Jump to content

Roosevelt or Reagan


Lcyberlina
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tens Cents You Can Bet On: Roosevelt or Reagan - The New Deal and The Raw Deal?

by Douglas Mattern

?

The exaggerated pomp and ceremony surrounding the death of Ronald Reagan is over, but the campaign to promote the Reagan myth continues in full gear. One project is to have Reagan's profile replace Franklin Roosevelt on the dime. The symbolism and contrast between these two presidents could not be more profound.

 

Roosevelt was truly a "man of the people," and this was reflected in his concept of government: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."

 

Compare this with Reagan's mantra that government is the problem, and the ensuing deregulation process that gave Reagan's sponsor, corporate America, the dominant role in our society. One result is corporate control of our media, including television, radio, book and magazine publishing, movie studios, and a plethora of right-wing talk shows.

 

This philosophy is completely opposite to Roosevelt's democratic understanding on the role of corporations and those who own them: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."

 

Reagan's economic policies greatly exacerbated the division of wealth in this country through his tax legislation that favored the rich and corporations. Moreover, his outlook on society initiated the "greed is good" nonsense so popular with the "me" generation. With this outlook, it 's not surprising that scores of people in the Reagan administration were indicted for criminal activity.

 

Roosevelt led this country through the dangerous and dark period of the "Great Depression" and through the most brutal and destructive period in human history, World War II. Roosevelt also had a vision for the future as the chief architect of the United Nations.

 

Reagan, in contrast, constantly ridiculed the UN, refused to pay this country's UN dues and debt, which produced a shameful period of U.S. international "bad will." Perhaps the darkest element of Reagan's term in office was his support of the brutal regimes in Latin America with their infamous "death squads." In a grotesque scene, Reagan greeted the murderous Contras rebels in the White House as "freedom fighters."

 

The Iran/Contra adventure was one of this country's most shameful scandals, with an arrogant Marine Lt. Colonel running amok with a secret government program in the White House basement. This was a far more impeachable offense than Nixon's Watergate scandal.

 

The myth spinners portray Ronald Reagan as a man of deep compassion, yet Reagan supported the deplorable Apartheid policy in South Africa. He opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and refused federal funding for the treatment of AIDS, jeopardizing the lives of millions of people.

 

The myth spinners want us to believe that Reagan defeated communism, but Mikhail refuted this in a speech in Washington the night before Reagan's funeral. The changes in the Soviet Union, from ending much of the official censorship to sweeping political and economic reforms, were undertaken not because of any foreign pressure or concern, Gorbachev said, but because Russia was dying under the weight of the Stalinist system.

 

Gorbachev also set the record straight regarding the myth that Reagan's massive military buildup forced the Soviet to retreat: "All that talk that somehow Reagan's arms race forced Gorbachev to look for some arms reductions, etc., that's not serious. The Soviet Union could have withstood any arms race. The Soviet Union could have actually decided not to build more weapons, because the weapons we had were more than enough."

 

Roosevelt fought against corporate control in the name of democracy. He used taxation to enhance democracy and justice. Reagan was the mouthpiece and creation of General Electric and corporate America, and wholly beholden to the rich.

 

As to which president was really "a Man of the People, that's easy to judge. Roosevelt's policies were a "new deal" of democracy and equality for working people, and with presidential support for unions. What Reagan provided, hidden by clever public relations, was a "raw deal" for working people, including a redistribution of their hard earned tax dollars to the rich, and a virtual war waged against unions.

 

Regarding the battle of the coins, Roosevelt must remain on the dime, and if real justice is served, it is Roosevelt's face that belongs on Mount Rushmore.

LINK

Link to comment
Share on other sites


the both of them are the crap deal if you ask me

 

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"

 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt - What a Real "War" President is all about

 

That was said as jsutification to extend executive powers to deal with the "Great depression" which FDR made much worse.

 

Now Nixon, he called everyone a fag, f*cker, and ect. He kicked ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This question is laughably easy to answer:Reagan by about 37,000 miles was better than Roosevelt.

 

Reagan oversaw the falling of the Communist Regime of Eastern Europe, brought integrity to the presidental office, and overall made our country which had looked awful under Carter a lot better.

 

Roosevelt's "New Deal" was a bunch of total BS, and it in fact made the Great Depression a lot worse. Roosevelt's saving grace was World War 2, which brought America out of the depression, improved the economy with all the new jobs it created in making weapons and all that, and brought the country together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

brought integrity to the presidental office

old senile man with no idea who in his administration is doing what brought integrity? I think that slighty exaggerates the terribleness of Reagan :lol

 

Reagan had his issues yes, but every president does. Fact is, the guy was the first president with integrity since Eisenhower IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roosevelt was truly a "man of the people"

I couldn't let this go by without comment. Roosevelt might have been a man for the people, but he was definitely not a man of the people. He was born into more privilege than any president in the 20th century. Contrast that with Reagan, who truly was a man of the people, from a simple background and modest means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roosevelt was absolute crap.

