Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul Flub America’s Post-WWII Economic History

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Please insert this article where the sun don't shine!

Robert Whittle of KS 11:32PM January 20, 2012

Utter nonsense. Ron Paul has been right about economic matters for decades.

J Jones of SC 11:26PM January 20, 2012

I challenge any member of the media who writes a story like this to show their personal debt. Ron Paul wants to cut spending, and he's called a 'joker'? It's a shame how Americans are the most fiscally irresponsible people on the face of the planet, and therefore can't see the benefits of any other way of life. I don't have any personal debt, so I guess that makes me a traitor.

Andrew of IN 11:17PM January 20, 2012

Another unconvincing Keynesian argument. You guys sound less convincing each passing day. The same Keynesians that said there would be no inflation in the 1970s, that there was no dotcom bubble, that there was no housing bubble (recently released minutes of the Fed from 2006 show that they still did not have a clue about the bubble that was about to burst), that the stimulus package would "cap the unemployment at 8%" when it went all the way upto 10% and if count people who have given up searching for jobs is close to 16%, that the dollar is as good as gold and that military spending stimulates the economy. Stop your nonsense propaganda. Admit that you were wrong and the Austrians were right, because they predicted these crises long before you did. Oh but that would mean no more jobs for you losers and no more "research" grants from the Fed.

M_Hayes of TX 11:15PM January 20, 2012

Liberal bull poop, what is comical is probably whoever you're going to vote for... Let me guess this guys solution is to become a socialist nation like most of Europe... Great idea, cause that seems to work, and I am really impressed how you can write an article supporting your point so well, I'd like to see you answer some questions in 90 seconds... You liberals are moronic, at least, not to say I support them, Republicans offer real solutions to sparking the economy; or would you rather the government handle it for you, so you can sit around youre whole life critiqueing innovative ideas your measly intelligence couldn't comprehend...

usuck liberalswine of CA 11:05PM January 20, 2012

im sorry, maybe im missing something or perhaps i just dont understand the word "flub". I am sorry that you found Ron Paul's statements regarding the post WWII economy boring and repetitive. But I fail to see how they were "flubs". I thought "to flub" meant "to botch" or "to mess up". You did not explain why Ron Paul was incorrect. I believe this lack of explanation was intentional. I realize that the truth is not important to people who's only purpose is to smear for a small paycheck. The truth is not important to people like yourself, yet you criticize others for their alleged inaccuracy.

jonathan salfeld of CO 11:01PM January 20, 2012

How much information can you convey in one minute? I trust Dr. Paul's facts more than yours.

Sylvia of FL 10:39PM January 20, 2012

One of the dumbest dumb things about being a dumb rightwing conservative is that all of them are reading impaired and have a habit of pulling nonsense out of context.
Before WWII the tax rates were in the teens, about 13.9 percent. During the war, the tax rates went way up and graduated from a low of 20.4 percent to a high of 94 percent.
As a result, ignorant lying fools such as Newt and Ron applaud the fact that the rates went down to 14.4 percent AFTER the war and gradually by the year 1950 (that's 5 years after the war, dimwits).
Finally, the GI bill was not the real, actual, true stimulus package after WWII.
The stimulus was named 52-20, in which returning GIs could receive $20 per week for 52 weeks as an unemployment re-adjustment.
Neither Gingrich the historian nor Paul the drafted doctor have ever heard of or read about this program because they are both dumber than a bag of horseshoes.

