Prez Dingle-Barry has his head too far up his ass to see anything but his POV and will never admit to a mistake. Hang it up. We are stuck and will have to wait out this anal abortion of a government who governs with tyranny.

I don't think the first and second new deal were anything but a drain on productive resources in the economy. Looking at things on a global scale the more austere nations were the quickest to recover from the great depression, and often when recessions hit letting them run there course is good in the long term for the economy.

Say hwat now?  Really, you sure about that?  Look, in terms of economy and on a global scale the quckest coutries to recover were those that dropped the gold (and silver) standard earlier on allowing them to print more money that allowed them to get out of the rut they were put in.  It was more spending that got them out.  Case in point, would WWII have brought the world back into another depression had spending and debt truly been the cause of the first one?  It did not, and many people attribute it to the massive boom in economy in America and around the world as spending skyrocketted.  If you have any proof of the opposite I would love to see the source.

As to the OP, it's wierd for you to ask for a New Deal considering that it has always been democratict initiatives and they are the ones currently in power (bringing about the "socialism" that you talked about).  ObamaCare will prove its worth over the next few years and within a decade people will ask how they ever lived without it.  Wars are ending overseas and the money spent on them is being drawn down drastically (and don't compare the cost of the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars to the little skirmishes in Libya and Syria).  The only major constraint on the world recovery is the brinkmanship that has been going on in congress and trust me, it won't get this bad again for decades.  The Repulicans took a beating in the polls and they aren't willing to cause another shutdown. I think that (while he has been far, far from perfect) Obama has been taking the right steps towards getting America back on track, his worst sin is the partisanship that has plagued Washington which I will freely admit is a failure of his leadership.  However, economically, his decisions have been sound and on well proven grounds, outside meddling has been reduced drastically, unemployement has fallen despite everything that has happened, all in all, I think 10 years down the road people will look back fondly at his presidency.

Just trust me on the ObamaCare thing, once its rolled out and all the kinks worked on, it'll become the next SS and Medicare; a golden pillar of Americanism that cannot be touched by any party or ideology.  It has severe flaws right now but they will all be worked on, the underlying principles is tried, true and tested.  You won't agree, but you'll see in good time.

To begin with your praise for a preseident who does little to nothing for personal liberty and continues the same policies as George Bush of blowing up anyone who may or may not have a slight connection to Islamic militancy in the middle east woth drones in the sky disgust me. He, as will many other president's throughout history will be remembered as a scumbad, plain and simple.

And the beginning of the depression was marred by policies such as raising the top tax rate from 25% to 63%, along with prohibiting wage decreases and tariffs on imported goods (which of course lead to tariffs on our exported goods, many of which linger to today) lead to disasterous results for the economy. And the money gained from this taxation was used for wastefull spending as was done for the recent financial crisis. It was also the governments cheap supply of credit as a result of the federal reserve created in 1913 that lead to widespread malinvestment for years. Government intervention today also created the housing bubble as government policy encouraged the lending of money to people who could not afford it ending with them losing their house and the banks losing money, which inevitabily lead to them getting bailed out by the government. Which has also lead to our high levels of government debt to GPD as can be seen at http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp.

Also your claim about the gold standard is absurd as it certainly did not stop the United States government from spending every penny it forcefully took via taxation.

Looking at WW2 we can see that from a purely economic standpoint, the war made consumers worse off because it was often difficult or impossible to purchase the goods they needed. The weapon factories were not producing goods and services that Americans could enjoy. The U.S. government had forbidden the production of new cars, houses, and major appliances. Due to government rationing, it was difficult to buy many goods such as chocolate, meat, gasoline, sugar and tires.

So what do I thnik ended the Great Depression? Huge government spending cuts after the war did as from 1944 to 1948,the U.S. government cut spending by $72 billion—a 75 percent reduction.

Also social security and medicare are the two largest black holes for taxes that exist today, so telling me Obamacare will turn out like them is a nightmare senario for me. They work simple because people have been forced to pay into them their whole lives and now cant speak out against them because they have already paid for them. Medicare gives three times what you put in, they are simply robbing the younger generations by forcing debt upon them.

Nope every empire collapses eventually and I'm guessing it's the United States turn. Although China taking our place as the super-power of the world doesn't sit well with me.

Well, at least you're consistant in saying that you oppose SS and Medicare, I always laugh at Republicans who claim that Socialism is the Devil and then say that no one can touch those two programs.

About "Also your claim about the gold standard is absurd as it certainly did not stop the United States government from spending every penny it forcefully took via taxation."

Of course the gold standard didn't stop the US from taking the money in taxation, it in fact encouraged it.  When the government isn't free to print money, the money has to come from elsewhere (i.e out of people's pockets) which then exasperated the problem further.

Furthermore "So what do I thnik ended the Great Depression? Huge government spending cuts after the war did as from 1944 to 1948,the U.S. government cut spending by $72 billion—a 75 percent reduction." 

So you're saying that the average consumer in America was worse  off during WWII then in the great depression?  I'm not one of the people that say that wars are good for the economy, but despite this fact I'm sure the US economy was leagues ahead during the war than it was before it began.  The Great Depression ended before WWII, not after.

"Government intervention today also created the housing bubble as government policy encouraged the lending of money to people who could not afford it ending with them losing their house and the banks losing money, which inevitabily lead to them getting bailed out by the government. Which has also lead to our high levels of government debt to GPD as can be seen"

Eh, I'll give you this one, it is very true, but it also proves my point to an extent about Obama.  It was the recession which slowed the GDP growth to a crawl, and drastically cut revenues which cause the high Debt/GDP ratio, not exessive spending from the sitmulus (which I believe was absolutely necissary).

However, you also fail to mention the benfits of government intervention such as how it allows for a saftey net for the unemployed (which immeiditaly gets pumped back into the economy as it is not considered discretionary spending (reducing the number of defaulted loans and mortgages).  It furthermore saved companies like AIG which (whether we like it or not) are essential to the economy. 

I think Obamas biggest failing was in not splitting up the companies acquired during the meltdown.  Had they been turned from "too big to fail" to a bunch of just kinda big companies, that would have been awesome.  To those that say the the stimulous was bad, they don't know what it would be like without it.

BTW I'm a Capitalist through and through and love the models set by America and Hong Kong, but a little bit of Social help goes a loooooong way.  and don't go telling me and the ME because I live in Egypt and...no...just no.  No comparison between Bush and Obama.  I actually support his initiatives in Libya.

Edit: God have mercy where is the spell check on this forum?

I like this fireforgey guy.

That "the economy improved during ww2, not after" was a really nice rebuttal to rondo's teaparty rhetoric about 75% cut in spending.

Whether or not quality of life increased during World War 2 largely depends on what you think is better. Being unemployed, or being forcibly enlisted to be shot at by Nazis.

It'd be interesting to do a life expectancy thing here... except.... life expectancy during the great depression INCREASED by 6 years.

Weird huh? Then it dropped during the New Deal until the recession of 1937. Decreased during WW2 of course.

Whether or not the economy improved, largely depends on what you consider the economy.


WW2 actually did fix the economy, but not in the way anybody argues it did.


WW2 actually caused shortages and austerity. People could not get the products they wanted, because the materials for them were vital for the war effort.

So they bought war bonds... and invested... and built up savings.

The only thing that's going to help is if the 'developing nations' finally develop.

There's no easy way out of this situation.

It's not consumption that drives economic growth, but production, for which you need investment. You cannot have investment without savings, and when you have "near zero" interest rates, and price increases running into double digit percentages each year, you're plain and simple not going to get people saving.

So the two fundamental things that need to be fixed are the price increases, and the interest rates. They go hand-in-hand, as the primary force behind the price increases is inflation of the money supply, which is done to force interest rates down.

This policy is based on the flawed belief that consumption drives growth, and not production. Unfortunately, most Gov'ts are in a catch-22, the only way they can sustain the illusion that they're remotely solvent is by manipulating the currency supply, letting interest rates go up will force Governmental defaults around the world so fast your head will spin.

So, the one thing that needs to happen cannot happen. Governments cannot default because of a) the large swathes of the population that are dependant on those debts, and b) The debts are held by the people who bankrolled the politicians.

The recession/collapse began in 2008, with signs of struggle in the years before then. It is now 2013. That's 5 years. Five. Fucking. Years of the same policies failing. Let's try the things that were suggested by the only people who predicted the collapse in the first place.