Discussion:
GOP Jobs Plan - Deregulation and Tax Cuts for the Rich [no kidding]
(too old to reply)
John Manning
2009-12-03 16:16:38 UTC
Permalink
THE NO-SENSE JOBS PLAN.... Arguably the single most farcical aspect of
America's political discourse is listening to congressional Republicans
talk about economic policy.

We're talking about a group of people who've
managed to be spectacularly wrong about practically every economic
challenge in recent memory, but who are nevertheless convinced of their
own self-righteous expertise. It's hard not to cringe.

But yet, they keep talking, blissfully unaware of their track record of
uninterrupted failure.

Yesterday, for example, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
visited the conservative Heritage Foundation to unveil what he called "a
no-cost jobs plan." Andrew Leonard explained, "Without adding a single
dime to the deficit, the Republican's plan will ameliorate the worst
unemployment crisis in 30 years. One wonders how a political party
capable of such innovative thinking ever lost its hold of power."

To recap: Cut regulations. Freeze spending. Cut taxes. No new taxes.
That's the plan.

I would really, really love to have access to an alternative
universe in which Cantor's plan could have been applied this past
year, in parallel with our world, in which the economy was injected
with a massive stimulus, so we could compare the efficacy of the two
approaches in real time.

What would have happened if instead of spending money, the
government had sat on its hands?

I think about that all the time. Republicans controlled the levers of
power, and the results were nearly catastrophic for the economy.

Democrats were handed the reins, and while the economy is still
struggling, we're working our way out of the ditch. If we'd listened to
Cantor & Co., we'd still be digging.

As for the "no-cost jobs plan," it's hard not to laugh at the stupidity.
We tried it Cantor's way. We're still suffering the consequences.

NBC reported on Cantor's plan, and explained, "The challenge for Cantor
and Republicans is that these solutions -- low taxes, free trade, and
fewer regulations -- existed during the Bush years, which saw three
different economic downturns (in 2001, 2003, and 2008), and which
produced the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades."

It's not just Cantor, of course. House Minority Leader John Boehner
(R-Ohio) has scheduled an "economic roundtable" today, to compete with
the White House's job summit. Roll Call reported, "A spokesman for
Boehner said the purpose of the meeting is to give a platform for
economists who have a different perspective on how Obama's agenda has
affected the economy."

And who are these experts? Apparently, House Republicans have turned to
"former Bush administration and McCain campaign staffers, who have
advocated disastrous tax and budget policies."

So, to summarize, less than a year from the last administration,
congressional Republicans believe it's time to re-embrace the
Bush/Cheney agenda that didn't work, and listen to the architects of the
Bush/Cheney agenda that didn't work.

Historically, after a major electoral defeat, the losing side adapts and
shifts course.

Congressional Republicans, for reasons that defy comprehension, are
doubling down on an agenda that's already failed.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021268.php
Dan Listermann
2009-12-03 16:20:14 UTC
Permalink
You need to understand that they aren't talking to the country as a whole,
just their base, their far right base. It is part of the purge. Don't
bother them.
Post by John Manning
THE NO-SENSE JOBS PLAN.... Arguably the single most farcical aspect of
America's political discourse is listening to congressional Republicans
talk about economic policy.
We're talking about a group of people who've
managed to be spectacularly wrong about practically every economic
challenge in recent memory, but who are nevertheless convinced of their
own self-righteous expertise. It's hard not to cringe.
But yet, they keep talking, blissfully unaware of their track record of
uninterrupted failure.
Yesterday, for example, House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.)
visited the conservative Heritage Foundation to unveil what he called "a
no-cost jobs plan." Andrew Leonard explained, "Without adding a single
dime to the deficit, the Republican's plan will ameliorate the worst
unemployment crisis in 30 years. One wonders how a political party
capable of such innovative thinking ever lost its hold of power."
To recap: Cut regulations. Freeze spending. Cut taxes. No new taxes.
That's the plan.
I would really, really love to have access to an alternative
universe in which Cantor's plan could have been applied this past
year, in parallel with our world, in which the economy was injected
with a massive stimulus, so we could compare the efficacy of the two
approaches in real time.
What would have happened if instead of spending money, the
government had sat on its hands?
I think about that all the time. Republicans controlled the levers of
power, and the results were nearly catastrophic for the economy.
Democrats were handed the reins, and while the economy is still
struggling, we're working our way out of the ditch. If we'd listened to
Cantor & Co., we'd still be digging.
As for the "no-cost jobs plan," it's hard not to laugh at the stupidity.
We tried it Cantor's way. We're still suffering the consequences.
NBC reported on Cantor's plan, and explained, "The challenge for Cantor
and Republicans is that these solutions -- low taxes, free trade, and
fewer regulations -- existed during the Bush years, which saw three
different economic downturns (in 2001, 2003, and 2008), and which
produced the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades."
It's not just Cantor, of course. House Minority Leader John Boehner
(R-Ohio) has scheduled an "economic roundtable" today, to compete with
the White House's job summit. Roll Call reported, "A spokesman for
Boehner said the purpose of the meeting is to give a platform for
economists who have a different perspective on how Obama's agenda has
affected the economy."
And who are these experts? Apparently, House Republicans have turned to
"former Bush administration and McCain campaign staffers, who have
advocated disastrous tax and budget policies."
So, to summarize, less than a year from the last administration,
congressional Republicans believe it's time to re-embrace the
Bush/Cheney agenda that didn't work, and listen to the architects of the
Bush/Cheney agenda that didn't work.
Historically, after a major electoral defeat, the losing side adapts and
shifts course.
Congressional Republicans, for reasons that defy comprehension, are
doubling down on an agenda that's already failed.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_12/021268.php
Kenneth McVay OBC
2009-12-03 18:00:06 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@giganews.com>,
John Manning <***@terra.com.br> wrote:

[...]
Post by John Manning
What would have happened if instead of spending money, the
government had sat on its hands?
I think about that all the time. Republicans controlled the levers of
power, and the results were nearly catastrophic for the economy.
A look at the President Harding's response to the depression of 1920
provides an answer to the question:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2009/02/the-great-depression-of-1920.html

The Bush government's massive bailout was, imo, a massive
mistake, as was Obama's. Instead of solving the problem, another
was created: a massive spending bubble which must eventually
burst, as the housing bubble did. When it does, I believe the
resulting depression will make 1929 look like a picnic.
--
The Nizkor Project - An electronic Holocaust educational resource
David Irving vrs. Deborah Lipstadt & Penguin Books Ltd: Judgment
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-00-00.html
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/i/irving.david/libel.suit
John Manning
2009-12-03 18:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kenneth McVay OBC
[...]
Post by John Manning
What would have happened if instead of spending money, the
government had sat on its hands?
I think about that all the time. Republicans controlled the levers of
power, and the results were nearly catastrophic for the economy.
A look at the President Harding's response to the depression of 1920
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2009/02/the-great-depression-of-1920.html
The Bush government's massive bailout was, imo, a massive
mistake, as was Obama's. Instead of solving the problem, another
was created: a massive spending bubble which must eventually
burst, as the housing bubble did. When it does, I believe the
resulting depression will make 1929 look like a picnic.
Really?

Here's the historical reality about the aggressive spending required to
turn around the financial meltdown catastrophe that the Republicans
historically leave behind:

Here are the GDP figures of the New Deal in today's dollars. These are
the facts. To suggest that the New Deal did not help, and maybe made it
worse, is appalling.

The GDP was 103.6 billion in 1929 at the start of the Great Depression
under Herbert Hoover. It dropped 12% to 91.2 in 1930 (under Hoover). It
dropped another 16% to 76.5 in 1932 (under Hoover). It dropped another
23% to 58.7 in 1932 (under Hoover). It dropped only 4% in 1933 after
Roosevelt finally took over and stopped the crisis with emergency
measures. His first 100 days saw a whirlwind of economic relief.

The GDP then rose a staggering 17% to 66.0 billion in 1934 (under FDR)!
It rose another 11% to 73.3 in 1935 (under FDR). It rose another 14% to
83.8 in 1936 (under FDR). It rose another 10% to 91.9 in 1937 (under
FDR). These are good numbers. The U.S. was out of a depression by 1937
and in only a recession. FDR also brought relief to the suffering
through relief programs.

The growth of personal income (money in the hands of consumers after
taxes) is almost identical to GDP, which is quote impressive compared to
any president's record. I urge you to seek out the economic statistics
and make the comparison yourself.

One of many great Roosevelt achievements was to reverse the complete
banking collapse under Hoover.

If you look at a GDP chart, you will see a sharp drop in GDP (and
personal income) over several years when Hoover was president. Then you
will see a sharp rise in GDP (and personal income) after Roosevelt took
office - a remarkable record. If you were to count the jobs created by
temporary workfare programs, unemployed dropped to 5% (although this
type of measure is not correct).


SEE GDP Chart showing staggering growth after FDR's 1933 election:
Loading Image...


SEE Employment Chart showing massive employment growth during FDR's
presidency beginning right after he was elected:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg


Roosevelt did make one mistake after this. He caved in to the
conservatives in Congress (and his treasury secretary) and presented a
balanced budget, cutting stimulus spending. (Roosevelt was a fiscal
conservative before the Great Depression and also wanted to balance the
budget).

Roosevelt was also worried that inflation would ensue if GDP grew too
fast, which it was. GDP growth was tremendous. The result is that the
economy contracted 6% to 86.1 billion in 1938. The recovery slipped.
[SEE CHART ABOVE]

After FDR reversed his conservative budget mistake and returned to his
old budget, the GDP rose again. It rose 7% to 92.2 billion in 1939. It
rose 10% to 101.4 billion in 1940, which is almost where it was at the
start of the Great Depression.

The other minor mistake he made was that the deficit spending was very
small by recent standards and too mild to pull the country fully out of
recession. (Reagan learned from this mistake and massively deficit spent
the U.S. out of recession in 1982).

Around 1940 Congress and FDR finally really ramped up the GDP by
spending massively. Congress passed a massive tax increase (much on the
rich) and massively deficit spent, pumping the money into the economy
through massive military spending for World War II.

The GDP DOUBLED in just three years! Boom! The nation was at full
employment, and then some. Women and other people not working were
called into the workforce to meet the demand for workers. The problem
then was inflation. So the government enforced strict price controls.
This was not a desirable thing to do, but it needed to be done to win
the war by running the war industry at full steam.

GDP was 210.9 billion by 1944, more than double what it was when the
Great Depression began in 1929.

SEE ALSO - The "FDR Failed" Myth
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth
SwordoZ
2009-12-04 00:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Manning
Post by Kenneth McVay OBC
[...]
Post by John Manning
What would have happened if instead of spending money, the
government had sat on its hands?
I think about that all the time. Republicans controlled the levers of
power, and the results were nearly catastrophic for the economy.
A look at the President Harding's response to the depression of 1920
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2009/02/the-great-depression-of-1920.html
The Bush government's massive bailout was, imo, a massive
mistake, as was Obama's. Instead of solving the problem, another
was created: a massive spending bubble which must eventually
burst, as the housing bubble did. When it does, I believe the
resulting depression will make 1929 look like a picnic.
Really?
Here's the historical reality about the aggressive spending required to
turn around the financial meltdown catastrophe that the Republicans
Here are the GDP figures of the New Deal in today's dollars. These are
the facts. To suggest that the New Deal did not help, and maybe made it
worse, is appalling.
The GDP was 103.6 billion in 1929 at the start of the Great Depression
under Herbert Hoover. It dropped 12% to 91.2 in 1930 (under Hoover). It
dropped another 16% to 76.5 in 1932 (under Hoover). It dropped another
23% to 58.7 in 1932 (under Hoover). It dropped only 4% in 1933 after
Roosevelt finally took over and stopped the crisis with emergency
measures. His first 100 days saw a whirlwind of economic relief.
The GDP then rose a staggering 17% to 66.0 billion in 1934 (under FDR)!
It rose another 11% to 73.3 in 1935 (under FDR). It rose another 14% to
83.8 in 1936 (under FDR). It rose another 10% to 91.9 in 1937 (under
FDR). These are good numbers. The U.S. was out of a depression by 1937
and in only a recession. FDR also brought relief to the suffering
through relief programs.
The growth of personal income (money in the hands of consumers after
taxes) is almost identical to GDP, which is quote impressive compared to
any president's record. I urge you to seek out the economic statistics
and make the comparison yourself.
One of many great Roosevelt achievements was to reverse the complete
banking collapse under Hoover.
If you look at a GDP chart, you will see a sharp drop in GDP (and
personal income) over several years when Hoover was president. Then you
will see a sharp rise in GDP (and personal income) after Roosevelt took
office - a remarkable record. If you were to count the jobs created by
temporary workfare programs, unemployed dropped to 5% (although this
type of measure is not correct).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp20-40.jpg
SEE Employment Chart showing massive employment growth during FDR's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Post by John Manning
Roosevelt did make one mistake after this. He caved in to the
conservatives in Congress (and his treasury secretary) and presented a
balanced budget, cutting stimulus spending. (Roosevelt was a fiscal
conservative before the Great Depression and also wanted to balance the
budget).
Roosevelt was also worried that inflation would ensue if GDP grew too
fast, which it was. GDP growth was tremendous. The result is that the
economy contracted 6% to 86.1 billion in 1938. The recovery slipped.
[SEE CHART ABOVE]
After FDR reversed his conservative budget mistake and returned to his
old budget, the GDP rose again. It rose 7% to 92.2 billion in 1939. It
rose 10% to 101.4 billion in 1940, which is almost where it was at the
start of the Great Depression.
The other minor mistake he made was that the deficit spending was very
small by recent standards and too mild to pull the country fully out of
recession. (Reagan learned from this mistake and massively deficit spent
the U.S. out of recession in 1982).
Around 1940 Congress and FDR finally really ramped up the GDP by
spending massively. Congress passed a massive tax increase (much on the
rich) and massively deficit spent, pumping the money into the economy
through massive military spending for World War II.
The GDP DOUBLED in just three years! Boom! The nation was at full
employment, and then some. Women and other people not working were
called into the workforce to meet the demand for workers. The problem
then was inflation. So the government enforced strict price controls.
This was not a desirable thing to do, but it needed to be done to win
the war by running the war industry at full steam.
GDP was 210.9 billion by 1944, more than double what it was when the
Great Depression began in 1929.
SEE ALSO - The "FDR Failed" Myth
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth
SoZ
Two model "T's" in every garage and two chickens in every pot of soup. Wow!
Somebody's lying to us.
Logan Sacket
2009-12-05 02:44:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:11:53 -0200, John Manning
Post by John Manning
Post by Kenneth McVay OBC
[...]
Post by John Manning
What would have happened if instead of spending money, the
government had sat on its hands?
I think about that all the time. Republicans controlled the levers of
power, and the results were nearly catastrophic for the economy.
A look at the President Harding's response to the depression of 1920
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9880
http://www.meltingpotproject.com/mpp/2009/02/the-great-depression-of-1920.html
The Bush government's massive bailout was, imo, a massive
mistake, as was Obama's. Instead of solving the problem, another
was created: a massive spending bubble which must eventually
burst, as the housing bubble did. When it does, I believe the
resulting depression will make 1929 look like a picnic.
Really?
Here's the historical reality about the aggressive spending required to
turn around the financial meltdown catastrophe that the Republicans
Here are the GDP figures of the New Deal in today's dollars. These are
the facts. To suggest that the New Deal did not help, and maybe made it
worse, is appalling.
The GDP was 103.6 billion in 1929 at the start of the Great Depression
under Herbert Hoover. It dropped 12% to 91.2 in 1930 (under Hoover). It
dropped another 16% to 76.5 in 1932 (under Hoover). It dropped another
23% to 58.7 in 1932 (under Hoover). It dropped only 4% in 1933 after
Roosevelt finally took over and stopped the crisis with emergency
measures. His first 100 days saw a whirlwind of economic relief.
The GDP then rose a staggering 17% to 66.0 billion in 1934 (under FDR)!
It rose another 11% to 73.3 in 1935 (under FDR). It rose another 14% to
83.8 in 1936 (under FDR). It rose another 10% to 91.9 in 1937 (under
FDR). These are good numbers. The U.S. was out of a depression by 1937
and in only a recession. FDR also brought relief to the suffering
through relief programs.
The growth of personal income (money in the hands of consumers after
taxes) is almost identical to GDP, which is quote impressive compared to
any president's record. I urge you to seek out the economic statistics
and make the comparison yourself.
One of many great Roosevelt achievements was to reverse the complete
banking collapse under Hoover.
If you look at a GDP chart, you will see a sharp drop in GDP (and
personal income) over several years when Hoover was president. Then you
will see a sharp rise in GDP (and personal income) after Roosevelt took
office - a remarkable record. If you were to count the jobs created by
temporary workfare programs, unemployed dropped to 5% (although this
type of measure is not correct).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp20-40.jpg
SEE Employment Chart showing massive employment growth during FDR's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Roosevelt did make one mistake after this. He caved in to the
conservatives in Congress (and his treasury secretary) and presented a
balanced budget, cutting stimulus spending. (Roosevelt was a fiscal
conservative before the Great Depression and also wanted to balance the
budget).
Roosevelt was also worried that inflation would ensue if GDP grew too
fast, which it was. GDP growth was tremendous. The result is that the
economy contracted 6% to 86.1 billion in 1938. The recovery slipped.
[SEE CHART ABOVE]
After FDR reversed his conservative budget mistake and returned to his
old budget, the GDP rose again. It rose 7% to 92.2 billion in 1939. It
rose 10% to 101.4 billion in 1940, which is almost where it was at the
start of the Great Depression.
The other minor mistake he made was that the deficit spending was very
small by recent standards and too mild to pull the country fully out of
recession. (Reagan learned from this mistake and massively deficit spent
the U.S. out of recession in 1982).
Around 1940 Congress and FDR finally really ramped up the GDP by
spending massively. Congress passed a massive tax increase (much on the
rich) and massively deficit spent, pumping the money into the economy
through massive military spending for World War II.
The GDP DOUBLED in just three years! Boom! The nation was at full
employment, and then some. Women and other people not working were
called into the workforce to meet the demand for workers. The problem
then was inflation. So the government enforced strict price controls.
This was not a desirable thing to do, but it needed to be done to win
the war by running the war industry at full steam.
GDP was 210.9 billion by 1944, more than double what it was when the
Great Depression began in 1929.
SEE ALSO - The "FDR Failed" Myth
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth
If you think this article is right about this, then show us why
unemployment took 15 years to recover to the place it was before the
recession.

Otherwise, stop posting this history changing liberal propaganda.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...