GOP Voted 19 Times To Increase Debt Limit By $4 Trillion During Bush Presidency

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Fact is, he raises a lot of points that you are unable to answer. Doesn't matter who he is, he still has valid points.

There's nothing in there that needs answering as all that is, is another rightwing attempt to rewrite history. Like I said, I'm not surprised that came from a Rupert Murdoch publication.

Let's compare the unemployment rate during every president since FDR to FDR's first 8 years in office...

Unemployment rate
1932: 24.1%
1940: 14.6%

He got into office in 1933, not 1932

Seriously??? You don't know that the 24.1% for 1932 represents the average all of 1932? FDR started 3 months after that and 9 months of 1933 were under his watch. You are excluding 9 months of his term by starting at the end of 1933.

But let's go with your figures ... 8 years (so we can compare him to other two-term presidents) starting from 1933 ...

Unemployment rate: drop of 60%
1933: 24.9%
1941: 9.9%

GDP: increased 91%
1933: 716.4
1941: 1,366.1

No president in U.S. history had unemployment drop 60% in their 8 years; No president in U.S. history had GDP increase 91% in their 8 years ... no wonder FDR was re-elected over and over and over.

This is the unemployment rates
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16.9%
in 1937: 14.3%
in 1938: 19.0%
in 1939: 17.2%

Northing impressive with these rates.

Again, you're looking only as far as FDR's worst year. You can't be more dishonest. That would be like saying Reagan was the worst president in history based on 1981 through 1983, when 3 million jobs were lost. You can't cherry pick dates and to make a bogus aha! point.

What should have happened is this
in 1934: 21.7%
in 1935: 20.1%
in 1936: 16%
in 1937: 10%
in 1938: 7%
in 1939: 5%%

Meaningless made up bull****.

We don't measure unemployment in percentage, so you just wasted your time.

WTF?? You haven't seen the headlines when last month's unemployment figures came out?

- US jobless rate rises to 9.0%
- April Jobs Up 244,000; Unemployment 9.0 Percent
- US jobless rate rises but more jobs created

We also have to take into account that his unemployment rate was very high when he got into office. This means that he should be able to reduce unemployment. He wasn't able to and his growth rates was low.

True, we do have to take into account that unemployment was extremely high when he took over, still that doesn't mean he, or anyone, could necessarily come down as fast as they went up. They could have stayed that high, they could have gone up higher. There was no magic that could have ended a depression that severe in just a few years. Conservatives haved no basis in reality for trying to rewrite history decades later; as though they knew how to end the massive depression they gave us. :roll:

That's why I said his policies hurt more than they helped.

I know, FDR couldn't fix the Republican mess fast enough for you. Dropping unemployment 60% in his first two terms wasn't good enough for you, even though that was better than every other president. Increasing GDP 91% in his first two terms wasn't good enough for you, even though that was better than every other president.

 

[Camlon]

Because the U.S. was not yet fighting in it.

Doesn't matter, the war changed the dynamics of world trade.

Yes, he resumed the New Deal programs he scaled back on when he was trying to balance the budget. And just like before he scaled back on New Deal programs, the economy grew.

I trust the article here more than you. As we can see from my data, wages increased much more rapidly from 1936-1937, than from 1938-1940.

Because he was in office and began passing his policies in 1933.

Because he was in office and began passing his policies in 1933.

Doesn't matter, there is limited impact you can do on the economy the first year. That's why we don't blame the economic crisis on Obama.

Now it's 31%? Before it was 30% ... and I'm the one making a mistake? Ok, let's go with your new number of 31% ... that's a difference of 11% ... the population in the U.S. grew at just 3½% ... how do you get 11%?? Also, did you adjust the figures for all the other countries you listed for population growth?

I don't think you know how to take into account population increase, because calculating the difference is certinally not the way to do it. Let me show where you are going wrong.
100*1.35/100 = 1.35
100*1.35/100*1.035 = 130.45

So, the actual number is 30%.

I'll accept this to mean you concede that no president saw GDP rise in their 8 years as FDR saw in his first 8. Being best just isn't good enough for you.

Not when he could have done way better in that period. Other presidents didn't have anything close to what potential growth he had. If we compare him to other places who had experienced the same, we see a completly different picture. Azerbaijan had a growth rate of 140% with similar conditions.

Again, comparing different countries is meaningless; different parts of the world go through different economic booms and recessions, sometimes even at the same time ... different culture, different resources, different production, different consumption, different economies ... there is just no way to compare those apples and oranges.

Not true. There is no reason why US shouldn't rebound much faster. There was nothing holdning back the US, the conditions were favourable.

That chart shows what I've been saying -- the economy grew every year under FDR during the Great Depression except for 1938, the year he gave into Republicans' demands that he balance the budget.

In what way does that graph show you that?

It says nothing about the deficit at all. The point I made was that the income increased too fast from 1936 - 1937.

That article is about dropping interest rates to spur economic growth. We did that in 2001/2002 and it also spurred growth from 2003-2007. So?

I'm not using the article. I'm only using the hraph. Stick to the point.

COLOR=blue]So? Their GDP increased steadily over the last 30 years ... Finland's government spending also increased during the 80's and into the 90's; Sweden's spending went through periods in the 80's and 90's where it increased and other times when it decreased, but GDP still increased -- so where's the correlation?[/COLOR]

You are trying to put strawmen on me. I'm showing you why spending cuts won't cause a crisis. Also, he did in fact not reduce spending, but he increased taxes. Or got more revenue from his taxes.

You can have spending increases and a high GDP growth, just look at the second world war. FDR was no big spender. His problem was that he let unions drive the wages above market level. This prevented the market from correcting itself, unemployment remained high and growth rates was lower than potential.

http://www.polsci.org/pluemper/courses/gv307_m14.pdf

Not to mention, as a Conservative, I'm surprised you would even mention how strong Sweden's GDP has been given they have some of the highest taxation in the world. Kind of goes against everything Conservatives say about high taxes.

If you look at everything black and white like you do, then I would't say that.

But Sweden GDP growth after the crisis in 1993 was strong. Also, remember that Sweden shifted towards the right in 1993. Just look at their heritage ranking which has increased from 60 (lowest in Europe) to 74.

Sweden do still have high taxes, but taxes is not everything. Secondly, governmental spending in Sweden is only 21% higher than America. What matters a lot more is regulation, especially the wrong type of regulation. If you look at developed countries, you will not find one country who tries to force wages above market level. Still in developing countries they do that all the time. You will not find one place where they try to take over businesses or force businesses to lower prices, in developing countries they do that all the time. In developed countries you will find sound regulation, a justice system that is fair, efficient and based on private property rights, trade freedom, and a business system that is noncorrupt. Scandinavian countries are quite free, and has a demographic advantage, so why would a conservative expect them to have a low GDP per capita.

I don't really mind liberals who are just interested in helping poor people and think we need higher taxes to do that. Problem is that many liberals are either

Economic misguided liberals - liberals who think that Sweden is some kind of socialist paradise, but don't know that Sweden is quite free, and that we have to adopt all of their policies, not just the left-wing ones. Secondly, they don't realize that if US adopted Scandinavian policies US would look like a mixture of UK and France, not Scandinavia.

Cultural liberals - These people are the worst. They often disguise themselves as European right-wing, but they are not. They think that all problems around the world can be blamed on west, especially the US. They also think that we have to take in lots of asylum seekers, even if there are other more efficient way of helping them. You are not allowed to be in favour tough punishments, against abortions, against homosexual marriage. They also have limited free speech. For instance a preist ended up in prison in Sweden for stating that homosexuality was a sin. It is also inconsistent, since Imams says that all the time without ending up in prison.

These people have ****ed up Sweden. For instance Sweden has seen a 300% increase in violent crime the last 30 years, but you are not allowed to talk about it. These people are to blame for this. In Sweden, if you are not a cultural liberal, then you are a racists and a monster. This kind of thinking got much stronger when socialists lost the economical battle.

 

[Camlon]

There's nothing in there that needs answering as all that is, is another rightwing attempt to rewrite history. Like I said, I'm not surprised that came from a Rupert Murdoch publication.

No, you just don't want to answer it. However, you don't need to. It's not meant for you.

Seriously??? You don't know that the 24.1% for 1932 represents the average all of 1932? FDR started 3 months after that and 9 months of 1933 were under his watch. You are excluding 9 months of his term by starting at the end of 1933.

The unemployment in 1932 should not be included, because there is no way he could have affected the unemployment from 1932 to 1933.

But let's go with your figures ... 8 years (so we can compare him to other two-term presidents) starting from 1933 ...

Unemployment rate: drop of 60%
1933: 24.9%
1941: 9.9%

GDP: increased 91%
1933: 716.4
1941: 1,366.1

No president in U.S. history had unemployment drop 60% in their 8 years; No president in U.S. history had GDP increase 91% in their 8 years ... no wonder FDR was re-elected over and over and over.

You are including the war and when he changed his policies.

I'm using the period 1933 to 1939, with a drop of 30% in unemployment.

Again, you're looking only as far as FDR's worst year. You can't be more dishonest. That would be like saying Reagan was the worst president in history based on 1981 through 1983, when 3 million jobs were lost. You can't cherry pick dates and to make a bogus aha! point.

No, it's not because you would have no reason to pick 1981 to 1983 for Reagan. I'm talking about his policies before the war, not his policies in the war,

Meaningless made up bull****.

Not really. This is what generally happens in other countries.

WTF?? You haven't seen the headlines when last month's unemployment figures came out?

- US jobless rate rises to 9.0%
- April Jobs Up 244,000; Unemployment 9.0 Percent
- US jobless rate rises but more jobs created

Those kind of rates are not used to compare presidents, but to compare one date to another. When you compare presidents, then you can't compare the percentage increase of one president who starts at 7% and decreases to 6% with a President who starts at 24% and decreases to 17% and say that one of them was better than the other.

