OK....let's keep this simple for Obama. For every dollar the governmet takes away from us is a dollar removed from the economy. This attitude that the governement can spend our dollars better than us is just beyond me.
I wish Obama would make Thomas Sowell his economic adviser. Then he would understand that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression and stimulus spending is doing nothing other than making our national debt unsustainable.
It is resolved. Everyone agrees that FDR destroyed the economy. Even the liberal socialists at the time were against the New Deal. It was unanimously voted unconstitutional by the supreme court. Look at what it has done.
The bad part of his thinking and speech, is that he does not acknowledge that government intervention is a big part of what caused the mess we are in.
When money is given to the poor, they in turn have money to spend. If nobody has any money, they won't spend any money. If they don't spend any money, then business will remain bottomed out. If business remains bottomed out, then the economy stays bottomed out. Quite simply, if we dont provide americans with money to spend and programs such as Public Works the economy will not substain. There is nothing NATURAL about that. I don't see the economy fixing itself.
Also, on top of that. A lot of people do not believe in plans such as the New Deal and the Stimulus that basically tax the rich/borrow money from other countries and give money to the poor. I agree the National deficit is a major problem. But the economy will not fix itself. Some say it is a natural cycle and nothing needed/needs to be done about recessions and depressions.Individuals like Herbert Hoover whose inaction during the Great Depression lead America to the Greatest Domestic Crisis ever
@ssahagun1 Bullshit. If he prolonged the depression then why in the hell did the GDP improve ever year after he take office, except for a minor setback in 1937, leading up into World War II. He reduced the unemployment rate by over 10%. He may have not boomed the economy back up to the stature of the roaring twenties, but he put a lot of people back to work and got america out of the depression.
@ssahagun1 Two groups of people existed during this time. The super-rich and the super-poor. There was no middle class. Taxing the minority (the rich) for the wellbeing of the majority (the poor) is an acceptable loss. The wellbeing of all Americans is what is important. So if FDR made taxes virtually impossible like Teddy, the poor Americans would have continued to starve and suffer. The Relief the New Deal provided kept many Americans alive.
Did Hitler resolve the question of mass genocide when he, under the National Socialist Party, democratically went ahead and exterminated millions of people? By the president's logic, that debate ended in the 30's, and mass genocide won out, simply because it happened. No need to condemn it or change what is still on the books.
The New Deal happened by chance, nobody was for it, the Supreme Court ruled half of it was unconstitutional; but oh well, they got murdered, and might is right.
If FDR hadn't implemented so many disastrous policies, like the NIRA, which further distorted the economy, I think we would've gotten out of the Depression much sooner. Did it REALLY have to take at least 12 years since the 1929 crash for the economy to really pick up? Besides, if you take Lottgieb's data, which I'd say is a lot more accurate since it doesn't count GOV'T jobs (which can be created at ANY time and are not a reflection of market growth), there was still 15% unemployment.
Plus, by his 2nd term, FDR began to take on a wildly antibusiness, almost anticapitalist, tone in his rhetoric. Businessmen and investors who could've brought the economy back into recovery much sooner, were fearful of what he might do next. It's called "regime uncertainty", and every economist knows it. FDR was pretty damn fiery in his antibusiness rhetoric. No one's gonna wanna invest in that kind of environment.
@whoo689 for reasons I won't expunger here cuz I'm not in the mood and don't have enough comment space, let's just say the whole "war fueling growth" theory is total bunk, based on a misinterpretation or overinterpretation of simple figures like unemployment and GDP while ignoring the OTHER factors in the economy like wage and price controls, which totally change the playing field. And the millions of veterans who left the labor force to serve in the army temporarily overseas.
@whoo689 Robert Higgs and some others have long-debunked the war-progress theory. Check it out. There are so many OTHER ways to obtain economic growth besides war. Besides, war requires gov't to fund it, which requires a LOT of tax revenue to pay for it, which was taken out of the private economy, which further distorts things because that's money could've been better spent on a new hiree or a new car manufacturing plant or whatever.
@whoo689 I have yet to read Jeff Madrick's book "The Case for Big Gov't", although it sounds kind of intriguing, and I'd like to see what kind of evidence he has for his position. Of course, he's actually a mere journalist and not a university or professional economist, so I'll have to take it with a grain of salt. Plus, guys like Obama seem to forget, which I just learned in Intermediate Macro not long ago, that over 50% of a business cycle up-/downturn is due to business investment.
@whoo689 It's hard to explain why since it's kind of complicated, but business investment (the I in GDP) is the REAL driver of economic growth, not simply feds handing out jobs to people, giving htem a little extra cash, and expecting them to spend a bunch of it. I mean, what's an extra 3-4 million jobs with a little extra money in your pocket ? That's not even CLOSE to 14 trillion. It probably won't even equal $1 trillion total. Politicians are too blinded by emotion rather than facts.
@whoo689 Yeah, so what? Nothing says that government can't do things to encourage that 50% business investment.
It's pretty humorous that you haven't even finished your degree and you already fancy yourself some economic expert. So, we can believe almost every respected historian and economist out there, or some snot-nosed punk still in college. Hmmmmmm....
@whoo689 You're right, it wasn't the war fueling growth. It was even more massive government intervention.
You're saying unemployment was wiped out by millions of unemployed veterans rejoining the Army? Then how do you explain "Rosie the Riveter", moron? If there was a surplus of labor, why did they have to recruit women into the factories?
An indicator that someone does not know what they are talking about is that they resort to name calling. In fact, if someone resorts to name calling, they almost surely don't know what they are talking about.
An an indicator of someone who doesn't know who to respond is someone who just looks at one part of the argument. When Obama called McCain old and McCain called Obama a socialist, did they respond first to either of those comments? No, they responded to points that had substance and ignored others.
I never suggested you were, my point is you attacked Shanbo's one personal comment about you rather than responding to the actual points of his argument and proved that you don't know how to respond to a comment made by another.
I never attacked Shanbo's comment about me because Shanbo never made a comment about me, nor am I debating him/her. I was just reading through the comments and noticed that he/she was making insults to others in the comments. I am simply pointing that out. I hope that clears things up for you.
@whoo689 Duuuuhhhh gee, wonder why? Could it have been because it was those same businessmen and investors were the ones who had made the mess in the first place?
"Regime uncertainty" is something that happens in third-world countries like Haiti and Rwanda, not a stable government like the USA. Which is wouldn't have been if those same businessmen and investors had been successful in organizing an armed coup against FDR.
@whoo689 Yes, moron, it really would have taken that long to recover, because it always takes longer to clean up the mess than it does to make it. Remember, the economy had been in free-fall for four years under Hoover.
Government jobs shouldn't count? Oh, OK. Let's tell all those guys in the military that they're really unemployed. Same with cops and firemen. And of course social workers and various administrators.
Only reason not to count them is so rightards can inflate the figures.
It was resolved. Anyone being raised on a pablum of FOX News and Weekly Standard knows it was a failure, while anyone with a functioning brain knows it succeeded.
@surrealnumber Riiiiigggghhhhttttt...so that's why GDP went steadily up and completely recovered by 1933..why unemployment turned around in one year and rose almost steadily after it's crash dive under Hoover.
@Shanbo26 Riiiiigggghhhhttttt...so that's why unemployment continued to increase till the US entered WW2 when millions were drafted. just prior to the entering of WW2 the unemployment rate was around 23% those new deals sure did something and it was not stimulating the economy
@surrealnumber WHAT? Where are you getting this crap? The official unemployment rate was nowhere near 23% in 1941, let alone the real rate, which was lower.
@Shanbo26 Funny thing is... GDP's equation includes gov't spending. So if the gov't spends spends spends, of course GDP will go up, even if not much else does. Who told you GDP "recovered by 1933"?? I don't think even a Keynesian says that! They say that the Depression essentially ended in 1941, and recovery began ("war fueled", they claim, even tho that's an obvious violation of Bastiat's broken window fallacy, for starters).
@whoo689 Excuse me? Do you even know what GDP is? Here's a hint - Gross Domestic Product. It's the sum value of all goods and services produced by a country. Government spending has nothing to do with it, moron.
I meant to say GDP recovered by 1937, and it did. Check out my video if you don't believe me, or just look it up on the web.
"Broken window" Yeah, right. So I guess the proper thing to do was to surrender. Seems to me the window was already broken, moron.
I'd like to say that from :44 to the end of this segment what Obama says is incorrect. Employers start laying people off and cutting back on growth when the government taxes the crap out of them, which is what is happening now. Government spending does not help produce jobs, it destroys them.
You can take that magic 8 ball and shove it up your ass.
Police, military personal, and fire fighters are legitament functions of state and local governments. Medicare is a giant ponzi scheme that should never have been set up. It!!s unfunded liability is the equivalent to 30 Iraq wars! The best doctors don't even take medicare.
Their is nothing selective about it. There are basic essential functions of government, everything else should be left to free people in a free market.
@Ultrasecond You are stupid. You are probably someone who thinks that anything paid for by taxes is considered socialist.
The army is not socialist, it is funded by tax dollars because it is stipulated by the Constitution. Police forces and firefighters are state level and a part of a state's laws or constitution, as defined by their 10th amendment constitutional right. The whole POINT of keeping the FEDERAL (centralized) government SMALL is because they have a MONOPOLY over MILITARY.
@Ultrasecond Likewise, the reason why people are not as resistant to the idea of state level action is because there are multiple states, so whatever they do is not a monopoly over that portion of your life. If you don't like the laws or public programs offered by your state, you can MOVE. If it's federal, every single state is subject to that order by way of Article VI, Clause II of the Constitution.
Further, democracies (the will of the people) are more accurate the smaller the population.
@Ultrasecond By your logic and poor understanding of what the argument over socialism is, it would mean that our President is socialist because he reaps a $400,000 salary made of tax dollars. So would every single other government bureaucrat, including our senators and our representatives.
And of course people are selective about socialism. Almost no one is a full fledged laissez-fairer in this world anymore, even Libertarians. Conservatives believe in social safety nets where DUE.
@Ultrasecond The fact that you discuss this matter in absolute terms proves that ou are brand new to politics. Everyone who FIRST starts studying politics falls into the trap of black and white. Everything is on a spectrum, and Liberals are CENTER left, and Conservatives are CENTER right. Conservatives believe in MINIMIZING/LIMITING the role of government, not abolishing it. Liberals believe in solving major problems THROUGH greater government intervention, not a full Communist state.
@onixz100 Try looking into the actual sciences like economics, not politics. The books on politics obviously aren't going to say limit government--why would they? they're written by politicians. But economics is a science, not opinion; and there are hoards of books that prove scientifically that there can be no such thing as a "middle road" (there are essays titled exactly that). You don't have to read them, but as Huxley said, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
@guyjohn59 Books on politics actually do say limit government, especially the ones written by conservative authors. Lol, that's what conservatism is about. And what about economics and a middle road? Of course we should refer to economics when making our fiscal policies and figuring out which social services we can afford, but you discuss economics in a reductionist, isolationist light. Economic THEORY is different from economic APPLICATION; that's why no 100% capitalist economies exist.
@onixz100 Right, but those kinds of books say limit government because 'in my opinion that is good'. In other words, the analysis lacks the underlying principles which validate the findings; authors may borrow scientific fact from actual scientists, but only to further their opinions. In terms of thoery and application, I know that 2+2=4, but if somebody has a gun to my head then it equals whatever he wants it to equal. But theory is of application and economics is the science of human action.
@Ultrasecond And of course you pick and choose where things are constitutional. It's called the will of the people. Ever heard of democracy? That's why people argue over these things; that's the point of voting. The point of voting is so that you DEFINE the vague terms described in the constitution. The point of a democracy is to DEFINE where we are on the spectrum, and that's why you have parties and people who disagree. And that's why they have a constitutional right to vote. That IS politics.
@Ultrasecond Everything that becomes nationalized by default will be looked at as 'good' because there becomes nothing to compare it to except the past. If the government nationalized food, it would be taught today that it was because we were unable to handle it ourselves, and otherwise we would all starve; somehow (they'd say) 'this' monopoly also defies economimc law. But what is the coincidence that everything that gets nationalized is 'good'. What a record! No wonder people are socialists.
This is intellectual dishonesty. It's not that some economists just "philosophically disagree" with market intervention. Some economists maintain that market intervention is an irrational policy which misallocates resources, destroys wealth, and creates long term economic problems.
Yes, there was some inequality, but that can be addressed without having to fuck up economic growth. And we don't need paper money or a central bank to "control" inflation. Inflation, on a gold standard, could control itself quite well. Face it, fiat money is bogus! Central banking is a fallacy. We don't need some grand national bank telling the others what to do. In fact, Scotland had a HUGELY successful era of free banking until the mid-1800s. That's just one example.
@whoo689 Hey, moron. Technically, Keynesianism WAS a gold standard. It ended in 1971 when Nixon decreed that the US dollar could no longer be exchanged for gold.
Our economy, as a whole, was much stabler and generally had much less inflation before Keynesianism and the Federal Reserve. Sure, there were some bank panics, but economists who've actually done their research realize they were more due to bad gov't policy than the banks suddenly just failing on their own and causing the economy to collapse. We had only a handful of recessions before the Fed. We have had over 10 since the creation of it. And the so-called Long Depression? Never happened.
@whoo689 Hey moron, how many Depressions or financial crises did we have under Keynesian economics? NONE.
The fact is, unemployment and inflation were low under Keynesian economics from 1945 to 1970. THen Nixon came along, finished wrecking the Bretton Woods institutions, and the next thing you know - stagflation!!
Only a handful of recessions before the Fed? Are you completely ignorant of history? There was EIGHT between 1900 and 1929!! That's a pretty big handful, idiot.
Thew FDR-New Deal argument was only "resolved" by historians, the vast majority whom KNOW NOTHING about pro-growth economics. I mean, Arthur Schlesinger certainly is no economist, and yet he thinks he's the expert who can judge the efficacy of the New Deal best? Please.
Liberal historians have brainwashed Americans, esp. schoolchildren (with all those biased textbooks), that the New Deal was a godsend for the Depression-era Americans. Democrats blindly believe this nonsense, and they come up with BS "statistics" and 'facts' to try to back it up. Economists like Jeff Madrick even argue an actual CASE for big government!!
The conventional wisdom is just that- conventional. It's anything but wisdom. The unconventional wisdom is the truth.
Even if gov't does introduce "additional demand" into the economy, most of the stimulus is total BS and non-economic growth spending, like education and healthcare. Introducing demand into the critical industries that employ the most workers and give our country the most growth would be far more prudent, although I'd rather it be done with private money than taxpayer dollars. Besides, stimulus only redirects money into the wrong areas, which is malinvestment and stifles growth.
@whoo689 Education and healthcare don't fuel economic growth? Oh yeah, sick people with an eighth-grade education are SUUUUUCCCCCHHHH good producers. We should get rid of all education and healthcare spending so we can become an economic juggernaut like Africa.
Where'd you get your education? Home-schooled by your retarded mommy?
Cato got the support of over 300 economists who said "We don't agree with the stimulus", but apparently Obama either doesn't read NYT, or he just ignores anyone who disputes him with actual facts. "Most economists" my fucking ass. I could find plenty of evidence and economists who will tell you the real causes of the economic crisis had to do with bad policy, not "greed on Wall St." I mean, the market is not THAT fragile. A little "greed" won't fuck things up on its own.
@whoo689 LOL!! The Cato Institute? The world's most famous right-wing lie factory? Please! Only a moron would believe a word they have to say.
Thank GOD Obama doesn't listen to those guys.
A "little greed won't fuck things up"? Yeah, Madoff stealing 75 billion dollars certainly had nothing to do with it. Or Goldman-Sachs defrauding their own customers. Or financial institutions pouring billions into crappy mortgages. Fuck, you're dumb.
Where in the hell does Obama keep these "most economists" who he claims support his economic program?? Where? I've looked all over and can't find em! Maybe a few here and there like Christina Romer and Paul Krugman and John Kenneth Galbraith, but those are it. The vast majority of economists DO NOT support Keynesianism, or at least are open to OTHER schools of thought than just that. I can find plenty of economic evidence to dispute the claim that the new deal gave us recovery.
@whoo689 Suuuuurrrrrrreeee they don't. I don't suppose you can post a cite for this claim that "most economists don't support Keynesianism"? Or is this just another statistic you're pulling out of your ass.
"What started on wall street and ended up on main street." I love to hear the diarrhea that comes out of this man's mouth.
It should be " What started in CONGRESS.." hello, the housing crisis was caused by Clinton tryin to put everyone in a home.
It was predicted this would happen. The uninformed masses still believe Obama, that it was 'greedy wall street' that did this. Yes they packaged and sold the debt, but that is the normal process for banks to work.
What an idiot ...its not wether or not its resolved , they are debating wether or not FDR prolonged the depression. The evidence suggests that he did by at least 7 years. And this idiot president will prolong this recession even longer by spending us into oblivion.
Of course you do because you do not know any better... Any Government is strong enough to give you everything is strong enough to take everything away. Does that make sense?
Listen, I try not to talk to people who are delusional such as you. But your little buddy is nothing more than a puppet for the Global Elites and the Federal Reserve. When they are done changing the face of tyranny from Bush to Obama, his little ass is going to be thrown away with the morning trash. It is not even a year into his presidency and he is already a lame duck president. How about being an American first and a Liberal second. When did I even mention Reagan? Moron!
Obama is a fool. Giving away free money like magic, will destroy the value of the dollar even further, and possibly cause serious inflation. Any economist would tell you that those are indeed possible dangers as a direct result of this government spending. After WWII, Germany, in order to get out of debt, printed money like magic, and as a result, it severely screwed up their economy and the value of their currency. Obama is incredibly stupid to not realize that that could happen to us as well.
I was mistaken. What I was thinking about was in 1923, Germany suffered severely from hyperinflation, drastically cutting the value of their money considerably.
the insanity of saying that the new deal was a good thing is one thing, but to insinuate that this is somehow obvious, logical, and common knowledge shows obamas true ignorance, at least on this subject. FDR was elected in 1932, and the depression didnt end untill the mid to late 1940's, to imply that the new deal was a good thing is illogical and just plain silly.
No the depression ended in 1933 in terms of growth, high unemployment stayed until 1941 but was then lowered. You cannot turn around a sinking ship in a few years. Look at Russia after the soviet union. They took years to recover and only recovered due to oil.
no it didnt end in 33, if your refering to government numbers than I wish you would understand that we went off the gold standard forthe purpose of printing more money and devaluing. If your going to use there numbers than cut it by atleast a third because incresed nominal numbers are not real. just fantasy. and your right to bring up the soviets because it was fdr's socialist/communnist economic tendencies that caused so much damage that required so much time to "turn around the ship"
Fuck OBAMA and Bush and Mclame and the rest of the pieces of shit that are fucking our country into the dirt. If you think Obama is the answer,, you should get your brain scraped,,there is shit on it!
haha Bush went to Yale and Harvard and hes preceived as an idiot. Obama does need to go back to school because a educated person like him should know that FDR didn't get us out of the depression, WWII did. And gov't spending just prolongs the recession. Tax cuts shorten it. Don't believe me search Ronald Reagan. But Obama calls tax cuts, doing nothing.
