Roosevelt: His Bankrupt Policies

[Rshermr]

Frank certainly meets 1 through 9 above.

Frank certainly meets 1 through 9 above.

Yup. But he will never know. Cause the poor ignorant con troll can not count to nine.

 

[Rshermr]

Jake and his sock having a great conversation

Transference. What you do is in no way representative of what actual rational people do. Remember, you are a conspiracy theorist, others are rational folks. Soon, based on your propensity for conspiracy, you will be certain that Jake had a voodoo doll. Poor you. Just try to remember it is congenital Not your fault.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jake and his sock having a great conversation

Transference. What you do is in no way representative of what actual rational people do. Remember, you are a conspiracy theorist, others are rational folks. Soon, based on your propensity for conspiracy, you will be certain that Jake had a voodoo doll. Poor you. Just try to remember it is congenital Not your fault.

typical violent viscous liberal, and substance free as always. If liberals had good arguments they'd love to use them, obviously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake and his sock having a great conversation

Transference. What you do is in no way representative of what actual rational people do. Remember, you are a conspiracy theorist, others are rational folks. Soon, based on your propensity for conspiracy, you will be certain that Jake had a voodoo doll. Poor you. Just try to remember it is congenital Not your fault.

typical violent viscous liberal, and substance free as always. If liberals had good arguments they'd love to use them, obviously.

Too stupid. Rshemer completely crushed Frank with clear, objective stats, analysis, and conclusions. Do you understand now?

 

[Rshermr]

Jake and his sock having a great conversation

Transference. What you do is in no way representative of what actual rational people do. Remember, you are a conspiracy theorist, others are rational folks. Soon, based on your propensity for conspiracy, you will be certain that Jake had a voodoo doll. Poor you. Just try to remember it is congenital Not your fault.

typical violent viscous liberal, and substance free as always. If liberals had good arguments they'd love to use them, obviously.

Too stupid. Rshemer completely crushed Frank with clear, objective stats, analysis, and conclusions. Do you understand now?

Ed b is the blog troll. No one really cares what he says. All he is here for is to end blogs. Cause no one wants to have to read his drivel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jake and his sock having a great conversation

Transference. What you do is in no way representative of what actual rational people do. Remember, you are a conspiracy theorist, others are rational folks. Soon, based on your propensity for conspiracy, you will be certain that Jake had a voodoo doll. Poor you. Just try to remember it is congenital Not your fault.

typical violent viscous liberal, and substance free as always. If liberals had good arguments they'd love to use them, obviously.

Too stupid. Rshemer completely crushed Frank with clear, objective stats, analysis, and conclusions. Do you understand now?

Ed b is the blog troll. No one really cares what he says. All he is here for is to end blogs. Cause no one wants to have to read his drivel.

Ed has an unaccredited store front university doctoral degree in Economics. Thus he bores us to pieces with his silly philosophy of economics and finance. He gets old real quickly, just like Frank, because they can't learn.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ow! Oh! Ouch! Hey!
....no sooner do I post an informed, factual, supported critique of the Roosevelt hagiography, than the Rooseveltian running dog lackeys start nipping at my heels!

It's been said before: "Truth is the mother of hatred." Ausonius

Seems that an admission of Roosevelt's failures would be, to his devotees, an admission of their own.


Never one to knuckle under....I'm left with but one path: another undeniable exposé of the bankrupt, failed, counter-intuitive economic policies of the anti-American fraud, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The man was elected based on the basis of a national crisis...and on a web of lies. He proved to be a terrible manager of the economy.

Terrible.....he extended the Depression by years!



1. "At the Democratic national convention in June 1932, where FDR was nominated for president of the United States, the Democratic Party issued a platform promising a way out of the Great Depression. The party stated: “We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to be faithfully kept by the party entrusted with power.”"
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation

At the time, America was a more faith-based nation...and the word 'covenant' had a religious tone to it....


a. Covenant: A binding agreement; a compact.; In the Bible, a divine promise establishing or modifying God's relationship to humanity or to a particular group.
covenant - definition of covenant by The Free Dictionary


"...[a] month after accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the office of president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a campaign radio address to the nation. He focused on the extravagant spending policies of Herbert Hoover’s administration and the federal budget deficits it had created: “Let us have the courage to stop borrowing to meet continuing deficits,” Roosevelt said. “Revenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse.”
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation


Of course, this was hardly the first lie that Roosevelt told.





Let's go over the platform just to prove that my OPs are undeniable:

"The platform of the Democratic Party, whose ticket Roosevelt headed, called for
.... a 25 percent reduction in federal spending,

...a balanced federal budget,

...a sound gold currency “to be preserved at all hazards,”

....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise

...and an end to the “extravagance” of Hoover’s farm programs.

This is what candidate Roosevelt promised, but it bears no resemblance to what President Roosevelt actually delivered."
"Great Myths of the Great Depression," Lawrence W Reed




Focus on this one:" ....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise..."

Had the Democrats actually fulfilled this promise.....and not created government-sponsored enterprises(GSEs) i.e., FannieMae andFreddieMac....

Get ready....


There would not have been a mortgage meltdown!
The mortgage meltdown, the 2008 recession: thanks to Franklin Roosevelt

The only thing bankrupt is the thread premise.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did Jake ever explain why he believes a 21% average unemployment over 7 years is great

 

[Rshermr]

Did Jake ever explain why he believes a 21% average unemployment over 7 years is great

No, for two reasons me poor ignorant con troll:
1. Because it is a nonsense number.
2. Because you have yet to explain why that is worse than the ue rate going from 3% to 25% while people starved, lost their houses and could not find work.
3. Why the ue going from 25% to 8% over 8 years, faster than economists thought possible, would be anything but great.
4. Why the fastest decrease in the ue rate in US history was anything but great.
5. Why a full recovery from the Great Republican Depression of 1929 in 8 years was anything but great.

You keep trying, but you keep failing. You just can not lie enough to make a case that is that stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did Jake ever explain why he believes a 21% average unemployment over 7 years is great

The Great Depression Statistics

Show where I said they were great. I can show you that Hoover's policies set up the worst damage and that the UE was coming down before conservative economic legislation crippled the recovery. GNP under Hoover almost fell by 50%, while GNP grew steadily for FDR other than one year where the conservative legislation really hurt it.

If you only understood the figures. Read them and weep.

1929 to 1933 Hoover 1933 to 1940 FDR

US Gross Domestic Product (current dollars)
The Great Crash, 1929-1933
in 1929: $103.6 billion
in 1930: $91.2
in 1931: $76.5
in 1932: $58.7
in 1933: $56.4

New Deal Recovery and Recession, 1934-39
in 1934: $66.0 billion
in 1935: $73.3
in 1936: $83.8
in 1937: $91.9
in 1938: $86.1
in 1939: $92.2

Government Expenditures and Investments (in current dollars)
Hoover Administration, 1929-1939
in 1929: $9.4 billion
in 1930: $10.0
in 1931: $9.9
in 1932: $8.7
Average government spending as percentage of GDP, 1929-32: 12.0%

Roosevelt's New Deal
in 1933: $8.7 billion
in 1934: $10.5
in 1935: $10.9
in 1936: $13.1
in 1937: $12.8
in 1938: $13.8
in 1939: $14.8
Average government spending as percentage of GDP, 1933-39: 15.4%

Average rate of unemployment underline is Jake's point
in 1929: 3.2%
in 1930: 8.9%
in 1931: 16.3% Hoover's failed policies do not help
in 1932: 24.1% Hoover's failed policies begin kicking in
in 1933: 24.9% Hoover's failed policies really kick in
in 1934: 21.7% Deficit spending begins working
in 1935: 20.1% Deficit spending working
in 1936: 16.9% Deficit spending working
in 1937: 14.3% Deficit spending working
in 1938: 19.0% failure conservative economic legislation
in 1939: 17.2%3 failure conservative economic legislation

 

[Rshermr]

Did Jake ever explain why he believes a 21% average unemployment over 7 years is great

The Great Depression Statistics

Show where I said they were great. I can show you that Hoover's policies set up the worst damage and that the UE was coming down before conservative economic legislation crippled the recovery. GNP under Hoover almost fell by 50%, while GNP grew steadily for FDR other than one year where the conservative legislation really hurt it.

