how-to block ads
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Mike
Re: Do nothing Congress
said by Mike  :You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. I'll agree with you that it isn't fair to blame Obama yet as he hasn't taken office. Furthermore, his election has spurred retail sales in the gun industry to record levels, so on that note, he has caused an economic stimulus of sorts. 
However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression.
Unless Obama plans to get us into a major World War, it is going to be a long, dark 4 years should he implement what he says he's going to implement.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by pnh102 :.... However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression. .... got any links or citations to back up that claim about taxing the rich not raising revenue? that statement appears ludicrous on it's face.
Obviously, Bush's tax cuts were great for the economy as we can see by the wonderful prosperity and happiness all around us today.
with regard to your comments on FDR's policies, you are doing nothing more than parroting right wing talking points. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by nasadude :got any links or citations to back up that claim about taxing the rich not raising revenue? that statement appears ludicrous on it's face. You do know that the Great Depression did not end until we got into World War 2, right? Just as a refresher on your history, that did not happen until the end of 1941. If FDR's programs had worked, the Depression would have ended far sooner than that.
said by nasadude :Obviously, Bush's tax cuts were great for the economy as we can see by the wonderful prosperity and happiness all around us today. So there was no economic growth at all under the Bush regime? Recessions happen. They are a part of the business cycle. Had Bush not taken the course of action he took in 2001, but instead followed the model of Herbert Hoover and FDR, we'd still be in a Depression to this day.
said by nasadude :with regard to your comments on FDR's policies, you are doing nothing more than parroting right wing talking points. Which happen to be 100% true. Go back and read up on your history if you are still not convinced.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by pnh102 :.... However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression. .... got any links or citations to back up that claim about taxing the rich not raising revenue? that statement appears ludicrous on it's face. Obviously, Bush's tax cuts were great for the economy as we can see by the wonderful prosperity and happiness all around us today. with regard to your comments on FDR's policies, you are doing nothing more than parroting right wing talking points. So your claiming that only Bush tax cuts are responsible for the economy, not the wreck less lending, forced by CRA, and other liberal groups. If anything Bush should have cut more, but i am sure the liberal geniuses stopped him every time. I guess liberals are as ineffective as they claim, since all the fault lies on Bush.
--
You better not pout, you better not cry, I am telling you why Jesus Christ is coming to town..
| |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to nasadude
You are right, he IS just parroting the right wing talking points. I seem to recall that was just spewed out on Fox News Channel the other day too. What many of these high paid idiots forget is that FDR was in a different era and time than we are in today. SO much has changed since then and the economy had become more of a global economy than ever before. So, to compare FDR to today is just foolish and quite honestly, amateurish at best. Many of today's so-called experts simply open up a history book, find the closest example, and then regurgitate it in order to collect their paychecks.
But anyway...
Bush's tax cuts, on the other hand, are not simply to blame for the trouble we're in today. To think so is simply foolish as well. Go back to when they were implemented, remove them, and let the cards fall again, we'd still be in the same place we are today. There are plenty of things that Bush and his people did to f*ck up this country over the last 6 years. And, to be honest, Bush was an idiot so lets not give him that much credit. Bush was an uneducated boozer from Texas who was nothing more than a puppet for Rove and others around him. The problems of this country go far back and include a chain of leaders including Clinton, Bush Daddy, Regan, even Carter and beyond. We can also look at congress as well for many years. So, to say its the tax cuts? That's way too simple.
In this case, as well, I don't think it's up to Pnh102 to place links or anything to back up the claims... that, too, is a lazy way to get out of a conversation. This discussion is all around us and readily available for the finding. Even Obama has chose to back off on cutting the middle class tax and not raising the taxes on the rich. HOWEVER, what Obama will be doing is simply not letting the tax cuts continue.. he will let them expire so his fingerprints will not be on that paper.
I don't agree with the tax cuts.. there are many things I don't agree with such as taxing prosperity. I think we should be moving towards taxing consumption instead. However, I don't always get my way. One thing is for sure, however, is the rule that states "he who has the gold makes the rules" and when the rich people state that taxing the rich will make problems, you kinda have no choice but to listen to those people. The fact is that they already have money. The ONLY time you can get any of that money, to matter, is when they circulate it. If they chose to sit on that money, what do you think is going to happen? ... you have to listen to the kings as the president is just a tiny man compared to them. They're basically stating what will happen and that is that they will sit on their money and that WILL hurt!
In order to turn this around, it's going to take a long time.. the only way a tiny man can hurt a giant is to do it so slow they don't realize it's even happening at their feet.
As much as Obama actually is inspiring in his ideas, the fact is that I believe he will be almost as effective as Carter was and not by his own doing. Obama's time is just not really the right time. He has a tough, and most likely, a failed road a head of him - again, not by his own doing. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. What we're really living, today, is a new kind of civil war. Only, this war is not fought with guns and neighbors.. it's fought with money and classes. | |
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
1 edit | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Which happen to be 100% true. Go back and read up on your history if you are still not convinced. I would direct your attention to this site:
»www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/c···ion.html
(bold added by me)
1929
* Herbert Hoover becomes President.
* Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market crash.
* Stock market crash begins October 24.
1930
* By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest rate from 6 to 4 percent. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself out: 'Liquidate labor, liquidate real estate... values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from less-competent people'.
* The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.
1931
* No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.
* The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9 percent.
1932
* This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression. For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6 percent.
* Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.
* Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too late. Franklin Roosevelt easily defeats Hoover in the fall election. Democrats win control of Congress.
1933
* Roosevelt inaugurated; begins 'First 100 Days'; of intensive legislative activity.
* Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup and install a fascist government modelled after Mussolini's regime in Italy. The businessmen try to recruit General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled when Butler reports it to Congress.
* Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, but is concerned with a balanced budget. He later rejects Keynes' advice to begin heavy deficit spending.
* The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2.1 percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.
1934
* The economy turns around: GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment falls to 21.7 percent. A long road to recovery begins.
1935
* Congress authorizes creation of the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board and the Rural Electrification Administration.
* Congress passes the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social Security Act.
* Economic recovery continues
1936
* Top tax rate raised to 79 percent.
* Economic recovery continues
1937
* Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession.
1938
* No major New Deal legislation is passed after this date, due to Roosevelt's weakened political power.
* The year-long recession makes itself felt: the GNP falls 4.5 percent, and unemployment rises to 19.0 percent.
1939
* The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces. From 1939 to 1941, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, U.S. manufacturing will have shot up a phenomenal 50 percent!
* The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the coming hostilities.
Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending that arrested the slide of the economy and resulted in some astonishing growth numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent during the Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent growth during his so-called 'Seven Fat Years!') When 1936 saw a phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on the deficit spending, worried about balancing the budget. But this only caused the economy to slip back into a recession in 1938.
forgot to include:
1945
* The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent until 1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time, America will experience the greatest economic boom it had ever known until that time. | |
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
 ·EarthLink
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :You do know that the Great Depression did not end until we got into World War 2, right? Just as a refresher on your history, that did not happen until the end of 1941. If FDR's programs had worked, the Depression would have ended far sooner than that. You keep repeating that as though it's that simple -- that what Roosevelt did failed. That's not the case. His programs kept millions employed and others from losing their homes and farms, something Hoover did not see fit to do. I'm assuming you know that, but that some readers may not.
»topics.nytimes.com/topics/refere···dex.html
President Herbert Hoover, a Republican and former Commerce secretary, believed the government should monitor the economy and encourage counter-cyclical spending to ease downturns, but not directly intervene. As the jobless population grew, he resisted calls from Congress, governors, and mayors to combat unemployment by financing public service jobs. He encouraged the creation of such jobs, but said it was up to state and local governments to pay for them. He also believed that relieving the suffering of the unemployed was solely up to local governments and private charities.
