• 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!

U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes

rhinefire said:
Obammy has no idea what he is doing. Anyone recall he has no or little experience in governing? Now he is in the middle of the greatest financial nightmare in our history and you know we are all doomed. It cannot be avoided.
Click to expand...


Why don't you get a sandwich board with DOOMED written on it and parade on the street? Suddenly the reckless conservatives who drove us into this mess are experts, able to quickly assess the proposed stimulus plan and render a judgement. Where were you six months ago when all this hit the fan? Where were you eight years ago when your party dominated the government and CAUSED this "financial nightmare"? The only thing that "cannot be avoided" is that there are a lot of conservative, obstructionist idiots who would rather see America ruined than admit that Democrats might know something about economics.
big_laugh_at.gif
 
Kandahar said:
How do you figure? The Great Depression was worst while Hoover was president. It bottomed out in July 1933, just a few months after FDR took office. After that, things began improving almost immediately. 1933-1936 saw steady economic growth as the government spent, spent, spent. Then in 1937, FDR turned conservative at the behest of his advisors and cut back on some of his New Deal programs. The result was another recession in 1937-1938.
Click to expand...



:lol: at your revisionist history. Did you um learn that in a public school? :lol:



FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"*



Again, when was the last time we spent our way out of a recession?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: at your revisionist history. Did you um learn that in a public school? :lol:
Click to expand...

Uhh look at a graph of economic growth during the Great Depression if you don't believe me. The economy was horrible as Hoover kept the economy in stasis, and bottomed out within just a few months of FDR's inauguration. Then we had four years of economic growth before FDR decided the Depression was over and he could cut back.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"*
Click to expand...

A couple points: A) I have the statistics on my side. You have some guy's opinion.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Again, when was the last time we spent our way out of a recession?
Click to expand...

Well as you yourself acknowledged, WWII helped get us out of a recession. Presumably it was not the killing of Japs that boosted the economy, but rather the government spending on the military sector. We don't have any looming war on our horizon now, but we do have plenty of other things the government could be spending money on.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
:lol: at your revisionist history. Did you um learn that in a public school? :lol:



FDR's Treasury secretary and close friend, Henry Morganthau, conceded this fact to Congressional Democrats in May 1939: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started ... And an enormous debt to boot!"*



Again, when was the last time we spent our way out of a recession?
Click to expand...

The problem was they did not spend enough;)
 
Kandahar said:
Uhh well as you yourself acknowledged, WWII helped get us out of a recession. Presumably it was not the killing of Japs that boosted the economy, but rather the government spending on the military sector. We don't have any looming war on our horizon now, but we do have plenty of other things the government could be spending money on.
Click to expand...

The ravages across europe left the US in a position to leap ahead in terms of production. By the time the Marshall plan was completed, the US had a huge comparative advantage in terms of production at the time.

We then see the US productivity gap decrease as the rest of the western world redevelopes.

nfbbar.gif


Productivity Growth by Major Sector, 1947-2007. Bar Chart
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Uhh look at a graph of economic growth during the Great Depression if you don't believe me. The economy was horrible as Hoover kept the economy in stasis, and bottomed out within just a few months of FDR's inauguration. Then we had four years of economic growth before FDR decided the Depression was over and he could cut back.



A couple points: A) I have the statistics on my side. You have some guy's opinion.



Well as you yourself acknowledged, WWII helped get us out of a recession. Presumably it was not the killing of Japs that boosted the economy, but rather the government spending on the military sector. We don't have any looming war on our horizon now, but we do have plenty of other things the government could be spending money on.
Click to expand...




What statistics?



You do know that the government spent money in the private sector BUYING things to go to war, not just having people dig ditches then fill them back up up.....
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The ravages across europe left the US in a position to leap ahead in terms of production. By the time the Marshall plan was completed, the US had a huge comparative advantage in terms of production at the time.

We then see the US productivity gap decrease as the rest of the western world redevelopes.
Click to expand...

While that is surely a big reason for our economic growth during the late 1940s and 1950s, it does not explain the record of solid economic growth rate during FDR's pre-war presidency (with the exception of the recession of 1937-38 after FDR cut back on some of his New Deal programs).
 
Kandahar said:
While that is surely a big reason for our economic growth during the late 1940s and 1950s, it does not explain the record of solid economic growth rate during FDR's pre-war presidency (with the exception of the recession of 1937-38 after FDR cut back on some of his New Deal programs).
Click to expand...




You keep claiming this, and claim you have statistics, thus far we have seen none.


When was the last time we spent our way out of a recession?
 
Kandahar said:
While that is surely a big reason for our economic growth during the late 1940s and 1950s, it does not explain the record of solid economic growth rate during FDR's pre-war presidency (with the exception of the recession of 1937-38 after FDR cut back on some of his New Deal programs).
Click to expand...

It could be that the economy was prime to retrace its movement. Regardless the New Deal was insufficiently funded to achieve its goal.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What statistics?
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry. Here they are:

Year Growth
1930 -9.4% (Year following the stock market crash)
1931 -8.5%
1932 -13.4%
1933 -2.1% (FDR takes office, economy hits bottom, New Deal begins)
1934 +7.7%
1935 +8.1%
1936 +14.1% (FDR concludes Depression is over and slashes 1937 budget)
1937 +5.0% (Recession begins in May 1937)
1938 -4.5% (Recession ends in June 1938)
1939 +7.9% (WWII begins in Europe in September 1939)

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
You do know that the government spent money in the private sector BUYING things to go to war,
Click to expand...

And I support having the government spend money in the private sector BUYING things.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
not just having people dig ditches then fill them back up up.....
Click to expand...

The minute you see me arguing in favor of paying people to dig ditches and fill them back up, you'll have a point. :roll:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Read:


FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
Click to expand...

Nothing in this article suggests that government spending was the culprit. From your own article:

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
Click to expand...

Again, the minute you see me endorsing a policy like that, you'll have a point. :roll:


I'm still waiting for you to address the GDP growth statistics from the 1930s and tell me with a straight face that government spending didn't work.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Oops, sorry. Here they are:

Year Growth
1930 -9.4% (Year following the stock market crash)
1931 -8.5%
1932 -13.4%
1933 -2.1% (FDR takes office, economy hits bottom, New Deal begins)
1934 +7.7%
1935 +8.1%
1936 +14.1% (FDR concludes Depression is over and slashes 1937 budget)
1937 +5.0% (Recession begins in May 1937)
1938 -4.5% (Recession ends in June 1938)
1939 +7.9% (WWII begins in Europe in September 1939)
Click to expand...

You yourself note the economy hits the bottom. What happens after the "bottom"? Recovery was imminent, and yes the slashing of the budget was unhelpful given the current state of the market. Notice it took years to recover from, even after the war there was a strong recession and market crash in 1953. Without a doubt it was caused by the federal budget shrink.

Also, note the deflationary environment associated with the GD. I would be curious to look over your source. Are these real numbers (price deflator) or nominal GDP?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
I agree, the stimulus at the time completely under shot the shortfall. Obama is teetering towards the same scenario.
Click to expand...




Teetering? It is a done deal, except it is going to be much worse....


STD spending.... like we gonna screw our way out of this mess.... :roll:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Teetering? It is a done deal, except it is going to be much worse....


STD spending.... like we gonna screw our way out of this mess.... :roll:
Click to expand...

If you are going to enact a stimulus to shoot AD back to full employment GDP. $150 billion completely undershoots the current gap (assuming the multiplier is 2).

A $500 billion infrastructure stimulus, with an additional $500 billion in education grants, and another $250 billion + of alternative energy investment all to be released before 2011 might be enough.

Either go big or go home. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom