The American Spectator

Alan Brooks| 2.27.09 @ 11:02AM

libertarian skanks back open borders too.

Seymore Kleerly| 2.27.09 @ 11:37AM

As a liberal / moderate, I truely hope the young Conservatives succeed. With the total repudiation of"Right Wing" Conservetisem, this country needs a viable alternative to completely Liberal policies. Republicans first must jettison their alliance with Talk Radio, and Fox News before they can attract anyone but Yahoos! Please hurry...

jharp| 2.27.09 @ 11:55AM

""The Democrats think you are stupid," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told the under-40 crowd at CPAC"

Can't argue with that. But we also think you are stupid Senator DeMint.

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 12:42PM

With thought leaders like Rush, Hannity, Joe the Plumber and Palin, why would anyone think that Republicans are stupid? Three guys without a college degree and a candidate that doesn't know much are the most revered leaders of the conservative movement? Why would anyone question how smart the party is? The fundamental flaw in the Republican party is the stranglehold of social conservatives who hold belief as more important than reason. This board at AmSpec proves that point beyond any doubt.

If the young conservatives believe things like Obama being a communist and not being born in the U.S., there is no hope for a conservative philosophy that values limited government and personal responsibility.

I encourage those young conservatives to get their degrees, learn something about economics, and set their TV dials to more than Fox News. Even more, I encourage them to question issues and not just be a Rush/Hannity lemming.

Colin | 2.27.09 @ 1:08PM

As a young Conservative Rob, I do listen to Rush/ Hannity for enjoyment, but I do not rely on them to establish my own beliefs and philosophy. Your comment about Palin not having a college degree is of course inaccurate (and yes spare me the need to tell me how many colleges she went to and where she went I frankly don't care.) But yes, let's learn something about economics for a second. How about the idea that borrowing and spending is ultimately harmful to the economy. How increasing the welfare state encourages people not to work. If I wanted to live in a Western European socialist democracy, I'd move there, but I don't. Keynesian theory sounds good in theory, but it doesn't work. I believe people need to be given incentives to work and produce. Everything Obama is doing right now is the absolute wrong thing to fix this economy. And now he wants to subsidize bad mortgages? Why pay for bad behavior and irresponsible decisions? Contrary to what we hear in the media on tv, this crisis stems from government interference in the marketplace, not the failure of free-market economics. Deregulation? We had more federal regulations at the Federal Register under George Bush than ever before. Over 75,000 pages of regulations.

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 1:28PM

First of all Colin, you need to read a bit more closely. I talked about three GUYS not having a college degree. Last time I looked, Palin was not a "guy".

Regarding the importance of debt, I absolutely agree with you. However, did you know that the two Presidents who added the most to the debt were Reagan and Bush? Can you prove that spending is not stimulative? FDR's spending lowered the unemployment rate significantly and the spending on WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression. Furthermore, if you actually look at the data, it shows that in real life, tax cuts are not stimulative. The issue with spending is not whether it is stimulative or not, it is, but whether your return on that investment is more than what you spend in the longer term. That's in question.

Regarding mortgages, that wouldn't be the plan I would recommend, but any macro plan you develop will always help some people who don't deserve it. The question, then, is whether it will do more good than harm.

It is my view as a dedicated RINO, that government should stay out of the incentive business whether it is in tax law or trying to fix the economy. No one in government is smart enough to understand the unexpected results of their actions whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Tax cuts are as much manipulation as is regulation. With regulation, it is not the amount of regulation, but whether it is the right regulation. We cannot trust business executives to make the morally right decisions, can we?

I would suggest you learn the difference between macro and microeconomics and why simplistic, "common sense" diatribes are extremely misleading. Here are some actual data for you to peruse regarding our economy. I assume you understand how to read graphical data...

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-S1-Federal-Spending-Has-Increased.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Funds_Rate_(effective).svg

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

Compare the charts and let's see how objective you can be. Furthermore, do you also watch Olberman, Maddow, and Blitzer? If not, why not?

Carston| 2.27.09 @ 1:52PM

"However, did you know that the two Presidents who added the most to the debt were Reagan and Bush? "

You will need to add Obama to that list. He just doubled the debt. If any liberals would listen to more than the 20-30 second soundbites played on TV of Rush then you would realized he is not who he has been made out to be. Keynsian policies didnt work for the New Deal and they won't work now. Anyone who says Keynsia policies did work, is cherry picking their data (see 1937, and then look at unemployment at all the surrounding years).

