PDA

View Full Version : SPENDING INSANELY WHILE THE ECONOMY COLLAPSES



Sev
07-15-2011, 06:40 AM
http://www.proconservative.net/PCVol13Is166CarubaEconomyCollapses.shtml

<span style="color: #000000">By Alan Caruba
AMERICA: A NATION IN ITS DEATH THROES -- SIGNS OF INTERNAL DECAY: THE NATION'S ORIGINAL VALUES & VIRTUES ARE BEING JETTISONED. AMERICAN FAMILIES ARE BEGINNING TO DISINTEGRATE & MARRIAGE IS BEING LEGALLY REDEFINED TO INCLUDE SAME-SEX UNIONS. THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE 2008-2009 FINANCIAL CRISIS HAS FAILED TO RESCUE & STABILIZE THE COLLAPSING AMERICAN ECONOMY -- THE FLOOD OF "QUANTITATIVE EASING," GOVERNMENTAL MAKE-WORK PROGRAMS, & SIMILAR EFFORTS HAVE FAILED TO BRING ABOUT ECONOMIC RECOVERY. INFLATION, UNEMPLOYMENT, & THE PUBLIC DEBT CONTINUE TO INCREASE. SPECIAL INTEREST POLITICS & WASTEFUL, POLITICALLY MOTIVATED GOVERNMENT SPENDING PROGRAMS ABOUND. GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF THE ECONOMY IS EXCESSIVE & IMPOSES AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTERPRISES & THEIR CUSTOMERS. U.S. ECONOMIC & ENERGY POLICIES ARE DISFUNCTIONAL, AS REGARDS ENSURING AMERICANS AMPLE SUPPLIES OF AFFORDABLE ENERGY.


FULL STORY: The United States of America is a sovereign nation-state, a constitutional federal republic that will celebrate the 235th. anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the 223rd anniversary of the U.S. Constitution, which became effective when the State of New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify it in 1788.

By most indications, America is a nation in its death throes. Its original values and virtues are being jettisoned, and that is always a sign of internal rot. The passage of a law legalizing gay, same-sex marriage in New York State is just one example. New York becomes the sixth state to do so.

Families are regarded as the keystone to a healthy society. When they begin to disintegrate or are redefined as same-sex unions, most observers conclude that a range of social problems will ensue.

The Census Bureau recently announced that married couples no longer head a majority of families in the United States. They now represent only 48% of households, based on data from the 2010 census. It is the first time this has ever occurred.

The 2008-2009 financial crisis was a wake-up call. The nation has been through such crises in the past, including the Great Depression from 1929 until the start of World War Two in 1941. The present administration, Congress, and the Federal Reserve System have responded in much the same way their counterparts of earlier eras did during their tenures, and, not surprisingly, the economy has not responded to a flood of “quantitative easing,” governmental make-work programs, and similar efforts.

As Ronald Reagan told us, government is not the answer, government is the problem.

Let me share just a few examples of what is so terribly wrong.

The U.S. Department of Transportation cancelled a $1.2 million federal highway program that would have sent employees on a 17-day globe-trotting journey “to photograph different billboards” after ABC News told the Department it planned to air a report on it. The program has been around for a decade, allegedly to study how other countries handle their major highway networks, motorcycle safety, managing pavement, and “adapting to climate change.”

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development recently announced the awarding of $26.7 million in “sweat equity” grants to produce at least 1,500 affordable homes for low-income individuals and families. Grants were made at a time when there is an abundance of homes in the marketplace that have been emptied by foreclosure or the decision to walk away from them because the mortgage costs more than the decreased value of the home. A total of four cities received these grants. This same federal executive department handed out more than $31 million in grants to public housing authorities, resident associations, and non-profit organizations. It appears to be a lame effort to keep people on payrolls at a time of growing unemployment.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is giving $60 million in the form of $20 million each to three public universities in Florida, Iowa, and Idaho (the first two states have political importance in the forthcoming election) as a “major scientific investment in studying the effects of climate change on agriculture and forest production.”

Climate change is the new way of describing “global warming.” At a time when an estimated 14 million Americans are out of work, the USDA is enriching professors of tree physiology and claiming that climate change will increase levels of food contamination “from chemicals” such as the ones used to actually grow crops and protect them against weeds and insect depredation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through its Forest Service Awards, has also given away nearly $3 million for “renewable energy projects” at the same time the administration has tapped the Strategic Oil Reserve — intended for use only for emergencies such as Hurricane Katrina — in a lame effort to lower prices at the gas pump. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack claimed that “Biomass is a vital part of America’s clean energy future” while Congress was voting to discontinue subsidies to ethanol producers that were costing Americans billions.

