-->
@HistoryBuff
I don’t know about you but I’d rather have food. Just my personal opinion
Hosting the G7 at Trump's Doral resort violates the constitution
Posts
Total:
55
Excpet he doesnt own the business, BUSTED
-->
@ILikePie5
Breadlines were an american staple during the great depression after free market liberitarianism collapsed our economy and socialist welfare policies brought us out of the depression and made us the #1 superpower.
The founders of the Soviet union, N.korea, china and others became their first kings. They were not communist states who failed, but dictatorships that were good at propaganda. Do you really think capitalism's rise of income inequality wont result in bread lines? Wake up.
-->
@Nemiroff
Breadlines are a sign that the Government failed to allow capitalism to thrive.
Monetary Contraction.
The Depression was precipitated by a one-third drop in the money supply from1929 to 1933, which was mainly the fault of the Federal Reserve. The Fed made further errors that helped put the economy back into recession in 1938. Meanwhile, a flood of bank failures in the early 1930s compounded the money supply shrinkage and heightened economic fears. A key problem was that most states restricted bank branching, which prevented banks from diversifying their portfolios across jurisdictions. By contrast, Canada allowed nationwide branching and did not suffer a single bank failure during the Depression.
Tax Hikes.
In the early 1920s, Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon ushered in an economic boom by championing income tax cuts that reduced the top individual rate from 73 to 25 percent. But the lessons of these successful tax cuts were forgotten as the economy headed downwards after 1929. President Hoover signed into law the Revenue Act of 1932, which was the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. The act increased the top individual tax rate from 25 to 63 percent. After his election in 1932, Roosevelt imposed further individual and corporate tax increases. The highest individual rate was increased to 79 percent. State and local governments also increased taxes during the 1930s, with many imposing individual income taxes for the first time. All these tax increases killed incentives for work, investment, and entrepreneurship at a time when they were sorely needed.
Keeping Prices High.
The centerpiece of the New Deal was the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. It created “codes” or cartels in more than 500 industries in order to limit competition. Businesses were told to cut output and maintain high prices and wages. Businessmen who cut prices were cajoled, fined, and sometimes arrested. Fortunately, NIRA was struck down by theSupreme Court in 1935. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 similarly restricted production to keep prices high. “Excess” output was destroyed or dumped abroad. While millions of Americans were going hungry, the government plowed under 10 million acres of crops, slaughtered 6 million pigs and left fruit to rot. Production of milk, fruits, and other products was cartelized to boost prices under “marketing orders” begun in 1937. These policies reduced employment and burdened families with higher prices. At a May 1935 press conference, Roosevelt read letters from elite crony businessmen thanking him for keeping prices high. With millions out of work and short of money, Roosevelt thought that his job was to shield high-cost producers from entrepreneurs wanting to offer lower prices to hard-pressed families.
Keeping Employment Costs High.
Many New Deal policies raised employer costs, contributing to the extraordinarily high unemployment of the 1930s. NIRA industry codes required high wages. The new Social Security tax increased compensation costs. New minimum-wage rules reduced demand for low-skilled workers. Davis-Bacon Act required the payment of excessively high wages on federal contracts. Compulsory unionism and militant union tactics were encouraged under a series of laws. One result was that U.S. work stoppages soared from an average of 980 annually between 1922 and 1932 to a peak of 4,740 in 1937. While “millions of jobs” were created in the government during the 1930s, private-sector jobs were destroyed. Total U.S. private employment was lower in1940 than it had been in 1929.
Harassment of Businesses.
Investment stagnated in the 1930s as a result of uncertainties in the economy and the new risks of adverse federal actions. Roosevelt and members of his administration demonized business leaders and investors in their speeches. FDR called them“economic royalists” and “privileged princes” seeking a “new despotism” and “industrial dictatorship.”Laws and regulations poured forth from Washington like never before. Roosevelt issued more executive orders destroying private job creation than all presidents from Harry Truman through Bill Clinton combined. Presidents typically issue just a few hundred executive orders, but Roosevelt issued 3,723.
It took the death of FDR plus the rollback of most of these policies to create wealth again in America.
