No, the US economy continued to be shit until WW2 resulted in a severe labor shortage. Giving charity money to old people had little to do with the serendipity of that coinciding with mass industrialization.
Last edited:
Because the economic policies forged in the New Deal ushered in the broad middle class as we've known it. It tore down the extreme concentration of wealth & power that existed in 1928. The further we've deviated from that the more unstable & astoundingly unequal the system has become. None of that is good for near median families & below at all, regardless of their political inclinations.
Thanks for admitting that the US should've gone into Iraq because the "experts" had the all the "information" about his WMDs
My liberal brain defect requires me to correct the troll, forgive me.
The experts said Iraq didn't have wmd's
No they didn't, though I understand your need to lie.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline/Memo to CIA from Energy Department experts eviscerates “Joe’s” theory that aluminum tubes purchased by Iraq are for nuclear centrifuges. Memo given to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who later claims tubes are clear evidence of Iraqi nuke program.
By American standards that makes you a socialist.I'm a minimalist. I work, save, and do most things myself. I consider that conservative. I also see a world where poor or unfortunate or sick need help and should be taken care of by taxes and donations. I consider that liberal. What am I?
By American standards that makes you a socialist.
Steve? What are you doing with his wife Steve, dank, 69?A job would interfere with the time I spend with your wife.
No they didn't, though I understand your need to lie.
As I said before: "Get back to us when Antifa starts calling for throwing people in ovens."
No, the US economy continued to be shit until WW2 resulted in a severe labor shortage. Giving charity money to old people had little to do with the serendipity of that coinciding with mass industrialization.
I was too vague. I referenced the period from 1945 until Ronnie Rayguns first suckered us with trickle down economics.
But there are deeper reasons for that, surely? The post-war boom in the West ran out of steam, and it did so in stages (the early '70s oil crisis being one notable turning point), with a series of different attempts to keep the show on the road, of which Reagan and the neo-liberals was just the most recent. I don't believe Reaganism just happened by random chance and that the politics of the boom years could have just been continued if voters had so decided.
For one thing, from the US perspective, at least for the 1950s, it had a lot to do with all its main economic competitors having been bankrupted or reduced to piles of rubble during the war.
Highly inaccurate-
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/the-europe-in-rubble-excuse/?_r=0
America's problem isn't the size of the pie but rather the way we divvy it up... Trickle down doesn't deliver.
"There’s a slight presumption of positive effects from foreign growth, which becomes a much stronger presumption if the foreign economies start very small — which is exactly the situation after World War II."
That link doesn't really help your point, as the Democrat Senators who voted Yea include:Roflmouth is going into emergency diversion into revisionist history.
And, yeh, Iraq is another reason Dems are better than Repubs.
Que the "You voted for it!" song & dance. Here's the actual vote-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
That link doesn't really help your point, as the Democrat Senators who voted Yea include:
Dodd
Biden
Clinton
Daschle
Edwards
Feinstein
Kerry
Schumer
Reid
They only turned on the war until it was politically convenient to do so. Don't give me the line of garbage that Bush "duped them" with faulty intelligence. After 9/11, Bush was a politically popular President given our seemingly decisive victory in Afghanistan, and the decision by Democrats to support the invasion of Iraq was one of political survival, particularly for the Senators from NY.
Bush, an incompetent President enabled by a bunch of politically opportunistic hypocrites.
Obfuscate all you want. The truth is that trickle down Reaganomics has delivered the greatest inequality since 1928 via relentless tax advantaged top down economic warfare.Ah, but I did specify 'for the 1950s'. For that period it was true - that era is often cited as a 'golden age' in the US, whereas everyone in Europe I know who remembers it, remembers it as unremittingly grim and depressing (of course it probably was pretty grim for all non white-male-heterosexual Americans as well).
But, indeed, the later part of the boom - when Europe joined in as well - can't be ascribed to that. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have deeper economic causes than just the wrong people happening to get elected by accident. How the pie is divvied up may itself be dependent on economic factors. And it isn't solely about how its divvied up - it's easier to divide it up more generously when things are going well and growth is high. Growth has never returned to that of the post-war boom period.
Funny though that Krugman refers to that claim as coming from conservatives. I've always heard it coming from the left in response to US conservatives banging on about how great the 50s were and claiming it all started to go wrong with those damn hippies.
Edit - also, if I read it correctly, the penultimate paragraph in that Krugman article seems to contradict the general argument. Confusing.
Which seems to be confirming the very point he's arguing against - that there was a positive effect on the US due to post-war Europe having to rebuild from scratch.
I suppose politically opportunistic hypocrisy is marginally better than neoconservative imperialism. Who cares about the lives of the troops caught in the balance.Dems response to the war mongering by the Bush Admin was nonetheless "better than" Repub response.
You make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I suppose politically opportunistic hypocrisy is marginally better than neoconservative imperialism. Who cares about the lives of the troops caught in the balance.
You're right leadership does matter, which is why Clinton first lost to Obama and then to a reality star closet Nazi.Your point is?
Leadership matters & it was the leadership of GWB that led to the invasion of Iraq, not the leadership of Democrats.
I'm a minimalist. I work, save, and do most things myself. I consider that conservative. I also see a world where poor or unfortunate or sick need help and should be taken care of by taxes and donations. I consider that liberal. What am I?
You're right leadership does matter, which is why Clinton first lost to Obama and then to a reality star closet Nazi.
Also, W wasn't leading much of anything.
You're right leadership does matter, which is why Clinton first lost to Obama and then to a reality star closet Nazi.
Also, W wasn't leading much of anything.
Why do you think Clinton lost the nomination to Obama? He attacked her Iraq vote and lack of charisma (she's likable enough). Trump built from an existing playbook.I'm sure that made sense in your head.