For KY Jelly: If Any Other President...

[AZGrizFan]

Z, you're a classic shithead. No one can argue with people like Baldy. He's the type of bitter fuck who'd rather die than admit something he's wrong about or runs counter to his personal beliefs. For christs sake the guy fought to the death on the WMD issue! God that was fun.

So all that's left to address with him, and to a slightly lesser extent you, is your personality disorders and mental illness. You're hopeless and you have big mouths and were gonna beat you down.

Funny.

Love ya like a brotha, but that ancient WMD thread you like to bring up is when your shtick jumped the shark. I'll admit that I was trolling a bit when I started the thread, but I had no idea you would jump in feet first and go full retard by the end. I guess it's a good thing for you that those archives were purged many years ago.

[youtube][/youtube]

[ASUG8]

I thought at least a few of our resident donks on here would be upset that they were still having to make their mortgage and car payments instead of continuing to defend the annointed one.

[youtube][/youtube]

[kalm]

Really? I'm not very interested in defending Obama but does that include Bush's last fiscal year that ended in the 3rd quarter of 2009, the 9 Trillion that the Fed lent to the banks, Wall Street executives wives, Ghaddafi, and other interests? Just askin...

The FY year begins Oct 1st. Bush didn't leave office the 3rd qtr of FY 09' as you claim. He left Jan 09', the 1st month of the 2nd qtr FY 09', 4 months into FY 09', so Obama was in office for the majority of FY 09'. Also remember the FY 09' omnibus spending bills (an astounding 24% increase) didn't get passed till Feb 09' after Obama was in office Don't know how to break down the deficit by month.

Deficit FY 08', last full fiscal year under Bush: 459 billion
Deficit FY 09', 4 months under Bush, 8 months under Obama: 1.413 trillion
Deficit FY 10', 1st full fiscal yr under Obama: 1.293 trillion
Deficit FY 2011(est): 1.645 trillion
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok, I should have said tripled...

And yet $288 billion of the stimulus bill was tax cuts which should make you conks happy, but unfortunately also increases the debt. Speaking of tax cuts, the Bush one's cost the treasury $1.5 trillion and will reach $2.8 trillion now that Obushma has extended them. And although it appears that Bush's medicare part D plan might come in at less than it's projected $1 trillion dollar cost, it's still well into the 100's of billions.

Also, setting aside the cost of the war in Af-Pak, once you factor in the financing costs of the Bush's Iraq War, it will represent $1.9 trillion in hard costs and significantly more down the road in VA benefits and loss productivity.

All of this spending spans across congresses and a white house controlled by both parties.

[89Hen]

Link? Or are you into plagiarism like 89Hen?

You mean like YOU are. Your revisionist history is comical.

[89Hen]

your personality disorders and mental illness. You're hopeless and you have big mouths

[Baldy]

And yet $288 billion of the stimulus bill was tax cuts which should make you conks happy, but unfortunately also increases the debt. Speaking of tax cuts, the Bush one's cost the treasury $1.5 trillion and will reach $2.8 trillion now that Obushma has extended them. And although it appears that Bush's medicare part D plan might come in at less than it's projected $1 trillion dollar cost, it's still well into the 100's of billions.

For the 10,000th time.....
The Bush tax cuts produced record revenues for the US treasury. End of story.

[D1B]

your personality disorders and mental illness. You're hopeless and you have big mouths

You love me.

D1B = The greatest poster in FCS message board history

[kalm]

And yet $288 billion of the stimulus bill was tax cuts which should make you conks happy, but unfortunately also increases the debt. Speaking of tax cuts, the Bush one's cost the treasury $1.5 trillion and will reach $2.8 trillion now that Obushma has extended them. And although it appears that Bush's medicare part D plan might come in at less than it's projected $1 trillion dollar cost, it's still well into the 100's of billions.

For the 10,000th time.....
The Bush tax cuts produced record revenues for the US treasury. End of story.

Snapshot bubble.

