Vigile Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 The rich fight tooth and nail to avoid giving their employees more money, yet they are more than happy to give free handouts to those who don't work. Donkeys can talk. Some dude lived in a giant fish for three days. All stories that require childlike faith to believe. 2
RankStranger Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 So holding a gun to somebody's head and stealing money is your solution just to make you FEEEL good. Yeah...REAL kind of you there.... Oh get down off your cross BO So we're back to moralizing, huh? You'd sell out your own people and your own kid's future just to make a moral point. 1
RankStranger Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Hey folks- let's review some pictures of those prosperous American Poor... back before their ambition was sapped by the eeeebil welfare state. Back when righteous private charity and the Holy Free Market provided what people needed without interference from eeebil socialists. Back when taxes were low, regulations were nonexistent, and people could right every wrong via lawsuits. This is the world our benevolent Libertarians will bring us to once again if only we get outta the way! Welfare queens?
RankStranger Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Single mothers... always looking for a hand-out.
RankStranger Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 This could solve our problem of shipping jobs to China. All we gotta do is get Americans to work for even less!
RankStranger Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Look at all those Proud Americans eager for work and not dependent on some government teet!
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 8, 2014 Super Moderator Posted July 8, 2014 Rank, those photos could be faked. That's what Hitler would do. You are just too gullible.
RankStranger Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Here's a Small Business Owner making the best of it. Thank Gawd income taxes were so low at the time- she can keep the full proceeds from those kids!
Ramen666 Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 You do know Wall Steet Journal is owned by News Corp. right?
Ramen666 Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/03/07/did-new-deal-end-depression-history-says-deficit-spending-works/ You know, there have been so many errors -- in some cases they've been deliberate distortions -- about the impact of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's innovative New Deal policies on the U.S. economy, that we should take a moment to analyze the facts of history. Accordingly, we cite the late, great Governor of the State of New York, Al Smith, who frequently said, "Let's look at the record." Did FDR's New Deal end the Depression? October 1929: U.S. stock market crashes In October 1929, the U.S. stock market crashed. It was a cataclysmic, life-altering, bearish event that contracted the U.S. economy and ushered in the Great Depression. The U.S. president at the time was Herbert Hoover (R-California). None of the policies Hoover undertook produced economic recovery during his term. The Depression spiraled deeper and deeper, and the unemployment rate reached a staggering 23.5% by the end of 1932. It was the worst economic period in the United States in the modern era. Further, it's important to underscore that Hoover was president of the United States for three years after the Great Depression started, and U.S. GDP declined every year, from $865 billion in 1929 to $643 billion in 1932. The U.S. unemployment rate also increased every year under Hoover after the stock market crashed, from 3.1% in 1929 to 23.5% in 1932.
RankStranger Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Hyperbole...anybody can take a pic and claim it was something. If you also decide to look, there were many wealthy people who lost everything too. There were people who got wealthy during that time. http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/08/21/10-people-who-got-rich-during-the-depression/ How much of that was caused by FDR policies prolonging it? Might want to take a look at this. FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409 Nice attempt at propagandizing. But it appears that FDR himself was some of the cause of this with his hair brained policies. And that is not some EVIL RIGHT WING PUBLICASHUN. I don't care what a Wall Street Journal blog has to say. And here's why your other article is demonstrably and laughably wrong: http://www.salon.com/2009/02/02/the_new_deal_worked/ http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=11168 Fact is that both prior to and during the Great Depression, taxes were low. Regulations were nearly nonexistent. Workers had very few rights. Banks could do pretty much whatever the fuck they wanted. In other words, it was the Libertarian Dream. And we can all see exactly where that led. 1
RipVanWinkle Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Well, FDR caused it, huh? And here I though the depression started in October, 1929 with the stock market crash during Hoover's administration. At least, Burnedout, you apparently don't dispute the horrible conditions for so many people during the depression. Most ultra conservatives simply deny the conditions existed. Well, you proved I was wrong. If an economist from UCLA said it was FDR'S policies that caused the depression, even though he was not in office when it started, it's got to be true. And the republican Powell agrees. I know, I know. Your not saying FDR caused the depression; he just made it worse by keeping poor people from starving through his programs. Hoover said he had done all that could be done toward the end of his term. FDR found some things to do and his programs were so unsuccessful that he was elected for a 4th term, the first and only president to do so. And it was Obama's fault that the great recession occurred, even though it started in the last year of W's 8 years in offices. The fact is the US went into the depression after years of republican presidents and into the recession after years of Bush. Make whatever excuses you like, but those are the facts. bill 1
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 8, 2014 Super Moderator Posted July 8, 2014 I never said it did not start under Hoover, but FDR's policies made it last longer. Hoover, a Republican, was only in office a few months after the term of Coolidge, another Republican. Perhaps Republican presidents should stop expecting Democratic presidents to be able to clean up their messes.
