Michele Bachmann:

[Chuck_G]

Why does Michele Bachmann think we should cut spending? To grow business, to cut the deficit, the usual. But also because God told her we should, via last week's East Coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene. The St. Petersburg Times' Adam C. Smith reports that the presidential candidate told a Sarasota, Florida crowd this weekend, "I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending."

Questions for debate:

1. Is god really worried about government spending in the U.S. and responsible for hurricanes and earthquakes to provoke fear?

2. Do you think she really believes this or it is just an appeal to the christian far right?

[chris_brown207]

You think that's why Reagan's recovery was successful?

I just wanted to interject a thought. This statement "Reagan's recovery was successful" is a bit of an assumption. We would really have to define what a successful recover is.

My definition of a successful recover would be a strong economy, with good GDP growth, and declining debts to increase purchasing power.

While we did come out of that recession in the 80's and we did see economic growth in the job sectors, we came out of the recession carrying almost two trillion more in debt and almost doubled the nations debt as a function of the GDP. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms).

This would be the personal equivalent of feeling like you are more successful by running out and getting a loan for a nice new car. Sure, it may make you feel better in the short-term (and maybe project the notion of success). But in reality, the loan you bought the car with is actually making you poorer and decreasing your ability to reinvest in you future - especially if it was a purchase made without consideration of income (GDP).

So, I think assuming that Ronald Reagan's plan was a success depends on your definition of success.

Another thing to consider is that taxes were higher then they are now. So government had a higher income to spend on investments. One of three things economists recommend when trying to get out of debt is: 1. Make larger payments. 2. Decrease overall spending. 3. Increase income.

[Wyvern]

If Keynesianism economics and tax increases were good enough for Reagan, then why do conservatives oppose such measures now?

The military build up was to win the cold war, not to get out of the recession. For that, Reagan cut the top bracket from 70% to 28%, and tax receipts doubled. That isn't supposed to happen, at least if you're a liberal.

By that same logic the military build up by FDR was to win WW2 and played no part in pulling us out of the great depression.

You think that was why we fought WWII? That and Reagan winning the Cold War were necessary, Obama's plan was not. What pulled us out of the depression was the post war GOP Congress undoing much of FDR's damage.

When exactly do you think the great depression ended? I ask because according to the information I found congress was led by the GOP for a total of two years until Reagan came to office and then only by a small margin. Its simply amazing how willing you are to invent history in order for it to fit into what you want it to be. You think maybe the fact that the US infrastructure was untouched by the war while much of the rest of the developed worlds infrastructure and manufacturing capacity was in ruins might have had something to do with it? Congress could have decided to hold a decade long game of tiddlywinks for as much as it mattered considering we had massive manufacturing capacity and the rest of the free world had nearly none. In fact if anything this supposed GOP controlled congress of yours actually hurt US business by enacting the Marshall plan which greatly speeded the rebuilding of Europes infrastructure and manufacturing. Strangely enough I made no mention of Obama in this section and was simply illuminating where your logic leads, it isn't my problem that you don't recognize spending on the military as being government spending. Another strange thing Reagan followed the FDR plan so faithfully that he even had his own version of the Manhatten project in the form of SDI.

Sure Reagan is responsible for one of the largest tax cuts in history but then he followed it up with one of the largest tax hikes in history as well. How exactly does Reagans massive military buildup not qualify as government spending?

You think that's why Reagan's recovery was successful?

As Chris pointed out it is a matter of debate whether it was truly successful. The point I was making is that you complain about Obama not following Reagans method of getting out of a recession when in fact Obama is following Reagans approach. The only problem is that you fail to understand that the Reagan military buildup was government spending and as you yourself note during Reagan tax receipts doubled. So there you go Reagan actually increased taxes along with increasing government spending or as you put it so succinctly tax and spend.

[East of Eden]

When exactly do you think the great depression ended? I ask because according to the information I found congress was led by the GOP for a total of two years until Reagan came to office and then only by a small margin. Its simply amazing how willing you are to invent history in order for it to fit into what you want it to be. You think maybe the fact that the US infrastructure was untouched by the war while much of the rest of the developed worlds infrastructure and manufacturing capacity was in ruins might have had something to do with it? Congress could have decided to hold a decade long game of tiddlywinks for as much as it mattered considering we had massive manufacturing capacity and the rest of the free world had nearly none. In fact if anything this supposed GOP controlled congress of yours actually hurt US business by enacting the Marshall plan which greatly speeded the rebuilding of Europes infrastructure and manufacturing. Strangely enough I made no mention of Obama in this section and was simply illuminating where your logic leads, it isn't my problem that you don't recognize spending on the military as being government spending.

