This discussion is closed.
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#601
Report 10 years ago
#601
There are a lot of historians who think Hoover and FDR's polices just made things worse.

Looking at these unemployment numbers, it's pretty obvious the new deal is a bad joke.

1930: 8.7%
1931: 15.9%
1932: 23.6%
1933: 24.9%
1934: 21.7%
1935: 20.1.%
1936:16.9%
1937:14.3%
1938:19%
1939:17.2%
1940:14.6%
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#602
Report 10 years ago
#602
(Original post by CrazyPyramid)
Made in the USA: Proof that the more money you have, the more influence you have.
I didn't know I had that much of influence or money. Thanks...I guess
I'm thinking about showing up at one of these anti-obamacare rallies. :woo:
0
Tha_Black_Shinobi
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#603
Report 10 years ago
#603
(Original post by Made in the USA)
You can take it with a pinch of salt if you want, but I think those charts showing how long Swedes had to wait were pretty damning. Those "waiting lists" would never be tolerated in this country.
american healthcare is laughable at the moment. britain healthcare system is ranked 18th best in the world while the US's is ranked 37th according to the world health organisation. The UK also has a higher average life expectancy than the USA. I would rather tolerate waiting lists than ****** healthcare and a shorter life
0
CrazyPyramid
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#604
Report 10 years ago
#604
(Original post by Made in the USA)
There are a lot of historians who think Hoover and FDR's polices just made things worse.

Looking at these unemployment numbers, it's pretty obvious the new deal is a bad joke.

1930: 8.7%
1931: 15.9%
1932: 23.6%
1933: 24.9%
1934: 21.7%
1935: 20.1.%
1936:16.9%
1937:14.3%
1938:19%
1939:17.2%
1940:14.6%
I'm guessing Made In USA thinks Regean was one of the best presidents America has had. Am I right?

Obama is not a sociliast. You only think he is because you are incredibly right wing. Compared to you, he is pretty much a socialist. Only the most hardcore of Republicans think FDR was 'one of the worst presidents in history' and that the government cannot cope with anything.

You have socialised medicine in the military. It is a first rate service from what I hear, there was a republican explaining this on the daily show very recently. Your government could provide good healthcare if it really wanted to. You and a lot of other republicans have just been so absorbed by the scaremongering tactics used against 'big government' that you don't think this is true.
0
D-Day
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#605
Report 10 years ago
#605
(Original post by Made in the USA)
There are a lot of historians who think Hoover and FDR's polices just made things worse.

Looking at these unemployment numbers, it's pretty obvious the new deal is a bad joke.

1930: 8.7%
1931: 15.9%
1932: 23.6%
1933: 24.9%
1934: 21.7%
1935: 20.1.%
1936:16.9%
1937:14.3%
1938:19%
1939:17.2%
1940:14.6%
Historians and economists assert that unemployment fell every year of the New Deal except 1937-1938.

On a side note, I just want to see how interested you are in proving your claims, rather than just shouting at the top of your lungs and hoping somebody listens. Two times now I have responded to something you have said and I've been ignored in both cases. You've lost all credibility with me. I think you're doing it on purpose because you have no response that won't make you look like an idiot. Prove me wrong. I dare you.

edit: Also, the New Deal was put into effect between 1933 and 1935. Guess when the unemployment figures you posted start to drop. 1933. Therefore your numbers validate what I just posted about historians and economists. Stop trying to make the facts fit your argument.

edit(2): Made in the USA, listen to me. As someone who loves a good argument, I'll give you some advice. If you want people to read what you say and NOT think you're a moron, you need to not do what you're doing. Trying to make data fit your hypothesis (and doing a pretty poor job of it) and posting these numbers with no proof whatsoever that you didn't make them up, is one sure way to come off as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. If you can't find data to back you up, don't manipulate what you find. And don't pull numbers out of your ass. I know where the numbers came from because I happened to look at the article a few minutes ago, but if I hadn't, I'd think you'd pulled those numbers from your ass. I'm telling you this because it is actually painful to me to see someone debate as poorly as you are.
0
Sharpshooter
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#606
Report 10 years ago
#606
(Original post by CrazyPyramid)
I'm guessing Made In USA thinks Regean was one of the best presidents America has had. Am I right?
No, most Americans do.

