A Warning For Republicans

[TruthSeeker56]

TruthSeeker, having seen this kind of post over and over from deanie, it seems to me that he is trying to deal with some kind of deep and enduring pain.

I don't know whether it is personal in provenance or general, but it is clearly racial, and not based on a study of history or an analysis of the situation.

To folks like us, black people are as capable and worthy as any other folks, but have been co-opted by promises, unfulfilled promises, by a party which will string them along as long as they provide votes and power.

So, it pays not to be angry with deanie...he is his own worst enemy.
For me, I will simply continue to offer the correct perspective, and hope that he begins to see the light.

Is that too preachy?

I too believe that we should not be too judgmental of the "handicapped" Bolsheviks like "rdean".

The Bolsheviks have NEVER historically believed in racial "equality". They believe in racial "manipulation" and class warfare. It is their ONLY path to power, since those of us who they cannot manipulate, with lies and threats and fabrications, would NEVER allow them to gain power.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Taxes were kept high after the war. The top marginal rate was 91% until 1964, when it was reduced to 77%. (That was not under a Republican, by the way.) Rationing was always a wartime measure and was always intended to end when the war was over. There was fear that when the high military spending was reduced the nation would drop back into depression, and so it was assumed that remedial measures would be necessary -- it was not conspired to implement them out of some diabolic-possession-theory evil intent. The assumption proved incorrect, the remedial measures weren't necessary, and so they weren't implemented. However, the New Deal was not repealed, and there was no return to laissez-faire. The changes implemented under Roosevelt were lasting.

If you're going to present history, it is better for most purposes to present it accurately. Of course, if your purpose is to further a non-fact-based agenda, that may not be true.

1. " The top marginal rate was 91% until 1964..."
Democratic Senator Walter George and Republican Albert Hawks wanted to cut taxes to allow business to grow, and repeal the Excess Profits Tax (90%) . In the Revenue Act of 1945 reduced individual income tax rates (the top rate fell from 94 percent to 86.45 percent), and reduced corporate tax rates (the top rate dropped from 40 percent to 38 percent).

a. The result was massive economic expansion. Unemployment was 3.9% in 1946 and 1947.

b. Europe, under Keynesian planning, was starving and required shipments of US food.

c. If you're going to present history, it is better for most purposes to present it accurately.

take your own advice, hack.

you do realize that a war was fought in europe, right? you know, with bombs and shit?

idiot

You continue to be an obnoxious twerp.

 

[whitehall]

It always boils down to the media perception and the fact is that the media has supported every democrat administration in the last hundred years. Even hollywood injects left wing propaganda into movies. The more left wing the more support and Barry Hussein is about as left wing as they come. The NY Times and it's sister rag news as well as the alphabet news shows on TV used to be a bit coy about their drooling support for left wing administrations but since the advent of Fox news and talk radio they dropped the facade and showed their ugly bias for what it is.

 

[Dragon]

1. " The top marginal rate was 91% until 1964..."
Democratic Senator Walter George and Republican Albert Hawks wanted to cut taxes to allow business to grow, and repeal the Excess Profits Tax (90%) . In the Revenue Act of 1945 reduced individual income tax rates (the top rate fell from 94 percent to 86.45 percent), and reduced corporate tax rates (the top rate dropped from 40 percent to 38 percent).

Historical Top Tax Rate

Regardless of what Senators did this, that or the other, and regardless of the totally irrelevant throwaway claim about what party they belonged to, what I said remains true: the top marginal income tax rate remained at 91% until 1964, when it was reduced to 77% -- still very high compared to today. Your suggestion that the New Deal was repealed after the war is hogwash.

a. The result was massive economic expansion. Unemployment was 3.9% in 1946 and 1947.

The result of what? I've just shown that the tax cut you claimed did not happen until 1964. We could discuss whether that stimulated the economy then, but it certainly didn't do so 18 years before it was enacted.

b. Europe, under Keynesian planning, was starving and required shipments of US food.

As was pointed out above, this had a more obvious cause in that Europe had just finished the biggest and most destructive war in history. Whether or not Del is an "obnoxious twerp," he's right.

 

[Dragon]

It always boils down to the media perception

What the tax rate was from 1946 until 1964 is not. PC claimed that A caused B, when A demonstrably did not happen. She is, therefore, dead wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. " The top marginal rate was 91% until 1964..."
Democratic Senator Walter George and Republican Albert Hawks wanted to cut taxes to allow business to grow, and repeal the Excess Profits Tax (90%) . In the Revenue Act of 1945 reduced individual income tax rates (the top rate fell from 94 percent to 86.45 percent), and reduced corporate tax rates (the top rate dropped from 40 percent to 38 percent).

