The "Equality" Fallacy

[alan1]

And here we have the Obama Administration advocating for lower standards of educations for minorities (except for Asians):

According to Alabama’s new education standards, black students will not be expected to do as well as white ones in public schools. The WSJ reports:

“Beginning this fall, Alabama public schools will be under a new state-created academic accountability system that sets different goals for students in math and reading based on their race, economic status, ability to speak English and disabilities.” Alabama’s Plan 2020 “sets a different standard for students in each of several subgroups — American Indian, Asian/Pacific islander, black, English language learners, Hispanic, multirace, poverty, special education and white.”

In other words, minority students will need to meet lower expectations, while white students (and Asians) will be expected to reach higher proficiency levels.

This practice is not new. In an effort to escape the No Child Left Behind Act’s stringent standards for schools, a number of states applied for a waiver, which would allow states to keep federal funding if their schools met a limited number of benchmarks. Of the 33 states granted a waiver last year, 27 now have different achievement goals for different groups of students. And the Obama administration fully supports this measure, “as long as the low-performing students are required to make greater rates of progress, so that the gap between struggling students and high-achieving students is cut in half over six years.”


Via Meadia: Walter Russell Mead's Blog | The American Interest



This will definitely ensure Unequal Outcomes...with minority students (except Asians) being given social promotions and remaining illiterate.

Let's see, they have lower standards in high school and fools think this will not affect their success in college? Not affect their success in their employment? I guess these same people want a quadriplegic fireman pulling them out of a burning house.

 

[boedicca]

And here we have the Obama Administration advocating for lower standards of educations for minorities (except for Asians):

According to Alabama’s new education standards, black students will not be expected to do as well as white ones in public schools. The WSJ reports:

“Beginning this fall, Alabama public schools will be under a new state-created academic accountability system that sets different goals for students in math and reading based on their race, economic status, ability to speak English and disabilities.” Alabama’s Plan 2020 “sets a different standard for students in each of several subgroups — American Indian, Asian/Pacific islander, black, English language learners, Hispanic, multirace, poverty, special education and white.”

In other words, minority students will need to meet lower expectations, while white students (and Asians) will be expected to reach higher proficiency levels.

This practice is not new. In an effort to escape the No Child Left Behind Act’s stringent standards for schools, a number of states applied for a waiver, which would allow states to keep federal funding if their schools met a limited number of benchmarks. Of the 33 states granted a waiver last year, 27 now have different achievement goals for different groups of students. And the Obama administration fully supports this measure, “as long as the low-performing students are required to make greater rates of progress, so that the gap between struggling students and high-achieving students is cut in half over six years.”


Via Meadia: Walter Russell Mead's Blog | The American Interest



This will definitely ensure Unequal Outcomes...with minority students (except Asians) being given social promotions and remaining illiterate.

Let's see, they have lower standards in high school and fools think this will not affect their success in college? Not affect their success in their employment? I guess these same people want a quadriplegic fireman pulling them out of a burning house.

Only if the quadriplegic fireman is either gay, or a non-asian minority.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Equality of opportunity exists.
Equality of outcome does not.

Anybody that wishes the government to (or thinks the government should) fix that is a fool.

I must not have articulated well...I was attempting to specify material wealth as the bogus "equality."

Arch Lib Glenn Greenwald, in his book , “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful,” makes the point clearly:

1. The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable…. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.

a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.



Of course, had they foreseen how Democrats would corrupt their view, they might very well have scrapped the whole project.

Sandy Berger (Democrat) destroys evidence, and walks.

Ira Libby (Republican) has a disagreement of memory with a journalist, and goes to prison.


“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm

 

[Derideo_Te]

GIMME THAT SOAPBOX....

OK...here's your bumper-sticker:

"A Nation Can Have Equality or Prosperity....But Not Both."

Too bad no one told Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark about that bumper sticker of yours, PC.

Pssstt....Friendly advice: change the Cicero quote to this one-

“The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.” Cicero 55 BC

Rome had a slave based economy, PC. Both the wealthy elite and the poor had a sense of entitlement. No one had to work because they had abundant slave labor. What Cicero was advocating was sedition against the established order. So you need to know the CONTEXT in which that statement was made. Today we have mechanical/electronic slaves. If you need to go somewhere your mechanical slave in the form of a car will take you there. If you want to be entertained your TV slave will provide it for you. Your dishwasher, washing machines, dryer, coffee maker, kindle and yes, the computer you are using and your smart phone are all your slaves. So according to Cicero you need to learn how to do all of these things for yourself once again. But we both know that is never going to happen because your smartphone is like like your 5th limb. It would take a surgical operation to remove it from you, right?

