Why Tax Rate Reductions Are More Stimulative Than Rebates: Lessons from 2001 and 2003

[shagdrum]

Also, check out the chart that Shag posted. Once again, very subtly someone (the Heritage Foundation) is massaging numbers. They are using a very closed system, only 'non farm workers'. Why would you leave out farm workers? There were a lot of them in that time period. Farming was an important industry in the first half of the 20th century. Why remove a growth segment? It would be like taking out 'tech' workers from Clinton's numbers, or military contract workers out of Reagan's numbers. Not really fair at all. Marcus' chart shows the overall numbers, without removing entire industries.[/I]

Are you so sure that Marcus' numbers don't remove the agricultural industry? Are you so sure there are even hard numbers from the agricultural industry at that time? Records were not as extensive then as they are today. Farmers were (and are) considered self-employed, so it is very likely (though I cannot confirm) that there aren't even any reliable records from the great depression on the agricultural sector's unemployment levels.

The agricultural industry was by far the hardest hit in the great depression; due to the depression and a severe drought; (ever heard the term "dustbowl Kansas"?). If anything, including those numbers (assuming they are availiable) would probably inflate the unemployment rates across the board, and would probably confuse the issue due to possibly attributing the effects drought to the New Deal.

However, including the agricultural numbers would probably strengthen the argument Heritage is making. So not including those numbers probably hurts their argument, but creates a more honest and comparable.

Just because you want them to be dishonest doesn't mean that they are being dishonest.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you so sure that Marcus' numbers don't remove the agricultural industry? Are you so sure there are even hard numbers from the agricultural industry at that time? Records were not as extensive then as they are today. Farmers were (and are) considered self-employed, so it is very likely (though I cannot confirm) that there aren't even any reliable records from the great depression on the agricultural sector's unemployment levels.

Well, Marcus' numbers are from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics - you can check his link. And they are somewhat lower than the numbers that the Heritage Foundation uses...

1933
23.6% US Bureau of Labor Statistics
37% Heritage Chart (approx - guess because bar graph)

1940
14.6% US Bureau of Labor Statistics
23% Heritage Chart (approx - guess because bar graph)

Certainly something is missing, and the Heritage chart does state that it is using data without farm workers included. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics uses just the term 'unemployment' with no caveats of leaving out any industries.

And obviously the Heritage Foundation thought there were 'hard numbers' regarding the farm industry employment figures - they were able to remove them from the total unemployment number.

However, including the agricultural numbers would probably strengthen the argument Heritage is making. So not including those numbers probably hurts their argument, but creates a more honest and comparable.

Why would they hurt the 'real' numbers? The 'real' number of unemployed are at the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they don't paint as bleak a picture of the depression as the numbers that the Heritage Foundation is using.

Just because you want them to be dishonest doesn't mean that they are being dishonest.

I never said that they were dishonest Shag (that is one of your favorite words, not mine) I just pointed out that they were showing numbers that dismissed an entire industry, and that it perhaps wasn't fair to do that. It allowed them to say that unemployment never went below 20% during the New Deal, when it did according the the complete picture as shown by the Labor Department statistics

 

[Mick Jagger]

When the economy is in a recession or depression, generating more demand for goods and services is what creates and preserves jobs. Retailers that face stronger demand for their products are more apt both to hire and retain employees and to maintain or increase orders from their suppliers. The initial boost in spending thus gets multiplied through the economy.

To boost demand for goods and services, fiscal stimulus should be targeted where it is most likely to be spent immediately. This suggests targeting on low- and moderate-income individuals and unemployed workers who need a replacement for lost income. People whose income is disrupted in a recession and who lack the savings to tide them over and maintain their normal consumption, and people whose incomes are so low to start with that they have difficultly making ends meet, are the people most likely to spend quickly any added income they receive. Assisting them consequently provides strong stimulus.

More affluent individuals, in contrast, are more inclined to save a substantial share of additional income they receive, because they do not need it to meet their immediate needs.

 

[shagdrum]

To say that their are "hard numbers" available from that time (by today's standards) is a joke! The numbers were a lot less discriptive back then. Not as many records were kept. The question is; did Heritage actually remove non-farm workers from the picture or were the numbers already removed? Are the numbers for the farm/agricultural industry even available for that time period? Assuming they were available, If they were removed by Heritage, then why? How would their inclusion affect the numbers? All those questions need to be answered before you can conclude that Heritage is "cherry-picking" it's facts.

You can't just assume that Heritage removed those numbers as you do in this quote:

And obviously the Heritage Foundation thought there were 'hard numbers' regarding the farm industry employment figures - they were able to remove them from the total unemployment number.

There is no indication that Heritage removed the numbers. All we know is that what is given is the "Unemployment Rate for Non-Farm Workers, 1926-1947". We don't know if someone adjusted the numbers to remove farm workers or if the numbers from that time never included farm workers. It is not clear (from what I could find) weather the numbers Marcus cited included non-farm workers or not.

Your analysis makes way too many assumptions...

FYI: The chart lists three sources for the information it was based on; The Department of Commerce, the Census Bureau and Global Insight.

 

[shagdrum]

Forgot about this article I posted in a different thread that touches on this. Here is the relevant part from the article...

Budget and financial experts at The Heritage Foundation caution that Obama ought not to repeat Roosevelt's mistakes. In one such effort, Heritage last week distributed a chart showing that FDR's programs didn't succeed in pushing unemployment below 20 percent.

Some observers -- not just hysterical big government junkies but also dispassionate policymakers and news editors -- took issue with the unemployment data. They cited lower numbers.

"Leading FDR slanderers," David Sirota hyperventilates on Huffington Post, "base their claims that unemployment during the New Deal didn't go below 20 percent by counting government workers as unemployed."

Sirota, who calls himself a "political journalist," adds: "And those claims are being echoed by right-wing rags like the National Review and fringe think tanks like The Heritage Foundation."

Ouch. If Heritage and our conservative principles are "fringe," then FDR's trusted Treasury secretary was what -- a duplicitous traitor?

What to make of a "journalist" who argues that folks on public assistance must be considered employed -- much less "government workers"?

For the record, Heritage plotted New Deal unemployment using widely accepted Census Bureau data (Page 6, Series D, column 10), the "official" numbers that were compiled at the time.

They didn't count Civilian Conservation Corps workers, prisoners or anyone else who got only "three hots and a cot" as a government employee. Neither does Heritage.

"f we counted people on work relief as employed," as George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok writes, "then eliminating unemployment would be very easy -- just require everyone on any kind of unemployment relief to lick stamps."

So why the different sets of numbers?

Over the years, economists and academics working in good faith calculated "alternative series" of unemployment statistics in hopes of painting a more accurate picture. All begin with census data. The alternative numbers, generally showing somewhat lower levels of unemployment, are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Thing is, the statistics preferred by Sirota and other FDR acolytes still reveal the New Deal didn't drive pre-World War II unemployment below 17 percent in any year except 1937 (estimate: 14.3 percent).

These estimates (developed by economist Stanley Lebergott) show joblessness peaking at 24.9 percent in 1933, dropping over the next four years and -- under New Deal, Part 2 -- shooting back up to 19 percent in 1938. Unemployment then decreased to 14.6 percent in 1940 at the advent of a wartime economy and to 9.9 percent with America's entry into World War II the following year.

The point, as the chart shows, is that the alternative numbers track the census estimates in showing unemployment during the New Deal remained the worst our nation has seen. World War II ended the run.
​

 

[Calabrio]

Cal, so the three years immediately following the crash (29-32) were Hoover's years - correct?

Not to get bogged down in detail, but they certainly weren't FDR's. Correct.

But the rest of your statement is excuse making and in classic form, you fail to acknowledge that points I made earlier.

You're starting off presuming that had FDR done nothing, that the economy would never have recovered or corrected itself. This is the fundamental flaw in the defense of FDR. The exact opposite is true. Had Hoover, and then FDR done nothing, the economy would have recovered much quicker and the long term severity of the economic down turn would have been much less severe.

You can not argue that FDR saved the country and pulled us out of the recession when, 9 years after the down turn took place and 6 years into his Presidency we were still in a GREAT DEPRESSION.

And what's really shocking and terrifying is that people are now looking back
upon the policies of FDR right now as a way to STIMULATE the economy! What kind of stimulus results in 20% unemployment five years after the plan goes into effect. What kind of stimulus results in a GREAT depression until the war time economy of World War 2?

A recovery means that you're back where you started from.
What indication is there that FDR stimulated anything? What he ultimately did was apply economic and labor policies the hindered any economic recovery, then took credit for "helping taking care" of the very people he caused to be out of work.

You can argue all day that FDR's New Deal was terrible, and awful, but, it is just all hyperbole, speculation, and number jumbling.

No it's not.
Let's get rid of all the number jumbling and make this a simple argument.

I say the New Deal was bad, that it didn't work. And when I say New Deal, I'm speaking of all the FDR economic, social, and labor policies of the era.
You appear to be saying that the New Deal was good for the country.
What do you have to support that point?

Unemployment was staggeringly high. Economic output was still low. Misery was still high. What can you point to that was fixed by the New Deal?

After 5 years of New Deal... what was better in this country, other than the misguided feelings toward the President? In your world, how long should an economic stimulus or recovery take? And if the New Deal was the cause of such a thing happening, when did it happen?

Again, this isn't a discussion about confidence in government, or the value of some of the projects that were built during the period. But what problem was resolved. There's no need to get bogged down in figures here, then argue off which statistics are more right.

