Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 181 to 189 of 189
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by blenderboy5 View Post
    It's not really revision. The best thing we can say about his policies is that they stopped us from completely rejecting democracy. But they didn't get us out of the Great Depression, perhaps worsened the crisis, and only a war saved us
    And, that's completely absurd. Well before the wartime economy the unemployment rate was cut in half and private investment increased once he was able to institute New Deal policies.

    It was when he jumped the gun and tried to re-institute government cutbacks and balance the budget that things slowed (Recession of 1937).

    Sure, the wartime economy helped speed things up -- but even then it was due to a nationalized effort spearheaded by FDR to produce materials for the war.

    Saying that the New Deal failed is a completely ridiculous statement and is nothing more than conservative revisionism. There's a reason he was, and remains, popular.
    Last edited by SmthBluCitrus; 02-11-2009 at 01:58 PM.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / SIUe
    Posts
    35,041
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by blenderboy5 View Post
    It's not really revision. The best thing we can say about his policies is that they stopped us from completely rejecting democracy. But they didn't get us out of the Great Depression, perhaps worsened the crisis, and only a war saved us
    Come on BB, I expect that type of trash from some posters, but you're better than that.

    Any economist worth his salt can show you the data from the 1930s and 1940s and prove to you that the influx in public expenditure whittled away unemployment.

    In fact, the one year that FDR decided to cut spending, unemployment went on to soar back up again (1937-1938). Then the war effort replaced the New Deal infrastructure initiatives as the large public spending endeavor.

    I'm not sure what you could say otherwise.

    If you're going to criticize the man, you should do so for what he did between 1932 and 1933 before getting sworn in. He could have helped Hoover out, but he decided it was better to let Hoover continue to use bad economic policy and worsen the economy -- that way FDR would look even better once he showed how Keynesian economics could solve the problem.
    Member of the Owlluminati

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
    2011 Knicks Salary Cap Information

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,338
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ari1013 View Post
    Come on BB, I expect that type of trash from some posters, but you're better than that.

    Any economist worth his salt can show you the data from the 1930s and 1940s and prove to you that the influx in public expenditure whittled away unemployment.

    In fact, the one year that FDR decided to cut spending, unemployment went on to soar back up again (1937-1938). Then the war effort replaced the New Deal infrastructure initiatives as the large public spending endeavor.

    I'm not sure what you could say otherwise.

    If you're going to criticize the man, you should do so for what he did between 1932 and 1933 before getting sworn in. He could have helped Hoover out, but he decided it was better to let Hoover continue to use bad economic policy and worsen the economy -- that way FDR would look even better once he showed how Keynesian economics could solve the problem.

    Would you and the queen of citrus stop filling this board with damn facts. It just is not fair.

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ari1013 View Post
    Come on BB, I expect that type of trash from some posters, but you're better than that.

    Any economist worth his salt can show you the data from the 1930s and 1940s and prove to you that the influx in public expenditure whittled away unemployment.

    In fact, the one year that FDR decided to cut spending, unemployment went on to soar back up again (1937-1938). Then the war effort replaced the New Deal infrastructure initiatives as the large public spending endeavor.

    I'm not sure what you could say otherwise.

    If you're going to criticize the man, you should do so for what he did between 1932 and 1933 before getting sworn in. He could have helped Hoover out, but he decided it was better to let Hoover continue to use bad economic policy and worsen the economy -- that way FDR would look even better once he showed how Keynesian economics could solve the problem.
    Yes but you can't keep everlasting Keynesian economics. Sooner or later the government runs out of money. Unless they keep raising taxes, thus decreasing private investment. Or if i'm missing smoething Ari, please explain.
    Therefore he doesn't exist
    So poof...vamoose son of a b itch

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / SIUe
    Posts
    35,041
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    Yes but you can't keep everlasting Keynesian economics. Sooner or later the government runs out of money. Unless they keep raising taxes, thus decreasing private investment. Or if i'm missing smoething Ari, please explain.
    Right. We screwed ourselves over in the 1970s by becoming overly dependent on fiscal policy -- which was when monetary policy was the better option in curbing inflation and unemployment.

    The thing is, when inflation is negative and nominal interest rates are set to no higher than 25 basis points, there's nothing we can really do in terms of monetary policy. That leaves fiscal policy as the only option.

    Of course taxes will have to go up to pay this off in the future. Taxes should have never been lowered in 2001 and 2003 when we really couldn't afford to cut them. If you're going to cut taxes, you also have to simultaneously cut spending. But when you HAVE to spend to fill the void left behind by private investment, then you can't possibly be thinking about cutting taxes.

