Unequal distribution of wealth

[Nosmo King]

The EPA ran all the industry out of this country that was remotely dangerous. All the Labor Department does is force unionization on whatever menial work is left.

Which industries were run out of the country by the EPA?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Deficit spending had been recommended by some economists, most notably by John Maynard Keynes of Britain. The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime. However, the economic recovery did not absorb all the unemployment Roosevelt inherited. Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he took office to 14.3% in 1937. Afterward, however, it increased to 19.0% in 1938 ('a depression within a depression') and 17.2% in 1939, and stayed high until it almost vanished during World War II when the previously unemployed were conscripted, taking them out of the potential labor supply number.[64]

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WWII was government spending that brought the US out of the depression within a depression.

too bad right wing lunatics can't tell teh whole story?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Right. And nice catch! wouldn't want to dismiss any of the other examples I gave!

But, without the funding for the Department of Labor, those laws will be unenforceable. No cops, no crooks caught.

And the constitution says nothing about a Department of Labor.

So, let the abuse begin!



as if it never stopped.

Again with the failure reply we have laws protecting employees, and if we didn't you could quit your job.

But people abuse the laws, don't they? It's because there are bad laws and people take advantage. Does that make other laws as impotent? People abuse is the message.

Why dismantle an entire system because some abuse it? Does the abuse make the entire system of aid less necessary?

Give an example where someone was abused and the law didn't protect them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Deficit spending had been recommended by some economists, most notably by John Maynard Keynes of Britain. The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime. However, the economic recovery did not absorb all the unemployment Roosevelt inherited. Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he took office to 14.3% in 1937. Afterward, however, it increased to 19.0% in 1938 ('a depression within a depression') and 17.2% in 1939, and stayed high until it almost vanished during World War II when the previously unemployed were conscripted, taking them out of the potential labor supply number.[64]

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WWII was government spending that brought the US out of the depression within a depression.

too bad right wing lunatics can't tell teh whole story?

So you are saying that World War two brought America out of the depression.

 

[The T]

Deficit spending had been recommended by some economists, most notably by John Maynard Keynes of Britain. The GNP was 34% higher in 1936 than in 1932 and 58% higher in 1940 on the eve of war. That is, the economy grew 58% from 1932 to 1940 in 8 years of peacetime, and then grew 56% from 1940 to 1945 in 5 years of wartime. However, the economic recovery did not absorb all the unemployment Roosevelt inherited. Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he took office to 14.3% in 1937. Afterward, however, it increased to 19.0% in 1938 ('a depression within a depression') and 17.2% in 1939, and stayed high until it almost vanished during World War II when the previously unemployed were conscripted, taking them out of the potential labor supply number.[64]

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WWII was government spending that brought the US out of the depression within a depression.

too bad right wing lunatics can't tell teh whole story?

Wiki is NOT reliable. Try again.

 

[syrenn]

Wealth does not create jobs. Spending does. When companies spend they create jobs. When rich people accumulate wealth, jobs are not created.


Under the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest (unpaid for cuts) America did not get more job creation.

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Why is it the "wealthys" problem to create jobs? And you don't think the wealthy spend money?

 

[syrenn]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

It would seem to me as if many had very good years during that time making money. Why should it be taxed away from them to support those who didn't do as well?

 

[The T]

Wealth does not create jobs. Spending does. When companies spend they create jobs. When rich people accumulate wealth, jobs are not created.


Under the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest (unpaid for cuts) America did not get more job creation.

Tax Returns: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Bush Administration's Record on Cutting Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Why is it the "wealthys" problem to create jobs? And you don't think the wealthy spend money?

Of course they do...they are the ones that create jobs through entrepenuerships and risk through the risk of their wealth.

Right now the risks due to Government intrusions and uncertainy are holding them back. And they are holding back risking their wealth.

If government keeps punishing them...we will be a turd-world Socialist HellHole.

That to me is unacceptable by any means.

Dantoid has his terms and ideals confused profusely.

 

[syrenn]

Does the middle class have a better shot at making a comeback if Obama creates another $2T in debt?

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

I think you're missing the point. Our earnings aren't going to be taken from us exclusively through taxes. Much of what the Obama Administration is doing is intended to raise our expenses. They're instituting government mandates on packaging and distribution that will cause groceries, tobacco, and other goods to go way up in price.

A pack of gum that I usually buy went from $1.50 to $2.39 this year. We keep finding out that the source of this price increase is usually government. They want to raise our costs slowly so we won't notice that our paychecks don't go as far as they used to.

We already have to have more then one money source. Pretty soon 3 jobs won't be enough.

And what does any of that have to do with "wealth distribution?"

A pack of gum at $2.39 is going to be the same for everyone, rich and poor. Sounds fair to me.

Or are you saying that a pack of gum should cost less for some and more for others?

 

[The T]

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

It would seem to me as if many had very good years during that time making money. Why should it be taxed away from them to support those who didn't do as well?

It shouldn't. And that's the point. The American people will give a hand up to people that need it to lift them up. What they resent is when mooching becomes a way of life for many.

It's unacceptable.

 

[syrenn]

Seems wealth redistribution is a problem only seen by the Right as what the world sees as "Taxation".

The Left sees wealth redistribution as the unfair and exploitative accumulation of wealth by the few for the benefit of the few and not for the benefit of those who actually produced the wealth.


How did so many Conservatives get either so fabulously wealthy they can justify their position or get so duped to think that if only a few people get rich it's a good thing for society?

I am not fabulously wealthy....but the left would still take from me to give to the poor. I work hard for what i have, i don't work so that it can be taxed away for others to enjoy what i earn.

There are abusers in every facet of life. Employers abuse their employees. Employees abuse their employers. The government abuses their citizens. And their citizens abuse their government.

If things were different, we wouldn't have needed to invent courts of law.

Your argument can't be 'refudiated'. Higher taxes do hurt economic growth.

Taxes are necessary. Death and taxes, as Ben said.

You resent your tax dollars being spent on aid to single parent households, the elderly, and the unemployable. You claim such folks are 'enjoying' their way in life. Can you tell me why?

Lets put it this way, they would be enjoying their lives a lot less without government aid.

The problem if have is that "they" want more, more, more...and have their eyes on people they "think" can "afford" loosing 10%.

Would you like to have to happily give up 10% of your income. Would the poor be happy about giving up 10% of theirs?

 

[Big Fitz]

"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

spock is a commie fucktard!!! Oh noes!

 

[mudwhistle]

"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

spock is a commie fucktard!!! Oh noes!

I don't think he was talking about stealing people's money through the IRS.

It had something to do with personal life-threatening sacrifice. Something that a soldier in combat does all of the time.

Later on they said the needs of the one outweighed the needs of the many. So your point is pretty much lost.

 

[syrenn]

I'm all for non-distribution of wealth. You keep what you earn.

Let children, the elderly, injured veterans, and the inform starve! No more socialism!

The problem is that they are not living "high on the hog" and want to live "higher" on the hog which "redistribution of wealth" implies.

 

[Big Fitz]

Spoony, I'm richer than you are.

Wanna bet?

oooh ooh ooh I love this one.

Do you deserve your wealth? Liberalism says no.

 

[The T]

I'm all for non-distribution of wealth. You keep what you earn.

Let children, the elderly, injured veterans, and the inform starve! No more socialism!

The problem is that they are not living "high on the hog" and want to live "higher" on the hog which "redistribution of wealth" implies.

Yep. Living on the sweat equity of someone else.

 

[shintao]

The middle class, oh you mean the new poor. You know the ones whose wealth was so nicely distributed to the poor that are not you.

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

It would seem to me as if many had very good years during that time making money. Why should it be taxed away from them to support those who didn't do as well?

How come the rich should get a bigger share of the pie than those who are poorer?

 

[Intense]

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

It would seem to me as if many had very good years during that time making money. Why should it be taxed away from them to support those who didn't do as well?

How come the rich should get a bigger share of the pie than those who are poorer?

You get what you pay for? Where did you grow up, that you don't know that?

 

[syrenn]

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

It would seem to me as if many had very good years during that time making money. Why should it be taxed away from them to support those who didn't do as well?

How come the rich should get a bigger share of the pie than those who are poorer?

Why should the "poor" have their eyes on someones else's piece of pie? Why should the anyone share their pie if it rightfully theirs?

Sharing is something you do voluntary. If your pie taken away from you and given to others against your will...that is stealing.

 

[The T]

People are saying under George W. Bush, America had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover. Wages were stagnant, George W. Bush had the worst job creation record of any President in history, concluding in the worst economic catastrophe since the great depression

It would seem to me as if many had very good years during that time making money. Why should it be taxed away from them to support those who didn't do as well?

How come the rich should get a bigger share of the pie than those who are poorer?

And whom is keeping them from working for a larger piece? And for that matter? Who is keeping the pie from getting larger?

Don't operate off the premise of Zero Sum Game...it is the downfall of you statists...is your control over others worth the falsehoods you spew?