[Baldy]

For the 10,000th time.....
The Bush tax cuts produced record revenues for the US treasury. End of story.

Snapshot bubble.

No, undeniable fact.

[kalm]

Snapshot bubble.

No, undeniable fact.

And look at all the revenues we're still enjoying from it.

[Baldy]

No, undeniable fact.

And look at all the revenues we're still enjoying from it.

You can thank an actual bubble for that...

[kalm]

And look at all the revenues we're still enjoying from it.

You can thank an actual bubble for that...

And for the 100th time that was only part of the problem. Quick Baldy, show me a time where tax cuts absent of increased spending or in the instance of Kennedy, the closing of loopholes ever significantly increased revenues or provided sustainable growth.

[Baldy]

And for the 100th time that was only part of the problem. Quick Baldy, show me a time where tax cuts absent of increased spending or in the instance of Kennedy, the closing of loopholes ever significantly increased revenues or provided sustainable growth.

It was the main problem, AKA the ground zero of the financial meltdown.

Better yet, show me a time when it hasn't. Go through any time in history, from Harding and Coolidge in the 20's (who greatly shrinked the size of government), through Eisenhower in the 50's, Kennedy in the 60's, Reagan in the 80's (talk about closing loopholes), or Bush in the 2000's. EVERY time taxes were cut, revenues to the US Treasury increased. Period...

[Grizalltheway]

And for the 100th time that was only part of the problem. Quick Baldy, show me a time where tax cuts absent of increased spending or in the instance of Kennedy, the closing of loopholes ever significantly increased revenues or provided sustainable growth.

It was the main problem, AKA the ground zero of the financial meltdown.

Better yet, show me a time when it hasn't. Go through any time in history, from Harding and Coolidge in the 20's (who greatly shrinked the size of government), through Eisenhower in the 50's, Kennedy in the 60's, Reagan in the 80's (talk about closing loopholes), or Bush in the 2000's. EVERY time taxes were cut, revenues to the US Treasury increased. Period...

You're really going to bring up Eisenhower? Wasn't the top tax rate then north of 90%?

[Baldy]

It was the main problem, AKA the ground zero of the financial meltdown.

Better yet, show me a time when it hasn't. Go through any time in history, from Harding and Coolidge in the 20's (who greatly shrinked the size of government), through Eisenhower in the 50's, Kennedy in the 60's, Reagan in the 80's (talk about closing loopholes), or Bush in the 2000's. EVERY time taxes were cut, revenues to the US Treasury increased. Period...

You're really going to bring up Eisenhower? Wasn't the top tax rate then north of 90%?

True, it was Truman who lowered the rates from 94% to 82% then back up to 91%. The big difference is that the 'top' income earners back then were people who made $400,000 and over. Today, Obama wants to consider anyone making $200,000 or $250,000 with a family "rich".

[Wedgebuster]

You're really going to bring up Eisenhower? Wasn't the top tax rate then north of 90%?

True, it was Truman who lowered the rates from 94% to 82% then back up to 91%. The big difference is that the 'top' income earners back then were people who made $400,000 and over. Today, Obama wants to consider anyone making $200,000 or $250,000 with a family "rich".

[kalm]

And for the 100th time that was only part of the problem. Quick Baldy, show me a time where tax cuts absent of increased spending or in the instance of Kennedy, the closing of loopholes ever significantly increased revenues or provided sustainable growth.

It was the main problem, AKA the ground zero of the financial meltdown.

Better yet, show me a time when it hasn't. Go through any time in history, from Harding and Coolidge in the 20's (who greatly shrinked the size of government), through Eisenhower in the 50's, Kennedy in the 60's, Reagan in the 80's (talk about closing loopholes), or Bush in the 2000's. EVERY time taxes were cut, revenues to the US Treasury increased. Period...

It caused a housing bubble not a 'bring the world wide economy to it's knees shit storm' type of bubble.

