Obama Vs. Limbaugh Vs. GOP

[musicman]

and now this.

WASHINGTON

[west20th]

It would also be interesting to look at the GDP during that time.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Up every year after the new deal, except for 1938.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Does anyone really have any faith in the FDIC these days? How can they insure money they do not have the capital to back it up with? Insurance is nothing more that a piece of paper saying you are insured, whether you are actually are or not is yet to be seen. Why do you think they are going to keep bailing out these banks? They can't let them go under, they can't back up all that FDIC insurance they have been claiming to be having all these years. What are you going to do, sue the government for your money? You might as well sue the guy passing out the chronicle at the corner of 1960 and I45. You will get the same amount out of either one.

[crunchtastic]

My wish for you is that you didn't have to be under constant worry that you won't have a job tomorrow. My wish for you is that you worked for a better company.

I know you weren't being mean, TJ. Incidentally, I work for a great company. It's highly regulated, highly rated, is solvent, treats it people and customers well, and makes a profit. It just happens to be owned by AIG. They ran the fincancial units as a giant hedge fund and lost, and now unfortunately everyone else is on the hook, including the taxpayers. While I'm grateful to have a job still, I am philosophically opposed to the federal bailout of AIG, just as I was with GM and Chrysler. It's a very awkward and hypocritical position to be in, as I am not a big enough person to go renouncing my livelihood because of my principles.

[Mark F. Barnes]

California is throwing in the towel, legalize weed, tax it, and if you're still broke after that, nobody will care, as long as they can sit around on the couch and watch cartoons and eat Cheetos.

[KinkaidAlum]

If your so stupid you cant get a good job and your not willing to work, Im not willing to help you. PERIOD. Socialist agendas are BEST LEFT TO CHARITY. Churches/mosques/charities/whatever else exist should do our SOCIAL agenda NOT the government. The government should ONLY provide Military security, Infrastructure, and a VERY limited Few other tasks.

LOL.

[crunchtastic]

California is throwing in the towel, legalize weed, tax it, and if you're still broke after that, nobody will care, as long as they can sit around on the couch and watch cartoons and eat Cheetos.

For real??? I can't say I have a problem with beating the Mexican drug mafia at their own game and getting tax revenue to boot. The demand will never go away, might as well take profits from the market.

[Jax]

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm

Up every year after the new deal, except for 1938.

What happened in 1938?

[Highway6]

Just because the unemployment rate stared to drop the year we entered WWII doesn't mean that WWII was solely responsible for that drop. I know WWII was a big part of what got us out of the great depression but I don't think the war was the only reason unemployment dropped. Anybody have any more detailed stats? Maybe month by month approaching the war?

Im not saying there was no job creation and no decrease in unemployment at all. There was.

You need to show %, not numbers. Yes.. there was a slight decrease overall. Some years there was an increase. But it was because of the war that the unemployment rates showed the most dramatic drop.

1929 3.14

1930 8.67

1931 15.82

1932 23.53

1933 24.75 FDR takes office

1934 21.60 ▼

1935 19.97

1936 16.80 New Deal

1937 14.18

1938 18.91 ▲

1939 17.05

1940 14.45

1941 9.66

These numbers from the census bureau by the way.

Do you really want to look at that data and say that jobs programs from 1933-38 did more to end the depression than than the start of WWII? Also.. I don't feel like waiting around 4-5 years for our economy to be fixed, do you ?

EDIT:

To further this..

1942 .. 4.7%

1943 .. 1.9%

1944 .. 1.2%

Point being.. we were not pulled out of the Great Depression by gvt created infrastructure jobs. And kudos to you if you are willing to wait half a decade or more for the jobs created by our New Spending Deal to help us.

[KinkaidAlum]

I am all for legalzing weed and certain other drugs. Big Pharm might not be too happy though...

[memebag]

Enough with the constant overstatement of middle-class specialness. Perhaps we could get past all the rancor by putting things in historical context, or by adopting a broader worldview. There are very few middle class, college educated, young white Americans, making good salaries as corporate cubicle jockeys, who can legitimately claim hard work. The truth is, they got the luck of the draw being born to white middle class parents at the end of the 20th century in America, and have spent their entire lives (as have many of their parents) enjoying the fruits of an economic bubble without much toil. They have acquired much, but earned little, and risked even less. They put on a nice shirt and some wrinkle resistant pants and 'solve problems' or mess about in various software programs for 5 or 6 hours a day. They've been been doing this not terribly hard work for 5 or 6 or 7 years since getting an unremarkable college degree. They are now angry and fearful, because they are vastly outnumbered by non-white people who work in a less important capacity and make far less money, yet multiply much more rapidly and consume more resources.

It sucks to come face-to-face with the notion that the lifestyle one inherited was never fully sustainable, but one doesn't have to act like a petulant, hateful douche about it. American middle class life may be very different in the 21st century. We shall have to adjust.

Hush up with that logic. I want to hear more about how white males are discriminated against.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Im not saying there was no job creation and no decrease in unemployment at all. There was.

You need to show %, not numbers. Yes.. there was a slight decrease overall. Some years there was an increase. But it was because of the war that the unemployment rates showed the most dramatic drop.

1929 3.14

1930 8.67

1931 15.82

1932 23.53

1933 24.75 FDR takes office

1934 21.60 ▼

1935 19.97

1936 16.80 New Deal

1937 14.18

1938 18.91 ▲

1939 17.05

1940 14.45

1941 9.66

These numbers from the census bureau by the way.

Anyone that wants to look at that data and say that jobs programs from 1933-38 did more to end the depression than the the war in 41 is delusional. Also.. I don't feel like waiting around 4-5 years for our economy to be fixed, do you ?

Dead on the money Hwy6, when the war broke out, every able person was either in the Military or in Civil support services. Rosie the Riveter was the new poster child for the economy. Professional housewives, had to go into the work place to fill the void, left behind by all the men in Military service. It's a no brainer.

And you are correct, a wait of more like 6-8 years is more realistic with the mess we are in. If it were not for the War, the Great Depression would have last possible another 6-8 years than it did.

[ricco67]

Im not saying there was no job creation and no decrease in unemployment at all. There was.

You need to show %, not numbers. Yes.. there was a slight decrease overall. Some years there was an increase. But it was because of the war that the unemployment rates showed the most dramatic drop.

1929 3.14

1930 8.67

1931 15.82

1932 23.53

1933 24.75 FDR takes office

1934 21.60 ▼

1935 19.97

1936 16.80 New Deal

1937 14.18

1938 18.91 ▲

1939 17.05

1940 14.45

1941 9.66

These numbers from the census bureau by the way.

Do you really want to look at that data and say that jobs programs from 1933-38 did more to end the depression than than the start of WWII? Also.. I don't feel like waiting around 4-5 years for our economy to be fixed, do you ?

OK.

Lets live in fantasy land for a bit until we get back on topic.

Under the current plan, how long, if ever, do you think it will take for the economy to get back on track?

Same question assuming McCain is in office.

Now, what would YOU think is a reasonable timeline to get the economy going and under what plans? We are rather curious what makes you think your plan would be any better than those that have been bandied about.

For an additional cookie, how do you think you can get it passed and approved if either house was controlled by the Democrats OR Reblicans.

Frankly, if i see it completely recovered in under 5 years, I will be astounded.

BTW: Please type your response with that would require as little editing as possible; Economists around the world will be anxious to see how you could come up with something new.

[Highway6]

Under the current plan, how long, if ever, do you think it will take for the economy to get back on track?

Same question assuming McCain is in office.

Frankly, if i see it completely recovered in under 5 years, I will be astounded.

BTW: Please type your response with that would require as little editing as possible; Economists around the world will be anxious to see how you could come up with something new.

No clue. I'm not an economist. But i did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

I do know Obama's Stimulus solution is broad, wastes a lot, and doesn't target the problem - consumer confidence in our wrecked financial system.... and it will create far fewer jobs than promised in a timeframe that wont help.

Hose.. too big... destroys neighborhood... Gaaahh !!

[Jax]

Do you really want to look at that data and say that jobs programs from 1933-38 did more to end the depression than than the start of WWII?

I didn't say job programs did more than the war to end the depression, I'm just saying job programs had more of an impact than nothing but tax cuts, which was the other option (isn't that what Hoover tried?). Tax cuts alone is what the Republicans today would do if they were in power.

