On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 08:21:23 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 20:01:07 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers

says the right winger with a reader's digest view of economics


should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

really?

uh...why did the depression end in 39?

did something happen in 39? uh yeah...the US started to spend for ww2

canuck's moronic view of economics is exceeded only by his ignorance
of history

It was something called lend lease that got the factories moving again.

So, money was spent by the US gov't. This stabilized the economy.
Thanks for the confirmation.

It was just like any other business deal. The corporations were told
that if they made and sold the items now they would get some money down
the road. This loaded up the companies billables and they could use that
to borrow against.

Which is exactly what happens when the gov't pumps money into the
economy for things like the STIM. Jobs are created and people pay
taxes. Same with the GM/Chrysler bailouts. All those people are still
employed and paying taxes.

The best bang for your buck (other than a war) are things like food
stamps. That money returns to the economy immediately, and is a net
positive, esp. in the short term.