Obama approval rating all time high

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

so you REALLy have no idea what Keynesian theory is.

I doubt you do if you consider the 1930's a success.

Depends. 1930-1933 was an unmitigated catastrophe, but that was when Hoover was employing the 'hands off, let the market sort itself out' approach. During this time US GDP dropped by 30%. After the New Deal was enacted in 1934 GDP grew by more than 10%, it grew by 8% or so in 1935, and by about 12% in 1936. Absolutely fabulous rates of growth. New Deal spending was scaled back in 1937 to try and balance the budget, which helped lead to lower GDP growth of about 4% in 1937 and a small contraction in 1938. After that, New Deal spending was restored, a war loomed and so it was off to the races again and we never looked back. Either way from the war or from the New Deal, it was large scale government expenditures that got us out of it.

If you look at the time period when Keynesian economic theory was applied in the 1930's (ie. mid-late 1933 and on), it was a fabulous success.

Success for whom? Avg America? 14-20% unemployment says otherwise.

And I dont buy the lefts perception of Hoover. He increased public works projects in an attempt to stimulate the economy. He was an interventionalist\protectionist with the smoot-hawley tariff act. And he even passed this gem in 1932.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932

Sound familiar?

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Once people realize they have to pay for the shit they bought, the crap will hit the fan. Again.

What about the reverse? What happens if this stimulus bill actually does perk the economy up? Much like how FDR's New Deal did with the Depression, what happens to the GOP then? Then they look like real losers. The GOP is playing political Russian roulette by categorically being against Obama. Sure, it might work if Obama fails miserably. However, if Obama succeeds, bam, that's it I think.

FDR's did nothing to to perk up the economy.

It took WW2 to end the great depression, a war that started 8+ years after FDR took office.

Between 1933 and 1937 GNP grew by 51% while the CPI only grew by approx 10%.
Unemployment went from 25.2% down to 13.8%
1938 there was another recession which brought things back down, but this secondary recession was less severe than the initial crash from 1930-1933.

I think the end of prohibition in 1933 played a big part or resolving the crisis (this was part of the "new deal.") Overall, WW2, while one of the most devastating and horrible events ever to take place, did indeed help the US economy substantially, history tells us that FDR's policies did have some positive impact on the economy as well.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

so you REALLy have no idea what Keynesian theory is.

I doubt you do if you consider the 1930's a success.

Depends. 1930-1933 was an unmitigated catastrophe, but that was when Hoover was employing the 'hands off, let the market sort itself out' approach. During this time US GDP dropped by 30%. After the New Deal was enacted in 1934 GDP grew by more than 10%, it grew by 8% or so in 1935, and by about 12% in 1936. Absolutely fabulous rates of growth. New Deal spending was scaled back in 1937 to try and balance the budget, which helped lead to lower GDP growth of about 4% in 1937 and a small contraction in 1938. After that, New Deal spending was restored, a war loomed and so it was off to the races again and we never looked back. Either way from the war or from the New Deal, it was large scale government expenditures that got us out of it.

If you look at the time period when Keynesian economic theory was applied in the 1930's (ie. mid-late 1933 and on), it was a fabulous success.

Success for whom? Avg America? 14-20% unemployment says otherwise.

And I dont buy the lefts perception of Hoover. He increased public works projects in an attempt to stimulate the economy. He was an interventionalist\protectionist with the smoot-hawley tariff act. And he even passed this gem in 1932.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932

Sound familiar?

Well, the average American was probably paying no more than 4% tax rate, so I wouldn't say this was particularly suprising. Also, the rich had a number of significant tax shelters back then. So, not exactly socialism personified.

-Robert

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The GOP is screwed, especially with Fatbaugh at the helm.

They're shooting for permanent minority status.

