US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Faun]

No sane person (rules you out) blames FDR for the Great Depression which started some 3½ years before he even became president.

might as well blame him since liberal interference policies caused the Great Depression and FDR continued policies of Hoover.


"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

Might as well blame Ronald Reagan, using your insanity.

 

[Faun]

Regardless, the unemployment rate dropped to under 10% in 1941 -- when government spending began skyrocketing in preparation of the war.

Millions in make work programs and more millions in the military made it seem only to perfect idiots that real unemployment had decreased.

We could always pretend we were at war, draft millions, and liberals fools could proclaim an end to unemployment.

Military folks are not included in the unemployment rate and related statistics. Don't you know anything Crazy Eddie?

 

[Rshermr]

Regardless, the unemployment rate dropped to under 10% in 1941 -- when government spending began skyrocketing in preparation of the war.

Millions in make work programs and more millions in the military made it seem only to perfect idiots that real unemployment had decreased.

We could always pretend we were at war, draft millions, and liberals fools could proclaim an end to unemployment.

Military folks are not included in the unemployment rate and related statistics. Don't you know anything Crazy Eddie?

Ed only posts what he is told to post. They must have missed the military subject, did not get ed his marching orders on that one. But yes, ed has no clue. No brain. No knowledge. He just spreads con talking points.

 

[Rshermr]

Regardless, the unemployment rate dropped to under 10% in 1941 -- when government spending began skyrocketing in preparation of the war.

Millions in make work programs and more millions in the military made it seem only to perfect idiots that real unemployment had decreased.

We could always pretend we were at war, draft millions, and liberals fools could proclaim an end to unemployment.

Military folks are not included in the unemployment rate and related statistics. Don't you know anything Crazy Eddie?

Ed only posts what he is told to post. They must have missed the military subject, did not get ed his marching orders on that one. But yes, ed has no clue. No brain. No knowledge. He just spreads con talking points. While we have know he was mentally defecient, we never had a diagnosis. Until Recently. When the diagnosis was provided, and the technical code was explained to be FUITH.

 

[Oldstyle]

So what's the formula, Georgie? Or did you want to try claiming the GOP's efforts to eliminate the Medical Devices Tax wouldn't have "saved" jobs?

the condition that I gave you that I said would cause me to provide you with the formula was as follows: Now PAY ATTENTION, oldstyle.
If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.
Now that, for most people, is really, really, really simple. So, me boy, not a bill to eliminate medical devices tax. Not a bill to fund a pipeline. A bill meant to decrease unemployment. Now, that is easy. I could do it for Democrats in a second. You must have some bills in mind for Republicans. If not, you loose. Though, me boy, if you can not figure out the formula, you have already lost. It is way too simple. Actually, there are a couple. At least. But I will provide you with one.
Oh, hell. Here is one. I am tired of your endless begging.
A - B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it.

A-B=jobs saved? That's your formula, Georgie? That's pathetic even for you!

GDP = C + I + G + (X × M)
C = Consumer spending on final goods and services
I = Gross private domestic investment, which includes business investment in capital goods (e.g. plant and equipment) and changes in inventory (inventory investment)
G = Government spending on final goods and services
X = Exports
M = Imports

That's what an economic formula looks like! Something you SHOULD know if you'd ever taken a class in the subject, which at this point is highly doubtful! So what does your A stand for? What does your B stand for? I'm guessing Asinine Bullshit?

 

[Oldstyle]

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

That would be true. First, you never give the name of a depression to the person you task with ending a depression created by the other party. He only brought ue down from 25.4% to 14.2% before your arbitrary date. That would be, what, 11.3% from the high of the Great Republican Depression. And a decrease of MORE than any unemployment percentage EXCEPT the Great Republican Depression of 1929. I mean, there must have been something like that accomplished by a republican,right??????????????????????????????????????????
"And not down by the time Germany invaded France"??? Maybe we should look at when the Crusades occurred. Or the Vietnam War occurred. Most think the depression was heavily influenced by the US entering the war. But that was December, of 1941, And by then, the ue was at about 9.65% Down over 15% from the high of the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
1941 ue rate was 9.66%
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

It's the FDR Depression because he's the joker that made it last his first two whole terms.

What a shame you know so little.

