Obama--the grumblings

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Redux

I'm more of a Keynesian.

Nice revisionist history on the New Deal.

The New Deal raised the GDP significantly between 32-37...until FDR slowed it down in 37 because of pressure from Republicans that it was creating deficits. Then the growth stopped until WW II.

That bears repeating...

Have you heard some republicans now trying to blame Roosevelt for the great depression? apparently he found a time machine somewhere...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

That bears repeating...

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Have you heard some republicans now trying to blame Roosevelt for the great depression?

Stop that.

I have seen on tv and read that there are differing opinions about what got out America out of it. Many seemed to believe the war was the biggest factor. That makes sense. I think its very difficult to quantify the impact otherwise.

Originally Posted by classicman

Stop that.

I have seen on tv and read that there are differing opinions about what got out America out of it. Many seemed to believe the war was the biggest factor. That makes sense. I think its very difficult to quantify the impact otherwise.

US GDP was at about $30 billion in '32 when FDR took office....having dropped from over $40 bill between '29 and '32.

As the New Deal programs were implemented, it rose each year between '33 and '37 to over $45 billion, then dipped in '37, the year FDR cut back on the New Deal spending.

Federal government spending rose each year from about $4 billion in '32 to over $8 billion in 37, then dropped for one year to under $7 billion, when FDR cut back on New Deal spending.

The historical data is available from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, but you have to search for yourself.

Perhaps the Keynesian model is not the only explanation for the growth of GDP (and the drop of unemployment by half) being tied to the growth in government spending between 1933-1938....economics is not an exact science. I'm not an economist, but it makes sense to me.
It certainly wasnt war spending in those years.

I would suggest the Roosevelt New Deal contributed dramatically to the revival of the moribund economy he inherited (not only preventing further tanking, but providing slow and steady growth and job creation) thus stabilizing the economy and then WW II took it to new heights.

[classicman]

I did mention differing opinions in my post, right?

Originally Posted by classicman

I did mention differing opinions in my post, right?

Hey.I'm just trying to understand the opinion that WW II ended the Great Depression and not the New Deal....which is the argument many Republicans in Congress (and the talking heads) opposed to the stimulus bill are still making...but never documenting.

UG made the same claim earlier.

I would like to see some one of that opinion back it with wiith data or even a simple explanation of how WW II, rather than the New Deal, contributed to the GDP rising about 5%/year between '33 and ''37 (after 4 years of negative growth) and unemployment rate dropping about 3%/year between '33 and 37 (after rising to nearly 25% between '29 and '32).

Both the significant rise in GDP rise and significant drop in unemployment between '33 and '37 meant a fairly strong economic growth and a hell of alot of jobs created between '33 and '37 somehow..and it sure seems like a stretch to me to suggest it was as a result of a war that was 4-7 years in the future.

The one blip in the pre-war economic data is in '38, the year FDR cut spending.

IMO, the only case they can make is that WW II contributed to driving down the unemployment rate even further to what could be characterized as "full" employment.

I wonder how ready or capable the US would have been for a war industry build-up in '41 if the economy had continued the slide downward every year through the '30s as it did from '29 to'33..before the New Deal.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

And no looking by any debater here into GDP 1941-45, or where it was in 1946? What do you suppose we might find? Seems those figures would support my claim about what the combination of war production infrastructure and no destruction would do, would they not?

It's easy to find GDP growth rate more than doubling 1941-45. Growth slumped a bit from '45-50, but growth rate took an upward trend thereafter.

Actual GDP in constant billions can be seen in this Wiki graphic: GDP over the Depression. What's striking is the similar angles of slump and of recovery over time. I wonder if there might have been a way to steepen the recovery curve, or not?

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

And no looking by any debater here into GDP 1941-45, or where it was in 1946? What do you suppose we might find? Seems those figures would support my claim about what the combination of war production infrastructure and no destruction would do, would they not?

It's easy to find GDP growth rate more than doubling 1941-45. Growth slumped a bit from '45-50, but growth rate took an upward trend thereafter.

Actual GDP in constant billions can be seen in this Wiki graphic: GDP over the Depression. What's striking is the similar angles of slump and of recovery over time. I wonder if there might have been a way to steepen the recovery curve, or not?

UG....thanks for the Wiki graphic

It clearly shows the significant drop (negative growth) of GDP in the years '29-'32 (causing the Great Depression) and the turn around beginning in '33, the same time the New Deal spending and job creation programs begain to be implemented, and growing annually in the pre-war years, with the exception of '37, when FDR cut back on the New Deal spending.

I dont dispute the facts that the GDP continued to rise during WW II and the post-war years.

But I am still trying to understand how WWII, rather than the New Deal spending and job creation programs, contributed to preventing further economic decline or accounted for the economic growth that took the country out of depression in FDR's first two terms (33-40)

An economic recession (or depression) is measured in quarters (or years) of negative economic growth.

As your chart illustrates, the negative economic growth ended with the implementation of the New Deal programs that FDR introduced in his first 100 days and started funding by mid-to-late '33.....well before WW II.

I'm not suggesting the depression ended immediately with the New Deal jobs and spending programs.....but the negative growth did and further economic decline was prevented.

And the steady annual economic growth in the subsequent 5-8 years (before WW II) with the New Deal jobs and spending programs effectively ended the Great Depression by the time the US entered WW II.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Stop that.

I have seen on tv and read that there are differing opinions about what got out America out of it. Many seemed to believe the war was the biggest factor. That makes sense. I think its very difficult to quantify the impact otherwise.

Stop what? :p

[classicman]

I don't remember now. But it must have been important at the time :p

[classicman]

Byrd: Obama in power grab

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

While it's rare for Byrd to criticize a president in his own party, Byrd is a stern constitutional scholar who has always stood up for the legislative branch in its role in checking the power of the White House. Byrd no longer holds the powerful Appropriations chairmanship, so his criticism does not carry as much weight these days. Byrd repeatedly clashed with the Bush administration over executive power, and it appears that he's not limiting his criticism to Republican administrations.

Byrd also wants Obama to limit claims of executive privilege while also ensuring that the White House czars don’t have authority over Cabinet officers confirmed by the Senate.

“As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, and to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.”
The West Virginia Democrat on Wednesday asked Obama to “consider the following: that assertions of executive privilege will be made only by the president, or with the president’s specific approval; that senior White House personnel will be limited from exercising authority over any person, any program, and any funding within the statutory responsibility of a Senate-confirmed department or agency head; that the president will be responsible for resolving any disagreement between a Senate-confirmed agency or department head and White House staff; and that the lines of authority and responsibility in the administration will be transparent and open to the American public.”

Obama faces a decision as early as next week on whether to support a claim of executive privilege made by former President Bush in refusing to allow Karl Rove, the former deputy White House chief of staff, to be deposed by the House Judiciary Committee on the White House’s role in the 2006 firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

Bush claimed “absolute immunity” for top advisers in resisting such subpoenas, but Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, filed a lawsuit over the issue. The case is on appeal, and the Obama administration is scheduled to file a motion next week laying out its stance on the issue.

Wow, Where'd that come from. Should be an interesting week.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

I did mention differing opinions in my post, right?

Opinions are like assholes. Numbers, on the other hand, rarely lie.

[capnhowdy]

That's where your wrong.
There are numerous opinions on this forum.
But not the first asshole.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by capnhowdy

But not the first asshole.

That's what we'd have been calling Bill, if Hillary had won the election.

[capnhowdy]

//: rimshot://

with cigar.....