US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Rshermr]

as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
.

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.

Now you've done it, Ed! You've confronted Rshermr with reality! HE HATES THAT! It makes such a mess of his preconceived ideas about what took place that he's left with no choice but lash out at you! Cue the Rshermr personal attack mode!

I understand that you and ed would be a pair. But buddies, no doubt. Between the two of you, you can have a normal IQ, 50 each.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
.

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.

Now you've done it, Ed! You've confronted Rshermr with reality! HE HATES THAT! It makes such a mess of his preconceived ideas about what took place that he's left with no choice but lash out at you! Cue the Rshermr personal attack mode!

I understand that you and ed would be a pair. But buddies, no doubt. Between the two of you, you can have a normal IQ, 50 each.

Actually it was you who said Hoover did nothing and you who won't admit to being a communist!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. .

they were 100% against Obamacare and stimulus!! Now do you understand.

 

[Oldstyle]

What I find amusing, Ed...is that this President has overseen a recovery that benefited only the wealthy...yet he continues to complain about "income inequality"!

Gee, Barry...if you'd had an economic plan that consisted of something besides keeping interest rates at near zero for the past seven years so that rich people could invest in the stock market and make a killing...maybe the other 80% of Americans wouldn't be so bad off right now?

yes, between attacking the families, schools, and religion of the most vulnerable among us,overtly shipping jobs offshore with liberal taxes, unions, and deficits, and inviting in 20 million illegals to take 20 million jobs liberals have created huge inequality! And, they are getting away with it making our country as gullible as the Germans were in the 1933. Humans always revert to type.

The best "safety net" for society will always be a good job. Not an entry level...no skill job that government extortion forces high wages for...but a skilled job that is in demand. Liberals can't seem to grasp that concept.

That would be great, me boy. Now, tell me how, when during the great republican recession began in 2008 and as it went on for years, conservative congressmen did NOTHING to help those that needed that good paying job. Nothing, my boy. And to this day, NOTHING. Unless you know of a bill that the rest of us are unaware of.
A great safety net did not appear in 1929 through 1932 as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
But Reagan, he had learned. When his great top down economic theory failed, and the ue rate hit it's SECOND highest rate ever at 10.8%, he found it necessary to work for a safety net, called the largest stimulative spending effort in the history of the world.
After W presided over the third largest downturn of all time, and the ue rate went to about 10%, republicans did NOTHING. They voted after every attempt the new president brought forward.
So, be proud. The middle class is getting smaller and smaller, while the most wealthy few got richer and richer.
But, me boy, you are a con tool, and you believe what you want to believe. But you are an idiot. And you could care less about the middle class.

Simple question for a simple poster...has the gap between the Middle Class and the wealthy gotten smaller or larger during the seven plus years of Barack Obama in the Oval Office?

Larger, of course, because the republicans have blocked every economic bill that he or his team have put forward. As everyone knows.

"There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."

Gee, what a surprise! George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!

When are you ever going to grow up, me boy. But, I am not an economist. Any more than you are a historian. And, I can provide you with the formula you so badly want. If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. Still waiting, me boy.

Keystone Pipeline...now what's that formula?

 

[Oldstyle]

as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
.

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.

Now you've done it, Ed! You've confronted Rshermr with reality! HE HATES THAT! It makes such a mess of his preconceived ideas about what took place that he's left with no choice but lash out at you! Cue the Rshermr personal attack mode!

I understand that you and ed would be a pair. But buddies, no doubt. Between the two of you, you can have a normal IQ, 50 each.

Did you just accuse Ed and I of being "but buddies", Georgie? I thought you were the guy who abhorred personal attacks? So Ed, brings up valid points about something you've claimed...cites examples of how you're wrong...and you respond how? Not with a well reasoned rebuttal...but with snide homosexual innuendoes?

You simply proved my point...someone confronts you with facts and you respond with personal attacks. That's not a problem either...I could care less when you go all juvenile on us...but it borders on farce when you do THAT and then whine about supposed "personal attacks" by others!

 

[Rshermr]

as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
.

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.

Now you've done it, Ed! You've confronted Rshermr with reality! HE HATES THAT! It makes such a mess of his preconceived ideas about what took place that he's left with no choice but lash out at you! Cue the Rshermr personal attack mode!

What you have, me boy, is a long quote from some unknown source. And you and your friend ed, the troll, have done what you normally do, me boy, and made a number of mixed up claims. Lets a look at your drivel. First, you mention the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, and suggest it was a Hoover bill. It was not. It was Wilson and his Republican congress' baby. And Coolidge who inherited the legislation and passed in. And it had nothing to do with stimulus, or the Great Republican Depression of 1929. It was a protectionist bill, and fully supported by Republicans. Republican congressmen of the time were hard protectionists. Look it up. You see, any scholar of economics at that time would understand that the controlling Republican Congress were protectionists. And the tariff bills passed during the years up to the take over of the presidency by FDR were aimed at helping BUSINESS, not the middle class. Obviously. That it failed had nothing to do with either what I said, nor the great republican depression.

You may notice that the said Depression happened 7 years later.
Now, me dishonest con tool, what I said was that Hoover did nothing while watching the ue rate go from 4 to 25 percent. Which was absolutely true, except that it was 3.2% to 25%. All during his administration, me boy. Watching that happen , then sending on a stimulus in the final days of his term. Your interest in Tariff bills had absolutely nothing to do with easing unemployment rates caused by the Great Republican Depression. Your post was a waste of words. Had NOTHING to do with what I posted.
Historically, me poor ignorant con tool, it was a time of watching the Republican Congress preparing the economy to fail. It did that in 1929 under Hoover. Though there was little he could have done to stop it, having inherited the mess from Coolidge. You may see a pattern, me boy. Three republican presidents preparing the economy for, and watching as, the greatest economic disaster of our history occurred. And then a Democratic President elected and repaired the damage.

But, thanks for trying, boys.

 

[Rshermr]

yes, between attacking the families, schools, and religion of the most vulnerable among us,overtly shipping jobs offshore with liberal taxes, unions, and deficits, and inviting in 20 million illegals to take 20 million jobs liberals have created huge inequality! And, they are getting away with it making our country as gullible as the Germans were in the 1933. Humans always revert to type.

The best "safety net" for society will always be a good job. Not an entry level...no skill job that government extortion forces high wages for...but a skilled job that is in demand. Liberals can't seem to grasp that concept.

That would be great, me boy. Now, tell me how, when during the great republican recession began in 2008 and as it went on for years, conservative congressmen did NOTHING to help those that needed that good paying job. Nothing, my boy. And to this day, NOTHING. Unless you know of a bill that the rest of us are unaware of.
A great safety net did not appear in 1929 through 1932 as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
But Reagan, he had learned. When his great top down economic theory failed, and the ue rate hit it's SECOND highest rate ever at 10.8%, he found it necessary to work for a safety net, called the largest stimulative spending effort in the history of the world.
After W presided over the third largest downturn of all time, and the ue rate went to about 10%, republicans did NOTHING. They voted after every attempt the new president brought forward.
So, be proud. The middle class is getting smaller and smaller, while the most wealthy few got richer and richer.
But, me boy, you are a con tool, and you believe what you want to believe. But you are an idiot. And you could care less about the middle class.

Simple question for a simple poster...has the gap between the Middle Class and the wealthy gotten smaller or larger during the seven plus years of Barack Obama in the Oval Office?

Larger, of course, because the republicans have blocked every economic bill that he or his team have put forward. As everyone knows.

"There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."

Gee, what a surprise! George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!

When are you ever going to grow up, me boy. But, I am not an economist. Any more than you are a historian. And, I can provide you with the formula you so badly want. If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. Still waiting, me boy.

Keystone Pipeline...now what's that formula?

Sorry. You failed, miserably.

 

[Rshermr]

as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
.

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.

Now you've done it, Ed! You've confronted Rshermr with reality! HE HATES THAT! It makes such a mess of his preconceived ideas about what took place that he's left with no choice but lash out at you! Cue the Rshermr personal attack mode!

I understand that you and ed would be a pair. But buddies, no doubt. Between the two of you, you can have a normal IQ, 50 each.

Did you just accuse Ed and I of being "but buddies", Georgie? I thought you were the guy who abhorred personal attacks? So Ed, brings up valid points about something you've claimed...cites examples of how you're wrong...and you respond how? Not with a well reasoned rebuttal...but with snide homosexual innuendoes?

You simply proved my point...someone confronts you with facts and you respond with personal attacks. That's not a problem either...I could care less when you go all juvenile on us...but it borders on farce when you do THAT and then whine about supposed "personal attacks" by others!

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

 

[Oldstyle]

The best "safety net" for society will always be a good job. Not an entry level...no skill job that government extortion forces high wages for...but a skilled job that is in demand. Liberals can't seem to grasp that concept.

That would be great, me boy. Now, tell me how, when during the great republican recession began in 2008 and as it went on for years, conservative congressmen did NOTHING to help those that needed that good paying job. Nothing, my boy. And to this day, NOTHING. Unless you know of a bill that the rest of us are unaware of.
A great safety net did not appear in 1929 through 1932 as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
But Reagan, he had learned. When his great top down economic theory failed, and the ue rate hit it's SECOND highest rate ever at 10.8%, he found it necessary to work for a safety net, called the largest stimulative spending effort in the history of the world.
After W presided over the third largest downturn of all time, and the ue rate went to about 10%, republicans did NOTHING. They voted after every attempt the new president brought forward.
So, be proud. The middle class is getting smaller and smaller, while the most wealthy few got richer and richer.
But, me boy, you are a con tool, and you believe what you want to believe. But you are an idiot. And you could care less about the middle class.

Simple question for a simple poster...has the gap between the Middle Class and the wealthy gotten smaller or larger during the seven plus years of Barack Obama in the Oval Office?

Larger, of course, because the republicans have blocked every economic bill that he or his team have put forward. As everyone knows.

"There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."

Gee, what a surprise! George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!

When are you ever going to grow up, me boy. But, I am not an economist. Any more than you are a historian. And, I can provide you with the formula you so badly want. If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. Still waiting, me boy.

Keystone Pipeline...now what's that formula?

Sorry. You failed, miserably.

So the Keystone Pipeline wouldn't have created jobs? Funny...construction unions in that area of the country were in favor of it because...drum roll please...it would have created high paying jobs for them!

You have to claim that I "failed" of course because we both know you don't HAVE a formula! Once again...you being full of hot air...getting called on it...and not being able to back up your claims!

 

[Oldstyle]

as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
.

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.

Now you've done it, Ed! You've confronted Rshermr with reality! HE HATES THAT! It makes such a mess of his preconceived ideas about what took place that he's left with no choice but lash out at you! Cue the Rshermr personal attack mode!

I understand that you and ed would be a pair. But buddies, no doubt. Between the two of you, you can have a normal IQ, 50 each.

Did you just accuse Ed and I of being "but buddies", Georgie? I thought you were the guy who abhorred personal attacks? So Ed, brings up valid points about something you've claimed...cites examples of how you're wrong...and you respond how? Not with a well reasoned rebuttal...but with snide homosexual innuendoes?

You simply proved my point...someone confronts you with facts and you respond with personal attacks. That's not a problem either...I could care less when you go all juvenile on us...but it borders on farce when you do THAT and then whine about supposed "personal attacks" by others!

