There were 33, about 11 still exist in some form. By definition, most do not still exist. You can do the work to break the 33 down categorically. I just counted how many there were and are now roughly. Enough to know that not all are still going as was implied.
And, the 10% figure is my estimate of what Republicans and Democrats would consider successful. Again, however, how are we defining success?
WTF is this statement? Youâre stooping as low to call me a lier? What did I know to be true and intentionally conceal or deflect with the intent to misguide the audience?
You made the statement, how are you defining success? Itâs becoming obvious that you didnât actually go through the programs like you said you did. All off the comments you made by now and you couldâve simply just listed them.
Yes, you are a liar. You said this conversation was only about FDR, but you yourself in this thread talked about the larger context of Capitalism vs other forms of economies and governments. You tried to claim there was no larger context. Thatâs a blatant lie.
First of all, Iâm typing everything from my cellphone, so Iâm not listing the programs. You and everyone else can count like I did or itemize and categorize at your leisure.
Secondly, my question about your definition of success in context with the subject is both a literal question and its rhetorical because success is relative.
No, I claimed that my FDR commentary was about FDR and it didnât have to include the broader context in the sub commentary discussion. Jesus, whatâs wrong with you?
New Deal fundamentally and permanently changed the U.S. federal government by expanding its size and scopeâespecially its role in the economy.
In 1936, while campaigning for a second term, FDR told a roaring crowd at Madison Square Garden that âThe forces of âorganized moneyâ are unanimous in their hate for me â and I welcome their hatred.â
He went on: âI should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match, [and] I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces have met their master.â
From your same source, different article, â[J]ust because the United States hasnât repeated the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression doesnât mean the programs of the New Deal can take all the credit. Other factors were also at playâincluding the onset of a major world war. âIt really could be argued [World War ll], which ultimately lowered unemployment and increased GNP through weapons production really played a much bigger role,â Lichtenstein says.â
Nothing that you just provided does anything for the debate. Quoting a man declaring his position and justification for his actions validates what?
I never was talking about the effects of FDR policies on the Great Depression, youâre moving goal posts. My contention as you well know is that the federal government grew hugely during his administrations, and that the permanent measures, the ones that matter, remain. But this isnât unique to the Democratic Party, Bush came to Washington on a pledge to diminish the size and scope of the federal government and left having presided over the largest increase since FDR.
George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.
With all due respect, Mr. AtheistâŚyou are one fucked up dude!
The original statement referenced âamazing socialist reformsâ. The purpose of the New Deal was to get the US out of the Depression. The New Deal didnât accomplish its mission.
You qualify a discussion about the success of FDR and his programs by measuring them against their purpose. You canât say, ââŚamazing socialist reforms,â regarding FDR without measuring them against the Depression. So, yes, you are talking about the effects as soon as you qualify them as being awesome.
Earth to MORON:
Presidents are not responsible for spending, CONGRESS is responsible for every dime spent in this country.
Awesome reforms which benefits are still being felt to this day. I never was speaking directly to the depression, never mentioned it. My whole point as you know was that FDR implemented social reforms, not referring to things like the WPA/CCC (which we should still have IMO) are still being enjoyed to this day, the most important of which is social security which of course some on the right would like to destroy.
Really? Iâm not sure what you mean by those on the right would like to destroy social security.
What I would like is if someone has paid into it they reap the benefits as if they had been able to invest in the stock market.
Iâd like a choice: invest on your own and be exempt from social security or make sure the funds invested in social security provide an excellent return.
The social security fund has been raided for decades. Why am I being forced to pay into something that provides me diminishing returns?
Well, that is your ideal government at work. Not mine.
Give me all of the money Iâve paid into since the day I started working. Let me invest it.
Why would anyone be opposed to that?
Which is being destroyed by both houses of congress as w spat.
The expansion of benefits, the disregard for increases in longevity by both parties have doomed SS as it is known today. The reality that there is no trust fund just a room full of IOUâs and 23 trillion and growing in debt and no way to on day cover the promised benefits which people have contributed to since the first day of work.
But shills and idiots would blame it on one party when both have all but destroyed the SS system.
Socialism would violate most of our basic protected rights under The BOR.
In reality they are mutually responsible as presidents have to sign the bills. The only exception would be if the president vetoed a spending bill and that veto was overridden.
Anyway, to the op again, congress is not committing treasonâŚ
I would disagree as we all know what happens with a government shutdown.
A president signature means absolutely nothing when it comes to an appropriation bill.
You forgot your reasons.