    So what we need is temporary (18 months or less) increases in public spending. And once the economy picks up, we can inch the tax rate back up to normal. Perhaps adding on a new high end marginal tax rate -- maybe 40% for all income earned over and on top of $2M?
    Member of the Owlluminati

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
    2011 Knicks Salary Cap Information

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ari1013 View Post
    Right. We screwed ourselves over in the 1970s by becoming overly dependent on fiscal policy -- which was when monetary policy was the better option in curbing inflation and unemployment.

    The thing is, when inflation is negative and nominal interest rates are set to no higher than 25 basis points, there's nothing we can really do in terms of monetary policy. That leaves fiscal policy as the only option.

    Of course taxes will have to go up to pay this off in the future. Taxes should have never been lowered in 2001 and 2003 when we really couldn't afford to cut them. If you're going to cut taxes, you also have to simultaneously cut spending. But when you HAVE to spend to fill the void left behind by private investment, then you can't possibly be thinking about cutting taxes.

    So what we need is temporary (18 months or less) increases in public spending. And once the economy picks up, we can inch the tax rate back up to normal. Perhaps adding on a new high end marginal tax rate -- maybe 40% for all income earned over and on top of $2M?
    I agree 100% we should have cut spending with the tax cuts. But didn't Greenspan say himself if we dont' cut taxes the fed would have to much of a suprlus coming up?

    And honestly, what if we would have cut spending then, and then increased it now, to me that would adjust for a lower tax bracket. We'd have to bring them down in succesion, and raise them in succession only to cut them back down. To me 40% seems like an arbitrary number. A number that I think is freaking high at that (not saying we won't need it to pay this off, but that it's bad taht we have to have it that high)
    Therefore he doesn't exist
    So poof...vamoose son of a b itch

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / SIUe
    Posts
    35,041
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    I agree 100% we should have cut spending with the tax cuts. But didn't Greenspan say himself if we dont' cut taxes the fed would have to much of a suprlus coming up?

    And honestly, what if we would have cut spending then, and then increased it now, to me that would adjust for a lower tax bracket. We'd have to bring them down in succesion, and raise them in succession only to cut them back down. To me 40% seems like an arbitrary number. A number that I think is freaking high at that (not saying we won't need it to pay this off, but that it's bad taht we have to have it that high)
    The Federal Reserve or the Federal Government? A fiscal surplus has nothing to do with the Fed.

    And yes, I agree. Had we cut spending back then along with taxes, then raising spending now wouldn't be so costly. But we ran up something like $5T in added debt over the last 8 years. That's what makes this spending so unpalatable.

    40% was pulled out of my behind. But it's probably pretty close to what we'll need on the top 0.1% of wage earners. Either that, or all marginal rates go up. A half a percent for the lowest, 1% for the next, 1.5% for the third, etc.

    Of course that makes the top rate (currently 35%) jump up to 38%. And that would be 38% on all income earned over $350K or so.

    I think my plan would be a bit better -- even for the wealthy. That would save them 3% on income between 350K and 2M. And then cost them 2% more on income over 2M. We're talking about a few 1000 people in that most upper tier range.
    Member of the Owlluminati

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
    2011 Knicks Salary Cap Information

  8. #188
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    40,047
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ari1013 View Post
    The Federal Reserve or the Federal Government? A fiscal surplus has nothing to do with the Fed.

    And yes, I agree. Had we cut spending back then along with taxes, then raising spending now wouldn't be so costly. But we ran up something like $5T in added debt over the last 8 years. That's what makes this spending so unpalatable.

    40% was pulled out of my behind. But it's probably pretty close to what we'll need on the top 0.1% of wage earners. Either that, or all marginal rates go up. A half a percent for the lowest, 1% for the next, 1.5% for the third, etc.

    Of course that makes the top rate (currently 35%) jump up to 38%. And that would be 38% on all income earned over $350K or so.

    I think my plan would be a bit better -- even for the wealthy. That would save them 3% on income between 350K and 2M. And then cost them 2% more on income over 2M. We're talking about a few 1000 people in that most upper tier range.
    Greenspan said we needed to cut taxes or the federal government would have to much money in a few years, or 10 whatever. I've tried to forget alot of what Greenspan said. Maybe I should forget that too, but he did give the nod on Bush's cuts.
    Therefore he doesn't exist
    So poof...vamoose son of a b itch

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO / SIUe
    Posts
    35,041
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by behindmydesk View Post
    Greenspan said we needed to cut taxes or the federal government would have to much money in a few years, or 10 whatever. I've tried to forget alot of what Greenspan said. Maybe I should forget that too, but he did give the nod on Bush's cuts.
    Good call. Greenspan's one of the main reasons we're in this mess.
    Member of the Owlluminati

    Quote Originally Posted by James Madison
    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
    2011 Knicks Salary Cap Information

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •