Just for clarification...

To make sure I've got my points right..

Obama supports higher taxes on wealthy Americans, raising fee's on imported goods (by way of revision of NAFTA and other free trade agreements), supports increased government social program spending, increased government spending on public works/building programs, promotes the idea that higher wages will spurn the economy more than lower taxes, and wants to raise taxes on corporations and estates (elimination of the Bush tax cuts will raise taxes on estates).

This is just a broad picture.. but am I missing any major details?

I think that guy who is the democratic nominee also wants to get us out of our little skirmish in the Middle East...

Since clearly none of the dem's on here are capable of answering this... Go check out Herbert Hoover's presidency... he did the exact same thing that BO is wanting to do... the result was the worst depression in the history of our country... perhaps you read about it in history class when you were learning about our 57 states...

Herbert raised taxes on the wealthy (from around 30% to over 60%)
He increased Gov't spending to solve social issues
He increased Gov't spending on social works programs (infrastructure, etc)
He promoted the idea that by paying the poor more it'll increase spending in the economy
and he raised taxes on corporations and estates.

Now.. he came into office after a boom period.. not an economic slowdown/recession like we are in now. If the economy was doing good then got hit with all this and went into a recession.. what do you think will happen when we are slow to start? Can you honestly suggest that we'd see the complete opposite happen?

You can't argue with the results of Hoover's tactics.. they are historical. And sooooo many of BO's ideas fall lock and step in with his.

A good read on the 1920's ... and the Hoover admin.

Herbert Hoover's Legacy
Great Depression Goat Inherited Laissez-Faire Economic Policy
© Aaron D. Pendell

Jan 7, 2008

Adam Smith's economic theory brought years of Coolidge prosperity. It also brought on the 1929 stock market crash. The Legacy of Herbert Hoover still suffers for it.
How did a man whose name was considered synonymous with efficiency and problem solving end up as the goat of the Great Depression? Herbert Hoover was the epitome of the self-made man in the early 20th Century. The electorate of the United States considered Hoover a natural to extend the years of Coolidge prosperity in 1928. At the onset of the Great Depression, Hoover could not have known the seriousness of the crisis. His administration’s actions to remedy the crisis certainly reflect that. However, could anyone else have succeeded under the same conditions? Considering the Depression’s economic roots and the structure of American industry and agriculture, it is likely that any administration would have met with the same fate as that of Herbert Hoover.

America was no stranger to economic depression when Herbert Hoover took office. The prevailing economic theory on depression had been to weather the storm. Hoover did not subscribe to this theory, but he was in the minority. His Treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon, believed that the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent Depression was the economy naturally cleansing itself of weaker elements. Mellon’s attitude reflects the “invisible hand” theory of economics espoused by Adam Smith. It was Smith’s theory that shaped the laissez-faire economic policies of the prosperous 1920’s and before. These policies, through depressions and prosperity, had altered the structure of American industry and agriculture. Following the 1929 stock market crash, these conditions had created a crisis that was far worse than policy makers had experienced in the past.

Laissez-Faire economic policy allowed for rapid industrialization to take place without government regulation, and marketplace competition suffered as a result. Competition was hindered further by previous periods of economic contraction, such as the depression of 1893. Only the larger companies survived periods of economic contraction, and the larger companies began to structure themselves differently in order to consolidate their operations. Large companies sought to control all processes in production, or vertical integration, in order to increase efficiency and protect themselves from future economic shocks. Other companies sought to monopolize their markets. These structures allowed for the lowering of prices that smaller companies could not match.

The structure of American agriculture following WWI was precarious to say the least. Following the war, the demand for American agriculture evaporated. The lack of demand left American farmers with too much product, keeping prices very low. Farmers that the government had encouraged to borrow and increase production before the war were unable to make enough money to pay for their land, labor, and equipment. Industrialization had shifted the nature of the economy away from agriculture, and without government intervention, farmers never experienced the Coolidge propserity years.

It was during this time that an exodus of agricultural workers to urban areas took place. Along with increased immigration, there was a surplus of labor for American industry. The new concentrated nature of industry required fewer workers and allowed wages to remain relatively low despite large increases in productivity. Despite the perceptions inspired by the years of Coolidge prosperity in the 1920’s, unemployment was a pervasive issue. The persistence of these trends contributed to growing disparity of income in America.

The Hoover administration, equipped with belief that the cycles of prosperity and contraction were a natural phenomenon, could not have anticipated the seriousness of the Great Depression. The change in the structure of the American economy was its natural evolution. Even the courts prevented most attempts of policy makers to engage in regulation that may have prevented collapse, or at least kept the problem from becoming so pervasive. The depth of the economic collapse could not have been envisioned, nor did the tools exist to fix it had policy makers recognized it. The entrenched nature of laissez-faire economic policy prevented any such action. These factors left the Hoover administration ill equipped to deal with the Great Depression. Even with his vast experience, Herbert Hoover was doomed to failure.

Source:

McElvaine, Robert S. The Great Depression: America, 1929-1941. Three Rivers Press: New York, 1993.

Way to respond.. repost something someone else came up with because you can't actually comment

Thanks Bman for the "fresh meat" for discussion. Otherwise this thread would be doomed in the hands of the right who have nothing at all to say except "that's the best you can come up with?"

Clearly, Card cannot tell the difference between a post, and a response. ...Fly like a falcon, when you come up out of the dive, they'll hit the dirt.

Man... I'm sorry I didnt bite your bait... Did they have computers in all 57 states in 1928?

You have over generalized his platform... ("Raising taxes to pay for social programs" is kinda broad, yea?). And the point I try to make with the tongue in cheek comment about computers in all 57 states is to mean that you cant compare the generalities of the 1920's economy with the 2008 economy....

Indeed.. I love a response that equates to "well, it would have happened anyway.. so you can't really blame him" when it comes from someone who blames everyone on the current administration that could use exact the same argument.

You had an example of a labor force looking for work in a period where less and less manwork is needed (sounds familiar) and a government that wouldn't allow jobs to be created because of regulations (sounds familiar again..) and a president who wanted to solve the problem with more taxes and more government spending (that's a trifecta).

So.. that article is either showing that sometimes a President has no control (then and now) or that BO is going to make the same mistakes Herbert did.. good job.. couldn't have found a better article myself.

pez wrote:Man... I'm sorry I didnt bite your bait... Did they have computers in all 57 states in 1928?

You have over generalized his platform... ("Raising taxes to pay for social programs" is kinda broad, yea?). And the point I try to make with the tongue in cheek comment about computers in all 57 states is to mean that you cant compare the generalities of the 1920's economy with the 2008 economy....

Isn't that what presidential campaigns are.. broad generalizations? Tax reform, social programs, foreign aid, etc. When was the last time you had a President give a step by step platform on how they'd do something down to the smallest of details? Never. We get their 20 points of light, or whatever they want to call it to make it catchy.

And no.. It's not a stretch to compare the 20's to now. Rising unemployment that is overshadowed by other factors, shifting job market (physical labor to services now instead of ag to blue collar), tax reform being a big issue (especially for the wealthy), etc. If you actually look at them, they are quite similar. However, if you like BO you won't want to admit it because the two campaigns are oddly similar and the first one didn't work out so much.

cardinal5150 wrote:

pez wrote:Man... I'm sorry I didnt bite your bait... Did they have computers in all 57 states in 1928?

You have over generalized his platform... ("Raising taxes to pay for social programs" is kinda broad, yea?). And the point I try to make with the tongue in cheek comment about computers in all 57 states is to mean that you cant compare the generalities of the 1920's economy with the 2008 economy....

Isn't that what presidential campaigns are.. broad generalizations? Tax reform, social programs, foreign aid, etc. When was the last time you had a President give a step by step platform on how they'd do something down to the smallest of details? Never. We get their 20 points of light, or whatever they want to call it to make it catchy.

