In 2009 They were right: "With all due respect Mr.President,that is not true."

[Leroy N. Soetoro]

Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that
we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the
undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to
improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and
Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great
Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s
“lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S.
today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that
remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax
rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of
using fiscal policy to boost growth.

BURTON ABRAMS, Univ. of Delaware
DOUGLAS ADIE, Ohio University
LEE ADKINS, Oklahoma State University
WILLIAM ALBRECHT, Univ. of Iowa
RYAN AMACHER, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
J.J. ARIAS, Georgia College & State University
HOWARD BAETJER, JR., Towson University
CHARLES BAIRD, California State University, East Bay
STACIE BECK, Univ. of Delaware
DON BELLANTE, Univ. of South Florida
JAMES BENNETT, George Mason University
BRUCE BENSON, Florida State University
SANJAI BHAGAT, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
MARK BILS, Univ. of Rochester
ALBERTO BISIN, New York University
WALTER BLOCK, Loyola University New Orleans
CECIL BOHANON, Ball State University
MICHELE BOLDRIN,Washington University in St. Louis
DONALD BOOTH, Chapman University
MICHAEL BORDO, Rutgers University
SAMUEL BOSTAPH, Univ. of Dallas
DONALD BOUDREAUX, George Mason University
SCOTT BRADFORD, Brigham Young University
GENEVIEVE BRIAND, Eastern Washington University
IVAN BRICK, Rutgers University
GEORGE BROWER, Moravian College
PHILLIP BRYSON, Brigham Young University
JAMES BUCHANAN, Nobel laureate
RICHARD BURDEKIN, Claremont McKenna College
RICHARD BURKHAUSER, Cornell University
EDWIN T. BURTON, Univ. of Virginia
JIM BUTKIEWICZ, Univ. of Delaware
HENRY BUTLER, Northwestern University
WILLIAM BUTOS, Trinity College
PETER CALCAGNO, College of Charleston
BRYAN CAPLAN, George Mason University
ART CARDEN, Rhodes College
JAMES CARDON, Brigham Young University
DUSTIN CHAMBERS, Salisbury University
EMILY CHAMLEE-WRIGHT, Beloit College
V.V. CHARI, Univ. of Minnesota
BARRY CHISWICK, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
LAWRENCE CIMA, John Carroll University
J.R. CLARK, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
GIAN LUCA CLEMENTI, New York University
R. MORRIS COATS, Nicholls State University
JOHN COCHRAN, Metropolitan State College at Denver
JOHN COCHRANE, Univ. of Chicago
JOHN COGAN, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
LLOYD COHEN, George Mason University
JOHN COLEMAN, Duke University
BOYD COLLIER, Tarleton State University
ROBERT COLLINGE, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
PETER COLWELL, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL CONNOLLY, Univ. of Miami
LEE COPPOCK, Univ. of Virginia
MARIO CRUCINI, Vanderbilt University
CHRISTOPHER CULP, Univ. of Chicago
KIRBY CUNDIFF, Northeastern State University
ANTONY DAVIES, Duquesne University
JOHN DAWSON, Appalachian State University
A. EDWARD DAY, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
CLARENCE DEITSCH, Ball State University
ALLAN DESERPA, Arizona State University
WILLIAM DEWALD, Ohio State University
ARTHUR DIAMOND, JR., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
JOHN DOBRA, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
JAMES DORN, Towson University
CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
FLOYD DUNCAN, Virginia Military Institute
FRANCIS EGAN, Trinity College
JOHN EGGER, Towson University
KENNETH ELZINGA, Univ. of Virginia
PAUL EVANS, Ohio State University
FRANK FALERO, California State University, Bakersfield
EUGENE FAMA, Univ. of Chicago
W. KEN FARR, Georgia College & State University
DANIEL FEENBERG, National Bureau
of Economic Research
HARTMUT FISCHER, Univ. of San Francisco
ERIC FISHER, California State Polytechnic University
FRED FOLDVARY, Santa Clara University
MURRAY FRANK, Univ. of Minnesota
PETER FRANK,Wingate University
TIMOTHY FUERST, Bowling Green State University
B. DELWORTH GARDNER, Brigham Young University
JOHN GAREN, Univ. of Kentucky
RICK GEDDES, Cornell University
AARON GELLMAN, Northwestern University
WILLIAM GERDES, Clarke College
JOSEPH GIACALONE, St. John’s University
MICHAEL GIBBS, Univ. of Chicago
OTIS GILLEY, Louisiana Tech University
STEPHAN GOHMANN, Univ. of Louisville
RODOLFO GONZALEZ, San Jose State University
RICHARD GORDON, Penn State University
PETER GORDON, Univ. of Southern California
ERNIE GOSS, Creighton University
PAUL GREGORY, Univ. of Houston
EARL GRINOLS, Baylor University
DANIEL GROPPER, Auburn University
R.W. HAFER, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
ARTHUR HALL, Univ. of Kansas
STEVE HANKE, Johns Hopkins University
STEPHEN HAPPEL, Arizona State University
RICHARD HART, Miami University
THOMAS HAZLETT, George Mason University
FRANK HEFNER, College of Charleston
SCOTT HEIN, Texas Tech University
RONALD HEINER, George Mason University
DAVID HENDERSON, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
ROBERT HERREN, North Dakota State University
GAILEN HITE, Columbia University
STEVEN HORWITZ, St. Lawrence University
DANIEL HOUSER, George Mason University
JOHN HOWE, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
