Buchanan spouts familiar myths in attack on Obama stimulus plan
SUMMARY: In his column, MSNBC's Pat Buchanan cherry-picked unemployment figures to assert that the New Deal failed to reduce unemployment and that the program was a "bust," referring to unemployment figures that did not include government-relief employment created by New Deal programs. Buchanan also repeated the false claim that President-elect Barack Obama's proposed tax cuts will benefit "individuals who do not even pay taxes."
In his January 9 syndicated column, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan used incomplete unemployment statistics to claim that "economically, the New Deal was a bust." Buchanan also falsely claimed that President-elect Barack Obama's proposed tax cuts will benefit "individuals who do not even pay taxes."
In support of his claim that "economically, the New Deal was a bust," Buchanan wrote that "[b]efore 1940, not once did unemployment fall below 14 percent." But, by making the assertion, Buchanan ignored employment figures that included government jobs created by New Deal programs. Indeed, former Wall Street Journal writer Amity Shlaes -- whose 2007 book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression (HarperCollins), has been frequently cited by conservative media figures to dismiss the effectiveness of the New Deal -- acknowledged that her unemployment figures excluded "make-work jobs," instead relying on data compiled for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) by economist Stanley Lebergott. In a November 29, 2008, Wall Street Journal op-ed, Shlaes wrote, "To be sure, Michael Darby of UCLA has argued that make-work jobs should be counted. Even so, his chart shows that from 1931 to 1940, New Deal joblessness ranges as high as 16% (1934) but never gets below 9 percent" [emphasis in original]. After World War II, BLS ceased counting those in work-relief programs as unemployed, as noted by economist Gene Smiley in a 1983 Journal of Economic History article.
Media Matters has previously documented other conservative media figures and outlets similarly cherry-picking unemployment figures to assert that the New Deal failed to reduce unemployment.
In his column, Buchanan also repeated the false claim, advanced by many in the media, that Obama's economic stimulus proposal includes tax cuts for people who "do not even pay taxes." Buchanan asserted that under the plan, "Hundreds of billions will go out in checks of $500 to $1,000 to wage-earners and individuals who do not even pay taxes." In fact, Obama has proposed giving the tax credit to "working families," which means they pay Social Security and Medicare taxes under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Additionally, The New York Times reported on January 4 that Obama's proposals "include about $300 billion in tax cuts for workers and businesses" [emphasis added].
Too bad Tom Tomorrow didn't include Buchanan in the garbage can of history, but it would be pretty crowded in there:
How many people would have to be included to be accurate? Would it require a landfill instead of a garbage can?
Tom's cartoon caption was: "end of an error." Pretty much sums up the whole neo-con/libertarian ideology of laissez faire economics.
Yeah but other than being completely wrong he's right on the money! Government-relief employment was a major part of getting people working enough to buy things and revive the economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Manufacturing_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
See that dip in the chart between 1937-38? That's the year FDR pulled back the reigns on the New Deal, which had what effect? It caused a recession. Caving into GOP pressure, FDR raised taxes and reduced spending thus causing a hiccup in a recovery that was doing just fine as is. The lesson is clear:
NEVER LISTEN TO REPUBLICANS
Randy
Buchanan really used to p i s s me off but compared to the right wing nut jobs that started popping up after Clinton took office he seems downright reasonable at times. Not this time of course but the right have always had an unreasonable loathing for FDR.
Boy, I cannot wait for Obama to take Office and show these Sycophants how to govern!
The New Deal prolonged and intensified The Great Depression.
And water is dry.
So-- the New Deal created millions of jobs, but this did not result in lower unemployment, huh?
The Unemployment rate dropped from 25% to just under 14% between 1933 and 1939. Not only that, but thousands if not millions of people were able to go to college because of the part-time jobs created by FDR.
Yes, WWII eliminated unemployment as a problem. But the New Deal programs greatly allieviated the suffering of thousands if not millions of people before the war started. Not that any of these pathetic morons gives a damn about that.
Dropping unemployment from 25% to 14% in six years isn't a very big accomplishment by today's standards.
Where do you get the notion that people went to college on part time jobs created by FDR?
That's a drop of 44%, AA, I think that's saying a lot!
He doesn't believe any of that "statistics" and numbers stuff. In his mind, it only went down 11, and that's one more than 10.
Dropping unemployment from 25% to 14% in six years isn't a very big accomplishment by today's standards. (AA)
AA : You're right, that's well within normal fluctuations over a few years.
Everybody else: **shhhh... just play along like he's not crazy. Maybe it will calm him down and prevent him from posting one of those long, boring copy & paste dungpiles.
