Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Oddball]

Thread summary: Bfgrn is pissed that he has to work for a living ("That's so unFAIR!!") and wants the nanny state to take money from successful people and give it to him.

Thread summary: BfGomerpyle can't argue that the term "liberal" hasn't been hijacked by Fabian socialists/progressives -because it has- so he needs to go on a smoke blowing mission, to try and obscure the fact that his "liberalism" is as illiberal as you can get.

 

[flacaltenn]

Londoner:::

For instance, our current system makes it very easy for American companies to hire non-American citizens - either in this country, through lax enforcement, or overseas, through laws which have bestowed incredible mobility upon capital. On the other side of the coin, there are rigorous protections for doctors and lawyers and owners of drug companies, all protected against foreign competition. Meaning: the workers of Eli Lilly must compete with 3rd world sweatshop labor, whereas the owners are protected to the hilt by a dynamic, interventionist state, i.e., free competition my ass. The cheerleaders of free market capitalism are not getting a full picture from their information sources. They have been fed an extremely biased view of Government intervention by the corporate powers which have captured our once vital information sources.

WTF??? Eli Lilly uses sweatshop labor? American radiologists are protected from having radiologists in India read diagnostic images? Laws that BESTOW "incredible mobility on capital"???

Where in the blazes does this crap come from? And what are you babbling about Sean Hannity? Sorry kiddo -- Must be a language barrier here or you've been reading Chomsky but not really comprehending it -- one or t'other..

 

[daveman]

Summary: daveman is only capable of blurting out polarized bluster...

"Polarized bluster"? That's amusing, coming from you, Mr. "Rich People Ruined The Universe And I Hate Them".

Way to cement my case...

It rare one sees such a total disconnect from reality. Thank you.

 

[daveman]

Thread summary: Bfgrn is pissed that he has to work for a living ("That's so unFAIR!!") and wants the nanny state to take money from successful people and give it to him.

Thread summary: BfGomerpyle can't argue that the term "liberal" hasn't been hijacked by Fabian socialists/progressives -because it has- so he needs to go on a smoke blowing mission, to try and obscure the fact that his "liberalism" is as illiberal as you can get.

Yup. Modern liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with individual liberties. It worships the collective.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thread summary: Bfgrn is pissed that he has to work for a living ("That's so unFAIR!!") and wants the nanny state to take money from successful people and give it to him.

Thread summary: BfGomerpyle can't argue that the term "liberal" hasn't been hijacked by Fabian socialists/progressives -because it has- so he needs to go on a smoke blowing mission, to try and obscure the fact that his "liberalism" is as illiberal as you can get.

Yup. Modern liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with individual liberties. It worships the collective.

DUDball and Naiveman...a pea brain polarized pod-cast...

 

[flacaltenn]

Thread summary: Bfgrn is pissed that he has to work for a living ("That's so unFAIR!!") and wants the nanny state to take money from successful people and give it to him.

Thread summary: BfGomerpyle can't argue that the term "liberal" hasn't been hijacked by Fabian socialists/progressives -because it has- so he needs to go on a smoke blowing mission, to try and obscure the fact that his "liberalism" is as illiberal as you can get.

Yup. Modern liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with individual liberties. It worships the collective.

If you guys had showed up a couple pages ago -- it would have saved me from digging thru the "FDR is godly" archives and a couple hours of typing and editing..



Liberals are extinct.. Progressives have no sense of self-preservation when it comes to growing statist power. They are now officially an endangered species..

 

[Intense]

the money shot-

Whereas classical liberalism saw government as a necessary evil whose involvement in social and private affairs needed to be limited wherever practicable, progressivism saw the state as the rightful overseer and regulator of significant portions of American social and economic life. To compensate for the inequities of capitalism in industrial-age America, Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

"Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism....

This construction seems to presuppose that in the absence of state intervention on behalf of (say) middle class workers, the market is free and competitive - as if large corporations don't exert massive forms of 'extra'-market control.

Regardless: A deeper question arises which you never see asked on the Right: one wonders if there is such a thing in practice as a political economy which is so pure that it does not protect one set of interests over another.