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

 

[Rshermr]

... the Hoover interventions include: expanded public works( ever heard of Hoover dam), greater government control over agriculture, the Smoot-Hawley tariff, a virtual end to immigration, government loans for construction and other businesses ... Most important was Hoover’s pressuring businesses to not cut wages even as the prices of their output fell. The result was higher real wages, which were responsible for the unemployment rate topping out at 25 percent, causing the greatest human toll of the Great Depression. [1]
Hoover, much like FDR, was skeptical about free markets. [2]
We didn't admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.

Rexford Guy Tugwell, Roosevelt Advisor

Hoover dramatically increased government spending for subsidy and relief schemes. In the space of one year alone, from 1930 to 1931, the federal government’s share of GNP increased by about one-third.

Hoover’s agricultural bureaucracy doled out hundreds of millions of dollars to wheat and cotton farmers even as the new tariffs wiped out their markets. His Reconstruction Finance Corporation ladled out billions more in business subsidies. Commenting decades later on Hoover’s administration, Rexford Guy Tugwell, one of the architects of Franklin Roosevelt’s policies of the 1930s, explained, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”[6]

To compound the folly of high tariffs and huge subsidies, Congress then passed and Hoover signed the Revenue Act of 1932. It doubled the income tax for most Americans; the top bracket more than doubled, going from 24 percent to 63 percent. Exemptions were lowered; the earned income credit was abolished; corporate and estate taxes were raised; new gift, gasoline, and auto taxes were imposed; and postal rates were sharply hiked.

Can any serious scholar observe the Hoover administration’s massive economic intervention and, with a straight face, pronounce the inevitably deleterious effects as the fault of free markets?

The crowning folly of the Hoover administration was the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, passed in June 1930. It came on top of the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which had already put American agriculture in a tailspin during the preceding decade. The most protectionist legislation in U.S. history, Smoot-Hawley virtually closed the borders to foreign goods and ignited a vicious international trade war. Professor Barry Poulson notes that not only were 887 tariffs sharply increased, but the act broadened the list of dutiable commodities to 3,218 items as well.[5]

Officials in the administration and in Congress believed that raising trade barriers would force Americans to buy more goods made at home, which would solve the nagging unemployment problem. They ignored an important principle of international commerce: trade is ultimately a two-way street; if foreigners cannot sell their goods here, then they cannot earn the dollars they need to buy here.

Now you've done it, Ed! You've confronted Rshermr with reality! HE HATES THAT! It makes such a mess of his preconceived ideas about what took place that he's left with no choice but lash out at you! Cue the Rshermr personal attack mode!

I understand that you and ed would be a pair. But buddies, no doubt. Between the two of you, you can have a normal IQ, 50 each.

Did you just accuse Ed and I of being "but buddies", Georgie? I thought you were the guy who abhorred personal attacks? So Ed, brings up valid points about something you've claimed...cites examples of how you're wrong...and you respond how? Not with a well reasoned rebuttal...but with snide homosexual innuendoes?

You simply proved my point...someone confronts you with facts and you respond with personal attacks. That's not a problem either...I could care less when you go all juvenile on us...but it borders on farce when you do THAT and then whine about supposed "personal attacks" by others!

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

 

[Rshermr]

That would be great, me boy. Now, tell me how, when during the great republican recession began in 2008 and as it went on for years, conservative congressmen did NOTHING to help those that needed that good paying job. Nothing, my boy. And to this day, NOTHING. Unless you know of a bill that the rest of us are unaware of.
A great safety net did not appear in 1929 through 1932 as Hoover watched the ue rate raise from around 4.5/% to over 24%. Nothing, me boy, nothing, except misery for the middle and lower classes.
But Reagan, he had learned. When his great top down economic theory failed, and the ue rate hit it's SECOND highest rate ever at 10.8%, he found it necessary to work for a safety net, called the largest stimulative spending effort in the history of the world.
After W presided over the third largest downturn of all time, and the ue rate went to about 10%, republicans did NOTHING. They voted after every attempt the new president brought forward.
So, be proud. The middle class is getting smaller and smaller, while the most wealthy few got richer and richer.
But, me boy, you are a con tool, and you believe what you want to believe. But you are an idiot. And you could care less about the middle class.

