[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

That's not what your source says,

I cited more than one source...

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

and that's not what conventional economic wisdom says, either.

As a matter of opinion, you mean.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Your source (economic library) cites many of the failures of the New Deal and supports the claim that it exacerbated the Depression, rather than rectifying it.

Though it proves my point: that doubling the fixed exchange rate for the dollar relative to gold helped to stabilize and indeed benefit the economy by acting as a monetary stimulus thusly leading to large amounts of gold flowing into the United States. Twice as many dollars could therein be purchased. That supported bank deposits and increased bank willingness to lend, encouraging investments to be made. This lending led to a huge increase in the currency supply, which pushed against price deflation and increased consumption, thus helping to end the Great Depression.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

It also casts doubt on your figures for GDP and employment. This is all in the last half of the document.

Mr. Smiley is accurate on some things, not so much on others, with my particular reason for using this viewpoint article being its excellent summary of the standard, which can be substantiated from the following source:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...22/default.htm

Moreover, you've switched that up: my figures for GDP and employment cast doubt on his article, which does not cite any sources. My figures, on the otherhand, DO have sources. This can (and does) furthermore serve to confirm my point that, he is accurate on some things, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve citation above, not so much on others (which stresses why it's so important to look around ).

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Furthermore, while I have no doubt that FDR was little better than Lincoln when it came to civil liberties, you make no mention of his attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

On the concernancy of civil liberties, we are arguing on what presidents did do, not what they tried to do. His Judiciary Reorganization Bill did not pass and did not come anywhere close to passing in Congress. Not that this was going to do anything terrible to the Supreme Court anyway. For those who aren't aware, the only real thing the integration of it into a law would have done would have been to limit the ages of the justices. Roosevelt felt there were too many elderly justices and that they could not perform their duties adequately (funnily enough, this is exactly what we have been seeing these past few years). For each justice who did not retire and stayed active to 70 and 1/2 years of age, a new justice(s) would be added (preferably, of a younger age), until the respective justice(s) died. Naturally, the justices, and indeed many of the politicians who had gained connections as lawyers from working with the justices opposed the plan, but eventually it evened itself out when two of the Supreme Court's members died, and Roosevelt was able to replace them with younger substitutes, who luckily agreed with many of his policies.

http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/679281

But again, fact is the bill never passed. So it's really pointless to bring it into this discussion.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

That, in conjunction with his political control of Congress,

What is that even supposed to mean? "Political control of Congress"? You mean as in having a Democratic majority to support him on his policies (which they did not, for the record, support him on the Judiciary Reorganization Bill) or as in being a skilled politician who knew how to use Congress to actually get it to do something? (The latter, of which, was true, before, during, and shortly after the Hoover Administration- particularly towards the subject of the Great Depression as Hoover's Conservative leanings led him to favor a Trickle-Down Economy to fix the horrid status the country was in; this is precisely why he gets my vote as being one of the worst presidents in the United States' history).

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

and his adamant refusal to leave office,

Presidents LONG before Roosevelt were allowed to remain in office for as long as they wished. The two-full terms thing was only done with a few presidents prior to him: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Grant, and Wilson (2,922 days for each man)- not counting Cleveland as he ran three times and served nonconsecutively (though it did amount to 2,922 days for him, in the end of it all). It wasn't until after he died that Truman approved the 22nd Amendment.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

makes him the closest thing to a dictator this nation has ever had.

Not really, as he never did act unconstitutionally nor did he assume total control of the country during the Second World War. He was no better and no worse than Lincoln was, even considering the times and circumstances.

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Sorry, but he's staying on my "Worst Presidents" list.

Well he's been ranked as the best president since 1982 in each statistical research session the Siena Research Institute has launched.

http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/h...2010_final.pdf

And consistently as one of the better presidents in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori..._United_States

Think we can all agree on who's one of the worst...

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=iV4lJr6AhJA&feature=related