New unemployment claims lowest since January

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep citing this "12 million dead" because of Hoover. Would you care to share with the rest of us exactly what that number represents and where you got it?
You keep mentioning that the government should open manufacturing facilities to create jobs. What would they manufacture without taking jobs away from present manufacturers? Who would buy the product? How would they pay the workers? Are you willing to give the government 90% of what you earn so they can do this?

He also will not acknowledge that the gov is who run many manufacturing jobs out of this country with regulations pushed by OSHA and the EPA.

And NO, I don't want a dangerous work place or a dirty planet. But common sense is gone today.......

Since our friend won't address the issues, I guess we'll just have to use Lucky-nomics to figure out what he means. I'll give it a shot.....

You keep citing this "12 million dead" because of Hoover. Would you care to share with the rest of us exactly what that number represents and where you got it?
According to Lucky-nomics theory:Huh? Stick to the issues!

I asked, "You keep mentioning that the government should open manufacturing facilities to create jobs. What would they manufacture without taking jobs away from present manufacturers?"
According to Lucky-nomics theory:Money!

Who would buy the product?
According to Lucky-nomics theory:Buy? We could give it away!

How would they pay the workers?
According to Lucky-nomics theory: With the money they print...duh.

Are you willing to give the government 90% of what you earn so they can do this?
According to Lucky-nomics theory: Since we'll have lot's of extra money taxes could be eliminated.

Lucky-nomics? No so "lucky" I think

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You keep citing this "12 million dead" because of Hoover. Would you care to share with the rest of us exactly what that number represents and where you got it?

Sure, love to.

As the GD kicked off, Oct 29, 1929 tax cuts were already in the works, so Hoover went fwd citing that, "THE MARKET WILL CORRECT ITSELF." Backing up, taxes were cut from 1925-1928 to just 25%, so Hoover cut the top brkt to 24% and figured that would help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States Chart at the lower-left.

So then 12 million Americans died acording to this cite: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_the_Great_Depression

They say 7 city an d 5 rural. this was a quick search I did, but now that I do a more comprehensive search it may be different. I've spent a couple hours looking for an answewr, I'm thinking it wasn't really tracked. I'll keep looking.

This citation states 7 mill died of humger, I'm sure the other 5 mill is based upon lacking medical care, suicide, etc. http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/imf-predicts-worst-recession-since-great-depression/

Here's where I got the number too: http://www.infowars.com/researcher-famine-killed-7-million-in-us-during-great-depression/

The researcher touched upon quite a hot topic in the article – the estimation of the number of victims of the Great Depression in the USA. The material presented in the article apparently made Wikipedia’s moderators delete the piece from the database of the online encyclopedia.

http://www.cherada.com/articulos/10-million-americans-disappeared-during-the-great-depression-time Voluntary defenders of U.S. values who venture to discuss the matter with me, normally begin with a statement that those people were simply not born. However, if we take the age pyramid and distribute the people according to their dates of birth, it becomes apparent that 5.5 million children and two million grown-ups are missing from the 7.5 million. So, those two million people could not have been non-existent ? as they had been born. They could only die

I think they're basing their findings on the census population, at least in part: http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt That shows a disparity of 5.3M from 1930 to 1937.

So I dunno, I think no one really knows, they just use inferrential data like the census. Also, fertility rates dropped significantly, so some may count the lives that would have been.

I'm glad you asked and I spent all morning researching, I think I'll revise that to 7 million, that seems like a safe and fair number. It's not relevant tho, 2 million, 7 million, 12 million; it really doesn't matter, it could have been avoided if the gov/Hoover would have considered the economic mess as significant.

Anyway, then Hoover realized how bad he fucked up and raised taxes in June 1932 with the Revenue Act of 1932: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932 The, uh, market then fixed itself after intervention, not by voodoo.

Quote

You keep mentioning that the government should open manufacturing facilities to create jobs. What would they manufacture without taking jobs away from present manufacturers?

