The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]Further to that point Amy Shales isn't an economist and she admits as much, she has said on numerous occaisions that her book doesn't point to any alternatives to the new deal because she simply has no idea what would have worked. [/QUOTE]

    Amity is a historian, and a well respected one at that. Beyond that, we know that the New Deal didn't work, just like the stimulus hasn't worked. The only things that these programs do is put off the pain for a while, they don't solve anything.

    [/QUOTE]

    What did work, then?  We had been "doing nothing" for 150 years, and never caught a whiff of a 19% poverty rate.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    LOL.

    Do I have to save all my posts in drafts for when a thinskin reports them?

    I STARTED DOING THAT TOO.

     

     

    The gist was that it's sad to watch Hansori generalize that regulations and libruls are all bad, and then complain that the response lacks nuance.

    If he's going to ding Damain for supposedly not wanting to "recreate the growth scenario" of 1945-1970, he had better specific which parts of that growth scenario he means.

     

     

    Because the reason we grew then is as I laid out. WWII, which ended in 1945 incase you were wondering, had these effects:

     

    1. Severe damage to infrastructure across Europe, Russia, and Southeast Asia; none in America.

    2. Extreme loss of life across Europe, Russia, and Southeast Asia; a lower percentage of life loss in America.

    Resulting in:

    A. America having a tremendous industrial lead.

    B. America having far more returning workers;

    C. Which workers can go straight to work instead of rebuilding also.

    D. AND, a much bigger boomer generation to replace the returning workers 15-20 years later.

     

     

    That's your growth scenario. You want to pretend that that wasn't the cause of our economic boom, it was really just that we had "less regulations" (again, without any attempt to specify - just sloganeering).

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If you think I meant to re-create a war you are really picking hairs and missing the point entirely.

    There are opportunities for us now to get ahead of Europe and China. Manufacturing is starting to come back, energy costs are cheap here compared to the rest of the world. But we are saddled with too much debt, public and private. Obama is not helping.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    LOL.

    Do I have to save all my posts in drafts for when a thinskin reports them?

    I STARTED DOING THAT TOO.

     

     

    The gist was that it's sad to watch Hansori generalize that regulations and libruls are all bad, and then complain that the response lacks nuance.

    If he's going to ding Damain for supposedly not wanting to "recreate the growth scenario" of 1945-1970, he had better specific which parts of that growth scenario he means.

     

     

    Because the reason we grew then is as I laid out. WWII, which ended in 1945 incase you were wondering, had these effects:

     

    1. Severe damage to infrastructure across Europe, Russia, and Southeast Asia; none in America.

    2. Extreme loss of life across Europe, Russia, and Southeast Asia; a lower percentage of life loss in America.

    Resulting in:

    A. America having a tremendous industrial lead.

    B. America having far more returning workers;

    C. Which workers can go straight to work instead of rebuilding also.

    D. AND, a much bigger boomer generation to replace the returning workers 15-20 years later.

     

     

    That's your growth scenario. You want to pretend that that wasn't the cause of our economic boom, it was really just that we had "less regulations" (again, without any attempt to specify - just sloganeering).

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If you think I meant to re-create a war you are really picking hairs and missing the point entirely.

    There are opportunities for us now to get ahead of Europe and China. Manufacturing is starting to come back, energy costs are cheap here compared to the rest of the world. But we are saddled with too much debt, public and private. Obama is not helping.

    [/QUOTE]


    Yes - he is.  With manufacturing coming back, energy costs being relatively low, and reducing the deficit.  Obama is helping.

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]Further to that point Amy Shales isn't an economist and she admits as much, she has said on numerous occaisions that her book doesn't point to any alternatives to the new deal because she simply has no idea what would have worked. [/QUOTE]

    Amity is a historian, and a well respected one at that. Beyond that, we know that the New Deal didn't work, just like the stimulus hasn't worked. The only things that these programs do is put off the pain for a while, they don't solve anything.

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually you don't know that it didn't work because defining success is not a binary choice between only two choices.  The fact is the new deal did bring relief to a ravaged economy, and even Amity Shales, again the author of the book you brought into this had this to say about the very claim you just made:  

    Fans of the book’s political applications might also take note that Shlaes herself stops short of asserting that a laissez-faire approach would have been more successful than the one Franklin D. Roosevelt took.

     

    “We don’t know — because we weren’t there — what would have happened if they had left the market alone,” she said. Or, as she puts it in the book, “Of course Hoover and Roosevelt may have had no choice but to pursue the policies they did. They may indeed have spared the country something worse — an American version of Stalin’s communism or Mussolini’s fascism.”

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21477_Page2.html

    As for the stimulus, broad consensus already exists among economists that the various programs saved or created well over 2 million jobs, so lets not start with the empty headed sloganeering.  

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Posts crossed paths...  

     

    I'm saying:

    1. The end results of WWII played a huge role in explaining growth; but

    2. If you think something else contributed, care to say what in particular was true then, and not true now, that was also helping?

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes that is true. WWII played a role.  When I made my original comment I never thought  OK let's have another war, I was just thinking why not try to duplicate that economic growth.

    It so turns out that the financial crisis of 2008 may give us another similar opportunity, if we choose to take advantage. Europe and Asia and down for the count and we are still standing and recovering. Slowly, but recovering. Manufacturing is starting to come back here, but because of technology, we are not going to need as many people. Apple is opening a plant in Texas with 500 people to replace capacity they had in CHina with 5000 people - automation. People have to take school seriously and get the right education.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    LOL.

    Do I have to save all my posts in drafts for when a thinskin reports them?

    I STARTED DOING THAT TOO.

     

     

    The gist was that it's sad to watch Hansori generalize that regulations and libruls are all bad, and then complain that the response lacks nuance.

    If he's going to ding Damain for supposedly not wanting to "recreate the growth scenario" of 1945-1970, he had better specific which parts of that growth scenario he means.

     

     

    Because the reason we grew then is as I laid out. WWII, which ended in 1945 incase you were wondering, had these effects:

     

    1. Severe damage to infrastructure across Europe, Russia, and Southeast Asia; none in America.

    2. Extreme loss of life across Europe, Russia, and Southeast Asia; a lower percentage of life loss in America.

    Resulting in:

    A. America having a tremendous industrial lead.

    B. America having far more returning workers;

    C. Which workers can go straight to work instead of rebuilding also.

    D. AND, a much bigger boomer generation to replace the returning workers 15-20 years later.

     

     

    That's your growth scenario. You want to pretend that that wasn't the cause of our economic boom, it was really just that we had "less regulations" (again, without any attempt to specify - just sloganeering).

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If you think I meant to re-create a war you are really picking hairs and missing the point entirely.

    There are opportunities for us now to get ahead of Europe and China. Manufacturing is starting to come back, energy costs are cheap here compared to the rest of the world. But we are saddled with too much debt, public and private. Obama is not helping.

    [/QUOTE]


    Debt has little to nothing to do with current economy.

    Virtually every Fortune 500 company carries debt to some degree or another, it's called investments.

    You just spout platitudes about different market sectors like manufacturing without realizing that in order for those sectors to prosper they need a strong and dependable infrastructure. It amazes me that some neo-cons think that our antiquated infrastructure, much of it half-a-century or more old, is adequate to compete on a 21st century playing field.

    Every economist and business leader in the country agree on two things:

    Infrastructure to support our economy requires investment.

    An educated workforce necessary to be competitive requires investment.

    The neo-cons either believe it's not the gov'ts job to provide those things or that such investment now doesn't produce results in the future. Both views are myopic and uninformed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. You have no clue.

    If someone is in debt up to their eyebalyls from credit cards or a mortgage, can they afford to buy anything or are they just going to take their time to pay off debt before they do so. WHat do you think precipitated the financial crisis in 2008? 

    Infrastructure??  You are in outer space. Yeah its not great but it is not a gating factor.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    LOL.

    Do I have to save all my posts in drafts for when a thinskin reports them?

    I STARTED DOING THAT TOO.

     

     

    The gist was that it's sad to watch Hansori generalize that regulations and libruls are all bad, and then complain that the response lacks nuance.

    If he's going to ding Damain for supposedly not wanting to "recreate the growth scenario" of 1945-1970, he had better specific which parts of that growth scenario he means.

     

     

    Because the reason we grew then is as I laid out. WWII, which ended in 1945 incase you were wondering, had these effects:

     

    1. Severe damage to infrastructure across Europe, Russia, and Southeast Asia; none in America.

    2. Extreme loss of life across Europe, Russia, and Southeast Asia; a lower percentage of life loss in America.

    Resulting in:

    A. America having a tremendous industrial lead.

    B. America having far more returning workers;

    C. Which workers can go straight to work instead of rebuilding also.

    D. AND, a much bigger boomer generation to replace the returning workers 15-20 years later.

     

     

    That's your growth scenario. You want to pretend that that wasn't the cause of our economic boom, it was really just that we had "less regulations" (again, without any attempt to specify - just sloganeering).

