America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 12 years ago by frankj1. 155 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
WAL-MART Costs Taxpayers $1,557,000,000,00 to Support its Employees
rfenst Online
#51 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
Here is a thought:

Suppose, for whatever reason, Wal-Mart closed overnight. How much more in aggregate benefits would that cause the U.S. and state governments?
teedubbya Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
What do you call 100 Arkansans gathering at the local Walmart?





























A full set of teeth.
DrafterX Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,566
Mellow
DrMaddVibe Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,528
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

Frying pan
Papachristou Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 10-20-2010
Posts: 845
gringococolo wrote:
Rick,

This post should have ended with a thank you. You should be thanking all of us for paying more into Social Security than you ever had too. The rate of SS taxes has risen as have wages.


You are welcome.

Enjoy your retirement on the backs of us that have paid more and will receive less because of the ravenous appetite for government teat of your "entitlement" generation.

Once again you are welcome. I appreciate all that you have done for this country, but you guys needed to have more tax-paying children.






well put good sir! Applause
rfenst Online
#56 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
Papachristou wrote:
well put good sir! Applause


B*llsh1t. They were promised it. They paid into it. They relied upon the promise to get paid. Blame someone else. The current shortfall is not the fault of the elderly
DadZilla3 Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
rfenst wrote:
B*llsh1t. They were promised it. They paid into it. They relied upon the promise to get paid. Blame someone else. The current shortfall is not the fault of the elderly

I agree. After paying into the system and contributing to society your entire working life, I think you are absolutely entitled to your earned benefits. If fingers need be pointed regarding any shortfall, point them at the hordes of multigenerational Welfare drones who do little else other than run up the crime rate and beget yet more Welfare drones.
teedubbya Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I've paid in to Social Security for 30 years. I have about 20 - 25 more to pay most likely.

The solution proposed seems to be for me to keep paying to support a current level of benefits for those about 12 years older than I and older, while I would get no benefit. It is for my own good..... they are just trying to help me and my kids. After all, I should have assumed all along I would never get any benefit from it. Redistribution of wealth at it's finest.
robertknyc Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 07-24-2003
Posts: 5,475
rfenst wrote:
B*llsh1t. They were promised it. They paid into it. They relied upon the promise to get paid. Blame someone else. The current shortfall is not the fault of the elderly


Well, I've been paying in for almost 30 years and I was promised it also. Is it fair to change the rules on me too? The reality is that we all have to get real about what the retirement age should be raised to and what the benefits should be. A reasonable adjustment will have to be made. It's worth noting that the same people that are relying on it right now collectively elected the spendthrifts in congress that squandered the money so they are not without blame. There should be sacrifice all around.
gringococolo Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
rfenst wrote:
B*llsh1t. They were promised it. They paid into it. They relied upon the promise to get paid. Blame someone else. The current shortfall is not the fault of the elderly



Well I was half joking. Half joking.



"Social Security has been a pyramid scheme from the beginning. Those who paid in first received money from those who paid in second—and so on, generation after generation. This was great so long as the small generation when Social Security began was being supported by larger generations resulting from the baby boom. But, like all pyramid schemes, the whole thing is in big trouble once the pyramid stops growing. When the baby boomers retire, that will be the moment of truth—or of more artful lies. Just like Enron."

—Thomas Sowell




Fact of the matter is we need to assimilate the illegals, get them to pay into social security, then hope they die before the rest of us. That would be the only way to make up for the baby boomers lack of production.

Right now indication are the average life expectancy of Mexican's is 75 to 77.5, while all of America combined is 77.5 to 80 years.




BTW, I wish Rick many more years of smoking, and life living off the system. I know I will be following in his footsteps in a few years.
FuzzNJ Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Bunch of freakin' socialists and your social security. I bet you all are going to take the medicare thing too!
wheelrite Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
we need the Mexicans to pay into the SSI ponzie scheme.
We are a bit short on workers that contribute..

And,,

SSI should be means tested. My retired parents are stinkin rich and they don't need SSI...
They use the money to keep the Motorhome full of gas and the lawn mowed at their winter place in Florida...
rfenst Online
#63 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
DadZilla3 wrote:
I If fingers need be pointed regarding any shortfall, point them at the hordes of multigenerational Welfare drones who do little else other than run up the crime rate and beget yet more Welfare drones.


I cannot agree with such a blanket, harsh statement. It is not that simple. Sure, there are people sucking off the system just because it works for them. There will always be some and there will be nothing we can do about it. But, those who feed them are just as responsible, if not more. No one has been "watching the store". It took our country roughly 225 years to get to this point. I think the solution is going to take another 4-5 generations (perhaps 50 years or more) until the change permeates and becomes our entire culture.
rfenst Online
#64 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
wheelrite wrote:
My retired parents are stinkin rich and they don't need SSI...


I presume you are strongly, encouraging them to return their monthly checks to Treasury for the benefit of others less fortunate or to be applied to the national debt.
gringococolo Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 02-04-2006
Posts: 4,626
Did you mean OASDI (Social Security)?

Supplemental Security Income (or SSI) is a United States government program that provides stipends to low-income people who are either aged (65 or older), blind, or disabled.[1] Although administered by the Social Security Administration,[2] SSI is funded from the U.S. Treasury general funds,[1] not the Social Security trust fund. SSI was created in 1974 to replace federal-state adult assistance programs that served the same purpose. The restructuring of these programs was intended to standardize the eligibility requirements and level of benefits.[3] The new federal program was incorporated into Title XVI (Title 16) of the Social Security Act.[4] Today the program provides benefits to 8,002,032 Americans.


SSI is not Social Security
wheelrite Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
I cannot agree with such a blanket, harsh statement. It is not that simple. Sure, there are people sucking off the system just because it works for them. There will always be some and there will be nothing we can do about it. But, those who feed them are just as responsible, if not more. No one has been "watching the store". It took our country roughly 225 years to get to this point. I think the solution is going to take another 4-5 generations (perhaps 50 years or more) until the change permeates and becomes our entire culture.


Wrong...

It took 70 yrs to get to this point and it was accelerated in the mid 1960s..
rfenst Online
#67 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
robertknyc wrote:
Well, I've been paying in for almost 30 years and I was promised it also. Is it fair to change the rules on me too? The reality is that we all have to get real about what the retirement age should be raised to and what the benefits should be. A reasonable adjustment will have to be made. It's worth noting that the same people that are relying on it right now collectively elected the spendthrifts in congress that squandered the money so they are not without blame. There should be sacrifice all around.


No, it is not "fair" to change the rules. However, necessity currently dictates that we must do so or the consequence will be much, much worse. We need to begin to phase out future benefits. The younger one is (and has the most time to plan, adjust and save) the less they should expect. This will not be a quick fix- I do not advocate that. SSI is a major part of our culture and the overall economy. It supports supports in whole or part a major part of our society.





(Now, whoever advocates a means test- I hope you understand you are advocating socialism. To each according to his needs...)

rfenst Online
#68 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
gringococolo wrote:
SSI is not Social Security


My mistake.I am referring to retirement benefits.
rfenst Online
#69 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
wheelrite wrote:
Wrong...

It took 70 yrs to get to this point and it was accelerated in the mid 1960s..



I am writing about the socio-political changes our country has gone through, over time, that ultimately led us to where we are now.
wheelrite Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
I am writing about the socio-political changes our country has gone through, over time, that ultimately led us to where we are now.


wrong...

The Libs doomed us with FDR anf the Great Society..
FuzzNJ Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
wrong...

The Libs doomed us with FDR anf the Great Society..


Yeah, the Great Depression was just a little inconvenience. Blaming the solutions for the problem rather than the problem itself is ignorant and stupid. Over extension of credit and wild speculations lead to the great depression, as well as the famine from bad agricultural practices. Sound familiar? The Republicans want to take the Hoover approach now, and how did that work for Hoover? Not so good.

Now someone is going to say that WWII is what ended the Great Depression, and that may be true, it was the end, but FDR's policies were turning the country around LONG before Pearl Harbor. Unemployment was down, poverty was down, confidence was up, savings were insured, on and on. Long term thinking vs short term thinking. FDR had long term thinking. Sure you could criticize and modify or even eliminate some things, hell, even add some. But it wasn't FDR that doomed us. It lead to the greatest, most powerful and stable country on the damn planet from WWII to today.
VaMtnMan Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2007
Posts: 3,743
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
VaMtnMan

YOU DON'T KNOW S H I T ABOUT LIBERALS.

I STARTED MY FIRST JOB IN 1949 WHEN I WAS 17 AND
EVEN THOUGH I RETIRED IN 2001, I STILL WORK PART
TIME, NOW THAT I'M 78.

LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU FINISH YOUR FIRST FIVE
YEARS OF WORK REPUBLICON

DON'T TALK ABOUT THINGS YOU DON'T KNOW,



Well, my first job was when I was 15 doing yard work around town to pay for my weekend fun. Right after high school I spent 4 years in the Marines and was a hydraulic mechanic on A-6's. Unlike your feeble minded liberal self, I actually did well in the Military. I was a Corporal when I got an early out to attend college. I was selected by a meritorious board to be a Sergeant, but I took the early out before I was promoted.
After college I became a Police Officer, and did that for ten years. I only left because the pay and hours sucked. I got into Real Estate. I sold on the average about 10 million dollars a year. I also bought and flipped houses. I own a property management company, and now that the real estate market sucks here, I own a company and we renovate homes for Fannie Mae when they foreclose on them.
So please Rick, explain to me what I don't know about working.
And by the way, I don't call the renovations you do on your house as "working part time".
wheelrite Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
Yeah, the Great Depression was just a little inconvenience. Blaming the solutions for the problem rather than the problem itself is ignorant and stupid. Over extension of credit and wild speculations lead to the great depression, as well as the famine from bad agricultural practices. Sound familiar? The Republicans want to take the Hoover approach now, and how did that work for Hoover? Not so good.

Now someone is going to say that WWII is what ended the Great Depression, and that may be true, it was the end, but FDR's policies were turning the country around LONG before Pearl Harbor. Unemployment was down, poverty was down, confidence was up, savings were insured, on and on. Long term thinking vs short term thinking. FDR had long term thinking. Sure you could criticize and modify or even eliminate some things, hell, even add some. But it wasn't FDR that doomed us. It lead to the greatest, most powerful and stable country on the damn planet from WWII to today.



You really are ignorant...

FDR's excessive spending prolonged what should have been a cyclical recession into a protracted depression.

sound familiar ???
FuzzNJ Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
You really are ignorant...

FDR's excessive spending prolonged what should have been a cyclical recession into a protracted depression.

sound familiar ???


Ah yes, the revisionist version.
wheelrite Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
Ah yes, the revisionist version.


pithy come back..
rfenst Online
#76 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
wheelrite wrote:
wrong...

The Libs doomed us with FDR anf the Great Society..



Great retrospective perspective from someone who can only see things in terms of blame and his own current-day allegations of lib v. con. Read a little history from different perspectives and disciplines- it might do you some good (but I doubt it).
wheelrite Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
Great retrospective perspective from someone who can only see things in terms of blame and his own current-day allegations of lib v. con. Read a little history from different perspectives and disciplines- it might do you some good (but I doubt it).


go get some more free stuff..
wheelrite Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
[quote=FuzzNJ]Ah yes, the revisionist version.[

UCLA Newsroom > All Stories > News Releases
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg Sullivan August 10, 2004 Category: Research
Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt's policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt's policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt's role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century's second-most influential figure.

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

NIRA's role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

"Historians have assumed that the policies didn't have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding," Ohanian said. "We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices."

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt's anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA's labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor's bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

-UCLA-

LSMS368


Hmmm ??

Robert maybe you and Fuzz should study a bit more before commenting

wheel,,
FuzzNJ Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
pithy come back..


But it also has the benefit of being true.

The position you are espousing here is fairly new, and one put forth by the right-wing now in order to try to justify their policies of deregulation and removing social safety nets put up because of the great depression. About 1/4 of the people in America were employed full time then. No unemployment insurance, no SS, no medicare, no unions, no FDIC insurance, 1/2 of the banks failed and everyone who had money in them lost their money, 1% of the population had like 40% of all the money, sh*t was really bad.

The programs initiated by FDR turned the country around. And the programs after WWII like education for vets and the 30 year mortgage made this country strong. Unions made the manufacturing sector strong and gave us 40 hour work weeks and benefits and a living wage. We owned our own homes, bought cars, moved to suburbs, the country became the strongest the planet has ever seen. It wasn't perfect, nothing ever is. But it wasn't done because of some libertarian right wing Ayn Rand bs the modern day right wing dreams of, not at all. That's just fantasy.
FuzzNJ Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
Wheel, here's something for you to look up. What was the economic growth for the 3 years prior to FDR becoming President, and the 3 years after he became President?

I can wait.
wheelrite Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
But it also has the benefit of being true.

The position you are espousing here is fairly new, and one put forth by the right-wing now in order to try to justify their policies of deregulation and removing social safety nets put up because of the great depression. About 1/4 of the people in America were employed full time then. No unemployment insurance, no SS, no medicare, no unions, no FDIC insurance, 1/2 of the banks failed and everyone who had money in them lost their money, 1% of the population had like 40% of all the money, sh*t was really bad.

