For economy fix, Americans pick Reagan over Roosevelt

[Occupied Deutschland]

The Supreme court decided that one of FDRS new deal initiatives was unconstitutional. So he proposed legislation for him to appointed more friendly judges to the Supreme court.

That is constitutional, Congress has the authority to increase the Supreme Court's size and has done it multiple times.link

True, but were any of those other expansions or decreases spurred because the Court was disagreeing with actions the President was trying to take?
IE: Were any of the other times the Court size changed influenced by a petulant President who was mad he wasn't getting free rein of the country?
From the wiki, I have a feeling there weren't any other similar circumstances (though more in-depth reading might be called for...)

[Kaizerxisiv]

It got shot down, but he got to make 8 Appointments through circumstance, anyway. And the country didn't burst into flame when he did it, now did it?

No, but the size and scope of the American government, and the role it played in its people's lives, WAS substantially increased.
Whether this is unconstitutional depends on how loosely one reads the Constitution.
Hence, Strict Constitutionalists will say it was unconstitutional and have a pretty legit leg to stand on and Loose Constitutionalists will say it was fine and have a pretty legit leg to stand on.

Now ^this^ I like. It's short, simple, and true. We might disagree on the end result, but agree on that factor, Constitutional Strict/Loose reading.

[Hittanryan]

Errrr? Fox News said so?

I am curious to an answer as well.

New Deal Court packing scheme doesn't ring a bell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_P ... ll_of_1937

That was entirely within the bounds of the Constitution, the thing that got people pissed off was that FDR pushed it for political reasons. Congress acted accordingly and stopped him.

[Revolutopia]

That is constitutional, Congress has the authority to increase the Supreme Court's size and has done it multiple times.link

True, but were any of those other expansions or decreases spurred because the Court was disagreeing with actions the President was trying to take?
IE: Were any of the other times the Court size changed influenced by a petulant President who was mad he wasn't getting free rein of the country?
From the wiki, I have a feeling there weren't any other similar circumstances (though more in-depth reading might be called for...)

One was because Congress didn't like the president, does that count? Also, I don't agree with FDR's action in this case just noting that it was not unconstitutional.

[Revolutopia]

How do you figure?

Well, since links to Mises.org will result in reflexive flaming, how's an article from UCLA? http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Ignoring the Austrian stuff as I don't consider them a real economic school, but that UCLA article has been criticized for using hypotheticals of unprecedented growth rate and by not counting workers employed through New Deal programs.
link 1link 2

[Wikkiwallana]

Given that I wasn't alive in the 30's or 40's, could you provide a bit of explanation?

The Supreme court decided that one of FDRS new deal initiatives was unconstitutional. So he proposed legislation for him to appointed more friendly judges to the Supreme court.

You mean he used the constitutionally prescribed method for altering the federal power structure in an attempt to alter the federal power structure? How unconstitutional.

[Lord Tothe]

Well, since links to Mises.org will result in reflexive flaming, how's an article from UCLA? http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

Ignoring the Austrian stuff as I don't consider them a real economic school, but that UCLA article has been criticized for using hypotheticals of unprecedented growth rate and by not counting workers employed through New Deal programs.
link 1link 2

"ignoring stuff I don't like, you have no argument"

Nice.

[Keronians]

Because Reagan wasn't a person who advicated the government's right to trample on the Constitution like FDR

And yet another thing you need to back up. How did FDR want to trample on the Constitution?

Well, he did threaten it in his inauguration speech.

Not "trample", per se. More like ignoring the legislative process of bills.

Which is fine by me. If America had the House it has today in the 1930s, it wouldn't have made it through to 1941.

[Revolutopia]

Ignoring the Austrian stuff as I don't consider them a real economic school, but that UCLA article has been criticized for using hypotheticals of unprecedented growth rate and by not counting workers employed through New Deal programs.
link 1link 2

*ignoring stuff I don't like, you have no argument"

Nice.

No I am not going to read something, that I don't think adds anything to the conversation by failing to provided the needed framework. When I discuss biology I am not going to spend my time reading creationist literature because it does not fulfill the needed criteria to be science. Similarly, I place the Austrian school with their lack of empirical or mathematical models as failing to provide an adequate basis for economics.

And most of all your listing of 6 texts is not really a starting off point, without you telling any of the information contained in the text as I don't have the time to read six whole books only for a internet discussion.

[Keronians]

Errrr? Fox News said so?

I am curious to an answer as well.

New Deal Court packing scheme doesn't ring a bell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_P ... ll_of_1937

Which is not unconstitutional.

Hoover packed the Supreme Court as well.

Also, do you really think that he should have just let SCOTUS throw out the NRA?

[Wikkiwallana]

And yet another thing you need to back up. How did FDR want to trample on the Constitution?

Well, he did threaten it in his inauguration speech.

Not "trample", per se. More like ignoring the legislative process of bills.

Which is fine by me. If America had the House it has today in the 1930s, it wouldn't have made it through to 1941.

Again, not that I disbelieve, but I would like some expansion on this. Can you link me to text of his speech so that I might know what you are talking about?

[Acroticus]

New Deal Court packing scheme doesn't ring a bell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_P ... ll_of_1937

Which is not unconstitutional.

Hoover packed the Supreme Court as well.

Also, do you really think that he should have just let SCOTUS throw out the NRA?

Also, you must keep in mind, all the good presidents break the constitution. The southern states constitutionally seceded, it was unconstitutional for Lincoln to try to get them, back. If Jefferson hadn't violated the 10th amendment, we would not have Louisiana, Arkansas and a bunch of those other states.

