Fogbuster

Yeah, well, don't be such a stranger.


//

__________________
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing."

mikey

Just WHO is this Burton Folsom, Jr. that you are quoting??

Is he the nondescript history professor from the right-wing Hillsdale College??

What does an an obscure right-wing history professor from right-wing nut school know about economic policy??



.

State

Okay, intellectual snob. I guess you decide which schools meet your criteria. What are those, exactly?

How's the President of Stanford in a Pulitizer Prize-winning book? David Kennedy wrote _Freedom from Fear_ a few years ago. I read half of it, massive tome. He writes, "Whatever it was, the New Deal was not a recovery program, or at any rate not an effective one."

From the incomparable Michael Medved, you probably can't countenance him either, he brings up Arthur Schlesinger Jr's _National Experience_, a text Medved studied at Yale, published in 1963. In it Schlesinger wrote, "Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produced recovery....The New Deal had done remarkable things, especially in social reform, but the formula for full recovery evidently still eluded it."

And another book showing the New Deal in a negative light was written by Jim Powell. In _FDR's Folly_, Powell writes, "From 1934 to 1940, the median annual unemployment rate was 17.2 percent. At no point during the 1930s did unemployment go below 14 percent. Even in 1941, amidst the military buildup for World War II, 9.9 percent of American workers were unemployed. Living standards remained depressed until after the war."

***Quotes taken from Michael Medved's _Ten Big Lies About America_.

Of course, if you had looked at the links from Fulsome's website, you'd have seen many sources that may have met your approval, Mr. FDA.

There is no snob like a liberal snob.

mikey

First of all, I am not a liberal snob.

As to Prof Fulsome's assertion that "no nation in history has ever taxed itself ... into prosperity", I am just wondering where the esteemed Professor was living from 1992 to 2000.

Under the Clinton administration, we had unprecedented 8 years of peace and prosperity.

And Clinton did it by increasing taxes on the the richest 1% Americans.

By increasing taxes, he was able to reduce the federal deficit.

Reducing federal deficit means there was less need to sell treasuries to support the deficit.

Less demand for treasuries means lower interest, which means lower mortgage rate.

Lower mortgage rate means lower mortgage payments, which means more disposable income for middle-income Americans.

More purchasing power for Americans means higher equity values.

Under Bill Clinton, S&P went from 400 to 1350, for an annual return of 18%.

Under Bill Clinton, unemployment fell from 7.5% to 4.0%, with college graduates getting multiple job offers.

Under Bill Clinton, the federal budget went from $300B deficit to a $300B surplus.

So explain to me again how Prof. Fulsome can make the assertion that no nation can tax itself to prosperity.

.

PatriotsReign

But....it is now commonly accepted by both democrats and republicans that FDR's policies prolonged the depression significantly. What his programs did accomplish was to lessen the suffering of an ailing nation.

The biggest difference between the 1930's and today's economy is that manufacturing drove the economy in the 30's vs. consumer spending driving today's economy. WWII jump started our economy big time as the engine of the military-industrial complex revved up.

But today, any increase in taxes automatically reduces disposeable income and consumer spending. Pure logic tells us that increases in taxes can not result in economic growth.

IcyPatriot

Phew ... my eyes thought that said Mikey's back for a camel toe.

PatsWSB47

Patters, your post was completely misleading and Clinton’s economic policies were not your point of the post. You were claiming that The Bush recession was still full of steam deep into 1992 as “evidenced” by stating that our GDP growth was still dropping. Until you point out that you meant the growth rate was winding down one would have thought that the there was no growth but a reduction. The GDP actually rose in 1992. This reminds me of politicians accusing a party of cutting social programs when all they did is cut part of proposed increases in the budget. More money actually goes to the program but most people don’t know it. You seemed to have picked up a little political savvy along the way. Will you be running for some office anytime soon? If anything was anemic though it was the increase in unemployment rate.

In the end your claim of the Bush recession continuing deep into 1992 is false based on the actual criteria you presented. We had actual GDP growth and unemployment only moved up ½ of a percent over a 5 month period. That's not a booming economy by any means but it's no recession by any means either.

Patters

I'm perfectly happy to support the premise that Clinton's effort to balance the budget was not necessary, since the economy was already recovering. Is that the point you're trying to make? My point was merely that there are a number of ways to strengthen an economy, the most common of which is to deficit spend (Roosevelt, Reagan, Bush I, and Obama) far more than you cut taxes. But, as I said, it may be technically correct that we were no longer in a recession.

mcgraw_wv

And that's what Prosperity is all about, value... Prosperity is not measured in weight, but in value.

PatsWSB47

It seemed to me that you were trying to say that the economy did not begin to recover until Clinton came along.....that the Bush recession lasted well into 1992. That's the picture I thought you were painting.