Progressive Government Fails

[RDD_1210]

No, based upon free enterprise, lack of government interference and the introduction of 2 transformation technologies: electricity and mass production

All great buzzwords until you see the result. Crash!

I'm sure you're proud.

The crashed was caused when the Federal Reserve strangled the US economy nearly to death by taking 1/3 of the money out of circulation

Thanks for being the only one to actually answer the question. Where can I read more about this cause of the crash as you've outlined?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thanks for proving my point.

I'm sure the crash of 1929 had nothing to do with the "1920'" governments...it was caused by gay marriage.

The feeble attempt at humor doesn't hide the fact that you have no understanding of the period.

Foremost....FDR turned a recession into 'The Great Depression.'


1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.

2. March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

3. After the stock market crash,, the Dow hit 250 in 1930 under Hoover (it had been 343 before the crash). January 1940, after seven years of the New Deal, the market had collapsed to 151, and remained in the low 100’s through most of FDR’s terms.



Get this:

4. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

5. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI



What your post does reveal is that the Left has no ability to judge which federal policies are important....and which are not.

All of this nonsense was debunked in previous threads by this poster, but the standard practice of the rightwing inmates around here, wait awhile, and then repost the mythology in a new thread with no debunking in sight,

is as usual in full force.

 

[RDD_1210]

Specifically the Smoot Hawley tarriff, although there were multiple causes.

Smoot Hawley was the Obamacare of its day.

So your position is that the Smoot Hawley tarriff act which was passed in 1930 was the cause of the stock market crash in 1929?

Is this your final answer? Because I'm already laughing, but I'd like to hear you say it again.

You really are pretty stupid, aren't you?
Because anticipation of the tariff happened long before it was actually signed into law. I also mentioned it was one of many reasons.
People laugh at what they don't understand.

Hahahahaha, talk about doubling down on stupid. Hey, at least you stay committed once you've been exposed as an idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

All great buzzwords until you see the result. Crash!

I'm sure you're proud.

The crashed was caused when the Federal Reserve strangled the US economy nearly to death by taking 1/3 of the money out of circulation

Thanks for being the only one to actually answer the question. Where can I read more about this cause of the crash as you've outlined?

 

[RDD_1210]

The crashed was caused when the Federal Reserve strangled the US economy nearly to death by taking 1/3 of the money out of circulation

Thanks for being the only one to actually answer the question. Where can I read more about this cause of the crash as you've outlined?

I figured you based your opinions on kids books, but thanks for confirming.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm sure the crash of 1929 had nothing to do with the "1920'" governments...it was caused by gay marriage.

The feeble attempt at humor doesn't hide the fact that you have no understanding of the period.

Foremost....FDR turned a recession into 'The Great Depression.'


1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.

2. March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

3. After the stock market crash,, the Dow hit 250 in 1930 under Hoover (it had been 343 before the crash). January 1940, after seven years of the New Deal, the market had collapsed to 151, and remained in the low 100’s through most of FDR’s terms.



Get this:

4. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

5. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI



What your post does reveal is that the Left has no ability to judge which federal policies are important....and which are not.

All of this nonsense was debunked in previous threads by this poster, but the standard practice of the rightwing inmates around here, wait awhile, and then repost the mythology in a new thread with no debunking in sight,

is as usual in full force.

Do you know the meaning of "debunked"???


NO.....it does not mean "denied."

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ironically, if the Republicans were to somehow succeed in repealing Obamacare,

more Americans would lose their current or soon to be acquired insurance than will ever possibly lose it if Obamacare proceeds.

That is now the Republican agenda.

 

[007]

 

[NYcarbineer]

The feeble attempt at humor doesn't hide the fact that you have no understanding of the period.

Foremost....FDR turned a recession into 'The Great Depression.'


1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.

2. March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

3. After the stock market crash,, the Dow hit 250 in 1930 under Hoover (it had been 343 before the crash). January 1940, after seven years of the New Deal, the market had collapsed to 151, and remained in the low 100’s through most of FDR’s terms.



Get this:

4. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

5. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI



What your post does reveal is that the Left has no ability to judge which federal policies are important....and which are not.

All of this nonsense was debunked in previous threads by this poster, but the standard practice of the rightwing inmates around here, wait awhile, and then repost the mythology in a new thread with no debunking in sight,

is as usual in full force.

Do you know the meaning of "debunked"???


NO.....it does not mean "denied."

Behold:

1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.


FDR was not president until 1933. Oddly picking 1931 as some sort of benchmark makes no sense,

except to shave 8 points off the 1933 year's unemployment of 25%.

Now why did you do that?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Remind what deregulation occurred after 2000.

"Free market deregulation" began with Gingrich's Contract on America in the 1990's. By the 2000's it resulted in the Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson financial scandals. The deregulation of Glass-Stiegall was the what opened the door for the Great Subprime Mortgage Scam. And yes, WJC did sign it but it was all part of the Republican deregulation dogma that resulted in the 2008 collapse.

No, I asked what deregulation occurred in 2000.
There isn't any. It is a myth propagated by the Left. You are left arguing that an act signed by Clinton in 1999 was somehow responsible for a downturn nearly 10 years later.
It won't wash.

The deregulation of Arthur Anderson occurred in 1995 and it went bust in 2002.

The time required to set up and fund the deregulated Wall St banks and then sell all of those subprime mortgages and then for them to start maturing 5 years later fits perfectly with the 2008 collapse.

 

[007]

Ironically, if the Republicans were to somehow succeed in repealing Obamacare,

more Americans would lose their current or soon to be acquired insurance than will ever possibly lose it if Obamacare proceeds.

That is now the Republican agenda.

According to your twisted, indoctrinated, leftard bubble head.

LOGICAL reform to health insurance laws is what was NEEDED in the FIRST PLACE, but OOOOOOHHH NOOOOOO, you commie demos wanted GOVERNMENT RUN health care. It's been your wet dream for 50 years. Well you finally got what you wanted without a SINGLE VOTE FROM REPUBLICANS, and AGAINST THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, and now that we all see that it's a MASSIVE TRAIN WRECK, YOU OWN IT, and your boi king's PLUMMETING approval rating shows what Americans think of it all.

Yeah, I think conservatives are sitting in a nice place right now, because you socialist leftards are SELF DESTRUCTING. It's fun to watch. You're all in MELT DOWN MODE here too.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Seriously, I'm trying to help you

You're off in the trillion column

The Fed Reserve QE program pumping $85B/month into the market is NOT the federal government

You said DEBT as in BORROWING not QE!

The Federal Reserve is NOT borrowing the money it is using to purchase the Treasury Bonds, instead it is printing currency to pay for them. Furthermore the debt that the Federal Reserves owes on those Bonds is not owned by the government and therefore is not a taxpayer burden.

If it's just printing $85B/month in new money why isn't the US Treasury doing it? Hmm?

Because the Federal Reserve is in control of the money supply and not the Treasury.

 

[PoliticalChic]

All of this nonsense was debunked in previous threads by this poster, but the standard practice of the rightwing inmates around here, wait awhile, and then repost the mythology in a new thread with no debunking in sight,

is as usual in full force.

Do you know the meaning of "debunked"???


NO.....it does not mean "denied."

Behold:

1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.


FDR was not president until 1933. Oddly picking 1931 as some sort of benchmark makes no sense,

except to shave 8 points off the 1933 year's unemployment of 25%.

Now why did you do that?

Why did you avoid defining "debunked"?

Was it because you didn't know the definition?

Or because it was a lie?

Which one?



You never debunked anything.

Everything in the post is true and correct.


You.....trying to genuflect to FDR, have no compunctions about lying.





"except to shave 8 points off the 1933 year's unemployment of 25%."

Here is the statement in the quote:
"Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %.[some sources state it as 19%]"


Totally true.....isn't it.

That makes you a liar who tried to hide his lie under the word 'debunked.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm sure the crash of 1929 had nothing to do with the "1920'" governments...it was caused by gay marriage.

The feeble attempt at humor doesn't hide the fact that you have no understanding of the period.

Foremost....FDR turned a recession into 'The Great Depression.'

LMAO, EVEN THE MINSTER OF TRUTH WOULD BE ASHAMED TO MAKE SUCH A RIDICULOUS COMMENT. HAVE YOU NO SHAME (RHETORICAL QUESTION, OF COURSE YOU DON'T).


1. In 1931, in some of the darkest days of the Great Depression and the middle of the Hoover administration, unemployment rate stood at 17.4 %. Seven years later, after five years of FDR, and literally hundreds of wildly ambitious new government programs, more than doubling of federal spending, the national unemployment rate stood at – 17.4 %. At no point during the 1930’s did unemployment go below 14 %. Even in 1941, in the midst of the military buildup, 9.9 % of American workers were unemployed.

2. March 4, 1933, in his first Inaugural Address, FDR said “Our greatest primary task is to put people to work.” This meant that the New Deal was a wretched, ill-conceived failure.

3. After the stock market crash,, the Dow hit 250 in 1930 under Hoover (it had been 343 before the crash). January 1940, after seven years of the New Deal, the market had collapsed to 151, and remained in the low 100’s through most of FDR’s terms.



Get this:

4. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .

5. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI



What your post does reveal is that the Left has no ability to judge which federal policies are important....and which are not.

YAWN. Our resident troll has become very prolific of late, might that be a result of the drubbing taken by Tea Party Radicals in Congress and her need to change the conversation?

I just like makin' you feel inadequate.....

...should I have said 'revealing your inadequacy'?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All great buzzwords until you see the result. Crash!

I'm sure you're proud.

The crashed was caused when the Federal Reserve strangled the US economy nearly to death by taking 1/3 of the money out of circulation

Thanks for being the only one to actually answer the question. Where can I read more about this cause of the crash as you've outlined?

If you're truly serious, Milton Friedman and Anne Schwartz laid out their case 40 years ago in "A Momentary History of the United States" you can find articles on it in a variety of sources

In 2002 Bernanke admitted that Friedman and Schwartz got it right, that the Fed did cause the crash

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ironically, if the Republicans were to somehow succeed in repealing Obamacare,

more Americans would lose their current or soon to be acquired insurance than will ever possibly lose it if Obamacare proceeds.

That is now the Republican agenda.

Remember when I explained how you Leftist hangers-on keep seeking someone to bow down to?

This line from the OP fits your deepest desires:

"What made [ObamaCare] peculiarly progressive were the mandates. And not just the law's individual and business mandates to purchase their insurance. The essence of modern Democratic progressivism is: "You will participate in what we have created for you, and you will comply with the law's demands.""



Where, exactly, did you lose your desire for freedom and liberty, and learn to love your totalitarian masters?

The revelation should be interesting.

 

[RDD_1210]

The crashed was caused when the Federal Reserve strangled the US economy nearly to death by taking 1/3 of the money out of circulation

Thanks for being the only one to actually answer the question. Where can I read more about this cause of the crash as you've outlined?

If you're truly serious, Milton Friedman and Anne Schwartz laid out their case 40 years ago in "A Momentary History of the United States" you can find articles on it in a variety of sources

In 2002 Bernanke admitted that Friedman and Schwartz got it right, that the Fed did cause the crash

Yup, totally serious. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything like many on this site seem to be. I'll read up. Thanks.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Free market deregulation" began with Gingrich's Contract on America in the 1990's. By the 2000's it resulted in the Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson financial scandals. The deregulation of Glass-Stiegall was the what opened the door for the Great Subprime Mortgage Scam. And yes, WJC did sign it but it was all part of the Republican deregulation dogma that resulted in the 2008 collapse.

No, I asked what deregulation occurred in 2000.
There isn't any. It is a myth propagated by the Left. You are left arguing that an act signed by Clinton in 1999 was somehow responsible for a downturn nearly 10 years later.
It won't wash.

The deregulation of Arthur Anderson occurred in 1995 and it went bust in 2002.

The time required to set up and fund the deregulated Wall St banks and then sell all of those subprime mortgages and then for them to start maturing 5 years later fits perfectly with the 2008 collapse.

Arthur Anderson was deregulated? Who knew?
Sub prime loans are typically 30 year mortgages. They don't mature in 5 years.
You are talking out of your ass. Like most libs.

 

[Plasmaball]

actually no it hasnt. Its given us the America today where you have the right to voice your opinion and vote. But we can always go back to those days where you where nothing more than a hole to make babies.

 

[Freemason9]

Obama is not a socialist. I suppose you might call him a Progressive Capitalist, except he isn't even that progressive. BTW, what exactly is a "progressive?" Is that the opposite of a "regressive?"

European democracies all have more socialist characteristics than the U.S., and they are more democratic. Average citizens in the European social democracies are far better off than their American counterparts--assurance of national health care, shorter work weeks, better wages, better job security, much higher on the "happiness" index. I suppose you would call European social democracies "progressive," although I doubt that has any real meaning. That's an American political media entertainment buzzword, I think.

Fascist regimes are really just centrally-maintained capitalist regimes, so don't hang democracy with capitalism. In many ways, they are not compatable.