Who thinks it was WWII that brought the US out of the Great Depression and not taxes and social programs?

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes I know, filled with responses by posters like you ignoring data and deferring to rhetoric.

Data?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data

It's right there, numbers, information. I'm not talking nationalist rhetoric about how the the US is the best ever and how tax cuts, my friends, are the answer for everything. I'm talking numerically-based information.

And more generalizations. I wasn't even being serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

[Ion01 1]

Well, everything you have there obviously shows that the UCLA study was completely wrong.......
Why don't you do a little more research and look communist countries. Or lets look in the united states at places that do just what you propose like NY or California or the city of chicago.....they are colapsing!! When you tax the rich it hurts the poor too because the rich are paying the poor!

Here are some facts about taxing the rich:
Myth 1: Raising taxes on the rich will close budget deficits.

Truth: Increasing the progressivity of the income tax code by raising the top two rates will not close the deficit. In fact, it will lead to more revenue volatility, which will lead to larger future deficits.

Myth 2: The rich do not pay their fair share.

Truth: The top 20 percent of income earners pay almost all federal taxes.

Myth 3: The income tax code favors the rich and well-connected.

Truth: The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay almost no income taxes and the poor and middle-income earners benefit greatly from the tax code.

Myth 4: It is all right to raise tax rates on the rich-- they can afford it.

Truth: Just because someone can afford to pay higher taxes does not mean he should be forced to do so.

Myth 5: Higher tax rates in the 1990s did not hurt economic growth, so it is all right to raise them to those levels again.

Truth: High tax rates in the 1990s were a contributing factor to the 2001 recession and returning to those rates will damage the already severely weakened economy.

Myth 6: The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts did not generate strong economic growth.

Truth: The tax cuts generated strong economic growth.

Myth 7: Raising the top two income tax rates will not negatively impact small businesses because only 2 percent of them pay rates at that level.

Truth: Raising the top two income tax rates will negatively impact almost three-fourths of all economic activity created by small businesses.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2306.cfm

Seriously, look at your own country and how your policies have effected it!

And you continue to miss or ignore the fact that there was a bigger crash in the 20's followed by a huge economic boom! The difference between this crash and the great depression:
The crash in the 20's saw no government involvement in economics.
The crash that became the great depression saw massive government involvement.
And I am not going to link the info another time as you continue to ignore it.
The obvious is that if the government will stay out then things will recover. The reality is that it was government involvement that caused this recession! They blame banks for giving out loans but the government regulates interest rates and who qualifies! They wouldn't let the banks forclose on homes but when they finally did there was a surge in the home market and they said, "see...we are coming out of it and its working."
If all these things worked then why after all this stimulus and things has unemployment continued to rise? Why was it that every time something like the stimulus package or cap and trade was passed did the market immediately respond with a drop?
The attached chart shows what obama's advisors predicted would happen with and without a stimulus along with the actual. It clearly shows that the stimulus made things worse! There own estimates shows that the economy would recover on its own in the same amount of time!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

If you have another option, state it. I don't see how tax uncreases, new deals, WWII and social spending didn't have a major role in recovery, but let's hear it.

With you? No. I'm not in the mood to waste my time.

If it was coming from lawrocket or Tom A. I might. They'll actually discuss a topic as opposed to making partisan generalizations and resorting to name-calling.

You're so convinced of your own moral superiority you think no one's arguments have any merit no matter their content, you've shown that in other threads. It's a waste of my time.

Personally I think you're on here just because you're entertained by the sound of your own voice, so to speak.

I did discuss it - I posted data.

Partisan? I stated Hoover, a president I despise, finnally raised taxes, how am I being partisan by stating his deeds good and bad?

Where did I call you a name?

Moral superiority? I don't see that in here, show me the way.

If you actually had an argument you would make it. It's quite obvious that tax increases, New Deals and social programs enabled the relief from 33 to 37, after that is up for grabs.


lawrocket or Tom A: These guys believe virtually as you do, how is there ever an argument but an affirmation of your own beliefs. You have to venture outside to learn and to teach.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes I know, filled with responses by posters like you ignoring data and deferring to rhetoric.

Data?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data

It's right there, numbers, information. I'm not talking nationalist rhetoric about how the the US is the best ever and how tax cuts, my friends, are the answer for everything. I'm talking numerically-based information.

And more generalizations. I wasn't even being serious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

Obviously, if you were you would actually create an argument for your side. I know your take on this, it's just quite obvious that you are anable to make a solvent reply to support, "Tax cuts, my friends."

[justinb138 0]

Quote

"Tax cuts, my friends."

And again, you prove my point.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

"Tax cuts, my friends."

And again, you prove my point.

What point is that? I wish you made a point in this thread and left your ad hominem and/or false cries of ad hominems upon you out. ION made a couple points I will merge his 2 repsonses later and answer them, until then just keep misdirecting.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

The first graph depicts the unemployment rate from 1929 to 1942. Unemployment was down to < 5% in 42, making me think the war had nothing to do with the recovery of the GD, as we entered the war in Dec 8, 42, officially.

Sigh. Bad "data" is worse than none at all.

We declared war on Dec 8, 1941. Which really fucks up your argument as unemployment was still 10% in 1941.

[shropshire 0]

A big influence on the rise of the USA economy is surely based upon the fact that their industrial base was NOT destroyed in the war, whilst nearly everyone elses was.

Even 'if' the USA did not 'make' money out of the war directly, it most certainly used the fact of an intact industrial base to build upon its economic and political advantage.

The U.K has only just completed paying for the stuff that came across the pond ... not sure of the state of any other countries debt.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

A big influence on the rise of the USA economy is surely based upon the fact that their industrial base was NOT destroyed in the war, whilst nearly everyone elses was.

Even 'if' the USA did not 'make' money out of the war directly, it most certainly used the fact of an intact industrial base to build upon its economic and political advantage.

The U.K has only just completed paying for the stuff that came across the pond ... not sure of the state of any other countries debt.

The idea of making the Japanese and Germans build industry before homes, certainly gave them an advantage. We kept our old stuff, they got new, and the UK got screwed.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

The idea of making the Japanese and Germans build industry before homes, certainly gave them an advantage. We kept our old stuff, they got new, and the UK got screwed.

Oh, that's for sure - and the world thanked us by fucking us over BIG TIME

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[bullin82 0]

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

When the gov taxes they don't tax the poor. The bottom 50% pay < 3% of all taxes, so let's understand taxes are almost exclusively for the rich.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

When the gov taxes they don't tax the poor. The bottom 50% pay < 3% of all taxes, so let's understand taxes are almost exclusively for the rich.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

The first graph depicts the unemployment rate from 1929 to 1942. Unemployment was down to < 5% in 42, making me think the war had nothing to do with the recovery of the GD, as we entered the war in Dec 8, 42, officially.

Sigh. Bad "data" is worse than none at all.

We declared war on Dec 8, 1941. Which really fucks up your argument as unemployment was still 10% in 1941.

I realize that we declared war the day after Pearl Harbor, I just wrote that, not sure if here or in an email. Common fact. So now you're down to a semantics game that Dec 8 of one year is no where near the same as the next? So Dec 31 is waaaaaaay different than Jan 1?

Unemp in 1941 was 10% per the chart, unemp in 1942 was 5% per the chart. This is not bad data, what you unsuccessfully tried to say is the interpretation was bad, not the data, but it supports your flawed argument to say the data is bad so you go with it.

It's fair to say the unemp was somewhere inbetween at the end of 1941 and it had been tapering off since 1938, some 3 years before Pearl Harbor.

But there are really 2 segments to the recovery of the GD:

1933-1937

1938-1942

I see you addressd the second part and left the first alone. I think it's fair to say war funding projects spurred some of the recovery in the second part, whereas not at all in the first. All I see in the first part are massive tax increases and social programs and a quick recovery based upon the depth of the depression.

Furthermore, look at the chart at the bottom where tehy show top brackets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Look at 1920 to 1931. See how the rich get breaks? Then the GD. The same trend can be seen when Reagan took office and we amounted massive debt. Of course teh relief was when GHWB and Clinton raise dit back up and we saw deficit recovery, then your guy came in and undid that and here we are at the Great Recession.

I'm still looking for arguments as to how tax cuts help anything? All I see is disaster whenever we do so.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Here are some facts:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/...Depression-5409.aspx
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Not to be confused with UCLA saying this, these are 2 UCLA economists claiming this. This was written in 2004 and they say:

"We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

However, Obama's stimulus has already turned the GDP +, so their claims are BS to me. Also, this article is their speculation; we know what got us in, they're second-guessing how we got out. Furthermore, even if they were hypothetically right, the New Deals were probably more about relieving the suffering than they were about Depression recovery. It's an elitist that worries strictly about the bottom line and not the peopole dying of starvation along the way.

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

These guys are obviously elitist pigs with a firm plant on the right. I don't see them criticize Hoover for his massive Relief Act of 1932 tax increase, but FDR was a bastard for being pro-labor and pro-social svs. Then they say,

" The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

FDR watched Hoover pander to his rich buddies and fuck the poor guy, so FDR reversed this and got great results for 5 years. And then,

"Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression."

This article is just typical RW rhetoric; they refer to some data somewhere, but never actually produce it. In science we have peer-reviewed journals with that data, otherwise it's just another shitty opinion. Alos, they don't talk about the worst years of the GD as that would step on their Republican buddy, Hoover.

By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

Again, they guessed what the 10-headed monster *might* have done.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.


Again, love their guesses. Higher wages = evil to RW elitists.

"The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

And yet they ignore what happened in 1929 and previous years? That's objective.

Here's the basic theme: Keep labor beat down and the millionaires will become multi-millionaires so they will graciously employ the poor. Basic trickle-down, supply-side economics which Hoover had just employed, so FDR thought it would be insane to keep doing it and expect a different outcome.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate.

And how are GD unemp rates AT ALL relevant to 2003 numbers?

Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Here's what blasts their credibility: "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

Maybe they didn't hear of Hoover's Laissez faire approach that had 12 million people dead from starvation, and his wonderful handling of the Bonus Army.

Quote

Also, in the 1920's the economy took a bigger hit than at any point during the great depression. Why didn't it turn into a depression? Because the government stayed out of it!
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/...ression-of-1920.html

That's an op-ed from a Libertarian group, so that's their opinion; their guess, not objective information. The 1920 recession was basically post WWI industrial shutdown and worked itself out with other industry as the auto boom was doing well. It wasn't caused by any economic anomaly other than the gov military welfare programs ended. Also, it ended in a year or so with no intervention, Hoover tried that with the GD in 2-3 years and 12 million died of hunger, so the old ignore it and it will go away was tried and didn't work, we had to try something else.

Quote

Well, everything you have there obviously shows that the UCLA study was completely wrong.......
Why don't you do a little more research and look communist countries. Or lets look in the united states at places that do just what you propose like NY or California or the city of chicago.....they are colapsing!! When you tax the rich it hurts the poor too because the rich are paying the poor!

Trickle-down, supply side economics don't work. They didn't work under Hoover or Reagan and led to disaster, yet you celebrate their losses as victories.

Quote

Here are some facts about taxing the rich:
Myth 1: Raising taxes on the rich will close budget deficits.

Truth: Increasing the progressivity of the income tax code by raising the top two rates will not close the deficit. In fact, it will lead to more revenue volatility, which will lead to larger future deficits.

WRONG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Look at the top rate drastic increase in the 19teens to mid 20's. The debt actually fell during this time. Then look at the lowering of the top rate at the latter 1920's and crash. Look at this: http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/DeficitRealDollars1941-2009.gif

Other than the war, which caused debt, post WWII the debt fell and we had a top rate of 94%, the highest in history. Then you see it rose in the VN era, war cost, but post VN it rose sharply even exclusive of the Gulf War and Iraq War. Taxes were lowered extremely then other than when GHWB and Clinton raised them, then the deficit dropped to a surplus. Your assertion is statistically absolutely wrong.

Quote

Myth 2: The rich do not pay their fair share.

Truth: The top 20 percent of income earners pay almost all federal taxes.

And the top 20% possess 93% of all cash, so what are you bitching about? The gov taxes the money, not the people.

Quote

Myth 3: The income tax code favors the rich and well-connected.

Truth: The bottom 50 percent of income earners pay almost no income taxes and the poor and middle-income earners benefit greatly from the tax code.

Altho what you wrote is true, explain how wealth disparity is growing. It does benefit them, esp lately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Quote

Myth 4: It is all right to raise tax rates on the rich-- they can afford it.

Truth: Just because someone can afford to pay higher taxes does not mean he should be forced to do so.

