Poll: ‘to fix economy, get out of Iraq.’
Poll: ‘to fix economy, get out of Iraq.’
The AP writes that Americans want to end the Iraq recession by ending the war:
The heck with Congress’ big stimulus bill. The way to get the country out of recession — and most people think we’re in one — is to get the country out of Iraq, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll.
[J]ust 19 percent of the people surveyed said they planned to go out and spend the money [from the rebate checks in the economic stimulus package]; 45 percent said they’d use it to pay bills. And nearly half said what the government really should do is get out of Iraq.
Forty-eight percent said a pullout would help fix the country’s economic problems “a great deal,” and an additional 20 percent said it would help at least somewhat. Some 43 percent said increasing government spending on health care, education and housing programs would help a great deal; 36 percent said cutting taxes.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wait a second. You mean to tell me that they really think we could improve our economy if we stopped spending 15billion dollars a month? What astrophysicist figured that out?
February 8th, 2008 at 6:43 pmThe majority of Americans recognize the disaster that is the Bush Administration and his war.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:43 pmThe billions we have spent (lost) there could have resolved many of the current problems facing ordinary Americans. I realize that the Repugs in Congress would never have approved such expenditures on domestic assistance of any kind, but the point is that the money could have been appropriated.
As it is, a growing number realize that Iraq is the great albatross, and getting rid of that burden is the first step toward over all improvement for Americans.
They (Bush co., Repugs, Dems, etc…) would just find another way to give 70 billion dollars a month to the military.
They are F#cking this country for generations to come.
It’s high time the People demanded more of our representatives.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:46 pm17 Billion a month- not 70.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pmHERE IS HOW THEY WILL DO IT… A NEW COLD WAR, YAY! so clever.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234817.stm
Putin vows ‘arms race’ response
President Putin addressing the Russian State Council, 8 Feb 08
President Putin told the State Council he was not happy with Nato
Putin comments
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin says the world is engaged in a new arms race and Nato is failing to accommodate Russia’s concerns.
In a nationally-televised speech, he condemned Nato’s expansion and the US plan to include Poland and the Czech Republic in a missile defence shield.
“It is already clear that a new phase in the arms race is unfolding in the world,” Mr Putin said.
“It is not our fault, because we did not start it,” he said.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:49 pmThom Hartmann likes to point that the only wasteful government spending is military (and foreign military aid) spending.
When you build a bridge or a road, you invest in commercial infrastructure, in addition to paying the salaries of those that build them (which gets spent in the economy).
When you fund education, you invest in the next generation, in addition to paying the salaries of teachers (which gets spent in the economy).
When you build weapons, you invest nothing; so everything that isn’t a salary is wasted.
Nice to see that the American people understand this for now.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:56 pmwell the stimulus package, or should that be rescue package is a joke in the first place. standard economic theory dictates that once a recession begins giving a tax rebate, or whatever you want to call it, simply dose not work. If your sliding into a recession and get a cheque for $700 in the post from uncle sam you not going to run the nearest mall and buy expencive electronics. Your ether goning to save it or spend it on bills. Nether of these to actions halt an ecanomic down-turn.
What woulod help some what would be to stop spending $17 billion a month on the iraq war, this is of course dependent on where that money would go. If it was simply shifted to other parts of the defence establishment nothing much would change. If on the other hand it was spend on welfare programs, ecanomic development and creating jobs it would have a huge impact.
You just have to look at the New Deal of the 30s to see how government insentivised work programs can help a failing econamy.
February 8th, 2008 at 6:59 pm#8, I mostly agree – such a stimulus package would have worked in an era where we had a trade balance and minimal consumer debt.
A better stimulus package would be a massive public works program. Build roads, bridges, schools, solar banks and wind farms, the electric grid. Things we need anyway, things that employ people here. Prohibit the importation of foreign labor for the jobs too (like they did with Katrina, using foreign scabs to break the labor here at home).
February 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pm36 percent said cutting taxes would help
Wow, that’s got to hurt. Offering to cut taxes has been the mantra of the Right and has won them a few elections. When people are no longer concerned about paying lower taxes, that speaks volumes about the shape of our economy.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pmI have been thinking about a New Deal kind of program for a long time, too, Jason Brown.
It would help restore the infrastructure, reduce unemployment, and move the economy. When I think about the work of the CCC and WPA in the history of post-Depression, I think about a government that took the lemons and made lemonade.
Of course, this is simplistic, but basically, the programs worked.
We should maintain a defense – notice I say defense, not offense. We need a prepared military and certain weapons development if we want to remain a super power, but the extreme disproportionate expenditures of this administration (and Repugnican administrations) has very seriously harmed the nation.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:05 pmPeterW,
February 8th, 2008 at 7:07 pmWe are in agreement too. In addition to a WPA or CCC to rebuild the nation and spur the economy, we could encourage business to think “green” and engineer new industries to wean us off of foreign oil.
Even Economics 101(the course bush got a “gentlemen’s C” in) states that domestic spending dollars help the economy far more than defense.
And here’s the troll-proof, proof:
spending.http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/PERI_IPS_WAND_study.pdf
February 8th, 2008 at 7:10 pmThe stimulus plan simply funds the mandate.
The mandate?
Bush: “Go shopping!”
Kristol: “Be happy!”
Here, have your courtesy check, because I know we’ll get it back the amount of the courtesy check plus the balance of the “Blow shit up!” parade plus interest.
Now, go shopping and be happy. Republicans need a spurt to campaign on this November.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pmPeterW and Marie yes it would have to be public works based, i say this is it one of the few sectors that can employ the numbers of people that it would take to get the econamy moving again. It trully would be a play from the New Deal play book of ecanomic development. One this that could make this difficult though is the huge deficit – this is one thing they didnt realy have to deal with in the 30s.