We have to find what is needed and not being provided or provided expensively and the proifit going to the rich to pool. Furthermore, we could pour whatever profits back into the people's pockets via lower costs. Some W.E. countriues have their medical set up this way; a non-profit co-op.

Quote

Who would buy the product? How would they pay the workers? Are you willing to give the government 90% of what you earn so they can do this?

Is it possible for you to be more abstract to make your point? Let's see, this mess, as well as the GD, were created by greedy corporate America, bailed out by the gov. The diff is the turd in charge during the GD decided it wasn't necc for THE GOVERNMENT to react. Remind you of Katrina? Turds say. 'let nature, the market, etc fix it,' compassionate, brilliant people are proactive: Clinton, Obama, GHWB, FDR, etc.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You keep citing this "12 million dead" because of Hoover. Would you care to share with the rest of us exactly what that number represents and where you got it?
You keep mentioning that the government should open manufacturing facilities to create jobs. What would they manufacture without taking jobs away from present manufacturers? Who would buy the product? How would they pay the workers? Are you willing to give the government 90% of what you earn so they can do this?

He also will not acknowledge that the gov is who run many manufacturing jobs out of this country with regulations pushed by OSHA and the EPA.

And NO, I don't want a dangerous work place or a dirty planet. But common sense is gone today.......

You haven't substantiated that OSHA and the EPA ran jobs out and you won't cause that isn't how you roll - all that research.

So you are declaring a dangerous workplace as good, if you want to waive safety for jobs, assuming there is any merit to your claim that OSHA and EAP have done this.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You keep citing this "12 million dead" because of Hoover. Would you care to share with the rest of us exactly what that number represents and where you got it?
You keep mentioning that the government should open manufacturing facilities to create jobs. What would they manufacture without taking jobs away from present manufacturers? Who would buy the product? How would they pay the workers? Are you willing to give the government 90% of what you earn so they can do this?

He also will not acknowledge that the gov is who run many manufacturing jobs out of this country with regulations pushed by OSHA and the EPA.

And NO, I don't want a dangerous work place or a dirty planet. But common sense is gone today.......

Since our friend won't address the issues, I guess we'll just have to use Lucky-nomics to figure out what he means. I'll give it a shot.....

You keep citing this "12 million dead" because of Hoover. Would you care to share with the rest of us exactly what that number represents and where you got it?
According to Lucky-nomics theory:Huh? Stick to the issues!

I asked, "You keep mentioning that the government should open manufacturing facilities to create jobs. What would they manufacture without taking jobs away from present manufacturers?"
According to Lucky-nomics theory:Money!

Who would buy the product?
According to Lucky-nomics theory:Buy? We could give it away!

How would they pay the workers?
According to Lucky-nomics theory: With the money they print...duh.

Are you willing to give the government 90% of what you earn so they can do this?
According to Lucky-nomics theory: Since we'll have lot's of extra money taxes could be eliminated.

And you still won't address Hoover's handling of the GD, cause you're a cherry-picker.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Why don't you be honest and revise it to "I really don't know so I just made up a figure".
The sources you cited, esp. Wiki answers, are a joke. They are based on hearsay and supposition and nowhere do any of them cite a reliable source for the information contained within.
The only source you listed that could be counted as anywhere near reliable was the census data and you missinterpreted it.
July 1, 1939 130,879,718
July 1, 1938 129,824,939
July 1, 1937 128,824,829
July 1, 1936 128,053,180
July 1, 1935 127,250,232
July 1, 1934 126,373,773
July 1, 1933 125,578,763
July 1, 1932 124,840,471
July 1, 1931 124,039,648
July 1, 1930 123,076,741

You do realize that 128,824,829 in 1937 minus 123,076,741 is a 5,748,088 INCREASE in population? Where did you get a disparity?

