GWB and FDR — Sad differences: FDR and REAGAN — Similarities

Photo of author
Written By Robert Sentry

8068341020_994abc2b5b_k

Image courtesy of Natalie Marchant under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Quiz:

During WW II, did FDR increase social spending?

What 20th century president nearly eliminated social spending?

Essay: Compare George Bush to FDR as a wartime Commander in Chief.

___

For decades, Republicans have passed down this FDR sophism that FDR was the architect of social waste in America. The reality is that FDR nearly wiped out social spending during WW II, taking the percent spent on Human Resources from 43.70% in 1940 to nearly zero by 1945, just 2.00%.

Socialism kickstarted during LBJ’s tenure and accelerated greatly during Nixon’s term, and increased sharply again during George Herbert Walker Bush’s term and under the Republicans (Congress or president) since. The Social Security monster was not FDR’s doing. He started a vastly different program. It was the 1960s forward, and all the socialists since, that has morphed it into the social welfare cesspool it is today.

The reality is this: FDR slashed social spending and increased military spending to win a war, where George Bush has failed to spend militarily to win a war and has become the biggest social spender in mankind’s history.

Most of you flunked the quiz. FDR was a true wartime leader. George Bush, through his fixation on global and domestic welfare, has been a tragic failure as Commander in Chief during war.

The following chart shows, in a very striking fashion, FDR’s will to win the war. Compare FDR’s action taken on social spending during WW II to what you see in George Bush’s spending:

Now, who was the Commander in Chief with the will to win the war—FDR or GWB?

This graphic you just saw clearly shows that FDR waged war against our enemies in WW II, dedicating the entire financial might of the United States to the cause. In contrast, during this very dangerous war we face today, George Bush is waging a war against America’s treasury, not against our enemies.

As the chart above also shows, Ronald Reagan was the only wartime leader to make any meaningful cuts in social spending. Reagan’s reduction in social waste helped win the Cold War, as this money was put into our military.

Where has this money been taken from as social spending soars? This second image shows that, since Nixon, we have seen a serious and steady decline in the % of outlays spent on the US military, broken only during the term of Ronald Reagan. This may disappoint many uneducated Republicans, but Ronald Reagan and FDR were very similar. Both slashed social spending and both increased military spending. And, they both dedicated the resources of the United States to win a war. Reagan’s cut in social spending and his “peace through strength” military increases, played a major role in winning the Cold War.

George Bush has increased domestic socialism by a sickening degree and has become the biggest global welfare spender—ever. Our loss of lives in Iraq, and our failure to find bin Laden and Hussein, is directly correlated with Bush’s global welfare spending spree and his failure to increase money spent on our military. Unlike FDR, Bush talks like the war on terror is his main priority, but his social spending agenda and his failure to fund our military and use it to protect our borders differs greatly from FDR.

The recent news of the helicopters being shot down is an example why FDR was a far better Commander in Chief than George Bush is. Many of our helicopters do not have antimissile systems, yet George Bush can send a check to Africa for $15 billion, during war. The very long list of terrorist nations receiving billions of taxpayers’ money borders on treason. FDR committed not just his will, but the US Treasury, to wining the war, not fighting global poverty like George Bush is doing.

The average American has no idea, as shown in these two images, that military spending is on a terrible downward trend (fooled by actual dollars spent), and that social spending is set to consume nearly the entire US budget. What do you think the trends in North Korea’s, China’s and Russia’s budget show?

The nation, and both political parties, had the will to win the war during WW II. FDR was able to take HR spending, at nearly 50% of the budget, down to almost zero. Today, George Bush does not have the will to even ask for a reduction in growth of social welfare, let alone a real cut in actual outlays as FDR did. Imagine the reaction today if there was even a hint of a reduction in social waste, even though we are at war.

Contrary to Republican myth, FDR was not a fiscal socialist. He was a great wartime leader who had the guts to eliminate social welfare during war. In addition, little known to many but clealy shown here, socialism had a major increase during Richard Nixon’s presidency.

The truth is, opposite to RNC rally cries, is that George Bush—based on official Office of Management and Budget data—is the biggest socialist in the history of the world. As the data in these images show, Republican fallacies run counter to the facts surrounding FDR, Nixon, George HW Bush, and GWB.

It takes a leader, a real Commander in Chief, to lead—especially during war. FDR and Reagan was, and George Bush isn’t.

The trends shown in these two images should cause outrage among all Americans concerned for the future and the security of our nation.

___

Charts based on data from the offical OMB historical tables.

Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

Leave a Comment