The programs initiated by FDR turned the country around. And the programs after WWII like education for vets and the 30 year mortgage made this country strong. Unions made the manufacturing sector strong and gave us 40 hour work weeks and benefits and a living wage. We owned our own homes, bought cars, moved to suburbs, the country became the strongest the planet has ever seen. It wasn't perfect, nothing ever is. But it wasn't done because of some libertarian right wing Ayn Rand bs the modern day right wing dreams of, not at all. That's just fantasy.


Bro,,
The study I pasted is from UCLA,not heralded as a Conservative Bastion...

The things (economic productivity)you mention happened after the Taft Hartley Act was passed in 1947.
wheelrite Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
Wheel, here's something for you to look up. What was the economic growth for the 3 years prior to FDR becoming President, and the 3 years after he became President?

I can wait.


1947 Taft Hartley...
That's what spurred the tremendous growth.Truman's veto was overridden..
FuzzNJ Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
Bro,,
The study I pasted is from UCLA,not heralded as a Conservative Bastion...

The things (economic productivity)you mention happened after the Taft Hartley Act was passed in 1947.


Dude, I said, omg, it's right there, I shouldn't have to repeat it. Holy crap.

Look at the economic growth figures.
FuzzNJ Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
1947 Taft Hartley...
That's what spurred the tremendous growth.Truman's veto was overridden..


I guess I have to do it for you.

1930 - -8.6
1931 - -6.4
1932 - -13.0
1933 - -1.3
1934 - +10.8
1935 - +8.9
1936 - +13.0
1937 - +5.1

You seeing a pattern?
rfenst Online
#85 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
wheelrite wrote:

Hmmm ??

Robert maybe you and Fuzz should study a bit more before commenting

wheel,,


I won't speak for Fuzz, but just a bit more? How about a whole lot more. No- how about a couple decades worth? Will that be enough? I hope so...
wheelrite Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
Dude, I said, omg, it's right there, I shouldn't have to repeat it. Holy crap.

Look at the economic growth figures.



Bro,,,,,,,,,

Don't you see that Big Gov't makes economic cycles much worse and protracted.

The beauty of Capitalism is that it IS self correcting.

Socialism has never worked,not even once...
wheelrite Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
rfenst wrote:
I won't speak for Fuzz, but just a bit more? How about a whole lot more. No- how about a couple decades worth? Will that be enough? I hope so...


well obviously you failed economics...

FuzzNJ Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
Bro,,,,,,,,,

Don't you see that Big Gov't makes economic cycles much worse and protracted.

The beauty of Capitalism is that it IS self correcting.

Socialism has never worked,not even once...


Don't you see that academic papers are peer reviewed? This one was and dismissed as being pure crap?

It's the same kind of crap that the same kind of people are putting forward to try to make McCarthy look heroic now to people who don't freakin' know better. Historical revisionism at it's most evil.

Thinking people of ALL political persuasions all agreed that the policies that FDR put forward, give or take a couple, ended the great depression, up until a decade or so ago. Now there are those who are trying to rewrite history for their own nefarious purposes and a new generation is buying into the propaganda.

Sad and pathetic.
FuzzNJ Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
well obviously you failed economics...



You took economics where?
wheelrite Offline
#90 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
Don't you see that academic papers are peer reviewed? This one was and dismissed as being pure crap?

It's the same kind of crap that the same kind of people are putting forward to try to make McCarthy look heroic now to people who don't freakin' know better. Historical revisionism at it's most evil.

Thinking people of ALL political persuasions all agreed that the policies that FDR put forward, give or take a couple, ended the great depression, up until a decade or so ago. Now there are those who are trying to rewrite history for their own nefarious purposes and a new generation is buying into the propaganda.

Sad and pathetic.


Bro,,,

what is sad and pathetic,,,

IF you look at what FDR did and what our Dear leader is doing now it is the same bad result.The Fed Gov't creates no private sector jobs.They make it prohibitive for true econonic growth with high taxes and brutal regulation...

See,,

I own and run small business.I deal with gov't B.S. all the time...
wheelrite Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
You took economics where?



Texas Tech University...
1981-1984
FuzzNJ Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
Bro,,,

what is sad and pathetic,,,

IF you look at what FDR did and what our Dear leader is doing now it is the same bad result.The Fed Gov't creates no private sector jobs.They make it prohibitive for true econonic growth with high taxes and brutal regulation...

See,,

I own and run small business.I deal with gov't B.S. all the time...


One, the situation today is not the same as it was back then. We have tons more safety nets thanks to FDR that protect the population that saved the US from heading into another depression during the Bush administration.

Two, what did the Bush administration do? That's right. Federal money spent on bailouts, proping up the economy with Federal dollars, trillions of it actually. Through tons of 1 day loans to banks and direct bailout money. No private sector jobs were created there either.

Why did those banks fail so badly? Speculation and less regulation and letting banks and investment companies merge through more deregulation and less over-sight.

We all have to deal with government bs in one way or another, you're not special. Your small business is NOTHING, does not even register, is just a piece of sand in the grand scale of things.

Seriously read some more books, even some that might not preach back to you the point of view you want to hear. You may actually learn something.
wheelrite Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 11-01-2006
Posts: 50,119
FuzzNJ wrote:
One, the situation today is not the same as it was back then. We have tons more safety nets thanks to FDR that protect the population that saved the US from heading into another depression during the Bush administration.

Two, what did the Bush administration do? That's right. Federal money spent on bailouts, proping up the economy with Federal dollars, trillions of it actually. Through tons of 1 day loans to banks and direct bailout money. No private sector jobs were created there either.

Why did those banks fail so badly? Speculation and less regulation and letting banks and investment companies merge through more deregulation and less over-sight.

We all have to deal with government bs in one way or another, you're not special. Your small business is NOTHING, does not even register, is just a piece of sand in the grand scale of things.

Seriously read some more books, even some that might not preach back to you the point of view you want to hear. You may actually learn something.



Much like you I enjoy reading Good House Keeping and watching The Food Network,,,

True my little business is small.We'll do about $500-600K in sales this year.

But, I started it 11 years ago with just $6000 .I did'nt need a grant a gov't loan just my witt,work and tenacity.
something that is sadly not taught in school anymore.

maybe you should try it..
FuzzNJ Offline
#94 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
wheelrite wrote:
Much like you I enjoy reading Good House Keeping and watching The Food Network,,,

True my little business is small.We'll do about $500-600K in sales this year.

But, I started it 11 years ago with just $6000 .I did'nt need a grant a gov't loan just my witt,work and tenacity.
something that is sadly not taught in school anymore.

maybe you should try it..


I wrote a bunch of stuff, but I just deleted it because it sounded like I was being boastful and didn't want to do that. It's not important.

I'm glad you are doing well and I hope you continue to do well. Best of luck.

Your thoughts on the Great Depression are misguided though and could use some more study.

Night. Must sleep.
ZRX1200 Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,635
Wheel I think he was gonna brag about his allowance ........
MACS Offline
#96 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,844
I don't have a problem with subsidizing people who WORK, but just don't make enough.

I don't like giving handouts to people who aren't even TRYING.
RICKAMAVEN Offline
#97 Posted:
Joined: 10-01-2000
Posts: 33,248
gringococolo 49

if i'm not mistaken your employer pays half of your soc sec and you pay half.
does that sound right?

since i have been self employed sinc 1973, i have paid both .

does that mean you want thanks for your half and thanks to your
employer for the other half.
rfenst Online
#98 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,382
MACS wrote:
I don't have a problem with subsidizing people who WORK, but just don't make enough.

I don't like giving handouts to people who aren't even TRYING.


I agree.
dpnewell Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
RICKAMAVEN wrote:
gringococolo 49

if i'm not mistaken your employer pays half of your soc sec and you pay half.
does that sound right?

since i have been self employed sinc 1973, i have paid both .

does that mean you want thanks for your half and thanks to your
employer for the other half.


Ricky, Ricky, Ricky,
I too pay both parts of the FICA tax, but there is one thing you liberals just can't seem to get through your frack'n skulls. Employers don't have some magic money tree that pays for their share of employment taxes. Nor do they pay for them out of their profits. Those tax costs are figured into the cost of employment, when a salary is offered. If an employer can afford $20 an hour for a position, and employment taxes, benefits, etc. cost him $5 an hour, the wage he offers the employee is $15 an hour. So in reality (not the fantasy world you and other liberals live in) employees really do end up paying for all those employer taxes in reduced wages. By being paid less then he would have been if the FICA tax didn't exist, Gringococola did contribute the whole amount of the tax, and is entitled (dang I hate that word) to the whole thing.
Stinkdyr Offline
#100 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2009
Posts: 9,948
[quote=teedubbya]What do you call 100 Arkansans gathering at the local Walmart?







A day off from noodling for catfish?


Applause
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>