The 'Official' Do Not Vote For Obama In 2012 - Thread. Don't Want Him Back N Office!

[mame]

A progressive tax system is needed to protect against oligarchy - among other things btw...

 

[Windsblow]

You mean the policies of Hoover? The same ones the Republicans would follow? They were called HOOVERVILLES remember? Just another example of conservatives trying to re-write history.

It wasn't until FDR took office and began pursuing New Deal policies that the economy began to recover. It was Hoover who discredited the Classical school of economics and FDR who proved Keynesianism effective... NOT the other way around.

Nope FDR's policies were in effect during the great depression. Not hoovers. While the European countries were making great progress and recovering we were still eating mud pies in the dust bowl. HE made things worse.

I am not a conservative and I am not rewriting anything.... your tired talking points and labeling don't help your argument.

Your an ideologue and you will believe the history you want.

 

[mame]

Nope FDR's policies were in effect during the great depression. Not hoovers. While the European countries were making great progress and recovering we were still eating mud pies in the dust bowl. HE made things worse.

I am not a conservative.... your tired talking points and labeling don't help your argument.

wrong again.

Explain this:

ROOSEVELT PRE-WWII NEW DEAL
1932 Unemployment Rate: 23.6% (12.8 million total unemployed)
1940 Unemployment Rate: 14.6% (8.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -9.0
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.7%
ROOSEVELT WWII
1941 Unemployment Rate: 9.9% (5.5 million total unemployed)
1944 Unemployment Rate: 1.2% (670,000 total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -8.7
Total unemployment percentage change: -87.9%
TRUMAN
1945 Unemployment Rate: 1.9% (1.0 million total unemployed)
1952 Unemployment Rate: 3.0% (1.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +1.1
Total unemployment percentage change: +81.0%
EISENHOWER
1953 Unemployment Rate: 2.9% (1.8 million total unemployed)
1960 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (3.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: +110.03%
KENNEDY
1961 Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (4.7 million total unemployed)
1963 Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (4.0 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.0%
Total unemployment percentage change: -13.6%
JOHNSON
1964 Unemployment Rate: 5.2% (3.7 million total unemployed)
1968 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% (2.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: -25.6%
NIXON
1969 Unemployment Rate: 3.5% (2.8 million total unemployed)
1974 Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (5.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: +82.0%
FORD
1975 Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (7.9 million total unemployed)
1976 Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (7.4 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -0.8%
Total unemployment percentage change: -6.6%
CARTER
1977 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (6.9 million total unemployed)
1980 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (7.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.0
Total unemployment percentage change: +9.24%
REAGAN
1981 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% (8.2 million total unemployed)
1988 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (6.7 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: -19.0%
BUSH I
1989 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (6.5 million total unemployed)
1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.5% (9.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.2
Total unemployment percentage change: +47.2%
CLINTON
1993 Unemployment Rate: 6.9% (8.9 million total unemployed)
2000 Unemployment Rate: 4.0% (5.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change -2.9
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.3%

As you can see with EVIDENCE to say that FDR's policies "prolonged" the recession is a FAIRY TALE. The fact that this was the fastest drop in unemployment in HISTORY proves so.

 

[canndo]

This is just intellectualized class envy.

Not at all. I am trying to get at the man's basic premise. If what we actually give the government is our time, represented by money then the rich, by virtue of fairness, should give more.

 

[Windsblow]

wrong again.

Explain this:

As you can see with EVIDENCE to say that FDR's policies "prolonged" the recession is a FAIRY TALE. The fact that this was the fastest drop in unemployment in HISTORY proves so.

Oversimplification of the facts. It does not take into account the the market as a whole. Employment says very little about the economic environment. For the first 2 terms the depression continued and deepend. Only when he "intentionally" went to war did he "solve" the depression problem. I can give Hitler more credit then FDR

 

[canndo]

No because at the end of the day taxes are for raising revenue not making life fair for someone who hasn’t made themselves as valuable to the market place. No one made a man work 30 years in a factory or digging ditches or sitting on their fat ass doing nothing. Life isn’t fair and the government can’t make it so by taxing others more. The bottom 40% don’t pay shit in federal taxes. Why? Shouldn’t they have some skin in the game?

No one said anything about government trying to make life fair. I was speaking only to making taxes fair. Now are taxes more fair if everyone gives the same amount of their life to the government?

RE- bottom 40 percent not paying "shit in federal taxes", this is not true. Everyone who works pays payroll taxes and excise taxes. In reference to what we have been discussing, the bottom 40 percent have an effective tax rate higher than the top brackets.

 

[mame]

Oversimplification of the facts. It does take into account the the market as a whole employment says very little about the economic environment. For the first 2 terms the depression continued and deepend. Only when he "intentionally" went to war did he "solve" the depression problem. I can give Hitler more credit then FDR

You're making it too easy.

Employment numbers are tied extremely closely to investment and therefore are an excellent measure of the economic environment.

So unless you can prove it was market forces alone (which is ridiculous, considering there is no evidence to suggest so)... FDR's policies were effective.

 

[BudMcLovin]

Not at all. I am trying to get at the man's basic premise. If what we actually give the government is our time, represented by money then the rich, by virtue of fairness, should give more.

And it’s been a fun little debate. Thanks! We’ll have to continue later man. I got focus on my law homework for the next few hours.

 

[Windsblow]

wrong again.

Explain this:

As you can see with EVIDENCE to say that FDR's policies "prolonged" the recession is a FAIRY TALE. The fact that this was the fastest drop in unemployment in HISTORY proves so.

Just because you create huge bureaucracies and create jobs by increasing the size of the Government does not mean you have created wealth and prosperity. You have just moved money and numbers around.

 

[Windsblow]

You're making it too easy.

Employment numbers are tied extremely closely to investment and therefore are an excellent measure of the economic environment.

So unless you can prove it was market forces alone (which is ridiculous, considering there is no evidence to suggest so)... FDR's policies were effective.

Your giving my a graph that mean nothing.

I didn't say employment and growth are not related. What I am saying is that correlation doesn't equal causation. Wealth and Employment are not synonymous and just because recorded employment numbers increased doesn't mean that the wealth is being created.

 

[canndo]

It is either being created or reaportioned. Windblow didn't you say that the wealth pie was elastic?

 

[Windsblow]

It is either being created or reaportioned. Windblow didn't you say that the wealth pie was elastic?

I never said anything about elastic. I said there is no pie as it pertain the wealth creation and resources. This is an entirely different concept.

 

[mame]

Just because you create huge bureaucracies and create jobs by increasing the size of the Government does not mean you have created wealth and prosperity. You have just moved money and numbers around.

So you're saying that creating government jobs does not lead to "greater wealth and prosperity" - as in, growth? So you're saying that creating government jobs does not stimulate demand, which in turn would stimulate investment, which would then lead to private sector jobs, which obviously leads to more investment and thus in the end creates wealth - resulting in economic growth?

Who's calling who an idealogue again? You dislike government jobs? So, in the case of the New Deal, the account insurance provided by the FDIC is useless? If not, by extension the jobs required to run the FDIC are justified.

oh, and I'm still waiting:

It just seems everywhere I look, the evidence is there for Keynes - but there is nothing supporting neo-classical policies as a way out of recession(many key principles are essentially frauds... Trickle down theory? debunked.. cutting taxes increases revenue? debunked...).

Every position I take has been based off of evidence, You, in particular conservative fashion (whether or not you're conservative, you're repeating exactly as they say) have failed to put forth any evidence.

I guess because you have no evidence that conservatism even works you decided that the best defense is a good offense? All you've done is attack my viewpoints without presenting any evidence in support of your own argument.

 

[Windsblow]

So you're saying that creating government jobs does not lead to "greater wealth and prosperity" - as in, growth? So you're saying that creating government jobs does not stimulate demand, which in turn would stimulate investment, which would then lead to private sector jobs, which obviously leads to more investment and thus in the end creates wealth - resulting in economic growth?

Who's calling who an idealogue again? You dislike government jobs? So, in the case of the New Deal, the account insurance provided by the FDIC is useless? If not, by extension the jobs required to run the FDIC are justified.

Every position I take has been based off of evidence, You, in particular conservative fashion (whether or not you're conservative, you're repeating exactly as they say) have failed to put forth a single bit of evidence to bolster your argument.

oh, and I'm still waiting:

I guess because you have no evidence that conservatism even works you decided that the best defense is a good offense? All you've done is attack my viewpoints without presenting any evidence in support of your own argument.

Your whole premise is flawed. You can't create wealth by faking demand. All you are doing is moving the money around and inflating a fiat dollars; effectively mortgaging future prosperity created naturally. We are in this current problem because of this idea that the government has mystical powers.

I don't know what you think you proved. All you labels and Buzzwords just weaken your position.

I am a classic liberal, objectivist.
I am curious what your definition of Conservative is.

 

[canndo]

I never said anything about elastic. I said there is no pie as it pertain the wealth creation and resources. This is an entirely different concept.

How is it different? If there are more people working than there is more wealth being created or wealth is being reapportioned. The graph is pretty telling.

 

[mame]

Your whole premise is flawed. You can't create wealth by faking demand. All you are doing is moving the money around and inflating a fiat dollars; effectively mortgaging future prosperity created naturally. We are in this current problem because of this idea that the government has mystical powers.

I don't know what you think you proved.

I am a classic liberal, objectivist.
I am curious what your definition of Conservative is.

Once again, no evidence just idealogy in your post. to be Conservative is to be a classic liberal dont play games with me, fool. Hayek? Freidman? You could call Libertarianism a form of neo-classical liberalism. You essentially said "dont call me conservative I only believe in small government, low taxes, and little to no regulation"..

The rest(your assertion that it's merely "fake demand")? Show me, where is your PROOF man? I dont know what the hell you thinnk you proved by responding to my post without... Need I say it again? EVIDENCE?

What about, for example, medicare driven demand for healthcare? Is this "fake demand"? Does it create "fake" jobs? The jobs are real. The money is real. Consumers are buying real products and stimulating real growth(not to mention any of the social benifits involved... ex. Average U.S. lifespan now compared to the 1920's). Once again, where is your EVIDENCE to suggest otherwise?

 

[Green Dave]

All the MFers in washington are worried about there own ass
They could care less about you or me as long as they can get what they want they are happy and will tell us they did it for us (Ya Right)
I for one am tired of hearing the Rep. want this and Dem. want that if I dont have money then I dont buy how hard is that

 

[Windsblow]

Once again, no evidence just idealogy in your post. to be Conservative is to be a classic liberal dont play games with me, fool. Hayek? Freidman? You could call Libertarianism a form of neo-classical liberalism. You essentially said "dont call me conservative I only believe in small government, low taxes, and little to no regulation"..

The rest(your assertion that it's merely "fake demand")? Show me, where is your PROOF man? I dont know what the hell you thinnk you proved by responding to my post without... Need I say it again? EVIDENCE?

What about, for example, medicare driven demand for healthcare? Is this "fake demand"? Does it create "fake" jobs? The jobs are real. The money is real. Consumers are buying real products and stimulating real growth(not to mention any of the social benifits involved... ex. Average U.S. lifespan now compared to the 1920's). Once again, where is your EVIDENCE to suggest otherwise?

You seem to ignore most of my reply's and comments.
You also seem to be getting a little worked up.
NeoClassic I love that oxymoron.

 

[mame]

You seem to ignore most of my reply's and comments.
You also seem to be getting a little worked up.
NeoClassic I love that oxymoron.

Not an oxymoron. Classical Liberalism is one of the earliest schools of thought in economics. Neo-Classical liberalism is essentially a revival of Classical Liberalism with a few different ideas - and was led by Hayek and Freidman ain the 70's. So, Neo-classic is not an oxymoron. If you knew anything on the subject you would've known that.

I'm not ignoring your replies, I'm simply asking for evidence; I have provided you with evidence for my positions and you have failed to do the same.

 

[newworldicon]

No because at the end of the day taxes are for raising revenue not making life fair for someone who hasn’t made themselves as valuable to the market place. No one made a man work 30 years in a factory or digging ditches or sitting on their fat ass doing nothing. Life isn’t fair and the government can’t make it so by taxing others more. The bottom 40% don’t pay shit in federal taxes. Why? Shouldn’t they have some skin in the game?

I can tell that you are a young man who still has a lot to learn about how the cards fall in one's life, I sure hope your life's masterplan works out but don't be surprised when it veers off track...that is life my friend!

Are you aware that federal tax was imposed as a result of your government extending themselves with the financiers and most of it goes to fighting wars largely to re-inforce your position as the "super power"

How noble of your government.