Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Raubvogel on July 29, 2003, 12:36:50 AM
-
Bastard sent me $800 today and I didn't even ask for it! The nerve!
-
Give it to your 2 kids... It's only fair since they're the ones who are gonna have to pay it back.
:p
-
well your kids will be paying for his administration, but you'll be paying this one back yourself.
read the whole story on it (recieved the explaining letter last week), it's just an advance on your 2003 refund. and if you wouldn't have got a refund you'll have to pay it back.
-
Thats just the extra $800 I had to pay, I want it back!
-
people that don't reach a certain amount of income also don't get any cash at all..
YOU'RE WELCOME!
-
People who didn't pay income taxes didn't get an income tax refund. How can that be fair?
-
funny, i was talking to some people yesterday at work. problem is as follows:
-feds lower taxes and you get 800$.
- state raises home property taxes by 1000$.
So now you're 200$ short.
They say it happends in NY and CT every time that taxes come down :) How is that for ironic ?
I told them not to worry, their tax free dividends will surely cover way more then 200$ :)
-
Originally posted by fd ski
funny, i was talking to some people yesterday at work. problem is as follows:
-feds lower taxes and you get 800$.
- state raises home property taxes by 1000$.
So now you're 200$ short.
They say it happends in NY and CT every time that taxes come down :) How is that for ironic ?
I told them not to worry, their tax free dividends will surely cover way more then 200$ :)
Thats a perfect example of Democrats raising taxes *(NY, and CT are primarily Dem) and Repubs relieving taxes.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Thats a perfect example of Democrats raising taxes *(NY, and CT are primarily Dem) and Repubs relieving taxes.
Then explain why it is happening in Texas also. They are slick, they don't raise the tax rate, they just raise the property value. Golly, ain't those Republicans swell?
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Then explain why it is happening in Texas also. They are slick, they don't raise the tax rate, they just raise the property value. Golly, ain't those Republicans swell?
FD-Ski said "everytime this happens" so I'm assuming that those two states decide to take that money given back and raise the taxes while people have that money.
These days, alot of states are raising prop. taxes due to shortages of funds because of the recession we're coming out of that began in March 2000, including our state. The primary reason for this is because our politicians, regardless of party affiliation, don't know how to put themselves on a budget and don't know how to account for spending. They expect us to do that when they raise our taxes. So, as a taxpayer, its up to you to voice your displeasure and contact your local congressman and tell them "You account for your spending and stop raising MY taxes" or you can be a sheep and say "Yass Massa"
-
Originally posted by Nash
Give it to your 2 kids... It's only fair since they're the ones who are gonna have to pay it back.
:p
I know you meant that as a joke, Nash...but it's the sad truth.
20 years from now, economists will be saying "what in hell was that administration thinking?"
-
Actually Rip, CT has a Republican governor and is pretty evenly split last i checked. In NY Mr. Pataki is also a Republican. Bloomberg ran on republican ticket as well.
Don't dillude yourself that Republicans are lowering taxes. They ain't that stupid.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Actually Rip, CT has a Republican governor and is pretty evenly split last i checked. In NY Mr. Pataki is also a Republican. Bloomberg ran on republican ticket as well.
Don't dillude yourself that Republicans are lowering taxes. They ain't that stupid.
Who controls the house in your state? ;)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So, as a taxpayer, its up to you to voice your displeasure and contact your local congressman and tell them "You account for your spending and stop raising MY taxes" or you can be a sheep and say "Yass Massa"
Sadly, my congressman has zero to due with property taxes. Property Tax is a local issue (at least in Texas). They did not raise the tax rate (which would require a vote), they raised the property values (you have absolutely no say in this matter, you can protest till you turn blue, and I have). Property values are set by the Chief Appraiser, who is a civil servant and has no election and no fear of losing his job. (Note: In our county the chief appraiser also happens to be on the County's Republican Party Committee)
-
It is well and good that many in this thread realize that elected politicians are the ONLY reliable means of spending money correctly.
In the near future, when more have "come to the light" and realize the truth of this, we will initiate "direct deposit" of everyone's paycheck into the Federal and State government revenue accounts.
You will then be sent a monthly allotment of money, after the politicians have determined how much you in particular need to spend. The rest they will keep and spend for you, since you are unable to determine the best way to spend your money.
