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.
First ask yourself how we got into this mess.
Then once you get that answer you will know you can't spend your way out of what you spent your way into.
In other words the solution to the problem is not the government, the problem is government and I dont care who the president its.
Oh well that's just pure homespun wisdom....if you don't mind I'll listen to experts on the economy, and leading economists rather than some talking point you got from Sean Hannnity.....LOL
I read leading economist are split 50/50 on whether the new deal was effective or not.
No, the revisionists are a tiny group that wanders the halls of places like the Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College muttering to themselves. They are hacks who, without the financing pumped in by wealthy far right-wingers and reactionaries, would be unheard of.
No, the revisionists are a tiny group that wanders the halls of places like the Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College muttering to themselves. They are hacks who, without the financing pumped in by wealthy far right-wingers and reactionaries, would be unheard of.
Oh well that's just pure homespun wisdom....if you don't mind I'll listen to experts on the economy, and leading economists rather than some talking point you got from Sean Hannnity.....LOL
Golly gee....Government is the problem..LOL
Well what do you know there is many economist that agree with Hannity
Arguments that the New Deal was not effective are silly - especially from those who in the very next breath claim that WW II ended the Depression. What was it about WW II that ended the Depression?
Was it the millions of Americans who went on the government payroll serving in the military?
Or was the hundreds of millions of dollars the US government poured into the economy buying everything from pencils and erasers, to chairs and desks, to jeeps and trucks, to ships an submarines, to fighters and bombers to atomic bombs?
Both the New Deal and WW II served as economic stimuli because the government spent money. The main difference is that in the New Deal the government spent a lot of money and achieved some degree of success - and in WW II the government spent tons and tons and tons of money and achieved a huge success.
FDR's 'failure' with the New Deal was not that he spent all that government money, it was that he didn't spend ENOUGH government money to effectively jump start the economy. He was too timid and conservative when he needed to be brave and bold.
The New Deal worked "pretty well' - but it could have worked a LOT better had FDR not been so constrained.
Ken
It's not the war that stopped the depression. The war ended unemployment because so many young men were removed from the work force. After the war was over, every other developed nation was bombed and burned to oblivion and definitely not manufacturing anything. We sold our products to the entire world through the 50s with little competition. We could charge what we liked because we had a virtual manufacturing monopoly. Since then our advantage has steadily decreased, yet we are still doing things as though nothing has changed. We have the second highest tax rates on business behind only Japan. This adds to the cost of our already overpriced exports, yet we cannot understand why we have trade deficits and unemployment. We have to ask ourselves, What is our advantage in the world's marketplace? Right now it is nothing. Until we correct that, we can throw all the money in the world into our economy and it won't change a single thing except to blow up the national debt and pay off Democratic supporters.
I just love it when a right wing talking point thread is simply torn apart and wrecked by facts and knowledgable posters.....It makes my day.
Where is the OP now?.....Hiding under a rock?
Im right here buddy,how ya doing?
Do you think all this debt will have no impact?
What about the risks of flooding the economy with all this money?
You need to change our economy to making things again...
Most of our Economy is based on buying stuff...
We have a phony economy.
I misspoke, academic economist around the country on whether it lengthened the great depression or not.
You misspoke again. Your magazine article refers, without examining it, to a single 1995 survey done by Robert Whaples, a right-wing economist whose other surveys have suggested that academic economists are in agreement over the wisdom of school vouchers, but sharply divided over the issue of global warming. Kind of makes you wonder...
You are either unaware of the nature of the current crisis or are utterly ignorant of economic history. There are no post-WWII recessions that serve as a parallel to this one, and while they aren't here yet, all those Great Depression-like conditions you seem to insist upon are on the immediate horizon. Sensible people would wish to ward those off, which, of course, is impossible if one waits until they actually get here before doing anything about them.
Methinks neither.
I am old enough to remember all the recessions going back to the 70s. Each time one rolls around, the cries of "another Depression" are thrown around like booze at a stag party. Each time, "its unique", "unlike anything we have seen before" or "unparalleled" to paraphrase you. Each time its the end of the world, end of things as we know it, the end of history, the end of endings, etc.
Until the economy begins to grow again, which it will.
Sensible people would indeed wish to ward off some of the conditions, mostly by being sensible. They might start with ceasing all the fiction and sheer nonsense about the Great Depression and the New Deal. The New Deal did not solve the Great Depression. That is indisputable. Therefore, sensible people would not summon a strategy that was ineffective. They certainly would not call for outdoing it.
Sensible people would also recognize that spending copious amounts of debt does not make any more sense if an intelligent Democrat does it than it does when a befuddled Republican does it.
Sensible people would recognize that yes, money should be spent on things like emergency extensions of Unemployment Benefits (one good thing, along with Red Rocks, that came out of the New Deal), extension of COBRA benefits, and other things to help people in need.
Sensible people would further recognize that yes, new and sensible regulations are needed and also, unpalatable as it is, toxic assets should be corraled into a "bad bank".
Most of all, sensible people would recognize that Presidents, past and present, neither give nor take away economic growth. Sensible people would encourage this President on his good ideas and dissuade him from burying them in mountain of debt.
How about it Saganista? Would you like to be sensible?
Each Economic Recession/Depression will be different anyway.
The economy of the 70s,80's,& Now are different.
I just wonder how other countries that are propping us up will view us..
With all our issues and debt?
I misspoke, academic economist around the country on whether it lengthened the great depression or not.
The author lost credibility by second paragraph. This is a blatantly partisan piece of "ideas" that you're relying to form an opinion. If it floats your boat, go for it, but don't take seriously. We should be learning from history, not covering up certain aspects and presenting a mutilated version of.
A non-partisan, serious, economist will not emphasize only the bad things, but will present facts in a balanced way. That is completely absent from this "expert" you choose to listen to. To give you a few examples, he laid emphasis on unemployment rate from just 8.7% in 1929 to 24% in 1932. As a logical reader, the rate of rise in unemployment, tripling in just three years, comes as no joke, a fact avoided by the author.
Then he proves my point of him being a right wing nut with an agenda by suggesting that unemployment rate reached 15% in 1940. Wrong! That is misrepresentation at its best, just the kind that political crooks like to use, also a signature of media outlets like Fox News. It is not entirely false, because unemployment was indeed at about 15% in 1940. What they don't want you to know is that it had already come down to 15% in just 2-3 years, and about 11% in 1937.
The right wing propaganda likes to use the 1938 blip to twist facts, which helps them make a point that ND didn't help but extended recovery. Why is it that they choose to skip the state of the economy just before the republican congress and FDR decided to balance the budget which resulted in the 1938 recession? Because they know it doesn't help their cause. And there are enough people in this world to take their word, whatever they spew... no questions asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by averagejoe76
Each Economic Recession/Depression will be different anyway.
The economy of the 70s,80's,& Now are different.
I just wonder how other countries that are propping us up will view us..
With all our issues and debt?
We should have thought about issues with debt back in the 1980s. We're now paying the price of Reaganomics, something republicans (and most conservatives) have been extremely proud of.
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.