Historical Top Tax Rate

Regardless of what Senators did this, that or the other, and regardless of the totally irrelevant throwaway claim about what party they belonged to, what I said remains true: the top marginal income tax rate remained at 91% until 1964, when it was reduced to 77% -- still very high compared to today. Your suggestion that the New Deal was repealed after the war is hogwash.

a. The result was massive economic expansion. Unemployment was 3.9% in 1946 and 1947.

The result of what? I've just shown that the tax cut you claimed did not happen until 1964. We could discuss whether that stimulated the economy then, but it certainly didn't do so 18 years before it was enacted.

b. Europe, under Keynesian planning, was starving and required shipments of US food.

As was pointed out above, this had a more obvious cause in that Europe had just finished the biggest and most destructive war in history. Whether or not Del is an "obnoxious twerp," he's right.

Your link shows it sat in the 80% range until 1950.
Keynesian strategy did not work in Europe.

 

[Dragon]

Your link shows it sat in the 80% range until 1950.

No it doesn't. Look again. It was actually at 94% for a while during the war, and was cut back from that to 91% after the war and left there until 1964.

Keynesian strategy did not work in Europe.

It's a safe statement that neither Keynesian strategy nor any other kind is proof against bombs, incendiaries, and rampaging armies. If you wish to stipulate that not blowing up economic infrastructure and slaughtering people on massive scales is a prerequisite for Keynes' theories to work, I'm down with that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your link shows it sat in the 80% range until 1950.

No it doesn't. Look again. It was actually at 94% for a while during the war, and was cut back from that to 91% after the war and left there until 1964.

Keynesian strategy did not work in Europe.

It's a safe statement that neither Keynesian strategy nor any other kind is proof against bombs, incendiaries, and rampaging armies. If you wish to stipulate that not blowing up economic infrastructure and slaughtering people on massive scales is a prerequisite for Keynes' theories to work, I'm down with that.

" ...left there until 1964."
'46 86.45
'47 same
'48 82.13
'49 same


"It's a safe statement that neither Keynesian strategy nor any other kind is proof against bombs, incendiaries, and rampaging armies."
After....
After the war.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Cause and effect; so simple a concept, so difficult to prove. How many variables - dependent and independent - exist and are discounted by the partisans!!?

 

[del]

1. " The top marginal rate was 91% until 1964..."
Democratic Senator Walter George and Republican Albert Hawks wanted to cut taxes to allow business to grow, and repeal the Excess Profits Tax (90%) . In the Revenue Act of 1945 reduced individual income tax rates (the top rate fell from 94 percent to 86.45 percent), and reduced corporate tax rates (the top rate dropped from 40 percent to 38 percent).

a. The result was massive economic expansion. Unemployment was 3.9% in 1946 and 1947.

b. Europe, under Keynesian planning, was starving and required shipments of US food.

c. If you're going to present history, it is better for most purposes to present it accurately.

take your own advice, hack.

you do realize that a war was fought in europe, right? you know, with bombs and shit?

idiot

You continue to be an obnoxious twerp.

and you continue to be a prating ass.

hack

 

[del]

Cause and effect; so simple a concept, so difficult to prove. How many variables - dependent and independent - exist and are discounted by the partisans!!?

it's beyond partisanship to attempt to ignore the effect of ww2 on europe.

stupidity seems a likely cause

 

[Dragon]

" ...left there until 1964."
'46 86.45
'47 same
'48 82.13
'49 same

All right, I stand corrected on a trivial point of no consequence. Big deal. Are you seriously suggesting that a top marginal tax rate in the 80s is how to stimulate the economy? Are you prepared to go there today? If someone suggested a top tax rate as high as 77%, where taxes were dropped to in '64, you'd be screaming that it would wreck the economy beyond repair.

After the war.

After the war, the railroads through much of Europe, especially France and Germany, were in ruins, and food could not be transported to market, nor had fertilizer, seed, etc. gotten to the farms easily during planting season (VE day was in July). Hence the famine. The U.S. provided food and help repairing transportation infrastructure. Within a very short time, Europe was back on its feet, richer than ever -- under those same Keynesian rules, which also prevailed in the U.S. through our decades of greatest historical prosperity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" ...left there until 1964."
'46 86.45
'47 same
'48 82.13
'49 same

All right, I stand corrected on a trivial point of no consequence. Big deal. Are you seriously suggesting that a top marginal tax rate in the 80s is how to stimulate the economy? Are you prepared to go there today? If someone suggested a top tax rate as high as 77%, where taxes were dropped to in '64, you'd be screaming that it would wreck the economy beyond repair.

After the war.

