Franklin the Terrible?

[LWW]

I almost named this "THINGS YOU WON'T FIND ON THE PARTY SPOON!" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_Act)

In classic Orwellian "DOUBLETHINK" and "BLACKWHITE" the typical leftist will swear that FDR was the champion of the working class and that public employees/retirees should not be asked to take one thin dime in wage/benefit cuts in trying times.

History, as almost always, tells a different story than democrook mythology.

FDR was inaugurated on 4 March, 1933. By 20 March, 1933 ... as one of the key parts of the "NEW DEAL" FDR had forced through congress the "ECONOMY ACT OF 1933" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_Act) ... which was far harsher on public employees/retirees that anthing that the current EEEVILL republicans have ever proposed :

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On March 10, 1933, six days after his inauguration, Roosevelt submitted legislation to Congress which would cut $500 million ($8.181 billion in 2009 dollars) from the $3.6 billion federal budget by eliminating government agencies, reducing the pay of civilian and military federal workers (including members of Congress), and slashing veterans' benefits by 50 percent. ...

Its most important provisions, however, repealed all federal laws regarding veterans' benefits.[16][17] Section 17 of the Act declared: "All public laws granting medical or hospital treatment, domiciliary care, compensation, and other allowances, pension, disability allowance, or retirement pay to veterans and the dependents of veterans of ... the World War, ... are hereby repealed, and all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term insurance are hereby repealed." ...

The Economy Act had little effect on either the federal deficit or the economy. Spending in other areas rose so substantially that it dwarfed the cuts imposed by the Economy Act.</div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_Act)

SAY IT AIN'T SO FRANKLIN, SAY IT AIN'T SO! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fdr)

[Soflasnapper]

Anyone familiar with the arc of FDR's presidency knows that he came into office promising to out-Hoover Hoover, criticizing deficit spending, promising to balance the budget, and taking steps to accomplish those things.

This austerity program didn't work at the beginning of his first term, and when he tried to return to it c. '37, it didn't work then, either. It caused the economy to re-enter recession, and cost the Democrats nearly as many or more seats in the next election of the House as the '10 election just cost.

However, as this would be your suggested policy now, on what basis can you criticize it? That he tried to implement these policies he had run on and promised to do?

Or that he was a pragmatic man, and was willing to do the opposite of these things when he found that they did not work?

[LWW]

It didn't "WORK" because he took cuts from state employees/retirees and squandered it creating a fascist economy.

I don't disagree with his initial spending cuts ... it is you who is, as usual, practicing doublethink.

[cushioncrawler]

FDR woz an idiot early on, and later on too. He did little good. No, things hadnt gotten better in 36-7. Things didnt really get much better till 46 i think.

On the other hand in Germany things were going great, if u werent jewish or communist or unionist.

I havnt redd up on it, but i am thinking that say halving state wages wouldnt be very drastik when prices were less than half. Stoopid yes, drastik no. Whereaz today prices are going up, so cutting state wages would be a different pig.
mac.

[LWW]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FDR woz an idiot early on, and later on too. He did little good. No, things hadnt gotten better in 36-7. Things didnt really get much better till 46 i think.
mac. </div></div>

My points exactly for years ... but US leftists get their collective shorts all in a knot when you criticize one of their godkings.