Yes maybe your right the new deal did not solve the problem right away, but FDR knew it was gonna be a struggle. Government sponsored work, like the building of the hoover dam, got ppl back to work, making money putting food on the table, instead of waiting in bread lines. Everyone should be very happy about social security, bc that's exactly what it is. and yes the war did make America a super power, but everyone working together is exactly the spirit FDR was shooting for when he started new jobs funded by the federal government. Thanks to hitler, who did stop Germany's depression with similar programs as FDR's such as finishing the autobahn, and a massive re arming program which did put a lot of ppl to work, secretly that is, never the less he gave his ppl hope, not in anyway justifying what Germany ended up doing. Basiclly progressive liberals and liberals in general have what it takes to run this country, run it fair, where everyone has fair shot, with out eliminating hard work, but we don't need the survival of the fittest especially when some ppl are born into much worse situations and will never have an equal chance to even get a job if it wasn't for the government!

***not supporting hitler in anyway other then the examples of how certain ppl stopped the depression in their country

The USSR was so heavily dominated by Russia, which was a single state of that union, socially and politically that it made the other states practically irrelevant.

FDR got us *through* the Great Depression. At a time when Wall Street was ready to crown a dictator for stability and a not insignificant amount of Americans were pondering whether or not communism or fascism may be the way to go, FDR gave people the confidence that the US government could still function. Don't underestimate confidence in times of crisis.

I always love the "World War II got us out of the Great Depression, not FDR" argument. You mean massive government spending, partial nationalization of certain industries, and "make work" programs in the defense industry? Is the argument FDR didn't go far enough?

I'm not even dissing FDR. READ MY POSTS. He did not get us out of the Great Depression. That is all I am saying!

Make work? Do you seriously call a 12 million man army make work? Invading South Asia and Germany is make work? How about building aircraft carriers, battleships, bombers, fighters, submarines? That is "make work?" Bull shit. "Make work" was when people were paid to dig holes and fill them back up again by the PWA. What got us back was, yes, huge government spending, accompanied by massive decreases in unemployment and a national purpose that all Americans were working towards.

@ obiwanobiwan

"1776, 2014--totally same worlds!"

1913. Not 1776. We didn't have a federal income tax until 1913. If you're going to criticize my posts, please read them more carefully.

"1 million Armenians and 6 million Jews beg to differ..."

And if we had killed the interned Japanese wholesale, then you would have a valid point. But we didn't. We *could* have, but we didn't. Stop trying to paint the Japanese internment as some sort of atrocity. It doesn't deserve to even be mentioned in the same breath as either the Armenian or Jewish Holocausts, and frankly you're insulting the memories of the Jewish and Armenian populations that suffered so horribly. The Japanese internment was neither illegal (under international law) nor unjust nor atypical under the circumstances.

"So you're wiling to empower the federal government with so much power as to throw people into camps against their will AND in violation of their Constitutional rights (I thought you didn't like people flouting or going against the Constitution? Or do you just not care when it's non-white individuals having their Constitutional rights taken away?)...while at the same time clutching an automatic weapon..."

You're trying to paint a double standard that isn't there and portray me as some sort of racist. During wartime, the federal government assumes a lot of historical powers that it doesn't have during peacetime, because the states are uniting against the common threat. As for "not caring about the rights of non-white people", that's just simply not true. The German internment program should have been far more extensive than it was, and there are doubtless a lot of American merchant ships on the bottom of the Atlantic because of a German spy in a New York City apartment with binoculars and a radio.

Besides, FDR infringed upon gun rights during *peacetime*. Constitutional rights are tantamount during peacetime. National defense is tantamount during wartime. Both priorities are tempered by reason.

"And if they asked me why we didn't detain Japanese-Americans and throw them into camps, I'd remind them that their Marine husbands would have died in the service and protection of the name of the United States of America which, while it has not always lived up to those ideals, first and foremost was conceived of with the idealism that "all men are created equal" and guaranteed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.""

No [Merchant] Marine (I was referring to merchantmen) is obligated to give his life for the enemy. Do you understand that WWII was a clear-cut "us versus them" scenario? So you'd rather get a lot of loyal Americans *killed* on their way to the battlefield instead of *interning* a mixed bag of immigrants out of harm's way? Well, then you're suggesting that American lives and war materiel are less important than the temporary, wartime rights of immigrants. Okay then.

"...you cannot balance the budget as it stands [without unacceptable national security consequences]"

On this, we agree. Which is why we need to completely overhaul the budget. I believe that it is fully within the realm of possibility to run the federal government without a *federal-level income tax* *if* you completely cut any unconstitutional federal functions. See: Night watchman state

"and would like the same civil rights handed out across the board, whether you live in Los Angeles or Louisiana."

Agreed. But that includes gun rights. Guns are absolutely a civil right, yet this right is infringed with impunity throughout the United States, particularly in left-leaning states and locales.

My general argument for states' rights emphasizes a small and weak federal government. I believe that states are much better equipped to serve the needs of their constituents, because certain types of people live in certain states, and that's a good thing. California is a way of life. Texas is a way of life. New York is a way of life. Alaska is a way of life. If California wants to become one giant totalitarian communist state, they sure as hell can do it, as long as they retain a democratically elected state government. If Texas wants to become a libertarian wet dream, they can do it as long as they retain a democratically elected state government. In either case, the federal government should not intervene as long as all individuals are treated equally.

"If I'm a black man in 1840, and some states are pro-freedom but I live in Texas...then yeah, I think that the states favoring my freedom represent my needs and are more apt to hear my grievances than states where I would be considered property!"

Moot point. During 1840, you weren't in the State of Texas. You were in the Republic of Texas. But let's use an example more recent than the Antebellum period. Let's say I live in California or Connecticut today and I want to own "assault weapons" (a made-up term, but I'll use your vocabulary) but I am being discriminated against for being a prospective gun owner. Should I be forced to leave the state to move to a state that will protect my rights better? Should a black man in Alabama in 1950 been forced to go north to seek rights?

"So you'd rather get a lot of loyal Americans *killed* on their way to the battlefield instead of *interning* a mixed bag of immigrants out of harm's way? Well, then you're suggesting that American lives and war materiel are less important than the temporary, wartime rights of immigrants. Okay then."

Point of information here.

62% of internees were *American citizens* of Japanese ancestry. Most were not simply "immigrants" with green cards. Their constitutional rights--paramount at all times--were trampled upon without due process.

The lives of American soldiers, be they citizens or immigrants on a path to citizenship, are definitely worth protecting as a matter of national security, especially in wartime or in conflict zones. As a matter of comparison, the internment program does not come close, but it was pretty paranoid of the U.S. government to implement it in the first place.

Forget constitutional rights, displacement of people based on physical characteristics, ethnicity included, is against international law.

It's not as if those in internment camps didn't starve and struggle to survive. They were given two days to pack up their whole lives in two bags and they were led out of their homes at gunpoint. They lived in camps against their will. They were forced to work. Some died. When they went home, their houses were torched and shops vandalized. They were TERRORIZED because of their ethnicity and the government perpetuated it by acting as if anyone of Asian heritage was some imminent threat.

Gunfighter, you bitch and moan about every government action on here, yet you praise the Japanese internment of all things? You are fucking unreal and it's disgusting, considering you are the exact stereotype that people across the oceans see and associate the rest of the United States with.

Anyone for Jack the Ripper as Most Evil Brit?

yea I agree gunfighter just sounds like every other radical right winger I meet.

@KingCyrus:

I don't disagree, I'm just saying that saying FDR's programs "failed" is a bit wrong in my opinion...as you say, it didn't bring us out of the Depression, but to say they failed seems wrong. But I get what you're saying, too.

"1913. Not 1776. We didn't have a federal income tax until 1913. If you're going to criticize my posts, please read them more carefully."

Even so...you're really going to argue that, after a century of being a superpower and nearly three quarters of a century of being a nuclear-powered superpower, with interests in every corner of the globe, we can go back to a tax system which was good for and based around a smaller, more agrarian society?

And how are we going to pay for all we need to be a superpower?

And if you wish we no longer were a superpower, 1. That's nice, the REALITY is that we are (for now) still a superpower and must run as one, and 2. I would far rather the US and EU be at superpower statuses to balance out China and Russia than have us sink back into that previous agrarian nature.

"And if we had killed the interned Japanese wholesale, then you would have a valid point. But we didn't. We *could* have, but we didn't. Stop trying to paint the Japanese internment as some sort of atrocity. It doesn't deserve to even be mentioned in the same breath as either the Armenian or Jewish Holocausts, and frankly you're insulting the memories of the Jewish and Armenian populations that suffered so horribly."