True, we do have to take into account that unemployment was extremely high when he took over, still that doesn't mean he, or anyone, could necessarily come down as fast as they went up. They could have stayed that high, they could have gone up higher. There was no magic that could have ended a depression that severe in just a few years. Conservatives haved no basis in reality for trying to rewrite history decades later; as though they knew how to end the massive depression they gave us. :roll:


I know, FDR couldn't fix the Republican mess fast enough for you. Dropping unemployment 60% in his first two terms wasn't good enough for you, even though that was better than every other president. Increasing GDP 91% in his first two terms wasn't good enough for you, even though that was better than every other president.

Not true, a market have a tendancy to correct itself. How further it is from the market equilibrium, how faster does it correct itself. Take a look at Australia under the depression
http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/110/images/3round-5.gif
How come they corrected themselves so much faster without any FDR and massive increase in wages?

And your numbers are not correct. In the period i'm talking (before the war) the GDP was increased by 30% and the unemployment was reduced by 30%. That is not an impressive result for a five/six year period after one of Americas worst crisis. Also, as mentioned in the article, the number of hours worked fell.

I have told you why I pick them, so either you should debate why you want to use war-data. Or you need to realize that I'm not criticising him for his performance during the war. He actually did learn from his mistakes, but covered it up.

 

[Councilman]

During Bush Presidency, Current GOP Leaders Voted 19 Times To Increase Debt Limit By $4 Trillion

Think Progress- By Travis Waldron at 11:49 am

After pushing the government to brink of shutdown last week, Republican Congressional leaders are now preparing to push America to the edge of default by refusing to increase the nation’s debt limit without first getting Democrats to concede to large spending cuts.

But while the four Republicans in Congressional leadership positions are attempting to hold the increase hostage now, they combined to vote for a debt limit increase 19 times during the presidency of George W. Bush. In doing so, they increased the debt limit by nearly $4 trillion.

At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from the four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:

Current GOP Leaders Voted 19 Times To Increase Debt Limit By $4 Trillion During Bush Presidency « Suzie-Q's Truth and Justice Blog

So what gives?? Why the sudden worry about the debt and the debt limit?? Is it just because there is a democrat in office?? Talk about hypocrisy..

You do know there is a limit to madness no matter who is behind it, favors it, or benefits from it, and now it's time to change directions or go under.

 

[Camlon]

WTF?? You haven't seen the headlines when last month's unemployment figures came out?

- US jobless rate rises to 9.0%
- April Jobs Up 244,000; Unemployment 9.0 Percent
- US jobless rate rises but more jobs created

Didn't read this properly.

In fact, you are reading the data wrong. When it says, up to 9.0%. They don't mean that unemployment has increased by 9.0%. It means that unemployment is 9.0% and that validates my point. We don't use increase or descrese in junemployment as a measurement.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Doesn't matter, the war changed the dynamics of world trade.

You're desperate. The '37 recession ended more than a year before the war in Europe began and the economy was growing again here, just as it was prior to the recession. The economic impact to America came after we entered the war.

I trust the article here more than you. As we can see from my data, wages increased much more rapidly from 1936-1937, than from 1938-1940.

So? Should I be surprised that a Conservative believes what Rupert Murdoch publishes? It's still a biased source and you still can't explain why the economy began growing again in the fall of 1938 since, according to you, the Wagner Act caused the recession and the Wagner Act was still in effect. You're grasping for the nearest straw you can reach.

Doesn't matter, there is limited impact you can do on the economy the first year. That's why we don't blame the economic crisis on Obama.

Ok, so looking at the 8 year period following 1933 we had a 60% drop in unemployment, unprecedented for an 8 year period; and 91% increase in GDP, also unprecedented for an 8 year period.

I don't think you know how to take into account population increase, because calculating the difference is certinally not the way to do it. Let me show where you are going wrong.
100*1.35/100 = 1.35
100*1.35/100*1.035 = 130.45

So, the actual number is 30%.

Ok, even at 30%, that is still better than any other 5 year period for any president in U.S. history. And that was in the middle of the Great Depression.

Azerbaijan had a growth rate of 140% with similar conditions.

Link?

Not true. There is no reason why US shouldn't rebound much faster. There was nothing holdning back the US, the conditions were favourable.

More unadulterated bull**** -- we were mired in the Great Depression and conditions were dissolving when FDR took over.

That chart shows what I've been saying -- the economy grew every year under FDR during the Great Depression except for 1938, the year he gave into Republicans' demands that he balance the budget.

In what way does that graph show you that?

It says nothing about the deficit at all. The point I made was that the income increased too fast from 1936 - 1937.

My point was about the economy growing in every year except 1938 -- that is what that chart reflected.

That article is about dropping interest rates to spur economic growth. We did that in 2001/2002 and it also spurred growth from 2003-2007. So?

I'm not using the article. I'm only using the hraph. Stick to the point.

