what kinds of programs made up his "new deal"?
126311
When Roosevelt was inaugurated in March 1933, the U.S. was at the nadir of the worst depression in its history. A fourth of the workforce was unemployed. Industrial production had fallen by more than half since 1929. In a country with limited government social services outside the cities, two million were homeless. The banking system was on the point of collapse. There was little violence, but most observers considered it remarkable that such an obvious breakdown of the capitalist system had not led to a rapid growth of fascism (as happened in Nazi Germany). Instead of adopting revolutionary solutions, the American people had turned to the Democrats and to a leader who had grown up in privilege.\n\n\nThe First New Deal, 1933-1934\nRoosevelt indeed had few systematic economic beliefs; he relied heavily on a Brain Trust of academic advisors from leading universities. He saw the Depression as partly a matter of confidence—people had stopped spending, investing, and employing labor because they were afraid to do so. As he put it in his inaugural address: "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." He therefore set out to restore confidence through a series of dramatic gestures.\n\n\nBanking crisis\nA high priority in the first "Hundred Days" was stabilizing the financial system. By inauguration day, state governors in every state had ordered banks closed or placed restrictions on deposits (as bank closings increased, this created more panic as depositors in other states rushed to withdraw funds before a state-imposed holiday was declared in their own states).[3] Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2038 on March 6 ordering "all banking transactions" be suspended through March 9, "in order to prevent the export, hoarding, or earmarking of gold... or currency." On March 9, Roosevelt told Congress in person, "Our first task is to open all sound banks." To accomplish this he asked for and received emergency legislation giving him control over all banks. The same day he received authority to "open such banks as have already been ascertained to be in sound condition, and other such banks as may be found to require reorganization to put them on a sound basis." Thus, all the nation's 19,000 banks had to be inspected before they could reopen. In all, 4,004 banks never reopened; most were small, with an average of $900,000 in deposits. They were merged into stronger banks and eventually the depositors got about 85% of their deposits back. (Historical Statistics X741-7555) At first, Roosevelt opposed bank insurance, but in June he reluctantly signed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) law to insure bank deposits. Angered at efforts to manipulate the dollar-gold ratio by European speculators, on April 5th 1933, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102 that required all persons holding more than $100 in gold coin exchange it for paper money at face value. After January 1934, he then devalued the international value of the dollar by 40% in terms of gold, hoping to stimulate exports. (Freidel 1990 p 101-2)\n\n\nRelief\nDuring the first hundred days of his administration, Roosevelt used his enormous prestige and the sense of impending disaster to force a series of bills through Congress, establishing and funding various new government agencies. These included the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), which granted funds to the states for unemployment relief, and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) to hire 250,000 young men to work on rural local projects, as well as the first Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA). The AAA tried to force higher prices for commodities by paying farmers to take land out of crops and cutting herds. In 1936, the U.S. Supreme Court found the AAA to be unconstitutional.\n\nRoosevelt's series of radio speeches, known as Fireside Chats, presented his proposals to the American public. The informal chats not only reassured liste
197448
There is little doubt that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was our country's greatest and most well liked president.  He was elected mostly in landslides for FOUR terms, because he was against big business and for the "little man" at a time when our country really needed a hero.  He is the reason that a president can only serve two terms, because the conservatives were completely undone by a better philosophy!  He created more jobs per capita than any other president.  He created the New Deal, which enabled millions of people to capitalize on the nation's wealth, instead of simply the wealthy, whose attitude was, "screw you, I got mine!".  He was the first man to suggest and implement a highway system in this country, thereby creating more jobs.  He did the most work, he was the most admired, he brought pride back into people's lives after the Great Depression by allowing them to work through the creation of the Welfare system (before the conservatives screwed THAT up as well!).  There will never be another more beloved president!\nSecond edit:  You've gotta be kidding, sihatton!  Ronald Reagan created this country's biggest deficits until our current moron, er, I mean president!  Reaganomics was the beginning of the end of this nation staying solvent, until Bill Clinton came along!  And then Reagan II, the current Bush, the low-IQ imbecile came along to continue Reagan's failed policies!  How can you even suggest that piece of garbage, Reagan!!\nHey nunz7777, wake up!  Someone just stole your last brain cell!  Isn't it just like a conservative douchebag to take credit for Bill Clinton's great work?!!  What a brainless, bloodless freak!!
168275
Because we need it to fund all our new social programs that started since the Civil War.  The New Deal programs during the depression, medicare, medicaid, and a host of other programs.  However, our government is full of crooks and a lot of our money goes to corporate bailouts, tobacco subsidies and other such nonsense. Vote Libertarian!  No income tax.
101392
He has set himself up to be the closest thing since Nixon to being a dictator. He has an Republican congress and Judaical so he can almost run amok, I was so glad to see them stand up to him on the ports deal, not that I believe it was a bad idea but at least congress showed some spunk, had it not been an election year I doubt it would have happened though.
