PDA

View Full Version : Economics Debt ceiling: Good going, guys


Donger
07-27-2011, 12:53 PM
This should scare the crap out of everyone...

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/27/news/economy/debt_ceiling_fight/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_t1

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- With all the Washington dysfunction over the debt ceiling, it's easy to forget the reality of the debt problems everyone says they want to fix.

Here's what's at stake: An entitlement system that Americans rely on but that promises more than it can afford; a tax code that is complex, inefficient and perceived to be unfair; and a projected growth trajectory for debt that is unsustainable and threatens the country's economic future.

How unsustainable? By 2025, spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt is projected to suck up virtually all federal tax revenue, with interest costs alone accounting for nearly half. By 2040, there would only be enough in federal tax revenue to pay for interest and most of Social Security.

patteeu
07-27-2011, 01:06 PM
This should scare the crap out of everyone...

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/27/news/economy/debt_ceiling_fight/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=hp_t1

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- With all the Washington dysfunction over the debt ceiling, it's easy to forget the reality of the debt problems everyone says they want to fix.

Here's what's at stake: An entitlement system that Americans rely on but that promises more than it can afford; a tax code that is complex, inefficient and perceived to be unfair; and a projected growth trajectory for debt that is unsustainable and threatens the country's economic future.

How unsustainable? By 2025, spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest on the debt is projected to suck up virtually all federal tax revenue, with interest costs alone accounting for nearly half. By 2040, there would only be enough in federal tax revenue to pay for interest and most of Social Security.

Our democrat friends will read that and come to the conclusion that we desperately need a massive tax increase.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 01:10 PM
Looks like 70 years socialism, even if not total, is coming to the same end that it brought to the Soviet Union and Cuba. It just took longer.

Family will be needed and relied upon more than ever—the way it used to be.

Taco John
07-27-2011, 01:17 PM
It sounds like we need a balanced approach. On one hand we offer a bunch of entitlements. On the other hand, we balance that by raising taxes.

See? Balance.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 01:29 PM
Why should we be scared?

Our kids can pay for it.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 01:35 PM
No problem anytime :thumb:

blaise
07-27-2011, 02:00 PM
What's great is, we probably won't be able to leave a dime to our kids by then. Even if we save up all our money to try and give our kids an advantage, by 2040 the government will probably be taxing inheritance on all income levels by 90%.

Donger
07-27-2011, 02:13 PM
It sounds like we need a balanced approach. On one hand we offer a bunch of entitlements. On the other hand, we balance that by raising taxes.

See? Balance.

If I could go back in time, that mother fucker FDR never would have been POTUS.

chasedude
07-27-2011, 02:17 PM
If I could go back in time, that mother fucker FDR never would have been POTUS.

If I could go back in time, Woody Wilson would never have signed the Fed Reserve Act.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 02:23 PM
If I could go back in time, that mother fucker FDR never would have been POTUS.

The changing demographics that have rendered SS unsustainable weren't exactly predictable in the 1930s. SS has been a very successful program. It's unfortunate it can't continue as it has.

Donger
07-27-2011, 02:29 PM
The changing demographics that have rendered SS unsustainable weren't exactly predictable in the 1930s. SS has been a very successful program. It's unfortunate it can't continue as it has.

It never should have been introduced in the first place.

I read recently about the first person to receive SS benefits. Some broad in Vermont. She paid in something like $22.50 and eventually took in over $20,000 in checks.

And now, this "self-sustaining" wonderment of government imposition is costing us 25% of our fucking budget.

Yeah, let's trust the fucking government with our money.

Cannibal
07-27-2011, 02:29 PM
I am a liberal, but I am getting to the point that I really think we should just abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Welfare and the majority of Military funding. Just stop taking SS taxes from my wages as it will not be there when I retire anyway.

Anyone currently receiving SS and Medicare can fend for themselves. You don't have the money to pay for food and housing without your SS? **** it, no skin off my back. Both of my parents and grand parents are dead anyway and I don't have any kids. I guess I seriously don't give much of a **** if there's a bunch of old people on the streets at this point, I really don't. **** em, a majority of them voted for this right wing agenda anyway. Let them starve, just stop taking the tax money to care of them out of my check.

Abolish the Dept. of Education while your at it. I don't have any kids and don't plan to. **** everyone elses kids. The majority of them are overweight, underachieving losers anyway. **** em.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 02:34 PM
I am a liberal, but I am getting to the point that I really think we should just abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Welfare and the majority of Military funding. Just stop taking SS taxes from my wages as it will not be there when I retire anyway.

Anyone currently receiving SS and Medicare can fend for themselves. You don't have the money to pay for food and housing without your SS? **** it, no skin off my back. Both of my parents and grand parents are dead anyway and I don't have any kids. I guess I seriously don't give much of a **** if there's a bunch of old people on the streets at this point, I really don't. **** em, a majority of them voted for this right wing agenda anyway. Let them starve, just stop taking the tax money to care of them out of my check.

Abolish the Dept. of Education while your at it. I don't have any kids and don't plan to. **** everyone elses kids. The majority of them are overweight, underachieving losers anyway. **** em.

Actually, the Department of Education does nothing to educate your children, your local government does that. It was a Department created by Jimmy Carter to attempt to monitor standards regarding privacy and civil rights, not teach. If it disappeared tomorrow, most school districts would be better off.

Cannibal
07-27-2011, 02:35 PM
Actually, the Department of Education does nothing to educate your children, your local government does that. It was a Department created by Jimmy Carter to attempt to monitor standards regarding privacy and civil rights, not teach. If it disappeared tomorrow, most school districts would be better off.

I don't have any kids, so I don't really care. Abolish it.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 02:36 PM
I don't have any kids, so I don't really care. Abolish it.

I do have kids, and I would love it to be abolished.

See, liberals and conservatives can negotiate.

Cannibal
07-27-2011, 02:37 PM
I do have kids, and I would love it to be abolished.

See, liberals and conservatives can negotiate.