 

[Marcus]

There is no indication that Heritage removed the numbers. All we know is that what is given is the "Unemployment Rate for Non-Farm Workers, 1926-1947". We don't know if someone adjusted the numbers to remove farm workers or if the numbers from that time never included farm workers. It is not clear (from what I could find) weather the numbers Marcus cited included non-farm workers or not.

The answer is in the Census Bureau link that one of your articles provided. Scroll down a little bit to page 126 to find the chart. It lists two columns of unemployment rates, "Civilian labor force" and "Non-farm employment". Guess what? The civilian labor force are very similar to the ones from the BLS I posted.

Please note that both "Farm" and "Non-farm" labor add up to "Civilian labor force", therefore "non-farm" is merely a subset of the total "civilian labor force", not exclusive of it.

Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever for Heritage to use the "non-farm" numbers other than the fact that they are the higher number of the two. The difference between farm and non-farm jobs may have had some relevance 60 years ago, but it is inapplicable to today's labor force. Furthermore, there is no indication that the "non-farm" stats exclude "Civilian Conservation Corps workers, prisoners or anyone else who got only 'three hots and a cot'". It would appear that they're literally making that part up. So in order to have any kind of comparison to today's unemployment rates, the only rate that matters is "civilian labor force".

This would all be rather academic if it weren't for the fact that Heritage is using an inflated number to make a point, which certainly diminishes their credibility as any sort of objective source. You know you'd jump all over Fox and I if we started citing Paul Krugman articles to prove our point. So why do you think The Heritage Institute is going to influence our opinion? I don't want to hear any of this crap about how, by virtue of being conservative, they're automatically more objective. They're not. They're a propaganda outlet. (And no, I'm not gonna waste my time citing all of the examples of how they manipulate data - you'll just have to accept the fact that that's my conclusion - believe what you like.)

I'd also be curious to know exactly what Heritage considers the "New Deal part 2" to be, unless you consider a temporary reduction in government spending in 1937 (as FDR temporarily backed off in order to get deficits under control) to be "part 2".


P.S. I'm sorry if I can't respond to everyone on a timely basis, particularly Cal. Rest assured that I do read your replies. I simply no longer have the stamina to do the research that's needed to address what amounts to a lot of broad, ideological statements which can neither be verified nor disproven.

 

[foxpaws]

I think the Heritage Foundation's chart in shag's post lost its link... just so everyone knows what we are discussing, here is a copy of the printed one... (slightly different 'look' but same information).

 

[foxpaws]

You're starting off presuming that had FDR done nothing, that the economy would never have recovered or corrected itself. This is the fundamental flaw in the defense of FDR. The exact opposite is true. Had Hoover, and then FDR done nothing, the economy would have recovered much quicker and the long term severity of the economic down turn would have been much less severe.

How do you know - did you go back in your time machine Cal and alter events?

You don't know - all you are doing here is speculating -

I can speculate that if nothing was done - as you say, that it would be worse, and we would have lost to the Germans, because we wouldn't have saved the factories that built the war machine. Without the New Deal, many more factories would have closed, including the automotive and aircraft factories which were vital to our winning the war. To get them back up and running would have given the Germans a distinctive advantage, and would have extended the war long enough to let them to finish developing the jet engine (and if you play war games, you know that is a deal breaker - more than the bomb. Germans get the jet engine, in every scenario, Germany wins)

You can not argue that FDR saved the country and pulled us out of the recession when, 9 years after the down turn took place and 6 years into his Presidency we were still in a GREAT DEPRESSION.

Yes, I can. I can argue that it could have taken 15 years to pull us out of the depression without FDRs new deal... it is as good as your supposition Cal.

And what's really shocking and terrifying is that people are now looking back upon the policies of FDR right now as a way to STIMULATE the economy! What kind of stimulus results in 20% unemployment five years after the plan goes into effect. What kind of stimulus results in a GREAT depression until the war time economy of World War 2?

Once again, maybe we should look at the government figures, and not Heritage's figures...

From 33 to 37 FDR decreased unemployment by 42%, and unemployment went from 25% to below 15%, over 10 points.

A recovery means that you're back where you started from.
What indication is there that FDR stimulated anything? What he ultimately did was apply economic and labor policies the hindered any economic recovery, then took credit for "helping taking care" of the very people he caused to be out of work.

How do you know it hindered? Once again speculation.

Let's get rid of all the number jumbling and make this a simple argument.

You just want to get rid of the number jumbling, because unless you somehow take numbers out of context, or don't compare apples to apples, but rather compare apples to kumquats, you don't get the results that back your supposition.

I still go by the last paragraph in a previous post...

About the only real thing you can say is that the economy was at its worst when he took office, and by 1940 (when the war economy kicked in) it was in quite a bit better shape. He had almost doubled the GDP while cutting unemployment by over 40%. All while keeping government spending flat as a percentage of GDP.

Heck, I would have been happy if Bush would have decreased unemployment by over 40% (we would have been sitting at 2.5 right now) and if he had double GDP, which would have been at a fat and sassy 20 trillion instead of our current 14 trillion...

And I bet we would all be pretty happy if in 8 years that Obama reduces unemployment to 4.8% and he more than doubled the GDP, while keeping government spending flat as a percentage of GDP.

But what problem was resolved. There's no need to get bogged down in figures here, then argue off which statistics are more right.

Obviously the problem of the depression was being resolved. When you take a hit like we did from 1929 - 1933, when unemployment rises 7-1/2 times, when the GDP is almost cut in half - it may take 8 years to get us out of a mess like that.

Cal, you mention the misery and despair - of course there was, it was sooo bad, that I don't think we can really comprehend it today.

 

[shagdrum]

The answer is in the Census Bureau link that one of your articles provided. Scroll down a little bit to page 126 to find the chart. It lists two columns of unemployment rates, "Civilian labor force" and "Non-farm employment". Guess what? The civilian labor force are very similar to the ones from the BLS I posted.

Please note that both "Farm" and "Non-farm" labor add up to "Civilian labor force", therefore "non-farm" is merely a subset of the total "civilian labor force", not exclusive of it.

Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever for Heritage to use the "non-farm" numbers other than the fact that they are the higher number of the two. The difference between farm and non-farm jobs may have had some relevance 60 years ago, but it is inapplicable to today's labor force. Furthermore, there is no indication that the "non-farm" stats exclude "Civilian Conservation Corps workers, prisoners or anyone else who got only 'three hots and a cot'". It would appear that they're literally making that part up. So in order to have any kind of comparison to today's unemployment rates, the only rate that matters is "civilian labor force".

This would all be rather academic if it weren't for the fact that Heritage is using an inflated number to make a point, which certainly diminishes their credibility as any sort of objective source. You know you'd jump all over Fox and I if we started citing Paul Krugman articles to prove our point. So why do you think The Heritage Institute is going to influence our opinion? I don't want to hear any of this crap about how, by virtue of being conservative, they're automatically more objective. They're not. They're a propaganda outlet. (And no, I'm not gonna waste my time citing all of the examples of how they manipulate data - you'll just have to accept the fact that that's my conclusion - believe what you like).

And your conclusion is wrong...

If you weren't so overzealous in wanting to prove Heritage wrong, you would have seen a rational explaination given by Heritage and confirmed in the Census Bureau data.

From the Heritage article:

For the record, Heritage plotted New Deal unemployment using widely accepted Census Bureau data (Page 6, Series D, column 10), the "official" numbers that were compiled at the time.

They didn't count Civilian Conservation Corps workers, prisoners or anyone else who got only "three hots and a cot" as a government employee. Neither does Heritage...

...Over the years, economists and academics working in good faith calculated "alternative series" of unemployment statistics in hopes of painting a more accurate picture. All begin with census data. The alternative numbers, generally showing somewhat lower levels of unemployment, are available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.​

From the Census Bureau article:

...The estimates shown here, prior to 1940, were prepared on as comparable a basis as possible with the concepts used since 1940...

...Lebergott's estimates are designed to be comparable with those of the Current Population Survey...​

So, what Heritage said was right; Their numbers are based on what was reported at the time where as the other numbers are taken from "estimates" based on those numbers.

One is reporting the numbers that the original questionare and information was designed to report (Heritage) and one is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, decades later. The numbers from the estimates are going to have a high margin of error, whereas the numbers Heritage reported are reporting what they were designed to and have a much smaller margin of error.

In short, Heritage's numbers are more accurate then the other numbers. It looks like it isn't Heritage who is cherry picking, but, more likely, it's critics.

If you wanna try and dig through it all, here seem to be the original reports (or at least abstracts from them) put out, by year.

As these articles point out (and the Census Bureau article confirms), There are two sets of numbers; one is the official report for the various years released at the time, and one is based on estimates that reevaluated those numbers in 1967 to make them "more comparable" to today's standards.

It is rather clear who is being dishonest here and who isn't. Heritage is being honest in what they are reporting. There critics are knowingly spinning what is likely cherry-picked info to smear Heritage and other conservatives, or unknowingly buying into a talking point based on misinformation aimed at smearing Heritage and other conservative groups.

Again, this chart really explains it all:

Simply proves my point (once again) that all the left has to argue with is dishonesty, deciet and smears.

I'd also be curious to know exactly what Heritage considers the "New Deal part 2" to be, unless you consider a temporary reduction in government spending in 1937 (as FDR temporarily backed off in order to get deficits under control) to be "part 2".

From this link:

A "Second New Deal" (1935–36) included labor union support, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program, the Social Security Act, and programs to aid farmers, including tenant farmers and migrant workers. The Supreme Court ruled several programs unconstitutional; however, most were soon replaced, with the exception of the NRA.​

 

[foxpaws]

From the article you linked to shag in post #30…

"I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. ... And an enormous debt to boot!"

