Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remember when Obama was totally against the Brutal Sequester spending cuts?
You mean he thought the GOP wasn't batsh*t crazy? AND?
#Obamaquester? They were for it before they were against it
Is the GOP attempting to rewrite history on the sequester? It certainly seems that way.
...The aim of the sequester was to make it an enforcement tool, equally painful for both Dems and the GOP. Big cuts in defense spending would terrify the right. Meanwhile, the prospect of cuts to government programs like education, childcare and the environment would pressure Dems to make a deal. Or so the thinking went.
The law that set the table for the sequester passed the House 269-161, with more Republicans voting in favor than against. In fact, 174 GOPers greenlighted it, compared to 66 who shot it down. On the left, 95 Dems voted for it and 95 voted against it. It passed in the Senate, 74-26. Of the 74 yes votes, 28 were from GOPers.
But, implausibly, today many Republicans are trying to pin the blame on Obama and the Dems—even though they voted for the sequester in the first place.
Several GOPers have even gone as far to create the hashtag #Obamaquester in effort to blame the commander-in-chief. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has accused Republicans of “amnesia” over the bill many GOPers once supported. Surprisingly, even Rep Justin Amash, R-Mich., has said it’s a mistake by Republicans to lay fault at Obama’s feet.
“It’s totally disingenuous,” he told Buzzfeed. “The debt ceiling deal in 2011 was agreed to by Republicans and Democrats. And regardless of who came up with the sequester, they all voted for it.”
#Obamaquester? They were for it before they were against it
Obama: Sequester 'meat cleaver' will hurt economy
"President Obama warned Tuesday about the "brutal" consequences of $85 billion in "meat cleaver" budget cuts set to take effect March 1..."
Obama Fluffers gotta fluff
1. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., liberal New Deal historian wrote in The National Experience, in 1963, “Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produce recovery…” He also wrote honestly about the devastating crash of 1937- in the midst of the “second New Deal” and Roosevelt’s second term. “The collapse in the months after September 1937 was actually more severe than it had been in the first nine months of the depression: national income fell 13 %, payrolls 35 %, durable goods production 50 %, profits 78% .
Now you tell us how 1937 was worse than 32 or 33.
I guess she won't be showing us this anytime soon.
btw, for anyone relatively new around here, this is about the 10th time PoliticalChic has run in this 'argument' of hers,
every time with the same old worn out propaganda, and she's lost the argument every time.
Not to you.
YOU going to prove her posit then dummy?
Your chart shows that FDR Averages 20% Unemployment over his entire first 2 terms and has Hitlers conquest of France to thank for ending the FDR Depression
Morganthau was simply wrong about the facts he tried to present to FDR. Even with using the inflated numbers of the Lebergott method of judging unemployment and industrial data that ignored the infrastructure jobs considered by him to be "relief", his raw numbers were factually incorrect and off by millions.No matter how many times your distortion of the Morganthau quote is explained you continue to use it in that distorted and misrepresented way.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.
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.
1. 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
2. "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.
Now....what sort of lying imbecile would deny hat Henry Morgenthau was indicting the Roosevelt dictatorship as an abject failure?
Oh....your sort of lying imbecile.
Got it.
Morganthau had become pretty useless as an adviser who proved day after day he had a poor grasp of what was going on. He was claiming no changes in unemployment, when again, even the highest estimates that disavowed those workers on "relief", showed him totally off and inaccurate. The number of unemployed when FDR took over stood at 12,830,000. By 1937 it was at 7,700,000, but according to Morganthau it hadn't changed or improved. He discounted and ignored over 5 million new jobs and employed Americans in private industry and business jobs. Even after the set back in 1938 when FDR swayed away from his New Deal programs and followed Moganthau's and his supporters advice and decreased spending for the government jobs which caused the so called mini recession during the depression, the numbers stayed far below the '33 numbers. By '39 the numbers of employed began rising as the pre '38 policies were put back in place and replacement of three and a half million added private industry jobs that were lost during the mini recession boost the employed numbers and lowered the overall unemployment. This by itself showed that the government relief jobs had a huge impact on private industry and business employment. The so called "relief workers" spent their paychecks and that is what lifted private employment.
Morganthau was wrong and his quote was ignored at the time as it should be ignored now. Here is the proof in the form of numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing the raw numbers of unemployed and the rate using the Lebergott method.
u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html
Remember, Morganthau did not recognize people building bridges and roads, infrastructure, etc. as being employed. As far as he was concerned those people were on welfare and unemployed. But even ignoring that, the numbers in his head were off by huge amounts.
Simple answer bozo, if you conceal the substance of a quote what else are you hiding? Further, that quote was used to project a false assumption across all wingnuttia, so using it as a authoritative source just makes you equal to drool.
Sorry braindead......there is nothing in that quote that dilutes his claim that FDR's program didn't get them anywhere.
Nice try though.....
There is no false assumption....you need to spend more time looking up "technical terms" so that your efforts to look worthy of toilet paper won't come off so poorly.
It is an authoritative source.
Are you stupid ?
Simply, if you exclude to make your point stronger then you have a weak argument to begin with. Did anyone ever tell you that waiting for you to say something intelligent is like placing a candle in the window for Jimmy Hoffa.
It was a separate quote in the article that was a proposed cure for the ill.
It does nothing to dilute his first statement.
There is no weak argument...she was simply quoting someone who had gone sour on the situation.
I can't help that your mother won't change your diaper.
You can make up all the false and misleading excuses that make your heart sing, but it doesn't change the fact that if you want to be taken seriously then your attempts to convince by argument must be sincere and authentic. Given that they are not, makes you equal to someone who parks in a handicapped spot without medical authority. Someone should hand you a copy of Sun Tzu for Dummies so you can catch up.
There is nothing misleading at all here.
And I really don't know that you can take anything seriously or any other way. Given that your latest EEG is probably a flat line, your evaluation of PC's argument lies somewhere above an Obama promise and below a used piece of toilet paper.
BTW: When I need your lectures I'll ask for them. Until then, maybe you can learn something about thinking from your cat.
In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal
And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....
Why the Right is Right - Prager University
There's the Pontiff, he's the one in the white dress on television right now....And there's the pontificator, she's the one in the Superman costume who has a bigger ego than the Pontiff but not nearly as big an audience.
Nope, look at the chart. Had the spending continued we would have been okay either way. Then again, war is good for many things.Which the data clearly shows. When the government cash stopped flowing, the economy stopped recovering."Liberals argue that Roosevelt's stimulus was not big enough and it took World War II to finally end the Great Depression.
So, basically FDR needs to thank Hitler or unemployment would never have have dipped below 20%
Now you tell us how 1937 was worse than 32 or 33.
I guess she won't be showing us this anytime soon.
btw, for anyone relatively new around here, this is about the 10th time PoliticalChic has run in this 'argument' of hers,
every time with the same old worn out propaganda, and she's lost the argument every time.
Not to you.
YOU going to prove her posit then dummy?
Your chart shows that FDR Averages 20% Unemployment over his entire first 2 terms and has Hitlers conquest of France to thank for ending the FDR Depression
Can't read a chart huh? Hint FDR took office March 1933, you can thank Harding/Coolidge for that huge hole he dug, like Dubya Obama is dealing with Bubba
Nope, look at the chart. Had the spending continued we would have been okay either way. Then again, war is good for many things.Which the data clearly shows. When the government cash stopped flowing, the economy stopped recovering."Liberals argue that Roosevelt's stimulus was not big enough and it took World War II to finally end the Great Depression.
So, basically FDR needs to thank Hitler or unemployment would never have have dipped below 20%
Sorry braindead......there is nothing in that quote that dilutes his claim that FDR's program didn't get them anywhere.
Nice try though.....
There is no false assumption....you need to spend more time looking up "technical terms" so that your efforts to look worthy of toilet paper won't come off so poorly.
It is an authoritative source.
Are you stupid ?
Simply, if you exclude to make your point stronger then you have a weak argument to begin with. Did anyone ever tell you that waiting for you to say something intelligent is like placing a candle in the window for Jimmy Hoffa.
It was a separate quote in the article that was a proposed cure for the ill.