 

[AmazonTania]

Yea, I do believe it. And I also believe you are a social Darwinist and one of the people in this picture.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

You can have the "DUNCE OF THE DAY" award.


Most Generous Companies

Bristol-Myers Squibb gave over $551 million last year in cash and products.

Eli Lilly gave over $597 million last year in cash and products.

Johnson & Johnson gave over $706 million last year in cash and products.

Abbott Laboratories gave over $732 million last year in cash and products.

Wal-Mart gave over $958 million last year in cash and products.

Merck gave over $1.26 billion last year in cash and products

Pfizer gave over $3.06 billion last year in cash and products
The Most Charitable Companies - Business Insider

Time to Step Up: Corporate Charity Accounted for Only 5% of Giving in 2011

The new research found that individual donors accounted for the majority of charitable donations for a total of 73%. Charitable donations from foundations and bequests ranked behind individual donations at 14% and 8%, respectively. Donations from corporations were reported to be the least giving, contributing only 5% of all charitable donations in 2011.

Despite incrementally small increases in total dollars donated in 2010 from 2011, there has been a significant decrease in “major gifts” or donations of $1 million or more. As the Hudson Institute reports, the decline seen in major gifts is reminiscent of the decrease in major gifts during the Great Depression.



During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

Clearly FDR never understood what Harry Hopkins meant by that. As FDR was fighting against deflation and falling prices, which was desperately needed during an economic downturn. Trying to fight this, he established the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers subsidies NOT to plant on their own land, kill off excess livestock and destroy excess inventory. 6 Million pigs were slaughtered, bread and milk were thrown in the gutter just to artificially increase the price of food.

Now during a time of great starvation and suffering, FDR thought the last thing people really needed was inexpensive food. Maybe you should take the time to understand what this truly means.

 

[Bfgrn]

You can have the "DUNCE OF THE DAY" award.


Most Generous Companies

Bristol-Myers Squibb gave over $551 million last year in cash and products.

Eli Lilly gave over $597 million last year in cash and products.

Johnson & Johnson gave over $706 million last year in cash and products.

Abbott Laboratories gave over $732 million last year in cash and products.

Wal-Mart gave over $958 million last year in cash and products.

Merck gave over $1.26 billion last year in cash and products

Pfizer gave over $3.06 billion last year in cash and products
The Most Charitable Companies - Business Insider

Time to Step Up: Corporate Charity Accounted for Only 5% of Giving in 2011

The new research found that individual donors accounted for the majority of charitable donations for a total of 73%. Charitable donations from foundations and bequests ranked behind individual donations at 14% and 8%, respectively. Donations from corporations were reported to be the least giving, contributing only 5% of all charitable donations in 2011.

Despite incrementally small increases in total dollars donated in 2010 from 2011, there has been a significant decrease in “major gifts” or donations of $1 million or more. As the Hudson Institute reports, the decline seen in major gifts is reminiscent of the decrease in major gifts during the Great Depression.



During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

Clearly FDR never understood what Harry Hopkins meant by that. As FDR was fighting against deflation and falling prices, which was desperately needed during an economic downturn. Trying to fight this, he established the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers subsidies NOT to plant on their own land, kill off excess livestock and destroy excess inventory. 6 Million pigs were slaughtered, bread and milk were thrown in the gutter just to artificially increase the price of food.

Now during a time of great starvation and suffering, FDR thought the last thing people really needed was inexpensive food. Maybe you should take the time to understand what this truly means.

What FDR did was invest in Americans, put them to work, get something positive for that investment and give the unemployed the dignity of work and contribution to the Great Republic. WPA, CCC and pubic works program. During the Great Depression the government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

In other words, millions of men and women earned a living wage and self-respect and contributed mightily to the national infrastructure.


If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[PoliticalChic]

"it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them"

The social Darwin authoritarians are out as usual infesting these threads. Must be what they do when they're not on their knees servicing the opulent.

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.

Before analyzing current-day conservatism's machinery of deception, let us outline the main arguments of conservatism. Although these arguments have changed little through history, they might seem unfamiliar to many people today, indeed even to people who claim to be conservatives. That unfamiliarity is a very recent phenomenon. Yet it is only through the classical arguments and their fallacies that we can begin to analyze how conservatism operates now.

more

Conservatism....the CliffNotes version: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.



Laminate that for your wallet......


....well, as soon as you get your free ObamaWallet

 

[AmazonTania]

Time to Step Up: Corporate Charity Accounted for Only 5% of Giving in 2011

The new research found that individual donors accounted for the majority of charitable donations for a total of 73%. Charitable donations from foundations and bequests ranked behind individual donations at 14% and 8%, respectively. Donations from corporations were reported to be the least giving, contributing only 5% of all charitable donations in 2011.