I don't think the solution today is to start a new world war, so I think that the job programs are a good idea, along with target tax cuts to those most affected by the depression so they can start buying things again (ie: those making under $250k per year).

I still want to know what happened in 1938. That was the only period of worsening unemployment since the New Deal started.

[Highway6]

I didn't say job programs did more than the war to end the depression, I'm just saying job programs had more of an impact than nothing but tax cuts, which was the other option (isn't that what Hoover tried?). That is the option that the Republicans today would have us take.

I don't think the solution today is to start a new world war, so I think that the job programs are a good option, along with target tax cuts to those most affected by the depression so they can start buying things again (ie: those making under $250k per year).

I still want to know what happened in 1938. That was the only period of worsening unemployment since the New Deal started.

I'd be equally ticked with the Republicans if they were in charge and their only solution were tax cuts. I never said that alone was the way to fix things... nor do i believe any republican has said "All you need is Tax cuts"

I do believe tax cuts, as opposed to raising taxes to pay for the condoms and wildlife studies in the stimulus plan, should be part of the comprehensive fix though.

I want to know your thoughts on my previous post outlining some limitations of gvt infrastructure projects being the miracle cure-all job creator.

[Jax]

Why do conservatives keep repeating the condoms thing when that was cut out of the bill like the first day after it was announced?

The way I see WWII is kind of like more of the New Deal - more government spending, and we can all agree that it worked. The New Deal decreased unemployment just not fast enough, and then the war spending sped things up. I think we might want to think about creating more government job programs during this crisis, not less like I keep hearing from Republicans.

So what are these new ideas the Republicans have besides tax cuts?

[infinite_jim]

I still want to know what happened in 1938. That was the only period of worsening unemployment since the New Deal started.

The reality of 1938 was the political fallout from the 1936 elections.

[Highway6]

Why do conservatives keep repeating the condoms thing when that was cut out of the bill like the first day after it was announced?

The way I see WWII is kind of like more of the New Deal - more government spending, and we can all agree that it worked. The New Deal decreased unemployment just not fast enough, and then the war spending sped things up. I think we might want to think about creating more government job programs during this crisis, not less like I keep hearing from Republicans.

So what are these new ideas the Republicans have besides tax cuts?

Condoms were cut? Swell. Hadn't heard. How bout the wildlife studies and making healthcare paperless? Were those job-creating programs cut as well ?

So.. If you know the New Deal decreased unemployment, "just not fast enough"...

and you know you dont want to be saved by another world war..

You are content with Obama's plan leaving us in the economic doldrums for half a decade ?

I don't care who gets credit for the idea, Rs or Ds... I think they all need to focus on fixing the financial institutional meltdown, and the jobs will follow. Not, focus on attempting to create jobs over the next few years, and hope the financial institutional meltdown fixes itself.

[Jax]

You are content with Obama's plan leaving us in the economic doldrums for half a decade ?

That is your opinion.

I'm not sure about the wildlife programs you mentioned, but making healthcare paperless might keep some computer programmers employed and make healthcare reform more manageable and less expensive. Having to pay less for employees healthcare would definitely benefit businesses that offer their employees healthcare plans.

As I understand it, parts of this package are meant to prevent layoffs from various government programs already in place, as well as creating new programs. For example, there is funding so that police officers won't have to be laid off in certain places. That isn't a new program, but it stimulates the economy because the police officers can use their paychecks to buy consumer goods, and it also keeps us safer. The crime rate unfortunately follows the unemployment rate.

Are these the only parts of the package you have a problem with? While not everybody is going to like every program, I think you need to look at the package as a whole and decide whether the good parts outweigh the bad.

I think they all need to focus on fixing the financial institutional meltdown, and the jobs will follow. Not, focus on attempting to create jobs over the next few years, and hope the financial institutional meltdown fixes itself.

I agree with you that a solution needs to be worked on in regards to the financial situation, and I think that is in the works right now. I disagree though that creating jobs on the short term is a bad idea. Jobs lean to more consumer spending. If we have more consumer spending AND we simultaneously do something to create more liquidity in the financial sector, I think that would put us on the right track.

[RedScare]

You are content with Obama's plan leaving us in the economic doldrums for half a decade ?

I am waiting for someone to suggest a better idea. Tax cuts don't do it. Bush enacted two tax cuts that dropped rates to their lowest in decades, yet here we are in a deep and deepening recession. Give us an idea other than the one that won't help.

[Highway6]

That is your opinion.

You praised the infrastructure projects Obama wants to create as a viable solution to creating jobs... yet you later admit that 80 years ago, the same thing worked, "just not fast enough".

Seems to me you are content with Obama's plan of "just not fast enough".

[Jax]

I am waiting for someone to suggest a better idea. Tax cuts don't do it. Bush enacted two tax cuts that dropped rates to their lowest in decades, yet here we are in a deep and deepening recession. Give us an idea other than the one that won't help.

He already said that Republicans have more ideas than just tax cuts, but I still haven't heard what those ideas are.

I don't think conservatives are supposed to have new ideas though. I think the whole point of conservatism to resist change?

Seems to me you are content with Obama's plan of "just not fast enough".

Actually I think I said somewhere in there that I'd like to see more spending on infrastructure if possible. You have to remember though that the current situation isn't as bad as the great depression, so hopefully we won't need to spend as much money as we did during WWII to get us out of it.

[Highway6]

I am waiting for someone to suggest a better idea. Tax cuts don't do it. Bush enacted two tax cuts that dropped rates to their lowest in decades, yet here we are in a deep and deepening recession. Give us an idea other than the one that won't help.

Tax cuts alone won't fix it. Raising taxes to pay for huge spending programs wont fix it either ,nor will it help things.

The tax cuts weren't the cause of of the deep and deepening recession.

I don't have a specific solution. I don't claim to have the answer.

I haven't heard a workable plan from Dems or Reps. I don't care who gets the credit.. they should all be working together to get us out of this.

I do think currently, the focus is in the wrong place. Focus should be on fixing the market, remedying the problems that caused the greed of some of these huge financial institutions to bring everyone down. Fix the issues preventing lending. Focus should be on fixing the system, which will in turn fix our confidence issues. Get the confidence and money flowing again, jobs will follow.

Red, do you really think the stimulus plan will create enough jobs in a timely enough fashion to matter ?

He already said that Republicans have more ideas than just tax cuts, but I still haven't heard what those ideas are.

I didnt say that. I've only ever said Obama's Spending plan is not the solution.

I don't think conservatives are supposed to have new ideas though. I think the whole point of conservatism to resist change?

You're joking, right?

[Jax]

Tax cuts alone won't fix it. Raising taxes to pay for huge spending programs wont fix it either.

It's not as simple as taxes only being raised. Taxes will be adjusted. They are being raised for some, lowered for others. More people will see taxes lowered than raised so if you want to generalize remember that more people will have their taxes cut including most likely everybody involved in this discussion. I don't think that will even come into effect until a few years from now.

Obviously spending alone won't fix things. That's why I said I like the idea of job creation plus tax cuts targeted to those who need them most (to encourage those people to start buying things again) plus more oversight in the financial sector is a good start.

Focus should be on fixing the market, remedying the problems that caused the greed of some of these huge financial institutions to bring everyone down

I agree that we need to work on fixing the market, but we also need to slow the rise of unemployment by creating jobs so people will start buying again.

From the New Oxford American Dictionary:

conservative |kənˈsərvətiv; -vəˌtiv|

adjective

•holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

•a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

I think that's why the ideas coming from conservatives are not new ideas.

[Highway6]

From The Oxford American Dictionary:

holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

I think that's why the ideas coming from conservatives are not new ideas.

Your generalization was insulting and simplistic.

I would say conservatives are opposed to radical change, not all change in general. And honoring traditional values and attitudes does not equal paralyzed from moving forward. Do you hear any politician, any republican saying we should sit on our ass and do nothing during this crisis?

"Yah.. doing something would be change, and we're conservatives, so we cant do that." Hilarious.

I said i think the gvt should be focusing on fixing our financial system, including fixing what went wrong. That implies willingness to accept more regulation and oversight to a degree. Thats change. I'm a free-market guy, but am willing to accept the new reality that some degree of safeguards are now needed.

So, liberals.. they come up with only new ideas, huh?

