Have you come back to reassert that 90% of the population was living on farms in the 1930's?

Or are you just gonna soil the carpets? Again.

If you don't want to be called an idiot and a nitwit, stop acting like one. People who make reasoned arguments backed by facts - not easily-dismissed rightwing propaganda and lies - seem to receive a pretty good welcome around these parts.

Clowns like you, not so much.

It must really suck to be living during an era when not only your entire worldview has been proven to be a miserable sham, but when the reigns of political power are about to be handed over to someone far, far to the left of your little rightwing fantasy world.

What's even worse is, the incoming Democratic Administration is still somewhat to the right of popular opinion on things like regulation, taxes for the rich, national healthcare, infrastructure, immigration, trade and so forth.

Enjoy your next 40 years howling in the wilderness. Maybe your fellow crazies will help keep you company, like the the flying saucer people and the flat Earthers!

I guess that's just too deep for me.

A puddle is too deep for you.

Go back to the wingnut website that sent you here. Your obvious ignorance only makes it that much easier to dismiss your idiotic laissez-faire claptrap.

The question asked by Hazlitt in his classic "Econonics in One Lesson" needs to be answered: if the people who were taxed to pay for those projects were allowed to keep their money, what innovations and entrepreneurial efforts would they have made instead?

Well, if you went back in time 5 years, confiscated the pile of money fraudsters like Countrywide, Ameriquest, WaMu and Madoff were sitting on top of - not to mention all of the crooked investment banks - and spent all that money on hookers and beer, it would have been a lot more productive than the smoldering crater the "free market" left behind in the financial service sector.

What a surprise! A bunch of crooked pigs couldn't self-regulate. Whoda thunk it?

>It kept people from communism (which was making inroads).

Really? Precisely how did it do that?

Are you really that freakin' ignorant? By giving millions of people jobs and a paycheck, and by performing useful functions, like bringing electric power to poor, remote regions of the country. You know, stuff the private sector was too clueless to get around to on its own. Then as now, private enterprise was dominated by greedy pigs looking for a scheme they could ride to riches. Instead of performing useful investments that would have delivered sensible returns, they went for a fraudulent killing and got themselves killed instead.

Of course it doesn't have to be that way. Regulations can be put into place - and enforced - to ensure that productive activities are favored and non-productive activities are penalized or abolished. That's how this country operated from the 1930's thru into the 1980's, when we were an industrial powerhouse and the envy of the planet.

Then propaganda-spewing lying free marketeer clowns like you got into power, and now the wheels are flying off the bus.

I'm beginning to think capitalism doesn't deserve an FDR-style rescue this time around. Let it burn. The French Revolution was ugly, but it seemed to permanently burn off the aristocratic stupidity which had characterized French culture for generations. Maybe when enough idiots like Kosmik Klown are strung up by piano wire it'll serve as a similar lesson to the next 10 generations that free-market idiocy is a dead end road.

Very dead.

>The TVA brought power to areas business refused to

>serve and still serves today.

I have never heard of business refusing to serve any area of the US.

That's because you're ignorant.

Even to this day, try getting high speed internet access in rural areas. You often can't, or you have to pay a fortune for it (even from companies which enjoy government-protected monopoly status). It was a similar situation with electricity in the impoverished rural south.

We learned all about this in high school. What were you doing instead of paying attention in class?

>If FDR made a mistake, it was not spending enough.

That's simply an opinion.

No, actually, that's a pretty well-established fact. The Great Depression ended when the government started spending *real* money on the war effort, including a revved up TVA (building dams to supply electrical power for aluminum manufacturing and - later - for enriching the uranium used in the first atomic bombs) and billions thrown at the manufacturing sector to produce munitions. To give you some idea of how pervasive that money was, Rock-Ola, the jukebox company, became one of the producers the M1 carbine rifle for the US Military during WWII. They ended up making about 230,000 rifles.

If Roosevelt had spent that kind of money starting in 1933, the Depression would have ended years sooner - as it did in Japan, which went on a deficit spending spree not long after the Depression began and was out of it (and booming) by the mid-1930's. Then as now, rightwing ideology here in the US got in the way of making the obviously correct choice.

If you rightwing nitwits had been running the country in the 1930's, we'd all be speaking Japanese right about now.