US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

He prolonged it, so yeah he owns it.

The only thing "Great" about it was how deeply the Soviets were able to penetrate the FDR Administration

 

[Rshermr]

AND NOW, ENTERING FROM THE RIGHT, is the con troll introducing an article from a far right bat shit crazy con web site. About a far right conservative by the name of Bernanke, well known for nut case views originally appointed by republicans as the head of the Fed.
Lets see what we have on Kupelian, your "source":
#221: David Kupelian
Kupelian is Managing Editor of WorldNetDaily, boldly assrting that the WorldNetDaily “serves as your watchdog on government 365 days year. We guaard your priceless freedoms by aggressively exposing corruption and evil everywhere, and by championing good.” His contributions are sufficiently batshit insane to have made it even to whale.to. His book is “The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom” – the topic is, predictably, “how atheism is being sold to the US”, containing nuggets such as the “sexual revolution” being really a (covert) action to promote pedophilia. Really, the mantra of the book is “ze gays are coming, ze gays are coming!”. In general, Kupelian is simply shocked that people like Hitchens, Harris and Stenger are allowed to publish books in the Christian Nation that is the US.
A valiant fighter in the war against strawmen, Kupelian was also avidly worried about what would happen to the US if a Democrat was elected president in 2008 (“How Hillary will lead America to Hell” was his slightly less than reality-based WorldNetDaily screeddiscussing such topics). “The damage that will occur to America if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected president will go far beyond what we can rationally anticipate on the policy level,” says Kupelian. Since, as he says, we can't rationally anticipate the horrible damage Hillary will do to the country, he proceeds to irrationally anticipate those damages (hat-tip to Ed Brayton).
He is also the originator of the following, glorious quote: “Sex is sacred. For millennia, this biblical principle was the bedrock moral value of the Western World.”
Diagnosis: Reality-challenged (well, batshit insane) wingnut who seems positively shallow even when compared to his boss, the clinically insane Joseph Farah. Kupelian is not without impact, and that fact is pretty darn scary.
Encyclopedia of American Loons: #221: David Kupelian

Then, published in Worldnet Daily
WND (WorldNetDaily) is a politically conservative web site in the United States.[2] It was founded in May 1997 byJoseph Farah with the stated intent of "exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power".[3]WND has been active in promoting a number of conspiracy theories, including Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.
WorldNetDaily - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, as I have said over and over, you spend your time with bat shit crazy con web sites. Which, me boy, makes your posts meaningless. Thanks for so clearly exposing yourself.
I see you learned nothing from me when I taught you about using only impartial sources. But it is so much easier if you can use bat shit crazy conservative talking points and sources. Tacky. You are wasting peoples time with this drivel.

 

[Rshermr]

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?

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?

Milton Fiedman, a discredited Libertarian or Bernanke, widely discredited as Helicopter Ben for his published belief in Helicopter Money. Nice sources. And so impartial.
Or a phd from a different college than you know, called the University of Oregon. Impartial and well known author.
Or several hundred economists, me boy. Take your pick. No one, except con tools take agenda driven sources and pretend that they are useful. Makes you look, uh, like a con tool.

 

[Rshermr]

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!

No, oldstyle. You would not love to see it. Obviously. All you have to do is produce the name of a bill offered by republicans for the purpose of decreasing the great republican recession of 2008. As I have said since the beginning. Or, alternatively, simply admit that the republicans in congress brought no such bill forward, and therefor had no interest at all in shortening the recession they created.
No one's fault at all that you can not get the formula and it's definition. Just you, me boy. Just you.

 

[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.

He prolonged it, so yeah he owns it.
Is that a law, me boy??? Of course not. If you make a recession a depression and make it over twice as deep as any other downturn in US history, you are beyond knowing how long that recession will take to tame. So, we are looking at your opinion. The opinion of a con. Not any real statement of fact, me boy, at all.

The only thing "Great" about it was how deeply the Soviets were able to penetrate the FDR Administration

And thanks so much for your conspiracy theory. I will be sure to file it with the many, many others, all discredited, by conservatives. Damn commies

 

[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!

No, oldstyle. You would not love to see it. Obviously. All you have to do is produce the name of a bill offered by republicans for the purpose of decreasing the great republican recession of 2008. As I have said since the beginning. Or, alternatively, simply admit that the republicans in congress brought no such bill forward, and therefor had no interest at all in shortening the recession they created.
No one's fault at all that you can not get the formula and it's definition. Just you, me boy. Just you.

A-B=Jobs Saved? What is the definition of A, Georgie? What is the definition of B? That had to hurt when you pulled that nonsense out of your ass! What's sad is that you think you can hide your abject ignorance about economics and economic formulas behind your demand to know why the GOP couldn't pass legislation when Harry Reid tabled what they sent over to the Senate and President Obama repeatedly stalled the Keystone Pipeline bill by refusing to sign off on it.