There will be a slight charge for this service.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Sadly, my congressman has zero to due with property taxes. Property Tax is a local issue (at least in Texas). They did not raise the tax rate (which would require a vote), they raised the property values (you have absolutely no say in this matter, you can protest till you turn blue, and I have). Property values are set by the Chief Appraiser, who is a civil servant and has no election and no fear of losing his job. (Note: In our county the chief appraiser also happens to be on the County's Republican Party Committee)
Property taxes are usually raised due to a stagnation in state-level funding of local towns or shortage of funds. Its still an issue you can take to the state officials. The local officials is a good place to start asking "why" and when they give you specifics (as why the state is requiring local cities/towns to hold their own) then you can take up the issue with state. Start low, go high. I have in the past...you will get heard though I can't garantee it'll do anything. If enough people do the same, you can bet it gets heard (just look at why were getting a tax break at the Gov't level, enough people voiced their opinions, me included)
Another thing to consider too is, the market for your house vs. what its assessed at. Mine is assessed at about $60,000 below its market value, so I'm not about to go asking for a repeal at a local level for fear they'll get a decent assessment appraisal. ;)
-
I thought it was unpatriotic and un-American to diss the Prez?
-
Rip, you are not following what I said. Tax rates were not raised, the valuation was. This is an arbitrairy figure made by the Chief Appraiser who answers to no one. You sound like you have some exemptions (homestead, ect.) or at the least are very lucky. If I could sell my property for the amount they have it valued at I would be posting this from Jamaica.
-
Well....the $1600.00 GWB advanced me is far better off in my hands than the goverments.
Of course, like many of you believe....the goverment knows how to take care of all us much more so than we ourselves do.
Those of you who don't like it, are either single, broke or both....and if that's not the case, then send it back to Uncle Sam...you know....practice what ya preach.:)
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Rip, you are not following what I said. Tax rates were not raised, the valuation was. This is an arbitrairy figure made by the Chief Appraiser who answers to no one. You sound like you have some exemptions (homestead, ect.) or at the least are very lucky. If I could sell my property for the amount they have it valued at I would be posting this from Jamaica.
The Chief Appraiser is indeed valuating your property. The taxes that are raised thereafter based on the assessment is the subject you can write your local congressman or senator. Yes, property does go up in value, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should agree to the current tax rate of that assessment.
-
This year was the first year in a looooooooooong time that I actually got money back. Thats it, Ive had it!! Hillary in 04!!!
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
well your kids will be paying for his administration, but you'll be paying this one back yourself.
read the whole story on it (recieved the explaining letter last week), it's just an advance on your 2003 refund. and if you wouldn't have got a refund you'll have to pay it back.
I believe that is why the letter tells you not to throw it away, you will need it at tax time.
-
Regarding your property taxes....this is really very simple to control.
I have used the services for over 20 years, of what we call Pit Bulls in our industry to control the County Assessors Office. Being in the shopping Center industry, they view us as free money. We simply fight back.
The Pit Bull will file an appeal for your specific property and fight their assessment...they do this on a contingency basis...my guy is 40-60.
He did my house last year and got it reduced by 20k....most folks lay down, while all along there are remedies to take control of these guys at your disposal.
Fight back ya Girlscouts:)
-
Originally posted by Rude
Regarding your property taxes....this is really very simple to control.
I have used the services for over 20 years, of what we call Pit Bulls in our industry to control the County Assessors Office. Being in the shopping Center industry, they view us as free money. We simply fight back.
The Pit Bull will file an appeal for your specific property and fight their assessment...they do this on a contingency basis...my guy is 40-60.
He did my house last year and got it reduced by 20k....most folks lay down, while all along there are remedies to take control of these guys at your disposal.
Fight back ya Girlscouts:)
Would you fight back if you're property is currently assessed at $60-70,000 under current market value?
-
Probably not.....being unaware of your specific circumstances, I would leave it sit.
-
For information on the refund: http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=111546,00.html
-
Hey, what does the envelope look like for this refund? I hope I didn't throw it away as yet another piece of junkmail! :eek:
-
standard manila envelope with greenish gov't check in the window.
btw the check is $400 for each child born after 12/31/86
-
I really don't need that 1200 bucks. I wish they wouldn't mail it to me.:(
-
it's ok you can pay it back in april
-
every single fee state county and municiple have gone up like mad in texas in the last two years of republican crap thanks gwb2. nothing can be done as repubs are hell bent on gerymandering. chance of a republican govonor next time zero.
thanks repubs !! yall are coming thru just as expected.
p.s. when willl the economy sucking become republicans responsibility ? or is it still clintons fault ?
rofl
-
Those Damn rich people.:rolleyes:
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=109812,00.html
The Child Tax Credit begins to phase out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income above:
$110,000if married filing jointly
$55,000, if married filing separately, or
$75,000, for all others.
For every $1,000 or portion there of above these thresholds, the total credit amount is reduced by $50. Thus, in 2002 a taxpayer with two children (who would otherwise have a $1,200 credit) had the Child Tax Credit completely phase out if his/her AGI was more than $23,000 above the threshold. The higher per child credit amount for 2003 will mean that a taxpayer with two children will not have the $2,000 credit amount completely phase out unless his/her AGI is more than $39,000 above the threshold.
-
is it going to do what it is designed to do?
those of you running around with $400, $800, $1200 extra cash - you gonna spend it or save it?
my guess is: 95% of it gets blown in the first week
(youngest born 12/85 - no "free" money :))
-
I find it odd that bush can see how extra money in the pockets of working and lower class americans would be a great thing to help the economy. and then focusus most tax relief on the rich (where the extra money will not likely effect there spending) and is against things like a reasonable minimum wage and overtime pay.
seems like he'd rather have the working class broke and desparate so they are easier to control, and just give out enough to make people grateful enough to fall for electing him again.
frankly I'd be happy to let him keep the $800 if I could just have the 15-20k more I made before he was elected
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I find it odd that bush can see how extra money in the pockets of working and lower class americans would be a great thing to help the economy. and then focusus most tax relief on the rich (where the extra money will not likely effect there spending) and is against things like a reasonable minimum wage and overtime pay.
seems like he'd rather have the working class broke and desparate so they are easier to control, and just give out enough to make people grateful enough to fall for electing him again.
frankly I'd be happy to let him keep the $800 if I could just have the 15-20k more I made before he was elected
Most tax relief on the rich? Should folks who don't pay taxes get refunds from the government?
Define rich for me Capt.
The working class broke so he can control them? Sheesh....I thought welfare and sucking the hind tit of the Government gave Washington control.
The loss of your job was Bush's fault? Please explain.
Here's my take and I'm sure you won't like it......
I was raised to get off my bellybutton and work....I wasn't born with money, I learned how to earn it. I worked 1,2, or 3 jobs to earn the money necessary to make investments and position myself with people who knew how to make money. I didn't sit around on my rear blaming others. Do you feel you deserve a job? You don't deserve anything....you have the freedom in this country to make what you may of your life....stop blaming others.
Take a look around you....immigrants hit the beach and they end up owning their own businesses or achieving success in other areas because they recognize opportunity and are thankful enough to work like a dog to EARN it. Most every successful person I''ve ever known takes risks and fails multiple times before ever enjoying any kind of cash flow and security.
Life is tough.....you cannot tell me that with the current economy, you can't find work....as a matter of fact, you could find work back in the 70's when the economy was really bitin it.
Oh and I get it....it's easier to squeak and moan like a girl about the rich this and Bush that....what's it going to be next time....ya think the only slowed economy will exist during the 4 or 8 years Bush is at the helm....man how ridiculous is that mindset anyway.
Stop blaming others and do what's necessary to improve your life...go earn the next opportunity instead of waiting for someone to deliver it to you....it's sweeter to earn it.
-
Rude.....
"SHACK!"
:)
-
Well Apathy, it's that old conundrum.
If you give a percentage tax break to all taxpayers, the folks that PAY THE MOST IN will GET THE MOST BACK.
It's that darn math thing.
See, in 2000, the top 50% of all taxpayers payed 96.1% of ALL income taxes. These rich, heartless bastiges had income that was above the hedonistic sum of $27,682.
To break that down a bit, the top 25% of all taxpayers payed 84.0% of ALL income taxes. These are the true heartless bastiges, I guess. They had income above the princely sum of $55,225 and had an effective tax rate of 19.1%
Well, as I look further though, I see that the top 10% of all taxpayers payed 67.3% of ALL income taxes. Maybe these are the real bastiges; they made the absolutely incredible "Mr. Scrooge" income of more than $92,114 with an effective tax rate of 22.3%.
Oops.. hold on. I see WORSE offenders! The top 5% of all taxpayers paid a mere 56.5% OF ALL INCOME TAXES PAID! How'd they get away with a theft like that??? These Kings of the US economy had income above $128,336 and were taxed at only 24.4%! Just a mere quarter of their total income went to the Federal Common good. And some to their State, of course as income tax. And then State sales tax. Not to mention City earnings taxes. And that old Social Security Tax that is not a tax. My Cod! How do these robber barons get away with paying only 56.5% of the entire amount of Federal Income tax????
Whew......
YIKES! DISASTER! The Unbelievably RICH! The top 1% of all taxpayers paid a mere 37.4% of ALL FEDERAL INCOME TAX. What a crime! 1% of the people ONLY PAYING 37% of ALL taxes? HOW DID THAT HAPPEN???? These Emperors of the World make more than $313,469 and are only taxed at a rate of 27.4%! We need to take every single cent away from these folks! What are they doing? 1% of the taxpayers merely paying 27.4% of all taxes??
Now, the folks below $27,682, the bottom 50% payed 3.9% of all income taxes and had an effective tax rate of 4.6%. This group includes college and high school kids like my two sons that made very little money, far, far less than $27K but still payed a bit of tax.
Now, what's really needed is to give ALL the tax money from the "rich" folks.. which in our tax code is any family making more than $92,114... the dreaded "Top Ten Percent" directly to those that don't pay any taxes at all. SOAK THE RICH! SOAK THE BASTIGES that make more than $90K!!
This is the fabled Utopia that will solve all problems. It's called transfer of wealth. Variations of it have been tried but so far, it doesn't seem to work. Seems when you pay folks to do nothing, not much gets done. :D
-
I've been loking for the chart on when the new tax breaks 'sunset', maybe someone else has it.
It's been a few weeks since I've seen it but if you listed the tax breaks by who they effect most heavily (from lowest income to highest) and also listed when they sunseted (automaticly expired) the lists lined up temporarily.
so things like this increase in the child credit expire in a couple years but some of the more rich oriented like the taxes on stock profit last for quit awhile.
another thing is that most working class people own stock through their pensions, those are exempt from the new tax break. so your average working man will continue to pay on the money invested on his behalf through his pension fund, that break is just for those wealthy enough to have money left for investing after food and rent.
BTW- what do I consider rich? can you buy all the food your family needs? is your rent/house-payment payed easily? can you take your kid to the DR without wondering what other bills wont get payed? if you can do all these and still have 10-20% opf your income left to spend or save as you see fit, then you are rich. maybe bill gates or most of Bush's freinds would find you rich, but the vast majority of americans would love to be in your shoes.
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
I thought it was unpatriotic and un-American to diss the Prez?
You are joking, right? While the US and GB can be rather nasty with political dissent during declared wars, in general, political dissent (including 'dissing the prez') is a national pasttime.
Even the old "Teflon Prez" Ronald Reagan wasn't immune. When Reagan visited Auschwitz, he recalled the horror he felt when he first saw the area during the war. Later (during Reason's admin) the press widely reported the common fact that Reagan never left Hollywood during the war.
Anyway, no one holds their politicians under the scrutiny of a spot light like we do ... possibly England is a close second.
curly
-
BTW- what do I consider rich? can you buy all the food your family needs? is your rent/house-payment payed easily? can you take your kid to the DR without wondering what other bills wont get payed? if you can do all these and still have 10-20% opf your income left to spend or save as you see fit, then you are rich. maybe bill gates or most of Bush's freinds would find you rich, but the vast majority of americans would love to be in your shoes.
C'mon.....don't give me that crap. You think I was born with money....you think I don't know what hard times are? I lost my job in 96....4 kids and a stay at home wife to support. I went from six figures to nothing in one phone call. Lost my house and my credit....what did I do? I went to work so that I could feed my family! I sold suits so we could eat....I found opportunity to make more money on the side selling surplus inventories.
Now I'm back in the saddle and don't count on anyone other than the Good Lord Himself to keep me here.
Look, I'm sorry if things are tight for you and yours....I'm just saying that for you to blame anyone is a giant waste of time. We have a great country where if you apply yourself and work hard, you can make a life for yourself.
To covet others for what they've earned is unproductive and will keep you where you're at for as long as you continue with such a mindset. It's the core of the Democratic platform....they want you to hate anyone who has it better in life....blame the Republicans...they don't care about you. What a lie.
Toad nailed it....when ya pay folks to do nothin...not much gets done.
You wanna be in my shoes? Then work as hard as I did and you'll get there.
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
BTW- what do I consider rich? can you buy all the food your family needs? is your rent/house-payment payed easily? can you take your kid to the DR without wondering what other bills wont get payed? if you can do all these and still have 10-20% opf your income left to spend or save as you see fit, then you are rich.
Well, then I'm nowhere near rich. Between my Rich Uncle Sam, the local Governor, the Mayor and various non-taxes like Social Security, I don't even see something near 50% of my income. And deducting what you consider the necessities.. plus a few others like helping my 80+ year old parents and in-laws make ends meet.... I have nowhere near 10-20% left to spend as I see fit.
I'm not complaining. I have a good life.
But the idea of direct transfer of wealth has been proven to be a bloody disaster. The examples litter the landscape and were extremely visible when the Iron Curtain dropped and you could see what a sham was going on behind it.
Pay people to do nothing and nothing is what you'll get.
Some can't work for various reasons; that's understandable and they need the help.
Other's don't or won't work. I'll let Rude deal with that. ;)
-
I never advocated a welfare state. but I see nothing wrong with taxing people for whom our system is working out well at a higher rate. I keep seeing replies refering to people who are 'payed for doing nothin'. where did I say we should be giving money away? all I'm saying is the tax relief seems to be going mostly to people who are doing alright without it.
as I said, the breaks on stock earnings only going to those who have enough disposable income to do it personally, while excluding those who do it through their pension funds.
tax breaks like child credits being set to expire soon, while the breaks that mainly effect the wealthy having much longer 'sunset' clauses.
it's nothing new for republican administrations. I don't recal off hand if it was Reagan or Bush sr. (I think reagan) who came up with the great revinue plan of taxing benifits from unemployment insurance. (the only type of insurance benifits that are taxable AFAIK).
one advantage to my line of work is I a very real and imediat feel for how the how the economy is doing. while most people just see interest rates fall or maybe read about unemployment rates, they are fairly insulated up to the point it takes out there job.
on the other hand I work for many different employers throughout the year. job ranging from a couple days to 9 months or so. in great years (ie 93 to early 2001) you could finish up one job and if you where any good at what you do, there where a couple calls waiting when you get home with jobs to choose from. now it's not uncommon to go a month or more with no new projects starting.
most people get a set salary and if the ecconomy is a little worse than last year they don't feel it unless it gets their job. for me if the economy goes down a little my income goes down alittle.
the point I made in my post (the one that every body thought seemed like I was endorsing the free give away of moneyto lazy non-working slugs), was that Bush's administration can see that if they are going to get this economy back to something even remotely tollerable they need to pump money into the economy. so they sent checks out to people who need the money and are likely to spend it (who's handing out money now?).
ok, so they see that the average, working class consumer having money is great for the economy but then they are against things like minimum wage (raising minimum wage does not help people who are doing nothin. you can double the minimum wage and it wont help a guy who doesn't work one bit). also he's changing the overtime laws(ya, get rid of that, screw those lazy bastards who work more than 40 hours a week). also major cuts in workplace safety laws since he's been in(one of the first things he did really, first couple months anyway), again how does that help the lazy, non-workers?
-
stop contracting and get a real job :)
make less but make it consistantly, have time in with a company
the contractors drive bmw and jags, inhouse ppl drive honda & fords .. but we have benefits, pension and a 401k that has a 66% match. We ain't rich by any means, just dedicated to the company which has been covering my arse for 20+ years.
-
did the regular company thing. some high level bozo screws up and 95% of the employees are out of work. alot of people at enron dedicated themselves to a company only to take it in the shorts too. steady work for one employer only works out if you happen to be lucky enough to work for a company who can manage their money without some exec, looting it and running. or realizing that if they outsorce your job to some foriegn country that allows their companys to exploit their workers for starvation wages in deadly conditions, they can save a couple of bucks per unit.
no the reagan/bush 80's pretty much cured me of loyalty to a company who shows none in return.
through my union I do have a good pension and health insurance. but again thanks to these wonderfully fair tax cuts the money I have invested in the stock market (through pension & anuity) is still taxable whereas if I was wealthy enough to have, extra wages to invest I could get in on some of that tax break
-
Look at the stats. 50% of the people pay 4% of all taxes. The top 1% ALREADY pay 37% of all taxes. Presumably, you'd favor raising taxes on this group? How much should they pay? 40%? 50%? All of it?