 

He wandered lost in an economic policy wasteland until good 'ol Adolf, Benny and Hirohito bailed his arse out.

 

Plus, he actively concealed a significant medical issue and kept a mistress for years.

 

And he planted the seed of the modern welfare state.

 

Overrated at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roosevelt was absolute crap.

 

He wandered lost in an economic policy wasteland until good 'ol Adolf, Benny and Hirohito bailed his arse out.

 

Plus, he actively concealed a significant medical issue and kept a mistress for years.

 

And he planted the seed of the modern welfare state.

 

Overrated at best.

Most of the New Deal programs are the main reason the wasteful spending craze got out of hand in the first place, and where people began to grow emotionally attached to many of these wasteful programs. Although I admire FDR because he kept america strong in wartime even if his domestic policies were terrible. The worse part was these useless programs were believed by many to be what led us out of the depression and because of that theyr were expanded on rather than reduced and the nail in the coffin came when LBJ came around to basically make these programs nearly indestructible. Until someone comes out and makes a political martyr of themselves and begins eliminating the more wasteful of these programs, America will never be able to reach the potential economic growth that it could have otherwise, not to mention an increase in quality of life and jobs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until someone comes out and makes a political martyr of themselves and begins eliminating the more wasteful of these programs, America will never be able to reach the potential economic growth that it could have otherwise, not to mention an increase in quality of life and jobs

I am sorry but this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard... No explanation needed... You would never understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for[/b] the people, but he was definitely not a man of the people. He was born into more privilege than any president in the 20th century. Contrast that with Reagan, who truly was a man of the people, from a simple background and modest means.

wasnt clinton teh same way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until someone comes out and makes a political martyr of themselves and begins eliminating the more wasteful of these programs, America will never be able to reach the potential economic growth that it could have otherwise, not to mention an increase in quality of life and jobs

I am sorry but this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard... No explanation needed... You would never understand. All Roosevelt did was give the American people something to do on the Gov't's dime until war broke out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until someone comes out and makes a political martyr of themselves and begins eliminating the more wasteful of these programs, America will never be able to reach the potential economic growth that it could have otherwise, not to mention an increase in quality of life and jobs

I am sorry but this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard... No explanation needed... You would never understand. Thats a very intellectual statement made by you there. In fact I understand all too well being directly influenced by socialism in my life, more so than most on this board (juanky may be an exception). So believe me I do understand and you need to stop being so idealistic and find out what realism is, the reality is that even if you dont agree that all programs need cutting, you have to be naive to think that all the current programs are perfect and that if anything more taxpayers money should be pumped into them. Maybe you can afford to pay high taxes, but me, my family, and most americans cant, especially for programs that have proven useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i look back and i think what good did FDR brign to this country?

 

 

and i think that even in spite of all these federal programs....some very significant things came about because of them.

 

 

so i dont think we can say that everything that FDR did was bad. but there was definitely more bad than good and he was vastly overrated.

 

 

but i cant simply say that everything he did sucked or that all his domestic programs were garbage.

 

 

did he go too far? most definitely.

 

 

but he had to try and do something....with us in the depression.....

 

 

 

creating the jobs was a good start...if he had stopped there...he may of been great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think FDR is listed in the top 5 Presidents in the 20th century almost by default.

 

 

 

There were many that did nothing or next to nothing.

 

 

I sure as hell dont hold him in the 'sainthood' status as many in this country.

True, same can be said of Kennedy, he is considered a great president but he didnt really serve as president long enough to be in that rank. But oh well, the era in which a president serves determines how they will be remmebered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until someone comes out and makes a political martyr of themselves and begins eliminating the more wasteful of these programs, America will never be able to reach the potential economic growth that it could have otherwise, not to mention an increase in quality of life and jobs

I am sorry but this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard... No explanation needed... You would never understand. Thats a very intellectual statement made by you there. In fact I understand all too well being directly influenced by socialism in my life, more so than most on this board (juanky may be an exception). So believe me I do understand and you need to stop being so idealistic and find out what realism is, the reality is that even if you dont agree that all programs need cutting, you have to be naive to think that all the current programs are perfect and that if anything more taxpayers money should be pumped into them. Maybe you can afford to pay high taxes, but me, my family, and most americans cant, especially for programs that have proven useless. I apologize for my rude remark... However, I am not a "socialist" or a "communist", but that doesn't mean I agree with the Republican motto of cutting every social program in existence. Why cut the programs, why punish every single American for the missmanagement of a few. Why not make them efficient? Why spend in a useless war and outrageous tax cuts for the wealthy when there are several worthy programs in need of funding... I don't know if my thinking is idealist or if Republicans thinking is just too cynical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think FDR is listed in the top 5 Presidents in the 20th century almost by default.

 

 

 

There were many that did nothing or next to nothing.

