Obama's State of the Union remarks

[Scott_Lafrance]

What I was talking about was the idea of war expenditures as a way out of a depression. The wars you list are nowhere near the scope of WW2 in terms of the mobilization, effect on increased manufacturing and even cost as a percent of GNP. You compare Granada with WW2? What are you talking about?

Ishii

I am talking about the idea of the ruling elites in this country to keep the sheeple focused on an “enemy” and therefore distracted from the insane amount of power and control they were seizing in the name of “national security”.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I am still firmly convinced that America would be better off if it split in 2.

We tried that about 150 years ago. The rebels lost the military conflict, but I think those same rebels still exist today and are winning on other fronts.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Ha! So maybe next time there’s a bad recession we should start WW3 to get out of it?

I was actually talking about the usual Republican talking point that it was WWII that got our country out of the Great Depression and not FDRs New Deal. I believe it was a combination of both and if the New Deal had been bigger, we’d have been out of the depression sooner.

 

[SamH]

I was actually talking about the usual Republican talking point that it was WWII that got our country out of the Great Depression and not FDRs New Deal. I believe it was a combination of both and if the New Deal had been bigger, we’d have been out of the depression sooner.

Actually given the smashing success that the New Deal was the US would be a nation more comparible to present day Argentina or India.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Hmmm. People’s Republic of California, People’s Republic of New York, Republic of New Mexico, etc… Not a bad idea.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Hmmm. People’s Republic of California, People’s Republic of New York, Republic of New Mexico, etc… Not a bad idea.

You know, California could break off and do very, very well on its own. After all, California has pretty much everything the United States has except, of course, smaller. Two of the largest port facilities on the West Coast, a huge agricultural region that could be the breadbasket of the United States, areas ripe for a renaissance in manufacturing, a good university system. If California weren’t being dragged down by all these blue states soaking up Californians’ tax dollars, we’d probably be out of the recession already.

 

[Hiskid1973]

If California weren’t being dragged down by all these blue states soaking up Californians’ tax dollars, we’d probably be out of the recession already.

Your kidding, right ?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Your kidding, right ?

Nope. I think California would do better without the anchor of tax-sucking blue states stealing money from Californian’s wallets. I think California’s recession would have been a lot less difficult and much shorter without the drag on our economy.

Check it out.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg

Interesting, the red states are receiving less Federal funding than the freeloading blue states, which are sucking up way more in Federal funds than they pay, in one case, DOUBLE what they pay.

And the red-state Republicans have the temerity to complain about welfare freeloaders?

 

[SamH]

And the red-state Republicans have the temerity to complain about welfare freeloaders?

I wasn’t aware that all federal spending was welfare.

 

[Raskolnikov]

The policies of neither helped end the depression and many now agree that they actually deepened and extended the depression. While the rest of the world had emerged from the depression in late 1936 and 1937 the US was mired in it until the demand from warring nations fired up factories that had sat idle for years. The depression ended before the US entered WW2.

Unemployment in the US at the end of 1929 was still only 3.2% and after a year of Hoover’s tinkering with the economy the unemployment rate rose to 8.7%. It then jumped to 15% in 1931. In 1937 after 7 years of Keynesian economics the unemployment rate was still above 14% and rose above 19% in 1938 – a period when most of the world had emerged from the depression. From 1939 to December 1941 US manufacturing increased over 50% and little (in relation to the entire economy) was do to government spending and unemployment had dropped to 9%. There is little doubt that the improvement would have continued had the US not been attacked in December 1941.

So no, the depression did not end because the government borrowed and spent money, it ended because goods and services were bought and sold on the open market. If all it took was the government spending money it didn’t have the current economic situation wouldn’t exist.

You know, the Keynesians have an answer for that. Roosevelt actually cut government spending and increased taxes before the 1937-38 recession, which is certainly one way to explain the deflation and the unemployment (which is why many Keynesians consider Roosevelt to be only mildly Keynesian). Milton Frienman disagreed, of course; by him, it was restriction of the money supply which caused the deflation. Either way, it’s certainly no argument for Austrian style economics, which favors restricting the money supply with high interest rates.

