1934 Cartoon That Resonates Once Again

[Ravi]

The question we should ask ourselves now is give how wrong the conservatives back then were, why should we think the conservatives of today are somehow right?

Bingo.

 

[amrchaos]

"In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed."

"Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “ The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78%."
"In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
Michael Medved, "The 10 Big Lies About America"

You might want to check your source, if it claims that at the darkest days unemployment was at 17%. It doesn't seem to be a very accurate source.

At its darkest days, just at the time FDR took office, unemployment was a 25%.

14% or even 17% unemployment is not great but it's a lot better than 25%.

You might want to check you spectacles. "...in some of the darkest days..." does not indicate a date.

"...at the darkest days ..." would be a specific occasion.

To put a fine point on it, the FDR New Deal did not bring down unemployment, beyond the point indicated. Further, at no point was it below 14%.

And, it is unemployment, not GDP that would indicate success or failure of the program. Do you know how picked this indicator? FDR did.

March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

Hold it PC

Did not the New deal include The WPA, which employed millions of people during the 1930's?

So If the WPA were not present, would that not have made the unemployment rate even worst because the only other other economic sectors that employed was Crime!! Not the legal private sector--the illegal private sector.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You might want to check your source, if it claims that at the darkest days unemployment was at 17%. It doesn't seem to be a very accurate source.

At its darkest days, just at the time FDR took office, unemployment was a 25%.

14% or even 17% unemployment is not great but it's a lot better than 25%.

You might want to check you spectacles. "...in some of the darkest days..." does not indicate a date.

"...at the darkest days ..." would be a specific occasion.

To put a fine point on it, the FDR New Deal did not bring down unemployment, beyond the point indicated. Further, at no point was it below 14%.

And, it is unemployment, not GDP that would indicate success or failure of the program. Do you know how picked this indicator? FDR did.

March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

Hold it PC

Did not the New deal include The WPA, which employed millions of people during the 1930's?

So If the WPA were not present, would that not have made the unemployment rate even worst because the only other other economic sectors that employed was Crime!! Not the legal private sector--the illegal private sector.

Good thinking, but if we want to put all the folks back to work, there was, historically shown, a much better way:

Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.
As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm

 

[Father Time]

Liberal Playbook, er, Pamphlet page one: attack the source since it is not possible to refute the point.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/72942-conservatives.html#post1133125

Useful isn't it?

Take your time, and answer if you can:
1- Seven years into FDR's New Deal, was unemployment as low as the 17.4% under Hoover?
2- Did Arthur Schlesinger, no Conservative write that the Collapse of 1937 was more severe than the first months of the depression?
3- Did Brookings find that the New Deal 'retarded recovery'?

Either show the error in the above, or recant.
Defend or withdraw.

1. Is clearly statistics out of context as you can tell from the graph, It went down, then it went up then it went down again. Now look at the dates he compares.

I betcha I can find findings that contradict 2 and 3 but I'd rather not play dueling historical sources, although I wonder why you didn't just quote brookings.

And you admit that the 17.4% was true seven years into the New Deal?

So you are humbly admitting to being in error on each and every point?

Don’t hurt your back while backing out of my presence.

I never denied it.

 

[Iriemon]

"In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundred s of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed."

"Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “ The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78%."
"In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
Michael Medved, "The 10 Big Lies About America"

You might want to check your source, if it claims that at the darkest days unemployment was at 17%. It doesn't seem to be a very accurate source.

At its darkest days, just at the time FDR took office, unemployment was a 25%.

14% or even 17% unemployment is not great but it's a lot better than 25%.

You might want to check you spectacles. "...in some of the darkest days..." does not indicate a date.

"...at the darkest days ..." would be a specific occasion.

Well fair enough. But an implication that when comparing unemployment rates and talking about "the darkest days" would be that that was went unemployment was at its worst. Otherwise, to compare an unemployment level that was not at its worst to a later date to make the argument that FDR's programs had no effect would be misleading. Which IMO the article was in that respect.

To put a fine point on it, the FDR New Deal did not bring down unemployment, beyond the point indicated. Further, at no point was it below 14%.

While as a causal statement your point is arguable, as a temporal matter it is absolutely false. Unemployment fell from about 25% when FDR took office.

Great Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, it is unemployment, not GDP that would indicate success or failure of the program. Do you know who picked this indicator? FDR did.

March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

Folks frequently use both.

On area of the New Deal I think you'd have an argument kept unemployment higher were programs designed to prop up wages for workers. While it was no don't true that wage levels were low, given the overall depression, this probably hurt the overall employment picture, even while the economy was growing well.

Obama's administration is not pursuing a wage enhancement policy to deal with the economic crisis this time around.

 

[Sinatra]

Liberal Playbook, er, Pamphlet page one: attack the source since it is not possible to refute the point.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/72942-conservatives.html#post1133125

Useful isn't it?