Harding's economy was obviously not sustainable and the roaring twenties were fairly tumultous before the Great Depression. Reagan compensated for his tax cuts by...wait for it...raising taxes. In fact, it's arguable that the largest tax increases in history occurred under Reagan. And of course Reagan also spent more than all the presidents combined up to that point.

[Baldy]

It was the main problem, AKA the ground zero of the financial meltdown.

Better yet, show me a time when it hasn't. Go through any time in history, from Harding and Coolidge in the 20's (who greatly shrinked the size of government), through Eisenhower in the 50's, Kennedy in the 60's, Reagan in the 80's (talk about closing loopholes), or Bush in the 2000's. EVERY time taxes were cut, revenues to the US Treasury increased. Period...

It caused a housing bubble not a 'bring the world wide economy to it's knees shit storm' type of bubble.

Harding's economy was obviously not sustainable and the roaring twenties were fairly tumultous before the Great Depression. Reagan compensated for his tax cuts by...wait for it...raising taxes. In fact, it's arguable that the largest tax increases in history occurred under Reagan. And of course Reagan also spent more than all the presidents combined up to that point.

So a $10 Trillion bubble bursting wouldn't bring the world economy to it's knees?

You seem to be a smart guy, so I certainly hope you're not trying to claim that the Harding and Coolidge tax cuts were the cause of the Depression. That blame lies entirely on the abject failure of the Federal Reserve system, and I won't even get into the 10,000 bank closures they allowed to happen.

Aside from the payroll tax to high worth and self employed individuals, Reagan didn't raise taxes. He broadened the base by taking out loopholes, tax breaks, and shelters. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

[kalm]

It caused a housing bubble not a 'bring the world wide economy to it's knees shit storm' type of bubble.

Harding's economy was obviously not sustainable and the roaring twenties were fairly tumultous before the Great Depression. Reagan compensated for his tax cuts by...wait for it...raising taxes. In fact, it's arguable that the largest tax increases in history occurred under Reagan. And of course Reagan also spent more than all the presidents combined up to that point.

So a $10 Trillion bubble bursting wouldn't bring the world economy to it's knees?

You seem to be a smart guy, so I certainly hope you're not trying to claim that the Harding and Coolidge tax cuts were the cause of the Depression. That blame lies entirely on the abject failure of the Federal Reserve system, and I won't even get into the 10,000 bank closures they allowed to happen.

Aside from the payroll tax to high worth and self employed individuals, Reagan didn't raise taxes. He broadened the base by taking out loopholes, tax breaks, and shelters. There's nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

Fannie and Freddie are problematic, but the amount of derivatives being traded was greater than the GDP of the entire planet.

As for tax rates, please explain to me how (as the following article suggests) that the four periods of greatest economic growth in American history followed significant tax increases. Explain how we went from 1933-1981 with the longest sustained growth in the history of the world, while somehow avoiding an economic crisis, with the top marginal tax rate ranging from 70-91%? I know, it was WWII - which btw we were 120% percent in debt over right after the war and somehow managed to pay it off in less than a decade and again somehow despite the high tax rates and rebuilding Europe and Japan still mangaged to grow.

The belief in tax cuts is a subset of the belief in Free Markets, with a capital F & M, which is a theological belief.
How do we distinguish a theological ideas from a scientific (or rational) one? According to Karl Popper, the great thinkers in the philosophy of science, a scientific idea has to be capable of being refuted. There has to be some theoretical test that could come out the wrong way which would then say the theory is wrong. On that basis, Popper rejected Marxism and Freudianism, along with religious theology, because no matter how many times they didn't work, there was always some explanation that said that the theory was right and if you just looked at the facts in some other way, you could make up some story that said your theory was still right. The quintessence of theological thinking goes like this. The Preacher says, "The world will end next Saturday night! The Bible says it must be so." Everyone in the congregation wakes up safe and sound on Sunday morning. They head off to church and believe whatever he says in that sermon too. In science, we come up with a hypothesis. Then we set up an experiment. We see what happens. Economics is complex. It takes place in the real world where many factors are at play and we can't control for them all. Still, we've had four major tax cuts since 1913. None of them have led significant, sustained growth. Two them were followed by instant recessions (Reagan and Bush) and three of them, when they were sustained, were followed by bubbles which were then followed by the three worst crashes and sets of bank failures in modern times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-bei ... 44281.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Baldy]

Fannie and Freddie are problematic, but the amount of derivatives being traded was greater than the GDP of the entire planet.

Problematic? We have already dumped over $200 Billion (and counting) into Fannie and Freddie in the last 2.5 years just to keep them afloat. And they're just "problematic"?
The derivatives market as a whole didn't fail. The MBS and CMO's failed the market. Do you want to take a guess who invented the Mortgage Backed Security or the Collateralized Mortgage Obligation? Yes, Fannie (MBS) and Freddie (CMO).

As for tax rates, please explain to me how (as the following article suggests) that the four periods of greatest economic growth in American history followed significant tax increases. Explain how we went from 1933-1981 with the longest sustained growth in the history of the world, while somehow avoiding an economic crisis, with the top marginal tax rate ranging from 70-91%? I know, it was WWII - which btw we were 120% percent in debt over right after the war and somehow managed to pay it off in less than a decade and again somehow despite the high tax rates and rebuilding Europe and Japan still mangaged to grow.

From 1933-1941, we were in the "Great Depression", so there was very little to no growth (except for government of course). Those were 8 long years of depression, I wonder if FDR increasing tax rates from 25% to 70+% stifled growth any?
Of course 1941-1945 was a wartime economy of growth and good employment, but great debt. From 1946-early 1960's the US held a monopoly. Our greatest competition in Europe and Japan were lying in rubble after the war. It didn't matter what our tax rates were, the US was going to prosper by default. You have already been taught this lesson before so I don't know why you need to be taught it again.

The belief in tax cuts is a subset of the belief in Free Markets, with a capital F & M, which is a theological belief.
How do we distinguish a theological ideas from a scientific (or rational) one? According to Karl Popper, the great thinkers in the philosophy of science, a scientific idea has to be capable of being refuted. There has to be some theoretical test that could come out the wrong way which would then say the theory is wrong. On that basis, Popper rejected Marxism and Freudianism, along with religious theology, because no matter how many times they didn't work, there was always some explanation that said that the theory was right and if you just looked at the facts in some other way, you could make up some story that said your theory was still right. The quintessence of theological thinking goes like this. The Preacher says, "The world will end next Saturday night! The Bible says it must be so." Everyone in the congregation wakes up safe and sound on Sunday morning. They head off to church and believe whatever he says in that sermon too. In science, we come up with a hypothesis. Then we set up an experiment. We see what happens. Economics is complex. It takes place in the real world where many factors are at play and we can't control for them all. Still, we've had four major tax cuts since 1913. None of them have led significant, sustained growth. Two them were followed by instant recessions (Reagan and Bush) and three of them, when they were sustained, were followed by bubbles which were then followed by the three worst crashes and sets of bank failures in modern times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-bei ... 44281.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;[/quote]

Are you serious? HuffPoop? Larry Beinhart?
What's the problem, your man crush ideologue Glenn Greenwald didn't have anything on this subject?

Quick, let me refute this article with one from Hannity, Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck.

[BDKJMU]

Really? I'm not very interested in defending Obama but does that include Bush's last fiscal year that ended in the 3rd quarter of 2009, the 9 Trillion that the Fed lent to the banks, Wall Street executives wives, Ghaddafi, and other interests? Just askin...

The FY year begins Oct 1st. Bush didn't leave office the 3rd qtr of FY 09' as you claim. He left Jan 09', the 1st month of the 2nd qtr FY 09', 4 months into FY 09', so Obama was in office for the majority of FY 09'. Also remember the FY 09' omnibus spending bills (an astounding 24% increase) didn't get passed till Feb 09' after Obama was in office Don't know how to break down the deficit by month.

Deficit FY 08', last full fiscal year under Bush: 459 billion
Deficit FY 09', 4 months under Bush, 8 months under Obama: 1.413 trillion
Deficit FY 10', 1st full fiscal yr under Obama: 1.293 trillion
Deficit FY 2011(est): 1.645 trillion
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/#usgs302a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ok, I should have said tripled...

I misspoke- the 24% increase was for FY 09' and 10' combined, which is still about 3-4x the rate of inflation + population growth combined. Point still remains, they were fiscally irresponsble massive increases passed by a donk Congress and signed by Obama.

"On December 16, 2009 President Obama signed a $1.4 trillion omnibus spending bill; $446.8 billion of that amount covered six of the seven remaining appropriations bill.

Compared to the fiscal year 2009 versions of the six bills, there was an average increase in spending of 12.5 percent. Measured against fiscal year 2008, the legislation provides a staggering 24.4 percent increase, with State-Foreign Operations up by 48.8 percent, Transportation and Housing rising 39.1 percent, and Commerce, Justice and Science increasing 24.3 percent......"
http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/waste-watc ... ional.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

Fannie and Freddie are problematic, but the amount of derivatives being traded was greater than the GDP of the entire planet.

Problematic? We have already dumped over $200 Billion (and counting) into Fannie and Freddie in the last 2.5 years just to keep them afloat. And they're just "problematic"?
The derivatives market as a whole didn't fail. The MBS and CMO's failed the market. Do you want to take a guess who invented the Mortgage Backed Security or the Collateralized Mortgage Obligation? Yes, Fannie (MBS) and Freddie (CMO).

As for tax rates, please explain to me how (as the following article suggests) that the four periods of greatest economic growth in American history followed significant tax increases. Explain how we went from 1933-1981 with the longest sustained growth in the history of the world, while somehow avoiding an economic crisis, with the top marginal tax rate ranging from 70-91%? I know, it was WWII - which btw we were 120% percent in debt over right after the war and somehow managed to pay it off in less than a decade and again somehow despite the high tax rates and rebuilding Europe and Japan still mangaged to grow.

From 1933-1941, we were in the "Great Depression", so there was very little to no growth (except for government of course). Those were 8 long years of depression, I wonder if FDR increasing tax rates from 25% to 70+% stifled growth any?
Of course 1941-1945 was a wartime economy of growth and good employment, but great debt. From 1946-early 1960's the US held a monopoly. Our greatest competition in Europe and Japan were lying in rubble after the war. It didn't matter what our tax rates were, the US was going to prosper by default. You have already been taught this lesson before so I don't know why you need to be taught it again.

The belief in tax cuts is a subset of the belief in Free Markets, with a capital F & M, which is a theological belief.
How do we distinguish a theological ideas from a scientific (or rational) one? According to Karl Popper, the great thinkers in the philosophy of science, a scientific idea has to be capable of being refuted. There has to be some theoretical test that could come out the wrong way which would then say the theory is wrong. On that basis, Popper rejected Marxism and Freudianism, along with religious theology, because no matter how many times they didn't work, there was always some explanation that said that the theory was right and if you just looked at the facts in some other way, you could make up some story that said your theory was still right. The quintessence of theological thinking goes like this. The Preacher says, "The world will end next Saturday night! The Bible says it must be so." Everyone in the congregation wakes up safe and sound on Sunday morning. They head off to church and believe whatever he says in that sermon too. In science, we come up with a hypothesis. Then we set up an experiment. We see what happens. Economics is complex. It takes place in the real world where many factors are at play and we can't control for them all. Still, we've had four major tax cuts since 1913. None of them have led significant, sustained growth. Two them were followed by instant recessions (Reagan and Bush) and three of them, when they were sustained, were followed by bubbles which were then followed by the three worst crashes and sets of bank failures in modern times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-bei ... 44281.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you serious? HuffPoop? Larry Beinhart?
What's the problem, your man crush ideologue Glenn Greenwald didn't have anything on this subject?

