Random Truths

[Skylar]

1. "Oh, I read your gibberish. It just didn't amount to much."
Actually, the conclusion is that you are not bright enough to incorporate that truth into your decisions.

If the useless idiocy you tell yourself was 'truth', you might have a point. Alas, it isn't. So you don't.

Remember, Chic....and this point is fundamental: you don't know what you're talking about. You recite. You repeat. You quote verbatim. But you don't think. And you rarely if every bother to research.

2. "The regulation of capitalism is one of practical stability."
I said nothing about regulation....you should strive to use the same level of precision in your reading as I do in my posts.

I did. In the very post you responded to. Wait.....you think my posts are bound to whatever rhetorical deuce you spew up?

Um, no.

3."Look at the 80 or so years before the new deal..."
"The Roaring Twenties is a phrase used to refer to the 1920s in theUnited States,Canada, and theUnited Kingdom, characterizing the decade's distinctive cultural edge inNew York City,Chicago,Berlin,London,Los Angeles, and many other major cities duringa period of sustained economic prosperity"
Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

With 3 recessions in the 20s (1921, 1923, 1926), followed by the Great Depression. And preceded by the Recession of 1918, the recession of 1913, the Panic of 1910, the Panic of 1907, and the recession of 1902.

Does the word 'unstable' mean anything to you? And this is what you want us to return to?

Laughing....so much for that 'wisdom' you were lauding. It helps if you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Which, of course, you don't.

4. Don't hesitate to request further remedial education.

Says the poor lass that didn't even know that the 'Roaring 20s' had 3 recessions and was followed by the Great Depression.

You're consistently clueless. I'll give you that.

"Says the poor lass that didn't even know that the 'Roaring 20s' had 3 recessions and was followed by the Great Depression."

Economics 101: the reason that Hoover's recession became a depression was that Franklin Roosevelt was President.

You didn't know that either, did you.

Probably because its complete horseshit. The Great Depression lasted from 1929 to March 1933.

Um, sweetie? Roosevelt took office in March of 1933. Your narrative is not only useless ignorance, its physically impossible. And an economic plummet that lasted 3 years and 7 months shaving more than a quarter of our GDP is not a 'recession'. Its a massive depression.

And it all happened BEFORE Roosevelt took office.

Again, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Not even an itsy bitsy little bit. You're merely cutting and pasting words you neither understand nor have bothered to research.

Just give us the webpage that's doing your thinking for you. As you clearly don't know enough to carry the argument you're trying to ape.

You don't read carefully,do you.

Again...from the Left-leaning Brookings Institution

1. 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.”
article - AEI

Laughing....what happened to your ignorant babble about how it was just a recession until Roosevelt got there?

Yeah, a 3 year 7 month 'recession' where we lost a full quarter of our GDP. Um, hun.....that's a depression. And a major one. So major they call it 'Great'. And it occurred BEFORE Roosevelt took office.

So much for your 'history' lesson. Cut and paste something else for us, Chic. As you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Need someone to explain that to you?

Laughing...If I do, it won't be you. As you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. You didn't know there were 3 recessions in the 'roaring 20s', 5 more in the 20 years that proceeded it, and were bone ignorant of the fact that the Great Depression preceded Roosevelt's presidency.

You do know what 'precede' means, right? That means it came before.

And in that state of slack jawed, vacant ignorance, you think you have any 'wisdom' to impart?

Ctrl +C and Ctrl + V is all you're good for.

 

[Camp]

.

3. "The reaction of Bush and then Obama to the 2007-2008 crisis prevented it from turning into a depression."
And what reactions would those be?.

Injecting stimulus. Are you really as dense as you appear?

I was HOPING you'd be stupid enough to mention the fake stimulus.

1. What was the Stimulus?
Short answer: as a slush fund to reward supporters, and provide a pathway for kick-backs. But certainly not as an anodyne for the economic disease that afflicted America.