American also has to get away from the mantra of tax cuts, believe it or not, during the New Deal taxes were actually dramaticlly raised – if my history’s right it think it was by 10-14 per cent.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:13 pmComment by helenahandbasket — February 8, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Massive defense spending is good for neoCons and their material yuppies. One reason we have to put up with YAF, the aspiring next generation of hands-off capitalists.
How noble.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pmDuh!
February 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pmUgh. Wow, look at what the polls say! Slaves to the polls!
As even Paul Krugman notes, it’s pretty poor thinking to suggest that the war and the recession are linked. Oil prices would be extremely high regardless. Sheesh.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pm#11, any military we have should be a nucleus around which we could train up in the event of a real war.
A military this size isn’t big enough for a real war, but is big enough for the temptation of adventurism. I agree that one suitable for defense is necessary; but it’s an expense that’s negligible as investment value.
#15 Taxes, by the end of the New Deal Era, were at extremely high levels for the top earners. And yet business hummed along fine.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:17 pm#18, really? So the massive deficit spending on the war, financed on borrowed Chinese dollars, isn’t eroding the value of the dollar? The eroding dollar isn’t scaring away the foreign investment that sustained the real estate boom and allowed consumers to borrow against their homes well beyond their means?
It’s not the only factor, but it’s a significant one. It requires very poor fiscal policy to sustain.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:21 pmit’s pretty poor thinking to suggest that the war and the recession are linked. Oil prices would be extremely high regardless. Sheesh.
Comment by thirdparty — February 8, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
…so the $600 billion (give or take) that has been dumped into Iraq and Afghanistan hasn’t had an impact on the economy, but a one-time $168 billion WILL?
Sheesh indeed.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:21 pm#20 – Well said, PeterW.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:22 pmthere are a couple of things that should be done: 1- stop building an empire and fighting imperial wars, been British I know that this only ever ends badlly for all. 2- slash the size of the US military and stop spending to much on it. 3- increase levels of welfare and increase the minimum wage.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:22 pmThis is a real economic stimulus package.
- Cut defense budget by 25% immediately
February 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm- End Iraq occupation, bring all troops home
- Close all bases in Iraq
- Raise tax rate back to 90% for income over $10 million
- Move corporate tax rate back to 45%, end loopholes
- Hedge funds must pay regular income rate not 15%
- End subsidies to oil companies, defense contractors
My vision is a society geared more toward public service and less toward GDP, boasting over corporate profits, oversized gated homes, and other material stuff.
Let’s improve the quality of the middle class, bring the poor into the middle class, and compel more compassion from the rich.
Access is the key.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:25 pm#24, return to a tariff-based trade system. It’s not like the Asian economies we buy from don’t have tariffs against our products.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:26 pm#25 I dont think its the middle class that we need to be woried about. Its the poor and the working poor that should be the main consen of the next president. if there level of living is made better, the hole country will do better. At the end of the day a nation can only be judged by how they treat the poor and lowest levels of sociaty. Of course this is not cheap, hence why its never done and requires a welfare state similer to what we have here in the UK.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:29 pmOT, but good information. Use it when a right sider thinks his president is good. Take a read – this is George W. Bush’s resume for when he leaves office:
RESUME
GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington , DC 20520
EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
Law Enforcement:
· I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pleaded guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver’s license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been ‘lost’ and is not available.
Military:
· I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam .
College:
· I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.
Past Work Experience:
· I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
· I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn’t find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
· I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
· With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.
Accomplishments As Governor Of Texas:
· I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.
· I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
· I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
· With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father’s appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President of the United States, after losing by over 500,000 votes.
Accomplishments As President (with 4 3 5 Notable Firsts):
· I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
· I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
· I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
· I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
· I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
· I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
· I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues.
· I’m proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My ‘poorest millionaire, ‘ Condoleezza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
· I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.
· I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.
· My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history,
· My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
· I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
· I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
· I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts
· I appointed more convicted criminals to my administration than any President in U.S. history.
· I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States Government.
· I’ve broken more international treaties than any President in U.S history.
· I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations to remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
· I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
· I refused to allow inspector’s access to U.S. ‘prisoners of war’ detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
· I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US election).
· I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
· I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
· I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
· I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.
· I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. Citizens and the world community.
· I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.
· In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
· I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
· I am supporting development of a nuclear ‘Tactical Bunker Buster,’ a WMD.
· I have so far failed to fulfil my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.
Records And References:
· All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father’s library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
· All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
· All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. I specified that my sealed documents will not be available for 50 years.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pmWell, duh . . . any idiot knows that. Except the Repugs. They are not just ANY bunch of idiots. They are unique and at the top of the idiot food chain. They take “stupid” to new heights.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:33 pm#28 i have to disagree with your assertion that bush is the first president to launch a pre-emptive war. the war with Mexico and Canida were said to be pre-emptive war. Not to mention all the CIA backed was that were said to be pre-emptive.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:35 pmDon’t get mad. Get even.
Volunteer or donate money to Hillary or Obama (I personally support Obama) Now!!
Plug in to the machine and wreak havoc on the RNC death squad. Let them see so many donations to the opposition candidates that they soil their fascist diapers.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:38 pmahh if only it was that simple. At the end of the day the people behind all the candidates, their advisors, all have blood on their hands. ive written an article on my blog call “The Puppet Master”
February 8th, 2008 at 7:41 pmComment by Jason Brown — February 8, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
This is one reason I like commenting. I put forth my views, and a pool of other commenters can read and, if they choose, respond to those views to allow me the chance to fine-tune my thinking.
Great postings.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pmindeed, its always good when a healthy debate grows from a post.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:51 pmWow — it sounds like “the people” are making more sense than the leaders. Whodathunkit.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pmLockheed Martin is America’s largest Defense Contractor. If you purchased $3000 worth of Lockheed stock on Sept. 10, 2001…it would NOW be worth close to $10,000.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:11 pmLockheed makes the F22 fighter jet, selling for 300 million per plane. NONE of these jets have been used in EITHER WAR America is currently involved in.
The president wants three quarters of a TRILLION dollars for defense spending. Que Bono???
Abraham Lincoln said it best, you can fool all of the people some of the time (30%ers), and some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Well, there go the Bush administration’s low expectations.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:18 pmImpeach Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution!
I’d just like to know, is anybody else tired of them figuring things out way too late? It because of stuff like this that I picked my ID
February 8th, 2008 at 8:31 pmWe’ll put the war on the credit card.
Don’t worry my Daddy’s friends will fix things.
They’ve always helped me out before.
No wonder Bush Sr broke down sobbing in public.
You would too if G.W. was YOUR son.
Biggest F*** up in U.S. history.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:32 pmHe belongs in a sandbox with a plastic pail and shovel…..or maybe playing a cowboy cutting brush.
OR maybe he should get the hell out of the public eye and go crawl back into the bottle.
#32 Comment by Jason Brown — February 8, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
“The Puppet Masterâ€
Thanks much for your comments and the link to your blog. Timely and an excellent read. The kind of information so sorely needed, yet hard to locate.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:56 pmWho is the only presidential candidate that promises to get all troops out of Iraq and COMPLETELY end our occupation? Which one won’t send troops into Pakistan? Can you tell me?
February 8th, 2008 at 8:57 pmInstead of getting $600 back. How would you like to get all your income tax back?
February 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pmFor one, there are many reasons why the dollar is falling, and I’m pretty sure it would be losing value with or without this war. But even if I accepted that, the housing bubble was a product of many other factors, and I doubt there’s a strong case for our economic problems being the result of a lack of foreign investment.
And, as Krugman points out, war has expansionary effects. We all learn in high school history how WWII helped boost us out of the long economic slump/Depression; similarly, war boosts demand for US-made goods. I’m not saying that’s a reason for war or anything, but it adds to the reality that there is no Iraq recession.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:58 pmKeep in mind that a lot of that cash went to the manufacturing,transport, etc. of US-made materials for war. This is Krugman’s point – war boosts demand in the US.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:00 pmOh, and by the way, I’m not so sure that a $168 billion stimulus will have much of an impact. The meat-and-bones of it is the rebate, which will temporarily drive up consumption among lower income people. I think history has demonstrated how these kinds of rebates are more of a political stimulus than an economic one, however.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:01 pmGoogle “iraq cost per day” and then try to remain calm…….
Have a valium ready…. or a beer…. or PCP……
February 8th, 2008 at 10:07 pmEven if you searched the darkest corners of the Economic Policy Institute, I’m not sure you could find one serious economist who would agree with this. You may be quick to dismiss economic expertise, but we’re talking about “economic” stimulus here and I think it’s wise to consult experts.
Raising the corporate tax rate may in fact reduce corporate tax revenues. We’ve seen in many European countries how reducing that rate has boosted revenue; in the US, we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. A good long-term stimulus would cut the corporate tax rate, as Democrats have argued for in the past. Closing loopholes wouldn’t be terrible, however.
Defense spending provides a boost to the economy, if you’re a Keynesian. Based on your post, I get a sense that reducing the deficit/debt is the way to stimulate an economy; what you risk is spurring crippling deflation.
Your tax increase proposal is silly. Why would anyone want to work for $10 million or more when they only take home $1 million? Might as well work for less than $10 million in income – or, just get your money through stock options, which aren’t taxed under the income tax (but I guess you could raise capital gains taxes, which would do wonders for the sagging stock market, right?)
I’m with you on ending the oil subsides. While we’re at it, let’s end biofuel subsidies.
I think your remarks demonstrate pure economic illiteracy. That’s why no one proposes such a thing.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:08 pm#47, you mean the policies that created the longest period of sustained economic growth wouldn’t work again?
Economists don’t propose these things because they work for the investor class, not the people.
History tells us what works. Revive the New Deal. Complete it, with what was done in Europe after the war.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:33 pm#43 We all learn in high school history how WWII helped boost us out of the long economic slump/Depression
This is, in fact, rubbish. WWII, in fact, slowed the recovery from the great depression, because it suppressed domestic spending.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:36 pmAs President Reagan entered office in 1981 he repeatedly called for a balanced budget amendment, yet never submitted a balanced budget himself. Republicans controlled the Senate for the first six years of his two terms. Only during the last two years of the Reagan administration was the Congress completely controlled by Democrats, and the records show that the growth of the debt slowed during this period. It appears that the frequently referenced Reagan’s Conservative mythology is contrary to the truth, he was an award winning, record setting liberal spender.
The increase in total debt during Reagan’s two terms was larger than all the debt accumulated by all the presidents before him combined. From 1983 through 1985, with a Republican Senate, the debt was increasing at over 17% per year. While Mr. Reagan was in office this nation’s debt went from just under 1 trillion dollars to over 2.6 trillion dollars, a 200% increase. Reagan’s enormous increase in the national debt was not to pay for any noble cause at all; his primary unapologetic goal was to pad the pockets of the rich. The huge national debt we have today is a living legacy to his failed Neo-Conservative economic policies.
George Bush Sr. followed in Reagan’s shadow after his election in 1988, by increasing the debt on average 11.8% a year during his four years as President. The Neo-Conservatives controlling the Republican Party rewarded him for putting the nation’s future above his party’s ideology by throwing him out of office.
In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem. In his first two years and with a cooperative Democratic Congress he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with a most hostile Congress led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration.
When President Bush II came into office in 2001 he quickly turned all that progress around. With the help of a Republican controlled Congress he immediately gave a massive tax cut based on a failed economic policy. The first tax cut Bush pushed through a willing Republican Congress caused an upswing in government borrowing that was supposed to stimulate the economy, but two years later Bush had to push through yet another tax cut. The second tax cut was needed because the first one did not work. Economic history tells us the second did not work either. Since 2003 total borrowing has exceeded $500,000,000,000 per year.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:00 pmIn 2006 he was holding press conferences bragging that the debt was increasing at the rate of only 300 billion dollars a year, yet in reality it was twice that. Again the facts do not match Neo-Con rhetoric.
Sorry for that long post – but my point is that we cannot afford this war.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:02 pmPeter, there’s some cognitive dissonance coming from your remarks. I was under the impression that the Clinton presidency oversaw the largest period of peacetime economic growth (perhaps economic growth in both peace and war?). Yet, if that’s what you’re referring to, it’s strange because the Clinton administration kept income tax rates below 40%, embraced trade, cut the capital gains tax, cut the corporate tax, etc.
You deride the investor class, but about half of American families own stocks, mutual funds, or retirement accounts. Stock market performance matters to the “people” as well.
I’m interested in how you back that claim up. For now, I’ll just refer you to Krugman, who really has no reason to be distorting the facts here:
I would be interested in how you refute Krugman on this.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:04 pmClinton’s was sustained over only 8 years – the New Deal grew the economy for 50 with the policies you decry as “distastrous”. And Clinton sowed some of the seeds of the current problems, with his acquiescence to unproven (and ultimately foolish) trade policy.
I like Krugman, but he’s very quick to ignore what worked for Roosevelt on because it’s “scary”. We know what works – Friedmanism doesn’t, but real Keynes (not your Chicago-school perversion of it) does.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:11 pmWe know what works – Friedmanism doesn’t, but real Keynes (not your Chicago-school perversion of it) does.
Comment by PeterW — February 8, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
You- you mean the world isn’t flat?
February 8th, 2008 at 11:18 pmFirst things first – how did the economy grow for 50 years exactly? We had poor growth and remained in the Depression throughout the 1930s and had recessions frequently from then on. Recessions have happened less frequently in the past 25 years, however.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:00 amI think he’s referring to Milton Friedman, the father of monetarism.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:14 amI would say that the fact that the fact that pre-war GDP growth rates were similar to the growth rates in the first couple years of the war suggests that it was the New Deal, not the war, that spurred the recovery. Unless the war reached back through time to achieve that end.
Similarly, I’d suggest that the fact that GDP actually contracted in 1943, and again in 1945, shows the burden the war put on the economy. It did grow tremendously in 1944, but only after more than doubling government spending for the second year in a row.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:30 am“More government spending will only hurt the economy especially when it will almost certainly involve raising taxes. Those 43% who think that spending on healthcare, education, and housing programs don’t know anything about economics.
Comment by Tracy2 — February 8, 2008 @ 11:52 pm”
What are you talking about moron? Spending is spending when it comes to inflation/deflation. Government or whoever the hell gets the tax breaks…doesn’t matter. It is money that is getting spent. Now, look up stagflation and realize just what kind of dilemma you trickle down A-holes put us in.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:57 am“I think he’s referring to Milton Friedman, the father of monetarism.
Comment by thirdparty — February 9, 2008 @ 12:14 am”
The father of jackassism or richism. Friedman was a whore for the upper class.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:58 amUsing official numbers indexed to 2000 dollars:
Add in the immediate post-war slump of 46-47, and it’s clear that WWII was not a healthy economic stimulator. And the economy grew 17% the year before the US entered the war, and over 8% the two years before that.
Leaving out WWII and the immediate post-WWII slump (42-46), GDP grew an average of 4.4% per annum in the new deal era, even with the Korean and Vietnam wars and the Oil Embargo.
Reagan and the Bushes see a more modest 2.7% GDP grown per annum. The vaunted Clinton economy – a Republican-lite model – saw only 3.7% average annual growth.
So yes, the New Deal model produces the best growth. And the “debilitating” factors of high tariffs and high taxes on the top tier of income don’t only not stifle the economy, they arguably grow it.
And more importantly than how well the economy is working is whom it’s working for – under the New Deal, the growth in prosperity was broad-based. Under Reagan/Bush^2, it was in the top income brackets. Under Clinton, it was half-way in between.
So yeah, on what actual factual, historical basis can anyone claim that the New Deal is not the best economic model we have?
February 9th, 2008 at 1:00 amI’d be interested in having you back up your claims, since you say things like there was a 1942-46 slump, which is patently false. Real GDP was $1,435,000,000,000 in 1942 and $1,589,000,000,000 in 1946 (due to the drop off on wartime production; 1945 real GDP was $1, 786,000,000,000).
Furthermore, many of the New Deal programs were eliminated pretty quickly, so it’s unclear what you mean by a “New Deal model.” I also think you forget how growth rates are distorted when they happen over a period of time that began with Depression; I mean, Reagan’s numbers would be even better if 1980 was a Depression year, but it wasn’t.
I think you’re totally misguided on tariffs. The Smoot-Hawley tariff, imposed by Hoover, exacerbated the global Depression.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:13 am‘Furthermore, many of the New Deal programs were eliminated pretty quickly, so it’s unclear what you mean by a “New Deal model.‒
You are right!!! The ND programs WERE abandoned quickly. Because FDR didn’t listen to his advisors who said to keep those programs in place…and we went into a recession. But at least you were right for once.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:24 amThe initial source I used showed a slump in ‘43; the official numbers do not, so I retract that statement.
As of my immediately previous post, I’m using the official gov’t GDP figures, and their index to constant (2000) dollars from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (bea.gov).
And no, I said that there was a 45-47 slump. I took out both WWII (42-45) and the following slump (46) because we both agree that WWII contaminates the data; we disagree on which way. Your argument actually gets weaker if we throw them in – the ‘42 gain of 17% makes up for the 11% contraction in ‘46. I even left in the stagnant year of 1947, so as not to risk jiggering the data to meet my expectations.
You explicitly stated that the programs advocated by many here – specifically a top marginal tax rate of 90% – would wreck the economy. Such high rates existed through Reagan (lowered under Kennedy, with loopholes tightened). Despite this, the economy grew briskly, more briskly than either a conservative or “third way” DLC model. Thus, your claim is false on the face of it.
Nor do the averages gain much from including the first couple of post-Depression recovery years; the “peacetime New Deal” period (34-41,47-80) is long enough that a few years do not skew it that much. Even taking into account only the post-war period, despite the shocks it experienced, you’re looking at 4% or so per annum.
The claim that Smoot-Hawley tariffs exacerbated the great depression is bogus; those tariffs were extremely modest; furthermore, a tariff-based system has been a constant through the New Deal period (and, indeed, was strongly advocated by Adam Smith himself). It only began to be dismantled under Reagan through the present, and that coincides with slower annual GDP growth. In contrast, the lifting of tarrifs has decimated domestic manufacturing, despite extremely high productivity levels. This decimation is one major cause of the current weakness in the economy, as it has amounted to an economic hollowing-out. The economy that makes nothing runs on credit: until the credit dries up.
I hear a lot of neo-liberal conventional wisdom from you, but no facts. We’re not buying what you’re selling.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:34 amActually, there’s a great debate as to the causes of that recession. Part of it had to do with Social Security taxes that were limiting people’s disposable income (to consume). The natural business cycle may have also contributed.
But let’s not digress; the point is that we’re debating a broad, lengthy period of economic growth. I don’t deny Keynesian theory, but I’m simply arguing that both the New Deal and the Second World War stimulated the economy. However, it was the war the provided the jobs, production, etc. to really move this economy out of the Depression rut. Most of the increase in real GDP from the 1929 pre-Depression level came from the war, not the New Deal.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:35 amAnd if tariffs were so bad, why do all our trading partners have them?
February 9th, 2008 at 1:37 am#68, the economy contracted three years in a row starting immediately after the war was over. In ‘46 it contracted 11%. That hardly seems like a “stimulus”.
Indeed, it was the contraction of ‘46 that propelled Republicans back to Congress, where they passed the odious Taft-Hartley – which vexes the American worker to this day, only to make such a mess of things that Congress returned to Democratic (and New Dealer) hands in ‘48.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:40 am#67 Such high rates existed through Reagan
Imprecise wording. I meant “until Reagan”, of course.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:43 amMost of the increase in real GDP from the 1929 pre-Depression level came from the war, not the New Deal
You simply can not support this from the data. The gains of ‘42 and ‘43 were impressive, but all of ‘44 was wiped out (and then some) by the burden the war put on the economy through ‘47. Hell, it was 1951 before we were back at peak WWII levels, in constant dollars. Furthermore, the three years before our entry into the war saw 8%, 9%, and 17% per annum growth.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:47 amWhat a collection of lies and hooey from thridparty and tracy2. The lack of economic knowledge between these two is larger than the gap between the rich and poor. neither has a clue of the real world; just a bunch of “free-market” lies and fantasies. Two idiots, blowing each other.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:52 amI don’t think you understand economics. War is not a long-term stimulus – when jobs and production are no longer needed, the economy will slow (or, as in this case, contract). But you have your facts wrong – the contraction occured in 1946 and 1947, but grew in 1948 (that’s 2 years, not 3).
You view these things in black and white – if the economy contracts in 1946, then the war fails to stimulate. But what about 1942-1945, with real GDP increasing by $500 billion, which is a lot in a $1.2 trillion economy. Don’ take my word for it, just ask economists and historians. Heck, I gave you the FDR library’s account of it – are they lying? I guess you would prefer to ignore facts when they’re inconvenient to you.
This isn’t a logical argument at all. It’s like saying, “If farm subsidies are so bad, why do we and our allies have them?” Good intentions can still lead to bad policies, as in the case with these tariffs. They’re not good economics, and you would know that if you had ever taken economics (you may have, but it’s hard for me to believe that based on what you’ve said). Our partners, to answer you question, have tariffs because they protect politically sensitive industries. They distort the market, but that’s the sad truth. Smoot Hawley, you may know, sent the world economy into further contraction since no one wanted to trade.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:55 amIf anything, other than getting us out of the Great Depression, Washington had done basically nothing but hamper the U.S. economy.
Comment by Tracy2 — February 9, 2008 @ 12:06 am
there’s as stupid a statement as will ever be made on this site, right there.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:56 amComment by thirdparty — February 9, 2008 @ 1:55 am
you’re comparing apples to Volkswagens. WW2 was a world war, this iraq thing is an occupation and excuse to rape the American tresury. it has done virtually nothing to expand the economy, compared to a real, declared, necessary war. You’re quite wrong, because your basis is false. You’ve made a series of baseless statements that are only your obviously unimformed opinion, without facts to support them.
Troll idiot.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:00 amYou’re right, Lefty. Just me, Tracy2, and, oh, Paul Krugman who are making this claim. Go take an econ course and learn something.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:01 amGo take an econ course and learn something.
Comment by thirdparty — February 9, 2008 @ 2:01 am
well, as long as I’m not taking the econ course you’re flunking. krugman doesn’t make the same claims you do. You’re catching a cheap ride by misrepresenting him. Nothing new from the likes of you.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:04 amAgain, I’m basically reiterating the comments of Paul Krugman. Maybe you would call him an “unimformed” “troll idiot” also, but I’m just trying to state basic, fundamental economics here. Wars increase demand. I never made an attempt to really compare this war with WWII, other than to say that they both have had an effect of boosting demand on US production. I would argue, and you might agree, that WWII was far more stimulatory than this war, not only because more production was needed but also because it created many more jobs. That’s certainly true. But that doesn’t take away from the effect of this Iraq war to boost demand on war products. I’ll paste the Krugman quote again in case you missed it:
February 9th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Please tell me how Krugman and I differ on this. We’re both saying that war boosts an economy. I agree with his point here, too:
“But economics isn’t a morality play, in which evil deeds are always punished and good deeds rewarded.”
February 9th, 2008 at 2:07 amBy the way, I got an “A” in my econ course, thank you very much. Please, Lefty, I implore you, tell me where Krugman and I differ on this simple matter of the economic impact of war (you might want to read his entire post); I hope you’ll engage on the substance here rather than spout pejoratives.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:09 amKrugman has been wrong before, by his own admission. there hasn’t been nearly enough expansion of this economy to measure, so it’s all smoke and mirrors, at the moment. The billions being spent in iraq are going to graft and corruption as much as good and services. Ignoring the facts that are in your face is not “economics’.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:09 amI think your whole argument relies on a faulty premise – that is, the contraction you identify is a consequence of the “burden the war put on the economy.” In fact, it’s actually due to the fact that demand, jobs, etc. declined as the war ended. Notice how there is a slight dip in real GDP in 1945, although it is still very strong, and then a greater dip in the post-war years.
You still refuse to answer the key question: how do you reconcile your impressions with the account from the FDR Library?
February 9th, 2008 at 2:15 amYes, Krugman has been wrong, but when he says that he usually refers to predictions he tried to make. I’ve never heard him admit he was wrong about historical analysis – maybe you can enlighten me. This is not an issue of prognostication but history; Krugman is illustrating something that is basically a consensus thing. As I told Peter, the FDR Library acknowledges this:
February 9th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Lefty, since you joined this debate midway through, you may be getting the wrong impression. Again, I’m not trying to suggest this war has been great for the economy. I think, like wars generally, the “Iraq war nonetheless acts as a sort of WPA, supporting employment directly and indirectly.” I also don’t buy that the war has really been a factor in the recession, but you can see my arguments on that above.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:20 amPeter, one issue we haven’t touched on is unemployment. Instead of just focusing on real GDP, I would note that the war had a tremendous impact on unemployment rates, which were pretty stubborn throughout the Depression.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:23 amWas this the, “No Shit, Sherlock” poll?
duh…..
February 9th, 2008 at 2:36 amNot much of a multiplier effect on manufacturing and expending bullets and bombs.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:42 amJust for example, what about the jobs created at a weapons factory, and how the workers there make an income, which they can use to save, invest, and consume, and thus add to the national economy?
February 9th, 2008 at 3:25 amOne of the articles cited by TP in it’s argument for an “Iraq recession” is by Robert Shapiro. Some of his points are relevant to what we’ve been discussing:
He also notes:
I agree with both of these excerpts. I also think he’s right to link war and recession in very literal sense, because, yes, war can cause uncertainty. So, you have to balance the boost you get from wartime demand with the global uncertainty when considering the economic ramifications of war. I, like Paul Krugman, disagree that the current slowdown is linked strongly to the war. I’ve made this case above, but essentially we had both domestic and global growth at high rates in the midst of this war, so right away we should be skeptical of the link. Furthermore, without a war in Iraq, oil would still be awfully high, and it’s unclear how much the price of oil has contributed to a slowdown that is more intimately tied to housing and credit woes.
Finally, I don’t think the deficit and debt are all that linked to the recession either; in fact, some economic growth results from the demand increase that a war engenders, as I’ve discussed before with relation to this war and WWII (though I acknowledge that WWII as much, much different in the nature of the boost).
February 9th, 2008 at 4:02 am28 excellant list
On his criminal record
1998
“Asked whether he had been arrested on anything ‘after 1968,’ the governor replied, ‘No.’ [Dallas Morning News]
Mr. Bush has now admitted to an arrest and conviction in 1976 for drunk driving.
11/3/2000
Concerning his drunk driving case, Mr. Bush told a press conference, “No, there was no court. I went to the police station.”
Court documents show a hearing on Mr. Bush’s drunk driving conviction. He paid a fine, and his license was suspended.
6/23/2000
Regarding his 1972 National Guard service in Alabama, “I was there on a temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time,” Bush told a news conference. “I made up some missed weekends.”
His orders, dated Sept. 15, 1972, said: “Lieutenant Bush should report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, DCO, to perform equivalent training.” Turnipseed said, “To my knowledge, he never showed up… Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not… I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered.” No records or eyewitnesses have been found to corroborate Mr. Bush’s story despite extensive searching by the Bush campaign and news media. You would think someone would remember meeting the son of our Ambassador to the U.N.
FOR A FULL LIST ON GEORGES MILLION LIOES CHECK THIS WOW
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html
February 9th, 2008 at 9:29 amOf the 22 most wanted terrorists listed by the FBI after the 9/11 attack, only one has been located.
this is a joke ha ha ha
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html
February 9th, 2008 at 9:31 am1. Let’s remember that part of the post-war dip was the vast numbers of soldiers coming home and expecting to find jobs.
2. How many plants have converted over to war production? How many defense contractors were hiring hundreds of thousands of workers to deal with the massive amounts of materiel needed?
Let’s remember that we have a defense industry that has been working at what used to be considered full-bore war production. Moreover, what’s being used? Humvees? That’s fine, but our nuclear powered aircraft carriers and ballistic missile submarines aren’t finding much to do, nor are our hypersonic interceptors—nor our ballistic missile defense system that doesn’t work.
The problem is that we’re fighting an occupation with soldiers’ blood–while still maintaining our vast array of cold war weapons for use against a hyper-technological enemy that no longer exists.
Economically, we’re fighting three wars: Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Cold War. If we weren’t fighting the third, we would be able to afford (except in blood) the other two.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:12 amthirdparty is another troll you guys actually listen to them……I can’t believe it.
tell me that the trillion dollars spent on Iraq would not have fixed our health care system if properly used……think that might have helped our economic woes?
February 9th, 2008 at 10:30 amComment by thirdparty
Two things:
One, the article you posted is from 2002, before we knew that Bush had no intention of leaving the country.
Two, the article negects to mention all the off-budget spending that took place, which easily made the total seem smaller than it really was.
If you’re thinking this bit you posted proves – or even suggests – that war spending isn’t responsible for the recession, you haven’t proved the case. Not, at least, with with an article from ‘02, before the war even started.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:58 amThose that think pulling out of Iraq would help the economy are mistaken. While our federal government may spend less money on war related activities, the instability that would arise in that region of the world would send oil prices through the roof – crushing any benefit of reduced war spending.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:02 am“Finally, I don’t think the deficit and debt are all that linked to the recession either; in fact, some economic growth results from the demand increase that a war engenders, as I’ve discussed before with relation to this war and WWII (though I acknowledge that WWII as much, much different in the nature of the boost).”
Comment by thirdparty
This also doesn’t take into account the huge numbers of private contractors, something no previous war had. To attempt to equate other wars with Iraq just doesn’t compute. It’s quite a different story, in terms of the money spent (both on, and off budget) than WW2, the Korean war, or Vietnam. Perhaps it was true of previous wars, but Iraq is an entirely different kind of beast.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:04 amThose that think pulling out of Iraq would help the economy are mistaken. While our federal government may spend less money on war related activities, the instability that would arise in that region of the world would send oil prices through the roof – crushing any benefit of reduced war spending.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Since the Saudis are already talking about raising prices to curtail US demand, your point is nonsense.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:06 amTHIS is the message for 2008:
If you like Bush’s War & Bush’s Economic Disaster — Vote McCain
February 9th, 2008 at 11:39 amComment by Jason M. Hendler
Since the Saudis are already talking about raising prices to curtail US demand, your point is nonsense.
Comment by barfly — February 9, 2008 @ 11:06 am
Good point, barfly, but then, most of Jason’s points are nonsense.
Interesting how those who defend the notion that the war spending has no relation to the recession fail to acknowledge the deficit spending inevtiably spawned waging such a war as this, while cutting taxes at the same time.
They also disregard the massive practical differences between this occupation and WWII, in which the entire nation was mobilized for the war effort, including more than 10% of the US population. This effort resulted in an unemployment rate of less than 2% in 1945.
By contrast, the deficit war spending for Iraq has had little to no impact on unemployment, the effort has touched relatively few Americans directly, and the increase in production for military contractors has been fairly well isolated from the economy at large. All factors completely opposite the environment during WW2.
But the biggest impact has to be the deficit spending, which leads to more borrowing, which leads to less confidence abroad in the US economy, which leads to less investment, which leads to stagflation. We’re not there yet, but it’s just over the next little hill.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:03 pmThose that think pulling out of Iraq would help the economy are mistaken. While our federal government may spend less money on war related activities, the instability that would arise in that region of the world would send oil prices through the roof – crushing any benefit of reduced war spending.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
What “instability” would occur?
The amount of oil coming out of Iraq right now is barely at pre-2003 levels.
How much of an impact would a US withdrawl really have on oil production in the country?
And instead of comparing Iraq to WWII, how about a comparison to Vietnam?
February 9th, 2008 at 12:05 pm#99 – I am under the impression that the price of oil in the futures markets is inflated by at least 50% because of our pressence in Iraq and another 15% – 25% for our threatening posture toward other middle eastern countries – primarlily Iran . I have seen it touched upon in financial circles but never mentioned in the MSM – I wonder why.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:08 pmInstead of getting $600 back. How would you like to get all your income tax back?
Comment by Alejandro
Ok, I’ll bite. What would we then use to run this country? Are you one of those who wants to privatize our government?
February 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pmComment by Dreary Urbanite
What?? Our current presence in Iraq AND the Bush administrration’s Middle East policy is having a detrimental effect on oil prices???
Well, that can’t be right.
Because it would refute the whole “we need to stablize the Middle East by keeping troops in Iraq” argument.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:51 pmAlejandro….you like Ron Paul…don’t you?
February 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pmMore government spending will only hurt the economy especially when it will almost certainly involve raising taxes. Those 43% who think that spending on healthcare, education, and housing programs don’t know anything about economics.