Colin | 2.27.09 @ 2:22PM

Wow, I can hardly sense the condescension in your tone.
First, no it was not FDR's spending that got us out of the Great Depression. If you look at unemployment, he was able to reduce it, but it promptly went back up again in 1937. Unemployment remaind in double digits throughout his first two terms. A really good read on this would the "Forgotten Man" which concludes that government spending didn't work during this time. Heck, even his treasury secretary Morgenthau admitted that it did not. So don't take my word for it. But yes, once we entered the war, military spending and production is what lifted us out eventually. But I cannot attribute the success to his New Deal legislation, but I understand why he did it.

Regarding tax cuts, you're right that I don't believe that the government should have to find ways to always stimulate the economy. My suggestion is that if politicians decide something "must" be done, I would much rather see lower tax rates for everyone, instead of trying to boost it through a huge spending program. I fear that the debt will explode and you could be looking at hyper-inflation, or stagflation in the future.

In regard to regulation, my point that I was making is that if you listenend to the news, they would have you think that it was Bush's "Deregulation" that caused this disaster but it certainly was not. You're correct that it's much better to have correct regulations in place, rather than how much of it you have. But that would then require that federal regulators would know what they're looking for and have an understanding of the private sector (I'm not hopeful of that). Personally, I think we should repeal Sarbanes-Oxley but that's another story.

The national debt did rise under Reagan and Bush, but that was because they were simply unable to control spending. In Reagan's case, spending was a big priority for him, but he couldn't get the concessions from Tip O'Neill like he wanted and in his autobiography he even admits that was one of his shortfalls. And Bush and the Republican Congress did spend way too much. I don't condone that whatsoever. But what Obama is doing right now will make that small in comparison.

I honestly don't know what you mean by "I would suggest you learn the difference macro and micro." Yes, I understand that when you develop a plan to help some who are in trouble you're asking everyone else to pay a little more. I'm just against that in principle and I feel is wrong. We can't keep propping up losers and instituting bailout after bailout. There must be consequences to our decisions and if someone fails, they fail. Small business fail and go out of business all the time in this country, that is completely normal.

Your charts that you so politely gave me was information I was well aware of. And yes, I do watch MSNBC (Obama News). I watch because I like to listen to all different perspectives. I personally don't think that Keith Olbemann is particularly bright, but I believe Maddow is even though I disagree with her on everything. I even read Paul Krugman sometimes.

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 2:23PM

Carston, you need to deal with facts, not hyperbole. Here is a chart of unemployment surrounding the New Deal.

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/ndchart.JPG

You'll notice a decline in unemployment every year except 1938. In fact, unemployment was half of the way down the curve by the time WWII started. So Keynesian policies did indeed work during the New Deal according to the data. Please get your facts straight.

And by the way, I do listen to Rush when I can and I actually check his facts. Most of them are wrong, but he is a great entertainer and has a lot of dumber people fooled. By the way, it drives me just as crazy when Olberman misuses facts although he tends to be slightly more accurate than Rush. Hannity doesn't use any factual information, however.

So, Carston, it is YOU that needs to stop cherry picking data and look at actual data. I doubt that you did so before you posted. By the way, did you check out the charts I listed in the previous post? Isn't it funny that it was Clinton who achieved the greatest growth in GDP of any president -- with tax increases????

Once Republicans are bright enough to get the data correct, they will have a chance to succeed. We are currently the party of fairy tales and uneducated talk radio hosts.

JP| 2.27.09 @ 2:25PM

Bob,
The last time I checked niether Limbaugh, Joe the Plumber or Hannity occupied an elective office, ran a Think Tank, or held a position within the GOP. If I remember correctly, the RNC backed liberals such as Specter and Chaffee over more conservative ones. The influence of these "conservative activists" is over-stated to say the least.

I can't see how social conservatives can be blamed for the increased domestic spending of the GOP ran Congress (2003-2007). Social conservatives were the biggest foes of the No Child Left Behind law, the presrciption drug benefits, and Earmarks. Limbaugh was one of the few national conservatives that warned about these boondoggles.

As far as education goes, it was the holders of PHDs, and MBAs who perfected the art of the hedge fund; developed and implemented social theories on why the "underclass" deserved mortgages they could not afford; as well as ideas concerning social activism and distributed economics. They've done a bang-up job.

BTW, FDR saw unemployment spike to over 22% in both 1936 and 1937. I think you forget that the majority of his New Deal programs were deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS from 1933-1936. It wasn't until he could nominate New Deal justices to the high court that we saw the real cost of the New Deal (20%+ unemployment).

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 2:29PM

Bob,
Please refrain from posting stats from unknown sources. Your stats are obviously bogus -they go against historical evidence from the Dept of Labor Statistics, the CBO, and other organizations.

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 2:32PM

Again, Colin, you are incorrect about the unemployment trend during the New Deal. Look at the chart I referenced in my previous post. And please don't give me the diatribe about spending being the problem. Over 80% of the budget is comprised of medicare, social security, interest, and the military. That's why spending is not reduced -- because they can't get reelected by reducing those items. It is sloppy thinking to believe that Reagan or anyone else would have reduced those budget items. Again, Colin, please deal with facts. The only way to reduce debt is to force the government to pay for what it spends with something like a balanced budget amendment. But then, you will see taxes rise.

You also miss the point about any macro plan. YOU WILL ALWAYS UNINTENTIONALLY HELP SOME PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE IT!!! Any macro plan is a compromise. The idea is to help far more who deserve it than those who don't.

If you really understand those charts, then you know that tax cuts are not stimulative to the economy, right?

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 2:35PM

Please other Bob, if you look at the references for those charts you'll see that they are NOT bogus. In fact, the source for most of them is the federal government. I challenge you to check out the numbers and show me where they are wrong. I have personally checked them against government data and they are, indeed, correct. Next???

Carston| 2.27.09 @ 2:35PM

Clinton growth is completely due to a tech bubble and a housing bubble, it had absolutely nothing to do with his policies. If you want to use that chart, ok but understand that those who moved from unemployment to employment in that time were basically being paid to dig up holes and fill them back in, which made them "employed" but no actual production. The only thing this fixed were the numbers, and believe me ,they are pretty fixed.

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 2:38PM

One more point, other Bob, half of the charts are from the Heritage Foundation -- a CONSERVATIVE think tank. Do you really want to tell us they provide bogus data?

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 2:41PM

Carston, you can also attribute Reagan's GDP growth to the growth of the personal computer and the resultant increases in productivity and not to his policies. In fact, I agree with both your observation about Clinton and my statement about Reagan. One of the major conclusions in looking at objective data is that you see that it is not the government that makes GDP grow, but private enterprise. That's why most people overrate the importance of both tax cuts and spending to GDP growth.

Colin | 2.27.09 @ 2:49PM

Again, since there's two Bobs apparently, the other Bob, I said accurately according to your own graph that you supplied that unemployment rose during 1937, which is what I said so I still don't know what you're talking about there.
I believe in making social security voluntary system by creating private accounts. I also believe that Medicare and Medicaid, which Johnson created, are a disaster. I would like to see these three programs reformed dramatically (ideally I would like to see them eliminated) but I understand you can't get elected advocating that.
As for the YOU WILL ALWAYS UNINTENTIONALLY HELP SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT DESERVE IT! comment, yes I realize that. I'm just against that plan to begin with. Sorry, I guess?

Colin | 2.27.09 @ 2:56PM

Medicare, Medicare, and Social Security have unfunded liabilities in the trillions of dollars. Taxes are going to have to be raised to keep these programs afloat-dramatically. They will literally bankrupt our economy, heck we pretty much are as it is. Entitlement reform is not something I believe Barack Obama takes seriously. It's a must that we do.

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 3:00PM

Colin, New Deal spending was done in more than one year and you must look at the entire period to judge the effectiveness of the spending. You are cherry picking 1937 since ALL of the other surrounding years showed a DECLINE in unemployment. Therefore, you point does not hold.

I also believe that medicare and medicaid need to be revised. However, the problem with getting rid of them is that it will make the cost of health care rise and the number of people using non-efficient emergency room facilities grow dramatically. Given the lack of insurance by at least 20% of the population and the requirement that hospitals must treat anyone that comes through their doors, you are paying the cost anyway in your insurance premiums. Our health care system is extremely inefficient especially in the care of people in their last year of life.

As a dedicated RINO, I was against the bailouts of the banks (even though I used to work on Wall Street) and the auto companies. With mortgages, given the current Fed funds rate, the spread is sufficient to allow Fannie and Freddie to offer low rate mortgages to ALL who qualify. That's where I would have preferred to see the spending go.

As you can tell, I don't think either party has the right solution and Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. But I am not alone. The fastest growing political group are independents. If social conservatives continue to push those of us who are libertarian on social issues out of the party, the Republicans are doomed to a minority role.

Colin | 2.27.09 @ 3:24PM

Yeah, the only thing I was in 1937 specifically, but yes it went down afterwards, never denied that. I just feel his direction left much to be desired. But whatever.
Yes, I've heard the social conservative argument before. I certainly don't think that a party should be ALL THIS or ALL THAT. You cannot expect a party of millions to agree on everything. It's simply not realistic. I would say I'm very much a libertarian-leaning conservative, but I do believe a broad coalition is needed. But I do believe, as all parties believe, there are principles that it must stand for, and if you disagree on this or that, that's perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
Health care is a problem and it is difficult to say exactly what the solution is. I would ideally like it to be a private system, where decisions are made between patient and doctor. We do spend a ton of money on Health care in this country, and with universal coverage where the government plays more of a role would make it more costly. I do not feel that health care is a "right" in terms of the government providing it as a service, but I do believe that options should be given to people to buy it in the marketplace and where people are able to shop around for the best policy. So companies should compete with each other. This is what we have obviously to an extent.
The over 47 million uninsured are driving up premiums, so in a sense you could say we're paying for it to some extent anyway.
Lastly, I respect that you are open about calling yourself a RINO. I understand and acknowledge what you mean by that and I appreciate the honesty.

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 3:49PM

With regard to health care systems, take a look at Taiwan:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89651916

You choose your doctor and everyone is covered with little waiting time. They studied all of the health care systems around the world and came up with an alternative. They currently spend about 7% of GDP where we spend about 16%. There are detractors saying that it is costing more than expected, but estimates are that if they raised that to 8-9% it would be solvent. If that is true, they still cover everyone and it would still cost about half of what we spend. I saw a documentary on how they developed this system -- it is worth watching if you get a chance.

And yes, I am a proud fiscal conservative/social libertarian better know to right wing whackos as a RINO.

Colin | 2.27.09 @ 3:56PM

I will definitely take a look at it, thanks for the info.

Red Phillips| 2.27.09 @ 4:20PM

If the new/young conservatives are supposed to distinguish themselves by a greater willingness to embrace Keynesian economics, then all is truly lost. Yes spending/deficits rose greatly under Regan and BushII. That is because they governed INSUFICIENTLY conservatively. And sorry interventionist, but it was also because they spent too much on defense.

The new conservatism needs to be rigorously Constitutionlist. If it ain't authorized the Government shouldn't spend it. And it needs to be non-interventionist on foreign policy. In other words, the new conservatism needs to be just like the old conservatism (Old Right).

Interloper| 2.27.09 @ 4:27PM

Apparently, Robert Stacy McCain is not so enamored with Christopher M-a-g-a-l-e-s-i that he will spell the poor sap's name correctly.

Interloper| 2.27.09 @ 4:30PM

That's M-a-l-a-g-i-s-i. RCM's problems are viral. Hope I don't come down with neo-Confederate syndrome next.

Frank| 2.27.09 @ 4:56PM

The following unemployment numbers were taken from the U S Departmeny of Commerce Historical Statistics of The United States: The unemployed civilian work force from 1930 to 1939 was 8.9, 16.3, 24.1, 25.2, 22.0, 20.3, 17.0, 14.3, 19.1, 17.2. If you think the numbers are incorrect take it up with the Department of Commerce. WW II was the event that moved folks off of unemployment back to the civilian work force.

New New deal had little or minimal effect on the unemployment picture.

Labor laws and union growth did not help moving folks back to work. They seldom do.

Bob| 2.27.09 @ 5:06PM

Frank, those are exactly the same numbers that you see in the chart I presented. The only year unemployment went up was in 1937. Every other year it went down. If you do your homework, you'd see that FDR was elected in 1932 and that is when unemployment began to drop. You must also go beyond 1939 as the Great Depression lasted a long time. Thank you for validating my chart. I see, though, you need some help with what those numbers actually mean.

Frank| 2.27.09 @ 8:58PM

Dear Bob, your powers of observation are outstanding. The numbers I submitted were for the period 1930 to 1939. The unemployment number for 1937 would therefore be 14.3. Now the last time I checked my math book 14.3 is less than 17.0 and 19.1 which were the unemployment number of 1936 and 1938.