For instance, our current system makes it very easy for American companies to hire non-American citizens - either in this country, through lax enforcement, or overseas, through laws which have bestowed incredible mobility upon capital. On the other side of the coin, there are rigorous protections for doctors and lawyers and owners of drug companies, all protected against foreign competition. Meaning: the workers of Eli Lilly must compete with 3rd world sweatshop labor, whereas the owners are protected to the hilt by a dynamic, interventionist state, i.e., free competition my ass. The cheerleaders of free market capitalism are not getting a full picture from their information sources. They have been fed an extremely biased view of Government intervention by the corporate powers which have captured our once vital information sources.

Indeed, we don't hear much about the trillions of lobbying dollars poured into politics. Nor do we hear about the culture of subsidies and bailouts which socializes the costs and risks of business. All of these things imply an upward distribution of wealth which could be far greater than the New Dealers ever intended for the middle class. (I say "could be" because the structures of "socialism" which benefit business is largely invisible, that is, the folks who pay Sean Hannity's salary have no interest in directing the serf's gaze at the real loci of power)

A question arises. Why is the Right so selective on which forms of state intervention and re-distribution they expose? It's almost as if the main benefactors of Government intervention have sent a massive portion of voters on a wild goose chase . . . as they loot the country through risk mismanagement and monopolization of every major sector, only to get bailed out for their crimes by both parties, whom they generously fund.

(At least they share a portion of their profits with FOX News, Talk Radio, Think Tanks, university econ departments, publishing groups, and the blogosphere ... for the purpose of keeping the serfs agitated with stories about persecuted billionaires. Attention serfs: it's no longer the 30s. Business now owns government, and they pay handsomely for unprecedented subsidies, bailouts, and regulatory favors a.k.a. redistribution)

(How did we raise an entire generations of conservatives - many of them really, really bright - to be so fooled by their information sources?)

You make some Great points, unfortunately, they are incomplete giving only one side of the story when in reality, your action is the equivalent of dropping a grenade amongst your own Ranks. For Example:

This construction seems to presuppose that in the absence of state intervention on behalf of (say) middle class workers, the market is free and competitive - as if large corporations don't exert massive forms of 'extra'-market control.

Yes they can, through flooding Markets for one. Using unfair Government Sanctioned tricks to unfairly undercut Competition, like the Hamilton scheme that triggered the Whiskey Rebellion, or starting rumors to devalue Government War Bonds, and them buy them up for pennies on the Dollar. The Government Sanctioned Monopoly is Another, Government Subsidies Another, Government picking Winners steering Government Purchases to otherwise unqualified ans sometimes incompetent bidders. Yeah, there is a Shit Load of games played where Big Money is concerned. None of it has much to do with Free Market Principle.

What is the New Middle Class Worker to You? "We The Living", by Ayn Rand? The Government Civil Servant? The Union Management and Their Ranks, while you throw the rest of us to the dogs and bleed us dry? Like Post Russian Revolution? Where is the Impartial Referee?

Regardless: A deeper question arises which you never see asked on the Right: one wonders if there is such a thing in practice as a political economy which is so pure that it does not protect one set of interests over another.

Not true at all. You are looking for a Utopia now?
We are a Constitutional Republic by design, with the means to correct misdirection through sound Leadership and Law, with the ability to change that Law for the better through Due Process. I don't see a System better than that throughout History. It is not about the Interests, it is about the Weight of the Interests and how Justice is served. To what degree would you serve Justice? What part would you abandon?

For instance, our current system makes it very easy for American companies to hire non-American citizens - either in this country, through lax enforcement, or overseas, through laws which have bestowed incredible mobility upon capital. On the other side of the coin, there are rigorous protections for doctors and lawyers and owners of drug companies, all protected against foreign competition. Meaning: the workers of Eli Lilly must compete with 3rd world sweatshop labor, whereas the owners are protected to the hilt by a dynamic, interventionist state, i.e., free competition my ass. The cheerleaders of free market capitalism are not getting a full picture from their information sources. They have been fed an extremely biased view of Government intervention by the corporate powers which have captured our once vital information sources.

Privilege = Protection. Courtesy of the Federal Government.
What will change this in a single day would be the Importation of Civil Servants. Give up Your Job for Someone Else, it's Your turn now. Flood Your Areas of Expertise with People willing to do the job for less. Open Bidding, No Tenure, no Seniority. We are all interchangeable in your mind, Right? Why shouldn't You be Interchangeable too?
Cop's Firemen, Teachers, Bureaucrats. You would scurry like Rat's if what You imposed on us was imposed on you. Your Immigration Policies have corrupted the Middle Class since Kennedy was President, by Manipulating Immigration. You have devalued Physical Labor by Over Flooding, pretty much every Craft, Trade, Enterprise, with cheap competition, that undermined a whole Culture.