After the war, the railroads through much of Europe, especially France and Germany, were in ruins, and food could not be transported to market, nor had fertilizer, seed, etc. gotten to the farms easily during planting season (VE day was in July). Hence the famine. The U.S. provided food and help repairing transportation infrastructure. Within a very short time, Europe was back on its feet, richer than ever -- under those same Keynesian rules, which also prevailed in the U.S. through our decades of greatest historical prosperity.

Keynes was, of course, incorrect.
Europe was one example....Obama's Scamulous another.

Many Leftists have tried to use Keynesian economics as a vehicle to attack
capitalism...to pretend that only Big Government can save the economy...as per FDR and Obama.

Have you seen this quote?
John Maynard Keynes, in a letter published in the NYTimes, December 31, 1933, warned "even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action.”
Even Keynes saw the danger in treating the nation’s capitalists as an enemy, as “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural.

BTW....FDR let the cat out of the bag on May 26, 1940, during his Fireside Chat. He signaled a new relationship with business: he would insure their profits, and assuage their fears that he would nationalize their factories. This because he knew that capitalism was a winning strategy.

a. “…we are calling upon the resources, the efficiency and the ingenuity of the American manufacturers of war material of all kinds -- airplanes and tanks and guns and ships, and all the hundreds of products that go into this material. The Government of the United States itself manufactures few of the implements of war. Private industry will continue to be the source of most of this material, and private industry will have to be speeded up to produce it at the rate and efficiency called for by the needs of the times…. Private industry will have the responsibility of providing the best, speediest and most efficient mass production of which it is capable.”
On National Defense - May 26, 1940

Keynes, Big Government, central planning....even the FDR's and the Obama's know the truth.

Only their Janissaries are fooled by the mythology.

You agree, don't you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

take your own advice, hack.

you do realize that a war was fought in europe, right? you know, with bombs and shit?

idiot

You continue to be an obnoxious twerp.

and you continue to be a prating ass.

hack

You’ve heard the phrase “how the other half lives…”? I see you as exactly that…the ‘other half’ of posters.

My question: how do you derive any satisfaction by posting without any substance?
What is it that you believe you bring to the table?

Or, perhaps...you bring all that your are capable of bringing...nada.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You continue to be an obnoxious twerp.

and you continue to be a prating ass.

hack

You’ve heard the phrase “how the other half lives…”? I see you as exactly that…the ‘other half’ of posters.

My question: how do you derive any satisfaction by posting without any substance?
What is it that you believe you bring to the table?

Or, perhaps...you bring all that your are capable of bringing...nada.

The 'skill' in how PC paints the world as black and white is what it is - silly.

Capital needs labor, labor needs capital and when the balance is greatly disrupted we can expect chaos - chaos in the markets, chaos in the streets. Today, IMO, the greatest threat to capitalism are the capitalists. Because a capitalist wants stability and the current attacks on public employees and unions make the future uncertain, our economic recovery has been retarded. It's time to compromise. Both sides, capital and labor, need to negotiate in good faith. Since it is obvious that the GOP favors and supports capital, and the Democrats favor labor, the pols need to stop the foolishness and go the table and negotiate fair deals.

Next question, what is a fair deal?

 

[PoliticalChic]

and you continue to be a prating ass.

hack

You’ve heard the phrase “how the other half lives…”? I see you as exactly that…the ‘other half’ of posters.

My question: how do you derive any satisfaction by posting without any substance?
What is it that you believe you bring to the table?

Or, perhaps...you bring all that your are capable of bringing...nada.

The 'skill' in how PC paints the world as black and white is what it is - silly.

Capital needs labor, labor needs capital and when the balance is greatly disrupted we can expect chaos - chaos in the markets, chaos in the streets. Today, IMO, the greatest threat to capitalism are the capitalists. Because a capitalist wants stability and the current attacks on public employees and unions make the future uncertain, our economic recovery has been retarded. It's time to compromise. Both sides, capital and labor, need to negotiate in good faith. Since it is obvious that the GOP favors and supports capital, and the Democrats favor labor, the pols need to stop the foolishness and go the table and negotiate fair deals.

Next question, what is a fair deal?

Wry....these last few posts of yours....you're making it very difficult for me to argue with 'em.
I liked the old Wry better...where you take one extreme, I take the other, and we battle.

But...I'll take what you give.

1."... the greatest threat to capitalism are the capitalists."

Now, I know you're a reader, so there are plenty of sources that will verify the following: FDR was a master politician, and was adept at using class warfare.
The empty suit in the White House is smart enough to copy FDR in this vein.
And class warfare is the threat to both capitalism, and the recovery.

Why do I say that? a) this is the land of opportunity,and economic and social mobility.
b) a study of the statistics will show that work is what determines reward. Those who make the most, work productively the most. and c) Soros, adbusters, the Tides foundation are the proximate cause of the OWS unrest.

