Bernie Sanders Is Wrong

ASCIIGHOST

Well-Known Member
Propaganda is seen and heard by the masses. This is a short piece of literature, in a niche topic. Please do not do a disservice to Jews and the Holocaust by asserting everything you don't like or cant refute as propaganda. Please quote, and present arguments with source, or with original thought as to why its wrong. My guess is non of his supporters will read it, or meet the challenge.

http://tomwoods.com/d/bernie.pdf
 

ASCIIGHOST

Well-Known Member
Tom woods?.... I won't be reading that....lol
How come. Have you met him personally and he's an asshole? What is the beef?

I met Dale Earnheart Jr once because my unit got free tickets to a NASCAR race, and he was an asshole. I like to tell all his fans the 1st hand account of his assholeness.

Why arent some people open minded enough to listen to their perceived opposition, use their mastered critical thinking, and refute the opposition. I suspect there is a lack of critical thinking in a close minded person.
 

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
How come. Have you met him personally and he's an asshole? What is the beef?

I met Dale Earnheart Jr once because my unit got free tickets to a NASCAR race, and he was an asshole. I like to tell all his fans the 1st hand account of his assholeness.

Why arent some people open minded enough to listen to their perceived opposition, use their mastered critical thinking, and refute the opposition. I suspect there is a lack of critical thinking in a close minded person.
Jeez! You just know some stuff is BS going in! You read it. I'll read something else...
 

woody333333

Well-Known Member
How come. Have you met him personally and he's an asshole? What is the beef?

I met Dale Earnheart Jr once because my unit got free tickets to a NASCAR race, and he was an asshole. I like to tell all his fans the 1st hand account of his assholeness.

Why arent some people open minded enough to listen to their perceived opposition, use their mastered critical thinking, and refute the opposition. I suspect there is a lack of critical thinking in a close minded person.
The opinion of somebody who thinks the south will rise again is worthless

You're a racist idiot and so is he
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
If a person, say Tom Woods, tells the truth, is it somehow not true anymore because you don't like that person?

Didn't Bernie vote to fund the bloated military budgets ? I'm curious why Bernie supporters don't see thru his policy of foreign aggression and interventionism. Where are the people that want to END foreign aggression?

He voted repeatedly to spend more money in "economic stimulus" for big business too, so he's a proven dolt there too.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
He voted repeatedly to spend more money in "economic stimulus" for big business too, so he's a proven dolt there too.
Expansionary monetary policy is the correct decision to make in an economy facing structural stagnation. That's what FDR did to pull Americans out of the great depression and into the most prosperous period in American history

So yeah, you'd be wrong on that one
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Expansionary monetary policy is the correct decision to make in an economy facing structural stagnation. That's what FDR did to pull Americans out of the great depression and into the most prosperous period in American history

So yeah, you'd be wrong on that one
It took 20 years to recover, longer than any other period in history, that's why we call it what we do. FDR was such a dictator congress made a special "you can't be president anymore" law. He stacked the courts and tried to change the rules circumventing the constitution, he locked up American citizens based on skin color, he put wage limits on labor creating the awful marriage of work and health insurance, killed over 100thousand people and his court used the commerce clause to dictate how much produce an individual could grow on his own property.

We recovered after we blew up manufacturing in Europe and he left office. Japanese-Americans and unskilled labor were happy to see him go.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
It took 20 years to recover, longer than any other period in history, that's why we call it what we do. FDR was such a dictator congress made a special "you can't be president anymore" law. He stacked the courts and tried to change the rules circumventing the constitution, he locked up American citizens based on skin color, he put wage limits on labor creating the awful marriage of work and health insurance, killed over 100thousand people and his court used the commerce clause to dictate how much produce an individual could grow on his own property.

We recovered after we blew up manufacturing in Europe and he left office. Japanese-Americans and unskilled labor were happy to see him go.
Revise history all you want, doesn't make it true
 

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
FDR was a piece of shit. Anybody espousing him as anything but a lawless fuckstick should be given a lobotomy to finish what nature obviously started.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
How come. Have you met him personally and he's an asshole? What is the beef?

I met Dale Earnheart Jr once because my unit got free tickets to a NASCAR race, and he was an asshole. I like to tell all his fans the 1st hand account of his assholeness.

Why arent some people open minded enough to listen to their perceived opposition, use their mastered critical thinking, and refute the opposition. I suspect there is a lack of critical thinking in a close minded person.
NASCAR? White supremacists sport of choice :lol:
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
It took 20 years to recover, longer than any other period in history, that's why we call it what we do. FDR was such a dictator congress made a special "you can't be president anymore" law. He stacked the courts and tried to change the rules circumventing the constitution, he locked up American citizens based on skin color, he put wage limits on labor creating the awful marriage of work and health insurance, killed over 100thousand people and his court used the commerce clause to dictate how much produce an individual could grow on his own property.

We recovered after we blew up manufacturing in Europe and he left office. Japanese-Americans and unskilled labor were happy to see him go.
Do you know why they refer to 2008 as the Great Recession and do you think we are out of it?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
What part is revised?
It took 20 years to recover, longer than any other period in history, that's why we call it what we do.
GD began in 1929 and lasted until the late 1930s. FDR took office in 1933, having been preceded by three republican presidents (1921-1933 Harding, Coolidge & Hoover), republican control of the Senate (1919-1933) and republican control of the House (1919-1931), who all supported deregulation of Wall st., lower corporate taxes, and a "hands off" economic policy

..and look what happened..

FDR came in, the democrats took control of the Senate (1933-1947), the democrats took control of the House (1931-1947), and supported expansionary economic policy and regulation of the banks

..and look what happened..






"I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You've just got to let it cure itself. You can't do anything about it. You will only make it worse. … I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and in the United States, they did harm." -Milton Friedman
FDR was such a dictator congress made a special "you can't be president anymore" law.
"Near the end of the 1944 campaign, Thomas Dewey (you know, the republican presidential candidate Roosevelt just got done spanking in the previous election) announced support of an amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, "four terms, or sixteen years, is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed." The Republican-controlled 80th Congress approved a twenty-second Amendment in March 1947; it was signed by Speaker of the House Joseph W. Martin and acting President pro tempore of the Senate William F. Knowland. Nearly four years later, in February 1951, enough states ratified the amendment for its adoption."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
He stacked the courts and tried to change the rules circumventing the constitution
Explain how he "stacked the courts"? By appointing liberal judges, "two of whom would become lifelong adversaries"?
he locked up American citizens based on skin color
Based on ethnicity, Germans, Japanese and Italians all come in different colors. But yep, that was pretty messed up, I agree
he put wage limits on labor creating the awful marriage of work and health insurance
"In 1942, during World War II, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a maximum income of $25,000 during the war:

"At the same time, while the number of individual Americans affected is small, discrepancies between low personal incomes and very high personal incomes should be lessened; and I therefore believe that in time of this grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war, no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year. It is indefensible that those who enjoy large incomes from State and local securities should be immune from taxation while we are at war. Interest on such securities should be subject at least to surtaxes."

This was proposed to be implemented by a 100% marginal tax on all income over $40,000 (after-tax income of $25,000). While this was not implemented, the Revenue Act of 1942 implemented an 88% marginal tax rate on income over $200,000, together with a 5% "Victory Tax" with post-war credits, hence temporarily yielding a 93% top tax rate (though 5% was subsequently returned in credits)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage

What are you, some kind of commie? Did you want the Nazi's to win the war just so a tiny fraction of Americans could still make outrageously high incomes?
We recovered after we blew up manufacturing in Europe and he left office.
No, we recovered from 1933, when he took office and we went from the kind of economic system you support to something similar to what I would support

 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Do you know why they refer to 2008 as the Great Recession and do you think we are out of it?
No, I don't think we are out of it in reality, in how we measure things? Of course we are, it's BOOMING up in here.

If we go by UE numbers we are given then the economy is awesome, if we go by the amount of people not working, we are in trouble. If we go by the stock market we are rockin and rollin, if we consider the trillions pumped into the market by the feds then we probably should go by the stock market.

Two periods in our history where the economy stayed down this long, both times saw unprecedented government intervention. Maybe lawyers and elected officials don't understand how these cycles work. The ego that thinks the law of supply and demand can be manipulated by central planning is devastating, people who fall for it are sheep.

I can make the claim that when governments use a more hands-off approach we recover more robustly. I can make that claim because history backs it up. The countries that recovered the best during the recession took the opposite approach we did.

I think we beat this horse to death already here, every year in fact. Your side keeps insisting it would be worse if we hadn't spent 1/2 a trillion on bullshit because, ya know, aggregate demand. It's a circular argument because we'll never know how much better or worse we would be. My claim is we'd be better off based on historical outcomes. The claim that we would be worse off is based on faith.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
GD began in 1929 and lasted until the late 1930s. FDR took office in 1933, having been preceded by three republican presidents (1921-1933 Harding, Coolidge & Hoover), republican control of the Senate (1919-1933) and republican control of the House (1919-1931), who all supported deregulation of Wall st., lower corporate taxes, and a "hands off" economic policy

..and look what happened..

FDR came in, the democrats took control of the Senate (1933-1947), the democrats took control of the House (1931-1947), and supported expansionary economic policy and regulation of the banks

..and look what happened..






"I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You've just got to let it cure itself. You can't do anything about it. You will only make it worse. … I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and in the United States, they did harm." -Milton Friedman

"Near the end of the 1944 campaign, Thomas Dewey (you know, the republican presidential candidate Roosevelt just got done spanking in the previous election) announced support of an amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, "four terms, or sixteen years, is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed." The Republican-controlled 80th Congress approved a twenty-second Amendment in March 1947; it was signed by Speaker of the House Joseph W. Martin and acting President pro tempore of the Senate William F. Knowland. Nearly four years later, in February 1951, enough states ratified the amendment for its adoption."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Explain how he "stacked the courts"? By appointing liberal judges, "two of whom would become lifelong adversaries"?

Based on ethnicity, Germans, Japanese and Italians all come in different colors. But yep, that was pretty messed up, I agree

"In 1942, during World War II, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a maximum income of $25,000 during the war:

"At the same time, while the number of individual Americans affected is small, discrepancies between low personal incomes and very high personal incomes should be lessened; and I therefore believe that in time of this grave national danger, when all excess income should go to win the war, no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year. It is indefensible that those who enjoy large incomes from State and local securities should be immune from taxation while we are at war. Interest on such securities should be subject at least to surtaxes."

This was proposed to be implemented by a 100% marginal tax on all income over $40,000 (after-tax income of $25,000). While this was not implemented, the Revenue Act of 1942 implemented an 88% marginal tax rate on income over $200,000, together with a 5% "Victory Tax" with post-war credits, hence temporarily yielding a 93% top tax rate (though 5% was subsequently returned in credits)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_wage

What are you, some kind of commie? Did you want the Nazi's to win the war just so a tiny fraction of Americans could still make outrageously high incomes?

No, we recovered from 1933, when he took office and we went from the kind of economic system you support to something similar to what I would support

Coolidge ran a budget surplus every year. Hoover was the first big deficit spender and lot of what he did is lumped with the great deal that you guys claim "saved us". FDR won the election campaigning against deficit spending. Read that again if you need to, FDR claimed the depression was caused in part by the reckless spending of the Hoover administration.

Read up on the 20' depression and how by the metrics we use, it should have been much worse than the 29' crash.
http://fee.org/freeman/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/

Hoover also bailed out the banks after the crash, sound familiar?

We are repeating history and like history tends to do, it repeats itself.

I know we'll never agree on this because it's a faith based issue and our faith is different. I believe in the law of supply and demand, I believe markets go through natural corrections. If you really want an example of what we are doing now, look up liquidity traps (coined by Keynes) and Japan's lost decades.

You might also notice the big drop in unemployment coincides with WWII, any theories other than FDR saved us?
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Two periods in our history where the economy stayed down this long, both times saw unprecedented government intervention. Maybe lawyers and elected officials don't understand how these cycles work. The ego that thinks the law of supply and demand can be manipulated by central planning is devastating, people who fall for it are sheep.

I can make the claim that when governments use a more hands-off approach we recover more robustly. I can make that claim because history backs it up. The countries that recovered the best during the recession took the opposite approach we did.

I think we beat this horse to death already here, every year in fact. Your side keeps insisting it would be worse if we hadn't spent 1/2 a trillion on bullshit because, ya know, aggregate demand. It's a circular argument because we'll never know how much better or worse we would be. My claim is we'd be better off based on historical outcomes. The claim that we would be worse off is based on faith.
Your own libertarian messiah disagrees with you...

"I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You've just got to let it cure itself. You can't do anything about it. You will only make it worse. … I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and in the United States, they did harm." -Milton Friedman

So are you wrong, or is Friedman wrong?

..as do the facts of reality. The Great Depression began for the exact opposite reasons you believe, and recovered for completely opposite reasons you believe. I just posted objective, verifiable data to support it; 21-32 All republican control, all "hands-off", like you support > then the Great Depression > then FDR and the democrats implemented a "hands-on" economic policy > then BOOM, unprecedented recovery for 2 decades. Same thing with the 07-08 crash, except it wasn't enough, which is why you see measurable recovery, but at a growth rate much slower than what we saw after the Great Depression. Reagan - Bush 2, including Clinton all supported the same kind of deregulation that led to the GD.
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Coolidge ran a budget surplus every year. Hoover was the first big deficit spender and lot of what he did is lumped with the great deal that you guys claim "saved us". FDR won the election campaigning against deficit spending. Read that again if you need to, FDR claimed the depression was caused in part by the reckless spending of the Hoover administration.

Read up on the 20' depression and how by the metrics we use, it should have been much worse than the 29' crash.
http://fee.org/freeman/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/

Hoover also bailed out the banks after the crash, sound familiar?

We are repeating history and like history tends to do, it repeats itself.

I know we'll never agree on this because it's a faith based issue and our faith is different. I believe in the law of supply and demand, I believe markets go through natural corrections. If you really want an example of what we are doing now, look up liquidity traps (coined by Keynes) and Japan's lost decades.

You might also notice the big drop in unemployment coincides with WWII, any theories other than FDR saved us?
Do you believe structural stagnation is a myth made up by the toothfairy?
 
Top