Quick, let me refute this article with one from Hannity, Limbaugh, or Glenn Beck.

[/quote]

And yet, the Fed made $9 trillion in interest free loans to Wall Street, unemployment was cut in half and the economy was rebounding long before the war, we had steady growth in GDP from 33 on, the war itself was government spending, we saw unparalleled growth in the private sector while paying to reconstruct Europe, build our own interstate highway system, and educate GI's, VW was making really cool cars for sale in the US by the early sixties...

Posting Hannity and Beck articles in a discussion about economics would make about as much sense as me quoting Greenwald - a constitutional lawyer who probably criticizes the Obama administration on that issue more than he did Bush. But if you yearn too, knock yourself out, champ.

[Baldy]

And yet, the Fed made $9 trillion in interest free loans to Wall Street, unemployment was cut in half and the economy was rebounding long before the war, we had steady growth in GDP from 33 on, the war itself was government spending, we saw unparalleled growth in the private sector while paying to reconstruct Europe, build our own interstate highway system, and educate GI's, VW was making really cool cars for sale in the US by the early sixties...

Good for the Fed, they broke it, they should have paid to fix it.
It's not hard to rebound when you hit rock bottom, but if you think going from 24.9% unemployment in 1933 to 14.6% in 1940 (long before the war) is anything but anemic, I can see why you are a "progressive". Steady growth in GDP? Again, anemic is more like it. Even with the copious amounts of government spending, GDP didn't reach the level from 1929 until 1937.

Let me type this very slowly for you...we saw unparallelled growth in the private sector because we destroyed our only competition during the war. As I said before, the US had a virtual monopoly because Japan and the entire continent of Europe were laying in ruins.

Posting Hannity and Beck articles in a discussion about economics would make about as much sense as me quoting Greenwald - a constitutional lawyer who probably criticizes the Obama administration on that issue more than he did Bush. But if you yearn too, knock yourself out, champ.

So you decide to post an article on economics from a Novelist and part time ski instructor who studied Detective and crime Fiction Writing at Oxford?

You shoulda stuck with Greenwald.

[kalm]

And yet, the Fed made $9 trillion in interest free loans to Wall Street, unemployment was cut in half and the economy was rebounding long before the war, we had steady growth in GDP from 33 on, the war itself was government spending, we saw unparalleled growth in the private sector while paying to reconstruct Europe, build our own interstate highway system, and educate GI's, VW was making really cool cars for sale in the US by the early sixties...

Good for the Fed, they broke it, they should have paid to fix it.
It's not hard to rebound when you hit rock bottom, but if you think going from 24.9% unemployment in 1933 to 14.6% in 1940 (long before the war) is anything but anemic, I can see why you are a "progressive". Steady growth in GDP? Again, anemic is more like it. Even with the copious amounts of government spending, GDP didn't reach the level from 1929 until 1937.

Let me type this very slowly for you...we saw unparallelled growth in the private sector because we destroyed our only competition during the war. As I said before, the US had a virtual monopoly because Japan and the entire continent of Europe were laying in ruins.

Posting Hannity and Beck articles in a discussion about economics would make about as much sense as me quoting Greenwald - a constitutional lawyer who probably criticizes the Obama administration on that issue more than he did Bush. But if you yearn too, knock yourself out, champ.

So you decide to post an article on economics from a Novelist and part time ski instructor who studied Detective and crime Fiction Writing at Oxford?

You shoulda stuck with Greenwald.

When Roosevelt came into office, Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25% to 63%. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79%.

A lot of ink, sweat, and ranting has gone into proving that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Nonetheless, the economy grew 58% from the time Roosevelt came into office and when the US entered the war.

