Again. FALSE.

 

The Great Depression was not ended by the Second World War. It was ended by high government spending and high government employment paid for by high taxes on the rich. If the money spent building and using weapons had been spent expanding the public sector of the economy, the results would have been more positive, for the reasons President Eisenhower explained below:

-------

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This world in arms in not spending money alone. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]http://beyondterror.org/eisenhower.html[/SIZE][/FONT]

​

 

lol @ 'more positive.'

NO. NO. NO. I explained this to you here

 

"NO, NO, NO. The war employed new citizens giving a much larger tax base. We didn't tax people to start a war. The high taxes, and considerable regulation slowed any recovery.
there were only 4 million taxpayers in 1939. 43 million in 1945. do you disagree a 10 fold tax base brought in revenues? they didn't add 39 million rich people.
if the taxes on the rich solved everything, why did we need almost 200million in war bonds?
You do not make sense no matter how may times you repeat it. you sound desperate."

-------------

Putting money into the hands of people who are not rich so that they can buy things and pay taxes is the essence of Keynesian economics, not supply side economics. Under supply side economics, taxes are cut for the rich with the assumption that they will spend the money in ways that benefit everyone else.

If taxes on the rich had not been as high as they were, we would have needed more than $200 million in war bonds.

I am not desperate. I am just tired of pointing out the same facts again and again.

 

No. You're desperate. Your exhaustion is from trying to connect your facts to a fairytale. Your sudden backpeddling is cute.

THE WAR EMPLOYED THE CITIZENS.
THE WAR PROVIDED THE TAX BASE.
THE WAR PROVIDED THE TAXABLE INCOME.

Your 'high taxes' slowed all growth for almost a decade - UNTIL THE WAR.

quit putting the cart before the horse.

 

Your use of all capital letters is no more impressive than the rest of your argument.

The government employed the citizens.
The government provided the tax base.
The government provided the taxable income.

In 1932 when Franklin Roosevelt was elected the unemployment rate was 23.6%. By 1940 that had declined to 14.6%, so the New Deal was effective in reducing the unemployment rate. In 1944 the unemployment rate was 1.2%. In 1932 the top tax rate was 63%. That rose to 81% in 1940, and 94% in 1944. Consequently you can see that as the top tax rate went up, the unemployment rate went down. It went down because the increase in the top tax rate made it possible for the government to do more to stimulate the economy.

 

You are using the same discredited logic in your answer.

Let's see now, the Great Depression ended when? And what was the unemployment rate in 1937? There was a series of significant ups and downs during the period from 1932 to 1944. The recession of 1937 was brought about by the impact of the New Deal programs.

You really ought to actually study the history of tax rates, tax revenues and the economy, rather than to rely on what others write about them

Try this site: http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

Read what it says about the period between 1929 and 1946, it might actually teach you something useful.

 

As to the TOPIC: BS, Obamas 90,000 jobs a month, also BS.

This area hasn't shown any recovery.

 

Why are you prattling on about what happened in the 1930's and 40's?...what's that got to do with what's happening now?

 

Economics isn't like pushing a button to start your car. The impact of a decision made by a government or corporation often needs a decade or longer to be fully manifest, and it takes even longer to study it. If Obama were to try and use the Stimulus to masquerade as another New Deal, then all we can judge it by is the last time someone tried something similar and got away with it - which was back in the 30s and 40s.

 

So what's the conclusion, have you figured out how to get out of the shithole you're in now?.........Lucky for us in Oz we managed to miss falling down that hole.

 

For right now you have, but with what's happening in Asia, don't count your chickens yet.

 

You mean the unsustainable (possibly over-estimated) growth occurring in China?
I think China's going to take a huge nose dive.





By the way.... how can you claim that the war pulled us out of the depression yet also claim that there is no military industrial complex? You can't have it both ways.

 

If that happens then the US better start bailing even quicker as the Chinese are likely to call in some of massive debt that the US owes them and that shithole i mentioned will turn into a blackhole.

So it's in the US's interests that China doesn't nose dive.

 

The social democracies of Western Europe and the British Commonwealth have been less severely harmed by the Great Recession, and they are recovering faster. The Scandinavian countries seem hardly effected at all.

I am defining any affluent democracy with universal health care as a social democracy, although countries with universal health care have more developed public sectors of their economy in other areas as well.

By Scandinavian countries, I include Norway, Denmark, and Sweden.

 

It is only discredited in your mind because it confronts your unshakable prejudices. The Recession of 1937 did not happen because of New Deal policies, but because of a reversal in New Deal policies.

------

"By the spring of 1937, economic indicators had regained the production, profits, and wage levels of 1929, except for unemployment, which remained high, although it was considerably lower than the 25% unemployment rate seen in 1933. In June 1937 some of Roosevelt's advisors urged spending cuts to balance the budget. WPA rolls were drastically cut and PWA[4] The American economy took a sharp downturn projects were slowed to a standstill. in mid-1937, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production declined almost 30 per cent and production of durable goods fell even faster."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession_of_1937–1938

 

History of the U.S. Tax System

"While the War Revenue Act returned to traditional revenue sources following the Supreme Court's 1895 ruling on the income tax, debate on alternative revenue sources remained lively. The nation was becoming increasingly aware that high tariffs and excise taxes were not sound economic policy and often fell disproportionately on the less affluent...

"Another revenue act was passed in 1918, which hiked tax rates once again, this time raising the bottom rate to 6 percent and the top rate to 77 percent. These changes increased revenue from $761 million in 1916 to $3.6 billion in 1918...

"In the face of rising budget deficits which reached $2.7 billion in 1931, Congress followed the prevailing economic wisdom at the time and passed the Tax Act of 1932 which dramatically increased tax rates once again. This was followed by another tax increase in 1936 that further improved the government's finances while further weakening the economy...

"By the end of the war the nature of the income tax had been fundamentally altered. Reductions in exemption levels meant that taxpayers with taxable incomes of only $500 faced a bottom tax rate of 23 percent, while taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top rate of 94 percent. These tax changes increased federal receipts from $8.7 billion in 1941 to $45.2 billion in 1945...

"[T]he Tax Reform Act of 1969 reduced income tax rates for individuals and private foundations. Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing through the 1970s the United States experienced persistent and rising inflation rates, ultimately reaching 13.3 percent in 1979...

"Simultaneously with the enactment of the tax cuts in 1981 the Federal Reserve Board, with the full support of the Reagan Administration, altered monetary policy so as to bring inflation under control. The Federal Reserve's actions brought inflation down faster and further than was anticipated at the time, and one consequence was that the economy fell into a deep recession in 1982...The combination of the tax cuts, the recession, and the one-time increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending produced historically high budget deficits...

"By 2001, the total tax take had produced a projected unified budget surplus of $281 billion, with a cumulative 10 year projected surplus of $5.6 trillion. Much of this surplus reflected a rising tax burden as a share of GDP due to the interaction of rising real incomes and a progressive tax rate structure."

-------

This is an interesting essay. I am not sure how it disproves anything that I have asserted in General Discussion. There was no mention of the Republican dogma that cutting taxes leads to increased tax receipts. To the contrary, it clearly demonstrates that tax increases lead to increased receipts. There is also an indication that tax cuts during the late 1960's contributed to the inflation of the 1970's.

The recession of 1982 was engineered by the Reagan administration. Reagan's tax cuts lead to huge budget deficits. Tax increases under President Clinton lead to budget surpluses.

 

Wrong, Iceland was almost wiped off the map financially, it even brought down the then sitting government......and my friends in Sweden tell me things are tough there as well.
http://www.thelocal.se/24836/20100207/

 

OMG, don't tell DL that, he will be pouting for days.