Random Truths

[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.

"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.


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


You're dumb enough to remain a Reliable Democrat Voter.

The stock market crashed in 1929. Roosevelt was sworn in as President three and one half years later, in March 1933. The great depression was already in full swing when Roosevelt became President. The reforms he put in have prevented a repeat of anything close to the devastation of the great depression. There has been stability since then. The reaction of Bush and then Obama to the 2007-2008 crisis prevented it from turning into a depression. They reacted with the government intervention necessary to stave off another depression. Had you actually had a smidgen of understanding of economic principles, you would know these things.

1. "The reforms he put in have prevented a repeat of anything close to the devastation of the great depression."
No truth to that/

2. "There has been stability since then."
And stability is due to the fact that Roosevelt isn't the President.

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?

4. BTW....the mortgage meltdown in Bush's term can be traced directly to FDR's meddling in the private housing market.

 

[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.

"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.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.


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


You're dumb enough to remain a Reliable Democrat Voter.

The stock market crashed in 1929. Roosevelt was sworn in as President three and one half years later, in March 1933. The great depression was already in full swing when Roosevelt became President. The reforms he put in have prevented a repeat of anything close to the devastation of the great depression. There has been stability since then. The reaction of Bush and then Obama to the 2007-2008 crisis prevented it from turning into a depression. They reacted with the government intervention necessary to stave off another depression. Had you actually had a smidgen of understanding of economic principles, you would know these things.

1. "The reforms he put in have prevented a repeat of anything close to the devastation of the great depression."
No truth to that/

2. "There has been stability since then."
And stability is due to the fact that Roosevelt isn't the President.

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?

4. BTW....the mortgage meltdown in Bush's term can be traced directly to FDR's meddling in the private housing market.

There has been relative stability in the economy since the 1930's. That is a fact. There have not been the deep recessions, the panics, the runs on banks.

No, Roosevelt is not President, but most of the reforms he put in place to stabilize the economy remain.
If you do not know what was done to prevent the 2007 recession from turning into an economic collapse, you are too ignorant to discuss these matters.

Right, Roosevelt caused the 2007 economic crisis. Moron.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

No, you didn't. The poverty rate is determined without reference to government benefits.

 

[Camp]

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

 

[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.

"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.


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


You're dumb enough to remain a Reliable Democrat Voter.

The stock market crashed in 1929. Roosevelt was sworn in as President three and one half years later, in March 1933. The great depression was already in full swing when Roosevelt became President. The reforms he put in have prevented a repeat of anything close to the devastation of the great depression. There has been stability since then. The reaction of Bush and then Obama to the 2007-2008 crisis prevented it from turning into a depression. They reacted with the government intervention necessary to stave off another depression. Had you actually had a smidgen of understanding of economic principles, you would know these things.

1. "The reforms he put in have prevented a repeat of anything close to the devastation of the great depression."
No truth to that/

2. "There has been stability since then."
And stability is due to the fact that Roosevelt isn't the President.

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?

4. BTW....the mortgage meltdown in Bush's term can be traced directly to FDR's meddling in the private housing market.

There has been relative stability in the economy since the 1930's. That is a fact. There have not been the deep recessions, the panics, the runs on banks.

No, Roosevelt is not President, but most of the reforms he put in place to stabilize the economy remain.
If you do not know what was done to prevent the 2007 recession from turning into an economic collapse, you are too ignorant to discuss these matters.

Right, Roosevelt caused the 2007 economic crisis. Moron.

"No, Roosevelt is not President, but most of the reforms he put in place to stabilize the economy remain."

Such as?

 

[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?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"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.

No, you didn't. The poverty rate is determined without reference to government benefits.

There is no poverty, you dope.

There is a Liberal program designed to keep folks on the dole, and get them to vote Democrat.


You like FDR?

Here:

1. 1. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
      
      These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.
   2. On Dec. 7, 2012, liberalNew York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof offered an unexpected concession:
      “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but … America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.”

Luckily for the Democrats, they have plenty of dopes like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.

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.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

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.

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.

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.


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


You're dumb enough to remain a Reliable Democrat Voter.

The stock market crashed in 1929. Roosevelt was sworn in as President three and one half years later, in March 1933. The great depression was already in full swing when Roosevelt became President. The reforms he put in have prevented a repeat of anything close to the devastation of the great depression. There has been stability since then. The reaction of Bush and then Obama to the 2007-2008 crisis prevented it from turning into a depression. They reacted with the government intervention necessary to stave off another depression. Had you actually had a smidgen of understanding of economic principles, you would know these things.

1. "The reforms he put in have prevented a repeat of anything close to the devastation of the great depression."
No truth to that/

2. "There has been stability since then."
And stability is due to the fact that Roosevelt isn't the President.

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?

4. BTW....the mortgage meltdown in Bush's term can be traced directly to FDR's meddling in the private housing market.

There has been relative stability in the economy since the 1930's. That is a fact. There have not been the deep recessions, the panics, the runs on banks.

No, Roosevelt is not President, but most of the reforms he put in place to stabilize the economy remain.
If you do not know what was done to prevent the 2007 recession from turning into an economic collapse, you are too ignorant to discuss these matters.

Right, Roosevelt caused the 2007 economic crisis. Moron.

"No, Roosevelt is not President, but most of the reforms he put in place to stabilize the economy remain."

Such as?

Seriously?

FDIC, going off the Gold Standard, Securities act of 1933 which created the SEC; the creation of the Federal Home Loan Agency that standardized mortgage terms, the Social Security Act, Rural electrification, Fair Labor Standards act

 

[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.

 

[paddymurphy]

"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.

So, Unemployment skyrockets under Hoover. Roosevelt comes in, makes tremendous changes in the first 100 days, and it plummets from 12,830.00 under Hoover to 7,700,00 under Roosevelt. There is a second recession in 1938, largely due to austerity measures pushed by the business community.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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.


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


You're dumb enough to remain a Reliable Democrat Voter.

The stock market crashed in 1929. Roosevelt was sworn in as President three and one half years later, in March 1933. The great depression was already in full swing when Roosevelt became President. The reforms he put in have prevented a repeat of anything close to the devastation of the great depression. There has been stability since then. The reaction of Bush and then Obama to the 2007-2008 crisis prevented it from turning into a depression. They reacted with the government intervention necessary to stave off another depression. Had you actually had a smidgen of understanding of economic principles, you would know these things.

1. "The reforms he put in have prevented a repeat of anything close to the devastation of the great depression."
No truth to that/

2. "There has been stability since then."
And stability is due to the fact that Roosevelt isn't the President.

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?

4. BTW....the mortgage meltdown in Bush's term can be traced directly to FDR's meddling in the private housing market.

There has been relative stability in the economy since the 1930's. That is a fact. There have not been the deep recessions, the panics, the runs on banks.

No, Roosevelt is not President, but most of the reforms he put in place to stabilize the economy remain.
If you do not know what was done to prevent the 2007 recession from turning into an economic collapse, you are too ignorant to discuss these matters.

Right, Roosevelt caused the 2007 economic crisis. Moron.

"No, Roosevelt is not President, but most of the reforms he put in place to stabilize the economy remain."

Such as?

Seriously?

FDIC, going off the Gold Standard, Securities act of 1933 which created the SEC; the creation of the Federal Home Loan Agency that standardized mortgage terms, the Social Security Act, Rural electrification, Fair Labor Standards act

1. I'm amazed at how brainless you Liberals lackwits are.
If anything FDR did was as efficacious as you suggest.....
....I suppose you missed the recession that Obama claimed was the greatest since the 'Great Depression."

2."going off the Gold Standard,"
This was the end of the Constitution, which stated the primacy of the Contracts Clause.

a. “What about existing contracts which people voluntarily agreed to, specifying payment in gold? Roosevelt persuaded Congress to overturn those contracts and wipe out the gold clauses. The Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, declared that gold clauses were “against public policy” and further payments must be in paper dollars….an extraordinary succession of commands, by whatever name. There weren’t any congressional hearings, even though the issue was one of fundamental importance, namely the seizure of private property from peaceful people who hadn’t done anything wrong."
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents: From Wilson to Obama,"
by Steven F. Hayward


b. Some believe that there are three co-equal branches of government, yet, under FDR, that was only intermittently true. The Supreme Court, for example, upheld the confiscation and arbitrary revaluation of the price of gold, and the cancellation of mortgage debt…both plainly violations of the Constitution’s Contract Clause.

c. Constitution: “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. . ..”
Franklin Roosevelt: the anti-Constitution President.

