Quick reminder - the government is not a household.
Government spending is not the same as household spending.
Government debt is inherently different from "credit card debt."
Please stop confusing the two.
Also literally the debt as it stands now could be solved by axing Bush tax cuts, Medicare could be solved by axing the ceiling, etc, etc. It's amazing how many problems are solved with a solution of "The rich pay their g#*#*+n dues."
The rich will have to. How can the small percentage pay the majority of the taxes? But if we over-tax them they move out of the country, taking their wealth with them, if this continues there's only one way America will end.
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
That percentage has escalated incredibly in the past decade.
So I propose going to the two richest men in America, both more or less self made, and asking them what we should do.
What do they have to say? Can't click that link here.
Also literally the debt as it stands now could be solved by axing Bush tax cuts, Medicare could be solved by axing the ceiling, etc, etc. It's amazing how many problems are solved with a solution of "The rich pay their g#*#*+n dues."The rich will have to. How can the small percentage pay the majority of the taxes? But if we over-tax them they move out of the country, taking their wealth with them, if this continues there's only one way America will end.
In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth and the top 1% owned 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.
That percentage has escalated incredibly in the past decade.
The US is capable of taxing expats. The issue is, the 1% currently pay NO taxes, through various loopholes and blatant tax evasion (ie: offshore bank accounts). This won't change if they live somewhere else, they will continue to pay nothing if these laws aren't changed.
Then you should know that there were Amerind tribes like the Arawak that were totally exterminated. Not assimilated... killed. by both guns and imported diseases.
I'm not a History major, but I know enough to say with certainty that while Native American cultures often changed, many, many Native Americans weren't killed.
If I recall correctly, about 10% of Native Americans survived, small-pox ridden blankets being a major cause of their decimation. The near-extinction of buffalo a second cause and of course wars with rifle-armed soldiers. The Native Americans only allowed themselves to be put on reservations as a last option to actual extermination.
|
So I propose going to the two richest men in America, both more or less self made, and asking them what we should do.What do they have to say? Can't click that link here.
http://youtu.be/iVOwaMWewGY
Is the link
I think that's what we're going to find out. What I find morbidly hilarious is the Democrats' attempts to blame all of this on the Tea Party.
People argue over whether we should raise taxes or cut spending, the reality is that we need to balance our budget. We need a balanced budget amendment and we need to impose penalties for failing to balance the budget.
The democrats believe we can spend our way out of debt, but until they present a proposal for doing so that the CBO believes is viable, they need to just stop getting in the way of reaching a solution.
I agree the Dems are equally to blame for literally the opposite reason you do.
If the Dems actually did believe we could spend our way out of debt and actually pushed for it we'd see a lot of problems start to vanish. But they don't. They drink the same austerity kool aid that the republicans do, they just kill slowly.
As for the scare of "But the rich will move out!" then let them. Go for it! Once they're gone we can stop shoveling money into their furnaces and put it somewhere else. I mean, what are they going to take with them? The jobs they aren't providing? The taxes they aren't paying? Oh no!
But I think you'll find that they won't leave the country. It's a lot of bluster. There is no John Galt.
So I propose going to the two richest men in America, both more or less self made, and asking them what we should do.What do they have to say? Can't click that link here.
http://youtu.be/iVOwaMWewGY
Is the link
Thanks, but what I should have said was, my antivirus won't let me navigate to youtube.
|
No country lasts with a weak government -- no country with a small government has a strong government. We are a big nation, we are going to need a big government. The government operating the way we want it to, providing the things we want (even just the simple services of clean water, and a safe infrastructure) is going to be expensive.
Every service that has been turned over to private industry has taken a nose dive in quality and increased the cost of that service.
This is due to greed for profits (put off and squeak through on the thinnest efforts possible), the increased cost of workers in the private sector compared to the (quite frankly) chumps of the public sector and corporate inability to give a flying care about anything beyond their profits.
Wow!!! Talk about a complete lack of knowledge of history or economics. Every service that has been done by private industry has ALWAYS increased quality and decreased cost. Also, privatre sector employees average about 3/4 of the wages of public sector employees. Throw in the benefits and the total average cost of a private employee is just 2/3 of the cost of a public sector employee.
I agree the Dems are equally to blame for literally the opposite reason you do.
If the Dems actually did believe we could spend our way out of debt and actually pushed for it we'd see a lot of problems start to vanish. But they don't. They drink the same austerity kool aid that the republicans do, they just kill slowly.
As for the scare of "But the rich will move out!" then let them. Go for it! Once they're gone we can stop shoveling money into their furnaces and put it somewhere else. I mean, what are they going to take with them? The jobs they aren't providing? The taxes they aren't paying? Oh no!
But I think you'll find that they won't leave the country. It's a lot of bluster. There is no John Galt.
I'm rolling a character to have your character's babies.
|
|
If the Dems actually did believe we could spend our way out of debt and actually pushed for it we'd see a lot of problems start to vanish. But they don't. They drink the same austerity kool aid that the republicans do, they just kill slowly.
As for the scare of "But the rich will move out!" then let them. Go for it! Once they're gone we can stop shoveling money into their furnaces and put it somewhere else. I mean, what are they going to take with them? The jobs they aren't providing? The taxes they aren't paying? Oh no!
But I think you'll find that they won't leave the country. It's a lot of bluster. There is no John Galt.
Since "spending our way out of debt" has never worked in history and is obviously ludicrous just by the statement, how would that solve the problem? How is cutting bloated government spending an "austerity" measure? There is huge parts of Federal spending that is wasted and unnecessary.
As to that completely ridiculous comment about shoveling money into rich peoples furnaces, who then will create the businesses to hire you? You think the government should provide all the work? Who pays the taxes then? Wealth is not a resource, it is a product. And if you punish the people who create the wealth, then you will soon make the whole country poor.
|
|
Some of them do. The Progressive Caucus in the House proposed a budget that does better than anything on the table. Of course, being a sane and reasonable liberal approach to our problems, it got no media play and doesn't stand a chance of actually happening.
It doesn't actually deal with the long-term health care costs, but neither does anything else.
Progressives? Sane and reasonable!!?? Now that is just good humor :)
|
|
Actually, that's all b&&%$&*$. Privatizing government services is often more expensive and less effective.
While it's true that the average wages of private sector employees are lower than public, if you compare employees with similar education and skill sets, public employees actually get paid less. This is partly because the government employes less minimum wage low skill people and partly because the high end (management & degreed professional) employees are paid much less.
Again, you ignore actual historical fact. I can provide numerous examples of privatized services, from garbage to fire fighting, that have ALWAYS decreased cost and increased quality. And the comparisons of costs of private vs. public employees are based on comparable positions, so your attempt to give a false explanation for the difference is wasted.
|
|
"Spending our out of debt" has worked many times. Spending gets the economy growing. When the economy grows enough, the debt becomes relatively manageable. It worked in the Great Depression. It worked in every recession since then.
That said, cutting wasted and unnecessary government spending is always a good idea. Can you point to anything specific or are you just handwaving? Most of the things currently on the table are desperately needed by the people who depend on them.Wealth, at least in terms of money, is not a product. Money is a medium of exchange. It's only wealth if it's actually used to create something that makes people's lives better. The rich and the large corporations are currently sitting on and/or speculating with huge piles of cash. They're not using them to hire people or to make stuff for people.
We tried cutting taxes on the rich during the Bush years. It hasn't worked out well for the rest of us. The top 1% have a larger share of the national wealth than at any time since 1929. The rest of us have lost.
Uh, check your history, spending did not get us out of the Great Depression. It actually extended it. We were in it for 13 years and it wasn't until the second year of WWII that we got out. Now, you might think its a good idea to have a World War to get us out of economic troubles, but I prefer other ways that don't involve killing huge segments of the population. You can look at the end of WWI where we had the exact same conditions as 1929 and see how it worked then.
On the other argument, I said 'wealth' not money. You point out the difference, then immediately confuse them again. Wealth is created, therefore it is a product. And that whole canard about percentage of wealth is meaningless, what is more important is standard of living, which is always better in free market with less government intrusion.
|
|
The US is capable of taxing expats. The issue is, the 1% currently pay NO taxes, through various loopholes and blatant tax evasion (ie: offshore bank accounts). This won't change if they live somewhere else, they will continue to pay nothing if these laws aren't changed.
Actually, the top 1% pay 38% of the taxes annually.
Again, you ignore actual historical fact. I can provide numerous examples of privatized services, from garbage to fire fighting, that have ALWAYS decreased cost and increased quality.
In Australia the reverse has been true.
Costs, especially power, have been soaring - and they continue to climb.
Rail systems in some states are now worse than ever, and you pay more for less.
Sale of Public utilities has been a very bad move.
Again, you ignore actual historical fact. I can provide numerous examples of privatized services, from garbage to fire fighting, that have ALWAYS decreased cost and increased quality. And the comparisons of costs of private vs. public employees are based on comparable positions, so your attempt to give a false explanation for the difference is wasted.
Yes, privatized services of fire fighting*, garbage collecting**, police work***, and the military**** have done wonders in the past!
* The Romans would burn houses down that didn't pay their protection money
**The Mafia would use the garbage services to dispose of bodies and initiate hjits
***Private police forces have given heavy rise to abuse of authority, even worse then regular police, and bring in a dual system of "police for the rich, police for the poor."
****PMCs are known for increasing, not decreasing, violence in the areas they operated in
Uh, check your history, spending did not get us out of the Great Depression. It actually extended it. We were in it for 13 years and it wasn't until the second year of WWII that we got out. Now, you might think its a good idea to have a World War to get us out of economic troubles, but I prefer other ways that don't involve killing huge segments of the population. You can look at the end of WWI where we had the exact same conditions as 1929 and see how it worked then.
Laughably untrue.
The Great Depression recovery hit a stutter when the president listened to private advisers and stopped the stimulus. Then he started it back up and welp, the stutter stopped. WW2 actually increased the depression...right up until incredibly amounts of public service works were started to support the war, increasing jobs and domestic spending as well as implementing vast amounts of protectionism.
Since "spending our way out of debt" has never worked in history and is obviously ludicrous just by the statement, how would that solve the problem? How is cutting bloated government spending an "austerity" measure? There is huge parts of Federal spending that is wasted and unnecessary.
You're right, spending has never gotten people out of debt or a recession.
Except during the Great Depression.
Except in post-war Japan.
Except in Korea.
Except in China.
Except in Germany.
Except in France.
But hey, austerity measures are known to work, just ask Greece!
|
|
stuffI don't want to get into a "whose dick is bigger" contest with someone I barely know on the Internet. I called into question a statement made by a self-identified authority (ie. that we killed all Native American men and children).
Fight your own strawman. Or assimilate him. Whatever works for you.
Unless you want to argue we didn't kill Native American men and children?
For the record I will also not argue that Hitler killed ALL of the Jews, that the Inquisition purged all the heretics.
Actually, the top 1% pay 38% of the taxes annually.The US is capable of taxing expats. The issue is, the 1% currently pay NO taxes, through various loopholes and blatant tax evasion (ie: offshore bank accounts). This won't change if they live somewhere else, they will continue to pay nothing if these laws aren't changed.
It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But you forget - or, more likely, ignore, since I'm sure this has been stated to you before - that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.
Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.
On the contrary, the super rich pay distinctively less in taxes then the rich do.
And that graph is just at the income tax. Most of the super rich don't make their money off of income.
John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.
Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.
In 2007, Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation for their labors, which is 35 percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income—not even pocket change to Paulson, but almost 12 years of gross pay to the median-wage worker.
The Republicans and a key Democrat, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, fought to keep the tax rate on hedge-fund managers at 15 percent, arguing that the profits from hedge funds should be considered capital gains, not ordinary income, which got a lot of attention in the news.
What the news media missed is that hedge-fund managers don’t even pay 15 percent. At least, not currently. So long as they leave their money, known as “carried interest,” in the hedge fund, their taxes are deferred. They only pay taxes when they cash out, which could be decades from now for younger managers. How do these hedge-fund managers get money in the meantime? By borrowing against the carried interest, often at absurdly low rates—currently about 2 percent.
