Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-23-2011, 10:36 PM
 
6,940 posts, read 9,703,942 times
Reputation: 3153

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Presidents cant sign bills not written by Congress, and all of your moaning and groaning about "blame", applies to the GOP more often than the Democrats because the GOP is usually the minority party in Congress

Someone need to tell you that Congress has elections just like the White House? The only thing which has changed is the Federal Government has decided they now have a need to babysit every waking moment of our life, and that comes as an expense.

Nope.. Just attempting to educate the left wing kooks who all moan and groan about debt under the GOP while then excusing it under Democrats.

See what I mean? Why the hell did your last posting complain about debt if it doesnt matter? Ooooh I know.. because your last posting was "GOP to blame for deficits", now that the truth comes out, that the deficits are to be blamed on the Democrats, you sit here and flip flop into "who cares"
Yikes



Someone needs to brush up on American government.

The president can write bills, but it has to be passed by congress. As long as congress approves it, any of the two branches can write legislation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-23-2011, 10:36 PM
 
Location: St. Joseph Area
6,233 posts, read 9,499,515 times
Reputation: 3133
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Because he promised free stuff?

The 1930s was not modern times, the average voter had no idea FDR could not walk, and was wheel chair bound. Many truths were hidden from the people back in those days.
I don't think Americans voted for FDR to get free stuff. Your post implies something about that generation that I don't like. The country was in a crisis, Hoover had a meager response, and FDR said he would try to fix it or keep it from getting worse. The Americans in those times thought that he was doing what he could and they rewarded him for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 05:28 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,990,803 times
Reputation: 5661
Except that that UCLA work used scrubbed data so the authors could come up with their desired conclusions.

Here's University of California historian Eric Rauchway:

Quote:
For a start, New Deal intervention saved the banks. During Hoover's presidency, around 20 percent of American banks failed, and, without deposit insurance, one collapse prompted another as savers pulled their money out of the shaky system. When Roosevelt came into office, he ordered the banks closed and audited. A week later, authorities began reopening banks, and deposits returned to vaults.

Congress also established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which, as economists Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz wrote, was "the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since ... the Civil War." After the creation of the FDIC, bank failures almost entirely disappeared. New Dealers also recapitalized banks by buying about a billion dollars of preferred stock...

The most important thing to know about Roosevelt's economics is that, despite claims to the contrary, the economy recovered during the New Deal. During Roosevelt's first two terms, the U.S. economy grew at average annual growth rates of 9 percent to 10 percent, with the exception of the recession year of 1937-1938...

Excepting 1937-1938, unemployment fell each year of Roosevelt's first two terms. In part, the jobs came from Washington, which directly employed as many as 3.6 million people to build roads, bridges, ports, airports, stadiums, and schools -- as well as, of course, to paint murals and stage plays. But new jobs also came from the private sector, where manufacturing work increased apace.

This basic fact is clear -- unless you quote only the unemployment rate for the recession year 1938 and count government employees hired under the New Deal as unemployed, which conservative commenters have taken to doing.
Salon particular hones in on the claims of those authors:

Cole and Ohanian:

Quote:
The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn’t restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office.
Salon:
Quote:
How can one make this claim? Unemployment reached 25 percent in the Great Depression, and fell steadily until World War II (although there were some bumps up along the way). Ah, but the revisionist position is that unemployment did not fall as much as it should have. And this argument is based on an interesting interpretation of the available data. As Amity Shlaes, currently the premier anti-New Deal historical revisionist writing for a popular audience, explained proudly in her own Wall Street Journal opinion piece in November, “The Krugman Recipe for Depression,” a necessary step is to not count as employed those people in “temporary jobs in emergency programs.”

That means, everyone who got a job during the Great Depression via the Works Progress Administration (WPA) or Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), or any other of Roosevelt’s popular New Deal workfare programs, doesn’t get counted as employed in the statistics used by Cole, Ohanian and Shlaes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 07:16 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,262,447 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Presidents cant sign bills not written by Congress,
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
Yikes



Someone needs to brush up on American government.

The president can write bills, but it has to be passed by congress. As long as congress approves it, any of the two branches can write legislation.
Yikes.. Someone need to tell you that Congress is two branches, the House and Senate?

Who the hell said either branch cant write it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 08:58 AM
 
4,734 posts, read 4,346,228 times
Reputation: 3235
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Presidents cant sign bills not written by Congress, and all of your moaning and groaning about "blame", applies to the GOP more often than the Democrats because the GOP is usually the minority party in Congress
And so you're telling me that if congress knows that Reagan won't sign their appropriations bills, they're just going to keep sending it to him and keep getting it vetoed? That's how you think government works, eh?

The question was obviously rhetorical, and you know that. Congress knew that it wasn't going to get appropriations bills passed unless they passed tax cuts. And they knew that political popular programs like SS and Medicare couldn't be cut -- even Republicans knew that. I don't say Democrats are completely blameless, but if you're not going to hold Reagan significantly accountable for the budget problems of the country, then I don't want to hear a peep about 'Obama's bankrupting the country blaha blah, OMG I got verbal diarrhea.'

It's the agenda. The Reagan agenda. The Reagan agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans (which cut a source of revenue) and massive increases in military spending, while keeping SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and other entitlements the same. There's no way around it, chief: Reagan was the financial bomb that crippled America's economy for the future.

Oh and something else, Republicans actually controlled the Senate for part of his term, and the Democratic advantage was marginal. The nation was very pro-Reagan, and blindly supported his agenda, not realizing exactly what we were getting ourselves into at the time. Unfortunately, we still haven't made the connection.

And I'll point it out again but without graphs, since it's obvious that you're the typical right wing 'I'll believe whatever the hell I want to believe - facts be damned' sort. I'll point out that Democrats had significant influence over government from 1945 to 1980, and despite increasing social spending during most of this time, the national debt as a percentage of GDP steadily decreased. That changed when your fake cowboy, crappy b-list actor became president.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 09:03 AM
 
4,734 posts, read 4,346,228 times
Reputation: 3235
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Except that that UCLA work used scrubbed data so the authors could come up with their desired conclusions.

Here's University of California historian Eric Rauchway:



Salon particular hones in on the claims of those authors:

Cole and Ohanian:



Salon:
The UCLA "study" is b.s., and if I were the UCLA president they would be fired. It's embarrassing for an institution with UCLA's reputation to be associated with cranks like these. It's no study at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 09:55 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,540,224 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
And so you're telling me that if congress knows that Reagan won't sign their appropriations bills, they're just going to keep sending it to him and keep getting it vetoed? That's how you think government works, eh?

The question was obviously rhetorical, and you know that. Congress knew that it wasn't going to get appropriations bills passed unless they passed tax cuts. And they knew that political popular programs like SS and Medicare couldn't be cut -- even Republicans knew that. I don't say Democrats are completely blameless, but if you're not going to hold Reagan significantly accountable for the budget problems of the country, then I don't want to hear a peep about 'Obama's bankrupting the country blaha blah, OMG I got verbal diarrhea.'

It's the agenda. The Reagan agenda. The Reagan agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans (which cut a source of revenue) and massive increases in military spending, while keeping SS, Medicare/Medicaid, and other entitlements the same. There's no way around it, chief: Reagan was the financial bomb that crippled America's economy for the future.

Oh and something else, Republicans actually controlled the Senate for part of his term, and the Democratic advantage was marginal. The nation was very pro-Reagan, and blindly supported his agenda, not realizing exactly what we were getting ourselves into at the time. Unfortunately, we still haven't made the connection.

And I'll point it out again but without graphs, since it's obvious that you're the typical right wing 'I'll believe whatever the hell I want to believe - facts be damned' sort. I'll point out that Democrats had significant influence over government from 1945 to 1980, and despite increasing social spending during most of this time, the national debt as a percentage of GDP steadily decreased. That changed when your fake cowboy, crappy b-list actor became president.
This is where the intellectual dishonest start babbling. They speak about the wonderful times before Reagan and anyone with even the slightest of meomeries immediately starts thinking stagflation and the 70's.

Oh those wonderful times before Reagan...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 09:57 AM
 
29,939 posts, read 39,540,224 times
Reputation: 4799
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas View Post
The UCLA "study" is b.s., and if I were the UCLA president they would be fired. It's embarrassing for an institution with UCLA's reputation to be associated with cranks like these. It's no study at all.
Straight up with the liberal dogma because everyone didn't fall in line they should be fired. That's the left's idea of critical thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,229 posts, read 17,900,020 times
Reputation: 4585
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Except that that UCLA work used scrubbed data so the authors could come up with their desired conclusions.

Here's University of California historian Eric Rauchway:



Salon particular hones in on the claims of those authors:

Cole and Ohanian:



Salon:
The two are Libertarians, not much more needs to be said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2011, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,620 posts, read 19,236,963 times
Reputation: 21745
Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey View Post
Conservatives love to talk about how bad of a president FDR was when it is a fact that the country loved him in the 1930s to the point they elected him 4 times.
The people were largely ignorant.

You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions. First of all, governments did not collect statistics, in part because they saw no real value in doing so.

How many people were unemployed? We don't really know.

There was no such thing as federal or State unemployment insurance. If you lost your job, the only people who knew were your employer, and the people you told, but none of the various governments knew.

We are able to reconstruct some data through a variety of resources. For example, scouring newspapers from the period which sometimes reported a factory shutting down its shifts, or closing completely.

We are also able to reconstruct some data through private payroll records for companies. Remember, there is FICA or other type of payroll tax deductions and other things so we don't have any government records of company payrolls.

Likewise, the government did not measure GDP.

We are able to reconstruct that through federal tax records, and through the tax records of those States that had either a corporate tax, a personal income tax or both (not all States had a personal income tax).

Your only source of information was newspapers and radio, if you had a radio, and if you lived in a place that could receive radio signals (not every one did).

So Americans don't really know what is going on. They have no idea if their GDP or unemployment rates are going up or down or sideways. They only know if they have food or not, or a job or not, and that's how they voted.

If people had known that he was harming them and setting the economy backwards, would they still have elected him? Probably. He was giving them things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:10 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top