jgens said:
Well, since the modern Democrats have not controlled the executive and congress for more than a year really, I can't comment on whether or not they will still outspend the Republicans. However, examining the past 30 years, Republicans have repeatedly driven the economy into the ground. Take Reagan for example. While economic woes began to set in during Carter's administration and Reagan did manage to minimize the impact of a recession temporarily, his excessive military spending tripled the federal deficit and also caused a short term recession between 1981 and 1982.
The 1981 - 1982 Volcker Recession was trigger by Paul Volcker at the Federal Reserve to fix the skyrocketing inflation. Reagan's defense spending was crucial to break the back of the Soviet Union. The Soviets were pouring about 40% of their economy into their military.
Reagan understood that peace with the Soviet Union never could be achieved because it was in the nature of the Soviet Union to make war. The entire "union" itself was an example of blatant imperialism. He knew that socialism didn't work, and that the Soviet Union was a lot more fragile than people thought at the time.
The deficit under Reagan began reversing itself around 1985 to 1986, because of the economic growth.
Also, Reagan's adherence to side-supply economic theory seems to have done little to help anyone but the wealthiest few individuals in America.
The Reagan tax cuts and deregulation led to people being able to keep a lot more of their money and a lot more job creation, and hence economic growth.
During H. W. Bush's administration, the economy continued to decline and ultimately cost him his re-election despite having nearly 90% approval ratings after the victory with the Gulf War.
George H. W. Bush reversed his "Read my lips, no new taxes" and agreed with Congressional Democrats to a tax increase which also contributed to the recession that occurred under him.
Also, I believe he was leading Clinton in the polls up until the last week, when soemthing (I forget exactly) came up which reversed the polls within a week and he lost.
By the time Clinton took the presidency, the country was yet again facing a recession and a mounting national deficit. During this time, Clinton not only managed to repair the economy but also turn the federal deficit into a surplus. Currently, that surplus is now a deficit, courtesy of President Bush.
A President cannot repair an economy (remember Congress is included too; only Congress has the power to tax, spend, etc...). The only way a government can repair the economy is if it is too taxes or regulated and they proceed to cut taxes or cut regulations. Or if a deficit is so large that the gov't shrinks it, which helps the economy. But otherwise, the economy self-regulates for the most part.
Clinton increased taxes and sought to increase spending. Now the Clinton tax increase did not tank the economy, despite claims by the Republicans it would (this just shows how tax policy is both art and science), and it did increase revenues. But then the Republicans won back the House and Clinton started governing more to the center. He also kind of became a lame duck for awhile due to the Monica Lewinsky incident I believe. The economy reversed itself under him from a few reasons:
1) He finally signed off on welfare reform, which he resisted and vetoed multiple times at first
2) He complete NAFTA, which had been started under Reagan
3) He signed off (reluctantly) on a capital gains tax cut (28% to 20%) and revenues surged, hitting surplus in 1998.
4) He benefited from the Dot Com bubble. Reagan benefited from a bubble as well which helped reverse his deficit despite his increased defense spending, then in 1987 it burst. And so did George W. Bush, who saw the deficit begin shrinking in 2006 to 2007. But then the bubble popped (had the Republicans been fiscally conservative, we probably would have seen a budget surplus under George W. Bush for awhile). Remember in 2000 the Dot Com bubble popped, the markets tanked over 50%, and the Clinton surplus quickly became a deficit again.
5) Defense spending was significantly cut with the Soviet Union's collapse; this had made up a lot of the initial Reagan deficit.
The point is, considering the last 30 years, the Democrats have a much better record on managing the economy and I think it's a little premature to judge the Democrats spending policies.
I'd disagree there. And remember government doesn't "manage" the economy. However, I am not talking about Democrats versus Republicans, I am talking about Left versus Right. Very few Republicans have ever been truly to the Right. Reagan was to a good extent, but he was limited to some extent by the Democrats in Congress and also his military spending.
The other thing is remember, the Presidency does not rule the country. The Congress counts too. Only the Congress has the power to tax, spend, declare war, etc...
