It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Aggie Man
Government intervention would stop needless blood shed.
And the government intervention has done so well for the citizenry of this country thus far hasn't it? You honestly believe that the USG intervention would prevent blood shed? laughable at best~
I mean taxing the rich, just as they did to pull us out of the great depression.
By 1936, the main economic indicators had regained the levels of the late 1920s, except for unemployment, which remained high at 11%, although this was considerably lower than the 25% unemployment rate seen in 1933. In the spring of 1937, American industrial production exceeded that of 1929 and remained level until June 1937. In June 1937, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and increased taxation in an attempt to balance the federal budget.[79] The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production fell almost 30 per cent within a few months and production of durable goods fell even faster. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.[80] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.[81] Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, leading to further cutbacks in production. By May 1938 retail sales began to increase, employment improved, and industrial production turned up after June 1938.[82] After the recovery from the Recession of 1937–1938, conservatives were able to form a bipartisan conservative coalition to stop further expansion of the New Deal and, when unemployment dropped to 2%, they abolished WPA, CCC and the PWA relief programs. Social Security, however, remained in place.
The crisis had many political consequences, among which was the abandonment of classic economic liberal approaches, which Roosevelt replaced in the U.S. with Keynesian policies. These policies magnified the role of the federal government in the national economy. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditure tripled, and Roosevelt's critics charged that he was turning America into a socialist state.[83] The Great Depression was a main factor in the implementation of social democracy and planned economies in European countries after World War II (see Marshall Plan). Although Austrian economists had challenged Keynesianism since the 1920s, it was not until the 1970s, with the influence of Milton Friedman that the Keynesian approach was politically questioned.
In the spring of 1937, American industrial production exceeded that of 1929 and remained level until June 1937
Roosevelt administration cut spending and increased taxation in an attempt to balance the federal budget
The American economy then took a sharp downturn, lasting for 13 months through most of 1938. Industrial production fell almost 30 per cent within a few months and production of durable goods fell even faster. Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938, rising from 5 million to more than 12 million in early 1938.[80] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels
The Great Compression refers to an economic event in the United States in the early 1940s in which the difference in wealth and income between the rich and poor became much smaller than it had been in preceding time periods. Economist Paul Krugman gives credit to the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt as having deliberately caused the event and points out that its effects have lasted up until the 1980s. Decades of conservative economic policies beginning in the 1980s and beyond have slowly resulted in a re-emergence of the wealth inequality that had existed prior to the great compression.
The Great Compression: The middle-class society I grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains. Economic historians call what happened the Great Compression, and it’s a seminal episode in American history.
Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Aggie Man
First things first...
Do you believe a tax rate of 90+% holds a place in the "land of the free"???
Just because someone can afford it is not a reason to tax them more.
The government taking 90 cents out of every dollar flies in the face of everything this country was founded upon.
Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Aggie Man
Why not create your own wealth instead of worrying who has what?
The opportunities are only limited by your own intelligence.
People have the right to use their property (in this case their money) in any way they see fit, whether it be saving every penny of it, or blowing it like its going out of style.
Yet you want to take it away under threat of force through taxation????? Not much for property rights are you?edit on 10-3-2011 by HaveAnotherOne because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Yes, If they will not put the money back into the economy, then yes...100% yes!
It's not like that top 1% will go bankrupt, or even be in want.
Amassing wealth beyond ones capability to spend in 100 lifetimes while many other suffer is not right.
By May 1938 retail sales began to increase, employment improved, and industrial production turned up after June 1938.
Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Daughter2
Uh, corporations do in fact have their own schools.
You didnt hear me complaining about the bailouts because I wasnt on this site at that time. Rest assured, I am just as much opposed to them as I am any other ridiculous unconstitutional expenditure.
Originally posted by Aggie Man
Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Aggie Man
First things first...
Do you believe a tax rate of 90+% holds a place in the "land of the free"???
Just because someone can afford it is not a reason to tax them more.
The government taking 90 cents out of every dollar flies in the face of everything this country was founded upon.
Yes, If they will not put the money back into the economy, then yes...100% yes!
It's not like that top 1% will go bankrupt, or even be in want.
Amassing wealth beyond ones capability to spend in 100 lifetimes while many other suffer is not right. If someone chooses to engage in such activity, then I would give them two options: (1) spend 90% on new jobs and pay equality or (2) get taxed that 90%. Either way, the money should be circulated throughout the economy. It should not be horded at the expense of everyone else. It's unsustainable and is certain to collapse.
So, now you can call me a socialist if you wish to do so. I don't mind that label. It's a damn sight better that being labeled a greedy rich elite.edit on 10-3-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by HaveAnotherOne
reply to post by Whereweheaded
Pay no attention to Aggie. He simply has a case of wallet envy, typical of supporters of income redistribution.
They realize they are either : too lazy, too dumb, or a combination of both to make something of themselves, so they want to punish those who do so they can feel better about themselves.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Aggie Man
Please enlighten us where it says in the Constitution that states that the smarter and richer are obligated to pay for the poor, and the lazy? Please reference an Article or Section from the Document. Then, and only then will your argument have merit.