Simple question for a simple poster...has the gap between the Middle Class and the wealthy gotten smaller or larger during the seven plus years of Barack Obama in the Oval Office?

Larger, of course, because the republicans have blocked every economic bill that he or his team have put forward. As everyone knows.

"There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."

Gee, what a surprise! George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!

When are you ever going to grow up, me boy. But, I am not an economist. Any more than you are a historian. And, I can provide you with the formula you so badly want. If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. Still waiting, me boy.

Keystone Pipeline...now what's that formula?

Sorry. You failed, miserably.

So the Keystone Pipeline wouldn't have created jobs? Funny...construction unions in that area of the country were in favor of it because...drum roll please...it would have created high paying jobs for them!

You have to claim that I "failed" of course because we both know you don't HAVE a formula! Once again...you being full of hot air...getting called on it...and not being able to back up your claims!

Oldstyle said:
construction unions in that area of the country were in favor of it because...drum roll please...it would have created high paying jobs for them!
The Keystone Pipeline was not passed, me boy, in an attempt to decrease unemployment after the great Republican Recession of 2008 had begun. It was passed to allow construction of a PIPELINE, which is why the word PIPELINE is in the bill, and it was in fact a big wet kiss to energy corporations. It had NO IMPACT on the great republican Recession of 2008, nor was it meant to be an effort to slow down the recession. A few jobs would have been created. But just a few, for a short time. If a republican had started a mom and pop business, you would have said that was a republican effort to improve the job situation. Because you are a con tool.
Next??

 

[Oldstyle]

Simple question for a simple poster...has the gap between the Middle Class and the wealthy gotten smaller or larger during the seven plus years of Barack Obama in the Oval Office?

Larger, of course, because the republicans have blocked every economic bill that he or his team have put forward. As everyone knows.

"There are indeed formulas, or at least one. But no, I will not show it to you."

Gee, what a surprise! George Costanza the economist can't come up with a formula!

When are you ever going to grow up, me boy. But, I am not an economist. Any more than you are a historian. And, I can provide you with the formula you so badly want. If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008. Still waiting, me boy.

Keystone Pipeline...now what's that formula?

Sorry. You failed, miserably.

So the Keystone Pipeline wouldn't have created jobs? Funny...construction unions in that area of the country were in favor of it because...drum roll please...it would have created high paying jobs for them!

You have to claim that I "failed" of course because we both know you don't HAVE a formula! Once again...you being full of hot air...getting called on it...and not being able to back up your claims!

Oldstyle said:
construction unions in that area of the country were in favor of it because...drum roll please...it would have created high paying jobs for them!
The Keystone Pipeline was not passed, me boy, in an attempt to decrease unemployment after the great Republican Recession of 2008 had begun. It was passed to allow construction of a PIPELINE, which is why the word PIPELINE is in the bill, and it was in fact a big wet kiss to energy corporations. It had NO IMPACT on the great republican Recession of 2008, nor was it meant to be an effort to slow down the recession. A few jobs would have been created. But just a few, for a short time. If a republican had started a mom and pop business, you would have said that was a republican effort to improve the job situation. Because you are a con tool.
Next??

So you ask for a bill that the GOP House passed that would have created jobs...I provide one...and then you declare that because it would have only created a "few jobs" and for a "short time" that it doesn't count? You're pathetic. The Obama Stimulus only created a few jobs and it "saved" other government jobs for a "short time" yet you count that as being wildly successful!

You CAN'T admit that the Keystone Pipeline bill would have created jobs because if you did...then you'd have to provide the formula to determine jobs saved...and we all know by now that you can't do so! Just admit it and save yourself further embarrassment.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

 

[Faun]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

The US is crisscrossed with pipelines from one end of the country to the other, Faun...so please don't use that sorry excuse! It's amazing how giving 42,000 people a great paying job for as long as it takes to complete that pipeline doesn't interest you liberals but for those people who aren't working? By the way, that estimate of 42,000 and one year comes from the Obama State Department...which obviously is pushing one side of this debate. The time to complete the job is more accurately put at two years...not one! I suspect the construction workers would LOVE to be employed for that time!