Ummm, the graph goes with the article. The point you were trying to make is that GDP in those countries went up because of a decrease in government spending (a cause and effect you failed to prove), but the article which included that graph attributed the increase in GDP to lowered interest rates. Something which is plausible since as I pointed out, something the U.S. did which also spurred economic growth. Furthermore, to prove your point wrong, I posted graphs showing the government spending of those countries and showed how even as their GDP steadily increased, it occurred even as spending increased.

You are trying to put strawmen on me. I'm showing you why spending cuts won't cause a crisis. Also, he did in fact not reduce spending, but he increased taxes. Or got more revenue from his taxes.

Yes, he did reduce spending during that period:

1935: 6,412
1936: 8,228
1937: 7,580
1938: 6,840
1939: 9,141

No, you just don't want to answer it. However, you don't need to. It's not meant for you.

No, it's nothing but an attempt to rewrite history, but it fails because the economy got better every year under FDR during the Depression except for 1938. FDR's first two terms during the Great Depression saw an unprecedented decrease in unemployment of 60% and an unprecedented increase of GDP of 91% -- Rupert Murdoch cannot rewrite that.

You are including the war and when he changed his policies.

I'm using the period 1933 to 1939, with a drop of 30% in unemployment.

Yes, you are cherry-picking portions of his administration during the Great Depression which suit your point. That's dishonest. You want to only look at the data up until the worst year in his administration. I am not including when we entered the war, which is what had the greatest impact on our economy.

Again, you're looking only as far as FDR's worst year. You can't be more dishonest. That would be like saying Reagan was the worst president in history based on 1981 through 1983, when 3 million jobs were lost. You can't cherry pick dates and to make a bogus aha! point.

No, it's not because you would have no reason to pick 1981 to 1983 for Reagan. I'm talking about his policies before the war, not his policies in the war

Well I could do what you're doing and make up any excuse within range to justify cherry-picking dates. FDR's fiscal policies that were war related prior to us entering the war had little impact on the economy.

And again, the economy resumed improving even before the war in Europe erupted. The growth we experienced from the fall of 1938 through the end of 1941 had little influence from the war.

Not really. This is what generally happens in other countries.

Umm, yes, really. Any numbers you throw out are made up. They never existed. I could just as easily postulate that without the New Deal, the numbers could have been, 1934: 21.7%, 22.1%, 23.8%, 25.5%, 27.2%, 28.8%; those numbers are equally worthless. The Great Depression was not "general," it was extreme.

Those kind of rates are not used to compare presidents, but to compare one date to another. When you compare presidents, then you can't compare the percentage increase of one president who starts at 7% and decreases to 6% with a President who starts at 24% and decreases to 17% and say that one of them was better than the other.

Nonsense. Percentage of change is the only way to compare performance. Unemployment nearly doubled under Bush ... that's a percentage increase in unemployment and is a perfectly reasonable method to use for comparison purposes. If FDR's policies had failed, unemployment, as high as it was, could have increased. It didn't. It dropped and over the course of his first two terms, dropped more than any other president.

That's still not good enough for you. :roll:

Not true, a market have a tendancy to correct itself. How further it is from the market equilibrium, how faster does it correct itself. Take a look at Australia under the depression
http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents...s/3round-5.gif
How come they corrected themselves so much faster without any FDR and massive increase in wages?

Again, meaningless. Different countries were affected differently. Different countries have different economies. Australia's economy was based largely on borrowing money which is why they were hit hard by the Depression. Perhaps they found other countries not hit as hard by the Depression to borrow from. Still, there is nothing learned by comparing different countries.

And your numbers are not correct. In the period i'm talking (before the war) the GDP was increased by 30% and the unemployment was reduced by 30%. That is not an impressive result for a five/six year period after one of Americas worst crisis. Also, as mentioned in the article, the number of hours worked fell.

My numbers are correct -- you're cherry-picking dates, I'm not. I'm looking at the entirety of FDR's first 2 terms.

Didn't read this properly.
In fact, you are reading the data wrong. When it says, up to 9.0%. They don't mean that unemployment has increased by 9.0%. It means that unemployment is 9.0% and that validates my point. We don't use increase or descrese in junemployment as a measurement.

Don't be ridiculous, of course percentage of increases/decreases are used as measurement...

The largest over-the-year percentage increase occurred in North Dakota (+3.9 percent), followed by Alaska and Texas (+2.5 percent each) and Nebraska (+1.9 percent). The four states reporting over-the-year percentage declines in employment were New Jersey (-0.2 percent), and Nevada, New Mexico, and South Dakota (less than -0.1 percent each).

Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary

 

[BentWingedAngel]

And nothing else matters..........................

Sums it up nicely! Also those of you waiting for the "trickle down of the republican golden shower" well good luck with that. (suckers)

 

[cpwill]

Sums it up nicely!

it does indeed. the math, unfortunately, does not allow us to experience 8 years that are similar to the last 3.