So said Mike Murphy, republican strategist, on MTP on sunday. He noted with the shrinking white majority and rising hispanic minority, the pubs are precariously perched on the edge of obscurity. As the party currently stands, I don't have a problem with that. Republicans used to be the party of business, so the sooner it shrugs off the religious psychos the better. As small gov't proponents, gays shouldn't even be a talking point for them. "What? Gays? Wtf do I care who a guy wants to marry? Is he making money and spending money? That's what I want to know, and that's what I want to help." "Stem cells? You mean you can grow a new lung for a smoker so he can keep buying cigarettes in expression of his individual choice as an american citizen? fuck yeah, let's do that!" You can't have small gov't conservatism while also wanting the govt to oversee every personal decision an individual wants to make. Religion seeks to control individuals, and that's antithetical to small govt and states rights. Toss the nuts, put up an intelligent politician who doesn't try to tell me that evolution is a hoax and I'd actually have to spend some time thinking about who to vote for.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Depends. 1930-1933 was an unmitigated catastrophe, but that was when Hoover was employing the 'hands off, let the market sort itself out' approach. During this time US GDP dropped by 30%. After the New Deal was enacted in 1934 GDP grew by more than 10%, it grew by 8% or so in 1935, and by about 12% in 1936. Absolutely fabulous rates of growth. New Deal spending was scaled back in 1937 to try and balance the budget, which helped lead to lower GDP growth of about 4% in 1937 and a small contraction in 1938. After that, New Deal spending was restored, a war loomed and so it was off to the races again and we never looked back. Either way from the war or from the New Deal, it was large scale government expenditures that got us out of it.

If you look at the time period when Keynesian economic theory was applied in the 1930's (ie. mid-late 1933 and on), it was a fabulous success.

Success for whom? Avg America? 14-20% unemployment says otherwise.

And I dont buy the lefts perception of Hoover. He increased public works projects in an attempt to stimulate the economy. He was an interventionalist\protectionist with the smoot-hawley tariff act. And he even passed this gem in 1932.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932

Sound familiar?

It's not that Hoover did nothing to try and stop the Great Depression, he wasn't evil. He also didn't completely ignore the problem. He was ideologically opposed to excessive government intervention however, and it was reflected by his policies. It was a disaster.

And about the unemployment issue, hell yeah the New Deal was good for that. When Roosevelt took office, unemployment was 25%. During his first term it decreased to 21.7%, 20.1%, 16.9%, and then 14.3%. With the help of the New Deal he almost chopped unemployment in half in 4 years. (again, in 1937 many New Deal programs were cut back, and unemployment went back up in 1938, but with the return of funding it once again was declining before war production even started)

The New Deal wasn't perfect, and yeah the 1930's sucked. Within the context of the economic catastrophe that occurred, the New Deal did pretty well I think.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Depends. 1930-1933 was an unmitigated catastrophe, but that was when Hoover was employing the 'hands off, let the market sort itself out' approach. During this time US GDP dropped by 30%. After the New Deal was enacted in 1934 GDP grew by more than 10%, it grew by 8% or so in 1935, and by about 12% in 1936. Absolutely fabulous rates of growth. New Deal spending was scaled back in 1937 to try and balance the budget, which helped lead to lower GDP growth of about 4% in 1937 and a small contraction in 1938. After that, New Deal spending was restored, a war loomed and so it was off to the races again and we never looked back. Either way from the war or from the New Deal, it was large scale government expenditures that got us out of it.

If you look at the time period when Keynesian economic theory was applied in the 1930's (ie. mid-late 1933 and on), it was a fabulous success.

Success for whom? Avg America? 14-20% unemployment says otherwise.

And I dont buy the lefts perception of Hoover. He increased public works projects in an attempt to stimulate the economy. He was an interventionalist\protectionist with the smoot-hawley tariff act. And he even passed this gem in 1932.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932

Sound familiar?

It's not that Hoover did nothing to try and stop the Great Depression, he wasn't evil. He also didn't completely ignore the problem. He was ideologically opposed to excessive government intervention however, and it was reflected by his policies. It was a disaster.

