The Perils Of Government By Poll, 30s Edition - NYTimes.com
Is there anyone who (besides myself) who (for the lack of a better word) is saddened by this? It never ceases to amaze me how such ancient thinking still persists in an era of open information. None the less, the rate of stimulus spending has peaked all the while growth prospects seem to be moving in accordance to the spending pattern of the said stimulus.
Public opinion on this issue doesn't sadden me, it gives me hope. It's nice to know that common sense and economic history, haven't completely given way to the progressive beliefs being taught in our schools and endorsed by the main stream media.
The author that re-published that 1938 poll was the Times's economist Paul Krugman. It's a mystery to me how anyone can still take his economic opinions seriously, considering every thing he's written for at least the last decade, has been based on partisanship and the advancement of his personal political agenda. In other words, his opinions are based more on who's in the White House, than they are economic reality.
Putting that aside, Krugman sees the American people's opinion as ignorant, uninformed, and just as wrong today as he believes it was back then. That's because he, along with the majority of progressives/liberals ignore what resulted from FDR and Obama's policies of more spending and expanding the authority of the federal government. The American people saw that those policies then and now, were ineffective in jump starting the economy, creating jobs, and returning America to economic prosperity. They watched as the great depression went on and on for years after FDR's policies were enacted, and just like today, wanted the government to back off. People like Krugman ignore the obvious and claim that the reason those policies were ineffective, was because they should have spent more money, raised taxes, and expanded the federal government's size and control over the private sector even more than they had already.
Just look at the major economic downturns over the last 90 years, how they were handled, and a pretty clear pattern emerges.
The Depression of 1921 was in many ways, much worse than the one in 1929, but we don't hear much about it. That's because it lasted less than 2 years. President Harding's approach was downsizing and cutting government spending, major tax cuts and loosening regulations on private industry. The results were an economic boom called "the roaring 20's".
The great depression has already been discussed. Many believe, including myself, that if it weren't for WWII, it might have gone on for many year more than it did.
The recession of 1960/1961. Kennedy's approach was tax cuts across the board, and the results speak for themselves. It worked.
The recession of the late 70's/early 80's. Reagan's approach was cutting taxes and loosening up government regulations. Again, success.
The 2001 recession. Bush lowered taxes across the board, and again it quickly turned the economy around.
The current recession speaks for itself. We have spent our asses off, and gotten very little bang for the buck. Guys like Krugman ignore what has worked in the past, and try to find alternative reasons to explain the success, while making excuses for why the policies they endorse have failed. So like I said, public opinion on this issue give me hope for the future and doesn't sadden me one little bit.