Indeed, we don't hear much about the trillions of lobbying dollars poured into politics. Nor do we hear about the culture of subsidies and bailouts which socializes the costs and risks of business. All of these things imply an upward distribution of wealth which could be far greater than the New Dealers ever intended for the middle class. (I say "could be" because the structures of "socialism" which benefit business is largely invisible, that is, the folks who pay Sean Hannity's salary have no interest in directing the serf's gaze at the real loci of power)

You want the Contributions, yet you don't want to hear about it. You demand the contributions. yet It's never about that now is it. How much to stay in the Lincoln Bedroom? Simplify the Tax Code. Stop with the unfair advantage. Why Monopolies at all? Why Subsidies? Why special advantage? Why not just be the Referee? Maintain the Playing Field, Maintain the Integrity of the Game. You are not God. Predetermined outcome serves no Justice, You don't get to decide who wins, it is a corruption of Principle.

A question arises. Why is the Right so selective on which forms of state intervention and re-distribution they expose? It's almost as if the main benefactors of Government intervention have sent a massive portion of voters on a wild goose chase . . . as they loot the country through risk mismanagement and monopolization of every major sector, only to get bailed out for their crimes by both parties, whom they generously fund.

Let Conscience Dictate, through Reason. State your cause, see what kind of support you get from the related Parties. Take it to Forum. We are a Nation of Laws, that are supposed to be based in part on Impartiality. Again, ask Government, why the Monopolies? Why Government Selective Protection? Maybe we need to start looking at Stock Portfolios? Where the Pension Plans are invested, and why?

(At least they share a portion of their profits with FOX News, Talk Radio, Think Tanks, university econ departments, publishing groups, and the blogosphere ... for the purpose of keeping the serfs agitated with stories about persecuted billionaires. Attention serfs: it's no longer the 30s. Business now owns government, and they pay handsomely for unprecedented subsidies, bailouts, and regulatory favors a.k.a. redistribution)

So Google, MSN, and Apple aren't good enough for your list? Do you have a Right to put your money where you want to? How much do you want that controlled? You are attacking a Fundamental Right to Possess Property, We Revolted from England in part, for the failure of Government to Respect that, both Rich and Poor. Do you think that by your many words, you are justified in abandoning that Principle, and scorning those that still adhere to it? Is Extortion your only avenue to maintain?

(How did we raise an entire generations of conservatives - many of them really, really bright - to be so fooled by their information sources?)

Take the Plank out of your eye.

 

[Oddball]

Thread summary: BfGomerpyle can't argue that the term "liberal" hasn't been hijacked by Fabian socialists/progressives -because it has- so he needs to go on a smoke blowing mission, to try and obscure the fact that his "liberalism" is as illiberal as you can get.

Yup. Modern liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with individual liberties. It worships the collective.

DUDball and Naiveman...a pea brain polarized pod-cast...

BfGomerpyle....Failed thread hijacker.

 

[Intense]

Thread summary: BfGomerpyle can't argue that the term "liberal" hasn't been hijacked by Fabian socialists/progressives -because it has- so he needs to go on a smoke blowing mission, to try and obscure the fact that his "liberalism" is as illiberal as you can get.

Yup. Modern liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with individual liberties. It worships the collective.

If you guys had showed up a couple pages ago -- it would have saved me from digging thru the "FDR is godly" archives and a couple hours of typing and editing..



Liberals are extinct.. Progressives have no sense of self-preservation when it comes to growing statist power. They are now officially an endangered species..

Desperate enough to try to take everyone down with them. They just keep Empowering and Obstructing. It's like watching a drowning man, trying to take his rescuer down with him.

 

[Intense]

Yup. Modern liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with individual liberties. It worships the collective.

DUDball and Naiveman...a pea brain polarized pod-cast...

BfGomerpyle....Failed thread hijacker.

In one sense, he helps us make our point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you said you don't need Beck to tell you how to think. You are talking like a paranoid "Beckster". All your accusations are in YOUR head, not in my beliefs.