And about the unemployment issue, hell yeah the New Deal was good for that. When Roosevelt took office, unemployment was 25%. During his first term it decreased to 21.7%, 20.1%, 16.9%, and then 14.3%. With the help of the New Deal he almost chopped unemployment in half in 4 years. (again, in 1937 many New Deal programs were cut back, and unemployment went back up in 1938, but with the return of funding it once again was declining before war production even started)

The New Deal wasn't perfect, and yeah the 1930's sucked. Within the context of the economic catastrophe that occurred, the New Deal did pretty well I think.

I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around an economic theory that was meant to maximize production and employment having on avg double digit unemployment through its successful years. 1937 should have been proof of it being a crutch rather than a solution. When the govt cut back the entire house of cards collpased. Meaning it would have to go on indefinately and see constant increases in govt control and spending instead of being a stop-gap until the economy recovered.

Now we are going to try this again?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around an economic theory that was meant to maximize production and employment having on avg double digit unemployment through its successful years. 1937 should have been proof of it being a crutch rather than a solution. When the govt cut back the entire house of cards collpased. Meaning it would have to go on indefinately and see constant increases in govt control and spending instead of being a stop-gap until the economy recovered.

Now we are going to try this again?

Huh? How is this hard to wrap your head around? After being put into place, these policies contributed to halving the unemployment rate in 4 years. What were you thinking, that overnight government spending that still comprised a small share of overall GDP would suddenly restore the country to full employment? That's nuts.

During its employment GDP increased on average by almost double digit levels during a worldwide economic catastrophe. Unemployment decreased by nearly 50%. When this funding was removed GDP contracted again slightly, but nowhere near to the levels it had been at, and while unemployment increased it once again came nowhere close to being as bad as it was. The house of cards wasn't within even the same ballpark as collapsing.

 

[jediphx]

Hopefully that cart Obama carries around with him everywhere will eventually run out of Koolaid. Its scary how many lazy, misinformed and uneducated people vote. Sigh, Im dissapointed in the GOP as well because they got greedy and stupid and forgot their roots. However Obama is clearly severely left leaning and a major hypocrite and now he is Commander and Chief its now his ass not Bushs.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jediphx
Hopefully that cart Obama carries around with him everywhere will eventually run out of Koolaid. Its scary how many lazy, misinformed and uneducated people vote.

No wonder Bush was elected twice.

 

[jediphx]

No Bush was elected twice because whatever else he did wrong he kept the country from being attacked on our soil again. No matter what else theleft throws at him they can't deny that. Economy wise Bush was not a genius but in the defense area he had balls and that is what American's want. Not someone who wants to cozy with the Russian's and offer the missle defense shield as a carrot.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: jediphx
No Bush was elected twice because whatever else he did wrong he kept the country from being attacked on our soil again. No matter what else theleft throws at him they can't deny that. Economy wise Bush was not a genius but in the defense area he had balls and that is what American's want. Not someone who wants to cozy with the Russian's and offer the missle defense shield as a carrot.

Been drinking the Koolaid served by Rushbo I see.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jediphx
No Bush was elected twice because whatever else he did wrong he kept the country from being attacked on our soil again. No matter what else theleft throws at him they can't deny that. Economy wise Bush was not a genius but in the defense area he had balls and that is what American's want. Not someone who wants to cozy with the Russian's and offer the missle defense shield as a carrot.

Well it's good to see you know what Americans want. You probably should have told America this back in November, because Obama ran against a guy who's foreign policy was entirely based around having 'balls'. Obama kicked his ass.

 

[eleison]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jediphx
No Bush was elected twice because whatever else he did wrong he kept the country from being attacked on our soil again. No matter what else theleft throws at him they can't deny that. Economy wise Bush was not a genius but in the defense area he had balls and that is what American's want. Not someone who wants to cozy with the Russian's and offer the missle defense shield as a carrot.

Well it's good to see you know what Americans want. You probably should have told America this back in November, because Obama ran against a guy who's foreign policy was entirely based around having 'balls'. Obama kicked his ass.

If america know Obama was going to kill the economy like it is now, not sure if Obama would have won.. but then MSM FTL.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jediphx
No Bush was elected twice because whatever else he did wrong he kept the country from being attacked on our soil again. No matter what else theleft throws at him they can't deny that. Economy wise Bush was not a genius but in the defense area he had balls and that is what American's want. Not someone who wants to cozy with the Russian's and offer the missle defense shield as a carrot.

Well it's good to see you know what Americans want. You probably should have told America this back in November, because Obama ran against a guy who's foreign policy was entirely based around having 'balls'. Obama kicked his ass.

If america know Obama was going to kill the economy like it is now, not sure if Obama would have won.. but then MSM FTL.

Yeah, I'm sure the 'librul media' turned the opinion of the American people. That's why Bush was elected twice too. Then again, that's the conservative victim mentality shining through. It's not that people rejected conservatism, it's that you were betrayed by the librul media. Because conservatism never fails, it is only failed... amirite?

You can't really believe the crap you're spewing on here. If you really believe the shape the economy is in is due to Obama, you are a moron. Period.

 

[jediphx]

I never said the state of the economy was totally Obamas fault, that would be stupid. However the excessive spending and laissez faire attitude to the stock market are certainly not going to help matters. As for Koolaid I don't drink nor do I believe everything Rush or conservatives say. I cased my opinion on the fact that while Bush was president we were not attacked again. Im sure if no attacks happen during Obama's 4 years he will be first in line to take credit as well. Personally I wish we could clean out all politicians in Congress and start fresh because both sides are so morally bankrupt. As for Mccain I thought he sucked as a option and he was NOT a true conservative option. Obama really did not have to try that hard to beat him since Mccain ran a horrible campaign. As far as the media goes they are not liberal per se, they are just hopelessly afixed to the tit of the democratic party, which is not good for anyone really.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jediphx
I never said the state of the economy was totally Obamas fault, that would be stupid. However the excessive spending and laissez faire attitude to the stock market are certainly not going to help matters. As for Koolaid I don't drink nor do I believe everything Rush or conservatives say. I cased my opinion on the fact that while Bush was president we were not attacked again. Im sure if no attacks happen during Obama's 4 years he will be first in line to take credit as well. Personally I wish we could clean out all politicians in Congress and start fresh because both sides are so morally bankrupt. As for Mccain I thought he sucked as a option and he was NOT a true conservative option. Obama really did not have to try that hard to beat him since Mccain ran a horrible campaign. As far as the media goes they are not liberal per se, they are just hopelessly afixed to the tit of the democratic party, which is not good for anyone really.

I don't think you know what laissez faire means, Obama is pursuing interventionist policies towards the stock market, the exact opposite of 'hands off'.

The media is not affixed to the Democratic Party in any way. Or did you mean the same media that blanketed the airwaves and newspapers with the Monica Lewinsky scandal? The same media that attacked Al Gore relentlessly before the 2000 election? The media is not liberal or conservative, it is sensationalist and oppositional.

If having McCain's picture on the cover of magazines would have sold more copies than Obama, you would have seen his face plastered everywhere.

 

[jediphx]

Actually I did misuse the term, what I wa trying to say is that Obama seems more interested in making more and more people dependent on the govt than using tride and true options such as tax breaks and reductions in red tape that have traditionally allowed the markets to steady themselves.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: jediphx
Actually I did misuse the term, what I wa trying to say is that Obama seems more interested in making more and more people dependent on the govt than using tride and true options such as tax breaks and reductions in red tape that have traditionally allowed the markets to steady themselves.

Obama is using tax breaks, about 40% of the stimulus bill is in the form of tax cuts. As for reductions in red tape, nearly everyone admits at this point that a lack of effective regulation significantly contributed to the financial meltdown we find ourselves in now. Why would we cut more regulation in response to a failure of sufficient regulation?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jediphx
No Bush was elected twice because whatever else he did wrong he kept the country from being attacked on our soil again. No matter what else theleft throws at him they can't deny that. Economy wise Bush was not a genius but in the defense area he had balls and that is what American's want. Not someone who wants to cozy with the Russian's and offer the missle defense shield as a carrot.

