Does the President of the United States magically control the American economy?

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by squarian

I'm sure you're aware that the success or not of the New Deal is a very contested issue in economic circles - to say blankly that "it never worked" is disingenuous to say the least. If unemployment was still at 14.3% in 1937, that was a significant decline from its 1933 height of about 25%, and meanwhile GDP rose by about 9% per year in that period, while capital investment increased by a factor of eight. The effect of the Second World War was not to disprove the usefulness of the New Deal, but to make any firm conclusions about its ultimate success impossible.

Are you trying to make the case that economic downturns are permanent and not cyclical?

Yeah, it rebounded a little, but why wouldn't it?

It always does except when the powers that be do stupid thing trying make it look like they made the economy recover to the economically illiterate who keep them in office.

If it's been raining for three days and I promise to bring back the sunshine, the sun will come out but that doesn't mean I made it happen.

It just means I'm trying to take credit for what will happen anyway, and it works with the dim-witted.

Remember, FDR had to die in office to lose the presidency, and this is a lesson not lost on today's Democrats.

They know they can always be the champions of the poor.

The trick is to keep as many of us poor as possible so they can rescue us from their own failed economic policies.

Today the FED is keeping interest rates near zero percent.

This pushes worthless paper money into the economy without creating wealth.

This makes the existing currency lose buying power and that lowers consumer demand.

Reagan did just the opposite and it's now a textbook example of how to restore economic growth and private sector employment.

[Cavaturaccioli]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

I have no problem with higher taxes. When the tax-rates were higher under Clinton, we also had huge prosperity. Since tax-rates were lowered, lower growth and far less job growth too -- while income inequality rose along with surpluses turning into deficits.

We had a peace dividend thanks to Ronald Reagan winning the Cold War.
If you really think high taxes bring prosperity you probably think a man can stand in a bucket and lift himself off the ground by the handles.

[Die Intellektuelle]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

I have no problem with higher taxes. When the tax-rates were higher under Clinton, we also had huge prosperity. Since tax-rates were lowered, lower growth and far less job growth too -- while income inequality rose along with surpluses turning into deficits.

Economics seems to be one of the more complex issues of our society that none of us seem to be able to nail; while some may say FDR led us out of the Great Depression, others say WWII to did, some say tax-cuts increase revenues, while others don't. Honestly, we have no real evidence that shows that tax-cuts nor tax-increases cause prosperity, all we rely on is consequences. You and I are a rare breed, we don't mind paying higher taxes if deemed necessary but at the moment the economy is far too fragile to cut or increase taxes solely because we have no true evidence that it may cause prosperity or recession. I can't say that taxes under Clinton caused prosperity but they were sufficient enough to produce a surplus while also allowing our economy to power forward, but can't the same be said about Reagan? He had a recession, cut taxes and led us back into prosperity. So what I'm essentially saying is there isn't a set template for how to get a economy growing, tax cuts are needed at times while at times they aren't. The Bush cutting taxes weren't needed because America was already enjoying prosperous times aside from a mini-recession that occurred in 2000/2001, the tax cuts only produced a deficit, I believe we should only cut to balance. I.e. America has $2.7 Trillion in revenues, $2.5 Trillion in expenses, we could cut taxes enough to close the surplus but not anymore than the surplus.