Dwight Eisenhower and the Oil Industry

[Guest Richard Bittikofer]

John: You've got that right. This guy IS the new Tim Gratz. Only Tim also had a brain and did not believe the WC got it correct.

This guy's gotta do some reading. And lose the caps.

Dawn

Dawn I lost all the caps. I have read about this subject and collected everything I could get my hands on for 43 years. I want to believe there was a conspiracy, I want to disprove the Warren Report, change my mind, show me the evidence to prove otherwise. But,the evidence just isn't there. First day evidence has all the cards stacked against Oswald.

[Myra Bronstein]

It should also be pointed out that in his memoirs, while discussing the corrosive influence of oil money on American politics, Eisenhower told the story of one Senator whose oil businessman son was offered business deals in an attempt to sway the father. The Senator? Eisenhower's golf buddy, Prescott Bush. The son? George H. W. Bush.

As far as the value of Eisenhower's land going up, that may have been a coincidence. Eisenhower's farm was built near the Gettysburg battlefield. The increase in land value may have been related to the rapid commercialization of the area in the fifties. On the other hand, maybe not. In Dark Victory, Dan Moldea discusses a similar sweetheart land deal created for Reagan by his supporters. It smelled to high heaven. Of course, Nixon had his Hughes loan and his FLA and CA houses and the Clintons had their Whitewater fiasco.

Perhaps Presidents and Governors should be prohibited from making real estate transactions while in office. Perhaps the SEC should investigate real estate transactions as well as stock transactions.

The "Whitewater fiasco" amounted to nothing. Zero, zilch.

It was one of the many Scaife funded attacks on Clinton (Ref "The Hunting of the President"). After years of harrassment it became obvious that it was a small land deal that the Clintons lost money on.

In addition it occured prior to Clinton's presidency.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Myra Bronstein

[Myra Bronstein]

In 1950 Dwight Eisenhower had purchased a small farm for $24,000. According to Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson (The Case Against Congress), several oil millionaires, including W. Alton Jones, B. B. Byers and George E. Allen, began acquiring neighbouring land for Eisenhower. Jonathan Kwitny (Endless Enemies) has argued that over the next few years Eisenhower's land became worth over $1 million: "Most of the difference represented the gifts of Texas oil executives connected to Rockefeller oil interests. The oilmen acquired surrounding land for Eisenhower under dummy names, filled it with livestock and big, modern barns, paid for extensive renovations to the Eisenhower house, and even wrote out checks to pay the hired help."

In 1956 there was an attempt to end all federal price control over natural gas. Sam Rayburn played an important role in getting it through the House of Representatives. This is not surprising as according to John Connally, he alone had been responsible for a million and a half dollars of lobbying.

Paul Douglas and William Langer led the fight against the bill. Their campaigned was helped by a speech by Francis Case of South Dakota. Up until this time Case had been a supporter of the bill. However, he announced that he had been offered a $25,000 bribe by the Superior Oil Company to guarantee his vote. As a man of principal, he thought he should announce this fact to the Senate.

Lyndon B. Johnson responded by claiming that Case had himself come under pressure to make this statement by people who wanted to retain federal price controls. Johnson argued: “In all my twenty-five years in Washington I have never seen a campaign of intimidation equal to the campaign put on by the opponents of this bill.” Johnson pushed on with the bill and it was eventually passed by 53 votes to 38. However, three days later, Dwight D. Eisenhower, vetoed the bill on grounds of immoral lobbying. Eisenhower confided in his diary that this had been “the most flagrant kind of lobbying that has been brought to my attention”. He added that there was a “great stench around the passing of this bill” and the people involved were “so arrogant and so much in defiance of acceptable standards of propriety as to risk creating doubt among the American people concerning the integrity of governmental processes”.

The decision by Dwight D. Eisenhower to veto this bill angered the oil industry. Once again Sid Richardson and Clint Murchison began negotiations with Eisenhower. In June, 1957, Eisenhower agreed to appoint their man, Robert Anderson, as his Secretary of the Treasury. According to Robert Sherrill in his book, The Accidental President: "A few weeks later Anderson was appointed to a cabinet committee to "study" the oil import situation; out of this study came the present-day program which benefits the major oil companies, the international oil giants primarily, by about one billion dollars a year."

According to Jonathan Kwitny (Endless Enemies) from 1955 to 1963, the Richardson, Murchison, and Rockefeller interests (arranged by John McCloy) and the International Basic Economy Corporation (100% owned by the Rockefeller family) gave "away a $900,000 slice of their Texas-Louisiana oil property" to Robert B. Anderson, Eisenhower's Secretary of the Treasury.

This is excellent info John. Thank you!

So Eisenhower had a diary eh? That's significant.

Ok, so the timing of this post is excellent. I'm researching the Nixon/(Eisenhower) era. If I had to summarize it briefly I'd say:

Eisenhower was a relatively decent fellow (more so than Truman). But he was sick a lot with at least one serious heart attack (presumably not CIA induced...?...Did Ike have heart trouble before his "presidency"?) and strokes (?). And he was a tad lazy and preferred a game of golf with Senator Prescott Bush to presidential biz.

He also trusted the wrong people. Prescott Bush convinced him to run for president (I haven't found solid sources for this though--anyone know of some?) and got Nixon in the VP slot. The Eisenhower "presidency" was actually a co-presidency between "VP" Nixon (with Prescott pulling the strings for the CIA), and Sect of State John Foster Dulles dictating foreign policy (with brother Allen pulling more strings for the CIA). However, Eisenhower was aware and complicit enough to approve the CIA crimes in Guatamala and Iran etc.

Once the CIA poisoned his overt foreign policy by sabatoging the U-2 spy plane and letting Eisenhower make a fool of himself denying it to Khrushchev and the world, Eisenhower realized he'd created Frankenstein's monster and left office with his military-industrial-complex warning speech to the nation. Good luck Mr. Kennedy; you try to clean up the impossible lethal mess Truman and I left you.

Any additions/subtractions to/from the thumbnail summary?

[Myra Bronstein]

HOLD ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONE THREAD AFTER THE OTHER , YOU PEOPLE KNOCK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.......DON'T BELIEVE ME? GO BACK AND READ PREVIOUS THREADS!!!!!!! IT'S ONE CONSPIRACY AFTER THE OTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED NOVEMBER 22,1963 ALSO.............. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!!!!!!! NOT THIS CRAP ABOUT HARRY TRUMAN BOMBING HIROSHIMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1THE FORUM NAME IS THE JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE! NOT RUNNING THE USA DOWN!!!!!!! YES I'M PISSED OFF! AMERICA NEEDS TO PULL BACK AND STAY OUT OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE REST OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND THE MINUTE SOMETHING SOMETHING GOES WRONG.. THE WORLD CRIES OUT WHERE IS AMERICA...NO MORE AMERICAN BLOOD FOR ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This forum is also about connecting dots Richard. The dots go back at least to 1933-FDR's presidency, when nazi Prescott Bush (father of one of JFK's murderers), and his American Liberty League, tried to murder FDR and wage a military coup (thwarted by Marine General Smedley D. Butler--genuine 'mercan hero) to oust the US government.

The Bushes have been waging war on elected presidents, committing treason, and stealing elections ever since. There is not one presidency since FDR's that has not been contaminated by the Bush Crime Family and the Dulles brother's CIA. The events of Nov 22, 1963--when they finally succeeded in a coup--created the situation we are currently in wherein yet another Bush is having their fascist way with the world.

I personally am much more interested in the big picture than in which cowardly thug hid behind a...bush...to wack President Kennedy (what you presumably consider "sticking to the point"). I want to know who was in the ruling class was that hired the shooters. Nov 22, 1963 did not happen in a vacuum.

This is a huge consipiracy and cover-up spanning decades. If you dont or wont see that I wonder what you'd get out of this forum.

[Myra Bronstein]

Man. Looks to me like the recent exposures in the forum have really hit a nerve somewhere.

