Jump to content

New Deal Hilarity!


SorianoFanHFW
 Share

Recommended Posts

We changed in that short period of time from being a country of states, private charity, and solving our own problems, to a country of people who tried to get the most out of the government. In fact, the more poorly you run your city, the better case you have for getting the most out of the government. The poorly run states and cities have the best case for getting the most money.

 

small excerpt, the rest his here:

http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/200...mer_2002_3.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • 1 month later...

Where's the problem with this argument? The valid point here is that the guy whose window was broken also might have wanted to buy a DVD player and a reclining chair. Or he might have wanted to buy a suit of clothes and some insurance. So that guy, and the tailor, is out $500 because instead of buying a suit and a shirt, he now had to pay for the window. You never generated real business because the guy who had the window broken is out $500 and the guy who had replaced the window is up $500, but the guy who had the window broken would have also been spending $500. So there's really no net gain. Hazlitt called this the broken window fallacy.

 

There's a HUGE flaw here that I can't believe people haven't picked up on, yet. Who says the guy (whose window got broken) would've spent the $500 in the first place? That's an assumption that he's trying to tout as fact.

 

 

Do you see the linking of the Fox News poll and the broken window fallacy? If you have a government program, the taxpayers pay for it. You never actually generated a job with that program; you merely transferred dollars from the taxpayers to the government

 

True, the transfer of monies from the taxpayers to the government, who transfers it to other taxpayers who work for the government, doesn't represent the creation of new jobs, but he's missing out on the fact the recipients of those dollars also go out and spend money. As pointed out above, it's also not a guarantee that the money transferred from those tax-payers would've been spent in the first place, whereas it's highly likely that the recepients of those dollars will be spending said dollars, since most government employees aren't exactly making a mint.

 

 

Or he could have put it in the bank and it would have gone out for a loan to someone.

 

That loan could easily go to someone outside of the country, thus we don't benefit. Again, another assumption that can't be made.

 

 

In 1929, you were telling them, you get to keep three-fourths of whatever you make. Now you're telling them you give more than three-fourths to the government. What's your work ethic going to be with a 79 percent tax? Tax-exempt bonds, stamp collections-that was Roosevelt's personal exemption, he had a good stamp collection-coin collections, foreign investments, Swiss banks, anything to shelter that money. But do you see why the depression is prolonged? Who's going to invest to create the jobs to get us out when you're being taxed 79 percent? Do you think the revenue then is going to go up when the tax rate is 79 percent?

 

Classic supply-side B.S. - which is what most of this article is. I'm surprised people still try to advance this argument, after seeing how badly Reaganomics screwed things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic supply-side B.S. - which is what most of this article is. I'm surprised people still try to advance this argument, after seeing how badly Reaganomics screwed things up.

562001[/snapback]

 

 

I love statements like this. Using factual economic evidence, you can argue just as well that reagonomics boosted our economy and increased jobs as much as you can turn the facts to argue that it was the remaining plethora of great society entitlements that maintained the system. So after seeing how badly reaganomics screwed things up is like if I say look how badly the civil war screwed things up, b/c Lincoln created too much power for the federal govt and has limited out rights severely since, which is somehting i think is true tho many of you will disagree. (waits for furman to jump in)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic supply-side B.S. - which is what most of this article is. I'm surprised people still try to advance this argument, after seeing how badly Reaganomics screwed things up.

562001[/snapback]

 

 

I love statements like this. Using factual economic evidence, you can argue just as well that reagonomics boosted our economy and increased jobs as much as you can turn the facts to argue that it was the remaining plethora of great society entitlements that maintained the system. So after seeing how badly reaganomics screwed things up is like if I say look how badly the civil war screwed things up, b/c Lincoln created too much power for the federal govt and has limited out rights severely since, which is somehting i think is true tho many of you will disagree. (waits for furman to jump in)

562004[/snapback]

 

sic semper tiranus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love statements like this. Using factual economic evidence, you can argue just as well that reagonomics boosted our economy and increased jobs as much as you can turn the facts to argue that it was the remaining plethora of great society entitlements that maintained the system. So after seeing how badly reaganomics screwed things up is like if I say look how badly the civil war screwed things up,

 

 

The huge national debt is the legacy of Reganomics, or are you going to pretend that it doesn't exist? You could counter back and forth that Regan's economic record benefitted from a normal boom cycle or that Roosevelt benefitted from the war, but that debt is here and it's real. I've heard a lot of talk about how the debt doesn't matter since we owe the huge majority of it to ourselves, but there can be no talk of serious downsizing of government costs without first substantially reducing the debt and debt servicing.

 

For all of you supply-siders, read the comments on the link by "Phillip Schuman" on the evils of taxation (and he backs it up with numbers, not misleading analogies):

 

http://www.quickchange.com/reagan/comments.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love statements like this. Using factual economic evidence, you can argue just as well that reagonomics boosted our economy and increased jobs as much as you can turn the facts to argue that it was the remaining plethora of great society entitlements that maintained the system. So after seeing how badly reaganomics screwed things up is like if I say look how badly the civil war screwed things up,

 

 

The huge national debt is the legacy of Reganomics, or are you going to pretend that it doesn't exist? You could counter back and forth that Regan's economic record benefitted from a normal boom cycle or that Roosevelt benefitted from the war, but that debt is here and it's real. I've heard a lot of talk about how the debt doesn't matter since we owe the huge majority of it to ourselves, but there can be no talk of serious downsizing of government costs without first substantially reducing the debt and debt servicing.

 

For all of you supply-siders, read the comments on the link by "Phillip Schuman" on the evils of taxation (and he backs it up with numbers, not misleading analogies):

 

http://www.quickchange.com/reagan/comments.html

562019[/snapback]

 

 

The problem is that not only is most of this debt to ourselves, but if other nations would actually pay what they owe to us, we can pay off another large amount of this national debt. If we cut down on govt spending we can use the initial monetary shock to pay off the debt before lowering taxes to accomodate to this new system of less wasteful spending. You can blame reaganonmics all you want, but the fact remains that if wasteful entitlements are cut we will save money in the billions and trillions, that can then be used by people to pay higher wages, or start new businesses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument that we owe the debt to ourselves is dead because we no longer do. Too much of it is owed to foreign investors.

 

Plus you argue legacy thats its wasteful entitlement that cause the debt. But why is it that it increases during Republican administrations? I mean Reagen had Congress eating out of the palm of his hands after Hinkley and Bush had a majority Republicans in both. Why couldnt he at least make the entitlements more effecient or even cut them out? I think it has more to do with wasteful military spending and I dont mean post9-11 security. My very conservative roommates points out how many useless bases are in San Antonio as one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Military bases are the entire economy of so much of the South. I noticed this on my road journey back from Manhattan this summer. Bases everywhere! Say what you will about Dems courting the African-American vote through welfare programs, but Repubs are guilty of the same thing with the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Classic supply-side B.S. - which is what most of this article is. I'm surprised people still try to advance this argument, after seeing how badly Reaganomics screwed things up.

562001[/snapback]

 

 

I love statements like this. Using factual economic evidence, you can argue just as well that reagonomics boosted our economy and increased jobs as much as you can turn the facts to argue that it was the remaining plethora of great society entitlements that maintained the system. So after seeing how badly reaganomics screwed things up is like if I say look how badly the civil war screwed things up, b/c Lincoln created too much power for the federal govt and has limited out rights severely since, which is somehting i think is true tho many of you will disagree. (waits for furman to jump in)

562004[/snapback]

I'm still a believer that the Federal Government was undermined by State governments for the most part until the New Deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a HUGE flaw here that I can't believe people haven't picked up on, yet. Who says the guy (whose window got broken) would've spent the $500 in the first place? That's an assumption that he's trying to tout as fact.

562001[/snapback]

So what is the guy going to do, sit on the 500 forever? One way or another, that will see it's way back into the economy, whether it's now or a year from now.

 

I love statements like this. Using factual economic evidence, you can argue just as well that reagonomics boosted our economy and increased jobs as much as you can turn the facts to argue that it was the remaining plethora of great society entitlements that maintained the system. So after seeing how badly reaganomics screwed things up is like if I say look how badly the civil war screwed things up,

 

 

The huge national debt is the legacy of Reganomics, or are you going to pretend that it doesn't exist? You could counter back and forth that Regan's economic record benefitted from a normal boom cycle or that Roosevelt benefitted from the war, but that debt is here and it's real. I've heard a lot of talk about how the debt doesn't matter since we owe the huge majority of it to ourselves, but there can be no talk of serious downsizing of government costs without first substantially reducing the debt and debt servicing.

 

For all of you supply-siders, read the comments on the link by "Phillip Schuman" on the evils of taxation (and he backs it up with numbers, not misleading analogies):

 

http://www.quickchange.com/reagan/comments.html

562019[/snapback]

You want to go back to the reason the debt is so high?

 

There was no deficit spending until FDR invented it. No deficit spending, the debt doesn't balloon higher and higher until it is unpayable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...