JEFFREY HUMMEL, San Jose State University
BRUCE HUTCHINSON, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
BRIAN JACOBSEN,Wisconsin Lutheran College
SHERRY JARRELL,Wake Forest University
JASON JOHNSTON, Univ. of Pennsylvania
BOYAN JOVANOVIC, New York University
JONATHAN KARPOFF, Univ. of Washington
BARRY KEATING, Univ. of Notre Dame
NAVEEN KHANNA, Michigan State University
NICHOLAS KIEFER, Cornell University
DANIEL KLEIN, George Mason University
PAUL KOCH, Univ. of Kansas
NARAYANA KOCHERLAKOTA, Univ. of Minnesota
MAREK KOLAR, Delta College
ROGER KOPPL, Fairleigh Dickinson University
KISHORE KULKARNI, Metropolitan
State College of Denver
DEEPAK LAL, UCLA
GEORGE LANGELETT, South Dakota State University
JAMES LARRIVIERE, Spring Hill College
ROBERT LAWSON, Auburn University
JOHN LEVENDIS, Loyola University New Orleans
DAVID LEVINE,Washington University in St. Louis
PETER LEWIN, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
W. CRIS LEWIS, Utah State University
DEAN LILLARD, Cornell University
ZHENG LIU, Emory University
ALAN LOCKARD, Binghampton University
EDWARD LOPEZ, San Jose State University
JOHN R. LOTT, Jr., Univ. of Maryland
JOHN LUNN, Hope College
GLENN MACDONALD,Washington
University in St. Louis
HENRY MANNE, George Mason University
MICHAEL MARLOW, California
Polytechnic State University
DERYL MARTIN, Tennessee Tech University
DALE MATCHECK, Northwood University
JOHN MATSUSAKA, Univ. of Southern California
THOMAS MAYOR, Univ. of Houston
DEIRDRE MCCLOSKEY, University of Illinois at Chicago
JOHN MCDERMOTT, Univ. of South Carolina
JOSEPH MCGARRITY, Univ. of Central Arkansas
ROGER MEINERS, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
ALLAN MELTZER, Carnegie Mellon University
JOHN MERRIFIELD, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
JAMES MILLER III, George Mason University
JEFFREY MIRON, Harvard University
THOMAS MOELLER, Texas Christian University
JOHN MOORHOUSE,Wake Forest University
ANDREA MORO, Vanderbilt University
ANDREW MORRISS, Univ. of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign
MICHAEL MUNGER, Duke University
KEVIN MURPHY, Univ. of Southern California
DAVID MUSTARD, Univ. of Georgia
RICHARD MUTH, Emory University
CHARLES NELSON, Univ. of Washington
WILLIAM NISKANEN, Cato Institute
SETH NORTON,Wheaton College
LEE OHANIAN, UCLA
LYDIA ORTEGA, San Jose State University
EVAN OSBORNE,Wright State University
RANDALL PARKER, East Carolina University
ALLEN PARKMAN, Univ. of New Mexico
DONALD PARSONS, George Washington University
SAM PELTZMAN, Univ. of Chicago
TIMOTHY PERRI, Appalachian State University
MARK PERRY, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
CHRISTOPHER PHELAN, Univ. of Minnesota
GORDON PHILLIPS, Univ. of Maryland
MICHAEL PIPPENGER, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
TOMASZ PISKORSKI, Columbia University
BRENNAN PLATT, Brigham Young University
JOSEPH POMYKALA, Towson University
WILLIAM POOLE, Univ. of Delaware
BARRY POULSON, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
BENJAMIN POWELL, Suffolk University
EDWARD PRESCOTT, Nobel laureate
GARY QUINLIVAN, Saint Vincent College
REZA RAMAZANI, Saint Michael’s College
ADRIANO RAMPINI, Duke University
ERIC RASMUSEN, Indiana University
MARIO RIZZO, New York University
NANCY ROBERTS, Arizona State University
RICHARD ROLL, UCLA
ROBERT ROSSANA,Wayne State University
JAMES ROUMASSET, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
JOHN ROWE, Univ. of South Florida
CHARLES ROWLEY, George Mason University
JUAN RUBIO-RAMIREZ, Duke University
ROY RUFFIN, Univ. of Houston
KEVIN SALYER, Univ. of California, Davis
THOMAS SAVING, Texas A&M University
PAVEL SAVOR, Univ. of Pennsylvania
RONALD SCHMIDT, Univ. of Rochester
CARLOS SEIGLIE, Rutgers University
ALAN SHAPIRO, Univ. of Southern California
WILLIAM SHUGHART II, Univ. of Mississippi
CHARLES SKIPTON, Univ. of Tampa
JAMES SMITH,Western Carolina University
VERNON SMITH, Nobel laureate
LAWRENCE SOUTHWICK, JR., Univ. at Buffalo
DEAN STANSEL, Florida Gulf Coast University
HOUSTON STOKES, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
BRIAN STROW,Western Kentucky University
SHIRLEY SVORNY, California State
University, Northridge
JOHN TATOM, Indiana State University
WADE THOMAS, State University
of New York at Oneonta
HENRY THOMPSON, Auburn University
ALEX TOKAREV, The King’s College
EDWARD TOWER, Duke University
LEO TROY, Rutgers University
WILLIAM TRUMBULL,West Virginia University
DAVID TUERCK, Suffolk University
CHARLOTTE TWIGHT, Boise State University
KAMAL UPADHYAYA, Univ. of New Haven
CHARLES UPTON, Kent State University
T. NORMAN VAN COTT, Ball State University
RICHARD VEDDER, Ohio University
RICHARD WAGNER, George Mason University
DOUGLAS M. WALKER, College of Charleston
DOUGLAS O. WALKER, Regent University
MARC WEIDENMIER, Claremont McKenna College
CHRISTOPHER WESTLEY, Jacksonville
State University
ROBERT WHAPLES,Wake Forest University
LAWRENCE WHITE, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
WALTER WILLIAMS, George Mason University
DOUG WILLS, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
DENNIS WILSON,Western Kentucky University
GARY WOLFRAM, Hillsdale College
HUIZHONG ZHOU,Western Michigan University

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

--

Obama's black racist USAG appointee.
Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"

Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."

Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder, committed treason by knowingly and
deliberately arming enemies of the United States of America through
Operation Fast and Furious. Complicit in the murder of Federal employees
during the execution of their duties.



--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---

[Jope]

On May 22, 1:29 am, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
wrote:

> --- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to n...@netfront.net ---

Corrections:Hoover adopted a laissez faire attitude which did not
help ,while Roosevelt spending did pull the country out of the Great
Depression.Because of republican's inability to objectively analyze
history,they are bound to lead the country into another great
depression

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 22:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Corrections:Hoover adopted a laissez faire attitude which did not
>help ,while Roosevelt spending did pull the country out of the Great
>Depression.Because of republican's inability to objectively analyze
>history,they are bound to lead the country into another great
>depression

Corrections: FDR wound up fighting a world war in 3 theaters and
suppling munitions and gear to 6 allies.

Thats what got the US out of the Great Depression 1.

The Obamassiah is not an FDR and we are not at war in 3 theaters..and we
are running out of allies.

But hey..not a bad try from a Lefty. Keep up the good work. We will
enjoy bashing you.


Gunner

--
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry
capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.
It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an
Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense
and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have
such a man for their? president.. Blaming the prince of the
fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of
fools that made him their prince".

[Jope]

On May 22, 5:05 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 22:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

Wars do not bring prosperity,quite the opposite.What kind of delusion
is that ? The US emerged out of WWII relatively unscathed and
subsequently became such a dominant economic power ,simply because
europe lied in ruins.I wish somebody had explained to our last
president that wars do not bring prosperity.
You people need to lose that habit of twisting reality in order to
fit your ideology.

[Jope]

Besides,you cannot have it both ways,on one hand being against
Keynesian economics and on the other,claiming that government
spending to support the war effort brought prosperity to the country.
If government spending can have such a formidable impact,why are you
against stimulus spending?

[de...@dudu.org]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:29:31 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:

>Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that
>we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the
>undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to
>improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and
>Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great
>Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s
>“lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
>experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S.
>today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that
>remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax
>rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of
>using fiscal policy to boost growth.

If that worked then the economy would have thrived under Bush, not
gone all to hell. It's deregulation that causes speculative boom and
bust cycles therefore catastrophic crashes.

[PrecisionmachinisT]

"Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote in message
news:XnsA05AE4CBB...@202.177.16.121...

Why do you keep posting this type of content into a metalworking group ?

Are you retarded ?

[max headroom]

Jope <jop...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:2b057021-14c3-45de...@s37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

> On May 22, 1:29 am, "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org>
> wrote:

>> Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that
>> we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the
>> undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to
>> improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and
>> Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great
>> Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s
>> “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
>> experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S.
>> today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that
>> remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax
>> rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of
>> using fiscal policy to boost growth.

[snip]

> Corrections:Hoover adopted a laissez faire attitude which did not
> help ,while Roosevelt spending did pull the country out of the Great

> Depression....

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg Sullivan
August 10, 2004

"Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15
years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D.
Roosevelt.

"After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in
a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven
long years...."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

> ... Because of republican's inability to objectively analyze

> history,they are bound to lead the country into another great
> depression

Physician, heal thyself.

[Ed Huntress]

You guys keep pulling this chestnut out, as if you've actually read it
or know what it means. Gunner has posted it at least a half-dozen
times.

What you apparently don't know is that Cole and Ohanian's analysis is
a minority view, and their mathematical analysis has been critized in
the same way as John Lott's ("Mary Rosh") analysis of crime and guns.
If you begin a multiple-regression analysis with an idea in mind of
the result you want, you'll probably get it. It has the weakness of
all post-hoc models that can't be tested.

Nobody can say with absolute certainty what the truth of the matter
is, and Cole and Ohanian's analysis is great food for thought, as
those guys are serious economic analysts. But they're still in the
minority. There is far more evidence that the stimulus spending by FDR
had a positive effect.

And the ultimate proof, in the minds of many if not most economists,
is that a really huge stimulus -- World War II -- finally did the job.
From an economic point of view, that's the bottom line. It suggests
that FDR's programs were insufficient. The same analysis has been
applied to Obama's stimulus plans by Nobel winners Krugman, Stiglitz,
and other top-tier economists.

--
Ed Huntress
>

[F. George McDuffee]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 22:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jope

<jop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that
>> we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the
>> undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to
>> improve economic performance.

<big snip>
================
Two serious problem:

(1) Keynesian economic theory has never been *FULLY*
implemented. To be sure the deficit spending or "pump
priming" has been endlessly implemented. Keynes was explicit
that this was to be done ==>only in the down cycle.<== In
the up cycle the government was to run a surplus for several
very good reasons: (1) To pay down the debts incurred for
deficit spending during the down cycle; (2) To dampen
"irrational exuberance" and "animal spirits," and minimize
asset "bubble" formation during the boom; and (3) to avoid
competing with private investment for materials and manpower
for infrastructure projects during the up cycle. AFAIK
deficit reduction through increased taxes and reduced
governmental spending on infrastructure during the booms,
has never even been seriously considered, let alone
implemented.

(2) The socio-economic/cultural structure which Keynes
examined and for which his economic theory was developed no
longer exists. In this vanished economy, most domestic
demand was filled by domestic, in many cases locally
produced, products and services. To be sure there were some
imports, but generally of luxury items of minimal impact to
the aggregate economy, e.g. French champaign, or
agricultural products that could not be domestically
produced such as oranges and bananas in the UK. This is no
longer the case as the large majority of consumer items such
as clothing, shoes, electronics, automobiles, appliances and
increasingly basic food stuffs are produced external to the
domestic economy, even if these are marketed under
historically domestic brand names. Thus increasing domestic
demand, through increased governmental [deficit] spending no
longer results in increased domestic economic activity, but
rather results in increased current accounts trade deficits
because of the increase in imports needed to meet the
increased domestic demand increase. To put it another way,
the multiplier effect on which the Keynesian economic model
relies no longer exists.