"FDR didn't get us out of the depression WWII did"
WWII did not get us out of the Depression. Massive government spending and the increase of demand for raw and produced goods and the subsequent jobs associated with the war got us out of the depression
"And gov't spending just prolongs the recession"
So you must on better than the vast majority of economic historians, which largely agree that without the New Deal and public work programs that the Depression would have been deeper and longer
Haha. Yes, WWII got us out of the depression. You see Europe and Asia were destroyed and there was only one place to buy supplies, America. If you believe the New Deal got us out of the depression you either did not pay attention is school, or had an idiot teacher. No, economic historians don't agree on that, liberal ones do. But the majority do not. My economics textbook even says so. In fact Henry Morgenthau, FDRs top advisor, said "We've spent and spent and it didn't work. Educate yourself.
I said the New Deal didn't get us out of the Depression. Mainstream economist say that it kept it from being "worse". It is only the far right that says it made it worse and others say that it is unclear whether it did, but the majority are in the camp that it helped slow down the spiral
Again, yes the spending both domestic and foreign increased demand and stimulated the economy. The problem is that we are no longer the manufacturing giant we were back then, so it is a bad comparison anyway.
I wouldn't say it kept the economy from failing because we had recession within the depression.
I agree we aren't the same manufacturing giant. Probably because we base to many regulations on the false myth of man made global warming, and the labor unions.
You are either stupid or you just have a problem with reading comprehension. I said it stopped the depression from being worse than it was. That doesn't mean that it stopped it from happening or that it got us out of it, but it slowed down the free fall. I don't know how else to explain it, but you keep on coming back misunderstanding/misrepresenting my comments.
Global warming (which is a well established scientific fact now) has nothing to do with it.
If it were solely the Unions then the production would have just moved to non-union states.
It is about corporatism, greed, and the sweatshop labor market in other countries. Why hire an American to do a job at $7.50 and hour when the Chinese will do it for $0.50 an hour? They don't give a damn about the people they put out or the work conditions of in China. All they care about is their profit margin.
Production has in many ways moved to non-union states. Detroit still makes the American cars, but look at where all the foreign auto-plants that operate here are... the South. Mercedes-Benz has a plant in I think Arkansas, and BMW in South Carolina, which is tied with North Carolina for the least unionized state.
Foreign manufacturers didn't move there they have always been there. Largely because of the lack of Unions and the large number of unemployed and impoverished that they can take advantage of and pay $10 an hour with no benefits and they won't complain, but they only assemble the cars all the parts manufacturing is still overseas. My point was that the unions really are insignificant, because they know that even a non-union laborer in the US is more expensive than foreign labor.
Did you know that they are in the process of outsourcing taking your order when you go through the drive thru at the fast food places to India? Greedy bastards don't even want to pay a teenager $6.50 an hour to say "Would you like fries with that".
That is why we are fucked not because the unions make companies treat their workers like human beings instead of a number on the labor budget.
Yes because ultimately the countries receiving military supplies had to repay the debt, that the gov't spent to build the weapons. Whereas infastructure spending gets paid for by the American taxpayer, pretty much is the rich 2% who pay 70% taxes, which restricts them from creating new jobs. Basically its as simple as selling weapons brings in new money whereas using taxpayers dollars uses money already in existance.
If you're talking about lend lease, then i really wouldn't consider it being paid back.
In the case of UK, around 31 billion in materiel were leased, but only about 7 billion were returned, and most of it is through renting of military bases.
Roosevelt did not like hitler.
Correct me if i'm wrong, seriuosly i'm not sure, but doesn't the government get its money through taxes.
I wouldn't say as much of lend lease, its more of the marshall plan. But for what we were paid back of lend lease it was a big contributor, Roosevelt didn't like Hitler but he still traded and sold to Hitler up until Hitler went on his Europe domination raid. Yes gov't do get money through taxes but when you get the debt paid off by other countries, then you are able to cut taxes leaving more money for the American people.
most of the countries didn't acquire close to the debt America had during the war. American also produce about 65% of the weapons used by the allies. And plus most of the countries in the War were helped out of the depression by the US to keep them from turing to communism.
with the shape our economy is in who the hell would throw money at something that is not proven to be anything but someones idea & therory. There is just to many people (experts?) who have conflicting opinions. Only the lunitic far left environmentalists would say F--- everything else and tunnel vision theie way to global warming. This Earth has endured electrical storms, earthquakes, meteors, floods, all kind of chaos. Are we arrogent enough to say that styrofoam cups will kill off the populas?
woah ho. some expert we have here. this douchebag must be some pseudo economist who thinks he/she knows more than the US president. wow. let us all give this douchebag an applause. if you are so capable douchebag, you won't be here saying shit like this; you'll be advising the US government on what to do. shut your gaping hole you blithering douchebag.
Osama you really should get better speeches to knock off and while on the subject of knocking off you should do yourself a favor and get a new speech writer
Osama? I thought Obama? Is it deliberate? I sure think it is; given the keyboard's proximity between "B" and "S". Oh why not let me tell you something you douchebag? Maybe you should go and do a lobotomy.
I suggest reading the book the forgotten man by Amity Shlaes. It talks about how our Government got involved with the last depression and by doing what they did made the depression worst. A real eye opener.
Problem, Action, Solution ! Fear mongering legislation !
Trying to increase spending on debt, as the answer to the economy is how we are in this debt crisis ! Like throwing gas on fire ! Saving/paying off your debt is the only answer ! Please WAKE UP PEOPLE !
Does anyone else think America is the enemy of the world, maybe we are the terrorist? We used osama and his men to fight the Russians in the 1970's. We armed them to fight a war we didnt want to fight ourselves. Then we go in to their country and support a government they dont agree with causing so much chaos that they attack us on our land. We fight them for such an egregious attack for so hard and so long that it divides our nation and sends our economy into the dirt . Can you say irony?
Honestly, how long will it take people to realize the problems we are facing financially today exist because of the government intervention in business?
Do you want someone to make sure that your kids does not get toys with toxic paint on? And if not the government, then who do you think would be able to give your kids that safety?
no that would be your retarded gay father that eats paint you stupid liar. too stupid to have ever been in the military, and by the way 4 1/2 years to make E-5 what took so long since you were a push button E-4. had trouble with the test
ah read again my friend.... I was up for E-6 at 4-1/2... prolly had a good shot too.... two nams... good conduct... two letters of commendation from the admiral... three early promotes in a row.... not to mention i crushed the E-5 test in march 2003 ... advanced when it was only 7%
remember there is only one of us who is running around youtube in their mid 40's making intellectual commenta like "that would be your retarded gay father "
I first went to see a recruiter three days after 9/11, bootcamp less then two weeks later
Recieved one NAM for a Non-compliant boarding during Operation Iraqi Freedom and another for my division having the highest score ever (to that point) during the congressional inspection you know as INSURV.... The letters of Com. are just from flight deck work
I WAS up for E-6 but decided it was more important to my family to have a husband and a Dad around then to continue on in the NAVY Seperated 9/2005
I see so it seems your capitan hands out Nams for doing your job. and it stands you are a push button E-4 that made E-5 and think you were ready for E-6 when in fact you did not have the time in rate for E-6. as for INSURV I'VE BEEN THRU IT FAR MORE THAN YOU LAST ONE NO MAJOR HITS AND ONLY 3 MINOR FIXED BEFORE INSURV WAS DONE
whether i was ready or not wasn't the question that was up to my chain of command and they deemed me ready... the question though was, was I eligible??? which i was ...
as you should know your time in rate is waived one year if you maintain Early Promotion Evaluations.... The INSURV NAM may have been borderline but you have no idea what we did for that boarding so how could you judge????
lets see my first westpac we pull vietamse refuges out of the water no one got or expected a nam. last REFTRA OPS SCORED 99 PERCENT no one got or expected a nam. your capitan gave nams like candie. Making you think your so special when in fact you did nothing specal.
I don't ...remeber you are the one who called me a "fraud and the stupidest fuck in america"
you go from not believeing, to questioning my math on when i'd be advanced, to now criticizing me for being 2 succesful in the NAVY, not rubbing it anybodys face, nobody cares, just like nobody cares about an old man who has already lived longer then the time he has left, but goes around youtube talking shit to people calling them fuckwads, retards, faggots, and whatever else you make up get a life
and those things are admirable... i wouldn't question that...you're the only one questioning the others service.. it's the fact that you attack me over what??? Idealogical differences?? You can question me all day gismo and i'll have an answer... because nothing i have told you is a lie.... you keep trying to call me out... and i'll keep telling you the truth..
first i'm a fraud.... then i'm a liar, then I'm a kiss ass, and after proving everything you have said to be a falasy you go right back to the statement you use when you have NOTHING else "like all stupid liberals I expect nothing less." the official white flag of middle aged blowhards....
let me educate you... joined 9/17/2001...boot camp 9/24/2001.. Top of class in "A" school (march) advanced to E-4 july 26th 2002... recieved first EP that summer making me eligible early for E-5 ... march 2003 took E-5 test... made E-5 on 7% advancement....recieved second EP summer 2004....third EP in summer 2005 that waived last year of time in rate for E-6
Therefore if you can do math that put me eligible in sept 2005 which IF MADE I would have put on january or february 2006 (41/2) years
you're not gonna make me look like a fool cause i'm not the bitter one calling people names on an annonymous website....
congrats on your service, I hope you got at least some retirement, and remember the VA hospitals have conselors for people struggling with personal problems
So we can just Spend, Print, and Borrow our way to Economic nirvana?