RankStranger Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 I never said it did not start under Hoover, but FDR's policies made it last longer. Hoover, a Republican, was only in office a few months after the term of Coolidge, another Republican. Perhaps Republican presidents should stop expecting Democratic presidents to be able to clean up their messes. Yep, there are lots of similarities between the Great Recession and the Great Depression. Both were immediately preceded by many years of 'business-friendly' government and HUGE disparities in wealth. In both cases an orgy of on-paper profits by banks and Wall Street culminated in blowing their wad and crashing the economy via a massive contraction of the credit markets. And in both cases, capitalist fan-boys blame the subsequently elected socialists for not cleaning up their mess fast enough.
RipVanWinkle Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 "You are putting words in my mouth...I never said it did not start under Hoover, but FDR's policies made it last longer.' Burnedout How did FDR'S policies do that, exactly? And more importantly, what would have had FDR do differently? Nobody knew at that time exactly what should be done.But FDR didn't just sit on his tail and announce that nothing could be done. bill
♦ ficino ♦ Posted July 9, 2014 Author Posted July 9, 2014 I realize that different constructions can be put on the following, but a recent study on easiest/hardest counties in the US to live in ranks metro areas with educated populations highest. The "hardest" counties to live in are largely clustered in the South, with the lowest one in eastern Kentucky. From an article about the study: "Six of the top easiest counties are suburbs or Washington, D.C., and none of the mostly urban areas are in the bottom 20 percent. The study determined Clay County in Eastern Kentucky is the nation's hardest county in which to reside. Its median income is $22,496 and just 7.6 percent of residents hold a bachelor's degree. About 45 percent of it residents are obese. While the D.C. suburbs dominate the top of the rankings, the top spot went to Los Alamos County, N.M., home of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The county's media income is more than $118,000." Link to news article about the study: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/which_are_the_hardest_counties_in_nj_to_live_in.html edited to add: my point in citing this self-praising article from the Hunterdon Democrat is concern over the effects of long-term policy on the people who are governed under it.
RankStranger Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 I realize that different constructions can be put on the following, but a recent study on easiest/hardest counties in the US to live in ranks metro areas with educated populations highest. The "hardest" counties to live in are largely clustered in the South, with the lowest one in eastern Kentucky. From an article about the study: "Six of the top easiest counties are suburbs or Washington, D.C., and none of the mostly urban areas are in the bottom 20 percent. The study determined Clay County in Eastern Kentucky is the nation's hardest county in which to reside. Its median income is $22,496 and just 7.6 percent of residents hold a bachelor's degree. About 45 percent of it residents are obese. While the D.C. suburbs dominate the top of the rankings, the top spot went to Los Alamos County, N.M., home of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The county's media income is more than $118,000." Link to news article about the study: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/which_are_the_hardest_counties_in_nj_to_live_in.html Here's an interactive map: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/upshot/where-are-the-hardest-places-to-live-in-the-us.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=UP_WAT_20140630&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=3
Vigile Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Hyperbole...anybody can take a pic and claim it was something. If you also decide to look, there were many wealthy people who lost everything too. There were people who got wealthy during that time. http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/08/21/10-people-who-got-rich-during-the-depression/ How much of that was caused by FDR policies prolonging it? Might want to take a look at this. FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409 Nice attempt at propagandizing. But it appears that FDR himself was some of the cause of this with his hair brained policies. And that is not some EVIL RIGHT WING PUBLICASHUN. If ever some should need hit me up side the head proof bo is out of touch with reality, you need only refer them to this post and the question shall never rise again.
Recommended Posts