WWII Started in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. The USA stood aside while Poland then the lowlands fell. Once France fell in 1940 (look it up if you don't know), it was obvious we could not sit aside much longer and men started joining the US military and we started moving to wartime footing

I'd bet on the box of rock against you in Rock, Paper and Scissors and give you 2-1 odds as well and still make a fortune

That was a really ignorant post. So you think that the start of the war in Europe should have meant something in terms of the Great Republican Depression???? Me boy, you need to get a grip. The Great Republican Depression was over twice as big as any recession in our history, and you expect it to go away easily. And, of course, you would like someone else to take responsibility for the Great Republican Depression. But, me boy, that will only happen in your conservative little mind. Or, perhaps, when we find the first successful Libertarian socio-economic country. Ever, in the existence of EARTH.

You know it's amazing but in all the history classes I've taken...in all of the history texts that I've read...I've never heard anyone refer to the Great Depression as the Great Republican Depression, Georgie! It's amazing how you've taken it upon yourself to rewrite American history to match your political beliefs. You're almost as bad a historian as you are an economist...and that's saying something!

 

[Oldstyle]

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

That would be true. First, you never give the name of a depression to the person you task with ending a depression created by the other party. He only brought ue down from 25.4% to 14.2% before your arbitrary date. That would be, what, 11.3% from the high of the Great Republican Depression. And a decrease of MORE than any unemployment percentage EXCEPT the Great Republican Depression of 1929. I mean, there must have been something like that accomplished by a republican,right??????????????????????????????????????????
"And not down by the time Germany invaded France"??? Maybe we should look at when the Crusades occurred. Or the Vietnam War occurred. Most think the depression was heavily influenced by the US entering the war. But that was December, of 1941, And by then, the ue was at about 9.65% Down over 15% from the high of the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
1941 ue rate was 9.66%
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

It's the FDR Depression because he's the joker that made it last his first two whole terms.

What a shame you know so little.

WWII Started in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. The USA stood aside while Poland then the lowlands fell. Once France fell in 1940 (look it up if you don't know), it was obvious we could not sit aside much longer and men started joining the US military and we started moving to wartime footing

I'd bet on the box of rock against you in Rock, Paper and Scissors and give you 2-1 odds as well and still make a fortune

No sane person (rules you out) blames FDR for the Great Depression which started some 3½ years before he even became president. Regardless, the unemployment rate dropped to under 10% in 1941 -- when government spending began skyrocketing in preparation of the war.

Do you consider Milton Friedman insane, Faun? He does in fact blame FDR for the longevity of the Great Depression.

The fact is most economists now believe that the Keynesian policies of FDR and the failure of the newly formed FED to respond to the banking crisis led to a worsening of the economic situation. For some reason that concept hasn't filtered down yet to the general public who know little about economics...you know...like Georgie?

 

[Oldstyle]

You can sit out this part of the discussion if you want, Rshermr...it's all about economics and economic theory...which we've all gathered at this point isn't something you have the faintest idea about!

 

[Rshermr]

So what's the formula, Georgie? Or did you want to try claiming the GOP's efforts to eliminate the Medical Devices Tax wouldn't have "saved" jobs?

the condition that I gave you that I said would cause me to provide you with the formula was as follows: Now PAY ATTENTION, oldstyle.
If only you could show me the bill that a republican sponsored to help decrease unemployment during the great republican recession of 2008.
Now that, for most people, is really, really, really simple. So, me boy, not a bill to eliminate medical devices tax. Not a bill to fund a pipeline. A bill meant to decrease unemployment. Now, that is easy. I could do it for Democrats in a second. You must have some bills in mind for Republicans. If not, you loose. Though, me boy, if you can not figure out the formula, you have already lost. It is way too simple. Actually, there are a couple. At least. But I will provide you with one.
Oh, hell. Here is one. I am tired of your endless begging.
A - B = jobs saved
There. My job is done. And I did not even require you to hold up your end of the bargain. So, me boy, I owed you nothing. And you got something. Kind of like getting something for nothing. Next thing you will be complaining about it.

A-B=jobs saved? That's your formula, Georgie? That's pathetic even for you!

GDP = C + I + G + (X × M)
C = Consumer spending on final goods and services
I = Gross private domestic investment, which includes business investment in capital goods (e.g. plant and equipment) and changes in inventory (inventory investment)
G = Government spending on final goods and services
X = Exports
M = Imports

That's what an economic formula looks like! Something you SHOULD know if you'd ever taken a class in the subject, which at this point is highly doubtful! So what does your A stand for? What does your B stand for? I'm guessing Asinine Bullshit?

Why, Oldstyle, what a nice Formula.
The Stimulus Act of 2010. That would be what an actual Bill that could have been that was sponsored by republicans to lower the unemployment rate caused by the great republican recession of 2008, Thats what an economic bill title looks like! Something even you should know if you'd ever taken a class in the subjet, which at this point is highly doubtful! So wher is the name of your bill? I'm guessing you just do not have one. Because you lied.
Poor boy just does not want to tell the truth, that no such bill ever occurred.

 

[Rshermr]

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

That would be true. First, you never give the name of a depression to the person you task with ending a depression created by the other party. He only brought ue down from 25.4% to 14.2% before your arbitrary date. That would be, what, 11.3% from the high of the Great Republican Depression. And a decrease of MORE than any unemployment percentage EXCEPT the Great Republican Depression of 1929. I mean, there must have been something like that accomplished by a republican,right??????????????????????????????????????????
"And not down by the time Germany invaded France"??? Maybe we should look at when the Crusades occurred. Or the Vietnam War occurred. Most think the depression was heavily influenced by the US entering the war. But that was December, of 1941, And by then, the ue was at about 9.65% Down over 15% from the high of the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
1941 ue rate was 9.66%
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

It's the FDR Depression because he's the joker that made it last his first two whole terms.

What a shame you know so little.

WWII Started in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. The USA stood aside while Poland then the lowlands fell. Once France fell in 1940 (look it up if you don't know), it was obvious we could not sit aside much longer and men started joining the US military and we started moving to wartime footing

I'd bet on the box of rock against you in Rock, Paper and Scissors and give you 2-1 odds as well and still make a fortune

That was a really ignorant post. So you think that the start of the war in Europe should have meant something in terms of the Great Republican Depression???? Me boy, you need to get a grip. The Great Republican Depression was over twice as big as any recession in our history, and you expect it to go away easily. And, of course, you would like someone else to take responsibility for the Great Republican Depression. But, me boy, that will only happen in your conservative little mind. Or, perhaps, when we find the first successful Libertarian socio-economic country. Ever, in the existence of EARTH.

You know it's amazing but in all the history classes I've taken...in all of the history texts that I've read...I've never heard anyone refer to the Great Depression as the Great Republican Depression, Georgie! It's amazing how you've taken it upon yourself to rewrite American history to match your political beliefs. You're almost as bad a historian as you are an economist...and that's saying something!

I am just trying my best to give republicans full credit for their work. But I had no idea that it would cause you a APOPLEXY. Sorry, me poor ignorant con tool, some times the truth just hurts.
Now rewriting history??? Adding to the name is hardly rewriting anything. I'l bet in your next post you will be back to showing what rewriting history looks like!

 

[Rshermr]

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

That would be true. First, you never give the name of a depression to the person you task with ending a depression created by the other party. He only brought ue down from 25.4% to 14.2% before your arbitrary date. That would be, what, 11.3% from the high of the Great Republican Depression. And a decrease of MORE than any unemployment percentage EXCEPT the Great Republican Depression of 1929. I mean, there must have been something like that accomplished by a republican,right??????????????????????????????????????????
"And not down by the time Germany invaded France"??? Maybe we should look at when the Crusades occurred. Or the Vietnam War occurred. Most think the depression was heavily influenced by the US entering the war. But that was December, of 1941, And by then, the ue was at about 9.65% Down over 15% from the high of the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
1941 ue rate was 9.66%
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

It's the FDR Depression because he's the joker that made it last his first two whole terms.

What a shame you know so little.

WWII Started in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. The USA stood aside while Poland then the lowlands fell. Once France fell in 1940 (look it up if you don't know), it was obvious we could not sit aside much longer and men started joining the US military and we started moving to wartime footing

I'd bet on the box of rock against you in Rock, Paper and Scissors and give you 2-1 odds as well and still make a fortune

No sane person (rules you out) blames FDR for the Great Depression which started some 3½ years before he even became president. Regardless, the unemployment rate dropped to under 10% in 1941 -- when government spending began skyrocketing in preparation of the war.

Do you consider Milton Friedman insane, Faun? He does in fact blame FDR for the longevity of the Great Depression.

The fact is most economists now believe that the Keynesian policies of FDR and the failure of the newly formed FED to respond to the banking crisis led to a worsening of the economic situation. For some reason that concept hasn't filtered down yet to the general public who know little about economics...you know...like Georgie?

MILTON? INSANE? Hardly, me boy. Milton was a respected economist once. He went out of favor as other economists determined that he was simply a supply side economist, supporting an economic theory which died out over the years with the help of the great Republican experiment of 1981. You know, me boy, when supply side economics was proven to be a hoax by Ronald Reagan, when he raised taxes and cut spending, just as Supply Side economics (aka reaganomics) called for, and watched in horror as the ue rate raised to the second highest level un US History.. You remember, before he resorted to Keynesian principles of increasing spending, which eliminated unemployment.
People, me boy, believe that EVERY SINGLE THEORY OF ECONOMICS IN THE WORLD is invalid. Perhaps, me boy, your belief that most economists do not believe in Keynesian policies came from your ass. Because you forgot to provide a link to proof of your claim. And, me boy, as a student of history, you are making unsubstantiated claims again.
Now, Milty is about your speed. He was a Libertarian. Defined as a person who supports a socio-economic theory that has never worked in the real world. Nice. But, as an economist willing to push those concepts he would be well paid by the Koch brothers and their many think tanks. As any economist with a higher level degree in economics or one of several other degrees has the option of doing, if they are willing to trade on their ethics.
Sorry it has not filtered down to you yet, but milton freedman and his supply side economics have long become about as popular among economists as a fart in church.

 

[K9Buck]

The government is lying. The unemployment rate is probably 15%.

 

[edthecynic]

The government is lying. The unemployment rate is probably 15%.

A lot better than Bush's 40% and Reagan's 50%.

 

[Rshermr]

The government is lying. The unemployment rate is probably 15%.

A lot better than Bush's 40% and Reagan's 50%.

The three highest unemployment rates in US History were caused by Republican Regimes:
The Great Republican Depression of 1929
The Great Reagan Recession of 1982
The Great Republican Recession of 2008
Thanks for your post. Helps to put into context conservative tool posts.

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle, the great economic thinker (in his own mind) states the following lie, complete with NO link to prove it (for obvious reasons)::
"The fact is most economists now believe that the Keynesian policies of FDR and the failure of the newly formed FED to respond to the banking crisis led to a worsening of the economic situation."
But, of course, that would be a statement containing lies, and is stupid because Oldstyle is too ignorant of the fact that by the time FDR took office, the Great Republican Depression was well, well underway with ue rates over 25%. And, given that fact, no monetary policy was capable of doing any real good. At all. As anyone with any economic knowledge knows, you can not push on a string.
"BREAKING DOWN 'Push On A String'
If the core demand doesn't exist to induce people to part with their money, it can't be forced through monetary policy. Trying to do so is like trying to "push on a string".
Such a situation occurred during the Great Depression in the 1930s and in Japan during the late 1990s when interest rates were about 1%.
Push On A String Definition | Investopedia

You see, the Great Republican Depression of 1929 was a really serious classic Aggregate Demand Depression.
While we wait for the con tool to provide a link to prove this quote, here is an actual economist' discussion of Oldstyle's favorite economic theory, Supply Side Economics, or Reaganomics:
"The Republican Party has long promoted itself as the party of business. Republicans understand the needs of business, we are told, and if the country would leave the economy in their hands business would boom. All we need to do is to give those at the very top of the income distribution – the “job creators” – more income through tax breaks, and then sit back and wait for the magic happen. Our investment in the wealthy will produce remarkable economic growth, and everyone will be better off.
The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party. We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim. The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.
The reality, of course, has been quite different. There is little evidence that the Bush tax cuts, or any other tax cuts directed at the so-called job creators, have had a noticeable effect on economic growth. And the promise of broadly shared prosperity has not been realized. Most of the gains from economic growth in recent decades have gone to the top of the income distribution while the inflation adjusted wages of the working class have been relatively flat. Furthermore, the tax cuts have not paid for themselves as promised, and it hasn’t even been close. The Bush tax cuts have already cost us trillions in revenue, and if they are extended for high income tax payers, they will cost us roughly another trillion over the next decade.
The failure of Republicans to deliver on their promise that tax cuts would be mostly self-financing is a large factor in the deterioration in our long-run fiscal outlook, and it is putting considerable pressure on programs such as Social Security. In fact, the Bush tax cuts can be thought of as a loan from the Social Security Trust Fund that was supposed to be paid back with the revenues from higher economic growth, a loan that is presently in default.

To see this, recall that the government began intentionally collecting a surplus from the Social Security program beginning in 1983 in order to prefund the retirement needs of baby boomers. The idea was to run a surplus for several decades while the baby-boomers were still working to get ready for the deficit years the system would experience after they retired.