Despite incrementally small increases in total dollars donated in 2010 from 2011, there has been a significant decrease in “major gifts” or donations of $1 million or more. As the Hudson Institute reports, the decline seen in major gifts is reminiscent of the decrease in major gifts during the Great Depression.



During the Great Depression conservatives raised the same objections to F.D.R.’s programs. They said the economy must be left alone and it would correct itself in the long run. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins shot back: “People don’t eat in the long run. They eat every day.”

Clearly FDR never understood what Harry Hopkins meant by that. As FDR was fighting against deflation and falling prices, which was desperately needed during an economic downturn. Trying to fight this, he established the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers subsidies NOT to plant on their own land, kill off excess livestock and destroy excess inventory. 6 Million pigs were slaughtered, bread and milk were thrown in the gutter just to artificially increase the price of food.

Now during a time of great starvation and suffering, FDR thought the last thing people really needed was inexpensive food. Maybe you should take the time to understand what this truly means.

What FDR did was invest in Americans, put them to work, get something positive for that investment and give the unemployed the dignity of work and contribution to the Great Republic. WPA, CCC and pubic works program. During the Great Depression the government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

In other words, millions of men and women earned a living wage and self-respect and contributed mightily to the national infrastructure.


If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

That's a nice bit a revisionist history, but that's not what happened at all. FDR started his New Deal expansion, but to no avail, many of those projected remained unfinished, such as the Hoover Dam. As a result, many of those workers straight back to the unemployment lines when many of these projects were over with.

These unemployed workers didn't find full-time jobs until 1941, when of course, FDR drafted them all into war.

 

[Bfgrn]

Clearly FDR never understood what Harry Hopkins meant by that. As FDR was fighting against deflation and falling prices, which was desperately needed during an economic downturn. Trying to fight this, he established the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers subsidies NOT to plant on their own land, kill off excess livestock and destroy excess inventory. 6 Million pigs were slaughtered, bread and milk were thrown in the gutter just to artificially increase the price of food.

Now during a time of great starvation and suffering, FDR thought the last thing people really needed was inexpensive food. Maybe you should take the time to understand what this truly means.

What FDR did was invest in Americans, put them to work, get something positive for that investment and give the unemployed the dignity of work and contribution to the Great Republic. WPA, CCC and pubic works program. During the Great Depression the government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

In other words, millions of men and women earned a living wage and self-respect and contributed mightily to the national infrastructure.


If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

That's a nice bit a revisionist history, but that's not what happened at all. FDR started his New Deal expansion, but to no avail, many of those projected remained unfinished, such as the Hoover Dam. As a result, many of those workers straight back to the unemployment lines when many of these projects were over with.

These unemployed workers didn't find full-time jobs until 1941, when of course, FDR drafted them all into war.

You 'Don't Debate Fallacies', you create them.

Holy ****, they must have been a hell of a group of workers. Because they:

planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system.

The only revisionism is from you right wing turds.

FDR and the New Deal were a HUGE success.

Top Five Years for GDP Expansion:

1942, +18.5%
1941, +17.1%
1943, +16.4%
1936, +13.0%
1934, +10.9%

Top Five Years for GDP Contraction:

1932, -13.1%
1946, -10.9%
1930, -8.6%
1931, -6.5%
2009, -3.5%

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unemployment...maybe you missed it...

The greatest yearly increase in GDP occurred during the New Deal, AND, the LARGEST DROP IN UNEPLOYMENT in America history occurred during the New Deal...


Census document HS-29 (available in PDF). Quoting directly from Census data, here are the unemployment rates and total number of official unemployed at the beginning and end of the presidential terms since the Great Depression:

ROOSEVELT PRE-WWII NEW DEAL
1932 Unemployment Rate: 23.6% (12.8 million total unemployed)
1940 Unemployment Rate: 14.6% (8.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -9.0
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.7%

ROOSEVELT WWII
1941 Unemployment Rate: 9.9% (5.5 million total unemployed)
1944 Unemployment Rate: 1.2% (670,000 total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -8.7
Total unemployment percentage change: -87.9%

TRUMAN
1945 Unemployment Rate: 1.9% (1.0 million total unemployed)
1952 Unemployment Rate: 3.0% (1.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +1.1
Total unemployment percentage change: +81.0%

EISENHOWER
1953 Unemployment Rate: 2.9% (1.8 million total unemployed)
1960 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (3.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: +110.03%

KENNEDY
1961 Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (4.7 million total unemployed)
1963 Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (4.0 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.0%
Total unemployment percentage change: -13.6%

JOHNSON
1964 Unemployment Rate: 5.2% (3.7 million total unemployed)
1968 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% (2.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: -25.6%

NIXON
1969 Unemployment Rate: 3.5% (2.8 million total unemployed)
1974 Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (5.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: +82.0%

FORD
1975 Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (7.9 million total unemployed)
1976 Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (7.4 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -0.8%
Total unemployment percentage change: -6.6%

CARTER
1977 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (6.9 million total unemployed)
1980 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (7.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.0
Total unemployment percentage change: +9.24%

REAGAN
1981 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% (8.2 million total unemployed)
1988 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (6.7 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: -19.0%

BUSH I
1989 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (6.5 million total unemployed)
1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.5% (9.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.2
Total unemployment percentage change: +47.2%

CLINTON
1993 Unemployment Rate: 6.9% (8.9 million total unemployed)
2000 Unemployment Rate: 4.0% (5.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change -2.9
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.3%

As you can see, in terms of the unemployment rate - that is, the percentage of the total workforce not working - the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop in American history. Yes, I'll say that again for conservatives, just to make sure they get it: The PRE-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - not the WWII era - saw the largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history. And by the way, that even includes the recession of 1937-1938.

Now, it is certainly true that the percentage drop of total unemployed was bigger in WWII than it was in the pre-WWII New Deal era. But as the data show, even by that metric, the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the second largest percentage drop in total unemployed in the 20th century, going from 12.8 million unemployed in Roosevelt's first year in office to 8.1 million unemployed at the end of his second term in 1940. That's a 36.7 percent drop - larger than the Clinton era (36.3%) and, yes conservatives, larger than the Reagan era (a mere 19%). At the absolute minimum, that would suggests the New Deal was a positive - not negative - economic force (and empirically more positive than, say, Reagan's free-market agenda).

These are the hard and fast numbers conservatives would like us all to forget with their claim that history proves massive spending packages like the New Deal will supposedly harm our economy.

The Forgotten Math: Pre-WWII New Deal Saw Biggest Drop In Unemployment Rate in American History

And you keep forgetting that your right wing austerity approach doesn't work. FDR found that out. FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

 

[AmazonTania]

You 'Don't Debate Fallacies', you create them.

Do you understand what fallacies are?

Holy ****, they must have been a hell of a group of workers. Because they:

planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system.

The only revisionism is from you right wing turds.

That's nice. These jobs were not long term, and after they were over, back to the breadlines.

Or are you suggesting that these were done away with one the New Deal started.

FDR and the New Deal were a HUGE success.

Top Five Years for GDP Expansion:

1942, +18.5%
1941, +17.1%
1943, +16.4%
1936, +13.0%
1934, +10.9%

That's nice, someone learned how to use GDP as a bogus metric. A couple of things you should know about those expansion points.

1934: There was no GDP metric before 1934. Simon Kuznets invented GDP as a metric of effective government policy, not overall economic well being. The economic expansion was due to the fact that GDP was a widely brand new metric and the economy was already starting from Rock Bottom.

1336: The Supreme Court overturns harmful New Deal policies such as the Agriculture Adjustment Act and the National Relief Act. This was the point of the biggest rise during the 1930's.

1941: The Federal Reserve loosed it's stranglehold on the money supply, allocating all the new liquidity to the war effort.

Majority of the economic growth during the Great Depression was due to Government Spending. The economy never actually improved a bit.

Top Five Years for GDP Contraction:

1932, -13.1%
1946, -10.9%
1930, -8.6%
1931, -6.5%
2009, -3.5%

I fail to see what 1946 and 2009 has to do with the Great Depression. You're just grasping at straws. Also, GDP wasn't developed at any time during 1930 - 1932.

Unemployment...maybe you missed it...

The greatest yearly increase in GDP occurred during the New Deal, AND, the LARGEST DROP IN UNEPLOYMENT in America history occurred during the New Deal...


Census document HS-29 (available in PDF). Quoting directly from Census data, here are the unemployment rates and total number of official unemployed at the beginning and end of the presidential terms since the Great Depression:



As you can see, in terms of the unemployment rate - that is, the percentage of the total workforce not working - the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop in American history. Yes, I'll say that again for conservatives, just to make sure they get it: The PRE-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - not the WWII era - saw the largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history. And by the way, that even includes the recession of 1937-1938.

The Great Depression, or Pre WWII New Deal Era as you call it, had the biggest drop in the unemployment rate in history solely due to the fact that people were leaving the labour force as a result of not being able to find work. You do understand how the unemployment rate is calculated:

Unemployment Rate = (Unemployed Workers / Total Labor Force) * 100​

Using your own source, you can see that employment did not grow. It remained stagnant:

Employed: (In Millions)

1935: 42,260
1936: 44,410
1937: 46,300
1938: 44,220
1939: 45,750

There is only two reasons why the unemployment rate, given how it's calculated, would shrink:

1. The amount of people working is increasing steadily
2. The labour fource is decreasing steadily

You don't have to be an economic wiz or Sherlock Holmes to understand that the first option isn't what happened here. Employment did not increase. People were leaving the labour force faster than the labour force was actually growing.

In other words, the unemployment didn't really shrink because people were not really finding jobs.

Again, look at the time during World War II, when the census conveniently has the Employment/Population Ratio available, and the Not In The Labour Force Statistics at the ready. The Employment Population Ratio increased 3% a year every year since the United States entered World War II.

Employment/Population Ratio:

1941: 50.4
1942: 54.5
1943: 57.6
1944: 57.9

And the 'Not In Labour Force' shrank, which indicates that this statistic was increasing during the 30's, not decreasing.

Not In Labour Force (In Millions):

1941: 43,990
1942: 42,230
1943: 39,100
1944: 38,590

Now, it is certainly true that the percentage drop of total unemployed was bigger in WWII than it was in the pre-WWII New Deal era. But as the data show, even by that metric, the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the second largest percentage drop in total unemployed in the 20th century, going from 12.8 million unemployed in Roosevelt's first year in office to 8.1 million unemployed at the end of his second term in 1940. That's a 36.7 percent drop - larger than the Clinton era (36.3%) and, yes conservatives, larger than the Reagan era (a mere 19%). At the absolute minimum, that would suggests the New Deal was a positive - not negative - economic force (and empirically more positive than, say, Reagan's free-market agenda).

These are the hard and fast numbers conservatives would like us all to forget with their claim that history proves massive spending packages like the New Deal will supposedly harm our economy.

Using your own statistics, I have concluded very different things:

1. The unemployment rate was dropping.
2. The unemployment rate was dropping due to the fact that people were leaving the labour force
3. Employment did not grow. It remained stagnant for most of the entire decade
4. Unemployment did not truly fall until WWII, but even the War is an anomaly and not a true market factor.

Given this evidence, the Great Depression did not end until 1947 or 1949.

And you keep forgetting that your right wing austerity approach doesn't work. FDR found that out. FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

It worked in 1920. Why wouldn't it work a decade later?

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

[/QUOTE]

There really was no Austerity. Spending didn't increase in 1937, but it didn't shrink either. Not to pre-New Deal era levels. In May 6th, 1937 the Stock Market crashed. This was the year the Wagner Act, passed in 1935, had it's biggest effect on the economy, as businesses was ill equip to deal with the increase cost of employment. This in addition to this, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 cut businesses off at the knees. And once again the AAA was reconstituted during 1938, which offered farms subsidies not to grow food.

You're not very good at research or history, but you'll learn.

 

[Rshermr]

Clearly FDR never understood what Harry Hopkins meant by that. As FDR was fighting against deflation and falling prices, which was desperately needed during an economic downturn. Trying to fight this, he established the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which paid farmers subsidies NOT to plant on their own land, kill off excess livestock and destroy excess inventory. 6 Million pigs were slaughtered, bread and milk were thrown in the gutter just to artificially increase the price of food.

Now during a time of great starvation and suffering, FDR thought the last thing people really needed was inexpensive food. Maybe you should take the time to understand what this truly means.

What FDR did was invest in Americans, put them to work, get something positive for that investment and give the unemployed the dignity of work and contribution to the Great Republic. WPA, CCC and pubic works program. During the Great Depression the government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

In other words, millions of men and women earned a living wage and self-respect and contributed mightily to the national infrastructure.


If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

That's a nice bit a revisionist history, but that's not what happened at all. FDR started his New Deal expansion, but to no avail, many of those projected remained unfinished, such as the Hoover Dam. As a result, many of those workers straight back to the unemployment lines when many of these projects were over with.

These unemployed workers didn't find full-time jobs until 1941, when of course, FDR drafted them all into war.

The unemployment rate when fdr took office was on it's way to 25%. It was over 24% when fdr took office on march 4,1993. And rose to about 24.9% by the end of 1993. Then dropped every year, as a result of stimulus efforts. The only time it went the other direction was in 1937, when fdr very nearly stopped stimulus spending, and the ue rate reached 19% in 1938 (up from 14.2% in 1937). Stimulus spending started again in 1938, and the rate started back down again at a fairly rapid rate.
The Great Depression Statistics

We entered WWII in dec 1941. By that time the ue rate was about 9.5%.
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

The rate in early 1929 was about 3.8%, and went to 24.5% by the time fdr was inaugurated. So, it went up over 20% in 4 years. It took longer, as it always does, to get it back down.

 

[AmazonTania]

What FDR did was invest in Americans, put them to work, get something positive for that investment and give the unemployed the dignity of work and contribution to the Great Republic. WPA, CCC and pubic works program. During the Great Depression the government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.

It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters, including Willem de Kooning and Jackson Pollock.

In other words, millions of men and women earned a living wage and self-respect and contributed mightily to the national infrastructure.


If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy

That's a nice bit a revisionist history, but that's not what happened at all. FDR started his New Deal expansion, but to no avail, many of those projected remained unfinished, such as the Hoover Dam. As a result, many of those workers straight back to the unemployment lines when many of these projects were over with.

These unemployed workers didn't find full-time jobs until 1941, when of course, FDR drafted them all into war.

The unemployment rate when fdr took office was on it's way to 25%. It was over 24% when fdr took office on march 4,1993. And rose to about 24.9% by the end of 1993. Then dropped every year, as a result of stimulus efforts. The only time it went the other direction was in 1937, when fdr very nearly stopped stimulus spending, and the ue rate reached 19% in 1938 (up from 14.2% in 1937). Stimulus spending started again in 1938, and the rate started back down again at a fairly rapid rate.
The Great Depression Statistics

We entered WWII in dec 1941. By that time the ue rate was about 9.5%.
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

The rate in early 1929 was about 3.8%, and went to 24.5% by the time fdr was inaugurated. So, it went up over 20% in 4 years. It took longer, as it always does, to get it back down.

The only two ways unemployment rate decreases: If the number of unemployed decreases or the labour force increases. Employment was stagnant during the Great Depression. The Unemployment Rate shrank because people were leaving the Labour Force faster than the Labour Force was growing. The unemployment didn't really shrink because people people weren't really finding jobs.

I've already discussed this using someone else's statistics. Why should I have to do it once more? I dunno.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Tanya says:

The only two ways unemployment rate decreases: If the number of unemployed decreases

Ok. That is true. The number of unemployed becomes fewer, and of course, the ue rate decreases. By definition.

or the labour force increases.

Not ok. That would be false. If you increase the number of people in the labor force, and do not increase the number of jobs, the ue rate INCREASES. Assuming that you do not also increase the number of jobs more than proportionally.
That assumes that you use the normal definition for workforce, Which is all working or looking for work.
So, you have to increase jobs, unless the work force DECREASES as a result of those that had been counted as unemployed but looking changing to unemployed but not looking.

Employment was stagnant during the Great Depression. The Unemployment Rate shrank because people were leaving the Labour Force faster than the Labour Force was growing.

Sorry. Was the labor force get smaller, because people were leaving it. Or was it growing?? I assume you meant to say people were leaving the labor force faster than jobs were created, or increased. So, what is it that you are trying to say?? I suspect it is that you are saying that jobs were not created, but more of those not working but that were looking for jobs stopped looking causing the ue rate to decrease. So, net, the ue rate decreased only because the number of unemployed but looking decreased. Which would be indicated by a smaller number in the workforce, but a lower ue rate all else being the same. But the historical numbers do not show that. They show the opposite. So, can you explain??

The unemployment didn't really shrink because people people weren't really finding jobs.

The work force increased in size every year from 1928 through 1941. The percent of the work force unemployed dropped every year, except one (1938 after stimulus was curtailed in 1937) from 1933 until 1941. The drop in 1941 resulting mainly from industrial demand, NOT from the draft.
"the onset of World War II created an industrial demand that brought the economy back to prosperity."
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

So, there were indeed major decreases in the number of unemployed during the FDR years. And there was never a net decrease in the size of the workforce as a result of unemployed stopping looking for jobs.

I've already discussed this using someone else's statistics. Why should I have to do it once more? I dunno.

You do not, obviously. I was just trying to wash what you are saying with reality.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I don't have any problem with inequallity, as far as it is generated by true competition which yields goods and services at a competitive price.

Shamefully the financial sector is not in this situation. Their huge profits were generated by taking unnecesary risk which ended in a huge bailout.

 

[AmazonTania]

Not ok. That would be false. If you increase the number of people in the labor force, and do not increase the number of jobs, the ue rate INCREASES. Assuming that you do not also increase the number of jobs more than proportionally.
That assumes that you use the normal definition for workforce, Which is all working or looking for work.
So, you have to increase jobs, unless the work force DECREASES as a result of those that had been counted as unemployed but looking changing to unemployed but not looking.