Let's see which is better, stimulus or no stimulus:

2. "Although Reinhart and Rogoff put the United States and Canada into different classifications, the two countries' unemployment rates rose in lock step from August 2008 until February 2009, when the stimulus was passed in the United States. ...It was only after the United States enacted the stimulus that the two countries economic fortunes began to diverge. After that, Canada began to substantially outperform the US in job creation, the supposed point of the stimulus. In the US, unemployment rose to 10.1 % by October 2009, and remained at least at 9.5% for the next 14 months. Canadian unemployment peaked at 7.7 % in July and August of 2009, and has been falling ever since.
Lott, "At The Brink," p. 102-103.

a. When the American unemployment rate in September 2011 was stuck at 9.1 %, Canada's had fallen to 6.3%. The US had increased by 1.3 % since Obama became President, while Canadian unemployment had already fallen below its January 2009 level. Lott, Op. Cit.

b. In January 2009, prior to the Obama Stimulus, the WSJ had surveyed economic forecasters. They predicted an increase of 0.8 % in unemployment by December of 2009. Instead, 4 months after the Stimulus...it had climbed by 2.1 %, while in Canada....up 1 %. Lott, Op. Cit.


Keynesianism will never die for the simple reason that it gives politicians a reason, an excuse, to spend money.


Obama, like Franklin Roosevelt....delivering economic woes to Americans.

Another example of a grossly distorted cherry picked quote taken out of context. Roosevelt was convincing the Congress of the need for real jobs in public works projects and not simple temporary menial tasks. He was explaining that the work projects needed to be jobs that would train workers for the future and that the project had to be more than just raking leaves and mowing grass in parks. Workers needed a sense of accomplishment and to be able to look at their work with pride. The quote being abused by PC was meant to convey a completely opposite message than the one she implies. Below is the entire speech.

www.albany.edu/faculty/gz580/his101/su35fdr.html

Interestingly this speech is labeled as a reading assignment for history 101.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I was going to jump in here but it seems like PolitcalChic is single-handily kicking all the idiots liberals ass on this thread.

You, like her, are delusional. Go ahead and jump in. You will get your ass kicked the same way PolChick is getting her ass kicked.

Dude she is so kicking your ass!!

 

[Camp]

I was going to jump in here but it seems like PolitcalChic is single-handily kicking all the idiots liberals ass on this thread.

You, like her, are delusional. Go ahead and jump in. You will get your ass kicked the same way PolChick is getting her ass kicked.

Dude she is so kicking your ass!!

I figured all you would have would be an opinion. Any objective reader of this thread can see that she is scamming and not able to back up her claims with legitimate academic methods and sources. Do you even know what that means? Explain one example of how she has kicked anyone's ass. The exact opposite is true. She is being overwhelmed with factual data from reliable sources and her claims are being refuted academically.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I was going to jump in here but it seems like PolitcalChic is single-handily kicking all the idiots liberals ass on this thread.

You, like her, are delusional. Go ahead and jump in. You will get your ass kicked the same way PolChick is getting her ass kicked.

Dude she is so kicking your ass!!

I figured all you would have would be an opinion. Any objective reader of this thread can see that she is scamming and not able to back up her claims with legitimate academic methods and sources. Do you even know what that means? Explain one example of how she has kicked anyone's ass. The exact opposite is true. She is being overwhelmed with factual data from reliable sources and her claims are being refuted academically.

An opinion based on evidence.

 

[paddymurphy]

I was going to jump in here but it seems like PolitcalChic is single-handily kicking all the idiots liberals ass on this thread.

You, like her, are delusional. Go ahead and jump in. You will get your ass kicked the same way PolChick is getting her ass kicked.

Dude she is so kicking your ass!!

I figured all you would have would be an opinion. Any objective reader of this thread can see that she is scamming and not able to back up her claims with legitimate academic methods and sources. Do you even know what that means? Explain one example of how she has kicked anyone's ass. The exact opposite is true. She is being overwhelmed with factual data from reliable sources and her claims are being refuted academically.

An opinion based on evidence.

An opinion based on the opinions of others.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I was going to jump in here but it seems like PolitcalChic is single-handily kicking all the idiots liberals ass on this thread.

You, like her, are delusional. Go ahead and jump in. You will get your ass kicked the same way PolChick is getting her ass kicked.

Dude she is so kicking your ass!!