Cool.

loochy
07-27-2011, 02:39 PM
I do have kids, and I would love it to be abolished.

See, liberals and conservatives can negotiate.

I don't even plan on having my kids use public schools, so I say abolish too!

Chief Roundup
07-27-2011, 02:41 PM
Actually, the Department of Education does nothing to educate your children, your local government does that. It was a Department created by Jimmy Carter to attempt to monitor standards regarding privacy and civil rights, not teach. If it disappeared tomorrow, most school districts would be better off.

Does the department of education allow us going to college to get pell grants and student loans?

Taco John
07-27-2011, 02:42 PM
If I could go back in time, that mother ****er FDR never would have been POTUS.

Go back further. Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson deserve their fair share of blame.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 02:42 PM
It never should have been introduced in the first place.

I read recently about the first person to receive SS benefits. Some broad in Vermont. She paid in something like $22.50 and eventually took in over $20,000 in checks.

And now, this "self-sustaining" wonderment of government imposition is costing us 25% of our ****ing budget.

Yeah, let's trust the ****ing government with our money.It's kind of nice seeing you take that stance on the issue.

Chief Roundup
07-27-2011, 02:43 PM
I don't even plan on having my kids use public schools, so I say abolish too!

How much would abolishing this program raise your personal property taxes? I know that something like 75% of property taxes go to the schools.

Cannibal
07-27-2011, 02:43 PM
So you all just want the Dept. Education abolished?

I figured you'd be all over abolishing the Medicare and SS too.

Let's get rid of the rest of it too... completely... right now. It won't be there for me anyway. Fuck these baby boomers. They got us into this mess in the first place.

Let them eat dog food.

Brock
07-27-2011, 02:44 PM
So you all just want the Dept. Education abolished?

I figured you'd be all over abolishing the Medicare and SS too.

Let's get rid of the rest of it too... completely... right now. It won't be there for me anyway. Fuck these baby boomers. They got us into this mess in the first place.

Let them eat dog food.

Amen, they stole everything on their way out the door anyway, **** 'em.

Donger
07-27-2011, 02:44 PM
I've never really looked at the Department of Education before.

Here's its mission statement:

The U.S. Department of Education is the agency of the federal government that establishes policy for, administers and coordinates most federal assistance to education.

And it has a budget of $46 billion BEFORE Pell Grants?

Donger
07-27-2011, 02:45 PM
It's kind of nice seeing you take that stance on the issue.

:spock:

loochy
07-27-2011, 02:45 PM
How much would abolishing this program raise your personal property taxes? I know that something like 75% of property taxes go to the schools.

Do you mean lower?

Actually I'm still in an apartment, so none (for now).

And that was kind of a joke, but kind of not.

Donger
07-27-2011, 02:47 PM
So you all just want the Dept. Education abolished?

I figured you'd be all over abolishing the Medicare and SS too.

Let's get rid of the rest of it too... completely... right now. It won't be there for me anyway. **** these baby boomers. They got us into this mess in the first place.

Let them eat dog food.

Sure. I'm all for letting people take care of themselves. It's pretty fucking obvious that the government isn't exactly very good at it, wouldn't you say?

Chief Roundup
07-27-2011, 02:48 PM
Do you mean lower?

Actually I'm still in an apartment, so none (for now).

And that was kind of a joke, but kind of not.

No. If the federal government doesn't subsidize schools those dollars will have to come from somewhere or there will not be public schools.
Unless you think the rich are the only people that deserve an education.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 02:51 PM
I've never really looked at the Department of Education before.

Here's its mission statement:

The U.S. Department of Education is the agency of the federal government that establishes policy for, administers and coordinates most federal assistance to education.

And it has a budget of $46 billion BEFORE Pell Grants?

Yup, Jimmy Barack Carter I created the agency to insure civil rights were not being violated. For some reason it has taken on the image of being an almighty educator of the masses. It now gathers data from schools, administers loans and grants (which was previously done by more efficient smaller agencies), and continues the fight against racially motivated acts in our public schools.

BigChiefFan
07-27-2011, 02:51 PM
:spock:

You've got to admit, you like to defend the Republicans from time to time. Seeing you call out the entire government over the issue was refreshing. It's going to take all of us getting fed up to make a change for the better.

Cannibal
07-27-2011, 02:52 PM
Sure. I'm all for letting people take care of themselves. It's pretty ****ing obvious that the government isn't exactly very good at it, wouldn't you say?

It's not about whether they can take care of themselves or not, for me, it's that I've come to the realization that I don't give a flying fuck.

Taco John
07-27-2011, 02:52 PM
I am a liberal, but I am getting to the point that I really think we should just abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment, Welfare and the majority of Military funding. Just stop taking SS taxes from my wages as it will not be there when I retire anyway.

Anyone currently receiving SS and Medicare can fend for themselves. You don't have the money to pay for food and housing without your SS? **** it, no skin off my back. Both of my parents and grand parents are dead anyway and I don't have any kids. I guess I seriously don't give much of a **** if there's a bunch of old people on the streets at this point, I really don't. **** em, a majority of them voted for this right wing agenda anyway. Let them starve, just stop taking the tax money to care of them out of my check.

Abolish the Dept. of Education while your at it. I don't have any kids and don't plan to. **** everyone elses kids. The majority of them are overweight, underachieving losers anyway. **** em.



Ron Paul has a better plan than just turning everyone out to the streets.


The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist president's budget should do the following:

1. Reduce overall federal spending
2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states
6.Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it's irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America's freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html



I would opt out of social security tomorrow and start making my own plans and provisions for retirement if I could. First order of business would be to use every dime of my money on home ownership. Like most everyone else, the bank owns our home. It would be a huge relief if we could use our Social Security towards paying it down and getting it off the books and then rolling that money into other investments.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 02:53 PM
If I could go back in time, that mother ****er FDR never would have been POTUS.