Maybe they think we should Invade and Occupy more Third World Countries that have Never Attacked us, growing our DEBT even greater than the $10.6 TRILLION Bush has left us with.
All of these Politicians are Retards, and they aren't working for OUR Interests.
It's my money too, and you know what the majority of the country doesn't want it to go on this "stimulus" bill. What ever happend to putting power back in the hands of the people? I used to think Obama would change things, but he's making it all so much worse. At this rate will be pushed further into debt at a faster rate than Bush did in 8 years.
tim7455 - if by "majority of the country" you mean the 23% shown in yesterdays Gallup poll, then umm, yeah, I guess so. But last I heard, 23% wasn't a majority - it's about the number of wingnuts that still think Bush was doing a heckuva job.
mr obama, you must first understand that the free market economy isnt just some "philosophy" as you put it. instead it is a legitimate economic system that has proven itself throughout history. however it seems that you heed the advice of these keyensian economists that you surround yourself with even though its now evident that they could not have been more wrong about the state of our economy. therefore i beg you to have some common fucking sense and put an end to these nonsense "stimulus"
New Deal vs No Deal: The Congressional Budget Office, the official non-partisan scorekeepers for legislation, said the stimulus bill will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing. God help us all if the child-president gets his way.
The New Deal didn't work in the 1930's and it won't work now. FDR's own Treasury secretary,Henry Morganthau addressed Congress in May 1939 and said this: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises."
he was against that and sided with republicans on that issue ... that was a pelosi and reid thing.... hence why reed came out and said he doesn't work FOR obama he works WITHhim
The New Deal started in 1933. The depression lasted into the early 40s. By the time we came out of the depression, most New Deal programs were scrapped. The New Deal did nothing to get the US out of the depression
Good honest people, working hard and producing things of value got us out of the depression, not government, OPEN YOUR EYES!
This argument should have been "resolved" long ago, Mr. Obama
You have no idea how to spend Trillions of dollars, nor do i, but the markets do!
over the past 31 years democratic presidents have added an average of $157 billion per year to the national debt vs republican presidents adding an average of $374 billion per year to the national debt
Bill clinton reduced bush seniors additon of $399 billion his last year to $18 billion Clintons last year At the rate that the Clinton administration was reducing the debt increases, an Al Gore administration would have almost paid off the entire National Debt by 2008!
When you print money out of thin air the value of a dollar drops and prices go up. When the prices go up, this forces people to take out loans in order to pay for things. If people are taking out loans that means the economy is horrible and the consequences will follow because the prices people won't be able to pay back the loans as more money is printed which is inflation.
8 dollar coffee creates dead end service jobs. It's what we need to compete in 3rd world markets. It also helps to have few rich, many poor, and no middle class. Come on people more tax cuts and less education! Read my lips. No new roads! Yes we can.
Print all the money you want ...Americas idealisms are horrid and must change. Maybe it is time for the fall of the great empire...no more $8 coffees from starbucks..no more rapant waste...we have made horrible decisions and things need to change. The new deal saved farmers and hard workers. This deal is saving walmart and cokehead bankers that rip off the common man. The zeitgeist of america is temporary...well its time is up.
Oh so what you got out of my statement was an exaggeration. My point is still made. A cup of coffee produced at home cost about 2 cents. So the fact that Starbucks at the like charge $4.10 for adding whipped cream...well that means my statement is invalid. I take it all back of course America should thrive in its decadence it seems to be serving us so well.
again you're making a fool of yourself with your exaggerations... we've already established that starbucks coffee by national average costs $1.85 not $8 like you originally said not $4.10 like you just said.... $1.85...
I understand you hate america.. thats cool whatever.. but lets not blame our economic crisis on starbucks thats not rational..
We are where we are because BOTH parties allowing deregulation of the housing market and Bushs' crazy spending spree after cutting rich peoples taxes
I scaled down my slight exaggeration and because of that you attack again. Thats funny. My point still stands. You really get hung up on the details that dont matter. Comment on the rest of my statement.
We need a president like Warren Harding!
spanieaj 6 months ago
OK....let's keep this simple for Obama. For every dollar the governmet takes away from us is a dollar removed from the economy. This attitude that the governement can spend our dollars better than us is just beyond me.
spanieaj 6 months ago
I wish Obama would make Thomas Sowell his economic adviser. Then he would understand that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression and stimulus spending is doing nothing other than making our national debt unsustainable.
DarthMaul8065 1 year ago 2
It is resolved. Everyone agrees that FDR destroyed the economy. Even the liberal socialists at the time were against the New Deal. It was unanimously voted unconstitutional by the supreme court. Look at what it has done.
guyjohn59 1 year ago 2
hmmm? it's 12-2010, wherez the jobs Obama? Lottsa bail outs and tax reductions,,,,where are the supposed subsequent jobs??
womanbeing 1 year ago
The bad part of his thinking and speech, is that he does not acknowledge that government intervention is a big part of what caused the mess we are in.
bertly71 1 year ago
When money is given to the poor, they in turn have money to spend. If nobody has any money, they won't spend any money. If they don't spend any money, then business will remain bottomed out. If business remains bottomed out, then the economy stays bottomed out. Quite simply, if we dont provide americans with money to spend and programs such as Public Works the economy will not substain. There is nothing NATURAL about that. I don't see the economy fixing itself.
oTRAGICo 1 year ago
Also, on top of that. A lot of people do not believe in plans such as the New Deal and the Stimulus that basically tax the rich/borrow money from other countries and give money to the poor. I agree the National deficit is a major problem. But the economy will not fix itself. Some say it is a natural cycle and nothing needed/needs to be done about recessions and depressions.Individuals like Herbert Hoover whose inaction during the Great Depression lead America to the Greatest Domestic Crisis ever
oTRAGICo 1 year ago
FDR prolonged the depression not resolved it
ssahagun1 1 year ago
@ssahagun1 Bullshit. If he prolonged the depression then why in the hell did the GDP improve ever year after he take office, except for a minor setback in 1937, leading up into World War II. He reduced the unemployment rate by over 10%. He may have not boomed the economy back up to the stature of the roaring twenties, but he put a lot of people back to work and got america out of the depression.
oTRAGICo 1 year ago
@oTRAGICo
If you look at them numbers you'll realize that it went very very very slow.
He had to put a DRAMATIC increase in taxes
taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/11/tax-rates-during-the-great-depression.html
He approved the Smoot Hawley tarriff which was what did the most damage during the depression.
If FDR made taxes virtually invisible like Teddy did during 1908 it would have been over in a quarter of the time.
ssahagun1 1 year ago
@ssahagun1 Two groups of people existed during this time. The super-rich and the super-poor. There was no middle class. Taxing the minority (the rich) for the wellbeing of the majority (the poor) is an acceptable loss. The wellbeing of all Americans is what is important. So if FDR made taxes virtually impossible like Teddy, the poor Americans would have continued to starve and suffer. The Relief the New Deal provided kept many Americans alive.
oTRAGICo 1 year ago
@oTRAGICo
You know if you do a little research on an important topic... called economics.
You'd realize that rich people are rich because they own business's.
So if you tax them they can't fund their business's.
hence forth slowing down the "economy"
god i hate explaining basic economics to the 90% of american idiots who have never taken a class or even read a book on economics.
hence you
ssahagun1 1 year ago
@oTRAGICo
oh and the set back was because his stratigy failed and WW2 is what saves his ass.
ssahagun1 1 year ago
read woo698
comment. that'll clear you up even more
ssahagun1 1 year ago
Did Hitler resolve the question of mass genocide when he, under the National Socialist Party, democratically went ahead and exterminated millions of people? By the president's logic, that debate ended in the 30's, and mass genocide won out, simply because it happened. No need to condemn it or change what is still on the books.
The New Deal happened by chance, nobody was for it, the Supreme Court ruled half of it was unconstitutional; but oh well, they got murdered, and might is right.
guyjohn59 1 year ago
If FDR hadn't implemented so many disastrous policies, like the NIRA, which further distorted the economy, I think we would've gotten out of the Depression much sooner. Did it REALLY have to take at least 12 years since the 1929 crash for the economy to really pick up? Besides, if you take Lottgieb's data, which I'd say is a lot more accurate since it doesn't count GOV'T jobs (which can be created at ANY time and are not a reflection of market growth), there was still 15% unemployment.
whoo689 1 year ago
Plus, by his 2nd term, FDR began to take on a wildly antibusiness, almost anticapitalist, tone in his rhetoric. Businessmen and investors who could've brought the economy back into recovery much sooner, were fearful of what he might do next. It's called "regime uncertainty", and every economist knows it. FDR was pretty damn fiery in his antibusiness rhetoric. No one's gonna wanna invest in that kind of environment.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 for reasons I won't expunger here cuz I'm not in the mood and don't have enough comment space, let's just say the whole "war fueling growth" theory is total bunk, based on a misinterpretation or overinterpretation of simple figures like unemployment and GDP while ignoring the OTHER factors in the economy like wage and price controls, which totally change the playing field. And the millions of veterans who left the labor force to serve in the army temporarily overseas.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Robert Higgs and some others have long-debunked the war-progress theory. Check it out. There are so many OTHER ways to obtain economic growth besides war. Besides, war requires gov't to fund it, which requires a LOT of tax revenue to pay for it, which was taken out of the private economy, which further distorts things because that's money could've been better spent on a new hiree or a new car manufacturing plant or whatever.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 I have yet to read Jeff Madrick's book "The Case for Big Gov't", although it sounds kind of intriguing, and I'd like to see what kind of evidence he has for his position. Of course, he's actually a mere journalist and not a university or professional economist, so I'll have to take it with a grain of salt. Plus, guys like Obama seem to forget, which I just learned in Intermediate Macro not long ago, that over 50% of a business cycle up-/downturn is due to business investment.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 It's hard to explain why since it's kind of complicated, but business investment (the I in GDP) is the REAL driver of economic growth, not simply feds handing out jobs to people, giving htem a little extra cash, and expecting them to spend a bunch of it. I mean, what's an extra 3-4 million jobs with a little extra money in your pocket ? That's not even CLOSE to 14 trillion. It probably won't even equal $1 trillion total. Politicians are too blinded by emotion rather than facts.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Yeah, so what? Nothing says that government can't do things to encourage that 50% business investment.