Comment by Tracy2
Loon Tracy totally ignores the fact that government spending has doubled during the rein of her hero Herr Bush. This and some other bad economic decisions have driven us into a recession that might just end up a depression. But to loons like Tracy, this is good economics. I will suggest that loon Tracy is the one that doesn’t know anything about economics.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:54 pmThose that think pulling out of Iraq would help the economy are mistaken. While our federal government may spend less money on war related activities, the instability that would arise in that region of the world would send oil prices through the roof – crushing any benefit of reduced war spending.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Tool Fool Troll Jason doesn’t think that the price of oil has already gone through the roof? He’s too stupid to see that we have destabilized the region by invading Iraq. We have done NOTHING to stabilize the middle east. It’s time for us to get out of the middle east and stop minding other people’s business. If we start minding our own business once again, I expect that the animosity the people in the middle east feel towards us will diminish.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:57 pmLockheed Martin is America’s largest Defense Contractor. If you purchased $3000 worth of Lockheed stock on Sept. 10, 2001…it would NOW be worth close to $10,000.
My point is that not all sectors of the economy are suffering under the Bush Presidency. Unfortunately for the overall economy, all the dollars flowing into the defense industries are TAX DOLLARS.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pmNo PROBLEM with a Single Payer System for Defense Contracts.
Our economy is the result of the housing bubble popping, which is expected to fall another 25%. That bubble popped as oil prices soared due to wars in the middle east (which were started on 9/11) that drove up oil prices and drastically increased our energy costs. Withdrawing at this point would just destablize / increase oil prices further.
While the US has upped the CAFE standards, we will still use a lot of it for awhile longer, so we can’t afford to abandon those countries yet.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:18 pmJason.
Oil was $22 a barrel right after Sept 11, 2001. The Saudi’s, ratteled by the terrorist attack and economic disruption, flooded the market with oil.
This was before we lost the moral highground and world support by invading Iraq. This was before we rejected Iran’s offer to help us fight terrorism and provide stability for the middle East, by the Axis of Evil speech.
And there is a lot of daylight between abandoning a country and occupying it.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:35 pm“While the US has upped the CAFE standards, we will still use a lot of it for awhile longer, so we can’t afford to abandon those countries yet.”
Countries? Outside of Iraq, where else are troops going to pull out?
February 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pmI agree that Iraq is much different front those wars. But I’m suggesting that , like war in general, it has boosted demand for certain things, and thus has added to the economy via Keynesian theory. But position, like Paul Krugman’s, is that this reality is coupled with another reality – that Iraq isn’t really linked to the recession whatsoever.
As Krugman said, “One thing I get asked fairly often is whether the Iraq war is responsible for our economic difficulties. The answer (with slight qualifications) is no.”
The one area where you might consider Iraq as contributing to recession is oil. But Krugman states that, “high oil prices are a drag on the economy, and the war has some — but probably not too much — responsibility for pricey oil. Mainly high-priced oil is the result of rising demand from China and other emerging economies, colliding with sluggish supply as the world gradually runs out of the stuff.” Even if you argue the war has added to rising oil costs, which is true, it’s really unlikely that it had a big effect. Oil would still be incredibly high if we hadn’t gone to war.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:45 amFred, maybe people listen to me and give me a fair shot because they aren’t as closed-minded like yourself.
You are correct that we could spend money differently. But the question is whether the war has added to the recession; it has not, because oil would be high anyway and, as we’ve gone over, there is a significant demand boost from wartime production.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:48 amI want to be clear about this. I posted the article to demonstrate two things: 1) the argument for how WWII stimulated the economy; and 2) how, theoretically, the Iraq war does the same. This has played out in practice, but I never argued that it is at all comparable to the massive boost of WWII.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:49 amIraq has done nothing to “fix our economy” as you all know it has made things worse, Sure, in history shows wars have stimulated economies, but it also show that’s almost every war started, the country that starts it ends up with a horrible deficit. Look at Germany in both WW…look at the U.S. in Vietnam, I really don’t see the need to stay in the Middle East, bring our boys home, and defend from the inside! And as for fixing the economy, there are a few SIMPLE things the government (and the citizens) can do.
1. Get out of Iraq.
If We Pull out of Iraq we will save Billons a month,(which we could put towards the other steps) and as for security, if we have our boys at home that will really increase our national security…(and maybe a few special ops tactical forces back in the middle east just to prevent genocide and the such,)
2. Invest in Green Industry.
Since the Middle East has most of the oil in the world and we buy most of it, the big Arab oil companies are SUPER RICH! America should stop sending any aid to the Middle East WHATSOEVER! They have the cash to fix their own poverty problems. If American invests and green industry such as Solar Panels, we could really reduce the dependency on oil. Think of it! We would highly educated people to make and design the panels. Not to mention installing, maintance, repair…and it’s not just the solar power. Think of wind farms, hydrogen cars, and recycling. Those could employ millions of Americans.
3.DO NOT SEND MONEY TO EVERYONE!
If every one gets $1,200 doesn’t that mean that the value of the dollar will go down? Think about it. We will start to see that every thing is going to cost $1,200 all of the sudden. Use that money to buy those Americans solar panels, or put it towards heath care.
4. STOP rewarding bad behavior.
The system stinks and it effects everyone. I think it’s really sad that a 15 year old pregnant girl gets free healh care to deliver her baby and another girl who is getting loans to get through collage (basically paying for everything herself) can’t get simple coverage!
Please remember I am only a junior in high school, and I want to know what you intellectuals think of my plans to fix America…
April 4th, 2008 at 12:11 pm