1. It was an atrocity...as I think everyone else here will agree. That it wasn't an atrocity on the level of a genocide or those aforementioned crimes doesn't stop it being an atrocity.

2. I am not dishonoring their memory, because I'm pretty certain they would agree--deeming it acceptable to round up a certain group of people IS discriminatory and IS how those ACTUAL genocides began. I am not calling the Japanese internment camps a genocide--they're not. I AM saying your attitude of "round 'em up because they belong to a certain ethnic group" is what LEADS to genocides...

And it's definitely what led to the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. The Ottoman Turks feared the Armenians siding with Russia, and never liked Armenians anyway, and so murdered them en masse. The Germans blamed the state of their country on the Jews, and massacred THEM en masse.

You are saying it's perfectly OK to round people up based on their ethnicity and being perceived as a "threat." Well, both the Ottomans and Nazis argued the Armenians and Jews were "threats." We just happen to have been lucky FDR was weak enough to cave to public pressure and allow for camps but NOT so weak as to give into further hysteria and actually start a genocide...which, given that hysteria, another President well could have.

Or, someone who justifies violating people's rights based on their ethnicity such as yourself might have.

"The Japanese internment was neither illegal (under international law) nor unjust nor atypical under the circumstances."

It was illegal based on AMERICAN Law. CONSTITUTIONAL Law.

It was unjust on THOSE grounds...along with, you know, common decency, but since we clearly won't win you over with that, either explain how it *wasn't* breaking US and Constitutional Law, or hang your head in shame and be silent, for you're talking out of your ass at this point, claiming to hate Constitutional violations...

Unless it's against those nasty Japs, anyway, in which case, eh, screw 'em, right? >:(

I'm with Jamie and Socrates in despising Thatcher and her policies, which created an era in which I was ashamed to be British. Covert support, though, for the South African Apartheid regime was as near as she got to evil.
For war crimes and mass murder, we have to turn to Winston Churchill and Air Marshal Arthur "Bomber" Harris, who, these days, would have earned places in the dock at the War Crimes Tribunal for, among other things, the rasing of Dresden.

"You're trying to paint a double standard that isn't there and portray me as some sort of racist."

I'm not trying--you're just making it incredibly easy for me.

"The German internment program should have been far more extensive than it was"

I stand corrected, then...you're not merely bigoted against non-whites...

You're bigoted towards anyone whose ancestry happens to be tied to an enemy thousand of miles away.

So, just so we're clear--hypothetically, if the US and *Israel* went to war today...

You'd be in favor of rounding up millions of *Jews* and sending us to camps once again, right, Adolf?

"Constitutional rights are tantamount during peacetime. National defense is tantamount during wartime."

Since you were big on pointing out the 10th Amendment earlier...

Care to point to the "Get Out of Constitutional Law If War Occurs" clause in the document?

Or is your understanding of how that works tied to the Star Wars prequels? ('Cause I gotta say, I think voting Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers was a pretty bad idea...)

I'm not calling the army "make work". Where did I say that? Also notice "make work" was in quotes? And you accuse me of not reading posts. I'm saying there was fundamentally no difference between the government paying people to dig ditches and paying people to make tanks. It's still government spending in which the end result was employed people.

"So you'd rather get a lot of loyal Americans *killed* on their way to the battlefield instead of *interning* a mixed bag of immigrants out of harm's way? Well, then you're suggesting that American lives and war materiel are less important than the temporary, wartime rights of immigrants. Okay then."

I'm suggesting an American is an American is an AMERICAN...

Regardless of whether they're Irish-American, Mexican-American, African-American, German-American, Jewish-American...whatever comes before the hyphen, they are AMERICAN, and that means their rights as protected by the Constitution of the United States of America AS Americans is paramount, period, end of sentence.

They don't get suspended for a day or a year or six just because they have an ancestry which is unpalatable at the moment due to its connection to an enemy thousands of miles away--it is when our rights are threatened that we need them MOST, and that is the biggest failure of FDR's presidency by far, that he did not protect the rights of Americans when they needed the President--who is SWORN "to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States"--to do so the MOST.

FDR was a great man, but he failed Americans there. Doesn't matter their creed or color or if they were immigrants or...immigrants who immigrated here sooner (we're ALL immigrants, since you seem to have forgotten...except, you know, the Native Americans...whom we didn't have any trouble kicking off the land either) he failed AMERICANS.

Soldiers die to protect the rights and liberties of Americans--

If we suspend those rights and fail to protect Americans when they need protection the most, then what are we sending great men and women to die *for?*

"On this, we agree. Which is why we need to completely overhaul the budget. I believe that it is fully within the realm of possibility to run the federal government without a *federal-level income tax* *if* you completely cut any unconstitutional federal functions. See: Night watchman state"

"I believe....blah blah blah...if you completely...blah blah blah."
"Just repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, snap your fingers and blah blah blah..."

Right. Never gonna happen. That's why it's so easy to raise it as an idea--because it is completely unrealistic, never mind that Congress has legitimately created federal agencies for the executive to do stuff to make the United States better...

You know, it's constitutionally given powers under Section 1.8:
"The Congress shall have the power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, *and among the several States*, and with the Indian tribes...
"--And
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

"Agreed. But that includes gun rights. Guns are absolutely a civil right, yet this right is infringed with impunity throughout the United States, particularly in left-leaning states and locales."

A quick Google-searched definition to work off of...if you want another definition, by all means, supply it--

"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, and assembly; the right to vote; freedom from involuntary servitude; and the right to equality in public places."

If I banned your right to own guns *period,* I would buy that as a potential denial of civil liberties...I don't think it's as important as the rights above and still consider it borderline, but others here would disagree with me, and anyway, I'm willing to entertain the idea of gun ownership as a civil right for the purposes of this conversation, at least.

That being said, look at the OTHER examples of civil liberties--they all come with restrictions and strings attached.

Freedom of speech/assembly?
Yes, but there are limits--the oft-cited example of "shouting fire in a crowded theatre," for example, and there are plenty of other examples.

Freedom to vote?
Yes, but not everywhere...I as a Democrat, for example, cannot vote in a closed Republican primary, and as a Californian, I cannot vote in Texas, and can only vote in certain places within California itself, and only on certain measures within my county itself (that is, living in Los Angeles County, I cannot vote on measures for San Francisco or San Diego.)

If someone tells me I cannot shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre, or restricts me from voting in Massachusetts when I am registered to vote in California, have my rights been infringed upon?

No, because there are LIMITS to my rights, even to my civil rights.

Likewise, if we entertain gun ownership as a right, it therefore follows that there ARE restrictions on that right. Even if we take the 2nd Amendment--"A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"--show me where it says allowing people to keep ALL arms, at ALL times is protected?

If you think that's unfair, look at the 1st Amendment's language--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

And yet, we DO allow a certain "abridging the freedom of speech" in the case of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre...the right is given, but not *UNLIMITED.*

I would argue the same applies to gun ownership--you have a right, but not an UNLIMITED right to keep and bear arms.

The limits of gun ownership, therefore, are tasked to the 10th Amendment and individual states (where, again, I would argue basic logic dictates that a gun attitude in Wyoming, where maybe open carry is more acceptable given the low population density, doesn't work in Los Angeles, where it's extremely crowded and so open carry would seem a pretty bad idea) except in cases where the federal government sets some overarching laws (ie, technically a bomb would count as an armament, but as everyone will agree that, you know, allowing private citizens to build, keep, and use bombs is a bad idea, we make a federal law against such actions.)

In all honesty the internment of certain groups of the population during a period of war on the scale of WW2 seems something of a no brainer. Some of them will indeed be spies, but frankly being Japanese and walking freely around wartime USA was probably rather hazardous to your health. There are issues over scale and conditions, but the principle is sound.

William Hitler being allowed to serve in the US navy despite being the Führer's nephew does suggest there may have been a few double standards about, though. Still, there always are.

@grumble,
Sorry for misrepresenting what you meant. I would like you to explain how New Deal programs did not manage to significantly dent the economy while the war did.

Looked at some numbers in this document:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf

In 1940, 0.4 percent of the United States population was of a race "Other than white or black." That's minuscule compared to the present day in the neighborhood of 15 percent.

While internment camps were a violation of the rights of Japanese American citizens, in some ways you have to wonder whether they would have been safe in the country at large during WW2.

After 9/11, many Americans who looked "Arab" or "Muslim" or "Middle Eastern" were targeted by bigots looking for an excuse to lash out. A good friend's father had his car's tires slashed--in his driveway.