It's pretty humorous that you haven't even finished your degree and you already fancy yourself some economic expert. So, we can believe almost every respected historian and economist out there, or some snot-nosed punk still in college. Hmmmmmm....
Shanbo26 1 year ago
@whoo689 Robert who? We know there's no shortage of rightard authors who'll say anything you want them to, this is meaningless.
Of course there's other ways to obtain growth other than war. Who's said otherwise?
Shanbo26 1 year ago
@whoo689 You're right, it wasn't the war fueling growth. It was even more massive government intervention.
You're saying unemployment was wiped out by millions of unemployed veterans rejoining the Army? Then how do you explain "Rosie the Riveter", moron? If there was a surplus of labor, why did they have to recruit women into the factories?
Fuck, you're stupid.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
@Shanbo26 Because all the men were at the warfront?
calvinhobbesliker2 1 year ago
@Shanbo26 Yes, that's another reason there was a labor shortage
Shanbo26 1 year ago
@Shanbo26
An indicator that someone does not know what they are talking about is that they resort to name calling. In fact, if someone resorts to name calling, they almost surely don't know what they are talking about.
Maxx4446 1 year ago
@Maxx4446
An an indicator of someone who doesn't know who to respond is someone who just looks at one part of the argument. When Obama called McCain old and McCain called Obama a socialist, did they respond first to either of those comments? No, they responded to points that had substance and ignored others.
trademestuff 1 year ago
@trademestuff
What are you talking about? I am not a McCain or Obama supporter.
Maxx4446 1 year ago
@Maxx4446
I never suggested you were, my point is you attacked Shanbo's one personal comment about you rather than responding to the actual points of his argument and proved that you don't know how to respond to a comment made by another.
trademestuff 1 year ago
@trademestuff
I never attacked Shanbo's comment about me because Shanbo never made a comment about me, nor am I debating him/her. I was just reading through the comments and noticed that he/she was making insults to others in the comments. I am simply pointing that out. I hope that clears things up for you.
Maxx4446 1 year ago
@whoo689 Duuuuhhhh gee, wonder why? Could it have been because it was those same businessmen and investors were the ones who had made the mess in the first place?
"Regime uncertainty" is something that happens in third-world countries like Haiti and Rwanda, not a stable government like the USA. Which is wouldn't have been if those same businessmen and investors had been successful in organizing an armed coup against FDR.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
@whoo689 Yes, moron, it really would have taken that long to recover, because it always takes longer to clean up the mess than it does to make it. Remember, the economy had been in free-fall for four years under Hoover.
Government jobs shouldn't count? Oh, OK. Let's tell all those guys in the military that they're really unemployed. Same with cops and firemen. And of course social workers and various administrators.
Only reason not to count them is so rightards can inflate the figures.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
@whoo689 15% is better than the 25% last time i counted.
oTRAGICo 1 year ago
It was resolved. Anyone being raised on a pablum of FOX News and Weekly Standard knows it was a failure, while anyone with a functioning brain knows it succeeded.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
The Truth About the Great Depression (by Thomas DiLorenzo)
yea the debate about FDR ended long ago, he only made things worse
surrealnumber 1 year ago
@surrealnumber Riiiiigggghhhhttttt...so that's why GDP went steadily up and completely recovered by 1933..why unemployment turned around in one year and rose almost steadily after it's crash dive under Hoover.
What universe do you live in?
Shanbo26 1 year ago
@Shanbo26 Riiiiigggghhhhttttt...so that's why unemployment continued to increase till the US entered WW2 when millions were drafted. just prior to the entering of WW2 the unemployment rate was around 23% those new deals sure did something and it was not stimulating the economy
surrealnumber 1 year ago
@surrealnumber WHAT? Where are you getting this crap? The official unemployment rate was nowhere near 23% in 1941, let alone the real rate, which was lower.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
@Shanbo26 Funny thing is... GDP's equation includes gov't spending. So if the gov't spends spends spends, of course GDP will go up, even if not much else does. Who told you GDP "recovered by 1933"?? I don't think even a Keynesian says that! They say that the Depression essentially ended in 1941, and recovery began ("war fueled", they claim, even tho that's an obvious violation of Bastiat's broken window fallacy, for starters).
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Excuse me? Do you even know what GDP is? Here's a hint - Gross Domestic Product. It's the sum value of all goods and services produced by a country. Government spending has nothing to do with it, moron.
I meant to say GDP recovered by 1937, and it did. Check out my video if you don't believe me, or just look it up on the web.
"Broken window" Yeah, right. So I guess the proper thing to do was to surrender. Seems to me the window was already broken, moron.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
I'd like to say that from :44 to the end of this segment what Obama says is incorrect. Employers start laying people off and cutting back on growth when the government taxes the crap out of them, which is what is happening now. Government spending does not help produce jobs, it destroys them.
ElBeasto24 1 year ago
@ElBeasto24 Riiiiiggggghhhhtttt...which is why during the 40's-1970 we saw tax rates as high as 90%. Boy, those were tough times.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
@Shanbo26 I'm not going to listen to anyone wearing a mexican wrestling mask unless their name is NACHO LIBRE!!!!!
ElBeasto24 1 year ago
@ElBeasto24 Nacho Libre doesn't wear a mask, so there!
Shanbo26 1 year ago
Socialist twat!
TimeWarp66 2 years ago
We have a socialist police force, army, fire fighters, socialist health care for the elderly and for government officials, etc.
Why are you being selective about what socialism is bad and what socialism is good?
Could it be that *gasp* you're a tool who's been manipulated by right-wing propaganda?
My magic 8ball says "Most likely."
Ultrasecond 1 year ago 3
You can take that magic 8 ball and shove it up your ass.
Police, military personal, and fire fighters are legitament functions of state and local governments. Medicare is a giant ponzi scheme that should never have been set up. It!!s unfunded liability is the equivalent to 30 Iraq wars! The best doctors don't even take medicare.
Their is nothing selective about it. There are basic essential functions of government, everything else should be left to free people in a free market.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@Ultrasecond You are stupid. You are probably someone who thinks that anything paid for by taxes is considered socialist.
The army is not socialist, it is funded by tax dollars because it is stipulated by the Constitution. Police forces and firefighters are state level and a part of a state's laws or constitution, as defined by their 10th amendment constitutional right. The whole POINT of keeping the FEDERAL (centralized) government SMALL is because they have a MONOPOLY over MILITARY.
onixz100 1 year ago
@Ultrasecond Likewise, the reason why people are not as resistant to the idea of state level action is because there are multiple states, so whatever they do is not a monopoly over that portion of your life. If you don't like the laws or public programs offered by your state, you can MOVE. If it's federal, every single state is subject to that order by way of Article VI, Clause II of the Constitution.
Further, democracies (the will of the people) are more accurate the smaller the population.
onixz100 1 year ago
@Ultrasecond By your logic and poor understanding of what the argument over socialism is, it would mean that our President is socialist because he reaps a $400,000 salary made of tax dollars. So would every single other government bureaucrat, including our senators and our representatives.
And of course people are selective about socialism. Almost no one is a full fledged laissez-fairer in this world anymore, even Libertarians. Conservatives believe in social safety nets where DUE.
onixz100 1 year ago
@Ultrasecond The fact that you discuss this matter in absolute terms proves that ou are brand new to politics. Everyone who FIRST starts studying politics falls into the trap of black and white. Everything is on a spectrum, and Liberals are CENTER left, and Conservatives are CENTER right. Conservatives believe in MINIMIZING/LIMITING the role of government, not abolishing it. Liberals believe in solving major problems THROUGH greater government intervention, not a full Communist state.
onixz100 1 year ago
@onixz100 Try looking into the actual sciences like economics, not politics. The books on politics obviously aren't going to say limit government--why would they? they're written by politicians. But economics is a science, not opinion; and there are hoards of books that prove scientifically that there can be no such thing as a "middle road" (there are essays titled exactly that). You don't have to read them, but as Huxley said, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."
guyjohn59 1 year ago
@guyjohn59 Books on politics actually do say limit government, especially the ones written by conservative authors. Lol, that's what conservatism is about. And what about economics and a middle road? Of course we should refer to economics when making our fiscal policies and figuring out which social services we can afford, but you discuss economics in a reductionist, isolationist light. Economic THEORY is different from economic APPLICATION; that's why no 100% capitalist economies exist.
onixz100 1 year ago
@onixz100 Right, but those kinds of books say limit government because 'in my opinion that is good'. In other words, the analysis lacks the underlying principles which validate the findings; authors may borrow scientific fact from actual scientists, but only to further their opinions. In terms of thoery and application, I know that 2+2=4, but if somebody has a gun to my head then it equals whatever he wants it to equal. But theory is of application and economics is the science of human action.
guyjohn59 1 year ago
@Ultrasecond And of course you pick and choose where things are constitutional. It's called the will of the people. Ever heard of democracy? That's why people argue over these things; that's the point of voting. The point of voting is so that you DEFINE the vague terms described in the constitution. The point of a democracy is to DEFINE where we are on the spectrum, and that's why you have parties and people who disagree. And that's why they have a constitutional right to vote. That IS politics.
onixz100 1 year ago
@Ultrasecond Everything that becomes nationalized by default will be looked at as 'good' because there becomes nothing to compare it to except the past. If the government nationalized food, it would be taught today that it was because we were unable to handle it ourselves, and otherwise we would all starve; somehow (they'd say) 'this' monopoly also defies economimc law. But what is the coincidence that everything that gets nationalized is 'good'. What a record! No wonder people are socialists.
guyjohn59 1 year ago
This is intellectual dishonesty. It's not that some economists just "philosophically disagree" with market intervention. Some economists maintain that market intervention is an irrational policy which misallocates resources, destroys wealth, and creates long term economic problems.