FWIW -- IMNSHO the current orthodox economic
ideologies/secular theologies, theories and models variously
identified as "Washington Consensus" and "Globalization"
among others, also suffer from the same defect, i.e. the
social structure and economy which these theories/models
posit and on which these models depend no longer exist
either (if they ever did).

What is urgently required is a new data (and reality) based
economic model/theory, which accurately describes current
socio-economic conditions, with all its good and bad
features, and the implementation of policies based on this
new, more accurate/realistic model, with continual
monitoring and validation, as the socio-economis structure
continues to shift with ever increasing speed. A major
problem is defining what the objectives of the new policies
should be in measurable and quantifiable terms, and what the
priorities should be. Part of this problem is defining what
"better" means, and which economic/social sectors "count."

We are indeed living in interesting times...


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

[F. George McDuffee]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 02:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Jope
<jop...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

>I wish somebody had explained to our last
>president that wars do not bring prosperity.

<snip>
============
Video of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI446mXonu0

see comments starting about 0:0:38

[Ed Huntress]

George, that's one of your mosre succinct posts, and one of the best.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 02:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Actually old boi..wars can and often DO bring prosperity if handled
properly. The British Empire, the US, Japan and many others have
prospered by fighting wars in Other Lands.

Its rather sad that your grasp on history and economics is
so.....ah...er...weak.

So the US in Vietnam caused the US to suffer economically? Several moon
landings, the Space Race etc etc all during the same period of time.

And we came out of it in VERY good economic shape. Same with WW2. The
only thing that caused the Great Depression to end, was ramping up of
industry from 1939-1941 to supply our European allies with goods and
munitions. FDR was a socialist of the worst sort..but he handled the
events with some skill...

Its unfortunate that he and his caused the Great Depression to run 7+
yrs longer than it should have.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists
calculate
By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression
dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously
thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and
Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed
into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great
mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always
worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,"
said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found
that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with
ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy,
Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures
that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible
for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension
reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also
a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package
that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry
to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to
demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been,
given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery,
but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages
and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By
adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use
the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been
during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone
into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and
wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies,
wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they
otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment
was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in
productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where
they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and
services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and
the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it
otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to
everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian
said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall
when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal
policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act
(NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they
agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly
raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but
ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries
took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries,
which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural
employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called
for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60
percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that
the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they
believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has
been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming
him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the
1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished
Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The
prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of
macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s,
how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely
scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional
within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because
they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian
said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and
prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition
policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found.
Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the
Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once
protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four
more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell
from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of
6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had
become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained
of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257
different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not
only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices.
Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14
percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome
practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National
Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so
did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936
to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries
remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been,
based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment
persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down
somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high.
By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the
highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped
up enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor
suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations
of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to
recover from depressions and that significant government intervention
was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work
shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government
not intervened."

-UCLA-
LSMS368


Dont like it? Tough. Your reality check evidently bounced.

[de...@dudu.org]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 08:56:59 -0700, "max headroom"
<maxhe...@localnet.com> wrote:

The right wing has been desperately attempting to rewrite history and
blame the Great Depression on FDR, just like they are already
desperately attempting to blame Bush's depression on Obama.

[dca...@krl.org]

On May 22, 12:37 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:


>
> And the ultimate proof, in the minds of many if not most economists,
> is that a really huge stimulus -- World War II -- finally did the job.
> From an economic point of view, that's the bottom line. It suggests
> that FDR's programs were insufficient. The same analysis has been
> applied to Obama's stimulus plans by Nobel winners Krugman, Stiglitz,
> and other top-tier economists.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>

It is hard to say that World War II was the stimulus that ended the
Depression by the stimulating the economy. I think it was more the
research during the war that changed things. By that I mean that
there were great advances in electronics, atomic energy, operations
research, even computers.
And these advances more than the large purchases of war goods were the
reason the depression ended and there was not a recession at the end
of WWII. In other words shovel ready projects are not the answer.
Development of new techniques as horizontal drilling and fracking will
have more effect on what happens.


Dan

[George Plimpton]

FDR *is* responsible for the prolongation of the depression. Don't
forget, the economy was already coming out of it before he was first
elected, then he plunged us right back into a major recession. Growth
had already begun *before* FDR was elected, then it began to drop again
in 1935 and actually went negative in 1937.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/11/real-gdp-fell-by-293-from-1930-to-1933.html
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm

[George Plimpton]

On 5/21/2012 10:48 PM, Jope wrote:
> On May 22, 1:29 am, "Leroy N. Soetoro"<leroysoet...@usurper.org>
> wrote:
>> Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that
>> we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the
>> undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to
>> improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and
>> Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great
>> Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s
>> “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over
>> experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S.
>> today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that
>> remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax
>> rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of
>> using fiscal policy to boost growth.
>>
>> BURTON ABRAMS, Univ. of Delaware
>> DOUGLAS ADIE, Ohio University
>> LEE ADKINS, Oklahoma State University
>> WILLIAM ALBRECHT, Univ. of Iowa
>> RYAN AMACHER, Univ. of Texas at Arlington

>> J.J. ARIAS, Georgia College& State University

>> W. KEN FARR, Georgia College& State University

GDP growth was about to turn positive right before Roosevelt was
inaugurated. It *did* turn positive, and continued to grow during the
first two years of Roosevelt's reign. Then he fucked it up and made it
go negative again, and we were right back in a major recession in 1937.