Since FDR was elected in 32 then 1933, 1934 etc that would make 1933 at 25.2, 1934 at 22.0 and 1934 at 20.3.

Your last post as quoted "If you do your homework, you'd see that FDR was elected in 1932 and that is when unemployment began to drop."

Bob it's time to hit the book again

Joe Heathen| 2.27.09 @ 9:12PM

Ah yes, the young Republicans. Too busy being patriotic to enlist in the armed forces and back up their bluster with substantial action. Great TV theater, those young Republicans.

Interloper| 2.28.09 @ 6:21AM

There is nothing new about the head young Republican. Christopher Magalisi has been involved in conservative politics since he was in high school. His new group consists mainly of members of older groups with repackaged with a new name. As for Magalisi, he has set up a money making venture called a 'leadership institute' in which he sells, you guessed it, political 'training' to the naive. You have to give the fellow credit for figuring out a way to make some bucks in this economy.

Anyone wanting to see something even more embarrassing than Piyush Jindal's speech should check out the Young Conservatives Coalition's video on YouTube. It is like a gathering of a half dozen versions of Kenneth the Page from "30 Rock."

http://tinyurl.com/bwboqk

Bob| 2.28.09 @ 8:16AM

Frank, do you even understand the concept of analysis? The graph I presented showed exactly the same numbers as you but in graphical form. Do you understand how they calculated the unemployment numbers back then? Do you understand the difference between a U-6 and U-3 calculation? Do you understand that the unemployment trend from the Great Depression must be looked at beyond 1939?

One of the things we learned from the spending in FDR's term is that it took several years for it to help. Government spending is longer term in nature -- it is not immediate. Sometimes it takes 3-10 years for a result to appear. But then again, you don't know much about economics and the Great Depression, do you...

Furthermore, in economics you almost never see a consistent trend. There are always ups and downs along the way -- but if you had some economics in your background, you'd know that. It is the longer term trend that is important.

Frank, that is not to say I agree with the huge stimulus plan of Obama. I'd say half of the spending/tax cuts were political in nature and not effective spending from an economics standpoint. All I'm saying here is that some spending is stimulative -- not all of it. I'm much more against tax cuts that redistribute wealth and don't provide virtually any stimulative effect. In fact, I would prefer a flat tax where there is no progressive or regressive influence letting the market decide who gets the money. By the way, when you look at tax fairness, you should include not only federal income taxes, but payroll taxes as well because there are no trust funds and the dollar in my wallet is fungible.

Demint is a Bigot| 2.28.09 @ 8:52AM

Jim DeMint is the biggest bigot in the senate and is a piece of trash.

KansasGirl| 2.28.09 @ 9:06AM

Lyndon Johnson caused the largest financial burden on this country.

RightSide| 2.28.09 @ 9:25AM

Interloper, Malagisi (correctly spelled) works at the Leadership Institute, he did not "set it up." It's a conservative political training organization.

Bob| 2.28.09 @ 9:30AM

KansasGirl, let's deal with fact rather than hyperbole. Here's a chart of debt creation over time:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Notice that Reagan and Bush are the largest progenitors of debt in our history. You need to start dealing with fact...

Chemman| 2.28.09 @ 3:04PM

For the most part I agree with many of your positions. However, you turn myself and others away when you equate lack of a college degree with being dumb or stupid (your post 2.27.09 @ 12:42). It was the educated elite on Wall Street and in Government that contributed the most to this melt down. Of course the drones who weren't self governed and bought into the borrow and spend mentality completed the circuit and the result is the financial bust we are now in. Enough of the elitism, today's colleges may confer a degree on graduates but it is not indicative of a well educated person capable of thinking logically. And no I am not being defensive because I lack a college education in Fact I have a B.S. in Microbiology and Chemistry and an M.S. in Project Engineering.

Chemman| 2.28.09 @ 3:06PM

My mistake the previous post should have started with Bob:

Basil Plumley| 2.28.09 @ 5:10PM

@ Chemman

Why are you worried; all Bob has is a degree in BS.

Ya know Bob, there are the 3 greatest lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. I guess the next thing you will telling us is if FDR had only spent more money, unemployment would have been in the single digits.

Ya know Bob, you should have taken some Civics courses. Last I checked, the Congress is the only one who can spend money per the Constitution.
If there is any overspending/debt creation, blame Congress.

Now, where did you get that degree again? You may have to sue them for educational malpractice.

Mac| 2.28.09 @ 6:16PM

Breakdown the employment figures into the %age of government to private employees. Government has increased significantly since FDR. Can anyone tell me when government created either products or wealth. The cost of government siphons off wealth from productive activity and investment. GOVERNMENT HAS NO WEALTH TO PAY FOR ITSELF. It can only employ people by taking wealth from those who create jobs and wealth. In effect, every government salary represents one or more potential job fewer in the private sector.

Larry Linn| 2.28.09 @ 10:59PM

The Democrats spend and tax. The Republicans spend, without planning taxes to pay for it. What is the GOP economic policy? I know that is a rhetorical question.
It is ironic that the Chicken Hawk Neo-cons are upset that Obama has been in office for only five weeks, and he has not cured the Republican-Bush depression that he inherited. Yet it took the Bush/Cheney administration eight years create this depression.

haunyocker| 3.1.09 @ 12:34AM

And just where is Obama going to get the 7 trillion he is planning to spend? Try our grandchildren and great grandchildren. Obama is one of the least economically educated president in history despite his alleged "education." He is clueless. He's never run a business, met a payroll, suffered through interminable horrendously expenisve government business regulations and I'll bet just from what he's said that "Bob" hasn't either.

Obama also said that he plans to introduce requirements to reduce tests for Medicare tests which means that he is already beginning the process of rationing medical care with his socialized medicine as they do in Canada and Britain. He says he's going to use the money to send kids to college. So essentially Obama is saying we're going to let the elderly die. Great plan.

ruth| 3.1.09 @ 3:21AM

Mr. Plumley, Bob not only has a degree in BS, he graduated summa cum laude.

Bob| 3.1.09 @ 9:02AM

Chemman -- Your point is well taken. I know a lot of very bright people without college degrees. However, there is a constant frame of reference here demeaning education and Ivy League schools. The weakness of many political decisions on both the right and the left lack analytical thought. I just believe we need to make SMARTER decisions and vote in the people, left or right, who can analyze the data and make smarter decisions.

I spent 35 years in Fortune 100 companies running divisions. When we accomplished objective analyses, we grew our business a high percentage of the time. When ego and "feeling" got in the way, the success rate declined. Closed minds kill good ideas. Ideology without regard to data and facts kill our democracy.

Sites like AmSpec prove this point. You have people believing tax cuts are stimulative without the ability to accomplish data analysis. Even the lead economist in the Reagan administration admits that Reaganomics was iffy.

So, it is not traditional education that I am really promoting, but the ability of people to look at the data and come to their own conclusions -- and prove it -- without being the right wing lemmings here you see in people like Plumley and Ruth who don't have a clue how to look at real information.

Bob| 3.1.09 @ 3:42PM

Bob You must be a liberal. Why do you continue to bring extranious elements into a simple concept. The department of Commerce said that these were the unemployment percentages when applied to the ciivilian work forces . If you do not like the numbers talk to the Commerce Department. The data I obtained said nothing about U3 and U6 calculation. You do not have to be condescending in your replies. If you lived through the depression you would know what unemployment was about and not try to explain it with obscure mathamethical jargon. The simple facts if you were out of work you were unemployed. If you were one out of 10 then to you the unemployment rate was 10%

Bob| 3.1.09 @ 5:59PM

Other Bob/Frank -- Condescension is easy when you deal with people who pretend to know something. The fact is that the calculations back in the Depression were similar to U6 calculations which include all of those out of work. Today's calculations are based on U3 which basically are those just out of work but not discouraged. Today's U6 unemployment rate would be approximately 17%.

But that is not why I'm so condescending. FDR became President when unemployment was at its highest -- about 25%. Except for 1937, it made a consistent decline. Now it's difficult to assign a direct correlation between unemployment and spending since that is an oversimplification. But it is just plain dumb to say that spending during FDR's term was not stimulative. The real question should be was it worth the effort?

When you parrot back Limbaugh talking points without understanding they are wrong, you sound just like a limp brained lemming.

Frank| 3.1.09 @ 6:40PM

Bob you proved my point. No need to reply as others have noted your degree in BS is evident

Bob| 3.1.09 @ 7:14PM

What point, Frank? The point that you don't understand numerical trends or can read charts?