349187
Q: "Did he really "rent" out a room in the White House?"\nA: Technically no, but he did allow contributors to his campaign to sleep at the White House, so there was a quid pro quo.\n\nQ: "Did he really sell secrets to China?"\nA: This was never proven in a court of law, but there is abundant evidence that the Clintons were receiving illegal campaign contributions from the Chinese, that their friend Bernie Ebbers at Loral passed secrets to the Chinese, and that a Chinese agent was working within the White House.\n\nQ: "Did he really have "sex" in the White House?"\nA: Would your wife agree that a BJ is not sex?\n\nQ: "Did he really go to Russia during Vietnam?"\nA: Yes.  While a student at Oxford University in England, Clinton participated in a protest rally against the U.S. during a trip to the Soviet Union.\n\nQ: "What else did he do?"\nA1: He lied to a military officer in order to gain a draft deferment.\nA2: He lied to a Grand Jury, thus committing perjury, while in office.
512738
The New Deal.\n\nAlthough the Iraq War has been very costly in both blood and treasure, it will probably be a historical anomaly. That is, once we get out of there (as victors or as failures), we won't really feel any continuing effects. Once the war is over, it's over.\n\nThe New Deal was also very costly, but that's hard for many people to realize. We can read about the men who were employed on public works projects or about the electricity produced by the TVA. The costs are less obvious though; we don't readily see the economic distortions caused by price manipulation or the consider the tremendous waste from farm subsidies and restrictions.\n\nBut more important than the immediate, economic cost was the philosophical damage caused by the New Deal. The New Deal radically and perhaps irreversibly altered America's beliefs about government. It was the final blow to the idea of limited, Constitutionally restrained government. It opened the floodgates of government expansion and intrusion into our lives. \n\nFor example, the rulings which prohibited states from decriminalizing drugs were grounded in rulings which supported increased Federal power during the New Deal.
14983
Several things including Indian Removal, The Nullification crisis and introducing the "spoils system"\n\nFor more information, view the link below.
435344
Wellll, this site will give you some ideas; it presents the speech in whole, as well as the particular circumstances under which the speech was given:\nhttp://www.bartleby.com/124/pres52.html\n \nYou might note the mood of the speech -- very somber.  However, the tone is, nonetheless, hopeful.  The speech is very brief.  There is no discussion of what he will do as President for the people;  rather, it is really a prayer to and for the people that peace might be achieved.  And, indeed, he invokes God several times throughout.  \n\nIt's important to note that Roosevelt was actually quite ill at the time of this speech; in fact, he died a few months later.  Also, it's important to note that a key and horribly brutal battle of WW2 was in process, known as the Battle of the Bulge, in which more than 75,000 men were either killed, maimed or captured in less than one month's time.  Things seemed very depressing and dire at the time.  It was THE key strength of Roosevelt that he was able to uplift and rally a nation beaten down by the Depression and war solely by the words of hope and optimism he conveyed in all of his speeches (there was no TV then, most people didn't even know what he looked liked, they only knew him by the sound of his voice on radio).\n\nGood luck!
661762
There was, but he went out of business.\n\nJust kidding, he calls it a Strengths Revolution, and he does tours and stuff. Here's a link to his site where you can find his books:
617371
Yes, all his messages are reported in the U.S.  There was a new one just two weeks ago.  But there have been so many, and they are so rambling and incoherent, that we just can't remember all of them.\nIf you've never heard of these messages, then try tuning to National Public Radio every morning, or the News Hour on PBS every evening.
416566
National Recovery Administration.\n\nIt wasn't Wilson, it was Roosevelt that signed it into existence in '33, you idiot.
635516
The man who moved him up on the list just released a book about it.  He's making the talk show circuit but I cannot remember his name. Keep your ears open in the books/ media and you'll find out all the details
473923
Some would say that it wasn't economic policy. The problem was one of overproduction combined with the inflated values of stocks. \n\nThe policies of Hoover and Roosevelt differed little. FDRs was more of a PR campaign. For all Roosevelt did, his policies affected little change in the economy. \n\nPerhaps it can be said the the use and issuance of credit was a leading economic factor.
563971
He wasn't the greatest President ever, but at least the economy as growing steadily and people had jobs (including the Prez himself - LMAO). Oh yeah, and I do believe we had a balanced budget once again, didn't we? ; )\n\nI'm no fan of the Democrats nor the Republicans, so I vote third party all the time. But things seemed to get done on his watch.
162429
-the stock market crash\n-The New Deal\n-FDR trying to stuff the Supreme Court\n-The debate on whether America should join the new European war\n\nLots more than that too :)
128758
I believe it is #1. 5 is out because he supported Laissez-faire. 2 is out because he wanted a monarch type system. 3 is out because he was heavily concerned with national debt. Not sure about 4
45816
Can liberals think for themselves or they just spit out the talking points the DNC gives them?\n\nSS needs to be reformed.  Any program that takes 15% of your money at gunpoint and gives you a rate of return of about 2% is just wrong.  What if you die at 58?  Your heirs get $255.  \n\nW's reform plan is a good one.  Keep most of the revenue going in to the program to pay for the retirees AND allow younger workers to start their own accounts.  Every 5-10 years increase the percentage we can put into our own accounts.  In a generation we will all have our own accounts and not have to worry about the government borrowing from SS.  Then if we die at 58 our savings go to our heirs as it should.\n\nThe only reason liberals want to keep SS is because EVERY election they threaten old people that Republicans will take away their SS if you elect them.  They have been saying that for at least 25 years (thats as long as I have been paying attention) and it hasn't happened yet.