@steven: I got distracted while typing, so i forgot to mention that even the extra time to pay for the loans would be a good idea in theory, it would lead to deeper shit, since people would keep spending the extra money (what you were after), instead of building their overall finances to better condition. Only thing that would happen is the crash would just come later.

And let's add that what i meant with economy growing beyond sustainable, is people taking loans and not having savings. All the earned and borrowed money have flown for the rich, who owns shares and money, but due to low taxes, the money didn't get back to cycle.

Raising taxes for the rich would be the best thing to do right now and spend the money to public services (as you said). Public healthcare would be one of the best investments. But raising the taxes isn't that easy, since the rich and powerful think they would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Congress reads my threads: confirmed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080919/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080919/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown">Congress promises quick action on bailout... (AP)

@steven: Yeah, that's what they do, as i already mentioned. But believe me, the trash bank is going to be the most hated instance by the people for the next decade.

Yeah, I didn't say people would like it.  But it is the solution to problem.  It's like chemotherapy to cancer.  Nobody's going to take chemo when they are healthy already, but nobody should turn it down when it can treat and eliminate their disease.

@steven: Haha, i liked your analogy. Although, the public isn't going to understand anyway what the benefits in reality are.

Nine... eleven...

Sold.

(edit: and tell them there taxes went down, even if they didn't)

What is with this notion that Nazi Germany wasn't fascist, its like a bad lie thats been spread around and every so often you find somebody that acutally believes it.

The Nazi's (along with fascist Italy and Portuagal) supported Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain in the Spanish Civil War. Franco fought against the Republic of Spain, which was actually Socialist.  Let me make that as clear as possible, Nazi Germany and Fascist Spain fought against Socialist Spain.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic, not a republic, and I would argue not for the people either.  However, these terms sound nice, just as socialist sounded nice in 1930's during the Great Depression (a Socialist presidential candidate in the United States got one million votes for comparison).  I didnt think that people actually fell for these name gimmicks that dictators hoped their population would be guliable enough for, but then I see a lot of people on this forum making the same mistake.

The New Deal brought economic success.  I'm not going to let you get away with false statements just like I cant let Commando get away with thinking Nazi Germany wasn't fasicst and that the Axis powers fought against fascism.  History runs contrary to your opinions, I even posted a few simple graphs showing the economy sky rocket after Roosevelt enacted his economic policies, but I guess facts aren't enough some times, even when easily visiable.

@ManusJustus: What Jackson is saying here is, that the New Deal couldn't sustain the economics. Not that it hadn't boosted it. What had the long lasting effect was WWII. Without the second world war, it would have backfired. Where the new deal failed, was the changed spending behaviour of the public.

For all intents and purposes, this is what I am saying. If the government of today increased spending exponentially (like Roosevelt did), then the GDP would increase and the economy would be booming. The economy, however, would not be any better off because of it. What Roosevelt seemingly forgot and what subsequent presidents have not learned is that you cannot spend the economy out of recession. Tax cuts make more sense, but only if they are not funded by debt or an inflated money supply. The economy needed to hit rock bottom on its own without any government interference. Unfortunately, Hoover was a progressive who advocated tariffs (Smoot-Hawley), construction projects and policies that artificially inflated wages. Had Roosevelt kept to his campaign promisies of reducing debt by decreasing government, increasing free trade and other such measures, the economy may have turned the corner. The economy needed to be free of government interference, and it took the command economy of WWII and the subsequent end of it to free the economy from this interference.