Screw "Tax The Poor" Capitalism.

[Uncensored2008]

So we will find conservatives of the time praising Hitler? Do tell?

Here ya go!

In February 1939 Kuhn and the Bund held their largest rally in Madison Square Garden—ironically, one which marked the beginning of the end for the organization. In front of a crowd of 22,000, flanked by a massive portrait of George Washington, swastikas and Americans flags, Kuhn attacked President Roosevelt for being part of a Bolshevik-Jewish conspiracy, calling him “Frank D. Rosenfeld” and calling his New Deal the “Jew Deal”. Three thousands members of the Ordnungsdienst, the militant arm of the Bund, were on hand and fistfights broke out in the crowd among those who had come to heckle Kuhn.​

Here's a terrific book that goes into detail at how the Conservatives loved Hitler so much, they tried to prevent the US from getting involved in WWII.

Of course leading PROGRESSIVES are a different story. Darling of the Progressive Left Henry Ford FAWNED over Hitler. Radical Left Priest and close confidant of FDR, Father Charles Coughlin thought Hitler was the best man ever born, he shared the vision of how humans should be dealt with. Open Communist Eugene Debs praised Hitler as the leader the world needed. And of course Huey Long, the Marxist Labor leader of "Share the Wealth" was a vocal advocate of Hitler.

Father Coughlin was no ally of FDR. In fact, Coghlin would routinely take to the airwaves to rail against Roosevelt's New Deal starting in 1934. You don't know anything. Why are you just making stuff up???? Such a liar.

Your Big Lie has failed. Fascism is a form of socialism, always was, always will be.

No, it's not. Fascism and socialism are two completely different things. You don't know anything, yet you still exercise sophistry. The simplest of Google searches undermines every point you make...like how you made a lying point about the MW being raised in Seattle. You deliberately did not use Seattle's current unemployment rate, choosing instead to use a link that is 15 months old to make the false argument that Seattle's MW increase led to unemployment. It didn't. So you lied. So if you lied about that, why would you be telling the truth about anything else???

My god but you are an idiot.

{Father Coughlin first took to the airwaves in 1926, broadcasting weekly sermons over the radio. By the early 1930s the content of his broadcasts had shifted from theology to economics and politics. Just as the rest of the nation was obsessed by matters economic and political in the aftermath of the Depression, so too was Father Coughlin. Coughlin had a well-developed theory of what he termed "social justice," predicated on monetary "reforms." He began as an early Roosevelt supporter, coining a famous expression, that the nation's choice was between "Roosevelt or ruin." Later in the 1930s he turned against FDR and became one of the president's harshest critics. His program of "social justice" was a very radical challenge to capitalism and to many of the political institutions of his day. }

Social Security History

A bit of advice, less hack, more fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm a liberal too. Can't be too hard to convince me. I agree we need to break capitalism. Do you know how to do that? You stop having lots of babies. When we do that then the American corporations that run our government will tell the government to give families tax breaks for having kids and corporations will start paying parents a wage that promotes having more kids. If we keep pumping out cheap labor and consumers they'll never stop fucking us.

You are not a liberal, you are a Stalinist, a fascist. You advocate the opposite of liberty, the control of people's lives and finances by the authoritarian state. The primary attribute of a liberal is advocacy of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

 

[The Derp]

My god but you are an idiot.

FROM YOUR OWN FUCKING QUOTE:

Later in the 1930s he turned against FDR and became one of the president's harshest critics.​

That turn against FDR started in 1934.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm a liberal too. Can't be too hard to convince me. I agree we need to break capitalism. Do you know how to do that? You stop having lots of babies. When we do that then the American corporations that run our government will tell the government to give families tax breaks for having kids and corporations will start paying parents a wage that promotes having more kids. If we keep pumping out cheap labor and consumers they'll never stop fucking us.

You are not a liberal, you are a Stalinist, a fascist. You advocate the opposite of liberty, the control of people's lives and finances by the authoritarian state. The primary attribute of a liberal is advocacy of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Go ahead and try to re define words. You sir are the fascists.

 

[The Derp]

You are not a liberal, you are a Stalinist, a fascist. You advocate the opposite of liberty, the control of people's lives and finances by the authoritarian state. The primary attribute of a liberal is advocacy of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

And you're a fucking fraud and a liar...someone who exercises sophistry because there are no merits to anything you believe.

