Can A President Who Hates Business....

One could argue that Franklin Roosevelt hated business. His family had been rich for generations. He viewed businessmen as social inferiors.

Nevertheless, there was nearly as much economic growth during his first term as during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. There was certainly more job creation. After his inauguration in 1933 there was a steady decline in unemployment except for a year after 1937 when he reduced government spending.

Roosevelt's method of ending the Great Depression was fairly simple. He raised taxes on the well to do, hired people at government expense, and raised wages of people in the private sector by passing a minimum wage law and by strengthening labor unions.

Those who claim that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression, the Second World War did, forget that military spending and employment is government spending and employment.

More recently, from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there was nearly always more job creation per year under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents.

Thanks for a clear and concise post. I'm surprised the echo chamber has not yet responded with quotes from the latest tome published by the Ministry of Truth. Soon another thread will be posted by a member of the reactionary forces on the fringe of the Republican Party [yes PC that b u).
 
One could argue that Franklin Roosevelt hated business. His family had been rich for generations. He viewed businessmen as social inferiors.

Nevertheless, there was nearly as much economic growth during his first term as during the terms of Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. There was certainly more job creation. After his inauguration in 1933 there was a steady decline in unemployment except for a year after 1937 when he reduced government spending.

Roosevelt's method of ending the Great Depression was fairly simple. He raised taxes on the well to do, hired people at government expense, and raised wages of people in the private sector by passing a minimum wage law and by strengthening labor unions.

Many of those things were harmful, as smaller businesses were ill equipped to deal with the increase labour cost, especially those whose business expenses were suffering. The minimum wage law priced child labour out of the market, as adults who were so desperate for work, they were willing to take wages normally offered to children.

The biggest positive effects on the economy was when the Supreme Court overturned the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Recovery Act in 1935. The NRA was a opposed strongly by many business owners, including Henry Ford. He refused to use any NRA code, saying, "I do not think that this country is ready to be treated like Russia for a while. He used legal loopholes to prevent him from having to sign NRA codes. The code also informed price controls on goods and services as well as minimum wage codes. Ford's response, "If we tried to live up to it, would have to live down to it."

It probably wasn't until after FDR finally died a decade later did business sentiment finally return.

Those who claim that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression, the Second World War did, forget that military spending and employment is government spending and employment.

All that happened was the Government took all of the unemployed Americans and drafted them. Resources were allocated from many sectors of the economy which were used for producers of goods and services and used to build bombs, tanks and firearms. Many things were rationed as well. Some people who might have lived through it would probably leave accounts of the War being the worse part of the Depression than any time before it. Most of the new money created went straight into the war, not the actual economy. The spending didn't go straight into the general economy either, and once the war ended, the economy went straight back into Recession.

Even still, if you strip out all of the economic factors the war masked, the Great Depression really didn't end until 1947 - 1949.

More recently, from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there was nearly always more job creation per year under Democratic presidents than under Republican presidents.

Those are really only attributed to cyclical booms and economic recovers. There is really only one President who presided under a period of genuine economic growth, and that President is Dwight Eisenhower.
 
Last edited:
Those are really only attributed to cyclical booms and economic recovers. There is really only one President who presided under a period of genuine economic growth, and that President is Dwight Eisenhower.

Your other assertions did not disprove what I earlier said, so I will discuss the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower.

During his presidency the top tax rate never got below 91 percent. Now it is 40 percent.

Top Tax Rate on Regular Income

The effective top tax rate under Eisenhower was 66.4 percent. Now it is 32.4 percent.

The Vampire Economy | DNDN Message Board Posts

During the Eisenhower administration over twenty-five percent of the labor force belonged to labor unions. Now it is about twelve percent.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=key_workplace

High taxes on the rich and strong labor unions were legacies of the Roosevelt administration.

Nevertheless, under President Truman an average of 1,200,000 jobs were created per year.

Under President Eisenhower this declined to 438,000.

Under John Kennedy this rose to 1,200,000

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Under Kennedy the top tax rate remained at 91 percent. The military buildup for Vietnam had not yet begun.
 

Attachments

  • $inequality-taxrate_3 (1).png
    $inequality-taxrate_3 (1).png
    19.9 KB · Views: 73
Those are really only attributed to cyclical booms and economic recovers. There is really only one President who presided under a period of genuine economic growth, and that President is Dwight Eisenhower.

