Abhijit Banerjee Quotes

The point about Roosevelt's New Deal was that it was visionary - for the 1930s.

If you would look at my record, you would know that I’m a Roosevelt New Dealer. As a matter of fact, John F. Kennedy was a little too conservative to suit my taste.

For a generation, Republicans have tried to unravel the activist government under which Americans have lived since the 1930s, when Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt created a government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and invested in infrastructure.

Recovery measures work better when they raise confidence - as Franklin D. Roosevelt understood. His fireside chats, and his inaugural address proclaiming he would fight the Great Depression with the same resolve he would muster against a foreign foe, were aimed at reassuring Americans.

Few expected very much of Franklin Roosevelt on Inauguration Day in 1933. Like Barack Obama seventy-six years later, he was succeeding a failed Republican president, and Americans had voted for change. What that change might be Roosevelt never clearly said, probably because he himself didn't know.

The New Deal exists principally on an emotional plane for Obama. To him, the New Deal is something you play like a song, to make you or your constituents feel better.

During the New Deal, people thought to be liberal was to reject socialism on one extreme and fascism on the other, and to preserve capitalism through regulation and a social safety net.

[Franklin Delano] Roosevelt started more creations than were ever finished since Genesis—and finished none.

I am a Roosevelt New Dealer … John F. Kennedy was a little too conservative for me.

You can never study Franklin Delano Roosevelt too much.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt had to find a way to help the American people. In 1933, he created a relief program known as the New Deal. Two years later, he expanded the New Deal by adding the Works Progress Administration, which was renamed the Work Projects Administration in 1939.

FDR was enormously influenced by this, and afraid. I mean, his intervention was to save capitalism. It wasn't to basically appease the workers. And I think that today you don't have those movements.

Franklin Roosevelt was a great leader. He saw how to use the levers of power to affect change.

By 1939, the Depression was back. Unemployment was huge. Roosevelt didn't have any quick fix. Remember, the New Deal, Works Progress Administration, and Civilian Conservation Corps - all that happened years before. Roosevelt was riding a storm.

They do not say Roosevelt saved our system. They say he has given us a new one. That is logical.

I don't want to go negative on Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but he didn't pass an economic deal in the first 100 days. We have passed the largest Recovery Act in the history of the country.

I have always found Franklin Delano Roosevelt an amusing fellow, but I would not employ him, except for reasons of personal friendships, as a geek in a common carnival.

The New Deal was a socialist revolution.

Meeting Franklin Delano Roosevelt for the first time was like having your first bottle of Champaign.

I ascribe the New Deal as important almost on a par with the French Revolution – not merely an important event in the history of the United States, but the most important event in the history of the United States.

To cut 1930s jobless, FDR taxed corps and rich. Govt used money to hire many millions. Worked then; would now again. Why no debate on that?

Americans are conservative. What they want to conserve is the New Deal.

We should honor Franklin Delano Roosevelt today as the greatest commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in our history, bar none - including President Lincoln.

But no one can praise Roosevelt for doing this and then insist that he restored our traditional political and economic systems to their former vitality.

There was endless controversy as to whether the acts of the New Deal did actually move recovery or retard it, and nothing final could ever come of that bitter debate because it is forever impossible to prove what might have happened in place of what did.