But if Democrats become the party of limited government, fiscal conservativsm, free-market capitalism, etc...fine by me! And notice that is what we had under Clinton, which is what helped the budget to become balanced.
While not the same policies we are seeing now, FDR implemented "leftist" policies with his New Deal which alleviated the effects of the depression.
This is highly controversial. There are many books on this subject which go into detail about how his policies lengthened and deepened the Great Depression.
Also, once WWII started, our economy completely recovered.
This is again another area economists debate. Some say the super-high spending of WWII recovered the economy, others say it is a ludicrous claim because a good deal of the workforce was sent off to war, which automatically helped drive down the "unemployment" rate, along with some other details.
Interestingly, during WWII, government intervention - competition even - with business was at an all time high.
War can help business, the economy is the question however.
During WWII there were many shortages. Certain businesses profited very well from the war however. Some even supplied both the Allies and the Axis powers!
One could also argue based on the direction the economy has gone under the Republicans that the country has never done well with conservative policies. Left is a really ambiguous term here so I'm sorry if I missed your point.
Like I said, just look at the states, cities, and European countries. I say Left because the Republicans have occasionally been Left and the Democrats have occasionally been Right. leftism doesn't care what party applies its policies.
There is a myth that when the 1929 Stock Market crash happened, that Herbert Hoover stood on the sidelines, took a hands-off policy on the economy, and the economy went into the depression.
In reality, he signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff which put a huge tax on over 20,000 different imports. Other countries responded with similar measures, and global trade ground to a halt. The measure was meant to protect American industry from foreign competition, but instead it proceed to wreck the economy. It is believed as well that the news that Smoot-Hawley would be signed likely by Hoover is what triggered the 1929 crash, as it was the day before the crash that the (I think)
New York Times had a front-page article saying this.
Hoover also signed off on a large tax increase, making things worse. The NYT even ran a story saying Hoover had done everything anyone could think of to try and recover the economy.
When John F. Kennedy sought to cut taxes, it was the Republicans in Congress who resisted it. And when Reagan wanted to cut taxes, which went against the Republican establishment at the time, they said it was ludicrous.
The Republicans, and Democrats, at the time, believed in raising taxes to try and close the deficit. It didn't occur to them that increasing taxes could negatively affect economic growth because the establishment Keynesian ideology at the time was that cutting taxes would overwhelm the economy with demand and skyrocket inflation.
And then here we were with double-digit inflation and it was thought a possible Wiemar Republic-style inflation on the horizon and this looney-tune Ronald Reagan wants to CUT taxes? Was he nuts? Nope, he just knew that the Keynesian idea that tax cuts would overwhelm the economy and make inflation worse was incorrect.
Nixon was a HARDCORE Keynesian. He was only "Republican" in social issues, otherwise he was strictly for big government control of the economy (and under him the economy went haywire due to his policies). He "fixed" inflation by enacting price controls, a politically brilliant move, but Constitutionally questionable and ludicrous economically. The inflation kept building, so it exploded into double-digits when the price controls were removed.
I'll admit that I don't have enough knowledge to either agree or disagree with you on most of these points. I have a difficult time taking a stance one way or another on unions so I can't really discuss them either.
Unions served a very good role back in the days prior to good labor laws and regulations, as a way to protect workers from corporations that just treated them like crap (like force them to work in completely unsafe conditions).
But like corporations, unions unto themselves can become corrupt and very greedy.
In modern times, unions have more been simply for workers who wanted more money out of a business, rather than safer working conditions, which is wrong as the workers are not entitled to the profits of the business in a free-market. This isn't the full-case, there is still need here and there, but unions are needed a lot less in modern times.
Historically organized crime ties in a lot with organized labor.
Public unions are mostly strictly for money, as they are for employees of the government. But unlike with a corporation, a government can always increase taxes if they need more money, so public employees unions tend to demand lots more money. But they ignore that forcing the government to keep yanking taxes damages the economy and can make the government go insolvent or bankrupt.
