GOP's Jindal calls Obama's plan irresponsible

[Sulayman]

The ball is still in your court, remember?

You said:

Traditionally direct governmental spending has shown to stimulate and grow the economy - that's simply historical fact.

I said prove it.

You answered that with a false generalization about what academics think about the New Deal.

Ball's still in your court.

You could simply reply that you can't prove it and move on to pop music or something you do know.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by Sulayman

The ball is still in your court, remember?

You said:

Traditionally direct governmental spending has shown to stimulate and grow the economy - that's simply historical fact.

I said prove it.

You answered that with a false generalization about what academics think about the New Deal.

Ball's still in your court.

You could simply reply that you can't prove it and move on to pop music or something you do know.

So if I say that the earth rotates around the sun you're going to tell me to prove it?
If you're honest, you will acknowledge that I pointed to unemployment and GDP figures before and after FDR's policies took effect.
Well seemingly you're academically lazy so I'll show you those figures here.
Real GDP

Industrial output

Within the first three months after the New Deal was enacted what we immediately see from the data from the US department of commerce and federal reserve is that industrial output shot up by 44%.
Not only that but by December of 1936 GDP had completely recovered to and even surpassed 1929 peak. With the fail safes put in place by FDR GDP never again fell below the 1929 peak.
Additionally, after-tax personal income, consumer spending, real private investment and jobs all reached or surpassed their 1929 peaks by late 1936.
In fact, like every decade between 1850 and 1990, the 1930s suffered two distinct downturns. The official U.S. Business Cycle Dating Committee established that the downturn that began in August 1929 ended in March 1933 with the remarkable economic expansion that started within days of FDR’s bold—if trial and error—New Deal programs. By any normal definition, the Great Depression had ended by late 1936, with all major indicators surpassing their previous peaks.
Now you might say "ah ha, it fell in 1937" that's because FDR jumped too quickly to balance the deficit and thought that the economy was already self sustaining. So in March of 1937 cut governmental spending, cutting the very programs to which the economy was still in need of. Leading to a severe recession that lasted for 13 months. But again, as I've already pointed out, even then the recession never saw GDP levels anywhere close to those in 1933. When FDR reversed his budget balancing idea in 1939 immediately we see the GDP bounce back 10.9%.

Now were there mistakes with FDR's new deal? Absolutely NIRA (which the supreme court ruled unconstitutional - thank god) was a total disaster.
As mentioned already so was the attempt to balance the budget in 1937 by heeding to calls to decrease the deficit ASAP. Which economists are unanimous as being the greatest economic disasters.

Hell read for yourself a decent source or two.

I'll even raise you another on how FDR's policies of domestic spending into the deficit that were far greater than anything during the stimulus out of the great depression further stimulated the economy contributing to GDP growth of 20% between 1941 and 1945 to fight WWII.
Yes, WWII was even greater spending running a far larger budget deficit as well as massive liberal social changes.



So now, after I've explained to you how the earth revolves around the sun, can you please rationalize and prove your stimulus doesn't work argument?
So, now can you provide

[ninjalooter1701]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...106.guest.html

RUSH: As many of you people know, I am singularly and solely responsible for placing into the public domain the name of Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, as a high-ranking vice presidential nominee and choice for Senator McCain to look at.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...eemed_out.html

Does Governor Jindal think that we voters will forget that they supported the War in Iraq, the incerease in arms spending, a massive and ineffective new entitlement program, and tried to pay ofr it by enacting a massive tax cut that was supposed to grow us out of the deficits they ran up?

http://www.nola.com/forums/troops/index.ssf?artid=3313

Bobby Jindal has received failing grades from two veterans organizations, including a grade of zero from Disabled American Veterans.

Jindal cast the deciding vote to defeat Melancon amendment providing $53 million in additional funding for veterans health programs, including prosthetics and trauma care � all the while supporting President Bush's failed Iraq policy, which some estimates show is costing $2 billion a week.

Members of American Legion Post in Metairie sent letter to Jindal expressing "extreme disappointment" over Melancon vote

Jindal has voted many times against efforts to increase funding for veterans health care funding, job training assistance and other programs

Failing grades from veterans' groups

In 2006, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Jindal a grade of D. "The mission of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America is to ensure the enactment of policies that properly provide for our Troops & Veterans, keep our military strong, and guarantee our national security for the purpose of a stronger America. We uniquely empower Iraq & Afghanistan combat veterans to use their credibility and experiences to speak truth to power, shape public opinion, and place a priority on these issues." (Project Vote Smart,www.vote-smart.org)

Jindal received failing grades from Disabled American Veterans � including a grade of 0 in 2005. "Formed in 1920 and chartered by Congress in 1932, the million-member DAV is the official voice of America's service-connected disabled veterans -- a strong, insistent voice that represents all of America's 2.1 million disabled veterans, their families and survivors." (Project Vote Smart,www.vote-smart.org)

Cast deciding vote to defeat Melancon amendment providing $53 million funding for veterans health programs, including prosthetics and trauma care � while supporting President's $2 billion a week war in Iraq

Jindal cast deciding vote to defeat $53 million boost for veterans' health care and benefits. In 2005 Jindal cast the deciding vote to defeat an amendment adding $53 million in veterans' health care and benefits to the FY06 Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill. The amendment would add $8 million for combat-related trauma care, $6 million for poly-trauma centers to support wounded troops once they return to their homes, $9 million for VA medical and prosthetic research and $7 million for additional staff to process compensation and pension claims. The amendment also provided $23 million for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for the spouses of service members who died in the War on Terror. A spokesman for Disabled American Veterans called funding in the original bill "grossly inadequate." The funding for the amendment would have come from money slated for base closures. Jindal voted against the amendment, sponsored by Louisiana Rep. Charlie Melancon, which failed 213-214. [HR 2528, Vote #224, 5/26/05; Failed 213-214; R 19-210; D 193-4; I 1-0; Medical Quality Democratic Amendment Final , Democratic Leadership Document; Congressional Record, Pages H4096-4097, 5/26/05; House votes to boost veterans' health spending, reject effort to shift base-closing money , Associated Press, 5/26/05]

Jindal fully supports President Bush's Iraq war policy, which costs more than $2 billion a week. For the past four years, Bobby Jindal has wholeheartedly supported President Bush's war policy in Iraq � a war that some estimates say is costing more than $2 billion a week. (Felix: Category 2; America Votes 2008; View From a Bridge, CNN, 9/2/07)

[Sulayman]

Just to understand, you say the recovery from 1934 to 1936 was due to government spending and not to commercial industrial production?

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by Sulayman

Just to understand, you say the recovery from 1934 to 1936 was due to government spending and not to commercial industrial production?

The answer's are all right there sul. I can't be any more clearer to you than I already have. You have a choice now, you can either continue being dishonest as you're doing here playing to defend what the meaning of the word "is" is, or you can be honest and support your arguments.

[Sulayman]

Clear as mud.

So which is it, the government caused the short lived recovery of 1936 or did comercial industrial production do it?

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by Sulayman

Clear as mud.

So which is it, the government caused the short lived recovery of 1936 or did comercial industrial production do it?

I should've known better than to waste time explaining our orbit around the sun, serves me right.
anything you want it to be sul, anything you want it to be.

[Sulayman]

Good night troll. I think its back to ignore for you.

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by jfuh

I should've known better than to waste time explaining our orbit around the sun, serves me right.
anything you want it to be sul, anything you want it to be.

Sulayman got pwnd!!