Yes, I agree, anarchy is fun; let the rich keep their cash. I almost saw the word, "fair" coming out, glad I didn't.

Quote

Myth 5: Higher tax rates in the 1990s did not hurt economic growth, so it is all right to raise them to those levels again.

Truth: High tax rates in the 1990s were a contributing factor to the 2001 recession and returning to those rates will damage the already severely weakened economy.

2001 recession? Didn't know there was one, I define, as do economists, a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of neg GDP growth. Furthermore, GHW Bush raised taxes in the midst of his recession he was gifted from fascist Ronnie and it worked well. Times weren't great when Clinton hammered his massive tax increase and what happened? Well, great success in spite of what the Limbaughs of teh world want; American failure when a Dem is in office.

Quote

Myth 6: The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts did not generate strong economic growth.

Truth: The tax cuts generated strong economic growth.

Love your comprehensive myth-busting explanation. Really? http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Revenues increased 8% from 2001 to 2009, while spending was 114%. Under those horrible Clinton years revenues increased 72%, while outlays increased 32%. So please, tell me of the great economic growth; I'm just sitting here dying to hear it.

Quote

Myth 7: Raising the top two income tax rates will not negatively impact small businesses because only 2 percent of them pay rates at that level.

Truth: Raising the top two income tax rates will negatively impact almost three-fourths of all economic activity created by small businesses.
http://www.heritage.org/...rch/Taxes/bg2306.cfm

Oh, I love Heritage, what happened, was The Onion and Newsmax site down? Come on, I don't post Moveon.org, don't feed me Heritage BS please. I post all objective data, not some op-ed by some RW nutjob organization. Again, this chart at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States show me when taxes are raised on the rich how things go to hell. Again, dying to hear this.

Quote

Seriously, look at your own country and how your policies have effected it!

This is my country, my profile is just for fun, can't you see it's BS?

Quote

And you continue to miss or ignore the fact that there was a bigger crash in the 20's followed by a huge economic boom!

The 1920 crash was over in a year and was just as a result of war spending dropping. Industries adapted and it was over. I don't see how that is relevant to the GD. I realize that's your poster child for laissez faire economics, but it's an anomaly; show me where it worked before or since.

Quote

The difference between this crash and the great depression:
The crash in the 20's saw no government involvement in economics.

And was over in a year so no intervention was necessary.

Quote

The crash that became the great depression saw massive government involvement.

Really? The crash kicked off 10-29-29, Hoover did little but cut taxes, 12 million died, June 1, 1932 he finally raised taxes and so did FDR in 33 and subsequent. They tried it your way for the almost first 3 years of the GD and 12 million died; please tell me your silly argument is over.

Quote

And I am not going to link the info another time as you continue to ignore it.

I've addressed every site and info you've posted, unlike you who have not addressed 1 of the sites I posted. Furthermore, my citations are objective, most or all of yours is from an agenda-based site or persons.

Quote

The obvious is that if the government will stay out then things will recover.

Yea, 12 million say otherwise form 1929 to 1932. Well, if they were alive during the GD they would. Is that Republican Darwinian economic success; 12 mill dead?

Quote

The reality is that it was government involvement that caused this recession! They blame banks for giving out loans but the government regulates interest rates and who qualifies!

I agree that it was the low interest rate that caused this mess, but what required interest rate cuts: tax cuts. You cut taxes, you have less money circulating, they have to lower the interest rate. Esp stupid cutting taxes in time of war.

Quote

They wouldn't let the banks forclose on homes but when they finally did there was a surge in the home market and they said, "see...we are coming out of it and its working."

The mess was long before the foreclosures, foreclosures were a product of the cause: tax cuts my friends which led to low int rates.

Quote

If all these things worked then why after all this stimulus and things has unemployment continued to rise?

The market and GDP have gone +, the last thing to ever come around after a recession is employment. I'm sorry and I apologize for Obama that after inheriting the worst mess since the GD he couldn't have it wrapped up in 2 weeks. Look at any recession / depression, unemp is teh last thing out and Obama recoverd from the market crash and GDP in record time.

Quote

Why was it that every time something like the stimulus package or cap and trade was passed did the market immediately respond with a drop?

Isn't it fun to watch economics as a microcosm? Any economist would tell you to take the economy as an average over a number of months / years, not in a microcosm of a day or a week as you are doing. The market and economy have responded brilliantly, it will take 1-2 years for unemp to drop to 5% and we'll be out.

Quote

The attached chart shows what obama's advisors predicted would happen with and without a stimulus along with the actual. It clearly shows that the stimulus made things worse! There own estimates shows that the economy would recover on its own in the same amount of time!

That's from Heritage, not the WH. Dude, you would shit your pants if i gave you a chart, graph, site from Moveon, don't shove a turd down my throat from some agenda site. Seriously, get that data from the WH and I'm really interested, until then it's BS - you would say the same. It's real hard to find a flaw in the recovery of the mess Obama inherited from Bush and friends with the market near 10k and the GDP + IN JUST OVER 1 QUARTER.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

]reply]
We declared war on Dec 8, 1941. Which really fucks up your argument as unemployment was still 10% in 1941.

I realize that we declared war the day after Pearl Harbor, I just wrote that, not sure if here or in an email. Common fact. So now you're down to a semantics game that Dec 8 of one year is no where near the same as the next? So Dec 31 is waaaaaaay different than Jan 1?

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

When the gov taxes they don't tax the poor. The bottom 50% pay < 3% of all taxes, so let's understand taxes are almost exclusively for the rich.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Just man up and admit you screwed the pooch. Your brilliant, simplistic theory was that WW2 couldn't have mattered because unemployment in 1942 was only 5% and war didn't begin until December of that year.

Apparently you don't read. I wrote in post 14:

I went into this research thinking it was wholly tax increases on the rich, New Deals and the sort, but after reading a bunch I think it was both.

Unemp was 10% in 41 and 5% in 42, so at the very end of 41 we could infer the rate was 7-8%. These numbers don't work to the 5th digit right of the decimal, they are very round and also don't count people off the unemp roles, so we look for general trends. Also, we don't know when the numbers were tabulated, end of year, beginning, in-between? Statistically you look for modes, groupings and that's what we have; a trend from what was it, 19% in 1938 or whatever the data showed.

Again, you obviously haven't read my writings here as you would see I attribute the early recovery to Tax increases, New Deals and social programs, and I attribute the 2nd recovery to all the previous and military spending. War spending was just another social program anyway, deficit spending for phat projects, the only difference is we can justify it. Why don't you address the recovery from 33-37?

Quote

Moving the war date back one year is a huge difference, obvious to anyone with a minimal education.

And thinking anything with the economy is blocked off in time limits like a college class schedule, bus schedule, etc requires strict bias. The economy is dynamic and brings with it a transitory model. Unemp rates flow, not drop off like a finely machine plate.

Quote

A similar statement of brilliance would be to say that 9/11 had nothing to do with our invasion of Afghanistan in fall of 2001 because NYC wasn't attacked until September, 2002.

And here I thought the WTC's were attacked in 93 and 2001, not to mention the Cole and other crap. That's my point, these things flow, unemp data. Yes I get your point, but if you had read my posts you would see I partially attribute the 2nd recovery from 38 to 42 to the end of the war in 45 to military spending. Even tho the war officially started on Dec 8, 41, the fighting didn't start until a date still argued about.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_shots_fired_in_World_War_II

It's still up in the air, but as I wrote in post 14 of this thread, I do think WWII clearly had an impact in the 2nd part of the GD. You're not looking to discuss, you're looking for an 'Aha' in my argument. You missed, dude, I had already stated that WWII played a significant role in the recovery of the 2nd part of the GD. If you wanted to discuss, you would look at 33-37.

Quote

10% unemployment is high.

Not when coming from 25%....oh wait, here comes your next semantic argument, it was 24.7%. Saved ya the keystrokes. Again, it was 10% in 41, 5% in 42, so it is reasonable to think that it was in-between in Dec 41.

Quote

It dropped immediately after the war started (hardly a surprise).

You're king of the microcosm. W/o looking, it was 19% in 1938, right? So to halve that to 10% in 41 is a big deal, it's not as if it hung at 10% for years until the war came along. In reality the drop from 19% to 10% to 5% and lower was certainly in part to government war programs for sure. I stated this is post 14 that you did not read.

Quote

And bear in mind, that with the Lend-Lease Act, America was already involved in the war the year prior and that would account for some of the downward trend from 40 to 41.

