Franklin Roosevelt was elected president in 1932. In 1940 he was reelected for the second time. In 1932 the unemployment rate was 23.6%. By 1940 it had declined to 14.6%,

https://www.infoplease.com/business/labor/united-states-unemployment-rate

In 1932 the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in 1996 dollars was $4,901. By 1940 this had grown to $7,423.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

The Second World War ended in 1945. By 1944 the unemployment rate had declined to 1.2%. The per capita GDP had grown to $12,380.

Those who credit the Second World War for ending the Great Depression, while ignoring the role President Roosevelt's New Deal had in improving lives for most Americans prior to the war also ignore that military spending and employment is government spending and employment. I am glad that the United States entered World War II. Nevertheless, if the money that was spent on the war effort was spent instead on infrastructure projects, libraries, public transportation, health care, and so on, the benefits to the American people would have been greater.

 

FACT: FDR’s New Deal Was a Disaster That Failed to End the Great Depression



Although Progressives constantly claim that President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” solved the Great Depression, the exact opposite is the case. In reality, FDR’s New Deal did not help end the Great Depression, it exacerbated the worst economic downturn in U.S. history.

This is especially relevant because in recent years, Progressives have touted the “Green New Deal” as a solution to a wide variety of economic, social, and environmental issues. As was the case with the original New Deal, the Green New Deal (GND) would actually do more harm than good.

Before addressing the pitfalls of the GND, it is necessary to correct the historical consensus that FDR’s New Deal was the elixir for the economic malady that devastated America in the 1930s.

In 1932, when Roosevelt was elected president, the unemployment rate was a staggering 23.6 percent. Immediately, FDR signed into law a plethora of programs that were intended to stop the economic free fall. During FDR’s first 100 days in office, he demanded “broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

In his first 100 days in the Oval Office, FDR signed 15 major bills that would become the backbone of his New Deal. This legislative onslaught included so-called alphabet soup programs such as the Emergency Banking Relief Act, Federal Emergency Relief Act, Homeowners Loan Act, Glass-Steagall Act, Agricultural Adjustment Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, Tennessee Valley Authority Act, and several others.

These bills fundamentally transformed the role of the federal government. Before the New Deal, the federal government was relatively small and mostly uninvolved with social and economic engineering. However, FDR’s New Deal shattered the traditional role of the federal government by increasing its size and scope under the notion that only the federal government, in a massive intervention, could solve the Great Depression.

But did the New Deal actually abate the suffering and alleviate poverty? The answer is unquestionably “no.”

When FDR was elected, the unemployment rate was 23.6 percent. In 1933, it rose to 24.9 percent. By 1937, it had dropped to 14.3 percent. However, by 1938, the unemployment rate had skyrocketed up to 19.3 percent. In the same year, U.S. GDP contracted by 3.3 percent. In other words, as FDR’s New Deal programs took hold and more were passed, the economic situation deteriorated.

Further, as economist Stephen Moore, who has written extensively on the Great Depression, noted, “After seven years of New Deal-era explosions in federal debt and spending, the U.S. economy was still flat on its back, and misery could be seen on the street corners. By 1940, unemployment still averaged 14.6 percent. That’s some recovery.”

Making matters worse, not only did the New Deal fail to solve the Great Depression, it also gave birth to several programs that are driving the United States toward bankruptcy and continuing to hinder economic growth. For example, Social Security is on the verge of insolvency. And the Fair Labor Standards Act, which paved the way for the federal minimum wage, impedes job creation.And these are only two examples out of many of the unintended consequences that have come from the New Deal.

Some economists who recognize the New Deal failed to accomplish its goals argue that although it was undeniably far from perfect, imposing the New Deal was better than doing nothing. But this, too, is a fallacy. We simply never will know what would have occurred in the absence of the New Deal, but if history is any guide, the United States would have recovered in due time without the massive intervention of the New Deal.

