Yep building all those tanks, planes, uniforms etc etc. Had no effect. I guess Dr Paul Krugman must be a dumbass also.

Yes dumbass, WW2 did end the depression.

Paying people to break windows and fix them again is EXACTLY what John Maynard Keynes advocated, except he used the analogy that the government should pay one group of people to dig holes and another group of people to fill them back up.

Of course, you with your MASH name and Star Trek avatar are obviously far more competent in the field of economics than John Maynard Keynes, AND all of the conservative economists who say WWII ended the depression (which is their way of trying to say the New Deal didn't work)

The depression was over way before 1946. We had full employment in this country pretty much as soon as we started building tanks and planes to send to the European and Pacific theaters.

Idiot.

Jesus, there's no mistaking why I put this idiot on ignore.

I just saw this because it was quoted by tony404
Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls
This is exactly the thinking that is fucking over America.

Snake admits the school system is failing so his solution is to throw more money at it.

OMG are you that fucking dense?
I was making fun of someone's piss poor grammar, and made a joke about it, and you try to turn that into an argument about school vouchers?

Yeah, my jokes about people's grammar are the kind of thinking that's fucking over America.

Oy vey.

Please people, don't quote this douche bag anymore. There's a reason I have him on ignore.

this goes both ways right?

dems did nothing but complain about budget deficits and didn't waste any time at all pushing through funding for every socialist project that couldn't get through in years past.

as a first course of action, they passed the single largest spending bill ever without even reading it or debating it.

you can't pretend that it doesn't matter what money gets spent on and where or that it shouldn't be discussed. they could have just bought up 700 billion dollars worth of gold for example... that wouldn't have created sustainable jobs. the issue of trying to spend 5% or so of GDP to jolt the economy is quite a bit more complex than just throwing money into the economy in any way possible.

Agreed. If you hired a guy to run your company and he was bankrupting it you wouldn't then go buy him a private jet so he could bankrupt it in first class.

Education is the key to the success of any country. Our system is in a downward spiral and throwing money at it won't solve the problem. They need to take a long hard look at it and determine the best ways to spend money.

I think some of it is that government employees get a sense of entitlement to their budgets. I know a bunch of people that work for various city and country government agencies and at the end of each fiscal year if they have money left over they are scrambling to find ways to spend it. When I ask them why the do that they say, "If I don't spend it, they will give me less next year." When asked if they can get the job done on less, why not take less and help the overall budget by letting a department that needs more money have your excess they look at me like I'm growing an arm out the middle of of my chest. It seems like once they get that money and have spent it they don't ever consider spending it differently. If you want them to spend money differently they want more money so they don't have to shift spending from one thing to another.

Also since it is government money they seem to act like it is not really money. I have seen guys pick up a catalog and order something that cost $200 and when they are told that they could go buy that same thing from a store for about $90 they say, "yeah, but these guys will ship it to me, I don't want to have to go to the store." I can't count how many times I have heard government employees say, "It's not my money, so I don't really care." It drives me crazy.

Until they can fix that thought process it will probably be a while before they can really get a handle on some of this rampant spending.

I agree that is a problem. But if you throw more money at the schools that means the parents need to work more to pay the taxes that is the money that is thrown at it. Just like all the spending Bush did and Obama is doing means that parents need to work more to pay taxes (not just income but the 1000s of other taxes that are always going up).

Then dont post in my threads? You dont think someone is not going to quote me on a thread I started? Now that is fucking dense.

PP

yes it goes both ways, and if there wasn't a recession and financial crisis/panic to rival the great depression then this discussion would be different and I might be alot closer to agreeing with you than you think.

You can't pretend that the circumstances don't factor into the equation though. They couldn't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. You're going to be able to find fault with just about any piece of legislation or spending bill if you look hard enough.
Acting fast was as much a matter of restoring confidence as much as it was about trying to get the stimulus money into the economy as quickly as possible.

Taking time to "discuss and debate" in this instance, was just code for "give us some time to pick this apart on cable news so we can block it altogether".....which is really the same tack the republicans are trying to take on health care right now.
The whole "this isn't the right time to be passing a massive government health overhaul"...as if the republicans would ever think there was a good time for such a thing.
They just want to stall for time so they can try to find a way to shift the momentum of the debate.

Obama didn't let that happen with the stimulus and he's not going to let it happen with health care reform. :2 cents:

Cool, so let's just draft about 1,000,000 young Americans and have another Surge in the Middle East. We'll steer production away from useful things like cars and computers and medicine and instead buy a bunch of bombs and drop them on Iranians.

Surely that will solve all of our economic problems, right?

Dumbass.

Oh, and when Keynes said the government should should pay people to dig holes and refill them, he was being fucking retarded. Nobel Prizes have been won by economists who pointed out that he was full of shit.

You seriously think we can bomb our way to prosperity? LOL Are you really this stupid? Is anybody?

You sure you are going to be able to collect them if there is a major crash? Credit default swaps fall into the same category as puts and they didn't do much good to the people who owned them.

fitty deficits:disgust

Yeah Keynes was an idiot, so is Paul Krugman. They only give out Nobel prizes to economists who don't know what they're talking about.

We should all just listen to you instead. What with all of your qualifications and expertise.

Dumbass.

Nobody is suggesting bombing our way to prosperity OR drafting 1MM troops. We're simply pointing out the proven economic tenet that the government can stimulate demand during a recession through deficit spending and this will cause the economy to grow again and recover faster than it otherwise would, and the deficit created by this activity is smaller in the aggregate than the deficits that would have been accumulated due to the lower tax revenues collected during an extended recession.

Retard.

Of course not. Because a World War cannot solve a Depression.

It merely transfers things around in the most inefficient and destructive way possible.