Ashton

[/quote]EXPOSURES!!!!!!!!! IF YOU PEOPLE HAVE A CASE FOR A CONSPIRACY AND THE PROOF OF IT! TAKE IT TO THE WORLD COURT...........I'VE HEARD THE SAME CRAP FOR 43 YEARS!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME A PHOTO OF A SHOT FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL??? TAKE IT TO SCOTLAND YARD! YOU DON'T TRUST AMERICA......ALL I'M SAYING ........IS SHOW ME THE PROOF.......EVERYONE HAS SEEN UFO'S!!!!!!! BUT ? CAN THEY SHOW YOU FILM FOOTAGE OR A CRASHED UFO?????? YOUR TRYING TO PICK GNAT xxxx OUT OF A BOWL OF PEPPER WHEN YOU CONDEM EVERY USA PRESIDENT FROM HARRY TRUMAN TO G.W. BUSH........FOR THE MURDER OF JFK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ASHTON GREY....YOU DIDN'T HIT A NERVE..MAYBE YOUR ANOTHER ONE WHO IS TRYING TO PROFIT FROM THE DEATH OF JFK!!!!!!!!!THE GREATER QUESTION IS!////???? WHO IS JOHN SIMKIN WORKING FOR?????????????? AND BY THE WAY'THIS FORUM IS ONE SIDED???????????????????????????????????

Hee hee! It already went to court. The jury decided that the CIA did in fact murder President Kennedy. E. Howard Hunt Vs. The Liberty Lobby was the case name, Mark Lane was the winning attorney and he wrote a book about it called "Plausible Denial."

Why are you demanding proof that's already been provided? Sounds like you just aren't willing to find or acknowledge the truth, even though it's easy to find on the web.

[Terry Mauro]

Typical 'liberal" revisionist trying to rewrite history!

My posts are ridiculous! Where have you been? The Warren Commission solved this case in Sept. 1964. A Blue Ribbon panel appointed by the Honorable Lyndon Baines Johnson! For 43 years one conspiracy breeds another conspiracy. People in trees shooting,the magic bullet,tampering with the Zapruder film,George Bush involved,umbrella man,badge man,radio man,cia,mafia,and the list goes on. And why does it continue? People cannot accept the fact that one indivdual on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository murdered JFK. Prove me wrong. Show me the evidence.

!1

For starters, you should consider reading some books on the subject... For starters, I'd recommend "Breach of Trust" by Gerald McKnight. This will help give perspective on what the Warren Commission was really chartered to do. I'll give you a hint, though. It wasn't to "solve the case."

But now, some questions for you:

There have been two government "investigations" into the JFK. One said LHO acted alone, a second one indicated that LHO was involved, but there was substantial evidence of conspiracy. Which one got it right? Both? Neither? Like I said,show me the proof.

Secondly, if you've got it all figured out, why are you here?

The Warren Report has stood the test of time! I didn't figure it out,the CIA,FBI,Dallas police,and the Warren Commission figured it out.

*******************************************************

"My posts are ridiculous!"

Yes they are, numbnuts.

"The Warren Report has stood the test of time! I didn't figure it out,the CIA,FBI,Dallas police,and the Warren Commission figured it out."

It's a xxxxx-call Alert and another CLYDE AWARD

[Myra Bronstein]

WHO IS JOHN SIMKIN WORKING FOR?????????????? AND BY THE WAY'THIS FORUM IS ONE SIDED???????????????????????????????????

I work for myself. In fact, I am a fairly successful capitalist. My income comes from the advertising that appears on my website. My sponsors therefore are often the corporations that I am attacking. Isn’t the web wonderful?

What are my motivations? This is what appeared in the Times yesterday:

“Governments perpetually try to keep secrets from the public” says John Simkin. They call it national security but in reality, it’s an attempt to cover up illegal or immoral activities. I’m just being an active citizen. I don’t like being misled and the Kennedy assassination is an incredible case of the public being misled.”

Yes I am biased (subjective) in my comments. We all are. So are you, although you hide behind the label of “patriotic American” you are probably a right-wing Republican. Anyway, that does not matter, as long as you can logical argue your case.

Nor am I anti-American. I am just against corruption. See for example my thread on the corruption of Tony Blair.

Therefore, what did I get wrong about Eisenhower’s dealings with the oil industry? If I didn’t get anything wrong, why are you not concerned about corrupt politicians and businessmen? The large number of Americans on the forum are concerned about this corruption. They are the real patriotic Americans.

Furthermore Americans need the European perspective. We don't get real news here, especially about the Kennedy assinationS and government lies. So we have to import real news. Thanks again to the CIA and their very successful Operation Mockingbird.

You need to learn real history Richard. That's ok, we all do. Just don't expect it from the mainstream media or official approved packaged homogenized history books.

[Pat Speer]

Myra, do you have a link or a source on your statement that Prescott Bush was involved in the potential coup reported by Smedley Butler?

Richard, have you ever looked at the medical evidence? If so, since you think everything adds up just fine, where did the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 enter the President's skull? Why did a subsequent panel decided the autopsists were wrong? Tonight, Fox news is running a special on the forensic evidence. Evidently they concluded it doesn't add up. Perhaps you should take a look.

Ashton, how many CIA apologists admit it's likely that prominent CIA officers were involved in his murder?

[Terry Mauro]

HOLD ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONE THREAD AFTER THE OTHER , YOU PEOPLE KNOCK THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.......DON'T BELIEVE ME? GO BACK AND READ PREVIOUS THREADS!!!!!!! IT'S ONE CONSPIRACY AFTER THE OTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED NOVEMBER 22,1963 ALSO.............. STICK TO THE SUBJECT!!!!!!! NOT THIS CRAP ABOUT HARRY TRUMAN BOMBING HIROSHIMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1THE FORUM NAME IS THE JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE! NOT RUNNING THE USA DOWN!!!!!!! YES I'M PISSED OFF! AMERICA NEEDS TO PULL BACK AND STAY OUT OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE REST OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND THE MINUTE SOMETHING SOMETHING GOES WRONG.. THE WORLD CRIES OUT WHERE IS AMERICA...NO MORE AMERICAN BLOOD FOR ANYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This forum is also about connecting dots Richard. The dots go back at least to 1933-FDR's presidency, when nazi Prescott Bush (father of one of JFK's murderers), and his American Liberty League, tried to murder FDR and wage a military coup (thwarted by Marine General Smedley D. Butler--genuine 'mercan hero) to oust the US government.

The Bushes have been waging war on elected presidents, committing treason, and stealing elections ever since. There is not one presidency since FDR's that has not been contaminated by the Bush Crime Family and the Dulles brother's CIA. The events of Nov 22, 1963--when they finally succeeded in a coup--created the situation we are currently in wherein yet another Bush is having their fascist way with the world.

I personally am much more interested in the big picture than in which cowardly thug hid behind a...bush...to wack President Kennedy (what you presumably consider "sticking to the point"). I want to know who was in the ruling class was that hired the shooters. Nov 22, 1963 did not happen in a vacuum.

This is a huge consipiracy and cover-up spanning decades. If you dont or wont see that I wonder what you'd get out of this forum.

***************************************************************

"This forum is also about connecting dots Richard. The dots go back at least to 1933-FDR's presidency, when nazi Prescott Bush (father of one of JFK's murderers), and his American Liberty League, tried to murder FDR and wage a military coup (thwarted by Marine General Smedley D. Butler--genuine 'mercan hero) to oust the US government.

The Bushes have been waging war on elected presidents, committing treason, and stealing elections ever since. There is not one presidency since FDR's that has not been contaminated by the Bush Crime Family and the Dulles brother's CIA. The events of Nov 22, 1963--when they finally succeeded in a coup--created the situation we are currently in wherein yet another Bush is having their fascist way with the world.

I personally am much more interested in the big picture than in which cowardly thug hid behind a...bush...to wack President Kennedy (what you presumably consider "sticking to the point"). I want to know who was in the ruling class was that hired the shooters. Nov 22, 1963 did not happen in a vacuum.

This is a huge consipiracy and cover-up spanning decades. If you dont or wont see that I wonder what you'd get out of this forum."

YESSSS!!! And, that's an "atta boy," for you, Myra!

[Myra Bronstein]

Myra, do you have a link or a source on your statement that Prescott Bush was involved in the potential coup reported by Smedley Butler?

Richard, have you ever looked at the medical evidence? If so, since you think everything adds up just fine, where did the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 enter the President's skull? Why did a subsequent panel decided the autopsists were wrong? Tonight, Fox news is running a special on the forensic evidence. Evidently they concluded it doesn't add up. Perhaps you should take a look.

Ashton, how many CIA apologists admit it's likely that prominent CIA officers were involved in his murder?

Huh? Is Ashton saying I'm a CIA apologist? Oh yeah, I heart the CIA.

Pat, I'm convinced that Prescott was part of the American Liberty League behind the 1933 coup attempt, but I'm looking for the same evidence you are. Smedley Butler supposedly listed the people involved, and I can't find Prescott in the lists.

As far as I know John Buchanan has done the most pointed reporting on it. I really don't know how credible he is but I think he helped find docs confirming the Prescott/Nazi link. Here's some stuff mentioning the 1933 caper (same year as the Reichstag fire?...) and Prescott:

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f481.html

"Among the most substantively interesting of John’s recent discoveries is the fact that Prescott Bush was an early financier of the Liberty League, a domestic fascist organization that was the primary element in the 1934 fascist plot to overthrow President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (For more about the 1934 coup attempt, see—among other programs—FTR#’s 448, 475.)"

If he really proved that link, with Prescott financially supporting the American Liberty League, that's huge.

Among his info is this video on youtube.

He is very specific about Prescott's role in the attempted overthow of FDR here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MTzfi7SJ-Kk

He says he has testimony from the McCormack-Dickstein committee about the ALL's plans for a hitler style fascism after they killed FDR. If we can find that testimony, or proof of Prescott's funding of the ALL...oh yeah. I'll keep looking. I'm adding "McCormack-Dickstein " to my search strings on the subject.

How do you feel about Rense? I'm really asking. They have lots of good info but I don't know about their credibility. Anyway, there's this:

http://www.rense.com/general66/butler.htm

Well this isn't much but I'm still looking. If you find better evidence please let me know.

Myra, do you have a link or a source on your statement that Prescott Bush was involved in the potential coup reported by Smedley Butler?

Richard, have you ever looked at the medical evidence? If so, since you think everything adds up just fine, where did the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 enter the President's skull? Why did a subsequent panel decided the autopsists were wrong? Tonight, Fox news is running a special on the forensic evidence. Evidently they concluded it doesn't add up. Perhaps you should take a look.

Ashton, how many CIA apologists admit it's likely that prominent CIA officers were involved in his murder?

Pat, can I get your input on the rest of my Eisenhower premise? I ask since you seem to share my opinion the Eisenhower was a fundementally decent guy who fell in with a bad crowd and well...oops.

But I'd really like input from anyone/everyone (almost ) on my summary.

[Ashton Gray]

Huh? Is Ashton saying I'm a CIA apologist?

Please don't feed the trolls.

Ashton

[Myra Bronstein]

Huh? Is Ashton saying I'm a CIA apologist?

Please don't feed the trolls.

Ashton

Well, good line Ashton. But what exactly are you saying?

[Ashton Gray]

Huh? Is Ashton saying I'm a CIA apologist?

Please don't feed the trolls.

Ashton

Well, good line Ashton. But what exactly are you saying?

1) You were responding to a rhetorical question asked to me, simply for effect, by a person who knows well that I don't respond to his asinine trolling at all.

2) If I ever want to say you are "a CIA apologist," you won't have to ask anybody else whether I did or not. Trust me.

3) You were asking the resident CIA apologist, who by his rhetorical question, of course, was making the case that he is not. On that subject, here is just one quote of note (and you can do any more research on this point yourself if you choose):

Having recently read McCloy's HSCA testimony, along with much of the Executive Session testimony, I must admit I now believe that McCloy and Dulles were both committed patriots trying to do a good job.

It just warms my heart. How about yours?

Ashton

Edited November 20, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Myra Bronstein]

Huh? Is Ashton saying I'm a CIA apologist?

Please don't feed the trolls.

