Excuses wearing thin for Obama, media pals

[Winman]

Roosevelt did not pull us out of the Great Depression, he made it worse. And like Obama, he used it to institute huge government. Here is an interesting article.

http://www.libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/us-the-new-deal.html

There's no doubt that Roosevelt changed the character of the American government--for the worse. Many of the reforms of the 1930s remain embedded in policy today: acreage allotments, price supports and marketing controls in agriculture, extensive regulation of private securities, federal intrusion into union-management relations, government lending and insurance activities, the minimum wage, national unemployment insurance, Social Security and welfare payments, production and sale of electrical power by the federal government, fiat money--the list goes on.

 

[alatide]

Roosevelt did not pull us out of the Great Depression, he made it worse. And like Obama, he used it to institute huge government. Here is an interesting article.

http://www.libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/us-the-new-deal.html

Most people consider GNP as the measuring stick to indicate when recessions/depressions begin and end. Here is a chart of the GNP during the Great depression. Notice that the US GNP reached bottom almost exactly when Roosevelt took office.

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

When Roosevelt was inaugurated in March 1933, the U.S. was at the nadir of the worst depression in its history. A quarter of the workforce was unemployed. Farmers were in deep trouble as prices fell by 60%. Industrial production had fallen by more than half since 1929. Two million were homeless. Due to the lack of employment, organized crime and outlaws were on the rise, such as John Dillinger. By the evening of March 4, 32 of the 48 states, as well as the District of Columbia had closed their banks.[48] The New York Federal Reserve Bank was unable to open on the 5th, as huge sums had been withdrawn by panicky customers in previous days.[49] Beginning with his inauguration address, Roosevelt began blaming the economic crisis on bankers and financiers, the quest for profit, and the self-interest basis of capitalism:

“Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence....The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit.[50] ”

Historians categorized Roosevelt's program as "relief, recovery and reform." Relief was urgently needed by tens of millions of unemployed. Recovery meant boosting the economy back to normal. Reform meant long-term fixes of what was wrong, especially with the financial and banking systems. Roosevelt's series of radio talks, known as fireside chats, presented his proposals directly to the American public.[51]

 

[rbell]

ah, yes...wikipedia: the paragon of objective research.

The stats show that economic growth and unemployment did not surge until WW2. Roosevelt's plan was not the raging success that history remembers.

 

[alatide]

ah, yes...wikipedia: the paragon of objective research.

The stats show that economic growth and unemployment did not surge until WW2. Roosevelt's plan was not the raging success that history remembers.

How is it determined when we enter a recession and when we exit one?

 

[carpro]

Doesn't matter.

Obama's programs are failing TODAY.

Consistently.

 

[rbell]

How is it determined when we enter a recession and when we exit one?

A most excellent question.

And the answer must be consistent.

 

[alatide]

A most excellent question.

And the answer must be consistent.

Most excellent. So what is your answer?

 

[carpro]

Most excellent. So what is your answer?

Doesn't matter.

Obama's programs are failing TODAY.

Consistently.

And he rerfuses to take responsibility for their failure.

Instead he whines about everything being Bush's fault.

 

[alatide]

ah, yes...wikipedia: the paragon of objective research.

The stats show that economic growth and unemployment did not surge until WW2. Roosevelt's plan was not the raging success that history remembers.

Provide us with another site for GNP data instaed of just criticizing.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So if Alatude is right, then we only have 15 years of bad times ahead, than a world war will break out & we'll be saved.

 

[rbell]

Provide us with another site for GNP data instaed of just criticizing.

Simply using the GNP leaves out too many factors (consumer confidence, price index, and especially the unemployment rate.

IMO, the National Bureau of Economic Research handles this data the best (and seems to me to be the least partisan).

Here are their expansion/contraction cycles: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

In the mid to late 1930's, there was a significant period of contraction.



I still stand by my point: History has been re-written to make Roosevelt the one who led us out of the Great Depression. I don't think it was anywhere near that cut and dried.

Not to mention, some of his "new deal" ideas will likely bankrupt this country one day.

 

[alatide]

Simply using the GNP leaves out too many factors (consumer confidence, price index, and especially the unemployment rate.

IMO, the National Bureau of Economic Research handles this data the best (and seems to me to be the least partisan).

Here are their expansion/contraction cycles: http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

In the mid to late 1930's, there was a significant period of contraction.



I still stand by my point: History has been re-written to make Roosevelt the one who led us out of the Great Depression. I don't think it was anywhere near that cut and dried.

Not to mention, some of his "new deal" ideas will likely bankrupt this country one day.

Take up the question of how a recession is defined with the Wall Street Journal.

July 31, 2008, 8:31 AM ET
The GDP Debate: Did a Recession Start in 2007?
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/07/31/the-gdp-debate-did-a-recession-start-in-2007/

The government today released its annual revisions to GDP data for the past three years. And among the changes is this turnabout: The economy contracted slightly in the fourth quarter of 2007.

Could the decline in GDP in the fourth quarter of 2007 mark the beginning of a recession? Certainly not yet by the most common definition that calls for two straight quarters of declining GDP.

 

[rbell]

Let's see...who's definition would I take...

• A partisan hack paper, who has a reputation for bogus journalism, and does not understand complex economic principles...
• ...or an entity like the National Bureau of Economic Research: with real economists, and a non-partisan approach (e.g., no agenda, unlike the Times...the official news service of the People's Republic of Amerika)?

NBER, hands-down. They know their stuff, and they aren't pushing a pre-set agenda, like the NYT "journalists" are.

 

[alatide]

Let's see...who's definition would I take...

• A partisan hack paper, who has a reputation for bogus journalism, and does not understand complex economic principles...
• ...or an entity like the National Bureau of Economic Research: with real economists, and a non-partisan approach (e.g., no agenda, unlike the Times...the official news service of the People's Republic of Amerika)?

NBER, hands-down. They know their stuff, and they aren't pushing a pre-set agenda, like the NYT "journalists" are.

The Wall Street Journal is a "bogus, hack" newspaper? It is fairly conservative but I don't think overly so. All this article is doing is repeating the accepted definition of a recession.

 

[carpro]

Let's see...who's definition would I take...

• A partisan hack paper, who has a reputation for bogus journalism, and does not understand complex economic principles...
• ...or an entity like the National Bureau of Economic Research: with real economists, and a non-partisan approach (e.g., no agenda, unlike the Times...the official news service of the People's Republic of Amerika)?

NBER, hands-down. They know their stuff, and they aren't pushing a pre-set agenda, like the NYT "journalists" are.

You can't argue with a troll.

They are not interested in the facts nor the truth.

Alatide is a troll. I believe you know that.

 

[ccrobinson]

Take up the question of how a recession is defined with the Wall Street Journal.

They know their stuff, and they aren't pushing a pre-set agenda, like the NYT "journalists" are.

When did the Wall Street Journal start equaling the New York Times? I thought those were 2 different papers.

 

[alatide]

You can't argue with a troll.

They are not interested in the facts nor the truth.

Alatide is a troll. I believe you know that.

I've posted previously the definition of a troll and you fit it perfectly.

 

[rbell]

When did the Wall Street Journal start equaling the New York Times? I thought those were 2 different papers.

My apologies to all. I misread the link.