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.
Market can also eliminate a nation. Who needs Al Qaeda to bring depression to America?
If the government wouldn't meddle in the economy there would be little danger of a collapse of the country because of a depression. The economy during the Great Depression was recovering until FDR meddled with it, thereby extending it. However now the banks and government have become so intertwined it's absurd. Then we bail the banks out, only for them to fail again (why not? they have nothing to lose, they'll get more handouts). People looking to the government to fix the economy are looking in the wrong place. What brought us out of the Depression wasn't socialism courtesy of FDR, but an extremely high demand for products (a.k.a., WWII). None of the governmental attempts to pull out of the Depression did anything.
If the government wouldn't meddle in the economy there would be little danger of a collapse of the country because of a depression. The economy during the Great Depression was recovering until FDR meddled with it, thereby extending it. However now the banks and government have become so intertwined it's absurd. Then we bail the banks out, only for them to fail again (why not? they have nothing to lose, they'll get more handouts). People looking to the government to fix the economy are looking in the wrong place. What brought us out of the Depression wasn't socialism courtesy of FDR, but an extremely high demand for products (a.k.a., WWII). None of the governmental attempts to pull out of the Depression did anything.
Holy Cow! Do some people have no shame? I know those who provide you with these talking points don't... it helps them make millions at the expense of their believers, but for a change, please, for sake of this nation, try to learn from mistakes and accepting them that they are a result of failed ideologies would be a first step.
Allow me to initiate a discussion, as opposed to exchanging rhetoric. A few questions:
- Which era do you consider most prosperous times for America over last 100 years?
- What criteria did you use?
- What policies do you attribute contributed to the effect?
Looks like this particular big government approach will not go as many of it's advocates have projected. I heard several economist pointing out that this infrastructure approach would take too long to implement. I hope Barack is open to a more market oriented approach to stimulating the economy.
He's just trying to do what others are suggesting. He doesn't have any business or economic experience so he can't do much else.
Holy Cow! Do some people have no shame? I know those who provide you with these talking points don't... it helps them make millions at the expense of their believers, but for a change, please, for sake of this nation, try to learn from mistakes and accepting them that they are a result of failed ideologies would be a first step.
Allow me to initiate a discussion, as opposed to exchanging rhetoric. A few questions:
- Which era do you consider most prosperous times for America over last 100 years?
- What criteria did you use?
- What policies do you attribute contributed to the effect?
No it's fact, FDR's programs slowed recovery down.
Reagan focused on market oriented approach, and left with a recession due to a credit mess (1989).
Bush focused on a market oriented approach, and has left with a bigger mess.
Then market wise do something different than what Reagan and Bush did. There are probably several market oriented approaches that could be applied to our current situation. I've heard it suggested that America really should consider a flat tax rate that would stimulate growth like it has in eastern Europe for example along with controlling spending.
No it's fact, FDR's programs slowed recovery down.
A totally unsustainable argument. The only period of slowed recovery was in 1937 when Roosevelt attempted to balance the budget. From 1933 until the period between 1938 -39 there was steady and marked growth.
A totally unsustainable argument. The only period of slowed recovery was in 1937 when Roosevelt attempted to balance the budget. From 1933 until the period between 1938 -39 there was steady and marked growth.
Well when did deficit spending start and why? Why is Obama going into deficit spending now? Deficit spending isn't the "in" thing to do. Every time it's been done the economy was on a downturn anytime taxes are cut it's been on a economic downturn...
Mostly in Reagan era, when deficit rose from less than a trillion to about three trillion. It was, supposedly, an era of everything you said and believe in, and we didn't have even one war to handle, yet...
I know this won't be the last time I will have to say this, but deficit spending is a necessary evil at this time. Tax cut policies haven't worked by themselves, and now they are part of this stimulus package that you're calling deficit spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader
No it's fact, FDR's programs slowed recovery down.
You didn't respond to my questions. Here they are again, if you somehow managed to miss them:
- Which era do you consider most prosperous times for America over last 100 years?
- What criteria did you use?
- What policies do you attribute contributed to the effect?
Then market wise do something different than what Reagan and Bush did. There are probably several market oriented approaches that could be applied to our current situation. I've heard it suggested that America really should consider a flat tax rate that would stimulate growth like it has in eastern Europe for example along with controlling spending.
Key to better economy is to put people back to work, providing incentives and creating ways to help businesses. Also important is ways to reduce reliance on foreign oil, not just from security and environmental point of view, but also to help against trade deficits. Also worth considering is helping develop new technologies, and improve efficiency.
It is our increased reliance on consumer spending that has gotten us where we're today. It was the same reason we had 1989 recession, and this recession is actually more of the same but worse. We no longer produce wealth, so we have to devise ways to keep more of our money home. These fundamentals have been ignored for way too long. And yes, to fix the errors, we now have to over spend. Sad, but thats the reality.
Obama is likely to cut spending in areas that don't makes sense. Lobbyists have been put in place already. He is likely to start spending fewer billions in Iraq than we have seen so far. I would also like to see a drastic reduction in billions of tax dollars sent to several countries in the name of military and economic aid (this increased 70% under Bush). You can bet on spending cuts, quite a bit, with spending where it might make sense. This is exactly why we needed an intelligent President with the capacity to think, and not stuck with an ideology.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 01-22-2009 at 01:08 PM..
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.
