PDA

View Full Version : Question #2



road kill
09-28-2012, 11:40 AM
Which would serve the American economy better??

Increase taxes on the rich for the next 4 years?

5% GNP growth for the next 4 years???

Franco
09-28-2012, 12:50 PM
Obviously, a 5% grow in GNP. However, no one can assure anyone of that growth.

Marvin S
09-28-2012, 12:59 PM
Obviously, a 5% grow in GNP. However, no one can assure anyone of that growth.

We know the guy that's there can't :(, but I have every reason to believe RMoney has the credentials to make it happen :).

Franco
09-28-2012, 01:42 PM
We know the guy that's there can't :(, but I have every reason to believe RMoney has the credentials to make it happen :).

I don't think Midas himself could get any GNP growth. Not with the way our Federal Reserve has our fortunes and future tired in with the Europeans.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/europe-banks-fail-to-cut-as-draghi-loans-defer-deleverage.html

Make no mistake about it, the Euro Central Bank will be coming to us for more bailouts. And, you know Bernake is going to take care of his international banking fraternity first. GNP is going to have to skyrocket to get us out from the debt created by the Fed.

huntinman
09-28-2012, 01:55 PM
I don't think Midas himself could get any GNP growth. Not with the way our Federal Reserve has our fortunes and future tired in with the Europeans.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/europe-banks-fail-to-cut-as-draghi-loans-defer-deleverage.html

Make no mistake about it, the Euro Central Bank will be coming to us for more bailouts. And, you know Bernake is going to take care of his international banking fraternity first. GNP is going to have to skyrocket to get us out from the debt created by the Fed.

Do you think Ron Paul could have done it?

Franco
09-28-2012, 02:41 PM
Do you think Ron Paul could have done it?



I don't know that he could grow the GNP as much but, he would certainly stop the bleeding.

What most don't understand is that the destruction of the dollar is a far more serious threat to our Freedom and Liberties than Islamic terror. Not to discount Islamic terror because the only countries that are financially solvent are the Muslim countries, much more so than US and the Europeans.

Nothing is going to grow until we make the dollar worth something. Maybe Romney sees the problem with the Fed and is staying mum on the subject because most voters are caught up in manucia. I can only hope that is the case.

menmon
09-28-2012, 03:01 PM
Yes they blew up a couple building and killed americans. They have not needed to fire another shot. We have done the damage for them. Afganistan, Iraq and if you get your way Iran.

Now don't forget there are powerful folks that like this path because they make money. Don't care about the rest of us...just making the almighty dollar.

Down East Labs 217
09-28-2012, 03:05 PM
And out of left field comes Mike, with one of his famous make no sense comments.

Mike what does your comment have to do with the question.

Richard

Franco
09-28-2012, 03:13 PM
I just stumbled across this story. Even the head of the Fed in Dallas doesn't think the Fed can fix our economy! Yet, the Fed Head Bernake keeps throwing our tax money a way! All the while punishing savers and devaluating the dollar.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/09/28/fed-fischer-were-drowning-in-unemployment/

Personally, I think the Fed Reserve exsist to protect the large shareholders of banks across the globe! A bigger crime syndicate than the Costra Nostra ever hoped to become.

Jason Glavich
09-28-2012, 03:23 PM
And out of left field comes Mike, with one of his famous make no sense comments.

Mike what does your comment have to do with the question.

Richard
I was also wondering what it had to with this post.

ARay11
09-28-2012, 03:32 PM
the business end of the country is one I do not fully understand..... seems to be an awful lot of waste going on that no one wants to look at. I suppose that's because eliminating money for the white spotted booby footed juju bird would make sense to everyone, so that never makes political news...but cut a few bucks from SNAP and see what an uproar ensues...political fodder for all...
anyway...back to the question....

I know a lot of guys who's income depends solely on growth and a 5% growth goal would be easy money.

Maybe we could put our lawmakers on commission..... lol.....:razz:

Franco
09-28-2012, 03:40 PM
I was also wondering what it had to with this post.

I think he was insinuating that the cause of our financial and economic woes are attributed to the wars. They are a part of it. The bigger part of the economic mess is our government. They have let just about everything get out of control. The biggest being entitlements. I'm not taking about SS because we have paid into that program and not an entitlement. It is Medicare and Medicaid that is bleeding us dry, especially Medicaid. That and our poor Fiscal, Monetray, Domestic and Foreign Policy.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/225802_10151451399147796_407898380_n.jpg

menmon
09-28-2012, 04:31 PM
And out of left field comes Mike, with one of his famous make no sense comments.

Mike what does your comment have to do with the question.

Richard

Let me dumb it down a little bit.....most of our economic woes stem from the attack on the twin towers. Because of them, we have increased government to make the country safe, no increased revenue to pay for the additional safety....we just finish one costly war that we had no additional revenue to pay for....still in a war that we have not increased revenue to pay for.....economic terror. How best to hurt us but in our pocketbook.

So if you want to know why the mighty dollar does not buy as much, it is because we keep running up our credit card and can only afford the minimum. Don't dare ask anyone to pay for it except the old and aflicted.

Is that clear enough for you or do I need to dumb it down some more.

menmon
09-28-2012, 04:35 PM
Also 2.5% GDP is the average...moments of 5% or greater or just momentary. So usually what follows a low GDP is a surge in GDP...the economy ebs and flows. Don't worry, the nexts 4 years it will be ebing....so look forward to more democrats;)

huntinman
09-28-2012, 04:45 PM
Let me dumb it down a little bit....

That should come pretty naturally to you:rolleyes:

menmon
09-28-2012, 04:50 PM
It's getting easier the more time I spend arguing with you.

gman0046
09-28-2012, 05:11 PM
menmon continues to show how much he doesn't know about the U.S. economy. His BS post about the GNP is a classic example. It's been a steady decline under Obongolo. You say 2.5 is average but 1.6 under the Kenyan. There are no upward surges. Another four years under the Kenyan Clown the U.S. will become another Greece. How about it menmon, what is Obongolo going to do about the up coming Fiscal Cliff in February 2013? Would you like to tell us? Isn't 43 straight months of unemployment over 8% enough? Despite the anointed one's campaign promise to keep it below 8%. He's helpless to address the nations unemployment problem. Isn't 23 million enough? 15 million more Americans receiving Food Stamps under the Kenyan. Not to mention the 16 trillion dollar debit Obongola has put us in. Menmon just make sure your on line to get your free phone like the (fat ignorant woman) bragging about her free phone on TV. To bad because of her the free phone program is now under review (another Obongolo boon doogle). What a disgrace these SEIU members are to ANY party but fits right in with the democrats. Just goes to show you brains to be a democrat does not enter into the equation. Please try and answer my post with something other then your usual BS.

menmon
09-28-2012, 05:27 PM
menmon continues to show how much he doesn't know about the U.S. economy. His BS post about the GNP is a classic example. It's been a steady decline under Obongolo. You say 2.5 is average but 1.6 under the Kenyan. There are no upward surges. Another four years under the Kenyan Clown the U.S. will become another Greece. How about it menmon, what is Obongolo going to do about the up coming Fiscal Cliff in February 2013? Would you like to tell us? Isn't 43 straight months of unemployment over 8% enough? Despite the anointed one's campaign promise to keep it below 8%. He's helpless to address the nations unemployment problem. Isn't 23 million enough? 15 million more Americans receiving Food Stamps under the Kenyan. Not to mention the 16 trillion dollar debit Obongola has put us in. Menmon just make sure your on line to get your free phone like the (fat ignorant woman) bragging about her free phone on TV. To bad because of her the free phone program is now under review (another Obongolo boon doogle). What a disgrace these SEIU members are to ANY party but fits right in with the democrats. Just goes to show you brains to be a democrat does not enter into the equation. Please try and answer my post with something other then your usual BS.

Private sector jobs have increased 4.5MM during his term while public sector jobs have declined, as he has cut spending. You want spending cuts; you get job cuts. Can't have both.

The increase in the national debt is just to pay for what the yahoos before him spent and didn't pay for.