The truth of the matter is that Keystone became a "symbol" to you on the left! That's why Obama threatened to veto it. Because he was pandering to the environmental wing of the Democratic Party.

 

[Faun]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

The US is crisscrossed with pipelines from one end of the country to the other, Faun...so please don't use that sorry excuse! It's amazing how giving 42,000 people a great paying job for as long as it takes to complete that pipeline doesn't interest you liberals but for those people who aren't working? I suspect they would LOVE to be employed for that time!

The truth of the matter is that Keystone became a "symbol" to you on the left! That's why Obama threatened to veto it. Because he was pandering to the environmental wing of the Democratic Party.

Your retardation is noted but I did not complain about it because it's a pipeline.

Try harder next time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

The US is crisscrossed with pipelines from one end of the country to the other, Faun...so please don't use that sorry excuse! It's amazing how giving 42,000 people a great paying job for as long as it takes to complete that pipeline doesn't interest you liberals but for those people who aren't working? I suspect they would LOVE to be employed for that time!

The truth of the matter is that Keystone became a "symbol" to you on the left! That's why Obama threatened to veto it. Because he was pandering to the environmental wing of the Democratic Party.

Your retardation is noted but I did not complain about it because it's a pipeline.

Try harder next time.

LOL...when Georgie is threatened with inconvenient facts he resorts to homosexual innuendoes...when you're threatened with inconvenient facts you resort to accusations of retardation? But your side doesn't use "personal attacks"...nah, never!

 

[Faun]

Since you can't admit the Keystone Pipeline Bill would have created jobs...I assume you also won't admit that the GOP effort to repeal the Medical Device Tax imposed under ObamaCare...an effort that was met with a veto threat by President Obama ALSO would have "saved" jobs? Let's hear your excuse for that, Georgie...

The estimate of jobs created for the KP is about 42,000 jobs for one year. While that does provide a temporary boost for 42,000 people, that must be weighed against the hazards of transporting tar sands oil from one end of the country to the other as well as the cost benefit for the U.S. since it is Canadian oil and they reap the profits.

The US is crisscrossed with pipelines from one end of the country to the other, Faun...so please don't use that sorry excuse! It's amazing how giving 42,000 people a great paying job for as long as it takes to complete that pipeline doesn't interest you liberals but for those people who aren't working? I suspect they would LOVE to be employed for that time!

The truth of the matter is that Keystone became a "symbol" to you on the left! That's why Obama threatened to veto it. Because he was pandering to the environmental wing of the Democratic Party.

Your retardation is noted but I did not complain about it because it's a pipeline.

Try harder next time.

LOL...when Georgie is threatened with inconvenient facts he resorts to homosexual innuendoes...when you're threatened with inconvenient facts you resort to accusations of retardation? But your side doesn't use "personal attacks"...nah, never!

You remain retarded. You did not "threaten" me with "inconvenient facts."

What you did was misread my post and then attack it over something I didn't even say.

But you're a moron and that's what morons do.

Again .... try harder.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now you've done it, Ed! You've confronted Rshermr with reality! HE HATES THAT! It makes such a mess of his preconceived ideas about what took place that he's left with no choice but lash out at you! Cue the Rshermr personal attack mode!

I understand that you and ed would be a pair. But buddies, no doubt. Between the two of you, you can have a normal IQ, 50 each.

Did you just accuse Ed and I of being "but buddies", Georgie? I thought you were the guy who abhorred personal attacks? So Ed, brings up valid points about something you've claimed...cites examples of how you're wrong...and you respond how? Not with a well reasoned rebuttal...but with snide homosexual innuendoes?

You simply proved my point...someone confronts you with facts and you respond with personal attacks. That's not a problem either...I could care less when you go all juvenile on us...but it borders on farce when you do THAT and then whine about supposed "personal attacks" by others!

just conjecture. More likely, you simply have similar IQ's, Ed is and has been long known as the site Troll. Stupid as a post. And you seem to be trying to get there.

And you've long been known as the site POSER...

Don't you get tired of making an ass out of yourself with this stuff? Seriously...you come on here and pretend to know something about economics but then you post some of the most unintelligent things I've ever heard on the subject...proving without question that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Yet you don't seem to realize how bad you look. I've never seen anything quite like it.

That, me boy, would be your opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion,

I am really impressed that you teamed with Ed, who for years has been know as The Troll. of this board And with him, waste everyones time with an incredibly stupid post trying to say that Hoobert Hoover did not stand by watching ort Unemployment Rate go from 3.5% to 25% while doing NOTHING. Which I had stated in my post. And saying that he passed much of the stimulus legislation that was, in fact, passed and signed into law by FDR. Truth was EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN in the US was scared shitless, and if they were Republican, were about to loose their jobs in the next election after the Great Republican Recession Started in 1929. And suddenly, with the ue rate soaring past 20%, republicans became democrats. But not until the ue rate passed 20% on its way to 25%. That caused human misery beyond belief, me boy.
And you, to stand with the great Troll, Ed, and suggest that the problem was one Republican, that being Hoover, was beyond untrue. It was an effort to rewrite history, me boy. The great depression happened in 1929, but had been led up to since 1920, and pretty much entirely by three Republican Presidents (Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover), and three Republican Controlled Congresses.
And then, to blame the Great Republican Depression of 1929 on republican efforts to control the Economy with Tariffs and suggest that those bills had ANYTHING TO DO WITH controlling the human misery caused by the Great Depression was not only untrue, but a complete misstating of the causes of the Great Depression and the efforts to bring unemployment back under control.
Truth was that Hoover and his team tried, after the country literally exploded into chaos caused by the crash of 1929, to draft legislation and get it into law, it was only after the fact. Way too late. Way too small.
Now, most would be ashamed of the lies and distortion of your post. But instead, you suggest it was I who posted untruths. I did not, me boy. The truth is a well known thing. Your, and Ed's, revision is where the lies are. And you posted them. No one else but you and your friend, Ed.
Here is a bit of truth, me boy. Try and read and understand:
"In general, the Republicans retained control of Congress until 1931, after 19 Republicans in the US House of Representatives died and Democrats took their places in the special elections- after Republican President Herbert Hoover had continuously failed to get the US out of the Great Depression.
The Great Depression
On October 29, 1929, a day known in history as Black Tuesday, the New York Stock Exchange experienced a significant crash and the United States, as well as most of the world, would enter a major recession.[47] In response, President Herbert Hoover and the Republican Congress passed the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act. However, it has been recognized that this act only made economic condition far worse.[47] The 1930 midterm election saw the Republicans barely maintain control of the US House of Representatives and US Senate.[48][49] Shortly after the 1930 midterm election, however, special elections were held to replace 19 House of Representative-elects who died, and Democrats would gain a four-seat majority in the US House of Representatives as a result of the outcome of these elections.[50] In the 1932 US Senate elections, the Democrats easily regained control over the US Senate once again; this 1932 election also saw Franklin Roosevelt get elected US President as well, and Roosevelt could now begin his historic New Deal policies through the Democrat-dominated US Congress, and could bring the US out of the Great Depression.
History of the United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

FDR took over the Presidency in late March of 1933, with the depression raging. As I have been saying, the Great Depression of 1929 was a Republican affair. And conservatives have been hard at trying to rewrite that history for decades.

FDR didn't end the Depression either! UE didn't drop below 14% under FDR until Hitler conquered France in 1940. So technically Hitler ended the FDR Depression