The Bloody Origin Of Labor Day

[Back]

The Bloody Origin Of Labor Day



WASHINGTON -- Most people know Labor Day as an extra day off of work. Fewer know the holiday comes from a time when the government was offing workers.

It all started with a bad recession in the early 1890s that reduced demand for railway cars, prompting Chicago railway magnate George Pullman to lay off workers and reduce wages. Many of his workers went on strike. The sympathetic American Railway Union refused to handle Pullman cars, hampering commerce in many parts of the country.

"The boycott tapped the deep and pervasive alienation of labor in general," historian David Ray Papke wrote in his 1999 book The Pullman Case: The Clash of Labor and Capital in Industrial America.

"Workers were mad about their situation," Papke wrote. "They were angry about their limited opportunities and about what they took to be the mean and arbitrary treatment they received from the distant owners of the industries in which they worked."


Pullman workers started their strike in May 1894. The following month, Congress passed legislation making the first Monday of September a day to recognize workers. (Such a holiday had already been a demand of the labor movement, though commentators (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/business-july-dec01-labor_day_9-2/) have described the Labor Day legislation as an attempt to "appease" angry workers.) In July, President Grover Cleveland sent federal troops to Chicago to crush the strike.

Illinois Gov. John Altgeld (D) resented the president's decision, as there had not yet been any large-scale rioting. "I protest against this uncalled for reflection upon our people, and again ask the immediate withdrawal of these troops," Altgeld wrote to the president.

Within a day of the troops' arrival, mobs started tipping railroad cars and setting them on fire. Troops cracked down with bayonets and bullets; the rioting and property destruction worsened. Dozens of people ultimately died in Chicago and elsewhere. The government restored order by the fall, and American Railway Union leader Eugene Debs was eventually convicted of defying a court order and sent to prison.

The U.S. Department of Labor's page on the history of Labor Day (http://www.dol.gov/laborday/history.htm) notes the holiday "is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers." It doesn't mention the Pullman strike or labor strife in general. Throughout American history, workers had to fight to get better pay and shorter hours (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/labor-day_n_3831989.html) -- evenings and weekends weren't just handed over by lawmakers and benevolent managers.

"I think most people consider Labor Day an end-of-summer three-day weekend," Papke, a law professor at Marquette University, said in an interview. "Very few Americans stop to reflect on the working man, on labor, on the union movement or any of those things."

Don't let anyone tell you any different. If we did not have regulation we would all be working 12 hour days, 7 days a week, for pennies a day, without any benefits.

[JackWhisper]

No, YOU would be working 12 hour days, 7 days a week, for pennies a day, without any benefits.

We would just rob you of said hard earned pennies. Cops wouldn't care because they're overworked, underpaid, and NOW... can't afford donuts.

[Back]

The Ten Worst-Paying Jobs in America (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119269/ten-worst-paying-jobs-america-what-they-are-who-has-them)
From fry cooks to the guy parking cars


It’s easy to forget now, but the original purpose of Labor Day wasn't to invite your friends over for a cookout, some beers, and one last chance to celebrate the summer. It was to recognize the contributions of American workers, at a time of struggle and unrest.

According to the Department of Labor, the first official celebration took place in New York, in September of 1882. It was the height of the Industrial Revolution—a time when American workers could expect to work twelve hours a day, seven days a week, but still live in poverty. They toiled in mills, factories, and mines without access to basic necessities like sanitary facilities, if they were even allowed to take breaks. Five-year-olds were sent to work to help support their families.

Pay and working conditions are a lot better now, obviously—thanks in no small part to the labor movement and laws, like the minimum wage, that it helped pass. But even the most basic financial security remains elusive for many Americans, as my colleague Danny Vinik noted recently. One reason is that many jobs simply don’t pay very well—and lots of people have those jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 22 percent of Americans hold one of the lowest paying jobs that the agency categorizes.The Ten Worst-Paying JobsClick on image above to enlarge

What are these jobs? We decided to take a look, by going through BLS statistics and compiling a set of the ten worst paying jobs in America. We adapted the official numbers in one important way: Going strictly by BLS categories, nine of the ten worst paying jobs are different occupations within the food services industry. We decided to group the jobs by industry—in other words, to lump all the food service industry jobs together, and then provide a salary range that includes the median wage for each one. We did the same for a three other industries: agriculture, recreation, and sales. The chart just above has all the information.

Not everybody in these jobs is struggling. Sometimes people in low-paying jobs are students, or take them part-time and, while they aren’t making much money, they also aren’t living in poverty. But of the Americans who are getting by on the federal minimum wage, it’s important to note that in 46 out of 50 states, women make up more than half of minimum wage workers. (I have written about this previously, for Forbes, if you want to read more details about the breakdown and its sources.) In the remaining four states, women still make up roughly half of minimum wage workers. This is one reason that 40 percent of households with single mothers as the sole breadwinner were in poverty. This, of course, plays into why the problem of reliable and affordable child care is so urgent. Child care, by the way, is the eleventh worst paid job in America. But that’s another story.

