Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (140358)	7/6/2010 10:41:15 AM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541537

But Clinton didn't have to deal with the greatest recession since the Great Depression; nor with the consequences of GWB; nor with a healthcare system even more out of whack than the one he inherited. Different circumstances merit different approaches. Of course. But we also have to play the cards we have been dealt. Just complaining about stuff accomplishes nothing. What is that Chinese saying .........may you live in interesting times. That saying to the Chinese means much more than just that may you live in interesting times. To them interesting times means also the opportunity that interesting times presents. Sooooooo, all the things you list can be used as an excuse - or the right wise leader can use these interesting times to make real changes. Ya, ya, ya, I know the republicans will throw up roadblocks, but that is what Obama has been elected to deal with. If he can take advantages of these interesting times he will make America better - and be remembered like Roosevelt. If his leadership fails, he will be remembered more like Carter.

To: JohnM who wrote (140358)	7/6/2010 11:08:37 AM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541537

John, I wish Krugman and Benen et al would make their case within the context of understanding the major differences between the 30s and now, because it's those differences that must shape what we do. The most important are that in the 30s, the government had no debt, income tax rates were very low, and the US was the world's largest manufacturing base. Now we have a shrinking manufacturing sector, enormous debt loads at every level of government, and relatively higher (much higher) income tax rates. Importantly, too, is that there were no safety nets of any kind in place....no unemployment compensation, no food stamps, no HUD assisted housing, no SS and Medicare for the older, no Medicaid for the younger poor, and so on. A government with no debt going into the Great Depression could add all these programs, and this is exactly what both Hoover and Roosevelt did. Now liberals seem to want a repeat of Roosevelt style deficit spending. But the Roosevelt programs are here...up and running. Would even Roosevelt want these programs expanded? I don't know the answer, of course, but really would respect both K and B more, if they would make their arguments more in the context of historical realities. The other thing Krugman and Benen both owe their readers, is an addressing of why, after all the micro-managing of the economy by both Hoover and Roosevelt, unemployment was still at 19% in 1939. Ten years of endless legislation focused on shaping spending patterns, savings patterns, tinkering with the tax code, esp. corporate taxes. Legislation would be passed, only to either be disallowed by the Supreme Court, or rewritten by Congress when some nasty unintended consequences manifest themselves. It was an amazing spell of legislative micro-managing that some could argue produced relatively little. One could even build an argument that it was actually all this micro-managing that dragged the economic healing process out so long. At any rate, I find it hard to take either of them seriously because I never see any evidence that they understand the sum total of the Great Depression, how it was a long, slow evolution, complete with fits and starts. They pull out isolated events, isolated years and assume causalities here and there that may not necessarily be there.