Posted on 11/14/2010 11:31:09 AM PST by rabscuttle385
It wasn't the spending of WW-II that helped the economy - it was the productivity of WW-II that did so. Throughout the 1930's, the mood was much less positive in the country. The government spent and spent and spent prior to the war, but the economy wouldn't budge. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, people regained their desire to work. They had a goal. They had something to gain. Every fighter plane, every battleship, every rifle, and every tank was built by people that WANTED TO WIN THE WAR.
Fast-forward to today - we're seeing a lot of the same stagnency in the economy that we saw in the 1930's. And the more that the government responds as it did in the 1930's, the worse it will get.
As to the Reagan tax cuts, again there are different interpretations. When Reagan became president he inherited a national debt of about one trillion dollars. When he left office, it was close to three times that. When Bush left office at the end of this period of “prosperity”, the national debt was ten trillion dollars. Prosperity purchased by nine trillion dollars of deficit spending is not real prosperity.
In terms of spending, there was a problem in Reagan's time as well as Bush's time. But remember, the purse strings of the federal government lie in the House of Representatives, not the White House. Reagan did well considering that the house and Senate were both in Democrat hands. Bush, with the republicans, SHOULD have done better but didn't, partly because of the war on terror and partly because Bush wanted to continue some of the socialist programs rather than trim them.
But that is a side issue - the tax cuts in Reagan's time resulted in an increase in federal tax revenue due to the boosted economic activity. The same happened with Bush. In both cases, there was an increase in revenues due to the cuts. The problem is/was, there was an increase in spending that was larger than the increased revenue.
Moreover, the real wages of the middle class, adjusted for inflation, scarcely moved up at all during this thirty year period. Only the rich did well. Whereas during the years following WW2, the middle class prospered.
I don't have the hard stats in front of me, but to the extent that this is true (if it's really true), take a look at what kinds of businesses we now have in the US - manufacturing and especially heavy manufacturing have been in decline for decades (thanks to a great extent to excessive regulation by government), being replaced by services. Now, the service industry includes medical care and other professional help, but it also includes Hotel service and fast foods and we know how well those type of jobs pay. Additionally, we have illegals taking labor intensive jobs from Americans and driving wages down.
I don't have all the answers, but it has been shown that decreasing the tax rate increases economic activity among the people that the tax effects. Conversely, raising taxes decreases such economic activity. In simple terms, people see no need to buy and raise a cow for milk when the government steals 50% of the milk and gives it to someone else that is too lazy to raise their own cow.
And running huge deficits creates a hidden inflation tax, a tax on savings and future consumption. On the other hand raising any (real) taxes under Obama is not likely to help either, as they will just spend it. You are right, there are no good answers.
If you invest to protect from inflation, they tax that too.
Well, there is one good answer - Cut Spending!!
LOL,I mean no good answers that congress will pass and a president will sign. But my tagline has been the same for about 8 months :)
I am with you in spirit, if not belief that it really will happen.
Sunday a Republican on a Sunday show said SS does not effect the deficit because the money has been borrowed. ???(I think money is being borrowed now to pay benefits.)
Let’s give him back to the Vietnamese.
Well, there is one straight answer. Thanks. Finally.
All those evil folks calling you names again. Right.
the 'conservatives' on this board who are the hardest on "Bushbots" do absolutely nothing to elect conservatives. Nothing at all. WE do.
Absolute hogwash. You have no evidence of what people do, or do not do, to advance conservatism. But you never fail to try to put yourself in some hoity-toity crowd of "true" conservatives.
Were you supporting President Bush when he joined with Teddy and pushed through NCLB and MedPartD? How about when he was trying to cram amnesty down our throats? There is more to advancing conservatism than getting folks elected, especially when those elected push for such miserable public policy.
There was!!!!
What ever the reason McCain owns AZ.
LOL! If I were a 'record keeper' I'd give you some of the nasty, dirty things these friends of yours have said, but since I now just consider the source, it's not a big deal any more.
As for your 'hogwash' charge, what you should do is find out if the Bush haters on this board have actually done anything outside of typing words on FR to elect conservatives. I'm not talking about those of us who disagree with things President Bush has done, but the visceral haters like the two on this thread.
It's actually not that I'm putting myself in any crowd, it's that these fellers have done that to a whole lot of people like me, and they continue to promote the silliness that we're not conservatives if we still respect and admire President Bush (there are millions of us, cowgirl)....when in reality our actions are more conservative than theirs. If that idea makes you angry, so be it. I find their abject hypocrisy mildly amusing.
You can ask them the same questions and find out if they sat in their chairs rather than working. If you find out that they actually did something......especially the two on this thread, I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong.
Maybe they'll tell you since you're such a devoted fan of theirs, but there's no evidence that they ever lift a finger or donate a penny to conservative causes.
btw, did you help in the midterm elections? Did you make any calls? Work on the GOTV efforts (Tea Party and Republicans both had them). Is that why you're so sensitive and defensive about this subject? Just curious.....
In the meantime, I'm going to continue to ask anyone who reveals an irrational and visceral hatred of President Bush (I repeat, not just disagreement) what they've done in this conservative uprising. I expect I'll continue to hear the same thing.
Not a blasted thing.
I LOVE when that happens. :)
(btw, last question.......why are you so afraid to ping me to your posts about me? No guts, eh? Big surprise there.........not)
I'm leaving now, but you keep this up, OK? You're enhancing my reputation as a rational conservative with every nutso word you write. It's all GOOD. Liberals sometimes make useful tools......
Someone here is paranoid, thinks I am posting about her when I post crazy stuff in quotes. Isn’t that crazy? codename “Truth File”.
And, unless someone can provide you with evidence of something, then it is OK for you to assert the opposite? Okie Dokie (more warped logic). How about if I claim you're a dog beater until you prove to me that you've done something nice to your dog? (Or your neighbors dog, or pet, or anyone for that matter). Is that the rules you play under? Accuse someone of not doing something or not being something until they prove affirmatively that they have performed sufficiently to meet your approval? That's pretty twisted in my book.
As to "visceral haters," you sound just like a liberal. Do many conservatives feel disappointed, disgusted, deceived, etc. by the policies implemented by our last President? Sure! Who wouldn't? I respect the man for having been our President but hold out no love for him, or his father, as they have done more to destroy Reagan conservatism than about anyone else I can think of. What Bush & Co have done in California has so corrupted our California Republican Party that we may never recover. It was Bush cronies put in place for the 2000 election that brought us Arnold in 2003. Admire him all you want but recognize that others do not share you adulation and have REAL Conservative reasons for their beliefs.
As to what I or anyone else has specifically done in any given election, it is.... None of your business. Everyone contributes in their own way and has no obligation to justify their actions to you or anyone else. Whether someone made phone calls or waved flags at rallies does not make one more conservative than another. If someone did all of those things to support John McCain, would they meet your requirements to be labeled "conservative"?
There are MANY ways folks can contribute to society as conservatives and it is NOT limited to supporting particular politicians in elections. That conservatism isn't demonstrated every other year at election time but every single day. Sadly, partisans have a very hard time recognizing that.
I don't respect him, and I don't admire him...because he's not a conservative, period. He's a RINO bastard.
Well how much thought does it take to call you a name? (rhetorical question, it's third grade stuff). I saw a movie Sunday about a woman with Alzheimer's disease. As time went on she became more and more incoherent and frustrated and hit her husband for the first time. Fortunately there was no internet back then. She could only torture her family. This might explained why she entered this thread with the sole purpose of attacking Rabs. Then went into her standard victim-Tea party hero ritual.
No, GWB's a liberal. And those that worship him must be liberals too. They attack Democrats for the same things they loved Bush for doing. If you love Bush you are their friend, if you think he was a failure they hate you. They live in 2002 forever. Only a few crazies live in that world. That short time for them is like 1960s to the liberals . They cannot let it go either.
Sometimes communication like this is confusing.
Let me clarify again....I'm not talking about conservatives who were disappointed, angry, let-down, or just disagreed with policy.
If you haven't seen people on this board with a visceral hatred of President Bush, try defending him and see the people who explode in irrational rage, and call Bush's defenders and him vile names. They HATE him.
Now, I do appreciate your defense of your friends here, but please go back and read my posts to you and see where you may have misinterpreted my words.
I once again apologize for offending you. My view of conservative activism is that forums such as FR are good for conversation, but their primary purpose is to get us involved in the process in some manner, and this fall, it included getting out of our seats and putting boots on the ground in the battle for this dear Republic. I don't care how people did it, and I'm certainly not judging those who didn't make phone calls or march in the streets IF.....that is IF.......they did something else.
But doing nothing at all is not conservatism. And doing nothing but attacking "Bushbots" is LESS than nothing.
Now I see no purpose in staying on this thread, even though this discussion has been mostly civil (both ways....you've said some pretty cutting things yourself). I've made my point, and I still believe my point, so I will continue to work, and I will continue to work to defeat RINO's in the primaries and I will continue to be amused that do-nothings attack me and pretend to be conservative themselves. (NOT you).
I also know that your sole criterion for being a conservative is hating President Bush. I know that you support candidates who are off-the-wall and have positions that I consider to be liberal (I believe Libertarians are as liberal or moreso than RINO's because of their stance on social issues). I believe that your conservatism is limited to your economic politics, and my conservatism covers my entire life. That's why I get out of my chair and work for conservatism and you think that posting anti-McCain articles on FR is enough. I think you should be doing something real.....something tangible......something pro-active.
At any rate, I appreciate your attempt to be civil here, and I would appreciate it if it would continue.
I am pro-life, pro-military, pro-national defense, pro-conservative judges, pro-business, pro-tax cuts, and in those areas President Bush was a stellar conservative.
So I think, that while I certainly disagree with some of what he did, calling him a RINO is foolish. He is a center-right Republican, and not at all "in name only." That's a misnomer. Obviously he wasn't across the board conservative, but that doesn't justify your hatred.
As for calling him a 'bastard,' that speaks only for your inability to criticize without personally attacking, which is why you and I have had problems from the beginning.
How about both you and me turning over a new leaf? I'm willing. Are you?
Please point me to where you thought it was. It's important to me.
And while your at it, take a look at sickoflibs incessant bizarro name-calling of me going on (see post 141). I wonder if you approve of his incessant made-up, nasty, degrading ad hominems of me on this thread, or the fact that he continues them without ever pinging me.
Does your agreement with him that Bush was bad negate any outrage that he is behaving so badly? (I don't think it does and that you're probably ignoring him, as every rational freeper usually does, but if his nastiness to me doesn't bother you, the apparent double standard in what is 'name-calling' makes me curious).
You've been very hard on me here, calcowgirl, (that's OK. It's your honest opinion and you're entitled to it), but he's pinged you to his bizarro false ad hominems, and you haven't asked him to stop. Is there a reason for that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.