Originally posted by utherpendragonThis is from http://iws.ccccd.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html :
these are facts, anybody well informed should know this.(im not gonna list a myriad of web sites and books. you can research it your self if you dont believe me.the new deal did little to help blacks, the poor, and the middle class. Also,americas biggest industrial collapse occured in 1937. 8 yrs after the 1929 stock market crash,nearly 5 yrs into th ...[text shortened]... ated.the liberal vet & housing benefit resulted in increased productivity & a construction boom.
World War II ended both the temporary New Deal programs and the Depression they were attempting to cure. Keep in mind that many facets of the New Deal--Social Security, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities and Exchange Commission to name only three--have remained features of American life from the 1930s until the present.
War ended the Depression simply because of increased government spending, an intensified version of what Roosevelt was already doing with the WPA and similar programs.. Responding to the external threats posed by the Axis Powers (Germany, Japan and Italy) Roosevelt and the Congress threw fiscal caution to the wind and spent what was necessary to win the war. In so doing, they also achieved pre-Depression levels of employment and prosperity.
What then is the legacy of the New Deal as a whole? Would it have ended the Depression? The best answer to that is that it went a long way toward alleviating the worst suffering of the Depression while still being captive to the conventional thinking (political, fiscal, racial) of the day. We cannot answer that question of whether it could have ended the Depression based on historical facts. World War II interrupted the process.
----
War is one of the classic examples of a broken window fallacy. So basically we have huge government spending, which ends the depression. Sound familiar?
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe tea parties was sponsered by Fox, and their coverage was anything but fair and accurate. I remember seeing a Fox reporter saying millions and millions of people were out protesting. It wasn't that much now, was it?
i am glad you like my humor 🙂 seriously though, the protest we just had(tea parties) were only given fair & accurate coverage by fox.that is a fact as far as the T.V. networks go. now i dont take everything i hear on fox as the gospel truth. i check out all of them(news outlets),then wade through their agendas.several news papers a day as well as the web.
"Fox is the poor man's comedy central." I think it was Henry Rollins who said that. Their homepage is a golden egg of fun.
Originally posted by utherpendragonAn arm chair critic in the US holds more weight for you? All our info (in Denmark) is internet news and the big network tv channels. How is that leftist sources?
by referring to denmark i assume that is where he lives,hence the flag. not being born and raised here you cant really know how it is. all your info is second hand and or spoon fed by leftist sources(judging from his comments). being an arm chair critic from half-way across the world is easy but it holds no weight w/me.
He didn't mention Denmark in his post btw, so why go after his country that way?
Originally posted by LundosI dont know where you are getting that from but I can guess.Nancy Pelosi perhaps? MSNBC ? CNN? The tea partys were not sponsered by Fox.it was a grass roots movement.its just that simple,i dont know how to convince you of that. as far as a fox reporter saying millions and millions were out protesting,i never heard that claim.not saying your lying but i never heard anyone say that.if they included the viewers on fox watching it live it would be so. Fox news is as so or more reputable than any other cable news network in this nation.as well as having the highest ratings by far.they blow the competetion away. their ratings are higher than cnn or msnbc combined.as far as turnout for the tea partys : 5- 700,000. 829 cities. pledges were much higher. source: northshorejournal.org tea-party-turnout-nationwide I live in atlanta,ga and we had 20,000 here alone! I dont care any way you dice it,thats alot of people. normal folks,not professional protesters.and most of them were first time ever protesters. most channels down played it.msnbc said they were all racist,the white house dismissed it publically. Fox did embrace it,i admit but they did not sponsor it or start it.
The tea parties was sponsered by Fox, and their coverage was anything but fair and accurate. I remember seeing a Fox reporter saying millions and millions of people were out protesting. It wasn't that much now, was it?
"Fox is the poor man's comedy central." I think it was Henry Rollins who said that. Their homepage is a golden egg of fun.