 

[Camlon]

You're desperate. The '37 recession ended more than a year before the war in Europe began and the economy was growing again here, just as it was prior to the recession. The economic impact to America came after we entered the war.

It is silly to expect the economy to drop every single year. The crisis in 1938, caused the wages to drop and the economy could recover again. It would only keep going down if wages kept increasing at the same speed.

Ok, so looking at the 8 year period following 1933 we had a 60% drop in unemployment, unprecedented for an 8 year period; and 91% increase in GDP, also unprecedented for an 8 year period.

Sure, but you are again including the years during the war when the dynamics of trade changed and he changed his policies. I'm not criticicing his war policies, so the years we are using are 1933 to 1939. In that period he had a drop of 30% in unemployment and 30% increase in GDP.

Also, you were wrong. Can you admit it?

Ok, even at 30%, that is still better than any other 5 year period for any president in U.S. history. And that was in the middle of the Great Depression.

No, it wasn't. This was in the middle of recovery after the Depression. Getting 30% growth and a 30% drop in unemployment over a five year period after a crisis like this is not impressive. Australia did way better, and so did all the other examples I gave you. The only argument you got is to compare him with other Presidents who did not experence similar conditions.

Link?

Indexmundi, check it yourself.

More unadulterated bull**** -- we were mired in the Great Depression and conditions were dissolving when FDR took over.

When he took over the economy was rebounding. See the article, it clearly states why things were getting better in economic terms.

My point was about the economy growing in every year except 1938 -- that is what that chart reflected.

There is no debate about that, and if I wanted to show that I would just use a GDP chart. However, you are going away from the main point. Incomes were increasing too fast during 1936- 1937 and that caused companies to downsize again. I showed you an income chart, because I wanted to give you evidence that income increased too fast.

Ummm, the graph goes with the article. The point you were trying to make is that GDP in those countries went up because of a decrease in government spending (a cause and effect you failed to prove), but the article which included that graph attributed the increase in GDP to lowered interest rates. Something which is plausible since as I pointed out, something the U.S. did which also spurred economic growth. Furthermore, to prove your point wrong, I posted graphs showing the government spending of those countries and showed how even as their GDP steadily increased, it occurred even as spending increased.

No, I'm not. learn to read. I wrote that small spending cuts won't cause a crisis in a recovery. I gave you the chart, you demanded that I gave you the labels, I gave you the article which also show the labels. You started to comment on the article. I'm only using the chart.

The spending didn't increase. You can not cut spending by 5% and still have an expaning governmental sector when growth rates are around 3%. Also, shouldn't after your theories a spending cut like that cause a crisis?

Yes, he did reduce spending during that period:

1935: 6,412
1936: 8,228
1937: 7,580
1938: 6,840
1939: 9,141

Your numbers are not sourced. I used this source and then I got

1934 5.94
1935 7.55
1936 9.17
1937 8.81
1938 8.45

Government Spending Chart in United States 1920-1940 - Federal State Local

Spending pretty much remained stable. Still, these "spening cuts" should not cause a crisis, because other countries who cut a lot more do not get crisis. So why should tiny spending cuts cause a crisis? Here is the numbers after the war

1945 106.88
1946 66.53
1947 41.40
1948 35.59

This is a much more major spending cut, lots of people came back from the war, but unemployment remained stable. How do you explain that?

Yes, you are cherry-picking portions of his administration during the Great Depression which suit your point. That's dishonest. You want to only look at the data up until the worst year in his administration. I am not including when we entered the war, which is what had the greatest impact on our economy.

I'm not cherry picking I have already told you about 10 times why I don't use war-numbers. You have still not answered.

Well I could do what you're doing and make up any excuse within range to justify cherry-picking dates. FDR's fiscal policies that were war related prior to us entering the war had little impact on the economy.

And again, the economy resumed improving even before the war in Europe erupted. The growth we experienced from the fall of 1938 through the end of 1941 had little influence from the war.

Not correct. The war broke out in 1939, and the war gave US a huge potential export market. Government don't have to do anything, the private market will also do the same.

Secondly, he changed his policies somewhat after the crisis in 1938 and he did learn. You can see that the wage increases were much lower after 1938. That's why I don't use war numbers.

Umm, yes, really. Any numbers you throw out are made up. They never existed. I could just as easily postulate that without the New Deal, the numbers could have been, 1934: 21.7%, 22.1%, 23.8%, 25.5%, 27.2%, 28.8%; those numbers are equally worthless. The Great Depression was not "general," it was extreme.

However, these numbers can not happen in a free market economy with a low natural unemployment rate. In 1933 the growth rate was about 0 without FDRs policies. In a growing economy the businesses would expand by hiring cheap unemployed workers.

Secondly, it is against all historical evidence. The numbers I gave is quite similar to Australia's numbers.

Nonsense. Percentage of change is the only way to compare performance. Unemployment nearly doubled under Bush ... that's a percentage increase in unemployment and is a perfectly reasonable method to use for comparison purposes. If FDR's policies had failed, unemployment, as high as it was, could have increased. It didn't. It dropped and over the course of his first two terms, dropped more than any other president.

I already told you why you don't use percentage increase. For instance can you compare one president who had unemployed at 24% and it only decreased to 17% with a President who started with an unemployment of 3% and it increased to 5%, but remained low.

No, you need to look at how well they did compared to how well they could have done.

Again, meaningless. Different countries were affected differently. Different countries have different economies. Australia's economy was based largely on borrowing money which is why they were hit hard by the Depression. Perhaps they found other countries not hit as hard by the Depression to borrow from. Still, there is nothing learned by comparing different countries.

There is northing to learn to compare different countries?

Also, if FDR policies was a success. Then why was his performance so weak compared to other countries who experienced similar crisis. Your only explanation is debunked lots of times. You said it was due to spending cuts, but the spending cuts were moderate and other countries have cut spending with a lot more without causing a crisis.

My numbers are correct -- you're cherry-picking dates, I'm not. I'm looking at the entirety of FDR's first 2 terms.

No, you are looking at it superficially and not adjusting for what we want to compare. I want to compare his performance before the second world war when he changed his policies and got a faverouble market. Why would I use war-numbers? If I was really cherry-picking then I would use the time period from 1934 to 1938 and get 17% growth and 25% drop in unemployment.

Your argument makes no sense. Think about this, global warming is pretty recently affected by temeprature increases. If you chose to use every 100 years and compare them to each other, then you probably won't find very much difference. However, we should use the numbers when the CO2-concentration got high. That is not cherry picking, but picking the data that suits the purpose.

Don't be ridiculous, of course percentage of increases/decreases are used as measurement...

The largest over-the-year percentage increase occurred in North Dakota (+3.9 percent), followed by Alaska and Texas (+2.5 percent each) and Nebraska (+1.9 percent). The four states reporting over-the-year percentage declines in employment were New Jersey (-0.2 percent), and Nevada, New Mexico, and South Dakota (less than -0.1 percent each).

Are you kidding me?

Employment is not the same as unemployment. :doh

 

[American]

WOW both of the above posts give excellent info! Thanks guys! So much went on during the yrs. of the shrub that most Americans are not aware of. Now Boner is holding the nation hostage (once again) just to get his way. I see the pubs as "the terrible 2's." I remember being horrified when Bush went on the telly telling folkks to "go out & spend" This was when things were just really getting bad with folks & credit card debt.

This is a childish post. First you thank the two previous posts, then go straight into hack mode. You took Bush totally out of context as well.

 

[Geo Patric]

;roll;
right, okay. ) let me know when you are willing to pick up the subject. ;mrgreen;

again, please forgive the lack of smilies. my trite symbolism account is a trifle low this fiscal quarter.

I can tell you now when i will be willing to discuss anything you like (except pop culture... i do not keep up, much).

I will be willing when you are capable of putting up more than your personal partisan biases mingled with those of others, equally partisan and equally biased stirred into garbled pseudodata and whipped to a oily froth of ideological propaganda.

show facts. THEN opine on what the facts mean. then, if you care to, share the opinions of others whose qualifications to comment make listening to their opinions worth the time. but do not let my prejudices for valid information dissuade you from sharing your ideological bigotry with like-minded others... there are plenty of those to keep you entertained, i am sure.

geo.

 

[cpwill]

again, please forgive the lack of smilies. my trite symbolism account is a trifle low this fiscal quarter.

I can tell you now when i will be willing to discuss anything you like

excellent. let us start with studies of the effects of keynesian stimulus programs:

...Perhaps the most compelling research on this subject is a very recent study by my colleagues Alberto Alesina and Silvia Ardagna at Harvard. They used data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to identify every major fiscal stimulus adopted by the 30 OECD countries between 1970 and 2007. Alesina and Ardagna then separated those plans that were in fact followed by robust economic growth from those that were not, and compared their characteristics. They found that the stimulus packages that appeared to be successful had cut business and income taxes, while those that evidently did not succeed had increased government spending and transfer payments....

and breaking down within those attempts by a couple of critical factors:

“How Big (Small?) Are Fiscal Multipliers?” by economists Ethan Ilzetzki, Enrique Mendoza, and Carlos Vegh, looks at how the impact of government fiscal stimulus depends on key country characteristics, including the level of development, the exchange-rate regime, openness to trade, and public indebtedness. NBER Digest explains:

After analyzing a quarterly data set on government expenditures for 44 countries (20 high-income and 24 developing) from 1960 to 2007, they conclude that the output effect of an increase in government consumption is larger in industrial than in developing countries. That response — which is called the fiscal multiplier — is relatively large in economies operating under a predetermined exchange rate, but it is zero in economies operating under flexible exchange rates. Finally, they conclude that fiscal multipliers are smaller in open economies than in closed economies, and are zero in high-debt countries...​

The three authors conclude:

