What Republicans need to do????

[ChoomCzar]

Originally Posted by Shit-Man

It is ironic that you are posting your issues about Bill Clinton on this board. Although none are the president of the US, many members have done what you despise Clinton of doing.

They raped Juanita Brodderick too?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Yssup Rider]

Am I the only one enjoying IBImploding's total public meltdown?

Everything to him is drivel, blather and bullshit. But hasn't his whining hit a new level since Tuesday?

I think so.

They're going to come for you... guys in white coats carrying a butterfly net.

Take a deep breath, IBJerking ... and then hold it!

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, we did not spend ourselves to prosperity after the Great Depression or even during/after WWII. And the GI Bill send only a relatively small number of men to college. We mobilized 15 million men during WWII. The number of WWII vets that took advantage of the GI Bill was what? In the few 10s of thousands? Remember, in the last 40s or early 50s there weren't enough colleges in existence to take in hundreds of thousands (or millions) of WWII vets.

By and large those vets came home and went to work in factories. And THAT is where the prosperity came from - though not in a good way if you think about it.

In the 10 or so years after WWII we were in a very unique position. The industrial base of much of the rest of the world was destroyed in WWII. Japan destroyed or stole a whole lot of manufacturing infrastructure in China, southeast Asia, and the Philippines and other conquered Asian countries and then we destroyed Japan. The Germans did the same to much of Russia, France and eastern Europe before they were in turn destroyed.

So, the US was pretty much the only game in town, especially for larger manufactured goods, like automobiles, aircraft, ships.

You are exactly correct that we didn't solely spend ourselves into prosperity, but the spending (aggregate demand) kept us from falling into an even worse depression with more businesses failing and more people dying. It played a major part in our being as ready as we were (not very) for WWII and that spending set the foundation for the prosperity of the 50's, 60's and 70's (until the oil shock). WWII provided a great deal of industrial development as well as research and technical innovation that was utilized and built on after the war even though much of what was produced was worn out or destroyed. This provided a base upon which to build the prosperity of the 50's and 60's and early 70's, but my main point was that it took about 10 years to really get it all in gear. Your point that we were in a unique position to take advantage of the necessity for rebuilding much of the world is a good one, but that would not have been nearly as successful without the Marshall Plan and our prosperity would likely not have been nearly so great.

In fact close to 9 Million vets took advantage of the educational and training benefits of the GI bill. It offered many other benefits as well such as low-cost mortgages (this contributed to Levitt Town's success), loans to start a business or farm, cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend college, high school or vocational education, as well as one year of unemployment compensation.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

But overtime, the rest of the world rebuilt and slowly but surely won back their market shares. People who were stuck buying crappy American cars for years could finally buy Japanese cars that were better quality. And they did - with a vengeance. So we lost customer loyalty and are struggling to get it back. Detroit is still in shambles.

Actually, that was pretty much new market share, since no one had much market share in global world trade before WWII. In 1929 before the crash, just 5% of the U.S. economy was import/export. The globalized import/export market is mainly a post WWII phenomenon. It was boosted by all the ships built for WWII, especially the Liberty ships which continued to ply the seas for quite a few years after the war.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

So, just what kind of spending do you think is going to fix that? We are running deficits over a trillion dollars per year and we are getting . . . what? Maybe 2% growth in GDP?

Dick Cheney said, "deficits don't matter" and while it certainly isn't as simple as that, he was definitely correct to some extent. I won't explain here, but it is one of the main reasons that macro is different from micro (where deficits do matter) and most people don't understand that at all. One of the main things that fueled (literally) the prosperity of the post WWII era was cheap, very cheap, energy (oil mainly, but coal too). So spending on renewables of many flavors could potentially fix that. Once you have the energy problem addressed (smart grid which we will need no matter what, efficiency, solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, biodiesel, possibly cellulosic ethanol and Gen IV nuclear) many other problems are much more easily solveable including water and global transportation, food and medicine. If I were the libtard dictator of the U.S. I would also spend much more heavily on education as well as bringing our communications/networking infrastructure up to the standards of S. Korea, Japan or the Netherlands (all in top 5 fastest infrastructure).

In fact, I would take the $300 Billion or more that the U.S. spends each year on defense for cost overruns on weapons systems and spend it all on that at a minimum. I would lean heavily on the most successful models for public/private partnerships that we have to do it (and probably on a lot of the military industrial complex that money would be taken away from), but I think that could pay huge benefits not only to the U.S. but probably worldwide (because as the U.S. does well, so does the world - much like when main street does well, so does Wall St.).

Originally Posted by ExNYer

We cannot recreate the conditions at the end of WWII where we were the last man standing, nor should we want to. And it wasn't government spending that made that prosperity. it was lack of effective competition from other countries.

Britain also was on the winning side in 1945, but they did not prosper like the US. In fact, their Empire broke apart and the Labour governments that took over from Churchill ran the British economy into a ditch. Why? Weren't they spending enough? Or had they simply lost too many men and too much industrial base?

No of course not, but I think we can take some lessons from that era. It wasn't solely government spending that made that prosperity, but it did contribute significantly according to most reputable economists and historians (those without ideological axes to grind).

Britain is a whole other case since as you noted, their Empire broke apart (denying them raw materials, capital and labor needed for a resurgence) and caused significant disruption, but also they had suffered a great deal of industrial destruction and loss of life during the war. Their sports car and motorcycle industries did flourish for a couple of decades until the Japanese (with the weapon of Demming's quality innovations) hit the global markets in the 70's.

I appreciate your knowledgeable and thorough comments and I agree that spending alone is not a panacea for all our economic ills. Unfortunately, I think we disagree that reducing or eliminating spending, deficits and debts (austerity) are a panacea for the economic ills in teh U.S. now. Austerity has made things worse in the E.U. and I'm sure it would do so here as well (indeed we have tried it to some extent and I believe it is one of the reasons for our slow recovery). I see returning to full employment while keeping inflation in check (and not going into a deflationary spiral) as much more important to our economic health and also the fastest way to get the spending, deficits and debt in check. YMMV.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by S-Man

Your assumption that I am a Democrat amuses me. The fact that you continue to take offense to what I said greatly amuses me.

If you accidentally get a provider pregnant, would you demand that she keep the baby regardless of her wishes? That is what these politicians are demanding of the women who got pregnant by their rapists. Then again, there is that pro-life politician who demanded his mistress get an abortion.

To answer your question about Bill Clinton, History will do to him what it has been doing to Richard Nixon. History is slowly forgiving Nixon for his sins. Folks will eventually remember him for opening up trade with China and his love of baseball. Eventually, it will forgive Clinton.

It is ironic that you are posting your issues about Bill Clinton on this board. Although none are the president of the US, many members have done what you despise Clinton of doing.

You're amused because, like most typical Dimocrats, you are too ignorant to see the hypocrisy of the Dimocrats claiming to be the party for “Women’s Rights” while promoting the convicted perjurer Slick Willie the Sexual Predator as its standard bearer. What’s less ironic and more ignorant is your belief that this SHMB in anyway promotes or condones sexually abusing women the way your hero and standard bearer – the convicted perjurer Slick Willie the Sexual Predator – did.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

More dribbling bullshit-blather from the pitiful an pathetic pile of bullshit AKA Assup!

.

Rumor has it, Assup, they guys with the butterfly nets have already had to haul your ass in a couple of times. You're supposed to be on "supervised leave" from the hospital.

[cptjohnstone]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're amused because, like most typical Dimocrats, you are too ignorant to see the hypocrisy of the Dimocrats claiming to be the party for “Women’s Rights” while promoting the convicted perjurer Slick Willie the Sexual Predator as its standard bearer. What’s less ironic and more ignorant is your belief that this SHMB in anyway promotes or condones sexually abusing women the way your hero and standard bearer – the convicted perjurer Slick Willie the Sexual Predator – did.

+1

[steamyromance]

This tax DEAL IS A NO BRAINER. I think everyone making 250k + should get a tax increase to 50% . Its crazy for the Republicans to keep fighting this, the majority of Americans have spoken and they feel the same way. This doesnt make them stupid just makes them uninformed.
All we hear from conservatives is higher taxes will hurt the economy, stop small business etc. The only way to know who is correct is just tax more, if it works then thats great if it doesnt i guess the libs will understand and quit bitching.
The only message that works is when you lose your job and then cant make ends meet on welfare.
So to all my conservative friends , give it up lets let try to get along.
Buy an EV , put in some solar panels, and quit worrying about gays and abortion.
Im moving to Colo so i can toke up legally.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're amused because, like most typical Dimocrats, you are too ignorant to see the hypocrisy of the Dimocrats claiming to be the party for “Women’s Rights” while promoting the convicted perjurer Slick Willie the Sexual Predator as its standard bearer. What’s less ironic and more ignorant is your belief that this SHMB in anyway promotes or condones sexually abusing women the way your hero and standard bearer – the convicted perjurer Slick Willie the Sexual Predator – did.

Hank your constant whining about Clinton having sex with a woman has convinced me you were a former alter boy who has been butt fucked so long having sex with a woman is repulsive to you.From now on you will be dubbed hankering for a dick...

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, we did not spend ourselves to prosperity after the Great Depression or even during/after WWII...

Quite correct.

Most of us were taught by history and economics professors that the only reason the Great Depression dragged on for so long was that we were not "bold enough" to spend our way out of our doldrums, and that only by means of spending huge amounts of money on the war effort were we able to blast our way to prosperity.

Nonsense!

That's just simply not what happened.

On May 16th of this year, I wrote the following in reply to someone who believed otherwise:

Many people believe that the spending associated with World War II ended the Great Depression and boosted the economy to greater prosperity. I've always thought that was a fascinating topic, so let me toss out a little food for thought. First of all, consider that the Great Depression was not one big event, but two separate recessions -- the first, from late 1929 until 1933 was extraordinarily severe, and the second (1937-38) considerably less so. Throughout the time, though, the unemployment rate was extremely high. The reasons for the first downturn are well-known by everyone; for the second, not so much. Just prior to the latter downturn, the Fed approximately doubled bank reserve requirements and the FDR administration crammed through big tax increases on income and undistributed corporate profits. Many observers also reported that the president's rhetorical war on business caused a lot of capital to take an extended vacation. He was constantly going around prattling about the "princes of greed." The results of all that should have been predictable.

The economy began to grow again by about midyear 1938, and two years later had begun to pick up considerable steam. A primary reason for that was that we had begun to export large quantities of all sorts of stuff, including fuel, trucks, and all sorts of war materiel to the British and even the Soviets. (Away went Smoot-Hawley!)

If you think the spending associated with the war boosted the prosperity of the nation, try this little thought experiment. Let's say that you were the President of the United States in early 2009, and you said something like this:

"As all of you are painfully aware, we face a severe recession that could affect the lives of millions of American families. Unless we take bold action, our economy may not recover. Therefore, I call upon congress to pass the following bold economic plan. Starting tomorrow, I will command American industry to commence a crash program to build several hundred warships, several thousand fighters and bombers, thousands of artillery pieces, maybe a few thousand tanks, and whatever other weapons of war we can think of. I estimate that the cost of this program will be about $3 trillion. (That's appoximately the inflation-adjusted cost of WWII.)

Then we will go out and conduct a lot of war games in the air, on the oceans, and in the desert. I anticipate that we will end up sinking or blowing up much of this stuff, but it will be economic stimulus, and in the end we'll all be better off!"

Just think about that for a minute. If you had proposed that as an economic "stimulus" plan, do you think you'd get any support? Of course not; people would think you were a loon! (OK, maybe Paul Krugman would support you.)

So what did cause the solid prosperity we enjoyed for a generation following the war? The same thing that usually produces prosperity -- advances in technology!

Most people think of the 1930s as a very dark period during which nothing good happened. But if you do a quick little drilldown, I think you'll find that's not true at all.

Consider avaiation. In 1930, the state of the art passenger airplane was the Ford Trimotor, a pathetic little 100 mph (cruise) airplane that could carry just a few passengers. By the late '30s, 4-engine pressurized planes that could carry 50 passengers and go three times that fast were already on the drawing boards. Automotive technology advanced dramatically during the period. Radar was invented, and there were fantastic developments in radio and television. By 1939, commercial TV was already on the air in New York City. If it had not been for the war, I believe there would have been TVs in many millions of homes by about 1945. Capital goods such as earth-movers, bulldozers, and large trucks were vastly better in 1940 than in 1930. And that's just to name a few. Some historians who have made studies of technological progress have pointed to the 1930s as one of the most fantastic decades for innovation in all of history.

So in my opinion that's what drove the increases in prosperity we enjoyed in the quarter-century following WWII. (That, and the fact that most of the productive capacity of what otherwise would have been our global competitors had been blown away!

(End of excerpt.)

I think it's also interesting to note that many economists of the day thought that depression conditions would resume once again when wartime spending was wound down. That obviously did not happen, althogh there was a bit of a rough period associated with conversion to civilian production.

Originally Posted by steamyromance

This tax DEAL IS A NO BRAINER. I think everyone making 250k + should get a tax increase to 50% ...

You might want to reconsider that one. The U.K. decided to try exactly that, and it didn't work very well.

After they raised the top bracket rate from 40% to 50%, an official from the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (that's more or less the U.K. equivalent of our Department of the Treasury) noted that the anticipated revenue never materialized, and that business owners and other high-income taxpayers were "maneuvering" to reduce their tax liablilities. (What a surprise!)

They subsequently decided to try backing the top rate down to 45% in the hopes that might work a little bit better.

History shows that pushing the top rate to high levels never works as well as big-spending politicians and leftist economists claim. Much of the anticipated revenue has a way of pulling a disappearing act, and distortions push resources into malinvestment.

When that happens, no one benefits.

It's better to keep the statutory rate at relatively modest levels and raise more revenue by decreasing what we refer to as "tax expenditures" (deductions, exclusions, etc.).

[markroxny]

[Yssup Rider]

Wait a minute? IS IBCRYING BASHING CLINTON AGAIN? For getting a blowjob, right?

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

WE HAD EIGHT YEARS OF THAT DURING THE WORST ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY. EVERYTHING THAT BUSH FUCKED UP WAS CLINTON'S FAULT, FOR NOT FUCKING THEM UP TO BEGIN WITH. POOR DUBYA, HE WAS BORN WITH A SILVER DILDO IN HIS ASS!

Boys, boys, boys...

Get a fucking grip!

[CJ7]

pretty sure IB et al is pissed willie got it free, and they have to pay

[CuteOldGuy]

I don't recall President Bush blaming Clinton for anything. Perhaps you have a link?

And why would the Democrats want the Republicans to drop the Tea Party, Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al.? Apparently they are the reasons the Democrats won. If I were the Democrats, I'd be building them up.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I don't recall President Bush blaming Clinton for anything. Perhaps you have a link?

And why would the Democrats want the Republicans to drop the Tea Party, Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, et. al.? Apparently they are the reasons the Democrats won. If I were the Democrats, I'd be building them up.

he didnt ... he couldnt. He was too busy falling off bicycles and couches

[CuteOldGuy]

Actually, Clinton was a moral reprobate, rapist, and perjurer. But he could read politics. As a President, he was pretty good. He really didn't leave anything that bad that he could be blamed for. And I even think had he been able to see what OBL was planning, he would have gotten him for sure. 9/11/2001 was incomprehensible at the time.

Clinton worked with Republicans, accomplished some good things, and left the country in reasonably good shape. All the bad that happened during the Bush years was Bush's fault. Obama really did inherit a mess, but Obama was unprepared, and too incompetent to deal with it, so it has simply gotten worse. And Obama has proven to be a much better liar than even Clinton.

So, there is really no hope in sight. There was very little, if any, with Romney. They were much more alike than they were different. We had no choice.