Your other assertions did not disprove what I earlier said, so I will discuss the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower.

During his presidency the top tax rate never got below 91 percent. Now it is 40 percent.

Top Tax Rate on Regular Income

The effective top tax rate under Eisenhower was 66.4 percent. Now it is 32.4 percent.

The Vampire Economy | DNDN Message Board Posts

Only 352 people who filed their income taxes in 1954 paid at the top marginal/effective rate. Today you have millions upon millions paying an effective rate which is much closer to that of the marginal rate.

In 1954, the Top 50% accounted for 6% of all federal tax revenue. Today, the Top 50% account for 97.21% of all federal tax revenue. The rich got away with much tax evasion during the 1950's. Even if the effective rate was higher, you are talking about an effective rate of 66% on $50.000 Today, it's an effective rate of 32.4% on $398.350.

During the Eisenhower administration over twenty-five percent of the labor force belonged to labor unions. Now it is about twelve percent.

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176&context=key_workplace

High taxes on the rich and strong labor unions were legacies of the Roosevelt administration.

And we increasingly see how useless this legacy is. The rich does everything in their power to avoid taxation. Corporate profits are at all time highs, and these corporations will not hire Americans. They're shifting their resources in countries which are more business friendly. Coca-Cola has already said China is more business friendly than America. Apple would rather go into debt than repatriate $41 billion dollars worth of profits.

There is no longer a need for labour unions. Aside from the fact that labour unions distort market demand and encourage anti-competitive policies via the Government, work today has become increasingly individualised.

Nevertheless, under President Truman an average of 1,200,000 jobs were created per year.

Under President Eisenhower this declined to 438,000.

Under John Kennedy this rose to 1,200,000

Truman was transitioning from a wartime economy to a peace time economy, essentially an economic recovery. Many of those men were coming home to be with their families and to start working an an actual economy. When all you have is a penny, and you find another penny lying on the street, congratulations, you've just doubled your money. He started from rock bottom. Hardly something to brag about.

The same thing happened with JFK. His presidency began during an economic downturn. Unemployment shot up as high as 7.1%. Again, the only preceded to preside under true economic growth was Eisenhower. He didn't inherent an economic downturn and he didn't preside during an asset bubble.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Under Kennedy the top tax rate remained at 91 percent. The military buildup for Vietnam had not yet begun.

Kennedy actually decreased taxes to the marginal rate of 75%. At least I think that's what happened.
 
Last edited:
Those are really only attributed to cyclical booms and economic recovers. There is really only one President who presided under a period of genuine economic growth, and that President is Dwight Eisenhower.

You consider the current "downturn" as "cyclical"? :eusa_eh:

BTW- love your avie :eusa_drool: I'd "work across the aisle" w/ her ;)
 
Last edited:
Those are really only attributed to cyclical booms and economic recovers. There is really only one President who presided under a period of genuine economic growth, and that President is Dwight Eisenhower.

You consider the current "downturn" as "cyclical"? :eusa_eh:

BTW- love your avie :eusa_drool: I'd "work across the aisle" w/ her ;)

Yes, in regards to cyclical unemployment. Economic expansions and recessions are a natural part of the business cycle. When business cycles are at their peak, economic output is maximized and unemployment will be low. When this falls, the business cycle falls lower and unemployment rises.
 
Those are really only attributed to cyclical booms and economic recovers. There is really only one President who presided under a period of genuine economic growth, and that President is Dwight Eisenhower.

You consider the current "downturn" as "cyclical"? :eusa_eh:

BTW- love your avie :eusa_drool: I'd "work across the aisle" w/ her ;)

Yes, in regards to cyclical unemployment. Economic expansions and recessions are a natural part of the business cycle. When business cycles are at their peak, economic output is maximized and unemployment will be low. When this falls, the business cycle falls lower and unemployment rises.

So you're saying the recent/current economic downturn is cyclical? :eusa_eh: :rofl:

You ever read "The Big Short" by an author who worked on Wall Street in the early 1980's & also Wrote "Liar's Poker"? He spells out what happened, basically brazen theft through fraud.

These two are very good reads about what led up to the orgy on Wall St.

The Big Short - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine

Griftopia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America
 
Last edited:
You consider the current "downturn" as "cyclical"? :eusa_eh:

BTW- love your avie :eusa_drool: I'd "work across the aisle" w/ her ;)

Yes, in regards to cyclical unemployment. Economic expansions and recessions are a natural part of the business cycle. When business cycles are at their peak, economic output is maximized and unemployment will be low. When this falls, the business cycle falls lower and unemployment rises.

