You must be talking about a different depression, and different war. This link dispels many other myths about the depression and what/who caused it. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm 1930 - The unemployment rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent. 1931 - unemployment rises to 15.9 percent. 1932 - unemployment rises to 23.6 percent. 1933 - Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent. 1934 - unemployment falls to 21.7 percent. 1935 - unemployment falls to 20.1 percent. 1936 - unemployment falls to 16.9 percent. 1937 - unemployment falls to 14.3 percent. 1938 - unemployment rises to 19.0 percent. 1939 - unemployment falls to 17.2 percent. The main causes of the depression were simply an ultra-conservative Supreme Court which continually ruled for the rich over the common man, and enormous tax breaks for the rich. This lead to the rich becoming so powerful they actually tried to overthrow the government by financing a military coup. 1945 - The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent until 1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time, America will experience the greatest economic boom it has ever known. Bush Jr's administration repeated the same agenda of raping the poor to reward the rich, but Halliburton and it's personal agency The Department of Homeland Security, is a much more ingenious method of military coup. Most Americans don't even realize we've been overthrown yet.
The income tax was instituted 16 years before the Depression. It was unconstitutional, so they had to pass an amendment to make it legal. It was a 2% tax on only the wealthy, and it was promised that this was all it would ever be. Another government lie. Again, I don't see 16M in the military from a population of 132M going on here. The numbers would be closer to a 40M man military given out population is over 310M today. We spent 45% of the entire GDP back then on WW II and the huge military. We barely spend 20% of GDP on the entire federal government (at least in terms of receipts). 1931 - unemployment rises to 15.9 percent. 1939 - unemployment falls to 17.2 percent. What is 17.2 - 15.9 ? That's how much all of the New Deal failed to improve things (made them worse). All you have to offer is excuses, in spite of the actual data which shows that the govt. spent money in unprecedented amounts and percentages of the economy. The rich never paid big income taxes, even if the rate was 90%, because of the mortgage deduction instituted in 1913. Guys like Arthur Wirtz were filthy rich, and owned as much real estate (and mortgages) as it took to eliminate most of or all of their tax liability. Wirtz owned the Bulls, the Blackhawks, Chicago Stadium, the Merchandise Mart, and a number of other Chicago landmarks. The reason the US saw such great economic success immediately following WW II was that the war wasn't fought on our soil. Our cities and factories weren't bombed into oblivion like the Japanese and German cities were. As those countries rebuilt their factories and manufacturing capabilities, they gradually took away our market share. We might still make Cadillacs, but they make the Lexus and BMW and Porsche and Mercedes, as well as cars that sell for the common man (Corolla, Volkswagen, etc.).
That's funny. Women voting was unconstitutional, so they had to pass an amendment to make that legal. Happened about the same time, too. Really? The government promised that it would only ever be 2%? Exactly how did the "government" express this promise? If someone promises that something will last forever, are they a liar, or are you an idiot for believing them? Or do you bring your lunch? You are right, Denny, the stimulus package was too small. That is the point you are making, right? Nice try, but the New Deal didn't start to have effect on 1/1/32 and end on 12/31/39. It's called a stimulus package nowadays. Ok, here you have a point. It is economically better to bomb than to be bombed. I agree. barfo
What's funny is the idiots in government repeatedly fail to create jobs by borrowing and spending vast sums of money and no matter how much is spent and dismal the failure, they argue they should have spent more. Clinton got it right. He spent less money and we had good times. Get it?
Speaking of optimism... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/us/22poll.html?_r=1 Nation’s Mood at Lowest Level in Two Years, Poll Shows Americans are more pessimistic about the nation’s economic outlook and overall direction than they have been at any time since President Obama’s first two months in office, when the country was still officially ensnared in the Great Recession, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
To be fair - Clinton also raised the top marginal tax rate to a staggering 36% in 1993. It's really not too complicated - more income, less expense is good for the cash flow. We probably need to do both to get out of the current quagmire.
Doubling everyone's income tax won't come close, though. Let's see them cut enough spending first and then raising revenue to close the gap might make sense. I'm dubious that if they somehow doubled revenues that they would also double spending so we'd be looking at $3T deficits.