I can't "get" the formula because it doesn't exist! They made up those numbers. They set the baseline at what they needed to get a number that sounded good and then trotted that fiction out as fact. Anyone with a clue understood that right from the start. Only lemmings like yourself were taken in by their creative accounting.

 

[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?

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?

Milton Fiedman, a discredited Libertarian or Bernanke, widely discredited as Helicopter Ben for his published belief in Helicopter Money. Nice sources. And so impartial.
Or a phd from a different college than you know, called the University of Oregon. Impartial and well known author.
Or several hundred economists, me boy. Take your pick. No one, except con tools take agenda driven sources and pretend that they are useful. Makes you look, uh, like a con tool.

Mark Thoma is "impartial"? Really? And "well known"? I've never heard of the man yet I'm supposed to take HIS word over the word of a Nobel Prize winning economist? You're back on your pain killers again...aren't you?

 

[Rshermr]

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!

No, oldstyle. You would not love to see it. Obviously. All you have to do is produce the name of a bill offered by republicans for the purpose of decreasing the great republican recession of 2008. As I have said since the beginning. Or, alternatively, simply admit that the republicans in congress brought no such bill forward, and therefor had no interest at all in shortening the recession they created.
No one's fault at all that you can not get the formula and it's definition. Just you, me boy. Just you.

A-B=Jobs Saved? What is the definition of A, Georgie? What is the definition of B? That had to hurt when you pulled that nonsense out of your ass! What's sad is that you think you can hide your abject ignorance about economics and economic formulas behind your demand to know why the GOP couldn't pass legislation when Harry Reid tabled what they sent over to the Senate and President Obama repeatedly stalled the Keystone Pipeline bill by refusing to sign off on it.

I can't "get" the formula because it doesn't exist! They made up those numbers. They set the baseline at what they needed to get a number that sounded good and then trotted that fiction out as fact. Anyone with a clue understood that right from the start. Only lemmings like yourself were taken in by their creative accounting.

The economists you are talking about are not are not Obama's , me boy. Perhaps you think that, dipshit, because you are living in the bat shit crazy con web sites like the one you recently used as a source. And we made a deal, me boy. You show me the legislation meant to help the unemployment rate caused by the great republican recession.
Now, I know, being a con, you could care less that millions of people were suffering as hundreds of thousands per month were laid off and were then out of work. I know, that being a con, you supported the ending of unemployment for those unemployed, and could care less that they suffered. And I know, that being a con, all that you did was attack the obama administration 24/7/365, and could care less about the legislation they did bring forward to lower the unemployment created by the great republican Recession.
And I am sure you support the efforts by house and senate leaders to block every single thing Obama did. Every bill. Every nomination. Everything. Regardless of the condition of the the middle class. Because, of course, the republicans cared only about their own power, and that of their monied benefactors.
So, you will do what you think you need and you will say what you think you need to say to get what the conservative bosses want. Because you are stupid. And you could care less.
"TIME just published “The Party of No,” an article adapted from my new book, The New New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era. It reveals some of my reporting on the Republican plot to obstruct President Obama before he even took office, including secret meetings led by House GOP whip Eric Cantor (in December 2008) and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (in early January 2009) in which they laid out their daring (though cynical and political) no-honeymoon strategy of all-out resistance to a popular President-elect during an economic emergency. “If he was for it,” former Ohio Senator George Voinovich explained, “we had to be against it.”"
The Party of No: New Details on the GOP Plot to Obstruct Obama | TIME.com
And, if you cared about the millions in the middle class, you would not worry about a formula. You would, however, worry about what your congressmen are doing to try and help. What their bill is. But you do not care.

 

[Rshermr]

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?

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?

Milton Fiedman, a discredited Libertarian or Bernanke, widely discredited as Helicopter Ben for his published belief in Helicopter Money. Nice sources. And so impartial.
Or a phd from a different college than you know, called the University of Oregon. Impartial and well known author.
Or several hundred economists, me boy. Take your pick. No one, except con tools take agenda driven sources and pretend that they are useful. Makes you look, uh, like a con tool.

Mark Thoma is "impartial"? Really? And "well known"? I've never heard of the man yet I'm supposed to take HIS word over the word of a Nobel Prize winning economist? You're back on your pain killers again...aren't you?