Ashton

Well, good line Ashton. But what exactly are you saying?

1) You were responding to a rhetorical question asked to me, simply for effect, by a person who knows well that I don't respond to his asinine trolling at all.

2) If I ever want to say you are "a CIA apologist," you won't have to ask anybody else whether I did or not. Trust me.

3) You were asking the resident CIA apologist, who by his rhetorical question, of course, was making the case that he is not. On that subject, here is just one quote of note (and you can do any more research on this point yourself if you choose):

Having recently read McCloy's HSCA testimony, along with much of the Executive Session testimony, I must admit I now believe that McCloy and Dulles were both committed patriots trying to do a good job.

It just warms my heart. How about yours?

Ashton

Oh, sorry Ashton. I read too much into the context. Thanks for clarifying.

>"Having recently read McCloy's HSCA testimony, along with much of the Executive Session testimony,

>I must admit I now believe that McCloy and Dulles were both committed patriots trying to do a good job."

"It just warms my heart. How about yours?

Ashton"

Oh...

Oh dear.

Oh good lord.

Ok, so back to Eisenhower, I feel that he may not have been above taking a few favors, like those John described (and needless to say Johnson was a lying thug), and letting the spooks go way too far. But he didn't grasp the true scope and depths of the evil he was dealing with in terms of Nixon, Dulles brothers, CIA, Prescott Bush, etc. And the U-2 episode was the eye-opener, but it was too late.

Anyone agree, disagree?

Edited November 20, 2006 by Myra Bronstein

[Terry Mauro]

Huh? Is Ashton saying I'm a CIA apologist?

Please don't feed the trolls.

Ashton

Well, good line Ashton. But what exactly are you saying?

1) You were responding to a rhetorical question asked to me, simply for effect, by a person who knows well that I don't respond to his asinine trolling at all.

2) If I ever want to say you are "a CIA apologist," you won't have to ask anybody else whether I did or not. Trust me.

3) You were asking the resident CIA apologist, who by his rhetorical question, of course, was making the case that he is not. On that subject, here is just one quote of note (and you can do any more research on this point yourself if you choose):

Having recently read McCloy's HSCA testimony, along with much of the Executive Session testimony, I must admit I now believe that McCloy and Dulles were both committed patriots trying to do a good job.

It just warms my heart. How about yours?

Ashton

Oh, sorry Ashton. I read too much into the context. Thanks for clarifying.

>"Having recently read McCloy's HSCA testimony, along with much of the Executive Session testimony,

>I must admit I now believe that McCloy and Dulles were both committed patriots trying to do a good job."

"It just warms my heart. How about yours?

Ashton"

Oh...

Oh dear.

Oh good lord.

Ok, so back to Eisenhower, I feel that he may not have been above taking a few favors, like those John described (and needless to say Johnson was a lying thug), and letting the spooks go way too far. But he didn't grasp the true scope and depths of the evil he was dealing with in terms of Nixon, Dulles brothers, CIA, Prescott Bush, etc. And the U-2 episode was the eye-opener, but it was too late.

Anyone agree, disagree?

**********************************************************

"But he didn't grasp the true scope and depths of the evil he was dealing with in terms of Nixon, Dulles brothers, CIA, Prescott Bush, etc. And the U-2 episode was the eye-opener, but it was too late."

But, he apparently did in his final State Of The Union Address, where he warned America and the in-coming Kennedy administration of the Military Industrial Complex. His presidential veto had largely been ignored and overruled by the Chiefs of Staff, and after turning the keys of the White House over to Kennedy, in so many words, advised him to watch his back with regard to the Bay of Pigs operation. This is from the book of William Manchester's, "One Brief Shining Moment."

Eisenhower was a West Point career military man, like MacArthur, and the American people trusted him and needed him to be their leader in the decade following WW II. The 50's have often been touted as the most prosperous for the U.S. industrially, with that proverbial "chicken in every pot" everyone longed for during the Great Depression years of the 1930's. Well, that almost became a reality for everyone. FDR's New Deal no doubt helped pave the path for the stability and certainly for the burgeoning middle-class that blossomed during the halcyon days of the 50's and early 60's.