Babbling

[Astromang]

---

olmoldy wrote:

says right in there an unemployment rate of 25% and a downward spiral of 10% Thank You!

---

Right, because his source is more valid than mine? His doesn't have sources, but not like it matters to you. Keep #### on the FDR ####.

[conanwong]

how can you not see that its a credible source? it had them fancy charts and figures and numbers! plus they cited where they got their credible sources for their material.

[GinaSzanboti]

---

Astromang wrote:

---

olmoldy wrote:

says right in there an unemployment rate of 25% and a downward spiral of 10% Thank You!

---

Right, because his source is more valid than mine? His doesn't have sources, but not like it matters to you. Keep #### on the FDR ####.

---

This is where the graph you linked to was used on Wikipedia.  That page says, "In 1933, 25% of all workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed.[36]"   It also says here, "Unemployment fell by ⅔ in Roosevelt's first term (from 25% to 9%, 1933–1937)..."

I suppose now you'll say Wiki's not a good source...

[Jingai]

  The Senate won't take up a budget because it will be a politically difficult vote to take for many

of the incumbent Democratic Senators, already facing a tough race due to their support of the unpopular PPACA.

Sen. Reid won't take up the President's budget at all, no Democrat will introduce that campaign booklet, it has

actually fallen on Sen. McConnell to introduce it through a legislative maneuver. Constitutionally, Congress, specifically

the House of Representatives, can allocate funding however they want. Legally however, they are still bound

by the Budgeting act f 1974, and are acting in a lawless manner by refusing to follow the law.

  The notion of blaming the GOP for filibustering the budget is a "pants on fire" falsehood. Budget resolutions

are one of the very very few things that are not subject to filibuster at all. The impasse typically comes from the

House version of the budget, where it must originate, and the Senate amended version differing wildly, and neither

side willing to compromise or make a deal in good faith. In short, partisanship, which is an issue on both sides.

[crapshot2]

---

Jingai wrote:

  The notion of blaming the GOP for filibustering the budget is a "pants on fire" falsehood. Budget resolutions

are one of the very very few things that are not subject to filibuster at all.

---

no, it's calle dbeing obstructive and there are many ways to do it.

[Astromang]

---

GinaSzanboti wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

olmoldy wrote:

says right in there an unemployment rate of 25% and a downward spiral of 10% Thank You!

---

Right, because his source is more valid than mine? His doesn't have sources, but not like it matters to you. Keep #### on the FDR ####.

---

This is where the graph you linked to was used on Wikipedia.  That page says, "In 1933, 25% of all workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed.[36]"   It also says here, "Unemployment fell by ⅔ in Roosevelt's first term (from 25% to 9%, 1933–1937)..."

I suppose now you'll say Wiki's not a good source...

---

So the chart is wrong? Because even an idiot can read a chart and it clearly does not show that.

Also, I was reading the sources for Wiki and behold, the main point of what I was discussing in the first place turns out to be accurate.

"It is commonly argued that World War II provided the stimulus that brought the American economy out of the Great Depression. The number of unemployed workers declined by 7,050,000 between 1940 and 1943, but the number in military service rose by 8,590,000. The reduction in unemployment can be explained by the draft, not by the economic recovery."

[Jingai]

---

crapshot2 wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

  The notion of blaming the GOP for filibustering the budget is a "pants on fire" falsehood. Budget resolutions

are one of the very very few things that are not subject to filibuster at all.

---

no, it's calle dbeing obstructive and there are many ways to do it.

---

 In a general legislative session perhaps, in regards to the budget, no.

  The budget is really simple for a reason, it is expected to be written by the House Majority, a second version

submitted by the President if the House Majority party and the President are not the same, and introduced by

a Minority member on the finance committee, then it works through the House process, receiving amendments,

is voted on, then moves to the Senate, where it is amended and voted on. If the two versions differ, it goes to

conference committee, is hashed out, and a final version passed. The breakdown has been entirely because

of Senator Harry Reid and the Democrats refusing to vote on a budget. They have done so for purely partisan

political theater.

  The only way to really obstruct the budgeting process is to introduce amendments that are politically intolerable, but

those are often removed quickly. It doesn't really delay the process, it is just an excuse for grandstanding.

[Master-Debater131]

---

crapshot2 wrote:

---

Jingai wrote:

  The notion of blaming the GOP for filibustering the budget is a "pants on fire" falsehood. Budget resolutions

are one of the very very few things that are not subject to filibuster at all.

---

no, it's calle dbeing obstructive and there are many ways to do it.

---

How is being the only party to introduce a actual budget being obstructionist?

The Dems are flat out refusing to do one so it has fallen to the GOP to try to introduce one. 

[crapshot2]

---

Jingai wrote:

. The breakdown has been entirely because

of Senator Harry Reid and the Democrats refusing to vote on a budget. They have done so for purely partisan

political theater.

---

so kind of like when the republicans came up with bills just to filibuster them.

whats that called..... oh ya, obstruction

[crapshot2]

don't get me wrong, I am in no way an advocate for this.

you should know that

[GinaSzanboti]

---

Astromang wrote:

---

GinaSzanboti wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

olmoldy wrote:

says right in there an unemployment rate of 25% and a downward spiral of 10% Thank You!

---

Right, because his source is more valid than mine? His doesn't have sources, but not like it matters to you. Keep #### on the FDR ####.

---

This is where the graph you linked to was used on Wikipedia.  That page says, "In 1933, 25% of all workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed.[36]"   It also says here, "Unemployment fell by ⅔ in Roosevelt's first term (from 25% to 9%, 1933–1937)..."

I suppose now you'll say Wiki's not a good source...

---

So the chart is wrong? Because even an idiot can read a chart and it clearly does not show that.

---

Yes!  The chart is wrong!  Did you look at the source material for the chart? 

Source: Own work

Author: Lawrencekhoo

Dunno who the hell Lawrencekhoo is, but clearly his "own work" needs some work.

[Master-Debater131]

Oh i know.

I just dont see how you can say that the GOP are being obstructionist when they are the only ones who have put forth a budget in the Senate and they have actually passed a budget(even though a horrible one) in the House.


Neither party is innocent here but the Democrats have just flat out not done their job in the Senate. At least the GOP are producing a budget, the Senate hasn't even done that.

[crapshot2]

at this time, I think there are only a handfull of congressman and senators that actually understand what they where elected to do(on all three sides, I love me some sanders).

I sure as hell know the congressman in my district has no idea what he is doing.

it's all about making money now days and not actually trying to govern

[crapshot2]

and unfortunately the best way to make money is to hate the other side.

this guy is one of the worst.

[crapshot2]

what I find crazy is the old time journalists and people on the hill. you hear this on both sides. that during the 60's and 70's and 80's there where two sides but everyone was friends pretty much. they would go over and shake eachothers hand and really try to do something. it's like back then they understood the gravity of their position. you even hear of teams of republicans and democrats who worked together and where known for that. bitter rivals who came up with good legislation

now days that just doesn't happen. it makes me . seriously there are like 5 things republicans and democrats disagree with, it seems like there is a LOT more room for agreement than the #### going on now

[Master-Debater131]

Pretty much.

I wont be happy till all those rat bastards are gone.

It would be nice for them to put forth a budget though. Without one were just spending at the same levels as before, and thats simply unsustainable.

I dont feel like going the way of Greece but thats how were headed with our idiots leading the pack.

[crapshot2]

in all honesty, that is one of the reasons why I like obama, atleast he tries. I'm not like josey or astro, I like it when people who have apposing view come together and try and to be honest I think if it wasn't for the morons who got elected john baynor and obama could of been a pretty good team because they both seem like they want to try to work things out. it's just pressure from both sides poison the punch.

meh, I'll still probably end up voting vermin supreme. I'm in one of the most conservative counties in the nation.

[Astromang]

---

GinaSzanboti wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

GinaSzanboti wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

olmoldy wrote:

says right in there an unemployment rate of 25% and a downward spiral of 10% Thank You!

---

Right, because his source is more valid than mine? His doesn't have sources, but not like it matters to you. Keep #### on the FDR ####.

---

This is where the graph you linked to was used on Wikipedia.  That page says, "In 1933, 25% of all workers and 37% of all nonfarm workers were unemployed.[36]"   It also says here, "Unemployment fell by ⅔ in Roosevelt's first term (from 25% to 9%, 1933–1937)..."

I suppose now you'll say Wiki's not a good source...

---

So the chart is wrong? Because even an idiot can read a chart and it clearly does not show that.

---

Yes!  The chart is wrong!  Did you look at the source material for the chart? 

Source: Own work

Author: Lawrencekhoo

Dunno who the hell Lawrencekhoo is, but clearly his "own work" needs some work.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Depression_statistics

There is where he/she is getting thier numbers. There are two sets of unemployment statistics, and neither one have the U.S. going from 25% to 10% in 4 years. I have also pointed out, that you so conveniently left out, that my whole point that stimulus spending doesn't help for #### is correct.

[KnightStar]

---

Astromang wrote:

---

olmoldy wrote:

says right in there an unemployment rate of 25% and a downward spiral of 10% Thank You!

---

Right, because his source is more valid than mine? His doesn't have sources, but not like it matters to you. Keep #### on the FDR ####.

---

Those who don't read, acknowledge and learn from out history is doomed to repeat it and we did during this economic crisis.

FDR stands as proof of that.

You can skim the bottom of the intellectual barrel by resorting to saying someone is sucking FDR's cock, but that just shows us all how truly ignorant and pathetic you are.

All in all you made another exemplary post, proving why our country is in the shape it is, due to political faction blindness and ignorance of historical facts.

[Astromang]

---

KnightStar wrote:

---

Astromang wrote:

---

olmoldy wrote:

says right in there an unemployment rate of 25% and a downward spiral of 10% Thank You!

---

Right, because his source is more valid than mine? His doesn't have sources, but not like it matters to you. Keep #### on the FDR ####.

---

Those who don't read, acknowledge and learn from out history is doomed to repeat it and we did during this economic crisis.

FDR stands as proof of that.

You can skim the bottom of the intellectual barrel by resorting to saying someone is sucking FDR's cock, but that just shows us all how truly ignorant and pathetic you are.

All in all you made another exemplary post, proving why our country is in the shape it is, due to political faction blindness and ignorance of historical facts.

---

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html

It is commonly argued that World War II provided the stimulus that brought the American economy out of the Great Depression. The number of unemployed workers declined by 7,050,000 between 1940 and 1943, but the number in military service rose by 8,590,000. The reduction in unemployment can be explained by the draft, not by the economic recovery.

So what you're saying is we need another war...

[rotanalebor]

No, but I don't see why the equivalent wouldn't work: the direct hiring of most of the unemployed by the federal gov't, as well as a massive increases in federal spending on American manufacturing. WWII clearly proves that gov't hiring and spending on a grand scale will, in fact, lead to full employment and a booming economy.

This time, instead of hiring men into the military, we can hire them into a national infrastructure force. Instead of spending on manufacturing tanks, airplanes, bullets, and bombs we can spend on manufacturing mass transit equipment, massive wind and solar farms, new transmission lines and towers, and the like.

[Astromang]

---

rotanalebor wrote:
No, but I don't see why the equivalent wouldn't work: the direct hiring of most of the unemployed by the federal gov't, as well as a massive increases in federal spending on American manufacturing. WWII clearly proves that gov't hiring and spending on a grand scale will, in fact, lead to full employment and a booming economy.

That's a false conclusion. The reason why unemployment went down and we had a booming economy is because we were basically the only country in the world with any industry not bombed all to hell. Include in that fact that we were rebuilding most of Europe, Japan, China, and the Philipenes.

This time, instead of hiring men into the military, we can hire them into a national infrastructure force. Instead of spending on manufacturing tanks, airplanes, bullets, and bombs we can spend on manufacturing mass transit equipment, massive wind and solar farms, new transmission lines and towers, and the like.

I don't mind spending on infrastructure, but the stimulus wasn't that. We do need to focus more on roads, bridges, and an increase in public buildings like schools. However, I'm not into the idea of a bullet train because of the economics of building one in a large country like America just doesn't make sense. I'm also not into the idea of building solar or wind until they can be cost competitive with fossile fuels and reliable.

---

[KnightStar]

---

rotanalebor wrote:
No, but I don't see why the equivalent wouldn't work: the direct hiring of most of the unemployed by the federal gov't, as well as a massive increases in federal spending on American manufacturing. WWII clearly proves that gov't hiring and spending on a grand scale will, in fact, lead to full employment and a booming economy.

This time, instead of hiring men into the military, we can hire them into a national infrastructure force. Instead of spending on manufacturing tanks, airplanes, bullets, and bombs we can spend on manufacturing mass transit equipment, massive wind and solar farms, new transmission lines and towers, and the like.

---

Why do you have to make common sense rotanalebor?

I cannot agree enough with what you're saying, but what you're saying to the GOP mind equals Socialism.

[rotanalebor]

---

Astromang wrote:

That's a false conclusion. The reason why unemployment went down and we had a booming economy is because we were basically the only country in the world with any industry not bombed all to hell. Include in that fact that we were rebuilding most of Europe, Japan, China, and the Philipenes.

---

Wait, you were just arguing that the reason unemployment went down is because the federal gov't (the military) hired all the unemployed. Now it's because the rest of the world was in the crapper?

But that second argument only makes sense if 1) a significantly large portion (dollar-wise) of American firms were competing with foreign firms domestically and internationally prior to WWII, and 2) WWII had a significant impact on this competition.

(Hard data on balance of trade between nations is hard to come by for the early 20th century, but the United Nations Statistics Division has some historical reconstructions available. I'm referencing the data in Table XXIV - World Exports by Provenance and Destination below.)

True, in the years immediately following WWII, US exports increased rapidly compared to before the war: between 1938 and 1948 the value of US exports to the rest of the world went from $3.064 billion to $12.544 (+309%) while the value of exports to the US from the rest of the world over the same period went from $2.14 billion to $6.89 billion (+222%). The value of US exports also grew more than twice as fast as overall world exports during the same period. World exports increased from $22.8 billion in 1938 to $57.35 billion in 1948 (+151%).

But as a percentage of US GDP (see Table 2) exports only increased slightly between 1938 and 1948, from 3.4% ($3.064 billion of $89 billion) to 4.9% ($12.544 of $256.6 billion). Or, to look at it another way, the growth in exports between 1938 and 1948 ($9.48 billion) accounted for only 5.7% of the overall growth in GDP over the same period ($167.60 billion) . The other 94.3% was from growth in the domestic market.

tldr; growth in US exports alone doesn't come close to accounting for overall growth in the US economy between 1938 and 1948.

[Iowa_CubsFan]

FDR should have spent more money to get the depression over and done with.

He didn't do it the right way, but the idea was a good idea.

BECAUSE FOR THE LAST TIME YOU F*CKS NOT SPENDING DURING A DEPRESSION IS THE WRONG THING TO DO!


Please note Hoover's term as president. OOPS!