Roosevelt: His Bankrupt Policies

[Rshermr]

-Fdr's policies
Pushed us out of the great depression
Created millions of jobs
Built tons of energy infrastructure and infrastructure in general that helped boast our economy.
Protected the consumer from the banks and market place that cheated so many during and before the depression.

Probably created the central policies of the huge increase of the middle class and per capita income in this country for the next 40 years.

Pushed us out of the Great Depression....sure, after Hitler conquered France and invaded the USSR

Crusader considers himself an expert on FDR and the great depression. And no one else but he believes he has a clue.
So, The Great depression created by Republican Presidents and Congresses of the mid to late 1920's and starting and increasing like a run away locomotive from 1929 thru 1933, was brought under control and ended during the first six years of FDR's administration, dropping from a unemployment rate and declining GDP of the Republican president Hoover to the end of the Depression in 1939.
So, C. rabbit suggests the depression only ended when Hitler conquered france, two years before the US entered the war. Funny, eh. FRANCE WAS CONQUERED IN MAY OF 1940. A YEAR AFTER THE GREAT DEPRESSION ENDED. AND ALMOST TWO YEARS BEFORE THE US ENTERED WWII. Really, me boy, you should try to understand timelines before going out and proving yourself to be a lying fool.

 

[Rshermr]

So is the Republican "self-correct cure" now the Republican official cure for depression/recessions? Does that also mean Republicans have now abandoned the "balance the budget" cure?

YUP. They talk about it s lot, but no republican president has even tried since Eisenhower.
"Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. "
Which republican president balanced a budget

 

[Rshermr]

Uh, it makes no difference. What we have established is that Republicans caused the Great Republican Depression of 1929, and that FDR fixed it. So, do you enjoy acting like the pigeon at the chess board, dipshit?

You are again looking really, really stupid. I think the reason for that is that you are. indeed, stupid.
Here. Let me try to help you to understand:
5 Scientific Studies That Prove Republicans Are Plain Stupid
5 Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies That Prove Republicans Are Just Stupid

You're about a step above a chimpanzee at a keyboard, maybe a half step.

How is 16%, really 21% unemployment for 7 years "fixing" anything. Can you define "fix"

Fixing: Repairing, correcting. As in taking an employment rate of 25% down to 9.66% in 7 years, on it's way further down. Eliminating the greatest recession with the highest unemployment rate in history. Stoping the wide scale loss of homes and fortunes. Simple, me boy, except for congenital idiots. You see, that is a reduction in unemployment of over 15%, me boy. And over 7,000,000 more people employed than when the republican president handed the huge mess that he and his prior republican presidents had created over to FDR.
Now, I know you are a simpleton con troll, just doing your best to post con talking points. But that is why FDR is considered one of the greatest presidents in our history. But you, as a bat shit crazy conspiracy theorist and con troll will never see it. You love those who MAKE the depressions and recessions, not those that fix them. Because, me boy, technically, you are what is known as a Fucking Ass Hole. You want to make a political point, regardless of how stupid it is, but completely ignore the human suffering the depression caused by republicans caused. And you lack completely the integrity to admit what the problem was. Because you really do not care.

If 10% unemployment after 7 years, and only due to our imminent entry into WWII is fixed, what do you call dropping in from 12 to 4 in under 2 years

Great. But it was from a low ue rate to 12% and back down again. Start to finish in under 1.5 years. But you are, of course, pointing at the recession of 1920 - 1921, which as I established for you several times had nothing to do with the great depression. It was a simple adjustment, adjusting to soldiers returning from WWI and to over production stocks that resulted from war production.
So, you like every con troll known to man are pushing hard on trying to make that short recession look something like the great depression. It was not similar.

Here is the main point. The 1921 recession exploded and corrected itself in 1.5 years with no help from the gov.
The great Republican Depression of 1929 also got no gov help from 1929 until 1934, a period of 5 years, not just 1.5 years. But the unemployment rate just kept growing. From 3% to 25%. With no signs of slacking.
Get it yet, me con tool. Your argument is specious. Plain and simple. You do not want to understand that one was a full blown aggregate demand depression. The other was a simple adjustment to a major WORLD WAR. So simple that even a simpleton with no economic background like you should be able to understand.
My bet is you will be back trying to conflate the two downturns within a few hours. Dipshit.

Harding and Coolidge allowed the market to self correct and the 1920-21 Depression ended in record time.

Hoover and FDR brought us Soviet style central planning and all the misery and failure that go with it

So, you made the exact same claim yesterday and I explained it to you then. Let's look at the actual posts, and prove you ALREADY MADE THE SAME POST, WHICH I ANSWERED, AND YOU ARE MAKING AGAIN:
FIRST, CF POSTS
"If 10% unemployment after 7 years, and only due to our imminent entry into WWII is fixed, what do you call dropping in from 12 to 4 in under 2 years"

MY RESPONSE WAS
"Great. But it was from a low ue rate to 12% and back down again. Start to finish in under 1.5 years. But you are, of course, pointing at the recession of 1920 - 1921, which as I established for you several times had nothing to do with the great depression. It was a simple adjustment, adjusting to soldiers returning from WWI and to over production stocks that resulted from war production.
So, you like every con troll known to man are pushing hard on trying to make that short recession look something like the great depression. It was not similar.

Here is the main point. The 1921 recession exploded and corrected itself in 1.5 years with no help from the gov.
The great Republican Depression of 1929 also got no gov help from 1929 until 1934, a period of 5 years, not just 1.5 years. But the unemployment rate just kept growing. From 3% to 25%. With no signs of slacking.
Get it yet, me con tool. Your argument is specious. Plain and simple. You do not want to understand that one was a full blown aggregate demand depression. The other was a simple adjustment to a major WORLD WAR END. So simple that even a simpleton with no economic background like you should be able to understand.
My bet is you will be back trying to conflate the two downturns within a few hours."

Really, Crusader, you have no integrity.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Says Crusader rabbit who loves bat shit crazy totally agenda driven con sources. And hates impartial sources. Poor guy gave up on integrity decades ago.

 

[guno]

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

strange you have no familial ties to that time period , nor were you here, in fact your spawners were squatting in rice paddies eating dog until someone from America adopted you and brought you over here, and that was a huge mistake

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's review:

Fee market corrected a deep recession in under 2 years and created 3% UE for the next 6 years thereafter

Progressive meddling and central planning, turning a recession into a complete rout generating 20% average UE which only ended when WWII Started. But for Hitler FDR might have had 4 terms of 20% UE

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Says Crusader rabbit who loves bat shit crazy totally agenda driven con sources. And hates impartial sources. Poor guy gave up on integrity decades ago.

View attachment 83394

I have peer reviewed the above post and find it both 100% accurate and totally awesome.

Science = Settled

We have consensus

 

[Rshermr]

Says Crusader rabbit who loves bat shit crazy totally agenda driven con sources. And hates impartial sources. Poor guy gave up on integrity decades ago.

View attachment 83394

I have peer reviewed the above post and find it both 100% accurate and totally awesome.
An idiot like you saying he is capable of and did review something simply does not pass the giggle test.
What were your credentials? Oh, I remember. You have none.

Science = Settled

We have consensus

Well, consensus indeed. Between two congenital idiots. But no science, you have to know what science actually is. And, me poor ignorant con troll, your ignorance is well understood. It preceds you. You are, me boy, irrelevant and your sources are a joke. As are you.

 

[Rshermr]

Let's review:

Fee market corrected a deep recession in under 2 years and created 3% UE for the next 6 years thereafter

Progressive meddling and central planning, turning a recession into a complete rout generating 20% average UE which only ended when WWII Started. But for Hitler FDR might have had 4 terms of 20% UE

Great. But it was from a low ue rate to 12% and back down again. Start to finish in under 1.5 years. But you are, of course, pointing at the recession of 1920 - 1921, which as I established for you several times had nothing to do with the great depression. It was a simple adjustment, adjusting to soldiers returning from WWI and to over production stocks that resulted from war production.
So, you like every con troll known to a man are pushing hard on trying to make that short recession look something like the great depression. It was not similar. As all with a brain know.

Here is the main point. The 1921 recession exploded and corrected itself in 1.5 years with no help from the gov.
The great Republican Depression of 1929 also got no gov help from 1929 until 1934, a period of 5 years, not just 1.5 years. But the unemployment rate just kept growing. From 3% to 25%. With no signs of slacking.
Get it yet, me con tool. Your argument is specious. Plain and simple. You do not want to understand that one was a full blown aggregate demand depression. The other was a simple adjustment to a major WORLD WAR END. So simple that even a simpleton with no economic background like you should be able to understand.

Really, Crusader, you have no integrity. And you loose again. For the third time in 2 days on the exact same subject.

That you do not want to understand the truth and post con talking points shows you to be stupid, for the third time in a row, me poor simpleton con troll.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So is the Republican "self-correct cure" now the Republican official cure for depression/recessions? Does that also mean Republicans have now abandoned the "balance the budget" cure?

YUP. They talk about it s lot, but no republican president has even tried since Eisenhower.
"Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. "
Which republican president balanced a budget

And each one of them we didn't have to cut infrastructure, science, r&d or education to balance them. Why are the republicans so hell bent on slashing areas that never caused any debt? It is like they just want to hurt this country for no reason.

We're investing the least in infrastructure the past 4 years as anytime since FDR.

They seem to want to slash real investment in America to weaken our own country.

 

[Camp]

So is the Republican "self-correct cure" now the Republican official cure for depression/recessions? Does that also mean Republicans have now abandoned the "balance the budget" cure?

YUP. They talk about it s lot, but no republican president has even tried since Eisenhower.
"Dwight Eisenhower was last Republican President to preside over a balanced budget. He had a balanced budget in 1956 and 1957. Since then, there have been two presidents to preside over balanced budgets, LBJ in 1969 and Clinton in 1998 through 2001. During the last 40 years there have been five budget surpluses, all five were under Democratic Presidents: 1969, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. "
Which republican president balanced a budget

And each one of them we didn't have to cut infrastructure, science, r&d or education to balance them. Why are the republicans so hell bent on slashing areas that never caused any debt? It is like they just want to hurt this country for no reason.

We're investing the least in infrastructure the past 4 years as anytime since FDR.

They seem to want to slash real investment in America to weaken our own country.

They spend the funds on the military which enables them to collect campaign contributions from the huge military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about. The government continues to finance the economy with tax dollars and stimulus, but they do in a round about way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's review:

Fee market corrected a deep recession in under 2 years and created 3% UE for the next 6 years thereafter

Progressive meddling and central planning, turning a recession into a complete rout generating 20% average UE which only ended when WWII Started. But for Hitler FDR might have had 4 terms of 20% UE

Great. But it was from a low ue rate to 12% and back down again. Start to finish in under 1.5 years. But you are, of course, pointing at the recession of 1920 - 1921, which as I established for you several times had nothing to do with the great depression. It was a simple adjustment, adjusting to soldiers returning from WWI and to over production stocks that resulted from war production.
So, you like every con troll known to a man are pushing hard on trying to make that short recession look something like the great depression. It was not similar. As all with a brain know.

Here is the main point. The 1921 recession exploded and corrected itself in 1.5 years with no help from the gov.
The great Republican Depression of 1929 also got no gov help from 1929 until 1934, a period of 5 years, not just 1.5 years. But the unemployment rate just kept growing. From 3% to 25%. With no signs of slacking.
Get it yet, me con tool. Your argument is specious. Plain and simple. You do not want to understand that one was a full blown aggregate demand depression. The other was a simple adjustment to a major WORLD WAR END. So simple that even a simpleton with no economic background like you should be able to understand.

Really, Crusader, you have no integrity. And you loose again. For the third time in 2 days on the exact same subject.

That you do not want to understand the truth and post con talking points shows you to be stupid, for the third time in a row, me poor simpleton con troll.

So you're saying that government "Help" actually interfered with recovery? Unemployment got worse, the more the government, under both Hoover and FDR, tried to "help"

 

[Rshermr]

CF, trying his lies again, says;
Let's review: n under 2 years and created 3% UE for the next 6 years thereafter

Progressive meddling and central planning, turning a recession into a complete rout generating 20% average UE which only ended when WWII Started. But for Hitler FDR might have had 4 terms of 20% UE

Great. But it was from a low ue rate to 12% and back down again. Start to finish in under 1.5 years. But you are, of course, pointing at the recession of 1920 - 1921, which as I established for you several times had nothing to do with the great depression. It was a simple adjustment, adjusting to soldiers returning from WWI and to over production stocks that resulted from war production.
So, you like every con troll known to a man are pushing hard on trying to make that short recession look something like the great depression. It was not similar. As all with a brain know.

Here is the main point. The 1921 recession exploded and corrected itself in 1.5 years with no help from the gov.
The great Republican Depression of 1929 also got no gov help from 1929 until 1934, a period of 5 years, not just 1.5 years. But the unemployment rate just kept growing. From 3% to 25%. With no signs of slacking.
Get it yet, me con tool. Your argument is specious. Plain and simple. You do not want to understand that one was a full blown aggregate demand depression. The other was a simple adjustment to a major WORLD WAR END. So simple that even a simpleton with no economic background like you should be able to understand.