IVoteNone 2 years ago
Yes, there was some inequality, but that can be addressed without having to fuck up economic growth. And we don't need paper money or a central bank to "control" inflation. Inflation, on a gold standard, could control itself quite well. Face it, fiat money is bogus! Central banking is a fallacy. We don't need some grand national bank telling the others what to do. In fact, Scotland had a HUGELY successful era of free banking until the mid-1800s. That's just one example.
whoo689 2 years ago
@whoo689 Hey, moron. Technically, Keynesianism WAS a gold standard. It ended in 1971 when Nixon decreed that the US dollar could no longer be exchanged for gold.
Fuck, are you stupid.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
Our economy, as a whole, was much stabler and generally had much less inflation before Keynesianism and the Federal Reserve. Sure, there were some bank panics, but economists who've actually done their research realize they were more due to bad gov't policy than the banks suddenly just failing on their own and causing the economy to collapse. We had only a handful of recessions before the Fed. We have had over 10 since the creation of it. And the so-called Long Depression? Never happened.
whoo689 2 years ago
@whoo689 Hey moron, how many Depressions or financial crises did we have under Keynesian economics? NONE.
The fact is, unemployment and inflation were low under Keynesian economics from 1945 to 1970. THen Nixon came along, finished wrecking the Bretton Woods institutions, and the next thing you know - stagflation!!
Only a handful of recessions before the Fed? Are you completely ignorant of history? There was EIGHT between 1900 and 1929!! That's a pretty big handful, idiot.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
Thew FDR-New Deal argument was only "resolved" by historians, the vast majority whom KNOW NOTHING about pro-growth economics. I mean, Arthur Schlesinger certainly is no economist, and yet he thinks he's the expert who can judge the efficacy of the New Deal best? Please.
whoo689 2 years ago
Liberal historians have brainwashed Americans, esp. schoolchildren (with all those biased textbooks), that the New Deal was a godsend for the Depression-era Americans. Democrats blindly believe this nonsense, and they come up with BS "statistics" and 'facts' to try to back it up. Economists like Jeff Madrick even argue an actual CASE for big government!!
The conventional wisdom is just that- conventional. It's anything but wisdom. The unconventional wisdom is the truth.
whoo689 2 years ago
@whoo689 By "liberal historians" you mean anyone who doesn't have Sean Hannity's stamp of approval.
And nothing makes a better case for "big government" like Bush's financial crisis.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
Even if gov't does introduce "additional demand" into the economy, most of the stimulus is total BS and non-economic growth spending, like education and healthcare. Introducing demand into the critical industries that employ the most workers and give our country the most growth would be far more prudent, although I'd rather it be done with private money than taxpayer dollars. Besides, stimulus only redirects money into the wrong areas, which is malinvestment and stifles growth.
whoo689 2 years ago
@whoo689 Education and healthcare don't fuel economic growth? Oh yeah, sick people with an eighth-grade education are SUUUUUCCCCCHHHH good producers. We should get rid of all education and healthcare spending so we can become an economic juggernaut like Africa.
Where'd you get your education? Home-schooled by your retarded mommy?
Shanbo26 1 year ago
Cato got the support of over 300 economists who said "We don't agree with the stimulus", but apparently Obama either doesn't read NYT, or he just ignores anyone who disputes him with actual facts. "Most economists" my fucking ass. I could find plenty of evidence and economists who will tell you the real causes of the economic crisis had to do with bad policy, not "greed on Wall St." I mean, the market is not THAT fragile. A little "greed" won't fuck things up on its own.
whoo689 2 years ago
@whoo689 LOL!! The Cato Institute? The world's most famous right-wing lie factory? Please! Only a moron would believe a word they have to say.
Thank GOD Obama doesn't listen to those guys.
A "little greed won't fuck things up"? Yeah, Madoff stealing 75 billion dollars certainly had nothing to do with it. Or Goldman-Sachs defrauding their own customers. Or financial institutions pouring billions into crappy mortgages. Fuck, you're dumb.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
Where in the hell does Obama keep these "most economists" who he claims support his economic program?? Where? I've looked all over and can't find em! Maybe a few here and there like Christina Romer and Paul Krugman and John Kenneth Galbraith, but those are it. The vast majority of economists DO NOT support Keynesianism, or at least are open to OTHER schools of thought than just that. I can find plenty of economic evidence to dispute the claim that the new deal gave us recovery.
whoo689 2 years ago
@whoo689 Suuuuurrrrrrreeee they don't. I don't suppose you can post a cite for this claim that "most economists don't support Keynesianism"? Or is this just another statistic you're pulling out of your ass.
Shanbo26 1 year ago
"What started on wall street and ended up on main street." I love to hear the diarrhea that comes out of this man's mouth.
It should be " What started in CONGRESS.." hello, the housing crisis was caused by Clinton tryin to put everyone in a home.
It was predicted this would happen. The uninformed masses still believe Obama, that it was 'greedy wall street' that did this. Yes they packaged and sold the debt, but that is the normal process for banks to work.
jsurnamer 2 years ago
What an idiot ...its not wether or not its resolved , they are debating wether or not FDR prolonged the depression. The evidence suggests that he did by at least 7 years. And this idiot president will prolong this recession even longer by spending us into oblivion.
mellowtribe 2 years ago
I agree with Obama
GingerFish85 2 years ago
Of course you do because you do not know any better... Any Government is strong enough to give you everything is strong enough to take everything away. Does that make sense?
RocketRitch88 2 years ago
Comment removed
GingerFish85 2 years ago
Listen, I try not to talk to people who are delusional such as you. But your little buddy is nothing more than a puppet for the Global Elites and the Federal Reserve. When they are done changing the face of tyranny from Bush to Obama, his little ass is going to be thrown away with the morning trash. It is not even a year into his presidency and he is already a lame duck president. How about being an American first and a Liberal second. When did I even mention Reagan? Moron!
RocketRitch88 2 years ago
Obama is a fool. Giving away free money like magic, will destroy the value of the dollar even further, and possibly cause serious inflation. Any economist would tell you that those are indeed possible dangers as a direct result of this government spending. After WWII, Germany, in order to get out of debt, printed money like magic, and as a result, it severely screwed up their economy and the value of their currency. Obama is incredibly stupid to not realize that that could happen to us as well.
0CheeseEgg0 2 years ago
never heard about that we severely screwed our economy after ww2. we had our highest wealth growth in the decades after ww2
schwirzl 2 years ago 2
I was mistaken. What I was thinking about was in 1923, Germany suffered severely from hyperinflation, drastically cutting the value of their money considerably.
0CheeseEgg0 2 years ago 2
FDR's New Deal is still wh'O'rrible (like it always was).
'O'
ObamaCrisisSuperstar 2 years ago
the insanity of saying that the new deal was a good thing is one thing, but to insinuate that this is somehow obvious, logical, and common knowledge shows obamas true ignorance, at least on this subject. FDR was elected in 1932, and the depression didnt end untill the mid to late 1940's, to imply that the new deal was a good thing is illogical and just plain silly.
slickbtk 2 years ago 2
No the depression ended in 1933 in terms of growth, high unemployment stayed until 1941 but was then lowered. You cannot turn around a sinking ship in a few years. Look at Russia after the soviet union. They took years to recover and only recovered due to oil.
zzxzqwq 2 years ago
no it didnt end in 33, if your refering to government numbers than I wish you would understand that we went off the gold standard forthe purpose of printing more money and devaluing. If your going to use there numbers than cut it by atleast a third because incresed nominal numbers are not real. just fantasy. and your right to bring up the soviets because it was fdr's socialist/communnist economic tendencies that caused so much damage that required so much time to "turn around the ship"
slickbtk 2 years ago
Fuck OBAMA and Bush and Mclame and the rest of the pieces of shit that are fucking our country into the dirt. If you think Obama is the answer,, you should get your brain scraped,,there is shit on it!
jclemenz1970 2 years ago
We have had one ong lasting recession (the great depression). This is also the only one we have had massive government intervention.
Hoover made it deep, FDR made it long by trying to fix the market.
BigBillClinton 2 years ago 2
He is so good with words, but his words don't mean a damn thing.
stuman4555 2 years ago
oh yes. he went columbia and harvard. so where did you go? hogwash college you douchebag?
bitricky 2 years ago
haha Bush went to Yale and Harvard and hes preceived as an idiot. Obama does need to go back to school because a educated person like him should know that FDR didn't get us out of the depression, WWII did. And gov't spending just prolongs the recession. Tax cuts shorten it. Don't believe me search Ronald Reagan. But Obama calls tax cuts, doing nothing.
monty5147 2 years ago
"FDR didn't get us out of the depression WWII did"
WWII did not get us out of the Depression. Massive government spending and the increase of demand for raw and produced goods and the subsequent jobs associated with the war got us out of the depression
"And gov't spending just prolongs the recession"
So you must on better than the vast majority of economic historians, which largely agree that without the New Deal and public work programs that the Depression would have been deeper and longer
cg66079 2 years ago
Haha. Yes, WWII got us out of the depression. You see Europe and Asia were destroyed and there was only one place to buy supplies, America. If you believe the New Deal got us out of the depression you either did not pay attention is school, or had an idiot teacher. No, economic historians don't agree on that, liberal ones do. But the majority do not. My economics textbook even says so. In fact Henry Morgenthau, FDRs top advisor, said "We've spent and spent and it didn't work. Educate yourself.
monty5147 2 years ago
I said the New Deal didn't get us out of the Depression. Mainstream economist say that it kept it from being "worse". It is only the far right that says it made it worse and others say that it is unclear whether it did, but the majority are in the camp that it helped slow down the spiral
Again, yes the spending both domestic and foreign increased demand and stimulated the economy. The problem is that we are no longer the manufacturing giant we were back then, so it is a bad comparison anyway.
cg66079 2 years ago
I wouldn't say it kept the economy from failing because we had recession within the depression.
I agree we aren't the same manufacturing giant. Probably because we base to many regulations on the false myth of man made global warming, and the labor unions.
monty5147 2 years ago
You are either stupid or you just have a problem with reading comprehension. I said it stopped the depression from being worse than it was. That doesn't mean that it stopped it from happening or that it got us out of it, but it slowed down the free fall. I don't know how else to explain it, but you keep on coming back misunderstanding/misrepresenting my comments.
cg66079 2 years ago
Global warming (which is a well established scientific fact now) has nothing to do with it.
If it were solely the Unions then the production would have just moved to non-union states.
It is about corporatism, greed, and the sweatshop labor market in other countries. Why hire an American to do a job at $7.50 and hour when the Chinese will do it for $0.50 an hour? They don't give a damn about the people they put out or the work conditions of in China. All they care about is their profit margin.
cg66079 2 years ago
Production has in many ways moved to non-union states. Detroit still makes the American cars, but look at where all the foreign auto-plants that operate here are... the South. Mercedes-Benz has a plant in I think Arkansas, and BMW in South Carolina, which is tied with North Carolina for the least unionized state.
johnnydlux 2 years ago
Foreign manufacturers didn't move there they have always been there. Largely because of the lack of Unions and the large number of unemployed and impoverished that they can take advantage of and pay $10 an hour with no benefits and they won't complain, but they only assemble the cars all the parts manufacturing is still overseas. My point was that the unions really are insignificant, because they know that even a non-union laborer in the US is more expensive than foreign labor.
cg66079 2 years ago
Did you know that they are in the process of outsourcing taking your order when you go through the drive thru at the fast food places to India? Greedy bastards don't even want to pay a teenager $6.50 an hour to say "Would you like fries with that".
That is why we are fucked not because the unions make companies treat their workers like human beings instead of a number on the labor budget.
cg66079 2 years ago
I know this is 4 weeks old but what your saying is that the government spending money on buildings and bridges prolonged the depression.
But the government spending money on tanks and guns saved it?
bugmenot143643 2 years ago
Yes because ultimately the countries receiving military supplies had to repay the debt, that the gov't spent to build the weapons. Whereas infastructure spending gets paid for by the American taxpayer, pretty much is the rich 2% who pay 70% taxes, which restricts them from creating new jobs. Basically its as simple as selling weapons brings in new money whereas using taxpayers dollars uses money already in existance.
monty5147 2 years ago
If you're talking about lend lease, then i really wouldn't consider it being paid back.
In the case of UK, around 31 billion in materiel were leased, but only about 7 billion were returned, and most of it is through renting of military bases.
Roosevelt did not like hitler.
Correct me if i'm wrong, seriuosly i'm not sure, but doesn't the government get its money through taxes.
bugmenot143643 2 years ago
I wouldn't say as much of lend lease, its more of the marshall plan. But for what we were paid back of lend lease it was a big contributor, Roosevelt didn't like Hitler but he still traded and sold to Hitler up until Hitler went on his Europe domination raid. Yes gov't do get money through taxes but when you get the debt paid off by other countries, then you are able to cut taxes leaving more money for the American people.
monty5147 2 years ago
I still don't get it, if the united states was paid back for everything, would only the united states that got out of the depression?
bugmenot143643 2 years ago
Whats not to get, If you have no debt, then you don't have to tax the private sector to pay for debt.
monty5147 2 years ago
Well what i don't get is why other's countries which you say had billion worth of debt to the us got out of the depression.
bugmenot143643 2 years ago
most of the countries didn't acquire close to the debt America had during the war. American also produce about 65% of the weapons used by the allies. And plus most of the countries in the War were helped out of the depression by the US to keep them from turing to communism.
monty5147 2 years ago 2
Truman doctrine, greece and turkey.
I get what your saying, but most of that mone went to us forces defending against the red army.
bugmenot143643 2 years ago
No the money went to Turkey and Greece to support governments fighting against commie rebels, Marshall plan was more to build war torn Europe.
monty5147 2 years ago
with the shape our economy is in who the hell would throw money at something that is not proven to be anything but someones idea & therory. There is just to many people (experts?) who have conflicting opinions. Only the lunitic far left environmentalists would say F--- everything else and tunnel vision theie way to global warming. This Earth has endured electrical storms, earthquakes, meteors, floods, all kind of chaos. Are we arrogent enough to say that styrofoam cups will kill off the populas?
johnnyu278 2 years ago
"started on wall street, went to main street"
No you imbecile, it started in government - specifically in monetary policy.
greegomileego 2 years ago 2
woah ho. some expert we have here. this douchebag must be some pseudo economist who thinks he/she knows more than the US president. wow. let us all give this douchebag an applause. if you are so capable douchebag, you won't be here saying shit like this; you'll be advising the US government on what to do. shut your gaping hole you blithering douchebag.
bitricky 2 years ago
Osama you really should get better speeches to knock off and while on the subject of knocking off you should do yourself a favor and get a new speech writer
SimonBearSr02 2 years ago
Osama? I thought Obama? Is it deliberate? I sure think it is; given the keyboard's proximity between "B" and "S". Oh why not let me tell you something you douchebag? Maybe you should go and do a lobotomy.
bitricky 2 years ago
I suggest reading the book the forgotten man by Amity Shlaes. It talks about how our Government got involved with the last depression and by doing what they did made the depression worst. A real eye opener.
Montysbuddie 2 years ago 2
Problem, Action, Solution ! Fear mongering legislation !
Trying to increase spending on debt, as the answer to the economy is how we are in this debt crisis ! Like throwing gas on fire ! Saving/paying off your debt is the only answer ! Please WAKE UP PEOPLE !
zeitgeisthero 3 years ago
How can the government spend money more effectively than the private sector? It can't.
YazDawg 3 years ago
Does anyone else think America is the enemy of the world, maybe we are the terrorist? We used osama and his men to fight the Russians in the 1970's. We armed them to fight a war we didnt want to fight ourselves. Then we go in to their country and support a government they dont agree with causing so much chaos that they attack us on our land. We fight them for such an egregious attack for so hard and so long that it divides our nation and sends our economy into the dirt . Can you say irony?
foshowfauxshow 3 years ago
FDR would have never and never did give taxpayer money directly to Banks.
He insured deposits of the working man and made sure that those Banks could not speculate with those insured deposits.
The slow unwinding of his policies beginning in 1973 with Nixon have gotten us where we are today.
jizzmonger 3 years ago
Honestly, how long will it take people to realize the problems we are facing financially today exist because of the government intervention in business?
elcheat 3 years ago
Do you want someone to make sure that your kids does not get toys with toxic paint on? And if not the government, then who do you think would be able to give your kids that safety?
theiamania 3 years ago
teach your kids not to eat the freaking paint
gismotech 3 years ago
yeah ask gismotech... he knows what happens when you eat paint
ohioworststate 3 years ago
no that would be your retarded gay father that eats paint you stupid liar. too stupid to have ever been in the military, and by the way 4 1/2 years to make E-5 what took so long since you were a push button E-4. had trouble with the test
what a dumbass you are.
gismotech 3 years ago
ah read again my friend.... I was up for E-6 at 4-1/2... prolly had a good shot too.... two nams... good conduct... two letters of commendation from the admiral... three early promotes in a row.... not to mention i crushed the E-5 test in march 2003 ... advanced when it was only 7%
remember there is only one of us who is running around youtube in their mid 40's making intellectual commenta like "that would be your retarded gay father "
Don't disgrace the rest of us credible veterans
ohioworststate 3 years ago
Oh my bad you are actually 50... not that that makes your actions any more acceptable... it's the other idiot americanknowitall that is 46
ohioworststate 3 years ago
bullshit you are a liar. No one makes E-6 in 4-1/2 years period. And two nams sure you did maybe by sucking the captians dick
credible you are not even close to credible
what a laugh you are and I still say your father is a retarded gay fuck. Just like you
as for crushing the E-5 test the best you can score is 80.
gismotech 3 years ago
I first went to see a recruiter three days after 9/11, bootcamp less then two weeks later
Recieved one NAM for a Non-compliant boarding during Operation Iraqi Freedom and another for my division having the highest score ever (to that point) during the congressional inspection you know as INSURV.... The letters of Com. are just from flight deck work
I WAS up for E-6 but decided it was more important to my family to have a husband and a Dad around then to continue on in the NAVY Seperated 9/2005
ohioworststate 3 years ago
I see so it seems your capitan hands out Nams for doing your job. and it stands you are a push button E-4 that made E-5 and think you were ready for E-6 when in fact you did not have the time in rate for E-6. as for INSURV I'VE BEEN THRU IT FAR MORE THAN YOU LAST ONE NO MAJOR HITS AND ONLY 3 MINOR FIXED BEFORE INSURV WAS DONE
Highest score ever maybe on that boat
your full of shit
gismotech 3 years ago
whether i was ready or not wasn't the question that was up to my chain of command and they deemed me ready... the question though was, was I eligible??? which i was ...
as you should know your time in rate is waived one year if you maintain Early Promotion Evaluations.... The INSURV NAM may have been borderline but you have no idea what we did for that boarding so how could you judge????
ohioworststate 3 years ago
lets see my first westpac we pull vietamse refuges out of the water no one got or expected a nam. last REFTRA OPS SCORED 99 PERCENT no one got or expected a nam. your capitan gave nams like candie. Making you think your so special when in fact you did nothing specal.
gismotech 3 years ago
I don't ...remeber you are the one who called me a "fraud and the stupidest fuck in america"
you go from not believeing, to questioning my math on when i'd be advanced, to now criticizing me for being 2 succesful in the NAVY, not rubbing it anybodys face, nobody cares, just like nobody cares about an old man who has already lived longer then the time he has left, but goes around youtube talking shit to people calling them fuckwads, retards, faggots, and whatever else you make up get a life
ohioworststate 3 years ago
and those things are admirable... i wouldn't question that...you're the only one questioning the others service.. it's the fact that you attack me over what??? Idealogical differences?? You can question me all day gismo and i'll have an answer... because nothing i have told you is a lie.... you keep trying to call me out... and i'll keep telling you the truth..
ohioworststate 3 years ago
sorry asshole you attacked me first
but like all stupid liberals I expect nothing less.
so whine to someone that gives a shit
gismotech 3 years ago
ah ... the white flag..... it took you awhile...
first i'm a fraud.... then i'm a liar, then I'm a kiss ass, and after proving everything you have said to be a falasy you go right back to the statement you use when you have NOTHING else "like all stupid liberals I expect nothing less." the official white flag of middle aged blowhards....
Get busy livin or get busy dying
ohioworststate 3 years ago
and by the way time in rate is mandatory unless you get metiours advancement
and you are a liar NO ONE get it three times you are just a hack wannabe liar
gismotech 3 years ago
and by the way fuckwad time in rate E-5 to E-6 is three years you are just a hack liar
most likey booted for sucking too much dick
gismotech 3 years ago
let me educate you... joined 9/17/2001...boot camp 9/24/2001.. Top of class in "A" school (march) advanced to E-4 july 26th 2002... recieved first EP that summer making me eligible early for E-5 ... march 2003 took E-5 test... made E-5 on 7% advancement....recieved second EP summer 2004....third EP in summer 2005 that waived last year of time in rate for E-6
Therefore if you can do math that put me eligible in sept 2005 which IF MADE I would have put on january or february 2006 (41/2) years
ohioworststate 3 years ago
time in rate for E-5 to E-6 is three years so you would be eligble for E-6 in 2006 even with a one year waived learn to count
typical PUSH BUTTON THINK YOU ARE SPECIAL YOU ARE NOT
gismotech 3 years ago
do the math meat... E-5 in march 2003...... got it????
makes me eligible in march 2006 right???
oh wait EP's so waive one year that puts me at 2005.... when i seperated..... with four years in..
2003+3=2006
2006-1=2005 Got it??
ohioworststate 3 years ago
frocked in March 2003 is not actual date of advancement. try again.
gismotech 3 years ago
never used the word frocked.... took the test in march 2003 in the gulf... put it on in june ..... right before coming back from deployment
ohioworststate 3 years ago
you're not gonna make me look like a fool cause i'm not the bitter one calling people names on an annonymous website....
congrats on your service, I hope you got at least some retirement, and remember the VA hospitals have conselors for people struggling with personal problems
ohioworststate 3 years ago
The government can't 'create' demand for anything but military supplies.
argyle684 3 years ago
Yeah,yeah.yeah,
You thought,you thought.
THERE YOU GO THINKING AGAIN.
shiddy67 3 years ago
Things got screwed up when Moses took us off the golden calf standard.
eelzen 3 years ago
It's not resolved for Republican troop killing rednecks.
They don't know history, thats why they hate America.
RepublicanTroopKille 3 years ago
So we can just Spend, Print, and Borrow our way to Economic nirvana?
Maybe they think we should Invade and Occupy more Third World Countries that have Never Attacked us, growing our DEBT even greater than the $10.6 TRILLION Bush has left us with.
All of these Politicians are Retards, and they aren't working for OUR Interests.
SATANSbankers 3 years ago
It's my money too, and you know what the majority of the country doesn't want it to go on this "stimulus" bill. What ever happend to putting power back in the hands of the people? I used to think Obama would change things, but he's making it all so much worse. At this rate will be pushed further into debt at a faster rate than Bush did in 8 years.
timg455 3 years ago
tim7455 - if by "majority of the country" you mean the 23% shown in yesterdays Gallup poll, then umm, yeah, I guess so. But last I heard, 23% wasn't a majority - it's about the number of wingnuts that still think Bush was doing a heckuva job.
47f0 3 years ago
mr obama, you must first understand that the free market economy isnt just some "philosophy" as you put it. instead it is a legitimate economic system that has proven itself throughout history. however it seems that you heed the advice of these keyensian economists that you surround yourself with even though its now evident that they could not have been more wrong about the state of our economy. therefore i beg you to have some common fucking sense and put an end to these nonsense "stimulus"
AgentOrange04 3 years ago
New Deal vs No Deal: The Congressional Budget Office, the official non-partisan scorekeepers for legislation, said the stimulus bill will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing. God help us all if the child-president gets his way.
philh37 3 years ago
The New Deal didn't work in the 1930's and it won't work now. FDR's own Treasury secretary,Henry Morganthau addressed Congress in May 1939 and said this: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong ... somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises."
philh37 3 years ago
Give Obama a crackpipe and a 6-pack and he''ll fix this economy. He was a community organizer.
reno93535 3 years ago
Yea, because only he is wise enough to know that 300 million for condoms will pull us out of this mess.
dequeant 3 years ago
he was against that and sided with republicans on that issue ... that was a pelosi and reid thing.... hence why reed came out and said he doesn't work FOR obama he works WITHhim
ohioworststate 3 years ago
Pull out?
With all those condoms?
mickeysears 3 years ago
The New Deal started in 1933. The depression lasted into the early 40s. By the time we came out of the depression, most New Deal programs were scrapped. The New Deal did nothing to get the US out of the depression
Good honest people, working hard and producing things of value got us out of the depression, not government, OPEN YOUR EYES!
This argument should have been "resolved" long ago, Mr. Obama
You have no idea how to spend Trillions of dollars, nor do i, but the markets do!
Claytrainor 3 years ago 2
over the past 31 years democratic presidents have added an average of $157 billion per year to the national debt vs republican presidents adding an average of $374 billion per year to the national debt
Bill clinton reduced bush seniors additon of $399 billion his last year to $18 billion Clintons last year At the rate that the Clinton administration was reducing the debt increases, an Al Gore administration would have almost paid off the entire National Debt by 2008!
ohioworststate 3 years ago
When you print money out of thin air the value of a dollar drops and prices go up. When the prices go up, this forces people to take out loans in order to pay for things. If people are taking out loans that means the economy is horrible and the consequences will follow because the prices people won't be able to pay back the loans as more money is printed which is inflation.
dude58677 3 years ago
8 dollar coffee creates dead end service jobs. It's what we need to compete in 3rd world markets. It also helps to have few rich, many poor, and no middle class. Come on people more tax cuts and less education! Read my lips. No new roads! Yes we can.
eelzen 3 years ago
Print all the money you want ...Americas idealisms are horrid and must change. Maybe it is time for the fall of the great empire...no more $8 coffees from starbucks..no more rapant waste...we have made horrible decisions and things need to change. The new deal saved farmers and hard workers. This deal is saving walmart and cokehead bankers that rip off the common man. The zeitgeist of america is temporary...well its time is up.
foshowfauxshow 3 years ago
8 dollar coffees? srsly?
kaisergrendel 3 years ago
yeah!
foshowfauxshow 3 years ago
you lose credibility when you grossly exaggerate or have no clue what you are talking about...
national average for cup of 16oz coffee at starbucks is $1.85 with a latte going for around $3.35
FACTS people
ohioworststate 3 years ago
Oh so what you got out of my statement was an exaggeration. My point is still made. A cup of coffee produced at home cost about 2 cents. So the fact that Starbucks at the like charge $4.10 for adding whipped cream...well that means my statement is invalid. I take it all back of course America should thrive in its decadence it seems to be serving us so well.
foshowfauxshow 3 years ago
again you're making a fool of yourself with your exaggerations... we've already established that starbucks coffee by national average costs $1.85 not $8 like you originally said not $4.10 like you just said.... $1.85...
I understand you hate america.. thats cool whatever.. but lets not blame our economic crisis on starbucks thats not rational..
We are where we are because BOTH parties allowing deregulation of the housing market and Bushs' crazy spending spree after cutting rich peoples taxes
ohioworststate 3 years ago
I scaled down my slight exaggeration and because of that you attack again. Thats funny. My point still stands. You really get hung up on the details that dont matter. Comment on the rest of my statement.
foshowfauxshow 3 years ago
what dont you understand?
foshowfauxshow 3 years ago
No, I understand perfectly. You should understand this:
you lose credibility when you grossly exaggerate or have no clue what you are talking about...
national average for cup of 16oz coffee at starbucks is $1.85 with a latte going for around $3.35
FACTS people
kaisergrendel 3 years ago