So you're saying the recent/current economic downturn is cyclical? :eusa_eh: :rofl:

You ever read "The Big Short" by an author who worked on Wall Street in the early 1980's & also Wrote "Liar's Poker"? He spells out what happened, basically brazen theft through fraud.

These two are very good reads about what led up to the orgy on Wall St.

The Big Short - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Griftopia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America

Whether or not you believe the direct causes were due to fraud, mis-regulation, de-regulation, government intervention regarding the economy is fine. It doesn't necessarily change what is happening in regards to what is happening.

Land, labour and capital were badly mis-allocated. The business cycle reached full employment and output reached it's maximum. The market realising their losses (due to increase interest rates or inflation, whatever) liquidated as much as they good, sending the market into a free-fall.
 
You ever read "The Big Short" by an author who worked on Wall Street in the early 1980's & also Wrote "Liar's Poker"? He spells out what happened, basically brazen theft through fraud.

of course you're being a silly silly liberal child as usual. Who can a say with a straight face that Fanny Freddie SEC FDIC CRA FHA didn't cause housing collapse when they were all created to get folks into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow. Sorry, but what other conclusion is possible.
 
:eusa_hand: you're getting in over your head. Theft & fraud/gaming the system for personal gain are the primary culprits. Tranches, credit default swaps, etc... Everything else is merely a result of the former.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLx2Xc1EXLg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLx2Xc1EXLg[/ame]

You still never answered who that is in your avie. Pamela Anderson :confused:
 
Last edited:
I'll add this one. It's a case study in Big Government Cronyism...

that is a good one for sure but its only about Fanny/Freddie just as The Big Short is only about Wall Street. The best book by far to take a look at whole integrated picture is "The Financial Crisis" by John Allison
 
:eusa_hand: you're getting in over your head. Theft & fraud/gaming the system for personal gain are the primary culprits. Tranches, credit default swaps, etc... Everything else is merely a result of the former.

Sen. Levin Grills Goldman Sachs Exec On "Shitty Deal" E-mail - YouTube

Those financial instruments are not new. People have used them for a long time. For the record, I do believe what happened in 2007 - 2008 is a result of mis-regulation of the economy. For that reason, I propose a big transition of Government out of many sectors of the overall economy.

You still never answered who that is in your avie. Pamela Anderson :confused:

The person in my Avatar is me. Although, I do have Pamela Anderson type attributes, and I'm not referring to my hair...
 
Only 352 people who filed their income taxes in 1954 paid at the top marginal/effective rate. Today you have millions upon millions paying an effective rate which is much closer to that of the marginal rate.

In 1954, the Top 50% accounted for 6% of all federal tax revenue. Today, the Top 50% account for 97.21% of all federal tax revenue. The rich got away with much tax evasion during the 1950's. Even if the effective rate was higher, you are talking about an effective rate of 66% on $50.000 Today, it's an effective rate of 32.4% on $398.350.

Excuse me. Are you saying that in 1954 the top half of the income distribution paid 6 percent of federal tax revenue? I am sorry. That does not pass the laugh test.
 
And we increasingly see how useless this legacy is. The rich does everything in their power to avoid taxation. Corporate profits are at all time highs, and these corporations will not hire Americans. They're shifting their resources in countries which are more business friendly. Coca-Cola has already said China is more business friendly than America. Apple would rather go into debt than repatriate $41 billion dollars worth of profits.

Then why is it that when labor unions were stronger and when the top tax rate was higher most Americans got pay raises every year that beat inflation?

The reason that corporations increasingly move production to low wage countries is because the North American Free Trade Agreement and similar legislation has made it possible for them to import that production without paying tariffs. I supported NAFTA at the time, but Ross Perot's arguments have been proven to be valid.

The reason corporations are not hiring is because people are not buying. The solution is the same one that worked during the New Deal: tax the rich heavily; strengthen labor unions; raise the minimum wage. These policies created better consumers. As they bought more employers in the private sector hired more to produce and sell what was bought.
 
There is no longer a need for labour unions. Aside from the fact that labour unions distort market demand and encourage anti-competitive policies via the Government, work today has become increasingly individualised.

Because of stagnant and declining wages there is more of a need for labor unions than ever before.