We have found that the effect of government consumption is very small on impact, with estimates clustered close to zero. This supports the notion that …fiscal policy (particularly on the expenditure side) may be rather slow in impacting economic activity, which raises questions as to the usefulness of discretionary …fiscal policy for short-run stabilization purposes. The medium- to long-run effects of increases in government consumption vary considerably. In particular, in economies closed to trade or operating under …fixed exchange rates we find a substantial long-run effect of government consumption on economic activity. In contrast, in economies open to trade or operating under ‡flexible exchange rates, a …fiscal expansion leads to no significant output gains. Further, …fiscal stimulus may be counterproductive in highly-indebted countries; in countries with debt levels as low as 60 percent of GDP, government consumption shocks may have strong negative effects on output...​

The problem with the "jobs saved or created" argument is that inevitably it assumes a set multiplier. You could make almost any spending perform any function through this kind of model. I could apply a 2.5 trillion multiplier for the 6-pack I bought last night and claim to have saved or created every job in the United States. Simply by changing Obama's claimed multiplier of 1.4 to 1.8 I could significantly change the number of jobs the Stimulus has "created or saved"..... even though the number of actual jobs produced during that period would not have changed at all - all that changes is how many of them one is claiming credit for.

When we start casting around to see what the multiplier effects actually are, we find that, in nations such as ours and with spending such as we have engaged in, it is far more likely to have a negative effect than it is to have a positive one; and repeatedly as an approach, increasing government payouts doesn't work.

So I would like to see how you address this research, and perhaps we should stick to some technical stuff and then get back to the history of the 20th Century (though when we get there I will ask you to explain the times that Keynesian predictions have failed).

(except pop culture... i do not keep up, much).

eyug, no thank you .

 

[Geo Patric]

excellent. let us start with studies of the effects of keynesian stimulus programs:

FOOF! Dooooood…. Let us all get in the same bioatr and row to the same place, shall we?

This discussion started out as a disagreement over the merits of FDR’s efforts to ameliorate the worst effects of the depression and to revive the economy and your posting of the report out of UCLA that they actually lenghtened it .

And now, we are talking the merits (or demerits) of Keynesian economic theory? Are YOU an expert in economics? Because I damned sure am not. I had to google just to find out what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is. I am scheduled to take a statistics class next in the Fall, but I wanted to employ that to better understand the link between language and cognition.

let us start with studies of the effects of keynesian stimulus programs:

No, I cannot. I cannot give an legitimate view of these views. I am not an economist. I can see that there are two difficulties that FDR and m. Obama faced; ‘fixing the economy’, and protecting people who stand to suffer until the economy is fixed. I CAN give a view on the decision to protect the well being of people first. I think it is the right decision.

We have to make some distinctions. People are real. Suffering is real. The economy is myth. It does not exist as a thing in itself. In only exists as a convenient means of labeling what we do. Even then, it is only a tool to achieve an end – its merits dependent on what end is sought and how well we craft and use the tool. If the tool is used only to refine itself… what good does it do?

Simply by changing Obama's claimed multiplier of 1.4 to 1.8

How many jobs have been saved? I do not know. How many people are going hungry because of the stimulus? Fewer than would be without it. That matters. Fixing the economy can follow caring for people. And, as it happens, it HAS. The ecomomy IS improving by the general consensus of folks on BOTH sides of the Keynsian divide.

So I would like to see how you address this research, and perhaps we should stick to some technical stuff and then get back to the history of the 20th Century (though when we get there I will ask you to explain the times that Keynesian predictions have failed).

Well, I doubt very much that I can do that. What I can do is understand policy premises when they are presented in simple and clear english. Now, I can go out and find different guys from your guys and post their stuff and we will both have gotten nowhere in a hurry.

So, allow me to repeat. The study that says the New Deal may have prolonged the depression MAY be right. I don’t know. And, I don’t really care. The New Deal made it possible for many to survive the depression for as long as it lasted and that I DO care about.

It might be that nonKeynesian economics could ‘fix the economy’ better… I don’t know. I do know, because we have ample evidence of it that, if what m Obama is doing is Keynesian, then Keynesian is helping people better withstand the ravages of THIS recession AND that the economy IS recovering.

One of Keynes’ premises is that the economy is consumer driven, spending, not saving driven and spending depends on a level of confidence… businesses work much the same way. In bad times, people try to save and businesses hoard, cutting off the ‘life blood’ of a healthy economy – moving the money around.

Here is an excerpt from an article by a Keynesian convert:

[government] can offset the decline in private consumption and investment in a recession or a depression by increasing public investment. When we say that the government builds highways, we mean it buys highways from private contractors. And the more it buys, the more that investment--and because of the multiplier effect, the more that income, output, and employment--are stimulated. And because private decisions to invest and to consume are influenced by confidence in the future, or the lack thereof, the government must do everything it can to convince businessmen and consumers that it is resolute and competent in working for economic recovery. An ambitious public-works program can be a confidence builder. It shows that government means (to help) business. "The return of confidence," Keynes explains, "is the aspect of the slump which bankers and businessmen have been right in emphasizing, and which the economists who have put their faith in a ‘purely monetary' remedy have underestimated." In a possible gesture toward Roosevelt's first inaugural ("we have nothing to fear but fear itself"), Keynes remarks upon "the uncontrollable and disobedient psychology of the business world."

How I Became A Keynesian | The New Republic

now, ya see, posner is no radical lib… he is a 7th Circuit Judge appointed by Reagan. so, skipping lightly over that ‘multiplier effect’, I can easily understand this. I can see that this is what did in fact occur under FDR and IS happening NOW. Businesses are recording record profits, but are, for the most part, hoarding, not hiring, not investing – just stashing it away. It is only now beginning to loosen up… housing is creeping up, employment is creeping up, wages are creeping up. Yep, slow as molasses in january.

The only thing I pretend to know about Keynes is pretty much what is in the above. Is the the best thing to do as an economist? Dunno. Does it make things better when times are hard. Seems to.

Ok… then I am a keynesian.

Geo.

 

[cpwill]

FOOF! Dooooood…. Let us all get in the same bioatr and row to the same place, shall we?

This discussion started out as a disagreement over the merits of FDR’s efforts to ameliorate the worst effects of the depression and to revive the economy and your posting of the report out of UCLA that they actually lenghtened it .

And now, we are talking the merits (or demerits) of Keynesian economic theory? Are YOU an expert in economics? Because I damned sure am not. I had to google just to find out what the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is. I am scheduled to take a statistics class next in the Fall, but I wanted to employ that to better understand the link between language and cognition.

No, I cannot. I cannot give an legitimate view of these views. I am not an economist. I can see that there are two difficulties that FDR and m. Obama faced; ‘fixing the economy’, and protecting people who stand to suffer until the economy is fixed. I CAN give a view on the decision to protect the well being of people first. I think it is the right decision.

We have to make some distinctions. People are real. Suffering is real. The economy is myth. It does not exist as a thing in itself. In only exists as a convenient means of labeling what we do. Even then, it is only a tool to achieve an end – its merits dependent on what end is sought and how well we craft and use the tool. If the tool is used only to refine itself… what good does it do?

How many jobs have been saved? I do not know. How many people are going hungry because of the stimulus? Fewer than would be without it. That matters. Fixing the economy can follow caring for people. And, as it happens, it HAS. The ecomomy IS improving by the general consensus of folks on BOTH sides of the Keynsian divide.

Well, I doubt very much that I can do that. What I can do is understand policy premises when they are presented in simple and clear english. Now, I can go out and find different guys from your guys and post their stuff and we will both have gotten nowhere in a hurry.

So, allow me to repeat. The study that says the New Deal may have prolonged the depression MAY be right. I don’t know. And, I don’t really care. The New Deal made it possible for many to survive the depression for as long as it lasted and that I DO care about.

It might be that nonKeynesian economics could ‘fix the economy’ better… I don’t know. I do know, because we have ample evidence of it that, if what m Obama is doing is Keynesian, then Keynesian is helping people better withstand the ravages of THIS recession AND that the economy IS recovering.

One of Keynes’ premises is that the economy is consumer driven, spending, not saving driven and spending depends on a level of confidence… businesses work much the same way. In bad times, people try to save and businesses hoard, cutting off the ‘life blood’ of a healthy economy – moving the money around.

Here is an excerpt from an article by a Keynesian convert:

How I Became A Keynesian | The New Republic

now, ya see, posner is no radical lib… he is a 7th Circuit Judge appointed by Reagan. so, skipping lightly over that ‘multiplier effect’, I can easily understand this. I can see that this is what did in fact occur under FDR and IS happening NOW. Businesses are recording record profits, but are, for the most part, hoarding, not hiring, not investing – just stashing it away. It is only now beginning to loosen up… housing is creeping up, employment is creeping up, wages are creeping up. Yep, slow as molasses in january.

The only thing I pretend to know about Keynes is pretty much what is in the above. Is the the best thing to do as an economist? Dunno. Does it make things better when times are hard. Seems to.

Ok… then I am a keynesian.

Geo.

sooooooo....... no...... you can't actually defend against the fact that studying the history of keynesian stimulus programs demonstrates that they fail when they attempt to aid the economy (particularly economies such as ours) with increases in government expenditures?

 

[Geo Patric]

sooooooo....... no...... you can't actually defend against the fact that studying the history of keynesian stimulus programs demonstrates that they fail when they attempt to aid the economy (particularly economies such as ours) with increases in government expenditures?

oh please.

sure, i can post a lot of text written by others that, for the most part, i do not understand... just as you do. I can pretend that they are MY thinking... just as you do.

i do not care to pretend and i do not like to lie. i made the case I attempted to make and you have not, as yet, shown that any of it does not hold up. the opinions i show are supported by real data.

i am not terribly concerned that you may think you have 'won'. enjoy the parade.


geo.