Any nation is measured in human capital. How are the people doing? Well the middle class is not doing well, and it hasn't for a long time. We don't need austerity and cuts to social programs. The people who lost their jobs did NOTHING wrong. This was brought about by Wall Street bankers. The same wealth disparity that helped spur the progressive movement exists today.

The Tea Party best show some humanity or they will be sanctioned by the American people...

During the Great Depression conservatives raised 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.”

I can understand why you don't like charts and facts, they don't support your dogma.

Ever hear of the baby boom?

Of course GDP went up - not because of government but because of a population explosion (meaning more workers, hence more demand for products). Not only that but because of faster communication.

The telegraph, then the telephone made it possible for a business in San Francisco to do business with a business in New York, or Chicago - or wherever for that matter.

Government had nothing to do with any of it - innovation did.

The end of World War II brought about the baby boom, all the graphs are before we entered the war.

Bush was before WWII?

The New Deal did not create an economic boom. Christina Romer is one of the many economists who will state that on the record, she actually wrote a dissertation about how it did not work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the money shot-

Whereas classical liberalism saw government as a necessary evil whose involvement in social and private affairs needed to be limited wherever practicable, progressivism saw the state as the rightful overseer and regulator of significant portions of American social and economic life. To compensate for the inequities of capitalism in industrial-age America, Progressives favored a government empowered to redistribute private property under the banner of social justice. R.J. Pestritto compares and contrasts progressivism and socialism:

"Since the Progressives had such a limitless view of state power, and since they wanted to downplay the founders’ emphasis on individual rights, it is only natural to ask if they subscribed to socialism....

This construction seems to presuppose that in the absence of state intervention on behalf of (say) middle class workers, the market is free and competitive - as if large corporations don't exert massive forms of 'extra'-market control.

Regardless: A deeper question arises which you never see asked on the Right: one wonders if there is such a thing in practice as a political economy which is so pure that it does not protect one set of interests over another.

For instance, our current system makes it very easy for American companies to hire non-American citizens - either in this country, through lax enforcement, or overseas, through laws which have bestowed incredible mobility upon capital. On the other side of the coin, there are rigorous protections for doctors and lawyers and owners of drug companies, all protected against foreign competition. Meaning: the workers of Eli Lilly must compete with 3rd world sweatshop labor, whereas the owners are protected to the hilt by a dynamic, interventionist state, i.e., free competition my ass. The cheerleaders of free market capitalism are not getting a full picture from their information sources. They have been fed an extremely biased view of Government intervention by the corporate powers which have captured our once vital information sources.

Indeed, we don't hear much about the trillions of lobbying dollars poured into politics. Nor do we hear about the culture of subsidies and bailouts which socializes the costs and risks of business. All of these things imply an upward distribution of wealth which could be far greater than the New Dealers ever intended for the middle class. (I say "could be" because the structures of "socialism" which benefit business is largely invisible, that is, the folks who pay Sean Hannity's salary have no interest in directing the serf's gaze at the real loci of power)

A question arises. Why is the Right so selective on which forms of state intervention and re-distribution they expose? It's almost as if the main benefactors of Government intervention have sent a massive portion of voters on a wild goose chase . . . as they loot the country through risk mismanagement and monopolization of every major sector, only to get bailed out for their crimes by both parties, whom they generously fund.

(At least they share a portion of their profits with FOX News, Talk Radio, Think Tanks, university econ departments, publishing groups, and the blogosphere ... for the purpose of keeping the serfs agitated with stories about persecuted billionaires. Attention serfs: it's no longer the 30s. Business now owns government, and they pay handsomely for unprecedented subsidies, bailouts, and regulatory favors a.k.a. redistribution)

(How did we raise an entire generations of conservatives - many of them really, really bright - to be so fooled by their information sources?)

The right is selective about government intervention for the same reason the left is, they have an agenda. That should be obvious to anyone.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ever hear of the baby boom?

Of course GDP went up - not because of government but because of a population explosion (meaning more workers, hence more demand for products). Not only that but because of faster communication.

The telegraph, then the telephone made it possible for a business in San Francisco to do business with a business in New York, or Chicago - or wherever for that matter.

Government had nothing to do with any of it - innovation did.

The end of World War II brought about the baby boom, all the graphs are before we entered the war.

Bush was before WWII?

The New Deal did not create an economic boom. Christina Romer is one of the many economists who will state that on the record, she actually wrote a dissertation about how it did not work.

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

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

And WHAT are the Teapublicans calling for...AUSTERITY

Medieval bloodletting will save the patient THIS time. Let's shrink the GDP, chant it with me:
Shrink the GDP!
Shrink the GDP!!
Shrink the GDP!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

The end of World War II brought about the baby boom, all the graphs are before we entered the war.

Bush was before WWII?

The New Deal did not create an economic boom. Christina Romer is one of the many economists who will state that on the record, she actually wrote a dissertation about how it did not work.

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937&#8211;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

And WHAT are the Teapublicans calling for...AUSTERITY

Medieval bloodletting will save the patient THIS time. Let's shrink the GDP, chant it with me:
Shrink the GDP!
Shrink the GDP!!
Shrink the GDP!!!

Bfgrn::

You need to put down the numbers and step back.. Before someone gets hurt.. You have no idea what you're doin..

1) Year to year percent change in GDP has NOTHING to do with constant dollars or ancient dollars. It's all the same.

2) A 17% increase FROM THE BOTTOM of the depression is NOT impressive. In real dollars it would only equal about a 9% increase from where the GDP was in 1928.

It's like if last Sept only 4 homes sold in Las Vegas and this Sept 40 homes sold. That's a
900% increase in sales. But it could also be that this Sept sales is only 10% of a normal year. Stick with raw numbers and avoid the hype. When dealing with depressions, percentages are truly dishonest..

All that aside. We had to listen to Progressive arguments for DECADES where we were lectured that America only had 5% of the population but controlled 25% of the world's wealth. America only had 5% of the population but used 35% of the world's energy. Ad Nauseum. You know the Chomsky rhetoric don't you? And how unsustainable it was to demand yearly growth in the GDP..

Well now you progs have gotten all those issues fixed haven't you? Should be in hog heaven.. The GDP is flat-lined and the redistribution of American jobs and wealth to the REST of the world is in motion.. Why the hell aren't you guys celebrating the great victory for world justice???

By the way -- I'M not asking for simple austerity.. I'm asking for severe roll-backs of subsidies and unleashing domestic energy and cutting the uncertainty of never ending writing of open-ended bills like Dodd-Frank. Where if it DOESN'T get fixed, we won't know what's in it for years to come. That and writing REAL budgets, and having REAL tax policy, and a REAL energy policy, and a way to repatriot Trillions in off-shore capital.. Don't TELL me what I'm asking for..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The end of World War II brought about the baby boom, all the graphs are before we entered the war.

Bush was before WWII?

The New Deal did not create an economic boom. Christina Romer is one of the many economists who will state that on the record, she actually wrote a dissertation about how it did not work.

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

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

And WHAT are the Teapublicans calling for...AUSTERITY

Medieval bloodletting will save the patient THIS time. Let's shrink the GDP, chant it with me:
Shrink the GDP!
Shrink the GDP!!
Shrink the GDP!!!

Christina Romer is a Keynesian economist. Keynes is one of the economists that was alive back then, and FDR rejected his advice because it was too simple. Why do people who claim to be advocates Keynes act like FDR was a Keynesian?

 

[Bfgrn]

Bush was before WWII?

The New Deal did not create an economic boom. Christina Romer is one of the many economists who will state that on the record, she actually wrote a dissertation about how it did not work.

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937&#8211;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

And WHAT are the Teapublicans calling for...AUSTERITY

Medieval bloodletting will save the patient THIS time. Let's shrink the GDP, chant it with me:
Shrink the GDP!
Shrink the GDP!!
Shrink the GDP!!!

Bfgrn::

You need to put down the numbers and step back.. Before someone gets hurt.. You have no idea what you're doin..

1) Year to year percent change in GDP has NOTHING to do with constant dollars or ancient dollars. It's all the same.

2) A 17% increase FROM THE BOTTOM of the depression is NOT impressive. In real dollars it would only equal about a 9% increase from where the GDP was in 1928.

It's like if last Sept only 4 homes sold in Las Vegas and this Sept 40 homes sold. That's a
900% increase in sales. But it could also be that this Sept sales is only 10% of a normal year. Stick with raw numbers and avoid the hype. When dealing with depressions, percentages are truly dishonest..

