Well the partisans don't care. But presidents aren't elected by partisans, they are elected by independents. And many that either gave him initial support, or like me said "meh" and voted 3rd party will change their minds very quickly.
If the economy isn't doing well at the next mid-terms, I suspect we'll see a divided congress again. If it isn't doing well in 4 years, well then the (R)'s will have a good chance and making Obama a one term blunder.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Don't forget, and it's worth big note, Bush paid for Iraq with emergency spending, which was bullsh*t. Obama at least is not lying about it and has it officially in budget now, at least to a greater degree. His spending is still on track to be mind blowing and absurd, but the point is worth making.
If the GDP grew that much in 3 years, it should have been the end of the depression right? During FDR's presidency the unemployment rate never went below 14% and sustained unemployment rates higher than 20% for almost 2 years.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm
The GDP did grow steadily from 1933 to 1936 with it's biggest jump of 14.1% in 1936 and spending was at 10.6%. But there were other years 1934 and 1939 that federal spending was equal or higher and there was growth of only 7%, still there is growth, but not the get out of the depression growth due to govt. spending. To quote FDR's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morganthau:
"We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot."
We won't be able to spend our way to prosperity.
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.
Will Obama's plan work? I don't know and I don't think anyone is in a position to know. It could work like the New Deal, which did help the Great Depression. Or it could be Japan's stagflation disaster during the 90s. What the GOP is doing is weird though. To use a football analogy, they are down 4 points late in the 4th quarter and they are punting. They are counting on the Dems to make a major mistake to get back into the game.
Will Obama's plan work? I don't know and I don't think anyone is in a position to know. It could work like the New Deal, which did help the Great Depression. Or it could be Japan's stagflation disaster during the 90s. What the GOP is doing is weird though. To use a football analogy, they are down 4 points late in the 4th quarter and they are punting. They are counting on the Dems to make a major mistake to get back into the game.
This isn't 1932. Comparisons are entirely inapposite. Henry Morganthau was HATED by most Dems. He was about as Republican as HOOVER.
Having said that, THIS KIND of spending won't get us out of this mess. Obama is feeding the fat cats, the irresponsible, and the donors to CONGRESS. The latter is the main reason this line of thinking pleased Paulson, Geithner and so many in Congress. The Wall Street donors got what they'd paid for. Anyone who doesn't understand how huge this issue is doesn't understand campaign financing. Almost everything done by Congress is done for special interest groups, like, ahem, doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, bankers.
-Robert
Well, the Republicans are in awful shape. They have NO ideas. Nothing new. Would someone point me to the Republican's proven method of getting us out of this depression?
They don't have one. De nada. They spout the same old bullshit, like reduce taxes.
On the other hand, Obama is the one with the hail mary pass. This spending is a huge gamble. If his approach fails, people will be looking to some other leader, and this might be the time a third party candidate proves viable.
Anyway, voting Republican makes no sense, and hasn't ever made sense to me. There is dumb and dumber, and the Republicans are mostly the latter.
-Robert
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
I'd hardly call what the Republicans are doing as right. If they were doing what was right the Bush years would have been very different. Republicans want to spend lots of money, they just want to spend it on defense contractors instead of construction contractors.
Come on what are you talking about? I have been told this will reap huge rewards and we will get something out this deficit spending unlike the previous deficit spending. Like windfarms in the midwest! That is worth another 5-6 trillion on the national debt right?
:thumbsup:
Republicans are like lawyers. they argue, complaint, they steal from you. Yet when you ask them to solve a problem, they disappear...
I happen to agree with this but want to point out the democrats dont have any new idea's either. What are you labeling as lack of idea is two differing platforms on how to revive an economy. Republicans favor lowering taxes and trickle down. Democrats prefer to spend lots of public money via the govt(keynesian). These are two major economic theories of the past 70 or so years.
What "new" ideas has either party brought to the table that hasnt been done before?
obviously you have no idea what keynesian theory is. it was tried and proven to at least help economy, and build foundation for our prosperity for the last 60+ yrs.
So did a world war. If you want to save a decade and get to the end result lets fire a couple of missiles at Russia.
looking back, its research and development made us world leader for 60+ yrs.
yes I'd consider it a success for helping us during depression, and build a foundation for our 60+ yrs of prosperity.
Dreamworld we live in eh? Unless you forgot Keynesian economics fell out of favor in the 70s when it again failed to bring us out of the the dumps.
fyi, we've always used Keynesian economic during downtime, but we never use it during our up times... the part where we save up money, decrease deficit in good times.
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter