Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
You have to admit people were comparing Obama to Carter way before this tape was made.
|
I confess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Absolutely false. There is strong data to show that the economy was improved dramatically by 1937, a year in which he decided to slash government spending, which then resulted in the Roosevelt recession. As soon as he began spending again, the unemployment dropped and things gradually improved until WWII.
|
The US was in a recession in 1925 primarily caused by a "housing bubble." The US came out of that recession (and the stock market tanked
as you would expect) only to go back into a recession in January 1928 (and the stock market soared
as you would expect).
The US came out of the recession in late summer of 1929 (the stock started tanking
as you would expect, until the massive drop in October 1929).
The economy continued to improve until March 1930 when the Republican-controlled House and Senate enacted what was then the largest tax increase in US history and also enacted destructive tariffs and duties on imports (to, um, "protect" US markets). Within 120 days, the economy tanked (and the stock market soared as you would expect).
The Democrats gained control of both the House and Senate in the 1930 Elections. In March of 1931, the Democrat-controlled House and Senate repealed the oppressive personal income taxes, and the destructive duties and tariffs on imports and the economy started improving (and the stock market tanked
as you would expect).
FDR was elected in 1932 and in March 1933, he started with his oppressive taxes and other actions and the economy immediately faltered and started collapsing again (and the stock market soared
as you would expect). FDR's policies wiped out half of the gains the economy had made.
In 1935, the economy started performing marginally, but in 1937 the next round of New Deal legislation destroyed that.
Effectively the country took 2 steps forward, and then giant leap backward every time FDR enacted a round of new deal legislation.
The GDP dropped 49% because of the Republican tax hike and tariffs on imports. When the oppressive taxes were repealed by Democrats the economy grew 50% of those few years and recovered half of the GDP it had lost and FDR destroyed those gains and sent the US back into recession.
Had it not been for WW II, you would have been doing the two steps forward and one giant leap backward thing all they through 1947-49.
The War was a big boost for the economy. Read newspaper accounts. A shipyard in Philadelphia had no choice but to open a new shipyard in South Carolina because 1) there was no more labor in Philadelphia because everyone was working and 2) he need more space to build ships to sell to the rest of the world so they could play war. And that was in 1938.
Had FDR left things alone, the US would have recovered sooner.
And I would point out that while the economy was growing at an average rate of 12.5% per quarter from 1938 to 1942, the stock market was in the crapper the entire time, but then,
that is what you would expect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenfriedbananas
Yeah, and so what? By WWII's end the deficit was well beyond our national GDP - worse than the deficits we're running now. We probably wouldn't be running these deficits, of course, if the GOP would just accept a higher tax rate for people like Steve Forbes. Repubs don't care about the deficit at all.
|
You don't understand what you're talking about and you contradict yourself.
Yes, the tax rate was 90% for the top bracket, ie those earning more than $174,400 today.
But you are so lacking in knowledge or maybe you're a disinformation artist, because you refuse to compare tax codes then and now.
Yes, the tax rate was 90% Wink!Wink!.
You never heard of the 3-Martini Lunch?
Oh, how little you know. Everything was deductible and that is not an exaggeration. You could take as a credit against your federal income tax owed any tax you paid to any other entity.
Why do you think people had SOHIO, Union, Phillps, Texaco, Conoco, Hess, Sun Oil, Union76 etc etc gas cards? Because at the end of the year you got a nice statement saying how much gasoline you purchase, the price you paid and a break down of State gasoline tax and the federal excise tax on gasoline so that you could deduct those taxes --- as a credit against your personal income tax not as a credit against your adjustable income.
State income tax was deductible. State sales tax was deductible (that's why everyone had big shoe boxes full of receipts). Property taxes were deductible. Earnings taxes paid to cities, counties and States were deductible. The federal excise tax on tires was deductible. Taxes you paid to on the sale of stocks or bonds was deductible.
Not only was interest on mortgages deductible, but so was interest on credit cards. Anyone who had a Diner's Club card, or American Excess, JC Penny, Montgomery Ward or Sears card, you just deduct the interest right off your taxes owed.
"Business Expense" in the IRS tax code was very vague. Buy some suits, that's a business expense. Airline tickets, tickets to cinema and theater, mileage on your car, and of course the 3-Martini Lunch were all deductible as credits against the personal income taxes owed.
So yeah, the tax rate was 90% but by the time you took all of the legally allowable deductions it was really somewhere between 30% to 40%.
And by the end of the 1950s the US had stagnated and not much was going on by the way of new business start ups and the led to a recession in 1959 (and the stock market soared
as you would expect) and then the economy recovered in 1961 (and the stock market tanked
as you would expect).
So JFK cut the taxes from 90% to 70% (and only a few modifications to the IRS tax code) and that led increased revenues for the government.
You might want to actually look at companies. Qualcomm is a good one. Two men and a woman, out of work, desperate for money, working in their garage on telecommunications equipment.
How do you think they got the money to start Qualcomm? They went to a bank? Hell no. You loan officers are versed in telecommunications?
They went to private investors. A lot of private investors had already invested $Millions in telecommunications. They were smart, savvy and well versed in telecommunications having read 100s of business plans and prospecti for new companies.
It was they who put up the money for Qualcomm, not the government and not the banks.
If you use a cell-phone, you can thank Qualcomm for the innovations in technology that allow you actually but a cell-phone in your pocket instead of carrying around a huge fricking bag that weighed 5 pounds because of the battery.
And there you go strutting about like a pompous weanie with your MP3 Player.
You have an MP3 Player because of private investors, not because of the government or banks; the very same private investors you want to rip money from to fund your party-party-party life-style.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie117
False
The national debt was no higher when Clinton left office than it was when he first moved in.
|
You're both wrong.
When Clinton left office the National Debt was $5.5 TRILLION.
It was only $5.1 TRILLION in 1996.
So yes, the National Debt did increase under Clinton in spite of what the less informed might believe.
The only thing Clinton did was play an Enron accounting game where he shuffled the numbers around to hide where the debt was actually going.
When Clinton was re-elected in 1996, the National Debt was $5.1 TRILLION with the public holding $3.7 TRILLION and the government holding $1.4 TRILLION.
Clinton simply shifted the public debt to the government so that when he left office, the National Debt had increased to $5.5 TRILLION with the people holding $3.3 TRILLION but the government holding $2.2 TRILLION.
So yes, the public part of the National Debt did decline by $400 Billion but then Clinton increased the government debt by $800 Billion.
All Clinton did was re-write the numbers in a different column on the accounting ledger, and that did what for America? Absolutely nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailordave
Wow, that was chilling. What's that old saying about those who don't learn from history?
|
In the event the question is not rhetorical, Satayana said they were condemned to repeat it. He's quite right you know.
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.