Let me clarify. A 14% unemployment in today's economy would be considered unthinkable.
Even during the Carter years, unemployment was never more than 7.1%. Correct me if I am wrong, but unemployment is again around 7% and look at panic that is going on with bailouts and stimulus plans.
AA the unemployment was worse during the 81-82 Reagan Recession and spilled over into 83.
1981-7.6%
1982- 9.7%
1983 -9.6^
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
No no no!!! Those numbers are all Carter's fault. Remember, positive effects of Republican economic schemes either take place instantaneously or are long term projects that cover any increases in prosperity that take place during Democratic administrations that follow Republican ones. Negative effects of of Democratic policies either take place instantly, are so devastating that they extend into Republican administrations that follow them or are so catastrophically devastating that they extend backwards from Dem administrations into the Republican ones that proceed them. There are no negative consequences to Republican policies and no positive outcomes from Democratic ones.
Simplifying- The Carter recession 1970-1983. The Reagan recovery 1983-2001. The Clinton recession 2001-2007. The Obama recession 2007-2010 (estimated). The Bush recovery 2010 (estimated) - ?.
Good post, Moonbat.
Another thing can happen. Negative effects of Democratic policies can skip years and pop up at any time. Hence Carter is responsible for the 1990-91 recession. He also shares culpability with Clintion for both the 2001 recession and the current recession.
See, now you get it. All it takes is hitting yourself in the head with a hammer enough times that the "logic" of great economists like Limbaugh and Hannity make perfect sense.
14 percent unemployment may be "unthinkable" now, but it was a substantial improvement over 25 percent, which is the rate hoover handed roosevelt. the rates under hoover increased substantially every year. that's like a column jonah goldberg wrote a couple weeks ago, comparing roosevelt's policies to, of all people, coolidge. skipping right over that nasty little unpleasantness known as the hoover administration. sorry, you can't just make hoover disappear.
Thousands of young men who had dropped out of college, or were prepared to, because they could not pay tuiton or because they needed to earn money to support parents, etc. stayed in college part-time because they were provided jobs by such programs as the National Youth Administration.
That's where I got the "notion" that people went to college on part time jobs created by FDR. From the facts. Where do you get YOUR notions?
And BTW, "dropping unemployment from 25% to 14% in six years isnt a very big accomplishment by today's standards?" You're right- we should save our praise for Presidents who oversee 70% INCREASES in Unemployment. Idiot.
So far all you gave me is your opinion and mistakenly think of it as fact. I don't doubt a lot of people did drop out of college during the depression but you have not supplied any facts backing up your claim that "thousands or millions" dropped out.
Thanks for agreeing with me regarding the drop but you might as well save the insults. They only show you to be juvenile and mean nothing to me.
I provided evidence- check out the mission statement and the accomplishments of the National Youth Administration (or read Robert Caro's The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power, which gives an excellent summary of it's goals and achievements during The Great Depression. Johnson was the Texas Administrator of the program at the age of 26- possibly the youngest statewide director of any New Deal Program.
"Where do you get the notion that people went to college on part time jobs created by FDR?"
This was the question you asked, and I answered it. My answer was not based on opinion, it was based on FACT. I note that you do not even acknowledge that I answered your question in your reply. Instead, you go right to the "Ok I was caught being ignorant, so here's my hissy fit, complete with me stamping my foot" routine.
Thanks for agreeing with me regarding the drop but you might as well save the insults. They only show you to be juvenile and mean nothing to me.
Pardon me for trying to answer your question- I keep forgetting that right-wingers, when they ask questions, aren't really looking for answers, because they consider facts to be scary, dangerous, left-leaning things.
JJ, it's commendable but you're wasting your time. AA will never learn, he doesn't want to learn. He wants to stay safe in his little right wing fantasy world.
I only debate human beings; your reply to me confirms my suspicion that you don't belong in that category.
He maybe going for irony there.
I'm currently into "End Game 1945", by David Stafford. Very informative on what was going down in the last part of WW2. I recomend it to anyone whose a little free with Nazi and Facist designations.
Tasteless, even for you , Oscar.
In defense of Oscar the Grouch, I think he may have been going for a non-wingnut point here, that the ends doesn't always justify the means.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Oscar, but it looked to me like you were making the point that war as an answer to economic problems is as nuts as war as an answer to population problems.
In other words, glitches with FDR's policies are not dismissed with arguments based on the economic benefits of WWII.
Pat makes me laugh ;-)
I think the headline would be more accurate if the word spews, were used instead of spouts.