Well it's good to see you know what Americans want. You probably should have told America this back in November, because Obama ran against a guy who's foreign policy was entirely based around having 'balls'. Obama kicked his ass.

If america know Obama was going to kill the economy like it is now, not sure if Obama would have won.. but then MSM FTL.

If you think America was going to blame Obama for the economy, why are his approval ratings at an all-time high, while Republican approval ratings are at an all-time low?

Who is getting blamed here?

:laugh:

 

[jediphx]

Obama plan has 1.3 trillion in tax increases. Just because he will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire which will raise the tax rate from 34% to 39.5% on earners of $200,000 or more doesn't make his hands any less dirty. Even if he taxed the top 2% of earners 100% he could not cover his spending rampage. Everyone will see tax increases for him to even get close to his numbers.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Originally posted by: Slew Foot
Once people realize they have to pay for the shit they bought, the crap will hit the fan. Again.

What about the reverse? What happens if this stimulus bill actually does perk the economy up? Much like how FDR's New Deal did with the Depression, what happens to the GOP then? Then they look like real losers. The GOP is playing political Russian roulette by categorically being against Obama. Sure, it might work if Obama fails miserably. However, if Obama succeeds, bam, that's it I think.

The new Deal didn't work. Read history. WWII is what brought us out of depression.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: jediphx
Actually I did misuse the term, what I wa trying to say is that Obama seems more interested in making more and more people dependent on the govt than using tride and true options such as tax breaks and reductions in red tape that have traditionally allowed the markets to steady themselves.

Obama is using tax breaks, about 40% of the stimulus bill is in the form of tax cuts. As for reductions in red tape, nearly everyone admits at this point that a lack of effective regulation significantly contributed to the financial meltdown we find ourselves in now. Why would we cut more regulation in response to a failure of sufficient regulation?

There are no real tax cuts in the stim bill.

Instead we've got:

(1) Welfare and subsidy -type payments using the IRS as a disbursement facility, and

(2) Just another extension of the AMT tax (IIRC, the same inflation adjustment for the exemption amounts). I.e., people will paying in AMT what they did last year, and they'll pay the same this year. No matter what kind of political spin is put on it, it's the same amount and therefor not a cut at all.

E.g., Last week I bought steak for $5.98 lb. at the grocery store. This week I read they are cutting their prices so I go in and steak is still labled as $5.98. I ask them where's the price cut? They say "Oh we were gonna raise prices to $6.98 but decided not to - so see we cut the price?" Nobody would dare try the same thing elsewhere, they'd be called out on it immediately.

Tax cuts? Oh please.

They decided not to raise (AMT) taxes and called that a cut, that's all. I agree with the move - not raising taxes in a recession, but not the BS description.

So, IMO, the stim bill is actually far less than the advertised amount due to this AMT horse crap.

Fern

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I don't think anyone here knows the extent of the economic damage done by the bubble collapse. It could be over in 6 months or it can last for another 6 years. I'm a bit pessimistic just because this bubble has been growing for a long time now. We borrowed tomorrow's future to pay for today's indulgences. Well, tomorrow has come and it's pissed.

Borrowing tomorrow's future to pay for today's indulgences. You just described Obama's stimulus and budget.

To be fair, that's exactly been the policy since Reagan at least. Ever since easy credit flowed into America, we've been ripping off our children (and their children) to pay for shit we don't need. It'll take a complete culture shock to get us away from this mode of living and hopefully this recession is exactly the medicine we need.

Obama's plan isn't perfect, no plan is. Whether or not it'll work or not is for the future to decide, not a bunch of forumites conjecturing on massively incomplete data.

The new Deal didn't work. Read history. WWII is what brought us out of depression.

Patently false. If you are going to be dishonest, be dishonestly original. Others have already debunked this, as well as thousands of historians commenting on this time period.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

There are no real tax cuts in the stim bill.

