Here is the deal. When the economy is going full hilt, most everybody is happy. Or are you going to say that is not the case? So according to you, O should have raised taxes and it would have resulted in the economy recovering and we'd have boom times again. Then O could have easily gotten his health care bill passed. At least from what I read, that is what you have been saying for years. You say the economy always takes off when taxes are raised, so a great economy would make any program O proposed almost a slam dunk. So I wonder why the democrat brain trust did not do that? They must be at least as knowledgeable as you. Did you write O and tell him your plan? If you did not, why not? Certainly all those men that have spent their careers in economics, and the politicians among them know at least as much about the economy as you do. I wonder why they did not do it. According to you it would have solved all our problems. You can't beat a robust economy. Hmm, I really wonder why they did not take advantage of that opportunity. According to you everything would be going gang busters and they would have never lost control of the House or Senate. Damn, if only they knew as much as you.

 

That is the way it works when the government hires people and pays them. Now I am completely in favor of America's entry into World War II. Nevertheless, if the government had hired at that rate earlier, the unemployment rate would have declined earlier. If the hiring and spending had been for the civilian economy, the benefits to the economy would have been greater. People can't eat bullets and live in tanks.

 

Quite a few posters on XNXX think Obama made mistakes. I think he made a few too.

 

A bit more than a few.

 

Man you really need to stop reading all the propaganda and start learning how our economic system actually works. You can't redistribute something that didn't exist before, you can allocate some of the new wealth as a reinvestment though.

 

Under Democratic presidents the per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars grows faster than under Republican presidents. There has usually been more jobs created per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. Even the stock market grows more under Democratic presidents.

I have documented each of these assertions. Do I really need to do it again?

 

No you don't, you need to concentrate on the subject in discussion. Tell me how the CCC and WPA got us out of the Great Depression, as you so stated earlier. We have presented substantial evidence to the contrary, how do you counter that?

 

CCC and WPA both helped reduce the unemployment rate. Military spending and hiring was quite a bit higher, so it reduced it more.

From the following chart, you can see that unemployment declined fairly steadily during the Roosevelt administration, except in 1938. The increase from 1936 happened because FDR made the mistake of reducing government spending in 1937.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

I never said that CCC and WPA got us out of the Great Depression. I did say that high amounts of government spending and government employment paid for by high taxes on the rich did. It did not have to be military spending and employment. It did have to be government spending and employment. The private sector was not hiring enough people on its own.

 

DL that is patently a false statement, you always mention the CCC and WPA when you talk about FDR leading us out of the depression. You insist on saying that the war effort was a tax and spend proposition, it was not at all like that. It was financed by private funds through war bonds, which were redeemed by the building of the peace dividend after the war.You completely ignore this very basic fact, how about stopping with all the extraneous rhetoric and concentrating on the period from 1933 to 1945, let us examine what the economic forces were that really did bring us out of the Great Depression. These things are tangibles clearly recorded in history, no conjecture is needed.

 

War is expensive. World War II was very expensive. The United States spent more than $300 billion fighting the Axis Powers and supplying our Allies
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/le...ww2-history/take-a-closer-look/war-bonds.html

Over the course of the war 85 million Americans purchased bonds totalling approximately $185 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bond

The war bonds still had to be paid off. They were paid off with tax money.

 

The War Bonds were not investments in productive property that paid profits to the investors.

 

It is time to try and persuade D.L. with common sense again. Although I do get tired of posting common sense to D.L. D.L. Don't you think if it were true the economy went up under democrat administrations when they raised taxes and the economy always got better, every administration would do it? Even the republicans. A robust economy assures reelection and a full treasury. No matter what you may think or say, reelection is almost every politicians priority. I mean they can't all be dishonest stupid people.

 

The Republican Party exists to advance the economic interests of the richest ten percent of the United States. They are the only people who benefit from tax cuts for the rich, and they do benefit.

Although more jobs were created per year under Jimmy Carter than Ronald Reagan, Reagan was reelected in a landslide because by 1984 the Republican Party had become the party of the white majority of all income groups.

 

So do you think so or not?

 

Hey D.L I just saw one of the three winners of the 500 some million dollar power ball on CBS This Morning. Her share was 188 million. However she chose the after tax lump sum payment, she will receive 88 million. Yep, the rich do not pay enough taxes. I posted this easy post so you don't have to scramble using search engines to figure out how to reply. You can just say: Gee I wish that was me.

 

Identifying with rich people does not make you one of them. It does not make them identify with you.

 

Each of these statements contain both germs of truth and massive infections of deception.

The War Bonds were directly responsible for trillions of dollars in the production of the GDP, for many years the industrial might that they financed produced war materiel for our allies and later for our own military needs. That was new found wealth in any terms you want to use. From the raw materials mined, to the metals and rags collected by us kids, the vast industrial complex was fed the fodder to produce even more for the effort.

The taxes raised to pay off the war bonds came directly from the increased income of the workers who built that industrial empire, it was a case of the country picking itself up be the boot straps. It was not tax and spend in any sense of the word, it was private investment building vast gains in national wealth which resulted in new income to pay off the investments.

You do not have a clue on what happened in the 30's and 40's, just as you have no clue on what is happening today.

So stop diminishing one of the greatest national efforts in history, by trying to paint it as a political ideology triumph over another. FDR's political party had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

 

Gee D.L. does that mean you would not want 88 million? Are you really being truthful? Oh by the way the new head of the VA was caught in a lie yesterday. Why can't you democrats ever be truthful?

 

I just had a thought, D.L. should invest in Google. I don't think there is another poster on this forum that uses it as much as D.L.

 

DL, could never handle new found wealth, he is to comfortable in the basement. The problem being, is that he wants the rest of us in there with him.