Try this. www.princeton.edu/chw/lectures-conferences/lectures/past-lectures/spring2006/02-27-06.pdf

I love your last paragraph. Can't answer the questions so you resort to name calling, etc.
Nice.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

And you still won't address Hoover's handling of the GD, cause you're a cherry-picker.

Sure Hoover's handling of things sucked balls. That's not what I am faulting. What I AM faulting is the way you make up figures and toss them around as if they were fact, and your "idea" that the government can solve things just by opening manufacturing plants and hiring people.

News for ye: If there is a need for a product, and it can be filled, the private sector is already got a handle on it. If it is already being produced in large quantities, taking over production will not increase the number of jobs.

Try again.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

According Breitbart, "For decades, the US government and economic community have recognized a panel of academicians with the private National Bureau of Economic Research as the official arbiter of business cycles."

A more definitive statement that the NBER is official cannot be found.


[Reply]In previous links I provided, both the WSJ and CNN Money state that NBER is the official arbiter for dating business cycles.

As I said, a more definitive statement cannot be found.

[Reply]The State of Utah also acknowledges it.


Why trust Utah? WSJ and Breaitbart say the NBER is the official arbiter. No need for Utah or the City of Walla Walla to regonize it. The NBER is the official arbiter because CNN and WSJ say so.

Had it been Fox News that said it you'd no doubt concur with me.

[Reply]Also according to WSJ, "Under his tenure the NBER was revitalized to become probably the country’s most important research network for academic economists. It also became the official arbiter of U.S. recessions and expansions."

Even a blogger believes it. Damn. That's as convincing as the Chsitian Coalition telling us it is official the official arbiter for the 1st Amendment. Why would they lie if it means they'll go to hell?


[Reply]Apparently I'm in good company and you are the misguided one.

Sure. Your company is great. I myself wish I coulf have their sage advice around my office watercooler.

Now, show me where the US government says the NBER is official?

Also, show me where my "denial" was any different that that shown by the NBER? Just because is didn't yell "recession" in dec. 07?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Funny, you claim you can know better and faster than NBER when it suits you...

I notice that you posted NO evidence to support your claim.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

According Breitbart, "For decades, the US government and economic community have recognized a panel of academicians with the private National Bureau of Economic Research as the official arbiter of business cycles."

A more definitive statement that the NBER is official cannot be found.


[Reply]In previous links I provided, both the WSJ and CNN Money state that NBER is the official arbiter for dating business cycles.

As I said, a more definitive statement cannot be found.

[Reply]The State of Utah also acknowledges it.


Why trust Utah? WSJ and Breaitbart say the NBER is the official arbiter. No need for Utah or the City of Walla Walla to regonize it. The NBER is the official arbiter because CNN and WSJ say so.

Had it been Fox News that said it you'd no doubt concur with me.

[Reply]Also according to WSJ, "Under his tenure the NBER was revitalized to become probably the country’s most important research network for academic economists. It also became the official arbiter of U.S. recessions and expansions."

Even a blogger believes it. Damn. That's as convincing as the Chsitian Coalition telling us it is official the official arbiter for the 1st Amendment. Why would they lie if it means they'll go to hell?


[Reply]Apparently I'm in good company and you are the misguided one.

Sure. Your company is great. I myself wish I coulf have their sage advice around my office watercooler.

Now, show me where the US government says the NBER is official?

Also, show me where my "denial" was any different that that shown by the NBER? Just because is didn't yell "recession" in dec. 07?

Weak response. I'm sure with your lawyer resources you can find something to counter these sources, IF THERE IS ANYTHING.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Why don't you be honest and revise it to "I really don't know so I just made up a figure".

Because I ddi look it up as cited in post #77: So then 12 million Americans died acording to this cite:http://wiki.answers.com/...the_Great_Depression

If I made it up, kinda coincidental that this cite says the same thing, huh?

Quote

The sources you cited, esp. Wiki answers, are a joke. They are based on hearsay and supposition and nowhere do any of them cite a reliable source for the information contained within.