[Ed Huntress]

That may well be true, but how was all that research paid for? Deficit
spending. It was a vital part of the stimulus. The original plans
Obama laid out for the recent stimulus were not much different.
Instead of faster planes and monster bombs, the research was to be
devoted to alternative energy, transportation infrastructure, and so
on.

And it would be hard to argue that the direct benefits of building
bombs that can destroy a city are greater, in economic terms, than
finding better materials for thin-film photovoltaic cells. In both
cases, much of the benefit is not directly intended. It's in the basic
and applied science, production methods, and so on that are an
indirect consequence.

That kind of stimulus leads to innovation and entrepreneurial
activity, both of which are essential for our economy's future.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:58:08 -0500, F. George McDuffee
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2012 02:39:28 -0700 (PDT), Jope
><jop...@gmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>I wish somebody had explained to our last
>>president that wars do not bring prosperity.
><snip>
>============
>Video of interest.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI446mXonu0
>
>see comments starting about 0:0:38

'
Fascinating to see a corrupt latin leader discussing Bush isnt it?

<VBG>

And Bush was indeed correct. Need one be reminded of the US building
the Germans and Japanese after 1945?

It was very good for everyone.

Shrug

[F. George McDuffee]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:43:22 -0700, George Plimpton
<geo...@si.not> wrote:

<snip>

>FDR *is* responsible for the prolongation of the depression. Don't
>forget, the economy was already coming out of it before he was first
>elected, then he plunged us right back into a major recession. Growth
>had already begun *before* FDR was elected, then it began to drop again
>in 1935 and actually went negative in 1937.

<snip>

There were two phases to the "Great Depression" in the U.S.

Phase 1 began when the stock market bubble burst in Thursday
24 October 1929 (Black Thursday), and in fairness to Hoover
and Mellon, this damage was indeed beginning to lift in
31/32 as the excesses were liquidated.

The second, far more serious phase because it was systemic
and global, began 11 May 1931 when a relatively obscure
Austrian bank called Creditanstalt imploded, collapsing the
international financial/fiscal house of cards which was
largely based on the [largely] imaginary German war
reparations cash flow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_Crash_of_1929
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creditanstalt

The US economy and indeed the US society/culture, while it
could withstand one crisis at a time, was beaten to its
knees when the second far more pervasive catastrophe
occurred while it had still not even partially recovered
from the first one, which was largely limited to the
domestic financial services sector (Wall Street).

The second disaster exposed the un repayable nature of the
enormous war debts of most of the major combatants of WW1,
not only the central powers Germany and Austria, but the
allied powers such as Russia, France, U.K. and Italy. The
U.S. as a late entrant, and major supplier of war material,
food and fuel had emerged relatively unscathed financially
but had become heavily involved in the post war
financial/commodity speculation and circular credit
operations centered on German war repatriations.

In early [Feb-March] 1933 the collapsing [bank] dominoes had
reached the U.S., forcing a four day closure of all banks in
the U.S. under presidential directive, and the enactment of
the draconian _Emergency Banking Act of 1933_ few days later
in a successful attempt to prevent the total collapse of the
U.S. financial system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Banking_Act

FWIW -- with the introduction of the Internet and wire
transfers, a collapse of the European banking system will
require 2 seconds, not 2 years, to reach the U.S. banking
system.

While FDR was not perfect (who is?), the alternative could
have been far worse with some American version of
fascism/corporatism. For one example see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg-v_zMEXZo

Just remember -- IT CAN HAPPEN HERE!

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:24:18 -0700 (PDT), "dca...@krl.org"
<dca...@krl.org> wrote:

>On May 22, 12:37 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> And the ultimate proof, in the minds of many if not most economists,
>> is that a really huge stimulus -- World War II -- finally did the job.
>> From an economic point of view, that's the bottom line. It suggests
>> that FDR's programs were insufficient. The same analysis has been
>> applied to Obama's stimulus plans by Nobel winners Krugman, Stiglitz,
>> and other top-tier economists.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress

OMG!!! I agree with Fast Eddy!! Parity..has been achieved!!

>>
>>
>
>It is hard to say that World War II was the stimulus that ended the
>Depression by the stimulating the economy. I think it was more the
>research during the war that changed things. By that I mean that
>there were great advances in electronics, atomic energy, operations
>research, even computers.
>And these advances more than the large purchases of war goods were the
>reason the depression ended and there was not a recession at the end
>of WWII. In other words shovel ready projects are not the answer.
>Development of new techniques as horizontal drilling and fracking will
>have more effect on what happens.
>
>
>Dan

WW2 ended the Depression 1, ..the advances during it kept a post war
recession from going very deep and when the new advanced goods and
services hit the markets..things took off.

There indeed was a post war recession, but it was not one that was very
deep.

[de...@dudu.org]

Not only can. Will.

[STEADY EDDY]

On May 22, 2:05 am, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 22:48:16 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jope...@gmail.com>

Roosevelt is a hero who bore tremendous burdens and died a tired worn
out old man. He gave everything he had for our nation. He brought a
spirit of optimism and he re-organized the banking system.
Roosevelt's confidence and a winning spirit help to focus our nation
on "better times ahead". He stood up to the big utility companies
when they wanted to bypass small towns and family farms. Roosevelt
forced them to provide water and power to "less profitable" rural
areas. Electrification and water services saved the family farm.
Roosevelt was not afraid to take on the special interests on behalf of
the common good. Today we have politicians on both sides of the aisle
who can't take a crap without asking permission from the lobbyists. We
need another Roosevelt. A real man. I believe Romney is a man made
along the lines of Roosevelt. Romney will make the tough decisions to
save our nation.