2. As an aside, class warfare works. That's why this danger to America has a 50% approval rating this morning.

3. " It's time to compromise."
How is that possible?
The correct path is limited constitutional government, individualism, and free markets.
Where do you see that compromise possible with big government, collectivist totalitarians?

Have you studied the Frankfurt School? That might explain why you fail to see the dichotomy.

4." Both sides, capital and labor, need to negotiate in good faith."
Both are parts of capitalism.
As productivity and skills increase, workers earn more. Productivity of workers in competitive markets is what determines the earnings of most workers; and it is not an accident that labor earns about 70% of the total output of the American economy, and capital earns about 30%. See chapter nine of Ferrara's "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb."
You do know that the auto union owns GM, don't you?
"...United Auto Workers will likely own big stakes of General Motors and Chrysler (possibly 39% of GM and 55% of the latter)..." Chrysler, GM and union ownership - BusinessWeek

5. As a general rule, the GOP tends to be closer to the conservative view.
But only as a general rule.


"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03

 

[Toro]

There were other issues as well. First, the government feared a repeat of 1919 and 1920, which saw sharp contractions due to falling prices and high unemployment due to returning soldiers, so they implemented policies to alleviate the pressures such as the GI bill, which provided unemployment benefits and interest-free loans to returning veterans to buy homes. This coincided with the suburbanization of America, which essentially was a government subsidy for housing as governments built roads and infrastructure for the new subdivisions. People that would have otherwise lived in apartments in cities could now buy single-family homes. Also, the Federal Reserve effectively froze interest rates and pegged the long-bond at 2.5%, creating negative real returns and allowed the government to reflate away its debt. (Hello future!) Returning soldiers also created a baby boom, which generated new demand. Finally - and few political types understand this - after a generation of severe depression and war, there was tremendous pent-up demand, which fueled growth for nearly two generations.

 

[del]

You continue to be an obnoxious twerp.

and you continue to be a prating ass.

hack

You’ve heard the phrase “how the other half lives…”? I see you as exactly that…the ‘other half’ of posters.

My question: how do you derive any satisfaction by posting without any substance?
What is it that you believe you bring to the table?

Or, perhaps...you bring all that your are capable of bringing...nada.

i wouldn't insult other members' intelligence by going into detail how completely asinine your assertion that europe needed aid in 1945 due to keynesian planning, as i assume that they can read your screeds on their own.

i don't worry about insulting your intelligence as that is clearly a physical impossibility due to the lack of same.

QED

 

[PoliticalChic]

and you continue to be a prating ass.

hack

You’ve heard the phrase “how the other half lives…”? I see you as exactly that…the ‘other half’ of posters.

My question: how do you derive any satisfaction by posting without any substance?
What is it that you believe you bring to the table?

Or, perhaps...you bring all that your are capable of bringing...nada.

i wouldn't insult other members' intelligence by going into detail how completely asinine your assertion that europe needed aid in 1945 due to keynesian planning, as i assume that they can read your screeds on their own.

i don't worry about insulting your intelligence as that is clearly a physical impossibility due to the lack of same.

QED

1. "In the 1930s, British economist John Maynard Keynes spearheaded a revolution in economic thinking: The free market is imperfect. And because of these imperfections, it's the government's job to intervene and somehow make things right.

2. The global financial crisis ignited a resurgence in Keynesian thought -- specifically, the idea that government should spend big to pull out of a recession.

3. But given Europe's sovereign debt crisis, is it time to ask where Keynes may have gone wrong?

4. Economic leaders are now questioning -- and in some cases challenging -- Keynes' general philosophy that more spending is better than less during economic downturns.

5. ... alarmed by the public finances of some countries, made clear that they could no longer wait until economies pick up steam before removing fiscal stimulus.

6. ... too much public spending has proven unsustainable in parts of Europe.

7. Europe isn't the only one spooked by its public finances. Earlier this month, the surge in U.S. government spending helped push the national debt for the first time to a scary $13 trillion, which represents about 90% of GDP. Despite a $787 billion stimulus package, unemployment continues to hover near 10%.

8. The problems illustrate the limits of one of Keynes' core percepts -- that stimulus government spending would pay for itself. But now we've seen that a government that spends more doesn't necessarily gain more in tax revenue.

9. "You can't solve a problem with just spending more money and acquiring bad debt," said Hunter Lewis, author of Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts."
After Europe, does Keynesian economics make sense? - Jun. 10, 2010



Isn't it interesting how phrases like "assinine" and "insulting another's intelligence" can turn around and bite one in the butt...

...perhaps you'd be wise to stick to things you actually know about....even if it is severely restrictive of your posting.

 

[Dragon]

Keynes was, of course, incorrect.
Europe was one example

So what is this, you just repeat the same talking point after its been disproven as if nothing ever happened?