I agree, I had JCD try to complain about a legitimate article with clowns posting in various idiotic stataements in the bottom comment's section. As cited, it was a quick search, a couple other quicky sites I ref'dd said the same, so I went with it. It isn't a ref and may very well be off - which is why I spent the morning researching further.

Quote

The only source you listed that could be counted as anywhere near reliable was the census data and you missinterpreted it.

Anywhere near reliable? The US Census Bureau? It doesn't get a lot more near than that. It was wholy reliable and asserted as I posted the website data: I think they're basing their findings on the census population, at least in part:
http://www.census.gov/...990s/popclockest.txt That shows a disparity of 5.3M from 1930 to 1937.

And yes, I thought the middle data column was a scale of the actual population, but it still makes my point. Even with XX million dead as a result of the GD, whatever the number is, population would likely still increase, but we can see the dent made by way of incredibly decreased population growth.

1900 - 1909 = +18% / +14M pop growth -
1910 - 1919 = +13% / +12M pop growth in the midst of WWI
1920 - 1929 = +14% / +15M pop growth
1930 - 1939 = +6.5% / +8M pop growth
1940 - 1949 = +13% / +17M pop growth in the midst of WWII
1950 - 1959 = +16% / +25M pop growth during Korean War
1960 - 1969 = +12% / +22M pop growth during VN War
1970 - 1979 = +9.8% / +20M pop growth end of VN War
1980 - 1989 = +8.5% / +19M pop growth
1990 - 1999 = +9% / +23M pop growth

So this clrears it up, I extrapolated the data and if you look at population trends, there was a population increase of 7 million the decade before the GD and a 11M more the decade after the GD. So perhaps this is how some say 12M, some say 7M. Of course you'll make something sarrcatic and want notorized certificates of death from all 7 or 12M dead people, you are using futility, but after hours of reseach I see this is how people come to these numbers. Which one is honest, which is factually correct? I dunno, I'm gonna start using 7M to be sure that I'm not too high and that I'm probably close.

Quote

You do realize that 128,824,829 in 1937 minus 123,076,741 is a 5,748,088 INCREASE in population? Where did you get a disparity?

I did look at the wrong coloumn of the census graph I provided. The data still answers the question as to the 7M or 12M tho.

Quote

I love your last paragraph. Can't answer the questions so you resort to name calling, etc

By calling you a cherry-picker? You are; here's what you avoided:

This citation states 7 mill died of humger, I'm sure the other 5 mill is based upon lacking medical care, suicide, etc. http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/...ce-great-depression/

Here's where I got the number too: http://www.infowars.com/...ng-great-depression/

The researcher touched upon quite a hot topic in the article – the estimation of the number of victims of the Great Depression in the USA. The material presented in the article apparently made Wikipedia’s moderators delete the piece from the database of the online encyclopedia.

http://www.cherada.com/...reat-depression-time Voluntary defenders of U.S. values who venture to discuss the matter with me, normally begin with a statement that those people were simply not born. However, if we take the age pyramid and distribute the people according to their dates of birth, it becomes apparent that 5.5 million children and two million grown-ups are missing from the 7.5 million. So, those two million people could not have been non-existent ? as they had been born. They could only die.

So I dunno, I think no one really knows, they just use inferrential data like the census. Also, fertility rates dropped significantly, so some may count the lives that would have been.

I'm glad you asked and I spent all morning researching, I think I'll revise that to 7 million, that seems like a safe and fair number. It's not relevant tho, 2 million, 7 million, 12 million; it really doesn't matter, it could have been avoided if the gov/Hoover would have considered the economic mess as significant.

Anyway, then Hoover realized how bad he fucked up and raised taxes in June 1932 with the Revenue Act of 1932: http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Revenue_Act_of_1932 The, uh, market then fixed itself after intervention, not by voodoo.

YOUR CITE ISN'T LOADING, I WILL GET BACK TO IT LATER, REMIND ME IF I DON'T GET TO IT, IT LOOKS INTERESTING - THE FORST PAGES POPS UP BUT ONLY 227 OF 283 KB LOADS AND FREEZES. GIVE ME THE HTML ADDY IF IT HAS ONE, I WANT TO READ IT.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Sure Hoover's handling of things sucked balls. That's not what I am faulting.

Well it is what I'm faulting and referencing, it is highly relevant to what we're talking about. Tell me about Hoover's reaction to teh GD:

- What did he do that sucked balls?

- What should he have doen?

- What did he do that led to the XX # of deaths?

- Where do you place the number of deaths caused by the GD?

Quote

What I AM faulting is the way you make up figures and toss them around as if they were fact...

I posted that 12million had died, I provided a link where I did a quick search, I agree with you that it isn't a reliable site, altjo the data *might* be correct and may very well not be correct. But I did provide a link, not saying that it is accurate.

Quote

...and your "idea" that the government can solve things just by opening manufacturing plants and hiring people.

Well how about this, as the GD was rolling, there wereradical dust storms in the midwest and drought. So the gov could have worked irrigation projects and I'm sure construction equip could be needed to accomplish those, so open and run those factories. This is what I'm talking about. Find the need and supply it with out of work people, 25% were by the time FDR took office. The Hoover Dam 1930-1936 was one such project, but it was alos fraught with horrid conditions and when the workers struck in protest of deadly working conditions the contractor brought in strike-busters with clubs and guns, so it wasn't all so peachy either.

The gov should ha ve run it directly than subcontracted it.

Quote

News for ye: If there is a need for a product, and it can be filled, the private sector is already got a handle on it. If it is already being produced in large quantities, taking over production will not increase the number of jobs.

If the private sector wants to profit too much and monopolize it, HC, etc, etc, etc, then the gov can bring it back around. If it is a deal like a major project, the gov can handle it unless a private contractor is cheaper. I don't think an attiitude that prescribes we let the gov do everything or that we let the private sector do everything is healthy. Most people seem to not be able to find a middle and are the problem. Then these people have kids and they procreate, etc, etc, etc.....

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Get real. Wiki Answers is about as reliable as asking the town drunk on new years eve...while he's passed out. Using Wiki Answers as a source for anything you are going to use to back an argument is worse than not giving any data at all.

It takes a while to load the report, I don't know why. Set it to downloading and wait about 5 minutes.
You will find in there that the only fatality rate that rose, and only slightly, was that of infants. WEith less medical care due to the depression that would be expected. But for non-infants it didn't increase, it pretty much stayed the same as previous years. The worst you could say is that it didn't decrease. read some more and you will find something surprising. The life expectancy of Americans actually went up during the depression.

Population growth slowed by app. 50% because people could not afford to care for the family they had and avoided adding to their burden by having more children. Trying to attribute the decline in the rate of growth during the depression to deaths caused directky by the depression is rediculous.

As far as accusing me of cherry-picking...YEP! This is SC. Anything posted by anybody is fair game to be scrutinized and torn apart by anyone else. Best be prepared by having reliable and indisputable sources to back up any claims made.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

What would you consider "profit too much"?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

What would you consider "profit too much"?

Time to stop paying any attention to this Obama internet posting empoyee. IF, and when he would make his real name known then, and only then should any attention be paid to him/her. Until then. he/she is a joke to be made fun of.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Until then. he/she is a joke to be made fun of.

NICE PERSONAL ATTACK.

[billvon 3,116]

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Get real. Wiki Answers is about as reliable as asking the town drunk on new years eve...while he's passed out. Using Wiki Answers as a source for anything you are going to use to back an argument is worse than not giving any data at all.

Wikipedia is usually pretty accurate, but the Wiki site I initially posted was Wiki answers and I agreed a while back that was an unreliable source, so I did alot of other research, quit beating a dead horse. Now don't go on a rave as to the reliability of Wikipedia vs Wiki answers vs anything else, this is teh 2nd time I have agreed that it was a bad ref, so I spent a lot of time researching the truth; let's focus on that.

