Talk:New Deal

Changing the page - new section.

I submitted a new section to this page that I called 'New Deal realism'. It was essentially a counterargument to the talking points already present there. The edits were rolled back, however, because I didn't discuss it first. Everything in it was sourced, and I think it should stay on the page. The Honest Intellectual (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You're edits reek too much of current scholarship and consensus and not enough of outdated talking points. You need to bring it here first to be shouted down. nobs^{One who's been there.} 03:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The content you added was in direct contrast in tone to everything that was in the article above it and before it, thus making significant change to the article's tone. Furthermore, most of your sources didn't do much to support what your assertions were. Those sources that did were from groups like the Cato Institute, which are taken as seriously on this website as Fox News. This is why your edits did not stand. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

And Rob, ideological historical revisionism does not "current scholarship make. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. I sourced the Cato Institute ONCE, and every other source was based on official data and statistics or books by intellectuals who have studied the subject. The 'denialism' section also contains several biased sources, including Eric Rauchway, a staunch liberal and economic illiterate. And the Cato Institute is ranked the fifth-best economics think tank in the world by the University of Pennsylvania, so it's hardly an unreliable source. Whose permission do I need to add the section, or should I just replace the current page with my edits so there's no conflict of interest? The front page of Rational Wiki reads, "We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue." I was engaging in constructive dialogue. The Honest Intellectual (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

okey dokey, if CATO is not welcome, lets compare Wikipedia's scholarship with Conservapedia; both articles were written by Prof Jensen and are virtually identitical, with Prof Jensen adding more to the Wikipedia entry to answer criticism he got while at CP. And he does it without adopting a hostile or partisan "tone" toward FDR critics. nobs^{One who's been there.} 23:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not avoiding this discussion, but am out of town and away from civilization at the moment. I will better address this in a few days after my camping trip in Duluth is over. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Court packing proposal

A key passage in this article reads:

One key piece of legislation, the National Industrial Recovery Act, was struck down by the Supreme Court in May 1935, one month before it was set to expire anyway. Part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act was also struck down in 1936. FDR threatened to expand the Supreme Court with new appointees in response, which led to the sitting justices having a change of heart and upholding later New Deal legislation, so the threatened expansion of the court never actually took place.

This is nonsense on many levels. The court packing proposal was scuttered by the Senate doing its job and standing up against a blatant attempt by the executive to quash judicial independence. Furthermore the Court didn't refuse to strike down legislation as unconstitutional out of fear, rather FDR found that a now hostile senate refused to pass any of his radical legislation that may have been unconstitutional.

I plan to make changes to this, but I give someone the chance to defend the article as it stands. 48 hours should be enough before I make some changes. --Damo^Hi 05:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm.

This article has a crap layout, is poorly written, and doesn't tear everything to shreds like it should. Longnameislonger (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)