Instead we've got:

(1) Welfare and subsidy -type payments using the IRS as a disbursement facility, and

(2) Just another extension of the AMT tax (IIRC, the same inflation adjustment for the exemption amounts). I.e., people will paying in AMT what they did last year, and they'll pay the same this year. No matter what kind of political spin is put on it, it's the same amount and therefor not a cut at all.

E.g., Last week I bought steak for $5.98 lb. at the grocery store. This week I read they are cutting their prices so I go in and steak is still labled as $5.98. I ask them where's the price cut? They say "Oh we were gonna raise prices to $6.98 but decided not to - so see we cut the price?" Nobody would dare try the same thing elsewhere, they'd be called out on it immediately.

Tax cuts? Oh please.

They decided not to raise (AMT) taxes and called that a cut, that's all. I agree with the move - not raising taxes in a recession, but not the BS description.

So, IMO, the stim bill is actually far less than the advertised amount due to this AMT horse crap.

Fern

Well that's awfully strange, because nearly half of the tax cuts proposed in the bill are the elimination of employee side payroll taxes. If you're going to complain that some of these people don't pay income taxes that's fine, but they are still net taxpayers overall, and to single out only income tax as a measure for who pays and who doesn't would be incredibly dishonest. So yes, tax cuts.

Furthermore, the AMT is not being indexed for inflation. That's a tax cut by any rational measure. Would you argue that if someone were paying $10 a year in income tax in 1790, and were paying $10 in income tax today that their taxes hadn't gone down? After all they just didn't INCREASE their taxes, so I guess the amount being paid is the same, no tax cut there!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Well that's awfully strange, because nearly half of the tax cuts proposed in the bill are the elimination of employee side payroll taxes. If you're going to complain that some of these people don't pay income taxes that's fine, but they are still net taxpayers overall, and to single out only income tax as a measure for who pays and who doesn't would be incredibly dishonest. So yes, tax cuts.

Furthermore, the AMT is not being indexed for inflation. That's a tax cut by any rational measure. Would you argue that if someone were paying $10 a year in income tax in 1790, and were paying $10 in income tax today that their taxes hadn't gone down? After all they just didn't INCREASE their taxes, so I guess the amount being paid is the same, no tax cut there!

This is handy site that links to a lot articles/papers on the tax aspects of the stim bill Link

Yes, AMT is being indexed again for inflation (as has pretty consistantly been done).

The Earned Incoem Credit is, IMO, a welfare-type payment. It's just money for poorer people and their the tax system to distribute it (welfare is state run and the US gov can't easily use that I don't believe).

The other thing 'dressed up' as an employees return of FICA (ifyou get this and EIC, how can your FICA money be returned twice?) is the $800 lump sum they were talking about, and quite similar to the stim measure passed last year where we all got a lump sum stim check via the IRS.

Instead of a lump sum at the end of the year (or begining of next year to more accurate), they're using the withholding table to get it out now. Because they're using the withholding tables the money will dribble out in $13 amounts.

I still say there's damn little real tax cuts in the stim bill.

Lower the rates, that's a cut.

Increase personal exemptions beyond the usual inflation increase, that's a cut

Reduce deduction phase-outs (for AGI etc), that's a cut

Most of the provisions in there which I wouldn't describe as 'welfae or subsidies" or related to the AMT exemption adjustment are just accelerating write-offs. These things were always write-offs, the only thing that had been changed is the period of time over whick you write them off. I.e., nothing is increased or decreased in aggregate. Nothing that wasn't deductible now is. If these result in a decrease in your 2009 taxes, then your 2010 taxes will go up. All things being even (no bracket changes etc), these are 'zero-sum' changes other than the 'time value of money'.

There are few small things that I would describe as a tax cut, an example being the exemption for gain on a small business stock. That's obscure, not to mention talk about exempting a gain at this point when no one has any anyway strikes me mostly irrelevent.

Fern