Really, Crusader, you have no integrity. And you loose again. For the third time in 2 days on the exact same subject.

That you do not want to understand the truth and post con talking points shows you to be stupid, for the third time in a row, me poor simpleton con troll.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying that government "Help" actually interfered with recovery? No, it got better. Lower ue rate every year, except one. For Hoover, it went up like a rocket every single year.
Unemployment got worse, the more the government, under both Hoover and FDR, tried to "help".
No. All lies, me lying con troll.

Hoover did nothing, as you know, and the ue rate went from 3% to 25% in under 5 years. Lying, by the way, simply proves you have no integrity.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CF, trying his lies again, says;
Let's review: n under 2 years and created 3% UE for the next 6 years thereafter

Progressive meddling and central planning, turning a recession into a complete rout generating 20% average UE which only ended when WWII Started. But for Hitler FDR might have had 4 terms of 20% UE

Great. But it was from a low ue rate to 12% and back down again. Start to finish in under 1.5 years. But you are, of course, pointing at the recession of 1920 - 1921, which as I established for you several times had nothing to do with the great depression. It was a simple adjustment, adjusting to soldiers returning from WWI and to over production stocks that resulted from war production.
So, you like every con troll known to a man are pushing hard on trying to make that short recession look something like the great depression. It was not similar. As all with a brain know.

Here is the main point. The 1921 recession exploded and corrected itself in 1.5 years with no help from the gov.
The great Republican Depression of 1929 also got no gov help from 1929 until 1934, a period of 5 years, not just 1.5 years. But the unemployment rate just kept growing. From 3% to 25%. With no signs of slacking.
Get it yet, me con tool. Your argument is specious. Plain and simple. You do not want to understand that one was a full blown aggregate demand depression. The other was a simple adjustment to a major WORLD WAR END. So simple that even a simpleton with no economic background like you should be able to understand.

Really, Crusader, you have no integrity. And you loose again. For the third time in 2 days on the exact same subject.

That you do not want to understand the truth and post con talking points shows you to be stupid, for the third time in a row, me poor simpleton con troll.

So you're saying that government "Help" actually interfered with recovery? No, it got better. Lower ue rate every year, except one. For Hoover, it went up like a rocket every single year.
Unemployment got worse, the more the government, under both Hoover and FDR, tried to "help".
No. All lies, me lying con troll.

Hoover did nothing, as you know, and the ue rate went from 3% to 25% in under 5 years. Lying, by the way, simply proves you have no integrity.

[/QUOTE]

You're like one of the genuine, not Lizzy Cheekbone, Indians that couldn't see the large European ships in the harbor simply because they couldn't believe that such a thing existed.

One more time: Free market capitalism turned around a deep recession in record time, Progressive meddling made a bad situation much much worse

 

[Rshermr]

CF, trying his lies again, says;
Let's review: n under 2 years and created 3% UE for the next 6 years thereafter

Progressive meddling and central planning, turning a recession into a complete rout generating 20% average UE which only ended when WWII Started. But for Hitler FDR might have had 4 terms of 20% UE

Great. But it was from a low ue rate to 12% and back down again. Start to finish in under 1.5 years. But you are, of course, pointing at the recession of 1920 - 1921, which as I established for you several times had nothing to do with the great depression. It was a simple adjustment, adjusting to soldiers returning from WWI and to over production stocks that resulted from war production.
So, you like every con troll known to a man are pushing hard on trying to make that short recession look something like the great depression. It was not similar. As all with a brain know.

Here is the main point. The 1921 recession exploded and corrected itself in 1.5 years with no help from the gov.
The great Republican Depression of 1929 also got no gov help from 1929 until 1934, a period of 5 years, not just 1.5 years. But the unemployment rate just kept growing. From 3% to 25%. With no signs of slacking.
Get it yet, me con tool. Your argument is specious. Plain and simple. You do not want to understand that one was a full blown aggregate demand depression. The other was a simple adjustment to a major WORLD WAR END. So simple that even a simpleton with no economic background like you should be able to understand.

Really, Crusader, you have no integrity. And you loose again. For the third time in 2 days on the exact same subject.

That you do not want to understand the truth and post con talking points shows you to be stupid, for the third time in a row, me poor simpleton con troll.

So you're saying that government "Help" actually interfered with recovery? No, it got better. Lower ue rate every year, except one. For Hoover, it went up like a rocket every single year.
Unemployment got worse, the more the government, under both Hoover and FDR, tried to "help".
No. All lies, me lying con troll.

