Alan Simpson Calls GOP Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

[Kuros]

Real GDP rose on average 6.5% a year in FDR's first two terms. Some depression!

Unemployment exceeded 12% for the entire period from 1933 to 1940. That's a depression, despite your own attempt at revisionism.

But thanks for helping to demonstrate how pointless a measure GDP growth can be.

I didn't say there wasn't a Depression. I am arguing that FDR didn't cause the Depression. Pay attention.

The "FDR caused the Depression" is one of the most bizarre things I have ever read in economic history, and I've read a lot of it. You can argue that FDR was over-rated, or that some of his policies hindered the recovery. But to say he "caused" it is one of the most surreal arguments I have ever heard.

I appreciate the clarification. But please don't tell me to pay attention. You honestly were not being clear.

No, FDR did not cause the depression. That started on Hoover's watch, but I don't even think Black Friday was his fault. Now, the Hawley-Smoot tariff was a huge contributor to the depression, because other countries retaliated almost immediately and the US was extremely reliant on exports (at least as reliant as China is today).

But I also agree with Trajan. Many of FDR's quasi-socialist policies jumpkicked a resurgance in the depression. And traditionally, and understandably, unemployment figures are more relevant to whether a nation is in a depression or not than GDP.

 

[taichiliberal]

We are now up to SIX wars, none of them paid for and the cost of the prescription drug program will skyrocket once Obama gets his way to close the "donut hole." Nobody filibustered Obama when he agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years. One more year of Obama and he will increase the debt almost as much as Bush did in 8 years.

And Bush created an anemic 3 million (net) jobs in 8 years. How many jobs has Obama created so far?

Please provide the facts to support your claim that we are up to 6 wars that have not been paid for.

Please provide evidence from the CBC or the GAO that supports your claim that Obama's proposal's would sky rocket the prescription drug program...and please ADMIT that the Shrub & company let the insurance and pharmaceutical companies write that plan without a way to pay for it.

Please REMEMBER that Obama's budget INCLUDES two wars, a prescription drug plan unpaid for, tax cuts and breaks that the Shrub & company DID NOT FULLY INCORPORATE.

Yes, Obama wussed out and extended the tax cuts....cowering to the possible threat of another round of filibusters, of which the GOP has been so fond of the last two years.

Oh, and bragging about the Shrubs 3 million jobs in 8 years is a joke, considering Clinton created 23 million in his two terms and his father did about the same in just 4 years.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

Iraq and afghan costs are approx. 168 billion this year, so even if we double it, round it off at 350 billion.... next excuse?

and he said;"anemic 3 million ", do I need to post the definition of anemic? think oh, you and class...

First off, you have to wonder what excuse Trajan will give for over looking that I was pointing to how the Shrub kept the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan OFF THE BUDGET from 2003 to 2008

Here's what Iraq has been costing us:

Cost of Iraq War 2008

And Afghanistan:

Congressional Reports: Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan since 9/11

Now all of that has been officially put on budget.....proper accounting is a bitch for neocons. Carry on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neo-cons of the right and the left lose on the economic score, period.

 

[taichiliberal]

When you figure out the difference between the yearly budget deficit and the National Debt we can talk. Until then, you are merely spouting partisan nonsense.

You're STILL trying to pass off some half assed conclusion while pretending that the tax breaks and cuts, the off the books wars and prescription drug plan were/are NOT major contributions to the current problem....remember genius, the Shrub inherited a SURPLUS.

The only partisan hack here is YOU, my Too Tall neocon parrot.

Still don't know the difference between the debt and the deficit do you.

We are now up to attacking SIX sovereign nations, Obama extended the dreaded Bush tax cuts, so they are now the Obama tax cuts and the cost of Part D will skyrocket as soon as Obama gets Congress to close the 'donut hole.'

The current problems are caused by excessive government spending and the collapse of the housing market. Of course, TRIPLING the number of troops in Afghanistan by Obama, costing $2 billion a WEEK on or off the books doesn't help. When the current warmonger finishes his troop draw down next year we will still have TWICE as many troops there as when Bush left office.

The only saving grace is Obama will have to honor the agreement Bush made with the Iraq government to withdraw all or most of the troops in that country.

Let me know when you figure out the difference between the debt and the deficit. I will give you a hint: One used to be measured in billions when Bush was President and is now measured in trillions and the other is a result of that one.

I love it when you neocon parrots actually think you're being clever by trying to convince everyone that you can omit data from a budget and then claim that your conclusion is valid and comprehensive.

Pay attention genius....from 2003 to 2008 the Shrub and company DID NOT include the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan in the national budget. That means your deficit is off and you've under stated your debt. Obama puts it on the books, and the picture becomes much more grim.

And what other three nations are we at war with? Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya by my count.

I'm not stating that Obama's actions haven't added to the problem, but for neocon parrots to squawk that he's somehow solely responsible for the fantastic fiscal costs of our military actions is just plain stupid.

I didn't state that extending the Shrub's tax cuts were a good thing, did I bunky? Nope, I didn't....but the neocon driven GOP threatened more filibuster and the anti-Obama punditry all swore the world would end if we didn't.

See, here's your problem toodles....on one hand you DON'T want to criticize the Shrub legacy, and you want to blame Obama for all the world's current ills, but yet you condemn Obama for continuing the very same policies that you initially refrain from criticizing.

You can't have it both ways, genius. I'll lay blame were needed, but I won't sit idle while people are trying to rewrite recent history.

 

[taichiliberal]

Still don't know the difference between the debt and the deficit do you.

We are now up to attacking SIX sovereign nations, Obama extended the dreaded Bush tax cuts, so they are now the Obama tax cuts and the cost of Part D will skyrocket as soon as Obama gets Congress to close the 'donut hole.'

The current problems are caused by excessive government spending and the collapse of the housing market. Of course, TRIPLING the number of troops in Afghanistan by Obama, costing $2 billion a WEEK on or off the books doesn't help. When the current warmonger finishes his troop draw down next year we will still have TWICE as many troops there as when Bush left office.

The only saving grace is Obama will have to honor the agreement Bush made with the Iraq government to withdraw all or most of the troops in that country.

Let me know when you figure out the difference between the debt and the deficit. I will give you a hint: One used to be measured in billions when Bush was President and is now measured in trillions and the other is a result of that one.

Your thinking is one of the reasons the GOP is going to get clobbered next year in the presidential and senate elections, and possibly in the House as well.

Yes, another repeat of 2010.

For those new to USMB, Jake pretends to be a Republican.

For that to happen you'll need a good portion of people NOT voting. Given the performances of the GOP governors, the 5 clowns on the SCOTUS, and the mouthings of the Teabagger darlings in Congress, I doubt you'll have your way Frankie boy.

 

[taichiliberal]

Deficit when Bush left office: $1.2 trillion.

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the CBO reported the deficit was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

PolitiFact | Axelrod claims Bush saddled Obama with a big deficit

Deficit now: $1.5 trillion.

If it's always darkest before the dawn, then President Obama and Congress are close to a deal to shrink the $1.5trillion budget deficit and raise the $14.3trillion debt ceiling.

Obama and Congress Race the Clock on Debt Limit Talks - ABC News

Note: Reducing this year's budget by 10.49% could pay off the deficit.

where did you learn math? 10% of 3.1T is 310B not 1.5T. And one does not "pay off the deficit", one pays off the "debt", if you want to bring down the deficit, stop spending more money than you take in. Further the 2009 deficit was fueled in part by the 28% increase in spending that OBAMA signed into law after he took office and has nothing to do with Bush, he vetoed it, add to that about 200B in add'l stimulak spending in 2009 and it's fairly easy to see that Obama is responsible for about 1/2 of the 2009 deficit.

Unless the deficit was $2.4 trillion in 2009, no, discretionary spending from Obama is not responsible for half of it.

As the poster above pointed out, CBO's January 2009 Budget Outlook, released a few weeks before Obama took office, reveals the sources of the huge deficit that was already in place (with ARRA, I believe the final numbers for the 2009 deficit were around $1.4 trillion):

• CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP. Enactment of an economic stimulus package would add to that deficit. In CBO’s baseline, the deficit for 2010 falls to 4.9 percent of GDP, still high by historical standards.
• CBO expects federal revenues to decline by $166 billion, or 6.6 percent, from the amount in 2008. The combination of the recession and sharp drops in the value of assets—most significantly in publicly traded stock—is expected to lead to sizable declines in receipts, especially from individual and corporate income taxes.
• According to CBO’s estimates, outlays this year will include more than $180 billion to reflect the present-value of the net cost of transactions under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which was created in the fall of 2008. (Broadly speaking, that cost is the purchase price minus the present value, adjusted for market risk, of any estimated future earnings from holding purchased assets and the proceeds from the eventual sale of them.) The TARP has the authority to enter into agreements to purchase assets totaling up to $700 billion outstanding at any one time, but the net cost over time will be much less than that amount.
• The deficit for 2009 also incorporates CBO’s estimate of the cost to the federal government of the recent takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because those entities were created and chartered by the government, are responsible for implementing certain government policies, and are currently under the direct control of the federal government, CBO has concluded that their operations should be reflected in the federal budget. Recognizing that cost in 2009 adds about $240 billion (in discounted present-value terms) to the deficit this year.
• Economic factors have also boosted spending on programs such as those providing unemployment compensation and nutrition assistance as well as those with cost-of-living adjustments. (Such adjustments for 2009 are large because most of them are based on the growth in the consumer price index over the four quarters ending in the third quarter of 2008.)

It's true that if you compare the year before Obama took office to the year after (when his first budget took effect), there's an almost 24% increase in discretionary spending. Yet that figure is misleading, in part because Obama's budgets used different accounting than those of his predecessor:

For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. [...] The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses. [...]

As for war costs, Mr. Bush included little or none in his annual military budgets, instead routinely asking Congress for supplemental appropriations during the year. Mr. Obama will include cost projections for every year through the 2019 fiscal year to cover “overseas military contingencies” — nearly $500 billion over 10 years.

For Medicare, Mr. Bush routinely budgeted less than actual costs for payments to physicians, although he and Congress regularly waived a law mandating the lower reimbursements for fear that doctors would quit serving beneficiaries in protest.

Mr. Obama will budget $401 billion over 10 years for higher costs and interest on the debt.

He will also budget $273 billion in that period for natural disasters. Every year the government pays billions for disaster relief, but presidents and lawmakers have long ignored budget reformers’ calls for a contingency account to reflect that certainty.

The apparent increase in defense spending (now that our wars are being counted in the budget) along with State Department foreign operations accounts for an almost 18% increase in discretionary spending.

Our resident neocon parrots just REFUSE to accept the FACTS regarding what happens when your accounts include items in a budget that were previously left out.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Fmr. GOP Sen. Alan Simpson Calls Republican Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson blasted his intransigent GOP colleagues on the Hill today for failing to reach a deal on the deficit. The blunt-talking co-chairman of President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal reform commission slammed Republicans for kowtowing to Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist (“Republicans can’t be in thrall to him”) and pushed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to stand fast on the August 2 deadline.

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

He added, “We’ve never had a war without a tax, and now we’ve got two. … Absolute bullshit.”

More

Simpson is bullshit. If he had an ounce of integrity he would demand spending cuts.

 

[taichiliberal]

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

Raising taxes normally is ignorant, but raising taxes in the middle of a long recession takes an idiot. Alan Simpson is an idiot.

Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

Raising taxes normally is ignorant, but raising taxes in the middle of a long recession takes an idiot. Alan Simpson is an idiot.

We couldn't have had the FDR Depression without tax increases, increased government regulation and demonization of American free enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Bottom line, Democrats have to be willing to shrink government and cut programs. Just raising taxes will not solve any of our problems. I will blame the Democrats if we default on our debt.

Bottom line: Democrats are willing to make cuts and raise revenues. We can't cut our way out. But Republicans are only willing to CUT.

Cutting spending on bullshit waste and fraud raises revenue on it's own.
Who says we cannnot cut our way out of deficit? You? Pffffffffffft.

 

[taichiliberal]

You don't raise revenues by increasing tax rates. You raise revenues by increasing the tax base. See, we need a competitive tax rate to encourage wealthy people to move into the country and to spend their money here. If we over tax them, they are simply going to move themselves and their money to a cheaper jursidictions. See, they can move places we can't get them. And that will leave the tax burden on us.

We make more revenue taxing 4 people at $4000 than we do taxing 2 people at $5000.

Cut taxes, cut spending, eliminate loopholes and overregulation and you will see tax revenue sore as well as economic growth. We want to encourage people to work hard and become wealthy, not punish them for becoming wealthy, prevent them from becoming wealthy, or chase them the way.

We need to increase the tax base. and we do that by lowering tax rates and cutting regulation.

Spare us all this regurgitated "reaganomics on steriods" BS! The wealthy had their tax breaks and cuts FOR A DECADE....and they took their money off shore, the jobs overseas and downsized to make "record profits" for management!

Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

Fmr. GOP Sen. Alan Simpson Calls Republican Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson blasted his intransigent GOP colleagues on the Hill today for failing to reach a deal on the deficit. The blunt-talking co-chairman of President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal reform commission slammed Republicans for kowtowing to Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist (“Republicans can’t be in thrall to him”) and pushed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to stand fast on the August 2 deadline.

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

He added, “We’ve never had a war without a tax, and now we’ve got two. … Absolute bullshit.”

More

Simpson is bullshit. If he had an ounce of integrity he would demand spending cuts.

Tax breaks and cuts while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

 

[Avatar4321]

You don't raise revenues by increasing tax rates. You raise revenues by increasing the tax base. See, we need a competitive tax rate to encourage wealthy people to move into the country and to spend their money here. If we over tax them, they are simply going to move themselves and their money to a cheaper jursidictions. See, they can move places we can't get them. And that will leave the tax burden on us.

We make more revenue taxing 4 people at $4000 than we do taxing 2 people at $5000.

Cut taxes, cut spending, eliminate loopholes and overregulation and you will see tax revenue sore as well as economic growth. We want to encourage people to work hard and become wealthy, not punish them for becoming wealthy, prevent them from becoming wealthy, or chase them the way.

We need to increase the tax base. and we do that by lowering tax rates and cutting regulation.

Spare us all this regurgitated "reaganomics on steriods" BS! The wealthy had their tax breaks and cuts FOR A DECADE....and they took their money off shore, the jobs overseas and downsized to make "record profits" for management!

Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

Reality is what it is. You can make more money taking $4000 from 5 people than you can get make taking $5000 from 2.

I understand why you don't like the math. It defeats your argument. But what's more important: pride or the economic health of this nation?

Oh, and I agree with you. War can get expensive. Which is particularly why I don't like Obama starting new wars. Especially without getting approval from Congress or giving a clear reason why we are waging war and who exactly we are supporting.

However, cutting taxes and encouraging the creation of wealth, the movement of wealth here from elsewhere, and thrift/frugality is the best way to raise tax revenues. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand it. In fact, the beautiful thing about the truth is it's simple enough for all people to understand.

I don't know why you want to chase wealthy people out of the country with high taxes, by over regulating them, and generally defaming them. We want more wealthy people to be created, stay here, and move here. That way, we have more tax revenue and the burden on EVERYONE can be lighter.

 

[BenNatuf]

You're STILL trying to pass off some half assed conclusion while pretending that the tax breaks and cuts, the off the books wars and prescription drug plan were/are NOT major contributions to the current problem....remember genius, the Shrub inherited a SURPLUS.

The only partisan hack here is YOU, my Too Tall neocon parrot.

Still don't know the difference between the debt and the deficit do you.

We are now up to attacking SIX sovereign nations, Obama extended the dreaded Bush tax cuts, so they are now the Obama tax cuts and the cost of Part D will skyrocket as soon as Obama gets Congress to close the 'donut hole.'

The current problems are caused by excessive government spending and the collapse of the housing market. Of course, TRIPLING the number of troops in Afghanistan by Obama, costing $2 billion a WEEK on or off the books doesn't help. When the current warmonger finishes his troop draw down next year we will still have TWICE as many troops there as when Bush left office.

The only saving grace is Obama will have to honor the agreement Bush made with the Iraq government to withdraw all or most of the troops in that country.

Let me know when you figure out the difference between the debt and the deficit. I will give you a hint: One used to be measured in billions when Bush was President and is now measured in trillions and the other is a result of that one.

I love it when you neocon parrots actually think you're being clever by trying to convince everyone that you can omit data from a budget and then claim that your conclusion is valid and comprehensive.

Pay attention genius....from 2003 to 2008 the Shrub and company DID NOT include the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan in the national budget. That means your deficit is off and you've under stated your debt. Obama puts it on the books, and the picture becomes much more grim.

And what other three nations are we at war with? Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya by my count.

I'm not stating that Obama's actions haven't added to the problem, but for neocon parrots to squawk that he's somehow solely responsible for the fantastic fiscal costs of our military actions is just plain stupid.

I didn't state that extending the Shrub's tax cuts were a good thing, did I bunky? Nope, I didn't....but the neocon driven GOP threatened more filibuster and the anti-Obama punditry all swore the world would end if we didn't.

See, here's your problem toodles....on one hand you DON'T want to criticize the Shrub legacy, and you want to blame Obama for all the world's current ills, but yet you condemn Obama for continuing the very same policies that you initially refrain from criticizing.

You can't have it both ways, genius. I'll lay blame were needed, but I won't sit idle while people are trying to rewrite recent history.

hey dumbass, the wars are still off budget and off budget items count in the final deficit numbers.

I love it when you stupid assed liberals think you know something.

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (&#8722: 1789–2016
(in millions of dollars)
Year Total......................................On-Budget............................Off-Budget
year Gov Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236 1,483,563 1,516,008 -32,445 507,519 346,838 160,681
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758 1,337,815 1,655,232 -317,417 515,321 355,662 159,659
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585 1,258,472 1,796,890 -538,418 523,842 363,009 160,833
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727 1,345,369 1,913,330 -567,961 534,745 379,511 155,234
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346 1,576,135 2,069,746 -493,611 577,476 402,211 175,265
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181 1,798,487 2,232,981 -434,494 608,382 422,069 186,313
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701 1,932,896 2,275,049 -342,153 635,089 453,637 181,452
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553 1,865,945 2,507,793 -641,848 658,046 474,751 183,295
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688 1,450,980 3,000,661 -1,549,681 654,009 517,016 136,993
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489 1,531,037 2,901,531 -1,370,494 631,687 554,682 77,005

Historical Tables | The White House

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Your thinking is one of the reasons the GOP is going to get clobbered next year in the presidential and senate elections, and possibly in the House as well.

Yes, another repeat of 2010.

For those new to USMB, Jake pretends to be a Republican.

For that to happen you'll need a good portion of people NOT voting. Given the performances of the GOP governors, the 5 clowns on the SCOTUS, and the mouthings of the Teabagger darlings in Congress, I doubt you'll have your way Frankie boy.

9% unemployment, record poverty homelessness, unemployment, foreclosures, debt and deficits.

Yeah. 2012 looks like another 75 seat asskicking of the American Marxists Party

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-75KJkJiVRo]YouTube - ‪Obama Blames ATM's For Current Unemployment‬‏[/ame]

 

[Toro]

Unemployment exceeded 12% for the entire period from 1933 to 1940. That's a depression, despite your own attempt at revisionism.

But thanks for helping to demonstrate how pointless a measure GDP growth can be.

I didn't say there wasn't a Depression. I am arguing that FDR didn't cause the Depression. Pay attention.

The "FDR caused the Depression" is one of the most bizarre things I have ever read in economic history, and I've read a lot of it. You can argue that FDR was over-rated, or that some of his policies hindered the recovery. But to say he "caused" it is one of the most surreal arguments I have ever heard.

I appreciate the clarification. But please don't tell me to pay attention. You honestly were not being clear.

No, FDR did not cause the depression. That started on Hoover's watch, but I don't even think Black Friday was his fault. Now, the Hawley-Smoot tariff was a huge contributor to the depression, because other countries retaliated almost immediately and the US was extremely reliant on exports (at least as reliant as China is today).

But I also agree with Trajan. Many of FDR's quasi-socialist policies jumpkicked a resurgance in the depression. And traditionally, and understandably, unemployment figures are more relevant to whether a nation is in a depression or not than GDP.

Liberals overrate FDR. The liberal narrative is that FDR ended the Depression. In fact, the economy bottomed a month before FDR was sworn in. Many of the things FDR did are now considered mistakes, even by liberal economists, such as NIRA and tightening too quickly in 1937. However, many of FDR's programs benefitted the economy. Milton Friedman said that the single most important thing which ended the Depression was the creation of the FDIC, which halted the irrational run on banks. Other policies such as devaluing the dollar against gold and infrastructure spending also contributed to economic expansion. Ultimately, it was the war that pulled us out, but war is just massive government intervention.

Political people want to look to politics for reasons why things happen in the world. So people blame or praise politicians when in fact politics is often much less important. The beginning of the Depression can actually be traced back to WWI, when tremendous demand for products and commodities brought about a deflationary bust in the 1920s and a string of bank failures that began in the Midwest and rolled east. The collapse in 1929 was exacerbated by terrible mistakes by the Fed, which withdrew bank reserves and raised interest rates in 1931, the exact opposite of what it should have done. If you want to understand why the Fed is doing what it's doing today, read what it did during that time.

Smoot-Hawley was not the reason for the Depression but it contributed and was terrible policy. Real GDP declined by 26% and Smoot accounted for an estimated 4% decline in GDP.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Raising taxes normally is ignorant, but raising taxes in the middle of a long recession takes an idiot. Alan Simpson is an idiot.

We couldn't have had the FDR Depression without tax increases, increased government regulation and demonization of American free enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

Revenues come from a growing economy and not punitive tax structure. Thank you for playing "What Marxists don't know about economics"

 

[Steelplate]

Fmr. GOP Sen. Alan Simpson Calls Republican Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson blasted his intransigent GOP colleagues on the Hill today for failing to reach a deal on the deficit. The blunt-talking co-chairman of President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal reform commission slammed Republicans for kowtowing to Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist (“Republicans can’t be in thrall to him”) and pushed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to stand fast on the August 2 deadline.

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

He added, “We’ve never had a war without a tax, and now we’ve got two. … Absolute bullshit.”

More

Simpson is bullshit. If he had an ounce of integrity he would demand spending cuts.

He did demand spending cuts... Where do you get your news from? What he "demanded" was that ALL Sacred Cows be put on the table. For the Dems, it's spending cuts. For the Republicans, it's taxes.

In fact.. there are $1T of Spending cuts ALREADY AGREED TO between both parties. That's the problem with you right wing idiots. You only speak in rhetoric and hate. Facts and reason elude you at every turn. You make up your own facts and declare them the truth. But what can you expect? Look who you get your news from.

 

[BenNatuf]

Fmr. GOP Sen. Alan Simpson Calls Republican Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

Former GOP Sen. Alan Simpson blasted his intransigent GOP colleagues on the Hill today for failing to reach a deal on the deficit. The blunt-talking co-chairman of President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal reform commission slammed Republicans for kowtowing to Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist (“Republicans can’t be in thrall to him”) and pushed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to stand fast on the August 2 deadline.

Surveying the lay of the current fiscal land, Simpson said, “We’re at 15 percent revenue, and historically it’s been closer to 20 percent.”

He added, “We’ve never had a war without a tax, and now we’ve got two. … Absolute bullshit.”

More

Simpson is bullshit. If he had an ounce of integrity he would demand spending cuts.

He did demand spending cuts... Where do you get your news from? What he "demanded" was that ALL Sacred Cows be put on the table. For the Dems, it's spending cuts. For the Republicans, it's taxes.

In fact.. there are $1T of Spending cuts ALREADY AGREED TO between both parties. That's the problem with you right wing idiots. You only speak in rhetoric and hate. Facts and reason elude you at every turn. You make up your own facts and declare them the truth. But what can you expect? Look who you get your news from.

1T over a ten year period with planned yearly deficits of over 1T. Thats the problem with you liberal morons... you don't understand math.

 

[saveliberty]

Tax breaks while waging war is not too bright, genius. Maybe you forgot where a good portion of REVENUE comes from for our national coffers. Or maybe you forgot that the Shrub raised the debt ceiling about 6 times or more. Or maybe you didn't cash those two "stimulus" checks that the Shrub doled out.

Or maybe you just don't know WTF is really going on. Or maybe you're just a partisan hack who doesn't care. Whatever....carry on.

MOST of the revenue comes from business owners and the rich....

You got a point to make?