Murray/Feinstein amendment is going on in the senate

[Beet]

Senator McCain had a strong speech. I don't agree with everything he was saying (I think he proposed another $275 billion in tax cuts... and then wails about debt. Senator McCain, your tax cuts will cost far more than all the pork you propose to eliminate from the bill.) Nevertheless, he was going point by point clearly.

Max Baucus just took 3 minutes to make one point, which was idiotic. He is an idiotic. Just kept saying the same thing over and over again.

I see now that John Ensign is pushing the same revisionist line that all Republicans seem to be going all out for now.
Ensign: New Deal sank nation into deeper depression. Same as Amity Shlaes. Same as Peter Schiff. Same as Cal Thomas yesterday. In fact, Thomas said "this is an objective fact." This is WRONG.

I am f**king sickened.

Not just a few hacks, but the entire Republican party is taking their unrealistic talking points very seriously. These guys actually believe this sh*t. The facts are obvious: GNP, which had been contracting annually from 1929 to 1933, began to turn up in March 1933. Unemployment, which had been growing steadily until then, began falling. Industrial production, which had been falling steadily until 1933, began to turn up. There is no objective indicator that the New Deal worsened the depression. If anything, the New Deal was not enough spending.

This is like Democrats coming back and saying the economy got worse under Reagan compared to Carter. One HUGE point against the U.S. right now is that about 45% of the population is willing to accept total hackery.

[Beet]

So, wait--was this a successful filibuster?

Yep. Friggin absurd:


WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked Democrats from adding $25 billion for highways, mass transit, and water projects to President Barack Obama's economic recovery program. Already unhappy over the size of the measure, Republicans insisted additional infrastructure projects be paid for with cuts elsewhere in the bill.

1. Rule by the minority. Where was this in 2001-2006? Also-- California has done so well through rule by minority fiscal rules that we should take it nationwide, right? I mean, California never has any fiscal problems, right?

2. No Republican has the right to complain that the bill doesn't have enough infrastructure spending now, because they just blocked a (meager) attempt to augment it.

3. The Republican reasoning is warped. You don't pay for spending with tax CUTS. That is exactly the kind of bullsh**t that has got us into the fiscal hole to begin with. I'd rather have tax-and-spend than borrow-and-spend, because at least with the former, you know what you're getting.

[Beet]

So, wait--was this a successful filibuster?

Yep. Friggin absurd:


WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked Democrats from adding $25 billion for highways, mass transit, and water projects to President Barack Obama's economic recovery program. Already unhappy over the size of the measure, Republicans insisted additional infrastructure projects be paid for with cuts elsewhere in the bill.

1. Rule by the minority. Where was this in 2001-2006? Also-- California has done so well through rule by minority fiscal rules that we should take it nationwide, right? I mean, California never has any fiscal problems, right?

2. No Republican has the right to complain that the bill doesn't have enough infrastructure spending now, because they just blocked a (meager) attempt to augment it.

3. The Republican reasoning is warped. You don't pay for spending with tax CUTS. That is exactly the kind of bullsh**t that has got us into the fiscal hole to begin with. I'd rather have tax-and-spend than borrow-and-spend, because at least with the former, you know what you're getting.

I don't think they were asking for tax cuts to pay for additional infrastructure funds, but rather that they don't want to add any more money to the overall sum, so therefore other projects would have to be cut from the bill that are the equivalent value of the new spending so that the cost remains constant.

Ah, a misread on my part. Well that is more reasonable.

[Beet]

The upturn in March 1933 dealt more with FDR's efforts to secure the banking sector from its unstoppable decline. That was a common sense menuevre and anbody with a brain(which Hoover didn't possess) would have acted similarily. You got to have a stable saving and lending system. The Big spending items of the New Deal didn't take effect till 1934-1936 and the Second New Deal which was mostly Spending Projects in 1936-1937. In late 1936 the Economy began to slump back down and by 1938 all the gains had been wiped out and we were right back were they started in 1933

Have you been watching Chris Wallace?

We were not right back where we started in 1933

* The unemployment rate was 19% as opposed to 25%, 24% lower. Source
* The industrial production index (2002=100) at the low point of 1938 (April) was 6.16 as opposed to 4.14 at the low point of 1933 (March), 49% higher. For the full year, the index in 1933 was 5.40, while the index in 1938 was 6.94, or 29% higher.
* The economy did not start slumping in 1936. The Industrial Production time series for 1936-1937 is as follows:

1936-01-01    7.3050
1936-02-01    7.1246
1936-03-01    7.2148
1936-04-01    7.6657
1936-05-01    7.8160
1936-06-01    7.9663
1936-07-01    8.1167
1936-08-01    8.2369
1936-09-01    8.3872
1936-10-01    8.5075 <-- late 1936
1936-11-01    8.7480 <-- late 1936 "economy slumping", according to whatever lying media source you get your info from
1936-12-01    9.0185 <-- late 1936
1937-01-01    8.9884
1937-02-01    9.1087
1937-03-01    9.3191
1937-04-01    9.3191
1937-05-01    9.3492
1937-06-01    9.2289
1937-07-01    9.2891

All data above from St. Louis Fed

Furthermore, GDP in chained 2000 dollars increased by 5.2% from $867 billion to $911 billion between 1936 and 1937. Source

This again contradicts the assertion that the economy began to decline in late 1936.

First of all in 1937 the federal budget was cut and an attempt was made to balance the budget in part by ending programs such as the Public Works Administration and the Works Progress Administration. As a result government spending dropped from $8.2 billion to $6.8 billion in current (1930s) dollars from 1936 to 1938, after rising from $4.7 billion in 1932. Arguably this is what caused the 1937-38 recession.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

After the 1936 elections the Democrats had 76 seats in the Senate and 334 seats in the House. These numbers were never sustainable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually in 1940 the economy was more than recovered from the Depression in terms of output:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We were much better off at any time in the 1970s than the early 1930s, although conservatives may not like to admit it.

So, why is Chris Wallace lying? Why is the supposedly liberal New York Times lying? Why is Peter Schiff, John Ensign, and Amity Shlaes lying?

What the hell is up with this revisionism?