In fact, a large economic crash occurring in 1920 gave way to one of America’s quickest economic recoveries. As James Grant, the author of The Forgotten Depression: 1921: The Crash That Cured Itself, noted in 2015 for The Wall Street Journal:

Beginning in January 1920, something much worse than a recession blighted the world. The U.S. suffered the steepest plunge in wholesale prices in its history (not even eclipsed by the Great Depression), as well as a 31.6% drop in industrial production and a 46.6% fall in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Unemployment spiked, and corporate profits plunged.

What to do? “Nothing” was the substantive response of the successive administrations of Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding. Well, not quite nothing. Rather, they did what few 21st-century policy makers would have dared: They balanced the federal budget and—via the still wet-behind-the-ears Federal Reserve—raised interest rates rather than lowering them. Curiously, the depression ran its course. Eighteen months elapsed from business-cycle peak to business-cycle trough—following which the 1920s roared.

The moral of the story here is that very often, government intervention meant to alleviate economic downturns or any number of other problems is not the only solution, or even the best solution. The Green New Deal will not and cannot “solve” all the problems its supporters claim it can. If it were that easy, then the government would be able to do practically anything, as long as it has enough power and spends enough of our tax dollars.

Yet, history has shown over and over again that this widely held belief is far from true. Heck, the government can’t even deliver the mail or process drivers licenses efficiently! The last thing we should do is give the government more, almost unfettered power, which is exactly what the Green New Deal would do.

 

CS natureboy copied and pasted this from the following website:

https://stoppingsocialism.com/2020/06/new-deal-failed/

There is nothing new about this argument. Republicans presented it during the Roosevelt administration. Most voters rejected it and re elected Roosevelt three times because they knew that their lives improved almost as soon as Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. I have already explained why this argument is invalid using my own words in comment #901.

Anyone can find something they like on the internet and copy and paste it. XNXX needs more original compositions.

 

You copied and pasted your shit too DL.... Fucking hypocrite...

You are a big baby who cries and stomps his feet when I correct you and put you in your place..

 

This is what I wrote:

I composed it myself, using the internet only to substantiate my factual assertions.

 

Trust in Government

How one feels about taxes and the New Deal will depend on how one feels about the government. According to the Pew Research Center in October 15, 1964 77% of the American people trusted the government to do the right thing "about always or most of the time." Trust in the government has fluctuated since then, but it has never been nearly that high again. In May 1, 2022 it was 20%.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/

In October 15, 1964 most Americans saw the government as that organization that had ended the Great Depression, won the Second World War, and was managing an economy in which the standard of living for most Americans, including them, increased, often significantly every year. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater ran against that consensus. As a result he lost in a landslide against President Johnson, who won 61 percent of the popular vote. In 1964 the Democrats won two to one majorities in both houses of Congress.

In 1964 the Democrats won mandates to preserve the basic reforms of the New Deal, and to avoid war with the Soviet Union. The Democrats over stepped their mandate by making punishment for criminals less likely and less severe, and by making welfare payments more generous and easier to qualify for. As a result, welfare dependency, crime, and illegitimacy increased.

From 1960 to 1970 the prison population declined from 212,953 to 196,429.

https://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/US-prison-pop-1925-2019-1.png

During this time the crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants increased from 1,887.2 to 3,984.5.

https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

In the beginning of the 1960's white racial moderates thought that by supporting civil rights legislation they were buying racial peace. What they got instead were five years of black ghetto rioting from 1964 to 1968.

"This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's war. Adjusted for inflation, that's three times the cost of all military wars since the American Revolution."

https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/the-war-poverty-50-years-failure

That number seems excessive. I have not seen it corroborated elsewhere but by the Heritage Foundation. I am confident that much more has been spent on anti poverty programs because of the War on Poverty. Material levels of poverty have declined since the declaration of the War on Poverty, because of the War on Poverty. Unfortunately, the War on Poverty has not reduced poverty in ways that would have been politically sustainable: it has not transformed the poor into a self supporting, law abiding, tax paying working class; it has created an unemployable underclass, the members of which frequently supplement their welfare checks with the gains of criminal activity.

Because of disappointments with government efforts to end poverty and racial inequality America's white working class has largely stopped voting Democrat, and become a Republican constituency. When white blue collar workers complain about "government programs that do not work," they are not complaining of government programs that do help them, and that were mainly established during the New Deal, such as Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage laws, laws to protect labor unions, unemployment compensation, and so on. They are complaining about the War on Poverty, forced school busing, affirmative action, and programs like that.

The Immigration Reform Act of 1965 greatly increased legal and illegal immigration. I like immigrants. I have been in love with a few. I appreciate the cultural diversity they contribute to American society. Nevertheless, by competing for jobs immigrants enable employers to cut wages. By competing for places to live immigrants enable landlords to raise rents. The high rate of immigration is a major reason for the growing income gap, that mainly impacts working class people.

Of the other two reasons for the growing income gap, the only one liberals want to talk about are Republican changes to the economy. Beginning with the Reagan administration the tax system has become flatter; labor unions have become weaker; the minimum wage has lost ground to the growing productivity of the economy.

That growing productivity goes mainly to the best paid 10% of the population because of another reason liberals do not want to talk about: computer technology increases the relationship between intelligence and income. It enables computer geniuses to become multi millionaires. It creates well paying positions for those of above average intelligence. It destroys jobs most people have the intelligence to learn, without creating better jobs for them to perform.

In 1964 white blue collar workers credited the government and the Democrats with improvements in their standards of living. Now they blame the government, and Democrats, for the fact that their incomes have largely stagnated or declined since the inflationary recession of 1974. Since that recession there have been greater rewards at the top of our society. There are fewer of those rewards. The U.S. economy has become less forgiving of bad decisions, bad luck, and failure.

When whites conclude that the government and the Democrat Party cannot help them economically, they usually begin to vote Republican because of social issues. Social issues are easier to understand.

 

3 myths about the Trump tax cuts

Rick Newman
·Senior Columnist
Thu, November 17, 2022 at 8:58 AM



Donald Trump is running for president again, and voters are going to hear a lot about the 2017 tax cuts he signed into law. Trump, for one, will brag about the economic magic borne of tax cuts that supposedly pumped prosperity everywhere. There’s also the curious fact that the tax cuts for businesses were permanent, but the tax cuts for individuals were temporary. Republicans are already campaigning to extend those individual tax cuts before they expire at the end of 2025.

As a reminder, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), as it was known, simplified tax filing for many families and lowered the tax rates most filers pay. It also lowered the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21% and cut other business taxes. The law “cost” about $1.9 trillion, which means that’s the amount budget analysts estimated it would add to the national debt during the decade after it went into effect.

The law has generated many competing claims about whether it boosted growth, employment, or incomes, and whether it was a net positive or negative for the economy. The COVID pandemic that erupted in 2020 distorted the economy in many ways that make it hard to gauge the longer-term effect of the TCJA. But there’s plenty of data from 2018 and 2019, the first two years the law was in effect, to draw some conclusions. Here are some bogus claims to watch out for.

The TCJA paid for itself. It almost certainly didn’t, which means tax savings for individuals and businesses were mostly financed by additional federal borrowing. But the COVID pandemic muddled this story and gave supply-side tax-cut advocates a bit of cover for claiming the TCJA produced an economic windfall.

The best early estimate for the fiscal effects of the tax law was a 2018 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis that forecast the tax cuts would reduce federal revenue by $1.9 trillion over a decade. That included $2.3 trillion in foregone revenue, mostly from individual and corporate tax receipts that would be lower than otherwise under the new law, and $460 billion in new revenue from a slight boost to growth.


Tax receipts in 2018 and 2019 turned out even lower than the CBO forecast. Individual tax receipts were higher than the forecast in 2019 and lower in 2020. Corporate tax receipts were lower than the forecast in both years. Combined, total revenue from both sources was lower by $65 billion for both years. So the tax law slightly underperformed expectations during those two years.

In 2020, individual and corporate tax receipts were $319 billion lower than the earlier forecast. But that’s not meaningful, because of the sharp plunge in economic activity caused by the COVID pandemic. In 2021, individual and corporate tax receipts were $189 billion higher than the earlier forecast. That's the principal piece of evidence tax cut advocates cite to claim the Trump tax cuts paid for themselves.

But come on. Those claims about a supply-side tax miracle in 2021 completely ignore the snapback from the 2020 plunge in tax revenue and also don't account for the unprecedented $6 trillion in COVID-related stimulus Congress passed in 2020 and 2021. “Tax revenues boomed in 2021 and some supporters of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act argue that the big tax reductions in the bill deserve the credit,” the Brookings Institution reported earlier this year. “But there is a much better explanation: Last year’s strong economic growth, high inflation, and pandemic-related relief legislation.”

Including all four years since the tax cuts went into effect—two before COVID, one in the midst of COVID, and one after COVID—individual and corporate tax revenue is $195 billion below the CBO’s 2018 estimate. The chart below shows tax receipts a bit more simply, as a percentage of GDP. On the whole, the Trump tax cuts are on track to cost more, not less, than the CBO’s 2018 estimate of $1.9 trillion in additional federal debt. That means they’re mostly just a transfer of money from future taxpayers to present ones — and no miracle at all.


The tax cuts boosted growth. You sure won’t find evidence of this in any conventional economic data. The first chart below shows real GDP growth, adjusted for inflation, on a quarterly basis since 2015. There was an uptick in 2018, the first year the Trump tax cuts were in effect. But in 2019, growth dipped back again. Pffft. The same trend is evident in the next chart, showing business investment: a blip in 2018 followed by a softening in 2019. COVID distortions mess up the data for 2020 and 2021, so you could fudge the numbers for those years to justify just about any wacky hypothesis. But if there wasn’t a tax-cut-growth-boom before 2020, it wasn’t going to happen.


The tax cuts boosted employment. Job growth was strong during Trump’s presidency, but again, there’s no evidence the tax cuts had any effect on jobs at all. The trend in total employment shows no change after the tax cuts went into effect. Manufacturing employment, a particular target for Trump, did rise a bit in 2018, but it flatlined in 2019 and actually dipped toward the end of that year, probably because Trump’s tariffs on billions of dollars of imports were raising component costs for U.S. manufacturers and dinging production.


On net, the Trump tax cuts let businesses and individuals keep more of their income by lowering federal tax revenue and borrowing to make up the difference. In general, that’s not good tax policy. Taxes should be as low as possible while financing most of the government’s activity. A modest amount of borrowing is okay, but Washington borrowed too much before the Trump tax cuts and it borrowed even more afterward.

That doesn’t mean the Trump tax cuts will be easy to repeal. The business tax cuts are permanent, which means it would take Congressional majorities to vote to undo them. President Biden is willing to raise business taxes, but he could only get very small changes through a Democratically controlled Congress in 2021 and 2022. The Republicans who will control the House during the next two years are likely to block any hikes in business taxes.

The individual tax cuts are more of an open question because they’re due to expire at the end of 2025. If Congress does nothing, tax rates will go back to 2017 levels, a de facto tax hike for many Americans. That probably won't happen; Congress will most likely extend those tax cuts for most workers. But letting taxes rise for high-earning Americans is certainly plausible, especially if Democrats control Congress after 2024. High earners benefited the most from the Trump tax hikes — and didn’t really need tax relief in the first place. At least it will be a few years before the tax man returneth.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/3-myths-about-the-trump-tax-cuts-155801290.html

 

Judge for yourself.
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: A comparison for businesses | Internal Revenue Service (irs.gov)
The Effect of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on the US Economy (thebalancemoney.com)

Capping the SALT deduction at $10,000 alone raised almost $500 BILLION in tax revenue annually.

 

I have pointed this out several times, but some people never learn.

in 1945, when the Second World War ended, the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was 114%. During Jimmy Carter's last year in office this had declined to 32%. During this time the top tax rate never got below 70%, and was often much higher.

After decades of Republican tax cuts for the rich, this increased to 129% during Trump's last year in office. Under President Biden this has declined to 123%.

https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

 

Different times, different reasons.
It's been pointed out to you every time you blow this cherry picked information that what was then does not apply now.

 

I have pointed out on may occasions that Republican tax cuts for the rich lead to more deficits and more national debt. No one else benefits. Republicans used to value balanced budgets. What happened to that?

 

The only people who benefit from tax increases is the government and the people feeding at the government trough.
Government has one primary job; national security and safety. Second to that is infrastructure that benefits the country. After that, it's all debatable what benefit government can provide, how much it costs in terms of money and freedom, and what motivates government.

Social Security is a prime example. It's been shown to be beneficial to MILLIONS of people. But, it's also been shown to be more expensive and provides less benefit than private industry can provide. It also is more restrictive; government, not the individual, decides when and how much and for how long benefits will be paid, and when we die government keeps whatever is left over.

 

Social Security is secure. Anything coming from the business community is not. This is why Social Security is popular, and why Republican politicians fearfully refer to it as "third rail." Anyone who touches it gets a terrible shock.

 

You are correct, Social Security is "secure".
Which is why, as each election approaches, we hear horror stories of how Social Security is about to collapse, or the other guys are going to take it away or cut benefits or some such bullshit. All it does is reinforce the idea that what government gives, government can take away.

The business community has had Retirment accounts for as long as Shooter has been working. And except for the rare oddity (Enron comes to mind) those programs have been at least as secure as Social Security.

It isn't just deplorable politicians who have learned to stay away from Social Security. Despicables have learned as well.

It does not change the fact that if you want a nonexistent problem solved, ask government. They can create the problem, solve it, and in the process fuck something else up. If you really want a nonexistent problem messed up, ask despicables.

 

Came across some interesting statistics about income taxes in America.
How have federal income and payroll tax bills changed for US families in the last 30 years? - USAFacts
The tax chart shows that the average American family paid about $1,000 less in taxes when comparing 2016 to 2018.

And further;

"The Obama Administration raised taxes for some and cut taxes for others
In the face of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress and President Barack Obama extended most of the provisions of the Bush tax cuts for another two years, including the tax reductions on high-income taxpayers. Following his successful reelection in November of 2012, President Obama and Congress agreed to make permanent most of the Bush tax cuts except for the reductions of the top two tax rates. Those returned to their pre-2001 levels of 36% and 39.6%. Also, the income tax rate paid by high-income taxpayers on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends was increased from 15% to 20%.

Taxes changed for Americans in two other ways during the Obama administration. In 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus bill contained temporary tax cuts to boost disposable income during the economic downturn. It also created new tax credits for higher education and expanded the earned income tax credit. In 2010, the Affordable Care Act was passed. The law made several changes to public and private health insurance in the US. It created health insurance exchanges in every state. It also created a tax credit for low- and middle-income families to help pay for insurance premiums. Part of the financing of the Affordable Care Act came from a new 3.8% tax on investment income imposed on tax returns with incomes exceeding $250,000, as well as a 0.9% payroll tax increase on the wages of high-income returns.

Between 2008 and 2014, the average income tax burden decreased across the board except for those in the top 5%. Again, those with children saw greater reductions in their income tax bills than those with no children. For the top 1%, however, their tax bills increased significantly -- by an average of $80,699."

The Trump administration changed federal income tax in unique ways
In late 2017, President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 into law.

The law reduced most ordinary income tax rates and doubled the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 for most children, including high-income children who may have been ineligible before. It continued the trend of major tax legislation providing the biggest benefits to families with children. The law also nearly doubled the standard deduction, resulting in a large decrease in the number of tax returns using itemized deductions.

Unlike the Bush tax cuts, the 2017 law also raised taxes for some families by capping the value of the state and local tax deduction. This impacted higher-income families in areas with expensive real estate the most.

The 2017 law reduced the average tax bill by around $900. Families with children in the middle 20% saved on average twice as much as single taxpayers in the middle class.

With the 2017 tax cut, middle class families with children saved twice as much on taxes as single people.
​

It is the cap in the Trump tax bill that despicables are most outraged about. In effect, it raised the taxes of Americans who own expensive real estate, and that includes a lot of influential despicables. They been trying to raise the cap or do away with it since the law passed.
And have so far failed.
Course, that has caused them to attack Trump's tax bill with every propaganda tool at hand.

​