Hoover did nothing, as you know, and the ue rate went from 3% to 25% in under 5 years. Lying, by the way, simply proves you have no integrity.

You're like one of the genuine, not Lizzy Cheekbone, Indians that couldn't see the large European ships in the harbor simply because they couldn't believe that such a thing existed.
That would be your opinion. I see just fine. You are trying to prove something that is untrue. So, I wuld say that you have the problem. Not I, me boy. I simply like truth. You, on the other hand, need agenda. Which I have no use for anyone except fools. But then, you have proven yourself a fool.

One more time: Free market capitalism turned around a deep recession in record time,
What is this the fourth time. Dipshit. No, free market capitalism had no good or bad effect on a short end of war recession that was going to go nowhere, except away, quickly. All you are doing, again, is quoting nonsensical con talking points.
And doing nothing in the exact same way did a different thing for a totally different depression, driving the ue rage from 3% to 25%.
So, there you go, me boy, same treatment of two totally different types of downturn. And two totally different outcomes.
I am sure you will be back pretending to have not asked the same ignorant questions four times before, and been given true answers. Because you are a lying con troll.

Progressive meddling made a bad situation much much worse.
1. If you call moving the ue rate from 25% to under 9%, from 1934 to 1941, worse, go ahead. You are simply proving yourself a fool.
2. if you call eliminating the Great Depression by 1939 worse, Go ahead. You are simply proving yourself a fool.
3. If you call increasing GNP every single year after taking office worse, knock yourself out. You are simply proving yourself a fool.
4. If you call fixing the greatest downturn in history in record time and fixing the unbelievable problems created by Republican Presidents and Congress worse, knock yourself out. You are simply proving yourself a fool.
5. If you just want to show you yourself to be totally ignorant of economics, go ahead. You are simply proving yourself a fool.

Jesus, you are a con toad. With no ability to reason at all. If you understood economics at all, you would know there are different types of economic downturns. Some respond to one type of economic policy, others respond to other types of economic policy. If you were not a con troll, you would have a chance to understand. Dipshit.
[/QUOTE]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

2. if you call eliminating the Great Depression by 1939 worse,

A liberals idea of ending the Depression was a World War. In fact the Depression did not end until FDR thankfully died! Had his soviet policies survived so would have the Depression!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1. If you call moving the ue rate from 25% to under 9%, from 1934 to 1941, worse, go ahead. You are simply proving yourself a fool.

you've got a point!!! the Great Depression was really a time of economic prosperity and the Civil War was a time of peace!! See why we say a liberal will be slow? What other conclusion is possible?

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

 

[Rshermr]

1. If you call moving the ue rate from 25% to under 9%, from 1934 to 1941, worse, go ahead. You are simply proving yourself a fool.

you've got a point!!! the Great Depression was really a time of economic prosperity and the Civil War was a time of peace!! See why we say a liberal will be slow? What other conclusion is possible?

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

No links, of course. You found one source who says what you want to hear. Problem is, we who have some idea of truth know that the ue rate had dropped 9 points to 14% in 1936, when FDR followed the demands of the Republicans and stopped stimulus spending, the ue rate went up the next year, 1938. Then, it started back down and by 1941 it was under 10%. That was, should you know anything at all, 15% under the rate handed him by republicans in 1933, and which he started reducing in 1934. So, as a congenital idiot, you are pushing the con talking point that stimulus did not work.
Few agree with you. Very few. You see, me poor ignorant con troll, 15% of the working population represents millions of workers who had jobs. Millions, me poor ignorant troll, who were unemployed as the ue rate went from 3% to 25% under all republican politicians, President through Congress.

Now, you should probably go back to your bat shit crazy con web sites and find your next points to copy and paste. Dipshit.

 

[Unkotare]

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



"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."

 

[Unkotare]

" the real economic lesson to come out of the World War II era was not that the conscription of nearly a fifth of the labor force into grueling and dangerous working conditions abroad and the imposition of a command economy at home — complete with rationing, price controls, and government allocation of many aspects of life — could bring unemployment down. Soviet-style command economies had many problems, but unemployment was not typically one of them.

Instead, the true lesson from the period can be ascertained from the events of 1945-1947 when the largest economic “stimulus” in American history was dramatically and quickly unwound, months before most people anticipated it (because the atomic bomb brought a sudden unexpected end to the war). No other episode more clearly supports the notion that the best economic stimulus is for the government to get out of the way."


Policy Report: Stimulus by Spending Cuts: Lessons from 1946