Progressives Explain the Economy #1: How High taxes create jobs

[Rshermr]

So,eflat says:

Interesting your analysis of the economic situation during the 30s compares unemployment rates between 15 and 25 percent. While you attempt to prove what level of theft/redistribution was needed, you overlook the very real possibility that ALL of those absolutely shitty unemployment numbers were brought about by the very government meddling you champion.

Well, eflat, is ignorance bliss???? Before Hoover was Coolidge, even more of a laissez-faire kind of president than Hoover. Coolidge lowered taxes to around 25% Eliminated almost all gov spending that he could. So, the policies you question were not in effect at the start and for the first few years of the great depression. So the answer to your question is no. The government that brought on and aided the great depression was EXACTLY the kind of govement you profess to be the answer to all of your dreams.

Think about it. During other economic downturns in which stimulus was not used as a tool to attempt to fix the situation, we recovered quickly.

Really? Name the time. You know, eflat, if you actually wanted to understand the great depression, you would understand that we have never had unemployment anywhere near as high as FDR faced when he took office in 1933. Not even half as high a rate of unemployment. You really need to get a clue. And no, eflat. You can not name a recession with 10plus percent unemployment that went away quickly without the help of stimulus. You are, me boy. making that statement up from whole cloth.

During the 30s, we spend ungodly amounts of other people's money and remain in depression for over a decade.

No,eflat. Lets try to be honest. I know it is hard for you. Stimulus spending started in 1933. The depression was over in 1939. If you know arithmetic, that would be 6 years. And it would have been less had FDR not taken his little side trip and decreased stimulus for a year.

Your conclusion? We just didn't spend enough. Consider please, just once, that maybe all that "stimulus" actually created the situation for prolonged misery and across the board high unemployment, regardless of how it might have varied

Well, eflat, I have considered it. And many, many, many economists had considered it. And nearly all agree that if we followed the hoover plan that you are proposing, we would have had to depend on WWII to get us out. But you can believe what you want to believe. However, you can not show a case where lowering taxes has helped unemployment in a bad economy. And it has been tried. So here is your question. Since you can not show a case where your economic theory has worked, why should anyone want to listen to your drivel???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So,eflat says:

Interesting your analysis of the economic situation during the 30s compares unemployment rates between 15 and 25 percent. While you attempt to prove what level of theft/redistribution was needed, you overlook the very real possibility that ALL of those absolutely shitty unemployment numbers were brought about by the very government meddling you champion.

Well, eflat, is ignorance bliss???? Before Hoover was Coolidge, even more of a laissez-faire kind of president than Hoover. Coolidge lowered taxes to around 25% Eliminated almost all gov spending that he could. So, the policies you question were not in effect at the start and for the first few years of the great depression. So the answer to your question is no. The government that brought on and aided the great depression was EXACTLY the kind of govement you profess to be the answer to all of your dreams.

Think about it. During other economic downturns in which stimulus was not used as a tool to attempt to fix the situation, we recovered quickly.

Really? Name the time. You know, eflat, if you actually wanted to understand the great depression, you would understand that we have never had unemployment anywhere near as high as FDR faced when he took office in 1933. Not even half as high a rate of unemployment. You really need to get a clue. And no, eflat. You can not name a recession with 10plus percent unemployment that went away quickly without the help of stimulus. You are, me boy. making that statement up from whole cloth.

During the 30s, we spend ungodly amounts of other people's money and remain in depression for over a decade.

No,eflat. Lets try to be honest. I know it is hard for you. Stimulus spending started in 1933. The depression was over in 1939. If you know arithmetic, that would be 6 years. And it would have been less had FDR not taken his little side trip and decreased stimulus for a year.

Your conclusion? We just didn't spend enough. Consider please, just once, that maybe all that "stimulus" actually created the situation for prolonged misery and across the board high unemployment, regardless of how it might have varied

Well, eflat, I have considered it. And many, many, many economists had considered it. And nearly all agree that if we followed the hoover plan that you are proposing, we would have had to depend on WWII to get us out. But you can believe what you want to believe. However, you can not show a case where lowering taxes has helped unemployment in a bad economy. And it has been tried. So here is your question. Since you can not show a case where your economic theory has worked, why should anyone want to listen to your drivel???

Hoover and Coolidge were 2 different people. Why would you mix the 2? Coolidge derisively called Hoover "Wonder boy" and wouldn't give him and his Soviets central plan ideas the time of day.

Hoover and FDR were economic twins

 

[Rshermr]

I think it's hilarious that someone highlights "Unemployment falls to 19%" after 5 whole years of FDR economics and thinks thats a success.

It's plain fucking retarded

Well, Crusader, look again. You seem to have math problems. FDR became president in march of 1933. I had to explain that to you before. So, try to keep that in mind. Unemployment was about 24%. By 1936, unemployment was under 17%. Now, take 36, and subtract 33 from it. That would be 3 years. As the nice experts on the subject tried to explain to you.
Unemployment went up only when FDR did what you suggest he should have been doing all along He slowed stimulus spending. A lot. And unemployment went back up. The stimulus started again. And the unemployment rate went back down. Again, like the nice experts on the subject tried to explain to you.

Now I understand, as a con tool, you do not and will not admit it worked. And you can not show where at any time your favored policies have worked in a bad economy, as in one with high unemployment. Must be frustrating for you, eh, Crusader. Makes you just want to call someone names. Childish, but when you have no ability to argue the points with historic proof, what can you do.

 

[eflatminor]

So,eflat says:

Interesting your analysis of the economic situation during the 30s compares unemployment rates between 15 and 25 percent. While you attempt to prove what level of theft/redistribution was needed, you overlook the very real possibility that ALL of those absolutely shitty unemployment numbers were brought about by the very government meddling you champion.

Well, eflat, is ignorance bliss???? Before Hoover was Coolidge, even more of a laissez-faire kind of president than Hoover. Coolidge lowered taxes to around 25% Eliminated almost all gov spending that he could. So, the policies you question were not in effect at the start and for the first few years of the great depression. So the answer to your question is no. The government that brought on and aided the great depression was EXACTLY the kind of govement you profess to be the answer to all of your dreams.

Disagree entirely. You place the cause of the GD on a lack of government. I understand that how statists like yourself think. It's patently ridiculous.

Think about it. During other economic downturns in which stimulus was not used as a tool to attempt to fix the situation, we recovered quickly.

Really? Name the time. You know, eflat, if you actually wanted to understand the great depression, you would understand that we have never had unemployment anywhere near as high as FDR faced when he took office in 1933. Not even half as high a rate of unemployment. You really need to get a clue. And no, eflat. You can not name a recession with 10plus percent unemployment that went away quickly without the help of stimulus. You are, me boy. making that statement up from whole cloth.

We've had all kinds of economic downturns with all kinds of levels of unemployment, hits to the markets and the dollar. When we let the market recover, it does so far more quickly than when we try to fix it with central planners. The economic downturn of 1920 is but one example.

Bottom line, in 30s, just like today, when we try massive stimulus, the economic downturn just keeps on going. Let the markets recover and they will. They always do.

During the 30s, we spend ungodly amounts of other people's money and remain in depression for over a decade.

No,eflat. Lets try to be honest. I know it is hard for you. Stimulus spending started in 1933. The depression was over in 1939. If you know arithmetic, that would be 6 years. And it would have been less had FDR not taken his little side trip and decreased stimulus for a year.

Had to get an ad hominem attack in there, didn't you? Typical.

In any case, the GD did NOT end in 1939. The economy continued to suck during the war, due largely to all the central planners and their damn price controls. When we lifted those price controls after the war, the economy improved, but the 50s were not the rocking economy many like to claim. There were starts and stops...it sputtered along, better than before, but NOTHING like the boom that occurred after JFKs tax breaks kicked in.

Your conclusion? We just didn't spend enough. Consider please, just once, that maybe all that "stimulus" actually created the situation for prolonged misery and across the board high unemployment, regardless of how it might have varied

Well, eflat, I have considered it. And many, many, many economists had considered it. And nearly all agree that if we followed the hoover plan that you are proposing, we would have had to depend on WWII to get us out. But you can believe what you want to believe. However, you can not show a case where lowering taxes has helped unemployment in a bad economy. And it has been tried. So here is your question. Since you can not show a case where your economic theory has worked, why should anyone want to listen to your drivel???

"Nearly" all? How about nearly all Keynesian economists. That I believe.

Lots of examples in which lowering taxes helped in a bad economy. When Reagans tax cuts were fully implemented in '83, the economy took off. I already mentioned the 1920 downturn, when we cut spending and taxes. The economy recovered the next year.

"Drivel"? Another ad hominem. Are you capable of debate without sounding like a child on the schoolyard?

 

[eflatminor]

I think it's hilarious that someone highlights "Unemployment falls to 19%" after 5 whole years of FDR economics and thinks thats a success.

It's plain fucking retarded

Well, Crusader, look again. You seem to have math problems. FDR became president in march of 1933. I had to explain that to you before. So, try to keep that in mind. Unemployment was about 24%. By 1936, unemployment was under 17%.

Only 17%? Well there's something we should strive for...

 

[Rshermr]

So,eflat says:

Interesting your analysis of the economic situation during the 30s compares unemployment rates between 15 and 25 percent. While you attempt to prove what level of theft/redistribution was needed, you overlook the very real possibility that ALL of those absolutely shitty unemployment numbers were brought about by the very government meddling you champion.

Well, eflat, is ignorance bliss???? Before Hoover was Coolidge, even more of a laissez-faire kind of president than Hoover. Coolidge lowered taxes to around 25% Eliminated almost all gov spending that he could. So, the policies you question were not in effect at the start and for the first few years of the great depression. So the answer to your question is no. The government that brought on and aided the great depression was EXACTLY the kind of govement you profess to be the answer to all of your dreams.



Really? Name the time. You know, eflat, if you actually wanted to understand the great depression, you would understand that we have never had unemployment anywhere near as high as FDR faced when he took office in 1933. Not even half as high a rate of unemployment. You really need to get a clue. And no, eflat. You can not name a recession with 10plus percent unemployment that went away quickly without the help of stimulus. You are, me boy. making that statement up from whole cloth.


No,eflat. Lets try to be honest. I know it is hard for you. Stimulus spending started in 1933. The depression was over in 1939. If you know arithmetic, that would be 6 years. And it would have been less had FDR not taken his little side trip and decreased stimulus for a year.

Your conclusion? We just didn't spend enough. Consider please, just once, that maybe all that "stimulus" actually created the situation for prolonged misery and across the board high unemployment, regardless of how it might have varied

Well, eflat, I have considered it. And many, many, many economists had considered it. And nearly all agree that if we followed the hoover plan that you are proposing, we would have had to depend on WWII to get us out. But you can believe what you want to believe. However, you can not show a case where lowering taxes has helped unemployment in a bad economy. And it has been tried. So here is your question. Since you can not show a case where your economic theory has worked, why should anyone want to listen to your drivel???

Hoover and Coolidge were 2 different people. Why would you mix the 2? Coolidge derisively called Hoover "Wonder boy" and wouldn't give him and his Soviets central plan ideas the time of day.

Hoover and FDR were economic twins

Glad you noticed they were different people. Shows you have some brain activity, I guess.
But your economic theory that Hoover and FDR were economic twins would send economists into fits of laughter. Really stupid statement. Which is why you have no links as evidence of that stupid statement.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Unemployment was about 24%. By 1936, unemployment was under 17%.

Here's what Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of the Treasury (the man who desperately needed the New Deal to succeed as much as Roosevelt) said about the New Deal stimulus: "We have tried spending money.We are spending more than we ever have spent before and it does not work... We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!"

"The New Republic"( at the time a FDR greatest supporter") noted. In June 1939, the federal public works programs still supported almost 19 million people, nearly 15% of the population" [page 313]

In fact in 1939, unemployment was at 17%, and there were 11 million additional in stimulus make work welfare jobs. Today when the population is 2.5 times greater we have only 8 million unemployed. Conclusion: legislation to make Democrats illegal
is urgently needed

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

But your economic theory that Hoover and FDR were economic twins would send economists into fits of laughter. Really stupid statement. Which is why you have no links as evidence of that stupid statement.

Hoover turned the 1929 stock market crash into a[liberal] international economic disaster.

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]

 

[eflatminor]

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]

I think one has to go back to Cleveland to get a president that actually believed what the Constitution says regarding federal intervention in markets, though it wouldn't surprise me if he "tinkered" as well. Takes a hell of a man with great restraint to resist the lure of imposing his ideas through central planning. It's easy to claim your ideas are best.

 

[Rshermr]

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]

I think one has to go back to Cleveland to get a president that actually believed what the Constitution says regarding federal intervention in markets, though it wouldn't surprise me if he "tinkered" as well. Takes a hell of a man with great restraint to resist the lure of imposing his ideas through central planning. It's easy to claim your ideas are best.

Yes, and in addition to that he was largely responsible for the great depression. What a man.

 

[Rshermr]

I think it's hilarious that someone highlights "Unemployment falls to 19%" after 5 whole years of FDR economics and thinks thats a success.

It's plain fucking retarded

Well, Crusader, look again. You seem to have math problems. FDR became president in march of 1933. I had to explain that to you before. So, try to keep that in mind. Unemployment was about 24%. By 1936, unemployment was under 17%.

Only 17%? Well there's something we should strive for...

Well, yes indeed. When the repubs took the unemployment rate from under 4% to over 23% and climbing, then handed it over to FDR. That would be a 7 point decrease in the unemployment rate. No president has ever accomplished that, my con tool. So, your opinion is duly noted.
And as always, you are a con tool incapable of rational discussion. I mean, Frank, my poor con tool, you had two presidents setting up the economy just the way you wanted it. Decreasing taxes. No gov spending. Republican supreme court. Owned the congress. And you get the great depression. And you have no way of getting around it. You may need to go and make up some new lies. Cause in fact, your favored policies not only did not work, but created and nurtured the worst economic disaster this country has ever seen.
And, of course, you blame others. Not even enough of a man to take credit where credit is due. Makes you rather pathetic.

 

[eflatminor]

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]

I think one has to go back to Cleveland to get a president that actually believed what the Constitution says regarding federal intervention in markets, though it wouldn't surprise me if he "tinkered" as well. Takes a hell of a man with great restraint to resist the lure of imposing his ideas through central planning. It's easy to claim your ideas are best.

Yes, and in addition to that he was largely responsible for the great depression. What a man.

Of course he was. Good luck with that...

 

[eflatminor]

When the repubs took the unemployment rate from under 4% to over 23% and climbing,...

That's about as far as we need go on that post. You really need to learn to communicate without sounding like a whining child. I just make you look silly, really.

In any case, the point is, just because you call them "repubs" doesn't mean they weren't central planners, every bit as meddling as the other side. It's the attempt to control markets, be it through price controls, tax code, over regulation, etc, that exacerbates and prolongs the normal fluctuation in markets. Big booms, big busts. And both sides are guilty.

Anyway, this tread is about high taxes and whether they hurt or help an economy. I stand with Mises, Hayek, Friedman and many others that the idea of stimulus is inherently flawed, that free markets work best for everyone, and taxes, while perhaps necessary, never help an economy. I understand you disagree but until you're ready to communicate like a grown up, I see little reason to engage further.

 

[Rshermr]

what, eflat. Do you have some issue with a little truth? You had two repub presidents (and by theut way, I call republicans repubs for short, just as I call democrats dems for short. Sorry to hurt your sensitivities) But the statement I made about who was in charge from the early 20's is a simple statement of fact. Coolidge took over in '23, and Hoover took over in '28. That period set the table for the great depression. Here is more history, from the same source:

1923
President Warren Harding dies in office; his administration was easily one of the most corrupt in American history. Calvin Coolidge, who is squeaky clean by comparison, becomes president. Coolidge is no less committed to laissez-faire and a non-interventionist government. He announces to the American people: "The business of America is business."
Supreme Court nullifies minimum wage for women in District of Columbia.

1924
The Ku Klux Klan reaches the height of its influence in America: by the end of the year it will claim 9 million members. It will decline drastically in 1925, however, after financial and moral scandals rock its leadership.
The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation to the rest of the economy.

1925
The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in eight decades.
Supreme Court rules that trade organizations do not violate anti-trust laws as long as some competition survives.

1928
The construction boom is over.
Farmers' share of the national income has dropped from 15 to 9 percent since 1920.
Between May 1928 and September 1929, the average prices of stocks will rise 40 percent. Trading will mushroom from 2-3 million shares per day to over 5 million. The boom is largely artificial.

So there you go. Right up to the precipice, the type of economy you have said would work best. laissez-faire economics. Not quite a libertarian economy. But as close as we ever got in the industrial era.

So, eflat says:

In any case, the point is, just because you call them "repubs" doesn't mean they weren't central planners, every bit as meddling as the other side. It's the attempt to control markets, be it through price controls, tax code, over regulation, etc, that exacerbates and prolongs the normal fluctuation in markets. Big booms, big busts. And both sides are guilty.

But, eflat, you can show no example of how that led to the great depression. Because it did not. Saying it was a cause is entirely different than proving it was. Or at least showing some evidence that it did. But you can not. Simple as that. Your theory is in trouble, so you are running from the subject.

So then eflat says:

I stand with Mises, Hayek, Friedman and many others that the idea of stimulus is inherently flawed, that free markets work best for everyone, and taxes, while perhaps necessary, never help an economy. I understand you disagree but until you're ready to communicate like a grown up, I see little reason to engage further.

Well, since you are into the Austrian school of economics, and the Chicago school in addition, then you should have some argument for why their theories prove what happened during the great recession. But you do not. You simply give conservative views. Quite a different thing.
And your little dig about not being willing to communicate? Perhaps you would like to explain that one. You see, if you argue an opinion, you provide evidence. Not simply opinon. And you have given no evidence. Lots of opinion. But NO evidence. So, as you say, there is no reason to engage. Which is what cons always do, when cornered and they get to the point they usually do - no impartial support for their opinions. Said differently, they, as you, run from the subject.
By the way, the subject of the THREAD is 'Progressives explain the economy. How high taxes create jobs.' So, that has been what I have been providing proof of, and what you have been providing opinion of. You see, me con tool, that is what stimulus spending is all about. And it is seldom about anything else.

 

[Rshermr]

Well, eflat, I missed this gem of a reply from you. Sorry, but it needs a reply. I will do so in red, as this mess is getting confusing.

So,eflat says:

Interesting your analysis of the economic situation during the 30s compares unemployment rates between 15 and 25 percent. While you attempt to prove what level of theft/redistribution was needed, you overlook the very real possibility that ALL of those absolutely shitty unemployment numbers were brought about by the very government meddling you champion.

Well, eflat, is ignorance bliss???? Before Hoover was Coolidge, even more of a laissez-faire kind of president than Hoover. Coolidge lowered taxes to around 25% Eliminated almost all gov spending that he could. So, the policies you question were not in effect at the start and for the first few years of the great depression. So the answer to your question is no. The government that brought on and aided the great depression was EXACTLY the kind of govement you profess to be the answer to all of your dreams.

Disagree entirely. You place the cause of the GD on a lack of government. I understand that how statists like yourself think. It's patently ridiculous.

Well, perhaps you have some sort of link to your reasoning here. But first of all, you are telling a bit of an untruth here. I said nothing about the specific cause of the great depression. You are trying to define what I said, which lacks integrity. And, me boy, I have a fairly extensive economic background, but I am far from a statist. Not sure you actually know what a statist is, but no one who knows me would call me such. And you, me con tool, do not know me.

We've had all kinds of economic downturns with all kinds of levels of unemployment, hits to the markets and the dollar. When we let the market recover, it does so far more quickly than when we try to fix it with central planners. The economic downturn of 1920 is but one example.

We have had exactly three times when unemployment went over 10%. And in all cases stimulus has been used to get unemployment under control. And, eflat, no one, and certainly not I, suggest that stimulus is necessary for small unemployment hits. That would be your interpretation. And a bad one.

Bottom line, in 30s, just like today, when we try massive stimulus, the economic downturn just keeps on going. Let the markets recover and they will. They always do.
Sorry, but you are either exceedingly lazy, or stupid, or both. The great depression was completely unlike today, or any recession in history. Get a clue, man. People were suffering, some were dying. You show yourself to be a true con tool saying what you just said. And, if you would care to look, you would find the stimulus in the present administration was very very small in comparison to what was happening during the great depression.


Had to get an ad hominem attack in there, didn't you? Typical.

In any case, the GD did NOT end in 1939.

Well, me boy, that would be a hard sell to most economists. Some put it as late as 1941, others well prior to 1939.

The economy continued to suck during the war, due largely to all the central planners and their damn price controls. When we lifted those price controls after the war, the economy improved, but the 50s were not the rocking economy many like to claim. There were starts and stops...it sputtered along, better than before, but NOTHING like the boom that occurred after JFKs tax breaks kicked in.