Surely this must be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denouncing the Bush administration's economic policies.

Wrong. Wrong. And wrong again.

The words came from none other than Henry Morgenthau Jr. -- pal, lunch companion and loyal secretary of the Treasury to President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

And Morgenthau is apparently wrong as well.

Since all this is coming from the Heritage Foundation, and since they, most of the time, place Reagan at the top of the heap as far as all things good regarding the economy and the president… let’s compare Reagan’s figures with FDR’s first 8 years (pre-war spending, and employment gains)

Unemployment figures taken from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Reagans, FDRs

National Debt figures from Treasury Direct (US Treasury Department)

GDP figures from US Department of Commerce

On unemployment...
FDR
1933 unemployment - 24.9 (or if you use the census data that Heritage keeps referring to – 37.2%)
1940 - 14.6 (or if you use the census data that Heritage keeps referring to – 22.0%)
42% decrease (oddly the same no matter whose numbers you use.)

Reagan
1981 unemployment - 7.6
1988 – 5.3
30% decrease

Let’s look at debt…
FDR
1933 federal debt - 22,538,672,560 dollars
1940 federal debt - 42,967,531,037 dollars
91% increase

Reagan
1981 federal debt - 997,855,000,000 dollars
1988 federal debt - 2,602,337,712,041 dollars
161% increase

And how about GDP -
FDR
1933 GDP - 56.4
1940 federal debt - 101.4
80% increase

Reagan
1981 GDP - 3,128.4
1988 GDP - 5,484.4
75% increase

They brought it up (the Heritage Center)… and I was just curious to see how other presidents stacked up… since one of the things you need to base speculation on is historical data. And from what I see, most of this discussion is that we should revert to more of a Reaganomics plan as a solution to our problem with the economy right now.

According to the historical data it appears that FDRs program fared better than Reagan's as far as percentage of people returning to work, and the percent each of their programs increased the national debt. Reagan's plan to decrease unemployment, and improve the economy (the rather large recession he was left by Carter) put 12% fewer people back to work, increased the debt by 70% more, and gained 5% less GDP. And from most things I have read, it is far more difficult to pull an economy out of a depression than it is out of a recession.

 

[MonsterMark]

According to the historical data it appears that FDRs program fared better than Reagan's as far as percentage of people returning to work, and the percent each of their programs increased the national debt.

Excellent analysis Foxpaws. From it I've been able to ascertain that apples and oranges are both fruit. Thanks.

 

[shagdrum]

Since all this is coming from the Heritage Foundation, and since they, most of the time, place Reagan at the top of the heap as far as all things good regarding the economy and the president… let’s compare Reagan’s figures with FDR’s first 8 years (pre-war spending, and employment gains)

Thank you foxpaws!!!

You proved my point better then I ever could.

All the left has to argue with is dishonesty, deciet and smears.

 

[fossten]

When the economy is in a recession or depression, generating more demand for goods and services is what creates and preserves jobs. Retailers that face stronger demand for their products are more apt both to hire and retain employees and to maintain or increase orders from their suppliers. The initial boost in spending thus gets multiplied through the economy.

To boost demand for goods and services, fiscal stimulus should be targeted where it is most likely to be spent immediately. This suggests targeting on low- and moderate-income individuals and unemployed workers who need a replacement for lost income. People whose income is disrupted in a recession and who lack the savings to tide them over and maintain their normal consumption, and people whose incomes are so low to start with that they have difficultly making ends meet, are the people most likely to spend quickly any added income they receive. Assisting them consequently provides strong stimulus.

More affluent individuals, in contrast, are more inclined to save a substantial share of additional income they receive, because they do not need it to meet their immediate needs.

You couldn't be more wrong. It's the "affluent" who buys expensive items, thus allowing businesses to reinvest into higher production and R&D. It's the "affluent" who employs most Americans. Of course, Obama's definition of 'affluent' includes small business owners.

People who live check to check are likely to pay off debt or save extra cash, not go out and buy products that stimulate growth.

Take the construction industry for example. The 'poor' that you describe aren't likely to go out and consume a new house. So how does giving them $600 boost the housing industry?

Furthermore, most of the money in this 'stimulus package' is overblown, useless pork and liberal salad programs, such as payoffs to ACORN. It's not for growing the economy.

 

[foxpaws]

Thank you foxpaws!!!

You proved my point better then I ever could.

All the left has to argue with is dishonesty, deciet and smears.

So, at the Heritage Foundation, I just looked up the word ‘Reaganomics' and came up with 45 results that either cheer it or defend it from critics… a small sampling…

Defending the Reagan Deficits

The four pillars of Reaganomics

The Reagan Legacy

Mourning in America for Reagan's often-forgotten ideas

The Essential Ronald Reagan: A Profile in Courage, Justice, and Wisdom

The Lasting Leadership of Ronald Reagan

So, what have I said is dishonest, deceitful or a smear shag? The numbers I have are from the US Government and The Heritage Foundation has long been pro-Reagan.