And now, for the full breakdown:

10. Parking Lot Attendants

The popular image of the parking lot attendant is the two guys from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” joyriding around Chicago in a Ferrari they were supposed to watch over carefully. In reality, the job is rarely that much fun. It pays $10.26 an hour, and while some parking lot attendants do work full time, many string together part-time or temporary work for large events or for certain evening and nighttime hours when restaurants offer valet parking. It’s fine as a way to supplement earnings, or help pay for school. But as a living? That’s a problem. The jobs typically don’t provide benefits and, for outdoor lots particularly, the work can be demanding.

Mean hourly wage for parking lot attendants: $10.26



9. Personal Care Aides

Personal care aides make a mean hourly salary of $10.09, and, according to BLS, only half of all personal care aides worked full time in 2012. Yet their work is not just demanding physically. It can take an emotional toll. These men and women are responsible for tasks ranging from feeding a disabled person, to lifting an injured or elderly adult into and out of a wheel chair. The job has a number of occupational hazards, which include a higher rate of injuries and illnesses (usually caught from the client), as well as exposure to potentially violent situations with mentally ill or cognitively impaired clients. Ironically, many personal care aides work in private homes and do not have access to employee benefits, like medical insurance, even though delivering health care is a big part of their jobs.

Mean hourly wage for personal care aides: $10.09



8. Lifeguards

Lifeguards spent hours in the summer sun, and are charged with keeping people safe while they enjoy recreational activities. Unlike park attendants, though, whose responsibility usually ends once a person is harnessed or buckled safely, lifeguards have to be on constant alert so that they can save anyone who appears to be drowning. The job tends to be more whistle blowing than heroic action, though, with occasional yelling of “don’t run,” and “adult swim.” Another job primarily held by teens, it’s unlikely that lifeguards will see a push for higher wages anytime soon, especially because many lifeguards see tanning (aka skin damage) as an important job benefit, not an occupational hazard.

Mean hourly wage for lifeguards and other protective service workers: $10.05



7. Gaming Dealers

The job of a gaming dealer may seem like all play and no work. It’s not. The Bureau of Labor Statistics recognizes it as “physically demanding,” because dealers are expected to stand behind a table for nearly their entire shifts. Casinos frequently allow smoking, which makes second hand smoke from cigarettes, cigars, and pipes an additional—and serious—occupational hazard. On the bright side, casinos typically offer full time work and employee benefits, and jobs are no longer limited to Nevada and New Jersey as they once were.

Mean hourly wage for gaming dealers: $10.04



6. Garment Workers

The garment industry is famous for its history of unsafe conditions. Quite possibly the most famous workplace tragedy in our country’s history was the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire of 1911, in which 146 of 500 employees, mostly young women, died from jumping from the burning building or from being trapped inside it, where emergency exits had been locked to prevent employees from using the bathroom too frequently. Today, such accidents mostly take place in far away places. But American garment workers still work for low wages and in rough conditions—in some cases, because their ranks include undocumented workers who are in no position to challenge employers over workplace standards. In 1996, the Department of Labor estimated that half of the country’s garment contractors were in violation of federal minimum wage or overtime laws. It’s difficult to determine if and how much we’ve improved since then, as statistics are not collected regularly on garment worker conditions.

Mean hourly wage for pressers and other workers in the garment industry: $10.03



5. Cashiers

You might think the worst part of being a cashier is the monotony. Think again. It turns out that cashiers are the victims of robbery and homicide more often than most other workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlook Handbook. Less dire occupational hazards include standing all day long and missing holidays with the family. The holiday season is the busiest time of the year in retail. So what do cashiers make? The mean annual salary is around $9.83, but that factors in retail workers, who typically earn more than grocery store and gas station cashiers. Grocery store and gas station cashiers, combined, make up 42% of the profession and their wages usually start at the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.

Mean hourly wage for cashiers: $9.82-9.83



4. Amusement Park and Recreation Attendants

Gone are the days of the old Action Park, site of multiple deaths and lawsuits—where, reportedly, amusement park attendants suffered traumas ranging from being shot point blank with tennis ball cannons to having to test out the park’s infamous Cannonball Loop water slide. But working at an amusement park still has its occupational hazards, like cleaning up after sick park-goers and the threats of sun-sickness and dehydration, since it requires long hours in the summer heat. When you think of attendants, you probably think of teenagers on summer jobs, for whom low wages aren’t such a big deal. But lots of grown-ups work at amusement parks, too—in maintenance, for example, or at resorts that operate year-round. These attract older applicants, who depend on these jobs to feed their families. Low wages for them are no laughing matter.

Mean hourly wage for ticket takers and other amusement park workers: $9.76-10.22



3. Farm Laborers

Farm laborers are some of the lowest paid workers in our country, despite working in what is arguably one of the most essential, and wealthy, industries in our country. A U.S> Department of Agriculture study on Crop Production, published in 2013, estimated that American farmers annually produce close to $143 billion worth of crops and close to $153 billion worth of livestock. But the money goes primarily to the owners, frequently large agriculture companies—who, all too often, take the workers pretty much for granted. One sign of that treatment is safety, or lack thereof, on the farm: A 2013 study from the Center For Progressive Reform found that, based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on average, more than one farm worker dies in a work-related accident every day. This was found to be seven times higher than the average for all private sector jobs. Philip Martin, a labor economist at the University of California-Davis, estimated that in order to raise farm wages by 40 percent, the average American household would have to pay only $15 more a year for produce—though that still wouldn’t address the safety problems. By the way, work-related accidents aren’t the only hazard farm workers face. Seven chilling incidents of tomato farm slavery involving workers who had been abducted, confined at gunpoint, and suffered starvation wages and pistol whippings have been discovered and prosecuted in Florida since 1997.

Mean hourly wage for agriculture workers: $9.65-10.20



2. Shampooers

Sometimes entry-level positions go to those people who are ambitious enough to deal with low wages and menial work, just for a chance to learn and start working their way up to better-paying jobs. That’s frequently the story with shampooers. Many are aspiring stylists who hope eventually to cut hair. The job has its advantages: Many can work a real 40-hour workweek, and some even earn tips. That said, at a mean hourly salary of $9.09, the job barely provides a living. Many take on the position part time, using the wages to offset the costs of beauty school.

Mean hourly wage for shampooers: $9.09



1. Fast Food Cooks

Fast food cooks have the lowest paying job in America, according to BLS statistics, although most other jobs in the fast food industry don’t pay much better. With a mean hourly salary of $9.07, 40 hours a week should yield close to $18,870, but many fast food cooks work only 25 hours a week. Working every week of the year, without a single day off, these men and women make $11,791 before taxes, which puts them just above the poverty line for a single person with no dependents. But many of them also do not make $9.07. In January, President Obama had a conversation with a man in the fast food industry who has gone on strike four times because he makes only $7.25 an hour. Even if this man works 40 hours every week—again, without taking any time off—he makes $15,080. If he is supporting anyone beside himself, that income puts him below the poverty line.

Mean hourly wage for the food service industry: $9.07-10.18

[Back]

No, YOU would be working 12 hour days, 7 days a week, for pennies a day, without any benefits.

We would just rob you of said hard earned pennies. Cops wouldn't care because they're overworked, underpaid, and NOW... can't afford donuts.

The fuck?

[Laviticas]

Oddly enough, it was not government regulation that gave us workers rights, it was free market principles of supply and demand. The government didn't give a fuck about workers rights until the workers said fuck you we aren't doing this shit anymore and some politicians used that opportunity to gain some votes/bribes. (Boss Tweed, Tammany hall)

[Warriorbird]

Oddly enough, it was not government regulation that gave us workers rights, it was free market principles of supply and demand. The government didn't give a fuck about workers rights until the workers said fuck you we aren't doing this shit anymore and some politicians used that opportunity to gain some votes/bribes. (Boss Tweed, Tammany hall)

Some of these things that you say don't connect to other things or national trends. It does sound like something you studied in an email forward though.

[Stretch]

Thank God we live in a humane country that benefits from outsourcing all of that shit.

lulz.

[Methais]

The Ten Worst-Paying Jobs in America (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119269/ten-worst-paying-jobs-america-what-they-are-who-has-them)
From fry cooks to the guy parking cars

What point are you trying to make with this post, other than jobs that require little or no skills or education don't pay very much?

The farm laborer pay is kinda fucked though, since I'm sure they're probably busting their asses pretty hard out in the sun or playing with horse shit all day or whatever it is they're doing and are probably physically and mentally miserable all around all day long.

Game dealers seem pretty fucked too, considering how much money casinos make and that you have to be at least moderately good with your hands to make the card dealing all smooth looking like a pro. I'm pretty sure they do make tips though.

People scanning bar codes behind a register, putting fries in grease, parking a car, sitting in a chair watching people swim and blowing a whistle now and then while hot chicks with big tits bounce around in bikinis (which I guess could be offset by a bunch of Large Marges doing the same), or pushing a button on a roller coaster? Not so much.

[Back]

What point are you trying to make with this post, other than jobs that require little or no skills or education don't pay very much?

If you actually start reading posts instead of scrolling through them you might not have to ask these kinds of questions.

[Warriorbird]

As a general note (to my neg repper buddy and the rest) top illegal pickers can earn between 35,000 and 45,000 USD a year. Before we began to get clueless college students to help (for basically free, I learned something from Simutronics) we paid Americans between 9 and 10 dollars an hour for pickers.

This doesn't mean the illegal labor is great. Payroll taxes aren't paid, the hours and working conditions are brutal, and there is an impact on entitlement programs because the Republican Party failed to properly implement an ID card for them. Illegals wouldn't be here if it didn't make economic sense for them though. They wouldn't pay for the chance.

[Jarvan]

TLDR of all of Back's posts...

Rich people are evil for being rich.... but that is only until ~HE~ is rich, and then being rich is perfectly fine.

[Androidpk]

>he farm laborer pay is kinda fucked though, since I'm sure they're probably busting their asses pretty hard out in the sun or playing with horse shit all day or whatever it is they're doing and are probably physically and mentally miserable all around all day long

It is hard work but I find it rather enjoyable and relaxing work, not having to deal with obnoxious consumers/customers. Being out in an area with ultra fresh air is also a boon.

[Methais]

TLDR of all of Back's posts...

Rich people are evil for being rich.... but that is only until ~HE~ is rich, and then being rich is perfectly fine.

I always wondered how many anti-rich people would object to people being rich if they were rich themselves.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess 0.

Care to provide us with some feedback, Back?

[Androidpk]

I think the closest you are going to come to an anti-rich rich person is Nick Hanauer, and even that is stretching it.

[Latrinsorm]

I always wondered how many anti-rich people would object to people being rich if they were rich themselves.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess 0.

Care to provide us with some feedback, Back?Warren Buffet?

[Parkbandit]

Don't let anyone tell you any different. If we did not have regulation we would all be working 12 hour days, 7 days a week, for pennies a day, without any benefits.

Holy shit.

Who is this "we" you are referring to? I can absolutely buy that you would be.. but I don't know many others that would.

[Methais]

Warren Buffet?

He's still rich, so no.

[Latrinsorm]

He's still rich, so no.Ah yes, the old "yeah well you're a hypocrite!!!" defense. Old and tired. You should do better.

[Methais]

Ah yes, the old "yeah well you're a hypocrite!!!" defense. Old and tired. You should do better.

How many anti-rich poor people do you know that you think would still be anti-rich if they were rich themselves?

[Thondalar]

Yeah. I'm pretty sure illegals make better farm wages than those listed.

I had to lol when I saw casino dealers on that list. They don't get paid for shit as a base salary because they get tips. Same with parking attendants. I noticed servers aren't on that list but their average is about $4.00 an hour...but they get tips.

[Latrinsorm]

Anti-rich is not well defined. I am confident the majority of people would favor a progressive tax scheme even if they were rich, and specifically one that is more progressive than we have now. If you have a specific "anti-rich" platform in mind I can in turn be more specific.

[Jarvan]

How many anti-rich poor people do you know that you think would still be anti-rich if they were rich themselves?

some rich are anti rich because they dont want other people being as rich as them, so they can get more rich.

aka.. Warren Buffet.

[Androidpk]

some rich are anti rich because they dont want other people being as rich as them, so they can get more rich.

aka.. Warren Buffet.

:lol2:

[Thondalar]

some rich are anti rich because they dont want other people being as rich as them, so they can get more rich.

aka.. Warren Buffet.

Nah, I wouldn't put Warren Buffet on this list...although it is interesting that the top 3 richest people in America are Democrats, and 60% of the top 20 are Democrats, and only 2 Republicans in the top 20 don't have the name Koch or Walton.

But that's just the uber rich...as far as "normal" rich people who are anti-rich, I'd have to go with George Soros, Peter Lewis, David Gelbaum, Michael Moore certainly...the list of politicians I would put in this category is truly too long to list off the top of my head in one post, but we'll go with Michael Bloomberg, Jon Corzine, John Kerry, Richard Blumenthal, Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Herb Kohl...

edit: ok, ok, "normal" rich I'm considering over 10 million net worth but not a billionaire...so I guess I'd have to take a couple names off that list and move them to "uber rich".

[Thondalar]

The Ten Worst-Paying Jobs in America (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119269/ten-worst-paying-jobs-america-what-they-are-who-has-them)
From fry cooks to the guy parking cars

You know what else is interesting about this list? Almost everyone on it was working today. On labor day.

[Androidpk]

You wouldn't consider Soros to be uber rich?

[Back]

I always wondered how many anti-rich people would object to people being rich if they were rich themselves.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess 0.

Care to provide us with some feedback, Back?

How is posting about the history of Labor Day, on Labor Day, anti-rich?

[Thondalar]

You wouldn't consider Soros to be uber rich?

I would, and Bloomberg as well...check my edit.

[Androidpk]

Soros has a net worth of about $26 billion. He made $4 billion alone just last year.

[Jarvan]

Soros has a net worth of about $26 billion. He made $4 billion alone just last year.

Which is why he, like Buffet, want people to pay higher taxes. So that way other people can't get as rich as them.

[Androidpk]

Which is why he, like Buffet, want people to pay higher taxes. So that way other people can't get as rich as them.

Why is Buffet going out of his way to help Lebron James become a billionaire?

[Warriorbird]

Which is why he, like Buffet, want people to pay higher taxes. So that way other people can't get as rich as them.

The other theory is he wants the poor and middle class to have more income so he can become wealthier. The reality is somewhere between the two.

[Thondalar]

Soros has a net worth of about $26 billion. He made $4 billion alone just last year.

Pretty amazing for a guy that hates Capitalism so much.

Actually, it's not. It's the mentality of the ruling elite. It's ok if they're rich, as long as everyone else is poor. That's the beauty of Socialism and/or Communism...everyone is poor except the ruling class.

[Thondalar]

The other theory is he wants the poor and middle class to have more income so he can become wealthier. The reality is somewhere between the two.

That's not a theory at all, it's one of the many reasons Capitalism works.

[Warriorbird]

Pretty amazing for a guy that hates Capitalism so much.

Actually, it's not. It's the mentality of the ruling elite. It's ok if they're rich, as long as everyone else is poor. That's the beauty of Socialism and/or Communism...everyone is poor except the ruling class.

Once again that's but one take. Billionaires want the poor and middle class to do well so they get richer.

You think you support policies to allow everyone to get rich but you support income inequality too. Yours is just aimed at the poor and middle class. His is aimed at millionaires.

"Hates capitalism." is really simplistic. I'm sure he loves it.

[Back]

Pretty amazing for a guy that hates Capitalism so much.

Actually, it's not. It's the mentality of the ruling elite. It's ok if they're rich, as long as everyone else is poor. That's the beauty of Socialism and/or Communism...everyone is poor except the ruling class.

Is that your final answer? Is that really a belief of yours?

[Warriorbird]

Is that your final answer? Is that really a belief of yours?

It's especially funny because his system is even better at generating a ruling elite. We can have even less people controlling the entire country.

[Latrinsorm]

Pretty amazing for a guy that hates Capitalism so much.

Actually, it's not. It's the mentality of the ruling elite. It's ok if they're rich, as long as everyone else is poor. That's the beauty of Socialism and/or Communism...everyone is poor except the ruling class.If Soros supports a millionaire tax (http://blogs.wsj.com/davos/2012/01/25/billionaire-soros-backs-millionaire-tax/), in what way does that make everyone else poor while keeping him rich?

[Thondalar]

If Soros supports a millionaire tax (http://blogs.wsj.com/davos/2012/01/25/billionaire-soros-backs-millionaire-tax/), in what way does that make everyone else poor while keeping him rich?

Well, several ways.

America has proven that it does, indeed, trickle down when allowed to. The only argument I can find against capitalism is that some people get really stinking rich...the fact that more of the general populace can attain a better standard of living in the process than in any other system ever gets conveniently swept under the rug. The reality of it is, we can't all be millionaires. The beauty of it is, the people who try the hardest still have that as a possibility.

It's a multifaceted issue...Soros doesn't mind supporting higher taxes on the rich because he knows our tax code is so fucked up that it doesn't even matter. Let's bring the top rate up to 92% like it was in 1952 and 1953. You think that really applies to people like Soros? Of course not. It applies to the bottom of that bracket that are in it but not able to go around it. The average business owner that employs our citizens and keeps our economy running. That's what Soros cares about...breaking the backbone of the economy so he can say "see? This doesn't work either! Let's try Socialism again!"

I do like how you bring up one thing though and post that like it's the entire body of Soros' work. That's pretty much your MO...I'll say it again, as I've said in countless threads...for being a scientist, you seem pretty damn quick to ignore all available data and only use what fits yours preconceived notions. Really doesn't do much for my faith in your community.

[Thondalar]

Once again that's but one take. Billionaires want the poor and middle class to do well so they get richer.

You think you support policies to allow everyone to get rich but you support income inequality too. Yours is just aimed at the poor and middle class. His is aimed at millionaires.

"Hates capitalism." is really simplistic. I'm sure he loves it.

I think that "income inequality" isn't what you think it is.

Do you think a fry cook at McDonald's should make the same pay as a CEO of a large corporation? Wouldn't that be income equality?

[Thondalar]

Is that your final answer? Is that really a belief of yours?

Yes, that is really a belief of mine. When will you stop being a lemming and pay attention to what's really going on? The crap you're being fed is what is keeping you in your place. Break free, my brother. Break free.

[Warriorbird]

I think that "income inequality" isn't what you think it is.

Do you think a fry cook at McDonald's should make the same pay as a CEO of a large corporation? Wouldn't that be income equality?

These are lines that people give out when they try to tune out other people.

Libertarian economic policies harm the poor and middle class and help millionaires. They very nearly destroyed our entire economy, however, because billionaires weren't just helped they were tremendously empowered. People had to band together to stop them destroying capitalism completely. Without the people having wealth the system breaks down.

Mixed economies have provided a tremendous boost to our nation. They assist the poor and middle class and help billionaires, though not to the point they take it all.

Naturally some balance is ideal.

You hate billionaires. The policies you favor allow their worst aspects.

[Thondalar]

These are lines that people give out when they try to tune out other people.

Libertarian economic policies harm the poor and middle class and help millionaires. They very nearly destroyed our entire economy, however, because billionaires weren't just helped they were tremendously empowered. People had to band together to stop them destroying capitalism completely. Without the people having wealth the system breaks down.

Mixed economies have provided a tremendous boost to our nation. They assist the poor and middle class and help billionaires, though not to the point they take it all.

Naturally some balance is ideal.

You hate billionaires. The policies you favor allow their worst aspects.

Do you have any evidence of this? What have you seen that brings you to this opinion?

Also, for the record, I fucking love billionaires. For the most part, they provide jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist...for the ones that are just billionaires because of inheritance and don't really do anything with it, those people are...cool also! It's their money, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it! I hold no grudge, and it's an amazing feeling. You should try it.

[Back]

America has proven that it does, indeed, trickle down when allowed to.

Anyone who thinks scraps for the masses is a just distribution of wealth is isolated in elite delusion. Remember the famous quote "let them eat cake"? There is a reason this meme has traction.

http://danallen.com/pix/reaganomics-pic465.jpg


It's a multifaceted issue...Soros doesn't mind supporting higher taxes on the rich because he knows our tax code is so fucked up that it doesn't even matter. Let's bring the top rate up to 92% like it was in 1952 and 1953. You think that really applies to people like Soros? Of course not. It applies to the bottom of that bracket that are in it but not able to go around it. The average business owner that employs our citizens and keeps our economy running. That's what Soros cares about...breaking the backbone of the economy so he can say "see? This doesn't work either! Let's try Socialism again!".

If we take politics completely out of the equation this is you complaining about a rich person. Or am I wrong?

[Back]

Yes, that is really a belief of mine. When will you stop being a lemming and pay attention to what's really going on? The crap you're being fed is what is keeping you in your place. Break free, my brother. Break free.

Since when have legitimate textbook philosophical movements been "crap being fed"? Dude look up some of the terms you've been using. Please actually look up the definitions of socialism, communism, and capitalism. While you're at it look up libertarian, conservative, and liberal.

[Latrinsorm]

Well, several ways.

America has proven that it does, indeed, trickle down when allowed to. The only argument I can find against capitalism is that some people get really stinking rich...the fact that more of the general populace can attain a better standard of living in the process than in any other system ever gets conveniently swept under the rug. The reality of it is, we can't all be millionaires. The beauty of it is, the people who try the hardest still have that as a possibility.

It's a multifaceted issue...Soros doesn't mind supporting higher taxes on the rich because he knows our tax code is so fucked up that it doesn't even matter. Let's bring the top rate up to 92% like it was in 1952 and 1953. You think that really applies to people like Soros? Of course not. It applies to the bottom of that bracket that are in it but not able to go around it. The average business owner that employs our citizens and keeps our economy running. That's what Soros cares about...breaking the backbone of the economy so he can say "see? This doesn't work either! Let's try Socialism again!"What I don't understand is how Soros can propose a 30% tax (that closes the very loopholes you believe Soros would use), then you go off on a diatribe against the 92% rate (which worked) and wrap it all up by accusing him of cryptosocialism.
I do like how you bring up one thing though and post that like it's the entire body of Soros' work. That's pretty much your MO...I'll say it again, as I've said in countless threads...for being a scientist, you seem pretty damn quick to ignore all available data and only use what fits yours preconceived notions. Really doesn't do much for my faith in your community.An inference on your part is (still) not an implication on mine. It doesn't have to represent his entire body of work to disprove the claim that his mentality is to keep everyone poor and himself rich. Why don't you go ahead and post some of this data you always accuse me of ignoring? Wouldn't that be more productive than just insisting its out there?

Every time it goes like this: you make a claim, I post some data, you say "but there's other data!!!" and don't post any of it. Final tally...
Me: data.
You: nothing.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Thondalar]

Anyone who thinks scraps for the masses is a just distribution of wealth is isolated in elite delusion. Remember the famous quote "let them eat cake"? There is a reason this meme has traction.

No, I think your entire understanding of the situation is delusional. What do you mean by "scraps for the masses"? This shows your ignorance in this...you're so angry about other people being very rich that you're willing to ignore the fact that everyone else is reasonably rich. Do you really think there is a system possible in which every single person in the United States is Mansion and Mercedes wealthy? Do you?

I would implore you to do some research into the actual living conditions of the average citizen of France in the 1700s compared to the average American, then I would implore you to do some further research to understand that that "meme" itself was never actually uttered by anyone that history has recorded, other than one guy who wrote a book that may or may not be true.

Education, man. It's really the key. Our public system is so screwed up with worrying about what sort of standardized testing kids may or may not pass, they've managed to completely ignore the fundamental basics of teaching. You, Back, are a product of that, through and through.


If we take politics completely out of the equation this is you complaining about a rich person. Or am I wrong?

Sure. Problem is, my complaint is about his politics, not about his being rich. I beg you Back, please...PLEASE take some time off to work on your critical thinking skills.

[Warriorbird]

Do you have any evidence of this? What have you seen that brings you to this opinion?

Also, for the record, I fucking love billionaires. For the most part, they provide jobs that otherwise wouldn't exist...for the ones that are just billionaires because of inheritance and don't really do anything with it, those people are...cool also! It's their money, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it! I hold no grudge, and it's an amazing feeling. You should try it.

You don't love billionaires. You go on and on about Soros and anybody who doesn't fit in your political ideals.

My evidence is American history. Without the Progressive Movement and later FDR we wouldn't exist. Libertarian policies lead to bubbles and then destruction.

It only "trickles down" if policies are crafted to allow it to happen. You favor the elimination of those policies and even tinier numbers of people controlling the whole economy.

[Thondalar]

What I don't understand is how Soros can propose a 30% tax (that closes the very loopholes you believe Soros would use), then you go off on a diatribe against the 92% rate (which worked) and wrap it all up by accusing him of cryptosocialism.

Let's assume it does close loopholes. My original point is the same...who do you think that would hit harder, an already multi-billionaire like Soros, or the capitalist business owners at the bottom end of the spectrum? His intent is the same, it's not my fault you can't see it.


An inference on your part is (still) not an implication on mine.

Your implication is clear in your post. It needs no inference on my part.


It doesn't have to represent his entire body of work to disprove the claim that his mentality is to keep everyone poor and himself rich.

So it's ok if someone does 100 things wrong, as long as they do 1 thing right? That's your argument? You're a numbers man...which side of that would show likely intent?


Why don't you go ahead and post some of this data you always accuse me of ignoring? Wouldn't that be more productive than just insisting its out there?

I have on several, several occasions. You either blatantly ignore it or chase it to a "correlation is not causation" and then stop posting about it.


Every time it goes like this: you make a claim, I post some data, you say "but there's other data!!!" and don't post any of it. Final tally...
Me: data.
You: nothing.

Lol. Revisionist history at it's best.

[Thondalar]

You don't love billionaires. You go on and on about Soros and anybody who doesn't fit in your political ideals.

Lol...I go on about hypocrites, bro. Soros and Moore lambast the system that they're both extremely wealthy because of. While it's true that they don't fit my political ideals, that's something that can't be remedied...my political ideals are the basis for why I'm against them. It's not because they're billionaires, it's because they're hypocrites. If I hated billionaires I'd hate the conservative ones too. Think about what you're really saying here, it's a dead end on your side.


My evidence is American history. Without the Progressive Movement and later FDR we wouldn't exist. Libertarian policies lead to bubbles and then destruction.

Such as?


It only "trickles down" if policies are crafted to allow it to happen. You favor the elimination of those policies and even tinier numbers of people controlling the whole economy.

Such as?

[Warriorbird]

Lol...I go on about hypocrites, bro. Soros and Moore lambast the system that they're both extremely wealthy because of. While it's true that they don't fit my political ideals, that's something that can't be remedied...my political ideals are the basis for why I'm against them. It's not because they're billionaires, it's because they're hypocrites. If I hated billionaires I'd hate the conservative ones too. Think about what you're really saying here, it's a dead end on your side.



Such as?



Such as?

Do you really want to go here? No, no you don't.

The Articles period. Libertarian policies totally failed. Thus the Constitution and Federalism.
Jackon hates on the National Bank and lets the state banks write anybody loans. Bye bye economic boom!
America before the Federal Reserve. Libertarian policies were so fucked up we had regular financial panics.
The Gilded Age. Libertarian Policies were so fucked up that we got the Progressive Movement.
The Depression. The Roaring 20s and deregulation nearly destroyed us completely and nearly destroyed everybody else too.
Reagan's deregulation lead to the boom of the 1980s and a savage bust. If we hadn't used mixed policies we might've gone further down.
2008 and we had deregulation screwing us again.

Every time people use these ideas it fucks us up after a brief boom.

Added note:

You and Back are around the same age as far as I can tell. Way before the standardized testing obsession.

[Thondalar]

Do you really want to go here? No, no you don't.

The Articles period. Libertarian policies totally failed. Thus the Constitution and Federalism.
Jackon hates on the National Bank and lets the state banks write anybody loans. Bye bye economic boom!
America before the Federal Reserve. Libertarian policies were so fucked up we had regular financial panics.
The Gilded Age. Libertarian Policies were so fucked up that we got the Progressive Movement.
The Depression. The Roaring 20s and deregulation nearly destroyed us completely and nearly destroyed everybody else too.
Reagan's deregulation lead to the boom of the 1980s and a savage bust. If we hadn't used mixed policies we might've gone further down.
2008 and we had deregulation screwing us again.

