What would you have done to save the economy?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Talking points" can be ideas, they can also be propaganda and nonsense. For three years President Hoover pretty much got out of the way and let recessions do what they do.

Which is, of course, entirely false. President Hoover upped the interventions into the market to unprecedented, until Roosevelt came along, lengths. Roosevelt actually ran his campaign against the interventions of Hoover.

Hoover's interventions were small, weak and not widely followed.
t

Small and weak only compared to the monstrosity created later by Roosevelt.

 

[Toro]

And why are taxes going up? Lets take that backwards to the source. The fact is capitalism cannot compete in the WTO against other economies where wages and the living standards are so low.

That brings us to deregulation and paying Americans the Mexican wages and lowering our own living standards. Or do you see a way around that?

Of course it can. That's like saying New York cannot compete against Mississippi because the wages in Mississippi and the regulatory environment is less compared to New York.

Wages are directly related to productivity. Third world countries are lower productivity economies so they pay less. Lower productivity jobs in America have been migrating offshore but wages have risen over the long-run because productivity in America has risen over the long-run. As long as productivity continues to rise, wages will rise.

 

[Toro]

Which is, of course, entirely false. President Hoover upped the interventions into the market to unprecedented, until Roosevelt came along, lengths. Roosevelt actually ran his campaign against the interventions of Hoover.

Hoover's interventions were small, weak and not widely followed.
t

Small and weak only compared to the monstrosity created later by Roosevelt.

Small and weak for the time, and small and weak compared to today.

Of course, this argument is lost when you compared it to the war economy, which was almost a command economy as the government set prices, determined output and rationed items. The war economy was far more interventionist than the "interventionist" economy of Hoover, yet it was the war that eventually led us out of the Depression.

 

[shintao]

And why are taxes going up? Lets take that backwards to the source. The fact is capitalism cannot compete in the WTO against other economies where wages and the living standards are so low.

That brings us to deregulation and paying Americans the Mexican wages and lowering our own living standards. Or do you see a way around that?

The same things were said about Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Taiwan.

How are their living standards and wages doing today, as compared to way back when?

I would say improving. How are their wages & Benefits for workers in comparison to American workers?

 

[Mr Natural]

Hoover's interventions were small, weak and not widely followed.
t

Small and weak only compared to the monstrosity created later by Roosevelt.

Small and weak for the time, and small and weak compared to today.

Of course, this argument is lost when you compared it to the war economy, which was almost a command economy as the government set prices, determined output and rationed items. The war economy was far more interventionist than the "interventionist" economy of Hoover, yet it was the war that eventually led us out of the Depression.

War is government spending on a massive scale.

 

[Oddball]

And why are taxes going up? Lets take that backwards to the source. The fact is capitalism cannot compete in the WTO against other economies where wages and the living standards are so low.

That brings us to deregulation and paying Americans the Mexican wages and lowering our own living standards. Or do you see a way around that?

The same things were said about Japan, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Taiwan.

How are their living standards and wages doing today, as compared to way back when?

I would say improving. How are their wages & Benefits for workers in comparison to American workers?

Which Americans...The ones who live on Manhattan or in Pascagoula, Mississippi?

 

[Oddball]

Small and weak only compared to the monstrosity created later by Roosevelt.

Small and weak for the time, and small and weak compared to today.

Of course, this argument is lost when you compared it to the war economy, which was almost a command economy as the government set prices, determined output and rationed items. The war economy was far more interventionist than the "interventionist" economy of Hoover, yet it was the war that eventually led us out of the Depression.

War is government spending on a massive scale.

It's also rationing, shortages, production for the sake of destruction, and sucking a huge number of productive workers out of the general economy and killing them.

Hardly an equitable trade.

 

[Mr Natural]

Small and weak for the time, and small and weak compared to today.

Of course, this argument is lost when you compared it to the war economy, which was almost a command economy as the government set prices, determined output and rationed items. The war economy was far more interventionist than the "interventionist" economy of Hoover, yet it was the war that eventually led us out of the Depression.

War is government spending on a massive scale.

It's also rationing, shortages, production for the sake of destruction, and sucking a huge number of productive workers out of the general economy and killing them.

Hardly an equitable trade.

But seemingly very effective for an ailing economy.

Or so we've been told.

 

[Rozman]

At the very beginning they could have cut capital gains taxes,could have suspended payroll taxes for six months.Anything that would have put more money into the pockets of the taxpayers.If they had given every taxpayer a check for $150,000-$200,000 tax free it would have been cheaper and would have done more to get the country moving again.

 

[Oddball]

War is government spending on a massive scale.

It's also rationing, shortages, production for the sake of destruction, and sucking a huge number of productive workers out of the general economy and killing them.

Hardly an equitable trade.

But seemingly very effective for an ailing economy.

Or so we've been told.

No, it's not.

As has already been pointed out a couple of times, there was a steep recession in 1946.

Yet, it isn't talked about much because the feds reduced spending by nearly 2/3 and the economy bounced back relatively quickly.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Which is, of course, entirely false. President Hoover upped the interventions into the market to unprecedented, until Roosevelt came along, lengths. Roosevelt actually ran his campaign against the interventions of Hoover.

True enough, Hoover did not sit by and play the fidel, and neither did George W. Bush, btw. The question in the OP is, what would you do, and my answer is much more than Hoover, Bush II or Obama.
Everyone agrees that Job creation is issue number one. The Oddballs blame Obama for not creating jobs and in the same breath blame him for getting in the way. Presidents alone cannot create jobs, they need to work with Congress and that has been an impossible task. What I would do if I were Obama is propose major projects, as I suggested above. This will provide the business community the resolve they need to expand and hire. Knowing major construction projects lasting years have been approved in principle by the White House and Congress would do much to restore confidence in the economy and jump start growth.
Sadly that won't happen. The dishonorable opposition lead by Limbaugh, Palin, Gingrich, McConnell and Boehner don't give a shit about anything but their personal agendas. Country first my ass.

And both Hoover and Bush were wrong. Jobs can only be created by the market. It doesn't matter whether the President works with the Congress or not, governments can't create jobs.

Another talking point, and one I characterize as propaganda. The CETA program created jobs, a program developed because another Republcan Administration prosecuted a war of choice (Vietnam) without raising the revenue to pay for it.
The economy was stuck during the Ford Administration, inflation raged while the economy stalled. Jobs then were the issue and the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act provided them.

 

[shintao]

And why are taxes going up? Lets take that backwards to the source. The fact is capitalism cannot compete in the WTO against other economies where wages and the living standards are so low.

That brings us to deregulation and paying Americans the Mexican wages and lowering our own living standards. Or do you see a way around that?

Of course it can. That's like saying New York cannot compete against Mississippi because the wages in Mississippi and the regulatory environment is less compared to New York.

Yes, it is like saying that. And that is why we see corporations flock to low tax states where low wages and low standards of living are accepted.

Wages are directly related to productivity. Third world countries are lower productivity economies so they pay less. Lower productivity jobs in America have been migrating offshore but wages have risen over the long-run because productivity in America has risen over the long-run. As long as productivity continues to rise, wages will rise.

When have wages risen?? They have been stagnant for 12 years of so.

 

[Ame®icano]

Bring back the gold standard and abolish Federal Reserve.

 

[Oddball]

At the very beginning they could have cut capital gains taxes,could have suspended payroll taxes for six months.Anything that would have put more money into the pockets of the taxpayers.If they had given every taxpayer a check for $150,000-$200,000 tax free it would have been cheaper and would have done more to get the country moving again.

Problem being that many of them would've retired debt, which doesn't increase the flow of money through the economy.

That said, it would also have put more money into the hands of banks, to lend for capital projects.

What's for sure that just printing the money up and throwing it at the banks hasn't helped much, as they're dumping that money into Treasuries and holding their cards for the time being.

 

[uscitizen]

If the prime rate had maintained around 5% since 2000 you would be amazed in the difference in the economy today.

yeah we would not have had so much phony growth but it would have been a more solid and sustainable growth.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I hear the complaints about Obama, so it's a fair question to ask, if not Obamas way, what was your solution to boosting the economy??