Since it seems like the right has been speculating and coming up with ways to find fault with FDR's New Deal, I thought it would be interesting in doing some just raw number comparisons. Do you have some other ways we should be looking at this data?

 

[shagdrum]

So, what have I said is dishonest, deceitful or a smear shag? The numbers I have are from the US Government and The Heritage Foundation has long been pro-Reagan.

Since it seems like the right has been speculating and coming up with ways to find fault with FDR's New Deal, I thought it would be interesting in doing some just raw number comparisons. Do you have some other ways we should be looking at this data?

It is all three, dishonesty, deceit and smears.

Reagan's record has absolutely nothing to do with FDR's record and weather or not Heritage's numbers concerning FDR's New Deal are accurate or not. What you cite of Reagan and FDR to compare the two is taken way out of context and is exceedingly vague and broad, so it is effectively meaningless. But, it being so vague and without context lets you substitute your own context to try and smear Heritage.

So we have dishonesty because you are more then smart enough to know that the way you presented the facts is so out of context as to distort them.

We have deciet because you take the facts out of context and distort them to fit your own agenda, and the facts have no relevance to the discussion of New Deal legislation so it is misleading.

And we have smears, in that the only relevance to this discussion at all that point to Reagan's record (as you have) is to try to discredit Heritage in an irrelevant an illogical fashion. Simply because they support and defend Reagan's record doesn't in any way mean that they are being decietful or dishonest in doing so. And even if it did, it would be irrelevant to weather or not they are being in someway dishonest or decietful in their representation of the record of the New Deal.

Your overzealousness in trying to smear Heritage has given you away.

And I have shown that there is a strong factual and logical basis for what the right has been saying in regards to FDR and the legacy of the New Deal. Yet you continue to say that it is (or "seems to be") based on speculation. You are in no uncertian terms LYING!

So you are being blatantly dishonest, decietful and attempting to smear. No wonder you have no credibility here.

Again, thanks for demonstrating my point.

 

[Mick Jagger]

The best way to deliver short-term stimulus is to implement a plan that combines short-term confidence building with the consumer action necessary to lift the economy. This could be done by giving consumers funds that can be used only for consumer purchasing over a short period of time.

The program I propose would consist of a three-tiered, across-the-board tax cut sent to all consumers based on their income tax brackets, up to $250,000. This would be in the form of a book of government certificate checks to be used only for a consumer discount against the purchase of certain categories of goods and services. A book of certificates would be delivered to be used over a four-month period, and all four months of certificates could be combined to be used against a large purchase, lease, or down-payment commitment. The certificates would work as cash in paying for 50% of certain purchases (such as automobiles, clothing, computers, domestic travel, home furnishings, household appliances, restaurant meals, sporting equipment, etc.). They could also be applied to subsidize 20% of the cost of supermarket and grocery store items.

Consumer spending is the key to short-term economic stimulation. A government program to stimulate this spending—once announced—would have an immediate positive effect on the stock market.

 

[Mick Jagger]

All the left has to argue with is dishonesty, deceit and smears.

Are you on crack?

 

[shagdrum]

This message is hidden because Mick Jagger is on your ignore list.

 

[foxpaws]

Reagan's record has absolutely nothing to do with FDR's record and weather or not Heritage's numbers concerning FDR's New Deal are accurate or not. What you cite of Reagan and FDR to compare the two is taken way out of context and is exceedingly vague and broad, so it is effectively meaningless. But, it being so vague and without context lets you substitute your own context to try and smear Heritage.

Shag - I was looking for an example to use so we could compare FDR's New Deal to other types of solutions. Since the current 'fad' is to slam FDR, and most of those 'slammers' claim that part of the solution is large tax cuts, I thought I would look at someone who did that. Reagan is a good choice - same amount of time (8 years), both started with a bad economy, both are known for creating jobs.

Should I choose someone else - Eisenhower maybe or Clinton? Once again - the numbers are very easy to find. When you are looking at FDRs numbers you are looking at a vacuum if you don't have other presidencies to compare them to. How do you know if FDRs numbers are bad, if you don't what 'good' numbers are. The right points quite often (and so does the Heritage Foundation) to Reagan's economic policies as being very successful, that is why I chose him.

We have deciet because you take the facts out of context and distort them to fit your own agenda, and the facts have no relevance to the discussion of New Deal legislation so it is misleading.

I have asked you about other ways to look at this data, the raw data is pretty easy to come by - I gave all the links to the government sites. Maybe I am missing something. I haven't distorted the data, and I am trying to put FDRs numbers into some sort of 'context'. I was trying to find some relevance to the FDR numbers.

And we have smears, in that the only relevance to this discussion at all that point to Reagan's record (as you have) is to try to discredit Heritage in an irrelevant an illogical fashion

I thought that since you had been using Heritage Foundation charts and articles, it would be easy for you to agree with them that Reagan was the obvious 'successful' president regarding the economy. I wasn't overzealous in the need to smear the Heritage Foundation. Not once in the Reagan/FDR correlation post did I discredit or 'smear' the Heritage Foundation. I stated that they often point to Reagan as the best there is for economic purposes. Could you point out the smear?

And I have shown that there is a strong factual and logical basis for what the right has been saying in regards to FDR and the legacy of the New Deal. Yet you continue to say that it is (or "seems to be") based on speculation. You are in no uncertian terms LYING!

And I am saying that the right is using the FDR numbers in a vacuum. Unless you compare those numbers with other administrations you don't really have any sort of baseline. What is a successful presidency regarding unemployment figures? What is a successful presidency regarding growth of GDP? What is a successful presidency regarding growth or shrinkage of the national debt? So, I was just trying to go to a 'good' example as claimed by the Heritage foundation.

What is wrong with trying to find what some sort of baseline? What is considered good or great or bad regarding the economic points that are brought up regarding FDR's policies? I am trying to discover something on my own, without the filter of any group.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - I was looking for an example to use so we could compare FDR's New Deal to other types of solutions. Since the current 'fad' is to slam FDR, and most of those 'slammers' claim that part of the solution is large tax cuts, I thought I would look at someone who did that. Reagan is a good choice - same amount of time (8 years), both started with a bad economy, both are known for creating jobs.

Should I choose someone else - Eisenhower maybe or Clinton? Once again - the numbers are very easy to find. When you are looking at FDRs numbers you are looking at a vacuum if you don't have other presidencies to compare them to. How do you know if FDRs numbers are bad, if you don't what 'good' numbers are. The right points quite often (and so does the Heritage Foundation) to Reagan's economic policies as being very successful, that is why I chose him.

You tied is specifically to Heritage after you had continuously tried (and failed) to discredit them through smears by mischaracterizing the numbers they cited about unemployment during the Great Depression.

Reagan has absolutely nothing to do with that and it is exceedingly dishonest to try and inject his record in here.

You are also (not suprisingly) oversimplifying things so you can mischaracterize both Reagan's and FDR's records.

You are misdirecting here; a habit of yours that is getting very annoying.

I have asked you about other ways to look at this data, the raw data is pretty easy to come by - I gave all the links to the government sites. Maybe I am missing something. I haven't distorted the data, and I am trying to put FDRs numbers into some sort of 'context'. I was trying to find some relevance to the FDR numbers.

You have not asked me for "some other way to look at the data". You have tried to prove that Heritage is being dishonest in the numbers they present. It has been shown to be the other way around and now you are trying to misdirect so you don't have to defend your earlier claims.

And I am saying that the right is using the FDR numbers in a vacuum. Unless you compare those numbers with other administrations you don't really have any sort of baseline.

More lies and misdirection. You don't have to compare FDR's numbers to another president's to see weather or not his policies were successful or not. You were not trying to do that until after you were throughly (and logically) smacked down in your defense of FDR's spending. Now you are trying to misdirect.

The only one citing any number in a vaccum here is you. You take both FDR's and Reagan's records out of context and represent them so vaguely that they are meaningless. No where in your little "analysis" is it acknowledged that FDR benefited from a wartime economy, as well as having control of both Houses (neither of which Reagan had). The methodology on the collection of the various numbers you cite was different during the two administrations as well.

Effectively, you aren't even comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing apples to steaks.

What is wrong with trying to find what some sort of baseline?

You don't need to compare the two presidencies to determine what the original subject of this thread is; the failure of stimulus spending.

I am trying to discover something on my own, without the filter of any group.

That is something you are not going to be able to get, by the apparent standards you have. Most any organization will have a percieved bias one way or the other. You have to determine which ones are credible and which ones aren't. If you are wanting to get it "unfiltered" your best bet is to try and find groups that use empirical methods (like Heritage), but the conclusions can still be biased for even those groups.

 

[fossten]

And I am saying that the right is using the FDR numbers in a vacuum. Unless you compare those numbers with other administrations you don't really have any sort of baseline.

Shall we compare his numbers to Carter's then?

 

[foxpaws]

Sure, Carter would be fine - he was a terrible president... a good baseline for what a bad president's numbers would be. A little more difficult since he was in office only 4 years, but we could probably get some tracking tendencies from it.

If I get time I'll do Clinton as well Well, since I don't have a blue dress on today - I probably won't 'do' Bill But I do believe his numbers would be an interesting comparison as well.

That is something you are not going to be able to get, by the apparent standards you have. Most any organization will have a percieved bias one way or the other. You have to determine which ones are credible and which ones aren't. If you are wanting to get it "unfiltered" your best bet is to try and find groups that use empirical methods (like Heritage), but the conclusions can still be biased for even those groups.