Lots of other people live tax-free, too. Look at Donald Trump’s tax records for four years early in his career. He paid no taxes for two of those years. Big real-estate investors enjoy tax-free living under a 1993 law President Clinton signed. It lets “professional” real-estate investors use paper losses like depreciation on their buildings against any cash income, even if they end up with negative incomes like Trump.
Frank and Jamie McCourt, who own the Los Angeles Dodgers, have not paid any income taxes since at least 2004, their divorce case revealed. Yet they spent $45 million one year alone. How? They just borrowed against Dodger ticket revenue and other assets. To the IRS, they look like paupers.
In Wisconsin, Terrence Wall, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2010, paid no income taxes on as much as $14 million of recent income, his disclosure forms showed.
|
|
Actually, the top 1% pay 38% of the taxes annually.The US is capable of taxing expats. The issue is, the 1% currently pay NO taxes, through various loopholes and blatant tax evasion (ie: offshore bank accounts). This won't change if they live somewhere else, they will continue to pay nothing if these laws aren't changed.
And they make 23% of all of the income, which is more than the entire bottom 50% of earners combined.
Numbers are fun!
Also, never use "always" in these discussion. For example you are quoted as saying
"Again, you ignore actual historical fact. I can provide numerous examples of privatized services, from garbage to fire fighting, that have ALWAYS decreased cost and increased quality. And the comparisons of costs of private vs. public employees are based on comparable positions, so your attempt to give a false explanation for the difference is wasted."
Several examples of something "Always" happening isn't "Always" happening. It is happening in these examples.
If something is always happening, it will happen in all examples. The fact that it isn't, mean it isn't always happening.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real reason the US Government had it's credit rating downgraded is disorganization in the Government. The reason it's disorganized is that the Federal Government has grown too big for it's own good.
No -- the reason it's disorganized is because half the government continually tries to prove it doesn't work and fights any effort to make it work.
They are building a self-fulfilling prophecy with their own ineptness at running government... on purpose.
|
Actually, the top 1% pay 38% of the taxes annually.The US is capable of taxing expats. The issue is, the 1% currently pay NO taxes, through various loopholes and blatant tax evasion (ie: offshore bank accounts). This won't change if they live somewhere else, they will continue to pay nothing if these laws aren't changed.
It’s true that the top 1 percent of wage earners paid 38 percent of the federal income taxes in 2008 (the most recent year for which data is available). But you forget - or, more likely, ignore, since I'm sure this has been stated to you before - that the income tax is less than half of federal taxes and only one-fifth of taxes at all levels of government.
Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance taxes (known as payroll taxes) are paid mostly by the bottom 90 percent of wage earners. That’s because, once you reach $106,800 of income, you pay no more for Social Security, though the much smaller Medicare tax applies to all wages. Warren Buffett pays the exact same amount of Social Security taxes as someone who earns $106,800.
On the contrary, the super rich pay distinctively less in taxes then the rich do.
And that graph is just at the income tax. Most of the super rich don't make their money off of income.
John Paulson, the most successful hedge-fund manager of all, bet against the mortgage market one year and then bet with Glenn Beck in the gold market the next. Paulson made himself $9 billion in fees in just two years. His current tax bill on that $9 billion? Zero.
Congress lets hedge-fund managers earn all they can now and pay their taxes years from now.
In 2007, Congress debated whether hedge-fund managers should pay the top tax rate that applies to wages, bonuses and other compensation for their labors, which is 35 percent. That tax rate starts at about $300,000 of taxable income—not even pocket...
Very well stated and a very informative post....I salute you. Also thank you for educating me on all that. I am in no way being sarcastic and am truly happy with this post. If only everyone had such clear and concise points that they make in a debate....
Wow!!! Talk about a complete lack of knowledge of history or economics. Every service that has been done by private industry has ALWAYS increased quality and decreased cost. Also, privatre sector employees average about 3/4 of the wages of public sector employees. Throw in the benefits and the total average cost of a private employee is just 2/3 of the cost of a public sector employee.No country lasts with a weak government -- no country with a small government has a strong government. We are a big nation, we are going to need a big government. The government operating the way we want it to, providing the things we want (even just the simple services of clean water, and a safe infrastructure) is going to be expensive.
Every service that has been turned over to private industry has taken a nose dive in quality and increased the cost of that service.
This is due to greed for profits (put off and squeak through on the thinnest efforts possible), the increased cost of workers in the private sector compared to the (quite frankly) chumps of the public sector and corporate inability to give a flying care about anything beyond their profits.
Um... no. I would point out ENRON for a prime example of your wrong. Also the whole electrical power grid that is on the verge of collapsing due to the corporations running skimping on maintenance and popping profits back to share holders and themselves whenever possible.
Also lets talk about road construction and maintenance -- since changing to private contractors with bidding both Kentucky and Indiana have paid more (after adjustment for inflation and before) for roads that are continuously late, over budget, of poor quality, or simply not finished.
Speaking of Indiana -- privatizing the unemployment and medicare in Indiana has cost the state more, for worse quality and more overhead.
Projects like Hoover Dam... the atomic bomb, the original interstate system were built much better and cheaper than any private industry could do.
Let's also mention the current problem with the FAA (thanks republicans) -- professionalism is the only reason people there are working without pay... well that and a real sense of patriotic duty. I guarantee you no corporation would ever manage to get that to happen in such a huge setting.
You know why defense systems are so expensive? Share holders and profits -- when the only reason to make something is to make money that money is all you're going to care about. It doesn't matter who is going to use them or even if they are really needed and what the best price would be for the government... its all about the profits.
Now there are many things that private industry does better than the government. However that doesn't mean that private industry can do everything better -- and in many cases... they do much worse...
Like you know regulating themselves as they continually promised they would do as they were deregulated by the republicans.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, check your history, spending did not get us out of the Great Depression. It actually extended it. We were in it for 13 years and it wasn't until the second year of WWII that we got out. Now, you might think its a good idea to have a World War to get us out of economic troubles, but I prefer other ways that don't involve killing huge segments of the population. You can look at the end of WWI where we had the exact same conditions as 1929 and see how it worked then.Laughably untrue.
The Great Depression recovery hit a stutter when the president listened to private advisers and stopped the stimulus. Then he started it back up and welp, the stutter stopped. WW2 actually increased the depression...right up until incredibly amounts of public service works were started to support the war, increasing jobs and domestic spending as well as implementing vast amounts of protectionism.
The Great Depression "recovery" didn't hit a stutter, there was no recovery. Unemployment didn't hit the mid 20 percentile until well after the "stimulus". GDP did not recover at all and continued to decline (Thus the term "depression"). The only part you got right is that it was the massive build up for the war effort that finally got us out of the depression. At no time did the government spending help, and the jacked up tax rates kept the economy in the toilet. No business growth = no recovery. For a policy that supposedly helped us, 13 years of misery seems to contradict your theory. Explain why after WWI, when the economic crisis was the eaxct same as 1929, the governemnt cutting taxes and spending made the crisis last less than a year and then led to the economic boom of the '20s. You see I go by actual results, not wishful thinking.
Romans? Mafia? Please!! Try to stick to realistic examples that deal with the US economy.
As to your examples of spending that helped, aside from the Great Depression (which we have already shown you are wrong about), those are all examples of massive aid for rebuilding provided from an outside source. Not one of them are the result of self taxed spending from within.
|
|
Um... no. I would point out ENRON for a prime example of your wrong. Also the whole electrical power grid that is on the verge of collapsing due to the corporations running skimping on maintenance and popping profits back to share holders and themselves whenever possible.
Also lets talk about road construction and maintenance -- since changing to private contractors with bidding both Kentucky and Indiana have paid more (after adjustment for inflation and before) for roads that are continuously late, over budget, of poor quality, or simply not finished.
Speaking of Indiana -- privatizing the unemployment and medicare in Indiana has cost the state more, for worse quality and more overhead.
Projects like Hoover Dam... the atomic bomb, the original interstate system were built much...
Electric companies are a prime example of why I'm right. They are not private companies working in a competitive environment, but instead are State sponsored monoplies, thus the problem. You are also incorrect about the cost of the highway system. In the the late 1800s, when they actually had private roads, they were operated cheaper and of better quality than public ones. Check out the history of roads and you find that it was legislation that made it harder for the independents, deliberately so they couldn't compete with public systems. Thus, eventually driving them out of business. The same was true for railroads.
|
|
.
Electric companies are a prime example of why I'm right. They are not private companies working in a competitive environment, but instead are State sponsored monoplies, thus the problem. You are also incorrect about the cost of the highway system. In the the late 1800s, when they actually had private roads, they were operated cheaper and of better quality than public ones. Check out the history of roads and you find that it was legislation that made it harder for the independents, deliberately so they couldn't compete with public systems. Thus, eventually driving them out of business. The same was true for railroads.
And the internet.
And you are just plain wrong about roads in the 1800's. The primary road was the national road, built with federal dollars because no private investor would pay to build such an infrastructure.
You've been reading way to much libertarian garbage revisionist history, you may want to actually pick up non-partisan books and look into what life was actually like prior to government regulation of the things you've mentioned above.
Monopolies occur with or without state sponsorship, but they are only broken up by government intervention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, cutting wasted and unnecessary government spending is always a good idea. Can you point to anything specific or are you just handwaving? Most of the things currently on the table are desperately needed by the people who depend on them.
I agree. While I would someday like to see social security and medicare/medicaid ended, I do not want to see them ended until they are no longer needed. I know pie in the sky hopes that none of us will ever see in our lifetimes. Personally, I would increase revenues, not by creating new taxes or increasing existing taxes, but by closing loopholes and crazy deductions in our tax laws. And the stuff I would cut first would be the departments like the DEA, ATF, TSA and DHS, as well as a massive reduction in military spending. (goodbye and good riddance to adventurism!)
|
|
[And the internet.
And you are just plain wrong about roads in the 1800's. The primary road was the national road, built with federal dollars because no private investor would pay to build such an infrastructure.
You've been reading way to much libertarian garbage revisionist history, you may want to actually pick up non-partisan books and look into what life was actually like prior to government regulation of the things you've mentioned above.
Monopolies occur with or without state sponsorship, but they are only broken up by government intervention.
Nice of you to assume what I read. First, I read from many sources. Second, I read actual source documents. And Third, you are completely wrong about the roads. Federal spending on roads (in quantity) is relatively new (1930s+). Roads in the 1800s were almost exclusively built and run by either State government or private companies.
As to the Libertarian charge, I agree with some of their free market ideas, but am usually against their governmental ideas.|
|
Monopolies occur with or without state sponsorship, but they are only broken up by government intervention.
Not true, name one monoply that came into being through the free market. Even Standard Oil at its height only held a 60% market share and it made kerosene affordable to everyone. That had a tremendous effect on life in the US as before that most family activity stopped at sunset. Only the rich could afford kerosene lamps. With the price of kerosene dropped to affordablity, the average American was able to to stay up and do things like read which led to the huge jump in literacy among common people.
The Great Depression "recovery" didn't hit a stutter, there was no recovery. Unemployment didn't hit the mid 20 percentile until well after the "stimulus". GDP did not recover at all and continued to decline (Thus the term "depression"). The only part you got right is that it was the massive build up for the war effort that finally got us out of the depression. At no time did the government spending help, and the jacked up tax rates kept the economy in the toilet. No business growth = no recovery. For a policy that supposedly helped us, 13 years of misery seems to contradict your theory. Explain why after WWI, when the economic crisis was the eaxct same as 1929, the governemnt cutting taxes and spending made the crisis last less than a year and then led to the economic boom of the '20s. You see I go by actual results, not wishful thinking.
FDR listened to Keynes...the economy started recovering. FDR listened to naysayers...the recovery stopped. That is what happened. That is what is happening right now.
The war effort is of course what eventually ended the depression. You know how? Because basically the US government employed a whole bunch of people to make stuff for the war--stuff that was later used up or destroyed. This is why Keynes said we would have gotten the same economic result if we had hired all those people to do the same jobs and then took all the stuff they made and dumped it into the Atlantic. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the war, the war was just an excuse to spend money on the public.
Ultimately, government spending is exactly what ended the depression.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So...can we assimilate the debt ceiling?Nope, however I think we can always smurf it.
I'm pretty sure it's smurfing us.