 

[The Derp]

Go ahead and try to re define words. You sir are the fascists.

He's a sophist. That's all anyone on the right is these days. They make deliberately misleading arguments then scurry and scamper away when those arguments are subject to the slightest scrutiny.

They're all frauds, and they know it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My god but you are an idiot.

FROM YOUR OWN FUCKING QUOTE:

Later in the 1930s he turned against FDR and became one of the president's harshest critics.​

That turn against FDR started in 1934.

And?

You lefties turn on each other. Despite your prevarication, Coughlin was a huge supporter of FDR, and a dedicated Marxist. Coughlin became disillusioned because FDR did not embrace Marxism to the extent Coughlin wanted.

REMEMBER Derp, the question was whether the right, or the left were the supporters of Hitler in America. The Communists were fully behind Hitler until he turned on Stalin. And why not, the governmental and economic systems are nearly identical. In fact what Stalin ultimately adopted in the USSR was Fascism. Marxism doesn't work.

I provided a list of prominent Progressives who were backers of Hitler, which deflates your lie that Nazism is associated with the right. It was in fact you of the left who praised it. The idea that all things including people are the rightful property of the state is the same message you preach today. Hitler had the same message that the democratic party promotes at this very moment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are not a liberal, you are a Stalinist, a fascist. You advocate the opposite of liberty, the control of people's lives and finances by the authoritarian state. The primary attribute of a liberal is advocacy of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

And you're a fucking fraud and a liar...someone who exercises sophistry because there are no merits to anything you believe.

You calling someone else a liar or a fraud is laughably ironic, not to mention insanely ignorant.

{The doctrine of laissez-faire became an integral part of nineteenth-century European liberalism.[13] "Just as liberals supported freedom of thought in the intellectual sphere, so were they equally prepared to champion the principles of free trade and free competition in the sphere of economics. The state was to be merely a passive policeman, protecting private property and administering justice, but not interfering with the affairs of its citizens. Businessmen, and particularly British industrialists, were quick to associate these principles with their own economic interests."[13] Many of the ideas of the physiocrats spread throughout Europe, and were adopted to a greater or lesser extent in Sweden, Tuscany, Spain, and after 1776 in the newly created United States. Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations, met Quesnay and acknowledged his influence.[28]}

Laissez-faire - Wikipedia

 

[The Derp]

And?

And thus, once he became President, FDR was at odds with Coughlin who opposed the New Deal, opposed Social Security, opposed involvement in WWII.

In other words, he was a Conservative.

REMEMBER Derp, the question was whether the right, or the left were the supporters of Hitler in America. The Communists were fully behind Hitler until he turned on Stalin.

Well that's just stupid and wrong. The Nazis criminalized and purged Communists out of the government in Germany. You're just kinda making it all up as you go, right? That's what you do, after all. Because you are a sophist.

I provided a list of prominent Progressives who were backers of Hitler

No one you listed was a liberal. However, there were plenty of Conservatives who backed Hitler, like Charles Lindbergh.

 

[sealybobo]

Go ahead and try to re define words. You sir are the fascists.

He's a sophist. That's all anyone on the right is these days. They make deliberately misleading arguments then scurry and scamper away when those arguments are subject to the slightest scrutiny.

They're all frauds, and they know it.

They've mastered fake news.

 

[The Derp]

You calling someone else a liar or a fraud is laughably ironic

But you are a liar and a fraud. Your sophistry is on display for everyone to see on this thread...particularly the part where you claimed Seattle's minimum wage hike killed jobs there and you supported it with an editorial from 15 months ago. Seattle's current unemployment rate is nearly a full point below what it was just one year ago.

You thought you could sneak that lie on through, didn't you? And since pointing out the lie, you have yet to atone or apologize for being deliberately dishonest. Because you were. And you even know it. It takes self-awareness to be a sophist, and you are clearly self-aware. You knew that info you posted about Seattle was 15 months old, so why did you post it knowing we could just look at the current figures?

 

[The Derp]

They've mastered fake news.

Well, they are a bunch of fakes, frauds, and phonies. They come on the message boards and pretend to have all this knowledge and experience, but their stories, like their beliefs, can't hold to the slightest scrutiny. They know it, but they don't care because they have no shame.

 

[The Derp]

<Russian Active Measure>

And look at the attempt by the right-wing sophist here to try to change the subject entirely. Not gonna let it happen, pal. We are going back way before all of this to the minimum wage debate we had that you suddenly and strangely abandoned once I pointed out how you lied by posting outdated information.

 

[sealybobo]

They've mastered fake news.

Well, they are a bunch of fakes, frauds, and phonies. They come on the message boards and pretend to have all this knowledge and experience, but their stories, like their beliefs, can't hold to the slightest scrutiny. They know it, but they don't care because they have no shame.

Agree.

1. His record on jobs. When it comes to jobs, Trump has added 317,000 in two full months so far. His pace of job gains is almost exactly the same as what happened last year under President Obama. It's early days, but the economy has yet to be turbocharged like Trump promised.

2. His executive orders. Trump says he is saving the coal industry and enacting "Hire American" policies. He has signed several executive orders along those lines, but just about everyone -- even coal executives -- agree the coal jobs aren't coming back.

3. His trade deals. Perhaps the biggest surprise in Trump's first 100 days is how much he has toned down on trade. Yes, his administration has already slapped tariffs on Canadian lumber, but he isn't ripping up NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that he says "destroyed" America.

4. His tax plan. As promised, the White House tax plan includes cuts for middle and moderate income folks, but the rich and corporations get even more goodies. "The majority of the benefits go to high-income people,

A typical middle class family would save about $1,000 on their taxes, according to a Tax Policy Center analysis of the tax plan Trump pitched on the campaign trail. In contrast, a family in the top 1% would save about $215,000 and family in the top 0.1% would save over $1 million.

Not very impressive at all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
And thus, once he became President, FDR was at odds with Coughlin who opposed the New Deal, opposed Social Security, opposed involvement in WWII.

In other words, he was a Conservative.

He was Marxist, you lying twat. He criticized FDR for not going far enough with "Social Justice," a term you of the far left still use to this day.

Well that's just stupid and wrong. The Nazis criminalized and purged Communists out of the government in Germany. You're just kinda making it all up as you go, right? That's what you do, after all. Because you are a sophist.

Really?

{Long plans to be a candidate of the Hitler type for the presidency in 1936.}

Huey Long - Wikipedia

You lying little fuck you.

Your Big Lie has failed, accept that facts have crushed your bullshit.

No one you listed was a liberal. However, there were plenty of Conservatives who backed Hitler, like Charles Lindbergh.

So in your alleged mind, "liberal" means "good" and "conservative" means "bad," with no other meaning accruing to them?

{There was a panic in 1907, and C. A. Lindbergh swung into action with a campaign for investigation of his great enemy, the “money trust.” The newspapers began to work him over. He stored up thousands of clippings denouncing him as a demagogue, a “dangerous radical and dissenter.” He fought, fruitlessly, the Federal Reserve Bill of 1913 and published a book called Banking and Currency in support of his views. In 1915 he was in at the birth of the Farmers League, a political group which was launched in Minnesota, scored its first successes in North Dakota in 1916, and then turned and drove a wedge into C.A.'s home state with our entry into war. Lindbergh and the League, till then fundamentally progressive, socialistic, and anti-money, at once acquired an antiwar and anti-Britain following—still and always based, in Lindbergh's view, on the suspicion of collusion between British and Wall Street finance. They lined up a heavy farm and labor vote. C. A. Lindbergh ran for Governor of Minnesota on the Farmers League ticket in 1918, and it was a wild, bitter campaign.}

The Stacks: How Charles Lindbergh Became the First Crackpot Celebrity

If you were constrained from lying, you would fall silent.

 

[The Derp]

Here's the link from the sophist poseur who tried to make the laughable argument that Seattle's MW hike to $15/hr killed jobs. Note the date from the editorial to which he linked: February 13, 2016.

And here is the latest jobs data from the BLS for the State of Washington and the city of Seattle. Note the date that this covers April 2017.

Unemployment in Seattle for April 2017 was 3.3%, which is down 0.9% from April 2016.

So Uncensored lied. Deliberately.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm a liberal too. Can't be too hard to convince me. I agree we need to break capitalism. Do you know how to do that? You stop having lots of babies. When we do that then the American corporations that run our government will tell the government to give families tax breaks for having kids and corporations will start paying parents a wage that promotes having more kids. If we keep pumping out cheap labor and consumers they'll never stop fucking us.

You are not a liberal, you are a Stalinist, a fascist. You advocate the opposite of liberty, the control of people's lives and finances by the authoritarian state. The primary attribute of a liberal is advocacy of Laissez Faire Capitalism.

Go ahead and try to re define words. You sir are the fascists.

One of us supports a centrally planned and managed economy. Is that you, or I?

One of us supports group privilege over individual rights. Is that you, or I?

One of use supports laws that criminalize "hate speech" and movies that offend the party, Is that you, or I?

The Big Lie has failed, SIlly Bonobo.

Fascism exactly defines what you of the democratic party promote in 2017.

 

[The Derp]

He was Marxist, you lying twat. He criticized FDR for not going far enough with "Social Justice," a term you of the far left still use to this day.

By "social justice", Father Coughlin was advocating for discrimination against immigrants so it was "social justice" for native white people. Coughlin was a fierce anti-immigrant Conservative who opposed taking in Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany (sounds familiar...who today is opposed to taking in refugees from war-torn regions and genocide? Oh right YOU GUYS). He also opposed the New Deal and Social Security. So just like your fellow Conservative comrade, you are doing sloppy work. Anyone can very easily research Father Coughlin and find that he was very anti-immigrant, anti-New Deal, anti-Social Security, and anti-US involvement in WWII. He was also a raging anti-semite (probably why Nazis were so endearing to him) and racist.

Do you just lie because you know no one will hold you accountable?

Really?
{Long plans to be a candidate of the Hitler type for the presidency in 1936.}
Huey Long - Wikipedia
You lying little fuck you.
Your Big Lie has failed, accept that facts have crushed your bullshit.

So who won the election in 1936? Oh right, FDR. So what point are you trying to make? Huey Long allied himself with Father Coughlin, who was anti-FDR beginning in 1934.

It's like you know the facts, but you are choosing to deliberately get them wrong. Why?

 

[The Derp]

One of us supports a centrally planned and managed economy. Is that you, or I?

It's you...because you want to hand it over to corporations who will consolidate and form monopolies. Like what Trump is going to try to do to the air traffic controllers. Make no mistake; Conservatives absolutely support a centrally planned and managed economy...only instead of the government doing it, it's oligarchs who profit at our expense.

One of us supports group privilege over individual rights. Is that you, or I?

That is you. You're the ones who want to take away a woman's right to choose what she does with her body while also exercising white privilege. You quite literally want to put government in the middle of people's lives.

One of use supports laws that criminalize "hate speech" and movies that offend the party, Is that you, or I?

That would be you guys again. Look at the reaction you snowflakes had over an all-female screening of Wonder Woman. Oh and the Kathy Griffin thing...it gave you Conservatives all the vapors and many of you were calling for her to be executed.

The Big Lie has failed, SIlly Bonobo. Fascism exactly defines what you of the democratic party promote in 2017.

The only lie here is that Conservatism is a valid belief system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because they listened to the stupid liberal whining.
And because of the stupid budget rules.
Phase ins are stupid. People delay some actions if they know taxes will be lower, later.

Stupid budget rules, how so? The fact that the Bush Tax Cuts increase the deficit? And that's why they had the sunset provision? So if the Bush Tax Cuts increased the deficit, then that means tax cuts create deficits. And why would they listen to liberals at all? Conservatives controlled all three branches of government. They didn't need liberals to go along with them, and all the liberals voted against the Bush Tax Cuts.

So the premise that tax cuts "pay for themselves" is a false premise, isn't it?
So they don't pay 100% for themselves. So what?

So that means there's no economic benefit to doing them. So if they don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs, and increase debt, why do them at all? And no portion "came back", hence the deficits that appeared after taxes were cut.

Instead, job growth was faster than if the MW wasn't raised.
If only you had proof.

We have the empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't. Whether or not that job growth is attributed to the MW hike, we can debate. However, your argument that raising the MW kills jobs is not something we can debate because it isn't true.

No, what I said was the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble.
You said there was no job growth. You were wrong.

NO! I said the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble. Re-read the thread. You do a lot of sloppy work here. Is that on purpose?