W/o a doubt, and if you read post 14 you would see I gave that credit, not the Lend-Lease Act specifically, but all government war programs too. It was still a socialist gov system that pulled us out by deficit spending, it was just obviously necessary so it wasn't ridiculed.

Quote

I still have no idea what the point of this thread is. That Europe destroyed itself yet again while American industrial capacity was untouched and at peak capacity allowed the US to flourish in the aftermath of the war. Great way to get out of a depression.

If you read my posts you would understand, but you don't. You also don't bother that period from 33-37, as you can't find a war to crawl under to justify GD recovery and you would have to credit tax increases, New Deals, etc.

And to bring in Europe really shows how you don't get it or you do and are misdirecting. Germany destroyed Europe, the USSR and all the allieds saved Europe. Back to the point - tell us how we quit the dying of 12 million Americans under Hoovernoimics, tell us how we escaped the early GD years.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

When the gov taxes they don't tax the poor. The bottom 50% pay < 3% of all taxes, so let's understand taxes are almost exclusively for the rich.

wow i want to know what fantasy land your in where the gov doesnt tax the poor. kinda sure im no where near the rich life and im getting taxed like mad.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

I still have no idea what the point of this thread is.

To hear himself speak (write). Also to let everyone know how much more intelligent he thinks he is than anyone here because he has all the answers.

(Pssst, just read some of his post and you'll see what I'm talking about.)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I still have no idea what the point of this thread is.

To hear himself speak (write). Also to let everyone know how much more intelligent he thinks he is than anyone here because he has all the answers.

(Pssst, just read some of his post and you'll see what I'm talking about.)

Thanks for contributing so much. The point is that we are understanding what got us out of the GD. To answer that you would have to understand the overview of the GD, which you clearly do not, so you post nothing and fly.

Why not look at data and post something substantive.

[Lucky... 0]

Ino01, I addressd your 7 deadly sins and the entire long post, love to hear a response to all of it. If I didn't say before, the graph you posted is not only from Heritage, a RW agenda site, it's a prognostication of what would have been. It's not empirical in the least.

Love to hear your responses.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

That's the question, what brought us out of the Great Depression?

I think FDR was on the right track in terms of his approach for getting the USA out of the Depression. Unfortunately Hitler was on a very wrong track when it came to his approach for getting Germany out of the Depression, and the resulting events rightly dominate the history books.

The USA emerged from the war in a dominant position because the war never touched mainland North American soil, so it is easy to look back and say that the war ended the Depression. The reality, though, is that the war didn't so much destroy the Depression as it destroyed Europe--leaving the USA in a comparatively strong position. However, if Germany had elected a better leader in 1933, I strongly believe that both Europe and the USA could have emerged from the Depression by the mid-to-late 1930's without war being necessary.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

That's the question, what brought us out of the Great Depression?

I think FDR was on the right track in terms of his approach for getting the USA out of the Depression. Unfortunately Hitler was on a very wrong track when it came to his approach for getting Germany out of the Depression, and the resulting events rightly dominate the history books.

The USA emerged from the war in a dominant position because the war never touched mainland North American soil, so it is easy to look back and say that the war ended the Depression. The reality, though, is that the war didn't so much destroy the Depression as it destroyed Europe--leaving the USA in a comparatively strong position. However, if Germany had elected a better leader in 1933, I strongly believe that both Europe and the USA could have emerged from the Depression by the mid-to-late 1930's without war being necessary.

Possibly, but the US depression picked up again in 37-38 and war spending helpsed pull the US out, so would we have pulled out w/o the war and when? I do agree that we would have been better off w/o the war, and we would have pulled out of the GD, but would it have been as fast? Certainly the depression recovery from 32-37 was all about taxes and New Deals. I don't know a lot about Europe and the impact the war had on it, but I know it ruined their manufacturing base.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Ino01, I addressd your 7 deadly sins and the entire long post, love to hear a response to all of it. If I didn't say before, the graph you posted is not only from Heritage, a RW agenda site, it's a prognostication of what would have been. It's not empirical in the least.

Love to hear your responses.

That chart is referenced by the heritage foundation but is actually what the obama administration put together to try and pass thier stimulus! You are arguing with obama's chart basically. And of course, if you don't like the info call it republican as if that changes the facts or numbers. Its all a vast right wing conspirousy and funded by fox.