The number of jobs available has no variable in the unemployment rate, at all. There are only two variables in the unemployment rate: The number of people unemployed and the number of people in the labour force. The number of jobs has nothing no bearing in the unemployment rate. My initial point still stands, and it's pretty easy to see using basic math. And I'll use small numbers:

50 unemployed / 100 labour force = 5% unemployment rate

40 unemployed / 100 labour force = 4% unemployment rate

50 unemployed / 150 labour force = 3.3% unemploymen rate

40 unemployed / 150 labour force = 2.6% unemployment rate

75 unemployed / 150 labour force = 5% unemployment rate

As you can see, if the labour force increases faster than number of people unemployed, this decreased the unemployment rate. If the number of people unemployed decreases, it decreases the unemployment rate. Either or can both happen at the same time, but it doesn't indicate an increase of jobs.

Sorry. Was the labor force get smaller, because people were leaving it. Or was it growing?? I assume you meant to say people were leaving the labor force faster than jobs were created, or increased. So, what is it that you are trying to say?? I suspect it is that you are saying that jobs were not created, but more of those not working but that were looking for jobs stopped looking causing the ue rate to decrease.

When you leave the labour force, you are placed in a statistical category known as 'Not In Labour Force.' This is separate from the statistical category from the actual labour force. The unemployment rate shrinks if people are leaving the labour force faster than it is growing. Perhaps it would be better if I showed you using a modern day example.

The labour force grew most years and contracted others, but the current labor force is higher than what it was in 2008. But just because it's higher doesn't mean that people are finding jobs. In fact, they are not finding jobs. They are leaving the labour force. This is no different from what happened during the Great Depression.

So, net, the ue rate decreased only because the number of unemployed but looking decreased. Which would be indicated by a smaller number in the workforce, but a lower ue rate all else being the same. But the historical numbers do not show that. They show the opposite. So, can you explain??

I don't see how this can be confusing. If the number of unemployed decreases or the number of people in the labour force increases, then the unemployment rate decreases. This means the ratio of people who are unemployed relative to your labour force is getting smaller. However, this does not mean that people are actually finding work. The number you need to look at is the employment numbers, not the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is just the tip of the iceberg, and focusing on this number tells you nothing.

The work force increased in size every year from 1928 through 1941. The percent of the work force unemployed dropped every year, except one (1938 after stimulus was curtailed in 1937) from 1933 until 1941.

That's nice, but employment remained at a fixed level relative to unemployment and the labor force. Labour Forcet averaged 1% increase a year started from the upward trend of 1933 to 1940. There was no significant uptick in employment between this time.

The drop in 1941 resulting mainly from industrial demand, NOT from the draft.
"the onset of World War II created an industrial demand that brought the economy back to prosperity."
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

It was both. People were exiting out of the statistical category of 'Not In The Labour Force' and being drafted into the war. But without a draft, decreasing the unemployment rate would have never been possible.

Not In Labour Force (In Millions):

1941: 43,990
1942: 42,230
1943: 39,100
1944: 38,590

So, there were indeed major decreases in the number of unemployed during the FDR years. And there was never a net decrease in the size of the workforce as a result of unemployed stopping looking for jobs.

A decrease in the unemployment rate is meaningless unless there is an significant increase in the among of jobs. There was not, as I have already pointed out.

You do not, obviously. I was just trying to wash what you are saying with reality.

Apparently you weren't watching very well. You have offered nothing new, which resulted me repeating the same things over and over, except in needlessly greater detail.

 

[Rshermr]

Not ok. That would be false. If you increase the number of people in the labor force, and do not increase the number of jobs, the ue rate INCREASES. Assuming that you do not also increase the number of jobs more than proportionally.
That assumes that you use the normal definition for workforce, Which is all working or looking for work.
So, you have to increase jobs, unless the work force DECREASES as a result of those that had been counted as unemployed but looking changing to unemployed but not looking.

The number of jobs available has no variable in the unemployment rate, at all. There are only two variables in the unemployment rate: The number of people unemployed and the number of people in the labour force. The number of jobs has nothing no bearing in the unemployment rate. My initial point still stands, and it's pretty easy to see using basic math. And I'll use small numbers:

50 unemployed / 100 labour force = 5% unemployment rate

40 unemployed / 100 labour force = 4% unemployment rate

50 unemployed / 150 labour force = 3.3% unemploymen rate

40 unemployed / 150 labour force = 2.6% unemployment rate

75 unemployed / 150 labour force = 5% unemployment rate

As you can see, if the labour force increases faster than number of people unemployed, this decreased the unemployment rate. If the number of people unemployed decreases, it decreases the unemployment rate. Either or can both happen at the same time, but it doesn't indicate an increase of jobs.

