Obama and FDR on Proposed American Dollar Re-Design?

-By Warner Todd Huston

A little contest called the Dollar ReDes$ign Project has been launched on the web and I have to say the dismal design offerings being foisted on the public are a wonder to behold. But the worst ones are by Dowling Duncan.

The designs offered by Dowling Duncan envision a one dollar bill featuring a giant photo of Barak Obama and the 100 dollar bill featuring a photo of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Imagine that, huh?

The two presidents that hated capitalism and wealth most are on these prototypes! FDR and Obama are the most anti-wealth and anti-capitalist presidents we've ever had!! Obama and Roosevelt both made money the root of all evil in their presidencies. Well, except the money they were able to funnel to their pals, supporters, and party members, that is.

Roosevelt constantly kept the nation agitated against "speculators," even as he stole everyone's gold and enriched his pals. Obama has followed suit with his outright hatred of evil "bankers" and his constant attacks on that "greedy Wall Street" while at the same time taking millions in donations from the very people he tries to gin the public up against.

Yet these fools want to put the two most anti-capitalist presidents in history on a re-design of our money?

The irony is just thick, isn't it? Or maybe it isn't "irony"? Maybe it's just leftist hero worship and outright stupidity?

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Almost as stupid as putting people who supported slavery on our money. Or people who murdered Native Americans. Either way..

  • In reply to Dmband:

    Wow. Too bad you hate America so much. I guess you'd rather have Karl Marx on our money, eh?

  • In reply to Dmband:

    I am sure that most reputable historians and most of Wall Street in 1933 celebrate FDR for saving capitalism, where it collapsed all over the world to either Communism, Statism, Fascism or Socialism. Is hating capitalism raising taxes on the rich? Clinton did it and created 22 million jobs and Wall Street soared. Remember folks, when Bush II, rated by Sienna College's 238 nationally ranked historians our 39th best President, left, we were in an economic free fall, 700K jobs being lost per month, two unfunded wars and and huge deficits. So, let's stop the Obama bashing and wake up to the real world.

    Richard J. Garfunkel
    Host of The Advocates
    wvox 1460 am radio
    NY

  • In reply to Dmband:

    I love your reply, rjgarfunkel. So, are we to assume that if anyone disagrees with YOU they are not a "reputable" historian? But in any case you are wrong. Sure if you stopped reading any book printed after the hack Art Schlessinger, Jr. was writing you'd imagine that everyone loved FDR. But there is a growing number of economists AND "reputable" historians that think FDR botched the Great Depression and made it last years longer than it needed to last. No one disputes his good work as a war leader, but as an economic leader he was one of our worst, most anti-American presidents we ever had.... next to the current one. And as to his "saving capitalism" while every other nation was going communist or socialist, FDR was no less a socialist than any of those other national leaders. He just realized that in the US it might take longer to get there. But he EXPECTED to get there. After all, it was the way all so-called intellectuals thought the world was headed.

    Still, I always love leftists like yourself, puffing yourselves up as the ONLY true source of knowledge. Everyone that agrees with you is "reputable." You guys just eat your own propaganda with a spoon, don't you?

  • In reply to Dmband:

    Sienna College is not a bastion of liberalism and 238 historians are not all left-wingers, and your idea that FDR prolonged the Depression is idiotic on its face! That

  • In reply to Dmband:

    But what of Eisenhower and his three recessions, the farm collapse, U-2, the collapse and embarrassment at Geneva, the sell-out to Joe McCarthy of Marshall, Nixon

  • In reply to Dmband:

    Our economy's GDNP is 80% service oriented and 60% of that is retail. The retail is supplied by China and our Chimerica dollars are flowing daily to them. On the other side of the ledger is our our flow of petro dollars. Therefore our expansion of jobs, at this time of our non-competitive manufacturing sector can mostly be in retail. Well, we have too many stores! So free trade alone, without cooperation of our Chinese suppliers to balance the trade ledger won't work. We need energy independence and to build jobs through sustainability and resiliency. The last clown in the White House mortgaged our future with tax cuts and uncontrolled spending along with non-financed, and unending wars. The Bush II policy of tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and allowing Wall Street to create artificial investment instruments has made Coolidge into a small time nobody. the climate of the Bernie Madoffs, and scores of others, including Enron, who manipulated the natural gas market of California, has turned billions over to the few. Has one ever taken an inventory of the MacMansions and the Bentleys on Worth Avenue in Palm Beach? With a policy of endless, unfunded wars, porous borders, exporting jobs overseas, and tax breaks and havens for the super rich, the country has become bankrupt. But you apologists want more laissez-faire! Your criticism of the President's efforts to discuss job creation is symbolic of the fact the the GOP won't play ball unless it is their ball.

    Hating President Obama and denigrating his efforts won't resurrect Bush II or the Reagan-Bush II phony policies of the past 30 years. We have fed the private sector trough for years while the public sector starved. Just look at our ports, our electric grid, our deteriorating infrastructure, our bridges and the rest of our society. We are over-stressed with greed, our jails are loaded (2.5 million in prison and 5.5 million on parole- we have 25% of the prison population of the world with 5% of its population!)and our schools are failing with record drop-out rates. What else is new from the legacy of Reagan-Bush and their vision of America. Their policy of blurring the establishment clause, weakening labor in America, and doing nothing about energy has condemned any new administration to a very difficult future, no less the possibility of economic malaise. You deficit hawks can't have more tax cuts without more red ink. It is Voodoo Economics 101. Just ask Bush I and David Stockman!

    Richard J. Garfunkel
    Host of The Advocates
    WVOX- 1460 Radio NY
    www.wvox.com
    http://advocates-wvox.com

  • In reply to Dmband:

    rjgarfunkel, but what of, but what of, but what of.... but what of the fact that Ike, and Wilson, and any Bush or another WASN"T the subject we were discussing! Obama and FDR were whom we were talking. Did we have other presidents that did certain things wrong? Sure. In my opinion James Buchanan and Jimmy Carter were the worst presidents in American history. But they weren't under discussion! We can go off on tangents all we like, but what does that prove? Precisely nothing. And it certainly does nothing for the conversation.

    But at least ONE of your posts was on topic, so I'll ignore the other one for some other day.

    As to Teddy R, he was not a conservative president. He was an activist president with a center left (for his time) philosophy. Wilson was an out right leftist that saw his role as one of wildly enlarging the power of government. Wilson was also a strident racist. Neither president had a traditional American view of their positions.

    Your claim that conservatives wish that Hoover had more time is ridiculous. I've never heard a single person ever say that. In fact, in many ways FDR just carried over Hoover's failed polices and then he increased the level of interventionism. Hoover was a failed president. FDR was a failed president on domestic policy because he carried on with Hoover's ideas and even went farther in the same direction. So, no, I don't think Hoover could have "fixed" anything.

    But I am not saying it is unheard of that Teddy R, Wilson, Hoover and FDR had socialist ideas as the engine of their presidencies. After all, as I said before, communism and socialism was the pet theory of all the pointy heads at those universities you seem to think are all so grand. And as FDR was taking office communism had yet to be as thoroughly discredited as it became. So, people thought maybe it would have worked at that time.

    Of course, anyone with common sense and a grasp of human nature understood that as soon as Marx published his nonsense books. But no one ever said university types have common sense or any grasp of reality, either.

    As to the Great Depression you are wrong about how long the depression lasted relative to the rest of the world. We stayed in it longer than most other industrialized nations. Even Canada recovered quicker than did the US and other nations were earlier beginning to come out of it, too. If it weren't for WWII they would have. Yet we were still seeing 17 to 20 some percent unemployment and a dead business sector. TAHT was because of FDR's anti-business policies.

    As to today, there is a reason why the recovery is chimerical. You can't have a recovery with a 10% unemployment rate. Why are businesses not hiring? They have no idea what sort of punishment this anti-capitalist president is going to level at them from one day to the next, that's why. No business can expand because they have no idea how badly Obamacare will hurt them, they have no idea what damage the trillions of dollars of Obama debt will cause, they are afraid to do anything for fear of the next handout and payoff he'll give to unions, they have trepidation because every second day of the week Obama has a new punishment for the private sector. In short this recovery is not occurring BECAUSE of Obama and his anti-capitalist, anti-business policies. If you want to drum up an economic conspiracy (put your tinfoil hat on) you can look to your president for the cause.

  • In reply to Dmband:

    Speaking of the Depression, unemployment dropped from 25-35% (the records are not positive on the real figures) to less than 14 % with in FDR's first term.

    The size of the economic cataclysm is almost hard to perceive. Even though the Department of Commerce listed unemployment at 25% many estimates believe it ranged as high as 36% and the most likely number is probably a bit above 30%. The amount of new capital financing had declined 95% since 1929. The amount of new building contracts had declined by at least 75% in those same years. The Dow Jones Average was off 90% since its high in late 1929, and there were 5000 bank closings since the crash, which eliminated nine million, pre-FDIC uninsured accounts. US Steel, which had almost a quarter of a million full-time employees in 1929, now employed no one but executives. Schools in major cities and some states virtually shut down for lack of money. In the first half of 1933, 250,000 homes were taken over by the banks, and over 1000 families per day were cast homeless into the streets. This is what Franklin Roosevelt inherited on March 4, 1933.

