• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

1. Your link said that FDR's programs created a huge drag on the recovery.
2. Like your link, you must not have actually read what I wrote.

NIRA was deemed a failure because it created inflation which was a drag on the economy. QE created inflation which has been a drag on the economy.

We have a rising misery index today that Adam and Obama supporters ignore. The only thing keeping inflation down are the 25 million unemployed, under employed Americans
 
We have a rising misery index today that Adam and Obama supporters ignore. The only thing keeping inflation down are the 25 million unemployed, under employed Americans

That and housing keeps the official numbers out of the outright killer numbers but anyone who did any shopping for Thanksgiving know that the official government numbers do not tell the actual story concerning inflation.
 
1. Your link said that FDR's programs created a huge drag on the recovery.
2. Like your link, you must not have actually read what I wrote.

NIRA was deemed a failure because it created inflation which was a drag on the economy. QE created inflation which has been a drag on the economy.

Way to completely misconstrue what the author of the link was obviously saying. What he said was that, while NIRA was a bad program, it was just one out of dozens of New Deal programs that, on balance, helped end the Great Depression.
 
Way to completely misconstrue what the author of the link was obviously saying. What he said was that, while NIRA was a bad program, it was just one out of dozens of New Deal programs that, on balance, helped end the Great Depression.

Yes, the author of your link notes that FDR's program was a huge drag on the recovery but he feels that FDR was still a great guy. He supplies nothing outside of his opinion here to back that up.

Not accepting opinion as fact is not miscontrueing anything.
 
Way to completely misconstrue what the author of the link was obviously saying. What he said was that, while NIRA was a bad program, it was just one out of dozens of New Deal programs that, on balance, helped end the Great Depression.

What you don't seem to understand that we have a free market economy based upon the private sector, not the public sector. Letting the private sector work is what makes our economy run and the private sector will correct itself a lot quicker than the public sector will ever do and we saw that then and we are seeing it right now. When you demonize individual wealth creation, private sector profits, and try to redistribute wealth you destroy incentive and prolong misery. The more misery the more liberals believe they are needed.
 
Kinda looks like the winger talking report have been debunked by the latest CBO report.It raised GDP, between 0.2 % and 1.3%,increasd employment, fulltime jobs at that. :thumbs:

View attachment 67118728


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12564/11-22-ARRA.pdf

What CBO doesn't show is the 4.4 trillion added to the debt to generate those numbers nor the debt service that is a drag on the economy. What you are seeling here is stronger economic growth in 2010 and weaker economic growth in 2010. Compare that to what Reagan did two years after taking office.

1983 GDP Growth

I II III IV
5.1 9.3 8.1 8.5
 
What you don't seem to understand that we have a free market economy based upon the private sector, not the public sector. Letting the private sector work is what makes our economy run and the private sector will correct itself a lot quicker than the public sector will ever do and we saw that then and we are seeing it right now. When you demonize individual wealth creation, private sector profits, and try to redistribute wealth you destroy incentive and prolong misery. The more misery the more liberals believe they are needed.

I guess you just forgot that the private sector, when left unchecked, can blow up our entire economy, like it did waaaaay back in 2007?
 
I'm travelling and enjoying family, so my responses will be limited for a while.

However, in response, the heck with the economists, let's look at what the actual people alive at the time, and living through all this, did at the time.

They elected FDR in 1932, re-elected him in 1936, re-elected him in 1940, and re-elected him yet again in 1944!

All the 80 year later economist looking at a bunch of numbers, do NOT trump the vote of millions of people living it at the time.

I believe FDR was good for the country because the majority supported him 4 times, and that says a lot!
 
I guess you just forgot that the private sector, when left unchecked, can blow up our entire economy, like it did waaaaay back in 2007?

Since it was Gvoernment edicts like "You WILL loan to people that cannot afford houses" and "Freddie and Fannie will buy your toxic" mortgages that caused the housing bubble to forment and explode, it appears once again, you have failed in your quest to exound the virtues of Central Planning, Government Control and Communism.
 
