I know what many of you are thinking: "But FDR got us out of the Great Depression. FDR signed the Social Security act. FDR helped us win World War II. He was a good president!"
A good president? Yes and no.
Now while I would not be one to discount his leadership in World War II or many of the other positive things he accomplished, instead what I intend to look at is the result of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's economic policies, specifically the ones he implemented to get us out of the Great Depression in comparison to Obama's economic policies today.
Certainly there are parallels between the two presidents from the outset. Both began their administrations after an unpopular Republican president. Both faced dire economic circumstances in the early parts of their administrations (though for FDR, the problems were arguably much greater than they are today). And both of them sought to bring about major social change through their respective government programs.
One thing that is interesting to note about FDR's administration is that he actually implemented some of the policies of his predecessor, Republican president Herbert Hoover. How can that be? FDR bringing about the same things as the dreaded Herbert Hoover? It's true. Just ask FDR's advisor Rexford Guy Tugwell:
"We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."
This is unusual considering that FDR ran on a platform of cutting taxes, cutting government, and balancing the budget. In contrast to Hoover's Revenue Act in 1932, which doubled the income tax rate and was the largest tax increase in peacetime history. The ideas that FDR campaigned on were actually quite good. However, just like with Obama, campaign promises and actual policies were two different things to FDR. He raised the top income tax rate as high as 90 percent. In the same vein, just last year, Obama has proposed to increase the top income tax rate as well, although fortunately not to 90 percent like FDR did!
And just as FDR followed Hoover's bad policies, Steve Forbes points out that Obama is following Bush's bad economic policies, which ironically run counter to that of FDR's:
"What is most astounding about President Barack Obama's radical economic recovery program isn't its breadth, but its continuation of the most destructive policies of the Bush administration. These Bush policies were in themselves repudiations of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Mr. Obama's hero."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - jeannie danna
Braden,
We are the government that we sent to Washington. It is for the people, of the people, and by the people.
"Do you know why we have a federal Government?"
The reason we have a federal government is so that we can bring some consistency to this nation.
A really good modern example for you is the standardization of school curriculum.
Right now, it is being held up by the States of Texas and Alaska. This program is not, "no child left behind", rather it is designed to get all of our children to the same page and prepare them to compete in the world after graduation with as much resource as would be possible.
Now, why do you suppose two States would oppose this?
An older example for you
Even after the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified, the Southern States refused suffrage to the black male citizens of this country.
Yes, Braden we need our Government for many reasons...
:)Have a nice day!
2 - Richard J. Garfunkel
This article is moronic. HL Mencken stated once, "no one in this world, so far as I know...has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.” This piece defies logic, history and just good sense. FDR did not prolong the Depression. The collapse in the economy ended in 43 months, which meant that the economy's decline reversed in June of 1933. Unfortunately revisionists like Amity Schlaes seem to forget the unique depth of the Depression. As to President Obama, please do not forget that the recession began in December of 2007. Did any one expect it to be reversed over night? I am sure that an overwhelming percentage of most historians, who rate FDR as one of the great and pivotal leaders of the millennium, would disagree with this silly premise. As to “poor” presidents, the last one surely will top the list along with his father, Nixon, Carter, and even Eisenhower, who had three ugly recessions in his eight years.
Richard J. Garfunkel
Host of the Advocates
WVOX 1460 am radio
3 - jeannie danna
Let's both get on the same page here, Braden.
Haha, Jeannie I have absolutely no idea where you got that the idea for the comment on my latest post. You make me sound like an anarchist, lol.
No, Braden, an Anarchist is actually for all of the people.
I don't see Anarchy as a solution because I think we have to fix what we have already built. and I disagree with your politics because you refuse to be inclusive.
This is the way I see it:
The Conservative/Republican/Dino is for them and the Democrat/Liberal/Rino is for everyone, no matter how much it costs them and everyone else. Now, you can say no, but I don't see any sign of a turn around or even one inch of compromise here and we have been compromising and giving in my entire life.
We were on a great road in this country until they assassinated all of the leaders that walked in that direction. this will always break many people's Hearts and it is also why I want to learn how to write.
What really gets to me is the fact that most of us would rather talk about sports or Hollywood than our country and the world.
I see this as real common ground for you and me. We both really want to make a difference in this world, and I admire you for that, even if I don't like the way you are going about it.
:) Braden, thanks for commenting directly! I was worried that you would never ever speak to me again. Bye for now, I'm a blogcritic and you'll hear from me again and again ... lol
and probably a lot sooner now!
4 - roger nowosielski
#2,
Oh, my goodness.
5 - roger nowosielski
There you go, Jeannie the blogcritic.
Just don't contaminate his mailbox lest he go berserk.
6 - jeannie danna
Richard J. Garfunkel,
I disagree, Carter was a good President, and he should not be included in that list.
However, right now I don't want to change this author's subject.
7 - jeannie danna
Good morning Roger, I am very polite these days...:)
8 - roger nowosielski
What's wrong with a side conversation?
9 - roger nowosielski
I've noticed. You've learned the way of the blogcritics.
There's a time to put in a zinger and a time for strategic withdrawal. Just keep your opponent off balance, that's the main rule.
10 - roger nowosielski
BTW, you should check Richard's weblog, interesting.
But here I go again, contaminating Braden's mail box. I hope his spam filter is working.
11 - jeannie danna
This is ridiculous, and what is going to replace them, inexperience?
Throw out the lobby if the lobby is corrupt.
Braden, not all lobby is corrupt.