Obamacare is funded...unlike presciption drug, tax cuts, Iraq and Afganistan. Looks to me like you republicans could learn something about fiscal responsibility from us democrats. You talk it but don't walk it.

huntinman
09-28-2012, 05:42 PM
Private sector jobs have increased 4.5MM during his term while public sector jobs have declined, as he has cut spending. You want spending cuts; you get job cuts. Can't have both.

The increase in the national debt is just to pay for what the yahoos before him spent and didn't pay for.

Obamacare is funded...unlike presciption drug, tax cuts, Iraq and Afganistan. Looks to me like you republicans could learn something about fiscal responsibility from us democrats. You talk it but don't walk it.

Lie.................

gman0046
09-28-2012, 08:31 PM
menmon can you tell us where Obongolo has cut spending? You know you can go blind for what you are doing to yourself. Your BS is so far from the truth I doubt even you can believe it. You certainly cannot provide us with any coherent facts. You are nothing but BS and bluster. Nothing you post has any facts to back up your BS. Yet you continue to embarrass yourself. You have become the laughing stock of this site with your imbecilic posts.

Down East Labs 217
09-28-2012, 09:49 PM
Let me dumb it down a little bit.....most of our economic woes stem from the attack on the twin towers. Because of them, we have increased government to make the country safe, no increased revenue to pay for the additional safety....we just finish one costly war that we had no additional revenue to pay for....still in a war that we have not increased revenue to pay for.....economic terror. How best to hurt us but in our pocketbook.

So if you want to know why the mighty dollar does not buy as much, it is because we keep running up our credit card and can only afford the minimum. Don't dare ask anyone to pay for it except the old and aflicted.

Is that clear enough for you or do I need to dumb it down some more.

Your attempt at insulting people by talking down to them failed miserably. If you had said this the first time vice hiding it in a makes no sense statement you would have been farther ahead and people would actually think you had valuable input to the conversation.

Richard

LokiMeister
10-01-2012, 03:32 PM
Economically, raising taxes on the rich may or may not do anything for the economy. If it hurts the economy, we will be worse off because the increase in the taxes by the rich will be more than offset by the decrease in taxes by the rest of us.

It is not proven that raising taxes on the rich slows the economy. As a businessman, I make very few decisions on my business based on taxes and increased taxes don't prevent me from trying to grow my business. I suspect the rich are the same way. They may make decisions about taxes, but usually not because of them.

caryalsobrook
10-01-2012, 03:38 PM
Let me dumb it down a little bit.....most of our economic woes stem from the attack on the twin towers. Because of them, we have increased government to make the country safe, no increased revenue to pay for the additional safety....we just finish one costly war that we had no additional revenue to pay for....still in a war that we have not increased revenue to pay for.....economic terror. How best to hurt us but in our pocketbook.

So if you want to know why the mighty dollar does not buy as much, it is because we keep running up our credit card and can only afford the minimum. Don't dare ask anyone to pay for it except the old and aflicted.

Is that clear enough for you or do I need to dumb it down some more.

Don't worry about it. the WHOLE post was dumb enough. I'm fairly sure you undestand this post.

caryalsobrook
10-01-2012, 03:44 PM
Private sector jobs have increased 4.5MM during his term while public sector jobs have declined, as he has cut spending. You want spending cuts; you get job cuts. Can't have both.

The increase in the national debt is just to pay for what the yahoos before him spent and didn't pay for.

Obamacare is funded...unlike presciption drug, tax cuts, Iraq and Afganistan. Looks to me like you republicans could learn something about fiscal responsibility from us democrats. You talk it but don't walk it.

Go back and look at what happened in 1920. Unemployment at 35%! GDP dropped about 30%! Current Fed. budget at a little over 6 billion at the time and the marginal tax rate at 75%. Fed budget cut to less than 3 billion, marginal tax rete lowered to 25%. In less than 2 years, the economy came roaring back. Don't say it can't be done. IT HAS BEEN DONE. Those are FACTS!

menmon
10-01-2012, 04:03 PM
Go back and look at what happened in 1920. Unemployment at 35%! GDP dropped about 30%! Current Fed. budget at a little over 6 billion at the time and the marginal tax rate at 75%. Fed budget cut to less than 3 billion, marginal tax rete lowered to 25%. In less than 2 years, the economy came roaring back. Don't say it can't be done. IT HAS BEEN DONE. Those are FACTS!