If you only understood the figures. Read them and weep.

1929 to 1933 Hoover 1933 to 1940 FDR

US Gross Domestic Product (current dollars)
The Great Crash, 1929-1933
in 1929: $103.6 billion
in 1930: $91.2
in 1931: $76.5
in 1932: $58.7
in 1933: $56.4

New Deal Recovery and Recession, 1934-39
in 1934: $66.0 billion
in 1935: $73.3
in 1936: $83.8
in 1937: $91.9
in 1938: $86.1
in 1939: $92.2

Government Expenditures and Investments (in current dollars)
Hoover Administration, 1929-1939
in 1929: $9.4 billion
in 1930: $10.0
in 1931: $9.9
in 1932: $8.7
Average government spending as percentage of GDP, 1929-32: 12.0%

Roosevelt's New Deal
in 1933: $8.7 billion
in 1934: $10.5
in 1935: $10.9
in 1936: $13.1
in 1937: $12.8
in 1938: $13.8
in 1939: $14.8
Average government spending as percentage of GDP, 1933-39: 15.4%

Average rate of unemployment underline is Jake's point
in 1929: 3.2%
in 1930: 8.9%
in 1931: 16.3% Hoover's failed policies do not help
in 1932: 24.1% Hoover's failed policies begin kicking in
in 1933: 24.9% Hoover's failed policies really kick in
in 1934: 21.7% Deficit spending begins working
in 1935: 20.1% Deficit spending working
in 1936: 16.9% Deficit spending working
in 1937: 14.3% Deficit spending working
in 1938: 19.0% failure conservative economic legislation
in 1939: 17.2%3 failure conservative economic legislation

Nice job of posting the truth. Not what you get from con trolls. What they do not want to admit is that FDR slowed down stimulus spending in 1937, due to republican dominated congress, and FDR's own uncertainty about stimulus. Stimulus spending had not been tried before, as part of a depression that had never been seen before. By the end of 1937 he realized his error, and in 1938 he upped stimulus spending a great deal. As you noted. But the rate of repair of the ue rate went up quickly in 1940 and 1941. The rate of ue dropped by 2.5% in 1940. and about 5% in 1941.

The funny thing is that CF is angry that cleaning up the mess caused by republicans took longer than he likes. Not that the republicans ruined the lives of millions of americans. Sad.

 

[Markle]

Jake, I actually look things up for myself. That's how I realized your Hero FDR was the worst President in American History

Why won't you explain the differences between the two eras? Because if you did you would look the fool.

I explained the difference many times. In 1920-21 you had real grown ups running the country who trusted free enterprise and stood back while assets, liabilities and wages repriced. From 1928 on we elected Progressives who KNEW, they just KNEW they were the smartest people on the planet and humanity would be better off if we let them run the economy.

“Well, they’re going to elect that Superman Hoover, and he’s going to have some trouble. He’s going to have to spend money, but it won’t be enough. Then the Democrats will come in. But they don’t know anything about money." - Coolidge

Shortly after Coolidge left office, the stock market crashed and began the Great Depression in 1929. Coolidge was right about Hoover, but when the Democrat Roosevelt finally came into office he proved to know more than Coolidge or Hoover and immediately addressed the four-years long disaster that Coolidge and Hoover had created.

Roosevelt finally came into office he proved to know more than Coolidge or Hoover and immediately addressed the four-years long disaster by adding on another 7 years to it, creating the worst economy in recorded history

Frank's revisionist history is a non-starter.

I'll post it slowly for you this time.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

By Meg SullivanAugust 10, 2004

Category: Research


Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.


After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.


"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."


In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.


"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."


Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.


In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.


Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.


"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."


The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.


Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.


Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.


"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"


NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.


"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."


Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.


The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936.


The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935.


As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.


Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.


Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.


"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."


-UCLA-

LSMS368


Read more: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

 

[WheelieAddict]

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FDR is ranked top five in survey after survey. Oh let me guess it doesn't count because libs or whatever. Facts are even conservative historians rate FDR in at worst top ten.

Go ahead and continue with your delusions though, and your sad attempts to destroy a great American president (PropagandaChic a north korean the most obvious).