It does nothing to dilute his first statement.
There is no weak argument...she was simply quoting someone who had gone sour on the situation.
I can't help that your mother won't change your diaper.
You can make up all the false and misleading excuses that make your heart sing, but it doesn't change the fact that if you want to be taken seriously then your attempts to convince by argument must be sincere and authentic. Given that they are not, makes you equal to someone who parks in a handicapped spot without medical authority. Someone should hand you a copy of Sun Tzu for Dummies so you can catch up.
There is nothing misleading at all here.
And I really don't know that you can take anything seriously or any other way. Given that your latest EEG is probably a flat line, your evaluation of PC's argument lies somewhere above an Obama promise and below a used piece of toilet paper.
BTW: When I need your lectures I'll ask for them. Until then, maybe you can learn something about thinking from your cat.
Weird you miss the CONTEXT of his quote:
Morgenthau believed in balanced budgets, stable currency, reduction of the national debt, and the need for more private investment
To reduce the deficit he argued for increased taxes, particularly on the wealthy.
"We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay."
I guess she won't be showing us this anytime soon.
btw, for anyone relatively new around here, this is about the 10th time PoliticalChic has run in this 'argument' of hers,
every time with the same old worn out propaganda, and she's lost the argument every time.
Not to you.
YOU going to prove her posit then dummy?
Your chart shows that FDR Averages 20% Unemployment over his entire first 2 terms and has Hitlers conquest of France to thank for ending the FDR Depression
Can't read a chart huh? Hint FDR took office March 1933, you can thank Harding/Coolidge for that huge hole he dug, like Dubya Obama is dealing with Bubba
Stupid fuck.
Harding died in 23 and Coolidge's term ended in 1929.
Thank the Fed and "Wonder Boy" Progressive Hoover for the Fail
Wow. Progressives are really THAT TWISTED!
Simply, if you exclude to make your point stronger then you have a weak argument to begin with. Did anyone ever tell you that waiting for you to say something intelligent is like placing a candle in the window for Jimmy Hoffa.
It was a separate quote in the article that was a proposed cure for the ill.
It does nothing to dilute his first statement.
There is no weak argument...she was simply quoting someone who had gone sour on the situation.
I can't help that your mother won't change your diaper.
You can make up all the false and misleading excuses that make your heart sing, but it doesn't change the fact that if you want to be taken seriously then your attempts to convince by argument must be sincere and authentic. Given that they are not, makes you equal to someone who parks in a handicapped spot without medical authority. Someone should hand you a copy of Sun Tzu for Dummies so you can catch up.
There is nothing misleading at all here.
And I really don't know that you can take anything seriously or any other way. Given that your latest EEG is probably a flat line, your evaluation of PC's argument lies somewhere above an Obama promise and below a used piece of toilet paper.
BTW: When I need your lectures I'll ask for them. Until then, maybe you can learn something about thinking from your cat.
Weird you miss the CONTEXT of his quote:
Morgenthau believed in balanced budgets, stable currency, reduction of the national debt, and the need for more private investment
To reduce the deficit he argued for increased taxes, particularly on the wealthy.
"We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay."
Liar.
Morgenthau simply stated that FDR had been a failure.
In this chart, 37 to 21? Did they not teach math at your school?Nope, look at the chart. Had the spending continued we would have been okay either way. Then again, war is good for many things.Which the data clearly shows. When the government cash stopped flowing, the economy stopped recovering."Liberals argue that Roosevelt's stimulus was not big enough and it took World War II to finally end the Great Depression.
So, basically FDR needs to thank Hitler or unemployment would never have have dipped below 20%
How is 20% unemployment AFTER 7 WHOLE YEARS OF FAIL, a "good thing"?
Nope, look at the chart. Had the spending continued we would have been okay either way. Then again, war is good for many things.Which the data clearly shows. When the government cash stopped flowing, the economy stopped recovering."Liberals argue that Roosevelt's stimulus was not big enough and it took World War II to finally end the Great Depression.
So, basically FDR needs to thank Hitler or unemployment would never have have dipped below 20%
How is 20% unemployment AFTER 7 WHOLE YEARS OF FAIL, a "good thing"?
Your chart shows that FDR Averages 20% Unemployment over his entire first 2 terms and has Hitlers conquest of France to thank for ending the FDR Depression
Can't read a chart huh? Hint FDR took office March 1933, you can thank Harding/Coolidge for that huge hole he dug, like Dubya Obama is dealing with Bubba
Stupid fuck.
Harding died in 23 and Coolidge's term ended in 1929.
Thank the Fed and "Wonder Boy" Progressive Hoover for the Fail
Wow. Progressives are really THAT TWISTED!
Oh yeah I forgot, the roaring 20's like Dubya's subprime ponzi scheme doesn't matter, it's whose holding the bag when the music stops that counts in right wing world, UNLESS it's Ronnie's 16 year "miracle"
It was a separate quote in the article that was a proposed cure for the ill.
It does nothing to dilute his first statement.
There is no weak argument...she was simply quoting someone who had gone sour on the situation.
I can't help that your mother won't change your diaper.
You can make up all the false and misleading excuses that make your heart sing, but it doesn't change the fact that if you want to be taken seriously then your attempts to convince by argument must be sincere and authentic. Given that they are not, makes you equal to someone who parks in a handicapped spot without medical authority. Someone should hand you a copy of Sun Tzu for Dummies so you can catch up.
There is nothing misleading at all here.
And I really don't know that you can take anything seriously or any other way. Given that your latest EEG is probably a flat line, your evaluation of PC's argument lies somewhere above an Obama promise and below a used piece of toilet paper.
BTW: When I need your lectures I'll ask for them. Until then, maybe you can learn something about thinking from your cat.
Weird you miss the CONTEXT of his quote:
Morgenthau believed in balanced budgets, stable currency, reduction of the national debt, and the need for more private investment
To reduce the deficit he argued for increased taxes, particularly on the wealthy.
"We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay."
Liar.
Morgenthau simply stated that FDR had been a failure.
Got it, you're a liar who will NEVER be honest...
His quote
http://www.burtfolsom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/Morgenthau.pdf
You are using pre 1929 wall street crash data to support bashing a speech made by FDR in 1932, three years into the Great Depression. Can you get more dishonest? FDR was addressing the economy of the Depression, not the decade before it the way you are doing.Morganthau was simply wrong about the facts he tried to present to FDR. Even with using the inflated numbers of the Lebergott method of judging unemployment and industrial data that ignored the infrastructure jobs considered by him to be "relief", his raw numbers were factually incorrect and off by millions.No matter how many times your distortion of the Morganthau quote is explained you continue to use it in that distorted and misrepresented way.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.
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.
1. 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
2. "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.
Now....what sort of lying imbecile would deny hat Henry Morgenthau was indicting the Roosevelt dictatorship as an abject failure?
Oh....your sort of lying imbecile.
Got it.
Morganthau had become pretty useless as an adviser who proved day after day he had a poor grasp of what was going on. He was claiming no changes in unemployment, when again, even the highest estimates that disavowed those workers on "relief", showed him totally off and inaccurate. The number of unemployed when FDR took over stood at 12,830,000. By 1937 it was at 7,700,000, but according to Morganthau it hadn't changed or improved. He discounted and ignored over 5 million new jobs and employed Americans in private industry and business jobs. Even after the set back in 1938 when FDR swayed away from his New Deal programs and followed Moganthau's and his supporters advice and decreased spending for the government jobs which caused the so called mini recession during the depression, the numbers stayed far below the '33 numbers. By '39 the numbers of employed began rising as the pre '38 policies were put back in place and replacement of three and a half million added private industry jobs that were lost during the mini recession boost the employed numbers and lowered the overall unemployment. This by itself showed that the government relief jobs had a huge impact on private industry and business employment. The so called "relief workers" spent their paychecks and that is what lifted private employment.
Morganthau was wrong and his quote was ignored at the time as it should be ignored now. Here is the proof in the form of numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing the raw numbers of unemployed and the rate using the Lebergott method.
u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html
Remember, Morganthau did not recognize people building bridges and roads, infrastructure, etc. as being employed. As far as he was concerned those people were on welfare and unemployed. But even ignoring that, the numbers in his head were off by huge amounts.