Obama is certainly following FDR's plan:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!� - Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

And for the record, in April 1939, the unemployment rate was 20.7%. Anybody who thinks that FDR’s policies did anything but dig us deeper into depression doesn't know what they're talking about.

Another strange thing Reagan followed the FDR plan so faithfully that he even had his own version of the Manhatten project in the form of SDI.

SDI had nothing to do with FDR and was fought tooth and nail by the Democrats. Good thing the GOP didn't do the same thing to FDR and the Manhatten Project.

As Chris pointed out it is a matter of debate whether it was truly successful.

No it isn't, under Obama zero jobs were created in August, at this time in Reagan's presidency 1,100,000 jobs were created on the way to 17,000,000 created. Even Obama's people say there will not be any significant improvement in economic growth or unemployment the next year, which is why Obama will be a one-term president. Good riddance to the professor.

The point I was making is that you complain about Obama not following Reagans method of getting out of a recession when in fact Obama is following Reagans approach. The only problem is that you fail to understand that the Reagan military buildup was government spending and as you yourself note during Reagan tax receipts doubled.

It was government spending for a legitimate constitutional purpose, national defense, not the phoney Keynsian attempt to get out of a recession.

So there you go Reagan actually increased taxes along with increasing government spending or as you put it so succinctly tax and spend.

No, he cut taxes which stimulated the economy and resulted in far larger tax receipts, just as JFK did. Conversely, tax increased often result in less revenue. But then, with much of the left it's about income redistribution, not revenue anyway.

Here is Obama vs. JFK on taxes:

[Wyvern]

When exactly do you think the great depression ended? I ask because according to the information I found congress was led by the GOP for a total of two years until Reagan came to office and then only by a small margin. Its simply amazing how willing you are to invent history in order for it to fit into what you want it to be. You think maybe the fact that the US infrastructure was untouched by the war while much of the rest of the developed worlds infrastructure and manufacturing capacity was in ruins might have had something to do with it? Congress could have decided to hold a decade long game of tiddlywinks for as much as it mattered considering we had massive manufacturing capacity and the rest of the free world had nearly none. In fact if anything this supposed GOP controlled congress of yours actually hurt US business by enacting the Marshall plan which greatly speeded the rebuilding of Europes infrastructure and manufacturing. Strangely enough I made no mention of Obama in this section and was simply illuminating where your logic leads, it isn't my problem that you don't recognize spending on the military as being government spending.

Obama is certainly following FDR's plan:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!� - Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

And for the record, in April 1939, the unemployment rate was 20.7%. Anybody who thinks that FDR’s policies did anything but dig us deeper into depression doesn't know what they're talking about.

What does any of this have to do with what I wrote? You wrote that it was the GOP led congress that pulled us out of the depression, I simply want to know when you think the depression actually ended are you so used to ducking questions that you do it on reflex even with a question as simple as this?

Another strange thing Reagan followed the FDR plan so faithfully that he even had his own version of the Manhatten project in the form of SDI.

SDI had nothing to do with FDR and was fought tooth and nail by the Democrats. Good thing the GOP didn't do the same thing to FDR and the Manhatten Project.

Good thing I never said SDI and FDR had anything to do with each other then. Actually the GOP couldn't fight against the Manhatten project because they didn't know about it. And again you miss the point because you dont want to admit that Reagan did nothing different than FDR from Reagans tax and spend attitude all they way to having his own massive highly classified military research project.

As Chris pointed out it is a matter of debate whether it was truly successful.

No it isn't, under Obama zero jobs were created in August, at this time in Reagan's presidency 1,100,000 jobs were created on the way to 17,000,000 created. Even Obama's people say there will not be any significant improvement in economic growth or unemployment the next year, which is why Obama will be a one-term president. Good riddance to the professor.

I find it funny how you republicans saddle a democratic president with all manner of problems and then complain nonstop for decades about how poor of a job they did in getting us out of the problem you created. Seventy years on and you are still complaining about how poorly FDR did and I have no doubt that seventy years in the future you will still be complaining about how badly Obama did while at the same time completely ignoring what party caused the problems in the first place.

