Recently there's been a lot of comparisons between Obama and FDR and a debate as to whether or not the New Deal helped end the depression or prolonged it. This is because Obama is considering similar programs.

Conservatives have argued that the New Deal's massive spending would have further destroyed the economy, and that it was World War 2 that really saved us. Last night on Colbert, some liberal magazine editor claimed that argument was dumb, because World War 2 was just more spending. This is a VERY intellectually dishonest statement. Not only did we deal arms to the Allies before officially entering the war, we also benefited greatly from the war's outcome. Europe's industrial centers were devastated, thus giving America's exports a huge boost. Regardless of whether the New Deal helped, World War 2 undeniably had a major positive impact on our economy. To actually argue otherwise is far beyond ignorant.

Little Mac wrote:

I think if anything has been learned over the past 50 years it's that war alone, while an economic boon in theory, makes a larger dent than spending programs if the management of said war and funds is not up to the task.

I think the idea that war equals profit is fundamentally flawed. War only equals proft if you're the one selling the weapons. Incidentally, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council are also the five largest arms dealers in the world.

There are only two wars that America has been directly involved in that it has profitted from, the two World Wars. And there are three main reasons why this was so:

1. The wars were fought on foreign soil
2. The wars had a definitive end
3. The aftermath of these wars left an intense demand for goods and services that only we could provide

In order for war to be profitable, you need to be in a position to readily sell the tools of destruction, as well as the tools to rebuild to the war-torn remains of warring countries. So really, you don't actually have to actively engage in war to make money off it; you just need to be willing to sell weapons to whoever wants them.

As for FDR, I will second Cattivo's stance on his foreign policy. FDR was willing to go to war to Hitler at a time when many Americans didn't like the idea. For that, he should most certainly be lauded.

Blackout wrote:

I seem to remember something on the History Channel's Presidents boxset about how FDR was sheltered from everyone by his wife during his advancing illness and how there was speculation that she was calling the shots near the end.

The press also gave FDR very preferential treatment. He was usually photographed sitting down, but he was almost never photographed in his wheelchair. He also died in the arms of his mistress, and despite it being one of the worst kept secrets in Washington, no editor would publish the story.

I think the New Deal, without World War II, would not have allowed this country to recover as quickly as it did. But whether or not it was economically beneficial in and of itself, the New Deal was responsible for many massive public works projects such as highways and dams that the country sorely needed and that greatly helped us in the long run.

I don't know if he was a "socialist devil", but FDR both abused and overstepped the bounds of his power. Many of the things he asserted he had the power to do were blatantly unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court called him on it, he added new seats to the Court and filled them with judges sympathetic to him. Now, clearly FDR was not an evil man and clearly he was doing what he thought was right for the country. But at the same time, that could be said of any president. In a sense, FDR lucked out with World War II. If he hadn't, he probably wouldn't be remembered quite so fondly.

I think what's important to understand here is that FDR's program worked to due to a very specific set of circumstances, and that's something that Democrats don't seem to grasp. The leadership of the modern Democrats seem to believe not only that massive spending can solve any problem, but that spending is itself an actual solution and not just a means to solution; this is wrong. The overall success of the FDR presidency was due to a number of factors, many of which were out of his control. And to be fair, this is true of every president. Reaganomics worked in the 80s, but I don't think I would advocate as a 21st century solution. We need to be coming up with NEW solutions, not recycling old solutions without understanding why they worked.