But you can't ignore the part where unemployment dropped by many percentage points, spending was cut and they jumped right back again.
Well sure, if you spike up spending that much for a couple years and then drastically cut it at once there will be a downturn. People were laid off from government jobs through cuts in the WPA and PWA. This is really to be expected IMO.
It does show a correlation with strong causal possibility, that with a little bit of deficit spending the unemployment dropped by a lot and then later, during WWII when deficit spending went up A LOT, that unemployment dropped to less than 1%.
All of the New Deal wasn't deficit spending. FDR raised income taxes, as well as excise taxes. This is why I would say the jobs gained through the WPA were really just a diversion of jobs. Instead of being created in the private sector, those people began working for the government.
Besides you can't compare the New Deal spending and the WW2 spending, they are different things. Of course a war lowered unemployment, everyone went to war and everyone who stayed home had to make things for the war. That is very different than the spending FDR enacted, which was entitlement spending(later turned into the WPA), farm subsidies, and just a ton of political coercion. I argue those things along with high taxes and regulation, like the NRA, really just prolonged the depression. If it weren't for FDR's focus on winning votes, soaking the rich, and pushing though anti-business laws we would have recovered A LOT faster than we did.
Ok, so this talks about one other time spending was cut, the year he took office. I don't see where it says the economy looked like it was recovering in 1933, like you mentioned, however.
It also fails to even mention the Smoot-Hawley tariff(Hoover's fault), the poor performance of the Fed, and the raised taxes(many regressive) that helped, either cause, or worsen the depression.
TBH, that doesn't really provide ANY evidence that the New Deal wasn't big enough. It only says it wasn't, and then provides some nostalgia and compares Obama to FDR.
The only times that the administration has just straight up intervened is on businesses who requested government intervention.
Both administrations have intervened in the markets a ton. Auto bailouts, stimulus etc. I am not arguing the merit of those projects, just that they create uncertainty for business.
You made it sound like he kept doing things to recover the economy, then he would cut spending drastically each time. The link only talks of one time he cut spending, and it was only by 10 percent, which TBH doesn't seem THAT drastic compared to how much he increased it. I know how the new deal worked (or didn't work depending on how you look at it), I was looking for some backup on your claim. The link isn't exactly saying the same as you.
The problem with FDR and the democrats at the time are they were drastically afraid of racking up too much debt, so each time that recovery seemed like it was happening, they would immediately cut government spending throwing us right back into the depression. WWII came along and there was no hesitancy about racking up debt and pretty much the largest stimulus ever occurred instantly pulling us out of the depression.
FDRs policies were just huge economic failures. Do you have a link to show they drastically cut spending multiple times during his time as President?
I think it is wrong of business to think of impending regulation occurring when not only do Republicans control the House and Obama has not shown really any intent to further expand regulations.
It's not just possible regulations, just uncertainty. This administration(and the one before it) have done so many things that have intervened in some way or another with the market, it's tough to predict whats going to happen next.
During the Great Depression the tax rate was much higher on the rich, and the economy only tanked again whenever the fiscal policy was tightened severely and the mandatory wages went in. Mostly the second tanking was blamed on domestically for the fiscal tightening, and more recent scholarship blames France's handling of their gold and currency that messed up foreign cash reserves.
I would argue FDR's policies prolonged the depression rather than save it. 5 years after the New Deal started to be enacted, unemployment was still at something like 15 percent. WW2 started and BAM! We started a real recovery. Regarding France, I don't really know anything about that country or their economy, so I can't debate it.
Basically if we got rid of the Bush tax cuts and phased them out over the next 3-4 years would basically solve our middle term deficit problems along with making cuts to defense. Raising taxes abruptly can do real damage for the economy, but raises taxes on the rich right now or in a year or two isn't really going to do much to the economy.
Like I said they just pass it on to the middle class and poor.
The regulations and "Obama is a socialist" are two myths rather than actuality, for the most part Obama is more of a rightist than many Republicans. The other factor is mostly the newer regulations were a return and enforcement of older regulations that once existed or were not enforced during the Bush administration.
I agree with this as well, and I think I have pointed it out multiple times in other threads. It seems many of the people who agree with me on economic issues, are also the ones who think he is a socialist. :\
how do you explain that corporate tax collections are at their lowest they have been in 60 years yet there is hardly any growth?
Other things factor in as well, that is why it doesn't always work. Businesses are afraid toe expand and invest due to not knowing whats going on, the government spending is making people nervous.
Expanding doesn't mean more money unless all the other companies also start expanding,
If a small business hires, say 2 or 3 new employees, they expanded. If a small business moves to a new, bigger, nicer location, they expanded. Thats an investment that will pay off because it will attract new customers.
the high unemployment is stagnating investment because there are fewer people to purchase consumer goods, if one company starts hiring in a stagnate economy, they lose and that causes them to be afraid to be the first one, yet if everyone did it, they would all make money.
How do they lose just because other businesses aren't expanding?
And cutting government spending less than government receipts will hurt the current economy regardless of where you cut, regular government spending does not result in GDP growth anymore than all of it being private spending, but deficit spending in any form does.
So your saying if we cut a penny of government spending(weather it be in defense, the drug war, or even welfare), it will hurt the economy? How so?
If the government "steps out of the way" (because the government spending money in deficit somehow keeps companies from spending their money...) it would lead to the direct result of more people getting laid off from government work, this would mean less people having a disposable income meaning consumer sells go down, and that helps business how?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Lets not start putting words in my mouth or jumping to conclusions. Sure, abruptly firing a **** ton of government workers is not good for the economy, but I never said anything about that. I want them to cut on the wasteful spending, as well as things like defense, drug wars etc.
You say that is what history shows, yet I can show you history where taxes are high and there is large growth as well. Tax cuts really only boost the economy during stagflation.
Show me where raising taxes got us out of a recession.
I don't know enough about your tax write off plan to actually debate it, sounds interesting though. Do you have link or something where I can read up on it...you know, in more detail? I am very intrigued by it.
The idea is you raise the taxes but you never intend on really collecting them, the goal is to force corporations to spend that money expanding and on more research so they don't have to pay those taxes.
So why would you rather enact "pretend taxes" and hope companies expand(which makes absolutely no sense to me), when you could do something that has historically improved the economy.
Actually it would give business incentive. They are not investing or expanding now because they don't know what's gonna happen next, if the government steps out of the way then business would feel more confident and therefore have more incentive to get things going.
Corporations are paying lower taxes now than they ever have, yet they aren't investing, your answer is to lower them even more and hope they choose then to invest?
Your answer is to raise taxes on them and hope they invest? Mine is based on history and successful economic policy.
Except they can obviously afford it as everything shows them being much more wealthy than they were before the recession, also companies making record profits without reinvesting it.
Companies are making record profits because they are sending jobs overseas. What do you think they will do when we raise their taxes more? I contend they will just send MORE job overseas to save money. When you raise taxes on the big companies, all they do is pass the taxes on to the middle class and poor by doing things like raising prices, lowering wages, and sending jobs overseas.
though that could be solved by increasing corporate taxes and forcing them to reinvest to avoid paying taxes...
Or we could cut taxes and let them expand.....Worked in the 20s, as well as the 80s...I'm sure it could work now(assuming of course we keep our spending low, which is the part of the equation W. Bush forgot).
I do consider my personality to be very similar to his. Mostly the first Locke, with a bit of the fake Locke thrown in, especially when I'm on the forums.
Here are some at my thinnest, but still not thin. (Working really hard on that.)
Dammit ljoss! Every time I had a discussion with you, I pictured Locke from Lost. I also thought of your personality as the same, maybe because of my mental picture, or maybe because you really have a similar personality as the character Locke. Either way now I will see these pics of you when I talk to you instead of Locke...:( Pretending to have a talk with Locke was so fun!
I agree with Cap'. Secularist is more where I think it should be at it. The religious views of the people in power shouldn't get involved. This is where I get really annoyed with republican candidates all the time. Many of them, recently, seem to push their religious views through policy. They let their faith get in they way when it comes to policy on things like marriage or abortion. I'm all for passion in politics, but I think it's too much when your own religion becomes the basis for policies that affect everyone, part of that religion or not.
Fair enough.
The fact that they drove up interest rates contributed to the depression.
Well sure, if you spike up spending that much for a couple years and then drastically cut it at once there will be a downturn. People were laid off from government jobs through cuts in the WPA and PWA. This is really to be expected IMO.
All of the New Deal wasn't deficit spending. FDR raised income taxes, as well as excise taxes. This is why I would say the jobs gained through the WPA were really just a diversion of jobs. Instead of being created in the private sector, those people began working for the government.
Besides you can't compare the New Deal spending and the WW2 spending, they are different things. Of course a war lowered unemployment, everyone went to war and everyone who stayed home had to make things for the war. That is very different than the spending FDR enacted, which was entitlement spending(later turned into the WPA), farm subsidies, and just a ton of political coercion. I argue those things along with high taxes and regulation, like the NRA, really just prolonged the depression. If it weren't for FDR's focus on winning votes, soaking the rich, and pushing though anti-business laws we would have recovered A LOT faster than we did.
