jmog;1780654 wrote:It's funny how you used Bernie's numbers to show he can get things done when his success rate is probably one of the worst in all of Congress. And seriously, to even get CLOSE to 1% he had to get 2 bills passed that just changed the names of 2 buildings! He really only got 1 bill passed that had anything at all to do with the real world.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780660 wrote:You haven't looked up any long time congressman records then, apparently. They all have a ton of sponsored bills and very few going through. Why would you let those little facts stand in your way though?

jmog;1780654 wrote:It's funny how you used Bernie's numbers to show he can get things done when his success rate is probably one of the worst in all of Congress. And seriously, to even get CLOSE to 1% he had to get 2 bills passed that just changed the names of 2 buildings! He really only got 1 bill passed that had anything at all to do with the real world.

jmog;1780626 wrote:I'll give you that, FDR was rather socialist, Obama is rather close but not really, so call it 1.5 POTUS's in 200+ years of a great history is not something to double down on.

The New Deal spent more money on a GDP basis than any POTUS plan in history. The most notable successes were infrastructure built by previously unemployed workers (meaning you work to get a 'welfare' check...novel idea for a liberal...that would get ridiculed by modern liberals).

The amount of sheer wasted money was insane. The unemployment never really went down once those temporary jobs went away. Another recession came almost right after it in 1937, which was only overcome due to WW2.

jmog;1780662 wrote:Still no answer as to why you used the sponsored and passed numbers of Sanders vs the Rs as evidence to why Sanders was better in some way when the numbers actually showed the exact opposite.


You had to pass at least one class past differential equations, so I know you fully understand simple statistics and percentages very well. You had to know SOMEONE was going to call you out on those faulty numbers?

BoatShoes;1780678 wrote:Jmog...you are aware that fiscal stimulus and deficits hiring the unemployed to serve in a war and huge monetary stimulus to accompany it was the New Deal on steroids right? They actually have a term for it - weaponized Keynesianism - because conservatives have no problem with hiring the unemployed and big government spending if the object is to kill people and break things.

Moreover, the the great depression had multiple expansions and what you are referring to is called The Great Mistake of 1937 when Roosevelt and company improperly turned to austerity (much like Obama) cutting spending from $8.2 billion in 1936 to 7.8 billion in 1937 and under $7 billion in 1938.


The Fed also tightened. This time around the Fed saved us from Congress and Obama in 2012 with QE3 and the Evans Rule but looks like they may be itching to repeat the mistakes of 1937 this year with premature hawkishness and unfortunately it may just mean a GOP win this fall.


So in a way you are right Jmog...any candidate who will attempt to prematurely tighten fiscal stimulus and monetary stimulus like FDR did in 1937 and like Obama did in 2012 would be making a mistake.

The New Deal should have me over been stopped in the name of balanced budgets which caused a recession.

jmog;1780626 wrote:I'll give you that, FDR was rather socialist, Obama is rather close but not really, so call it 1.5 POTUS's in 200+ years of a great history is not something to double down on.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780679 wrote:Still no answer why you're trashing Bernies numbers as ineffective when literally every congressmens is the same?

jmog;1780680 wrote:BS, you don't have to remind us, your answer for everything is just to spend more, we get it.

BoatShoes;1780681 wrote:L8tr

If FDR was a socialist than the United States has been a socialist country since and every Republican President too. The New Deal beyond the WPA etc completely redefined the nation from federal labor regulation to federal securities regulation.

These words have no real meaning anymore. Talk about individual policies IMHO.

jmog;1780682 wrote:You brought up his numbers and mistakenly compared them to the current Rs. I discussed that comparison. Don't bring up a terrible comparison if you don't want it discussed/rebutted.

You know (at least now, and I hope even before you posted it) that it was a terrible comparison for Sanders but you still posted it. So, don't come blaming me that you got "caught" with your terrible numbers comparison.

I was stating that his numbers compared to the Rs you showed, not compared to all of Congress, is like me shooting a 300 in golf and you shooting a 60. Then I said I was better because I was more "active".

Bernie has a far worse "hit rate" than the ones you gave, and 2 of his 3 "hits" were freaking building name changes.

Come on Zwick, just admit the grave mistake on bringing up his Senate accomplishments vs Rubio/Cruz.

BoatShoes;1780684 wrote:Or cut taxes on citizens with high propensities to consume.

You could just acknowledge that you had no idea that your preferred policy - cutting spending - was at fault for the recession of 1937 (along with tightening monetary policy) that you just described and that you had no idea what you were talking about and just move on.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780687 wrote:I responded to a question posed by con alma. What aren't you getting about that?

jmog;1780689 wrote:Nearly everyone rebutted those numbers as actually helping the Rs case vs Sanders. What aren't you getting about that? You brought up the numbers, the numbers showed the exact opposite of what you were trying to say.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780693 wrote:The numbers showed Bernie overwhelmingly more active in congress than both Cruz and Rubio. Rubio being the biggest joke. It's no wonder even R's condemn his senate attendance record.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1780687 wrote:I responded to a question posed by con alma. What aren't you getting about that?

jmog;1780688 wrote:3 major things contributed to the 1937 recession. FDR sending out a crap ton of free money and then quickly taking it away. A Keynesian says "see, keep spending and that wouldn't have happened". A fiscal conservative would say "see, shouldn't have started spending a crap ton and devaluing the dollar in the first place".

The Feds Tightening the money supply in response to FDR devaluing the dollar.

The Treasury sterilizing all gold flow which, since they were on the gold standard, froze the total money in the economy as constant rather than expansion.

So, you can ignore the one major contribution if you like because you can twist it into a Keynesian way, but you have to actually consider all 3.

http://www.voxeu.org/article/what-caused-recession-1937-38-new-lesson-today-s-policymakers

Google, takes a few seconds to fill in the gaps that BS conveniently leaves out.

BoatShoes;1780723 wrote:Glad to see you got to study up on it and you still didn't learn anything. Like I said, tight fiscal AND MONETARY POLICY caused the 1937 slump. You on the other hand started poorly with the old canard "giving out a crap ton of free money and taking it away." In other words you think loose money contributed to the great depression when Milton Friedman, the greatest libertarian economic kind of recent times won the Nobel prize making the case that it was tight money.

Nice try though. Voxeu is a step up from the book of Job.

BoatShoes;1780678 wrote:Jmog...you are aware that fiscal stimulus and deficits hiring the unemployed to serve in a war and huge monetary stimulus to accompany it was the New Deal on steroids right? They actually have a term for it - weaponized Keynesianism - because conservatives have no problem with hiring the unemployed and big government spending if the object is to kill people and break things.

QuakerOats;1780785 wrote:No, the object is to preserve freedom and prevent murderous lunatics from taking over an entire continents (at least) and exterminating millions of people in the process. National defense is really the only true role of federal government. But then, you knew that.

Wolves of Babylon;1780793 wrote:So who does Trump pick for for VP?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

ptown_trojans_1;1780788 wrote: And yes, good showing for Kasich, but good Lord did Trump kill it. He doubled up Kasich.
Hell, even Nate Silver is saying Trump needs to be taken seriously as a frontrunner.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/republicans-need-to-treat-donald-trump-as-the-front-runner/