China virus

[JustRandy]

What bugs me is the right wants to see the elites hanging from lampposts but would never dream of raising their taxes.  It's ok to kill them but don't touch their wallets.

It took me a long time to find an explanation for that.  It's not that the right cares about the rich, they just don't want the poor to get anything.

A good example just happened with the latest Ukraine handout which couldn't include covid relief because republicans and conservative dems threw a fit.  It's ok to print up money for Ukraine (or anyone else) so long as the American poor do not get a dime.  So the rich get richer and the poor keep suffering because that's what most people want.

 

"Ultimately, facing pushback from both sides, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the Covid relief would be stripped from the government funding package.

Behind closed doors, Pelosi was angry at Democratic members who revolted over the Covid relief offsets — and the meetings were extremely tense, including with Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, a source familiar with the matter said.

Members felt blindsided by the deal that had been cut — and Pelosi was upset that they were forced to strip out new Covid relief money, the source said.

House Democrats later introduced a $15.6 billion stand-alone Covid relief bill, but it is expected to face Senate GOP opposition and a difficult time getting the 60 votes needed in that chamber to overcome a filibuster."  https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/09/politics/house-vote-government-spending-ukraine-aid/index.html

[Freedomflyer]

I understand we need to pay taxes, government doesn't run without them, I have worked for 44 years of my life on this earth. Paid taxes from every pay check I have ever earned.  My struggle is the government waste, programs that support generations of families who do whatever they can to NOT work. Programs that continue to hand out to those who are unwilling to do anything to help themselves.  My taxes continue to rise every year. In our area, wealthy developers are coming in build subdivisions and multi family housing subdivisions and not be responsible for any infrastructure. All improvements falling on new property owners and existing home owners, wealthy people getting richer at no cost to them. Mill levy after mill levy get past every year, for infrastructure improvements, state school programs that allow total free lunch for every student, for local city government that does nothing to take care anything above minimum amenities. And the way our state is set up, we can pay on our house for 15, 20, or 30 years, it becomes ours but we continue to have property tax, if we do not pay that tax the city or county can take it. Which takes me back to the group of the World Economic Forum, they have a so much money,  taxes, gas prices,  food, or anything that are an issue for us, is not an issue for them. They want the working man to be bled dry and own nothing. Therefore they retain power, we see it month after month, more and more wealth is moving in here buying up every piece of property,  farm after farm getting developed, and/or becoming playgrounds for multi millionaires and billionaires.  Forcing the towns and cities in our valley to build more and more multi family housing complexes, keeping people out of their open space with signs, fences, and whatever means they deem necessary. I'm sorry,  I don't see how I  should have to be responsible for my own bills, housing, food, fuel, internet,  etc. and still pay above and beyond for those who found the easy street of sitting on their butts with assisted energy payments, free internet,  free lunches for their kids, reduced housing costs, and being bombarded with ad after ad for local assistance programs for warming shelters, free healthcare or assisted healthcare programs for those living on the streets. You know what? It gets cold here. If  you don't have a roof over your head and not working, migrate to where it doesn't get as cold. Money talks and has power. Those with boatloads of money control.

[Mech]

We don't see most of those things as problems here in N.Z. 

Personal freedom comes with costs, and responsibilities. It's all a balancing act, and if you consider your personal freedom to do whatever you want, or not want to do, is paramount, then you have to accept that other people have the same right.. to do as they want.

We are much more sharing and caring here in N.Z. I suspect.

Perhaps it's because of the place our indigenous people have, and the role they play.

[Freedomflyer]

But do you see it as okay for those who are hard workers to work to support those who won't or have no interest in working at all? Or that work incredibly hard at taking advantage of the system that was designed to help those people who truly need a leg up to get back on their feet to being productive citizens?

I'm sorry, but my motto is if you are able-bodied to work, and won't, then you shouldn't eat or be able to take part or advantage of services being rendered to those who truly need it.

Just like the warming shelters here, if you want to stay in this part of the country where it gets cold, and you don't want to be a productive part of society, and........you want a warm place to lay your head for the night, the requirement should be for that person to work x amount of hours to help ease the burden of the expense of operating costs and on those who are volunteering. 

[Mech]

As I said, we are a caring and sharing society..  I'm a caring and sharing guy. I support people happily because it makes my life better.

Just as with getting the vaccine, what we do voluntarily , and for the common good, is not the hardship it is to people that feel themselves forced to do it... Same as wearing a mask or isolating if you feel unwell.

Forgoing some freedoms, is an easy thing..

[JustRandy]

The issue is that if I propose a tax structure where taxes are negative for the bottom (meaning they get money), zero in the middle, and high on the top, then conservatives balk at the idea because it's not about them paying the tax (since their tax would be zero or negative) so much as it's the fact that the poor are not suffering properly for their money, which is totally wrong anyway since the poor work harder than anyone.  And what about the kids of the poor?  They didn't do anything except be born, now they have to suffer in poverty too because otherwise someone might get something for nothing?

Mom worked 2 jobs and I pretty much raised myself, but I'm comforted by the fact that millionaires became billionaires through tax cuts and deregulation instead of helping mom with some welfare so she didn't have to rent herself by the hour to profit large corporations instead of raising her kid.

I know a woman who had a heart attack at work from working so hard.  Then had to have foot surgery.  Honestly, working is costing her more money than if she didn't.

People like mom and all the single mothers are the lazy bums conservatives don't want to help.  Get out there and work, they say, which translated means: make some rich person richer so they have even more power to control us.

By working you either sell a product or you're selling yourself, or renting yourself, which is simply nonsexual prostitution that republicans used to oppose.

 

[JustRandy]

42 minutes ago, Mech said:

Just as with getting the vaccine, what we do voluntarily , and for the common good, is not the hardship it is to people that feel themselves forced to do it... Same as wearing a mask or isolating if you feel unwell.

Accepting a carcinogen that doesn't prevent what nearly everyone survives anyway is not helping anyone.  Actually, the government's reaction caused more suffering and death than if nothing had been done at all.

That's the problem with the left.  If the gov told them to tattoo stupid on their face they'd be lined up around the block from the tattoo parlor while patting themselves on the back for helping humanity.  They're bots that diligently serve authority under the guise of a common good but actually to profit a small group.

They expect the poor to make sacrifices to help their neighbors, which is communalism or communism spelled a different way.  But I expect the rich to make sacrifices for my neighbor so that I don't have to.  I don't want the poor to pay for their own welfare with high consumption taxes like EU countries, but the rich to pay membership fees through income tax for their opportunity to be rich while everyone else is largely left alone.

New Zealand taxes:

Sales tax 15%

Individual income tax 39%

Corporate tax 28%

SS rate that companies pay 3%

SS rate workers pay 8%.

https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/social-security-rate-for-companies

NZ caters to the rich while burdening the poor with the cost of their own welfare.  And they call themselves social.  Hilarious.

[Mech]

Ha.. more of the usual bad research.. 

[JustRandy]

If the info is wrong feel free to post the correct info.  And try to do it without the ads and ad homs.

[Mech]

I already told you I can't be bothered correcting all your incorrect assumptions and information..  It just provokes more of the same.

 

[JustRandy]

Oh I forgot you said you are not concerned with truth.  You're only concerned with perpetuating whatever narrative government insists.  A bot.

[JustRandy]

I met a lot of Kiwis online warning about the rampant poverty and not to hold them up as any sort of model to be followed.

 

Growing inequality is confirmed by Statistics New Zealand which keeps track of income disparity using the P80/20 ratio. This ratio shows the difference between high household incomes (those in the 80th percentile) and low household incomes (those in the 20th percentile). The inequality ratio increased between 1988 and 2004, and decreased until the onset of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, increasing again to 2011 and then declining again from then. By 2013, the disposable income of high-income households was more than two-and-a-half times larger than that of low-income households.^[3] In 2019 it was 2.7 times.^[4] Highlighting the disparity, the top 1% of the population now owns 16% of the country's wealth – the richest 5% owns 38%^[5] – while half the population, including beneficiaries and pensioners, earn less than $24,000.^[1]

Factors contributing to the growth in inequality include substantial cuts in the top income tax rate in 1986–88 combined with a surge in unemployment caused by Rogernomics and the stock market crash of 1987 which pushed more people onto welfare.^[6] Then in 1991, benefits were also cut back substantially as part of the 'reforms' and those on welfare have been struggling ever since.

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality_in_New_Zealand}

[Mech]

And you even whinge about what's going on over here..  I ask again, is there anyone or anything you aren't disgruntled about in the world ?

Cheer up man !

[JustRandy]

You're still projecting onto me how you perceive the world.  Life must be as rough as portrayed in NZ.

[larryki]

It is sad it has come to this

they are spending there own time and money to make a point

[olddude]

On 3/12/2022 at 3:16 PM, JustRandy said:

What bugs me is the right wants to see the elites hanging from lampposts but would never dream of raising their taxes.  It's ok to kill them but don't touch their wallets.

It took me a long time to find an explanation for that.  It's not that the right cares about the rich, they just don't want the poor to get anything.

A good example just happened with the latest Ukraine handout which couldn't include covid relief because republicans and conservative dems threw a fit.  It's ok to print up money for Ukraine (or anyone else) so long as the American poor do not get a dime.  So the rich get richer and the poor keep suffering because that's what most people want.

 

"Ultimately, facing pushback from both sides, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the Covid relief would be stripped from the government funding package.

Behind closed doors, Pelosi was angry at Democratic members who revolted over the Covid relief offsets — and the meetings were extremely tense, including with Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, a source familiar with the matter said.

Members felt blindsided by the deal that had been cut — and Pelosi was upset that they were forced to strip out new Covid relief money, the source said.

House Democrats later introduced a $15.6 billion stand-alone Covid relief bill, but it is expected to face Senate GOP opposition and a difficult time getting the 60 votes needed in that chamber to overcome a filibuster."  https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/09/politics/house-vote-government-spending-ukraine-aid/index.html

One thing I learned a long time ago is that there is always going to be rich and there is always going to be poor people. No matter what country you live in it's the same. The left uses the so called poor as another tool in their tool box to use to rack up votes. Anybody that thinks the lft really gives a crap about poor people needs to take a real hard look at their thinking process. I never done any real research on this but Id bet there are more rich democrits than there are rich repubs. No country will settle it's poor people problem by taxing the so called rich. There just ain't enough of them.

I'll say this and then I'll leave you alone Trump would still be president if it wasn't for that china flu.

[olddude]

On 3/12/2022 at 3:16 PM, JustRandy said:

It took me a long time to find an explanation for that.  It's not that the right cares about the rich, they just don't want the poor to get anything.

Bullcrap!! Just because the right would rather see people actually get out and work rather than send them a check every month while they lay around on the sofa watching ophrey all day.

[larryki]

isn't  this site for atv talk?

We should not do politics here.

This is for me to get away from thar sh**.

[JustRandy]

2 hours ago, olddude said:

there is always going to be rich and there is always going to be poor people.

Yep poor can't exist without rich and rich can't exist without poor since each is relative to the other, but we can move up the bar where the poor are not as poor as they used to be.  The poor today often still have smartphones and nice cars, but their lives are still one long emergency that never ends.

2 hours ago, olddude said:

The left uses the so called poor as another tool in their tool box to use to rack up votes.

Every politician does what it takes to rack up votes.  It's their job.  You think politicians should do the opposite of what people want?

For instance the gov of my state suspended gas taxes and is refunding tax money right before the election... and I'm going to vote for him because of it.  Is he buying my vote or doing his job?

2 hours ago, olddude said:

Anybody that thinks the lft really gives a crap about poor people needs to take a real hard look at their thinking process.

Democrats stole the election from Bernie twice and are the main impediment to medicare for all, so yeah any progressive supporting democrats are pretty stupid.

Republicans advocate republicanism, progressives advocate progressivism, but democrats exist to stop progressives and normalize what republicans do.  Dems are the greatest evil.  They pretend to help the poor while stabbing them in the back to help the rich.

2 hours ago, olddude said:

Id bet there are more rich democrits than there are rich repubs.

Definitely.  Democrats are the party of the rich.  Hollywood, banking, academia.... anywhere you find money you will find democrats.

2 hours ago, olddude said:

No country will settle it's poor people problem by taxing the so called rich.

We did it before.  For 50 years taxes were 70-90% and those were the best years this country ever saw.  One wage-earner could support a whole family with no debt and earn interest on savings.  Since taxes have been cut the country has gone to hell.  Parents both work and have no time to raise their kids, people are drowning in debt, we have a drug problem and prisons are packed more than any other country.

2 hours ago, olddude said:

There just ain't enough of them.

There are more millionaires than there are bitcoins.

Who do you think is driving house prices out of the reach of the middle class?  Too many people have more money than they know what to do with, so they plow it in stocks, houses, cars, NFTs and cartoon real estate.

2 hours ago, olddude said:

Just because the right would rather see people actually get out and work rather than send them a check every month while they lay around on the sofa watching ophrey all day.

By "work" you mean rent yourself to some rich guy.  There is a difference in selling a product that you make and selling/renting yourself.

And most of the work done in the world is not even necessary.  The whole tax preparation industry is needless.  The pentagon is the largest employer.  And most of the food service industry is because people are forced to work all the time leaving no time to cook for themselves.  It wouldn't bother me if Starbucks ceased to exist; I can make my own coffee.

"Why I Fired 12 Floors Of People" - Carl Icahn  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdbxYZfBsxk

No one could tell him what all those people did or why they were employed, so he fired all of them.  Skyscrapers are mainly just containers of useless jobs.

 

Fuller was the World President of Mensa from 1974 to 1983. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller

The real reason conservatives don't want the gov sending them money is they don't want other people to get the money.  It's human nature.

Here's proof:

 

Kids would rather have less prizes for themselves if it means other kids get even less.  That doesn't go away when we grow up.

So we struggle to find sense in economic nonsense to justify our innate proclivities, but the majority of notable economists are liberal: Arrow, Hicks, Keynes, Tobin, Marx, Stigliz, and even conservative darling Milton Friedman advocated welfare via a negative income tax and was in favor of drug legalization, which makes him more liberal than most conservatives.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Governmental_involvement_in_the_economy

Irving Fisher "opposed laissez faire and pleaded for an equitable distribution of income."
http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/economists/irving-fisher-1867-1947-economist/21019

Kenneth Arrow wrote "A cautious case for socialism".
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1426269747ACautiousCaseforSocialism.pdf

Hayek: Why I am Not a Conservative
https://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html

Even Einstein supported socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Socialism%3F

3 hours ago, olddude said:

Trump would still be president if it wasn't for that china flu.

We wouldn't have the china flu if Trump hadn't been elected.  None of this would have happened if Hillary had won.

[olddude]

18 hours ago, JustRandy said:

Yep poor can't exist without rich and rich can't exist without poor since each is relative to the other, but we can move up the bar where the poor are not as poor as they used to be.  The poor today often still have smartphones and nice cars, but their lives are still one long emergency that never ends.

Every politician does what it takes to rack up votes.  It's their job.  You think politicians should do the opposite of what people want?

For instance the gov of my state suspended gas taxes and is refunding tax money right before the election... and I'm going to vote for him because of it.  Is he buying my vote or doing his job?

Democrats stole the election from Bernie twice and are the main impediment to medicare for all, so yeah any progressive supporting democrats are pretty stupid.

Republicans advocate republicanism, progressives advocate progressivism, but democrats exist to stop progressives and normalize what republicans do.  Dems are the greatest evil.  They pretend to help the poor while stabbing them in the back to help the rich.

Definitely.  Democrats are the party of the rich.  Hollywood, banking, academia.... anywhere you find money you will find democrats.

We did it before.  For 50 years taxes were 70-90% and those were the best years this country ever saw.  One wage-earner could support a whole family with no debt and earn interest on savings.  Since taxes have been cut the country has gone to hell.  Parents both work and have no time to raise their kids, people are drowning in debt, we have a drug problem and prisons are packed more than any other country.

There are more millionaires than there are bitcoins.

Who do you think is driving house prices out of the reach of the middle class?  Too many people have more money than they know what to do with, so they plow it in stocks, houses, cars, NFTs and cartoon real estate.

By "work" you mean rent yourself to some rich guy.  There is a difference in selling a product that you make and selling/renting yourself.

And most of the work done in the world is not even necessary.  The whole tax preparation industry is needless.  The pentagon is the largest employer.  And most of the food service industry is because people are forced to work all the time leaving no time to cook for themselves.  It wouldn't bother me if Starbucks ceased to exist; I can make my own coffee.

"Why I Fired 12 Floors Of People" - Carl Icahn  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdbxYZfBsxk

No one could tell him what all those people did or why they were employed, so he fired all of them.  Skyscrapers are mainly just containers of useless jobs.

 

Fuller was the World President of Mensa from 1974 to 1983. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller

The real reason conservatives don't want the gov sending them money is they don't want other people to get the money.  It's human nature.

Here's proof:

 

Kids would rather have less prizes for themselves if it means other kids get even less.  That doesn't go away when we grow up.

So we struggle to find sense in economic nonsense to justify our innate proclivities, but the majority of notable economists are liberal: Arrow, Hicks, Keynes, Tobin, Marx, Stigliz, and even conservative darling Milton Friedman advocated welfare via a negative income tax and was in favor of drug legalization, which makes him more liberal than most conservatives.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Governmental_involvement_in_the_economy

Irving Fisher "opposed laissez faire and pleaded for an equitable distribution of income."
http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/economists/irving-fisher-1867-1947-economist/21019

Kenneth Arrow wrote "A cautious case for socialism".
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1426269747ACautiousCaseforSocialism.pdf

Hayek: Why I am Not a Conservative
https://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html

Even Einstein supported socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Socialism%3F

We wouldn't have the china flu if Trump hadn't been elected.  None of this would have happened if Hillary had won.

Even the poor in this country are much better off than people from any other place this world has to offer. Just what is poor anyway? Is it the guy that get's up and works 9 hours a day, 6 days a week and he still can't afford what the guy across the street can? I know a few of what on paper would qualify as poor people. They wouldn't take a lick at a snake if it was about to bite him them. Yet when the guy with the weed comes to call they are quick to pull out wad of cash that would choke a mule. Two of them love to rub it in your face about how much cash they have. One of them lives in a beat up camper and the other one lived in his caddy for 4 years until it was time to buy another one then he moved in with his poor ol mom. Another one will work and he is probably one of the smartest mechanics I know. He can fix anything and could be making 60, 70 grand a year possibly more but never has he worked more than two or three days in a row for as long as I have know him.  he'll work just enough to get enough for cigs and beer for a few days and then find something else to do for a couple days and the cycle continues. He just like most of the other poor people chooses to live like that. 

Yeah there was a time when a man could feed and provide for his family.  But, that was when a loaf of bread was 15 cents a quart of milk was a quarter and a gallon of gas was 14 cent.  life was still a struggle then just like it is now. People then lived within their means, they didn't have a 65" flat screen in every room in the house and 2 or 3 nice shiney cars in their driveway. A second home down by the river and a 30' boat at the dock. 

A lot of people now days don't have the same work ethic they once had mainly because of the fast and free money the government hands out. I know a few that made more money sitting at home than they were making at work.  A country can't keep on being the best in the world with crap like that going on. I'm glad I'm up in the years and probably won't be breathing air to many more year's. I hate to think about what this country will be in another 25 years if the left is allowed to carry on the way they have for the past 50 or so.

Also thank god that, that crooked beast lost that election. and yeah, there probably most likely that there would be no china flu if she had because before it's over that stuff has democrit finger prints all over it.

[JustRandy]

10 minutes ago, olddude said:

Just what is poor anyway?

It's whatever we define it to be.  I generally define it as not being able to provide for basic stuff without going into debt.  There are people who are comfortable, there are those who have great excess, then there are the poor who struggle all the time.

I know a woman who worked so much she had a heart attack at work.  Then she worked more and needed foot surgery from all the standing.  Working is costing her more money then if she didn't work at all.  But she's poor and has bills so she has to work. 

It's a myth that the poor do not work.  My mom worked 2 jobs to raise me.  Her mistake in life was planning to be a stay-at-home mom so she didn't go to college. so she couldn't make much above min wage.  The state could have helped a little, but it was more important that the rich keep their gross overcompensation, like that lawyer who works for Twitter making $17 million a year as if she's worth it.  https://nypost.com/2022/04/29/twitters-chief-censor-making-17m-per-year-could-be-fired/  So it's more important that people getting $17 million to censor conservatives get to keep their money than to help single mothers and their kids... because taxation is theft.  Something is wrong with that picture.  I had to do without as a child so millionaires could become billionaires then proceed to usher in the great reset and the cultural perversion.

The Reaganites empowered the beast that now seeks to destroy them and their heritage and their religion and scrub them from history books and knock down their statues.  Conservatives gave them the power to do those things with the tax cuts and deregulation over the last 40 years.

38 minutes ago, olddude said:

They wouldn't take a lick at a snake if it was about to bite him them. Yet when the guy with the weed comes to call they are quick to pull out wad of cash that would choke a mule.

I know people like that too and there is no helping them.  They are just too lazy to try.  The only thing we can do is change the system that is making people like that.  They probably had a rough childhood because they were poor.  So the solution is to get rid of poverty and rebuild families so we stop making future criminals.

43 minutes ago, olddude said:

Yeah there was a time when a man could feed and provide for his family.  But, that was when a loaf of bread was 15 cents a quart of milk was a quarter and a gallon of gas was 14 cent.

But min wage was 75 cents.  You have to look at how long someone had to work to buy a loaf of bread.  Before this recent bout of inflation bread was actually cheaper in terms of hours-worked than it was when it was 15 cents.  Most things are actually cheaper today in terms of hours-worked than back then because of increased manufacturing efficiency, but the things that are not cheaper are housing, education, healthcare which are things the rich bid up in price.  Raise taxes on the rich and the stuff they buy will come down in price which helps the poor.

