I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

ITT: Gbaji can't explain why the Great Depression ended.

Your knowledge of economics is absolutely astounding. Then again it could be why your country is 14 trillion in debt.

ITT: Gbaji doesn't know when the Great Depression ended, can't discern between the US before and after our economy recovered, and has forgotten what those high taxes did for our nation's industry and infrastructure following NSC-68.

Protip, gbaji, look up what Congress did following the Roosevelt recession. Telling me what Congress did in a time of economic boom doesn't explain HOW they got to an economic upturn.

I fully support 'cutting' the top marginal rate to 86.45%. Let's account for inflation and make the trigger something like 1.3 million as opposed to $200k.


Edited, Nov 9th 2011 8:17am by Lubriderm

Or that experts are qualified to analyze data from their field of expertise.

We didn't have a "boom" in the early 40s. Spending on the war provided jobs for most Americans, but at the expense of borrowing a ton of money. Debt as a percentage of GDP was around 250% during that time period. If you read the article, it clearly explained that the biggest problem was what would happen once the war ended and all those people working in the war economy needed jobs. FDR wanted to create more of the same kinds of programs that didn't work in the 30s. Congress rejected that and instead embarked on massive tax cuts and reductions of the government's role in the economy (mostly by ending the massive amounts of government jobs that existed at the time).


The result was the huge economic boom that was the 50s. Had we done what FDR wanted (which is mirrored by current Dem economic policy), unemployment would have gone back to double digits after the war, and we'd have been right back in the same Depression we were in before.

You do realize, that just like back then, such a tax would collect very close to zero revenue?

The more significant change (which you conveniently ignored) was the massive reduction to the top corporate tax rate. Ironically, that tax was targeted honestly at "excessive profits". Sound familiar to rhetoric used today? Clearly, the Congress back then realized that those excessive profits were necessary for economic growth. It's a pity that we have to relearn that lesson again.


What do they say about those who do not learn from history?

Of course they did, because the war effort ended. You get that once the demand for building, bundling and shipping hundreds of tons of materials overseas every week ends, a whole lot of jobs go away, right?



Ok. I think you're failing to grasp that as a direct result of employing people for the war effort, unemployment dropped from around 20% to about 3%. If they just "went back to their old ways", then unemployment would have gone back up to 20% or so, right? The only way to avoid that was to replicate the need for a supply of labor that the government had previously been consuming. The answer was straight out of the evil supply side handbook: Lower taxes on big business and let them hire the workers.

Which is exactly what happened.



Yup. Because the government intelligently eliminated a whole bunch of government jobs and replaced them with private sector jobs and helped this along by providing incentives for big business to hire people. Which is the exact opposite of what the Dems have been doing over the last few years.



Again, the problem was that the government was employing more people for the war effort than had been employed in the market prior to the war. The expectation was that once that government demand for labor went away, most of those people would become unemployed unless new jobs could be created. There were two competing theories about how to do this:

1. Use the government to create jobs with more New Deal style public works programs. Stop gap this with greater free public services to cover those who still wouldn't be employed. So basically, the Obama strategy of public safety net and public jobs.

2. Drop taxes on employers and their businesses dramatically and let the private market handle the influx of labor.


Sound familiar? It's the exact same argument going on right now between the "raise taxes and pay for jobs and benefits for the people" and "lower taxes and encourage private industry to employ people" factions today. We're still having the same argument. The point is that back then, in the mid 40s Congress rejected FDRs plan and went with the private market solution. And *that* resulted in the massive post-war economic boom.


This is not opinion. This is a matter of fact. When the war was winding down, our government was faced with the same sort of choice we're facing right now. Back then, they chose to encourage private jobs, and it worked outstandingly. Will we make the same good choice today, or will we go the route FDR wanted? And do we think that will work?


I don't think it will. Do you? If so, why?

And? Facts are things like "Congress passed laws in the mid 40s which lowered taxes, especially corporate taxes". Opinions are things like "FDR's policies got us out of the Great Depression". I'm still curious why an opinion you agree with is fine, but one you disagree with is somehow magically disallowed from discussion.

/palmface.

You have a 14 trillion dollar DEBT. Not deficit, your country needs money. I think (and have said it many times) you need to cut spending and increase taxes. You need to do both. You have a stupid amount of DEBT. It is incredibly stupid. This is because of bad practices over the last 30-40 years, but looking recently it is due to both the Bush, and Obama white houses, but more directly with your laughable congress, they are pathetic.

That is what I think. I think your country is @#%^ed if you don't cut and tax, your country is bleeding out the *** like it was @#%^ed by an elepahant, and since my country is tied to yours I am going to be pissed of at your pathetic government of late. That is what I think.

Both your political parties are pathetic, absolutely terrible. Your politics suck and as such your political ideas suck.


(or find a good war, not some stupid money draining pit like the War on Terror has been, think you would have learned after nam. A good quick war 2-3 years get some money moving around.)

Edited, Nov 9th 2011 6:59pm by rdmcandie

And? What's your point? Debt as a percentage of GDP is around 65% right now. During WW2, debt as a percentage of GDP was 250%. We were massively more in debt then than we are now. Yet, instead of increasing government spending and taxes, we cut taxes and decreased the government spending (both military and public works, but mostly military).

The result was a major economic boom. I'm not even sure what you're arguing for at this point.



We need jobs to be created. Seriously, that's the problem. Where do you think "money" comes from?




We have a stupid amount of Debt almost entirely because of the policies of the Obama administration. Cutting spending is what we need to do. But raising taxes is the exact wrong thing to do. If we were sitting at 4% normal unemployment, and weren't collecting enough revenue, raising taxes might be on the table. But when we're at 9% unemployment (and more people are really unemployed than that), the revenue problem isn't tax rates which are too low, but not enough people employed and paying taxes.

Raising taxes on the businesses and wealthy people most likely to create those jobs is counterproductive. We need to commit to *not* raising taxes, allow business to feel like they can calculate their business risks well enough to start hiring people, and then the economy will recover, Until we do that, we'll continue to lurch from one economic problem to another and suffer a lackluster economy the whole time.



I think you haven't thought it through enough.

lol what

US Debt. Is just over 100% of your current GDP.

US GDP is about 14.8 trillion. Your current debt is 14.9 trillion.

The US debt is not current 65% it is 100% it was 51% in 1988, and under 40% in 1980 when taxes on the richest were still 50%.

You should read more. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

Digg are you just trying for an obscere ding or are you writing conceptual poetry?