Biden Slips, Suggests FDR Was President When Market Crashed


HK4U

New member
With all the talk about how qualified Palin is this guy does not even know basic history. I wonder if he knows who the first president was?

Biden Slips, Suggests FDR Was President When Market Crashed - America’s Election HQ

Biden Slips, Suggests FDR Was President When Market Crashed
by Associated Press
Tuesday, September 23, 2008


FacebookStumble UponDigg Email Buzz up!

WASHINGTON — Vice presidential candidate Joe Biden says today’s leaders should take a lesson from the history books and follow fellow Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt’s response to a financial crisis.:sarcastic:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened,”‘ Barack Obama’s running mate recently told the “CBS Evening News.”

Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929. There also was no television at the time; TV wasn’t introduced to the public until a decade later, at the 1939 World’s Fair.

FDR was elected three years later when voters denied Hoover a second term. The Democratic challenger appealed to the “forgotten man” by promising a “new deal” to solve the Depression era.

Democrats usually like to remind the public that a Republican was president during the 1929 stock market crash. During the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry’s campaign repeatedly cited Hoover as the last president until George W. Bush to oversee a loss of jobs during his time in office.

Biden was commenting on the stock market crash when he said leaders should explain the current economic crisis and how to solve it to the public.

“Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence, is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people … this is how we can fix this,” Biden said.

Biden’s spokesman, David Wade, countered: “I’m proud to say that we Democrats aren’t experts at Herbert Hoover depression economics like John McCain and his pals. From Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, we just get elected to clean up the economic mess these Republicans leave behind.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
An honest mistake. We all make them.

As a side note, I happen to think that FDR is the most overrated president in history. Many historians rank him among the top three presidents in history, right up there with Washington and Lincoln, the most common explanation being that he led the nation through two crises, something no other president has ever done. Let's examine that a little more closely. While it is indeed true that he inherited the Depression that began during the Hoover administration, if you take a look at the programs that FDR implemented to fight the Depression, they actually had the effect of deepening it. The other major crisis of his administration, World War II, was won by the U.S., but at what cost? Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR had been working behind the scenes for several years to get the U.S. into the war; only the Pearl Harbor attack gave him what he needed to get into a war that he really wanted to be in anyway. Four years and over 400,000 American deaths later (making it America's second bloodiest conflict behind the Civil War, which took 620,000 American lives), the U.S. emerged from the War stronger than it had been before, but one has to wonder how long it would have taken to emerge from the Depression were it not for this war; and let's not forget the wartime economy, with its rationing of consumer goods.
 

HK4U

New member
Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR had been working behind the scenes for several years to get the U.S. into the war; only the Pearl Harbor attack gave him what he needed to get into a war that he really wanted to be in anyway.

Kind of like Wilson in WWI.
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, FDR had been working behind the scenes for several years to get the U.S. into the war; only the Pearl Harbor attack gave him what he needed to get into a war that he really wanted to be in anyway.

Kind of like Wilson in WWI.

Wilson's place in history is even more ambiguous. Liberals generally consider him among the ten greatest presidents, while conservatives generally consider him among the worst. Read this article by conservative Bruce Walker:

ESR | August 11, 2003 | The very worst president
 

HK4U

New member
Wilson's place in history is even more ambiguous. Liberals generally consider him among the ten greatest presidents, while conservatives generally consider him among the worst. Read this article by conservative Bruce Walker:

ESR | August 11, 2003 | The very worst president

Not only did he make sure we got in to WWI but he also gave the international bankers what they wanted when he signed into law the Federal reserve Act. Years later after his Presidency he admitted that "I have ruined my country".
 

sailor

New member
Well, since we have gotten into FDR and WWII - there are theories about him "forcing", in subtle ways, to get the U.S. involved in the war with Japan and Germany (and Italy - usually forgotten). A very interesting and well written book by a U.S. Navy officer has some damning info on the depth of effort by FDR to force Japan to attack a U.S. Naval vessel. The title is "The Cruise of the Lanikai" (I hope that is right, I gave that book to the son of the original engineer on that vessel prior to WWII). I purchased it from the U.S.Naval Institute Press many years ago. Two large sailing vessels with diesel auxilaries were purchased by the navy, outfitted in Manila, Philippine Is. with a WWI deck gun and one .50 machine gun, then formally commissioned in the U.S. Navy. Manned by an all navy crew, they were to be sacrificed in an encounter with the Japanese navy to have a "Remember the Maine" event, allowing the U.S. to formally declare war. Just days before they were to sail, the attack on Manila began (Dec. 8th, 1941). The back of the book has (partly redacted) Freedom of Information Act documents to back up the author's thesis. Oh, the story is really about their escape from Manila harbor, down through Japanese held islands, to the Dutch East Indies, then on to Australia - a great read!
sailor
 
An honest mistake maybe but why, then, do we jump on other candidates who make the same basic mistakes? This was a big blunder in several ways. Not only the wrong president, but no television at the time. This shows a lack of research at the very least.
 

HK4U

New member
An honest mistake maybe but why, then, do we jump on other candidates who make the same basic mistakes? This was a big blunder in several ways. Not only the wrong president, but no television at the time. This shows a lack of research at the very least.

Exactly. Completly out of touch with reality. Wonder what else he does not know?
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
Exactly. Completly out of touch with reality. Wonder what else he does not know?

Well, I'm an equal opportunity observer on things like this. McCain, we all remember, did not know how many houses he owned. You can all say that it's completely understandable, but I'm here to say that it's not. Other assets, like stocks, mutual funds, or CDs, okay, but houses? Come on.

While we're at it, when the primaries were going on, Barack Obama, many of you may remember, could not give the correct answer to how many primary contests there were. I don't remember the exact number he gave, but it was larger than the 50+ (when you factor in D.C. and Puerto Rico) actual number.
 

NDS

New member
Your observation is correct. Equal opportunity criticisms easy to come by.
...McCain, we all remember, did not know how many houses he owned...
I wonder if he was just afraid to answer the question because the press has this 'gotcha' crap going on with politicians they don't like. Also, his wife's family may own property that is held in a trust or family corporation and he might really not know the answer. I think he should have said someting along the lines of: "I've bought and X homes and signed on X number of mortgages."

...While we're at it, when the primaries were going on, Barack Obama, many of you may remember, could not give the correct answer to how many primary contests there were...
I think in this case, BHO was tired and hyped and made a simple mistake. Everybody has said something and repeated it not even realizing what they've said until it's been pointed out.


In both cases, there is no real information about the suitability or unsuitability of the candidates to be elected President. Unfortunately, our uninformed voters will make their choices based upon what they feel rather than any facts. The situation in the USA is not hopeless, but it is bleak.
 

sailor

New member
tattedupboy - "... McCain, we all remember, did not know how many houses he owned ..."
When John and Cindy were married, they signed a prenuptial agreement to keep their finances seperate (she was already very wealthy, and he was not - really hard to make millions $$ in solitary for years on end in Hanoi). When you say "houses", depends if you mean "residences", or buildings for rent, of which Cindy seems to have a few. Those are not of consequence to John, and it is not at all unreasonable to not know how many "houses" they own - especially if they are largely Cindy's. A dumb question to begin with (how many "houses" does John Kerry own - none - Theresa owns them all) - not relevant to anything except a "gothcha" question. Just shows the really low level of the MSM and the high school drop outs they call reporters. My considered opinion, and I sure am standing by it! :triniti:
sailor
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
tattedupboy - "... McCain, we all remember, did not know how many houses he owned ..."
When John and Cindy were married, they signed a prenuptial agreement to keep their finances seperate (she was already very wealthy, and he was not - really hard to make millions $$ in solitary for years on end in Hanoi). When you say "houses", depends if you mean "residences", or buildings for rent, of which Cindy seems to have a few. Those are not of consequence to John, and it is not at all unreasonable to not know how many "houses" they own - especially if they are largely Cindy's. A dumb question to begin with (how many "houses" does John Kerry own - none - Theresa owns them all) - not relevant to anything except a "gothcha" question. Just shows the really low level of the MSM and the high school drop outs they call reporters. My considered opinion, and I sure am standing by it! :triniti:
sailor

I agree, but this is something he should know, period. I agree that it contributes nothing to the campaign, but dodging the questions to me suggests that he has something to hide.
 
I agree, but this is something he should know, period. I agree that it contributes nothing to the campaign, but dodging the questions to me suggests that he has something to hide.

I don't know if I can agree with that statement. I know of several instances where spouses maintained separate bank accounts without knowledge of their better halves. If the houses are owned by her business, I can see where he may not know the full extent of ownership. Private is private, as long as it's nothing illegal or immoral it should have never been considered in a political debate or interview.
 

sailor

New member
I second ronwill - Cindy's business is not necessarily of any moment to John, particularly if, as in many cases, the properties are handled by a broker/caretaker. The idea that John was doing something nefarious, or dodging the question because of something illegal, is pure Obama-speak - not worthy of further comment.
sailor
 

tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
He should have known. Period. If I don't know something like that about my spouse, there's no telling what else is going on that I don't know about.

As I said before, neither the question or its answer contribute anything meaningful to the campaign, but I like to know that any time a presidential candidate is answering a question, on whatever topic, it's the truth, and he or she isn't being evasive.
 

Scarecrow

New member
As I said before, neither the question or its answer contribute anything meaningful to the campaign, but I like to know that any time a presidential candidate is answering a question, on whatever topic, it's the truth, and he or she isn't being evasive.

that pretty much cancels out 99.9% of all politicians.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,141
Messages
621,700
Members
74,109
Latest member
jjtallis
Top