The Cry Wolf Quote Bank chronicles the false predictions and hyperbole by opponents of these laws and protections. While the issues and specific policies change over time, the rhetoric and themes remained the same. You can search the Quote Bank for what opponents said to prevent these laws from passing. Using the drop down menus on the right their statements by issue, by specific law, by who said it and by the core themes they evoke. Elsewhere on the site, you can find articles, studies, and other material that debunks their claims.
There were many reasons why many of us who ordinarily would not like regimentation of industry—and we do not like regimentation of agriculture or any of the other instrumentalities of production—saw reasons under the emergency why it should be done, as an emergency say. But none of the reasons for which that was done in that character of industry holds good for any bill that will lead to a regimentation of American citizens, to say what he shall do with his individual home.
I am not speaking officially for any organization of women but my experience with these groups covering a period of 25 years gives me a very fair idea of the reactions of the women of the Nation to any plan that even suggests regimentation or standardization of their homes. This is also the thought of president of the General Federation of Women’s Clubs who said in a public address of the 11th of this month: ‘We want no standardization of homes, we want individualism, and we sound that note of warning to the Government in our cooperation with them.’
…the bill holds little or no relief for the home owner and threatens real harm to the home-owning family.
Taken as a whole, the effect of the creation of the insurance corporation is to put the Government directly into the lending business, not only for the repair of homes, but for the installation of frigidaires, water heaters, and other equipment, and as to which there would be no lien whatever. Furthermore, it puts the Government directly into the business of lending as much as 80 percent for the construction of new homes, and an unlimited percent for low-cost housing. The practical application of this act would be to drive existing lending institutions out of business; and by reason of loans where there is no security, will mean untold losses to the Government.
…we object to the bill on the ground that there is no limitation of interest to be charged to home owners by agencies that enjoy the benefit of the act at the expense of all taxpayers, including the victimized home owners.
…we are convinced that first and most fundamental, the bill sets up machinery which leads straight for Federal regimentation of American home-buying, home building, home finance, and home repair.
New York State’s past independent pioneering activities in social legislation, while commendable in many respects…have already produced discriminatory differentials between the cost of doing business in New York and such costs in neighboring States [sic]. We can see no justification for deliberately increasing those differentials at this time by continuance of such pioneering.
…we are going on the theory that it will create jobs. It will not. We shall create jobs only by giving confidence to people who are in a position to hire other people.
We feel that it is not in the public interest to require any and all information respecting the business of any bank be made a public record, and ask that the banks be required to submit information to the Federal Reserve Board only that such information be given confidential status, subject to the discretion of the Federal Reserve Board.
The fundamental objection to the whole plan is that it is based on the false assumption, not merely that the world owes every man a living, but that employees in industry owe a living to every person who chances to be employed in that or any other industry.