1920 was not the great depression. My grandmother would differ with you.

caryalsobrook
10-01-2012, 05:59 PM
1920 was not the great depression. My grandmother would differ with you.

What do yo know, you are right!! The unemployment was worse and the drop in GDP was worse, but the actions taken were different from 1930 and on. The economy was much worse in 1920 but the recovery was much much quicker, because the actions taken were different AND MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE as shown by the results. We recovered from the worse fall in unemployment and the worse drop in GDP in less than 2 years since 1900 BECAUSE policies were far different than in 1030 and those now. Keep these same failed policies and we can look forward to another 1930's economy. Don't take my word for it, just go back and look at what happened in 1920.

huntinman
10-01-2012, 06:46 PM
What do yo know, you are right!! The unemployment was worse and the drop in GDP was worse, but the actions taken were different from 1930 and on. The economy was much worse in 1920 but the recovery was much much quicker, because the actions taken were different AND MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE as shown by the results. We recovered from the worse fall in unemployment and the worse drop in GDP in less than 2 years since 1900 BECAUSE policies were far different than in 1030 and those now. Keep these same failed policies and we can look forward to another 1930's economy. Don't take my word for it, just go back and look at what happened in 1920.

Cary, it would be less painful if you just took a hammer and smashed your own toe...

caryalsobrook
10-01-2012, 09:32 PM
Cary, it would be less painful if you just took a hammer and smashed your own toe...

Not too painful because it is nice when some recognize the FACTS. Frankly what works is more important to me than just the theory. I always try to avoid the classic statement that "history says we always avoid the lessons of history". 15 years of the great depression and some think that was good ecomomic policy of raising taxes and increasing gov. spending? Well it did get us out of the depression--IN 15 YEARS!!! Only problem is that a lot of us don't have 15 years or enough money to wait that long.:mad:

menmon
10-02-2012, 10:28 AM
The Depression of 1920–21 was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States, shortly after the end of World War I. It lasted from January 1920 to July 1921.[1] The extent of the deflation was not only large, but large relative to the accompanying decline in real product.[2]
A range of factors have been identified contributing to the depression, many relating to adjustments in the economy following the end of World War I. There was a brief Post-World War I recession immediately following the end of the war which lasted for 7 months. The economy started to grow, though it had not yet completed all the adjustments in shifting from a wartime to a peacetime economy. Factors identified as potentially contributing to the downturn include: returning troops which created a surge in the civilian labor force, a decline in labor union strife, changes in fiscal and monetary policy, and changes in price expectations.
Following the end of the Depression of 1920-21, the Roaring Twenties brought a period of economic prosperity.

menmon
10-02-2012, 10:28 AM
The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression in the decade preceding World War II. The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations, but in most countries it started in 1930 after the passage of the United States' Smoot-Hawley Tariff bill (June 17), and lasted until the late 1930s or middle 1940s.[1] It was the longest, most widespread, and deepest depression of the 20th century.[2]
In the 21st century, the Great Depression is commonly used as an example of how far the world's economy can decline.[2] The depression originated in the U.S., after the fall in stock prices that began around September 4, 1929, and became worldwide news with the stock market crash of October 29, 1929 (known as Black Tuesday).
The Great Depression had devastating effects in countries rich and poor. Personal income, tax revenue, profits and prices dropped, while international trade plunged by more than 50%, due in large part to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 25%, and in some countries rose as high as 33%.[3]
Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry. Construction was virtually halted in many countries. Farming and rural areas suffered as crop prices fell by approximately 60%.[4][5][6] Facing plummeting demand with few alternate sources of jobs, areas dependent on primary sector industries such as cash cropping, mining and logging suffered the most.[7]
Some economies started to recover by the mid-1930s. In many countries, the negative effects of the Great Depression lasted until the end of World War II.[8]
Main article: Causes of the Great Depression



There were multiple causes for the first downturn in 1929. These include the structural weaknesses and specific events that turned it into a major depression and the manner in which the downturn spread from country to country. In relation to the 1929 downturn, historians emphasize structural factors like major bank failures and the stock market crash. In contrast, monetarist economists (such as Barry Eichengreen, Milton Friedman and Peter Temin) point to monetary factors such as actions by the US Federal Reserve that contracted the money supply, as well as Britain's decision to return to the gold standard at pre–World War I parities (US$4.86:1).
Recessions and business cycles are thought to be a normal part of living in a world of inexact balances between supply and demand. What turns a normal recession or 'ordinary' business cycle into a depression is a subject of much debate and concern. Scholars have not agreed on the exact causes and their relative importance. The search for causes is closely connected to the issue of avoiding future depressions.
Thus, the personal political and policy viewpoints of scholars greatly color their analysis of historic events occurring eight decades ago.[citation needed] An even larger question is whether the Great Depression was primarily a failure on the part of free markets or a failure of government efforts to regulate interest rates, curtail widespread bank failures, and control the money supply. Those who believe in a larger economic role for the state believe that it was primarily a failure of free markets, while those who believe in a smaller role for the state believe that it was primarily a failure of government that compounded the problem.[citation needed]
Current theories may be broadly classified into two main points of view and several heterodox points of view. There are demand-driven theories, most importantly Keynesian economics, but also including those who point to the breakdown of international trade, and Institutional economists who point to underconsumption and over-investment (causing an economic bubble), malfeasance by bankers and industrialists, or incompetence by government officials. The consensus among demand-driven theories is that a large-scale loss of confidence led to a sudden reduction in consumption and investment spending. Once panic and deflation set in, many people believed they could avoid further losses by keeping clear of the markets. Holding money became profitable as prices dropped lower and a given amount of money bought ever more goods, exacerbating the drop in demand.
There are the monetarists, who believe that the Great Depression started as an ordinary recession, but that significant policy mistakes by monetary authorities (especially the Federal Reserve), caused a shrinking of the money supply which greatly exacerbated the economic situation, causing a recession to descend into the Great Depression. Related to this explanation are those who point to debt deflation causing those who borrow to owe ever more in real terms.
There are also various heterodox theories that downplay or reject the explanations of the Keynesians and monetarists. For example, some new classical macroeconomists have argued that various labor market policies imposed at the start caused the length and severity of the Great Depression. The Austrian school of economics focuses on the macroeconomic effects of money supply, and how central banking decisions can lead to over-investment (economic bubble).

menmon
10-02-2012, 10:33 AM
Now after you read these two post, you will see that you are not comparing apples to apples. You will also see the actions that we have taken to avoid it again, and then look at what Europe is doing and compare those to our failures during the great depression and you will see that we have taken the right actions and your tea party bull would have put us all in a soup line again.

Also look at how long it took to overcome this worldwide depression/recession and then give the president a break.

This would actually make a good ad for Obama because it sizes it all up really good and its hard to argue with history.

menmon
10-02-2012, 11:02 AM
KeynesianBritish economist John Maynard Keynes argued in General Theory of Employment Interest and Money that lower aggregate expenditures in the economy contributed to a massive decline in income and to employment that was well below the average. In such a situation, the economy reached equilibrium at low levels of economic activity and high unemployment.

Keynes' basic idea was simple: to keep people fully employed, governments have to run deficits when the economy is slowing, as the private sector would not invest enough to keep production at the normal level and bring the economy out of recession. Keynesian economists called on governments during times of economic crisis to pick up the slack by increasing government spending and/or cutting taxes.

As the Depression wore on, Franklin D. Roosevelt tried public works, farm subsidies, and other devices to restart the US economy, but never completely gave up trying to balance the budget. According to the Keynesians, this improved the economy, but Roosevelt never spent enough to bring the economy out of recession until the start of World War II.[15]

huntinman
10-02-2012, 11:04 AM
Why don't you just post the link to whole damn book?

menmon
10-02-2012, 11:04 AM
Debt deflationIrving Fisher argued that the predominant factor leading to the Great Depression was over-indebtedness and deflation. Fisher tied loose credit to over-indebtedness, which fueled speculation and asset bubbles.[17] He then outlined 9 factors interacting with one another under conditions of debt and deflation to create the mechanics of boom to bust. The chain of events proceeded as follows:

Debt liquidation and distress selling
Contraction of the money supply as bank loans are paid off
A fall in the level of asset prices
A still greater fall in the net worths of business, precipitating bankruptcies
A fall in profits
A reduction in output, in trade and in employment.
Pessimism and loss of confidence
Hoarding of money
A fall in nominal interest rates and a rise in deflation adjusted interest rates.[17]

Crowds outside the Bank of United States in New York after its failure in 1931.During the Crash of 1929 preceding the Great Depression, margin requirements were only 10%.[18] Brokerage firms, in other words, would lend $9 for every $1 an investor had deposited. When the market fell, brokers called in these loans, which could not be paid back.[19]

Banks began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and depositors attempted to withdraw their deposits en masse, triggering multiple bank runs. Government guarantees and Federal Reserve banking regulations to prevent such panics were ineffective or not used. Bank failures led to the loss of billions of dollars in assets.[19]

Outstanding debts became heavier, because prices and incomes fell by 20–50% but the debts remained at the same dollar amount. After the panic of 1929, and during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 US banks failed. (In all, 9,000 banks failed during the 1930s). By April 1933, around $7 billion in deposits had been frozen in failed banks or those left unlicensed after the March Bank Holiday.[20]

Bank failures snowballed as desperate bankers called in loans which the borrowers did not have time or money to repay. With future profits looking poor, capital investment and construction slowed or completely ceased. In the face of bad loans and worsening future prospects, the surviving banks became even more conservative in their lending.[19] Banks built up their capital reserves and made fewer loans, which intensified deflationary pressures. A vicious cycle developed and the downward spiral accelerated.

The liquidation of debt could not keep up with the fall of prices which it caused. The mass effect of the stampede to liquidate increased the value of each dollar owed, relative to the value of declining asset holdings. The very effort of individuals to lessen their burden of debt effectively increased it. Paradoxically, the more the debtors paid, the more they owed.[17] This self-aggravating process turned a 1930 recession into a 1933 great depression.

Macroeconomists including Ben Bernanke, the current chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, have revived the debt-deflation view of the Great Depression originated by Fisher.[

menmon
10-02-2012, 11:06 AM
Monetarist
Crowd at New York's American Union Bank during a bank run early in the Great Depression.Monetarists, including Milton Friedman and current Federal Reserve System chairman Ben Bernanke, argue that the Great Depression was mainly caused by monetary contraction, the consequence of poor policy-making by the American Federal Reserve System and continued crisis in the banking system.[23][24] In this view, the Federal Reserve, by not acting, allowed the money supply as measured by the M2 to shrink by one-third from 1929–1933, thereby transforming a normal recession into the Great Depression. Friedman argued that the downward turn in the economy, starting with the stock market crash, would have been just another recession.[25]

The Federal Reserve allowed some large public bank failures – particularly that of the New York Bank of the United States – which produced panic and widespread runs on local banks, and the Federal Reserve sat idly by while banks collapsed. He claimed that, if the Fed had provided emergency lending to these key banks, or simply bought government bonds on the open market to provide liquidity and increase the quantity of money after the key banks fell, all the rest of the banks would not have fallen after the large ones did, and the money supply would not have fallen as far and as fast as it did.[26]

With significantly less money to go around, businessmen could not get new loans and could not even get their old loans renewed, forcing many to stop investing. This interpretation blames the Federal Reserve for inaction, especially the New York branch.[27]

One reason why the Federal Reserve did not act to limit the decline of the money supply was regulation. At that time, the amount of credit the Federal Reserve could issue was limited by the Federal Reserve Act, which required 40% gold backing of Federal Reserve Notes issued. By the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit that could be backed by the gold in its possession. This credit was in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes.[28]

