Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FDRs idiotic policies did extend the Depression for several years; those economists were correct--forced unionization never results in a thriving economy, as any resident of Detroit sadly knows.
When you deliberately increase wages in any given industry via forced unionization, the unemployment rate soars in lockstep with prices, which is guaranteed to kill and/or throw a major monkeywrench into what should be steady and rising rates for demand/commerce, and that's exactly what happened when FDR went on his forced unionization spree via his signing of the NIRA in 1933, as those economists correctly pointed out.
There's the option to leave the US and take your money with you. You could live well in many countries with just your savings and not have to deal with debt.
Well I suppose you could live well on greenbacks in a third world country.
Australia, over 45 ? no skills they need ? they will not allow you in to live unless of course you have a LOT of money to invest in Australian business.
FDRs idiotic policies did extend the Depression for several years; those economists were correct--forced unionization never results in a thriving economy, as any resident of Detroit sadly knows.
When you deliberately increase wages in any given industry via forced unionization, the unemployment rate soars in lockstep with prices, which is guaranteed to kill and/or throw a major monkeywrench into what should be steady and rising rates for demand/commerce, and that's exactly what happened when FDR went on his forced unionization spree via his signing of the NIRA in 1933, as those economists correctly pointed out.
Besides raw ideological gibberish, what facts do you have to backup your assertions? As previously stated, those economists couldn't come to those conclusions unless they fudged the data, which they did. Looking at the data itself it's indisputable how much the New Deal policies worked.
Besides, Marv's statement is contrary to history. Claiming that unemployment would rise under the New Deal policies is undercut by the fact that unemployment fell dramatically under those policies. The concern in the 1930s was deflation and fighting deflation with wage rises worked admirably.
The premise of this thread is that debt is the big problem, even though after WWII the nation had a bigger debt (compared to the size of the economy then) and we had many many years of prosperity and paid the debts -- even though the number of federal programs and defense grew. That's because we were willing to tax.
Today, there is no political will even to go back to the tax-rates of Clinton, which were the second lowest tax-rates in modern history.
Debt problems can be solved if we take the demagogues and ideologues out of the discussion.
The bigger problem, which leaders are ignoring, is 12,000,000 people out of work. Solve that and we solve the short-term deficit problem.
Replicate the Chinese Great Wall along our southern border.
The kind of economic trap Keynes wrote about in 1936 was not a myth or a historical curiosity, it was something that could and did happen in the modern world. And now, we repeat the Japanese crisis of the 1990s; although we are not experiencing deflation, we are nonetheless facing the same apparent impotence of monetary policy that Japan was already facing in 1998. And the thought that the United States, the UK, and the eurozone may be facing lost decades due to persistently inadequate demand now seems all too real.
But it wasn't/isn't the end of the word in 1936, 1996 or now.
For those that criticize current Federal Reserve policy, the policy the Fed is using is from the most conservative economist, Milton Friedman, that is, massive injections of liquidity to avert the kind of banking crisis that caused the Great Depression of the early 1930s.
Besides raw ideological gibberish, what facts do you have to backup your assertions? As previously stated, those economists couldn't come to those conclusions unless they fudged the data, which they did. Looking at the data itself it's indisputable how much the New Deal policies worked.
Besides, Marv's statement is contrary to history. Claiming that unemployment would rise under the New Deal policies is undercut by the fact that unemployment fell dramatically under those policies. The concern in the 1930s was deflation and fighting deflation with wage rises worked admirably.
Any way you slice it, the USA is toast, 2016 will be the point of no return.
National Debt, 20-22 trillion by end of 2016, 30 trillion by 2020, Social Security will start gobbling up more and more of the Feds budget.......nothing in Al Gore's lockbox....hahahaha. The Republicans and Democrats will not work together to reform finances.......that is like a dagger in the countries financial throat.
And.....uh, duh.........the huge entitlement programs are the 3rd rail of politics......haha.
Watch as more and more areas of the United States Of Ameritard resembles places like Detroit, Philadelphia, Oakland and other failed cities.
Any way you slice it, the USA is toast, 2016 will be the point of no return. blah, blah, blah)
Except if you slice it the way Bill Clinton sliced it by running a surplus through raising taxes a few percentage points.
The issue is not insurmountable. It just requires a willingness to solve problems in an adult honest manor. I agree, that with the Republicans controlling the House, who insist tax increases are off the table, there is no way to solve this problem.
Social Security could be funded by removing the upper limit on taxable income. I think these limits need to be raised and the tax rate adjusted to cover current expenses. I realize the higher income people are unlikely to need Social Security but I'll be they collect anyway.
Medicare could be replaced with a UHC system that eventually removed the private sector from healthcare realizing tremendous savings from eliminating executive excesses and corporate profits.
The deficit can be paid down using countervailing tariffs set to eliminate the price advantage of imports and excise taxes on currently illegal drugs. These, along with top end tax rates above 80% would set the US on the path to fiscal stability.
The top 5% of the population have been given a free ride since Ronnie Raygun. It is time they paid their share of the country’s expenses.
IF there was a surplus.for 2-3-4 years...........why did the DEBT go from 3.9 trillion to 5.80 trillion????????????????????????..the answer "off-budget" spending(ie emergency spending)
3. clinton/newt CUT the budget...cut the government ( Through an initiative known as "Reinventing Government," headed by V.P. Gore, the federal government was smaller than it had been since the Kennedy Administration.)....here is the candidate gore for the 2000 election....""GORE: Under my plan, we will balance the budget every year. I’m not just talking. I have helped to balance the budget for the first time in 30 years. And under my plan, in four years, federal spending will be the smallest that it has been in 50 years.""""
the fact is that the liberal globalist bush GREW the government and the uber-liberal globalist obamy is GROWING it even more
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