Please show me you have some level of intelligence.

ruth| 3.1.09 @ 7:19PM

LOL

CDT| 3.2.09 @ 2:35PM

Bob,

Look at the spending again. How much of the increase in spending was because of non-discretionary spending vs discretionary? The non-discretionary stuff was legislated during Democrat-controlled Congresses.

Bush tried to address the Social Security nightmare but the Democrats wouldn't allow it.

Take out the non-discretionary (entitlement spending) and you'll find that the "higher" spending blamed on Bush (when Congress has the power of the purse, not the Executive) was the fault of Democratic Congress, or the Democrats used the filibuster to prevent entitlement reform, and then blamed the Republicans for the spending they prevented them from stopping, or had themselves enacted.

Nice to have it both ways.

Oh, and FDR's policies making things worse is old news: FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 8:41AM

CDT -- If you are going to quote an article, you should read it first. Let me quote:

"In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933."

They never said that it was prolonged because of the spending. So my point remains that spending is stimulative because of the consistent (except in one year) drop in the unemployment rate after the New Deal.

Regarding Bush, you seem to forget that in 6 of the 8 years Republicans were in control of Congress. This wasn't even a nice try!

By the way, you did not respond to the other charts I referenced.

CDT| 3.3.09 @ 10:02AM

Regarding Bush, you seem to forget that in 6 of the 8 years Republicans were in control of Congress. This wasn't even a nice try!

They had a 60 seat filibuster proof majority? Gee, I must have missed that memo.

As I said, nice when you have it both ways. Democrats used the filibuster to block what the Republicans tried to do, but the Democrats still claim the Republicans had a majority.

Myself and others see no need to respond to your charts. They're meaningless. Any one of us could throw charts and stats.

A significant portion of the people in the 1930s were farmers, not in the "workforce" as people are today. For illustrative purposes, if 50% of the workforce is employed in a traditional employer-paid job, but the other 50% are self-employed farmers, then the unemployment rate compared to today's numbers (where say, 80% are employed by others) becomes an apples and oranges comparison.

In addition, people were not taxed on WAGES in the 1930s. It wasn't until 1943 that withholding on wages came into being, with tax rates that brought the majority into the tax paying fold:

"As World War II erupted in Europe in 1939, the average American blue-collar worker paid no income tax at all, the typical lawyer or doctor paid about $25 per year, and a highly successful businessman with an income of $16,000 owed less than $1,000 in taxes. As Figure 1 shows, only 6.5 million Americans out of a total population of about 125 million paid federal income taxes at this time."

Spending can provide some stimulus, until the spending becomes too large a part of the income/wages of those being taxed. Then it becomes anti-stimulus, as is illustrated by the extremes in the Laffer Curve.

You're providing stats on unemployment and then switch to a discussion of spending as it relates to unemployment (without any adjustment of your theory based on the different mix of the labor force then and now), a great way to deflect the argument. When I show you evidence that the policies of FDR worsened the depression, you state that the economists were talking about spending, not unemployment... another goal post shift.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 10:21AM

CDT -- thank you for proving my point that you and other ideologues think data and analysis are unimportant when looking at policy.

Most economists think that Laffer was a joke. But what about the other end of the Laffer curve?

Again, you can make all of the excuses you wish about the politics, but the data is pretty clear that in real life, tax cuts do not stimulate GDP, they only grow debt.

Regarding the UCLA economists, I suggest you actually read the article rather than just looking at the title. I'll quote from summary the authors of the article made themselves:

"In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933."

They did not say that the Depression was lengthened because of the spending, did they? In fact, they didn't address the spending issue at all. May I suggest you practice reading comprehension?

ruth| 3.3.09 @ 2:43PM

I can't believe that some guy hasn't slapped you upside the head by now, Bob. How have you survived this long? Must be the anonymity. Insufferable comes to mind.

Bob| 3.3.09 @ 3:30PM

Miss Ruthie -- please slap me! Wear black, please. I haven't been in a fight since I fought in Vietnam -- and those guys aren't talking any more.

ruth| 3.3.09 @ 8:12PM

You don't know how much I would love to, or maybe you do. Should I wear my black stiletto heels, too?

Bob| 3.4.09 @ 8:45AM

Miss Ruthie, you be da woman...

ruth| 3.4.09 @ 2:45PM

Good boy.