[Mr Bananagrabber]

How do you figure?

Well, since links to Mises.org will result in reflexive flaming, how's an article from UCLA? http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

The Paradox of Toil, Gauti Eggertsson

Perhaps more exotically, the paradox suggests that certain
policies implemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt during the Great Depression, namely the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which facilitated the monopoly power of firms and workers
to prop up prices, may have been expansionary, contrary to a long-standing literature starting
with Keynes (1933), Friedman and Schwartz (1963), and more recently Cole and Ohanian (2004)
and Chari, Kehoe, and McGrattan (2006). For further discussion on this point, see Eggertsson
(2008b), who uses the paradox of toil to argue that NIRA may have been expansionary.

For more info in economics and government, read the following for a healthy start:
Beginner: "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt, "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat, and "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell
Intermediate: "Man, Economy and State" and "What Has Government Done to Our Money?" by Murray Rothbard
Advanced: "Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises

I've read Economics in One Lesson. It's garbage.

Rather than suggesting I do your homework for you, how about you explain to me how FDR worsened the depression?

[Occupied Deutschland]

New Deal Court packing scheme doesn't ring a bell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_P ... ll_of_1937

Which is not unconstitutional.

Hoover packed the Supreme Court as well(1).

Also, do you really think that he should have just let SCOTUS throw out the NRA(2)?

1: Not in the sense the word is used in relation to FDR. Hoover got to appoint 3 judges because the previous occupants dies/retired. FDR wanted to create new seats he could fill.
2: Yes, both for economic and judicial reasons. But that's neither here nor there.

[Revolutopia]

Which is not unconstitutional.

Hoover packed the Supreme Court as well.

Also, do you really think that he should have just let SCOTUS throw out the NRA?

Also, you must keep in mind, all the good presidents break the constitution. The southern states constitutionally seceded, it was unconstitutional for Lincoln to try to get them, back. If Jefferson hadn't violated the 10th amendment, we would not have Louisiana, Arkansas and a bunch of those other states.

Ignoring the whole Lincoln comment as that will just drive this thread off topic, but how is the Louisiana purchase against the 10th amendment?

[Mr Bananagrabber]

Ignoring the Austrian stuff as I don't consider them a real economic school, but that UCLA article has been criticized for using hypotheticals of unprecedented growth rate and by not counting workers employed through New Deal programs.
link 1link 2

"ignoring stuff I don't like, you have no argument"

Nice.

It's not a case of "ignoring the stuff I don't like". It's a case of "the stuff you propose as evidence isn't even internally consistent". What you're doing is like trying to use The Bible as evidence of God's existence.

[Soxastan]

Has anyone noticed that Republicans are elected in good times and exit while/before bad times are around? And that Democrats are elected to clean up the Republican mess and then the Republicans blame the Democrats for their mess? Just thought if anyone noticed.

[Revolutopia]

Has anyone noticed that Republicans are elected in good times and exit while/before bad times are around? And that Democrats are elected to clean up the Republican mess and then the Republicans blame the Democrats for their mess? Just thought if anyone noticed.

To be fair, the Democrats did hand off to the first Republican probably the largest mess this country ever faced.

[Acroticus]

Has anyone noticed that Republicans are elected in good times and exit while/before bad times are around? And that Democrats are elected to clean up the Republican mess and then the Republicans blame the Democrats for their mess? Just thought if anyone noticed.

To be fair, the Democrats did hand off to the first Republican probably the largest mess this country ever faced.

That was back in a time before Democrats were liberals though; they were conservatives. Conservatives handed off the mess to the Republican Liberals

[Occupied Deutschland]

Has anyone noticed that Republicans are elected in good times and exit while/before bad times are around? And that Democrats are elected to clean up the Republican mess and then the Republicans blame the Democrats for their mess? Just thought if anyone noticed.

To be fair, the Democrats did hand off to the first Republican probably the largest mess this country ever faced.

So it's like a century-and-a-half-old case of payback being a bitch?

[Wikkiwallana]

Which is not unconstitutional.

Hoover packed the Supreme Court as well.

Also, do you really think that he should have just let SCOTUS throw out the NRA?

Also, you must keep in mind, all the good presidents break the constitution. The southern states constitutionally seceded, it was unconstitutional for Lincoln to try to get them, back. If Jefferson hadn't violated the 10th amendment, we would not have Louisiana, Arkansas and a bunch of those other states.

Please, please don't spread this topic to yet another thread.

[Saiwania]

It doesn't change the fact that FDR was a kiss up to Joseph Stalin. He trusted the Soviets far too much for my comfort.

[Megapolitania]

It doesn't change the fact that FDR was a kiss up to Joseph Stalin. He trusted the Soviets far too much for my comfort.

I'd blame Truman more for this, honestly.

[Caninope]

The Supreme court decided that one of FDRS new deal initiatives was unconstitutional. So he proposed legislation for him to appointed more friendly judges to the Supreme court.

That is constitutional, Congress has the authority to increase the Supreme Court's size and has done it multiple times.link

Just because something is constitutional, one shouldn't automatically do it.

[Anitgrum]

It doesn't change the fact that FDR was a kiss up to Joseph Stalin. He trusted the Soviets far too much for my comfort.

I'd blame Truman more for this, honestly.

Yeah Truman bent over so far backward for the Soviets that order U.S planes to violate the Berlin Blockade and ordered the creation of a bomber force designed to attack the Soviet Union. Truman sure trusted the Soviets didn't he.