The Scandinavian countries, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Germany have responded better to the Great Recession than the United States. They have stronger labor unions.

Trade union membership statistics - Countries Compared - NationMaster
 
Truman was transitioning from a wartime economy to a peace time economy, essentially an economic recovery. Many of those men were coming home to be with their families and to start working an an actual economy. When all you have is a penny, and you find another penny lying on the street, congratulations, you've just doubled your money. He started from rock bottom. Hardly something to brag about.

The same thing happened with JFK. His presidency began during an economic downturn. Unemployment shot up as high as 7.1%. Again, the only preceded to preside under true economic growth was Eisenhower. He didn't inherent an economic downturn and he didn't preside during an asset bubble.

According to the following article from The Wall Street Journal, which I have already cited, from the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of George W. Bush there was nearly always more job creation per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. There was more under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

That is too much of a pattern to be dismissed as due to reasons irrelevant to Democratic and Republican economic policies.
 
Only 352 people who filed their income taxes in 1954 paid at the top marginal/effective rate. Today you have millions upon millions paying an effective rate which is much closer to that of the marginal rate.

In 1954, the Top 50% accounted for 6% of all federal tax revenue. Today, the Top 50% account for 97.21% of all federal tax revenue. The rich got away with much tax evasion during the 1950's. Even if the effective rate was higher, you are talking about an effective rate of 66% on $50.000 Today, it's an effective rate of 32.4% on $398.350.

Excuse me. Are you saying that in 1954 the top half of the income distribution paid 6 percent of federal tax revenue? I am sorry. That does not pass the laugh test.

Might seem funny, but it is the truth. Back then, there was really only one type of income. Everything you made was considered income. Today, there are many types of income, but it can essentially be broken down into just four. Of course, there wasn't an internet at the time. There were no 1040 ez's, no debit cards or bank wires. Essentially everyone paid cash. Aside from the financial environment being different today than it was in the past, it was much easier to get deductions and write-offs.

For example, let's say that you are a doctor and you annual income was $100,000 at the time. And let's say that you've owned some real estate property in a designated area of your choosing, and the value of the property depreciated by $100,000. You could take your $100,000 worth of losses against your annual income as a doctor and you would virtually pay 0 income taxes for that year.

Today, there would be no way you would be able to do this. You are only allowed to do this with losses up to $3,000 or less.
 
Kennedy actually decreased taxes to the marginal rate of 75%. At least I think that's what happened.

From 1964 to 1965 the top tax rate declined from 91.0 percent to 70.0 percent. That of course was after the death of President Kennedy.

Top Tax Rate on Regular Income

However, Republicans like to claim that reducing the top tax rate generated more tax revenue. OK, let's look at that assertion.

In 1964 income tax receipts were $48,697 million. In 1965 they increased to $48,792 million. In other words, they increased by $95 million.

However, in 1963 when the top tax rate was still 91 percent income tax receipts were $47,588 million. From 1963 to 1964 when the top tax rate remained the same income tax receipts increased by $1,104.

Historical Amount of Revenue by Source

These figures are not adjusted for inflation. The complex truth is that income tax receipts usually increase from one year to the next because of inflation and economic growth. They nearly always increase more when the top tax rate is not reduced, and still more when it is raised.

For example, from 1943 to 1944 the top tax rate increased from 88.0 percent to 94.0 percent. Income tax receipts increased from $6,505 million to $19,705 million. This represented an increase of $13,200 million.

My figures for tax receipts come ultimately from the Office of Management and Budget. Keep in mind again that they are not adjusted for inflation.

The truth is rather simple, although Republicans have tried to obfuscate it: raising taxes results in higher tax revenue.

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt was paid down as a percentage of gross domestic product. It was only when Ronald Ronald promoted and acted on the dishonest claim that cutting taxes yields more tax revenue than keep taxes constant or raising them that the national debt began to increase.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now Republicans are using the increase in the national debt that is the result of their fraudulent economic policies in an effort to cut popular middle class entitlements. Fortunately, it is not working. For several years public opinion polls indicate popular support for raising taxes on the rich and widespread opposition for cutting Social Security and Medicare.

https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy...608,d.dmQ&fp=8d786327089c7a38&biw=640&bih=559
 

Attachments

  • $US_Debt_Trend.svg.png
    $US_Debt_Trend.svg.png
    7.9 KB · Views: 75

Forum List

Back
Top