So, you say you went to college. I will take your word for that. But how, then, do you end up not knowing the requirement for sources in a debate??? Or about rules of Journalism. Is it just that you are stupid? Even most stupid people understand impartiality, and truth. You seem not to understand. You can not bring yourself to use an unbiased source. Jesus, does the degree of your stupid hurt.
That you have not heard of mark thoma is because he does not publish in the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse. He is not popular with conservative troll bosses. He is a PhD Economist, and my bet is that you have not YET read his bio. Your knowledge of economist phd's is pretty much limited to PhD's who are also Libertarians. Which, again, makes you ignorant. But you do believe in Libertarian PhD's who you have heard of. Even if they publish in WorldNetDaily, because you have heard of them. Does your level of stupid hurt???

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Things were never quite good 2000-2012. You may blame 9-11, dot.com bubble bursting freddy mac the wars, NAFTA, all the illegals, stagnant wages, offshoring outsourcing millions of manufacturing jobs going away increasing gas and insurance costs.

What years between the dot.com bust and Bush's great recession were great? Maybe they were great for oil manufacturers and healthcare giants but not the middle class.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Who am I going to believe about global warming the scientists employed by corporations that pollute or the other 97% who aren't paid to lie.

If the fed reserve is corrupt I wouldn't believe the guys who run it

 

[Rshermr]

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?

Who am I going to believe about global warming the scientists employed by corporations that pollute or the other 97% who aren't paid to lie.

If the fed reserve is corrupt I wouldn't believe the guys who run it

Please, Oldstyle, at least have the lack of ignorance for a moment to understand that Thoma is not at OREGON STATE.
Yup. Unless you have to understand, I guess, that Oldstyle is a simple con tool. They do not think for themselves. There are people who develop their talking points, tell them whom to believe, what to believe, who to be angry with, who to attack, etc. You always know what a con is going to say if you know the subject he is going to rant about. Simple. And you are correct. One of the things cons are not to believe is global climate change. They believe the energy company scientists and management. And they attack the scientists who actually study the subject and try to keep us informed.
Because, of course, that is what cons do. They do what they are told, and believe what they are told. And that, of course, is EXACTLY what Oldstyle does, and what he IS. That is exactly what con tools want. For thinking people that would be really a bad life style. For con's it is a great way to live.

 

[Oldstyle]

Who's a "thinking" person...someone who looks at the Obama Administration's use of a totally arbitrary "jobs saved" number and accepts it as fact...or someone who shakes their head and asks...what formula did you use to arrive at that number?

I don't put stock in statistics who's only purpose is to mislead, Georgie...I was taught in college to question things. I'm not sure what YOU were taught in college! A-B=Jobs Saved? You're an embarrassment to whatever place of higher learning you "claim" to have a degree from!

 

[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?

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?

Milton Fiedman, a discredited Libertarian or Bernanke, widely discredited as Helicopter Ben for his published belief in Helicopter Money. Nice sources. And so impartial.
Or a phd from a different college than you know, called the University of Oregon. Impartial and well known author.
Or several hundred economists, me boy. Take your pick. No one, except con tools take agenda driven sources and pretend that they are useful. Makes you look, uh, like a con tool.

Mark Thoma is "impartial"? Really? And "well known"? I've never heard of the man yet I'm supposed to take HIS word over the word of a Nobel Prize winning economist? You're back on your pain killers again...aren't you?

So, you say you went to college. I will take your word for that. But how, then, do you end up not knowing the requirement for sources in a debate??? Or about rules of Journalism. Is it just that you are stupid? Even most stupid people understand impartiality, and truth. You seem not to understand. You can not bring yourself to use an unbiased source. Jesus, does the degree of your stupid hurt.
That you have not heard of mark thoma is because he does not publish in the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse. He is not popular with conservative troll bosses. He is a PhD Economist, and my bet is that you have not YET read his bio. Your knowledge of economist phd's is pretty much limited to PhD's who are also Libertarians. Which, again, makes you ignorant. But you do believe in Libertarian PhD's who you have heard of. Even if they publish in WorldNetDaily, because you have heard of them. Does your level of stupid hurt???

You're a joke. You whine about sources? I quoted a speech given by Ben Bernanke. It's not an opinion piece in a college professor's blog. It's Bernanke's actual words.

Then you turn around and use TIME? Seriously? TIME is in the process of going down the tubes because it's no longer viewed as credible. Why? Because it's Editor in Chief decided to give it a far left slant...that's why! They started bleeding readers at such a rate that TIME is now a journalistic afterthought. Nobody reads TIME now because nobody (except lemmings like yourself) puts much stock in their journalistic integrity anymore!

 

[edthecynic]

I quoted a speech given by Ben Bernanke. It's not an opinion piece in a college professor's blog. It's Bernanke's actual words.

Stating his OPINION!!!!

 

[Rshermr]

Who's a "thinking" person...someone who looks at the Obama Administration's use of a totally arbitrary "jobs saved" number and accepts it as fact...or someone who shakes their head and asks...what formula did you use to arrive at that number?

