Infant Mortality rate by State

Black Teen Unemployment

My be with Professor Henderson (unofficial)

George Balella Jr ·  Top Commenter · Saint Louis University

David R. Henderson David... so you want to bet that if we cut spending the GDP will fall to less than its 3 year average? That's not much of a display of confidence on your part. That would be making my point. Well actually the current 3 year average spending increase has been about 2.75%. My point is that if they cut spending significantly from the average GDP will go down more then the current CBO projection of 1.6%. So I would bet that if spending increases less than 2.5% then the GDP will be significantly less then its 3 year average of 2.13%.... say less than 1%. for the fiscal year. This assumes NO net hiring in the public sector. We could do $100 dollars to a favorite charity if you like.

Reply · Like · Wednesday at 9:38pm

But we've heard this all before. In 1933 the very people who's ideology crashed the economy then told us how grim an FDR future would be. We went on to grow the strongest economy the world had ever seen. The middle class blossomed and upward mobility was the norm. Then 1981 happened. THAT is what changed. A distinct policy change and an anti-government sentiment. After the 1930's GDP skyrocketed and debt to gdp came consistently down. Then after 1981 debt to gdp skyrocketed and GDP has fallen off. The problem has nothing to do with to much spending it has to do with financialization of our economy and massive rises in income inequality. Fix our finance system and increase middle class wages and we will move on. Obama is far more likely to pursue those polices and that is the basis of my optimism. My pessimism rises from the incredible power  of the banks to fill fallen wages with financed debt and then to get bankruptcy laws changed such that a person could have 25% of their future earnings INDENTURED to the banks. 

Maybe this will help....

WRONG!

WRONG!

No, that is wrong. Spending increases do NOT explain the debt. THEY JUST DON'T. That is a fact. Most of it is from the Reagan and Bush Tax cuts and the ongoing recession. Remember we HASD a surplus projected to pay off the debt and Alan Greenspan said we couldn't let that happen. We need to focus on getting people back to work. To do that we need to understand why corporate profits are at record levels and why corporations have $1.5 trillion dollars of excess capital and yet they are not investing or hiring. Don't you agree the system is broke if corporations can make record profits without hiring up? Our trade imbalance and tax incentives to offshore production are the biggest problem.... no wait the biggest problem is that our politicians are focusing on spending and not jobs. They are putting politics before the needs of people. The corporations are doing well with the stalemate. that is undeniable. The republicans are facilitating their corp

orate bosses. If you get people jobs welfare and unemployment spending goes down and taxes paid by new workers goes up and the problem is solved without telling your children they have to retire at 80 years of age. What is killing this country is the ignorance and apathy of both the voting people and the politicians they elect. Also, propaganda promoted by Republicans via their right wing media outlets has been very successful in deceiving people who never bother to listen to both sides. The economics profession is guilty of the most massive professional fraud ever foisted on civilization with their supply side doctrine. The economy runs on demand not supply. Get good middle class jobs and the economy will boom. But supply side economics benefits only those on top and that is why they promote it.

Short Economic History of the United States

Here is the short history on our economy that says you supply siders are all wrong. 1920's laissez faire economy leads to huge income inequality and the Great Depression (with Republicans in charge), 1933 to 1980 FDR/democratic demand side economic policy dominant. Income inequality at a minimum, massive economic growth, massive expansion of the middle class, resolve WW2 in less than 4 years, invent the bomb , send a man to the moon and build Hoover dam... 1980 to present Reagan, Thatcher , Milton Friedman Supply side trickle down BS with Republican policy dominating and income and wealth inequality SKYROCKETS and here we are in the second worst recession/ economy of our modern history. Again lead into by republican policy. Again... corporate profits are AT RECORD HIGH and they are not hiring... supply side DOES NOT WORK! They are not hiring because middle class people have no jobs or money to spend to create the demand for them to invest. All that wealth is sucking out free money from the government and strangling it. It continues to grow record profits with out doing anything productive and without investing in our country or hiring workers. This is a failure of republican supply side economics policy. Republicans have a problem with minorities, immigrants and others but in the long run they will fail because of their failed economics. When the rest of the country understands that after going through some very very hard economic times the republicans will be vanquished to the history books as one more failed party. NONE of you can refute this history with any logical rebuttal that supports your position and is based on the facts. I used to vote republican but then I looked at the facts. I've debated and studied this for too long. YOU guys are mis-informed and your ignorance of how the economy really works will cause long term damage to our country over the next several decades... it already has but apparently we are going to have to hit rock bottom for the public to understand that maybe they should be voting not their hatred but on a reality based approach to the economy and their children and country's long term future.

Challenging Conservatives to debatye and defend their position

They hate doing that. It's all about name calling and inuendo for them.

Post to CH

1930 was supposedly the changing point when things went bad.... to me that looks like when things took off for the better allowing those of us born into the great economy of the 50's and 60's to wax poetic about the 20's and earlier times.... when grandpa just died at home if he couldn't afford treatment.

http://ablankspotonthemap.blogspot.com/2012/11/prepost-1930-gdp.html

This is clearly about chosing an ideological perspective and view of the world over a pragmatic approach to it. MOST of us reject the ideological view not on a whim but on sound evidence, logic and look back through history.


But alas Jamie IS right.... we've heard this all before. In 1933 the very people who's ideology crashed the economy then told us how grim an FDR future would be. They were relentless as they are now. We went on to grow the strongest economy the world had ever seen. The middle class blossomed and upward mobility was the norm. Then 1981 happened. THAT is what changed. A distinct policy change and a rise of anti-government sentiment. After the 1930's GDP skyrocketed and debt to gdp came consistently down. Then after 1981 debt to gdp skyrocketed and GDP has fallen off. The problem has nothing to do with too much spending it has to do with financialization of our economy and massive rises in income inequality. Fix our finance system and increase middle class wages and we will move on. Obama is far more likely to pursue those polices and that is the basis of my optimism. My pessimism rises from the incredible power of the banks to fill fallen wages with subsidized financed debt and then to get bankruptcy laws changed such that a person could have 25% of their future earnings INDENTURED to the banks.

By your definition of taxes ...1918 and 1919 fits pretty close. But your definition misses the fact that the tax burden WE place on the future is in big part because WE cut our own real tax rates as the chart you reference shows. Had the effective federal tax rate been just 2% higher since 1980 we'd have almost NO debt.

Pre/post 1930 GDP