Now do the Dems own the economy?

[The Rabbi]

The right wing distortion of history might convince other right wingers, but will it convince the historians, to rewrite their history books, change their lectures? Will universities now teach the distorted right wing history? Will historians now rate FDR as America's worst president not the greatest? I think right wingers can stand most history but that FDR thing really gets to them.
So it seems the right wing history posters only purpose seems to be one of giving some aid and comfort to their followers today, knowing full well their take on history will not change any of it. It is simply an aid and comfort package.

OK, so now having had your ass handed to you, to morph into the "popularist" fallacy: Well, most people believe it, so it must be true.
History is a science. There are facts available and people make hypotheses from those facts and those can be tested. The fact is that FDR's New Deal circumvented the natural mechanisms of the market that would have provided for a strong recovery and instead created a bizarre system of disincentives to do the things that needed doing to begin recovery. Setting floors on prices is only one example.
Obama is rehashing that, setting floors on prices of things like wages, circumventing market forces that would have led to higher employment.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can't offer them a better deal than constitutionalism, son, and that is what they have.

Your last stand was last night.

The TeaP kamikaze charge ended up as they normally do: complete defeat.

Sure, Jake. From your lips to Obama's big ears.

Generations from now they'll still be talking about the liquidation of the Republican moderates of 2014.

"Sure, we've seen similar total die offs in history, but there's usually an asteroid or something. Republican Moderates just vanished in 2014"

Reality is hard for you, I realize.

The GOP mainstream will grow in 2014 and the TeaPs decrease.

You are still in the hive and just hear the Buzzz.

Your boy Obama is crushing the life out of the US economy and he will end by taking the dollar down the way of the Pound Sterling.

It won't end well for Obama, Democrats or Republicans Moderates; hopefully there will be a Nuremberg type day of reckoning for ALL our Politicians who destroyed our country and currency

"He and other Japanese officials say they have already developed contingency plans that include flooding Japan's banking system with cash to keep markets functioning however panicked investors become. And analysts say China, whose Communist leaders are due to hold a key policy meeting next month, may step up a push for global acceptance of its currency, the yuan or renminbi, as an alternative to the U.S. dollar in international trade."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/u-averts-default-japan-china-brace-next-dollar-081452483--business.html

 

[regent]

The right wing distortion of history might convince other right wingers, but will it convince the historians, to rewrite their history books, change their lectures? Will universities now teach the distorted right wing history? Will historians now rate FDR as America's worst president not the greatest? I think right wingers can stand most history but that FDR thing really gets to them.
So it seems the right wing history posters only purpose seems to be one of giving some aid and comfort to their followers today, knowing full well their take on history will not change any of it. It is simply an aid and comfort package.

OK, so now having had your ass handed to you, to morph into the "popularist" fallacy: Well, most people believe it, so it must be true.
History is a science. There are facts available and people make hypotheses from those facts and those can be tested. The fact is that FDR's New Deal circumvented the natural mechanisms of the market that would have provided for a strong recovery and instead created a bizarre system of disincentives to do the things that needed doing to begin recovery. Setting floors on prices is only one example.
Obama is rehashing that, setting floors on prices of things like wages, circumventing market forces that would have led to higher employment.

It isn't because most people believe it but most historians believe it, you know the "history is a science" historians. That's why they rate FDR as the greatest American president.
You are doing the "what ifs history," what if FDR had not done anything just let the natural market fix the problem, is that the same natural market process called TARP?
The democratic part of our nation may not want to wait for the natural market system to solve our economic problems. How long would citizens be willing to let their kids go hungry before they did something? Was Townsend, Long preaching natural market, Hitler?
But the thing that really is interesting is how does history test hypotheses? That is one of the problems of the Social Sciences.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The real deal.

The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind - Hidden Secrets of Money Episode 4 - YouTube

Except for the hyperbole, pretty accurate for the first 11 minutes.
Then he claims much of our taxes go to pay interest to the Fed.
I wish. If more than 50% of our taxes went to pay the Fed for their $2 trillion in Treasuries, total Federal tax receipts in this country would be less than $200 billion.
That would be a government small enough to drown in the bathtub.

Yes, it was a coincidence that the Fed and IRS were both created in 1913.

Then he starts on the claim that every dollar in existence has interest due.
What a joke. I'm holding a $20 in my hand, I don't owe anyone interest on it.

Also, there is always more debt than currency in the system. Duh.
That's the way it was under the gold standard as well. So what?

It started going downhill from there........

 

[Contumacious]

Reality is hard for you, I realize.

The GOP mainstream will grow in 2014 and the TeaPs decrease..

Comrade Starkiev, the reason the GOP "mainstream" aka, the surrender caucus will grow is because they will merge with the democrats .

The socialist goal to have a one party system will be closer to reality. The socialist goal that we all be equally miserable will begin to materialize.

.

Socialists? I thought the right wing labeled Democrats as commie-fascists?

Your idol , Karl Marx, understood that an economy can not go from free to socialist overnight. The transition period is called fascism.

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Reality is hard for you, I realize.

The GOP mainstream will grow in 2014 and the TeaPs decrease..

Comrade Starkiev, the reason the GOP "mainstream" aka, the surrender caucus will grow is because they will merge with the democrats .

The socialist goal to have a one party system will be closer to reality. The socialist goal that we all be equally miserable will begin to materialize.

.

Socialists? I thought the right wing labeled Democrats as commie-fascists?

It's a distinction without a difference; it's all total government control of unarmed subjects

 

[The Rabbi]

The right wing distortion of history might convince other right wingers, but will it convince the historians, to rewrite their history books, change their lectures? Will universities now teach the distorted right wing history? Will historians now rate FDR as America's worst president not the greatest? I think right wingers can stand most history but that FDR thing really gets to them.
So it seems the right wing history posters only purpose seems to be one of giving some aid and comfort to their followers today, knowing full well their take on history will not change any of it. It is simply an aid and comfort package.

OK, so now having had your ass handed to you, to morph into the "popularist" fallacy: Well, most people believe it, so it must be true.
History is a science. There are facts available and people make hypotheses from those facts and those can be tested. The fact is that FDR's New Deal circumvented the natural mechanisms of the market that would have provided for a strong recovery and instead created a bizarre system of disincentives to do the things that needed doing to begin recovery. Setting floors on prices is only one example.
Obama is rehashing that, setting floors on prices of things like wages, circumventing market forces that would have led to higher employment.

It isn't because most people believe it but most historians believe it, you know the "history is a science" historians. That's why they rate FDR as the greatest American president.
You are doing the "what ifs history," what if FDR had not done anything just let the natural market fix the problem, is that the same natural market process called TARP?
The democratic part of our nation may not want to wait for the natural market system to solve our economic problems. How long would citizens be willing to let their kids go hungry before they did something? Was Townsend, Long preaching natural market, Hitler?
But the thing that really is interesting is how does history test hypotheses? That is one of the problems of the Social Sciences.

So now we're moving the goalposts. The majority of scientists believe in manmade global warming, so we're told. Doesn't matter what a majority believe in scientific matters. Most historians were trained by leftists in academia who themselves had lived through the Depression. So they repeated the propaganda they were fed as kids: FDR Saved Us. It isn't true.
I dont need to play "what if". I am playing "what was." What was, was that FDR's policies caused the longest sustained downturn in modern American history. At least for now. Obama may have topped his record. Equally, Coolidge's policies in the 1920s resulted in expansion. They were the polar opposites in philosophy, with equally opposite results in their policies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OK, so now having had your ass handed to you, to morph into the "popularist" fallacy: Well, most people believe it, so it must be true.
History is a science. There are facts available and people make hypotheses from those facts and those can be tested. The fact is that FDR's New Deal circumvented the natural mechanisms of the market that would have provided for a strong recovery and instead created a bizarre system of disincentives to do the things that needed doing to begin recovery. Setting floors on prices is only one example.
Obama is rehashing that, setting floors on prices of things like wages, circumventing market forces that would have led to higher employment.

It isn't because most people believe it but most historians believe it, you know the "history is a science" historians. That's why they rate FDR as the greatest American president.
You are doing the "what ifs history," what if FDR had not done anything just let the natural market fix the problem, is that the same natural market process called TARP?
The democratic part of our nation may not want to wait for the natural market system to solve our economic problems. How long would citizens be willing to let their kids go hungry before they did something? Was Townsend, Long preaching natural market, Hitler?
But the thing that really is interesting is how does history test hypotheses? That is one of the problems of the Social Sciences.

So now we're moving the goalposts. The majority of scientists believe in manmade global warming, so we're told. Doesn't matter what a majority believe in scientific matters. Most historians were trained by leftists in academia who themselves had lived through the Depression. So they repeated the propaganda they were fed as kids: FDR Saved Us. It isn't true.
I dont need to play "what if". I am playing "what was." What was, was that FDR's policies caused the longest sustained downturn in modern American history. At least for now. Obama may have topped his record. Equally, Coolidge's policies in the 1920s resulted in expansion. They were the polar opposites in philosophy, with equally opposite results in their policies.

The same people who rate FDR as great also rate Mao and Stalin as great leaders of their country as well and for all the same reasons

 

[The Rabbi]

It isn't because most people believe it but most historians believe it, you know the "history is a science" historians. That's why they rate FDR as the greatest American president.
You are doing the "what ifs history," what if FDR had not done anything just let the natural market fix the problem, is that the same natural market process called TARP?
The democratic part of our nation may not want to wait for the natural market system to solve our economic problems. How long would citizens be willing to let their kids go hungry before they did something? Was Townsend, Long preaching natural market, Hitler?
But the thing that really is interesting is how does history test hypotheses? That is one of the problems of the Social Sciences.

So now we're moving the goalposts. The majority of scientists believe in manmade global warming, so we're told. Doesn't matter what a majority believe in scientific matters. Most historians were trained by leftists in academia who themselves had lived through the Depression. So they repeated the propaganda they were fed as kids: FDR Saved Us. It isn't true.
I dont need to play "what if". I am playing "what was." What was, was that FDR's policies caused the longest sustained downturn in modern American history. At least for now. Obama may have topped his record. Equally, Coolidge's policies in the 1920s resulted in expansion. They were the polar opposites in philosophy, with equally opposite results in their policies.

The same people who rate FDR as great also rate Mao and Stalin as great leaders of their country as well and for all the same reasons

Don't forget that Castro and the Sandinistas brought decent health care to their respective countries!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So now we're moving the goalposts. The majority of scientists believe in manmade global warming, so we're told. Doesn't matter what a majority believe in scientific matters. Most historians were trained by leftists in academia who themselves had lived through the Depression. So they repeated the propaganda they were fed as kids: FDR Saved Us. It isn't true.
I dont need to play "what if". I am playing "what was." What was, was that FDR's policies caused the longest sustained downturn in modern American history. At least for now. Obama may have topped his record. Equally, Coolidge's policies in the 1920s resulted in expansion. They were the polar opposites in philosophy, with equally opposite results in their policies.

The same people who rate FDR as great also rate Mao and Stalin as great leaders of their country as well and for all the same reasons

Don't forget that Castro and the Sandinistas brought decent health care to their respective countries!

JoeB is inflating his inner tube even as we speak to brave the trip from Miami to Cuba

 

[regent]

So now we're moving the goalposts. The majority of scientists believe in manmade global warming, so we're told. Doesn't matter what a majority believe in scientific matters. Most historians were trained by leftists in academia who themselves had lived through the Depression. So they repeated the propaganda they were fed as kids: FDR Saved Us. It isn't true.
I dont need to play "what if". I am playing "what was." What was, was that FDR's policies caused the longest sustained downturn in modern American history. At least for now. Obama may have topped his record. Equally, Coolidge's policies in the 1920s resulted in expansion. They were the polar opposites in philosophy, with equally opposite results in their policies.

The same people who rate FDR as great also rate Mao and Stalin as great leaders of their country as well and for all the same reasons

Don't forget that Castro and the Sandinistas brought decent health care to their respective countries!

Historians indeed have rated a number of people great, and put them into their history books, how about Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, all the way through the centuries to Lincoln and FDR.
I'm still interested in those methods historians use to test their hypothesis. Any idea?

 

[The Rabbi]

The same people who rate FDR as great also rate Mao and Stalin as great leaders of their country as well and for all the same reasons

Don't forget that Castro and the Sandinistas brought decent health care to their respective countries!

Historians indeed have rated a number of people great, and put them into their history books, how about Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, all the way through the centuries to Lincoln and FDR.
I'm still interested in those methods historians use to test their hypothesis. Any idea?

I had no idea Aristotle, Plato and Socrates were U.S. presidents. Learn something new everyday.

 

[daveman]

The same people who rate FDR as great also rate Mao and Stalin as great leaders of their country as well and for all the same reasons

Don't forget that Castro and the Sandinistas brought decent health care to their respective countries!

JoeB is inflating his inner tube even as we speak to brave the trip from Miami to Cuba

No way. PinkoJoe's a chickenred:

Someone who advocates Communism but is too cowardly to move to a Communist nation; who advocates the destruction of the US Constitution while hiding behind its protections; who condemns the American consumerism lifestyle while living that same lifestyle.

That woman at the protest handing out pro-Castro literature is a chickenred...she'd never move to Cuba.​

 

[regent]

Don't forget that Castro and the Sandinistas brought decent health care to their respective countries!

Historians indeed have rated a number of people great, and put them into their history books, how about Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, all the way through the centuries to Lincoln and FDR.
I'm still interested in those methods historians use to test their hypothesis. Any idea?

I had no idea Aristotle, Plato and Socrates were U.S. presidents. Learn something new everyday.

Naw, they ain't really presidents kid, historians just put them in books as famous people. Great is usually reserved for presidents that historians consider top of the heap, and leading that group is FDR.

 

[Contumacious]

The democrats have been controlling the economy since the creation of the Federal Reserve Board in 1913.

But anytime the fed chairman fucks up he blames somebody else. It is never never their fault.

Capisce?

.

 

[TooTall]

Their policies have given us the worst economy since the FDR Depression but it's Bush and Boehners fault, maybe Reagan's fault too.

FDR Depression?

You should sue your High School -- they screwed you out of an education.


It's unfair for some states to unleash people this stupid on the rest of us.

You are correct about stupid people. Now, this is what some of us learned in college:

This from that bastion of conservatism, UCLA. LOL

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

 

[TooTall]

No. ANy negative development will be blamed in intrasigent Republicans in the House who refused to pass Obozo's programs of more taxing and more spending.
This is exactly like progressive historians who have written the narrative that the laissez-faire Hoover's policies caused the Great Depression and it was only the progressive FDR's programs that got us out.
Not one word of that is true. But I'll bet 90% of the posters here believe it.

I am in the 10% that believe WWII finally got the US out of the great depression and not any of FDR's policies. And, I am an Engineer, not a historian.

 

[The Rabbi]

Historians indeed have rated a number of people great, and put them into their history books, how about Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, all the way through the centuries to Lincoln and FDR.
I'm still interested in those methods historians use to test their hypothesis. Any idea?

I had no idea Aristotle, Plato and Socrates were U.S. presidents. Learn something new everyday.

Naw, they ain't really presidents kid, historians just put them in books as famous people. Great is usually reserved for presidents that historians consider top of the heap, and leading that group is FDR.

Well that's good. You do have some kind of base of knowledge, although I suspect you googled them first to be sure.
So now that all your arguments have failed, you resort to snark. Typical.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The same people who rate FDR as great also rate Mao and Stalin as great leaders of their country as well and for all the same reasons

Don't forget that Castro and the Sandinistas brought decent health care to their respective countries!

Historians indeed have rated a number of people great, and put them into their history books, how about Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, all the way through the centuries to Lincoln and FDR.
I'm still interested in those methods historians use to test their hypothesis. Any idea?

It's the same standard they'll use to rate Obama great: how much freedom and power were you able to take away from the American people

 

[editec]

The real deal.

The Biggest Scam In The History Of Mankind - Hidden Secrets of Money Episode 4 - YouTube

Then he starts on the claim that every dollar in existence has interest due.
What a joke. I'm holding a $20 in my hand, I don't owe anyone interest on it.

Based on the above statement it is very clear that you simple do not understand the notion of money as it currently exists.

Do try again...

All US money in existence today came into existence at the moment of somebody assuming DEBT.

So assume that I borrow 10,000 at 5% interest.

That immediately puts an additionally 10,000 dollars into circulation.

But what does it NOT put into circulation, Lad?

The interest that I will pay back...that is carried on the books as DEBT OWED

So Where does that ADDITONAL money (the interest owed...the money that was not created by the loan) the money I pay that interest off come from?

Oh I pay that interest for sure....but I pay it with money that was ALSO created (at interest) when somebody ELSE borrowed money.

Now when the principle is paid back to the back in THEORY that formerly new money is DESTROYED (removed from the banks books..remember they invested the money so they have to destroy it when the debt is repaid..but they KEPT the fees and interest when the debt was alive!))

So that is WHY lad, there is always MORE DEBT than cash to pay it off, amigo.

That is why we wil ALWAYS BE SLAVES to the BANKS (or whomsoever gets to create money out of thin air..AT INTEREST)


Do you understadn now why :

every dollar in existence has interest due.
?

Because it does...that dollar came into being with INTEREST DUE.

And the fact that you hold that dollar without oweing interest means zilch.shit, dude.

Because believe me, when you tally up all the dollars in existence, and you compare that amount to all the debts currently owed?

The debts EXCEED the dollars that exist.


If everybody tried to pay off all their debts tomorrrow?

There were not be enough dollars IN EXISTENCE to pay off all the debts


BTW...if this all seems crazy to you because this isn't how many works for you??

Deal with it...that's how this system works and it is NOTHIUNG like how you and debt work.

YOU lad don't get to invent money at interest.

BANKS DO.