12 - jeannie danna
Nothing is wrong with any conversation. I just want to keep my own mind focused here. I didn't mean you, roger.
13 - jeannie danna
I have to go eat a bowel of oatmeal. :) I'll be back!
14 - Mark
If you're going to base your thesis on Ohanian and Cole's research you might provide a link to their paper.
The main problem with their work imo is that it assumes sensitive and effective 'self-correcting' mechanisms in the economy.
15 - Mark
As for the comparison of FDR and Obama, FDR was able to subvert a revolution in the US...we'll see if Obama can provide enough sop to the unemployed to do the same.
16 - Braden
Minneapolis Fed pdf
17 - Mark
(Thanks Braden. You probably could get your editor to get that link into the article proper.)
18 - zingzing
(and raw links are against the comment policy...)
19 - Jamison
"Carter was a good President". Wow.
Creating more public sector jobs does not help the economy. At all. It helps the individual and their family, sure, and that is good, but if anyone says it is good for the economy is wrong. Think about it. I will simplify it. Let us say a government gives a worker $10,000 a year for a job. Of that $10,000 the government takes, say, $2,000 for taxes. Now the worker has $8,000 to spend as they see fit.
Let us say they spend it ALL in one year, bringing in 10% in sales tax. That is $800 the government got back. So of the $10,000 the government gave to this worker, it got back $2,800. Not a great return. Now, had the government lowered restrictions on businesses, lowered their tax burden (not eliminating taxes on them of course), and did a host of other things that would allow businesses to hire more people, then the government would get tax revenue without putting out more than it expects to get in return.
And what I still can't understand about some on the left who stand by their man no matter which of the 32 campaign promises he broke (yes, I kept a list, I am sick too), they never seem to know where we will get the money to pay for all the wonderful, Utopian things they want other people to give away. People, we have no money. Zero. While the Feds can write checks left and right, my state has to WAIT for things as simple as state tax refunds until the money is there. How backwards is that? If you write a check and you have over a trillion dollars dept in your bank account, you go to jail. The government can do it without batting an eye. "Well, raise taxes!. Well, our debt increases almost 4 billion dollars a day (Since Sept of 2007, yea, I blame Bush too). I don't care who you want to tax the feces out of, no matter how evil and rich they are, there is no way you can get your head above water when our federal government spends that much money and expects to give away so much STUFF!
I would also submit to you (since I am on a random rambling) to consider why America was formed. Was it formed so leaders in DC could wear $5,000 suits, get paid to be a senator or congressman as their main career, have limos and limo drivers. Get private jets, and tell people how much water their toilet can have in it? It is fine if you want America to be what it has become, but please admit that what it is today is in no way what the founding fathers intended. Men literally died, left their homes, left their jobs, and families, because their old government was taxing them too much and telling them how to live their life. Pretty much every Amendment is a founding father thumbing his nose at King George. Sorry, but as a fan of American history, I really don't see this as being the same country. Thank God in some ways (Andrew Jackson was a punk for treating the Cherokee the way he did, and slavery is no longer with out, thankfully, etc.) but think about it. Everything you want, we can't afford. We used to take care of our fellow man on our own accord. Now Americans are so greedy and selfish that we expect others to perform our moral duties for us with their money. Thank God the church I go to gives me and our members so many opportunities to help our members in need and those outside our church. THAT is what feels good, not a tax increase.
I dont expect to check back here every 3 seconds like Jeannie does. For one, she has no intentions of seeing anything my way. Fair enough. I don't plan on seeing things much differently my way. I have changed my view on many things politically in my years, minor sure. But I came upon it on my own experience and study... not through a blog comment (Or in Jeannies case, 7 comments in 3 hours starting at 3am.... dear Lord, who is up at 3:11am?)
20 - jeannie danna
Jammison you are incorrect about Carter and me:
"Carter was the country we would've had, and the business sector knew it; he answered questions directly and made bold decisive decisions regarding energy, consumption, and terrorism. Therefore, they shamed him with the hostage situation in Iran in order to make him appear weak. if you look at who followed you see it all.
I did agree with your idea to introduce more than two choices of politics to this country because it was the answer; remember?
Funny, the shelves in our stores are overflowing with too many choices of every product imaginable; ironically, Washington has been effectively reduced to two that are almost one.
You don't want to hear this, yet I'll tell you anyway, I see glimpses of Carter in Obama; the way he answers questions directly, the way he invites all to have a voice, and his audacity to fight for us. We desperately need social programs for those that they disenfranchised in this country for the last thirty years.
I like an elected official who will say what they think without first looking for their handlers' approval." Jeannie :)
21 - jeannie danna
Who runs around looking @ all of my comments?
Perhaps somebody that cares? Thanks, Jammison!
And FWI, I will get up anytime I want, because this is a free country.
22 - jeannie danna
I had to use an earlier comment, I'm busy today...bye
23 - Joanne Huspek
I think the jury is still out whether Obama is the WORST president since FDR. He's only been in a year, and it's hard to gauge with only a quarter of his time in. Ask me in about a year and a half.
And FDR? I wasn't alive then, but I was for Carter and I voted for him. His intentions might have been pure and honorable, but he was a terrible president.
24 - Jamison
Seems Braden's blog is not number 1 for comments. Special thanks to Jeannie? Well done!
25 - Dave Nalle
A really good modern example for you is the standardization of school curriculum.
This would be a really good example of how meddling mandates from the federal government have helped to destroy the school systems by limiting local control and applying a cookie-cutter approach to education which is proven not to work.
Dave