Obama, Hoover, and our descent

[NeoRio1]

Besides the liberals hating on Bush which is there defense for everything the bottom line is which tax policies are going to be better for the economy.

In 1932 the country was starting to come out of the depression. Soon Hoover raised tax rates and the country fell back into the depression. Just look at the historic charts. Also he stopped most imports and exports and added harsh taxes on the rest of trading.

Obama will not raise the capital gains tax to as much as Hoover did, at least hopefully not. What Obama is going to do though is that he is going to raise taxes on a bad economy. That is the bottom line. The problem is that those taxes will hurt the economy.

 

[Mav88]

Mav88 are you saying the republicans should be labeled the "smart party"? The republican party is where they are at because they earned it. No leadership...

I am not a republican nor would I call them the 'smart party', they just have been the least worst party for my vote. What's wrong with them is that they abonded conservative principles and show no spine when in power, except 1994. When they did that we had 5 years of pretty good times. Bush has not been conservative, I really don't know what to call him.

At LEAST they were the main opposition to the bailout, you have to give them that.

I am very worried for this country, the war and bailout are costly yes, but the entitlement explosion will be the nail in the coffin if we don't start growing this economy fast and scale them back. Obama not only won't fix entitlements, he will expand them and accelerate this death spiral. Ending the war and raising taxes will not come anywhere close to a balanced budget and raising cap gains is proven money loser anyway. Seeing this, the libs will next try and gut the military to save cash, then some crisis will hit and we will not be able to respond.

The american consumer is flat dead broke and there are no more bubbles in the works to artificially pump things up. The gov't thinks they need to do something, which means spending and printing more money. The dems want another stimulus... excuse me but what the hell did the last one accomplish?

This looks very bad, at least in 1932 there wasn't a huge national debt and a huge unfunded entitlement mandate. There is no way Obama can pull out of this one with liberal policies (have socialistic reforms ever worked?) and I guess the only answer may be WWIII just as WWII helped FDR. Doing nothing is better than something in Obama's case.

 

[runningman]

The tax rates will go back to those of the 1990s. What didn't you like about the 90's, the peace or the prosperity?

 

[NeoRio1]

Is the economy right now the same as it was in the 90's? If it isn't then shouldn't taxes be adjusted to fit the present economy?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from NeoRio1:

Is the economy right now the same as it was in the 90's? If it isn't then shouldn't taxes be adjusted to fit the present economy?

The economy looks like the 70's, so using that logic therefore we should go back to the tax protocol of the 70's.

 

[NeoRio1]

Quote from bigdavediode:

The economy looks like the 70's, so using that logic therefore we should go back to the tax protocol of the 70's.

Big dave do you really sincerely think carter helped the economy?!

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Mav88:


At LEAST they were the main opposition to the bailout, you have to give them that.

One of the main tenets of the republican party is deregulation. If it wasn't for unregulated markets, their wouldn't need to be a bailout.

 

[mrman500]

I used to think that Republicans were the good guys...now I don't think that there are any good guys.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from NeoRio1:

Big dave do you really sincerely think carter helped the economy?!

I don't, I'm just pointing out how silly your logic is. Just because the economy resembles another time period of failure does not provide a reason to emulate that period.

Emulating a period of success makes a lot more sense, for example, the 90's.

 

[stockerup]

Quote from Mav88:

Mav88 are you saying the republicans should be labeled the "smart party"? The republican party is where they are at because they earned it. No leadership...

I am not a republican nor would I call them the 'smart party', they just have been the least worst party for my vote. What's wrong with them is that they abonded conservative principles and show no spine when in power, except 1994. When they did that we had 5 years of pretty good times. Bush has not been conservative, I really don't know what to call him.

At LEAST they were the main opposition to the bailout, you have to give them that.

I am very worried for this country, the war and bailout are costly yes, but the entitlement explosion will be the nail in the coffin if we don't start growing this economy fast and scale them back. Obama not only won't fix entitlements, he will expand them and accelerate this death spiral. Ending the war and raising taxes will not come anywhere close to a balanced budget and raising cap gains is proven money loser anyway. Seeing this, the libs will next try and gut the military to save cash, then some crisis will hit and we will not be able to respond.

The american consumer is flat dead broke and there are no more bubbles in the works to artificially pump things up. The gov't thinks they need to do something, which means spending and printing more money. The dems want another stimulus... excuse me but what the hell did the last one accomplish?

This looks very bad, at least in 1932 there wasn't a huge national debt and a huge unfunded entitlement mandate. There is no way Obama can pull out of this one with liberal policies (have socialistic reforms ever worked?) and I guess the only answer may be WWIII just as WWII helped FDR. Doing nothing is better than something in Obama's case.

Excellent post.