And while unemplyment was bad (a common result of deflation), the GDP continued to grow from 1933 to 1937, when it declined slightly, but was already increasing again before the war began.

Major wars of course do help the economy, and Keynes even mentioned war as a possible event that could offset a depression (of course he wasn’t suggesting war as a solution, merely acknowledging the fact). After all, war does boost aggregate demand tremendously, the products demanded being tanks, bombers, and aircraft carriers.
Rich Olszewski:

Hmmm. People’s Republic of California, People’s Republic of New York, Republic of New Mexico, etc… Not a bad idea.

All the Ohioans flooding into the sunbelt would then be illegals. The Arizonian would have to fend us Midwesterners off from all sides. And the Southerners, I’m sure, would throw a fit at the prospect of having to teach English in their schools to accomodate the Northern border-hoppers fleeing the invading Canadian cold fronts.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I wasn’t aware that all federal spending was welfare.

Well, let’s apply Repubblicanist ideology to those states. Let the rich, red states keep their own money and not give it to freeloading blue states that won’t do for themselves.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You know, the Keynesians have an answer for that. Roosevelt actually cut government spending and increased taxes before the 1937-38 recession, which is certainly one way to explain the deflation and the unemployment (which is why many Keynesians consider Roosevelt to be only mildly Keynesian). Milton Frienman disagreed, of course; by him, it was restriction of the money supply which caused the deflation. Either way, it’s certainly no argument for Austrian style economics, which favors restricting the money supply with high interest rates.

And while unemplyment was bad (a common result of deflation), the GDP continued to grow from 1933 to 1937, when it declined slightly, but was already increasing again before the war began.

Major wars of course do help the economy, and Keynes even mentioned war as a possible event that could offset a depression (of course he wasn’t suggesting war as a solution, merely acknowledging the fact). After all, war does boost aggregate demand tremendously, the products demanded being tanks, bombers, and aircraft carriers.

All the Ohioans flooding into the sunbelt would then be illegals. The Arizonian would have to fend us Midwesterners off from all sides. And the Southerners, I’m sure, would throw a fit at the prospect of having to teach English in their schools to accomodate the Northern border-hoppers fleeing the invading Canadian cold fronts.

I support the building of a large, impenetrable border fence on the border between Arizona and California. Gotta keep the rabble out of California.

(for the non-humor enabled, that was meant as a joke)

 

[SamH]

Well, let’s apply Repubblicanist ideology to those states. Let the rich, red states keep their own money and not give it to freeloading blue states that won’t do for themselves.

Please explain Repubblicanist. I am not familar with that term.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Please explain Repubblicanist. I am not familar with that term.

Republicanism is my label for true priorities of the Republican party demonstrated by their demonstrated priorities and rhetoric, namely:

Elimination of all direct taxes on rich people and corporations
Complete deregulation of all business
Every-man-for-himself

You know…the things the Republican party has been working for since the 80s.

Note that it’s MY own definition and is not subject having someone try to lead the discussion down a rabbit trail (which I’ve noticed is something people are very good at doing around here). If you don’t like the label, the I’ll just replace “Republianist” with “modern conservative” as it all means the same thing.

 

[SamH]

You know, the Keynesians have an answer for that. Roosevelt actually cut government spending and increased taxes before the 1937-38 recession, which is certainly one way to explain the deflation and the unemployment (which is why many Keynesians consider Roosevelt to be only mildly Keynesian). Milton Frienman disagreed, of course; by him, it was restriction of the money supply which caused the deflation. Either way, it’s certainly no argument for Austrian style economics, which favors restricting the money supply with high interest rates.

And while unemplyment was bad (a common result of deflation), the GDP continued to grow from 1933 to 1937, when it declined slightly, but was already increasing again before the war began.

Actually he didn’t cut spending. The tax increase in 1937 was the introduction of Social Security - according to our current president it was actually an investment and a massive expansion.

Government deficit spending continued unabated through out The Depression - see the historical borrowing information from the US Treasury

treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo3.htm

In 1936-1938 the second part of the “New Deal” was enacted.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You know, California could break off and do very, very well on its own. After all, California has pretty much everything the United States has except, of course, smaller. Two of the largest port facilities on the West Coast, a huge agricultural region that could be the breadbasket of the United States, areas ripe for a renaissance in manufacturing, a good university system. If California weren’t being dragged down by all these blue states soaking up Californians’ tax dollars, we’d probably be out of the recession already.

I doubt it. They’re already experiencing drought conditions due to regulations protecting “endangered” species.

This from theWSJ

But today the San Joaquin Valley is being transformed into a dust bowl. Hundreds of thousands of acres are fallow, while almond and plum trees are being left to die in the scorching sun. Tens of thousands of people have been tossed out of work—the town of Mendota alone has an unemployment rate of about 40%—and the lines for food donations stretch down streets. The reason? There isn’t enough water to go around this year, and the Obama administration is drawing up new reasons to divert more of it from farms and people and into the San Francisco Bay.

California reservoirs have received 80% of their normal amount of water and precipitation in the northern Sierras has been 95% of its yearly average this year. So why isn’t there more water for farms? Because theirs is a regulatory-mandated drought. The 1973 Endangered Species Act requires that the government take steps to save endangered species. In California, that’s meant diverting vast sums of water into rivers and streams to protect fish. Those diversions this year have forced federal authorities to decide who to serve—fish or farmers.

Of course, the Delta smelt isn’t a particularly attractive species to protect when it means throwing Americans out of work. On June 4, the National Marine Fisheries Service declared that delivering water to farms in the San Joaquin Valley would harm killer whales in the Pacific. And to save the whales, the Obama administration is now demanding even greater water restrictions beyond what has been diverted for the smelt.

There are 130 animal species in California on the federal endangered list, including five salmon species, five steelhead species, four trout species and the North American green sturgeon. To date, not a single fish within the California water system has been removed from the Endangered Species List over the past 35 years. Despite massive amounts of water diverted to help them, the “protected” smelt, sturgeon and salmon populations have continued to decline. It is hardly unreasonable to ask why farmers should continue to suffer if diverting water hasn’t even helped the fish.

 

[estesbob]

And the red-state Republicans have the temerity to complain about welfare freeloaders?

A bit of bait and switch here. you posted a chart based on total federal spending then cliamed it showed red states got more welfare spending. not true. The Federal spending in the mostly southern “red states” has little to with welfare spending and much to do with the location of retirees and military bases.

 

[exoflare]

a person totally ill-equipped for such a position.

This is hilarious coming from an Obama voter.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

A bit of bait and switch here. you posted a chart based on total federal spending then cliamed it showed red states got more welfare spending. not true. The Federal spending in the mostly southern “red states” has little to with welfare spending and much to do with the location of retirees and military bases.

Actually, I’m saying that the red states are receiving more funds than they pay in Federal taxes. That makes the red states recipients of welfare (government cash) at the expense of taxpaying blue states. As a natural born citizen of a blue state, this offends me greatly and I find it completely hypocritical for Republicans in red states to stand for this. Of course, those red-state Republicans benefit from blue-state largesse, so I guess it’s okay.

I’m not talking about spending on direct assistance for impoverished natural persons, which is anathema to Republicanism.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, I’m saying that the red states are receiving more funds than they pay in Federal taxes. That makes the red states recipients of welfare (government cash) at the expense of taxpaying blue states. As a natural born citizen of a blue state, this offends me greatly and I find it completely hypocritical for Republicans in red states to stand for this. Of course, those red-state Republicans benefit from blue-state largesse, so I guess it’s okay.

I’m not talking about spending on direct assistance for impoverished natural persons, which is anathema to Republicanism.

So there should be a quota on the number of retirees mvoing to a state so it does not offend your senibilities?

Your numbers mean nothing other than when people retire they like to move to warmer climates and that the military likes bases that have mild weather.