I wasnt alive during the great depression and the new deal...nor do I think you were, but under FDR, in the 1930s only one year, 1937 did the economy not grow, and unemployment increase. One could only imagine what would have happened if FDR had not taken the measures that he did. Not all were great, or even effective but something had to be done.
(as a complete side note: I would encourage anyone to read the book called "The Plot Against America" by Phillip Roth, it is kind of a hypothetical scenario where Charles Lindberg defeats FDR in 1936 and allies with Germany instead of Britain).
As noted, the economy was on the rebound before FDR put in any kind of economic legislation. Further, the massive socialist spending projects were not even enacted until mid-late 30s. In other words, the first few years of economic rebound happened without much "help" from the government.
Nearly half of all economists agree that the great depression was dragged out and recovery was hindered by FDR, not helped.
Nevertheless, this idea that "Just imagine how bad it could have been if they did nothing!" is a common excuse for bad policy. Even Obama claimed that the economy would have dropped worse if the bailout had not been passed. Yet there is zero evidence anywhere that the bailout has helped anything at all.
I think we need to start basing our policies on historical empirical evidence, and not some mythical "well it could have been worse!" theories.
There is no question about this, but it certainly will keep private contractors busy until more private businesses are in the postion to spend more on capital projects.
But that money has to be collected somewhere. Namely taxes. The federal government has no golden tree to shake in the back yard to get this money. Right now, they are doing the worst possible thing, which is to simply print the money they need.
In either case, raising taxes, or printing money, the government will either cause the economic recession to continue, or to cause massive inflation. Either one will cause more economic havoc than simply not giving out the money, and letting the economy recover naturally.
Well I would disagree, and say yes we need schools. I am not suggesting the economy will improve over night, but it certainly is an investment towards future generations who studies have shown achieve better in modern buildings with modern equipment.
One of the interesting fallacies uncovered in one of Thomas Sowell's books, is the idea that education automatically improves anything. Even today, there are dozens on dozens of job listings for just my city of Hilliard, a small suburb of Columbus. Dozens of them. Yet we have a high unemployment rate? Why? Because people thing they are too good to do them.
In India, the government spent billions on education. The result was thousands of jobs available, and everyone thinking that because they had this education, they were too good to do the jobs. So instead they had a high unemployment, and thousands looking for high-tech jobs that didn't exist.
First, get the economy going. The economy goes by people having money to both make jobs and buy products. Then after that, then you provide schooling. I've personally met way too many highly educated people working minimum wage jobs, all because we have a stupid belief that education will fix everything. It doesn't.
A good portion of this bill is tax cuts, and none of the GOP and quasi conservatives are even mentioning that. But either way, as I said before quality roads, with enough capacity certainly helps the economy through the movement of goods and services.
Not when people are over taxed to pay for those roads, to the point they can't buy anything. Or their business can afford to build product. First things first Bunz. If Business and people have enough case in their pocket, they'll find a way with, or without roads. You can build the roads when the economy is good.
The reason the GOP and conservatives are not all that enthused by the tax cuts in the stimulus, is because they are worthless, to be honest. The cuts were made in very specific, very "targetted" groups. A cut that only effects a tiny fraction of the business sector, which is a fraction of the economy, will not be effective for anything, and even Obama's own people admit it. The purpose of the cuts were simply to get everyone on board for the pork bill, not to actually help the economy, which it won't.
So does that mean we have been at artifically high economic times due to the two wars we are involved in? Because I remember back from 2004, and Bush saying all the time to focus on the economy...Dont worry about the wars, and lack of OBL, WMDs...just enjoy that fat paycheck and vote GOP.
Now you got it. Did you notice how the economy "jumped" in 2003? Most of that was sudden spending on the war. The real economic growth was after the tax cuts, which put money back in the hands of consumer and vendors. If you take a quick glace at 2006 - 2007, you'll see the economy start to trail off from the sub-prime bust. But in 2007, another massive jump... what happened? The surge in Iraq. Once that was over, the real economic numbers came back.
Btw, I don't remember him saying down worry about WMDs or OBL. I do remember him saying that we should be worried and scared all the time. He's right. That's a sign of a good leader. All of us cowering in our basements over OBL is a waste.
OK, lets have the Government due nothing. How many millions of jobs will go away? Are you safe in your bet that yours wont? I am largely self employed through my fishing operation, and I have some concerns that the market for salmon might drop to the point where my investment is nill.
The government doing nothing, is your best bet to safe guard your investment. The more government does, the more they screw everything up. No I'm not sure my job is safe, because I happen to know that no one's job is ever safe. What I do know is that there are thousands of jobs out there, and if I need to, I'll find another.