He left with one of the highest approval ratings ever, 65%. Only Bill Clinton beat him, with 66% (one percent higher).

Have a look at greatest American presidents polls and see what most Americans think. You'll see only Lincoln and JFK in the history occasionally top him. Many popular polls have him first, or at least in the top 3 regularly.

It's a left wing myth to suggest Reagan was an unsuccessful president, or was unpopular, he hammered both his democratic opponents with 500 electoral votes in both elections.
0
D-Day
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#607
Report 10 years ago
#607
I don't believe Reagan was a bad President. Far from it, but to say that FDR was bad is as idiotic as saying Reagan was bad.
0
CrazyPyramid
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#608
Report 10 years ago
#608
(Original post by Sharpshooter)
No, most Americans do.

He left with one of the highest approval ratings ever, 65%. Only Bill Clinton beat him, with 66% (one percent higher).

Have a look at greatest American presidents polls and see what most Americans think. You'll see only Lincoln and JFK in the history occasionally top him. Many popular polls have him first, or at least in the top 3 regularly.

It's a left wing myth to suggest Reagan was an unsuccessful president, or was unpopular, he hammered both his democratic opponents with 500 electoral votes in both elections.
I know he was wildly popular you dolt I was just asking his opinion. I've seen the '84 election map and I just have to say ouch. Mondale got served :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7INABbOnLI

I'm sure you'll love that video.

It's like in this country, nearly every poll or historian I've seen talk about it says that Clement Attlee was our best PM, followed closely by Thatcher. Another poll I saw voted Tony Benn as the country's favourite politician, again followed closely by Thatcher.
0
Sharpshooter
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#609
Report 10 years ago
#609
(Original post by CrazyPyramid)
I know he was wildly popular you dolt I was just asking his opinion. I've seen the '84 election map and I just have to say ouch. Mondale got served :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7INABbOnLI

I'm sure you'll love that video.

It's like in this country, nearly every poll or historian I've seen talk about it says that Clement Attlee was our best PM, followed closely by Thatcher. Another poll I saw voted Tony Benn as the country's favourite politician, again followed closely by Thatcher.
Recent newsnight poll gave Churchill as number 1 Atlee as number 2, Thatcher at 3. However the way that poll was done in a way that would have hurt Thatcher. It wasn't done in "who is your favourite", but rather given 12 PM's and everyone had to list them 1-12, and then done as an average. Thatcher would have got a hell a lot of 1's, more than Churchill or Atlee, but many others would have put her 10th 11th and 12th, more so again than Churchill or Atlee, for moral reasons Churchill and Atlee would always have been in the top 5.

The thing about Thatcher and Reagan is that in these polls their popularity has increased over the last 5 years. So they've gained popularity as time has gone by and have become more respected.

Back in 2000, polls Reagan was only hitting about 6th or 7th at best (7-9%), and now is regularly up at the top (16-20%) as of 2006 onwards.

Similarly Thatcher back in 1999 was ranked 5th in one poll, however she's climbed higher, and in recent polls where people have only been asked to name one PM, she's come top (post 2007 polls). 49% in one of them which is incredibly high. Probably when she dies there's a possibilty she'll eclipse Atlee and Churchill (possibly).

Good video by the way:P
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#610
Report 10 years ago
#610
(Original post by D-Day)
Historians and economists assert that unemployment fell every year of the New Deal except 1937-1938.

On a side note, I just want to see how interested you are in proving your claims, rather than just shouting at the top of your lungs and hoping somebody listens. Two times now I have responded to something you have said and I've been ignored in both cases. You've lost all credibility with me. I think you're doing it on purpose because you have no response that won't make you look like an idiot. Prove me wrong. I dare you.
I went back and reread your posts and I don't see what you think I'm ignoring?

