Why Conservative Is Simply Better....

[nuhuh]

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.

So clever! Wow! that really showed me, Why don't you call up from the basement so mommy can reward you with a cookie.

 

[Camp]

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.

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 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.

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!

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.

I just proved that Roosevelt was an inveterate liar.

Keep tap-dancing and I may toss a quarter in your cup.

No you didn't. You proved you are a liar. You quoted a 1932 speech and went on a cherry picking escapade of data retrieval from as much as 12 years previous to the speech as if the the data was related to FDR's speech. You did exactly what I explained you did. You lied just like your supporters like Frank lies about 21% unemployment rates in 1940 when they were really 9.5%. You people are shameless liars.

 

[nuhuh]

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%"?

How come YOU ignored the fact that reagan raised the NATIONAL DEBT 186% from 1 trillion to 2.86 trillion AND BUSH I raised it again by another 1.55 trillion. Clinton paid down the debt by 400 billion and change then along came Bush ll and raised it again. If all the republican presidents had balanced their budgets today's debt would be MUCH lower. Here is WHY republicans are responsible for most of the National debt:



So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.

So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?

The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.

It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.

Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

By Now, you should realize how ridiculous your rant about Clinton's 41% national debt increase looks to anyone with a modicum of rational thinking. But to drive the shaft home vigorously and with great pleasure I give you this:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. US Department of the Treasury

The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


Compare the Obama failures with the Reagan recovery:

"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Reagan Recovery? Reagan left us with such massive debt no other succeeding president could retire his debt. His policies caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the ruination of savings and loans. The man was a train wreck.

 

[nuhuh]

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!

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"

I love making you squeal like the stuck pig you are....you did admit to being vulgar....so let me stick you again, pig:

1. Roosevelt groupies might contend that it that Franklin Roosevelt wasn't a poor manager, after all, wasn't the Depressiona worldwide phenomenon???


Let's see.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr


2. So...not only did the "great" Emperor Franklin the First manage to extend and magnify the depression, but he couldn't compete with the leaders of most European nations.


"Great" seems to have developed a new definition.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 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.

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!

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.

I just proved that Roosevelt was an inveterate liar.

Keep tap-dancing and I may toss a quarter in your cup.

No you didn't. You proved you are a liar. You quoted a 1932 speech and went on a cherry picking escapade of data retrieval from as much as 12 years previous to the speech as if the the data was related to FDR's speech. You did exactly what I explained you did. You lied just like your supporters like Frank lies about 21% unemployment rates in 1940 when they were really 9.5%. You people are shameless liars.

And once again you've failed!

a. You couldn't deny that FDR spoke the words I stated he did
b. You couldn't deny any of the facts I quoted.

The best you could do was try to spin....
Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.

This is getting to be a pattern, huh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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"

I love making you squeal like the stuck pig you are....you did admit to being vulgar....so let me stick you again, pig:

1. Roosevelt groupies might contend that it that Franklin Roosevelt wasn't a poor manager, after all, wasn't the Depressiona worldwide phenomenon???


Let's see.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr


2. So...not only did the "great" Emperor Franklin the First manage to extend and magnify the depression, but he couldn't compete with the leaders of most European nations.


"Great" seems to have developed a new definition.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

Newsweak LOL, sold for $1 and the buyer overpaid.

more Progressive Fail

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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%"?

How come YOU ignored the fact that reagan raised the NATIONAL DEBT 186% from 1 trillion to 2.86 trillion AND BUSH I raised it again by another 1.55 trillion. Clinton paid down the debt by 400 billion and change then along came Bush ll and raised it again. If all the republican presidents had balanced their budgets today's debt would be MUCH lower. Here is WHY republicans are responsible for most of the National debt:



So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.

So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?

The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.

It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.

Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

By Now, you should realize how ridiculous your rant about Clinton's 41% national debt increase looks to anyone with a modicum of rational thinking. But to drive the shaft home vigorously and with great pleasure I give you this:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. US Department of the Treasury

The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


Compare the Obama failures with the Reagan recovery:

"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Reagan Recovery? Reagan left us with such massive debt no other succeeding president could retire his debt. His policies caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the ruination of savings and loans. The man was a train wreck.

Complains about Reagan debt, yet worships Obama, the biggest spender in all or recorded history.

 

[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%"?

