The Limping Middle Class

We should return manufacturing to the US, Everything on the shelves is made in China, ok most of it. Put tremendous tax on companies exporting those jobs outside of the US

If low taxes on the wealthy (ie the "job creators) actually led to "job creation," then WHERE ARE THE JOBS???? We currently tax hedge fund managers at a tax rate below that of a typical nurse or cop.

So we are already going easy on the "job creators" when it comes to taxes. But in case nobody has noticed, THEY ARE NOT CREATING JOBS.

It's the same with clean air and clean water regulations. If regulating business to create less pollution decreases jobs, and removing regulations increases jobs, then WHERE ARE THE JOBS? We are already going easier on business in terms of environmental regulations than any other developed country, yet in case nobody has noticed, THEY ARE NOT CREATING NEW JOBS.

The conclusion? It's bullshit that equitable taxation of the rich stifles job creation. And it's bullshit that environmental regulation stifles job growth.

BULLSHIT!!!!

Actually, GG, it's worse than that.

Right now would be an excellent time to scrap a bunch of obsolete ozone creating power plants and replace them with more efficient modern ones. It'll have to be done eventually, and it'll be far cheaper to do it now. Capital and people and machinery are sitting idle, which makes the cost of employing them lower.

When interest rates are 2%, rational people invest in as much as possible, so long as they can see where the customers will be. The problem today is that the long Reagan era decimated the middle class and the housing bubble and bust wounded those remaining, so customers are in short supply.

But we know there are going to be customers for power plants. Now is the time for stronger environmental regulations, stronger financial regulations, and a weaker dollar. If businesses are forced to pay for the resources they use, they'll use them in a more intelligent way. If scamming and skimming becomes less profitable, they'll shift to production and service -- and hire instead of just passing profits through to CEOs and financial securities traders.

Uhm, do I actually agree with financeg? OMG.

Except for the weaker dollar, which will only drive up the cost of commodities and make things worse.

hasnt the dollar been weaker?

Urbandigs, I'm not talking about the day to day fluctuations that excite traders.

The dollar has been overvalued for years -- that's why we have a trade deficit. If it were at a fair value, we'd be producing more here and buying less abroad. This would mean more jobs for Americans (and, yes, the stuff at Walmarts would be more expensive, a price well worth paying for reviving the middle class).

Much of the pain in the (real) middle class is the result of the high dollar, which has led to exporting good jobs and importing cheap clothing and electronics.

The high dollar, combined with the legal changes that largely protect investors and professionals but not blue collar workers from international competition, is also a significant part of the rise in inequality in the US. (E.g., so-called "free" trade agreements usually strengthen licensing, patent and copyright regulation that protect doctors and pharmaceutical and entertainment companies from international competition, while weakening pollution and labor protections and increasing the mobility (and therefore the bargaining power) of capital.)

Reagan took away the import duties that protected American workers.

The only reason Toyota and other automakers are MAKING CARS IN THE USA is because of the import duties.

China needs to start rolling it's profits back into the US.

Walmart sold this country out in 1996, when they were facing certain backruptcy. Every dollar spent in Walmart is $3 that would have been in our economy if the product had been made in the US.

What? Cut down imports? Why would we do that, when we can reduce the value of the dollar and screw the American worker?

>China needs to start rolling it's profits back into the US.

China allows americans to live beyond their means by buying our debt.

Japan finances there own debt.. ie they buy their own JGBs. so Although their debt to GDP ratio is over 200% their currency remained strong and appreciated during the latest financial crisis.

unless Americans learn to live with in out means, China will own us.

finance guy- if you weaken the us dollar -- America becomes for sale. thats a bad idea.

A weak dollar also makes imports more expensive ie Oil and OJ( if you looked at your tropicana carton lately we get a lot of or Juice from Brazil not Brentwood).

sorry if this is obvious, but in some ways our most precious (American) asset consists of 1) rule of law, 2) political system that functions well (though recent congressional fights would lead you to doubt it), 3) relative lack of corruption (again, hard to fathom, but still far less than non-western countries), and 4) extensive infrastructure (country fully built out with roads, pipelines, water systems, etc. in every metro area).