Likewise, many right wing critics insist that the Clinton boom actually started under Bush the First. It is necessary to remember that Bush the First also raised taxes (from 28% to 31%)

I believe it was you who started in with the economic facts. So I'm merely playing the game with ya. That's the fun with economics - you can share all of the facts you want, highlighting some strange coincidences like the part time tennis instructor has done. And thanks to the complicated nature of markets, it's still easy to spin those facts to fit your ideology, which you sometimes do quite well.

But what we do know, regardless of other influences, is that every major tax cut from the last century was followed by a bubble and a crash. And every significant tax increase was followed by solid growth. We can only speculate about how things would have turned if the taxes were kept low during the depression. But it's pretty easy to speculate that if they had, we would have been in far more debt paying for the war, the Marshall Plan, and the GI Bill. Would we have even been able to afford all of those CCC projects and later, the highways that benefited the private sector so much? Would the auto and oil industries have built their own roads? Would the universities have provided free eductation to the GI's out of their own pocket or perhaps the businesses that benefited from highly eductated workforce? Maybe all of the farmers could have passed the hat around and built their own Hoover and Grand Coulee dams?

I know you think you've got it all figured out and this does not fit your black and white view. So I'm sorry about that.

[kalm]

And yet, the Fed made $9 trillion in interest free loans to Wall Street, unemployment was cut in half and the economy was rebounding long before the war, we had steady growth in GDP from 33 on, the war itself was government spending, we saw unparalleled growth in the private sector while paying to reconstruct Europe, build our own interstate highway system, and educate GI's, VW was making really cool cars for sale in the US by the early sixties...

Good for the Fed, they broke it, they should have paid to fix it.
It's not hard to rebound when you hit rock bottom, but if you think going from 24.9% unemployment in 1933 to 14.6% in 1940 (long before the war) is anything but anemic, I can see why you are a "progressive". Steady growth in GDP? Again, anemic is more like it. Even with the copious amounts of government spending, GDP didn't reach the level from 1929 until 1937.

Let me type this very slowly for you...we saw unparallelled growth in the private sector because we destroyed our only competition during the war. As I said before, the US had a virtual monopoly because Japan and the entire continent of Europe were laying in ruins.

Posting Hannity and Beck articles in a discussion about economics would make about as much sense as me quoting Greenwald - a constitutional lawyer who probably criticizes the Obama administration on that issue more than he did Bush. But if you yearn too, knock yourself out, champ.

So you decide to post an article on economics from a Novelist and part time ski instructor who studied Detective and crime Fiction Writing at Oxford?

You shoulda stuck with Greenwald.

When Roosevelt came into office, Hoover had already raised the tax rate in 1932 from 25% to 63%. Roosevelt raised it again in 1936 to 79%.

A lot of ink, sweat, and ranting has gone into proving that the New Deal did not end the Great Depression. Nonetheless, the economy grew 58% from the time Roosevelt came into office and when the US entered the war.

Likewise, many right wing critics insist that the Clinton boom actually started under Bush the First. It is necessary to remember that Bush the First also raised taxes (from 28% to 31%)

I believe it was you who started in with the economic facts. So I'm merely playing the game with ya. That's the fun with economics - you can share all of the facts you want, highlighting some strange coincidences like the part time tennis instructor has done. And thanks to the complicated nature of markets, it's still easy to spin those facts to fit your ideology, which you sometimes do quite well.

But what we do know, regardless of other influences, is that every major tax cut from the last century was followed by a bubble and a crash. And every significant tax increase was followed by solid growth. We can only speculate about how things would have turned if the taxes were kept low during the depression. But it's pretty easy to speculate that if they had, we would have been in far more debt paying for the war, the Marshall Plan, and the GI Bill. Would we have even been able to afford all of those CCC projects and later, the highways that benefited the private sector so much? Would the auto and oil industries have built their own roads? Would the universities have provided free eductation to the GI's out of their own pocket or perhaps the businesses that benefited from highly eductated workforce? Maybe all of the farmers could have passed the hat around and built their own Hoover and Grand Coulee dams?

I know you think you've got it all figured out and this does not fit your black and white view. So I'm sorry about that.