wurman of WA 10:13PM January 20, 2012

Seriously, your attacking of Ron Paul for being inaccurate about post World War II is itself incorrect history. Nothing Ron Paul said was factually incorrect, he was not making a case for supply side tax cuts per se, like Gingrich, just pointing out that reducing government spending and taxes worked beautifully for the US economy after the war ended. Your litany of things done after WW 2 or beginning in the war is completely unconvincing as well. You point to to numerous government agencies created during it as your proof, but the British had had numerous similar agencies during the war and continued with a wartime economy after the war ended but the British economy didn't recover with anything like the alacrity of the US economy, in point of fact, it went into a deep recession. Furthermore the US enjoyed a great many of the advantages in 1918 that it did in 1945. The US dollar was already the world's reserve currency, the biggest economy which was similarly undamaged, and the US casualties were but a small fraction of the major powers such as Germany, France, Britain, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, but the economy fell anyway. For example, US combat deaths were around 5 percent of the British Empire, whereas in WW2 the American casualty rate was actually higher than the British Empire despite being in the war for two less years. Nor were the British uniquely wounded, their casualty rate was much lower than Russia, Germany, Austria Hungary, and France. Switching back to the 40's, the Marshall Plan could hardly have had anything to do with it either, since it was not passed until 1948, whereas the US economy was already booming in 1946, two years prior. You could point to Bretton Woods, which you fail to mention by name despite your insistence on how important it was, but no one predicted the post war monetary arrangement at the time as a cause for post war prosperity. That is only something that was attributed to it in retrospect when it was clear that the good times were continuing. Remember also that Britain was part of that agreement as much as the US was, since Keynes lead the British delegation, but the British economy despite being on a war footing longer than the US, and receiving greater per capita govt. expenditures during it fell flat on it's face. Britain by in large had a depressed economy for five years after the war, exactly what had been predicted for the US when the war ended but didn't happen. You then point to technological advances, but a lot of those advances came from Britain during the war, not the US, but American economy recovered almost instantly whereas the British economy was depressed until around 1951 and continued government rationing of consumer items long after the war ended. Keynes had actually predicted a return to depression once the war ended, but that only happened in Britain despite explicitly Keynesian policies there under a Labour government, and not in the US which lacked the aforementioned policies.

Unladen Swallow of OH 9:38PM January 20, 2012

Scotty
You have all these factors after the war. Let's take out some of the distractions OUT. Water too muddy.
Bill C. increased taxes on rich and Newt reduced. Newt got better results. Have you missed Newt saying he balanced budget 4 times. Bill C. before Newt didn't. Liberal thinking is reduce tax on rich and revenue goes down. Newt sucess was reducing cost not allowing big Bill C. growth. Bill added debt and Newt surplus:
"Debunking Liberal Myths About Tax Cuts and the Economy"
"MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth."
"FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s. The economy grew modestly after Clinton raised taxes in 1993, but the economy grew even more after Clinton signed the tax cuts that were passed by the Republican-controlled Congress under Newt Gingrich’s leadership in 1997."
"Dr. J. D. Foster":
"Following the [Clinton] tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut. . . ."
"In 1997, the Republican-led Congress passed a tax-relief and deficit-reduction bill that was resisted but ultimately signed by President Clinton. The 1997 bill":
* "Lowered the top capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent;
* Created a new $500 child tax credit;
* Established the new Hope and Lifetime Learning tax credits to reduce the after-tax costs of higher education;
* Extended the air transportation excise taxes;
* Phased in an increase in the estate tax exemption from $600,000 to $1 million;
* Established Roth IRAs and increased the income limits for deductible IRAs;
* Established education IRAs;
* Conformed AMT depreciation lives to regular tax lives; and
* Phased in a 15 cent-per-pack increase in the cigarette tax. . . ."
"In 1995, the first year for which these data are available, just over $8 billion in venture capital was invested. Venture capital is especially critical to a vibrant economy because high-risk/high-return investment permits promising new businesses to blossom, rapidly spreading new technologies and new ideas into the marketplace and across the economy. Such investments, when successful, generate returns to investors that are subject primarily to the tax on capital gains. By 1998, the first full year in which the lower capital gains rates were in effect, venture capital activity reached almost $28 billion, more than a three-fold increase over 1995 levels, and by 1999, it had doubled yet again." (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm)
http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm