1934 Cartoon That Resonates Once Again

[PoliticalChic]

Come on PC you're better than using such a heavily biased ****** as Medved for a source ... right?

Liberal Playbook, er, Pamphlet page one: attack the source since it is not possible to refute the point.
Take your time, and answer if you can:
1- Seven years into FDR's New Deal, was unemployment as low as the 17.4% under Hoover?
2- Did Arthur Schlesinger, no Conservative write that the Collapse of 1937 was more severe than the first months of the depression?
3- Did Brookings find that the New Deal 'retarded recovery'?

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

 

[MaggieMae]

I can't wait to see what the Obamatrons will say about this.

Probably nothing.

Nothing? It's an invitation.


[IMG=http://www.allhatnocattle.net/41609pk.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG=http://www.allhatnocattle.net/41709ss.jpg[/IMG]

 

[MaggieMae]

Excuse me, but if you really want to see a good example one group of people labeling others that disagree with them, look no further than the Obama administrations DHS report alerting law enforcement to be on the lookout for "right wing extremists" ........

As they did in January with an almost identical report to be on the lookout for "left wing extremists." That's your problem ("you" collectively). You only see/read what makes YOUR case, period.

Left-wing extremists in that case were also identified as homegrown terrorists such as the radical environmental group that burns down expensive homes, for one.

 

[Annie]

Excuse me, but if you really want to see a good example one group of people labeling others that disagree with them, look no further than the Obama administrations DHS report alerting law enforcement to be on the lookout for "right wing extremists" ........

As they did in January with an almost identical report to be on the lookout for "left wing extremists." That's your problem ("you" collectively). You only see/read what makes YOUR case, period.

Left-wing extremists in that case were also identified as homegrown terrorists such as the radical environmental group that burns down expensive homes, for one.

That's crap. The 'left wing' report did not specify people 'likely to be recruited' by ELF, rather that group in particular. Very different than listing 'viewpoints' of people and vets in particular that might be recruited by 'militias.'

One is concerning dangerous groups, the other is to target individuals for 'surveillance.'

 

[amrchaos]

Hence the cartoon DUmmie

The cartoon added in the notion that this is the pathway to communisim when in fact Tsarist Russia failed because of a lack of government focusing on the social sectors of the nation.

In other words, the Russian government failed the Russian people, the russian people over-reacted and empowered communists, the communists showed the Russian people that Tsarists were not as bad as they thought! Yes there are bad dictatorships(Tsars) and worst ones(Soviets!)

Of course the soviets were going to attack capitalists because capitalists are on the other side of the spectrum from them. Kind of like how Capitalists attack communists, except communists that help them make money(See Communists China, Communist Vietnam, Soon--Communist Cuba!!)


But it was not the CAPITALIST that failed the Russian people But their non-responsive government. In America, it was Laissez-Faire Markets(unregulated capitalism) that brought about the Great depression yet a responsive government that kept us from following the Russians.

In other words, yomay not like what is going on, but if we continue in the conservative direction, we will empower left-wing fascists.

Put your head back up your ass until you learn something about the Russian revolution.

Let me guess--a Historian on the Russian revolution comes to call me out--yet post nothing on the revolution itself.

Tell us again--what happened in the revolution, Evangelical. We are waiting for your truth!!

 

[MaggieMae]

Not the whole pic, but nice graphic there:

American Chronicle | The Court-Packing Debacle of 1937

Even revisionists have some problem with what his majesty tried, while couching it in the best possible terms.

please answer the question. Is it your contention that Obama or FDR is a marxist, a stalinist, a commie pinko?

You posted a picture of Stalin, Marx, and commie pinkos, and linked it to the current adminstration.

I never saw Grump, Ravi, Jillian, or any sane lefty ever post picture with Hitler substituting for bush.

I'm trying to ascertain, if you really believe Obama is a Stalinist and a Marxist, or if FDR was a stalinist. Because frankly, I only hear that kind of talk from the extreme fringe lunatic rightwing.

August 13, 1938, The House Un-American Affairs received testimony from John Frey, president of an AFL union, about 280 Communist Party members in the CIO and that communists had infiltrated the government in almost every bureau through the United Office and Professional Workers Union. FDR , who was very angry, met with Chairman Dies and told him "Well, there is no one interested in Communism, no one at all. I've heard it all my life. There is no menace here in Communism...there is nothing wrong with the Communists in this country. Several of my best friends are Communist." The bitterest attack FDR ever made publicly against a public official was against Dies for his investigation of Communist influences in union sit-down strikes. FDR refused cooperation with the Dies committee and tried to kill it by blocking funds to it in 1940. Dies claimed there were 3,000 communists working in government.
FDR Scandal Page

So let me get this straight: We're smacked down every time the word "Bush" is mentioned in retrospect as being part of today's (and I mean TODAY'S) problems, yet it's okay for you to post an entire litany of FDR's "scandals"?? I can only imagine the shit I would get if I posted something from the tens of thousands of pages from the Internet that clearly define SCANDALS, waste, overreaching, and unConstitutional acts perpetrated by Bush 43 alone.