These are just three U.S. government departments that are giving away millions for useless, politically motivated grants and other programs that drain the public treasury. The news, however, gets worse.

Wayne Crews, a vice president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Conservative think tank, is an expert on the impact of federal governmental regulation of business and industry. He recently noted that the federal government --

<span style='font-size: 17pt'><span style="color: #660000"> “. . . is on track to spend more than $3.5 trillion this year. What most people don’t know is that government costs about fifty percent more than what it spends. That’s because complying with federal regulations costs an addition $1.75 trillion — nearly an eighth of Gross Domestic Product. And almost none of that cost appears in the budget.”

“At the end of 2009, the Code of Federal Regulations was 157,974 pages long. In 2010, 3,752 new rules hit the books — equivalent to a new regulation coming into effect every 2 hours and 20 minutes, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.”

While Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke was telling reporters he had no idea why the economy was stalled, growing at an appalling rate of just over 1 percent annually, the government was continuing to throw money away in the name of climate change, a green economy, and countless other giveaway programs labeled “discretionary spending.”
</span></span>
The author, Ayn Rand, warned that, “When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion — when you see that, in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing — when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors — when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you — when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice — you may know that your society is doomed.”

-------------------------------------------

© Alan Caruba, 2011 </span>

Soflasnapper
07-15-2011, 10:25 AM
As Ronald Reagan told us, government is not the answer, government is the problem.


And yet, what was the quasi-governmental (meaning the Fed) answer when Black Monday hit, and the NYSE went down some 700 points (or whatever that massive decline)?

Then-Fed Chair Alan Greenspan flooded the market with liquidity, as the lender of last resort, backstopping brokerages with grossly enlarged credit facilities, to prevent bankruptcies, defaults, failure to settle trades, etc., so as to keep the financial system afloat.

And what was the result? It worked. Had it not been done, perhaps our financial system would have melted fully down, and destroyed what was then a far stronger economy.

What was the lesson of the Great Depression. Something similar, although in reverse. When faced with the GD, Hoover tried to balance the budget, sharply contracting the government's spending, which was contractionary and made things worse. That was also FDR's opening strategy when he came into office, to out-Hoover Hoover, trying still harder to bring the budget into premature balance. This was made worse by a contractionary Fed policy which saw the money supply shrink by about 30%, instead of pumping up the money supply.

Only when FDR pivoted to an expansionistic fiscal strategy involving greater deficit spending did the economy begin to turn around, and the 25% unemployment was reduced to the lower teens. When FDR thought he'd done enough, and reverted to again a contractionary balance the budget strategy, the economy went into recession again, and the loss of Democratic House seats was so large as to make the recent loss in the House for the Democrats seem like they won seats.

Only as of the huge borrowing caused by WW II did America's economy return to full employment and prosperity.

So history's lessons are lost on this cited commentator, who I guess asserts all the foregoing history must have been the opposite.

LWW
07-16-2011, 03:52 AM
You and your belief in godking mythology.

The rest of the world was out of the great depression ahead of the US ... this "FULL EMPLOYMENT" was a mirage caused by the workforce being reduced by sending them overseas to fight a war ... and then the last one.

Nearly everyone expected the US to return to the depression at war's end ... then FDR died. His fascist economic state was in part dismantled. Pro growth policies were adapted.

From 1944 to 1950 revenue as a percentage of GDP fell from 20.9% to 14.4%.

Spending fell from 43.6% of GDP in 1944 to 11.6% of GDP.

The FDR welfare state of 1940 (PREWAR) consumed 9.8% of GDP with nearly no military and ran a huge deficit ... spending over 140% of federal revenue, sound familiar?

In 1948 we had millions in uniform, occupied western Europe and Japan, began the "Marshall Plan," began the building of the modern military and space programs, and ran a surplus of 4.6% of GDP ... and did it all by spending only 1.8% more of GDP.

This economic miracle occurred not because of FDR, but because of the abandonment of FDR's stupidonomic programs.

Next myth?

Soflasnapper
07-17-2011, 12:32 PM
You make insane points. I don't hold FDR up as a godking. I mentioned he made two bad economic policy choices, which I would have omitted mention of if I wanted to hold up some FDR worship theology. I would further admit a dozen more mistakes or errors, or even crimes, he committed, if that were the topic.

As the two mistakes I mention he made (trying to balance the budget in hard times with a counterproductive contractionary fiscal policy) are your preferred fiscal strategies in our situation, of course you pretend I didn't mention them, and instead pretend I claim everything he did was great or something.

You make hilarious claims. The rest of the world was out of the great depression ahead of the US? I'm not sure that's true, except for Germany, but in any event, the world was at WAR for some years ahead of us. Might war mobilization and spending for war have made that difference?

From 1944 to 1950 revenue as a percentage of GDP fell from 20.9% to 14.4%.

Yes, there was a special, and very large, war tax put on the public. End of the war, end of the need for the tax to help pay for the war.

Spending fell from 43.6% of GDP in 1944 to 11.6% of GDP

Yes, war spending was very large. Getting out of war allowed that war spending to end.

The FDR welfare state of 1940 (PREWAR) consumed 9.8% of GDP with nearly no military and ran a huge deficit ... spending over 140% of federal revenue, sound familiar?


Yes, with still high unemployment, and return to recession caused by FDR's premature pivot to a contractionary fiscal policy attempting to then balance the budget, gdp itself was far lower than it should have been if the economy was healthy. If the gdp had been as large as a good economy would have made it, that same amount of spending would have been a far lower percentage of gdp, and the deficit, far less as well.

Here (http://millercenter.org/president/truman/essays/biography/4) is a precis of the Truman administration's economic and other policies in the post-war period. It doesn't seem to support your Classic RW Comic Book's cartoonish version of what happened. If you think it does, or have other sources for your claimed sequence of events, please explain.

As for 'millions' in uniform in 1948, not even technically true.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The pell-mell demobilization of American armed forces after the war demonstrated the underlying strength of neo-isolationism. Forrestal and Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson, who had replaced Stimson in September, warned Truman in October 1945 that demobilization jeopardized the American strategic position in the world. Truman agreed, but felt that he could do nothing to stop it. In January 1946, Forrestal noted in his diary, the "Under Secretary [Dean Acheson] said [demobilization] was a matter of great embarrassment and concern to his own Department in their conduct of our foreign affairs."

The Truman White House could not contain the overpowering public and bipartisan Congressional outcry--accompanied by riots at overseas military bases in January 1946--for the early return home of American soldiers. Only a serious foreign crisis could have reversed this trend, and, for the time being, the administration did not publicize its misgivings about Soviet behavior. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>American armed forces shrank from about twelve million in June 1945 to one-and-a-half million in June 1947</span> (see appendix, graph 1). Across-the-board cuts of specialists and experienced members of the armed forces eroded the military effectiveness of units even more than these figures would suggest.</div></div>

from 'US Demobilization after WW II' (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pollard.htm)

Qtec
07-17-2011, 01:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In 1936 though, FDR had a few choice words nestled in what has become a timeless address.

President Roosevelt: <span style="color: #660000">“In 1776 the fight was for Democracy in Taxation. In 1936 there is still the fight. Mister Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said <u>‘taxes are the prices we pay for civilized society’.</u> One sure way to determine the social conscience of a government is to examine the way taxes are collected and how they are spent. And one sure way to determine the social conscience of an individual is to get his tax reaction. Taxes, after all are the dues we pay for the privilege of membership in an organized society. And as society becomes more civilized government, national and state and local, is called on to assume more obligations to its citizens. The privileges of membership in a civilized society are vastly increased in modern times. But I am afraid we still have many who still do not recognize their advantages and want to avoid paying their dues.”
</span>
Tax breaks for the wealthy were a concept well in place by the time Hoover was President.

FDR: <span style="color: #990000">“To divide fairly among the people the obligation to pay for these benefits has been a major part of our struggle to maintain Democracy in America. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Ever since 1776, that struggle has been between two forces; on the one hand there has been a vast majority of citizens who believe the benefits of democracy should be extended and who are willing to pay their fair share to extend them. And on the other hand, there has been a small but powerful group which has fought the extension of these benefits because they did not want to pay a fair share of their cost. <u>That was the lineup in seventeen hundred and seventy-six and it’s the lineup today.</u></span> And I am confident that once more, in nineteen thirty-six democracy in taxation will win. Here is my principle, and I think it’s yours too; <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”</span>
</span>
So hearing this now and knowing it was from the dim-distant past of 1936, it makes the current situation and posturing that much more absurd. Unfortunately if it were only absurd it would be laughed off. But it has become deadly serious business in the ensuing years. </div></div>

Q

Gayle in MD
07-20-2011, 11:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.”

</div></div>

The founders surely wouldn't subscribe to the theory that Greed is good, or that the wealthy corporate thieves, who are making record breaking profits, are worthy of more redistribution of weealth to the top wealthiest, for having stolen trillions in American wealth, on Wall Street.

G.