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.
Here we go again:
start GWB: debt ~$5.6T
end GWB: debt ~$10T
(-$786B TARP paid back into Obama yrs, debt increase dramatic when DemWits took congress 07')
Current debt: ~18.4 (to date $8.4T added on under Obama yrs.)
You're not accurate, The national dept was $10,626,877,048,913.08 when George W Bush left office. If Obama is at $18.4 that leaves him responsible for 7.8 Trillion added debt. Doesn't appear to me to be the horror story people are trying to make it out to be.
Truths can be distorted and manipulated and taken out of context to present a lie. This is the method used by PoliticalChic. When caught in the lie, she simply responds that everyone of her facts are documented and true. Showing the lie becomes a job of showing how the facts are taken out of context, distorted and manipulated. Her response is repeated. She will pretend your comments don't exist, call you a name and repeat the same nonsense that her statements are all facts that can not be disproved. You can show links to unimpeachable sources and detailed explanations to disprove the conclusions of her nonsense lies and still she will go into the deny, deny, deny mode. Like the kid with her hand stuck in the cookie jar that denies trying to steal a cookie. That is PoliticalChic defending her lying threads and OP's.Long past due for this fraudulent garbage thread to be done.
Agreed, but Political Chic has a way of rising out of the compost of her shit postings to foul us with her lies again and again.
Her theme is: if you can't dazzle them with facts, baffle them with bullshit.
Too bad for her that doesn't work around here!
Here we go again:
start GWB: debt ~$5.6T
end GWB: debt ~$10T
(-$786B TARP paid back into Obama yrs, debt increase dramatic when DemWits took congress 07')
Current debt: ~18.4 (to date $8.4T added on under Obama yrs.)
You're not accurate, The national dept was $10,626,877,048,913.08 when George W Bush left office. If Obama is at $18.4 that leaves him responsible for 7.8 Trillion added debt. Doesn't appear to me to be the horror story people are trying to make it out to be.
your argument is a few months debt accumulation( 08-09 during housing collapse) or the TARP amount whatever? OK. so what?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014
IT is DISASTER and non-sustainable. Bottom line $18.4T and NO ONE is doing anything about it.
Here we go again:
start GWB: debt ~$5.6T
end GWB: debt ~$10T
(-$786B TARP paid back into Obama yrs, debt increase dramatic when DemWits took congress 07')
Current debt: ~18.4 (to date $8.4T added on under Obama yrs.)
You're not accurate, The national dept was $10,626,877,048,913.08 when George W Bush left office. If Obama is at $18.4 that leaves him responsible for 7.8 Trillion added debt. Doesn't appear to me to be the horror story people are trying to make it out to be.
your argument is a few months debt accumulation( 08-09 during housing collapse) or the TARP amount whatever? OK. so what?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014
IT is DISASTER and non-sustainable. Bottom line $18.4T and NO ONE is doing anything about it.
What do you propose doing about it?
Here we go again:
start GWB: debt ~$5.6T
end GWB: debt ~$10T
(-$786B TARP paid back into Obama yrs, debt increase dramatic when DemWits took congress 07')
Current debt: ~18.4 (to date $8.4T added on under Obama yrs.)
You're not accurate, The national dept was $10,626,877,048,913.08 when George W Bush left office. If Obama is at $18.4 that leaves him responsible for 7.8 Trillion added debt. Doesn't appear to me to be the horror story people are trying to make it out to be.
your argument is a few months debt accumulation( 08-09 during housing collapse) or the TARP amount whatever? OK. so what?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014
IT is DISASTER and non-sustainable. Bottom line $18.4T and NO ONE is doing anything about it.
What do you propose doing about it?
Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.
Here we go again:
start GWB: debt ~$5.6T
end GWB: debt ~$10T
(-$786B TARP paid back into Obama yrs, debt increase dramatic when DemWits took congress 07')
Current debt: ~18.4 (to date $8.4T added on under Obama yrs.)
You're not accurate, The national dept was $10,626,877,048,913.08 when George W Bush left office. If Obama is at $18.4 that leaves him responsible for 7.8 Trillion added debt. Doesn't appear to me to be the horror story people are trying to make it out to be.
your argument is a few months debt accumulation( 08-09 during housing collapse) or the TARP amount whatever? OK. so what?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014
IT is DISASTER and non-sustainable. Bottom line $18.4T and NO ONE is doing anything about it.
What do you propose doing about it?
Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.
Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?