-->
@ILikePie5
The only people who legitimately believe their personal wealth comes from high taxes are either people who work for the government or people who are on welfare.
-->
@ILikePie5
Fun fact. If 100% of the people worked for the government, they would have to be taxed at 100% to pay for themselves.
-->
@Nemiroff
Breadlines were an american staple during the great depression after free market liberitarianism collapsed our economy and socialist welfare policies brought us out of the depression and made us the #1 superpower.
False. WWII brought the U.S. out of recession, not the socialistic welfare of FDR.
The founders of the Soviet union, N.korea, china and others became their first kings. They were not communist states who failed, but dictatorships that were good at propaganda. Do you really think capitalism's rise of income inequality wont result in bread lines? Wake up.
You think the gap is increasing because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer which is misleading. The rich do get richer, but the poor are also getting richer. The steepness of the slope of each is where the difference lies. But you forcibly taking money away from folks who have earned it through their work is inherently immoral even if you try to justify it by giving it to others. Property rights are human rights.
-->
@Greyparrot
The only people who legitimately believe their personal wealth comes from high taxes are either people who work for the government or people who are on welfare.
A freakin men
-->
@ILikePie5
False. WWII brought the U.S. out of recession, not the socialistic welfare of FDR.
This is also false as it is a broken window fallacy, though it is still popular in public schools.
What brought us out of recession was the end of regulations strangulating job creation. Public schools do not want you to know that.
-->
@Greyparrot
What brought us out of recession was the end of regulations strangulating job creation. Public schools do not want you to know that.
War brought jobs
-->
@ILikePie5
Educate yourself on broken window economic fallacy.
I got tons of youtube clips if you want.
-->
@Greyparrot
I got tons of youtube clips if you want.
Sure
-->
@ILikePie5
-->
@ILikePie5
You know, after watching the Milton video, I can now see that the war on prosperous people with taxation and regulations is simply a policy based off of the broken window fallacy. You may get a tangible visible gain from killing the golden goose but the opportunity lost from not getting a periodic egg anymore is rarely seen.
-->
@ILikePie5
You think the gap is increasing because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer which is misleading. The rich do get richer, but the poor are also getting richer. The steepness of the slope of each is where the difference lies. But you forcibly taking money away from folks who have earned it through their work is inherently immoral even if you try to justify it by giving it to others. Property rights are human rights.
I dont believe i mentioned income inequality. I did not look at the rich. Im just looking at working peoples wages vs working peopled costs. And you have to be joking me about hard workers. Poor people do extremely difficult and necessary jobs. What is keeping their wages down is not the value of their work or how hard they work, but how many workers there are too replace them if they demand higher wages.
Sure, ill give you that some rich people, the ones who start poor, are incredibly hard workers, and often make our world better with their innovations... but thats a handful. Most rich are born rich and let their money work for them. They aint hard workers, they didnt earn their fortunes. I have no problem with rewarding hard work, but opportunity needs to be there for all. That is not the case. And your "poor people are lazy, rich people work hard" myth is nonsense. The *working* poor (min wage is not a welfare discussion) have earned their money, and assuming they work full time, they earned a fair shot at the american dream.
-->
@Greyparrot
Lots of info there, im sure the cato institute didnt post wrong info, but as a highly partisan think tank, i wouldnt be suprised if they left details out. I cant speak to the 1920s stuff at the moment, however i will say that i dont think every policy the government passes is good. Some are good, some are bad. What i do know is that without any government policy, it is always bad, so giving me isolated examples of bad government laws wont negate good government laws or the reality of what happens without any government laws.
However i can speak to the parts of your posts regarding the new deal. The new deal did raise costs for businesses, but thats not what lead to the unemployment... the new deal was in response to the unemployment. Therefore the unemployment preceeded the new deal, and was actually resolved by the new deal. The higher costs on the businesses were not artbitrary but they were wage increases which boosted spending, and tax increases which boosted government projects and stimulated the economy. Your link is completely backwards regarding that part.
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
Ww2 was definitely a major contributer to our recovery, but the min wage and other regulations were also a major part of it. At least we can all agree these "socialist" policies certainly didnt hinder the recovery.
However that is not the point. There are many politicians on the right with similar policies to trump that dont routinely lie about everything. That dont try to profit at our expense (please dont bring up that penny salary, thats just dumb in comparison to the multimillions and the prestige he has gained). The reason you will regret voting for him is his character, not his policies.
This statement was not meant to be debated now. Its something many on the right will come to realize with time.
-->
@Nemiroff
Sure, ill give you that some rich people, the ones who start poor, are incredibly hard workers, and often make our world better with their innovations... but thats a handful. Most rich are born rich and let their money work for them. They aint hard workers, they didnt earn their fortunes.
Then how do they get richer? They have to know how to do stuff if they want to stay rich lol.
I have no problem with rewarding hard work, but opportunity needs to be there for all. That is not the case.
How so? Everyone can innovate. Opportunity is there. Life is unfair. Not everyone can be rich. Get over it.
And your "poor people are lazy, rich people work hard" myth is nonsense. The *working* poor (min wage is not a welfare discussion) have earned their money, and assuming they work full time, they earned a fair shot at the american dream.
I never said that. You’re putting words in my mouth. The working class earn their money. The rich earn their money. My point is, no matter how they get their money, you have no right to forcibly take it away even if it’s justifiably for a good cause. Think of it this way. Quotas in colleges by race are designed to help African Americans because they’ve suffered. Moral cause right? But the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s unconstitutional even though it’s for a good cause, because it illegally discriminates others.
-->
@ILikePie5
It's very interesting that in your previous post you said:
taking money away from folks who have earned it through their work is inherently immoral even if you try to justify it by giving it to others.
But when i showed that most rich do not earn their fortunes and that the workers also work extremely hard, you say:
Life is unfair. Not everyone can be rich. Get over it.
You did say that when you said we are taking the wealthy money they earned through work. What about defending the workers work and its value?
Why don't the wealthy ever have to hear life isn't fair?
You obviously haven't been the yapping child of a rich parent who says exact phrase that constantly to their irresponsible children clamoring for the keys to the inherited empire.
The wealthy are under attack every day by jealous retards. It's much less fair for them than any other.
-->
@Greyparrot
The wealthy are under attack every day by jealous retards. It's much less fair for them than any other.
Oh my god that is an insane comment. So the system that gives them all the advantages, all the wealth, all the opportunity is more unfair to them than people who are starving to death? I'm not certain you know what the word fair means.
-->
@HistoryBuff
You mean the system that allows you to take personal risk for personal gain?
Yeah, let's get rid of that opportunity and eliminate jealousy from the human brain.
But when i showed that most rich do not earn their fortunes and that the workers also work extremely hard, you say:
So how are they getting richer. If son doesn’t know what daddy does, he’d lose money right?
Why don't the wealthy ever have to hear life isnt fair m why isnt the worker situation examined for immorality? Seems like double standard hypocrisy.
If everyone was rich then there’s no point to being rich. Humans strive to be successful. Success is defined differently per person. And rich people do here the same thing. Not all rich parents just simply give up their money, people like Bill Gates. But regardless, it’s not your nor my decision to what to do with someone else’s money.
You did say that when you said we are taking the wealthy money they earned through work. What about defending the workers work and its value?
Who doesn’t? Wages have been rising under Donald Trump. Unemployment is at historical lows. In an economy, someone has to be at the bottom doing the dirty work. Just the way it is. You live in reality where people are different and therefore are inherently unequal, not in a utopia where life is perfect.
-->
@HistoryBuff
This is blatantly false. Anyone can innovate. It’s just harder and takes more drive to do so compared to a corporate job which is easy to find and more stable. Life is not fair. If it was fair, there would be no meaning to life.Oh my god that is an insane comment. So the system that gives them all the advantages, all the wealth, all the opportunity is more unfair to them than people who are starving to death? I'm not certain you know what the word fair means.
16 days later
-->
@Greyparrot
"Fun fact. If 100% of the people worked for the government, they would have to be taxed at 100% to pay for themselves."
Fun fact- you are totally wrong.
I will give you 3 guesses to correct yourself.