(Original post by D-Day)
edit: Also, the New Deal was put into effect between 1933 and 1935. Guess when the unemployment figures you posted start to drop. 1933. Therefore your numbers validate what I just posted about historians and economists. Stop trying to make the facts fit your argument.
Sure, they dropped a tiny bit, but many charts show unemployment never falling below 20%. Regardless of which numbers you use, the results of all that debt and spending are extremely unimpressive. Certainly a lot less than what you'd expect from a "great" president.

The jobless claims actually climbed in the second phase of the new deal. It's a valuable lesson for those who think government spending on "stimulus" helps the economy or creates jobs. WW2, not government spending, helped the US economy recover.

History is repeating itself. Obama told us the stimulus was needed to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% and now we are about to go into double digit unemployment.

(Original post by D-Day)
edit(2): Made in the USA, listen to me. As someone who loves a good argument, I'll give you some advice. If you want people to read what you say and NOT think you're a moron, you need to not do what you're doing. Trying to make data fit your hypothesis (and doing a pretty poor job of it) and posting these numbers with no proof whatsoever that you didn't make them up, is one sure way to come off as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. If you can't find data to back you up, don't manipulate what you find. And don't pull numbers out of your ass. I know where the numbers came from because I happened to look at the article a few minutes ago, but if I hadn't, I'd think you'd pulled those numbers from your ass. I'm telling you this because it is actually painful to me to see someone debate as poorly as you are.
I'm not here to be liked and if you find my debating to be poor, you don't have to respond to me. Honestly, having some people here say they "lost respect for me" is a bit of a compliment because people resort to insults when they have no arguments to stand on.

Like I said before, those numbers are some of the more flattering to Roosevelt numbers you'll find. If you don't like them, find some other numbers from a source you like. No matter where you get your stats from, it's going to show Roosevelt's "New Deal" was really a raw deal. It did a poor job of lowering unemployment and it left us with a lot of debt.
0
D-Day
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#611
Report 10 years ago
#611
(Original post by Made in the USA)
Sure, they dropped a tiny bit, but many charts show unemployment never falling below 20%. Regardless of which numbers you use, the results of all that debt and spending are extremely unimpressive. Certainly a lot less than what you'd expect from a "great" president.

The jobless claims actually climbed in the second phase of the new deal. It's a valuable lesson for those who think government spending on "stimulus" helps the economy or creates jobs. WW2, not government spending, helped the US economy recover.

History is repeating itself. Obama told us the stimulus was needed to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% and now we are about to go into double digit unemployment.

I'm not here to be liked and if you find my debating to be poor, you don't have to respond to me. Honestly, having some people here say they "lost respect for me" is a bit of a compliment because people resort to insults when they have no arguments to stand on.

Like I said before, those numbers are some of the more flattering to Roosevelt numbers you'll find. If you don't like them, find some other numbers from a source you like. No matter where you get your stats from, it's going to show Roosevelt's "New Deal" was really a raw deal. It did a poor job of lowering unemployment and it left us with a lot of debt.
You seriously need to pull your head out of the sand and read a history book.
0
yeahm8justhavina****
Badges: 0
#612
Report 10 years ago
#612
(Original post by Made in the USA)
FDR was one of the worst presidents in US history. He turned what should have been a fairly routine downturn into a prolonged depression.

If creating a state healthcare system is Obama's path to greatness, then why is it that the closer he gets to passing his plan, the more his approval numbers drop?
Because most Americans are stupid, do not know what they want, and believe everything the massive private-healthcare business lobby tells them.
0
D-Day
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#613
Report 10 years ago
#613
(Original post by yeahm8justhavina****)
Because most Americans are stupid.
Generalizing proves you to be as stupid as you claim we are
0
TheJudge
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#614
Report 10 years ago
#614
What peeweedan means to say is that Obama will not do what Israel asks him to do. Every American should reject this notion, America should be an independant state free of an outside state controlling it.

Jewish lobbys are an enemy of America.
0
CrazyPyramid
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#615
Report 10 years ago
#615
(Original post by Made in the USA)
I went back and reread your posts and I don't see what you think I'm ignoring?



Sure, they dropped a tiny bit, but many charts show unemployment never falling below 20%. Regardless of which numbers you use, the results of all that debt and spending are extremely unimpressive. Certainly a lot less than what you'd expect from a "great" president.

The jobless claims actually climbed in the second phase of the new deal. It's a valuable lesson for those who think government spending on "stimulus" helps the economy or creates jobs. WW2, not government spending, helped the US economy recover.

History is repeating itself. Obama told us the stimulus was needed to prevent unemployment from exceeding 8% and now we are about to go into double digit unemployment.



I'm not here to be liked and if you find my debating to be poor, you don't have to respond to me. Honestly, having some people here say they "lost respect for me" is a bit of a compliment because people resort to insults when they have no arguments to stand on.

Like I said before, those numbers are some of the more flattering to Roosevelt numbers you'll find. If you don't like them, find some other numbers from a source you like. No matter where you get your stats from, it's going to show Roosevelt's "New Deal" was really a raw deal. It did a poor job of lowering unemployment and it left us with a lot of debt.

I just know a lost cause when I see one. Besides, the other people have the stamina to argue back where as I just can't read that much rubbish without having to take a breather :p:

The fact that you think Obama is a socialist and FDR was a crap president make it extremely hard for anyone to take you seriously.

Also I feel I didn't make myself clear before: Your opinion seems to be the result of scaremongering tactics by Republicans and special interest groups and the drug companies. Scaremongering tactics with billions of dollars behind them. Thus, the more money you have = the more influence.
0
Captain Crash
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#616
Report 10 years ago
#616
(Original post by Made in the USA)
Your commonweath report that you wanted me to read was entirely based on subjective data, and now you think subjective data is crap? I'll have to respond to the rest of the data later. I have a job fair to get to.
I have no problem with subjective data. If it is collected in a methodical way with a large sample taken from a representative distribution, it is not only valid, but extremely helpful (not that the report was entirely subjective anyway - whether you waited 6 or more days or not for medical treatment, as the pages I pointed out entailed, is objective data)

What I do object to is subjective 'data' (also known as anecdote) from a sample of one person whose a priori beliefs are perfectly clear.
0
Captain Crash
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#617
Report 10 years ago
#617
(Original post by Made in the USA)
WW2, not government spending, helped the US economy recover.
Erm.... WW2 was government spending....
0
hey guyzz
Badges: 0
#618
Report 10 years ago
#618
(Original post by Made in the USA)
FDR was one of the worst presidents in US history. He turned what should have been a fairly routine downturn into a prolonged depression.
If creating a state healthcare system is Obama's path to greatness, then why is it that the closer he gets to passing his plan, the more his approval numbers drop?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahaha

Deary me, you really are stupid
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#619
Report 10 years ago
#619
(Original post by Captain Crash)
Erm.... WW2 was government spending....
Crash, you really believe that a "War Economy" is the same as failed plans like the New Deal and Obama's stimulus? In a war economy, the nation's economic activities are organized in such a way as to maximize its ability to sustain a war. The big difference is between a war economy and a peace economy is demand. During a war there is constant demand for certain goods, but in a peace economy there is no such stream of demand.
0
Made in the USA
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#620
Report 10 years ago
#620
(Original post by hey guyzz)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahaha

Deary me, you really are stupid
Unemployment was higher right before WW2 than when Roosevelt took office. His New Deal was a complete failure, just like Japan's Stimulus efforts in the 90s failed and Obama's stimulus is failing. He did have some good points though. Roosevelt, unlike the buffoon we have now, was good at calming people in a way that helped them get through hard times.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (120)
64.86%
No I haven't decided yet (39)
21.08%
Yes but I might change my mind (26)
14.05%

Watched Threads

View All