 

[paddymurphy]

"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.

And in 39, 40 and 41, it continues to shrink.

 

[Camp]

"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.

You completely refuse to recognize the Harvard link I have given you on numerous occasions that explain how employees on work projects were counted as unemployed even though they were working and collecting checks. You are misusing these figures. They are figures showing unemployed in relationship to not working in private industry. They were designed for comparative purposes to show what would happen without the work projects.
You use an online source called us history.com instead of the Harvard produced white paper that explains what these numbers mean in reality.

 

[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.

So, Unemployment skyrockets under Hoover. Roosevelt comes in, makes tremendous changes in the first 100 days, and it plummets from 12,830.00 under Hoover to 7,700,00 under Roosevelt. There is a second recession in 1938, largely due to austerity measures pushed by the business community.

"There is a second recession in 1938, largely due to austerity measures pushed by the business community."

Are you nuts????

Know what Roosevelt called the business community????


Like Hitler, Mussolini, and Huey Long (who supported Roosevelt), FDR was a demagogue, not to be constrained by campaign promises. He proved to be ruthless and unprincipled in attacking his enemies. He put Harry Hopkins, his right hand man, in the Department of Commerce to shake down businessmen that did not contribute to the Democratic Party, by threats of regulatory and legal retaliation. He used the IRS to prosecute Moses Annenberg, owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, when that newspaper questioned New Deal policies.

But you say he buckled under to the 'business community."

OMG.

 

[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.

And in 39, 40 and 41, it continues to shrink.

You moron....don't you know what happened in that period????

FDR was forced to back down and let the free market breath!!

1. On May 16, 1940, Roosevelt had addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense, with a commitment for fifty thousand military aircraft. He knew, also, that he needed the good will of business to win the war: no longer would he call them “privileged princes…thirsting for power.”


2. On May 26, 1940 his Fireside Chat signaled a new relationship with business: he would insure their profits, and assuage their fears that he would nationalize their factories.

a. “…we are calling upon the resources, the efficiency and the ingenuity of the American manufacturers of war material of all kinds -- airplanes and tanks and guns and ships, and all the hundreds of products that go into this material. The Government of the United States itself manufactures few of the implements of war. Private industry will continue to be the source of most of this material, and private industry will have to be speeded up to produce it at the rate and efficiency called for by the needs of the times….Private industry will have the responsibility of providing the best, speediest and most efficient mass production of which it is capable.” On National Defense - May 26 1940

 

[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.

 

[Camp]

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.

And in 39, 40 and 41, it continues to shrink.

You moron....don't you know what happened in that period????

FDR was forced to back down and let the free market breath!!

1. On May 16, 1940, Roosevelt had addressed Congress and asked for more than a billion dollars for defense, with a commitment for fifty thousand military aircraft. He knew, also, that he needed the good will of business to win the war: no longer would he call them “privileged princes…thirsting for power.”


2. On May 26, 1940 his Fireside Chat signaled a new relationship with business: he would insure their profits, and assuage their fears that he would nationalize their factories.

a. “…we are calling upon the resources, the efficiency and the ingenuity of the American manufacturers of war material of all kinds -- airplanes and tanks and guns and ships, and all the hundreds of products that go into this material. The Government of the United States itself manufactures few of the implements of war. Private industry will continue to be the source of most of this material, and private industry will have to be speeded up to produce it at the rate and efficiency called for by the needs of the times….Private industry will have the responsibility of providing the best, speediest and most efficient mass production of which it is capable.” On National Defense - May 26 1940

You conveniently skipped 1939 when unemployment began dropping over a year before the May 1940 date you are using.