By 1932 the unemployment rate had soared past 20 percent. Thousands of banks and businesses had failed. Millions were homeless. Roosevelt later created a large-scale temporary jobs program during the winter of 1933–34. The Civil Works Administration employed more than four million men and women at jobs from building and repairing roads and bridges, parks, playgrounds and public buildings to creating art. Unemployment, however, persisted at high levels. That led the administration to create a permanent jobs program, the Works Progress Administration. The W.P.A. began in 1935 and would last until 1943, employing 8.5 million people and spending $11 billion as it transformed the national infrastructure, made clothing for the poor, and created landmark programs in art, music, theater and writing. Roosevelt’s efforts to assert government control over the economy were frustrated by Supreme Court rulings that overturned key pieces of legislation. In response, Roosevelt made the misstep of trying to “pack” the Supreme Court with additional justices. Congress rejected this 1937 proposal and turned against further New Deal measures, but not before the Social Security Act creating old-age pensions went into effect.
Brightening economic prospects were dashed in 1937 by a deep recession that lasted from that fall through most of 1938. The new downturn rolled back gains in industrial production and employment, prolonged the Depression and caused Roosevelt to increase the work relief rolls of the W.P.A. to their highest level ever. The reason Rooselvelt's efforts are denounced is because some people think government-created jobs are a worse evil than enduring the Great Depression. | |
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to DaveNJ
said by DaveNJ :So your claiming that only Bush tax cuts are responsible for the economy, not the wreck less lending, forced by CRA, and other liberal groups. ... no, I'm not claiming the Bush tax cuts are solely or even mainly responsible. It's just that for those on the right, tax cuts apparently fix everything: recession? tax cuts! economy doing great? tax cuts! I'm just trying to make the point that the tax cuts did not keep this wreck from happening.
oh, by the way, the CRA being the cause of the housing bubble/collapse is another right wing talking point and is totally bogus.
In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton, stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. He stated that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps" one in four sub-prime loans. Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight". According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis. | |
markwp2001
Spreadhead
Premium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by Mike :You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. I'll agree with you that it isn't fair to blame Obama yet as he hasn't taken office. Furthermore, his election has spurred retail sales in the gun industry to record levels, so on that note, he has caused an economic stimulus of sorts. However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression. Unless Obama plans to get us into a major World War, it is going to be a long, dark 4 years should he implement what he says he's going to implement. Didn't Clinton raise taxes on the rich? How'd the economy do during his administration? 
--
Palin is sofa king retarded. | |
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | hell, even Reagan raised taxes on the rich. | |
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| said by nasadude :hell, even Reagan raised taxes on the rich. Where are all these links, I guess your talking left wing talking points probably heard on CNN? Oh Reagan was a democrat before his party left him. | |
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| reply to markwp2001
said by markwp2001 :said by pnh102 :said by Mike :You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. I'll agree with you that it isn't fair to blame Obama yet as he hasn't taken office. Furthermore, his election has spurred retail sales in the gun industry to record levels, so on that note, he has caused an economic stimulus of sorts. However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression. Unless Obama plans to get us into a major World War, it is going to be a long, dark 4 years should he implement what he says he's going to implement. Didn't Clinton raise taxes on the rich? How'd the economy do during his administration? Did 911 happen during the Clinton adminstration ?
Did the CRA have the power it did during the Clinton years ?
How is taking money out of circulation , increase spending ?
--
You better not pout, you better not cry, I am telling you why Jesus Christ is coming to town..
| |
markwp2001
Spreadhead
Premium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS
| said by DaveNJ :How is taking money out of circulation , increase spending ? Huh?
It's awesome how one mention of Clinton sends right wing wackos into a sputtering mess 
--
Palin is sofa king retarded. | |
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to DaveNJ
I stand corrected, reagan didn't raise taxes on the rich, but he did raise taxes:
»www.democraticunderground.com/di···x1755779
The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year, and the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.
