I'm guessing that there are a couple hundred million seniors, disabled, widows/widowers and children of deceased parents who, over the decades, are pretty happy that FDR implemented the Social Security Act.

 

Which means nothing in terms of whether it was a good decision or not....

FDR was a liberal, many concepts and programs he pushed (and I do agree that much of this was done so on a less than constitutional standards) have formed much of the basis for modern liberal thinking. For this reason his legacy is a target. It is not to say that any specifics given by cch5432 are wrong, but one can not ignore A.The shape he left the country in. B. His guidance through WWII C. His popularity.

 

The US rose to become the most powerful country in the world under the parameters that FDR left the government, which were quite revolutionary compared to the prior government. If he did the country so wrong how were they able to blossom under this new significantly more socialist, government?

 

Simply because he is a hero of the left doesn't negate his great legacy. A reverse argument of the legacy of Reagan can be made for some of our current problems but it to would be a false representation of the total value and importance of his presidency.

Which means nothing in terms of whether it was a good decision or not....

 

If a couple hundred million were affected in a good way...I think that does mean something in terms of whether it was a good decision.

 

Why do you think it was a bad decision?

If a couple hundred million were affected in a good way...I think that does mean something in terms of whether it was a good decision.

 

Why do you think it was a bad decision?

 

I'm against government handouts, and that's what social security is IMO.

Executive Order 6102 was state theft from individuals. Under the auspice of 1917 Trading with the Enemy act, which prevented the hoarding of gold during war, FDR trampled on the constitution and individual rights. Note we were not at war in 1933... He did so in order to be able to print as much money as he wanted without regard for inflation. Bad public policy, bad economic policy, and another of several reasons the "new deal" was a really bad one that actually prolonged the recovery out of the great depression for many years.

I'm against government handouts, and that's what social security is IMO.

 

Doesn't social security come from money we as citizens put in? Therefore if we put it in, shouldn't we be able to get it back? How is that a hand out?

There are too many candidates for me to pick on a single worst although I have been very hard on Carter in the past. As to the FDR question I agree with Peprock, grossly overrated but certainly not the worst.

Doesn't social security come from money we as citizens put in? Therefore if we put it in, shouldn't we be able to get it back? How is that a hand out?

 

Let's see how that ponzi scheme works out for you 40 years from now. Tell you what, if BGP is still around then, I'll cover the cost of your membership fee if you get more back from social security than the amount you put in.

Should've known better than to start a thread expecting people to back up their answers. Nothing more than talking points and short, empty remarks.

How about FDR's handling of the development nuclear technology? How many see this as a negative?

FDR was a liberal, many concepts and programs he pushed (and I do agree that much of this was done so on a less than constitutional standards) have formed much of the basis for modern liberal thinking. For this reason his legacy is a target. It is not to say that any specifics given by cch5432 are wrong, but one can not ignore A.The shape he left the country in. B. His guidance through WWII C. His popularity.

 

The US rose to become the most powerful country in the world under the parameters that FDR left the government, which were quite revolutionary compared to the prior government. If he did the country so wrong how were they able to blossom under this new significantly more socialist, government?

 

Simply because he is a hero of the left doesn't negate his great legacy. A reverse argument of the legacy of Reagan can be made for some of our current problems but it to would be a false representation of the total value and importance of his presidency.

Creating and encouraging monopolies is not liberal. Burning crops and killing pigs with hungry Americans on the streets is not liberal. Sending Japanese to interment camps is not liberal. And the worst of them- the court-packing scheme was not liberal. It was an insidious attempt by FDR to circumvent the rules set forth by the Constitution for his agenda.

 

If you are from the liberal perspective, there may be some things that FDR did that you agree with, that's fine. But the groundwork that he layed in DC- one of disrespect for the constitution, one of pushing one's own agenda at any costs- is what has caused real problems in our country.

How about FDR's handling of the development nuclear technology? How many see this as a negative?

 

Not familiar with it. Clue us in!

I'm going to say William Henry Harrison. Anyone who isn't smart enough to wear a coat and hat on a rainy day, give a two hour inauguration speech, and then catch a cold and die doesn't win points with me.

How about FDR's handling of the development nuclear technology? How many see this as a negative?

 

Thank god for Albert Einstein.

Should've known better than to start a thread expecting people to back up their answers. Nothing more than talking points and short, empty remarks.

 

Someone's grumpy. :lol: