Roosevelt: His Bankrupt Policies

[JakeStarkey]

The consumers, many of them, were unemployed, and those employed, too many were underpaid.

Your favorite kind of legislation in 1936 and 1937 made them more unemployed and underpaid.

Hint: the situation in 1920-1921 was different than 1936-1937. That's what you are deliberately trying to ignore.

 

[Camp]

Another thing the anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks do when comparing the 20's to the 30's is to ignore the stock market crash of 1929 and the closure of 5,000 banks before FDR was inaugurated. Either of those two things alone and by themselves had more impact than the unemployment numbers. Now add the devasting Dust Bowl Storms that continued through the entire decade of the 30's.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The consumers, many of them, were unemployed, and those employed, too many were underpaid.

Your favorite kind of legislation in 1936 and 1937 made them more unemployed and underpaid.

Hint: the situation in 1920-1921 was different than 1936-1937. That's what you are deliberately trying to ignore.

Jake, what was different in 1921 as opposed to 1936?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another thing the anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks do when comparing the 20's to the 30's is to ignore the stock market crash of 1929 and the closure of 5,000 banks before FDR was inaugurated. Either of those two things alone and by themselves had more impact than the unemployment numbers. Now add the devasting Dust Bowl Storms that continued through the entire decade of the 30's.

Right. 1929 was 4 years before FDR took his first oath and then he spent the equivalent of $3T remaking the economy in Mussolini's image -- and only made things worse.

 

[Camp]

Another thing the anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks do when comparing the 20's to the 30's is to ignore the stock market crash of 1929 and the closure of 5,000 banks before FDR was inaugurated. Either of those two things alone and by themselves had more impact than the unemployment numbers. Now add the devasting Dust Bowl Storms that continued through the entire decade of the 30's.

Right. 1929 was 4 years before FDR took his first oath and then he spent the equivalent of $3T remaking the economy in Mussolini's image -- and only made things worse.

Best investment in American history was called the New Deal. We are still using much of the infrastructure created and built in that era from those programs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another thing the anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks do when comparing the 20's to the 30's is to ignore the stock market crash of 1929 and the closure of 5,000 banks before FDR was inaugurated. Either of those two things alone and by themselves had more impact than the unemployment numbers. Now add the devasting Dust Bowl Storms that continued through the entire decade of the 30's.

Right. 1929 was 4 years before FDR took his first oath and then he spent the equivalent of $3T remaking the economy in Mussolini's image -- and only made things worse.

Best investment in American history was called the New Deal. We are still using much of the infrastructure created and built in that era from those programs.

We're using electricity and mass production too, they came to prominence in the "Roaring 20's" without massive government intervention.

I'm trying to get you to see the light that FDR's intervention and meddling actually did damage.

 

[Rshermr]

Another thing the anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks do when comparing the 20's to the 30's is to ignore the stock market crash of 1929 and the closure of 5,000 banks before FDR was inaugurated. Either of those two things alone and by themselves had more impact than the unemployment numbers. Now add the devasting Dust Bowl Storms that continued through the entire decade of the 30's.

Right. 1929 was 4 years before FDR took his first oath and then he spent the equivalent of $3T remaking the economy in Mussolini's image -- and only made things worse.

Best investment in American history was called the New Deal. We are still using much of the infrastructure created and built in that era from those programs.

We're using electricity and mass production too, they came to prominence in the "Roaring 20's" without massive government intervention.

I'm trying to get you to see the light that FDR's intervention and meddling actually did damage.

Crusader is a con tool. He believes what he is told to believe. Con talking points. That the Great Depression was anything but a republican creation is stupid thought. That the ue rate of 25% was a good deal, and lowering it back to 9% was a bad deal, is his thought process. Poor ignorant con tool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another thing the anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks do when comparing the 20's to the 30's is to ignore the stock market crash of 1929 and the closure of 5,000 banks before FDR was inaugurated. Either of those two things alone and by themselves had more impact than the unemployment numbers. Now add the devasting Dust Bowl Storms that continued through the entire decade of the 30's.

Right. 1929 was 4 years before FDR took his first oath and then he spent the equivalent of $3T remaking the economy in Mussolini's image -- and only made things worse.

Best investment in American history was called the New Deal. We are still using much of the infrastructure created and built in that era from those programs.

I'd suggest that a better investment would be yours toward an education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

16.8%
Facts are stubborn things if you do not change the numbers. And lie. Like you do, CR. Lets add to your table the actual numbers, eh?

Average rate of Actual Unemployment
unemployment Per CF Rate
in 1929 ------ 3.14%
in 1933: 24.9% 24.75%
in 1934: 21.7% 21.6%
in 1935: 20.1% 19.97%
in 1936: 16.9% 16.8%
in 1937: 14.3% 14.18%
in 1938: 19.0% 18.91%
in 1939: 17.2% 17.05%
in 1940: 14.5% 14.45%
in 1941 ------- 9.66%
in 1942 -------- 4.7%
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

So, crusader, WWII started in the end of 1941, but the war effects were primarily from 1942 on. Now, three facts you conveniently forgot.
First, The ue rate in 1929 was 3.14%. By 1933, just over 4 years later, with NO INTERVENTION, the ue rate went to 24.75%. That would be, if you could count, a raise of 22%. Which was the fastest and greatest raise in the ue rate EVER. EVER. Using those great republican principles of The Invisible Hand. And human suffering was immense. There is a reason the hand is invisible.
Second, From 1933 to 1941 the ue rate dropped to 9.66%, or 15.5% in 8 years. The fastest decline in the ue rate in the HISTORY OF THE US. All with extreme government intervention.
Third, in 1937 increased republican pressure, as they controlled congress again, caused FDR to back off stimulus spending, and by 1937 the nation paid the cost with a one year increase of nearly 5% in the ue rate. In 1937 FDR again increased stimulus spending and the decrease in the ue rate continued again.

Really, me boy, lying is bad form.

Take the average from 1933 to 1940, see what that number is.

147.62/7=21%

That's FDR first 2 terms, 21% Average unemployment -- you're calling that a success?

You continue to ignore the relief and reform that occurred during FDR's first two terms.

You continue to ignore the conservative economic legislation in 1936 that gutted the recovery until war preparations began for the US.

So, yes, you fail in analyzing why economic reform failed until to WWII.

The anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks continue to use distorted unemployment numbers, despite more accurate numbers having been established over 40 years ago that incorporated people who worked and collected paychecks while employed in government-funded programs and projects that built infrastructure. When the realistic and accurate numbers that show real overall unemployment are used, employment figures move approximately 5% into the positive, or lower numbers. They account for the three and a half to four million workers who were in the New Deal work programs.

Easy to understand and quick read that explains why anti-FDR folks like to use outdated and distorted unemployment numbers. Graphs included in this link.
edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/very-short-reading-list-unemployment-in-the-1930s/

OK, I'll give you that.

So, FDR spent $3 Trillion and managed to have average 16% unemployment over 7 years.

That's a success?

The use of "average" skewers and distorts to some degree when you are discussing a seven year period. It takes the first year, which was inherited to boost that higher number and ignores the fact that the numbers went down, but remained high the second year until the New Deal programs kicked in. It also hides the three years that the unemployment dropped to below 10%.

1. 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% .

2. 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.” http://www.aei.org/article/26390

3. Warren Harding inherited one of the sharpest recessions in American history in 1921. By July it was over. Harding and Treasury Sec’y Mellon cut government expenditures by 40 %, allowing wages to fall, in a natural recovery to full employment. The cuts, and even sharper tax cuts under Coolidge, produced the long period of growth and rising living standards associated with the Roaring Twenties.

4. “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong…somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. 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!”

Morgenthau Diary, May 9, 1939, Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library




5. In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."

He must have had you in mind, eh?



Schlesinger, Brookings, Mellon, Morgenthau on one side.....you, a dunce, on the other.

Tough call, huh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Another thing the anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks do when comparing the 20's to the 30's is to ignore the stock market crash of 1929 and the closure of 5,000 banks before FDR was inaugurated. Either of those two things alone and by themselves had more impact than the unemployment numbers. Now add the devasting Dust Bowl Storms that continued through the entire decade of the 30's.

Right. 1929 was 4 years before FDR took his first oath and then he spent the equivalent of $3T remaking the economy in Mussolini's image -- and only made things worse.

Best investment in American history was called the New Deal. We are still using much of the infrastructure created and built in that era from those programs.

We're using electricity and mass production too, they came to prominence in the "Roaring 20's" without massive government intervention.

I'm trying to get you to see the light that FDR's intervention and meddling actually did damage.

Crusader is a con tool. He believes what he is told to believe. Con talking points. That the Great Depression was anything but a republican creation is stupid thought. That the ue rate of 25% was a good deal, and lowering it back to 9% was a bad deal, is his thought process. Poor ignorant con tool.

It that your Jake Starkey imitation? It's pretty ******* good.

I went to public school and was taught that FDR was the greatest because he rescued us from free enterprise. it's only relatively recently that I started checking it for myself and have come to the conclusion that this "Great" FDR must have been someone totally different from the one who was President during 1933-1940.

Also, your "analysis" of my posts tells me that either: a) English is not your first language, b) you're too far down the Progressive alternate Universe rabbit hole to see daylight, or c) both a and b

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another thing the anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks do when comparing the 20's to the 30's is to ignore the stock market crash of 1929 and the closure of 5,000 banks before FDR was inaugurated. Either of those two things alone and by themselves had more impact than the unemployment numbers. Now add the devasting Dust Bowl Storms that continued through the entire decade of the 30's.

Right. 1929 was 4 years before FDR took his first oath and then he spent the equivalent of $3T remaking the economy in Mussolini's image -- and only made things worse.

Best investment in American history was called the New Deal. We are still using much of the infrastructure created and built in that era from those programs.

We're using electricity and mass production too, they came to prominence in the "Roaring 20's" without massive government intervention.

I'm trying to get you to see the light that FDR's intervention and meddling actually did damage.

Crusader is a con tool. He believes what he is told to believe. Con talking points. That the Great Depression was anything but a republican creation is stupid thought. That the ue rate of 25% was a good deal, and lowering it back to 9% was a bad deal, is his thought process. Poor ignorant con tool.

I've had enough 'shooting fish in a barrel, or, in your case, worms.


As one eventually becomes weary of having the dull, the uneducated, the ignorant, offer what they consider rebuff to intelligent and informed posts, and in the interests of better debate milieu.....I strongly suggest that no Leftists.....e.g., Democrat, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Nazi, Progressive, or Fascist.....


....nor any combination or permutation of same, embarrass themselves by offering any post until such time that they complete a study of these three works:


1. "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline,"
by Robert H. Bork

2. "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change,"
by Jonah Goldberg

3. "American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation's Character,"
by Diana West



They provide the context for the world you live in.

And, please do study the vast and scholarly documentation provided in each tome.


Without having digested the three above, and carefully decided whether they are correct or not, your posts reek of stupidity and a lack of understanding.

I mean that in only the kindest way.


I fully understand the difficulties that this course (pun intended) of action entails....
...as elucidated by the great mind herself...

"Liberals don’t read books- they don’t read anything. That’s why they’re liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges."
Coulter


But!!!

Having completed the above assignment, you will find that your experience.....and mine....here on the board will be greatly enhanced.

Begin immediately!!!

Forthwith!!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another thing the anti-FDR/anti-New Deal folks do when comparing the 20's to the 30's is to ignore the stock market crash of 1929 and the closure of 5,000 banks before FDR was inaugurated. Either of those two things alone and by themselves had more impact than the unemployment numbers. Now add the devasting Dust Bowl Storms that continued through the entire decade of the 30's.

Right. 1929 was 4 years before FDR took his first oath and then he spent the equivalent of $3T remaking the economy in Mussolini's image -- and only made things worse.

Best investment in American history was called the New Deal. We are still using much of the infrastructure created and built in that era from those programs.

We're using electricity and mass production too, they came to prominence in the "Roaring 20's" without massive government intervention.

I'm trying to get you to see the light that FDR's intervention and meddling actually did damage.

Crusader is a con tool. He believes what he is told to believe. Con talking points. That the Great Depression was anything but a republican creation is stupid thought. That the ue rate of 25% was a good deal, and lowering it back to 9% was a bad deal, is his thought process. Poor ignorant con tool.

It that your Jake Starkey imitation? It's pretty ******* good.

I went to public school and was taught that FDR was the greatest because he rescued us from free enterprise. it's only relatively recently that I started checking it for myself and have come to the conclusion that this "Great" FDR must have been someone totally different from the one who was President during 1933-1940.

Also, your "analysis" of my posts tells me that either: a) English is not your first language, b) you're too far down the Progressive alternate Universe rabbit hole to see daylight, or c) both a and b

"....it's only relatively recently that I started checking it for myself and have come to the conclusion that this "Great" FDR must have been someone totally different from the one who was President during 1933-1940."

I love reading things like that.


Sadly....the other side has neither your work ethic, nor your intestinal fortitude.

I have often posted that they are Liberals and Democrats out of ignorance...as this thread proves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank and PC's sadly stuttering replies and evidence have been debunked time and again on the board over the years, so, no, they don't get "just once more." The stupid polices of economic, conservative legislation in 1936 and 1937 that FDR signed retarded the recovery.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank and PC's sadly stuttering replies and evidence have been debunked time and again on the board over the years, so, no, they don't get "just once more." The stupid polices of economic, conservative legislation in 1936 and 1937 that FDR signed retarded the recovery.

Jake those "stupid policies" dropped unemployment from 12% down to 4% in under 2 years when Coolidge and Mellon were in charge, why didn't these "stupid policies" work for FDR?

 

[regent]

Are all depressions/recession the same, caused by the same economic factors; all factors produced in the same quantity, and produced at the same time? If true why didn't Hoover just follow the Republican cure: balance the budget and bingo depression cured?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank and PC's sadly stuttering replies and evidence have been debunked time and again on the board over the years, so, no, they don't get "just once more." The stupid polices of economic, conservative legislation in 1936 and 1937 that FDR signed retarded the recovery.

Jake those "stupid policies" dropped unemployment from 12% down to 4% in under 2 years when Coolidge and Mellon were in charge, why didn't these "stupid policies" work for FDR?

Because the stupid policies in 1936 and 1937 did not work because the situation was different than 1920 to 1922.

You think a one size fits all economic philosophy fits all situations. It does not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are all depressions/recession the same, caused by the same economic factors; all factors produced in the same quantity, and produced at the same time? If true why didn't Hoover just follow the Republican cure: balance the budget and bingo depression cured?

Frank will be unable to competently answer that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank and PC's sadly stuttering replies and evidence have been debunked time and again on the board over the years, so, no, they don't get "just once more." The stupid polices of economic, conservative legislation in 1936 and 1937 that FDR signed retarded the recovery.

Jake those "stupid policies" dropped unemployment from 12% down to 4% in under 2 years when Coolidge and Mellon were in charge, why didn't these "stupid policies" work for FDR?

Because the stupid policies in 1936 and 1937 did not work because the situation was different than 1920 to 1922.

You think a one size fits all economic philosophy fits all situations. It does not.

You keep saying "different" yet you never explain how or why. I'm starting to think this about you use different like someone might use inconceivable and for the same reason

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Are all depressions/recession the same, caused by the same economic factors; all factors produced in the same quantity, and produced at the same time? If true why didn't Hoover just follow the Republican cure: balance the budget and bingo depression cured?

Because Hoover was a Progressive who believe he was smarter than the market. FDR doubled down on ever bad idea Hoover tried.

“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, 1927

 

[Rshermr]

Frank and PC's sadly stuttering replies and evidence have been debunked time and again on the board over the years, so, no, they don't get "just once more." The stupid polices of economic, conservative legislation in 1936 and 1937 that FDR signed retarded the recovery.

Jake those "stupid policies" dropped unemployment from 12% down to 4% in under 2 years when Coolidge and Mellon were in charge, why didn't these "stupid policies" work for FDR?

SO, ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID THAT YOU BELIEVE A DOWNTURN IS A DOWNTURN. THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 WAS A HUGE DEAL, ME BOY. A GREAT DEPRESSION BASED ON A CRIPPLING LACK OR AGGREGATE DEMAND. AND IT WAS A 25% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DEPRESSION, LARGEST IN OUT HISTORY.
THE RECESSION OF THE EVERY EARLY 1920'S WAS A SIMPLE END OF A WORLD WAR RECESSION, NO PROBLEM WITH AGGREGATE DEMAND. IT WAS AN ISSUE OF DEFLATION, WHEN TONS OF PRODUCTION Was STILL THERE AND THE PRICES DECREASED FOR A BIT. AND IT WAS A DEPRESSION THAT OCCURRED THANKS TO THE FACT THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS RETURNED FROM WWI TO A USA WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JOBS FOR A WHILE. QUITE A NORMAL SORT OF THING. SO, YOU GOT A SHORT TERM DEFLATIONARY RECESSION, SHARP AND QUICK.
BUT THE REAL PROBLEM WITH YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT WHY THE COOLIDGE POLICIES THAT WERE SO SUCCESSFUL IN THIS SHORT RECESSION WERE NOT USED IN THE GREAT REPUBLICAN DEPRESSION OF 1929 SHOWS YOUR TRUE IGNORANCE. ACTUALLY, COOLIDGE HAD NO POLICIES THAT WERE HELPFUL IN THE EARLY 1920'a depression. Because, me ignorant con troll, by the time coolidge took office the recession you refer to was OVER. By about a year.