56 minutes ago, olddude said:

People then lived within their means,

Only because they couldn't get the credit to live outside their means, or they would have.  Interest rates were high and it was hard to get a loan back then.

But when wages were reduced as part of Reagan's supply side economics the shortfall had to be made up with debt, so lending standards were relaxed and interest rates came down.

Wages stagnated and debt exploded right after Reaganism.

1 hour ago, olddude said:

I know a few that made more money sitting at home than they were making at work.

I've heard of that but no clue how they pull it off.  It took mom forever to get on disability and she still struggles.

1 hour ago, olddude said:

A lot of people now days don't have the same work ethic they once had mainly because of the fast and free money the government hands out.

I blame unions.  Workers get punished for working too hard.

It's hard to blame the gov because Japan has more welfare than the US but Japan also has the best work ethic.

1 hour ago, olddude said:

Also thank god that, that crooked beast lost that election. and yeah, there probably most likely that there would be no china flu if she had because before it's over that stuff has democrit finger prints all over it.

I don't like her either but life would have been easier if she had won.  I think covid came from a US lab and was dropped in China to make it look like it came from China to disrupt Trump's election chances and use mailin voting to rig the election.  If Hillary had won, covid would never have existed and we also wouldn't have all this censorship.  Under Obama no one cared who said what online, but once Trump was in office it suddenly became important to censor.  Also if Hillary had won we wouldn't have sales tax on internet purchases because she wouldn't have appointed Gorsuch to scotus who broke the tie to give us a forever tax that can never be repealed.  And sales taxes are taxes on the poor.  Most of the stuff I buy went up 10% thanks to Trump.  Meanwhile he gives the rich a massive tax cut and cajoled the fed to do more QE at the top of a stock market bubble.

[olddude]

The only people calling for censorship are the democrits. They are crapping their panties now that twitter has changed hands. So your saying it would be great for hillory to get elected just because of a few cent's tax on internet purchases? The democrits will do absolutely anything to keep their power, nothing is off the table for them. They have been successful at dividing up the country into little blocks of one group or another and every day they come up with some other poor poor souls that need saving so they can come to the rescue. Just how is that good for the country?

No contry on earth will ever be successful and prosperous by taxing the rich. Oh and just who are the rich anyway? What is the difinition of a rich guy? Rather that beat up on the rich you should celebrate the people that go out and better themselves and become successful That's what this country is all about and why we are the greatest country on the planet. Just tell me how someone sitting on their sofa collecting a check from the government is good for the country. Life is not supposed to be fair in that it's a right for one group to take what others have worked for just to make it even. No country in existance today has ever become great and properous while governing by the socialist dream. It's not possible, there are just not enough rich people in any country to pull that one off. 

A few hundred years ago people fled a country that ruled like that. They sacrificed everything to come here to be free of that kind of life. They faught a revolution to make it possible for the people to live in a free world without unfair taxation. Things were not fair then either, you either worked or starved to death and I am one that still believe that premis, Yes we are also a charitable, nation that looks out for the folks that can't provide for themselves but you can't really believe that those same people should grub a new Caddy out of the deal. There is a difference between a hand up and a hand out. When you start handing out money by the truck load it's not good for anybody not even the people with those open hands. 

My dad to struggled along too. He raised 5 kids that never missed a meal we always had shoes and close on our backs. He never realized what it was like to have money in the bank until later on in life. He didn't die rich by any means but what he had he was proud of in that he worked his azz off to get what he had. He never asked anyone for anything that he couldn't get on his own. The only credit he ever had was his house payment and one time his 25 year old car dropped dead and he liked to be able to get to work so he replaced his old car for a new 15 year old car on credit. That worried the heck out of him and he would fuss up a storm every month when he had to make the $22.00 payment but he always paid on time. 

Taking money away from one person to give to someone else is just wrong. The cops call that robery.

[JustRandy]

The democrats are the coddled elites, professionals, professors, affluent.  Those are the ones calling for censorship.  They don't live in the real world; they live in gated communities shielded from reality.

I didn't say Hillary would be great.  I said covid, censorship, and internet sales taxes would not have happened had she won in 2016.  That certainly would have been better than what we have now.  I'm  sure there would have been some drawbacks other than the distaste of knowing another Clinton is in the white house.  Some were saying we could have had war with Russia if Hillary had won, but that's a moot point since we're at war with Russia now.

We both agree democrats are evil incarnate.... and Trump was always a democrat until he ran for office.  He filled the white house with swamp just like Biden and Obama.  He put a Goldman guy in charge of the treasury, Rothschild over commerce, oil lobbyist over the interior, pharma lobbyist over health, coal lobbyist over epa, and a confederate over veterans affairs.  He had the very criminals in charge of the cops just the same as Obama and Biden.

Plus he appointed that war-mongering Bolton, that Kebler Elf Jeff Sessions, he kowtowed to Fauci, and he still celebrates his vaccines even though his fans boo him.  He's a backstabbing con man.

35 minutes ago, olddude said:

No contry on earth will ever be successful and prosperous by taxing the rich

The USA was prosperous for 50 years by taxing the rich.  We already went over that.  One man could support a whole family on one income.

There were even less suicides and homicides when taxes were high.  As soon as taxes went back down, suicides went back up.  The correlation is perfect!

When the rich get richer, where does their money come from?  Either their money is created or it comes from someone else.  There is no 3rd possibility.  If the money is created, then it devalues the money everyone else has, so either way their money still comes from everyone else.  There is no way of avoiding that mathematical fact.

Therefore if we allow the rich to get richer and richer then it necessarily means everyone else gets poorer and poorer.  So either we tax them and redistribute the money or society is going to break down.  Capitalism always runs out of other people's money which is why it needs bailed out constantly by the government.  We can't even make it a decade without firing up QE again.  The market is crashing right now and QE is still going, for crying out loud.

44 minutes ago, olddude said:

Oh and just who are the rich anyway? What is the difinition of a rich guy?

People with more money than they know what to do with.  People who could have their taxes doubled and never know it.

48 minutes ago, olddude said:

Rather that beat up on the rich you should celebrate the people that go out and better themselves and become successful

Why celebrate them?  There is no way to make a billion by the fruit of your own labor.  The only way is to steal someone else's labor or have the gov print money for you, which is a silent theft.  Therefore simply being rich is evidence of a crime.  Gates, Musk, Bezos, etc didn't get rich selling their products, but by owning stock and having the fed print money for them.  And Gates stole software from Xerox and IBM.  He didn't invent anything.  Musk got handouts from the gov for climate change.  Bezos eliminated 1000s of jobs and killed the malls.  Amazon didn't make a dime in profit for 16 years, yet Bezos was a billionaire nonetheless.  How do you get to be a billionaire by running a company that never made a profit?  Odd huh.

55 minutes ago, olddude said:

why we are the greatest country on the planet.

It's not the greatest country.

 

56 minutes ago, olddude said:

Just tell me how someone sitting on their sofa collecting a check from the government is good for the country.

Because if they sit on the couch then they are not forced to do a job they don't want to do which only results in screwing the job up which causes me problems.  I'd rather pay people to stay out of the way.

We could streamline the tax code and destroy the tax preparation industry.  Fire all the tax accountants and attorneys and send them checks to stay out of the way.  The pentagon is the largest employer.  Fire them all.  We're giving them tax money anyway, may as well have them sit on the couch rather than making war.

1 hour ago, olddude said:

Life is not supposed to be fair

Correct, life is not fair, which is why the rich must pay while others collect.  It's not fair, but necessary.

1 hour ago, olddude said:

for one group to take what others have worked for just to make it even

No, not to make it even.  From 1932 to 1982 there were plenty of rich people even though taxes were 70-90%.  That's 50 years, man.  I remember Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous on tv.  Fred Trump was rich through all that time.  No one was equal.  You were there, so you should know.

1 hour ago, olddude said:

No country in existance today has ever become great and properous while governing by the socialist dream. It's not possible, there are just not enough rich people in any country to pull that one off. 

And yet we did it for 50 years.

1 hour ago, olddude said:

When you start handing out money by the truck load it's not good for anybody not even the people with those open hands. 

Did you tell Milton Friedman that?  You know the genius economist advocated a negative income tax, right?

Funny how all the most notable economists advocate handing out money.  What is it that uneducated people can see that economic geniuses cannot see?

When we cover peoples' basis expenses then they are not forced to work to survive so they can bargain for better wages as we have seen in response to the covid handouts.  Wages are through the roof!  Keeping people in a situation where they have to rent themselves to others to survive is immoral.  Evil really.  Work should be voluntary.

1 hour ago, olddude said:

My dad to struggled along too. He raised 5 kids that never missed a meal we always had shoes and close on our backs.

Why do you advocate for that kind of life?  Does hardship make a better person?  Refusing assistance is just pride, and not much good comes of pride, they say.

All my friends were poor growing up and they are all still poor now, except one who managed to break out.  Rags to riches is the exception and not the norm.  Most of them turned to drugs, booze.

1 hour ago, olddude said:

Taking money away from one person to give to someone else is just wrong. The cops call that robery.

Cops return stolen property all the time.  They take from the thief and give back to the owner.  That's more or less what taxes do.

[olddude]

I don't know why I do this. I often wonder how people could get to the point that they really believe some of the stuff you think is so right.  I guess that is why for the last 50 yrears or so people have gotten to the point that they just like free stuff. I'll argue the point about how wonderful things were for 50 years was not the result of all that money the gubment stole from the rich. It was because in the late 20's the country and most of the world went into a depression like never seen before. By the time it was over the gubment went into action to fix a problem that they was partially responsible for. The new deal with it's massive gubment spending kept something going for almost ten years that it was supposed to fix in 100 days. The depression led to WW2 which led to more spending for the defence department. The money spent on the war was a bunch but it still didn't amount what the gubment spent and still are spending for the social programs they created to fix their problem.

The war effort put people to work which led to the great prosperity you speak of that lasted well past the 30 year mark until people started getting lazy again. After the war when the men came most started families which started the largest population expantion ever. These men had gone through some really tough times along with the ones that stayed at home, and they survived. Those that did decided that their kids would never have to go through the hardships they had to endure. They worked not to just pay their bills and eat they wanted to give their kids the things they wanted not just the things they needed. During these times people quickly became addicted to the easy life along with the never ending supply of gubment money. 

Where does the gubment get it's money? They don't create anything of value it only comsumes what it can grub out of it's menions. Me thinks that our gubment should live within their means just like normal people have to. When the gubment starts taking over half of what people make the business man figures out a way to survive and make a profit. Big business doesn't give a rat's azz what the gubment's tax rate is because all they do is raise their prices to cover their cost. Now! just who does that help? Nobody, not the business because he's back to square one. Who it hurts, is the little guy that is pretty much on a fixed income.  

Let's talk about the unions. They push to raise the minimum wage because when that happens their wages go up because their wage scale is pretty much based on a certain % over what the minimum wage is. The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage it was put in place to keep some businesses from getting away with forced slave labor wages. Some jobs are just not worth $ 10.00 an hour no matter how you look at it. Minimum wage was never intended to supply enough money to feed a family of 10 on. It's a starting place for people to get into the work force to gain the basic skills and work expirence needed to move on to the next step. There again, if someone chooses to work like that their whole life who's fault is that? You call it renting yourself to the man I call it an opertunity to better myself. If you don't like what your getting; then quit what you are doing. It's easy to sit back and cry foul and complain all your life, it takes courage to do something about it. There is no reason in this country that anyone who is willing to work for it can't get as far as they want to go.

I'll agree some of these businesses around today are totally out of control and need to be taken down a knotch. The problem with that is all of them are in bed with the politicians that make the laws that are supposed to protect us. You complain about rich people why do you keep voting for the same bunch that are beating you up each day. People go out an bang on doors asking for people to vote them into office. He/she drives a old beater and can hardly afford to put gas in it and somehow sweet talks their way into office and within 3 or 4 years is a millionaire. Some of the people in congress are some of the richest people in the country and there is just something wrong with that.

Nothing will ever change as long as the same bunch is guarding the hen house. If you want change lobby for a ballanced budget admendment and term limits for these crooks.  There are a few other things you could lobby for but these would be a good start. The way they have the system designed is to hold you back. it's not the business man they are in the same boat as you are. Most of the politicians see the need to keep the avegrage working man to a point where he just makes enough to barely scrap by from week to week. They are the largest voting block there is so they have a vested interest in keep your nose to the grind stone because they are the largest group to get their tax money from. They promise you anything but you can bet the bank that they have already figured out how to twist the knife even deeper into your back while the stand there smiling at you.

[JustRandy]

15 hours ago, olddude said:

I don't know why I do this.

Because it's fun!  What better way for a couple farts to kill time?  

13 hours ago, olddude said:

I often wonder how people could get to the point that they really believe some of the stuff you think is so right.

Because all the economic greats agree with them.

Milton Friedman advocated welfare via a negative income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Governmental_involvement_in_the_economy

Irving Fisher "opposed laissez faire and pleaded for an equitable distribution of income."
http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/economists/irving-fisher-1867-1947-economist/21019

Kenneth Arrow wrote "A cautious case for socialism".
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1426269747ACautiousCaseforSocialism.pdf

Hayek: Why I am Not a Conservative
https://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html

Even Einstein supported socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Socialism%3F

13 hours ago, olddude said:

I'll argue the point about how wonderful things were for 50 years was not the result of all that money the gubment stole from the rich.

At least you acknowledge the astronomical taxation had no deleterious effect.  We're making progress!

13 hours ago, olddude said:

It was because in the late 20's the country and most of the world went into a depression like never seen before.

It was the 30s.  The roaring 20s were good times.  Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were big business capitalists who blew up the economy and ushered in FDR to clean up the mess.

13 hours ago, olddude said:

The new deal with it's massive gubment spending kept something going for almost ten years that it was supposed to fix in 100 days.

Parts of the new deal were bad ideas and some of it wasn't allowed by the courts, but for the most part it helped which is why FDR won 4 terms.  If private industry wouldn't provide jobs then the gov would, which is pretty much what is happening today.

Richard Ojeda said "Where I come from, when you graduate high school, there's only three choices—dig coal, sell dope, or join the Army. And I chose the military". He served 25 years in the United States Army, starting as an enlisted soldier before going through officer training and rising to the rank of major.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ojeda

If you can't find a job, the gov will give you one.  If you can't do that, then peddling dope and going to prison is an option.  The drug war is really just a way to get rid of people who won't work.

14 hours ago, olddude said:

The depression led to WW2 which led to more spending for the defence department.

No it was the treaty of Versailles forcing Germany to pay reparations for WWI.  By the time the great depression kicked in, people were fleeing the US to find work in Germany and the USSR because Hoover refused to involve the government.  It was the only time in history that more people were leaving the US than coming.

And it was Pearl Harbor that led to the involvement of the US in the war, which FDR knew about and may have even caused because Churchill was begging him for help.

14 hours ago, olddude said:

The war effort put people to work which led to the great prosperity

So you realize government jobs led to prosperity?  Whether it's the war or the new deal, both are gov jobs.

Gov jobs are just welfare that you have to do some work for.  Therefore you agree that welfare = prosperity.

14 hours ago, olddude said:

Where does the gubment get it's money?

It gets money from taxes and printing money.  But the gov doesn't have any money regardless how much they take because anything they take or print is paid out immediately to the poor and middle class who work for them.  The gov is in the business of taking from the rich and giving to the poor which is why when taxes are high there is so much prosperity.  Deficit spending too.

14 hours ago, olddude said:

Big business doesn't give a rat's azz what the gubment's tax rate is because all they do is raise their prices to cover their cost.

Price is a function of supply and demand, not costs.  Costs have zero to do with prices.

If you sell widgets and your costs go up, you can't raise your prices or you will sell less widgets and have less revenue.  Less revenue + higher costs = less profit.  The only thing you can do is try to streamline production or cut salaries or lay off workers.  Prices are set by the market and the market doesn't care about costs.

If a company COULD raise prices, they SHOULD do it anyway without having rising costs as an excuse.  Prices should always be the absolute max they can possibly be in order to maximize profit for shareholders.  Since price is always the max, then it can't be raised if costs go up.  The only time prices can go up is if demand is sufficient to accommodate the increase.

So if taxes are raised then the company has to eat it because they can't get it from the consumer unless the consumer suddenly has more money.

14 hours ago, olddude said:

Let's talk about the unions.

We agree about unions and min wage.  I really don't like unions.  I'd prefer UBI from the gov then we wouldn't need unions since workers could just quit without starving if working conditions are so bad.  We also wouldn't need min wage laws.  Gov could be reduced quite a bit if we had UBI.

14 hours ago, olddude said:

You call it renting yourself to the man I call it an opertunity to better myself.

Do you call prostitution an opportunity?  Renting yourself to someone is non-sexual prostitution.  I mean, you gotta do what you gotta do, but why advocate for it?  Why celebrate such a demeaning deal?

You show up at an employer and say "Here is my body, what can I do with it to make YOU money?"  Because making money for the employer is what it's all about otherwise they wouldn't hire anyone.  When I employed people each worker was a money machine making me $50/hr and I paid them $10/hr out of it.  $10 was good money back then and they were glad to get it until they found out how much I was making, then suddenly it wasn't anything they would have agreed if they had known in the first place.

That brings up another point because if the worker and employer don't agree on how to divide the spoils then it's not a free and fair transaction, but a theft of their labor.  Since labor was stolen, then taxation is justified to rectify the theft by returning the stolen property to its rightful owners.

Republicans from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt were against wage slavery.  Taft was the first republican to abandon ship because TR called him fat, so he created the US Chamber of Commerce to give big business more representation in government.  Because TR called him fat.

Here's a short video about wage slavery 

 

14 hours ago, olddude said:

There is no reason in this country that anyone who is willing to work for it can't get as far as they want to go.

Too many people work 2 jobs and are not getting anywhere.  And a lot of people have disabilities that preclude their working.  Some are just screwed up in the head, which is a disability.

Obviously hard work by itself is not enough because millions of people work hard and are not rich.  A lot of luck is also required.

14 hours ago, olddude said:

I'll agree some of these businesses around today are totally out of control and need to be taken down a notch. The problem with that is all of them are in bed with the politicians that make the laws that are supposed to protect us.

We agree.  Here is a video you might like.  It's called "Freedom of Choice: How the Government Controls What You Consume."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5qamYpmODA

Basically, corporations lobby government to make laws to hurt their competition.

Government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, not by corporations and for corporations.  The concept of government by itself is not bad, what's bad is who controls it.

15 hours ago, olddude said:

You complain about rich people why do you keep voting for the same bunch that are beating you up each day.

I don't get much of a choice who to vote for and pretty much everyone I vote for loses.  My dad said the only one he ever voted FOR was Goldwater, and everyone else he voted against the other guy.  That's how it is with me too... there is hardly anyone I really like, I usually vote against the worst one.  I didn't vote Trump because I like him, but to try to stop Biden.  But see?  Everyone I vote for loses (even though he really didn't lose).

15 hours ago, olddude said:

Some of the people in congress are some of the richest people in the country and there is just something wrong with that.

I would say that's capitalism.  If you don't like something, then simply give your politician a bigger bribe to do what you want.  Whoever has the most capital gets their way.  That's how this game is played.  How else should things be decided?  We all compete to make our money then use our money to shape our world.  How else would we know who to put in charge?  I'm not against capitalism; I just want a bit of help for the poor is all.  And the rich want that too.  The problem is the poor don't want it.

Why did Mitch McConnell fight Trump sending the $2000 checks?  Was he being a jerk?  No, he's faithfully representing the people of KY.  They did not want the money for the reason I already said: because they are scared someone else might get it too.  Why else turn down free money?

If you worked hard for what you have then you wouldn't want lazy people getting stuff too because it devalues everything you worked for.  If everyone gets free money then how is the hard worker different from the lazy?

15 hours ago, olddude said:

Nothing will ever change as long as the same bunch is guarding the hen house.

The problem is people worship the rich.  They think the rich are smarter because they are rich.  Nothing will change until that changes.

[olddude]

5 hours ago, JustRandy said:

Because it's fun!  What better way for a couple farts to kill time?  

Because all the economic greats agree with them.

Milton Friedman advocated welfare via a negative income tax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Governmental_involvement_in_the_economy

Irving Fisher "opposed laissez faire and pleaded for an equitable distribution of income."
http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/economists/irving-fisher-1867-1947-economist/21019

Kenneth Arrow wrote "A cautious case for socialism".
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1426269747ACautiousCaseforSocialism.pdf

Hayek: Why I am Not a Conservative
https://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html

Even Einstein supported socialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Socialism%3F

At least you acknowledge the astronomical taxation had no deleterious effect.  We're making progress!

It was the 30s.  The roaring 20s were good times.  Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were big business capitalists who blew up the economy and ushered in FDR to clean up the mess.

Parts of the new deal were bad ideas and some of it wasn't allowed by the courts, but for the most part it helped which is why FDR won 4 terms.  If private industry wouldn't provide jobs then the gov would, which is pretty much what is happening today.

Richard Ojeda said "Where I come from, when you graduate high school, there's only three choices—dig coal, sell dope, or join the Army. And I chose the military". He served 25 years in the United States Army, starting as an enlisted soldier before going through officer training and rising to the rank of major.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ojeda

If you can't find a job, the gov will give you one.  If you can't do that, then peddling dope and going to prison is an option.  The drug war is really just a way to get rid of people who won't work.

No it was the treaty of Versailles forcing Germany to pay reparations for WWI.  By the time the great depression kicked in, people were fleeing the US to find work in Germany and the USSR because Hoover refused to involve the government.  It was the only time in history that more people were leaving the US than coming.

And it was Pearl Harbor that led to the involvement of the US in the war, which FDR knew about and may have even caused because Churchill was begging him for help.

So you realize government jobs led to prosperity?  Whether it's the war or the new deal, both are gov jobs.