There has been historical and valid debate covering BOTH "sides" of FDR's attempt to rejuvinate the economy. Maybe it's time to return to basic history books instead of a gathering of ammunition presented over the course of over 60 years by both sides.

In the end, though, we can only speculate what might have happened had FDR not created his "new deal" approach by infusing public money into an devastating economy. And in the end, we can only speculate what might happen in the future if we don't do something similar today.

As for McCarthy, his initial investigation was credible enough and a wake-up call, but the man overreached, like so many other bloviators tend to do. Innocent people's lives were destroyed because of him.

 

[amrchaos]

I can't wait to see what the Obamatrons will say about this.

Probably nothing.

Actually--Spending is part of the Democratic solution--the only problem is where to spend and how much.

Ta' hell with worrying about where the money will come from.

We will do the same thing that we did under Reagan, both Bushs and Clinton--Deficit spending.

Wait--are you saying that we can only do that during Republican Regimes? Well, we did it under Clinton!!

 

[Father Time]

Come on PC you're better than using such a heavily biased ****** as Medved for a source ... right?

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

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

Useful isn't it?

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

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

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

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

 

[rayboyusmc]

I believe the implication was the administration was emulating Stalin's rhetoric.

I believe the right is a bunch of whiney little babies who lost this last election and can't deal with that.

Stalin - even from the right this is moronic.

Where are the Dominos?

 

[MaggieMae]

Does anyone else see the irony in the conservatives looking to a single cartoon for an analysis or analogy of the current situation? Is there any need to wonder why conservatives fail at everything they do when a single cartoon comes to represent thinking and the fools then give many thanks for it. Too funny.

For those whose education extends beyond comics and slogans for thought, check links below.

"The causes of the Great Depression are hotly disputed by scholars even to this day. No one knows the ultimate reason why the economy started plunging downhill in 1929. However, several things are certain:

* There was a variety of things wrong with the economy going into 1929, and they had been deteriorating throughout the decade.

* The conservative economic policies of the 1920s -- low taxes, little regulation, lack of anti-trust enforcement -- did nothing to stop the August recession and the October stock market crash.

* Hoover kept the Federal Reserve from expanding the money supply while bank panics and billions in lost deposits were contracting it. The Fed's inaction was the reason why the initial recession turned into a prolonged depression.

* The economy continually sank throughout Hoover's entire term. Under Roosevelt's New Deal, it rose five out of seven years.

* Attempts to blame Big Government for the Depression do not withstand serious scrutiny. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff had a minor impact because trade formed only 6 percent of the U.S. economy, and reducing trade gave Americans only that much more money to spend domestically. Hoover's other attempts at government intervention came mostly during his last year in office, when the Depression was already at its depth.

* The first nations to come out of the Great Depression -- Sweden, Germany, Great Britain, and then everyone else -- did so after they adopted the Keynesian solution of heavy deficit government spending.

* Keynesian economic policies have eliminated the depression from the world's economies in the six decades that have followed."

Summary

Timeline of the Great Depression
The Great Depression, to 1935
The Main Causes of the Great Depression
Stiff upper lip.
Amazon.com: The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Eric Rauchway: Books

Does anyone else see the irony in the liberals looking to a single thread for an analysis or analogy of the current conservative viewpoint? Is there any need to wonder why liberals fail at everything they do when a single thread comes to represent thinking and the fools then give many thanks for it. Too funny.


no shit, huh?

Then why was it posted if not to generate discussion about the subject? You make no sense. Are we not 'allowed' to have a conversation over a cartoon? Didn't someone once say "A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words"???

 

[amrchaos]

Excuse me, but if you really want to see a good example one group of people labeling others that disagree with them, look no further than the Obama administrations DHS report alerting law enforcement to be on the lookout for "right wing extremists" ........

You mean the one saying that Right wing extremist is most dangerous threat to americans--and then labeling Abortion groups under the threat.

Pro-life/Pro-choice may get a little rowdy, but they are not Right/left wing extremists.

Anyway, I heard it was mainly a hoax based on misinterpretations. Yet, I cannot believe how Conservatives that once promoted imcompetant government torturing "Non-Americans" accused of torture nor get upset when Dems target Right-wing extremists

That is the problem with Americanism--It is really in the eye of the people holding power.

The birthplace of vacillation ... blame it on perspective. It's nowhere near as simple as you would for anyone to believe. If I were to choose a phrase, I'd pick "willful and blind ignorance."

I do not think what I am doing is actually "willful and blind ignorance" but something even worst.

More like "here is a taste of your own medicine with a smile".

 

[amrchaos]

Hold it--Let me apologize to all the right wingers that I may have offended with the last post.

Not all of you supported many of the policies when it dealt with the war, economy, or even basic domestic policies.

Yet, I am still trying to figure out how Bush was either a lefty or a liberal. Also, if he was sush an obvious lib/lefty--why did you not help the libs/lefties get him impeached. Did you not want a conservative in charge?

 

[MaggieMae]

Excuse me, but if you really want to see a good example one group of people labeling others that disagree with them, look no further than the Obama administrations DHS report alerting law enforcement to be on the lookout for "right wing extremists" ........

As they did in January with an almost identical report to be on the lookout for "left wing extremists." That's your problem ("you" collectively). You only see/read what makes YOUR case, period.

Left-wing extremists in that case were also identified as homegrown terrorists such as the radical environmental group that burns down expensive homes, for one.

That's crap. The 'left wing' report did not specify people 'likely to be recruited' by ELF, rather that group in particular. Very different than listing 'viewpoints' of people and vets in particular that might be recruited by 'militias.'

One is concerning dangerous groups, the other is to target individuals for 'surveillance.'

And there you go again. Nowhere in the DHS report does it say that vets are "targets," but that's the operative word for the right-wing talking point. What it DID say is that veterans might be "targets OF" right-wing extremist groups. And they are, and they will be.

Go to Page 8:

DHS Report on Right Wing Extremism

If you don't think every situation outlined therein is a very real possibility, then you don't roam around other message boards and blogs too much.

 

[MaggieMae]

I can't wait to see what the Obamatrons will say about this.

Probably nothing.

Nothing? It's an invitation.


[IMG=http://www.allhatnocattle.net/41609pk.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG=http://www.allhatnocattle.net/41709ss.jpg[/IMG]

Not intended to repeat--just testing to see if I can get this right.

 

[driveby]

I can't wait to see what the Obamatrons will say about this.

Probably nothing.

Nothing? It's an invitation.


[IMG=http://www.allhatnocattle.net/41609pk.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG=http://www.allhatnocattle.net/41709ss.jpg[/IMG]

Not intended to repeat--just testing to see if I can get this right.

 

[Iriemon]

Obama Parties Like its 1934 - ProfessorBainbridge.com

[/URL][/IMG]

Thanks for that great cartoon!

And what a coincidence. Everyone should look at this! It shows history repeating itself, eh?

In 1934, after 3 years of utter economic collapse, the conservative of that day complaining about the new government spending programs, just like today!

It shows the conservatives complaining about junking the constitution, just like our friends on the right today!

It shows conservatives back then complaining the Govt was wasting its resources, just like the conservatives today!

And it shows the conservatives of the day warning that America is going socialist, just like the conservatives of today!

The coincidence is startling, isn't it? Conservatives predicting utter failure back then, just like conservatives today!

Were conservatives back then right?

Here's how the economy did starting in 1934:

Year - change in real GDP

1934 +10.8%
1935 +8.9%
1936 +13.0%
1937 +5.1%
1938 -3.4%
1939 +8.1%

Source: BEA.gov

While the conservatives of the day were predicting disaster in 1934 because of Govt spending, in fact the economy took off after 4 straight years of decline. America did not become socialist, and we still have a constitution.

In short, this great little cartoon shows how conservatives of the day were wrong on everything they claimed and predicited.

It is erie how similar it is to the conservative positions today.

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

 

[amrchaos]

Obama Parties Like its 1934 - ProfessorBainbridge.com

[/URL][/IMG]

Thanks for that great cartoon!

And what a coincidence. Everyone should look at this! It shows history repeating itself, eh?

In 1934, after 3 years of utter economic collapse, the conservative of that day complaining about the Government spending programs, just like today!

And it shows the conservatives complaining about junking the constitution, just like our friends on the right today!

It shows conservatives back then complaining the Govt was wasting its resources, just like the conservatives today!

And it shows the conservatives of the day warning that America is going socialist, just like the conservatives of today!

The coincidence is startling, isn't it? Conservative predicting utter failure back then, just like conservatives today!

Were conservatives back then right?

Here's how the economy did starting in 1934:

Year - change in real GDP

1934 10.8%
1935 8.9%
1936 13.0%
1937 5.1%
1938 -3.4%
1939 8.1%

Source: BEA.gov

While the conservatives of the day were predicting disaster in 1934 because of Govt spending, in fact the economy just took off after 4 straight years of decline. America did not become socialist, and we still have a constitution.

In short, this great little cartoon shows how conservatives of the day were wrong on everything they claimed and predicited.

It is erie how similar it is to the conservative positions today.

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

Here is something to really think about--what would happen if we do take the conservative approach to the economy now?

You can't stand on your own feet? Fall
Can't out compete global demand? Fall!!
You did not manage your affairs to survive a recession? FALL!!!

It does not take much to realize that we will not have any economic nor social infrastructure if we follow along those paths. Yet, this is all I hear when I listen to conservatives.

 

[Iriemon]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

Come on PC you're better than using such a heavily biased ****** as Medved for a source ... right?

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

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

Useful isn't it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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