Republicans had the magnanimity to look and think beyond the walls of their country clubs. Now Congressional Republicans think of little but obstructing the President.

 

You are getting closer to the truth here, DL. In typical party rhetoric, yes the Republcans decried the socialist tendencies of the Democrats, but in the end, good sense prevailed and compromise was reached. Without executive orders, veto threats and filibusters.

You can not resist displaying your false and misleading stereotypes, can you? Even when the people of the "Greatest Generation" rose above them.

 

Good sense has left the GOP. If pointing that out is a stereotype, the stereotype is not misleading. It is a description of the way things are.

 

It is a description of how you see it, not how it really is, good sense has left the political scene.

Good sense dictates that you can not spend more than you earn without enduring hardship later. Good sense dictates that you should always leave your place in better shape than you initially found it. Good sense dictates that you should never mortgage your children's future, for the comforts you now enjoy.

Good sense has eluded most politicians every time they increase the debt ceiling and continue to spend what they do not have.

It is pointless to say anything else about it, it does not matter who began the debt cycle, what only matters is who will end it? It sure a s hell isn't the present administration, the current Congress could increase efforts to stop it, but I doubt it.

 

Franklin Roosevelt was also hated. This is how he responded:

 

The debate should end right here. It's time to quit debating who, why, where,when and join forces to solve the problem. Imagine if we had everybody on board trying to solve the problem.

 

In the late 30's and early 40's we did have most everyone on board tackling the problem, but if DL had his choice we would have still been wrestling in the mud.

 

That was a great political speech, filled with the rhetoric of the times, given on December 31, 1936 on the eve of the presidential election for his second four years term. He is answering the perceived Republican campaign of Alf Landon, who not only agreed with much of the "New Deal", he openly supported it after the election.

You should read the actual text of the speech to get the true feeling of it.

http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/od2ndst.html

 

What has Obama done to indicate he loves America? Or that he is a Christian? Anything he does on the foreign front only bolsters the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Socialistic ideas of Obama and his minions don't work, won't work, and have never worked. Sucking the money out of the wealthy will only last so long. Taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor through government policy is nothing but robbery. Plain and simple. Our entire system of tax and spend is robbery. They forcibly take money from me and spend it on things I don't want my money used for. I'm sick of this administration and their lies. Anybody with half a brain can see through the bullshit this presidents spews every time he opens his mouth. Liberalism is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem!

 

Hmm, I like that. " Liberalism is not the solution to the problem, it is the problem". Very profound.

 

If there is anyone who deserves no credit to the economic recovery that is attributed to him, it is Ronald Reagan. His economic policy consisted of nothing but stimulating the economy with borrowed money. This would have led to the inflationary depression predicted by Howard Ruff in his 1979 book How to Prosper During the Coming Bad Years, if not for the decline in the world price of petroleum, that began after 1982.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

That decline happened because the OPEC Oil Boycott of 1973 was price fixing, and not sustainable.

Despite all the hoopla about the "Reagan economic recovery," more jobs were created per year under Jimmy Carter.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Deficits were much lower under Carter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

That's because the rich paid much higher taxes, and defense spending was lower.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

 

Here we go again, DL comes to the line and shoots for the wrong basket and he scores for the other team. Strange how he thinks that he has met the challenge in doing this.

Sorry DL, but that did nothing to actually face the question of how the Great Depression was ended.

 

I agree but are we talking about the same thing???

Redistribution of wealth in the United States has been going on since the mid 1800s and really accelerated after the great depression of the early 1900s... but it has mainly been the rapid flow of wealth from the working middle class to the ultra rich that has defined this redistribution. And yes, for the rich it has been a reward without much effort since the flow of wealth has been driven by profits generated by investment of capital (money) and not by actual physical work. And may I add that most of the initial wealth that has made the rich richer, has been inherited wealth.

I haven't read through all the postings on this thread but I'm sure DL can fill you in on the facts regarding the history of Redistribution of Wealth in America.

Yes, redistribution of wealth is not a sound economic or social policy. Having the overwhelming bulk of the nation's wealth in the hands of a relatively small portion of the population can be very disruptive of the economy and society has a whole. What we need to correct this state of affairs is Economic Justice so that those that work hard for the wealth this country get a fair share of the rewards. Those that invest money should get a smaller share. Even so, a small share of a giant pie distributed among a very small group can be more then enough.

HD

.