I don't put stock in statistics who's only purpose is to mislead, Georgie...I was taught in college to question things. I'm not sure what YOU were taught in college! A-B=Jobs Saved? You're an embarrassment to whatever place of higher learning you "claim" to have a degree from!

A thing person is someone who is not you. The formula is A-B=C, where A = the population of people, B= the population of thinking people, and C is the population that includes Oldstyle. B includes the people who utilize impartial sources, C includes the people who use sources with an agenda.
I did not need to be taught to question things, me boy. I understood that. And, like all people who actually think, I do not waste my time with sources that have agendas. Wastes too much time, since you must vet them so carefully.
Relative to my claim, I give you the option to accept my bet and prove me wrong, or pay me. Your choice, me poor ignorant con tool.

 

[Rshermr]

Who's a "thinking" person...someone who looks at the Obama Administration's use of a totally arbitrary "jobs saved" number and accepts it as fact...or someone who shakes their head and asks...what formula did you use to arrive at that number?

Well, Oldstyle, I do see why you would have a hard time with the concept of thinking person. It is not you, me boy. You do not need to think. You simply accept what you are told. So simple.
Thinking people are the many who do not listen to those with agendas. For instance, you. Or Bernanke, Or Libertarian Supply Side economists of any name. But rather listen to those with expertise who do not have giant, obvious agendas. Like the CBO. Dipshit.
The CBO which has been looked at for decades as being unbiased now has had republicans remove the director and insert a partisan conservative as director. Should make you happy. And all thinking people quite worried.

 

[Faun]

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?

Why would anyone care what a conservative economist thinks about FDR's Liberal policies? Anyone can look back at that period and contend anything. It's completely meaningless and unprovable.

What remains, however, is the insanity of calling it FDR's Great Depression given it started years earlier under Republican leadership and years of Republican policies; and grew worse with every passing year under Republicans until Democrats took over. Color me surprised that Conservatives want to rewrite history 80 years later to blame those who cleaned up that massive pile of Republican dung.

 

[Faun]

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."

Cute how you're trying to change the discussion... which is about it being the "FDR Great Depression." Where did Bernanke say that?

 

[Rshermr]

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?

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?

Milton Fiedman, a discredited Libertarian or Bernanke, widely discredited as Helicopter Ben for his published belief in Helicopter Money. Nice sources. And so impartial.
Or a phd from a different college than you know, called the University of Oregon. Impartial and well known author.
Or several hundred economists, me boy. Take your pick. No one, except con tools take agenda driven sources and pretend that they are useful. Makes you look, uh, like a con tool.

Mark Thoma is "impartial"? Really? And "well known"? I've never heard of the man yet I'm supposed to take HIS word over the word of a Nobel Prize winning economist? You're back on your pain killers again...aren't you?

So, you say you went to college. I will take your word for that. But how, then, do you end up not knowing the requirement for sources in a debate??? Or about rules of Journalism. Is it just that you are stupid? Even most stupid people understand impartiality, and truth. You seem not to understand. You can not bring yourself to use an unbiased source. Jesus, does the degree of your stupid hurt.
That you have not heard of mark thoma is because he does not publish in the bat shit crazy con web sites you peruse. He is not popular with conservative troll bosses. He is a PhD Economist, and my bet is that you have not YET read his bio. Your knowledge of economist phd's is pretty much limited to PhD's who are also Libertarians. Which, again, makes you ignorant. But you do believe in Libertarian PhD's who you have heard of. Even if they publish in WorldNetDaily, because you have heard of them. Does your level of stupid hurt???

You're a joke. You whine about sources? I quoted a speech given by Ben Bernanke. It's not an opinion piece in a college professor's blog. It's Bernanke's actual words.

Then you turn around and use TIME? Seriously? TIME is in the process of going down the tubes because it's no longer viewed as credible. Why? Because it's Editor in Chief decided to give it a far left slant...that's why! They started bleeding readers at such a rate that TIME is now a journalistic afterthought. Nobody reads TIME now because nobody (except lemmings like yourself) puts much stock in their journalistic integrity anymore!

That would be your opinion. The opinion of a moron. it was a speech that was another con giving a big wet kiss to his buddy on his 90th birthday. So, believe what you want. You are a con, doing what cons do. Believing what you want to believe. From agenda driven sources. You will never be anything but a moron, because you are at your base a con tool. And you want to believe things that match your agenda.
And to con tools, the only sources that are valid are the bat shit crazy con sites and sources you use. Like worldnetdaily which makes The Enquirer look like a journalistic haven. I mean, how can you prove you are more of a clown than to quote worldnetdaily, me boy. I mean, JESUS.