After FDR took over from Hoover, the Republican Party fell to 16 seats in the Senate and to 88 seats in the House.They may want to believe the New Deal did not work, it was only the WAR that saved us, but it did not save them GET on with Obama, and the country (over 50% favor) the Stimulus Package. The biggest mistake we can make now is to be too timid, no new deal lite, but a large enough stimulus package to do something.
The Bush era Republicans have no moral authority to lecture about deficits. And the small goverment, less taxes, party short on ideas and leaders is moving to less seats in Goverment, so I guess their winning on the small goverment idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It takes a lot of nerve for Republicans to make a fiscal discipline argument when they exercised none while in power. It is all the more galling considering that the coming deficits are a response to their stewardship!
Had the GOP adopted a sound fiscal policy and grew the inherited surpluses, we would not be discussing deficits right now.
The Republicans got us into this mess, the Democrats will get us out. Just like last time and the time before...
We shall see Terry.
If you think the Porkulus has 50% support, you be smoking with M. Phelps.
Not one of you "O" supporters will tell me what the specific purpose of this bill.
The specific purpose of the bill is to arrest the deflationary spiral in which we found ourselves, thanks entirely to your boy and his administration. It will do this through tax cuts and spending, which are stimulative.
If that doesn't answer it for you, you need to find a new topic that may be less vexing.
Vexing...a big word.
So you chose inflationary? Oh, I forget, the "O" will know exactly when to apply the brakes.
I'll take inflation over a deflationary spiral every time.
I hope the GOP leadership takes up the mantle of "Do Nothing." We won't be bothered by yours for years to come.
Between O (fiscally) and Bernanke (monetarily), yes, the brakes will be applied at about the right time. Are you now arguing against the existence of the Fed? Its not enough to rally against the New Deal? You want to go back and argue against the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States!?
That last comment reminds me of Eric Stratton in Animal House when he is addressing Dean Faber and the student Fraternity judiciary board. "You want to go back and argue against the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States!?"
Yes I do, the policy of easy money, ultra low interest rates and making sure there was never any pain brought on by normal business cycles is what is causing the massive problems we have now. This was primarily accomplished under the Federal Reserve leadership of Alan Greenspan. If he would have allowed a few more normal business cycles instead of always trying to make sure that there were never any small recessions follwed by normal recoveries like there has been in the United States throughpout most of the 20th century we would probably not be in as severe of an economic downturn as we are now. All one needs to do is look at a chart of the US economy for most of the 20th century after World War II to see this.
The easy money, low interest policy clearly contributed to the housing debacle along with the Barney Frank led insistence on a "roof over every American's head, even if they can't afford it".
By the way I do like a lot of southern rock like the Almman Brothers and the Black Crowes. Terry your statement is again way over generalized and not accurate. You have forgotten many non southern states like Alaska, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Idaho plus Indiana, Ohio, and Iowa which are still largely republican and just narrowly went for Obama. You and a lot of other liberals again are trying to rewrite facts and make it seem like Obama carried almost every State. This is just not true and very far from a Reaganesque like landslide.
Mark - Every time you criticize Barney Frank for promoting homeownership, do the same to Dubya as he was completely on board with that, rhetorically and as a matter of policy.
Regarding the Fed - I actually agree with a lot of your comments but you miss the larger point. Yes - the Fed is imperfect and Greenspan was overcompensating especially near the end of his service. However, the alternative is much, much worse. Before the Fed, booms and busts were commonplace. The business environment was so naturally risky that returns had to be huge or the investment was not worth the risk. This, of course, prevented the efficient use of capital.
By historical standards, the post war era has been extremely smooth and conducive to commerce. There is simply no comparison. This is largely due to the adoption of Keynesian economic policy throughout the developed free world. The Fed and other national banks as well have fostered this prosperous economic environment.
Today, the Fed has played a huge role in preventing the utter collapse of our economic system. The spike in money supply is a byproduct of that effort. When/if we recover, you will see the supply come back down. If we do not recover in a timely manner, our currency will certainly suffer for that sea of dollars.
Post a Comment