[Jeff M]

Hah! You really had me going right until the end there. Well done!

[dca...@krl.org]

On May 22, 1:50 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:24:18 -0700 (PDT), "dcas...@krl.org"

Well there was a lot of talk about shovel ready jobs. And the
alternate energy was not basic research, it was building manufacturing
plants.


Dan

[WangoTango]

In article <j3tmr7l2k6179sgcn...@4ax.com>, de...@dudu.org
says...

> On Tue, 22 May 2012 05:29:31 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
> >Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that
> >we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the
> >undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to
> >improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and
> >Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great

> >Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan?s
> >?lost decade? in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over

> >experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S.
> >today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that
> >remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax
> >rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of
> >using fiscal policy to boost growth.
>
> If that worked then the economy would have thrived under Bush, not
> gone all to hell. It's deregulation that causes speculative boom and
> bust cycles therefore catastrophic crashes.

And yet, no one, except those vested in government or protected by those
very same regulations (think protectionism), think so.
I wonder why that is...

[pyotr filipivich]

Jope <jop...@gmail.com> on Tue, 22 May 2012 02:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
typed in misc.survivalism the following:

Sigh. One reason the US was able to do so well during the war,
was that at the start of the war, there was a lot of idle capacity.
That, and the Administration basically backed off and let the business
guys "to their thing" - build stuff and deliver it.
And, there was a business downturn in 1945/46 - as ten percent of
the work force came back home looking for jobs, while manufacturing
declined as the Defense plants closed or were converted to civilian
production.
>
--
pyotr filipivich
Old farts these days - not like when I was a boy! We used to
have us Real Geezers in those days! Now, they'll let anybody
with a little gray hair be an old fart!

[Ed Huntress]

Ignorance, perhaps? There is almost nothing in economic history to
support that view. Even under Reagan, it was a steady dose of deficits
that stimulated the economy.

If you have trouble finding the stats, just ask.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

There was both. There was basic work done on multi-layer thin-film
photovoltaics.

But what is non-stimulative about developing manufacturing technology,
and production scale for pilot projects?

There are two angles on stimulative spending. One, the short-term
method for maintaining consumption, is digging holes and then filling
them back in. The other is building fundamental elements of a future
economy. If it was politically possible, that was the plan that the
Democrats had for further stimulus.

--
Ed Huntress


>
>
>Dan

[Jeff M]

True.

> That, and the Administration basically backed off and let the business
> guys "to their thing" - build stuff and deliver it.

Well, that would be true, if it were true, but it isn't true.

See, e.g., War Production Board, Supply Priorities and Allocation Board,
Office of Production Management, Board of Economic Warfare, National War
Labor Board, War Manpower Commission, Office of Price Administration,
Office of War Mobilization, et al.

[Oglethorpe]

While FDR was not perfect (who is?), the alternative could
have been far worse

=======================


NOPE America had faced worse ibn the past and recovered faster because
government pretty much stayed out of the way.

FDR caused a recession to become the Great Depression and kept it going.
Obama not only helped cause tis recession but has kept it going.

[Harold Burton]

In article <_uSdnUORJrxLyiHS...@mchsi.com>,

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote:

> While FDR was not perfect (who is?), the alternative could
> have been far worse

And under FDR it was.


snicker

[Dano]

"Oglethorpe" wrote in message
news:_uSdnUORJrxLyiHS...@mchsi.com...

=========================================

Yeah right. Don't quit your day job. Someone has to flip them burgers.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jope wrote:
>
> Wars do not bring prosperity,quite the opposite.What kind of delusion
> is that ? The US emerged out of WWII relatively unscathed

Take your lame bullshit somewhere else. Memorial day is on the 28th,
and we lose over 200 Veterans a month in this county. A couple years
ago, they were mostly W.W. II Veterans. There is a program called
'Honor Flight' that provides free transportation for W.W. II Veterans to
visit the memorial in Washington DC.

The 'prosperity' was from having working factories and a pent up
demand for things people did without during the war. Homes were built
for those lucky enough to return alive. Cars. Washing machines.
Radios & TVs none of which were available during the war. The women who
worked on weapons & munitions during the war were mostly replaced by the
returning military. The war created new technology and some incredible
machines that went from making war machines, to consumer and other
items.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

[Gunner Asch]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-13-economic-recovery-depression_N.htm

Depression, WWII lessons for economic recovery?
The last time the nation's debt was this big compared with gross
domestic product — 70.4% of GDP — was immediately following World War
II.
How did the Greatest Generation pare it down? It didn't.

It grew the economy faster than the debt, pushing down the debt-to-GDP
ratio and making debt payments easier to manage. But that generation
also did some things that U.S. citizens and politicians don't seem
willing to do today. It paid higher taxes, and it had a smaller
government — and, at least until the 1980s, it kept annual budget
deficits small.

The citizens of the U.S. owe $12.3 trillion in Treasury debt to banks,
individuals and foreigners. That's about $40,000 per person living in
the U.S., and it's not counting the amount our states owe — or, for that
matter, what we owe to our individual creditors.

Although the U.S. is currently handling its debt comfortably and pays
remarkably low interest rates on it, there's mounting recognition that
sooner or later, we must move the debt-to-GDP ratio in the other
direction. And that will involve hard decisions on taxes, spending and
sacrifice — something the World War II generation knew much about.

Even during the Great Depression, federal spending was never more than
11% of GDP, according to the Economic Report to the President, an annual
government publication by the Council of Economic Advisers. President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt "wanted to push spending harder than Congress
did, but he didn't have much luck," says Harvard Business School
professor and historian Nancy Koehn.

Roosevelt had much more luck persuading Congress to spend on the war. By
1942, spending climbed to $35 billion, or the inflation-adjusted
equivalent of $465 billion. Annual spending peaked at $92.7 billion in
1945, or $1.1 trillion in today's dollars. By 1945, the U.S. debt was
121.7% of GDP, vs. an estimated 70% today, according to the Economic
Report to the President.

Even though wartime spending was staggering, it could have been much
higher. The government had three ways to keep war costs — and the annual
budget deficits — down:

•Price controls. War is often inflationary, because it drives up demand
for raw materials, such as steel. To combat rising prices, both for
consumers and the government, the Office of Price Administration froze
prices on many items, starting with coffee and sugar in May 1942.

•Rationing. To make sure there were enough vital materials, such as
rubber and oil, the government started rationing. Everything from tires
to cheese to typewriters was rationed. An "A" rationing sticker, the
most common type, gave drivers 4 gallons of gas a week. And drivers were
urged to keep their speed below 40 mph — as much to save tires as fuel.
Posters warned, "If you're driving alone, you're driving with Hitler."

•Taxes. The top income tax rate in 1929 was 24%, starting at $100,000 —
which is the equivalent of $1.3 million today. The top rate rose sharply
in 1932 to 63%, but it was levied on income above an inflation-adjusted
$15.8 million. By 1944, however, the top rate soared to 94%, starting at
today's equivalent of $2.4 million.

The lowest tax rate also rose sharply, from 4% in 1929 to 23% in 1944.

"In the 1940s, the government broadens taxes and makes it part of most
Americans' lives," Koehn says. The number of citizens paying taxes
quadrupled, and the government began withholding taxes from paychecks
for the first time. The Victory Tax, a 5% tax, was levied on all annual
net incomes of $624 or more.

But federal income still didn't cover all wartime costs, and the U.S.
also had to lend money to its allies. To fund the war, the government
had to borrow. Most of the war debt was borrowed from big institutions,
such as banks. But the government also borrowed extensively from U.S.
households. Movie stars and other famous personalities pushed war bonds;
the government raised $187 billion — about $2.3 trillion in today's
dollars — through Savings Bonds. The bonds allowed the government to
borrow over a long period at relatively low rates.

In addition, pushing war bonds helped to reduce inflation, says Robert
Higgs, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, a think tank. "You
had consumers earning a lot of money, but not enough goods and
services," Higgs says. That's a recipe for inflation: Too much money
chasing too few goods and services. But war bonds diverted much of that
money from civilian to military use, Higgs says.

Then and now

How did the government repay the war debt? It didn't, really. Much of it
was rolled over when it matured, but new borrowing was limited. "During
the early postwar years, the federal government ran either small
surpluses or small deficits," says Anthony O'Brien, professor of
economics at Lehigh University. The federal debt was $260.1 billion in
1945 and $274.4 billion 10 years later in 1955.

But the economy grew faster than the deficit did. GDP was $221.4 billion
in 1945, and $394.6 billion in 1955 — despite high tax rates, which
persisted. Because of economic growth, the ratio of debt to GDP fell
nearly every year from 1947 to 1981. As the nation's debt became a
smaller part of GDP, the debt became much less burdensome, much as a
fixed mortgage payment becomes more affordable as your income grows.

What's different between then and now? Plenty.

World War II was a finite event, and it's pretty easy to stop war
spending and bring the budget back into balance — or close to it — when
the war is over.

"Government spending went down by a dramatic amount," after WWII, says
Steven Hess, lead U.S. debt analyst for Moody's. And government was far
more limited: In 1945, there was no Department of Education, no
Environmental Protection Agency, no National Security Agency, for that
matter.

Today, the U.S. is involved in two wars: Both have lasted longer than
WWII, but they have been far less expensive — about $1 trillion so far.
So there's no one dramatic event that will reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio,
Hess says. "It's going to be much more difficult." The problems:

•Recession. When the economy falters, so does the government's income —
that is to say, the taxes it collects from corporations and individuals.
The government collected $2.5 trillion in 2008, and it collected $2.1
trillion in 2009, a $400 billion shortfall.

•Spending. Federal spending has jumped from $1.8 trillion in 2008 to an
estimated $3.1 trillion in 2009. Unlike World War II spending, however,
there's no quick end in sight to current spending. Much of the growth in
spending since the end of the war came from entitlement programs, such
as Social Security, and military spending. In 1963, for example, Social
Security and Medicare were 14.8% of all federal tax receipts, and
defense was 50.1%. In 2009, Social Security and Medicare are an
estimated 40% of federal tax receipts, and defense is 25.7%.

•Taxes. The maximum federal income tax rate in 2009 is 35%, down from
39.6%in 2000.

Lower taxes stimulate the economy, and raising taxes in a recession is a
nearly sure-fire way of deepening the recession. Nevertheless, tax cuts
add to the deficit if the government doesn't rein in spending. "You
can't raise spending and cut taxes," and get a balanced budget, says
David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's. Estimates of how much
the tax cuts have added to the deficit range from about $1.8 trillion to
$1.35 trillion.

•War. Fighting a war is one of the most reliable ways to create a big
debt. The British, for example, finished repaying their World War II
debt to the U.S. in 2007. Germany will finish repaying its World War I
reparations in 2010. Every Allied nation except Finland defaulted on its
World War I debt to the U.S.

War typically results in higher taxes. For example, Congress passed a
10% surtax to pay for the Vietnam War. You'd take your tax bill and add
10% to it. The tax produced a surplus in 1969, the last one until 1998.


Raise taxes, cut spending, or ...

The final option is to grow the economy fast enough — and grow the
deficit slowly enough — that debt becomes a smaller portion of GDP.

"We could have a good couple of years of growth," Harvard's Koehn says.
Businesses have cut so hard that any uptick in the economy should force
them to hire and invest. "But we're going to need more than that to
finance these levels of indebtedness."

Currently, the nation's debt-to-GDP ratio is in line with most other
developed countries, says Wyss, and well below Japan's. But it's heading
higher.

"Once it gets above 100%," he warns, "it gets hard to grow out of it."

The way to cut the deficit is some combination of tax increases and
budget cuts, neither one of which is politically popular.

"Ideally, you're supposed to keep a surplus in good times and deficits
in the bad times," Wyss says. "That's the advice Joseph gave to Pharaoh
3,000 years ago. He was the last politician to take that advice."

[Jope]

On May 23, 2:05 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

The french used to have this expression:"Stupid as peace",until
Bismark showed them the errors of their ways.We are now living in the
nuclear age.Unless you people (meaning republicans) stop believing in
the positive side of death and destruction ,you will eventually come
to understand the japanese perspective after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Gunner Asch]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 01:30:56 -0400, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

How many times am I going to have to post this before a single one of
you leftwing mental case fucksticks finally understands that most of
what they believe..is horse shit?

Note that this is from University of California, Los Angeles. Hardly a
rightwing think tank. LOL!

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists
calculate

By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression
dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously
thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and
Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed

[Stormin Mormon]

A politician is a man who rocks the boat,
and then claims to be the only man who
can calm the storm.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:_uSdnUORJrxLyiHS...@mchsi.com...

[127.0.0.1]

Achtung, All!

The IP 127.0.0.1 is to the address of most formidable,
dangerous and merciless living hacker.
font: http://nonciclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/127.0.0.1

With best regards, 127.0.0.1 E-mail: rep...@remailer.com



Hello, Stormin!
You wrote on Wed, 23 May 2012 07:58:04 -0400:

SM> Christopher A. Young
SM> Learn more about Jesus
SM> www.lds.org
SM> .

SM> "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
SM> news:_uSdnUORJrxLyiHS...@mchsi.com...
SM> While FDR was not perfect (who is?), the alternative could
SM> have been far worse

SM> =======================

SM> NOPE America had faced worse ibn the past and recovered faster because
SM> government pretty much stayed out of the way.


With best regards, 127.0.0.1. E-mail: rep...@remailer.com

[Ed Huntress]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 22:21:45 -0700, "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com>
wrote:

>While FDR was not perfect (who is?), the alternative could
>have been far worse
>
>=======================
>
>
>NOPE America had faced worse ibn the past and recovered faster because
>government pretty much stayed out of the way.

No, we didn't recover faster. The recessions that started in the
mid-1870s and ran through the early part of the last century lasted
much longer than the two recessions of the Great Depression.

That was because the government "stayed out of the way." We just sat
there and they let the country go broke. That's what FDR was
determined would not happen again. And, indeed, our growth rate during
his term, until he caught the conservative disease in 1936 and tried
to balance the budget before the economy was ready to sustain itself,
was some of the fastest growth in American history.

Here is all the data. This graph is not easy to read, but the widths
between the beginning and the end of each recession show what
happened:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=USREC

Adjust the date range to get a close-up of particular periods.

>
>FDR caused a recession to become the Great Depression and kept it going.

This is complete bullshit, which you can easily see from the data:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=GDPCA

Change the "Units" to "Percent change" to see the growth rates. The
growth rate went over 10% until the double-dip of 1936. Then, when
that was over, it went to more than 13%. During the war, it went up
over 17% -- a growth rate we never achieved before or since.

>Obama not only helped cause tis recession but has kept it going.

Look at the data. You're full of it.

--
Ed Huntress

[Michael A. Terrell]

Dano wrote:
>
> Someone has to flip them burgers.

No, they don't. Haven't you ever heard of the automated grills they
use? They cook better and without complaints from the leftists who used
to flip burgers.

[Michael A. Terrell]

I am registered as an independant, but I am a old US Army Veteran who
has studied the history before it was rewritten to pacify the liberals.
As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the japanese had declaered that they
were to fight to the death of every man, woman and child. Dropping
those bombs when we did, saved millions of lives. Not that you're
anywhere near smart enough to realize that.

[Jeff M]

On 5/24/2012 10:26 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
[snip]

> As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the japanese had declaered that they
> were to fight to the death of every man, woman and child. Dropping
> those bombs when we did, saved millions of lives.

That is factually correct. The Ruling militarist elite in wartime Japan
were more than willing to sacrifice millions of their own people's lives
to avoid the shame to themselves their surrender would cause. Truman
unquestionably saved millions of innocent Japanese lives, along with
perhaps hundreds of thousands of Allied service member's lives.

The lasting lesson of the "Island hopping campaign" in the Pacific was
that, the closer we got to Japan, the stiffer and more fanatical
Japanese resistance became, and the bloodier, harder and more costly
each subsequent victory became. The toll of the Okinawan campaign, the
last of the island hops before Japan itself, certainly gave pause to the
planners of the invasion of the Japanese home islands. To give you some
idea, our armed forces are still issuing Purple Hearts today, from the
stockpile ordered in anticipation of the that invasion.

Moreover, we had yet to engage the bulk of Japanese land forces, having
thus far mainly fought just their expeditionary and Marine forces, and
Japan still had thousands of aircraft in reserve and suitable for
Kamikaze missions, as well as stockpiles of chemical and biological
weapons along with conventional arms and ammunition.

[RogerN]

>"Leroy N. Soetoro" wrote in message
>news:XnsA05AE4CBB...@202.177.16.121...

I like "With all due respect Mr. President, no respect has been earned or
due"

RogerN

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 22 May 2012 23:45:44 -0700 (PDT), Jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You mean the Japanese who created the Rape of Nanking?

Gunner