FDR's leftist policies deepened and extended the Great Depression

Started by RichClem

This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules

PreviousNext
232 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  17,423 15 Jan 2014, 8:21 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 62,426
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 17,423.21



Log in or register to remove this ad..
golfboy » 15 Jan 2014 3:06 pm wrote:
Perhaps you don't understand what "deepened and extended" means?


Perhaps you don't understand what "cherry-picking" means?

The New Deal is not even DEALT WITH in that link. A few provisions are said to have been unwise and counterproductive. The great majority of the New Deal is not even discussed - and remained in service to the nation for fifty years.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me

Log in or register to remove this ad..

User avatar
Posted by bigsky
  1,229 15 Jan 2014, 8:22 pm

bigsky User avatar
      
      

Posts: 15,796
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 1,229.43



Cannonpointer » 15 Jan 2014 7:19 pm wrote:

I take it back, Well done.


and besides the points i brought up were the right wing policies of his left leaning administration...
0
we have been

i dont always double down on failure my friends, but when i do, i vote for obama. stay jobless my friends -most interesting man in the world

people who put other members names in their signatures secretly want to suck that persons dick...

tharock220's Photo
Posted by tharock220
  2,030 15 Jan 2014, 8:22 pm

tharock220 Moderator
     
     

Posts: 2,294
Anarchist Anarchist political affiliation
Politics: Anarchist
Money: 2,030.44



bingster » 15 Jan 2014 4:56 pm wrote:

What "post wwii tax cut"? the top bracket was still in the 90's when Kennedy was elected? Eisenhower didn't cut taxes, Kennedy did.

and you baggers always tend to forget that all of that booming recovery from WWII on through the 50's was heavily government subsidized from the auto makers, through the housing boom, GI Bill, etc.... That boom wasn't despite liberal policies, it was because of liberal policies.


Really??? In 1945 the lowest tax rate was 23% on incomes under $25k. The next year it was 22% on incomes under $47k. Inflation adjusted. Care to try again???

Not one of Roosevelt's policies fixed the Depression. Had they worked the US wouldn't have endured the second largest economic contraction in history in 1937-38.
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  17,423 15 Jan 2014, 8:25 pm

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 62,426
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 17,423.21



golfboy » 15 Jan 2014 3:22 pm wrote:
Clearly you missed who did wrote this report:
Mr. Cole is professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Ohanian is professor of economics and director of the Ettinger Family Program in Macroeconomic Research at UCLA.

So, should I believe these economists, or you, who is claiming economists would burst out "laffin" (sic).


You should credit those economists over a bunch of internet posters, unless and until you find they have a hidden agenda - and I see no evidence of such.

That said, their actual findings are important to understand before making foolish blanket statements from facts and authority-based arguments not in evidence.
0
Only the weakest ideas must be protected from debate, and only religions declare people heretics.

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Money is a theory until spent - then a value statement


When your map disputes the territory, it's your map that is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty is intentional - lies are the lazy way out


Nostalgia is a crime against what happened
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me


User avatar
Posted by bigsky
  1,229 15 Jan 2014, 8:29 pm

bigsky User avatar
      
      

Posts: 15,796
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 1,229.43



i watched a show on the dust bowl, about three weeks ago, it might have been on the history channel...not sure...
one amazing thing about the people of the dust bowl is that they would get together the night before their neighbors farm was going up for auction and agree to buy it for a nickle..then they would sell it back to their neighbor...that wouldnt happen today...what i just described is the kind of socialism that works for me...local personal and kind...not federal, mandated and abusive.

there was a time when YHVH looked down on this nation and smiled...i fear that time is over
0
we have been

i dont always double down on failure my friends, but when i do, i vote for obama. stay jobless my friends -most interesting man in the world

people who put other members names in their signatures secretly want to suck that persons dick...

Misty's Photo
Posted by Misty
  22,255 15 Jan 2014, 9:23 pm

Misty Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator

Posts: 19,268
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 22,255.10




RichClem » 15 Jan 2014 4:01 pm wrote:
Oh gosh, how horrible that I posted facts, logic and sound opinion!

You posted the opinion of two neoclassical economists.
You call it 'sound' only because you like it.
1
Image

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Jan 2014, 8:48 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.59

bingster » 15 Jan 2014 4:56 pm wrote:
RichClem » 15 Jan 2014 4:42 pm wrote:

First, an economy will recover on its own, once bad policy is no longer enacted. FDR began reversing his own policies in the late 30's.