Originally posted by LundosI did not " go after " his country,as you say. Is Denmark not renowned for being a liberal society ? and,he came out swinging calling me a right wing extremist ? Logic would dictate he is a lefty coming from a lefty place. thats about what I expected i replied.thats going after his country? it was a flip statement.dont take it so personal. the states are kicked all around in these forums. I dont all bent out of shape about it.
An arm chair critic in the US holds more weight for you? All our info (in Denmark) is internet news and the big network tv channels. How is that leftist sources?
He didn't mention Denmark in his post btw, so why go after his country that way?
Originally posted by utherpendragonheres another link w/more current numbers www,surgeusa.org/actions/teapartycrowds.htm
I dont know where you are getting that from but I can guess.Nancy Pelosi perhaps? MSNBC ? CNN? The tea partys were not sponsered by Fox.it was a grass roots movement.its just that simple,i dont know how to convince you of that. as far as a fox reporter saying millions and millions were out protesting,i never heard that claim.not saying your lying but ...[text shortened]... use dismissed it publically. Fox did embrace it,i admit but they did not sponsor it or start it.
Originally posted by utherpendragonMy mother lived thru the Depression and always said that FDR was the greatest president in her lifetime. I agree with her assessment.
alright one example of infringing on liberty. the planned compulsory service to the goverment for middle school,high school and college students......as far as fdr that was no success. the war is what took us out of the depression.the new deal did little to help the poor , middle class, and minorities
Originally posted by FMFI will direct you to a site w/a quote from the article I am referring you too http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/we-biased-admit-stars-bbc-News.html "at the secret meeting in london last month,which was hosted by veteran broadcaster sue hawly,bbc executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homo-sexuals and people from ethnic minorities,deliberatly promotes multi-culturalism is anti-american anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of muslims then christians."
Examples please. Sounds like you reckon you could hammer your BBC assertion home, no trouble. Can you? With a few examples?
Originally posted by utherpendragonNo. A link the The Daily Mail won't suffice. Do you have any idea what the Daily Mail is and the audience it caters to? Let's just say that it is an opponent of the BBC - except when the BBC televises something the Daily Mail likes.
I will direct you to a site w/a quote from the article I am referring you too http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/we-biased-admit-stars-bbc-News.html "at the secret meeting in london last month,which was hosted by veteran broadcaster sue hawly,bbc executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homo-sexuals and people from ethnic ...[text shortened]... anti-american anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of muslims then christians."
Come on. You made a specific accusation about the BBC. Examples please. You made it seem as if you thought it was an open and shut case. This ought to mean a few examples illustrating what you meant would be easy to find and present as evidence.
Can you do it? Or are you backpeddling?
Originally posted by FMF🙂 lol your very funny. trying to send ol'uther off on a wild goose chase trying to find you something that will" suffice" . my statement about the bbc,cnn,msnbc are common knowledge . you would have to be living under a rock not to know these are propaganda machines for the far left liberal agenda. I got a better idea,you go find something that disproves my claim.
No. A link the The Daily Mail won't suffice. Do you have any idea what the Daily Mail is and the audience it caters to? Let's just say that it is an opponent of the BBC - except when the BBC televises something the Daily Mail likes.
Come on. You made a specific accusation about the BBC. Examples please. You made it seem as if you thought it was an open and sh ...[text shortened]... eant would be easy to find and present as evidence.
Can you do it? Or are you backpeddling?
Originally posted by utherpendragon"Common knowledge"?
my statement about the bbc,cnn,msnbc are common knowledge . you would have to be living under a rock not to know these are propaganda machines for the far left liberal agenda.
Whoops. I thought there for a moment you were something other than a shallow blowhard. My mistake.
If you think the BBC is 'far left' then you are politically illiterate.
Originally posted by utherpendragonUsually the person who makes a claim has to back it up. It's the same principle as 'innocent until proven guilty'.
🙂 lol your very funny. trying to send ol'uther off on a wild goose chase trying to find you something that will" suffice" . my statement about the bbc,cnn,msnbc are common knowledge . you would have to be living under a rock not to know these are propaganda machines for the far left liberal agenda. I got a better idea,you go find something that disproves my claim.