Quote

It takes a while to load the report, I don't know why. Set it to downloading and wait about 5 minutes.
You will find in there that the only fatality rate that rose, and only slightly, was that of infants. WEith less medical care due to the depression that would be expected. But for non-infants it didn't increase, it pretty much stayed the same as previous years. The worst you could say is that it didn't decrease. read some more and you will find something surprising. The life expectancy of Americans actually went up during the depression.

I'll try again. And it's their opinion, not gospel unseen, but it certainly is worthy of review being a U of Arizona-based report. So tell me, how do they justify the fact that during that decade there were 7 million fewer people added than there were in the 30's, and there were 11 million more added the following decade. IOW's

- 1920's 15M more people
- 1930's 8m more people
- 1940's 17M more people

How is that explained if the mortality rate isn't that much higher? I think the data from that era is shaky at best, I don't think census data was even taken then - correct me if I'm wrong. Could it be that infant mortality was actually way higher than the U of A document stated? Again, was it even tracked? I agree, infant mortality could be most of the loss, what makes them believe that it was minimal?

Quote

Population growth slowed by app. 50% because people could not afford to care for the family they had and avoided adding to their burden by having more children.

If they couldn't afford to have large families, could they afford whatever birth control was available? Did they just not fuck? Me thinks not, I would like to see support for you assertion, as it is obviously a guess on your part.

Quote

Trying to attribute the decline in the rate of growth during the depression to deaths caused directky by the depression is rediculous.

Famine, disease, malnutrition and then a common cold can lead to death quickly, not to mention a steep increase in suicide which is documented. I don't think any of us can fathom what it was like back then, so to minimize it by saying there were no deaths attributable to the GD is so errant, a person from that era, if still alive, would be insulted and entertained by it.

Quote

As far as accusing me of cherry-picking...YEP! This is SC. Anything posted by anybody is fair game to be scrutinized and torn apart by anyone else.

And if you delve into a post, pick some of it apart and ignore the rest, that's called acquiescence, as in you have agreed to it by not objecting. So you have in fact agreed to all that you have not objeccted to. You won't see it that way, but if you let it stand, you fail to reject it, it is considered undisputed.

Here's what you failed to reject or even respond to:

This citation states 7 mill died of humger, I'm sure the other 5 mill is based upon lacking medical care, suicide, etc. http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/...ce-great-depression/

Here's where I got the number too: http://www.infowars.com/...ng-great-depression/

The researcher touched upon quite a hot topic in the article – the estimation of the number of victims of the Great Depression in the USA. The material presented in the article apparently made Wikipedia’s moderators delete the piece from the database of the online encyclopedia.

http://www.cherada.com/...reat-depression-time Voluntary defenders of U.S. values who venture to discuss the matter with me, normally begin with a statement that those people were simply not born. However, if we take the age pyramid and distribute the people according to their dates of birth, it becomes apparent that 5.5 million children and two million grown-ups are missing from the 7.5 million. So, those two million people could not have been non-existent ? as they had been born. They could only die.

So I dunno, I think no one really knows, they just use inferrential data like the census. Also, fertility rates dropped significantly, so some may count the lives that would have been.

I'm glad you asked and I spent all morning researching, I think I'll revise that to 7 million, that seems like a safe and fair number. It's not relevant tho, 2 million, 7 million, 12 million; it really doesn't matter, it could have been avoided if the gov/Hoover would have considered the economic mess as significant.

Anyway, then Hoover realized how bad he fucked up and raised taxes in June 1932 with the Revenue Act of 1932: http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Revenue_Act_of_1932 The, uh, market then fixed itself after intervention, not by voodoo.

Quote

Best be prepared by having reliable and indisputable sources to back up any claims made.

