Obama's Global Poverty Tax

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Suburbanite Seriously, a good understanding of economics and history is going to be essential to this debate. Unfortunately, my understanding is only mediocre. However, I feel I must inform you about FDR's deficit spending and how spending more money DID get us back on track. I'm afraid that I can't keep debating with you personally on this issue, because while I only know a little bit about the topic at hand, you know nothing. You have a really base understanding of economy, it isn't starcraft, where you acquire resources (wealth) and then you spend them building your city. Debt is NOT the reason why our economy is sinking directly. Thats now how economies work. In fact, we could be twice as in debt, but with a better attitude, still have a sounder economy.

You know, in the 1930's after the Wall Street Crash you can compare three countries economic growth as compared to government involvement in the economy; the USA, the UK and Germany. The USA and Germany were highly interventionist, while the UK much less so. The UK's economy grew the fastest, then Germany, then the USA. It was only with the onset of war that the USA's recovery kicked in. This would suggest, though certainly not prove, that a government keeping a mostly hands off approach to the economy is better.

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: G. Adams You know, in the 1930's after the Wall Street Crash you can compare three countries economic growth as compared to government involvement in the economy; the USA, the UK and Germany. The USA and Germany were highly interventionist, while the UK much less so. The UK's economy grew the fastest, then Germany, then the USA. It was only with the onset of war that the USA's recovery kicked in. This would suggest, though certainly not prove, that a government keeping a mostly hands off approach to the economy is better.

Indeed. Glad I'm not the only one to read history. As a matter of fact, it would have been interesting to see how things panned out if there wasn't a war.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: G. Adams You know, in the 1930's after the Wall Street Crash you can compare three countries economic growth as compared to government involvement in the economy; the USA, the UK and Germany. The USA and Germany were highly interventionist, while the UK much less so. The UK's economy grew the fastest, then Germany, then the USA. It was only with the onset of war that the USA's recovery kicked in. This would suggest, though certainly not prove, that a government keeping a mostly hands off approach to the economy is better.

The USA was an non-interventionists country prior to the world wars, and England was a colonial power. England's economic recovery after the war is far more complicated than have a non-deficit spending model. You're comparing a society that's income comes from the hard labors of billions of non-citizens controlled by England. Of course they're going to recover faster. Also, they got a lot of money after the war to rebuild their city, which reduced deficit spending while STILL increasing jobs.

Quote by: phoenix_fire Indeed. Glad I'm not the only one to read history. As a matter of fact, it would have been interesting to see how things panned out if there wasn't a war.

yeah right hahahaha. dont pretend. oh what he said. laughable

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: Suburbanite The USA was an non-interventionists country prior to the world wars, and England was a colonial power. England's economic recovery after the war is far more complicated than have a non-deficit spending model. You're comparing a society that's income comes from the hard labors of billions of non-citizens controlled by England. Of course they're going to recover faster. Also, they got a lot of money after the war to rebuild their city, which reduced deficit spending while STILL increasing jobs. yeah right hahahaha. dont pretend. oh what he said. laughable

If you don't have the historical knowledge (or at least the reading comprehension) to understand that the steps toward recovery to which he was referring were before the war, well, goodness I just don't know what to say to you. The recovery of the U.S. was due to booming wartime economies. And the onset of the Cold War ensured that the developing munitions, defense, and tech industries would continue to have plenty of business.

Gack. You could at least google some stuff before ridiculing someone else only to get caught with your pants down.

[Suburbanite]

No one's getting caught with their pants down and there was plenty of googling that I did before replying to Ghook. You have to realize there are TWO world wars, and between them a giant international market crash which lead to depressions and recessions around the world. We're talking about the New Deal, which happened after WWI and before WWII. How does the cold war come into play? Seeing as the cold war is post WWII. I think it is you, as I originally said, who needs the history lesson.

[phoenix_fire]

Oh jeez. I can't believe I have to draw a picture.

|.................|....................................|......................|................|
WWI.......Stock Market.................New Deal...........WWII......Cold War
*................crashes

Now. The bolded part (also known as the time between the first New Deal legislation and the second World War) is the time period to which G.Adams is referring when talking about the relative success of economic improvement. The New Deal was in play, but the economy was still not recovering as well as the others G.Adams mentioned. Then the Second World War started. The War gave the U.S. economy a huge shot in the arm, largely due to the creation of new markets and products: war tech. The continued success of the American economy after the war was over can be largely attributed to the fact that the country did not, per se, leave the state of war. The Cold War continued to create a demand for those industries that had so helped the wartime economy, and that continued to help the general economy. War tech also created a lot of spinoff technologies that could be used in the civilian sector, further cementing a stable position for the U.S. in the world economy of the twentieth century. The full effectiveness of the New Deal cannot be satisfactorily measured since the economy was resurrected by other means before we could see what would happen had things taken their original course.

History lesson over.

[Suburbanite]

Can I just stop talking to you? You repeat me to disprove me? I say you dont know history, you say I dont know history. I tell you history shows the new deal was deficit spending that ended well for America and did not "increase taxes" like you claimed in your first post. Now you've failed at trying to nit-pick points unrelated to your original argument which i smashed into pieces. This is getting tiresom, i hate repeating myself, and i hate people who argue just to argue with someone. i made points, i introduced history to support my points, you said my history was wrong, you've gotta be stupid to think that.

END

[phoenix_fire]

Well, since you've stopped trying to relate any factual arguments and have resorted to bluster tactics, it would seem pretty evident that I take this round. But if you'd like to make an actual argument, you can PM me or start another thread.

[Socrates]

I know this is a very unpopular decision but ill be the cynic and play it any way. People do have a point saying the president should be more worried about his/her country then someone else's but our problems on average are so miniscule and insignificant compared the ever escalating violence disease and poverty in some parts of the world. When was the last time we had even the faintest whiff of a war on our soil (terrorism is not war). When was the last epidemic? the last major poverty? years and years ago. Right now there are countries in africa were the war is so terrible there are entire cites of refugees. The landscape itself is being ravaged by the monster of illogical tyranny. If someone has to force the lazy middle class of this country to hand over a few bucks a year to the needy then I say full speed ahead. While many will disagree with me here let me point to the iraq war. ( I could be wrong but i think the might be some overlap between those who oppose this bill and support the war). Why are we there if not to try to spread our smug and superior message of freedom? I cant see any-other reasons as there warrant any WMD. That war is costing our struggling middle class more then a .7% of the annual budget for foreign aid.