The "New" New Deal

.....and they called Bush a liar! I may not be a GW Bush fan especially after he threw in all of our two cents towards banks that took the money and ran to Vegas. Well, that and a boat load of other spending he was responsible for. He's gone and we have Hope and Change. Obama is in charge and he apparently suffers from a short memory, or he must have skipped class and played basketball on the days they taught US History. It may also be possible that he's fully aware of history and is being completely dishonest to fleece the public in favor of old world style liberal spending and a march towards socialism. Whatever the case, he has been boldly speaking out about the urgency of spending now. He's spreading fear, doom and gloom smoother than you can spread warm butter on bread. There is a big problem with his message though. See, his message is that this economy is the worst since the Great Depression, and the solution is Government Spending (sorry, stimulus) on a massive scale. During his press conference, he talked about the urgency of getting this bill passed with no time for debate. "The time for debate has past..." He talked about how there are so many economists who agree that we must spend our way out of this mess and do it right away. He talked about the New Deal and how there are some who think FDR's spending with the New Deal prolonged the Depression, but don't listen to that, because it's not true. As it turns out, there is a lot of truth to that notion. I found a lot of that truth in my investigation into the New Deal. Some of my research took me to a place that I never thought I would find anything negative about FDR's rescue plans...The New York Times. Even further research took me to another liberal leaning periodical, US News and World Report. Obama also said "there is no disagreement, we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help jump start the economy." Apparently, there are a whole bunch of economists who disagree.

It would be pointless to post every single link that agrees with my argument as there are an equal amount of links that counter it. My point in this was to debunk Obama's belief that there is no disagreement on this concept. There certainly is and to spend Trillions on Trial and Error instead of spending far less on what has actually worked in the past is in my opinion, foolishly optimistic and dangerously irresponsible. To that note, let's talk about what has worked in the past. Obama keeps using the campaign talking points about "failed policies of the past." Lets look at facts before we permanently rewrite history. The economy Reagan inherited was far worse. He slashed TAX RATES, which immediately put money in people's pockets. This in turn flooded people's wallets with their own income and in turn, tax revenues to the government skyrocketed. The economy moved forward and the country had sustained growth for a very long period of time. This was done without costing the tax payers. Unfortunately, during his term, the Dems held both houses in Congress and porked the hell out of every bill that crossed his desk. He had to sign many into law as those same pork laden bills also included policies he supported and needed. Fast Forward to Bush #2. He inherited a slumping economy and his answer was to drop the TAX RATES again (for everyone, not just the rich) and the economy bounced back. During his term, we had 6 Years of growth while fighting separate wars. He signed spending bills with Republican pork and in turn, looked like a fool on the way out of office. But, is a tax rate cut really a failure of a policy? It's been tried, tested and proven to work. FDR's trial and error ended with massive spending with slow and limited success with levels of fantastic failure. Spending Trillions for a "We hope it will work".....just goes to show you what a waste of money ivy league education can be. The tax relief we'll see won't even be a rate cut which drives way more money into the working man's wallet than a check for $500-$1000.

If I'm wrong and this mess turns out great because of him, then I'll gladly eat crow. If not, then we're spending way too much and we've fucked ourselves royally. Oh, and why is it the Stimulus bill has provisions for universal healthcare? Shouldn't that be debated separately instead of quietly crammed down our throats? Don't be so quick to judge Bush for his administration's behavior, Obama is proving to be even more under-handed and within record time.