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If you think I meant to re-create a war you are really picking hairs and missing the point entirely.

    There are opportunities for us now to get ahead of Europe and China. Manufacturing is starting to come back, energy costs are cheap here compared to the rest of the world. But we are saddled with too much debt, public and private. Obama is not helping.

    [/QUOTE]


    Debt has little to nothing to do with current economy.

    Virtually every Fortune 500 company carries debt to some degree or another, it's called investments.

    You just spout platitudes about different market sectors like manufacturing without realizing that in order for those sectors to prosper they need a strong and dependable infrastructure. It amazes me that some neo-cons think that our antiquated infrastructure, much of it half-a-century or more old, is adequate to compete on a 21st century playing field.

    Every economist and business leader in the country agree on two things:

    Infrastructure to support our economy requires investment.

    An educated workforce necessary to be competitive requires investment.

    The neo-cons either believe it's not the gov'ts job to provide those things or that such investment now doesn't produce results in the future. Both views are myopic and uninformed.

    [/QUOTE]

    Wow. You have no clue.

    If someone is in debt up to their eyebalyls from credit cards or a mortgage, can they afford to buy anything or are they just going to take their time to pay off debt before they do so. WHat do you think precipitated the financial crisis in 2008? 

    Infrastructure??  You are in outer space. Yeah its not great but it is not a gating factor.

    [/QUOTE]

    We don't have nearly the debt we had just after WWII - not as a % of GDP.  As 12AM says - we spent our way out of it (e.g. invested in America).

    The collapse of the housing market and derivatives precipitated the financial crisis.  The debt - or fear of debt - stifled the recovery, and gave rise to the think tank commonly referred to as the Tea Party.

     

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    "From 1949 all the way through 1963 the top tax rate was 91% and anyone with an income over $50K (which is about $375K in todays dollars) paid a 75% tax rate."

    And unfortunately for your delusional belief that high taxes encourage private sector economic growth, no one...absolutely no one.... paid that high rate. It was just a feel good liberal fantasy.

    Although the rates were sky high, so were the number of deductions one could take that effectively wiped out the rates.

    "In 1958, an 81% marginal tax rate applied to incomes above $1.08 million, and the 91% rate kicked in at $3.08 million. These figures are in unadjusted 1958 dollars and correspond today to nominal income levels that are at least 10 times higher. That year, according to Internal Revenue Service records, just 236 of the nation's 45.6 million tax filers had any income that was taxed at 81% or higher. (The published IRS data do not reveal how many of these were subject to the 91% rate.)

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Damain,


    Without the damaging intervention by Hoover and then Roosevelt the Great Depression would (and should) have run it course quickly just like the previous one did in 1920-21. Yes, there was a short period of pain, but the economy cam roaring (get it?) back for the duration most of the decade.

    Those interventionist policies did far more damage to far more people than it helped.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Hoover and Roosevelt took rather vastly different approaches...

    [/QUOTE]

    Hoover's approach was to do nothing. His approach extended the depression, he also almost got d.c. sacked by ww1 vets.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [QUOTE]Further to that point Amy Shales isn't an economist and she admits as much, she has said on numerous occaisions that her book doesn't point to any alternatives to the new deal because she simply has no idea what would have worked. [/QUOTE]

    Amity is a historian, and a well respected one at that. Beyond that, we know that the New Deal didn't work, just like the stimulus hasn't worked. The only things that these programs do is put off the pain for a while, they don't solve anything.

    [/QUOTE]

    The purpose of the Obama stimulus, like the Bush bailout, like the GM bailout, and so on, is to make sure that those who are politicially connected don't pay the price for their bad decisions.

    This translates into longer term pain and cost for the rest of us.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: The federal Government program that amazingly reduced poverty by 22 percent in only 15 years

    [QUOTE]Hoover's approach was to do nothing.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, that's what we were all taught but that's not what actually happened. Hoover was very hands on in taking steps that he thought would help end the economic downturn. He even offered to work with Roosevelt after the election but Roosevelt declined.

     

    [QUOTE] His approach extended the depression[/QUOTE]

    Yes, his approach morphed into Roosevelt's. Both failed.

     

     

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share