32
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 274:
Line 274: + + + + + +
→Deficit spending, etc.
:::And I'm not convinced that [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] was philosophically opposed to deficit spending. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in ''The National Experience'', said that Roosevelt ''introduced'' the idea to Congress, and had to overcome [[Republican Party]] opposition in order to ram it through. Now if you have a source to contradict that, then use it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 19:50, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
:::And I'm not convinced that [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] was philosophically opposed to deficit spending. Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in ''The National Experience'', said that Roosevelt ''introduced'' the idea to Congress, and had to overcome [[Republican Party]] opposition in order to ram it through. Now if you have a source to contradict that, then use it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 19:50, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The proper perspective or an unbiased perspective? Everything I've said is true. If the facts are incomplete, then we should be adding the necessary facts and not removing them. This site will never get anywhere like this. Here's the very first hit I got off a Google search for Keynes begging FDR to increase deficit spending, which he didn't commit to doing on a large scale until we entered WWII:
::::http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/keynes03.html
::::It's not as thorough a source as I'd like, but it at least suffices to show that this is common knowledge. It also suggests that maybe you should give another editor the benefit of the doubt before reverting and criticizing so quickly. Or maybe you can do a quick google search and learn something for yourself, rather than assuming you know the truth based on one incomplete fact from a single source? We're looking at two sides of the same truth about FDR; why assume that just because FDR did engage in deficit spending that he was not at some point in his career politically and philisophically opposed to it? That's using bias in place of fact. That's not the purpose of Conservapedia as far as I know, but, again, I'm new here, so ''correct me if I'm wrong.'' [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 20:20, 3 July 2007 (EDT)