One of Obama's financial guys (Larry Summers, I believe) pointed out that had Hitler not come along Roosevelt would have lost his last election and history would have cast him as a failed president who presided over big-government ideals that universally failed.

I cannot believe that anyone believes the Obama experiment of hyper-inflating government and regulation has been anything but a disaster. I'd also wager that a lot of the people who bemoaned Rush Limbaugh hoping he failed early in his presidency would disagree with that sentiment now...

Donger
07-27-2011, 02:55 PM
You've got to admit, you like to defend the Republicans from time to time. Seeing you call out the entire government over the issue was refreshing. It's going to take all of us getting fed up to make a change for the better.

Well, until I see Democrats willing to do some serious re-work of these entitlement programs, I'm still pretty much behind the Republicans. If Democrats do the same, I'll back them, too.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 02:55 PM
One of Obama's financial guys (Larry Summers, I believe) pointed out that had Hitler not come along Roosevelt would have lost his last election and history would have cast him as a failed president who presided over big-government ideals that universally failed.

I cannot believe that anyone believes the Obama experiment of hyper-inflating government and regulation has been anything but a disaster. I'd also wager that a lot of the people who bemoaned Rush Limbaugh hoping he failed early in his presidency would disagree with that sentiment now...

FDR also made groups or folks he gave money aid to pledge to vote democrat to qualify.

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 03:00 PM
The bottom-line is that a decision is coming: Do you want to continue the age of entitlement for another 20-30 years before the nation collapses or do you want to address it now so that it pays out what it takes in? Knowing how this national works and how politicians pander I don't have a lot of hope for our future.

Too bad the entire nation didn't adopt what Galveston, TX did vis-a-vis Social Security. From what I understand they did just fine opting out back in the early 80's.

Chief Roundup
07-27-2011, 03:07 PM
It's not about whether they can take care of themselves or not, for me, it's that I've come to the realization that I don't give a flying ****.

Well you better hope that nothing bad ever happens to you where you lose all your monitary things and your health. Because then you will be fucked just like the people you don't give a fuck about.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 03:16 PM
The bottom-line is that a decision is coming: Do you want to continue the age of entitlement for another 20-30 years before the nation collapses or do you want to address it now so that it pays out what it takes in? Knowing how this national works and how politicians pander I don't have a lot of hope for our future.

Too bad the entire nation didn't adopt what Galveston, TX did vis-a-vis Social Security. From what I understand they did just fine opting out back in the early 80's.

Can't we extend that to about 50 years and then I would say stick with it?

Otter
07-27-2011, 03:29 PM
Ron Paul has a better plan than just turning everyone out to the streets.The first step in enacting a pro-freedom legislative agenda is the submission of a budget that outlines the priorities of the administration. While it has no legal effect, the budget serves as a guideline for the congressional appropriations process. A constitutionalist president's budget should do the following:

1. Reduce overall federal spending
2. Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
3. Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
4. Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt
5. Provide for reduction in federal bureaucracy and lay out a plan to return responsibility for education to the states
6.Begin transitioning entitlement programs from a system where all Americans are forced to participate into one where taxpayers can opt out of the programs and make their own provisions for retirement and medical care

If Congress failed to produce a budget that was balanced and moved the country in a pro-liberty direction, a constitutionalist president should veto the bill. Of course, vetoing the budget risks a government shutdown. But a serious constitutionalist cannot be deterred by cries of “it's irresponsible to shut down the government!” Instead, he should simply say, “I offered a reasonable compromise, which was to gradually reduce spending, and Congress rejected it, instead choosing the extreme path of continuing to jeopardize America's freedom and prosperity by refusing to tame the welfare-warfare state. I am the moderate; those who believe that America can afford this bloated government are the extremists.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html
I would opt out of social security tomorrow and start making my own plans and provisions for retirement if I could. First order of business would be to use every dime of my money on home ownership. Like most everyone else, the bank owns our home. It would be a huge relief if we could use our Social Security towards paying it down and getting it off the books and then rolling that money into other investments.

Stop it! You're a LOON if you vote for Ron Paul.

RaiderH8r
07-27-2011, 03:55 PM
The changing demographics that have rendered SS unsustainable weren't exactly predictable in the 1930s. SS has been a very successful program. It's unfortunate it can't continue as it has.

What's unfortunate is that many insist SS continue as it has.

chasedude
07-27-2011, 04:02 PM
Stop it! You're a LOON if you vote for Ron Paul.

I'm not sure if my sarcasm meter is off and you're joking. I've been listening and agreeing with more Ron Paul has been saying lately than any other candidate. I've never considered myself Repub or Dem, I listen to individuals over party politics any day.

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 04:07 PM
What's unfortunate is that many insist SS continue as it has.

Anyone over the age of 55 believes it should.

And that will be the same 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 as well.

Some politician has to grow a real set of testicles and say "Look, we all have known this has been messed up for quite some time. It is gonna hurt but we gotta fix it." And someone - ANYONE - from the other side of the aisle will have to agree for a change instead of scaring the elderly every 2 years that the boogie man is gonna steal checks from their mailbox.

Amnorix
07-27-2011, 04:09 PM
What's unfortunate is that many insist SS continue as it has.

As unfortunate as it is impossible. Demographics are killing SS, and are very much trending in the wrong direction. We need to figure out something else.

ROYC75
07-27-2011, 04:13 PM
Anyone over the age of 55 believes it should.

And that will be the same 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 as well.

Some politician has to grow a real set of testicles and say "Look, we all have known this has been messed up for quite some time. It is gonna hurt but we gotta fix it." And someone - ANYONE - from the other side of the aisle will have to agree for a change instead of scaring the elderly every 2 years that the boogie man is gonna steal checks from their mailbox.


It needs to be fixed, sad part is something may get done, drastically done and I turn 55 next year.

Oh well, that's life.

Donger
07-27-2011, 04:13 PM
As unfortunate as it is impossible. Demographics are killing SS, and are very much trending in the wrong direction. We need to figure out something else.

Do you think that the Democrats are going to accept privatization? You know, actually letting/trusting people to keep their own money to provide for their retirement?

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 04:14 PM
As unfortunate as it is impossible. Demographics are killing SS, and are very much trending in the wrong direction. We need to figure out something else.

I don't think it is unfortunate at all. Privatized investment through mandatory retirement plans would work so much better - even in T-Bills if you are afraid of the market, the return over your lifetime would more than earn what SS returns today. It would eliminate government waste, it would put control of the taxpayer money in the taxpayer hands. Hell, I wouldn't even be adverse to a slight tax solely for the reason to care for those who don't invest in the program for one reason or another (providing they did so legally).

KCWolfman
07-27-2011, 04:14 PM
It needs to be fixed, sad part is something may get done, drastically done and I turn 55 next year.

Oh well, that's life.

HELLO Roy!

Calcountry
07-27-2011, 04:59 PM
Looks like 70 years socialism, even if not total, is coming to the same end that it brought to the Soviet Union and Cuba. It just took longer.

Family will be needed and relied upon more than ever—the way it used to be.That, and a double barreled shot gun. Now all you people know why gun sales went up when they elected this O#a#a

Calcountry
07-27-2011, 05:01 PM
As unfortunate as it is impossible. Demographics are killing SS, and are very much trending in the wrong direction. We need to figure out something else.20 years ago, it was noted that Demographics were going to kill SS but every time it was mentioned, the Democrats grabbed the ketchup bottles.

Calcountry
07-27-2011, 05:02 PM
Anyone over the age of 55 believes it should.

And that will be the same 10 years from now, 20 years from now, 30 as well.

Some politician has to grow a real set of testicles and say "Look, we all have known this has been messed up for quite some time. It is gonna hurt but we gotta fix it." And someone - ANYONE - from the other side of the aisle will have to agree for a change instead of scaring the elderly every 2 years that the boogie man is gonna steal checks from their mailbox.No they don't, they will eventually default, it is the cowards way out, it always is.

ROYC75
07-27-2011, 05:19 PM
HELLO Roy!

Hey Russ, good to see you back.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 05:34 PM
If I could go back in time, that mother ****er FDR never would have been POTUS.

Socialist revolution!

Donger
07-27-2011, 05:36 PM
Socialist revolution!

Pretty much, yes. The New Deal was a socialist over-reaction to the GD.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 05:42 PM
Technically, you'd have to start with Wilson, then FDR ( who I admit opened the foodgates).

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 05:47 PM
Pretty much, yes. The New Deal was a socialist over-reaction to the GD.

The New Deal was a great moment in American history. It saved our country from something dangerous. After the New Deal and WWII, America was the most powerful nation in the world.

Had the New Deal not occurred, the organizational blueprint of America could not have been constructed in order to fight and win WWII. And there could have been actual socialist revolutions in the country.

You can argue that New Deal principles are largely out of date for our world now, or need to be drastically revamped, and that would just go to show that America is still, as it has been in the past, an evolving, adapting country that responds to the needs of the current day with practicality and initiative. But it would be unwise to condemn a prominent example of that practicality and initiative that worked so well for so long.

Donger
07-27-2011, 05:52 PM
The New Deal was a great moment in American history. It saved our country from something dangerous. After the New Deal and WWII, America was the most powerful nation in the world.

Had the New Deal not occurred, the organizational blueprint of America could not have been constructed in order to fight and win WWII. And there could have been actual socialist revolutions in the country.

You can argue that New Deal principles are largely out of date for our world now, or need to be drastically revamped, and that would just go to show that America is still, as it has been in the past, an evolving, adapting country that responds to the needs of the current day with practicality and initiative. But it would be unwise to condemn a prominent example of that practicality and initiative that worked so well for so long.

Nonsense. WWII pulled us out of the GD. It was far from a great moment in our history, Jenson (unless you are a socialist).

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 05:59 PM
Nonsense. WWII pulled us out of the GD. It was far from a great moment in our history, Jenson (unless you are a socialist).

No it did not pull us out of the GD! That's a fallacy. We didn't get out of a depressed economy until AFTER the war, which was when there were MASSIVE cuts in federal govt spending whereby the economy finally began recovering and there was even a boom.

No self-described free-market capitalist who claims to be a conservative supports this idea that the war got us out of the GD. The wartime economy sucked and people had to ration because there were all kinds of shortages. The only reason unemployment dropped was because they went into the military. War NEVER improves an economy. Claiming this is the Broken Window Fallacy. See—ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by Henry Hazlitt Chapter II.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 06:00 PM
Nonsense. WWII pulled us out of the GD. It was far from a great moment in our history, Jenson (unless you are a socialist).

It is not YOUR history. YOUR history is FDR saving YOUR country or YOU would still be saluting with Heil Hitler every day. Don't ever forget it.

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:02 PM
It is not YOUR history. YOUR history is FDR saving YOUR country or YOU would still be saluting with Heil Hitler every day. Don't ever forget it.

I hate to tell you this, but the Brits won the Battle of Britain with virtually no help from America.

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:03 PM
Awesome. I think I made BEP's head explode.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:06 PM
Nonsense. WWII pulled us out of the GD. It was far from a great moment in our history, Jenson (unless you are a socialist).

I don't think you read my post well. I said had there not been a New Deal, America would not have had the organizational blueprint to build ourselves up for and in WWII, which did end for good the Depression and its trickling effects.

I know you're a WWII reader. Can you remember what America's military and economy was like right before WWII?

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 06:07 PM
Awesome. I think I made BEP's head explode.

I love how you imbue what you think is happening on my side of the screen—couldn't be further from the truth. It's just a key point for me and I've rarely met a conservative that ever uttered such a socialist viewpoint like that before. I usually have to correct the left. Wartime economies are often socialized....there were wage and price controls even. You're ignorant about economics so this is all you got to say. So I understand.

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:08 PM
I don't think you read my post well. I said had there not been a New Deal, America would not have had the organizational blueprint to build ourselves up for and in WWII, which did end for good the Depression and its trickling effects.

You said a few other things, too. And, I don't agree with that, either. We were horribly un-prepared for WWII. Our manufacturing ability and capacity existed well before the New Deal.

Extra Point
07-27-2011, 06:09 PM
The New Deal was a great moment in American history. It saved our country from something dangerous. After the New Deal and WWII, America was the most powerful nation in the world.

Had the New Deal not occurred, the organizational blueprint of America could not have been constructed in order to fight and win WWII. And there could have been actual socialist revolutions in the country.

You can argue that New Deal principles are largely out of date for our world now, or need to be drastically revamped, and that would just go to show that America is still, as it has been in the past, an evolving, adapting country that responds to the needs of the current day with practicality and initiative. But it would be unwise to condemn a prominent example of that practicality and initiative that worked so well for so long.

The Great Society screwed that pooch. If only people would look at the Constitution, and the branches live by it, would we be better off.

Cut off the Black Caucus, cut off minority spending, cut off any member of the branch's family (including the members) from benefiting from any legislature, and cut off entitlements, altogether. Raise corporate taxes on offshore HQ firms.

Then, see what we get.

(By the way, Jenson, you didn't follow thru with your poll. You, young man, fell quite short!)

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:09 PM
I love how you imbue what you think is happening on my side of the screen—couldn't be further from the truth. It's just a key point for me and I've rarely met a conservative that ever uttered such a socialist viewpoint like that before. I usually have to correct the left. Wartime economies are often socialized....there were wage and price controls even. You're ignorant about economics so this is all you got to say. So I understand.

I'm well-aware that warfare requires massive government growth and influence, BEP.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:10 PM
We didn't get out of a depressed economy until AFTER the war, which was when there were MASSIVE cuts in federal govt spending whereby the economy finally began recovering and there was even a boom.

None of what you say does not mean that WWII was not a (the) major cause for ending for good the Depression.

Extra Point
07-27-2011, 06:11 PM
I love how you imbue what you think is happening on my side of the screen—couldn't be further from the truth. It's just a key point for me and I've rarely met a conservative that ever uttered such a socialist viewpoint like that before. I usually have to correct the left. Wartime economies are often socialized....there were wage and price controls even. You're ignorant about economics so this is all you got to say. So I understand.

Whip Inflation Now! EPA! From which administration did those programs come?

Quit windbaggin'!

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:11 PM
That does not mean that WWII was not a major cause for ending for good the Depression.

No, it doesn't. But, it's BEP. Sometimes she can't see the forest through the trees.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 06:12 PM
I hate to tell you this, but the Brits won the Battle of Britain with virtually no help from America.

How was the war going prior to America joining in?

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:14 PM
How was the war going prior to America joining in?

Do you know the history of the BoB? If not, I suggest that you do a little reading before continuing this rather silly line of questioning.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 06:14 PM
I'm well-aware that warfare requires massive government growth and influence, BEP.

That does not mean the private sector, the real economy, isn't still suffering because it did— govt crowded it out.
GDP also includes govt spending which was way up.

Furthermore, wars are usually followed by inflation. This includes our own War for Independence, the War for Southern Independence and WWI which actually had suffered a depression but we recovered from that in one year or so. Even the French, after helping us in our War for Independence suffered ravaging inflation because that's how the French king paid for it. He lost his head for that.


Here's an earlier thread on How the Great Depression finally ended...

"It was a "stimulus" provided by about a two-thirds reduction of federal spending, from $98.7 billion in 1945 to $33.8 billion in 1948. See the Statistical Abstract of the United States, and click on #14, "Federal Government Finances" on the left. "

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203599&highlight=WWII+%2B+Depression


After the war, with all those men back home the unemployment rates dropped.



1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
1941 9.9
1942 4.7
1943 1.9
1944 1.2
1945 1.9 7 months were left to go in that year, so it cannot be said the war ended it.
There was a boom after 1946 and thereafter too. Deregulation of the command economy occurred freeing it up.

From Post # 10 and #14 in same thread

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5555099&postcount=10

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:15 PM
You said a few other things, too. And, I don't agree with that, either. We were horribly un-prepared for WWII. Our manufacturing ability and capacity existed well before the New Deal.

America was under-prepared for (I wouldn't say horribly un-prepared though) WWII -- absolutely. Compared to Germany, we had essentially boy scout troops (ah yes, but boy scout troops that were created by New Deal programs). And you're right that our manufacturing ability and capacity existed well before the New Deal. Of course! But it was also largely before the Great Depression, too.

If you thought we were under-prepared for WWII (that's right, we were), you should have seen a New Deal-less America in 1941.

Leaders of the free world? We would be nothing. In 1945, we would have had no European trade markets that existed outside of the Third Reich. The Soviet Union might still exist in some Asian form.

Thank God for the New Deal. If it needs to be ended or changed, lets end it or change. But condemned? No way; it needs defending.

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:19 PM
That does not mean the private sector, the real economy, isn't still suffering because it did— govt crowded it out.
GDP also includes govt spending which was way up.

Furthermore, wars are usually followed by inflation. This includes our own War for Independence, the War for Southern Independence and WWI which actually had suffered a depression but we recovered from that in one year or so. Even the French, after helping us in our War for Independence suffered ravaging inflation because that's how the French king paid for it. He lost his head for that.


Here's an earlier thread on How the Great Depression finally ended...

"It was a "stimulus" provided by about a two-thirds reduction of federal spending, from $98.7 billion in 1945 to $33.8 billion in 1948. See the Statistical Abstract of the United States, and click on #14, "Federal Government Finances" on the left. "

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=203599&highlight=WWII+%2B+Depression


After the war, with all those men back home the unemployment rates dropped.



1933 24.9
1934 21.7
1935 20.1
1936 16.9
1937 14.3
1938 19.0
1939 17.2
1940 14.6
1941 9.9
1942 4.7
1943 1.9
1944 1.2
1945 1.9

From Post # 10 in same thread

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5555099&postcount=10

Errr, WWII ended in 1945, BEP.