I've never heard of raising taxes before. Wow, awesome concept, let's hope it works.

New Deal part II... well obvious by the fact they are invoking the name of the programs of 80 years ago.. not new.

What exactly in Obama's Spending solution, or in any proposal put forth by the left is a new idea, jax ??

By your understanding of "new ideas" ..... 8 years from now when we're all sick of Obama.. it will be the Republicans with the new ideas only by process of elimination that we've had to listen to 8 years of the Democrat's ideas. "Change" is relative in politics. Change in direction doesnt mean it's a new direction we haven't traveled many times before.

[RedScare]

Tax cuts alone won't fix it. Raising taxes to pay for huge spending programs wont fix it either.

Agree. In fact, tax rates are low enough that lowering them won't have any effect at all, other than to increase the deficit even more.

The tax cuts weren't the cause of of the deep and deepening recession.

Agree. The housing bubble, brought on by tens of trillions of dollars of cheap credit, made easier by fraud in the lending and bond markets, caused the collapse that caused the recession.

I don't have a specific solution. I don't claim to have the answer.

Then we might as well try Obama's plan, since we have nothing better.

I haven't heard a workable plan from Dems or Reps. I don't care who gets the credit.. they should all be working together to get us out of this.

See above.

I do think currently, the focus is in the wrong place.

Focus is in seberal places.

Focus should be on fixing the market, remedying the problems that caused the greed of some of these huge financial institutions to bring everyone down.

The market is the source of much of the greed you speak of. The market cannot be "fixed". It is a function of confidence, both by investors and by consumers. It is more of a barometer of the economy. When the economy improves, the market improves.

Fix the issues preventing lending. Focus should be on fixing the system, which will in turn fix our confidence issues. Get the confidence and money flowing again, jobs will follow.

Actually, many of the fixes are in place. Much of the problem is that no one is BORROWING. Auto sales dropped from 17 million to 9 million. Housing starts have dropped from 1.5 million to 466,000. Housing prices are down over 20%. Unemployment is over 7% and rising. Who is borrowing? Who wants to?

Red, do you really think the stimulus plan will create enough jobs in a timely enough fashion to matter ?

"Enough" jobs in a "timely fashion"? Compared to what? When the world's economy plunges into recession, a measly $800 billion ain't gonna stop it. Your argument seems to suggest that the stimulus is not big enough, and you are probably correct. Yet, you and the other Republicans are the ones demanding it be smaller. To get out of politics for a moment, I do not think anything will stop the downward spiral in the near term. We created an unsustainable economy, and it has to unwind. But, the stimulus can slow the rate of decline, and make for a softer landing, and I do favor these attempts. I also do not believe that we will return to the free spending, free borrowing ways of the last 28 years. So, what I see as a recovery will probably not look like one to you.

I didnt say that. I've only ever said Obama's Spending plan is not the solution.

And I haven't seen a better solution.

[Jax]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting. There is no place for that here. I was honestly just saying what I thought was common knowledge. I just meant that conservatives generally resist change.

People often make fun of the "Progressive Conservative" party in Canada saying that their name is an oxymoron.

I would say that after 8 years of the Republican party being in power, building infrastructure as a means of creating jobs is a relatively new idea compared with the 100% tax cuts that were proposed as an alternative stimulus package by republicans.

I said i think the gvt should be focusing on fixing our financial system, including fixing what went wrong. That implies willingness to accept more regulation and oversight to a degree. Thats change.

That's fine but maybe you aren't as conservative as you think. Labels are annoying anyways. I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives who would disagree with you about regulation.

[flipper]

If you sit back and actually think about it it's pretty depressing. We have left a bunch of self serving, power hungry, egotistical politicians (regardless of party) in charge of our economic future. What the poop does a politician know about fixing the economy?

Politician: 2 a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession b: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons.

It's obvious that the legislature has no clue what to do other than spend money on a long awaited pet project list. Unfortunately, it doesn't get any more promising when listening to Geithner.

Maybe we can all just agree that we are going to have to sit back and let this thing play out. Ya know, the same way it would have if the new spending law wasn't passed.

flipper

[Jeebus]

Do you people not have jobs during the day? This thread is moving too fast for casual posters to keep up!