Oregon State (11/25/24)

Just as many economists believe that he helped as her hurt. Economic theory is almost more of an art than a science.

Kind of what I was thinking. I actually recently read up on the subject because it was something that interests me. I will have to see if I can find the links to the study I read, but it was basically a poll of economists (primarily academics) on whether the policies helped or hurt in relation to bringing the country out of thee depression. I think the response was definitely mixed, but I think it was between 60-70% came down on the helped side, with the others in the prolonged camp. Far from a consensus on the issue.

Polls don't mean much, but the ebb and flow of economic indicators are far more telling. We were WELL into WWII before there was an uptick, and years into the big spending in the New Deal there was no economic benefit being felt in any measurable way. Kram is correct, and if you do some real reading on the subject, including point of views both ways, I think you'll find reason to question the story fed us for so many years.

WWII got us out of the great depression, not the New Deal.

I'm not a historian but isn't that basically what Roosevelt did to get us out of the Great Depression? Of course WWII helped, which was government spending on a massive scale.

Like he said. WWII was government spending on a massive scale. Government spending (which created jobs) and people understanding they had to do their part to strengthen the economy, i.e. buying bonds, which was simply investing in the US government, helped pull us out of the depression.

Like he said. WWII was government spending on a massive scale. Government spending (which created jobs) and people understanding they had to do their part to strengthen the economy, i.e. buying bonds, which was simply investing in the US government, helped pull us out of the depression.

This

Like he said. WWII was government spending on a massive scale. Government spending (which created jobs) and people understanding they had to do their part to strengthen the economy, i.e. buying bonds, which was simply investing in the US government, helped pull us out of the depression.

This

So both of you are in perfect agreement with yyz28's post?

Interesting spin. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Rick Perry running for President, but I'll bite.

While it is mainly government driving the spending during a time of war, wartime spending by the government (particularly during the period of history we're talking about here) was VASTLY different than Stimulus & Project spending as seen in the New Deal and 2009 Stimulus Act. First, during WWII, virtually all US manufacturing and agricultural processes were diverted from producing product for the private sector and put towards the war effort. General Motors built Airplanes. Ford built Tanks. We had VERY unlimited supplies of agricultural goods and they were rationed - meaning that every bit that could be produced was being consumed in the effort. HUGE demands on factories that were not historically able to run at the productivity required meant that manufacturing innovation had to take place. Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering technologies took quantum leaps forward during wartime to keep up. Since most able-bodied men were overseas fighting, women joined the workforce on mass for the first time and began to earn extra dollars to spend in their households. Waste wasn't an option as every resource (capital, fossil fuels, raw materials, food) was needed to support the war effort. Government funds were spent VERY efficiently during this time. If a job took 3 guys, 2 were assigned and were expected to make it happen... ...and usually they did. There wasn't any of this $200 for a toilet seat (sarcasm, to be sure, but always the go-to example of government waste) crap in 1942.

Folks who lived through this time and contributed sell themselves short by giving the credit to FDR, a President who time has shown to be pretty weak on economics. He was a good wartime President, but he wasn't making much progress on the economic crisis of the time until Japan hit us in Pearl Harbor and we went all in.

How we manufacture changed. How we worked changed. Who was working change. most of the models of efficiency business (particularly manufacturing) follow were created at that time.

It wasn't some temporary road construction jobs or building a dam, it was something with far more impact than those types of temporary projects (and thus jobs) could ever hope to have corrected. The real proof in the pudding came in 2009, when we tried it again with the same results. Only this time - there is no WWII to give bad policy cover.

Yyz, I basically agree with everything you are saying. Especially about not knowing how this turned from a perry for prez thread to a new deal debate. I will say however that I think the new deal played a fairly significant role in getting us out of the depression.. Did it do as much as what took place during the war time effort, not at all. But it did put a lot of people back to work, which is not exactly bad for the economy, and more people working means more people spending paying taxes etc etc. And those thousands of temporary jobs helped create one of the things that made America great, it's infrastructure, which is of course crumbling now. Without doing these major projects and the government spending a little money to make a little money, the depression would have been much more catastrophic. Although these jobs are temporary they help put money back into the economy, which can help put the economy back on a somewhat even keel, which then means investors become more confidnet which usually translates into companies having money then those companies create more long term jobs. I think the new deal was a bit more important to getting this country back on it's feet than you are giving it credit for. Was it the cure for the economy, not at all, but it was, as uncle Joe Biden said, "a big effing deal".

Back to perry related business. I think he is going to talk his way out of the race in a few weeks. He needs to stop playing up this idea that he's some rancer/cowboy from west Texas which is pretty much all he's got and people for some reason buy in to it.. Ranchers from west Texas don't have subscriptions to food and wine magazine.

I'd vote for Bugs Bunny if he ran because at least ol' Bugsy' Boy is a capitalist or his creator was.