And no.. It's not a stretch to compare the 20's to now. Rising unemployment that is overshadowed by other factors, shifting job market (physical labor to services now instead of ag to blue collar), tax reform being a big issue (especially for the wealthy), etc. If you actually look at them, they are quite similar. However, if you like BO you won't want to admit it because the two campaigns are oddly similar and the first one didn't work out so much.

The top 10 exports in 1929....
Unmanufactured cotton . . . 920.0 million
Petroleum & products 525.5 million
Automobiles & accessories 500.2 million
Machinery 497.2 million
Wheat & flour 193.7 million
Packinghouse products 187.2 million
Iron & steel mill products . .179.7 million
Tobacco (unmanufactured) 154.5 million
Copper 169.8 million
Cotton manufactured 134.7 million

The US was in a position where it desired to sell good abroad and place high tariffs on imports... this lead to many nations outside the US borrowing US dollars to buy US goods. This is one of the largest causes of the great depression. Countries outside the US needed US good to prosper, yet they were blocked by high tariffs to export goods back to the US. When they could no longer afford to borrow US money for US goods, US exports fell 30%, nearly overnight. In simpler terms, the US had a vast and unsustainable trade surplus. How is that at all like what we have today?

pez wrote:
The US was in a position where it desired to sell good abroad and place high tariffs on imports... this lead to many nations outside the US borrowing US dollars to buy US goods. This is one of the largest causes of the great depression. Countries outside the US needed US good to prosper, yet they were blocked by high tariffs to export goods back to the US. When they could no longer afford to borrow US money for US goods, US exports fell 30%, nearly overnight. In simpler terms, the US had a vast and unsustainable trade surplus. How is that at all like what we have today?

Seriously... you can't see the direct link to BO wanting to renegotiate NAFTA because he thinks it benefits other nations more so than ours? You don't see him wanting to raise tariffs on goods brought into the country to produce a surplus just as happened back then?

cardinal5150 wrote:

pez wrote:
The US was in a position where it desired to sell good abroad and place high tariffs on imports... this lead to many nations outside the US borrowing US dollars to buy US goods. This is one of the largest causes of the great depression. Countries outside the US needed US good to prosper, yet they were blocked by high tariffs to export goods back to the US. When they could no longer afford to borrow US money for US goods, US exports fell 30%, nearly overnight. In simpler terms, the US had a vast and unsustainable trade surplus. How is that at all like what we have today?

Seriously... you can't see the direct link to BO wanting to renegotiate NAFTA because he thinks it benefits other nations more so than ours? You don't see him wanting to raise tariffs on goods brought into the country to produce a surplus just as happened back then?

Seriously, no, they are not even close... the idea of the US having a trade surplus in our lifetimes is like saying they spotted pterodactyls in downtown Cleveland.

Creating a vast and unsustainable trade surplus, bad, if its even possible... stemming the tide of the vast, growing and perhaps unsustainable trade deficit, good.... comparable to 1928, not even close.

pez wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

pez wrote:
The US was in a position where it desired to sell good abroad and place high tariffs on imports... this lead to many nations outside the US borrowing US dollars to buy US goods. This is one of the largest causes of the great depression. Countries outside the US needed US good to prosper, yet they were blocked by high tariffs to export goods back to the US. When they could no longer afford to borrow US money for US goods, US exports fell 30%, nearly overnight. In simpler terms, the US had a vast and unsustainable trade surplus. How is that at all like what we have today?

Seriously... you can't see the direct link to BO wanting to renegotiate NAFTA because he thinks it benefits other nations more so than ours? You don't see him wanting to raise tariffs on goods brought into the country to produce a surplus just as happened back then?

Seriously, no, they are not even close... the idea of the US having a trade surplus in our lifetimes is like saying they spotted pterodactyls in downtown Cleveland.

Creating a vast and unsustainable trade surplus, bad, if its even possible... stemming the tide of the vast, growing and perhaps unsustainable trade deficit, good.... comparable to 1928, not even close.

And for the rest... increasing taxes, more gov't spending when we spend too much, bad social programs, promises he can't live up to.. etc.. I suppose all those are vast differences too...

cardinal5150 wrote:

pez wrote:

cardinal5150 wrote:

pez wrote:
The US was in a position where it desired to sell good abroad and place high tariffs on imports... this lead to many nations outside the US borrowing US dollars to buy US goods. This is one of the largest causes of the great depression. Countries outside the US needed US good to prosper, yet they were blocked by high tariffs to export goods back to the US. When they could no longer afford to borrow US money for US goods, US exports fell 30%, nearly overnight. In simpler terms, the US had a vast and unsustainable trade surplus. How is that at all like what we have today?

Seriously... you can't see the direct link to BO wanting to renegotiate NAFTA because he thinks it benefits other nations more so than ours? You don't see him wanting to raise tariffs on goods brought into the country to produce a surplus just as happened back then?

Seriously, no, they are not even close... the idea of the US having a trade surplus in our lifetimes is like saying they spotted pterodactyls in downtown Cleveland.

Creating a vast and unsustainable trade surplus, bad, if its even possible... stemming the tide of the vast, growing and perhaps unsustainable trade deficit, good.... comparable to 1928, not even close.

And for the rest... increasing taxes, more gov't spending when we spend too much, bad social programs, promises he can't live up to.. etc.. I suppose all those are vast differences too...

Depends on how you view it, Obama raising taxes is really just him undoing the Bush Tax cuts, back to the level they were when the economy prospered. When you say bad social programs, I have to bring up universal insurance. The fact is that people egregiously injured without insurance increases our tax burden anyway, so using universal coverage in order to leverage better negotiated pricing from healthcare providers seems like a good social program rather than a bad one (the uninsured that pay out of pocket pay 100%, the insured pay the negotiated price, usually between 65-80%).

Ultimately the Health Insurance deal will be determined by how it's implemented. The so called 100% out of pocket only takes into account the people that actually pay, not the ones who pay nothing so that the rest of us and our insurance can cover their costs. In that regards it's a matter of do you want to pay before they go in or after, either way, we're paying.

And the tax issue is larger than most think. This idea that by punishing the rich will help the economy is just bad. For example.. the people over $250K.. I can point to 8-10 of my clients off the top of my head who fall into that category. They all own businesses that supply jobs for people in Fort Wayne, and if you raise their taxes, they aren't going to cut their personal spending, they are going to remove benefits from employees or raise prices on goods, or both.

It sounds great to say we're going to make the rich pay for all the stuff we want to give the poor.. after all.. they can afford it.. and truth is, yes, they can afford it, and they will. But it'll be at the expense of the people under them.... the ones who are supposed to be benefiting from the increased gov't spending.

[quote="cardinal5150"]Ultimately the Health Insurance deal will be determined by how it's implemented. The so called 100% out of pocket only takes into account the people that actually pay, not the ones who pay nothing so that the rest of us and our insurance can cover their costs. In that regards it's a matter of do you want to pay before they go in or after, either way, we're paying.[/qoute]

I agree... My point is that when people dont pay and we cover their costs, we pay 100% of their costs (either directly through tax supported government subsidies that allow hospitals to write this off, or inderectly through rising costs of healthcare). If everyone has insurance, we are paying 65-80% of these costs vs 100% of them. This addresses the indirect cash burdens caused by healthcare writeoffs, and covers the direct costs by allowing providers to stop raising costs to cover defaults.

cardinal5150 wrote:
And the tax issue is larger than most think. This idea that by punishing the rich will help the economy is just bad. For example.. the people over $250K.. I can point to 8-10 of my clients off the top of my head who fall into that category. They all own businesses that supply jobs for people in Fort Wayne, and if you raise their taxes, they aren't going to cut their personal spending, they are going to remove benefits from employees or raise prices on goods, or both.

I think we agree to disagree on this one. In my mind, lowering taxes was a bad idea, as were the rebate checks. Raising taxes on the wealthy isnt what I'm asking for, I'm asking to repeal the ill-advised tax cuts.

cardinal5150 wrote:
It sounds great to say we're going to make the rich pay for all the stuff we want to give the poor.. after all.. they can afford it.. and truth is, yes, they can afford it, and they will. But it'll be at the expense of the people under them.... the ones who are supposed to be benefiting from the increased gov't spending.

I dont think anyone is playing robin hood here... The divide between the middle class and the rich is getting larger (one interesting true conparison between the hoover administration and now), and closing tax loopholes that benefit mostly the wealthy and repealing the tax cuts makes sense to me. It's not some ayn rand type of thing where the rich band together and stop the world in order to wander off in the hills and start their own economic utopia... (a quarter to anyone who can catch a reference to one of William Jenning Bryan's speeches in that comment... you will likely have to have read Atlas Shrugged)

Anyway... I'm off tomorrow to the lake for some sanity.

pez wrote:
I dont think anyone is playing robin hood here... The divide between the middle class and the rich is getting larger (one interesting true conparison between the hoover administration and now), and closing tax loopholes that benefit mostly the wealthy and repealing the tax cuts makes sense to me. It's not some ayn rand type of thing where the rich band together and stop the world in order to wander off in the hills and start their own economic utopia... (a quarter to anyone who can catch a reference to one of William Jenning Bryan's speeches in that comment... you will likely have to have read Atlas Shrugged)

Anyway... I'm off tomorrow to the lake for some sanity.

I don't care for loopholes myself... which is one of the things I like about McCain, he's actually proposing an overhaul of the income tax system. But, in your example.. I believe BO is trying to be Robin Hood.. he's taking from the rich and giving to the poor.. it's clear as day.

The tax cuts helped everyone, but that's a little tidbit that most dem's like to leave out when talking about tax reform, how the Bush tax cuts cut the poor's income tax by 50% in some cases.. the rich sure didn't get that % cut. Our biggest problem was spending wasn't cut, it was increased. And that again is why I like McCain, he wants to cut gov't spending.

cardinal5150 wrote:

pez wrote:
I dont think anyone is playing robin hood here... The divide between the middle class and the rich is getting larger (one interesting true conparison between the hoover administration and now), and closing tax loopholes that benefit mostly the wealthy and repealing the tax cuts makes sense to me. It's not some ayn rand type of thing where the rich band together and stop the world in order to wander off in the hills and start their own economic utopia... (a quarter to anyone who can catch a reference to one of William Jenning Bryan's speeches in that comment... you will likely have to have read Atlas Shrugged)

Anyway... I'm off tomorrow to the lake for some sanity.

I don't care for loopholes myself... which is one of the things I like about McCain, he's actually proposing an overhaul of the income tax system. But, in your example.. I believe BO is trying to be Robin Hood.. he's taking from the rich and giving to the poor.. it's clear as day.

The tax cuts helped everyone, but that's a little tidbit that most dem's like to leave out when talking about tax reform, how the Bush tax cuts cut the poor's income tax by 50% in some cases.. the rich sure didn't get that % cut. Our biggest problem was spending wasn't cut, it was increased. And that again is why I like McCain, he wants to cut gov't spending.

"The tax cuts helped everyone..." If the economy was doing so well, did they need the "help"? Maybe it hasn't been doing well for a while, we just don't know what the problem is so that we can fix it. (I know... I've got my ideas, and you've got yours)

I think we're in agreement that taxing the wealthy isn't going to solve the larger budget problems. I think both candidates are aware that we've got horrendous problems with pork barrel spending and waste. Add to this, the mortgage and credit industry problems. What's the point in worrying about taxing the rich or the middle class? It's like we're giving 4 units of blood without treating a gaping wound.

A year from now, I hope taxes will not be the major focus, I hope it will be overshadowed by energy policy reform. I think everyone will see greater long term benefits from this as opposed to the ever present tax rate flux. People will grit teeth, and argue about tax fluctuations of $300-$1000/yr (for people in our general tax brackets) until we're all old and gray. Even if you make more of your money in investments and face some rough water with capital gains, overall, you are going to do well in that 'future mode' economy if you stay on top of things. I suggest this because it seems you're more of a personal portfolio guy. That's just what you do, that's your industry.