Those fiscally responsible Democrats...

[Polk]

Yeah. What Zander said. You have cited two examples where such spending did not work.
We can add Japan in the 1990s where the gov't passed stimulus after stimulus and kept rates at near zero and the economu is still in recession.

Yeah... totally didn't work...

1933 to 1936
GDP: Increased from 56.4 billion to 83.8 billion
Personal consumption: Increased from 45.9 billion to 66.2 billion
Unemployment: Fell from 25% to 15%

1940 to 1945
GDP: Increased from 101.4 billion to 223.1 billion
Personal consumption: Increased from 71.3 billion to 120 billion
Unemployment: Fell from 15% to 5%

And you know why Japan never got out of it's hole? Just as the economy began to recover, they'd listen to idiots like you and slash spending to the bone in an attempt to balance the budget.

 

[Polk]

Must be some sweet ganja you smoke to continue to believe that fairy tale! Maybe you can hit the trifecta?! Smoke a huge doobie, while riding a rainbow colored Unicorn while riding on the Obama hopey-changey trail. Keep it copacetic............

I have to apologize for only having facts on my side. They can't stand up to your name-calling.

 

[Zander]

Yeah. What Zander said. You have cited two examples where such spending did not work.
We can add Japan in the 1990s where the gov't passed stimulus after stimulus and kept rates at near zero and the economu is still in recession.

Yeah... totally didn't work...

1933 to 1936
GDP: Increased from 56.4 billion to 83.8 billion
Personal consumption: Increased from 45.9 billion to 66.2 billion
Unemployment: Fell from 25% to 15%

1940 to 1945
GDP: Increased from 101.4 billion to 223.1 billion
Personal consumption: Increased from 71.3 billion to 120 billion
Unemployment: Fell from 15% to 5%

And you know why Japan never got out of it's hole? Just as the economy began to recover, they'd listen to idiots like you and slash spending to the bone in an attempt to balance the budget.

You attribute all economic improvement to government spending? You really live in a fantasy world.

 

[Polk]

Yeah. What Zander said. You have cited two examples where such spending did not work.
We can add Japan in the 1990s where the gov't passed stimulus after stimulus and kept rates at near zero and the economu is still in recession.

Yeah... totally didn't work...

1933 to 1936
GDP: Increased from 56.4 billion to 83.8 billion
Personal consumption: Increased from 45.9 billion to 66.2 billion
Unemployment: Fell from 25% to 15%

1940 to 1945
GDP: Increased from 101.4 billion to 223.1 billion
Personal consumption: Increased from 71.3 billion to 120 billion
Unemployment: Fell from 15% to 5%

And you know why Japan never got out of it's hole? Just as the economy began to recover, they'd listen to idiots like you and slash spending to the bone in an attempt to balance the budget.

You attribute all economic improvement to government spending? You really live in a fantasy world.

We also have periods where your preferred policies were followed (1929 to 1932 and 1936-1939). The economy was much worse in those years. Of course, you'll come up with another lame dodge, because you sure as hell can't support your claims with evidence.

 

[Zander]

Yeah... totally didn't work...

1933 to 1936
GDP: Increased from 56.4 billion to 83.8 billion
Personal consumption: Increased from 45.9 billion to 66.2 billion
Unemployment: Fell from 25% to 15%

1940 to 1945
GDP: Increased from 101.4 billion to 223.1 billion
Personal consumption: Increased from 71.3 billion to 120 billion
Unemployment: Fell from 15% to 5%

And you know why Japan never got out of it's hole? Just as the economy began to recover, they'd listen to idiots like you and slash spending to the bone in an attempt to balance the budget.

You attribute all economic improvement to government spending? You really live in a fantasy world.

We also have periods where your preferred policies were followed (1929 to 1932 and 1936-1939). The economy was much worse in those years. Of course, you'll come up with another lame dodge, because you sure as hell can't support your claims with evidence.

You really enjoy cherry picking data that prop up your bad ideas.

Here are the numbers for a REAL economic recovery. Ronald Reagan instituted CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC POLICIES - sweeping economic reforms, deep across-the-board tax cuts, market deregulation, and sound monetary policies to contain inflation. The marginal rate tax cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were fundamental policy changes that provided the foundation for the "Great Expansion" that began in December 1982. Nothing that FDR did comes even close to these results. The numbers don't lie, it is useful idiots like Obama and his cronies that do.

The economic record of those 17 years is nothing short of remarkable. The United States experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They were interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91. You can thank CONSERVATIVE ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES for this massive boom. FDR had 16 years of massive economic upheavals and gyrations due to government intervention. His economic policies are perfect example of what NOT to do. 3 good years followed by 7 bad years then another 4 more bad years is not good economic policy.

Government does not create jobs, the private sector does. Every dollar that the Government spends is confiscated from productive companies and individuals. Government interference is what causes recessions and depression. The only solution to our present dilemma is to cut spending, cut tax rates, and to get government out of the way. Capitalism has not failed, CRONY CAPITALISM has.

 

[Polk]

I didn't cherry-pick a damn thing. You claim that because there is no evidence to support your point. You show that in your own post, when touting the 1980s and 1990s as evidence of a "real economic recovery". It's bullshit on several levels. Reagan is responsible for growth a decade after he left office, but Bush wasn't responsible for decline while he was in office? Guess it's really easy to be all about personal responsibility when everything you do is someone else's fault.

Also, contrary to your claims, the 1980s were not a boom time. Not only was economic performance more sluggish than during the New Deal, it was also more sluggish than it was in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

 

[The Rabbi]

Economic growth was more sluggish in the 80s than in the 70s??? WTF? I want some of what you're smoking.
You obviously werent there. Remember "stagflation"?? Ring any bells?

You have zero credibility. You are about in the same league as Chris and Jake Starkey--about to be laughed off this board.

 

[Zander]

I didn't cherry-pick a damn thing. You claim that because there is no evidence to support your point. You show that in your own post, when touting the 1980s and 1990s as evidence of a "real economic recovery". It's bullshit on several levels. Reagan is responsible for growth a decade after he left office, but Bush wasn't responsible for decline while he was in office? Guess it's really easy to be all about personal responsibility when everything you do is someone else's fault.

Also, contrary to your claims, the 1980s were not a boom time. Not only was economic performance more sluggish than during the New Deal, it was also more sluggish than it was in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

The numbers don't lie Polk. The 1930's and 1940's up until WW2 were the time of the great depression, extended by FDR's socialist policies. Because of FDR's lousy economic policies and heavy handed intervention, the economy had massive up and down swings and the depression was extended by at least a decade. You cherry picked the good years of that horrible era and conveniently left off the bad ones. That is what partisan hacks who lack a grasp of historical facts tend to do when defeated by facts and logic. I have proven with irrefutable data that Reagan's policies ushered in 17 consecutive years of prosperity You just do not want to accept reality because it flies in the face of your political ideology.

 

[The Rabbi]

And with those two posts I predict we won't hear from Polk any more on this subject.
Truth to liberals is like garlic to vampires.

 

[Polk]

Economic growth was more sluggish in the 80s than in the 70s??? WTF? I want some of what you're smoking.
You obviously werent there. Remember "stagflation"?? Ring any bells?

You have zero credibility. You are about in the same league as Chris and Jake Starkey--about to be laughed off this board.

I love the drug theme. That's all you've got to go on, as American economic performance in the 1970s was much better than the 1980s.

Job growth was higher in the 1970s (increased by around 25%, versus 15% in the 1980s), as was real GDP growth (38% in the 1970s versus 35% in the 1980s).

 

[Polk]

I didn't cherry-pick a damn thing. You claim that because there is no evidence to support your point. You show that in your own post, when touting the 1980s and 1990s as evidence of a "real economic recovery". It's bullshit on several levels. Reagan is responsible for growth a decade after he left office, but Bush wasn't responsible for decline while he was in office? Guess it's really easy to be all about personal responsibility when everything you do is someone else's fault.

Also, contrary to your claims, the 1980s were not a boom time. Not only was economic performance more sluggish than during the New Deal, it was also more sluggish than it was in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

The numbers don't lie Polk. The 1930's and 1940's up until WW2 were the time of the great depression, extended by FDR's socialist policies. Because of FDR's lousy economic policies and heavy handed intervention, the economy had massive up and down swings and the depression was extended by at least a decade. You cherry picked the good years of that horrible era and conveniently left off the bad ones. That is what partisan hacks who lack a grasp of historical facts tend to do when defeated by facts and logic. I have proven with irrefutable data that Reagan's policies ushered in 17 consecutive years of prosperity You just do not want to accept reality because it flies in the face of your political ideology.

You're right, the numbers don't lie. And the numbers support what I've stated. The economy didn't experience massive up and down swings. It experienced two. The first was an upward swing as government spending increased and the downward swing came as the government cut spending in an attempt to balance the budget. That's consistent with my argument.

Furthermore, you call me a hack even though I've supported my argument with objective data, while you're only source has been cherry-picked numbers from right-wing PR shops. I don't need to deny reality to support my political beliefs. My beliefs are supported by that which is objectively true. That you're willing to distort the record in an attempt to validate your beliefs reflects poorly on you.

 

[Polk]

And with those two posts I predict we won't hear from Polk any more on this subject.
Truth to liberals is like garlic to vampires.

If that's the case, why am I the only one telling the truth?

 

[Zander]

I didn't cherry-pick a damn thing. You claim that because there is no evidence to support your point. You show that in your own post, when touting the 1980s and 1990s as evidence of a "real economic recovery". It's bullshit on several levels. Reagan is responsible for growth a decade after he left office, but Bush wasn't responsible for decline while he was in office? Guess it's really easy to be all about personal responsibility when everything you do is someone else's fault.

Also, contrary to your claims, the 1980s were not a boom time. Not only was economic performance more sluggish than during the New Deal, it was also more sluggish than it was in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

The numbers don't lie Polk. The 1930's and 1940's up until WW2 were the time of the great depression, extended by FDR's socialist policies. Because of FDR's lousy economic policies and heavy handed intervention, the economy had massive up and down swings and the depression was extended by at least a decade. You cherry picked the good years of that horrible era and conveniently left off the bad ones. That is what partisan hacks who lack a grasp of historical facts tend to do when defeated by facts and logic. I have proven with irrefutable data that Reagan's policies ushered in 17 consecutive years of prosperity You just do not want to accept reality because it flies in the face of your political ideology.

You're right, the numbers don't lie. And the numbers support what I've stated. The economy didn't experience massive up and down swings. It experienced two. The first was an upward swing as government spending increased and the downward swing came as the government cut spending in an attempt to balance the budget. That's consistent with my argument.

Furthermore, you call me a hack even though I've supported my argument with objective data, while you're only source has been cherry-picked numbers from right-wing PR shops. I don't need to deny reality to support my political beliefs. My beliefs are supported by that which is objectively true. That you're willing to distort the record in an attempt to validate your beliefs reflects poorly on you.

Your argument is that stimulus works. It doesn't. It is a temporary band-aid that causes more problems than solutions. As soon as the false stimulus is taken away the economy fails again and all we have to show for it is more debt. Your data PROVES that. Stimulus programs are unsustainable and inevitably end badly. You can't spend your way out of a recession. By contrast, Reagan's Fiscally conservative policies initiated 17 continuous years of sustained prosperity. Thanks for making this so easy.

PS - I apologize for calling you a partisan hack.

 

[Polk]

That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?

 

[Zander]

That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?

Try to stay focused. Marginal tax rates are not what we are discussing.

You took the position that massive deficit spending by the gov't in the form of "stimulus" is helpful for the economy. I've shown you that they are not effective in the long term. If you want to discuss tax rates, I'd be happy to shatter any myths you hold. High tax rates inevitably result in lower revenue for the treasury.

Do I think the world will end if the top marginal rates increase to 40% after the Bush tax cuts expire? No, but it will not help spur economic growth or treasury receipts. It will extend the downturn. The answer is to get goverment the hell out of the way! Let capitalism work. Cut corporate tax rates, cut personal income taxes and CUT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!! The economy will bounce back on it's own. It is not the govermnents job to micromanage the economy or peoples lives.

 

[The T]

That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?

Try to stay focused. Marginal tax rates are not what we are discussing.

You took the position that massive deficit spending by the gov't in the form of "stimulus" is helpful for the economy. I've shown you that they are not effective in the long term. If you want to discuss tax rates, I'd be happy to shatter any myths you hold. High tax rates inevitably result in lower revenue for the treasury.

Do I think the world will end if the top marginal rates increase to 40% after the Bush tax cuts expire? No, but it will not help spur economic growth or treasury receipts. It will extend the downturn. The answer is to get goverment the hell out of the way! Let capitalism work. Cut corporate tax rates, cut personal income taxes and CUT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!! The economy will bounce back on it's own. It is not the govermnents job to micromanage the economy or peoples lives.

How much more SIMPLE could it be? -NO- Government has ever SPENT ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY? It's IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[Zander]

That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?

CHeck this graph out.....

Marginal tax rates dropped from 70% down to under 30% during the Reagan era. Hence the 17 year sustained expansion. Even minor increases couldn't stop the momentum. Obama could turn his entire term around if he cut taxes, cut spending,and told the American people to take care of themselves. It is not the govt's job to play nursemaid to it citizenry.

 

[The T]

That argument makes no sense. If Reagan's "fiscally conservative" policies resulted in 17 years, why was the growth not harmed by the three rounds of tax increases?

CHeck this graph out.....

Marginal tax rates dropped from 70% down to under 30% during the Reagan era. Hence the 17 year sustained expansion. Even minor increases couldn't stop the momentum. Obama could turn his entire term around if he cut taxes, cut spending,and told the American people to take care of themselves. It is not the govt's job to play nursemaid to it citizenry.

Speaks For Itself.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

High tax rates inevitably result in lower revenue for the treasury.

Define: high

It would seem there'd be a 'sweet spot' in a given economy where the treasury's income from taxation would be maximized.

 

[California Girl]

Why does no one ever mention the depression of 1920? Perhaps because no one knows about it because we recovered so quickly? Anyone know why we recovered so fast?