1. "Morganthau was simply wrong about the facts he tried to present to FDR."
Of course he wasn't.
He was a die-hard Roosevelt supporter, but one who spoke the truth.
Roosevelt was a megalomaniac and a congenital liar.
2. Here is that view from demagogue Roosevelt, himself:
"Now it is worth remembering, and the cold figures of finance prove it, that during that time there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay, although those same figures proved that the cost of production fell very greatly; corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten, and by no means an adequate proportion was even paid out in dividends--the stockholder was forgotten."
Roosevelt's Nomination Address, Chicago, Ill., July 2, 1932
This is Franklin Roosevelt presenting the 'underconsumption thesis' : "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages;..."
These are outright, bald-faced, lies.
Really.
Lies.
3. Proof that Roosevelt, et al were out and out liars?
Sure.
Based on the fable, most people could not afford to buy what they produced, i.e., "underconsumption."
In order for the 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these three criteria must be met:
a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."
b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."
c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."
Those quotations are from Roosevelt himself.
...if those three statements are not the case.....my premise is proven.
This is momentous......take your time.
4. Time to slice and dice the Liberal propaganda.
a. In 1921, the top 5% earned 25.47% of the nation's income...in 1929, the top 5%'s share skyrocketed all the way up to ......26.09%!!!!
b. Corporate profits? They averaged 8.2% from 1900 to 1920. But what about from 1920 to 1929??? They remained at 8.2%.
For those in Rio Linda, that means that there was no upsurge in said profits during the decade.
c. But what about employee wages during the decade of the '20s?? They rose...from 55% to 60% of corporate income.
d. Wait...what about the percentage of GNP that went to consumption? Bet it fell, huh?
Wrong.
It rose from 68% in 1920 to 75% in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
"Coolidge and the Historians," by Thomas B. Silver, p.124-136, and Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal," p.34-35
So....while you Leftists fail 'reality 101,' you pass 'indoctrination 101' with flying colors!
You will be awarded your"Reliable Democrat Voter"pin.
Wear it with pride!
In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal
And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....
Why the Right is Right - Prager University
In this chart, 37 to 21? Did they not teach math at your school?Nope, look at the chart. Had the spending continued we would have been okay either way. Then again, war is good for many things.Which the data clearly shows. When the government cash stopped flowing, the economy stopped recovering."Liberals argue that Roosevelt's stimulus was not big enough and it took World War II to finally end the Great Depression.
So, basically FDR needs to thank Hitler or unemployment would never have have dipped below 20%
How is 20% unemployment AFTER 7 WHOLE YEARS OF FAIL, a "good thing"?
You are using pre 1929 wall street crash data to support bashing a speech made by FDR in 1932, three years into the Great Depression. Can you get more dishonest? FDR was addressing the economy of the Depression, not the decade before it the way you are doing.Morganthau was simply wrong about the facts he tried to present to FDR. Even with using the inflated numbers of the Lebergott method of judging unemployment and industrial data that ignored the infrastructure jobs considered by him to be "relief", his raw numbers were factually incorrect and off by millions.No matter how many times your distortion of the Morganthau quote is explained you continue to use it in that distorted and misrepresented way.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.
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.
1. 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
2. "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.
Now....what sort of lying imbecile would deny hat Henry Morgenthau was indicting the Roosevelt dictatorship as an abject failure?
Oh....your sort of lying imbecile.
Got it.
Morganthau had become pretty useless as an adviser who proved day after day he had a poor grasp of what was going on. He was claiming no changes in unemployment, when again, even the highest estimates that disavowed those workers on "relief", showed him totally off and inaccurate. The number of unemployed when FDR took over stood at 12,830,000. By 1937 it was at 7,700,000, but according to Morganthau it hadn't changed or improved. He discounted and ignored over 5 million new jobs and employed Americans in private industry and business jobs. Even after the set back in 1938 when FDR swayed away from his New Deal programs and followed Moganthau's and his supporters advice and decreased spending for the government jobs which caused the so called mini recession during the depression, the numbers stayed far below the '33 numbers. By '39 the numbers of employed began rising as the pre '38 policies were put back in place and replacement of three and a half million added private industry jobs that were lost during the mini recession boost the employed numbers and lowered the overall unemployment. This by itself showed that the government relief jobs had a huge impact on private industry and business employment. The so called "relief workers" spent their paychecks and that is what lifted private employment.
Morganthau was wrong and his quote was ignored at the time as it should be ignored now. Here is the proof in the form of numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing the raw numbers of unemployed and the rate using the Lebergott method.
u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html
Remember, Morganthau did not recognize people building bridges and roads, infrastructure, etc. as being employed. As far as he was concerned those people were on welfare and unemployed. But even ignoring that, the numbers in his head were off by huge amounts.
1. "Morganthau was simply wrong about the facts he tried to present to FDR."
Of course he wasn't.
He was a die-hard Roosevelt supporter, but one who spoke the truth.
Roosevelt was a megalomaniac and a congenital liar.
2. Here is that view from demagogue Roosevelt, himself:
"Now it is worth remembering, and the cold figures of finance prove it, that during that time there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay, although those same figures proved that the cost of production fell very greatly; corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten, and by no means an adequate proportion was even paid out in dividends--the stockholder was forgotten."
Roosevelt's Nomination Address, Chicago, Ill., July 2, 1932
This is Franklin Roosevelt presenting the 'underconsumption thesis' : "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous; at the same time little of that profit was devoted to the reduction of prices. The consumer was forgotten. Very little of it went into increased wages;..."
These are outright, bald-faced, lies.
Really.
Lies.
3. Proof that Roosevelt, et al were out and out liars?
Sure.
Based on the fable, most people could not afford to buy what they produced, i.e., "underconsumption."
In order for the 'underconsumption thesis' to be true, these three criteria must be met:
a. During the 1920s the rich had to be getting a significantly larger proportion of the national income. "... corporate profit resulting from this period was enormous..."
b. Employees must have been receiving a smaller share of corporate income. "... Very little of it went into increased wages; the worker was forgotten,..."
c. Consumers must have been consuming less of the GNP in the late '20s than in 1920. "... there was little or no drop in the prices that the consumer had to pay... The consumer was forgotten....."
Those quotations are from Roosevelt himself.
...if those three statements are not the case.....my premise is proven.
This is momentous......take your time.
4. Time to slice and dice the Liberal propaganda.
a. In 1921, the top 5% earned 25.47% of the nation's income...in 1929, the top 5%'s share skyrocketed all the way up to ......26.09%!!!!
b. Corporate profits? They averaged 8.2% from 1900 to 1920. But what about from 1920 to 1929??? They remained at 8.2%.
For those in Rio Linda, that means that there was no upsurge in said profits during the decade.
c. But what about employee wages during the decade of the '20s?? They rose...from 55% to 60% of corporate income.
d. Wait...what about the percentage of GNP that went to consumption? Bet it fell, huh?
Wrong.
It rose from 68% in 1920 to 75% in 1927, 1928, and 1929.
"Coolidge and the Historians," by Thomas B. Silver, p.124-136, and Folsom, "New Deal or Raw Deal," p.34-35
So....while you Leftists fail 'reality 101,' you pass 'indoctrination 101' with flying colors!
You will be awarded your"Reliable Democrat Voter"pin.
Wear it with pride!
In less than five minutes, Greg Gutfeld explains why Conservative is simply better for the individual, and for society, than Liberal
And, by investing the five minutes in this vid...you get course credit in Prager University.....
Why the Right is Right - Prager University
LMAO and YOU should too:
An on-line U. named after Dennis Prager, a copy cat Limbaugh and propagandist conservative radio host.
Greg Gutfeld, ""I became a conservative by being around liberals (at UC Berkeley) and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives. You realize that there's something distinctly in common between the two groups, the left and the right; the worst part of each of them is the moralizing."
Oxy-Moronic ^^^
George Carlin, "Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Groucho Marx, "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."
Lenny Bruce, “Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God.”
Will Rogers, Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.