First I would not have forced banks through regulation to loan to higher risk individuals under the "Equal Lending Act".

I would not have allowed the government to fund projects, wars, and entitlement programs with defecit spending.

If I took over when obama took offfice I would have done an executive order doing away with tarp and bailouts.

I would have cut the tax rate on business that profited less than 1,000,000/year to give them the capital to create jobs. This is because I trust in individual americans to create good jobs more than I trust the government.

I would not have passed any of the additional spending that obama had passed such as cash for clunkers.

I would make the Bush Tax Cuts that benefitted all americans, but as a percentage of total income benefitted the poor and lower middle class the most, permanent.


I have more ideas but im about to play poker with article_15 and a few other friends so I'm going to stop here.

 

[shintao]

What I would I have done, is take a trillion dollars and turn it into script money. I would have divided it between our 300 million people equally to spend.

As identifiable script, it would have the following conditions put on it's use.

1.It must be spent in America and only on American made goods or services. Businesses would send the script into the federal treasury to be exchanged for USDs.
2.It could not be put in a bank or draw interest.
3.It could not be used for stocks or gambling, or federal taxes, etc.
4.It would have to spent in 365 days.

This would have had the affect of deliverying the stimulus into every local area of America, creating new jobs and new businesses.

 

[Ame®icano]

What I would I have done, is take a trillion dollars and turn it into script money. I would have divided it between our 300 million people equally to spend.

As identifiable script, it would have the following conditions put on it's use.

1.It must be spent in America and only on American made goods or services. Businesses would send the script into the federal treasury to be exchanged for USDs.
2.It could not be put in a bank or draw interest.
3.It could not be used for stocks or gambling, or federal taxes, etc.
4.It would have to spent in 365 days.

This would have had the affect of deliverying the stimulus into every local area of America, creating new jobs and new businesses.

Equally? Isn't that redistribution of wealth?

Unless equally means: equal to the percentage of taxes you paid into the system...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

What I would I have done, is take a trillion dollars and turn it into script money. I would have divided it between our 300 million people equally to spend.

As identifiable script, it would have the following conditions put on it's use.

1.It must be spent in America and only on American made goods or services. Businesses would send the script into the federal treasury to be exchanged for USDs.
2.It could not be put in a bank or draw interest.
3.It could not be used for stocks or gambling, or federal taxes, etc.
4.It would have to spent in 365 days.

This would have had the affect of deliverying the stimulus into every local area of America, creating new jobs and new businesses.

~$3000.00/person.

Your Idea gave me another Idea that i think may be even better.

Give everyone a federal income tax holiday for one year. This way instead of borrowing money to distribute you just let people keep the money they already earn.

It wouldn't go to some people who are unemployed or dont work which is a weakness in it. Maybe make everyone pay a max of $250.00 in total federal taxes and take all that money and divide amoungst those who dont have jobs?

I am obviously not basing any of this in the political reality of our country but brainstorming is fun

 

[MikeK]

The cause of almost every major problem our Nation has had in the past century and beyond can be traced to ignorance of the voting public, greed in certain sectors of the population and consequent corruption in government. I believe corruption is so deeply imbedded in the Congress at present that nothing short of a massive political purge, brought about by a united citizen body, can bring about necessary changes in the System.

In the final analysis it seems that the root cause of our System's failure was inability of the Constitution's Framers to anticipate the massive wealth the Industrial Revolution and exploitive capitalism was capable of producing. If they could have seen it coming I am sure The Document would contain mandates necessary for controlling the accumulation of excessive personal fortunes, to effect equitable distribution of the Nation's resources, to finance all elections with public money and to forbid any government official from accepting anything of value from any citizen or corporate entity for any reason.

The necessary amendments to the Constitution could be effected but it would take complete unity of purpose of the entire citizen body, which I believe to be an impossible prospect. The future of America is revealed in the prophetic motto, United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

We are a divided nation.