No, of course FDR didn't cause the Depression (just extended it).
He was a commie in the 30s and early 40s, despite the fact he never sent anyone to the Gulag (kinda the defining aspect of Communism in the 30s and early 40s)
If you want to be pedantic about what is and what isn't Communism, you could at least break out the Manifesto because I can think of a lot of ideological nitpicks that you could put in advance of "did not establish a gulag"
Why would I do that?
Communism is a living political movement. It is defined, not by the words on a page, but what actual human beings who believe in the movement think the words mean. In FDR's era that was being a Vanguard party and frequent purges of opponents of the Revolution. If you were speaking about an Italian from 1970 it would be completely different.
Using it the way you're using it is like claiming Dubya actually wanted to murder the entire House of Windsor out of revenge for the Famine, or that he was identical to Saddam because all use the label "Republican."
Even if you were using word on a page, the fact that he didn't foment a bloody Revolution, ushering in a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is enough to prove that anyone who claims he was Communist in that sense is more then a little deranged.
the business community fought him tooth and nail the whole way ... but he enriched his friends in business, etc.
Yeah, go read about the National Recovery Administration. Essentially they suspended antitrust law if you adopted a certain minimum wage. Clarence Darrow (of Scopes Monkey Trial fame) briefly headed up the National Recovery Review Board, a body which issued a few nice reports on how effectively this crushed smaller businesses, and was then promptly dissolved. You could try reading one or two. (Of course the Supreme Court found the act establishing the administration unconstitutional, leading to the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, an utterly transparent attempt to pack the Supreme Court.) The Montgomery Ward incident, incidentally, was much much later, in 1944, during the war.
You know what Communists do when the Court rules against them? Shoot the court. That's kind of the defining aspect of Communism. Capitalism is inherently unfair, the system is stacked against us, therefore we must have a Revolution to destroy the system. There's no pacifism in the Manifesto.
You can accuse somebody who uses a legal procedure to try to pack the Court of being a Social Democrat and a hardass, but accusing them of being Communist is just not sensible. It's ad hominem for ad hominem's sake, it exposes you as intellectually bankrupt, and worst of all it's fukcing boring.
I mean you're using fucking ad hominem. At least be creative about you juvenile leaf-brained smeller of other people's farts.
but then it was never sold as a way to reduce overall costs.
Hahahhahahahahahahhaha... let's see what Google can say on the topic in the next 15 seconds... Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to "improve it." -- Politico, 8/9/2010. (I'm sure I could find more coverage in the event that you don't think Politico's worth the paper it's printed on.)
Reread your source. Scratch that, read your source.
It says nothing about what the White House said the plan would do. It it so far removed from the White House that it's impossible to describe in a single clause. A Think Tank supporting the White House was urging people to stop saying "it will cut costs." To those actually involved in the movement cut costs is a well-known shorthand to say "reduce cost growth," and if any voter had asked the hypothetical Congressman about what cutting costs meant that's what he would have said.
Now if you were an adult you would have started out arguing that the plan was over-sold, and that a really stupid voter who refused to ask that question could come away with the impression that overall costs would actually drop if he's listened to this particular Congressman. And I would have agreed, and pointed out that this is fucking politics, and they all over-simplify and over-sell their programs.
Remember that time Iraq was going to be a paradise of Jeffersonian Democracy and staunch ally of the Israelis? Or the time tax cuts were going to make so much growth that a 2008-style economic collapse would hardly be noticed? Or the time when the House was going to raise the Social Security tax to fund individual retirement accounts, thus ushering in a utopian era of Libertarian-approved Retirement schemes? None of those little summaries is less distorted then your ridiculous claim anyone argued that ObamaCare would actually reduce total costs.