    By 1933, business failures had risen almost 50% from the end of 1928 (109 to 154 per hundred thousand). From 1933 to 1935, only two years they dropped to almost 40% from the 1928 levels (62 to 109 per thousand). Unemployment rose from 3% in 1929 to 25% in 1933. From 1933 through 1937 unemployment dropped 44% to 14%. This figure did not include over 2 million workers employed by the WPA. As to the Gross National Product, by 1933 it had dropped from $103.6 billion in 1929 to $56.4 billion in 1933. This represented a loss of 44% of the total goods and services of the country in 3 years. In FDR

  • In reply to Dmband:

    Well I put a lot on Pubiclius's table and he must be consulting his history books or his crystal ball. In fact, all I said was true and he and his ilk have no answers, in the same way they had no answers from 1929 thru 1932, and in many of the recessions the GOP authored from Eisenhower's time onward. In fact, their mantra is throw money at the rich and hope the Laffer Curve, Milton Friedman, David Stockman voodoo economics works for the little guy. What the genius Pubiclius has conveniently forgotten is who benefited between 1970 and 2000 under mostly GOP rule.

    It is a known fact that in and around 1970, CEO's of Fortune 500 companies made in real dollars a ratio of 43 to 1 over the average salary of their employees. In real dollars, wages, taking in account inflation over the past 34 years or so, have gone up slightly. In other words, the $17,000 of 1970 is not worth much more than the $35-40,000 of today. Of course times have changed, and our economy has shifted greatly over the last 30 or so years. Our manufacturing has shifted to overseas, and we are much more of a service economy today. No question "freer" trade has brought more total prosperity to America. But where was that prosperity concentrated and what was the affect. In that light, executive compensation in the year 2000 became 1000 to one! In

  • In reply to rjgarfunkel:

    After the hatefilled, name calling, sleaze laden rant you tried to post yesterday, the one I ended up deleting because it was just one long childish tantrum, I've realized you are not looking for adult engagement.So, no I won't be responding to your further historical revisionism. You gave up the right to be considered respectable after last night's hatefest. But I do have to say, it is a shame that you lefties always have to resort to the namecalling, hatred, and cursing. Some day the left will realize it shouldn't just bully its way to power. Someday it will eschew the tactics from fellow leftists like Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler. Maybe that day will never come, but we can dream, can't we?

  • In reply to rjgarfunkel:

    I have no clue who the above diatribe was aimed at. But the far-right and its accusations regarding: birth, religion, separation of church and state, and political philosophy etc.,do not qualify them for the Nobel Peace Prize. Has anyone seriously listen to the ravings of Michelle Bachman and Nevada's own Ms. Angle. But its a free fire zone on any Democrats for names like left-wing extremist, commie, pinko, social engineer, class warfare advocate, death tax supporter, destroyer of the Bill of Rights, among others. How about the fact that Hitler is now a leftist, because his party was once known as the National Socialist. That's a real laugh. What silliness is next. And of course, it is left-wing revisionism, because all the professors are pointy headed, and therefore incapable of dealing with the mainstream white trailer park trash and the evangelical flat-earth thinkers. William Buckley and John Stuart Mill said and I paraphrase, assuredly not all conservatives are stupid, but for sure most stupid people are conservative. As to the Luddites, they certainly weren't liberal, and they destroyed the English loom industry because they feared change and hand work. Where in all of history have the conservatives succeeded? Even the Pilgrims and the Puritans, who were cast out of England, certainly didn't succeed here, except when it came to burning innocent girls as witches.

    Richard J. Garfunkel

  • In reply to rjgarfunkel:

    By the way, I am still interested in hearing how the New Deal and FDR prolonged the Great Depression. Other than Amity Schlaes, a paid flack of the WSJ and some minor college know-nothings, where is the beef? I presented the numbers, you new wave thinkers show me where the figures lie! In the same way, please tell me George Bush II was a steward of the economy, the military and our national standing. As I recall he was the lowest ranked president, for the longest period of time, (time in the 20% approval rating)in the history of poll-taking in the 20th Century. Even poor Jimmy Carter, a failure we all admit, never had Bush II's ratings.

    Richard J. Garfunkel

Leave a comment