The Tea Party

[Kendo 2]

Off-topic Post:

He was also credited with ending the great depression(although like all economics, the great depression may have ended for other reasons).

 

OMG! You're actually right for once. Yeah, FDR ended the 1930's Depression...by directly involving America in WW2. He played on Imperial Japanese nationalism and the Japanese High Command's adherence to the New Land Buddhism's 1930's doctrine of 'necessity of war'. Imperial Japanese expansion was quashed in the League of Nations with doctrines forged by FDR. He PLAYED the Imperial Japanese and their 90+ year old resentments over Perry's strong-arming at the Convention of Kanagawa with NEW trade and oil embargoes. The sense of Imperial Japanese nationalism, pride in their heritage and international POLITICS led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR knew an Imperial Japanese response was coming, he simply didn't understand the beast he was dealing with. *BTW, Imperial Japan aligned itself with Fascist Europe because no one would trade with them, kinda like Israel and South Africa aligning in the 1970's.

 

God help us if Obama reads any books other than the ones he authored. He has a ready-made crisis in the Middle East and as Rahm Emanuel said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

 

Yes, FDR ended the Great Depression...with WAR PRODUCTION.

 

And I have news for you, hot shot. YOU cannot dictate where people post, PMs or the open forums...it is NOT your call.

 

BACK ON TOPIC:

The Tea Party wants to stop this sort of thing. :woot:

[Sinophile]

OMG! You're actually right for once

And I have news for you, hot shot. YOU cannot dictate where people post, PMs or the open forums...it is NOT your call.

Good job on getting personal.

 

 

I didn't mean that it was meant only for Ginny, I just meant that I had posted it on the bottom of her post mentioning her admiration for two of our previous presidents, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. She indicated at that time that she thought Mr. Obama had a long way to go to reach their standards. I then asked what she thought of the aforementioned two Roosevelts. I was not trying to imply that no one else could give an opinion. I was just attempting to clarify where that question came from.

Obama has a ways to go to meet any president's standards. He does not have the same challenges that a lot of the aforementioned presidents have. Both Obama and FDR had a poor economy to deal with, but America's economy is changed much in the past 60 years, having gone from agricultural, to industrial, to mostly service industries.

[ginnyfizz]

Just wanted to mention that the original question was posed by me to Ginnyfizz when she mentioned a couple of our presidents whom she had admired. I just wondered what she thought of those two. I don't believe she has had an opportunity to respond up until now.

If the question was meant only for Ginny, you could've sent her a PM.

 

But you DID try and tell folks where and how to post - see above.

 

The feelings about FDR have to be mixed. His New Deal at first seemed to work, but then went rather badly wrong - the double dip recession indeed. It sounds rather horribly like what the Labour Government did here in Britain until recently, creation of a ton of Government jobs and programmes that ostensibly work, a quick fix,and that make the government popular, but unsustainable in the long term. As others have pointed out, his spending was considered questionable. About Theodore Roosevelt I also have some misgivings about him being too much pro-worker and anti- business and fond of his trust buster label, rather than steering a middle ground.

 

This is not to denigrate the achievements of either, but to point out why to some extent they provoke in me similar kinds of misgivings to those I have about Obama.

[Sinophile]

I am not sure if Wikipedia is allowed in this forum, but I found this interesting quote.

author James Bradley reveals that in 1905 Roosevelt encouraged the Japanese to begin their military expansion onto the Asian continent when the president agreed a secret treaty that allowed Japan to take Korea. Bradley asserts that with this secret and unconstitutional maneuver, Roosevelt inadvertently ignited the problem (Japanese expansionism in Asia) that Franklin Delano Roosevelt would later confront as WWII in Asia.[58] The New York Times published a complementary review, writing that "The Imperial Cruise is startling enough to reshape conventional wisdom about Roosevelt’s presidency.

 

 

 

 

But you DID try and tell folks where and how to post - see above.

If the question was meant only for Ginny' date=' you [u']could've[/u] sent her a PM.

I pointed out to one poster that if she intended said question was posed for one other person, rather than everyone who'd read this topic, that using the forum's personal messaging system is an option, so that her question would not get buried under all the other responses(there were two full pages of responses to this topic on that day). Also note the use of could've( a contraction for could have), in place of should have should've(or should have). It helps to read what you quote.

 

 

About Theodore Roosevelt I also have some misgivings about him being too much pro-worker and anti- business and fond of his trust buster label, rather than steering a middle ground.

Oftentimes there isn't a middle-ground in politics. Back then, it was not uncommon for 8 year old children to work 12 hour days. Many craftsman(E.G. cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths, carpenters) had been displaced by the industrial revolution, and made a fraction of what they did in a factory. The factory would eventually be inherited by the former owner's children, keeping the wealth in the family. If 90% of wealth is owned by 10% of the population, then what one would have is a defacto feudalistic state. Even today, there are plenty of trust-fund children, who make $80-$100K doing absolutely nothing(they inherited stocks and bonds from their parents), while others struggle to repay their student loans with their middle management jobs.

