Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow, you got it right. Also don't forget that the Republican-controlled House and Senate also levied what was then the largest personal income tax increase ever. That, in conjunction with the oppressive tariffs, almost instantly trashed the economy.
How did a tax increase trash an economy - when it had already been trashed for three years?
That tax increase didn't occur until mid-1932. That was three years after the crash on Wall St. That was two years after an even bigger drop on Wall St. that hardly anyone talks about because it occurred after the first major one in the Fall of 1929. By the time the tax increase went into effect, it was a few months before FDR's inevitable election victory, and unemployment was at about 24 percent. Again, this was before FDR. Meaning, pre-FDR. Hoover's response to the crisis was not to spend a single dime on the unemployed, and instead spent it on banks and businesses (sound familiar?). Hoover was on record as making balanced budgets a priority, even throughout the worst of the crisis (again, sound familiar?).
Despite not spending money on unemployment, Hoover ended up with major budget imbalances anyway. Wanna know why? Because you can't have tax revenue when everyone's out of work and not spending any money -- that's why. I don't know why economics is so hard for people to understand for those who seem to advocate 'austerity'. Economic austerity basically ensures the opposite of what budget hawks say they aim for, which is a balanced budget. They end up doing exactly the opposite. One day, libertarians will understand that running a mixed economy is complex, and applying the same economic principles that are used to balance your own bank book is fallacious thinking.
We are running out of both time and money.
Debt is 102% of GDP.
We borrow $.42 of every $1.00 we spend.
I'm all for cutting spending, when we can, and where we can, but just nuking the federal budget isn't a great idea. Every single country that I know of that tries to cut public spending before the job market recovers ends up with a larger budget deficit. I know it seems counter-intuitive, because we think of our national deficit as though it were our own bank account, but they're not analogous to each other. If people would just seriously stop worrying about their fears of runaway democrat spending and realize that a) republicans have a much, much worse track record of adding unnecessary spending and coupling them with tax cuts, and b) more importantly, realize that spending itself isn't a bad thing -- if it's spent on programs that invest money back into the economy. Infrastructure spending is actually a good idea. Spending money on foreign incursions and beefing up the military - as we will get if we're dumb enough to vote for Mitt Shamney, well, not so much.
I'm all for cutting spending. There are already plans in place that are calling for spending cuts. The problem is, our economy and our tax base isn't keeping up. Every single country that I know of that tries to cut public spending before the job market recovers ends up with a larger budget deficit. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but if people would just seriously stop worrying about democrats spending and realize that a) republicans have a much, much worse track record of adding unnecessary spending and coupling them with tax cuts, and b) more importantly, realize that spending itself isn't a bad thing -- if it's spent on programs that invest money back into the economy. Infrastructure spending is actually a good idea. Spending money on foreign incursions and beefing up the military - as we will get if we're dumb enough to vote for Mitt Shamney, well, not so much.
$10 billion a year is not even a drop in the bucket and they are even arguing over that.
What infrastructure spending ? The stimulus was supposed to do that and all it did was hand over money to states (used to balance budgets and close education gap) or corporates (that have nothing to do with infrastructure).
I say they are intentionally cutting people from the rolls that should still be a part of the labor force.
People...its ALL about getting the UE rate down..so obama AND the media can tout how much it has dropped, but NOT how many people (tens of millions) have been lopped off the rolls.
The question to ask; SHOULD obama's BLS be reducing the labor force by so much?
5% UE rate by the fall? What do you think?
OF COURSE they will fudge the unemployment numbers. They are already doing so now, such that it is not so apparent to cut it immediately (which no one would believe).
It is like we are living in the old Soviet Union and our media is worse than Pravda. They literally lie about the economic realities in an effort to keep an incompetent left wing fool in office.
Anyone in the field of journalism should be embarrassed at the new lows to which that "profession" has stooped. Fortunately, newspapers are being made irrelevant by the internet and the journalists (all of which are liberal) will simply be another stat in Obama's unemployment ranks (which he will not reveal).
Obama loses if unemployment remains above 8%. The liberal solution? Lie about the numbers. Stalin would be proud.
We are running out of both time and money.
Debt is 102% of GDP.
We borrow $.42 of every $1.00 we spend.
We borrow all money into circulation. Since most private debt is created by real estate, currently a ponzi scheme in a slump, its axiomatic to assume any growth in the money supply will come from public debt and increase as a ratio.
I'm all for cutting spending, when we can, and where we can, but just nuking the federal budget isn't a great idea. Every single country that I know of that tries to cut public spending before the job market recovers ends up with a larger budget deficit. I know it seems counter-intuitive, because we think of our national deficit as though it were our own bank account, but they're not analogous to each other. If people would just seriously stop worrying about their fears of runaway democrat spending and realize that a) republicans have a much, much worse track record of adding unnecessary spending and coupling them with tax cuts, and b) more importantly, realize that spending itself isn't a bad thing -- if it's spent on programs that invest money back into the economy. Infrastructure spending is actually a good idea. Spending money on foreign incursions and beefing up the military - as we will get if we're dumb enough to vote for Mitt Shamney, well, not so much.
That is because money boils down to government debt. Spending is one thing, but what really needs to happen is deficits. A tax holiday on SS was one answer. Taking public debt out of circulation while the private economy deleverages is as stupid as flushing toilets in a drought to flush a spider. How it is that 99 out of a 100 people have no idea how it works
$10 billion a year is not even a drop in the bucket and they are even arguing over that.
What infrastructure spending ? The stimulus was supposed to do that and all it did was hand over money to states (used to balance budgets and close education gap) or corporates (that have nothing to do with infrastructure).
Infrastructure spending was part of the stimulus bill, but it wasn't the only part. I would consider funding state governments to protect them against bankruptcy a fairly reasonable thing to do. Even the republican governors, who hypocritically railed against the stimulus bill, seemed to have absolutely no problem accepting the stimulus once the Fox New cameras were turned off.
The problem with the stimulus as I see it is two fold. One problem is that the stimulus, contrary to public opinion, was not entirely spending; 1/3 of it was in the form of tax cuts. Another problem is, the spending component simply wasn't enough. Only 2/3 of the $787 was in the form of actual spending. That's about $500 million in spending - which isn't much when spread over three years. It doesn't even pay for Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz's Iraq adventure. We needed a real stimulus. Instead we got a token and then the pee party claimed that the stimulus never worked, when there was never a stimulus to start with.
No ;the stimulus was sold to congress as a massivce infrastrucure bill creating huge number of jobs. Remmeber all those shovel ready jobs.It bascailly was a slush fund to provide funding for politcally favored groups like is seen when looking at where it went. Never was a infrastructure program with the jobs at all. It ended up being a waste as we saw those gropus being layed off two years later and griping.It didn't provide any stimulus as promised ;it rewarded polical groups.One reason even many Democrats wouldn't support such unregulated spending again in any stimulus.Very much like the second half of TARP which was left for housing by Bush. Instead alot of it went to automakers and unions in so called controlled bankrupsy.Anyone remmeebr the so called Geithner husinfg promised shotly after the administration came into being. Its was supposed to be a priavte /government program but it went to nothig once private investors saw now bondholder were screwed by the administration in the autpmakers bankrupsy.
Positive economic growth must be so hard to handle.
Oh yeah, were just roaring along under obamanomics. Remember when UE was 5.5%, 200K-300K jobs a month - the Left thought that was just horrible numbers...of course, that was under Bush.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24
Yeah, that makes sense. Let's manipulate the numbers so things continue to look bad?
If the administration was manipulating the numbers, wouldn't it make more sense for them to increase the number of jobs added to make the economy look better?
What advantage does it give them to have the numbers come in lower two months in a row?
Inquiring minds really want to know.
All they care about is the UE RATE...if they can get that down as much as possible, by whatever mean necessary, they think they will be able to convince people all is well....even though MILLIONS under obama have left the workforce.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