I can only imagine what it must have been like for Japanese Americans after December 7, 1941. Of course, that's not to say that the camps were the right thing to do, but, sad to say, they may have provided some protection for them--from the rest of us.

"In all honesty the internment of certain groups of the population during a period of war on the scale of WW2 seems something of a no brainer. Some of them will indeed be spies, but frankly being Japanese and walking freely around wartime USA was probably rather hazardous to your health."

If it was voluntary, say, and the Japanese-Americans could have chosen "protection" at a camp or to stay in their homes and lives, that'd be one thing.

It was not. It was a forced relocation, and a violation of both the law and the principles of liberty underpinning that law.

What's more, I can't justify imprisoning a whole group of people because you are at war with a nation of their ancestry. That's simply bigotry masquerading as patriotic precaution...and it's a point people for which have (rightly) criticized Israel here in our discussions of them, and a reason I've said time and again their policy in the West Bank and towards that section of the Palestinian population is wrong-wrong-WRONG.

Hamas is different in that they are an active, recognized terror group with Israel is ACTUALLY at war with, in the same way the US was at war with the Empire of Japan. Hamas/the Empire of Japan were/are *actively* trying to destroy the US/Israel, and therefore may be considered enemy combatants and thus are not accorded the protection citizens of those nations should enjoy.

Put another way--

Being at war with Hamas does NOT excuse Israel's actions towards other segments of the Palestinian population (ie, those in the West Bank), and being at war with the Empire of Japan does NOT excuse America's actions towards Japanese-Americans...you cannot simply lump all members of a race into one category and say they ALL fall under suspicion.

Even in this example, I would argue while neither America nor Israel are right, Israel's still "better" in that at least one could argue that, being surrounded by Arab States which hate it, Israel is in a more precarious position and so, while it's treatment of West Bank Palestinians is wrong-wrong-WRONG (I want to emphasize that, lest that not be clear) at least once can better understand why Israel might be so paranoid, as it *is* outnumbered in the region.

America? It wasn't outnumbered or surrounded by potential Japanese/German agents. They could't have utterly destroyed the nation. You can argue all you like about the maybe's of Japanese-Americans as spies...they still couldn't literally destroy America in the way the Arab States could, conceivably, destroy Israel.

You cannot treat a whole race or group as under suspicion when they have done no wrong BUT be a member of said race or group. Period. Those are the liberties American, British, and Western Law give, and what morality dictates.

@cyrus Nah, don't worry about it. It's over-sensitive internet shit written in haste. I don't want to misinterpret what you are saying either. We probably agree on this more than it looks.

I'm just saying that the general criticisms I usually see about the New Deal are that it didn't work, and that it was World War II that got us out of the depression (which I'm not disputing either). However, the economic decisions made during WWII were, in my opinion, a logical progression from New Deal policies on a much larger scale. WWII was massive government spending and government control of the economy. I'd make the argument that the New Deal held back. Right track, not implemented far enough. I just see that the general complaints of the New Deal is based on ideology and not legitimate criticism - "government spending can't get us out of a depression" when in fact it was government spending during the war that did lift us out (having most of the foreign economies get blown to shit certainly helped too).

For the record, I do think there is legit criticism that can be leveled at FDR (the internment camps and court packing for instance).

NOW YOU KIDS GET OFF MY LAWN!

@grumble,

I am not sure how much the government could have paid people to dig holes though... Wartime spending is by necessity WAY more than "normal" spending. Because it costs so damn much. Also, on top of foreign economies being destroyed, the rent/lease system for war materiel (to get around the absolutely idiotic Kellogg-Briand pact) brought in foreign money from other Allied countries, so it wasn't just American money fueling the recovery boom.

Sherman T. Covington the third,

He made millions selling silencers for the range war between Washington and Oregon in 1993. He then contracted with Washington to bury the casualties on both sides in unmarked graves. Used his diabolical influence with the media to cover up the whole thing. There are even people who live in those states that don't know the whole story.

Sherman "the silencer" Covington's got my vote for more evil American.

He'll probably have me killed for writing his name on a message board.

Well true, which is why I think the New Deal was taking so long. I know things like the TVA were big projects but not all were on that scale. I completely agree that the scales were massively different.

And are you saying that a pact to outlaw war was inherently flawed???

Yes, the pact to outlaw war was inherently flawed. Look at the consequences. It will never stop nations that don't abide from starting wars, and only hurts the nations who do abide by hindering their ability to defend themselves and their allies.