It's the usual conservative argument. Ninety-nine economists contradict them and one supports them. Thus opinion is split and, really, who do you believe?
 
I'm travelling and enjoying family, so my responses will be limited for a while.

However, in response, the heck with the economists, let's look at what the actual people alive at the time, and living through all this, did at the time.

They elected FDR in 1932, re-elected him in 1936, re-elected him in 1940, and re-elected him yet again in 1944!

All the 80 year later economist looking at a bunch of numbers, do NOT trump the vote of millions of people living it at the time.

I believe FDR was good for the country because the majority supported him 4 times, and that says a lot!

FDR told people they werre getting help, and promised them the moon. They didn't have access to the reality like we today do. FDR was a disastrous President whose failed ideas still haunt us today, like his ponzi scheme, you call it Social Security.
 
I guess you just forgot that the private sector, when left unchecked, can blow up our entire economy, like it did waaaaay back in 2007?

The private sector isn't unchecked? liberalism isn't. Liberalism and social engineering may be needed by people like you but this country wasn't built on that principle. Too bad Personal responsibility is a lost trait with you.
 
Last edited:
It's the usual conservative argument. Ninety-nine economists contradict them and one supports them. Thus opinion is split and, really, who do you believe?

99 do not, you haven't got **** but spin by hacks.

How Government Prolonged the Depression - WSJ.com

The goal of the New Deal was to get Americans back to work. But the New Deal didn't restore employment. In fact, there was even less work on average during the New Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per adult, including government employees, were 18% below their 1929 level between 1930-32, but were 23% lower on average during the New Deal (1933-39). Private hours worked were even lower after FDR took office, averaging 27% below their 1929 level, compared to 18% lower between in 1930-32.

Even comparing hours worked at the end of 1930s to those at the beginning of FDR's presidency doesn't paint a picture of recovery. Total hours worked per adult in 1939 remained about 21% below their 1929 level, compared to a decline of 27% in 1933. And it wasn't just work that remained scarce during the New Deal. Per capita consumption did not recover at all, remaining 25% below its trend level throughout the New Deal, and per-capita nonresidential investment averaged about 60% below trend. The Great Depression clearly continued long after FDR took office.

Why wasn't the Depression followed by a vigorous recovery, like every other cycle? It should have been. The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favorable during the New Deal. Productivity grew very rapidly after 1933, the price level was stable, real interest rates were low, and liquidity was plentiful. We have calculated on the basis of just productivity growth that employment and investment should have been back to normal levels by 1936. Similarly, Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas and Leonard Rapping calculated on the basis of just expansionary Federal Reserve policy that the economy should have been back to normal by 1935.

REad the rest to show, that more then just "one paper" says FDR was the prime cause of misery during the GD.
 
Since it was Gvoernment edicts like "You WILL loan to people that cannot afford houses" and "Freddie and Fannie will buy your toxic" mortgages that caused the housing bubble to forment and explode, it appears once again, you have failed in your quest to exound the virtues of Central Planning, Government Control and Communism.

Unfortunately for your argument, there was never an edict forcing banks to lend to people who couldn't afford to repay. In fact the CRA specifically mandated that regulated banks were REQUIRED to consider an applicant's ability to repay. No such requirement existed for non-regulated lenders, which is part of the reason that CRA loans performed better than loans from unregulated lenders.
 
Unfortunately for your argument, there was never an edict forcing banks to lend to people who couldn't afford to repay. In fact the CRA specifically mandated that regulated banks were REQUIRED to consider an applicant's ability to repay. No such requirement existed for non-regulated lenders, which is part of the reason that CRA loans performed better than loans from unregulated lenders.

It really is hard dealing with leftwing ideologues who actually ignore history or never learned history. Ever hear of Redlining? Ever hear of ACORN? Ever hear the term personal responsibility? All this anger over making a loan but no anger against people who actually took the loan and couldn't make the payments. That is liberalism where personal responsibility is never an issue.
 
What CBO doesn't show is the 4.4 trillion added to the debt to generate those numbers nor the debt service that is a drag on the economy. What you are seeling here is stronger economic growth in 2010 and weaker economic growth in 2010. Compare that to what Reagan did two years after taking office.

1983 GDP Growth

I II III IV
5.1 9.3 8.1 8.5


But it does say that the long-term impact of the stimulus will be minimal. Considering that the econmy tanked to 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 08,plus the GDP tanking to 8.9 % . I don’t know how even the most rabid winger can say that the symulus failed to save us from a depression.
 
It really is hard dealing with leftwing ideologues who actually ignore history or never learned history. Ever hear of Redlining? Ever hear of ACORN? Ever hear the term personal responsibility? All this anger over making a loan but no anger against people who actually took the loan and couldn't make the payments. That is liberalism where personal responsibility is never an issue.


Man the irony in this post is amazing.:shock:
 
I'm travelling and enjoying family, so my responses will be limited for a while.

However, in response, the heck with the economists, let's look at what the actual people alive at the time, and living through all this, did at the time.

They elected FDR in 1932, re-elected him in 1936, re-elected him in 1940, and re-elected him yet again in 1944!

All the 80 year later economist looking at a bunch of numbers, do NOT trump the vote of millions of people living it at the time.

I believe FDR was good for the country because the majority supported him 4 times, and that says a lot!

He did a very good job during the war years in keeping people together and supporting the war effort. I would never argue otherwise but to say that he was popular because he was giving away the store before that isn't much of an arguement.

Anyone is popular while they are giving things away.
 
But it does say that the long-term impact of the stimulus will be minimal. Considering that the econmy tanked to 3.8 percent in the fourth quarter of 08,plus the GDP tanking to 8.9 % . I don’t know how even the most rabid winger can say that the symulus failed to save us from a depression.

Obama policies have been a total and complete failure as has been reported. Apparently 25 million unemployed/under employed Americans hasn't hit your household. The point is as the BEA.gov chart shows two years after taking office Reagan had

5.1
9.3
8.1
8.5

GDP growth and during his 8 years Reagan economic policies added 17 million to the labor force, all tax paying Americans. You claim that the stimulus saved us from a depression which of course no one can prove and are simply DNC talking points. What the Reagan numbers show is the difference between leadership and an empty suit. Keep buying the rhetoric and keep suffering from the results.
 
It's the usual conservative argument. Ninety-nine economists contradict them and one supports them. Thus opinion is split and, really, who do you believe?

You provided a blog that actually argued against the idea that FDR was successful in alleviating the problem. :shrug:

I suppose that is almost the same as a 99% agreement. :shrug:
 
99 do not, you haven't got **** but spin by hacks.



REad the rest to show, that more then just "one paper" says FDR was the prime cause of misery during the GD.

I was obviously speaking metaphorically, but the fact is that the majority of economists believe that the New Deal, over all, was a success. Not perfect, but certainly better than doing nothing. Hell, even Milton Friedman said that the New Deal’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was “the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since … the Civil War.” People also tend to forget that Keynes was a major critic of FDR's New Deal policies as he felt that it didn't do enough to stimulate private enterprise.

Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression? - U.S. Economy - Salon.com
 
I was obviously speaking metaphorically, but the fact is that the majority of economists believe that the New Deal, over all, was a success. Not perfect, but certainly better than doing nothing. Hell, even Milton Friedman said that the New Deal’s Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was “the structural change most conducive to monetary stability since … the Civil War.” People also tend to forget that Keynes was a major critic of FDR's New Deal policies as he felt that it didn't do enough to stimulate private enterprise.

Did you hear FDR prolonged the Great Depression? - U.S. Economy - Salon.com

Aw, gee, let me pull a liberal on you, Salon magazine? ROFLMAO. I hope I am around when you grow up and out of that brainwashed state of mind you are in.
 
You provided a blog that actually argued against the idea that FDR was successful in alleviating the problem. :shrug:

I suppose that is almost the same as a 99% agreement. :shrug:

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem if that's what you got out of the cited text.
 
Back
Top Bottom