According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.
and while I'm at it, about that crap that tax cuts increase revenues:
According to a United States Department of the Treasury non-partisan economic study, the major tax bills enacted under Reagan, as a whole, significantly reduced (~-1% of GDP) government tax receipts. Separated out, however, it is clear that the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 was a massive (~-3% of GDP) decrease in revenues (the largest tax cuts ever enacted), while other tax bills had neutral or, in the case of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, significant (~+1% of GDP) government revenue-enhancing effect..."
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics | |
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
1 edit | reply to markwp2001
said by markwp2001 :said by DaveNJ :How is taking money out of circulation , increase spending ? Huh? It's awesome how one mention of Clinton sends right wing wackos into a sputtering mess I think you got it wrong, quoting macro-economies from my liberal professor, makes "liberals think you are a right wing wacko". When you take temperature out of a room, does it get warmer ? I guess basic math is now right wing...
--
You better not pout, you better not cry, I am telling you why Jesus Christ is coming to town..
| |
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| reply to DaveNJ
said by DaveNJ :Did 911 happen during the Clinton adminstration ? No, 911 happened because of US action/policy from Clinton/Bush Sr/Reagan/Carter.
In both international and economic policy you need to take a good 30 year view to really see good cause/effect and trending.
Our issues span both Republican and Democrat presidencies and congresses. Plenty of blame to go around, but I place more blame on the Congress than any one presidency. Our politicians need to stop being politicians and go back to being working representative statesmen. | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to nasadude
And again, you confirm that it was indeed our entering World War 2 that ended the Depression. None of FDR's programs, by what you wrote, did anything to end it. In fact, you show that his tax hikes actually made things worse by the late 1930s. You also conveniently forget to mention that FDR did nothing to repeal the isolationist foreign trade policies enacted by his predecessor.
And calling 19% unemployment a "recession" colors the truth just a bit, doesn't it.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to markwp2001
said by markwp2001 :Didn't Clinton raise taxes on the rich? How'd the economy do during his administration? But even Bill Clinton knew that raising taxes on the rich to pre-Carter levels (70% or more) was a bad idea. He only raised taxes to 40%. As pointed out in a previous post, taxes were raised to the 70% range in the mid 1930s and the economy took a huge hit as a result.
To be fair to Clinton, he wasn't really that liberal, especially when it came to spending. I put him more in the "liberal lite" range.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! | |
r81984
Thread is
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
 ·magicjack.com
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :said by Mike :You can blame Obama any time you want. It just depends when you want to look like a fool. I'll agree with you that it isn't fair to blame Obama yet as he hasn't taken office. Furthermore, his election has spurred retail sales in the gun industry to record levels, so on that note, he has caused an economic stimulus of sorts. However, Obama's idea of taxing the rich has been proven to be a complete and total failure when it comes to raising revenue for the government. Furthermore, Obama's stimulus plan, if you could call it that, comes straight out of the playbook written by John Maynard Keynes and implemented by FDR during the Great Depression. FDR's policies of getting us out of the Great Depression were all complete failures, as they all failed to end the Great Depression. Unless Obama plans to get us into a major World War, it is going to be a long, dark 4 years should he implement what he says he's going to implement. The gun sales went up because there were strong rumor with uneducated hillbillies that Obama was going to take all their guns away. These people truely believed the republican lies.
The idea of giving huge tax breaks to the rich has never worked. History shows the money never trickles down or helps the economy grow. Obama is trying the opposite of everything Republicans have failed at.
War will never solve anything except make us more bankrupt.
What this country really needs is a real conservative, unfortunately the party that pretends to be conservative has never delievered in their entire history. Every Republican president did deficit spending and was a complete neocon.
The best part about Obama is he was more conservative than McCain and his socialist agenda. If you don't think so watch the debates. McCain promised everyone everything while Obama wanted to implement real plans.
--
For those of you playing a drinking game.... MY FRIENDS! | |
-
|