We take all these for granted, but that's why China agrees to park so many profits in dollars / treasuries. At our government's most dysfunctional, our economy is still a lot more predictable than many others'.

We need to keep our heads, and appreciate all these factors (and I don't mean this as blind American exceptionalism at all), and realize how hard they are to replicate. Probably the railroads (bad, corrupt process) in the 1800s, and the New Deal-initiated public works projects in the 1900s (big-government programs that led to a lot of modernization in an organized manner that the free-market would have done haphazardly) were the sorts of things that we're now still reaping the benefits of.

China and India will get to the same place eventually, but these projects take generations, not a decade, to finish.

Here's a good example: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/indians-add-facebook-before-tap-water-as-smartphones-reach-poor.html

I mean this as a reason for optimism about the U.S.'s advantaged and likelihood of eventual economic bounceback. The Times article's points about income inequality exposes that there's a corrosive effect on the society if we don't get more of the population participating fruitfully in the economy. (Sure, overregulation and overtaxation can be corrosive, too, but those haven't been the problem for a long time.)

>China allows americans to live beyond their means by buying our debt.

America allows Chinese people to live beyond their means by buying their stuff and keeping a lot of people employed who would otherwise be farmers.

No argument that he middle class is "limping" - but where does the fault lie? Robert Reich, as always, seeks wealth redistribution as the answer. Sure the gap is widening but redistribution will only put all of us in the same sinking boat. America has allowed its manufacturing and skill job base to wither away. There needs to be an emphasis on education, the return of vocational training, and a real sense of thrift and value. Expensive homes, $50,000 SUVs, granite countertops, and expensive vacations are not for everyone. They are obtained through hard work over long periods of time - not by easy credit. As for redistribution - Mr. Reich and his Washington cronies need to go after the "smartest guys in the room" who brought us the mortgage / banking bubble - hefty fines and jail time would be something to see.

i nominate "another guy" for President no.... changed my mind(i am allowed to do that) sjtmd is a better choice..

All the politicians avoid the fundamental issue which is holding back middle class.
- Most kids do not work hard in school. Being cool is valued far more than being smart. There needs to be more focus on math / science with a clear message to the kids that these subjects take dedication and hard-work to learn but rewards are higher. It is not just about having the right teachers but having parents take active interest in their kids education rather than leaving it to the teachers. American schools are overstaffed by non-teaching staffs and parents have come expect that. It is a very hard issue to fix.
- Good health care can not be free for every one. Some basic health care can be. Advanced healthcare should require private insurance. However, it is very hard to ration the medical care to the people who have insurance under the current structure. One way is to say govt only has $1000 per person to insure and free insurance companies from an obligation to cover reasonable treatments as some reasonable treatments can be very expensive.

- Personal responsibility of individuals. e.g. I will take the loan if some one is willing to offer it to me rather that if I can not repay the loan or declared bankruptcy, I lose my voting rights.

- If some one is completely dependent on the govt (earned benefits no included), no voting rights.

So..what do corporations lose?

"The dollar has been overvalued for years"

Drivel, your economic theories make no sense. Exchange rates are primarily a function of interest rates, except for ones that don't float freely, such as China's. Exchange rates do not take into account a) tax rates; b) infrastructure; c) cost structures; d) labor, all of which affect whether or not manufacturing occur here. China has made a deliberate decision to keep its exchange rate artificially low - it results in inflation, and current account imbalances which is basically money with nowhere to got. Except right back into Treasuries.

It's a silly policy - as silly as the gold standards, and in the long-term it will fail.

So people without insurance sould die because treatment to save them will cost the insurance compnaies too much money?

"One way is to say govt only has $1000 per person to insure"

What? $1000? Have you never had a medical bill in your life? An ambulance ride costs $800. A night in the hospital costs $1200. Already, we are double what you are willing to pay.

"Personal responsibility of individuals. e.g. I will take the loan if some one is willing to offer it to me rather that if I can not repay the loan or declared bankruptcy,"

How about corporate responsibility? The banks and investment companies gave out these loans, will the full knowledge that they were "liar loans" and then they DOUBLED their crimes by turning them around and selling them to pension funds, states and individuals and saying they were "good investments". Then they TRIPLED their crimes by hedging AGAINST the real estate bubble and making more profit. Then they QUADRUPLED their crime by asking the taxpayers to bail them out, and threatening to ruin the economy if we didn't give them $$$. Now they are FURTHER MULTIPLYING their crimes by not loaning out the money that we gave them and crippling the economy.

I think slapping people on the wrist for taking a bad loan is one thing, but ignoring the ingrained, systemized criminal activity of corporations is just naive.

Socialist, We do not have the money to pay high quality health care for every one. Yes that means some people will die as they could not afford a treatment costing 100K. Insurance companies are not charities. They only offer the treatment if the premium covers the cost. Due to the cost of high health care insurance, which is largely due to best treatment available if you are insured, manufacturing jobs are going to countries without the healthcare burden.

Of course we have the money you clown. We would have the money if we took profit out of heaothcare and we restored tax rates to their Reagan levels. And we ended the wars.

"manufacturing jobs are going to countries without the healthcare burden."

That's because in those countres, the govt. pays all the healthcare costs through single payer healthcare you dimwit.

Or we could return the top tax rate to 92%, which is what it was during the the administration of Socialist president Dwight Eisenhower.

Healthcare should be handled her like a welfare state, it will keep jobs here and will make things a bit more fair around here.

needsadvice,
-In my mind person who took the loan has bigger responsibility rather than person who suffered the loss due to making a bad loan.
- Banks who knowingly packaged the bad loans claiming they were good loans are responsible to investors in these loans - and they have been paying plenty of money to settle the claims.
- On the $1000, your friends will be driving you to the hospital rather than an ambulance as was the case in the old days. Free treatments will be treatment which existed 20 years back. For new innovation, unless cheaper that the one existing 20 years back, you need private insurance.
- Night in the hospital will be for rare emergencies not due to an old lady feeling lonely on christman and going to emergency room complaining that she is not feeling too well. If this old lady and her family had to pay for a part of the treatment, they will not be using this carelessly. Also, more people will have their older parents living with them and paying for their healthcare cost beyond basics.

i meant "handled here"

Socialist/Needadvice,
What about
- If some one is completely dependent on the govt (earned benefits not included), no voting rights.

"On the $1000, your friends will be driving you to the hospital rather than an ambulance as was the case in the old days."

I'm sure that will work great in Manhattan, where most people don't have a car. WIll my friends have to carry me onto the subway to take me to the hospital? Better make sure there is no track work that day, or else I'm DOA.

Perfect!! socialist is the epitome of our problems. You try to offer a solution he does not like, he gets angry and resorts to lowly behavior.

"- If some one is completely dependent on the govt (earned benefits not included), no voting rights."

I agree. All bank executives and defense contractors should lose their voting rights.

Taxi!!

Socialist, what about people on medicaid? should they lose their voting right?

300 mercer reminds me of the conservative guy in this cartoon:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/05/1012310/-Conservative-Jones-and-the-mystery-of-liberal-behavior?via=blog_1

Socialist, why do not you move to Cuba. They will welcome you.

Why don't you move to the free market paradise of Somalia? They will welcome you.

And leave the wonderful country built on hard work and ideas of capitalists who won over communism and socialism? Just because a socialist says?

Sorry to disappoint you, but the country was built by the GOVERNMENT and union labor.

Infastructure? All built by the govt.

The internet your on right now? Invented by the govt.

corporations rarely lose anything. Nothing new.

We ebat the communists? Really? All we did was trade in the Soviet Union for the Chinese.

*best*

*beat*

Socialist, Have you check what percentage of taxes are paid by the top 50% earners (97%). Socialists are just leaches to the society by living in subsidized housing and retiring at 50 from the union job by scammin the tax payers.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

"Socialist, Have you check what percentage of taxes are paid by the top 50% earners (97%"

That is if you ONLY count Federal Income taxes, which are only 40% of Federal taxes collected, and Federal Taxes are only 2/3 of US taxes collected.

Your type ALWAYS excludes Federal Gas, Paayroll, and other taxes, plus all state and local taxes. State and local taxes are, in 49/50 states, regressive. In states like Texas, they are HIGHLY regressive. In TX, the poorest 20% pay 6X the percentage of their income - 12% - in taxes than the richest 20% (under 2%).

"We do not have the money to pay high quality health care for every one."

Every other industrialized country in the world does. Even Argentina does.

Of course under our current fee-for-service system there isn't enough money; but under a single-payor system, like most of the world has, there's money aplenty. Vested interests keep us from being healthy: the Republican Party thinks it's better to keep health insurance companies rich and their executives well-paid than it is to make sure we have a healthy population. Makes no sense, but neither does subsidizing soda manufacturers through food stamps.

steve, You have a point. However,
- Most of the industrialized world rations the health-care but we do not once some one has insurance. You have to wait for a long time in Canada to see a specialist. Also, cost benefit is strictly analyzed.
- In any case, the rest of the industrialized world is having trouble as well (think Europe) as generous entitlements are not sustainable. People who are in their 60's got too good of a deal as they did not pay enough into the system to account for longevity and improving quality (and expense) of health care.
- Also, in many of the industrialized countries, even people who make less income pay some income tax providing them some incentive to check govt waste but in America almost 50% of the people pay no income tax and they are ones who demand most govt services.
- We also allow for low-income immigration, rather than a merit based immigration like Canada, which is very expensive in terms of health-care and social security.

"Most of the industrialized world rations the health-care but we do not once some one has insurance."

And that's somehow not rationing? And deductibles and co-insurance and formularies and preferred providers are not a form of rationing? Get real.

"the rest of the industrialized world is having trouble as well (think Europe) as generous entitlements are not sustainable"

The industrialized world is going through a rough spot, but medical costs aren't what's doing it.

"even people who make less income pay some income tax providing them some incentive to check govt waste but in America almost 50% of the people pay no income tax"

OMG. You actually BELIEVE the Republican Talking Points. The problem in the US isn't that people aren't paying income tax - those who make enough money, do. The problem is that people aren't even making enough money anymore to pay income tax.

I find it hard to believe - and actually a little sickening - that you'd have a person making $20k a year pay Social Security (6%) and income tax on top of that, whereas a hedge fund manager pays a flat 15%, no Social Security at all.

"We also allow for low-income immigration, rather than a merit based immigration like Canada"

More bullshit. We allow immigration of family members, AND merit-based immigration, AND a lottery system. Canada is bigger than the US and has a population half of California's. They NEED people (as does Australian, BTW).

Our healthcare system is just wasteful. Period, end of story. Our tax rates - including with state taxes - are approximately the lowest in the world. Our bridges are falling into the Mississippi River, our students can't read or add, and a good chunk of the population gets their healthcare when it's a) too late; or b) in the emergency room, both of which are very expensive. We spend gazillions on stupid wars in stupid countries, and our income distribution is the most skewed of the industrialized world.

It makes no sense, and this is coming from a person from the top end of the income bracket. If there is no middle class there is no prosperity, there is no demand. Our culture and influence die with the middle class, who are really, really struggling right now.

Stop reading the Sarah Palin / Rick Perry Talking Points, and look at the actual states of their states. Alaska receives more in federal largesse than any other state in the union, and Texas is at the bottom of every list everywhere on everything.

There is a reason why rich people live in high tax states: because those taxes buy you something. Alabama has really low taxes. Why don't you send your kids to public school there?

"WHERE ARE THE JOBS????"

asks the man who wants to tax everyone...

how about create a job or service and actually EMPLOY people??

oh wait, bc ironically doing so would be well, too taxing.

oh irony, bed me.

300 mercer: you are, i gather, of the mind that you did it on your own. no help from the government. just your hard work.

what happens to you if the garbagemen decide to not pick up the garbage?

socialist and steve live in their fantasy lands. This country was founded and grew through principles of limited government. The periods of our history in which government intervention in the private economy were highest were the worst times in our history. Somalia is capitalist??? It is a dictatorship run by warlords

steve reads the NY Times and parrots whatever it says. Tax the rich, spread the wealth, Keynesianism, blah, blah . . . all policies that have failed over history.

1941-1981?

cc, I along with my neighbors will hire someone to throw the garbage or do it myself if I could not afford the garbagemen. Even better, may be an opportunit to start garbage collection business.

are you kidding?

Or maybe we want the garbage picked up, and are willing to pay for it including on a progressive scale for our own interests and the greater societal interests which do benefit us, but we want the scale and amounts lower so that there is less money for corrupt politicians, graft, patronage, nepotism, special interests, welfare, entitlements and the like from the Republicans, Democrats, Whig Party, Tea Party, and the Know Nothings.

cc, I am not. You do not have to go far to see how it works. In the hamptons, you get big garbage bags at $5/6 a bag. You have to take the bag to the garbage disposal site yourself. In NYC, someone will take your garbage bags for $5 a bag.

Please translate Hamptons garbage disposal to Columbia County garbage disposal.

ah, here we go: http://www.columbiacountyny.com/depts/solid%20waste/index.html

Columbia County Solid Waste Department
401 State Street
Hudson, New York 12534
518-828-2737 Phone
518-828-2245 Fax
David S. Robinson, P.E. - Commissioner of Public Works
Jolene D. Race, Director
MISSION STATEMENT
The Columbia County Solid Waste Department provides an intergrated solid waste management service to the residents and businesses of Columbia County by promoting waste reduction through reuse and recycling, while providing environmentally sound waste management at the most economical cost.

EFFECTIVE APRIL 20TH
OUR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HAS MOVED!
WE ARE NOW LOCATED AT THE
GREENPORT TRANSFER STATION
51 NEWMAN ROAD

Do not see why all the democrats are so incensed by my original post which is largely non-partisan(post copied below). Do not you want your children to do well? Do you really like free-loaders that much? Do you not believe in personal responsibility. No where in my original post I am talking about less government, abortion, lower taxes etc. In which way are they against democratic mission which is also pasted below. Where does the mission show that democrats support a no personal responsibility and entitlements for people who do not want to work hard.

"All the politicians avoid the fundamental issue which is holding back middle class.
- Most kids do not work hard in school. Being cool is valued far more than being smart. There needs to be more focus on math / science with a clear message to the kids that these subjects take dedication and hard-work to learn but rewards are higher. It is not just about having the right teachers but having parents take active interest in their kids education rather than leaving it to the teachers. American schools are overstaffed by non-teaching staffs and parents have come expect that. It is a very hard issue to fix.
- Good health care can not be free for every one. Some basic health care can be. Advanced healthcare should require private insurance. However, it is very hard to ration the medical care to the people who have insurance under the current structure. One way is to say govt only has $1000 per person to insure and free insurance companies from an obligation to cover reasonable treatments as some reasonable treatments can be very expensive.

- Personal responsibility of individuals. e.g. I will take the loan if some one is willing to offer it to me rather that if I can not repay the loan or declared bankruptcy, I lose my voting rights.

- If some one is completely dependent on the govt (earned benefits no included), no voting rights."

For more than 200 years, Democrats have represented the interests of working families, fighting for equal opportunities and justice for all Americans.

Our party was founded on the conviction that wealth and privilege shouldn’t be an entitlement to rule and the belief that the values of hardworking families are the values that should guide us.

We didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness or by letting those with the most influence write their own rules. We got here by rewarding hard work and responsibility, by investing in people, and by growing our country from the bottom up.

Today Democrats are fighting to repair a decade of damage and grow an economy based on the values of Main Street, not greed and reckless speculation. Democrats are focused on rescuing our economy not just in the short run but also rebuilding our economy for the long run—an economy that lifts up not just some Americans, but all Americans

who runs the landfill where you take your garbage? who stops some budding entrepreneur from picking up your garbage for less than the guy who trucks it all the way to Staten Island and throwing it in the closest river?

what would happen to your income if you had to spend time on these issues?

Who said I was liberal? Quite the contrary - I support economic policies that work. The Tea Party, and blaming the poor, don't work.

As for LICDope, he gets his information from The Post - no wonder he moved to Long Island City.

"Where does the mission show that democrats support a no personal responsibility and entitlements for people who do not want to work hard."

I would like you to get a job at WalMart, & try to support your family on that.

Real entitlements? Agribusiness, oil company tax breaks, "carried interest," no social security taxes above about $100k a year, AMT phased out for earners over about $340k.

"Advanced healthcare should require private insurance."

Why? In fact, I think you'll find that most insurance companies won't insure "advanced healthcare": they're in it for the money, and the money is clearly in insuring healthy people, not in insuring the sick.

steve supports economic policies that work . . . to destroy jobs. I'm sure he loved Greece's economic policies.
Oil company tax breaks- this is a classic example of liberal myths and lies. Anyone who understands corporate taxation knows to look over a long-term period to evaluate taxation. Over a 5-year period to 2010, Exxon paid an effective U.S. tax rate of 32%. That is an average of 32% per year.

Carried Interest- valid point but relatively inconsequential.

Social Security cap- so steve would impose massive taxes on businesses.
AMT- should be eliminated.
In steve's bizarro world, tax, borrow and spend is the best economic policy and a dumpy rental in the Theater District is a desirable place to live.

How many jobs did the Bush tax cuts create LICC?

And nice cherry picking the Exoon numbers. From 2008-2010, their tax rate was 17.6%.

"This country was founded and grew through principles of limited government. The periods of our history in which government intervention in the private economy were highest were the worst times in our history."

More nonsense from LICC. If he had ever read history, he would have known that limited government was a complete failure... it's why the Articles of Confederation collapsed.

And were the 1990s with Clinton's Socialist govt. the worst time in our history? Really? WHat abotu the 1940s and FDR's Socialist regime? Was that bad?

I think China needs to let its currency float more. I never bought into the argument that all these free trade agreements (especially when 1 big country has a non-floating currency) would help the US. Instead of Mexico sucking all the US jobs, its China which is moving up the value-added food chain.

The US needs to work to bring manufacturing back to the US - make China re-value its currency and help increase the purchase power/standard of living of its citizens, especially the factory workers and enforce environmental standards.

"Over a 5-year period to 2010, Exxon paid an effective U.S. tax rate of 32%."

Uhm, not a penny, sweetheart:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/news/1004/gallery.top_5_tax_bills/2.html

"relatively inconsequential"

Not for billionaires it's not.

"borrow and spend is the best economic policy"

Did I say that? Not ever. That was St. Ronald's and George II's economic policy, which is what got us here: when the bubble burst.

Government spending should be counter-cyclical to be effective. Bush bubbles should be avoided.

"a dumpy rental in the Theater District is a desirable place to live."

Really? IMHO Calcutta is a better place to live than LIC, but that's what makes the world go round!

"The periods of our history in which government intervention in the private economy were highest were the worst times in our history."

Actually, LICCDope, the worst times in our history were in periods of complete economic deregulation and the gold standard. Google "19th century" and "financial panic" and tell me what you come back with.

"Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

--Dick Cheney

Deficits matter only when Democrats are in charge. Didn't matter for George II - you didn't hear too much about a balanced-budget amendment when they were blowing up the Bush Bubble with unaffordable tax cuts and wasteful wars, did you?

line of thread - sociallyclueless "this country was built upon government and union labor". its just too juicy to even begin. i am going to let you ruminate in that crap cassorole for a few hours....

Not one vote on a balanced budget amndemnt was ever taken from 2001-2009. ZERO.

"this country was built upon government and union labor"

Of course that's not true. The South was built on slavery and the KKK, and now on indentured servitude, aka the minimum wage and no education. The railroads were built by coolies, and the roads were built by Eisenhower.

Fool.

Arguing with the ignorant (steve and socialist) requires much patience.

"Exxon's average effective U.S. income tax rate over the last six years is about 29%, according to the firm's security filings and an interview with a top Exxon tax lawyer. It's one of the highest rates for any industry. . . . Jeffers noted that Exxon's tax bill can fluctuate wildly from year to year. In 2008 the company paid over 35% of its profit to the government, while in 2009 it was near zero due to an overpayment from the year before. In 2010 it was about 18%."

The 19th century panics in the U.S. were the result of no central bank, a Jeffersonian flaw in our system. However, those panics were much more short-lived than the Great Depression in large part because FDR involved government far too much in the 1930s, and because of bad monetary policy. If government hadn't interfered, we very well may have had another short downturn and a faster economic recovery.

Old man steve wants more tax and spend, then says he never advocated for it. Bizarro world.

socialist, you need to educate yourself more on American history. There is a difference between the Articles of Confederation failing because they did not adequately unite the states, and the amount of government involvement in people's lives. The Constitution's Bill of Rights was drafted to limit government power further, not to increase government power. Learn more before you post please.

So in the span of 5 hours, Exoxn's tax rate went from 32% to 29%. Wow, they must have some really good CPAs working for them!

Nice try LICC Dope, but you forgot about the Panic of 1873:

"The National Bureau of Economic Research dates the contraction following the panic as lasting from October 1873 to March 1879. At 65 months, it is the longest-lasting contraction identified by the NBER, eclipsing the Great Depression's 43 months of contraction.[5][6]"

A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have

socialist can't comprehend the difference between 3 years and 5 years.

"If government hadn't interfered, we very well may have had another short downturn and a faster economic recovery"

Hmm. Let's see. Great Depression started in 1929. Roosevelt sworn in in 1933, so the Great Depression was already in full swing for 3.5 YEARS before Roosevelt.

Another brilliant historical interpretation by LICCDope.

poor LICC. ALways getting his butt kicked with pesky things we call FACTS.

Actually, the WPA and related projects did WONDERS for the US, and through dams and roads and rural electrification it led to significant growth in the US economy and a surge in the stock market.

Till the Republican Deficit Hawks of the day tried to balance the budget in 1937.

Hey LICCDope, did you hear how Ron Paul was going to help the residents of New Jersey clean up the flood, once tax-and-spend FEMA is dismantled?

He's issuing them Krazy Straws, and telling them to suck it up.

Tomorrow Ron Paul will be in Paterson handing out boot straps.

Ron Paul also once said that he hates FEMA because they come in after a disaster and take away peoples' guns. I have yet to hear of a single instance of this happening. Of course, this comes from the same eprson who thinks that the Federal Reserve financed Watergate.

Did everyone see Christie and Obama touring the floods in NJ? If they were any more friendly, they would have to go to NY and get gay married.

"Pro-labor policies pushed by President Herbert Hoover after the stock market crash of 1929 accounted for close to two-thirds of the drop in the nation's gross domestic product over the two years that followed, causing what might otherwise have been a bad recession to slip into the Great Depression, a UCLA economist concludes in a new study.
"These findings suggest that the recession was three times worse — at a minimum — than it would otherwise have been, because of Hoover," said Lee E. Ohanian, a UCLA professor of economics.

The policies, which included both propping up wages and encouraging job-sharing, also accounted for more than two-thirds of the precipitous decline in hours worked in the manufacturing sector, which was much harder hit initially than the agricultural sector, according to Ohanian.

"By keeping industrial wages too high, Hoover sharply depressed employment beyond where it otherwise would have been, and that act drove down the overall gross national product," Ohanian said. "His policy was the single most important event in precipitating the Great Depression."

The findings are slated to appear in the December issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Economic Theory and were posted today on the Web site of the National Bureau of Economic Research as a working paper.

Hoover's approach is unlikely to be considered today as a means of responding to economic crisis, but it does illustrate the perils of ill-conceived government policies in times of economic upheaval and confusion, says Ohanian, a macroeconomist who specializes in economic crises.

"Hoover's response illustrates the danger of knee-jerk policy reactions in a time of crisis," he said. "Almost always when bad policies are adopted, it's during a period of crisis. The real risk is picking a cure that turns out to be worse than the disease." . . .

Along with former UCLA economics professor Harold L. Cole (now a professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania), Ohanian published research in 2004 indicating that Roosevelt's response also had an unintentionally deleterious effect. By their calculations, fallout from Roosevelt's National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) dragged out the Depression for seven years longer than a more market-based response would have."

What was that about facts Socialist (the person who doesn't know the difference between 3 and 5 . . .)?

steve- I should have said Hoover and FDR. When I said "government" I wasn't distinguishing.

Do you two ever feel bad about being wrong so often?

Also, Hoover's Emergency Relief and Construction Act was a pre-cursor to FDR's public works programs.

"Do you two ever feel bad about being wrong so often?"

Uhm, if I were I might. It's nice to do a study about what "might have happened" had things been different, because the underlying theory of such a study is best known by its acronym: GIGO.

Obviously, LICCDope, if you believe the work of one lonely antilabor economist regarding what H.H. did in 1929, you MUST believe that Obama's stimulus created 3.8 million jobs, as claimed, as they are based on the same type of (faulty) economic analysis: GIGO.

FDR's minimum wage and other "pro-labor" initiatives undoubtedly would have had an effect on employment, especially during a time of deep unemployment. Their purpose, however, was to prevent wage deflation, which is just as destructive as deep unemployment.

If FDR's policies were such a disaster, then surely the unemployent rate went up and not down while he was president, right?

Well, in 1933, FDR's first year in office, it was 24.7% In 1940, it was 9.6%. Unemployment went down EVERY year FDR was president, with the exception of 1938, as there were significant budget cuts in 1937.

And this is not even touching on the insanely low unemployment we had from 1941-1945 due to WWII.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html

In contrast to FDR, the unemployment rate under Reagan consistently went up. It was 7.5% when he took office in 1981 and did not go below that amount until 1984. In 1984, unemployment peaked at 10.8%.

* did not go below that amount until 1983*

1933 was very similar to 2011, I just searched the streeteasy archives - very very similar.

We need to tax the banks out of business, socialize the oil companies, and send the Tea Party to hell.

Maxine Waters 2012!

Socialist--- you keep referring to tea-baggers, yet no one claims any affiliation to that organization or those political views which makes me wonder.
Have you been tea-bagged?

Uhhh, no unemployment peaked in 1982, not 1984, dummy! How do you think Reagan was re-elected? Use your brain!

Socialist must have serious allergies to actual facts, because he very rarely uses any.

I'm thinking Socialist is not for real, because how can someone have such ridiculous views (Maxine Waters??? She is one of the biggest jokes in Congress) and be so stupidly wrong so often?

Well, LICC you are stupidly wrong more often than Socialist, so you can answer your own question.

And Ron Paul is not a joke?

Ron Paul for President! AND Vice President!

"Record Number Americans, Or 46.3 Million, Lived In Poverty Last Year; 49.9 Million Without Health Insurance"

"( ) highlights are as follows: i) Real median household income in the United States in 2010 was $49,445, a 2.3 percent decline from the 2009 median. ii) The nation's official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009 the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate. There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009 the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published; and iii) The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 49.0 million in 2009 to 49.9 million in 2010,( )"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-number-americans-or-463-million-lived-poverty-last-year-499-million-without-health-insur

Please remember, these figures are for "Americans". Imagine what the statistics would be like if you included undocumented and resident aliens who are in this country. One would hope, however, that after the recent credit / real estate bubble, those under the poverty line will no longer qualify for jumbo mortgages and unlimited home equity lines of credit.

"And Ron Paul is not a joke?"

no he isn't, because his words and actions are always consistent with his principles, you always know where he stands. which is wonderful and admirable for a person, but not so advantageous for a politician. it would be sad to watch him maneuver the presidency because he couldn't it do without losing his bearings. and i think that's something his supporters need to keep in mind. i think he is someone who can accomplish much more outside the constraints of political office because working inside the clannish bureaucracy of government would only diminish his message and influence. best way for him to achieve at least some of which he seeks to achieve is to continue writing and gaining public support for his ideas from a public that would then go on to vote for politicians who are not so idealistic and polarizing and would be able to make small gains towards that general ideal. he would be most powerful with his endorsements of other would be leaders. but the political system is not about to self destruct, which is what his supporters think will happen were he by some miracle freak accident be elected to the highest office.