1. It's not my argument. You're not quoting ME. You're quoting my quote.So let me get this straight. You are arguing that Hoover caused the great depression, in order to prove that Roosevelt was bad? I think you lost track of your own thesis. That said, I agree with you that Hoover's approach was misguided and harmful. I also agree with @DBM that Roosevelt's approach was important for reasons far beyond economics. He literally saved this country from communism, but is ironically now called a communist by misguided right wing ideologues.
2. It looks like the argument is that the great depression was due to government intervention that was meant to help the economy, but instead had the opposite effects as intended. The intervention was started by Hoover and continued by Roosevelt.
Nothing about communism in this specific quote, just the state of the economy. Both points can be true, although I have less knowledge about the communism piece unless you're referring to WW2 (then yes, of course). He could have saved us from communism in the 1940's while also unintentionally keeping the economy depressed in the 1930's. The whole premise though is that most of us believe the stock market crash kicked off the great depression, except it turns out the economy seemed to be fixing itself over the subsequent 12 months and it wasn't until government got more involved (we're here to help!) that everything fell to pieces and unemployment shot through the roof.
While stats can be misrepresented, this is based on very simple stats regarding a very simple premise. What were the monthly (published, widely available) unemployment rates leading up to the stock market crash, in the 12 months after the crash, and then in every subsequent month of the 1930's? These are apples to apples, very straightforward stats.
It's not like, say, comparing household income instead of individual income while intentionally neglecting to mention that the size of these average households has been steadily decreasing for decades. Individual per capita income tells a very different story from household income. However, those with an agenda will use household income without making the obvious acknowledgement that multiplying by 2.53 people per household (2020) will probably yield a lower number than multiplying by 3.33 people per household from earlier decades (1960 for 3.33). Here's a graph showing those numbers.
Here's an article with similar (although a tiny bit different) numbers, with a graph near the top that shows the same ongoing decline from earlier decades. That graph starts too far in the past but the point remains that the average US household size is only between 75-80% of how large it was in the 1960's.
This decade will likely be the first since the one that began in 1850 to break a long-running decline in American household size.
So while stats can clearly be misrepresented, I have a hard time seeing how comparing the national unemployment rate across time could be skewed in the same manner as the above.