Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[nuhuh]

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

She even cuts-n-paste her insults...

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

Wow....look at you trying to dance away from the facts.

Unlike you....I provided the link and the source.....click it.


Should I await your apology?

Dance away? I revealed the part of the quote your source left out and you are still using it to support your claim. You should go bury your head in shame.

 

[Moonglow]

1921 and All That

The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

YES, HOOVER INHERITED HARDING/COOLIDGE'S BUBBLE, AND COULDN'T FIX IT IN 3+ YEARS.

Those who do not learn history are probably voting for Democrats

Clinton raised the national debt by 41%.



Obama raised it to the sky.

Hardly, as the sky is not a physical limitation...

How come you ignored "Clinton raised the national debt 41%"?

I believe that every president has raised the debt, but for one, Andrew Jackson...

 

[Moonglow]

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

She even cuts-n-paste her insults...

Cut and paste means providing the source...unlike you Liberal plagiarists.

everybody plagiarizes, where do you think they get new ideas, from old ideas....

 

[PoliticalChic]

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

She even cuts-n-paste her insults...

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

Wow....look at you trying to dance away from the facts.

Unlike you....I provided the link and the source.....click it.


Should I await your apology?

Dance away? I revealed the part of the quote your source left out and you are still using it to support your claim. You should go bury your head in shame.

Look at the low-life: I provided the quote that showed Morgenthau admitting that FDR failed.

You've tried to bring up extraneous material to wipe the egg off your face.


Next, you claimed I didn't state the source....and I caught your lie and threw it in your face...I said click the link.

Now you're trying to change the subject again.


I suppose I should be used to Liberal scum by now.

 

[Dad2three]

Clinton raised the national debt by 41%.



Obama raised it to the sky.

Hardly, as the sky is not a physical limitation...

How come you ignored "Clinton raised the national debt 41%"?

The premise is, ONLY CLINTON/OBAMA have lowered the deficits handed to them in nearly 60 years Bubba!

Impossible if the national debt rose.

And it did.

41%

Got it, you'll stick to your right wing willful ignorance

HINT YOU CAN HAVE A YEARLY BALANCED BUDGET, DEFICIT OR SURPLUS EVEN IF DEBT INCREASES


Yearly budget runs Oct 1 through Sept 30th. More money coming in than going out, SURPLUS

 

[PoliticalChic]

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

She even cuts-n-paste her insults...

Cut and paste means providing the source...unlike you Liberal plagiarists.

everybody plagiarizes, where do you think they get new ideas, from old ideas....

"everybody plagiarizes"

No....every Liberal plagiarizes.

I provide links, sources and documentation.

A major difference between us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Clinton raised the national debt by 41%.



Obama raised it to the sky.

Hardly, as the sky is not a physical limitation...

How come you ignored "Clinton raised the national debt 41%"?

The premise is, ONLY CLINTON/OBAMA have lowered the deficits handed to them in nearly 60 years Bubba!

Impossible if the national debt rose.

And it did.

41%

Got it, you'll stick to your right wing willful ignorance

HINT YOU CAN HAVE A YEARLY BALANCED BUDGET, DEFICIT OR SURPLUS EVEN IF DEBT INCREASES


Yearly budget runs Oct 1 through Sept 30th. More money coming in than going out, SURPLUS

Every year of Clinton's term, the national debt went into the red.


Every single year.


Hence....there was never a surplus.

Never.

For clarity...are you too dumb to understand it....or too much a Liberal liar to admit it?

 

[nuhuh]

Political Chic is willfully using lying propaganda to support her claims. Her claims are trash and educated people will turn their heads when she is around. Who can seriously take her word as truth in the future? You need to refute your claim and withdraw your assertion or provide honest sourcing to support your claim now.

 

[Dad2three]

Wow!

Look at five Liberal Roosevelt-groupies screech, howl, and fume over the truth being revealed!!!

And pouring more truth-gasoline on this fire is my guilty pleasure.




How about some more?



"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work."

And FDR's Treasury Secretary also told Congress:

"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"



Morgenthau made this“startling confession,” as historian Burton W. Folsom Jr. calls it, during the seventh year of FDR’s New Deal programs to combat the rampant unemployment of the Great Depression.

“In these words, Morgenthau summarized a decade of disaster, especially during the years Roosevelt was in power. Indeed average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931, the year before Roosevelt captured the presidency from Herbert Hoover,”Folsom writes in his new book, “New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.”

Indeed, with those words, Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today: The New Deal was failed public policy. Massive spending on public works programs didn’t erase historic unemployment. It didn’t produce a recovery.

Some of the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill about this hard truth. It’s an important truth, nevertheless, especially because the same characters insist that Barack Obama must push through a “bold” economic stimulus that depends on hundreds of billions in new government spending to create or “save” jobs.