All that aside. We had to listen to Progressive arguments for DECADES where we were lectured that America only had 5% of the population but controlled 25% of the world's wealth. America only had 5% of the population but used 35% of the world's energy. Ad Nauseum. You know the Chomsky rhetoric don't you? And how unsustainable it was to demand yearly growth in the GDP..

Well now you progs have gotten all those issues fixed haven't you? Should be in hog heaven.. The GDP is flat-lined and the redistribution of American jobs and wealth to the REST of the world is in motion.. Why the hell aren't you guys celebrating the great victory for world justice???

By the way -- I'M not asking for simple austerity.. I'm asking for severe roll-backs of subsidies and unleashing domestic energy and cutting the uncertainty of never ending writing of open-ended bills like Dodd-Frank. Where if it DOESN'T get fixed, we won't know what's in it for years to come. That and writing REAL budgets, and having REAL tax policy, and a REAL energy policy, and a way to repatriot Trillions in off-shore capital.. Don't TELL me what I'm asking for..

I have news for you, progressives haven't had their way with policy since they boarded Bobby Kennedy's funeral train and rode off into political oblivion. We are now fully in the grips of conservative policies and conservative agenda.

Progressives couldn't even get a public option in the health care bill.

BTW Mr mathematics. A 17% increase FROM THE BOTTOM of the depression IS impressive, because it signals a drastic swing in the right direction and very effective policy moves. But even if I were willing to give you that point, the next year isn't measured FROM THE BOTTOM of the depression, now is it? And the next year and the next year that CONTINUE to build a tremendously successful recovery, even BEFORE we entered the war.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The end of World War II brought about the baby boom, all the graphs are before we entered the war.

Bush was before WWII?

The New Deal did not create an economic boom. Christina Romer is one of the many economists who will state that on the record, she actually wrote a dissertation about how it did not work.

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

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

And WHAT are the Teapublicans calling for...AUSTERITY

Medieval bloodletting will save the patient THIS time. Let's shrink the GDP, chant it with me:
Shrink the GDP!
Shrink the GDP!!
Shrink the GDP!!!

Yeah it was a population explosion...

That apparently is too fucking difficult for the children of those who's parents took acid while their kid was in the womb....

 

[Mr.Nick]

FDR's GDP to population ratio is not that great - if anything it matches Obama...

No doubt progressives don't even understand what the fuck my point is.

Oprah doesn't teach this idea and nor does the MSM share it.. The idiocy is why Obama was elected in the first place...

 

[Bfgrn]

Bush was before WWII?

The New Deal did not create an economic boom. Christina Romer is one of the many economists who will state that on the record, she actually wrote a dissertation about how it did not work.

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

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

And WHAT are the Teapublicans calling for...AUSTERITY

Medieval bloodletting will save the patient THIS time. Let's shrink the GDP, chant it with me:
Shrink the GDP!
Shrink the GDP!!
Shrink the GDP!!!

Yeah it was a population explosion...

That apparently is too fucking difficult for the children of those who's parents took acid while their kid was in the womb....

Nick, do you read or listen to the news? Have you heard the first of the 'baby boomers' will begin to retire soon? DO THE MATH...

2011
-65
= 1946

 

[Mr.Nick]

FDR and the New Deal created the LARGEST increase in GDP in American history.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

Percent change from preceding period

GDP percent change based on current dollars


1930 -12.0
1931 -16.1
1932 -23.2
1933 -3.9
1934 17.0 <-----FDR's FIRST budget year.
1935 11.1
1936 14.3
1937 9.7
1938 -6.3
1939 7.0
1940 10.0
1941 25.0
1942 27.7
1943 22.7
1944 10.7
1945 1.5 <-----FDR dies.

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

And WHAT are the Teapublicans calling for...AUSTERITY

Medieval bloodletting will save the patient THIS time. Let's shrink the GDP, chant it with me:
Shrink the GDP!
Shrink the GDP!!
Shrink the GDP!!!

Yeah it was a population explosion...

That apparently is too fucking difficult for the children of those who's parents took acid while their kid was in the womb....

Nick, do you read or listen to the news? Have you heard the first of the 'baby boomers' will begin to retire soon? DO THE MATH...

2011
-65
= 1946

Population growth was pretty impressive from 1930-1960 - I would call the baby boom 1930-1980 - me of which being one of the last - I may fall into generation x, but that would be an insult to me.

Even using your criteria the population grew 15,000,000 during FDR's terms.