Pending on what's meant by leftism, European nations have had great success with "leftist" policies. During the Depression, while both Germany and Britain did not resort to Keynsian Spending, their respective governments took near control of the economy - much more so than here in the U.S. - regulating business, forcing employment, etc. Interestingly, both of their economies recovered much quicker than ours, resuming and often exceeding pre-depression production by 1937.
That depends. Germany implemented a wartime economy, which appeared to fix the problems. In Britain, I don't know about their depression situation, but I know after World War II, the British nationalized multiple industries outright, such as mining, coal, railroads, and so forth, and it proved to be a total disaster.
Labour party, by the 1970s, was running the economy into the ground. The unions, in particular the coal unions, had a tremendous stranglehold on the UK economy.
When Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives took power, they went to battle with the coal unions. Thatcher had stockpiled coal so when the coal unions went on strike, the country didn't shut down. They mananged to break the coal unions.
However then the Conservatives and Thatcher started becoming hypocrites; Thatcher raised taxes later on, and the UK's party of family values started having all sorts of various scandals.
Meanwhile Labour re-branded itself as "New Labour" and won back power. However, they seem to have since very mis-managed the public finances, so now it seems the Conservatives will make a comeback in the UK soon.
In Italy, I know there are books about how Mussolini's fascism wrecked Italy's economy.
Historically, keynsian spending lifted the United States out of the Depression and was the policy that governed our post-war economic spending. Ultimately, after the war, our economy continued to get better. While keynsian spending isn't exactly stimulus spending (some would probably argue it is, some would argue it isn't), the general idea is the same.
Again, depends. Remember, FDR's Treasury Secretary said that all the spending they were doing wasn't working. But even if it was, FDR still enacted a lot of things that were hurting the economy, such as keeping wages artificially high, rationing, and super-high taxes. Also free-trade remained restrained.
During the 1950s, our economy had little competition from foreigners (Japan and Europe were still re-building. Also, because birthrates dropped off during the Depression, when the 1950s came, a much smaller number of men were entering the workforce, and they were in great demand, which thus drove up wages.
So the 1950s were kind of "glory days," good wages, American economy was the envy of the world, etc...by the 1960s the economy was stalled again (this is why JFK wanted to cut taxes), and then by 1970 Nixon's actions really sent things going haywire.
Sure, as long there isn't much contention one way or another. However, if many Americans support universal healthcare, I think it would be wrong to dismiss it on the basis that you (or even many other Americans) do not support it.
How do we know many Americans support it though? Or do they support it assuming we can afford it..? Do they understand what they are supporting, that it has a cost as it isn't free? What about the whole argument about how it will affect costs.
For example the universal types say it will cut costs. The others say it will increase costs.
What about examples such as the UK, though, where they are having to ration various forms of care now, or Massachusettes, which tried a universal care system, but it has come out costing more than thought, or California which wanted to create such a system, but axed it because it would've bankrupted the state?
What about the cost issues with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, which have trillions in un-funded liabilities? Are Medicare, Medicaid, and SS sort of like a bigger version of our current financial crises, where some say, "Oh, the critics, they are scaremongers, do not worry," then in some years BOOM! these systems blow up in our faces...?
What about the concern that it will drive the private insurance industry out of business?
Are people aware that the anti-universal healthcare types are not pro health insurance company either?
What about the kind of control this could give government over our lives? For example, they might want to enact a law on this, or a tax on that (say fast food) because eating such stuff "increases healthcare costs."
We need a good national debate on all this stuff.
I am not ideologically, personally, opposed to single-payer healthcare, if someone could prove to me it works better, but I do not see how it possibly could nor have I seen any examples. For example I knew a soldier who had a vasectomy done in the military, and well then he got his wife pregnant later on, seems the vasectomy "fixed" itself :) so he had a private doctor look at it, and the doctor said it was the worst vasectomy he'd ever seen.
Military healthcare is strictly government-run healthcare, government hospitals, government doctors, etc...it seems really scary. Remember Walter Reed for example.