Your conclusion? We just didn't spend enough. Consider please, just once, that maybe all that "stimulus" actually created the situation for prolonged misery and across the board high unemployment, regardless of how it might have varied

Well, eflat, I have considered it. And many, many, many economists had considered it. And nearly all agree that if we followed the hoover plan that you are proposing, we would have had to depend on WWII to get us out. But you can believe what you want to believe. However, you can not show a case where lowering taxes has helped unemployment in a bad economy. And it has been tried. So here is your question. Since you can not show a case where your economic theory has worked, why should anyone want to listen to your drivel???

"Nearly" all? How about nearly all Keynesian economists. That I believe.

Lots of examples in which lowering taxes helped in a bad economy. When Reagans tax cuts were fully implemented in '83, the economy took off.
But I already mentioned the 1920 downturn, when we cut spending and taxes. The economy recovered the next year

.
Ah, the reagan attempt. Reagan had a great tax decrease in early 1981. By late 1982, he had the highest unemployment rate ever outside of the great depression. Went up from 7.5% to over 10.8%. So, what should he do then? He sold everyone on supply side economics, so I suppose he should lower tax rates again. But, you see, he did not. He raised taxes. Eleven times. And borrowed enough to triple the national debt. Borrowed more than all the other presidents combined. So, you see, tax decreases caused his problems. He got out of it by taxing, and by borrowing. And by spending. And making the government bigger than it was before he came into office.
Relative to the very short recession of 1921, I have seen no evidence of government activity. That is, no indication of either tax decreases of spending cuts. Since you did not provide a link I assume that your statement that taxes were reduced and spending curtailed is your opinion. Again, lacks integrity.
e a
"Drivel"? Another ad hominem. Are you capable of debate without sounding like a child on the schoolyard?[/QUOTE]
Because, you see eflat, you waste my time. You waste it because you present opinion. And your opinion, like my opinion, is worthless. That would be drivel. Now, I try to link to proof when there could be need of proof. If you question what I say, I will provide the link. Because I believe in proof, and truth. And you show that you simply want to post con dogma. Obvious as can be. And then call it conversation. Again, completely lacks credibility. So, if you think saying you post drivel is childish, then let me assure you. Posting stuff, or as I call it drivel, that you can not back up, is childish. And a waste of my time, and I must admit, it pisses me off when people like you, who are unable to support your statements, waste my time.

 

[regent]

This government was involved in America's economy as soon as the ink dried on the Constitution.
But here's a question for history/economic buffs, can anyone tell us tell us the condiltion of the American economy in 1936 and why FDR ended that program?

 

[Rshermr]

You have to remember that there was a lot of skepticism about stimulus spending. Particularly from the republican congress, and those who were themselves republican supporters. So, the unemployment numbers had been coming down for a couple years, was at about 16 percent and looked to be dropping, so FDR decided to lay off the stimulus spending. Net was a new recession and unemployment went back up to about 19 Percent. So, FDR suggested afterward that he learned a lesson and began stimulus spending again. Full boar. And the rate started down again.

 

[eflatminor]

Rshermr, your ignorance of history is profound, your 'facts' selective and incomplete, and your manner of communication downright vulgar. If you ever decide to grow up and open your mind to the idea that you don't know what's best for everyone else, maybe I'll take you off ignore. Until then, you're a waste of time.

Good luck with all that...

 

[Rshermr]

Rshermr, your ignorance of history is profound, your 'facts' selective and incomplete, and your manner of communication downright vulgar. If you ever decide to grow up and open your mind to the idea that you don't know what's best for everyone else, maybe I'll take you off ignore. Until then, you're a waste of time.

Good luck with all that...

That would be your opinion, eflat. And again, you know how much I respect your opinion. Again, you make accusations without facts, and links to those facts. You are incapable of anything but posting dogma. And you expect anyone who argues your dogma, and provides evidence, is incapable. You wee badly refuted. Someone may say spanked. So, go your way, eflat. But don't expect anyone to believe you are leaving for any reason other than that you are unable to support your own dogma.
by the way. I will not have you on ignore. You post dogma, I will correct it. And I am sure you will not like it.

 

[eflatminor]

Again, you make accusations without facts

Not to worry, I'll still look to your posts to find just how out of touch with reality are those that worship the state and advocate theft. It's important to 'know thy enemy'.

But I just had to say thanks for the laugh. You accuse me of 'accusations without facts', while you post facts that in no way prove your accusations. Hysterical.