 

[WheelieAddict]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ow! Oh! Ouch! Hey!
....no sooner do I post an informed, factual, supported critique of the Roosevelt hagiography, than the Rooseveltian running dog lackeys start nipping at my heels!

It's been said before: "Truth is the mother of hatred." Ausonius

Seems that an admission of Roosevelt's failures would be, to his devotees, an admission of their own.


Never one to knuckle under....I'm left with but one path: another undeniable exposé of the bankrupt, failed, counter-intuitive economic policies of the anti-American fraud, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The man was elected based on the basis of a national crisis...and on a web of lies. He proved to be a terrible manager of the economy.

Terrible.....he extended the Depression by years!



1. "At the Democratic national convention in June 1932, where FDR was nominated for president of the United States, the Democratic Party issued a platform promising a way out of the Great Depression. The party stated: “We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to be faithfully kept by the party entrusted with power.”"
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation

At the time, America was a more faith-based nation...and the word 'covenant' had a religious tone to it....


a. Covenant: A binding agreement; a compact.; In the Bible, a divine promise establishing or modifying God's relationship to humanity or to a particular group.
covenant - definition of covenant by The Free Dictionary


"...[a] month after accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the office of president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a campaign radio address to the nation. He focused on the extravagant spending policies of Herbert Hoover’s administration and the federal budget deficits it had created: “Let us have the courage to stop borrowing to meet continuing deficits,” Roosevelt said. “Revenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse.”
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation


Of course, this was hardly the first lie that Roosevelt told.





Let's go over the platform just to prove that my OPs are undeniable:

"The platform of the Democratic Party, whose ticket Roosevelt headed, called for
.... a 25 percent reduction in federal spending,

...a balanced federal budget,

...a sound gold currency “to be preserved at all hazards,”

....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise

...and an end to the “extravagance” of Hoover’s farm programs.

This is what candidate Roosevelt promised, but it bears no resemblance to what President Roosevelt actually delivered."
"Great Myths of the Great Depression," Lawrence W Reed




Focus on this one:" ....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise..."

Had the Democrats actually fulfilled this promise.....and not created government-sponsored enterprises(GSEs) i.e., FannieMae andFreddieMac....

Get ready....


There would not have been a mortgage meltdown!
The mortgage meltdown, the 2008 recession: thanks to Franklin Roosevelt

The only thing bankrupt is the thread premise.

Yet you you are unable to find a single error, mistake, faulty conclusion.

Why is that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly my point!


There is no authorization in the Constitution, the law of the land, for the government to provide these 'emoluments.'



And...as I stated in the OP....

:" ....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise..."

Had the Democrats actually fulfilled this promise.....and not created government-sponsored enterprises(GSEs) i.e., FannieMae andFreddieMac....

Get ready....

There would not have been a mortgage meltdown!
The mortgage meltdown, the 2008 recession: thanks to Franklin Roosevelt






And so.....once again...one of the dunces inadvertently proves the premise of the thread correct!

It's one more version of karma.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Ow! Oh! Ouch! Hey!
....no sooner do I post an informed, factual, supported critique of the Roosevelt hagiography, than the Rooseveltian running dog lackeys start nipping at my heels!

It's been said before: "Truth is the mother of hatred." Ausonius

Seems that an admission of Roosevelt's failures would be, to his devotees, an admission of their own.


Never one to knuckle under....I'm left with but one path: another undeniable exposé of the bankrupt, failed, counter-intuitive economic policies of the anti-American fraud, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The man was elected based on the basis of a national crisis...and on a web of lies. He proved to be a terrible manager of the economy.

Terrible.....he extended the Depression by years!



1. "At the Democratic national convention in June 1932, where FDR was nominated for president of the United States, the Democratic Party issued a platform promising a way out of the Great Depression. The party stated: “We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to be faithfully kept by the party entrusted with power.”"
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation

At the time, America was a more faith-based nation...and the word 'covenant' had a religious tone to it....


a. Covenant: A binding agreement; a compact.; In the Bible, a divine promise establishing or modifying God's relationship to humanity or to a particular group.
covenant - definition of covenant by The Free Dictionary


"...[a] month after accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for the office of president of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt delivered a campaign radio address to the nation. He focused on the extravagant spending policies of Herbert Hoover’s administration and the federal budget deficits it had created: “Let us have the courage to stop borrowing to meet continuing deficits,” Roosevelt said. “Revenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse.”
Monetary Central Planning and the State Part 13 FDR s New Deal - The Future of Freedom Foundation


Of course, this was hardly the first lie that Roosevelt told.





Let's go over the platform just to prove that my OPs are undeniable:

"The platform of the Democratic Party, whose ticket Roosevelt headed, called for
.... a 25 percent reduction in federal spending,

...a balanced federal budget,

...a sound gold currency “to be preserved at all hazards,”

....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise

...and an end to the “extravagance” of Hoover’s farm programs.

This is what candidate Roosevelt promised, but it bears no resemblance to what President Roosevelt actually delivered."
"Great Myths of the Great Depression," Lawrence W Reed




Focus on this one:" ....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise..."

Had the Democrats actually fulfilled this promise.....and not created government-sponsored enterprises(GSEs) i.e., FannieMae andFreddieMac....

Get ready....


There would not have been a mortgage meltdown!
The mortgage meltdown, the 2008 recession: thanks to Franklin Roosevelt

The only thing bankrupt is the thread premise.

Yet you you are unable to find a single error, mistake, faulty conclusion.

Why is that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Did Jake ever explain why he believes a 21% average unemployment over 7 years is great

The Great Depression Statistics

Show where I said they were great. I can show you that Hoover's policies set up the worst damage and that the UE was coming down before conservative economic legislation crippled the recovery. GNP under Hoover almost fell by 50%, while GNP grew steadily for FDR other than one year where the conservative legislation really hurt it.

If you only understood the figures. Read them and weep.

1929 to 1933 Hoover 1933 to 1940 FDR

US Gross Domestic Product (current dollars)
The Great Crash, 1929-1933
in 1929: $103.6 billion
in 1930: $91.2
in 1931: $76.5
in 1932: $58.7
in 1933: $56.4

New Deal Recovery and Recession, 1934-39
in 1934: $66.0 billion
in 1935: $73.3
in 1936: $83.8
in 1937: $91.9
in 1938: $86.1
in 1939: $92.2

Government Expenditures and Investments (in current dollars)
Hoover Administration, 1929-1939
in 1929: $9.4 billion
in 1930: $10.0
in 1931: $9.9
in 1932: $8.7
Average government spending as percentage of GDP, 1929-32: 12.0%

Roosevelt's New Deal
in 1933: $8.7 billion
in 1934: $10.5
in 1935: $10.9
in 1936: $13.1
in 1937: $12.8
in 1938: $13.8
in 1939: $14.8
Average government spending as percentage of GDP, 1933-39: 15.4%

Average rate of unemployment underline is Jake's point
in 1929: 3.2%
in 1930: 8.9%
in 1931: 16.3% Hoover's failed policies do not help
in 1932: 24.1% Hoover's failed policies begin kicking in
in 1933: 24.9% Hoover's failed policies really kick in
in 1934: 21.7% Deficit spending begins working
in 1935: 20.1% Deficit spending working
in 1936: 16.9% Deficit spending working
in 1937: 14.3% Deficit spending working
in 1938: 19.0% failure conservative economic legislation
in 1939: 17.2%3 failure conservative economic legislation

Jake, what were "Hoover's failed policies"

 

[WheelieAddict]

 

[WheelieAddict]

Exactly my point!


There is no authorization in the Constitution, the law of the land, for the government to provide these 'emoluments.'



And...as I stated in the OP....

:" ....the removal of government from areas that belonged more appropriately to private enterprise..."

Had the Democrats actually fulfilled this promise.....and not created government-sponsored enterprises(GSEs) i.e., FannieMae andFreddieMac....

Get ready....

There would not have been a mortgage meltdown!
The mortgage meltdown, the 2008 recession: thanks to Franklin Roosevelt






And so.....once again...one of the dunces inadvertently prove the premise of the thread correct!

It's one more version of karma.

What in the Constitution prohibits anything in the speech? You are going to have to get creative with this one.