How is it that 'liberals' forget that America suffered greatly, economically, from the beginning of FDR's reign, until after his death? Isn't it common sense to say that--at a minimum--his programs were COMPLETE failures? NOTHING improved in America until after WWII, and the shrinking of govt that accompanied the end of that evil war?
FDR and the End of Economic Liberty--http://www.fff.org/freedom/0891a.asp
The Roosevelt Myth--http://www.insmkt.com/roosevelt2.htm
Politicians caused and worsened the Great Depression--http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20081208/OPINION/812079983/1021/NONE&parentprofile=1062&title=Politicians%20caused%20and%20worsened%20the%20Great%20Depression
Tough Questions for Defenders of the New Deal--http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim1.html
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson—and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W.* The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis."
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Col. Edward Mandell House, November 21, 1933, F.D.R.: His Personal Letters (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce 1950), p. 373.
This book1 portrays Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a Wall Street financier who, during his first term as President of the United States, reflected the objectives of financial elements concentrated in the New York business establishment. Given the long historical association—since the late 18th century—of the Roosevelt and Delano families with New York finance and FDR's own career from 1921 to 1928 as banker and speculator at 120 Broadway and 55 Liberty Street, such a theme should not come as a surprise to the reader. On the other hand, FDR biographers Schlesinger, Davis, Freidel, and otherwise accurate Roosevelt commentators appear to avoid penetrating very far into the recorded and documented links between New York bankers and FDR. We intend to present the facts of the relationship, as recorded in FDR's letter files. These are new facts only in the sense that they have not previously been published; they are readily available in the archives for research, and consideration of this information suggests a reassessment of FDR's role in the history of the 20th century.
This statement makes Franklin Delano Roosevelt appear as another Andrew Jackson, contesting a bankers' monopoly and their strangle-hold on American industry. But was FDR also an unwilling (or possibly a willing) tool of the Wall Street bankers, as we could infer from his letter to Colonel Edward House, cited in the epigraph to this chapter? Clearly if, as Roosevelt wrote to House, a "financial element in the larger cities has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson," then neither Hoover nor Roosevelt was being intellectually honest in his presentation of the issues to the American public. The gut issues presumably were the identity of this "financial element" and how and by what means it maintained its "ownership" of the U.S. Government.http://reformation.org/wall-st-fdr-ch1.html
[My words]: This article is really the "Motherlode" of info that reveals FDR to be nothing more than another Corporatist President who did the bidding of the "financial element" he refers to. The Emergency Banking Act was really HIS version of today's Partriot Act. Anyone rational and independent-minded SHOULD be able to see that he was the GWB of his time.
The biggest 'liberal' myth of all about the GD/ND is that Hoover's "inaction" was a root cause; that his stubborn adherence to laizze-faire economics worsened things. HOGWASH! [me again]
From: Debating the New Deal--http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1503/article_detail.asp: ...FDR aide Rexford Tugwell would claim in a 1974 interview that "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."