Take your time, and answer if you can:
1- Seven years into FDR's New Deal, was unemployment as low as the 17.4% under Hoover?
2- Did Arthur Schlesinger, no Conservative write that the Collapse of 1937 was more severe than the first months of the depression?
3- Did Brookings find that the New Deal 'retarded recovery'?

Either show the error in the above, or recant.
Defend or withdraw.

1. Is clearly statistics out of context as you can tell from the graph, It went down, then it went up then it went down again. Now look at the dates he compares.

I betcha I can find findings that contradict 2 and 3 but I'd rather not play dueling historical sources, although I wonder why you didn't just quote brookings.

And you admit that the 17.4% was true seven years into the New Deal?

So you are humbly admitting to being in error on each and every point?

Don’t hurt your back while backing out of my presence.

Once again, GAME-SET-MATCH for PC.

Sadly there remain a few leftists in here who fail to understand or choose to ignore your strong grasp of fact and your clear way of presenting it - but the vast majority do.

Keep up the good fight!

 

[Iriemon]

You might want to check you spectacles. "...in some of the darkest days..." does not indicate a date.

"...at the darkest days ..." would be a specific occasion.

To put a fine point on it, the FDR New Deal did not bring down unemployment, beyond the point indicated. Further, at no point was it below 14%.

And, it is unemployment, not GDP that would indicate success or failure of the program. Do you know how picked this indicator? FDR did.

March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

Hold it PC

Did not the New deal include The WPA, which employed millions of people during the 1930's?

So If the WPA were not present, would that not have made the unemployment rate even worst because the only other other economic sectors that employed was Crime!! Not the legal private sector--the illegal private sector.

Good thinking, but if we want to put all the folks back to work, there was, historically shown, a much better way:

Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.
As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm

The tax rate was already very low when the great depression hit, around 26% or so. Those low tax rates didn't prevent the economy from tanking. The Govt was already running out of money and didn't have access to capital markets like it does today.

Hoover (or more accurately, Congress) didn't raise tax rates until late 1932 (which would have effected taxes owed in '33) after which the economy had already tanked 25% real.

 

[Iriemon]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/72942-conservatives.html#post1133125

Useful isn't it?


1. Is clearly statistics out of context as you can tell from the graph, It went down, then it went up then it went down again. Now look at the dates he compares.

I betcha I can find findings that contradict 2 and 3 but I'd rather not play dueling historical sources, although I wonder why you didn't just quote brookings.

And you admit that the 17.4% was true seven years into the New Deal?

So you are humbly admitting to being in error on each and every point?

Don’t hurt your back while backing out of my presence.

Once again, GAME-SET-MATCH for PC.

Sadly there remain a few leftists in here who fail to understand or choose to ignore your strong grasp of fact and your clear way of presenting it - but the vast majority do.

Keep up the good fight!

Hey, can I play "answer my questions" too?

Take your time, and answer if you can:

1- The unemployment rate got worse than 17.4% before FDR took office?

2- Even in the midst of another recession in 1937, the unemployment rate at 17.4% was about 30% lower than the 25% unemployment rate when FDR took office?

3- Except for the recession in 1937, GDP grew every year after FDR was elected?

Either show the error in the above, or recant.
Defend or withdraw.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And you admit that the 17.4% was true seven years into the New Deal?

So you are humbly admitting to being in error on each and every point?

Don’t hurt your back while backing out of my presence.

Once again, GAME-SET-MATCH for PC.

Sadly there remain a few leftists in here who fail to understand or choose to ignore your strong grasp of fact and your clear way of presenting it - but the vast majority do.

Keep up the good fight!

Hey, can I play "answer my questions" too?

Take your time, and answer if you can:

1- The unemployment rate got worse than 17.4% before FDR took office?

2- Even in the midst of another recession in 1937, the unemployment rate at 17.4% was about 30% lower than the 25% unemployment rate when FDR took office?

3- Except for the recession in 1937, GDP grew every year after FDR was elected?

Either show the error in the above, or recant.
Defend or withdraw.

Are you bitin' on my lines?

What was that thing about the sincerest form of flattery?

But the point, I have documented many time using various sources- both Conservatrive and Liberal, within the FDR administration,and from without, that the New Deal did not solve the problems of the depression, and in fact delayed our recovery.

You choose to either ignore them, decline to give them proper weight, or split hairs on some small part. So be it.

But you may like this item, I can't recall where I read it:
"Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"

I'm glad that the county had the good sense to invest their confidence in FDR.

 

[MaggieMae]

You might want to check you spectacles. "...in some of the darkest days..." does not indicate a date.

"...at the darkest days ..." would be a specific occasion.

To put a fine point on it, the FDR New Deal did not bring down unemployment, beyond the point indicated. Further, at no point was it below 14%.

And, it is unemployment, not GDP that would indicate success or failure of the program. Do you know how picked this indicator? FDR did.

March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

Hold it PC

Did not the New deal include The WPA, which employed millions of people during the 1930's?

So If the WPA were not present, would that not have made the unemployment rate even worst because the only other other economic sectors that employed was Crime!! Not the legal private sector--the illegal private sector.

Good thinking, but if we want to put all the folks back to work, there was, historically shown, a much better way:

Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.
As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm

So what happened? Why, if Harding was correct, did the country sink into a depression within 10 years if the concept of cutting spending, removing regulations and taxes was supposed to work? It didn't work then, and it didn't work when Bush tried it. Once again, we're faced with almost the same dilemma: Failed banks, stock market nearly at crashing levels, lack of consumer spending and confidence, and industry in the private sector strangled by lack of working credit.

 

[Iriemon]

Once again, GAME-SET-MATCH for PC.

Sadly there remain a few leftists in here who fail to understand or choose to ignore your strong grasp of fact and your clear way of presenting it - but the vast majority do.

Keep up the good fight!

Hey, can I play "answer my questions" too?

Take your time, and answer if you can:

1- The unemployment rate got worse than 17.4% before FDR took office?

2- Even in the midst of another recession in 1937, the unemployment rate at 17.4% was about 30% lower than the 25% unemployment rate when FDR took office?

3- Except for the recession in 1937, GDP grew every year after FDR was elected?

Either show the error in the above, or recant.
Defend or withdraw.

Are you bitin' on my lines?

What was that thing about the sincerest form of flattery?

Of course! I respect you as a knowledgeable and able debater.

But the point, I have documented many time using various sources- both Conservatrive and Liberal, within the FDR administration,and from without, that the New Deal did not solve the problems of the depression, and in fact delayed our recovery.

You choose to either ignore them, decline to give them proper weight, or split hairs on some small part. So be it.

While recognizing my own (what would be called today) left leaning bias, I tend to discount op-ed pieces from opinionated or biased sources, whether left or right wing. That's why I like to look at the source data myself to draw conclusions.

The source data shows that the economy started growing smartly after FDR's election, and though unemployment improved significantly, remainded stubbornly high. I've already stated my views on why that might have been.

But you may like this item, I can't recall where I read it:
"Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"

I'm glad that the county had the good sense to invest their confidence in FDR.

I don't know if I want to imagine a country like that!

 

[MaggieMae]

Once again, GAME-SET-MATCH for PC.

Sadly there remain a few leftists in here who fail to understand or choose to ignore your strong grasp of fact and your clear way of presenting it - but the vast majority do.

Keep up the good fight!

Hey, can I play "answer my questions" too?

Take your time, and answer if you can:

1- The unemployment rate got worse than 17.4% before FDR took office?

2- Even in the midst of another recession in 1937, the unemployment rate at 17.4% was about 30% lower than the 25% unemployment rate when FDR took office?

3- Except for the recession in 1937, GDP grew every year after FDR was elected?

Either show the error in the above, or recant.
Defend or withdraw.

Are you bitin' on my lines?

What was that thing about the sincerest form of flattery?

But the point, I have documented many time using various sources- both Conservatrive and Liberal, within the FDR administration,and from without, that the New Deal did not solve the problems of the depression, and in fact delayed our recovery.

You choose to either ignore them, decline to give them proper weight, or split hairs on some small part. So be it.

But you may like this item, I can't recall where I read it:
"Who can now imagine a day when America offered no Social Security, no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no Federal guarantee of bank deposits, no Federal supervision of the stock market, no Federal protection for collective bargaining, no Federal standards for wages and hours, no Federal support for farm prices or rural electrification, no Federal refinancing for farm and home mortgages, no Federal commitment to high employment or to equal opportunity - in short, no Federal responsibility for Americans who found themselves, through no fault of their own, in economic or social distress?"

I'm glad that the county had the good sense to invest their confidence in FDR.

As I read your quoted material, I was struck how much better off we are today with those things in place. Without them? Bread lines, orphanages, poor houses, barren farm land, pandemics and early death. I'll take today's standard of living, in spite of all those pesky "federal standards" thank you.

 

[theunbubba]

Obama Parties Like its 1934 - ProfessorBainbridge.com

[/URL][/IMG]

So republicans are returning to their McCarthyist roots. Your cartoon would do Joe McCarthy, Michael Savage, and PubicInfinitum (or whatever the f his screen name is) proud.

Nice detail in your caroon. Karl Marx. Stalin. So your contention is that Franklin Roosevelt was a commie pinko, a marxist, and a stalinist?

This is just sad. Its not only beyond inflammatory, but history proved the douchebag who drew this cartoon to be laughably wrong. the economy didn't collapse. It got better after 1933, and generally stayed on trend getting better. That's why FDR blew out republican opposition by landslide elections four times in a row.

It's really nice of you to stop that graph where you did for your cherry picking propaganda.
Fact is that after the war the unemployment rate went right back up. It wasn't Roosevelts policies that brought the economy back, it was the war. If you'll notice the unemployment rate was already at peak and slowing when Hoover left office. Had Roosevelt left things alone, the recovery would have been quicker and longer lasting. He threw a monkey wrench into the works for his political career.
And Yes he was a Stalinist. Why the hell do you think he let comrade Stalin keep eastern Europe?