But arguably the biggest reason for the recovery was the huge post-WWII tax cut enacted by Repubs.

That's bulls***. Despite the Post WWII tax cut, starting in 1949 there were five recessions in twelve years totalling 25% of that period, which is precisely why Supply Sider JFK proposed his across the board tax rate cut that closely resembled Reagan's.

As usual, you bungle basic reality. :rofl:


What "post wwii tax cut"? the top bracket was still in the 90's when Kennedy was elected? Eisenhower didn't cut taxes, Kennedy did.


"What tax cut?" There's liberal ignorance for you. :\

The Republican Congress compensated for the high rates by introducing joint returns, effectively cutting taxes in half for intact families. Corporate taxes dropped drastically, and the tax burden, measured by government spending, fell more dramatically than at any other time in American history.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... art-of-it/


and you baggers always tend to forget that all of that booming recovery from WWII on through the 50's was heavily government subsidized from the auto makers, through the housing boom, GI Bill, etc.... That boom wasn't despite liberal policies, it was because of liberal policies.


Because the high rate remained, there were five recessions in 12 years; 25% of those years was recession.

Yes, there is always government interference, and Socialistic policies work fine over the short term.

The GI Bill has been transformed into a financial disaster waiting collapse.
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Jan 2014, 8:51 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.59

Misty » 15 Jan 2014 8:23 pm wrote:
RichClem » 15 Jan 2014 4:01 pm wrote:
Oh gosh, how horrible that I posted facts, logic and sound opinion!


You posted the opinion of two neoclassical economists.

You call it 'sound' only because you like it.


I like to get issues right, so I cite those people who get them right.


Keynesian Economics is dead, and the horrific Obama Economy is simply one more un-needed nail in its coffin.
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Jan 2014, 8:54 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.59

Skeptic » 15 Jan 2014 7:16 pm wrote:
golfboy » 15 Jan 2014 5:46 pm wrote:
Now, can you tell us where the money is going to come from, to pay for the promised benefits of those programs?

BTW, do you know who ran congress and wrote the laws for the rebuilding effort, including the Marshall plan?


Taxes.


Which every School of Economics admits hurts economic growth.

Even Obama's top economic adviser admitted that the best way to permanently stimulate economic growth is to cut tax rates.

Now do your little troll dance. :rofl:
0

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
  48,014 16 Jan 2014, 9:01 am

golfboy Liberal Anti-Matter
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 51,294
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 48,013.95



Misty » 15 Jan 2014 8:23 pm wrote:
You posted the opinion of two neoclassical economists.
You call it 'sound' only because you like it.

And the response has been liberals putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA _ I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
0
ES » 07 Oct 2014 11:23 am wrote:
I've been doing face plants before your lies ever darkened any political forum.

Cannonpointer » 15 Oct 2014 10:46 am wrote:
Facts suck when you're a progressive.

Technocrat » 04 Sep 2014 12:15 pm wrote:
British invented English, you know.
:die:

User avatar
Posted by golfboy
  48,014 16 Jan 2014, 9:04 am

golfboy Liberal Anti-Matter
User avatar
      
      

Posts: 51,294
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Money: 48,013.95




Really? You want to increase taxation by $50 TRILLION to save ONE of your social programs?
That's an interesting idea, care to show us the tax rates, and economic growth that will sustain that level of taxation?

No, I didn't think so.

Skeptic » 15 Jan 2014 7:16 pm wrote:
Marshall Plan had broad, bi-partisan support and could never have passed without it.

Thank you for proving my point for me.
0
ES » 07 Oct 2014 11:23 am wrote:
I've been doing face plants before your lies ever darkened any political forum.

Cannonpointer » 15 Oct 2014 10:46 am wrote:
Facts suck when you're a progressive.

Technocrat » 04 Sep 2014 12:15 pm wrote:
British invented English, you know.
:die:

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Jan 2014, 9:04 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.59

golfboy » 16 Jan 2014 8:01 am wrote:
Misty » 15 Jan 2014 8:23 pm wrote:
You posted the opinion of two neoclassical economists.
You call it 'sound' only because you like it.


And the response has been liberals putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA LA LA _ I CAN'T HEAR YOU".


Of course. I mean, the alternative is for them to read the source and, horrors!, think about its content. :o

A very dangerous threat to the liberal mind! :clap:
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Jan 2014, 3:57 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.59

Cannonpointer » 15 Jan 2014 7:02 pm wrote:
RichClem » 15 Jan 2014 1:38 pm wrote:
FDR's leftist policies deepened and extended the Great Depression.

As most economists now agree.
Which is why liberals avoid their opinions and cite historians, social activists or political commentators instead. Why not cite plumbers or auto mechanics?


Starting at the beginning with hours worked, the figures don't take into account the dust bowl, which was an enormous national disaster that displaced tens of thousands of families and threw hundreds of thousands out of work.


How do you know they didn't account for that? Did you read the entire study? Did you even read the entire source?


And of course you ignore the fact that most economists concede that FDR's economic policies were destructive. If you can't deal with that, you can't deal with the central premise.

which infrastructural projects undertaken in the new deal era resulted in net negative hours worked? It does not seem from your link that the infrastructural projects which we lefties tout had any negative impact on hours worked - quite the reverse.


Infrastructure projects have to be financed, and enough deficit spending scares investors and taxpayers, because deficits are seen as future tax hikes.

But even if infrastructure projects are jobs-neutral, you still have to deal with the rest of his destructive, anti-Free Market policies.
0

Profundum Disputatio's Photo
Posted by Profundum Disputatio
  0 16 Jan 2014, 3:57 pm

Profundum Disputatio


RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Jan 2014, 4:00 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.59

Cannonpointer » 15 Jan 2014 7:02 pm wrote:
In spite of the bold red headlines, your link is a refutation of a few select policies that do in fact seem to have been unwise - and NOT a refutation of the great bulk of FDR's reforms, most of which remained intact and served the nation well right up to the 1980s, after which they were systematically chipped away at until we are once again into devastating boom and bust cycles which have required multiple bailouts and caused people to lose their private pensions.


After Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation, we had a nearly uninterrupted 26-year boom, perhaps the longest in US history.

So what "bust?" If you're referring to the Financial Freeze, that had nothing to do with Reagan.

As usual, your supposed "fact" doesn't meet actual reality.
0

Profundum Disputatio's Photo
Posted by Profundum Disputatio
  0 16 Jan 2014, 4:00 pm

Profundum Disputatio


Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 16 Jan 2014, 4:07 pm

Skeptic Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22

golfboy » 16 Jan 2014 8:04 am wrote:

1) Really? You want to increase taxation by $50 TRILLION to save ONE of your social programs?

2) That's an interesting idea, care to show us the tax rates, and economic growth that will sustain that level of taxation?

3) No, I didn't think so.

4) Thank you for proving my point for me.


1) Over a few years, you stupid lemming. The Trust funds need to be paid back what general borrowed.

2) You could try to actually think.

3) You need help with the 'subtracts' and the 'multiplys' too?

4) No problem! You can be assured of your stupidity!
0

Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 16 Jan 2014, 4:08 pm

Skeptic Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22

RichClem » 16 Jan 2014 7:54 am wrote:

Which every School of Economics admits hurts economic growth.

Even Obama's top economic adviser admitted that the best way to permanently stimulate economic growth is to cut tax rates.

Now do your little troll dance. :rofl:


Incorrect! It depends on WHO is taxed and how it is spent. You know nothing of Econ 101, troll.
0

Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 16 Jan 2014, 4:10 pm

Skeptic Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22

Misty » 15 Jan 2014 8:23 pm wrote:
You posted the opinion of two neoclassical economists.
You call it 'sound' only because you like it.


Nailed ya, clembat, didn't she?

...or can't you tell?
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,451 16 Jan 2014, 4:18 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.59

Skeptic » 16 Jan 2014 3:08 pm wrote:
RichClem » 16 Jan 2014 7:54 am wrote:
Which every School of Economics admits hurts economic growth.

Even Obama's top economic adviser admitted that the best way to permanently stimulate economic growth is to cut tax rates.

Now do your little troll dance. :rofl:


Incorrect! It depends on WHO is taxed and how it is spent.


True, cutting the cell phone tax rate wouldn't do much, but she wasn't referring to that, now was she.

But no, she never wrote one single word about "who" was being taxed, so you're lying and espousing Troll-onomics.

You know nothing of Econ 101, troll.


Bleats the troll whose every claim violates it. :rofl:
0


PreviousNext

Return to No Holds Barred Political Forum

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 0 guests

Who has visited this topic