And Shag - busy day, but just something to think about... I really don't like to be spoon fed anything by either side. I do like to look at things for myself. Here, it is easy -numbers are readily available. Rather than use any 'group' such as Heritage or Brookings, why not start by looking at some numbers yourself? I can then see going to some biased source after wards and seeing what they say about it. But, when you don't have an independent baseline to judge anything on, how are you going to know whether what they are touting is even close to being correct? Shag, you might have a tendency to 'believe' Heritage while I might have positive leanings towards Brookings, but what is wrong with a little independent thought?

More lies and misdirection. You don't have to compare FDR's numbers to another president's to see weather or not his policies were successful or not. You were not trying to do that until after you were throughly (and logically) smacked down in your defense of FDR's spending. Now you are trying to misdirect.

Ah, shag, no one smacked me down regarding FDRs spending - he kept spending at 14-16% of GDP throughout the 8 years before the build up for the war. Show me the 'smack' OK sweetheart?

And yes, you do have to compare FDRs numbers to something - otherwise how do you know if they are to be considered a success or a failure? If you sell 28 widgets, you might appear to be successful. But, because I am in a vacuum, I have no idea of how the other sales people have done selling widgets. However, once I know that the most successful salesman in the company sold 26 widgets, I can than place you on the top of the widget selling scale. Or if the other salesman have all sold 30 widgets or more, you can go to the bottom of the heap.

No where in your little "analysis" is it acknowledged that FDR benefited from a wartime economy, as well as having control of both Houses (neither of which Reagan had). The methodology on the collection of the various numbers you cite was different during the two administrations as well.

Oh, and if you look I am using only FDRs numbers from 1933 to 1940, before our involvement and build up for the war. And, certainly Reagan was building up for a war during most of his administration, not one that was ever fought - but the build up was there. So, a little unfair as fair as that goes - Reagan's numbers include the build up to end the cold war, FDR's numbers (the ones I am using) do not include the years that the US was building up for WWII. Reagan did have Tip to contend with, but, they did lower domestic (not military) spending by 10%, so Reagan certainly got through some of his budget cuts. He also got through most of his budget increases in the military.

Effectively, you aren't even comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing apples to steaks.

You can never compare 'granny smith to granny smith' in this case, there are too many variables. But I think you can come fairly close to comparing 'macintosh to delicious'.

You have not asked me for "some other way to look at the data".

Ah, yes, look at post #41 (your post) in your first quote that you pulled from my post #40 "Do you have some other ways we should be looking at this data?" my words... I was really interested in other ways to slice and dice this...

You don't need to compare the two presidencies to determine what the original subject of this thread is; the failure of stimulus spending.

But, how do we know it was a failure unless we at least get out some numbers? Marcus and I have tried to state many times that it is hard to find out if the supposition that the New Deal was a failure is true. You can't go back and change circumstances. So it becomes an alternate time line (sci-fi) question. But, what you can do is look at the numbers - how much did FDR lower unemployment, how much did he grow the economy - how much did it cost?

And, once you have those numbers, then you need to compare them to something, otherwise, you just are sitting in a vacuum with them.

 

[Mick Jagger]

In a depression, such as the one we are in now, the problem is not a shortfall of production. The problem is a shortfall in consumer spending.

Right now, only about 73.6% of our industrial capacity is being utilized.

 

[Calabrio]

How do you know - did you go back in your time machine Cal and alter events?

Because of basic economics. There are cycles, there are corrections.
You don't need a time machine to realize that natural economies will eventual correct themselves. While it's not instantaneous, and not always politically expediant, it does happen. And it takes less than a decade for it to happen, provided the government doesn't interject itself and interfere with the process. For example, by setting wage freezes that inhibit hiring, or tax policies, or trade restrictions.

You just want to get rid of the number jumbling, because unless you somehow take numbers out of context, or don't compare apples to apples, but rather compare apples to kumquats, you don't get the results that back your supposition.

To the contrary, the jumbling of numbers becomes a distraction in a subject like this. How many posts do you want to devote whether we use Heritage numbers or government numbers?

And ultimately, you've avoided the very simple, very direct challenge/question I posed.
Let me ask you again, and answer this in English and not trying to blur reality through the use of "lies, damn lies, and statistics."

We'll both agree that the economy was in bad shape when FDR took office. Let me ask you a direct question first, to move this back into the realm of discussion and not just point/counter point:

what do you think caused the "Great Depression." Do you think it was made more severe by the decisions of Hoover and the Congress?
And are there any policies in particular that they imposed, or failed to impose, that you think made the problem worse?

FDR wins the election in 1932 and takes office in 1933. Then wins again in 1936, and 1940.
How long should an "economic stimulus" take? 12 months? 2 Years? 4? 6 years?

Do you agree that the country was still in a depression economy before shifting directly into the war economy of World War 2?