A "promise of gold" is not as good as "gold in the hand", particularly when they only had enough gold to cover 40% of the Federal Reserve Notes outstanding. During the bank panics a portion of those demand notes were redeemed for Federal Reserve gold. Since the Federal Reserve had hit its limit on allowable credit, any reduction in gold in its vaults had to be accompanied by a greater reduction in credit. On April 5, 1933, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 making the private ownership of gold certificates, coins and bullion illegal, reducing the pressure on Federal Reserve gold.[28]

menmon
10-02-2012, 11:09 AM
Everything above is what Rush and Glenn don't tell you. These are undispuited facts and after reading them....please consider the rhetoric feed by the republicans wanting back in power and their opposition to every action that history has proven needed to be taken. And then ask yourself who really has your best interest.

menmon
10-02-2012, 11:10 AM
Why don't you just post the link to whole damn book?

Why don't you read it

huntinman
10-02-2012, 11:11 AM
Everything above is what Rush and Glenn don't tell you. These are undispuited facts and after reading them....please consider the rhetoric feed by the republicans wanting back in power and their opposition to every action that history has proven needed to be taken. And then ask yourself who really has your best interest.

Heck, I doubt if you even read it...

menmon
10-02-2012, 11:13 AM
I didn't just read it today....please note the orgin of most of the economist cited and you will see that they either studied or taught at the university of chicago. You guys like MF and he is front and center in this research.

road kill
10-02-2012, 11:16 AM
Why don't you read it
Why don't you answer the simple question that this thread is based on?

menmon
10-02-2012, 11:21 AM
Because the tread is flawed like most of them. It's trying to say that Romney will produce 5% GDP growth by cutting taxes while Obama want to raise them on the rich.....Sounds good but not true...flawed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

caryalsobrook
10-02-2012, 02:51 PM
The Depression of 192021 was an extremely sharp deflationary recession in the United States, shortly after the end of World War I. It lasted from January 1920 to July 1921.[1] The extent of the deflation was not only large, but large relative to the accompanying decline in real product.[2]
A range of factors have been identified contributing to the depression, many relating to adjustments in the economy following the end of World War I. There was a brief Post-World War I recession immediately following the end of the war which lasted for 7 months. The economy started to grow, though it had not yet completed all the adjustments in shifting from a wartime to a peacetime economy. Factors identified as potentially contributing to the downturn include: returning troops which created a surge in the civilian labor force, a decline in labor union strife, changes in fiscal and monetary policy, and changes in price expectations.
Following the end of the Depression of 1920-21, the Roaring Twenties brought a period of economic prosperity.

You got the history basically right but you downplayed the severity and TOTALLY IGNORED. the solutions. As to your post about the depression of 1930, Keynesian policy took 15 years to work.

menmon
10-02-2012, 03:13 PM
You got the history basically right but you downplayed the severity and TOTALLY IGNORED. the solutions. As to your post about the depression of 1930, Keynesian policy took 15 years to work.

That is the point. We have applied both and have positive GDP growth...that is the difference from last time. Look at Europe they did what we did in the 30s and are in depression. This was a global economic collaspe. We don't bounce out of this in a few years.

menmon
10-02-2012, 03:24 PM
None of what we did was or is popular, but it is what needed to be done. We failed last time by tightening monetary policy. This time we have put enormous liquidity into the economy coupled with tax cuts and spending that are both keynesian. But the right bashes the fed for keeping rates low...if they raise them, liquidity gets sucked out of the economy.

The point of putting this on here was for people to see why the government has done what it has, albeit it isn't good conservative economic management, it was to and still is to prevent the country from going into a depression. So bashing the president for failed policy is just politically motivated if you know the history of the great depression. McCain would have done all the same things because the experts would have told him to. The republicans took a position of no on all these unpopular but necessary actions knowing the democrats had the votes, so they could unseat them. However, based on the polls for the legislature and presidency, the american people get it. Good luck tomorrow with the debate, americans are on to you.