Gov jobs are just welfare that you have to do some work for.  Therefore you agree that welfare = prosperity.

It gets money from taxes and printing money.  But the gov doesn't have any money regardless how much they take because anything they take or print is paid out immediately to the poor and middle class who work for them.  The gov is in the business of taking from the rich and giving to the poor which is why when taxes are high there is so much prosperity.  Deficit spending too.

Price is a function of supply and demand, not costs.  Costs have zero to do with prices.

If you sell widgets and your costs go up, you can't raise your prices or you will sell less widgets and have less revenue.  Less revenue + higher costs = less profit.  The only thing you can do is try to streamline production or cut salaries or lay off workers.  Prices are set by the market and the market doesn't care about costs.

If a company COULD raise prices, they SHOULD do it anyway without having rising costs as an excuse.  Prices should always be the absolute max they can possibly be in order to maximize profit for shareholders.  Since price is always the max, then it can't be raised if costs go up.  The only time prices can go up is if demand is sufficient to accommodate the increase.

So if taxes are raised then the company has to eat it because they can't get it from the consumer unless the consumer suddenly has more money.

We agree about unions and min wage.  I really don't like unions.  I'd prefer UBI from the gov then we wouldn't need unions since workers could just quit without starving if working conditions are so bad.  We also wouldn't need min wage laws.  Gov could be reduced quite a bit if we had UBI.

Do you call prostitution an opportunity?  Renting yourself to someone is non-sexual prostitution.  I mean, you gotta do what you gotta do, but why advocate for it?  Why celebrate such a demeaning deal?

You show up at an employer and say "Here is my body, what can I do with it to make YOU money?"  Because making money for the employer is what it's all about otherwise they wouldn't hire anyone.  When I employed people each worker was a money machine making me $50/hr and I paid them $10/hr out of it.  $10 was good money back then and they were glad to get it until they found out how much I was making, then suddenly it wasn't anything they would have agreed if they had known in the first place.

That brings up another point because if the worker and employer don't agree on how to divide the spoils then it's not a free and fair transaction, but a theft of their labor.  Since labor was stolen, then taxation is justified to rectify the theft by returning the stolen property to its rightful owners.

Republicans from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelt were against wage slavery.  Taft was the first republican to abandon ship because TR called him fat, so he created the US Chamber of Commerce to give big business more representation in government.  Because TR called him fat.

Here's a short video about wage slavery 

 

Too many people work 2 jobs and are not getting anywhere.  And a lot of people have disabilities that preclude their working.  Some are just screwed up in the head, which is a disability.

Obviously hard work by itself is not enough because millions of people work hard and are not rich.  A lot of luck is also required.

We agree.  Here is a video you might like.  It's called "Freedom of Choice: How the Government Controls What You Consume."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5qamYpmODA

Basically, corporations lobby government to make laws to hurt their competition.

Government is supposed to be by the people and for the people, not by corporations and for corporations.  The concept of government by itself is not bad, what's bad is who controls it.

I don't get much of a choice who to vote for and pretty much everyone I vote for loses.  My dad said the only one he ever voted FOR was Goldwater, and everyone else he voted against the other guy.  That's how it is with me too... there is hardly anyone I really like, I usually vote against the worst one.  I didn't vote Trump because I like him, but to try to stop Biden.  But see?  Everyone I vote for loses (even though he really didn't lose).

I would say that's capitalism.  If you don't like something, then simply give your politician a bigger bribe to do what you want.  Whoever has the most capital gets their way.  That's how this game is played.  How else should things be decided?  We all compete to make our money then use our money to shape our world.  How else would we know who to put in charge?  I'm not against capitalism; I just want a bit of help for the poor is all.  And the rich want that too.  The problem is the poor don't want it.

Why did Mitch McConnell fight Trump sending the $2000 checks?  Was he being a jerk?  No, he's faithfully representing the people of KY.  They did not want the money for the reason I already said: because they are scared someone else might get it too.  Why else turn down free money?

If you worked hard for what you have then you wouldn't want lazy people getting stuff too because it devalues everything you worked for.  If everyone gets free money then how is the hard worker different from the lazy?

The problem is people worship the rich.  They think the rich are smarter because they are rich.  Nothing will change until that changes.

 

Forgive me for not posting up what a bunch of experts think. I found a long time ago that for every expert that has this view or that there is 10 more out there that tell a different story. I guess it just depends on which ever one of these experts you want to believe. 

Oh and from what I heard the stock market crash in 1929 is what led to the depression which probably means the last couple years of the twenties were not all that roaring. If you want to cut straws about when it started that's fine by me. FDR's new deal was supposed to end it and put the country back into prosperity but depending on who you want to believe all that massive spending and money printing draged the depression on for a good ten years. World war 2 started in 1939 the same time the depression ended. The US didn't enter into the war until Dec 1 1941 when we declared war on Japan a couple days later both Germany and Itlay declared war on the US and hours later we followed suit by declaring war on both countries.

Things were really bad in Germany during the depression which led to a really good politician that told the German people what they wanted to hear thus starting his reign of terror on anyone that got in his way. The war effort not government spending is what led to the end of the depression and the years of growth and prospirity that followed. You are right that the gubment war department funded the war effort but you seem to want to forget that it was the American people that did the work to supply this war machine. The gubment didn'r make any of the gun's bullets tires and armour it took to fight the war. It was US companies that were charged with the task of making stuff which required American workers to do the work. They worked long and hard to get it done and in the end it was these workers that got it done. These people were glad to get back to work and happy to be making their money rather than depending on the 50 cents an hour they were making in the CC camps funded by the gubment.

My belief is that the country grew in spite of the massive taxation the gubment demanded from it's people. Just like the old saying, "Life will find a way". So will the American people and the companies that provide the work for them to feed their families and get ahead. 

Our government has become a massive bloted mass of coruption and trickery. You could fire half of the people that work in gubment jobs and it wouldn't amount to a bag of beans. I'm kind of sorry to say that I once had a gubment job and it was at the top of the list of my favorite jobs. There were over 500 people that worked in those warehouses and out of those 500 there were about a hundred of those that actually did anything. I didn't fit in well there with most because I was a go getter. The way I looked at it if I had to be there 8 hours a day I might as well do my job. Most of the people did not like the idea of people actually doing the work because it might catch on and it made them look bad. I went there a general laborer and in just 6 weeks The big guy called me in and offered me a floor formans job along with a 50 cent raise. I accepted the job and I started the next week. When I reported the boss gave me a log book and a clip board with a list of things they wanted to get done for the week and a list of the guys that had to report to me. There were 75 names on that list; I looked at the work load and the list of names and I laughed. He looked at me with a half grin on his face and said yeah, I know what your thinking but you'll understand in a couple days. 

Out of the 75 guys on that list on a good day about 30 people would show up and by 10:00 half of those were gone. Out of the 75 guys on that list I could count on about 10 and a couple of those wouldn't make it back after lunch a couple days a week. Still we finished our list most of the time by thursday and a lot of times were were done Wed by noon. Once a week I would have a meeting with my boss to talk over what was next. One day I told him that I had to ask what some would think to be a pretty dumb question but I'm going to ask it anyway. I asked him if he ever looked at the logbook I turned in every week and wanted to know how who is really responsible for all these people on this list? Is it my responsiblity to run these people down everyday because if it is I'll need a shorter work load because I would spend all my day looking for people. He said don't worry about that, that's just the way it works around here. He told me that 12 of the people on that list have not even reported to work for the past 3 years. The higer ups figured it was better to just let them stay home rather that have them around the warehouse for fear of them getting run over by a folk truck while they were sleeping in one of the corners around the warehouse. I said just how can that be can't you fire them? He said your kidding, right? You are forgetting your working for uncle sam what do you expect?

Well it wasn't long after that and just shortly after Ronald Regan came into office My boss came to me with a tear in his eye and told me that this friday would be my last day working there. I looked at him and said what did I do wrong? He said nothing at all and if it was up to him I would have a job there for as long as I wanted it....BUT, our new president has decided to cut all non essential people especially those that had not completed their one year anniversary in their job. When you signed on you were classed as a temp employee that could be let go anytime until you made perminate status. I had just three week's to go. He tried everything in his power to get it to where I could stay but rules are rules.

I never held it against Regan though because just the short time I worked for the gubment I knew deep down that he was really right and that something needed to be done about the way things were done at these work places. It didn't make me feel really well when I saw my old boss a month or two later. we were talking about this and that when I asked about what happened to all those people that never showed up for work, are they gone? No, he said with a frown on his face. He just said some things never change.  I didn't figure it out for a long time when he told me I had been born wrong. It took 3 months of looking for a job before I realized just what he meant, because Affirmative Action had made me over qualified for everything I looked at. I never tride the ditch digger route maybe that would have been different.

That's all I have time for today. 

[JustRandy]

10 hours ago, olddude said:

I found a long time ago that for every expert that has this view or that there is 10 more out there that tell a different story. I guess it just depends on which ever one of these experts you want to believe. 

Normally I'd agree that appealing to authority is a bad way to argue, but there are a couple caveats in this case.  First, you asked why people believe these things and I said it's because all the greatest experts also believe it.  So I was answering your question.  Second, there really are no economists that disagree, certainly not nobel prize winning economists.  Guys like Peter Schiff are not economists, although they play one on tv.  So it's like some guy with an interest in physics arguing with Einstein... or maybe a street brawler picking a fight with Tyson.  Who would you put your money on?  But you're right that what experts think doesn't establish truth.

10 hours ago, olddude said:

Oh and from what I heard the stock market crash in 1929 is what led to the depression which probably means the last couple years of the twenties were not all that roaring.

It was October 1929, so they were partying all the way up to the end of the decade.  The depression didn't start in earnest until sometime in 1930.  I think I heard Henry Ford made $5 million that year, then he closed his factory to retool for the Model A.  Meanwhile everyone else was standing in soup lines or heading for another country to find work.

10 hours ago, olddude said:

FDR's new deal was supposed to end it and put the country back into prosperity but depending on who you want to believe all that massive spending and money printing draged the depression on for a good ten years.

People argue both ways, but the truth is there were good parts and bad parts to the new deal.  Price controls were the bad parts, but putting people to work building dams and parks was the good part.  It was a big experiment and he really didn't know what would work for sure.  Plus the Supreme Court got involved and FDR threatened to expand the court if they didn't see it his way (which he had power to do since he had congress and the people on his side).  But many parts of the new deal got struck down by the court, so what remained was a hodge podge that wasn't exactly what he intended.  Plus he had to about-face when he needed industry to make stuff for the war because he had to supply Churchill and he knew it was only a matter of time before the US entered the war too.  So instead of taking money from the robber barons like he had planned, he had to give them money to produce war equipment... the exact opposite of what he wanted to do.

11 hours ago, olddude said:

The war effort not government spending is what led to the end of the depression

The war effort IS government spending.  The war just gave excuse to spend even more.

11 hours ago, olddude said:

It was US companies that were charged with the task of making stuff which required American workers to do the work.

But the gov paid to build their factories and paid for the stuff the factories produced.  There is a series on youtube called War Factories that is pretty interesting.  The difference was that German factories had skilled craftsmen who took forever to produce anything whereas the US factories were assemble lines that took advantage of unskilled labor without sacrificing quality.  Germany couldn't match the production of the US.  And German factories had a lot of bureaucracy because Hitler wanted to micro-manage everything whereas FDR just cut checks and let those who knew what they were doing make the decisions.  Hitler called it jewish capitalism but in the end he started to copy it but still managed to screw it up because he put buffoons in charge... kinda like Trump did.

11 hours ago, olddude said:

I didn't fit in well there with most because I was a go getter. The way I looked at it if I had to be there 8 hours a day I might as well do my job. Most of the people did not like the idea of people actually doing the work because it might catch on and it made them look bad.

That's the way I am.  Breaks are boring so I'd rather just keep working.  Unions force people to take breaks and tell them to slow down.  Sometimes they play cards all day.  Unions just result in slow production, poor quality, and expensive end product which is why I usually avoid anything made in the USA.

11 hours ago, olddude said:

He told me that 12 of the people on that list have not even reported to work for the past 3 years. The higer ups figured it was better to just let them stay home rather that have them around the warehouse for fear of them getting run over by a folk truck while they were sleeping in one of the corners around the warehouse. I said just how can that be can't you fire them? He said your kidding, right? You are forgetting your working for uncle sam what do you expect?

LOL that's funny!  But that's my point of paying people to stay out of the way.  Many people are good for nothing so either shoot em or pay em to stay out of the way.

The bad part about you losing your job was Reagan actually increased gov spending.  You must not have been working in the defense industry.

Ok so back to the depression.  Watch 2 minutes of this video.  It should be cued up to the right spot.  Americans were actually fleeing to communism and communist movements were gaining traction in the US because Hoover refused to do anything except beg charities to do something.  It's funny that the USSR was perceived to be the land of opportunity at that time.  That's how bad Hoover was.

 

And Germany's problem was the war reparations that were demanded to be paid in gold which caused the value of the Mark to plummet.  I mean, if you know Germany is forced to buy gold at any price, you would jack up the price so much that the Mark was essentially worthless.  That's what caused Germany's problems.  Of course, the depression didn't help.  Hitler promised to fix all that and he did.... with government spending rebuilding the military and building the autobahn.  Fast forward the video to 41:40 to see.  Unemployment went to zero.

So we have USSR, Germany, and FDR in the US.  Government spending is the only thing that worked.

So the gov either has to tax people or print money in order to spend.  Either way is the same thing because printing money devalues your money so it's the same as taking it from you.  It's better to just raise taxes because then the rich can be targeted while the middle class and poor are left alone.

Imagine we had gold as money and there is a fixed amount of it.  Now, when someone gets richer, where is their gold coming from?  Answer= everyone else because there is no other place for it to come from.  It's stated at the beginning that there is a fixed amount of gold so if one person accumulates more gold then it must mean the gold is coming from other people who are getting poorer as the rich get richer.  Now imagine we print money instead of the gold.  How does that change the picture?  It doesn't because printing money to make the rich richer only devalues the money of everyone else, so it's the same thing again: as the rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer.

How do we fix that?  That only way is to take the money from the rich and give it back to everyone else.  If we don't then eventually everyone else will run out of money.  And that is the technical definition of a depression (ie lack of money).  Therefore lack of sufficient taxation necessarily leads to a depression.  You can call taxation theft, but there is no way to avoid it.  Money can be printed instead of taxation, but that only comes with other perils.  The only way to keep an economy functioning well for any length of time (ie 50 years) is sufficient taxation.  When taxes are lowered, we started to see catastrophic blowups like 2000, 2008, and 2020 came just in time to blame what was going to happen anyway on covid.