Ok, so this talks about one other time spending was cut, the year he took office. I don't see where it says the economy looked like it was recovering in 1933, like you mentioned, however.
It also fails to even mention the Smoot-Hawley tariff(Hoover's fault), the poor performance of the Fed, and the raised taxes(many regressive) that helped, either cause, or worsen the depression.
TBH, that doesn't really provide ANY evidence that the New Deal wasn't big enough. It only says it wasn't, and then provides some nostalgia and compares Obama to FDR.
Both administrations have intervened in the markets a ton. Auto bailouts, stimulus etc. I am not arguing the merit of those projects, just that they create uncertainty for business.
You made it sound like he kept doing things to recover the economy, then he would cut spending drastically each time. The link only talks of one time he cut spending, and it was only by 10 percent, which TBH doesn't seem THAT drastic compared to how much he increased it. I know how the new deal worked (or didn't work depending on how you look at it), I was looking for some backup on your claim. The link isn't exactly saying the same as you.
FDRs policies were just huge economic failures. Do you have a link to show they drastically cut spending multiple times during his time as President?
It's not just possible regulations, just uncertainty. This administration(and the one before it) have done so many things that have intervened in some way or another with the market, it's tough to predict whats going to happen next.
I would argue FDR's policies prolonged the depression rather than save it. 5 years after the New Deal started to be enacted, unemployment was still at something like 15 percent. WW2 started and BAM! We started a real recovery. Regarding France, I don't really know anything about that country or their economy, so I can't debate it.
I agree with this.
Like I said they just pass it on to the middle class and poor.
This is actually a very good point.
I agree with this as well, and I think I have pointed it out multiple times in other threads. It seems many of the people who agree with me on economic issues, are also the ones who think he is a socialist. :\
I never said always. It has worked though, multiple times.
Other things factor in as well, that is why it doesn't always work. Businesses are afraid toe expand and invest due to not knowing whats going on, the government spending is making people nervous.
If a small business hires, say 2 or 3 new employees, they expanded. If a small business moves to a new, bigger, nicer location, they expanded. Thats an investment that will pay off because it will attract new customers.
How do they lose just because other businesses aren't expanding?
So your saying if we cut a penny of government spending(weather it be in defense, the drug war, or even welfare), it will hurt the economy? How so?
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Lets not start putting words in my mouth or jumping to conclusions. Sure, abruptly firing a **** ton of government workers is not good for the economy, but I never said anything about that. I want them to cut on the wasteful spending, as well as things like defense, drug wars etc.
Show me where raising taxes got us out of a recession.
I don't know enough about your tax write off plan to actually debate it, sounds interesting though. Do you have link or something where I can read up on it...you know, in more detail? I am very intrigued by it.
Before I go any further, I would like to get a clearer definition for what you mean by write off.
So why would you rather enact "pretend taxes" and hope companies expand(which makes absolutely no sense to me), when you could do something that has historically improved the economy.
No incentive? Expanding means more money....I think that is plenty of incentive right there.
This really depends on where you want to cut, doesn't it?
Actually it would give business incentive. They are not investing or expanding now because they don't know what's gonna happen next, if the government steps out of the way then business would feel more confident and therefore have more incentive to get things going.
Your answer is to raise taxes on them and hope they invest? Mine is based on history and successful economic policy.
Companies are making record profits because they are sending jobs overseas. What do you think they will do when we raise their taxes more? I contend they will just send MORE job overseas to save money. When you raise taxes on the big companies, all they do is pass the taxes on to the middle class and poor by doing things like raising prices, lowering wages, and sending jobs overseas.
Ok, read that sentence again and answer this question. Why do you think they are refusing to invest and expand?
Or we could cut taxes and let them expand.....Worked in the 20s, as well as the 80s...I'm sure it could work now(assuming of course we keep our spending low, which is the part of the equation W. Bush forgot).
Yea he was my favorite character on the show. Bu now we're getting a little off topic.
Lol.
Dammit ljoss! Every time I had a discussion with you, I pictured Locke from Lost. I also thought of your personality as the same, maybe because of my mental picture, or maybe because you really have a similar personality as the character Locke. Either way now I will see these pics of you when I talk to you instead of Locke...:( Pretending to have a talk with Locke was so fun!
M11?
Lol, I think I saw you at GP Providence. I definitely remember someone carrying around a thing like that..and me looking at it like WTF?