You're not accurate, The national dept was $10,626,877,048,913.08 when George W Bush left office. If Obama is at $18.4 that leaves him responsible for 7.8 Trillion added debt. Doesn't appear to me to be the horror story people are trying to make it out to be.
your argument is a few months debt accumulation( 08-09 during housing collapse) or the TARP amount whatever? OK. so what?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014
IT is DISASTER and non-sustainable. Bottom line $18.4T and NO ONE is doing anything about it.
What do you propose doing about it?
Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.
Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?
The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.
your argument is a few months debt accumulation( 08-09 during housing collapse) or the TARP amount whatever? OK. so what?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014
IT is DISASTER and non-sustainable. Bottom line $18.4T and NO ONE is doing anything about it.
What do you propose doing about it?
Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.
Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?
The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.
October 2014
a. National debt $18 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.2 trillion
c. US unfunded liabilities $115 trillion
d. Social Security liability $ 115 trillion*
e. Medicare liability $ 80 trillion*
f. Total GDP of entire world $74.91 trillion (2013)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
What do you propose doing about it?
Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.
Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?
The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.
October 2014
a. National debt $18 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.2 trillion
c. US unfunded liabilities $115 trillion
d. Social Security liability $ 115 trillion*
e. Medicare liability $ 80 trillion*
f. Total GDP of entire world $74.91 trillion (2013)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
The notion of unfunded liabilities is a misnomer and suggests that funded liabilities must be better. We both know that's a fallacy and doesn't make financial decisions safer or more secure.
From 37, you bet your ass it is. They really didn't teach math at your school, or rational thought.So 21% after 7 years is a good thing?
your argument is a few months debt accumulation( 08-09 during housing collapse) or the TARP amount whatever? OK. so what?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2014
IT is DISASTER and non-sustainable. Bottom line $18.4T and NO ONE is doing anything about it.
What do you propose doing about it?
Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.
Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?
The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.
October 2014
a. National debt $18 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.2 trillion
c. US unfunded liabilities $115 trillion
d. Social Security liability $ 115 trillion*
e. Medicare liability $ 80 trillion*
f. Total GDP of entire world $74.91 trillion (2013)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
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:
George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan
- Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
- But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
- 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.
Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. US Department of the Treasury
The benefits from Reaganomics:
- 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)
- Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
- Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
- Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
- The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/tables10.html
- 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.
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.
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.
Still not able to weasel out of your pathetic attempt at deflection.
In reading on, you're getting your ass handed to you.
It's been enjoyable.
What do you propose doing about it?
Eliminate all non-essential GOVT dept/employee(s) and then start cutting.
Austerity hasn't worked elsewhere why do you think it would work here?
The answer is to let them party-on with taxpayer dollars (5-star hotel, unlimited travel, security, gold lifetime pensions, healthcare for family, ultra-party, visits, planes trains automobiles, fences for them but not for us)? huh? how about balance budget now. Private business can't run like they? Also goes on in most states on a lesser scale. I don't see how it can continue, but to date it has.
October 2014
a. National debt $18 trillion
b. State and Local debt $2.2 trillion
c. US unfunded liabilities $115 trillion
d. Social Security liability $ 115 trillion*
e. Medicare liability $ 80 trillion*
f. Total GDP of entire world $74.91 trillion (2013)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time
yeah those unfunded pyramid ponzi promises are un-imaginably scary. They are not even working on the easier stuff.
Correction: My other post meant to imply $10K/mo lifetime pension for FED and or STATE workers. not $10/mo
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.
Still not able to weasel out of your pathetic attempt at deflection.
In reading on, you're getting your ass handed to you.
It's been enjoyable.
Well you must be cross eyed if you are reading that. I think the fact you care is evidence, strong evidence, that you're a total goober.
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.
Still not able to weasel out of your pathetic attempt at deflection.
In reading on, you're getting your ass handed to you.
It's been enjoyable.
Well you must be cross eyed if you are reading that. I think the fact you care is evidence, strong evidence, that you're a total goober.
Like any winger (left or right), you won't admit to anything that does not fit your need to justify your positions.
That I get.....you love FDR. Most leftwingers do.
You've been steamrolled.
People are laughing at you.
And yet you press on....your name should be "Flesh Wound".
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.
The causes that catapulted the recession into the 'Great Depression' were
1. The actions of the federal reserve
2. The sky-high Smoot-Hawley Tariff
3. The actions of Hoover that were continued by
Roosevelt
4. And, mainly, the abject ineptitude of Roosevelt.
a. In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
article - AEI
I'd be happy to provide a list of the lies of Roosevelt that magnified and advanced the problems....
...say the word.
More of your lies. Unemployment peaked in Roosevelt's first year. EVERYTHING got better from then on.
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.
