GOP Wrecked the Budget - Reagan's OMB Director

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This is a interesting article to say the least. Thoughts USMB? Toro?

I'll give you my 2 skinny cents

1) Look at my avatar
2) BOTH parties have proven over and over again that neither side has the capacity currently to keep a balanced budet that doesn't add to our debt. (one thing I miss about clintons time in the office)
3) I guess I dont have much else to say

 

[Oddball]

But cutting spending during a recession, just like raising taxes, is bad policy.

Utter Keynesian claptrap.

Spending was steeply cut during the 1920s and late 1940s, and after a relatively brief period of readjustment to a market-driven recovery, production in the private sector exploded.

 

[Toro]

But cutting spending during a recession, just like raising taxes, is bad policy.

Utter Keynesian claptrap.

Spending was steeply cut during the 1920s and late 1940s, and after a relatively brief period of readjustment to a market-driven recovery, production in the private sector exploded.

FDR took your advice in 1937 and spending was cut and monetary policy was tightened in 1937, plunging the economy back into a severe recession.

Your analogy is wrong. The economy strengthened in the early 1920s, but the 20s were similar to this decade. Like the past 10 years, wages stagnated for most Americans in the 1920s and farm prices collapsed in a deflationary spiral. The Roaring 20s benefited primarily the wealthiest portion of society. People took on debt to maintain their standards of living. One of the causes of the Great Depression was all the private debt created over the prior decade. I wrote a thesis on the post-WWII economy, and policy makers were deathly afraid that the end of WWII would bring about similar conditions to the 1919 collapse. So they kept interest rates abnormally low and designed policies such as the GI Bill to transition returning soldiers back into the economy.

 

[Oddball]

That the rich became richer in the 1920s is a good thing...If there comes a day where the rich can't get richer, we're all going to be in one helluva fix.

The mere existence of the GI bill didn't produce anything, in and of itself. The fact remains that post war federal spending plummeted and the economy reorganized itself into productive activities.

 

[Toro]

That the rich became richer in the 1920s is a good thing...If there comes a day where the rich can't get richer, we're all going to be in one helluva fix.

That's not the point. The economy didn't reorganize itself after WWI for most people. The economy was bad for most people even as GDP rose. A small minority captured most of the gains of that decade. So using the 1920s as an analogy for cutting spending isn't a good one.

The mere existence of the GI bill didn't produce anything, in and of itself. The fact remains that post war federal spending plummeted and the economy reorganized itself into productive activities.

The government fixed interest rates for many years, and kept interest rates artificially low to pay off the massive amounts of debt accrued during the war. Not the Fed. The actual federal government passed laws. I doubt most free marketers would approve of such a policy today.

 

[Synthaholic]

That the rich became richer in the 1920s is a good thing...If there comes a day where the rich can't get richer, we're all going to be in one helluva fix.

The mere existence of the GI bill didn't produce anything, in and of itself. The fact remains that post war federal spending plummeted and the economy reorganized itself into productive activities.

What?!? It produced a generation of college graduates.

That's like saying "money doesn't buy anything, in and of itself".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That the rich became richer in the 1920s is a good thing...If there comes a day where the rich can't get richer, we're all going to be in one helluva fix.

That's not the point. The economy didn't reorganize itself after WWI for most people. The economy was bad for most people even as GDP rose. A small minority captured most of the gains of that decade. So using the 1920s as an analogy for cutting spending isn't a good one.

The mere existence of the GI bill didn't produce anything, in and of itself. The fact remains that post war federal spending plummeted and the economy reorganized itself into productive activities.

The government fixed interest rates for many years, and kept interest rates artificially low to pay off the massive amounts of debt accrued during the war. Not the Fed. The actual federal government passed laws. I doubt most free marketers would approve of such a policy today.

The recovery of early 1920 was whole order of magnitude better than the failed Keynesian Hoover FDR New Deal that left millions unemployed for a decade until the shooting started

 

[Big Fitz]

My god! Did a memo go out demanding historical revisionism of Reagan??? This is like the 4th thread I've seen with rtards demonizing Reagan and capitalism. Maybe this is the new make-work for welfare checks P-BO has come up with.

 

[Toro]

The recovery of early 1920 was whole order of magnitude better than the failed Keynesian Hoover FDR New Deal that left millions unemployed for a decade until the shooting started

Generations of Japanese children were taught that Japan was forced into WWII by other countries who were denying them raw materials for their economy, and thus Japan had no choice but to bomb Pearl Harbor and rape Nanking. I'm always reminded of this when I hear arguments by conservatives that Hoover's, er "interventionist" <cough> <cough> policies caused the Great Depression.

My god! Did a memo go out demanding historical revisionism of Reagan??? This is like the 4th thread I've seen with rtards demonizing Reagan and capitalism. Maybe this is the new make-work for welfare checks P-BO has come up with.

Yeah, that fucking libtard, David Stockman! What would Reagan's budget director know about Reagan's budget! Best we leave history to mythologizing partisans!