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:20 PM
America was under-prepared for (I wouldn't say horribly un-prepared though) WWII -- absolutely. Compared to Germany, we had essentially boy scout troops (ah yes, but boy scout troops that were created by New Deal programs). And you're right that our manufacturing ability and capacity existed well before the New Deal. Of course! But it was also largely before the Great Depression, too.

If you thought we were under-prepared for WWII (that's right, we were), you should have seen a New Deal-less America in 1941.

Leaders of the free world? We would be nothing. In 1945, we would have had no European trade markets that existed outside of the Third Reich. The Soviet Union might still exist in some Asian form.

Thank God for the New Deal. If it needs to be ended or changed, lets end it or change. But condemned? No way; it needs defending.

What precisely did the New Deal create that didn't exist before it that helped us prepare and fight WWII?

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:21 PM
The Great Society screwed that pooch. If only people would look at the Constitution, and the branches live by it, would we be better off.

Cut off the Black Caucus, cut off minority spending, cut off any member of the branch's family (including the members) from benefiting from any legislature, and cut off entitlements, altogether. Raise corporate taxes on offshore HQ firms.

Then, see what we get.

(By the way, Jenson, you didn't follow thru with your poll. You, young man, fell quite short!)

America can adapt if need be. America is not a superstitious entity that fears change. It is a nation that has continually faced adversity and challenges and plowed its way through, and I don't see this debt crisis being any different.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 06:22 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/attachment.php?attachmentid=85977&d=1236218455

That's a graphic comparing private investment versus govt spending. It was an attachment in that thread. You'll have to click on the thumbnail in that thread to see it. It's show the scene.

dirk digler
07-27-2011, 06:23 PM
Do you know the history of the BoB? If not, I suggest that you do a little reading before continuing this rather silly line of questioning.

Yes I am familiar with the history. I think it was Churchill, after America joined the war, said that the war would now be won and England was now safe.

Interesting...

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:24 PM
Yes I am familiar with the history. I think it was Churchill after America joined the war said that the war would now be won and England was now safe.

Interesting...

Yes, he did. And, you'll note that was well AFTER the Brits stopped the NAZIs during the Battle of Britain without virtually any American help.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 06:25 PM
Errr, WWII ended in 1945, BEP.

Er, well see the edit I made while you were posting when lefist Dave Lane made the same inaccurate claim. There were more months to go in that year and the unemployment was still declining despite the war ending. That's May and August sweet'ums. It was winding down yet employment still dropped from war time years even which only dropped because the unemployed went into the military.

Really, donger, if you think the war ended the GD you should at least be crediting the Japanese for it.

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:29 PM
Er, well see the edit I made while you were posting when lefist Dave Lane made the same inaccurate claim. There were more months to go in that year and the unemployment was still declining despite the war ending. That's May and August sweet'ums. It was winding down yet employment still dropped from war time years even which only dropped because the unemployed went into the military.

After perusing that rather amusing thread, I think that I'll refrain from anything else on that particular subject. You deservedly got your ass kicked and I don't hit ladies.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:32 PM
What precisely did the New Deal create that didn't exist before it that helped us prepare and fight WWII?

The New Deal's creations would only be confined to a list of programs by a very narrow analyst. But they were significant, so we'll include them. The farm programs, the building programs, even the art programs (look at how authoritarian and patriotic those WPA banners are), which not only built up the country's infrastructure but also built up lives from out of poverty and meaninglessness.

The National Youth Administration was like a Jr.ROTC and when war finally came, that modus operandi was so easily transferable to WWII, and it went brilliantly. That was, stripped of its racial context, our Hitler Youth.

The growth was tremendous. Most people when arguing against the New Deal say that America would have gotten back on track in time. They're missing a rather large point: America had 9 years to get back on track. Nothing more.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 06:33 PM
Rationed items:

Foodstuffs like bananas, sugar, meat, butter, cheese, eggs, milk, tea, chocolate, some spices, candy bars, cigarettes, clothes, shoes, fuel oil, rubber, typewriters, cooking oil, cloth, wood and metal, as well as rubber, leather, nylon, silk, sheets, linens, shoes, gasoline,grease, kerosene, industrial alcohol, ink, paper, carbon paper, pencils, pens and typewriter ribbons, erasors, paperclips, envelopes, automobile tires, parts and belts were all unavailable during the war, because the factories were sending all their production to the military's needs.

It's just displacement.

http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/ww2ration_s.jpg

http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/1946_nylons.jpg

http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/bf_gas_ration_envelope.jpg

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:33 PM
The New Deal's creations would only be confined to a list of programs by a very narrow analyst. But they were significant, so we'll include them. The farm programs, the building programs, even the art programs (look at how authoritarian and patriotic those WPA banners are), which not only built up the country's infrastructure but also built up lives from out of poverty and meaninglessness.

The National Youth Administration was like a Jr.ROTC and when war finally came, that modus operandi was so easily transferable to WWII, and it went brilliantly. That was, stripped of its racial context, our Hitler Youth.

The growth was tremendous. Most people when arguing against the New Deal say that America would have gotten back on track in time. They're missing a rather large point: America had 9 years to get back on track. Nothing more.

Ah, I see you are being facetious.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 06:33 PM
After perusing that rather amusing thread, I think that I'll refrain from anything else on that particular subject. You deservedly got your ass kicked and I don't hit ladies.
By the left and the board's socialists. Amazing donger. You're not a conservative at all. This material is not unknown by free-market conservatives ya' know.

BTW herd mentality is not proof of truth as in getting one's ass kicked. I see you support majority view more.

FDR dragged out the Great Depression.

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:34 PM
By the left and the board's socialists. Amazing donger. You're not a conservative at all.

Logic's a bitch and it isn't a political ideology, honey.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 06:38 PM
Logic's a bitch and it isn't a political ideology, honey.

Oh really?

From the same thread.

I think BEP has made some pretty strong arguments in this thread.


From someone who disagrees with me enough. You must of read one page where the socialists dominated. You apparently are a National Socialist.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:38 PM
Ah, I see you are being facetious.

It would take 400 pages to begin to lay out an argument that gave the New Deal the justice it deserved. The grand central bureaucracy it organized, the patriotic rallying among all it created, and that growth, however humble, from the rockiest of origins.

Not to mention the belief, which I share, that it would have gotten a lot worse and may have even brought about the end of American capitalism as we know it.

Calcountry
07-27-2011, 06:40 PM
Pretty much, yes. The New Deal was a socialist over-reaction to the GD.Amity Shlaes, "The Forgotten Man".

Scary thing is, you would swear she was talking about now.

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:42 PM
You apparently are a National Socialist.

LMAO

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:42 PM
It would take 400 pages to begin to lay out an argument that gave the New Deal the justice it deserved. The grand central bureaucracy it organized, the patriotic rallying among all it created, and that growth, however humble, from the rockiest of origins.

Not to mention the belief, which I share, that it would have gotten a lot worse and may have even brought about the end of American capitalism as we know it.

See 83.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 06:43 PM
LMAO
Nervous?

Well, what you said was National Socialism or a fascist economy and you agreed with all the socialists too.

Yup! :thumb:


Just in case, this is not an argument over the necessity of that war...just the economy.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:45 PM
See 83.

Sarcasm is the cry of the weak. - John Knowles.

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:47 PM
Sarcasm is the cry of the weak. - John Knowles.

You actually do have a point about it possibly being more socialist than the New Deal was. Just look at the Spanish Civil War and the commies here who supported the leftists. But, we'll never know since it thankfully didn't go full commie.

But, no, the New Deal didn't save us. WWII did. And, we are dealing with the results of being enacted still today.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 06:52 PM
YBut, no, the New Deal didn't save us. WWII did. And, we are dealing with the results of being enacted still today.

Save us economically? Nope. Otherwise? Yes. And no free-market economist agrees with you. Only a statist economist would. Usually Kenynesians who rely on unemployment and GDP (a govt statistic).

Look up displacement. Consumer production was sacrificed to increase military production which made people poorer. When consumer production replaced military production, the depression ended which happened when the war was over and the standard of living rose again.

Discuss Thrower
07-27-2011, 06:55 PM
You actually do have a point about it possibly being more socialist than the New Deal was. Just look at the Spanish Civil War and the commies here who supported the leftists. But, we'll never know since it thankfully didn't go full commie.

But, no, the New Deal didn't save us. WWII did. And, we are dealing with the results of being enacted still today.

Good to know our economy was "saved" by the needless deaths of millions :rollseyes:

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:56 PM
You actually do have a point about it possibly being more socialist than the New Deal was. Just look at the Spanish Civil War and the commies here who supported the leftists.

But, no, the New Deal didn't save us. WWII did. And, we are dealing with the results of being enacted still today.

History is not one big chunk of action after another. It is a movement with causes, some great, some little, some significant but little seen, some insignificant but greatly seen.

WWII not only pulled us out of the the massive hole we were in for good, but launched us over the following six decades to never before seen heights, literally and figuratively.

You have no disagreement with me on that. But what held our heads above water before WWII? What kept us floating? What allowed us to strap our foot into some branches to get us into position? That's what the New Deal largely was. Without it, we drown, in that sense that we're socialist, or we're third world.

But not only that, we didn't discard it soon after; we used the outline of the New Deal afterwards, when we were/are the most powerful nation in human history.

Again, to sum up, it might be time for a change. It might be time to scale back big government. That's a valid argument that can be won.

But, to impute that argument backwards in declaring that the New Deal was wrong for 1933 and on leaves us pretty bankrupt, in terms of arguing whether it was a good move for a government to make (and remember that government is first and foremost an issue of practicality, and practically speaking, 1933 and has been America's time)

Donger
07-27-2011, 06:58 PM
Good to know our economy was "saved" by the needless deaths of millions :rollseyes:

An unfortunate historical truth.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 06:59 PM
Good to know our economy was "saved" by the needless deaths of millions :rollseyes:

Needless?

Donger
07-27-2011, 07:00 PM
History is not one big chunk of action after another. It is a movement with causes, some great, some little, some significant but little seen, some insignificant but greatly seen.

WWII not only pulled us out of the the massive hole we were in for good, but launched us over the following six decades to never before seen heights, literally and figuratively.

You have no disagreement with me on that. But what held our heads above water before WWII? What kept us floating? What allowed us to strap our foot into some branches to get us into position? That's what the New Deal largely was. Without it, we drown.

But not only that, we didn't discard it soon after; we used the outline of the New Deal afterwards, when we were/are the most powerful nation in human history.

Again, to sum up, it might be time for a change. It might be time to scale back big government. That's a valid argument that can be won.

But, to impute that argument backwards in declaring that the New Deal was wrong for 1933 and on leaves us pretty bankrupt, in terms of arguing whether it was a good move for a government to make (and remember that government is first and foremost an issue of practicality, and practically speaking, 1933 and has been America's time)

Since we don't know what would have happened without the New Deal, it really is a worthless argument. What I don't like in particular is the precedent that it set.

KCBOSS1
07-27-2011, 07:01 PM
That's why we still have the right to bear arms. We'd better not wait. REGULATORS, Mount Up!

Donger
07-27-2011, 07:02 PM
Needless?

From the BEP perspective, sure. We didn't need to fight the Germans and the Italians. They didn't do anything of significance to us before war was declared.

KCBOSS1
07-27-2011, 07:02 PM
Let's revolt early and just scare the crap out of 'em.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 07:03 PM
Since we don't know what would have happened without the New Deal, it really is a worthless argument. What I don't like in particular is the precedent that it set.

Oh well, we do know what would have happened without the New Deal using logic and reasoning. Since there were depressions in the past, that were just as bad, like after WWI, we can look at the amount of govt intervention. Massive govt intervention did not occur in the Depression after WWI and the recovery was swift—about a year. True for earlier ones. Yup!

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 07:04 PM
Since we don't know what would have happened without the New Deal, it really is a worthless argument.

Absolutely, we can only argue over what did happen, but I think with some grounded and educated speculation on what could have happened.

What I don't like in particular is the precedent that it set.

Which is a lot different than saying it was wrong for that era.

Jaric
07-27-2011, 07:05 PM
Needless?

If one is to believe Winston Churchill, yes.

Donger
07-27-2011, 07:05 PM
Which is a lot different than saying it was wrong for that era.

No, IMO, it was still a socialist over-reaction. It was wrong then and it's still wrong now.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 07:05 PM
From the BEP perspective, sure. We didn't need to fight the Germans and the Italians. They didn't do anything of significance to us before war was declared.

Once again, it is not solely my perspective....it's a non-statist free-market perspective. The rest of your post is nothing but a strawman argument. You are reacting and not reading.

And btw, I accept that in order to win a major war, a whole nation might have to be mobilized in such a socialist fashion in order to win. That falls under being in a "legal state of war" which we were in.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 07:06 PM
Since there were depressions in the past, that were just as bad, like after WWI, we can look at the amount of govt intervention.

I'm sorry, what?

Donger
07-27-2011, 07:07 PM
I'm sorry, what?

LMAO

Be nice. She's a little wobbly right now.

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 07:08 PM
If one is to believe Winston Churchill, yes.

Okay, maybe in one sense. I saw that and thought he was saying it was stupid to go into WWII (as an attacked nation(s)).

Jenson71
07-27-2011, 07:10 PM
No, IMO, it was still a socialist over-reaction. It was wrong then and it's still wrong now.

Hmm, well, I've given you my perspective on it, which I think is pretty solid. But I can respect other people's views, as long as they look at all of the evidence.

Jaric
07-27-2011, 07:10 PM
Okay, maybe in one sense. I saw that and thought he was saying it was stupid to go into WWII (as an attacked nation(s)).

I suppose I probably did take that comment a bit out of context.

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 07:13 PM
LMAO

Be nice. She's a little wobbly right now.

I am paying no attention to his posts on this. I've done this debate too many times with socialists and leftists. I know everything they're gonna say. I like raw meat like someone who thinks he's a conservative. Afterall, there's more to work with here which gives me hope. I've already successfully changed someone's mind on this over at PP. You're my next conversion....even if you're stubborn.

Now, did you know the economy was starting to recover circa 1940/41? Until the war effort began it became a command economy instead. But a command economy makes what the authorities demand and U.S. economy manufactured weapons in enough quantities to overwhelm enemy forces.

But personal consumption declined and investment fell:

"From 1941 to 1943 real gross private domestic investment plunged by 64 percent; during the four years of the war it never rose above 55 percent of its 1941 level; only in 1946 did it reach a new high."

"By early 1945, almost everyone expected the war to end soon. The prospect of a peacetime economy electrified investors. Stock prices surged in 1945 and again in 1946. In just two years the Standard & Poor’s index increased by 37 percent and the value of all shares on registered exchanges by 92 percent, despite a decline of current-dollar after-tax corporate profits from their peak in 1944. Did people expect the end of “wartime prosperity” to be economically deleterious? Obviously not."

"As the war ended, real prosperity returned."

Wartime Prosperity? A Reassessment of the U.S. Economy in the 1940s - The Journal of Economic History (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=138)

RINGLEADER
07-27-2011, 08:17 PM
I don't think it is unfortunate at all. Privatized investment through mandatory retirement plans would work so much better - even in T-Bills if you are afraid of the market, the return over your lifetime would more than earn what SS returns today. It would eliminate government waste, it would put control of the taxpayer money in the taxpayer hands. Hell, I wouldn't even be adverse to a slight tax solely for the reason to care for those who don't invest in the program for one reason or another (providing they did so legally).

SS contributions should go exclusively to "debt bonds" that would be off-the-book low-interest investments. When you retire you get an annuity that is means-tested. When you die your "account" is taxed 100% and goes into a general fund. Do this in combination with real balanced budget legislation and you'd be able to not only augment the living expenses of low-income workers, but you'd also be able to pretty much wipe out the debt and the need for income taxes after 4-5 generations.

Of course the politicians would wet themselves with trillions of new revenues. [/dream]

Donger
07-27-2011, 08:25 PM
I am paying no attention to his posts on this. I've done this debate too many times with socialists and leftists. I know everything they're gonna say. I like raw meat like someone who thinks he's a conservative. Afterall, there's more to work with here which gives me hope. I've already successfully changed someone's mind on this over at PP. You're my next conversion....even if you're stubborn.

Now, did you know the economy was starting to recover circa 1940/41? Until the war effort began it became a command economy instead. But a command economy makes what the authorities demand and U.S. economy manufactured weapons in enough quantities to overwhelm enemy forces.

But personal consumption declined and investment fell:

"From 1941 to 1943 real gross private domestic investment plunged by 64 percent; during the four years of the war it never rose above 55 percent of its 1941 level; only in 1946 did it reach a new high."

"By early 1945, almost everyone expected the war to end soon. The prospect of a peacetime economy electrified investors. Stock prices surged in 1945 and again in 1946. In just two years the Standard & Poor’s index increased by 37 percent and the value of all shares on registered exchanges by 92 percent, despite a decline of current-dollar after-tax corporate profits from their peak in 1944. Did people expect the end of “wartime prosperity” to be economically deleterious? Obviously not."

"As the war ended, real prosperity returned."

Wartime Prosperity? A Reassessment of the U.S. Economy in the 1940s - The Journal of Economic History (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=138)

Of course real prosperity returned after the war ended. Who is arguing that it didn't?

BucEyedPea
07-27-2011, 09:04 PM
Of course real prosperity returned after the war ended. Who is arguing that it didn't?

That is the end of the Great Depression. That's what we're arguing.