First of all, there was no job growth after the Reagan Tax Cuts in 1981.
Liar.

The Reagan Tax Cuts were signed into law August 1981. Unemployment for July 1981 was 7.2%. It would then climb up to 10.8% by December 1982, one year into the Reagan Tax Cuts taking effect, and 16 months after they were signed into law. So if unemployment went from 7.2% to 10.8%, does that mean there are more people employed than before? Yes or no?

And the 60's, the top tax rate was cut to 70%...so if you want to return to a 70% top tax rate
I want tax cuts, not hikes.

Then why did you invoke a tax cut that set the rate to 70%? Sloppy work, as usual. Stop rushing. Use your words.

The Bush Tax Cuts created the mortgage bubble,
You said the cuts created jobs which created the bubble.
Now you're claiming that cutting the top rate from 39.6% down to 35% created a bubble?

No, the bubble is what created the jobs. But remember, Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years, and lost 460,000 private sector jobs overall. And I'm not the one who claimed it caused the bubble, Bush was.

TWhy would the increase be $100K?
If you increase wage expenses by $100K, the increase is $100K.

No, where are you getting the $100K from? Or did you just pull that number out of your ass?

Because they didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages just three years ago.
You didn't show MW employment before and after the hike. Try again?

Ummmm....that's because unemployment declined. So I don't know what you're trying to get at here.

So again, we saw that 13 states raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states then saw faster job growth than the states that didn't.
Changes in total employment disprove the supply/demand curve?
Quick, alert the Nobel committee, you're a shoe in for a prize in economics.

We are talking about the unemployment rate. You all claimed it would go up if the MW was raised. It didn't for 13 states. So why are you still pretending as if it did? Sophistry, that's why.

As I said, we can debate whether or not raising the MW creates jobs...and that's a debate I don't mind having.
Great.
Does raising it to $15/hr lose jobs? Does raising it to $30 lose jobs? Does raising it to $50 lose jobs?
If you ever get to yes, as the rate rises, you've lost the debate.

No one is proposing raising it to $30 or $50/hr. Seattle raised theirs to $15/hr and they have 3.3% unemployment. You know that now because I gave you the most recent info, after you and your comrades tried to lie about it before.

And you base that on what?
I base employers having less money on your insistence on raising their costs. You know, math.

Less money? Since their revenues are increasing thanks to increased consumption, why would they "have less", and what would they do with the money they have anyway?

All I showed was that job growth happened.
Yes, I noticed your failure to post the proof of your claim.

Well, the empirical evidence is the proof. Those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't raise their MW. You all say that the opposite would happen, but it didn't. So that's why you argue in theory and not in fact.

Stupid budget rules, how so?

The budget rules that say tax cuts have to be paid for to be permanent.
Any other budget rule that favors increased spending.

And why would they listen to liberals at all?

I agree, listening to stupid liberals is stupid.

So that means there's no economic benefit to doing them.

There is no economic benefit if they don't pay for themselves 100%? That's a stupid claim.
What if they pay for themselves 50%?
That means there is no economic benefit?
Is that your claim? Seriously?

So if they don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs

If they pay for themselves 50%, that means they don't create jobs?
Is that your claim? Seriously?

We have the empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't.

Great. Now post empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster MW job growth than states that didn't.

I want tax cuts, not hikes.

Then why did you invoke a tax cut that set the rate to 70%?

Because it was a tax cut.

No, where are you getting the $100K from?

Pick any number you please. Then explain how an identical rise in revenues leaves profit unchanged.
Show all your work. ROFLMAO!

We are talking about the unemployment rate.

We're talking about a government mandated increase in wages.
When you increase the price of something, you decrease the demand. Econ 101.
If you think raising the MW doesn't decrease the demand for MW workers, submit your
work for publication. You'll be in the running for a Nobel.

No one is proposing raising it to $30 or $50/hr.

Because the job losses would be too obvious.

Less money?

Yes, raise their MW costs by 30%, that reduces the cash they have to buy other things.

Since their revenues are increasing thanks to increased consumption

If their expenses increased by $10,000 do you think their revenues will increase by $10,000? Why?

and what would they do with the money they have anyway?

The money they have now buys equipment, supplies, pays interest on debt, pays rent, pays dividends to owners.