How come YOU ignored the fact that reagan raised the NATIONAL DEBT 186% from 1 trillion to 2.86 trillion AND BUSH I raised it again by another 1.55 trillion. Clinton paid down the debt by 400 billion and change then along came Bush ll and raised it again. If all the republican presidents had balanced their budgets today's debt would be MUCH lower. Here is WHY republicans are responsible for most of the National debt:



So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.

So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?

The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.

It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.

Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

By Now, you should realize how ridiculous your rant about Clinton's 41% national debt increase looks to anyone with a modicum of rational thinking. But to drive the shaft home vigorously and with great pleasure I give you this:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. US Department of the Treasury

The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


Compare the Obama failures with the Reagan recovery:

"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Reagan Recovery? Reagan left us with such massive debt no other succeeding president could retire his debt. His policies caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the ruination of savings and loans. The man was a train wreck.

Need another beating?

Sure....no prob:

"Reagan’s legacy affects us dramatically today in two ways. First, Reagan’s anti-Communist foreign policy and his military buildup hastened the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In the past eight years, America’s victory in the Cold War generated a half-trillion-dollar peace dividend. That peace dividend grows every year, and it fell like manna from heaven into President Clinton’s lap. ... the defense budget is nearly $100 billion lower today than when the Berlin Wall came down.

The second effect of the Reagan years was to launch America into what is now widely regarded as a remarkable 15-year low-inflation, high-employment bull market (the Dow was at 800 in 1982, 8,000 today)—interrupted only mildly in the middle Bush years. These 15 years of prosperity were propelled by Reaganomics: lower tax rates, a long-run decline in inflation and interest rates (which also lowers tax rates), freer international trade and a strong dollar. Even with the anti-supply-side Bush and Clinton tax hikes, the top tax rate today of 40% is far below the towering 70% tax rate that disabled the economy in the 1970s. The end of the Cold War has created an international environment of peace and stability, nudging the economy into still higher gear in recent years."
Who Balanced the Budget?



Must have really irked you when SunDevil demolished your attempt to ignore the Morgenthau quotes, huh?

Great.

 

[nuhuh]

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

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

How come YOU ignored the fact that reagan raised the NATIONAL DEBT 186% from 1 trillion to 2.86 trillion AND BUSH I raised it again by another 1.55 trillion. Clinton paid down the debt by 400 billion and change then along came Bush ll and raised it again. If all the republican presidents had balanced their budgets today's debt would be MUCH lower. Here is WHY republicans are responsible for most of the National debt:



So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.

So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?

The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.

It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.

Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

By Now, you should realize how ridiculous your rant about Clinton's 41% national debt increase looks to anyone with a modicum of rational thinking. But to drive the shaft home vigorously and with great pleasure I give you this:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. US Department of the Treasury

The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


Compare the Obama failures with the Reagan recovery:

"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Reagan Recovery? Reagan left us with such massive debt no other succeeding president could retire his debt. His policies caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the ruination of savings and loans. The man was a train wreck.

Complains about Reagan debt, yet worships Obama, the biggest spender in all or recorded history.

Really? Why haven't you ever complained about Reagan debt? And why haven't you complained about all those spending bills Obama signed coming from a Republican congress?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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"

I love making you squeal like the stuck pig you are....you did admit to being vulgar....so let me stick you again, pig:

1. Roosevelt groupies might contend that it that Franklin Roosevelt wasn't a poor manager, after all, wasn't the Depressiona worldwide phenomenon???


Let's see.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr


2. So...not only did the "great" Emperor Franklin the First manage to extend and magnify the depression, but he couldn't compete with the leaders of most European nations.


"Great" seems to have developed a new definition.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

So....Schlesinger doesn't count, but some guy named Gross does????

Really?

1. "Arthur Meier Schlesinger, Jr. (/ˈʃlɛsɪndʒər/; born Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger; October 15, 1917 – February 28, 2007) was an American historian, social critic, and public intellectual, son of the influential historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. A specialist in American history, much of Schlesinger's work explored the history of 20th-century American liberalism. In particular, his work focused on leaders such as Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, andRobert F. Kennedy. In the 1952 and 1956 presidential campaigns he was a primary speechwriter and adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson II.[3] Schlesinger served as special assistant and "court historian"[4] to President Kennedy from 1961 to 1963."
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

2. Daniel Gross "...editor of global finance for Daily Beast/Newsweek." Daniel Gross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In terms even easier for you to understand....
Let's compare your understanding of economics, history and politics to mine...
It would be like comparing a bamboo hut- simple, but not without some level of primitive charm- to the palace at Versailles.

 

[Dad2three]

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!

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"

I love making you squeal like the stuck pig you are....you did admit to being vulgar....so let me stick you again, pig:

1. Roosevelt groupies might contend that it that Franklin Roosevelt wasn't a poor manager, after all, wasn't the Depressiona worldwide phenomenon???


Let's see.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr


2. So...not only did the "great" Emperor Franklin the First manage to extend and magnify the depression, but he couldn't compete with the leaders of most European nations.


"Great" seems to have developed a new definition.

Weird you mean the Harding/Coolidge decade took ALL the growth out of the US economy for the next decade? Yep, when the GOP digs a hole, they dig it wide AND deep, just ask President Barack Hussein Obama

I get it though, the right wingers are NEVER on the correct side of history, so through their "think tanks" like AEI need to rewrite history to "show" the distorted BS you Klowns argue!

Weird how FDR did such a horrible job the people only elected him 4 times AND didn't give the GOP the keys to the House again for 60+ years?

 

[nuhuh]

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

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

How come YOU ignored the fact that reagan raised the NATIONAL DEBT 186% from 1 trillion to 2.86 trillion AND BUSH I raised it again by another 1.55 trillion. Clinton paid down the debt by 400 billion and change then along came Bush ll and raised it again. If all the republican presidents had balanced their budgets today's debt would be MUCH lower. Here is WHY republicans are responsible for most of the National debt:



So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.

So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?

The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.

It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.

Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

By Now, you should realize how ridiculous your rant about Clinton's 41% national debt increase looks to anyone with a modicum of rational thinking. But to drive the shaft home vigorously and with great pleasure I give you this:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. US Department of the Treasury

The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


Compare the Obama failures with the Reagan recovery:

"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Reagan Recovery? Reagan left us with such massive debt no other succeeding president could retire his debt. His policies caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the ruination of savings and loans. The man was a train wreck.

Need another beating?

Sure....no prob:

"Reagan’s legacy affects us dramatically today in two ways. First, Reagan’s anti-Communist foreign policy and his military buildup hastened the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In the past eight years, America’s victory in the Cold War generated a half-trillion-dollar peace dividend. That peace dividend grows every year, and it fell like manna from heaven into President Clinton’s lap. ... the defense budget is nearly $100 billion lower today than when the Berlin Wall came down.

The second effect of the Reagan years was to launch America into what is now widely regarded as a remarkable 15-year low-inflation, high-employment bull market (the Dow was at 800 in 1982, 8,000 today)—interrupted only mildly in the middle Bush years. These 15 years of prosperity were propelled by Reaganomics: lower tax rates, a long-run decline in inflation and interest rates (which also lowers tax rates), freer international trade and a strong dollar. Even with the anti-supply-side Bush and Clinton tax hikes, the top tax rate today of 40% is far below the towering 70% tax rate that disabled the economy in the 1970s. The end of the Cold War has created an international environment of peace and stability, nudging the economy into still higher gear in recent years."
Who Balanced the Budget?



Must have really irked you when SunDevil demolished your attempt to ignore the Morgenthau quotes, huh?

Great.

All Reagan accomplished was to put us into debt so deep we could not recover enough to balance the books. In effect he ruined our economy as evident by the fact that no one has ever been able to repair the damage he did.

The bull market wasn't Reagan's doing it was the implementation of container ship traffic and design, the invention of the personal computer, the invention of cell phones, and the invention of radio communication for trucking companies. The rest was up to entrepreneurs and no one ever paid homage to Reagan for that success.

SunDevil did nothing, all he did was alert the rest of this board to the fact that you are a dishonest hack that uses parts of quotes to make her self look better than she is and that anyone who reads you should be cautioned by the fact that you are not above a dishonest remark to prove your point.

 

[Dad2three]

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

I've read all of those papers.
Why are you afraid to put the actual quote up?

Oh...because it sinks you, huh?

It proves that I never lie.....nor am I ever wrong.

Don't you wish you could say the same?


I notice you are no longer denying that Morgenthau said exactly what I said he did.

Apology in order?

The actual quote dummy?

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."

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


You lying POS

 

[nuhuh]

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"

I love making you squeal like the stuck pig you are....you did admit to being vulgar....so let me stick you again, pig:

1. Roosevelt groupies might contend that it that Franklin Roosevelt wasn't a poor manager, after all, wasn't the Depressiona worldwide phenomenon???


Let's see.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr


2. So...not only did the "great" Emperor Franklin the First manage to extend and magnify the depression, but he couldn't compete with the leaders of most European nations.


"Great" seems to have developed a new definition.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

So....Schlesinger doesn't count, but some guy named Gross does????

Really?

1. "Arthur Meier Schlesinger, Jr. (/ˈʃlɛsɪndʒər/; born Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger; October 15, 1917 – February 28, 2007) was an American historian, social critic, and public intellectual, son of the influential historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. A specialist in American history, much of Schlesinger's work explored the history of 20th-century American liberalism. In particular, his work focused on leaders such as Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, andRobert F. Kennedy. In the 1952 and 1956 presidential campaigns he was a primary speechwriter and adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson II.[3] Schlesinger served as special assistant and "court historian"[4] to President Kennedy from 1961 to 1963."
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

2. Daniel Gross "...editor of global finance for Daily Beast/Newsweek." Daniel Gross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In terms even easier for you to understand....
Let's compare your understanding of economics, history and politics to mine...
It would be like comparing a bamboo hut- simple, but not without some level of primitive charm- to the palace at Versailles.

I didn't discount Schlesinger, I never even mentioned him. This is you making up facts to suit your purpose again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

How come YOU ignored the fact that reagan raised the NATIONAL DEBT 186% from 1 trillion to 2.86 trillion AND BUSH I raised it again by another 1.55 trillion. Clinton paid down the debt by 400 billion and change then along came Bush ll and raised it again. If all the republican presidents had balanced their budgets today's debt would be MUCH lower. Here is WHY republicans are responsible for most of the National debt:



So how big is this supply-side / Republican debt?

My answer is not entirely fair, because I calculate it by the Republican method, but it seems fair to hold them to their own standards. And it makes the calculation transparent and understandable. You be the judge. So just what is the Republican approach? There should always be a balanced budget — they even want to put that into the constitution. As Ron Paul said, they are the party of balanced budgets.

So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?

The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.

It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.

Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

By Now, you should realize how ridiculous your rant about Clinton's 41% national debt increase looks to anyone with a modicum of rational thinking. But to drive the shaft home vigorously and with great pleasure I give you this:

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




4. US Department of the Treasury

The benefits from Reaganomics:

1. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
2. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
3. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
4. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
5. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
6. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116

b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


Compare the Obama failures with the Reagan recovery:

"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.


Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures

Reagan Recovery? Reagan left us with such massive debt no other succeeding president could retire his debt. His policies caused the stock market crash of 1987 and the ruination of savings and loans. The man was a train wreck.

Need another beating?

Sure....no prob:

"Reagan’s legacy affects us dramatically today in two ways. First, Reagan’s anti-Communist foreign policy and his military buildup hastened the disintegration of the Soviet Union. In the past eight years, America’s victory in the Cold War generated a half-trillion-dollar peace dividend. That peace dividend grows every year, and it fell like manna from heaven into President Clinton’s lap. ... the defense budget is nearly $100 billion lower today than when the Berlin Wall came down.

The second effect of the Reagan years was to launch America into what is now widely regarded as a remarkable 15-year low-inflation, high-employment bull market (the Dow was at 800 in 1982, 8,000 today)—interrupted only mildly in the middle Bush years. These 15 years of prosperity were propelled by Reaganomics: lower tax rates, a long-run decline in inflation and interest rates (which also lowers tax rates), freer international trade and a strong dollar. Even with the anti-supply-side Bush and Clinton tax hikes, the top tax rate today of 40% is far below the towering 70% tax rate that disabled the economy in the 1970s. The end of the Cold War has created an international environment of peace and stability, nudging the economy into still higher gear in recent years."
Who Balanced the Budget?



Must have really irked you when SunDevil demolished your attempt to ignore the Morgenthau quotes, huh?

Great.

All Reagan accomplished was to put us into debt so deep we could not recover enough to balance the books. In effect he ruined our economy as evident by the fact that no one has ever been able to repair the damage he did.

The bull market wasn't Reagan's doing it was the implementation of container ship traffic and design, the invention of the personal computer, the invention of cell phones, and the invention of radio communication for trucking companies. The rest was up to entrepreneurs and no one ever paid homage to Reagan for that success.