The revenue from Social Security over and above what was needed to fund payouts reduced the overall government debt and allowed taxes to be lower than they could have been without these surplus funds. For example, the surplus that Bush inherited from the Clinton administration was largely due to the Social Security Trust Fund, and Bush argued it would be better to give this surplus to the private sector through tax cuts than to leave it in the hands of the government.
But it wasn’t better. The income of the wealthy grew as they pocketed the tax cuts, but workers experienced stagnant wages, a recession that hit working class households particularly hard, and intense pressure to cut important social programs.

Despite their failed promises, the Republican Party is asking that we extend the tax cuts for the wealthy, and some are even calling for further reductions in tax rates. However, if the Republican Party is truly the party of business, then surely it will understand that no responsible financial institution would continue to invest in a business that failed meet, or even come close to the growth and revenue projections that justified the investment in the first place. The payoffs from tax cuts that were promised during the Bush years have not been realized, and the failed promises about growth and revenue have damaged the health, education, and retirement programs the working class depends upon in our increasingly globalized economy.
A true party of business would end our investment in the false promise of supply-side economics. However, a party with a goal of reducing the scale of programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with delivering tax cuts to wealthy political backers would use arguments about the economic effects of tax cuts to disguise its true intentions. Which description fits best? Many Republicans still claim that tax cuts for the wealthy enhance economic growth despite the evidence to the contrary, but it’s rare to hear a Republican admit that these supply-side policies have failed.
December 4, 2012 Mark Thoma
Why the GOP Won't Admit Supply-Side Econ Has Failed
Now Oldstyle, my economics lessons are free now. But I may need to start charging if you keep lying.
And, me boy, another lesson. I made statements and then supported those statements with links to impartial and expert sources. See how it is done?? Something that con tools like you almost never do.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Oldstyle]

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

That would be true. First, you never give the name of a depression to the person you task with ending a depression created by the other party. He only brought ue down from 25.4% to 14.2% before your arbitrary date. That would be, what, 11.3% from the high of the Great Republican Depression. And a decrease of MORE than any unemployment percentage EXCEPT the Great Republican Depression of 1929. I mean, there must have been something like that accomplished by a republican,right??????????????????????????????????????????
"And not down by the time Germany invaded France"??? Maybe we should look at when the Crusades occurred. Or the Vietnam War occurred. Most think the depression was heavily influenced by the US entering the war. But that was December, of 1941, And by then, the ue was at about 9.65% Down over 15% from the high of the Great Republican Depression of 1929.
1941 ue rate was 9.66%
Unemployment Statistics during the Great Depression

It's the FDR Depression because he's the joker that made it last his first two whole terms.

What a shame you know so little.

WWII Started in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. The USA stood aside while Poland then the lowlands fell. Once France fell in 1940 (look it up if you don't know), it was obvious we could not sit aside much longer and men started joining the US military and we started moving to wartime footing

I'd bet on the box of rock against you in Rock, Paper and Scissors and give you 2-1 odds as well and still make a fortune

No sane person (rules you out) blames FDR for the Great Depression which started some 3½ years before he even became president. Regardless, the unemployment rate dropped to under 10% in 1941 -- when government spending began skyrocketing in preparation of the war.

Do you consider Milton Friedman insane, Faun? He does in fact blame FDR for the longevity of the Great Depression.

The fact is most economists now believe that the Keynesian policies of FDR and the failure of the newly formed FED to respond to the banking crisis led to a worsening of the economic situation. For some reason that concept hasn't filtered down yet to the general public who know little about economics...you know...like Georgie?

MILTON? INSANE? Hardly, me boy. Milton was a respected economist once. He went out of favor as other economists determined that he was simply a supply side economist, supporting an economic theory which died out over the years with the help of the great Republican experiment of 1981. You know, me boy, when supply side economics was proven to be a hoax by Ronald Reagan, when he raised taxes and cut spending, just as Supply Side economics (aka reaganomics) called for, and watched in horror as the ue rate raised to the second highest level un US History.. You remember, before he resorted to Keynesian principles of increasing spending, which eliminated unemployment.
People, me boy, believe that EVERY SINGLE THEORY OF ECONOMICS IN THE WORLD is invalid. Perhaps, me boy, your belief that most economists do not believe in Keynesian policies came from your ass. Because you forgot to provide a link to proof of your claim. And, me boy, as a student of history, you are making unsubstantiated claims again.
Now, Milty is about your speed. He was a Libertarian. Defined as a person who supports a socio-economic theory that has never worked in the real world. Nice. But, as an economist willing to push those concepts he would be well paid by the Koch brothers and their many think tanks. As any economist with a higher level degree in economics or one of several other degrees has the option of doing, if they are willing to trade on their ethics.
Sorry it has not filtered down to you yet, but milton freedman and his supply side economics have long become about as popular among economists as a fart in church.

Really? Then you might want to try explaining that to Ben Bernanke, Rshermr...he holds a different view.

Bernanke: Federal Reserve caused Great Depression

"Although economists have pontificated over the decades about this or that cause of the Great Depression, even the current Fed chairman Ben S. Bernanke, agrees with Friedman’s assessment that the Fed caused the Great Depression.

At a Nov. 8, 2002, conference to honor Friedman’s 90th birthday, Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor, gave a speech at Friedman’s old home base, the University of Chicago. Here’s a bit of what Bernanke, the man who now runs the Fed – and thus, one of the most powerful people in the world – had to say that day:

I can think of no greater honor than being invited to speak on the occasion of Milton Friedman’s ninetieth birthday. Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer. …

Today I’d like to honor Milton Friedman by talking about one of his greatest contributions to economics, made in close collaboration with his distinguished coauthor, Anna J. Schwartz. This achievement is nothing less than to provide what has become the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history, the onset of the Great Depression – or, as Friedman and Schwartz dubbed it, the Great Contraction of 1929-33.

… As everyone here knows, in their “Monetary History” Friedman and Schwartz made the case that the economic collapse of 1929-33 was the product of the nation’s monetary mechanism gone wrong. Contradicting the received wisdom at the time that they wrote, which held that money was a passive player in the events of the 1930s, Friedman and Schwartz argued that “the contraction is in fact a tragic testimonial to the importance of monetary forces.”

After citing how Friedman and Schwartz documented the Fed’s continual contraction of the money supply during the Depression and its aftermath – and the subsequent abandonment of the gold standard by many nations in order to stop the devastating monetary contraction – Bernanke adds:

Before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Friedman and Schwartz noted, bank panics were typically handled by banks themselves – for example, through urban consortiums of private banks called clearinghouses. If a run on one or more banks in a city began, the clearinghouse might declare a suspension of payments, meaning that, temporarily, deposits would not be convertible into cash. Larger, stronger banks would then take the lead, first, in determining that the banks under attack were in fact fundamentally solvent, and second, in lending cash to those banks that needed to meet withdrawals. Though not an entirely satisfactory solution – the suspension of payments for several weeks was a significant hardship for the public – the system of suspension of payments usually prevented local banking panics from spreading or persisting. Large, solvent banks had an incentive to participate in curing panics because they knew that an unchecked panic might ultimately threaten their own deposits.

It was in large part to improve the management of banking panics that the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. However, as Friedman and Schwartz discuss in some detail, in the early 1930s the Federal Reserve did not serve that function. The problem within the Fed was largely doctrinal: Fed officials appeared to subscribe to Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s infamous ‘liquidationist’ thesis, that weeding out “weak” banks was a harsh but necessary prerequisite to the recovery of the banking system. Moreover, most of the failing banks were small banks (as opposed to what we would now call money-center banks) and not members of the Federal Reserve System. Thus the Fed saw no particular need to try to stem the panics. At the same time, the large banks – which would have intervened before the founding of the Fed – felt that protecting their smaller brethren was no longer their responsibility. Indeed, since the large banks felt confident that the Fed would protect them if necessary, the weeding out of small competitors was a positive good, from their point of view.

In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn. …

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again."

 

[Oldstyle]

Hmmmmm...I've got a choice on who to believe about the Fed...Milton Friedman who was the Fed Chief and Ben S. Bernanke, who was the Fed Chief...or Mark Thoma, who is a professor of macro economics at Oregon State? You know what...I'm going with the two Fed Chiefs on this one! Duh?

 

[Oldstyle]

Anytime you'd like to "support your statement" by providing the formula that Barack Obama's economists used to arrive at their totals for "jobs saved", Georgie...I'd love to see it!

 

[Oldstyle]

A - B = Jobs Saved? That by itself shows what a complete fraud you are!

 

[chikenwing]

Cons would rather go back to Ronald Reagan socialism.

Obama wins again.

I remember telling Republicans about real unemployment back when bush had us in a 8 year recession. But the economy is near zero unemployment. What do they want Obama to do about unemployment? Do they want Obama to make companies hire the unemployable?

What ?? 8 year recession,rewrite history alittle?