Oh I did, we agree that my initial thought of 12 million might be high, probbaly is, my quick research then was likely not valid. So since then I have done extensive reseach and found several more pieces of data, so now you have to attack it which you have not. Also, what is your theory as to the number of people that died as a result of the GD?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Time to stop paying any attention to this Obama internet posting empoyee.

Tell me where I can apply for a job like that, I spend way too much time on here for free . Also, do tehy have HC benefits? Or is that still in the works.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What would you consider "profit too much"?

To where the wealth is distributed so the top guy is a multi-millionaire and the turds are begging for HC.

[Lucky... 0]

Also, let's face it, the veiled message here is that tax cuts kill people in a horrid economy, tax increases bring things together and save lives; that's where this is going and you're trying to mitigate the number of GD deaths attributable to Hoover's tax cuts. So let's just clear the air since that's where this is going and that's why you have faield to touch the other post I just entered; I will repost it. Failure to touch it and answer it comprehensively will illustrate to everyone that you are out of gas and running. So please, you made teh assertion that Hoover's recovery "sucked balls." tells us why.

____________________

Quote

Sure Hoover's handling of things sucked balls. That's not what I am faulting.

Well it is what I'm faulting and referencing, it is highly relevant to what we're talking about. Tell me about Hoover's reaction to teh GD:

- What did he do that sucked balls?

- What should he have doen?

- What did he do that led to the XX # of deaths?

- Where do you place the number of deaths caused by the GD?

Quote

What I AM faulting is the way you make up figures and toss them around as if they were fact...

I posted that 12million had died, I provided a link where I did a quick search, I agree with you that it isn't a reliable site, altjo the data *might* be correct and may very well not be correct. But I did provide a link, not saying that it is accurate.

Quote

...and your "idea" that the government can solve things just by opening manufacturing plants and hiring people.

Well how about this, as the GD was rolling, there wereradical dust storms in the midwest and drought. So the gov could have worked irrigation projects and I'm sure construction equip could be needed to accomplish those, so open and run those factories. This is what I'm talking about. Find the need and supply it with out of work people, 25% were by the time FDR took office. The Hoover Dam 1930-1936 was one such project, but it was alos fraught with horrid conditions and when the workers struck in protest of deadly working conditions the contractor brought in strike-busters with clubs and guns, so it wasn't all so peachy either.

The gov should ha ve run it directly than subcontracted it.

Quote

News for ye: If there is a need for a product, and it can be filled, the private sector is already got a handle on it. If it is already being produced in large quantities, taking over production will not increase the number of jobs.

If the private sector wants to profit too much and monopolize it, HC, etc, etc, etc, then the gov can bring it back around. If it is a deal like a major project, the gov can handle it unless a private contractor is cheaper. I don't think an attiitude that prescribes we let the gov do everything or that we let the private sector do everything is healthy. Most people seem to not be able to find a middle and are the problem. Then these people have kids and they procreate, etc, etc, etc.....

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Best you read the paper before passing judgement on its content. The paper was the basis for a lecture at Princeton University and used a great many sources to gather data. It is not based on opinion but rather facts gatherd by a group of researchers.

Quite a bit more reliable than the biased websites you cite that don't even list references or sources for their information.

Couldn't afford the birth control that was available? My God, Lucky, do we have to teach you everything??? From sex-ed 101...
contraception.about.com/od/naturalmethods/Natural_Birth_Control_Methods.htm

My theory is not the one under scrutiny here. Yours is.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I'm running? Yeah, right.
I am questioning you estimate on how many people died as a result of the depression. My opinion of Hoover's actions is irrelevant. What is relevant is how you arrive at your figure (what is it now, 7 million? 5 Million?).

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Best you read the paper before passing judgement on its content.

If I can get it to open. I'll keep trying, but if not, maybe you can post it on photobucket for us.

Quote

The paper was the basis for a lecture at Princeton University and used a great many sources to gather data. It is not based on opinion but rather facts gatherd by a group of researchers.

Their best ability to gather historical fact. Most data wasn't complied until after WWII, as with GDP and other primary data. The GDP data we have now pre-WWII is an after-thought compilation. So I can't wait to read it.

Quote

Quite a bit more reliable than the biased websites you cite that don't even list references or sources for their information.

Actually they weren't an agenda site.

Quote

Couldn't afford the birth control that was available? My God, Lucky, do we have to teach you everything??? From sex-ed 101...
http://contraception.about.com/..._Control_Methods.htm

Oh nice, now let's not let you run too far from the issue, but your website's methods for contraceptioon:

- withdrawal,

- fertility awareness (also known as the Rhythm Method),

- outercourse, and

- continuous breastfeeding

So let's see, we have in plain terms, respectively:

- Coitus interuptus

- Timing the period

- Titty fucking

- Titty sucking

That's rich. You know what they call people who use these methods? PARENTS!

So YOUR GUESS is that the depression-era poor practiced pull out and squirt and that justifies the drop between 7 and 11 million in the 30's: NICE TRY.

Quote

My theory is not the one under scrutiny here. Yours is.

You have only refuted mine with your guesses. It's absurd to think that on teh ridiculously low side that just 1M people died as a result of the GD, including infants, so I see teh R's haven't changed, hence that's why they started calling them neo-cons in the early 20's; tehy went from being the best party around that saved the country, full of compassion, to being greedy, selfish, bah humbugers that were willing to trade lives for money. They did it then, they did it then, they are willing to do it now. Hear about the R fighting HC for kids? They refused to help kids in the GD too; TAX CUTS, MY FRIENDS. What a fucking party

See, you intentionally fail to throw out anumber of dead as a result of teh GD because then the sequential line of ?'s start:

- So Hoover dicked it up?

- Well Hoover cut taxes?

- Hoover turned away the Bonus Army and had their Hoovervilles burned down and WWI soldiers beaten.

- Then after almost 3 years of this, Hoover finally raised taxes to 63%, virtually trippling them.

- Shortly thereafter the healing started.

So you refuse to walk down that path of the fact that even just 1 Million died as a result of, sing it along with me folks......T A X C U T S M Y F R I E N D S.

Come on, show us your guts, TELL US WHY HOOVER'S HANDLING OF THE GD "SUCKED BALLS." I mean your right, but I want to hear why in your version.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Weak response. I'm sure with your lawyer resources you can find something to counter these sources, IF THERE IS ANYTHING.

Your point is that Utah, Breitbart CNN Money and some folks at the WSJ deem the NBER to be the official arbiter of recessions. I cannot counter that they think it.

I can counter the underlying assumption. But you are asking me to prove a negative, such as producing an "official" source stating the NBER is not the official arbiter. You'd have similar luck finding an official source saying that I am NOT the official arbiter of whether the strategy in Afghanistan is correct.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Weak response. I'm sure with your lawyer resources you can find something to counter these sources, IF THERE IS ANYTHING.

Your point is that Utah, Breitbart CNN Money and some folks at the WSJ deem the NBER to be the official arbiter of recessions. I cannot counter that they think it.

I can counter the underlying assumption. But you are asking me to prove a negative, such as producing an "official" source stating the NBER is not the official arbiter. You'd have similar luck finding an official source saying that I am NOT the official arbiter of whether the strategy in Afghanistan is correct.

GDP wise, thsi chart shows that the economy had turned down by mid-2007, only 1 Q opposes the downward hit; 2nd Q of 2008. See teh constant downward turn from 3rd Q 2007?

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

And look at teh 5-year on the market DJIA from mid 2007 - it flattens and soon turns down in subsequesnt years.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

Unemp starts to mount in mid 2008 - jobs usually lag a year. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000

Officially the recession is a different animal, many economists have been abandoning that antequated practice of defining a recession by 2 consecutive Q's of the GDP and looking at all real indicators. I see that the recession logically started in mid-late 2007 by teh indicators; can you argue that by using the data?