On the other hand, you could make an argument that by creating unions, minimum wage, and other red tape around employing unskilled labor, that said corporations had more incentive to ship jobs overseas, and to employ illegal workers to fill in jobs domestically.

 

 

This is not to denigrate the achievements of either, but to point out why to some extent they provoke in me similar kinds of misgivings to those I have about Obama.

Regardless of the decisions made by the Roosevelts, the country has managed to prosper for another century.

[ginnyfizz]

 

But you DID try and tell folks where and how to post - see above.

If the question was meant only for Ginny' date=' you [u']could've[/u] sent her a PM.

I pointed out to one poster that if she intended said question was posed for one other person, rather than everyone who'd read this topic, that using the forum's personal messaging system is an option, so that her question would not get buried under all the other responses(there were two full pages of responses to this topic on that day). Also note the use of could've( a contraction for could have), in place of should have should've(or should have). It helps to read what you quote.

 

Now who's getting personal? I got my degree at a time when good spelling and grammar and the ability to read were required. It is considered bad form in any case to make implications such as you have here

 

 

About Theodore Roosevelt I also have some misgivings about him being too much pro-worker and anti- business and fond of his trust buster label, rather than steering a middle ground.

Oftentimes there isn't a middle-ground in politics. Back then, it was not uncommon for 8 year old children to work 12 hour days. Many craftsman(E.G. cobblers, tailors, blacksmiths, carpenters) had been displaced by the industrial revolution, and made a fraction of what they did in a factory. The factory would eventually be inherited by the former owner's children, keeping the wealth in the family. If 90% of wealth is owned by 10% of the population, then what one would have is a defacto feudalistic state. Even today, there are plenty of trust-fund children, who make $80-$100K doing absolutely nothing(they inherited stocks and bonds from their parents), while others struggle to repay their student loans with their middle management jobs.

On the other hand, you could make an argument that by creating unions, minimum wage, and other red tape around employing unskilled labor, that said corporations had more incentive to ship jobs overseas, and to employ illegal workers to fill in jobs domestically.

 

Since I come from a part of England where conditions in the mills and mines were so bad as to provoke the passing of laws directed at reform of exploitation of particularly child labour, I am well aware of all that. Then things swung so much in favour of the trade unions and worker power that Britain became a laughing stock until Margaret Thatcher reined them in. Now we have employment protection and laws against exploitation, but the trades unions will never again govern the country in all but name. Of COURSE there can be a middle ground!

 

 

This is not to denigrate the achievements of either, but to point out why to some extent they provoke in me similar kinds of misgivings to those I have about Obama.

Regardless of the decisions made by the Roosevelts, the country has managed to prosper for another century.

 

If that were true, then there would be no need for the Tea Party to be promoting fiscal prudence

[Aurielius]

"Regardless of the decisions made by the Roosevelts, the country has managed to prosper for another century."

@sinophile

Reminds me of the doctor who says that the operation was a success but the patient died. The subsequent realignment of executive power eventually lead us to undeclared wars, the imposition of the Social Welfare State, and usurpation of law by executive fiat. Hardly an inconsequential by product, in some parts of the country FDR is remembered in the same vein as Sherman is in South Carolina.

[grannywils]

"Regardless of the decisions made by the Roosevelts, the country has managed to prosper for another century."

@sinophile

Reminds me of the doctor who says that the operation was a success but the patient died. The subsequent realignment of executive power eventually lead us to undeclared wars, the imposition of the Social Welfare State, and usurpation of law by executive fiat. Hardly an inconsequential by product, in some parts of the country FDR is remembered in the same vein as Sherman is in South Carolina.

 

 

My head is aswim with so many different points that I feel compelled to address in this thread. However, I am going to confine myself to only one. I feel that Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been maligned, In My Opinion, unjustly for a variety of reasons by a couple of people, and I just want to make some comments. Yes, he spent money, the government was the only place that had money to spend. He spent money to help rebuild the economy, build a desparetly needed infrastructure (which still exisits today, but is in extreme need of repair due to the lack of care and attention paid by following administrations), and provide jobs for millions of Americans. He spent money on war (not my favorite subject, I admit; but at that time it was certainly necessary; I'm fairly certain both sides will agree). That also provided jobs and built factories which eventually became useful for less military purposes. Returning soldiers had jobs and places to go. He made reforms to a sloppy banking system. These were eventually removed and, our current disaster ensued. I do not remember who said it, but I believe someone implied that Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Obama didn't have much difficulty with which to contend during their terms. Since I am sticking to FDR, I will only respond with respect to him, by saying, "I beg to differ". You cannot be serious. We only had a war with one of the biggest monsters this world had ever known, the afermath of the Great Depression, joblessness of monumental proportions, not to mention the fact that he had to clean up after, In My Opinion, a worthless administration, and I could go on. I will also agree that he was less than perfect. Who isn't? I cannot say that I agreed with every single solitary policy he ever proposed and/or administered. But In My Opinion, given the circumstances under which he found himself, I truly believe he was not the finest, but one of our finest presidents. I fully expect quite a number of you to disagree vehemently. And you are certainly entitled, but I just felt that I needed to defend him and at least give my perspective. Thank you for the opportunity. The floor is yours.

[Sinophile]

in some parts of the country FDR is remembered in the same vein as Sherman is in South Carolina.

And in some parts of the country Timothy McVeigh is considered a hero. Very few politicians are universally loved or hated. William Tecumseh Sherman(whom I am assuming you are referring to in your analogy) despite his brutal tactics in South Carolina, was remembered quite differently by the slaves he freed. At the very least, FDR was popular at the time, and was elected 4 times.

The subsequent realignment of executive power eventually lead us to undeclared wars

I would say that the fear of communism, and switching foreign policy from isolationism to interventionism are also factors. Even before WWII, It isn't like America has ever been much for pacifism(Although as my history teacher has pointed out, America's army was about the size of Mexico's when Pearl Harbor Hit and the Japanese were shocked at the rate at which America had rebuilt).

 

Reminds me of the doctor who says that the operation was a success but the patient died

The analogy is lost on me. If I am not mistaken, the proverbial patient did not die, but had lived to dominate the globe both militarily and economically for the following decades to come, regardless of the alleged incompetence of the doctors. Sure, there were some tough spots during the Carter years, but then came the Clinton years, which were awesome.

 

Since I come from a part of England where conditions in the mills and mines were so bad as to provoke the passing of laws directed at reform of exploitation of particularly child labour, I am well aware of all that. Then things swung so much in favour of the trade unions and worker power that Britain became a laughing stock until Margaret Thatcher reined them in. Now we have employment protection and laws against exploitation, but the trades unions will never again govern the country in all but name. Of COURSE there can be a middle ground!

Ok, so what sort of timeframe are we talking about? I was talking about working conditions in Early 20th century America; Maggie came along 80 years later.

 

 

He spent money on war (not my favorite subject, I admit; but at that time it was certainly necessary; I'm fairly certain both sides will agree). That also provided jobs and built factories which eventually became useful for less military purposes. Returning soldiers had jobs and places to go.

Has anyone here seen Pearl Harbor(The James Cameron movie, not the Harbor itself)? FDR had to work hard to convince the country to go to War.If I am not mistaken, I think the opposition is making an argument by stating that he used a war to mend an ailing economy. Regardless of his methods, America had become the most affluent country on the planet. Obama on the other hand already has two wars to contend with, in that respect, he is more comparable to Truman than FDR. Instead of Communism, he has terrorism(or Islamic extremism). Unfortunately, unlike Truman, he can't use atom bombs to quickly end two wars.

[Aurielius]

@grannywils

Though you claim to confine your argument to FDR, Obama is included in the comparison. i am willing to concede that FDR had enormous internal problems to deal with and even though I do not approve of his eventual methodology he was in the top half of qualitative presidents mainly due to his handling of the Second World War.

But Obama has achieved very little of his proposed campaign platform, this is akin to his ill deserved Nobel Peace Prize.The left is determined to enshrine him regardless of his actual achievements.

First he wanted to have a dialog with Iran and North Korea regardless of their prior bad faith, when this goes south this darling of the media draws no fire.

Second he states that he will close Guantanamo when he cannot find a state that will accept these terrorists again nothing.

Third he stated he would succeed in Afghanistan ( though no one since the days of Alexander the Great has) and he fires the one general that finally managed to gain the confidence of the local groups in country, the press applauds wildly.

Fourth he now has declared premature victory in Iraq, dear god how much more of this incompetence must we accept before it is realized that he is foreign policy challenged?

Thank god there are mid term elections in the near future, I look forward to a realignment of the power structure of the House and the Senate. The Left sees the same possible shift in power which is why they struggle so hard to marginalize the Tea Party.

[ginnyfizz]

Since I come from a part of England where conditions in the mills and mines were so bad as to provoke the passing of laws directed at reform of exploitation of particularly child labour, I am well aware of all that. Then things swung so much in favour of the trade unions and worker power that Britain became a laughing stock until Margaret Thatcher reined them in. Now we have employment protection and laws against exploitation, but the trades unions will never again govern the country in all but name. Of COURSE there can be a middle ground!

Ok, so what sort of timeframe are we talking about? I was talking about working conditions in Early 20th century America; Maggie came along 80 years later.

 

*Sigh* a really rather long one from the passing of the first labour regulating legislation in the early nineteenth century to the present day. That certainly covers working conditions in the early twentieth century AND Maggie. It seems to be obvious to everyone else that I am using analogies between the situation in my own country to describe why I think the Tea Party has a point and some of your Presidents may have been a tad over-rated.. So stop picking up on things just to try and patronize.