 

 

I sure as hell dont hold him in the 'sainthood' status as many in this country.

True, same can be said of Kennedy, he is considered a great president but he didnt really serve as president long enough to be in that rank. But oh well, the era in which a president serves determines how they will be remmebered at least FDR did something remotely positive for this country.

 

 

 

Kennedy was utterly worthless....

 

 

 

I cant wait till all the Kennedy papers come out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until someone comes out and makes a political martyr of themselves and begins eliminating the more wasteful of these programs, America will never be able to reach the potential economic growth that it could have otherwise, not to mention an increase in quality of life and jobs

I am sorry but this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard... No explanation needed... You would never understand. hmm, he makes a good economic point, you pretty much make an ad hominem...haven't we been down this road before? It is a road better less traveled.

 

the nail in the coffin came when LBJ came around to basically make these programs nearly indestructible.

 

No, Eisenhower had the ability to dismantle the welfare state and he did not, and in fact he wanted universal healthcare and he helped establish the military industrial complex.

 

I blame Ike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i look back and i think what good did FDR brign to this country?

 

 

and i think that even in spite of all these federal programs....some very significant things came about because of them.

 

The only thing significant to come out of these programs was the creation of mother government. We as people are no longer free, we're addicted to our government when we get sick, jobless, or poor. We all know that if government did none of these things, the prices for basic necessities would be lower. Furthermore, we all know that if each and everyone of us partook in being a "rugged individual" and trusted ourselves and our families to determine our destiny, more of us would be fine than not.

 

However, we are ideologically and morally lazy, we took the easy way out- give personal responsibilities to the government. The result? Inefficiency, waste, poverty, loss of work ethic, break down of responsibility- the very things that will in time end us as a society. For this reason, by no mean can I or should anyone accept the expansion of government or give FDR the least bit of praise for his domestic policies...at all.

 

Why cut the programs, why punish every single American for the missmanagement of a few. Why not make them efficient?

Because government is inherently ineffecient. You punish no one by eliminating terribly wasteful programs.

 

Does this apply to every program? No, I would say education is a great investment for a country that is WORTH government inefficiency. However, hand outs are NOT an investment for our society's future, the programs cannot and will not be made efficient.

 

Why spend in a useless war and outrageous tax cuts for the wealthy when there are several worthy programs in need of funding... I don't know if my thinking is idealist or if Republicans thinking is just too cynical.

 

Here you point out legacies hypocracy with his defense of the modern republican party and administration.

 

I have the best idea: don't spend money on anything useless or wasteful until we pay down our debt. The net savings from being relatively debt free and with government used only for the essentials will make our country far more prosperous, it will lessen poverty, it will make the rich richer....everyone wins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for[/b] the people, but he was definitely not a man of the people. He was born into more privilege than any president in the 20th century. Contrast that with Reagan, who truly was a man of the people, from a simple background and modest means.

wasnt clinton teh same way? Absolutely. One of the great things about the American Presidency in the latter 1/2 of the 20th century is that the majority of presidents were of middle to lower-middle class origins. One of the depressing things about this year's candidates is that neither of them are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he actively concealed a significant medical issue

 

To me this shows you really dont like the politics of Roosevelt and will draw whatever you can into something larger than it is.

 

I think its suprising that this comes from someone who activley argues about the foolish American public and the silly things they let effect them. Roosevelt had to hid his polio because he didnt want the American people to lose confidence in him during the war. That obviously stems from the naive public making taking such a view.

 

But I wonder..if tommorow we found out Bush was hiding a serious illness during the Iraq war and the media made a big deal out of it, Im sure you would react with disdain toward the media. But when you dont agree with the politics of that leader...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until someone comes out and makes a political martyr of themselves and begins eliminating the more wasteful of these programs, America will never be able to reach the potential economic growth that it could have otherwise, not to mention an increase in quality of life and jobs

I am sorry but this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard... No explanation needed... You would never understand. hmm, he makes a good economic point, you pretty much make an ad hominem...haven't we been down this road before? It is a road better less traveled. As usual you jump into other's arguments... You have a sick pleasure arguing for nothing... If you would have read my post after that one. I already apologized. But that is something you don't understant... Really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until someone comes out and makes a political martyr of themselves and begins eliminating the more wasteful of these programs, America will never be able to reach the potential economic growth that it could have otherwise, not to mention an increase in quality of life and jobs

I am sorry but this has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard... No explanation needed... You would never understand. hmm, he makes a good economic point, you pretty much make an ad hominem...haven't we been down this road before? It is a road better less traveled. As usual you jump into other's arguments... You have a sick pleasure arguing for nothing... If you would have read my post after that one. I already apologized. But that is something you don't understant... Really. 1. i didn't jump, 2. you still said what you said, and 3. i wrote that before i read your apology.

 

my response to you was rather tame. r-e-s-p-e-c-t

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...