(November 6, 2016 at 12:43 pm)abaris Wrote: He did do that, seven years after coming to office when the war was already going on and it seemed likely that the USA would enter at some point. Hitler on the other hand did it from day one.

Politics is the art of the possible.

(September 28, 2016 at 9:39 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: I'm pretty unabashed in my love for Teddy Roosevelt. 

If you've never listened to the currently running podcast "Presidential", you really should. It's a great way to be introduced to the American presidents, as well as letting you know how little humanity (and America) has changed over the centuries (for good or ill). 

I adored the one they did on Teddy: "Exuberance"

There are so many things you can talk about when it comes to him - about his family, about his politics, about his activism - but lately the thing that's been drawing me ever closer was the way he was so aggressively enthusiastic about life in response to the heartache he suffered. He reminds me to get up and get out - to run fast enough to escape "black care" and the asthma that plagued him and still plagues me. 

He reminds me to chase and seize joy with both hands wherever I can find it.

Nikolas Tesla

(October 12, 2016 at 8:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(October 11, 2016 at 7:02 pm)abaris Wrote: The major difference being that FDR didn't gear the whole economy towards a future war effort.

He certainly did as much as he could in 1940, starting with giving US Army and Navy stocks to the UK (necessitating replenishment), signing off on the Two-Ocean Navy bill that was for the time astounding, and a bill calling for 100,000 planes a year to be built by 1945. Also, the draft.

It's true he didn't nationalize oil, or regiment vacations, and it's true that he's no Htlerian fascist. FDR didn't have the same intentions as Hitler, obviously. But, as any wise leader did in the age of total war, he and his delegates certainly managed the economy for a future war effort.  The "whole" economy?  You're right, no, he didn't. But as much as he could, and once war actually broke out, indeed, managed everything down to recycling tires.

FDR certainly did modify the economy, using an executive team to issue fiat orders, install price controls, and install wage controls. And it's true that such were installed in preparation for, or response to, war.

And he was perpetually behind public opinion, so you can say he showed a lot of restrain in contrast to what he could have done if he'd gone as fast the people want him to.

(November 6, 2016 at 6:46 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(October 12, 2016 at 8:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: He certainly did as much as he could in 1940, starting with giving US Army and Navy stocks to the UK (necessitating replenishment), signing off on the Two-Ocean Navy bill that was for the time astounding, and a bill calling for 100,000 planes a year to be built by 1945. Also, the draft.

It's true he didn't nationalize oil, or regiment vacations, and it's true that he's no Htlerian fascist. FDR didn't have the same intentions as Hitler, obviously. But, as any wise leader did in the age of total war, he and his delegates certainly managed the economy for a future war effort.  The "whole" economy?  You're right, no, he didn't. But as much as he could, and once war actually broke out, indeed, managed everything down to recycling tires.

FDR certainly did modify the economy, using an executive team to issue fiat orders, install price controls, and install wage controls. And it's true that such were installed in preparation for, or response to, war.

And he was perpetually behind public opinion, so you can say he showed a lot of restrain in contrast to what he could have done if he'd gone as fast the people want him to.

True, but there was a significant isolationist segment that he couldn't afford to ignore politically.

(November 6, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: True, but there was a significant isolationist segment that he couldn't afford to ignore politically.

And the rather sad truth is, the Great Depression only ended when he resorted to finance the military industrial complex. The New Deal wasn't that succesful on it's own merit.

Yeah, 37-38 killed what little recovery had happened.

Who's Your Favorite Historical Figure?

Somebody like Malalai of Maiwand, even though I have to admit I don't know that much about her. She considered is Afghanistan's Jean D'Arc. Britain's expedition into Afghanistan didn't go so well, and it's because of brave people like her. The father of Malala Yousafzai (in a TED Talk) said he named his daughter after her.

I also like Florence Nightingale and Ada Lovace...

(November 6, 2016 at 7:34 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: True, but there was a significant isolationist segment that he couldn't afford to ignore politically.

And the rather sad truth is, the Great Depression only ended when he resorted to finance the military industrial complex. The New Deal wasn't that succesful on it's own merit.

'Twas a lot more successful than what its republitard and Chicago School detractors made out. The biggest problem with the New Deal was that FDR pulled the plug on it too quickly, thinking that the US economy had actually recovered enough that private enterprise was now driving the economy (coupled with a tendency within US mentalities to consider that government is "never no good", stupid ideology that) and cut back on the New Deal in 1937 leading to a second depression which lasted until the US government started putting in big orders for machines of war.

The whole period between 1929 and 1939 puts the lie to the ideology which currently holds sway in politics and economics that government involvement in the economy is a bad thing. The way the world has worked for at least the last 100 years it is necessary for governments to be the largest single component within an economy.

(November 6, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 6:46 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: And he was perpetually behind public opinion, so you can say he showed a lot of restrain in contrast to what he could have done if he'd gone as fast the people want him to.

True, but there was a significant isolationist segment that he couldn't afford to ignore politically.

There was a vocal isolationist element, but they were impotent. They never blocked any legislation they didn't like or passed any that they did like. America First had, total, ~800,000 members out of the 150,000,000 people in the US, and we don't know how many of those were actively working on their programs. They made noise and smoke, but there was no fire.

(November 7, 2016 at 9:17 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(November 6, 2016 at 6:50 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: True, but there was a significant isolationist segment that he couldn't afford to ignore politically.

There was a vocal isolationist element, but they were impotent. They never blocked any legislation they didn't like or passed any that they did like. America First had, total, ~800,000 members out of the 150,000,000 people in the US, and we don't know how many of those were actively working on their programs. They made noise and smoke, but there was no fire.

I don't think membership rolls necessarily attest to the depth, or lack of depth, of national sentiments. Isolationism went back to the end of WWI and had broad bipartisan support -- witness our refusal to join the League of Nations.