Ion01 1 #51 October 21, 2009 QuoteHowever, Obama's stimulus has already turned the GDP +, so their claims are BS to me. So is the chart BS which shows what obama's stimulus was to do versus actual? Obama saying that if it passed unemployement wouldn't go above 8 percent even though its at almost 10 is BS? Quote These guys are obviously elitist pigs with a firm plant on the right. I don't see them criticize Hoover for his massive Relief Act of 1932 tax increase, but FDR was a bastard for being pro-labor and pro-social svs. Sure, don't address the facts ....just call names, always a good tactic. And no, they don't address hoovers policies because that is not what this particular study was about, that would be a completely different study. Quote This article is just typical RW rhetoric Once again call names and instead of finding the paper yourself, which it is available, you make more statements without facts to back them up. Quote Also, they don't talk about the worst years of the GD as that would step on their Republican buddy, Hoover. Once again, the right wing conspirousy...... That would be a different study. How about I supply you with another great right wing conspirousy site that talks about how great hoover was! http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/02/hoovers-big-labor-policies-caused-great-depression/# Quote Again, they guessed what the 10-headed monster *might* have done. Or, like the chart referenced regarding obama and the stimulus, they compare actuals with predictions made by the fdr administration itself. But you won't know exactly what was being compared because you didn't find the study for yourself and, like with the chart I posted, you ignore the info and the explanation and call it BS and claim its right wing propiganda when the data is actually comparing actuals to the obama administrations predictions. Quote And yet they ignore what happened in 1929 and previous years? That's objective. FDR was elected in 32 so why go back much farther particularly when the crash in the market that marked the beginning of the depression was in 1929. Also, remember that you continue to ignore that the 20's were roaring despite a crash that was bigger than the one marking the beginning of the depression. The obvious difference is the government involvement in the later on.....but that doesn't agree with you so those facts and I must be part of the right wing conspirousy and probably a plant by fox to propogate these lies despite the fact that I am not a republican. Quote The 1920 recession was basically post WWI industrial shutdown So with tons of industries shutting down how is it that we didn't need a bunch of government programs to employ these people or a bunch of stimulus? The free market gave them cars and that gave them jobs and such. Not the government.....the free market. A couple years later we have the same scenerios of industries shutting down only now instead of letting the free market do the same thing it did a few years before, the government gets involved with spending and printing money and "creating" jobs and regulation and the market takes significantly longer to recover. What's so hard to figure out in this situation? QuoteThey didn't work under Hoover or Reagan and led to disaster Yep, didn't work under reagan at all! Just look at these facts: During Jimmy Carter's last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared to 4.4% during Reagan's last year in office (1988).[95] Over those eight years, the unemployment rate declined from 7.1% to 5.5%. During Reagan's presidency, federal income tax rates were lowered significantly with the signing of the bipartisan Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981.[100] Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth recovered strongly after the 1982 recession and grew during his eight years in office at an annual rate of 3.4% per year.[101] Unemployment peaked at 10.8% percent in December 1982—higher than any time since the Great Depression—then dropped during the rest of Reagan's presidency.[98] Sixteen million new jobs were created, while inflation significantly decreased.[102] The net effect of all Reagan-era tax bills was a 1% decrease in government revenues when compared to Treasury Department revenue estimates from the Administration's first post-enactment January budgets. Such a failure! This is obviously from a extreme right wing propaganda site! Wiki! QuoteThe gov taxes the money, not the people. Are you serious? The government doesn't tax the people? So my money is not mine? The government can take all it wants because its not mine? Do you know what money is? It is legal tender! Do you know what that is? The point of money is to simply make trade easier. If I need a blanket and have wood but the guy that has the blanket I need has wood I can't trade the wood for the blanket. Now with money I can trade for the blanket money so he can go trade the money for what he needs and that guy can come trade his money back to me for wood. Its just a place holder for trading purposes! And its mine! The government taxes me and my goods and my stuff! Money is just a place holder for that stuff and even if its just paper its mine! If the government isn't taxing me then why do I have to keep giving them what is mine based upon how much I have! Quote Furthermore, GHW Bush raised taxes in the midst of his recession he was gifted from fascist Ronnie and it worked well. So what happened to all the "bush created the mess" stuff? QuoteYea, 12 million say otherwise form 1929 to 1932. Well, if they were alive during the GD they would. Is that Republican Darwinian economic success; 12 mill dead? The crash happened in 1929 thanks to hoover and government involvement! You keep missing that! Also, 12 million died over the great depression not just that time period and even that figure is speculative. It would have been far less if the depression hadn't been extended by government involvement. And if you die from skydiving we should abandon skydiving because it kills so many! Also, lets compare how many were killed in facist, marxist, and communist countries that were killed directly by the government not including their non-existant economies! Is that what you want? Do you really thing they are better? QuoteFurthermore, my citations are objective, So because you agree with them and despite the fact they don't contain much fact they are objective...... remember wiki is obviously an arm of the republican party? Also, how is history itself not objective? QuoteI post all objective data, not some op-ed by some RW nutjob organization. Again, this chart at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/...in_the_United_States show me when taxes are raised on the rich how things go to hell. Once again, more name calling and ignoring. I have shown you through history and my references how raising taxes is bad and lowering them is good. Also, a quick simple example is look at the state income tax map. Go look at the tax rates for each state and compare that to the economy of each state currently. The higher the taxes the worse off the state is with california and New York and Michigan being the most extreme examples! QuoteThe market and GDP have gone +, the last thing to ever come around after a recession is employment. I'm sorry and I apologize for Obama that after inheriting the worst mess since the GD he couldn't have it wrapped up in 2 weeks. Look at any recession / depression, unemp is teh last thing out and Obama recoverd from the market crash and GDP in record time. I don't think bush helped thing but once obama started passing this stimulus and stuff things plummeted. So, obama is a success despite the fact that is own predictions and figures show him to be a failure? QuoteThis is my country, my profile is just for fun, can't you see it's BS? So, you can't be truthful on your profile? Nice. Well, the country you listed has a lot of the ideas you profess so they are still a good comparison. Why don't you go there. If its so bad here why are you still here. Go there or to europe or canada or, even better, china! They have great redistribution! Or go to Russia, or even better, cuba! They have such a caring leader! Remember, unless you have been there you don't know how great it is! Anyways, I am tired or the typical unproven accusations of propiganda and such...and of the continued effort to not address the info or facts ......and I really need to get back to work. Later! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #52 October 21, 2009 QuoteIt was tehre, Wehre? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 October 21, 2009 QuoteQuote The 1920 recession was basically post WWI industrial shutdown So with tons of industries shutting down how is it that we didn't need a bunch of government programs to employ these people or a bunch of stimulus? I suspect the global flu epidemic in 1919 contributed to this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
