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.
So true. Low demand is why no one is hiring and why companies are laying people off. Businesses are amoral agencies. They don't care if they are ruining people's lives, all they care about is the bottom line. This is another reason why we need a socialist, planned economy and worker-owned cooperatives rather than capitalist-style businesses.
Why don't we do this in townships rather than through the whole country? What about those of us who prefer a business oriented approach? Don't we get a say?
How do you envision a "worker-owned cooperative" working? Wouldn't there be a leader to organized such an environment? Wouldn't they be compensated at a much higher rate than the employees? If not, why would anyone want to take on the massive responsibility for planning such a complex structure, when they can just become a worker and worry less?
What you are describing is exactly what happened in Eastern Europe. Exactly. Everyone was equal, except the planners. They got all of the nice lake houses, cars, expensive food, and a better life. Usually the property was taken by force from farmers or vacation homes.
This is a stupid thread... What else is new? Presidential administrations are often composed of staffers/advisors who reflect different political parties, backgrounds, opinions etc. Dick Morris worked for the Clinton administration, Paul Krugman worked in the Reagan White House. Blah, blah, blah. Next...
This is a stupid thread... What else is new? Presidential administrations are often composed of staffers/advisors who reflect different political parties, backgrounds, opinions etc. Dick Morris worked for the Clinton administration, Paul Krugman worked in the Reagan White House. Blah, blah, blah. Next...
Slight difference here. Unlike Morris he is not a poll taker, but an economist who worked in Reagan and Bush administrations who said the whole premise was just made up. He has credibility. You can't just call him a democratic shill.
Unfortunately, like Kennedy, the Reagan legacy is often much grander than the reality of his reign. People still think this guy's some sort of economic genius when it was *he* and *his policies alone* who got us into our current public debt debacle.
The problem is that the policies of tax cutting and increased spending that began under Reagan is what got us into this mess we are in today. More so then any other President since then, Reagan is the reason we have the deficit today. TEFRA was a temporary fix that simply increased taxes by closing future loopholes, which today exist again.
He created a mentality that deficits dont matter, which is not true. I always use the analogy that the last 30 years of US history has been one long night of drinking and one long hangover. We got drunk under Reagan and Clinton and we've been hungover with Bush and Obama. Until we have a realistic conversation about taxes and spending, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of many other great empires and nations that came before us.
Quote:
Federal debt began the 20th century at less than 10 percent of GDP. It jerked above 30 percent as a result of World War I and then declined in the 1920s to 16.3 percent by 1929. Federal debt started to increase after the Crash of 1929, and rose above 40 percent in the depths of the Great Depression.
Federal debt exploded during World War II to over 120 percent of GDP, and then began a decline that bottomed out at 32 percent of GDP in 1974. Federal debt almost doubled in the 1980s, reaching 60 percent of GDP in 1990 and peaking at 66 percent of GDP in 1996, before declining to 56 percent in 2001. Federal debt started increasing again in the 2000s, reaching 70 percent of GDP in 2008. Then it exploded in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008, reaching 102 percent of GDP in 2011.
Federal debt has breached 100 percent of GDP twice since 1900: during World War II and in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008.
Okay. But the only two time periods where out debt to GDP has ever reach 100% or more was under democratic presidents...
You're right. Laissez-faire capitalism is an inherently immoral system.
That would be free markets you're thinking of. You know, that system where two parties (or more possibly) agree to a deal, or don't, and no one else is involved to take their "tax" in the deal.
Sure sounds evil considering all parties agree to a deal or it doesn't happen.
IT depends on the regulation. Some regulations serve no real purpose, but the proposition that cutting regulation increases jobs is simply not true, and as the economist states...it was just made up. Undoubtably it was made up to support a political agenda.
Actually, this economist was put in his place numerous times in the Reagan administration so of course he has an axe to grind.
Slight difference here. Unlike Morris he is not a poll taker, but an economist who worked in Reagan and Bush administrations who said the whole premise was just made up. He has credibility. You can't just call him a democratic shill.
He's not a democratic shill. He's a conservative but spoke out against the people that were put in charge behind the scene, (some call that insubordination) but to the rest of the world he championed these policies.
Again, they used a small little section of what the guys has actually written and most of what he wrote about Reagan's policies were talking about the tax increases that occurred during the Reagan administration (and he even talks about the tax increases when he was governor of California).
You're either arguing for the status quo or you're arguing that more regulations and more tax increases help the economy. Which is it? And let's see some numbers?
Okay. But the only two time periods where out debt to GDP has ever reach 100% or more was under democratic presidents...
The only time our deficit was greater then our GDP was during WWII. Our deficit in 2008 was not 100% of our GDP, that would mean we were in the hole over $12 Trillion in one fiscal year. Our publicly held debt may be that much but the budget deficit is not.
Also, I dont think there are many people who would fault FDR for the amount of spending that was needed to win WWII, we were fighting Hitler, what else could we do?
Bartlett didn't work for Reagan unti 1987, and did not work on his campaign.
That's how all the Bushies did it back then.
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.