Budget and financial experts here at The Heritage Foundation are among cooler heads cautioning that President Obama ought not to repeat President Roosevelt’s mistakes. In one such effort, Heritage last week distributeda chart showing that FDR’s programs didn’t succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.
'We're Spending More Than Ever and It Doesn't Work'




the most desperate defenders of New Deal doctrine are getting a little shrill ...

Morgenthau confessed what so many keepers of FDR’s flame won’t admit today...
average unemployment for the whole year in 1939 would be higher than that in 1931


FDR made it worse, and never.....never.....accomplished his goals!!!

How odd that by the diary date---1939--FDR was only in office for six years yet his own Treasury Sec says they'd been doing it for eight years.

You'd think he'd get the years he'd been working there correct, I mean it's a lot easier than the numbers involving a national budget.

Good to see your retreat: now you're admitting that Morgenthau said the FDR administration was a failure, and now you're quibbling over when he said it.

In your face, huh?

Hardly. You are using engineered quotes to substantiate your claims, quotes that never said what you said they did. Everything you have used is now suspect an should looked at as dishonest.

You need another dose of truth?

Sure.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

Morgenthau, Henry, Jr. (May 9, 1939).Henry Morgenthau Diary, Microfilm Roll #50(PDF, 1.9 MB).

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Says exactly what I've said it does.

Exactly.


FDR was an abject failure....much like you.

Calling for higher taxes on the rich??? lol

http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

She even cuts-n-paste her insults...

How do we know you are using correct and honest sourcing? It's kind of like trying to tell people the truth after you have been outed as a liar.

Wow....look at you trying to dance away from the facts.

Unlike you....I provided the link and the source.....click it.


Should I await your apology?

Dance away? I revealed the part of the quote your source left out and you are still using it to support your claim. You should go bury your head in shame.

Look at the low-life: I provided the quote that showed Morgenthau admitting that FDR failed.

You've tried to bring up extraneous material to wipe the egg off your face.


Next, you claimed I didn't state the source....and I caught your lie and threw it in your face...I said click the link.

Now you're trying to change the subject again.


I suppose I should be used to Liberal scum by now.

OUT OF CONTEXT QUOTE "Proves" something" lol

http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic is willfully using lying propaganda to support her claims. Her claims are trash and educated people will turn their heads when she is around. Who can seriously take her word as truth in the future? You need to refute your claim and withdraw your assertion or provide honest sourcing to support your claim now.

The excuses of a lying low-life Liberal.

Need more?

Sure:

Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."

Morgenthau, 1939

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf

page 64



I'm never wrong, and I never lie.
I'm not a Liberal.

 

[Dad2three]

Hardly, as the sky is not a physical limitation...

How come you ignored "Clinton raised the national debt 41%"?

The premise is, ONLY CLINTON/OBAMA have lowered the deficits handed to them in nearly 60 years Bubba!

Impossible if the national debt rose.

And it did.

41%

Got it, you'll stick to your right wing willful ignorance

HINT YOU CAN HAVE A YEARLY BALANCED BUDGET, DEFICIT OR SURPLUS EVEN IF DEBT INCREASES


Yearly budget runs Oct 1 through Sept 30th. More money coming in than going out, SURPLUS

Every year of Clinton's term, the national debt went into the red.


Every single year.


Hence....there was never a surplus.

Never.

For clarity...are you too dumb to understand it....or too much a Liberal liar to admit it?

THE LYING SCUM CON IS AT IT AGAIN. Shocking



DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'


A situation in which income exceeds expenditures.



BREAKING DOWN 'Budget Surplus'


When spending exceeds income, the result is a budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing money and paying interest on the borrowed funds, much like an individual spending more than he can afford and carrying a balance on a credit card. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income. The U.S. government has only had a budget surplus in a few years since 1950. The Clinton administration (1993-2001) famously cured a large budget deficit and created a surplus in the late 1990s.

Budget Surplus Definition | Investopedia

 

[nuhuh]

Political Chic is willfully using lying propaganda to support her claims. Her claims are trash and educated people will turn their heads when she is around. Who can seriously take her word as truth in the future? You need to refute your claim and withdraw your assertion or provide honest sourcing to support your claim now.

The excuses of a lying low-life Liberal.

Need more?

Sure:

Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."

Morgenthau, 1939

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf

page 64



I'm never wrong, and I never lie.
I'm not a Liberal.

You are using bad sources to support your claim. How do you excuse that? Are you so dense your skull has an event horizon?

 

[Moonglow]

Political Chic is willfully using lying propaganda to support her claims. Her claims are trash and educated people will turn their heads when she is around. Who can seriously take her word as truth in the future? You need to refute your claim and withdraw your assertion or provide honest sourcing to support your claim now.

The excuses of a lying low-life Liberal.

Need more?

Sure:

Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."

Morgenthau, 1939

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf

page 64



I'm never wrong, and I never lie.
I'm not a Liberal.

You are using bad sources to support your claim. How do you excuse that? Are you so dense your skull has an event horizon?

Fanatics that seek to destroy humans via political character assassination have no self awareness...as is witnessed in this thread and many others she posts...

 

[Dad2three]

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Camp]

Political Chic is willfully using lying propaganda to support her claims. Her claims are trash and educated people will turn their heads when she is around. Who can seriously take her word as truth in the future? You need to refute your claim and withdraw your assertion or provide honest sourcing to support your claim now.

The excuses of a lying low-life Liberal.

Need more?

Sure:

Now, listen, I've listened to this Harry - now this thing has been tried for seven successive years, and we' ve still got twelve million unemployed. I want to point out - you're all Just as much interested in Mr. Roosevelt as I am - before you launch this thing, I think you're opening yourselves to an attack that we' ve had seven years of deficits, seven years of increasing the thing, and we're just where we were seven years ago."

Morgenthau, 1939

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resources/images/morg/md0241.pdf

page 64



I'm never wrong, and I never lie.
I'm not a Liberal.

No matter how many times your distortion of the Morganthau quote is explained you continue to use it in that distorted and misrepresented way.
There were two distinctive ways to assess the depression. Through the eyes of industry and business and through the eyes of the masses of working people and humanist.
Morganthau's priority was for the industry and business view. FDR, the guy in charge, prioritized the humanist view. He did not mind seeing industry and business lag behind as long as his programs were giving workers jobs and feeding families. That kept Morganthau stressed as he was under constant pressure from industry and business for corporate bail outs. FDR believed in bailing out people instead of corporations.
The debt and funding that Morganthau was so upset and concerned about were the loans made by the feds to every state for construction projects. The loans were based on federal owned gold used as collateral. People like Morganthau considered these loans to be gambling schemes and believed the loans would never be paid back. He and corporate and conservative America viewed the loans as endless money pits of welfare and relief that would never be paid back or give lasting benefit to the economy. Every loan was in fact paid back in full. The gamble paid off with reduced unemployment and infrastructure, much of which is still being used 80 years after it was built and Morganthau was proved wrong. Turned out to be a hell of an investment for the USA and the individual states.

 

[Dad2three]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And so we travel on down the road of "Great Lies That Liberal Dunces Continue to Believe."

In case you didn't notice, after GOP presidencies of the 1920's, they never were able to gain the White House for a generation...Because of how they handled the economy...

The way "they handled the economy..." was known as the 'Roaring Twenties."

1. 
   
   
   • 
     The Roaring Twenties were the period of sustained economic prosperity with a distinctive cultural edge in New York, Montreal, Chicago, Detroit, Paris, Berlin, London, Los Angeles, and many other major cities during the 1920s in the United States, Canada and Europe.
     Roaring Twenties - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRoaring_Twenties

And, of course, Republican President Harding was far superior to Democrat Roosevelt in fighting recessions.


Must I teach you obvious things like this each and every day???????

1921 and All That

The recovery from the 1920-21 recession supposedly demonstrates that deflation and hands-off monetary policy is the way to go.

But have the people making these arguments really looked at what happened back then? Or are they relying on vague impressions about a distant episode, with bad data, that has been spun as a confirmation of their beliefs?

OK, I’m not going to invest a lot in this. But even a cursory examination of the available data suggests that 1921 has few useful lessons for the kind of slump we’re facing now.


Brad DeLong has recently written up a clearer version of a story I’ve been telling for a while (actually since before the 2008 crisis) — namely, that there’s a big difference between inflation-fighting recessions, in which the Fed squeezes to bring inflation down, then relaxes — and recessions brought on by overstretch in debt and investment. The former tend to be V-shaped, with a rapid recovery once the Fed relents; the latter tend to be slow, because it’s much harder to push private spending higher than to stop holding it down.

And the 1920-21 recession was basically an inflation-fighting recession — although the Fed was trying to bring the level of prices, rather than the rate of change, down. What you had was a postwar bulge in prices, which was then reversed:

Money was tightened, then loosened again:

Discount rates are a problematic indicator, but here’s what happened to commercial paper rates:

Historical statistics, Millennial edition
And so there was a V-shaped recovery:

The deflation may have helped by increasing the real money supply — at least Meltzer thinks so (pdf) — but if so, the key point was that the economy was nowhere near the zero lower bound, so there was plenty of room for the conventional monetary channel to work.

All of this has zero relevance to an economy in our current situation, in which the recession was brought on by private overstretch, not tight money, and in which the zero lower bound is all too binding.

So do we have anything to learn from the macroeconomics of Warren Harding? No.


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/1921-and-all-that/

YES, HOOVER INHERITED HARDING/COOLIDGE'S BUBBLE, AND COULDN'T FIX IT IN 3+ YEARS.

Those who do not learn history are probably voting for Democrats

Obama still has the biggest deficits in recorded history

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Remember when Obama was totally against the Brutal Sequester spending cuts?