Sorry. Was the labor force get smaller, because people were leaving it. Or was it growing?? I assume you meant to say people were leaving the labor force faster than jobs were created, or increased. So, what is it that you are trying to say?? I suspect it is that you are saying that jobs were not created, but more of those not working but that were looking for jobs stopped looking causing the ue rate to decrease.

When you leave the labour force, you are placed in a statistical category known as 'Not In Labour Force.' This is separate from the statistical category from the actual labour force. The unemployment rate shrinks if people are leaving the labour force faster than it is growing. Perhaps it would be better if I showed you using a modern day example.

The labour force grew most years and contracted others, but the current labor force is higher than what it was in 2008. But just because it's higher doesn't mean that people are finding jobs. In fact, they are not finding jobs. They are leaving the labour force. This is no different from what happened during the Great Depression.



I don't see how this can be confusing. If the number of unemployed decreases or the number of people in the labour force increases, then the unemployment rate decreases. This means the ratio of people who are unemployed relative to your labour force is getting smaller. However, this does not mean that people are actually finding work. The number you need to look at is the employment numbers, not the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate is just the tip of the iceberg, and focusing on this number tells you nothing.



That's nice, but employment remained at a fixed level relative to unemployment and the labor force. Labour Forcet averaged 1% increase a year started from the upward trend of 1933 to 1940. There was no significant uptick in employment between this time.



It was both. People were exiting out of the statistical category of 'Not In The Labour Force' and being drafted into the war. But without a draft, decreasing the unemployment rate would have never been possible.

Not In Labour Force (In Millions):

1941: 43,990
1942: 42,230
1943: 39,100
1944: 38,590

So, there were indeed major decreases in the number of unemployed during the FDR years. And there was never a net decrease in the size of the workforce as a result of unemployed stopping looking for jobs.

A decrease in the unemployment rate is meaningless unless there is an significant increase in the among of jobs. There was not, as I have already pointed out.

You do not, obviously. I was just trying to wash what you are saying with reality.

Apparently you weren't watching very well. You have offered nothing new, which resulted me repeating the same things over and over, except in needlessly greater detail.

Uh, I think a basic math class may be in the cards for you. I am not going to touch what you just posted. It is SOOOOOOOO full of inaccuracies I do not know where to start. though you may want to just take a look at your beginning numbers:
50 unemployed / 100 labour force = 5% unemployment rate
The labor force includes unemployed and looking. Assuming that is what your unemployed is looking, as you seem to indicate, that would be a labor force that includes unemployed for a total of 100 in the work force, and an unemployment rate of 50%. Looks like you truly want to believe what you want to believe. Good for you. Be my guest (though obviously you do not need my ok).

 

[Norman]

I find the notion that wealth equality = equality preposterous.

 

[expatriate]

I know of no nationally recognized democratic politician who has EVER suggested that equality of wealth was a desired goal of the party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I know of no nationally recognized democratic politician who has EVER suggested that equality of wealth was a desired goal of the party.

"I know of no nationally recognized democratic politician who has EVER suggested that equality of wealth was a desired goal of the party."

Good of you to admit your lack of knowledge.

Can you imagine the length of a post that attempted to fill in your lacunae???




The fundamental basis for taxation is a major difference between the Liberal view, and the conservative view.
For the latter, it is to pay for the authorized expenses of government, i.e., the enumerated powers of Article 1, section 8.

For the former, it is to level the playing field, equalize wealth, institute 'fairness.'






Here are two names with which you may be familiar:

1. Bill Clinton Q&A: Taxing the Rich Is Not ‘Anti-Wealth, It’s Pro-Fairness’

My argument is it's not class warfare for asking for higher revenues to deal with the debt and to invest in what we need to. It is that we're about the only people whose incomes have gone up in last 30 years and we're in the best position to pay a little more so that America can get its books in order. The middle class has already paid and paid and paid in terms of stagnant income, losing healthcare coverage.
This is not an anti-wealth position, it's pro fairness.
Bill Clinton Q&A: Taxing the Rich Is Not ?Anti-Wealth, It?s Pro-Fairness? | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

a. President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.
Bork, "Slouching Toward Gomorrah," chapter four.


2. "GIBSON: “And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?”
OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

There’s that word again — fairness. It has nothing to do with accepting a policy that brings in the most revenue and is best for the nation. It has everything to do with making the wealthy pay more because that is Obama’s definition of “fairness.”
Obama?s tax plan: It?s about revenge, not revenue - BizPac Review




Write this down so as not to embarrass yourself in the future.

 

[expatriate]

fairness is not synonymous with equality. sorry.

******* ditzy moron.

Shouldn't you be cooking dinner?