What kind of state is it if people who pay NO income tax get a Tax Refund?
What kind of a state is it if you get back MORE than you paid in?
-
I never have recieved a refund for money I haven't paid.
also last I heard, the wealthiest 5% hold 95% of the cash (fairly common statistic , generally excepted, but I don't have the source to prove it). but I'll trust your stats if you've got them. how much of the wealth does that top 1% control?
I see nothing wrong with those for whom the system works well for paying a higher rate.
the wealthy seemed to be doing ok before bush got here to help them, all there kids seemed fed and educated, medical care provided for. but maybe I'm missing something. I don't no many billionaires or even millionaires, so enlighten me. exactly how where they suffering in the Clinton administration. where they having problems making ends meet? working 70-80 hours a week, and not making the rent?
-
I don't understand all this high falutin' tax talk. But can someone explain to me how the US government, which (IIRC) has the highest deficit in it's entire history can afford to give you all your money back?
Where is this money coming from? Isn't it just increasing the deficit. I mean it really can't afford to give you your money back right? The loans that the government makes to give you this shot of cash have to be service don't they? Isn't it borrowing from Peter to payoff Paul?
-
Isn't it just increasing the deficit
it is under this administration. wasn't 3 years ago
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
it is under this administration. wasn't 3 years ago
as it would be under any admin dem or rep in 2003
the dot com bubble burst, unregulated/exaggerated growth & corruption killed it (but everyone was to busy stuffin their pockets with cash to care) - the economy tanked - 9/11 happened
yes, it is a shot in the arm to get us spending again which in turn starts the hamster wheel spinning
it is a desperate shot in the arm but something that has to be tried. when your on a sinking ship, you bail - hoping you bail long enough and fast enough the ship has time to drift aground.
I've heard the Roman Empire paid their citizens in the end...
hope we have a better outcome..
-
A long time ago California had a "proposition 13" So long as you lived in your home your property taxes could not go up... mine have not gone up in 20 years. This is as it should be.
As for "how can the government afford to give back your money?" question.... How can they not? they simply must learn to stop spending. If you have a child or spouse who is addicted to spending money you don;t help them by giving them more and more money every month as they sink further and further in debt.
lazs
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
I see nothing wrong with those for whom the system works well for paying a higher rate.
They are ALREADY paying a "higher rate". See US govt stats above.
How much more do you want them to pay? They're not getting this Child Credit rebate that started this dicussion, thus their rate is rising compared to the groups that get the rebate.
How much more should they pay?
-
BTW, I think that Great Republican Franklin Delano Roosevelt called this tactic "priming the pump" during his Presidency back in the Great Depression.
-
Originally posted by Toad
BTW, I think that Great Republican Franklin Delano Roosevelt called this tactic "priming the pump" during his Presidency back in the Great Depression.
It didn't work then either.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It didn't work then either.
hmm
maybe that is why we are starting "Option B" starting with Iraq
kill two birds with one stone - rid the world of nutbag terrorist and the leaders/nations which support them and pull the country/world out of the economic toilet its slowly swirling down
-
MT,
It didn't work then because the depression was world wide. As a result of the post-war depression in Western Europe during the 1920s, foreign markets for American products began to dry up. This, along with overproduction, led to massive layoffs in U.S. factories, which was one of the major factors leading to the onset of the Great Depression in the U.S. While Hoover's administration received much of the blame for this, there was little anyone could have done to prevent it, given the reality of the economic conditions overseas. The same foreign economic forces continued to place a drag on the U.S. economy throughout the 1930s, effectively dampening any benefit that might have been derived from Roosevelt's New Deal and "prime the pump" policies. As you know, the Second World War ended the Depression with massive Government spending and full-employment. Indeed, one might make the point that it was the war-time "prime the pump" spending that reversed the country's economic fortunes. The U.S. emerged from the war as practically the only western democracy with a strong, intact economy.
Regards, Shuckins
-
WW2 was "submerge the pump at the bottom of Lake Michigan".