My support all along of which one or two on this forum would confirm is Herman Cain. He speaks my language and doesn't pussy-foot with the public with what he has to say and that characteristic alone might make him un-electable in today's America who seeem to want more whistles and bells than substance. I especially like Cain's stance on sharia law which will only happen over millions of Americans cold dead corpses. Great Britain curses the day they let one very un-democratic religion come to their nation in droves. If a religion is undemocratic what could possibly be their agenda in wanting to be in a democratic society is my question. Some of you know the answer to that question.

Edited August 23, 2011 by PlummMeanGreen

I'd vote for Bugs Bunny if he ran because at least ol' Bugsy' Boy is a capitalist or his creator was.

But that's the problem. Our country and our culture are facing multiple challenges, some related to economics, some not. To just choose someone because they're a capitalist or a Christian or an eviromentalist is being one dimensional and simplistic. That's why we end up with candidates like Sarah or Al.

Latest Republican national poll numbers are out:

Rick Perry - 29%

Mitt Romney - 17%

Ron Paul - 13%

Michele Bachmann - 10%

It's still early.

Vomit

Somebody had to bring this thread back to life after last night's awesomeness. Are people still thinking they would vote for Perry? Do people really want to vote for cain? I don't understand the thinking "I'll vote for cain 'cause he's the every man, i'd like to have a beer with him, he doesn't take all smart like". Someone explain it to me. Don't we want a president who we think is a lot smarter and better educated (which for some reason means elitist these days) than the majority of the country, why do people want to elect a "guy they could have a beer with". I don't get it.

Perry couldn't hide in the national spotlight.

Thank God.

Way too early to count anyone in or out. Seems Newt was "left for dead" early on but has been gaining steadily in recent weeks. Again...way too early to be calling this race either way or for any candidate.

But, that being said...looks like neither Cain or perry are doing themselves much good at the moment...at the moment. Must wait to see where it all goes. Patience, Grasshoppers.

Somebody had to bring this thread back to life after last night's awesomeness. Are people still thinking they would vote for Perry? Do people really want to vote for cain? I don't understand the thinking "I'll vote for cain 'cause he's the every man, i'd like to have a beer with him, he doesn't take all smart like". Someone explain it to me. Don't we want a president who we think is a lot smarter and better educated (which for some reason means elitist these days) than the majority of the country, why do people want to elect a "guy they could have a beer with". I don't get it.

So you have an easy time finding someone that meets your smarter requirement?

So you have an easy time finding someone that meets your smarter requirement?

I don't actually talk like that. Haha!

Perry was already practically done anyways.

Newt will say or do something that'll turn off conservative voters. Its been the going trend so far this year for the base: flirt with a more conservative candidate for a while, polls trend up, something eventually happens to where they flirt with another conservative candidate. Newt already made the mistake to the conservatives by recently saying that repeal of Glass-Steagall might have been a mistake. Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and now Newt.

Like I said earlier in this thread, Romney will be the eventual nominee. His poll numbers have been the most steady and while the evangelical/tea party base may not be excited about him, he's got the money and the establishment behind him. Hoping Huntsman (whom I do especially like) doesn't make an Independent run because it'll probably hurt Obama more than it would the Republican nominee.

Romney will probably get the nomination because the media will set him up nicely.

I'd vote for Bugs Bunny if he ran because at least ol' Bugsy' Boy is a capitalist or his creator was.

My support all along of which one or two on this forum would confirm is Herman Cain. He speaks my language and doesn't pussy-foot with the public with what he has to say and that characteristic alone might make him un-electable in today's America who seeem to want more whistles and bells than substance. I especially like Cain's stance on sharia law which will only happen over millions of Americans cold dead corpses. Great Britain curses the day they let one very un-democratic religion come to their nation in droves. If a religion is undemocratic what could possibly be their agenda in wanting to be in a democratic society is my question. Some of you know the answer to that question.

I still have not changed my mind. Cain has been and is still my main man. He speaks my language.

Herman Cain is getting zoomed from these "15 years ago for chrissake's" allegations. Uh.................duh?

Come on, folks, figure it out for yourselves. Today even CNN reported that one of his accusers pulled the very same thing with the very next job she had after she worked for Cain.

Can't wait to see where the money trail for all these "15 years a bit late" allegations ends up and my money says it will be at a very famous American residence.

Some out there will still tell a lie when telling the truth would be so much easier. Cain did great during the debates last night. Perry? Well.................he'll be coming back to Texas.

Romney will probably get the nomination because the ineptitude of the frontrunners and the media's unwillingness to legitimize Paul or Huntsman will set him up nicely.

Fixed.

Fixed.

Bingo. I was going to write something similar. These cries against the media are the lamentations of losers.

Romney will be the eventual nominee. His poll numbers have been the most steady and while the evangelical/tea party truly conservative base may not be excited about him, he's got the money and the establishment behind him.

FIxed it for you.

And I disagree. Whenever you are constantly falling behind any and everyone else, it doesn't say good things for your chances to win. Conservatives like myself will never vote for Romney in a primary. Plain and simple. He can't win the midwestern or southern primaries (including Florida), which means he would have to sweep the NE and Western states to have a chance. Ain't gonna happen.

Cain is damaged, but not yet dead. I would love to see a certain Senator from Florida throw his hat in the ring. He would beat Pres. Obama by 15% of the vote.

Edited November 11, 2011 by UNT90

FIxed it for you.

??? Semantics.

And I disagree. Whenever you are constantly falling behind any and everyone else, it doesn't say good things for your chances to win. Conservatives like myself will never vote for Romney in a primary. Plain and simple.

No, when you're consistently the front runner and maintain an average above everyone else you have a good chance of winning. Whether Perry ranges from 10-40%, or Cain from 5-30%, Romney pretty much keeps chugging along at the same rate. His average over the last 6 months has been more solid than any other canidate. He's got money, he's got the ground game, and he's got the establishment. A new conservative might come along and knock him from the top every once in a while, but they have no staying power.

He can't win the midwestern or southern primaries (including Florida), which means he would have to sweep the NE and Western states to have a chance. Ain't gonna happen.

Might wanna put aside the partisan nonsense and just go with me on this. We might disagree on politics, but when it comes to electioneering I know my shit. I correctly predicted about 90% of the Democratic primary outcomes in 2008, and was only 2 states off in predicting the general. I don't have a horse in the race, to me it doesn't matter who the nominee is, I can objectively look at the numbers and get a good sense to predict what will happen.

Romney will probably not take Iowa, but other midwestern states that are less conservative will go for Romney: Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio (all bigger states). He'll also sweep the Northeast and New England which are full of delegates (NY, Mass, Jersey, Penn). He'll take the Pac Coast (California will be huge), sweep the mountains because of the Mormon population, and I don't see anybody beating him in Florida. I will say this though,anybody who toys with the idea of cutting back or ending social security is dead in the water in Florida. The only thing up for grabs is the south, and unless the field dwindles, those states might be divied up between different candidates: Perry, Gingrich, ect.

Cain is damaged, but not yet dead. I would love to see a certain Senator from Florida throw his hat in the ring. He would beat Pres. Obama by 15% of the vote.

Cain is done, and was never a serious candidate to begin with. The only thing he's been running for is a job on Fox News. His ground game is non-existant, his fundraising is lackluster, and his mouth keeps getting him into trouble. I'm thinking Rubio has a skeleton in his closet, or else he might be in the race.

??? Semantics.

No, when you're consistently the front runner and maintain an average above everyone else you have a good chance of winning. Whether Perry ranges from 10-40%, or Cain from 5-30%, Romney pretty much keeps chugging along at the same rate. His average over the last 6 months has been more solid than any other canidate. He's got money, he's got the ground game, and he's got the establishment. A new conservative might come along and knock him from the top every once in a while, but they have no staying power.

Might wanna put aside the partisan nonsense and just go with me on this. We might disagree on politics, but when it comes to electioneering I know my shit. I correctly predicted about 90% of the Democratic primary outcomes in 2008, and was only 2 states off in predicting the general. I don't have a horse in the race, to me it doesn't matter who the nominee is, I can objectively look at the numbers and get a good sense to predict what will happen.

Romney will probably not take Iowa, but other midwestern states that are less conservative will go for Romney: Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio (all bigger states). He'll also sweep the Northeast and New England which are full of delegates (NY, Mass, Jersey, Penn). He'll take the Pac Coast (California will be huge), sweep the mountains because of the Mormon population, and I don't see anybody beating him in Florida. I will say this though,anybody who toys with the idea of cutting back or ending social security is dead in the water in Florida. The only thing up for grabs is the south, and unless the field dwindles, those states might be divied up between different candidates: Perry, Gingrich, ect.

Cain is done, and was never a serious candidate to begin with. The only thing he's been running for is a job on Fox News. His ground game is non-existant, his fundraising is lackluster, and his mouth keeps getting him into trouble. I'm thinking Rubio has a skeleton in his closet, or else he might be in the race.

The problem in your analysis is that you treat the primaries like general elections. They aren't. Romney will absolutely have problems in the bigger midwestern

states, the mountain states, and maybe even some in the Northeast (let's not forget Christine O'Donnell). Republicans will vote conservative in the primaries, especially after the McCain debacle. You can have all the money and ground game in the world, but if your message doesn't register with the base of your party, you won't win in the primaries.

As far as you attempting to call every conservative a tea party member or a member of the religious right, well, that just tells me how biased your opinions are on this subject. I know the left would love to have Romney to run against, but I doubt it will happen.

I know the left would love to have Romney to run against, but I doubt it will happen.

No, the left doesn't want Romney. He would have the best chance at beating Obama than any other candidate. The left would love to run against a more conservative candidate that would be too far right for the middle. Cain wouldn't stand a chance in the general.