SunDevil did nothing, all he did was alert the rest of this board to the fact that you are a dishonest hack that uses parts of quotes to make her self look better than she is and that anyone who reads you should be cautioned by the fact that you are not above a dishonest remark to prove your point.

"All Reagan accomplished blah blah blah..."

This is beyond dumb....it's unmitigated lying.

 

[Camp]

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.

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!

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.

I just proved that Roosevelt was an inveterate liar.

Keep tap-dancing and I may toss a quarter in your cup.

No you didn't. You proved you are a liar. You quoted a 1932 speech and went on a cherry picking escapade of data retrieval from as much as 12 years previous to the speech as if the the data was related to FDR's speech. You did exactly what I explained you did. You lied just like your supporters like Frank lies about 21% unemployment rates in 1940 when they were really 9.5%. You people are shameless liars.

And once again you've failed!

a. You couldn't deny that FDR spoke the words I stated he did
b. You couldn't deny any of the facts I quoted.

The best you could do was try to spin....
Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.

This is getting to be a pattern, huh?

Proving how you distort and misuse sources has been a pattern for a long time. It is dishonest of you to try and pass off old unrelated data from the pre depression and 1929 Stock Market crash for an analysis FDR made in 1932 about the post crash economy. The speech you use was made before he was even President and able to implement his programs and rectify the things you list, such as low wages. He was giving a critique about the previous three years economy and promising change, which he delivered. He didn't lie about anything. You are using data from a decade previous and pointing at it as evidence that FDR lied when you know he was talking about 1929 thru 1932, not the roaring 20's. Of course the data doesn't match. You are mixing up two different economic periods.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

I've read all of those papers.
Why are you afraid to put the actual quote up?

Oh...because it sinks you, huh?

It proves that I never lie.....nor am I ever wrong.

Don't you wish you could say the same?


I notice you are no longer denying that Morgenthau said exactly what I said he did.

Apology in order?

The actual quote dummy?

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."

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


You lying POS

No, pig....that isn't the quote.

This is:

" “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 Diary, May 9, 1939, Franklin Roosevelt Presidential Library

 

[PoliticalChic]

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"

I love making you squeal like the stuck pig you are....you did admit to being vulgar....so let me stick you again, pig:

1. Roosevelt groupies might contend that it that Franklin Roosevelt wasn't a poor manager, after all, wasn't the Depressiona worldwide phenomenon???


Let's see.

a. The League of Nations collected data from many nations throughout the 1930s on industrial production, unemployment, national debt, and taxes.
How did Roosevelt's United States compare with other countries?

In all four of these key indexesthe United States did very poorly, almost worse than any other nation in the study.

Most European nations handled the Great Depression better than the United States.

World Economic Survey: Eighth Year, 1938/1939 (Geneva: League of Nations, 1939) p.128, quoted in"New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America," by Burton W. Folsom Jr


2. So...not only did the "great" Emperor Franklin the First manage to extend and magnify the depression, but he couldn't compete with the leaders of most European nations.


"Great" seems to have developed a new definition.

As Newsweek's Daniel Gross reports, "One would be very hard-pressed to find a serious professional historian who believes that the New Deal prolonged the Depression."

So....Schlesinger doesn't count, but some guy named Gross does????

Really?

1. "Arthur Meier Schlesinger, Jr. (/ˈʃlɛsɪndʒər/; born Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger; October 15, 1917 – February 28, 2007) was an American historian, social critic, and public intellectual, son of the influential historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr. A specialist in American history, much of Schlesinger's work explored the history of 20th-century American liberalism. In particular, his work focused on leaders such as Harry Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, andRobert F. Kennedy. In the 1952 and 1956 presidential campaigns he was a primary speechwriter and adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson II.[3] Schlesinger served as special assistant and "court historian"[4] to President Kennedy from 1961 to 1963."
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

2. Daniel Gross "...editor of global finance for Daily Beast/Newsweek." Daniel Gross - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In terms even easier for you to understand....
Let's compare your understanding of economics, history and politics to mine...
It would be like comparing a bamboo hut- simple, but not without some level of primitive charm- to the palace at Versailles.

I didn't discount Schlesinger, I never even mentioned him. This is you making up facts to suit your purpose again.

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% .

 

[TyroneSlothrop]