The point I was making is that you complain about Obama not following Reagans method of getting out of a recession when in fact Obama is following Reagans approach. The only problem is that you fail to understand that the Reagan military buildup was government spending and as you yourself note during Reagan tax receipts doubled.

It was government spending for a legitimate constitutional purpose, national defense, not the phoney Keynsian attempt to get out of a recession.

Government spending is government spending your attempts to say it was not government spending is just silly.

So there you go Reagan actually increased taxes along with increasing government spending or as you put it so succinctly tax and spend.

No, he cut taxes which stimulated the economy and resulted in far larger tax receipts, just as JFK did. Conversely, tax increased often result in less revenue. But then, with much of the left it's about income redistribution, not revenue anyway.

As you have stated on many occassions tax receipts for Reagan doubled which means he increased taxes not cut them as you keep saying unless you are saying that our economy more than doubled during Reagans term. I dont understand what is so difficult to understand here, if tax receipts doubled as you state then either taxes doubled or the economy doubled. You state that tax were decreased which then means the only way to account for a doubling of tax receipts is for the economy to much more than double, I'm looking forward to seeing your proof of the massive economic growth our economy experienced during Reagans presidency.

[East of Eden]

What does any of this have to do with what I wrote? You wrote that it was the GOP led congress that pulled us out of the depression, I simply want to know when you think the depression actually ended are you so used to ducking questions that you do it on reflex even with a question as simple as this?

When it ended is a matter of opinion, I would say WWII helped as well as GOP opposition to FDR's plan. From Wikipedia:

"After the recovery from the Recession of 1937–1938, conservatives were able to form a bipartisan conservative coalition to stop further expansion of the New Deal and, when unemployment dropped to 2% in the early 1940s, they abolished WPA, CCC and the PWA relief programs."

According to FDR's treasury secretary, it had not ended as of 1939. Shouldn't six years be enough for a plan to work?

Good thing I never said SDI and FDR had anything to do with each other then.

Yes you did, you made the ridiculous statement that SDI was modeled on the Manhatten project. Did you forget already?

Actually the GOP couldn't fight against the Manhatten project because they didn't know about it. And again you miss the point because you dont want to admit that Reagan did nothing different than FDR from Reagans tax and spend attitude all they way to having his own massive highly classified military research project.

Reagan was an enemy of tax and spend, the unneeded kind. I doubt he was opposed to our spending on WWII. You have tax and spend on the brain.

I find it funny how you republicans saddle a democratic president with all manner of problems and then complain nonstop for decades about how poor of a job they did in getting us out of the problem you created. Seventy years on and you are still complaining about how poorly FDR did and I have no doubt that seventy years in the future you will still be complaining about how badly Obama did while at the same time completely ignoring what party caused the problems in the first place.

That would be yours, the one who introduced the crackpot idea of giving home loans to unqualified people, all in the name of 'fairness'. Good thing they never tried the same thing with the car industry.

Government spending is government spending your attempts to say it was not government spending is just silly.

There was a legitimate constitutional reason to spend for national defense, there is none for trying to spend your way out of a recession. That's as dumb as trying to raise the level of a swimming pool by taking water out of the deep end and pouring it in the shallow end, spilling a lot along the way.

As you have stated on many occassions tax receipts for Reagan doubled which means he increased taxes not cut them as you keep saying unless you are saying that our economy more than doubled during Reagans term.

It did, he CUT rates, which resulted in a doubling of tax receipts. Did you not watch the JFK video I posted explaining that? We don't need more taxes today, we need more taxpayers.

I dont understand what is so difficult to understand here, if tax receipts doubled as you state then either taxes doubled or the economy doubled. You state that tax were decreased which then means the only way to account for a doubling of tax receipts is for the economy to much more than double, I'm looking forward to seeing your proof of the massive economic growth our economy experienced during Reagans presidency.

Unemployment dropped from 7% to 5.4%.
Inflation dropped from 10.4% to 4.2%.
GDP growth went from -0.3% to 4.1%.
21 million jobs were created.
Federal tax receipts grew at an annual rate of 8.2%, higher than the increase of federal outlays average of 7.1%.

Any of that happening under Obama? Of course not, the opposite approach of Reagan will get the opposite results.

"Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. He also claims that the American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround." Wikipedia

[Wyvern]

When it ended is a matter of opinion, I would say WWII helped as well as GOP opposition to FDR's plan. From Wikipedia:

"After the recovery from the Recession of 1937–1938, conservatives were able to form a bipartisan conservative coalition to stop further expansion of the New Deal and, when unemployment dropped to 2% in the early 1940s, they abolished WPA, CCC and the PWA relief programs."

Wow how radical the republicans got rid of a jobs program long after the job pool dried up. It isn't opposition to a plan to eliminate a program that no longer is needed. As you noted here unemployment was 2% which is actually under what is considered full employment so exactly why in a war footing would a government keep a useless program where the resources could be put to much better use.

According to FDR's treasury secretary, it had not ended as of 1939. Shouldn't six years be enough for a plan to work?

I don't know, how long have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan been going on? How about the war on drugs for that matter? How about the Vietnam war or even WW2 for that matter? As Clauswitz said few plans survive first contact with the enemy. Since you love Reagan so much was he even still in office when the cold war ended? Sounds like it took more than six years to me. How long did it take us to get to the moon?

Good thing I never said SDI and FDR had anything to do with each other then.

Yes you did, you made the ridiculous statement that SDI was modeled on the Manhatten project. Did you forget already?

I said no such thing, maybe you should read what I say instead of what you want me to say.

Actually the GOP couldn't fight against the Manhatten project because they didn't know about it. And again you miss the point because you dont want to admit that Reagan did nothing different than FDR from Reagans tax and spend attitude all they way to having his own massive highly classified military research project.

Reagan was an enemy of tax and spend, the unneeded kind. I doubt he was opposed to our spending on WWII. You have tax and spend on the brain.

Not at all, you simply refuse to admit that all government spending is still government spending. If Reagan was such an enemy of tax and spend why is it he freely engaged in that policy?

I find it funny how you republicans saddle a democratic president with all manner of problems and then complain nonstop for decades about how poor of a job they did in getting us out of the problem you created. Seventy years on and you are still complaining about how poorly FDR did and I have no doubt that seventy years in the future you will still be complaining about how badly Obama did while at the same time completely ignoring what party caused the problems in the first place.

That would be yours, the one who introduced the crackpot idea of giving home loans to unqualified people, all in the name of 'fairness'. Good thing they never tried the same thing with the car industry.

I did? Continuing to make the same claims will not make them right.

Government spending is government spending your attempts to say it was not government spending is just silly.

There was a legitimate constitutional reason to spend for national defense, there is none for trying to spend your way out of a recession. That's as dumb as trying to raise the level of a swimming pool by taking water out of the deep end and pouring it in the shallow end, spilling a lot along the way.

So then as I said before by this version of logic you use you would have to declare FDR a genius on how he solved the problem of the great depression. Exactly what legitimate reason was there for increasing the navy to a 600 ship fleet? The soviet navy barely had a blue water fleet at all and even including coastal patrol boats had only a few hundred ships. Just because it's defense spending does not mean that it is automatically legitimate.

As you have stated on many occassions tax receipts for Reagan doubled which means he increased taxes not cut them as you keep saying unless you are saying that our economy more than doubled during Reagans term.

It did, he CUT rates, which resulted in a doubling of tax receipts. Did you not watch the JFK video I posted explaining that? We don't need more taxes today, we need more taxpayers.

So you are advocating unlimited immigration into our country in order to increase the number of taxpayers? You are still left with two options to explain this doubling of tax receipts, the economy had to double or taxes did, which is it?

I dont understand what is so difficult to understand here, if tax receipts doubled as you state then either taxes doubled or the economy doubled. You state that tax were decreased which then means the only way to account for a doubling of tax receipts is for the economy to much more than double, I'm looking forward to seeing your proof of the massive economic growth our economy experienced during Reagans presidency.

Unemployment dropped from 7% to 5.4%.
Inflation dropped from 10.4% to 4.2%.
GDP growth went from -0.3% to 4.1%.
21 million jobs were created.
Federal tax receipts grew at an annual rate of 8.2%, higher than the increase of federal outlays average of 7.1%.

Wait a minute, you said before that tax rceipts doubled, now you put the number at 8.2%. Even if this was the rate from the instant Reagan took office you are still looking at only a 65% increase which is only 2/3rds of the rate which you cited. I'm really starting to wonder where you are getting these claims.

Any of that happening under Obama? Of course not, the opposite approach of Reagan will get the opposite results.

"Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. He also claims that the American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround."

And this again illuminates how questionable your claims are, you made the claim that tax receipts doubled which can only happen without tax increases if the economy also doubles but here your article from the cato institute states the economy increased by only a third. Please tell me the magic that allows taxes to double without tax increases or an equally expanded economy?

[chris_brown207]

No it isn't, under Obama zero jobs were created in August, at this time in Reagan's presidency 1,100,000 jobs were created on the way to 17,000,000 created. Even Obama's people say there will not be any significant improvement in economic growth or unemployment the next year, which is why Obama will be a one-term president. Good riddance to the professor.

Reagan did not have to deal with a recession that was as large in scale as the Great Depression, and if the current program is not achieving the success wished for, you can thank the Republican predecessor as much as you can thank the current president as much of the policies in place now to break the recession are just a continuation of Bush's policies.

That would be yours, the one who introduced the crackpot idea of giving home loans to unqualified people, all in the name of 'fairness'. Good thing they never tried the same thing with the car industry.

First, unless you have experience running government, I would tread carefully calling ideas "crackpot" whether they are yours or someone else's. I am sure it is easy to call the ball when you are watching from the auditorium.

Second, while this program was introduced by a Democratic President, it was approved by a Republican Congress. Remember, as has been pointed out before, the President just writes the memos - Congress makes the laws.

And, this program was continued and expanded upon during not just one but two Republican presidential terms, one of which he enjoyed the support of a Republican Congress and Senate. They had plenty of opportunity to change such a "crackpot" law. No one's hands are clean on this matter.

[East of Eden]

Reagan did not have to deal with a recession that was as large in scale as the Great Depression,

Neither does Obama.

and if the current program is not achieving the success wished for, you can thank the Republican predecessor as much as you can thank the current president as much of the policies in place now to break the recession are just a continuation of Bush's policies.

Bush's fault, huh, lol.

First, unless you have experience running government, I would tread carefully calling ideas "crackpot" whether they are yours or someone else's. I am sure it is easy to call the ball when you are watching from the auditorium.

Second, while this program was introduced by a Democratic President, it was approved by a Republican Congress. Remember, as has been pointed out before, the President just writes the memos - Congress makes the laws.

And, this program was continued and expanded upon during not just one but two Republican presidential terms, one of which he enjoyed the support of a Republican Congress and Senate. They had plenty of opportunity to change such a "crackpot" law. No one's hands are clean on this matter.

Both parties are at fault (which makes me wonder why Wyvern blames the GOP), but I give the Democrats more blame. Bush tried to rein in the problem but was stopped by Congressional Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/busin ... tml?src=pm

[East of Eden]

Delete

[chris_brown207]

Reagan did not have to deal with a recession that was as large in scale as the Great Depression,

Neither does Obama.

and if the current program is not achieving the success wished for, you can thank the Republican predecessor as much as you can thank the current president as much of the policies in place now to break the recession are just a continuation of Bush's policies.

Bush's fault, huh, lol.

First, unless you have experience running government, I would tread carefully calling ideas "crackpot" whether they are yours or someone else's. I am sure it is easy to call the ball when you are watching from the auditorium.

Second, while this program was introduced by a Democratic President, it was approved by a Republican Congress. Remember, as has been pointed out before, the President just writes the memos - Congress makes the laws.

And, this program was continued and expanded upon during not just one but two Republican presidential terms, one of which he enjoyed the support of a Republican Congress and Senate. They had plenty of opportunity to change such a "crackpot" law. No one's hands are clean on this matter.

Both parties are at fault (which makes me wonder why Wyvern blames the GOP), but I give the Democrats more blame. Bush tried to rein in the problem but was stopped by Congressional Democrats.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/busin ... tml?src=pm

So you are telling me that this Republican president - who enjoyed more time in the seat with a Republican controlled Senate, and Congress then any Republican president in the last century and had the overt support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was stopped by a minority Democratic party throughout his 8 years in office? Sounds like a little bit of revisionist history. If Bush actually wanted to "fix" it, he had ample opportunity.

In order for the blame game to stop, the bigger of the two parties has to come forward and accept responsibility for their role in the situation (without exceptions or addendums). We didn't get to where we are in a vacuum. There were a lot of hands involved - many of whom looked the other way just like most of us did because of the perception of riches that were being created. No one wants to be the guy to stop the party, but everyone wants to point fingers when the cops show up.