I figured all you would have would be an opinion. Any objective reader of this thread can see that she is scamming and not able to back up her claims with legitimate academic methods and sources. Do you even know what that means? Explain one example of how she has kicked anyone's ass. The exact opposite is true. She is being overwhelmed with factual data from reliable sources and her claims are being refuted academically.

An opinion based on evidence.

An opinion based on the opinions of others.

And the difference in what you present?

 

[bendog]

There are so many conservative commentators, and conversations, that have contributed to these truths....you may recognize some of your words, as well.....

1. The Left survives on demonization of the Right…rather than debating ideas: they teach their drones that the Right is not wrong, but evil…

So if someone on the left called Donald Trump a Marxist, a Tyrant, a terrorist sympathizer, a foreign born anti-Christ...

...that would be demonization, right?

How dare you deny that the Donald is the man championing debating idea! How DARE you Sir? (-:

 

[Camp]

I was going to jump in here but it seems like PolitcalChic is single-handily kicking all the idiots liberals ass on this thread.

You, like her, are delusional. Go ahead and jump in. You will get your ass kicked the same way PolChick is getting her ass kicked.

Dude she is so kicking your ass!!

I figured all you would have would be an opinion. Any objective reader of this thread can see that she is scamming and not able to back up her claims with legitimate academic methods and sources. Do you even know what that means? Explain one example of how she has kicked anyone's ass. The exact opposite is true. She is being overwhelmed with factual data from reliable sources and her claims are being refuted academically.

An opinion based on evidence.

What evidence? Why are you unable to be specific about a point that has been unfairly refuted? Why are you unable to show a single example of data used to show this con artist is false?
I think you are like all people who get played and scammed. You don't want to admit this woman has fooled you.

 

[danielpalos]

"A poverty measure that, as most analysts recommend, accounts for (rather than ignores) major non-cash benefits that the official poverty measure leaves out -- namely, SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly called food stamps), rent subsidies, and tax credits for working families -- would find that poverty in the United States today is considerably lower than it was throughout the 1960s, despite today's weaker economy.
Similarly, an analysis of average incomes among the poorest one-fifth of Americans that counts non-cash benefits and tax credits also shows important progress. Average household income for the bottom fifth of Americans (counting those benefits and tax credits, adjusted for inflation and changes in household size) was more than 75 percent higher in 2011 than in 1964, the year that President Johnson announced the War on Poverty. Both earnings and government assistance contributed to the increase."

Official Poverty Measure Masks Gains Made Over Last 50 Years Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Another dunce checks in with the Liberal propaganda....

"... would find that poverty in the United States today is considerably lower than it was throughout the 1960s, despite today's weaker economy."

What a crock.

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.



"....that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1 percent of Americans, ....
On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B.

Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
Scribd



At the time, the poverty rate in America was

around 19 percent and falling rapidly.

So, that went right over your head. The war on poverty lowered it by supplementing the resources of poor people with benefits. When those benefit are counted, the poverty rate is lower by far than it was in 1964.

I just showed you government statistics that prove your post not to be true.

You give statistics provided by biased conservative or right wing organizations that are highly edited, manipulated, interpreted and distorted while they are encased in agenda driven articles. At the same time you ignore links to impeccable objective sources from educational institutions like Harvard and peer reviewed scholarly histories written by qualified historians. I'll take Harvard over the crap sources you use and others should too.

Nah....I destroy you with facts.
Like these:

Year Unemployed Americans
1929 1,550,000

1931 8,020,000

1932 12,060,000

1933 12,830,000

1934 11,340,000

1937 7,700,000

As is expected with recession...they abate.


Then.....Roosevelt's magic kicks in:
1938 10,390,000
That's seven times the number unemployed pre-recession.
Some whiz that Roosevelt.
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression


BTW...under Reagan there was no such jump in unemployed.

Looks like Political (wonder) chic doesn't mind lying to us and letting us miss our turn.

Special pleading much?

Year Population Labor
Force Unemployed Percentage of
Labor Force
1929 88010000 49440000 1550000 3.14
1930 89550000 50080000 4340000 8.67
1931 90710000 50680000 8020000 15.82
1932 91810000 51250000 12060000 23.53
1933 92950000 51840000 12830000 24.75
1934 94190000 52490000 11340000 21.6
1935 95460000 53140000 10610000 19.97
1936 96700000 53740000 9030000 16.8
1937 97870000 54320000 7700000 14.18
1938 99120000 54950000 10390000 18.91
1939 100360000 55600000 9480000 17.05
1940 101560000 56180000 8120000 14.45
1941 102700000 57530000 5560000 9.66

 

[danielpalos]

The Recession of 1937–1938 was an economic downturn that occurred during the Great Depression in the United States.--Source: Recession of 1937 38 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The "Second New Deal" in 1935–38 included the Wagner Act to promote labor unions, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program (which made the federal government by far the largest single employer in the nation),[6] the Social Security Act, and new programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers. The final major items of New Deal legislation were the creation of the United States Housing Authority and Farm Security Administration, both in 1937, and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set maximum hours and minimum wages for most categories of workers.[7]

The economic downturn of 1937–38, and the bitter split between the AFL and CIO labor unions led to major Republican gains in Congress in 1938. Conservative Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined in the informal Conservative Coalition. By 1942–43 they shut down relief programs such as the WPA and CCC and blocked major liberal proposals. Roosevelt himself turned his attention to the war effort, and won reelection in 1940 and 1944. The Supreme Court declared the National Recovery Administration (NRA) and the first version of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) unconstitutional, however the AAA was rewritten and then upheld. As the first Republican president elected after FDR, Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953–61) left the New Deal largely intact, even expanding it in some areas.[8] In the 1960s, Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society used the New Deal as inspiration for a dramatic expansion of liberal programs, which Republican Richard M. Nixon generally retained. After 1974, however, the call for deregulation of the economy gained bipartisan support.[9] The New Deal regulation of banking (Glass–Steagall Act) was suspended in the 1990s.

Many New Deal programs remain active, with some still operating under the original names, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The largest programs still in existence today are the Social Security System and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).--Source: New Deal - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Just socialism hard at work bailing out Capitalism, like usual.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another dunce checks in with the Liberal propaganda....

"... would find that poverty in the United States today is considerably lower than it was throughout the 1960s, despite today's weaker economy."

What a crock.

Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.



"....that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1 percent of Americans, ....
On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B.

Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an “unconditional war on poverty in America.”
Scribd



At the time, the poverty rate in America was

around 19 percent and falling rapidly.

So, that went right over your head. The war on poverty lowered it by supplementing the resources of poor people with benefits. When those benefit are counted, the poverty rate is lower by far than it was in 1964.

I just showed you government statistics that prove your post not to be true.

You give statistics provided by biased conservative or right wing organizations that are highly edited, manipulated, interpreted and distorted while they are encased in agenda driven articles. At the same time you ignore links to impeccable objective sources from educational institutions like Harvard and peer reviewed scholarly histories written by qualified historians. I'll take Harvard over the crap sources you use and others should too.

Nah....I destroy you with facts.
Like these:

Year Unemployed Americans
1929 1,550,000

1931 8,020,000

1932 12,060,000

1933 12,830,000

1934 11,340,000

1937 7,700,000

As is expected with recession...they abate.


Then.....Roosevelt's magic kicks in:
1938 10,390,000
That's seven times the number unemployed pre-recession.
Some whiz that Roosevelt.
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression


BTW...under Reagan there was no such jump in unemployed.

Looks like Political (wonder) chic doesn't mind lying to us and letting us miss our turn.

Special pleading much?

Year Population Labor
Force Unemployed Percentage of
Labor Force
1929 88010000 49440000 1550000 3.14
1930 89550000 50080000 4340000 8.67
1931 90710000 50680000 8020000 15.82
1932 91810000 51250000 12060000 23.53
1933 92950000 51840000 12830000 24.75
1934 94190000 52490000 11340000 21.6
1935 95460000 53140000 10610000 19.97
1936 96700000 53740000 9030000 16.8
1937 97870000 54320000 7700000 14.18
1938 99120000 54950000 10390000 18.91
1939 100360000 55600000 9480000 17.05
1940 101560000 56180000 8120000 14.45
1941 102700000 57530000 5560000 9.66

I never lie.

My figures, the ones I posted are the exact same ones in that list.
Mine is labeled Unemployed Americans, and shows exactly that.

And, in fact, I provided the link

My post is #169,and proves that you are a lying gutter snipe.

 

[danielpalos]

So, that went right over your head. The war on poverty lowered it by supplementing the resources of poor people with benefits. When those benefit are counted, the poverty rate is lower by far than it was in 1964.

I just showed you government statistics that prove your post not to be true.

You give statistics provided by biased conservative or right wing organizations that are highly edited, manipulated, interpreted and distorted while they are encased in agenda driven articles. At the same time you ignore links to impeccable objective sources from educational institutions like Harvard and peer reviewed scholarly histories written by qualified historians. I'll take Harvard over the crap sources you use and others should too.

Nah....I destroy you with facts.
Like these:

Year Unemployed Americans
1929 1,550,000

1931 8,020,000

1932 12,060,000

1933 12,830,000

1934 11,340,000

1937 7,700,000

As is expected with recession...they abate.


Then.....Roosevelt's magic kicks in:
1938 10,390,000
That's seven times the number unemployed pre-recession.
Some whiz that Roosevelt.
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression


BTW...under Reagan there was no such jump in unemployed.

Looks like Political (wonder) chic doesn't mind lying to us and letting us miss our turn.

Special pleading much?

Year Population Labor
Force Unemployed Percentage of
Labor Force
1929 88010000 49440000 1550000 3.14
1930 89550000 50080000 4340000 8.67
1931 90710000 50680000 8020000 15.82
1932 91810000 51250000 12060000 23.53
1933 92950000 51840000 12830000 24.75
1934 94190000 52490000 11340000 21.6
1935 95460000 53140000 10610000 19.97
1936 96700000 53740000 9030000 16.8
1937 97870000 54320000 7700000 14.18
1938 99120000 54950000 10390000 18.91
1939 100360000 55600000 9480000 17.05
1940 101560000 56180000 8120000 14.45
1941 102700000 57530000 5560000 9.66

I never lie.

My figures, the ones I posted are the exact same ones in that list.
Mine is labeled Unemployed Americans, and shows exactly that.

And, in fact, I provided the link

My post is #169,and proves that you are a lying gutter snipe.

Unemployment went down after the recession within a depression.

 

[Socialist]

Its funny how liberals like you have something wrong with "accumulated wealth." Yet, you want a living wage, but not "accumulated wealth." You want $15 bucks an hour working at a Mickey D's, but not "accumulated wealth." Naturally, those two things will lead to an "accumulation of wealth;" something you view as "greed." What a specious little rationale that is.

You really can't see any distinction between say the working poor struggling to pay rent and feed their family....and hundreds of millions of dollars held generationally in hereditary trust funds?

I think most Americans can.

Just started seeing your posts around here, good to see someone who understands the real issues.

I'm a capitalist, just to be clear. What separates me from most of the wingers is my belief in 1) regulation 2) no one working a 40 hour a week job should have to worry being able to get food, shelter, clothing or medical care. For them or their family.

Sadly, you're probably labeled a socialist by supporting those things by people on this site..

Yeah, but most people on this site have no idea what a socialist is. Or a communist. Or a fascist. The terms are tossed around as random pejoratives.

Believe me, I know all about it..

 

[Camp]

I just showed you government statistics that prove your post not to be true.

You give statistics provided by biased conservative or right wing organizations that are highly edited, manipulated, interpreted and distorted while they are encased in agenda driven articles. At the same time you ignore links to impeccable objective sources from educational institutions like Harvard and peer reviewed scholarly histories written by qualified historians. I'll take Harvard over the crap sources you use and others should too.

Nah....I destroy you with facts.
Like these:

Year Unemployed Americans
1929 1,550,000

1931 8,020,000

1932 12,060,000

1933 12,830,000

1934 11,340,000

1937 7,700,000

As is expected with recession...they abate.


Then.....Roosevelt's magic kicks in:
1938 10,390,000
That's seven times the number unemployed pre-recession.
Some whiz that Roosevelt.
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression


BTW...under Reagan there was no such jump in unemployed.

Looks like Political (wonder) chic doesn't mind lying to us and letting us miss our turn.

Special pleading much?

Year Population Labor
Force Unemployed Percentage of
Labor Force
1929 88010000 49440000 1550000 3.14
1930 89550000 50080000 4340000 8.67
1931 90710000 50680000 8020000 15.82
1932 91810000 51250000 12060000 23.53
1933 92950000 51840000 12830000 24.75
1934 94190000 52490000 11340000 21.6
1935 95460000 53140000 10610000 19.97
1936 96700000 53740000 9030000 16.8
1937 97870000 54320000 7700000 14.18
1938 99120000 54950000 10390000 18.91
1939 100360000 55600000 9480000 17.05
1940 101560000 56180000 8120000 14.45
1941 102700000 57530000 5560000 9.66

I never lie.

My figures, the ones I posted are the exact same ones in that list.
Mine is labeled Unemployed Americans, and shows exactly that.

And, in fact, I provided the link

My post is #169,and proves that you are a lying gutter snipe.

Unemployment went down after the recession within a depression.

Those numbers tell very little in the big picture. They were the symptoms of a policy change implemented to bring down deficit spending to early during the recovery from the depression.

This is a quick view about what caused the 1937-38 recession;
www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/27

This is a long detailed explanation. It uses the Darby method of calculating unemployment instead of the Lebergott numbers.
It is a draft for a lecture used by a Yale professor. The draft also led to a shortened article which is the second link listed below.
economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/irwin-110926.pdf

www.econintersect.com/wordpress/?p=40106

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I was going to jump in here but it seems like PolitcalChic is single-handily kicking all the idiots liberals ass on this thread.

You, like her, are delusional. Go ahead and jump in. You will get your ass kicked the same way PolChick is getting her ass kicked.

Dude she is so kicking your ass!!

I figured all you would have would be an opinion. Any objective reader of this thread can see that she is scamming and not able to back up her claims with legitimate academic methods and sources. Do you even know what that means? Explain one example of how she has kicked anyone's ass. The exact opposite is true. She is being overwhelmed with factual data from reliable sources and her claims are being refuted academically.

An opinion based on evidence.

What evidence? Why are you unable to be specific about a point that has been unfairly refuted? Why are you unable to show a single example of data used to show this con artist is false?
I think you are like all people who get played and scammed. You don't want to admit this woman has fooled you.

My opinion hasn't been refuted.

The only fools I see are the ones that support the current liar in chief.

 

[Camp]

You, like her, are delusional. Go ahead and jump in. You will get your ass kicked the same way PolChick is getting her ass kicked.

Dude she is so kicking your ass!!

I figured all you would have would be an opinion. Any objective reader of this thread can see that she is scamming and not able to back up her claims with legitimate academic methods and sources. Do you even know what that means? Explain one example of how she has kicked anyone's ass. The exact opposite is true. She is being overwhelmed with factual data from reliable sources and her claims are being refuted academically.

An opinion based on evidence.

What evidence? Why are you unable to be specific about a point that has been unfairly refuted? Why are you unable to show a single example of data used to show this con artist is false?
I think you are like all people who get played and scammed. You don't want to admit this woman has fooled you.

My opinion hasn't been refuted.

The only fools I see are the ones that support the current liar in chief.

Opinions don't get refuted. They are opinions. What gets refuted is the factual data used to reach an opinion. When you have to deflect from a discussion and bring up "...current liar in chief" it means you are unable to make a mature, rational and certainly not an intellectual or academic response. That is OK, this is only a message board and their is no committee of experts that are approving or disapproving the legitimacy of source material. If you want to us data provided by PoliticalChick such as an online quick easy to read synopsis from us history.com or some narrative written by a political commentator, that is your decision. Some may prefer the types of sources I have been using that include higher education level materials from places like Harvard, Yale and sources that are accepted by Universities and recognized historians. It really comes down to what kind of audience the writer is speaking to. I see no reason to be satisfied with low level sources of questionable validity when impeccable sources are so readily available.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Dude she is so kicking your ass!!

I figured all you would have would be an opinion. Any objective reader of this thread can see that she is scamming and not able to back up her claims with legitimate academic methods and sources. Do you even know what that means? Explain one example of how she has kicked anyone's ass. The exact opposite is true. She is being overwhelmed with factual data from reliable sources and her claims are being refuted academically.

An opinion based on evidence.

What evidence? Why are you unable to be specific about a point that has been unfairly refuted? Why are you unable to show a single example of data used to show this con artist is false?
I think you are like all people who get played and scammed. You don't want to admit this woman has fooled you.

My opinion hasn't been refuted.

The only fools I see are the ones that support the current liar in chief.

Opinions don't get refuted. They are opinions. What gets refuted is the factual data used to reach an opinion. When you have to deflect from a discussion and bring up "...current liar in chief" it means you are unable to make a mature, rational and certainly not an intellectual or academic response. That is OK, this is only a message board and their is no committee of experts that are approving or disapproving the legitimacy of source material. If you want to us data provided by PoliticalChick such as an online quick easy to read synopsis from us history.com or some narrative written by a political commentator, that is your decision. Some may prefer the types of sources I have been using that include higher education level materials from places like Harvard, Yale and sources that are accepted by Universities and recognized historians. It really comes down to what kind of audience the writer is speaking to. I see no reason to be satisfied with low level sources of questionable validity when impeccable sources are so readily available.

Liar in chief was an absolute rational response based on the fact that the man is a liar. Harvard and Yale are bastions of liberal thinkers and I wouldn't trust them to watch my dog.

 

[danielpalos]

You give statistics provided by biased conservative or right wing organizations that are highly edited, manipulated, interpreted and distorted while they are encased in agenda driven articles. At the same time you ignore links to impeccable objective sources from educational institutions like Harvard and peer reviewed scholarly histories written by qualified historians. I'll take Harvard over the crap sources you use and others should too.

Nah....I destroy you with facts.
Like these:

Year Unemployed Americans
1929 1,550,000

1931 8,020,000

1932 12,060,000

1933 12,830,000

1934 11,340,000

1937 7,700,000

As is expected with recession...they abate.


Then.....Roosevelt's magic kicks in:
1938 10,390,000
That's seven times the number unemployed pre-recession.
Some whiz that Roosevelt.
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression


BTW...under Reagan there was no such jump in unemployed.

Looks like Political (wonder) chic doesn't mind lying to us and letting us miss our turn.

Special pleading much?

Year Population Labor
Force Unemployed Percentage of
Labor Force
1929 88010000 49440000 1550000 3.14
1930 89550000 50080000 4340000 8.67
1931 90710000 50680000 8020000 15.82
1932 91810000 51250000 12060000 23.53
1933 92950000 51840000 12830000 24.75
1934 94190000 52490000 11340000 21.6
1935 95460000 53140000 10610000 19.97
1936 96700000 53740000 9030000 16.8
1937 97870000 54320000 7700000 14.18
1938 99120000 54950000 10390000 18.91
1939 100360000 55600000 9480000 17.05
1940 101560000 56180000 8120000 14.45
1941 102700000 57530000 5560000 9.66

I never lie.

My figures, the ones I posted are the exact same ones in that list.
Mine is labeled Unemployed Americans, and shows exactly that.

And, in fact, I provided the link

My post is #169,and proves that you are a lying gutter snipe.

Unemployment went down after the recession within a depression.

Those numbers tell very little in the big picture. They were the symptoms of a policy change implemented to bring down deficit spending to early during the recovery from the depression.

This is a quick view about what caused the 1937-38 recession;
www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/27

This is a long detailed explanation. It uses the Darby method of calculating unemployment instead of the Lebergott numbers.
It is a draft for a lecture used by a Yale professor. The draft also led to a shortened article which is the second link listed below.
economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-History/irwin-110926.pdf

www.econintersect.com/wordpress/?p=40106

Yes, we now know that trying to balance a budget engenders illiquidity in the private sector.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "Oh, I read your gibberish. It just didn't amount to much."
Actually, the conclusion is that you are not bright enough to incorporate that truth into your decisions.

If the useless idiocy you tell yourself was 'truth', you might have a point. Alas, it isn't. So you don't.

Remember, Chic....and this point is fundamental: you don't know what you're talking about. You recite. You repeat. You quote verbatim. But you don't think. And you rarely if every bother to research.

2. "The regulation of capitalism is one of practical stability."
I said nothing about regulation....you should strive to use the same level of precision in your reading as I do in my posts.

I did. In the very post you responded to. Wait.....you think my posts are bound to whatever rhetorical deuce you spew up?

Um, no.

3."Look at the 80 or so years before the new deal..."
"The Roaring Twenties is a phrase used to refer to the 1920s in theUnited States,Canada, and theUnited Kingdom, characterizing the decade's distinctive cultural edge inNew York City,Chicago,Berlin,London,Los Angeles, and many other major cities duringa period of sustained economic prosperity"
Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

With 3 recessions in the 20s (1921, 1923, 1926), followed by the Great Depression. And preceded by the Recession of 1918, the recession of 1913, the Panic of 1910, the Panic of 1907, and the recession of 1902.

Does the word 'unstable' mean anything to you? And this is what you want us to return to?

Laughing....so much for that 'wisdom' you were lauding. It helps if you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Which, of course, you don't.

4. Don't hesitate to request further remedial education.

Says the poor lass that didn't even know that the 'Roaring 20s' had 3 recessions and was followed by the Great Depression.

You're consistently clueless. I'll give you that.

So sad....now I'll have to put you in your place again....

...and that place is the last seat in the dumb row.


"If the useless idiocy you tell yourself was 'truth', you might have a point. Alas, it isn't. So you don't.

Remember, Chic....and this point is fundamental: you don't know what you're talking about. You recite. You repeat. You quote verbatim. But you don't think. And you rarely if every bother to research."

This is the truth under discussion:
Many not ideologically Leftist are seduced by the rhetoric that they are helping others. The wise recognize the lie.

It is very simple to document this statement....almost as simple as you are.

1. "...the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal."
War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America


Exactly as I stated in the truth I presented.


2. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence."
Peter Ferrara, “America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,” chapter five.

Exactly as I stated in the truth I presented.


So, with the best of intentions, dopes like you continue to support a failed and fraudulent system that keeps the poor poor.


Wanna read it again?
Many not ideologically Leftist are seduced by the rhetoric that they are helping others. The wise recognize the lie.

And you go into a predictable word salad cut and paste'gasm. Its your tell. Nothing you posted has a thing to do with what you are responding to. Again, Chic.....you're not a thinker. You're a repeater. A regurgetator. You merely recite what you're told to think. And you don't even know why.

Now, back to your lesson:

Your 'Roaring 20s' included 3 recessions in the 20s (1921, 1923, 1926), followed by the Great Depression. And preceded by the Recession of 1918, the recession of 1913, the Panic of 1910, the Panic of 1907, and the recession of 1902.

Does the word 'unstable' mean anything to you? And this is what you want us to return to?

Laughing....so much for that 'wisdom' you were lauding. It helps if you have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Which, of course, you don't.

Recessions are a part of the business cycle.

8 recessions in 30 years? In the last 30 years we've had 3.

That's less than half, hun. And you want us to return to double the years in recession and depression, to the wild instability of pre-regulated capitalism days?

Um, no. That's just silly. Why would we ever want to do that?

Liberals/Democrats turn them into depressions.

Save of course that we haven't had a depression since we started regulating capitalism. The Depressions came BEFORE we did so. The Great Depression (1929 to 1933), the Depression of 1920-21, and the Long Depression from 1873 to 1879.

And how many depressions have we had since we began regulating the economy Chic? Count them with me:

Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Compared to the 3 in preregulation capitalism. No thank you.

Roaring Twenties were both
a. Republican

and

b. a period of sustained economic prosperity"
Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The 'Roaring Twenties' included 3 recessions and ended in the Great Depression. Which lasted from 1929 to 1933.

If that's a 'republican decade', you can keep it.

1. "...the Great Depression. Which lasted from 1929 to 1933."
You lie......the 'Depression' lasted until our entering WWII

2. It's fair to say that Republicans/the Right, favors capitalism.
...while Progressives/'Democrats favor socialism/communism

Here the great Milton Friedman puts a Leftist in his place, destroying his contention that socialism/communism provides more economic stability.

Watch, as it applies to you,too.