Yeah, yeah I do. Let's start off by saying "Libertarianism" as you describe it was a relatively new idea during the time of our Founding...nothing like it had been done ever in the history of the world. That, by itself, is pretty astounding, and you would have to say there would be some road blocks...as with anything new, let alone an entirely new system of government. Sure, you can make correlations to ancient Greece or Rome, and certainly some influences were drawn from that, but what was created in the colonies at that time, as a whole, was new to what was going on in the world at that time. You really think they're going to get everything perfect on the first run? Of course not...the ideals set in place required a certain amount of personal responsibility that simply wasn't reasonable, and still isn't...but it was idealistic, and they tried. I fully admit the failure of the Articles of Confederation not on their idealism, but on their reality. I still think the Constitution could stand on it's own without amendments, if taken literally, but that's a different can of worms.

As far as Jackson and regular booms/busts goes...yes! Of course we had that, because that's the natural order of things. Each time we learned from them. The Fed was formed in 1913, a full 16 years before Black Tuesday...lot of good that did. We would have had it again a lot more recently if not for all the bailouts...go Fed! What I pull from this is exactly what I've said before...while the Fed may regulate the smaller booms and busts, it in fact makes the larger ones worse...the aftermath of 1929 was broken up by WW2, eventually...the 2000's were only saved by massive government bailout programs. The next one is going to be so bad neither the Fed nor the Government will be able to stop it, because that's what happens when you prop up good debt on top of bad. You're quick to blame all of this on "libertarian policies"...I'm wondering which, exactly? Can you name one single "libertarian policy" and it's direct effect on anything?


Every time people use these ideas it fucks us up after a brief boom.

Only the people who are dumb about it. Considering that's a whole bunch of people, though, I guess that gets to the real crux of it...people, as a whole, are incapable of making the proper decisions for themselves, and therefore need more "educated" or "enlightened" leaders to make those decisions for them?


You and Back are around the same age as far as I can tell. Way before the standardized testing obsession.

This is probably true, though I've never considered Back's age. I bet he didn't skip school to go to the library as much as I did, though.

[Back]

No, I think your entire understanding of the situation is delusional. What do you mean by "scraps for the masses"?

Let them eat cake. Trickle down. Scraps for the masses. It is all the same thing. What it amounts to is worship and obedience to the rich. A kind of "yessir! right you are sir! very good sir!" attitude.


This shows your ignorance in this...you're so angry about other people being very rich that you're willing to ignore the fact that everyone else is reasonably rich.

First, who said I was angry that people are rich?

Second... if you think everyone is reasonably rich you are completely out of touch with reality. Totally and completely.


Do you really think there is a system possible in which every single person in the United States is Mansion and Mercedes wealthy? Do you?

Yes. I believe in social proprietorial business. Also environmentalism, equality, justice, positiveness, peace, and many more things I get labeled as a bad guy for.


I would implore you to do some research into the actual living conditions of the average citizen of France in the 1700s compared to the average American, then I would implore you to do some further research to understand that that "meme" itself was never actually uttered by anyone that history has recorded, other than one guy who wrote a book that may or may not be true.

Yes, there is debate over that quote, but the truth is not lost. When the opulent say "trickle down" it's pure elitist bullshit.


Education, man. It's really the key. Our public system is so screwed up with worrying about what sort of standardized testing kids may or may not pass, they've managed to completely ignore the fundamental basics of teaching. You, Back, are a product of that, through and through.

This is an interesting tangent. I'm glad you are worried about proper education.


Sure. Problem is, my complaint is about his politics, not about his being rich. I beg you Back, please...PLEASE take some time off to work on your critical thinking skills.

What I am worried about is corporations being labeled as citizens and how much influence one has over the other.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah, yeah I do. Let's start off by saying "Libertarianism" as you describe it was a relatively new idea during the time of our Founding...nothing like it had been done ever in the history of the world. That, by itself, is pretty astounding, and you would have to say there would be some road blocks...as with anything new, let alone an entirely new system of government. Sure, you can make correlations to ancient Greece or Rome, and certainly some influences were drawn from that, but what was created in the colonies at that time, as a whole, was new to what was going on in the world at that time. You really think they're going to get everything perfect on the first run? Of course not...the ideals set in place required a certain amount of personal responsibility that simply wasn't reasonable, and still isn't...but it was idealistic, and they tried. I fully admit the failure of the Articles of Confederation not on their idealism, but on their reality. I still think the Constitution could stand on it's own without amendments, if taken literally, but that's a different can of worms.

As far as Jackson and regular booms/busts goes...yes! Of course we had that, because that's the natural order of things. Each time we learned from them. The Fed was formed in 1913, a full 16 years before Black Tuesday...lot of good that did. We would have had it again a lot more recently if not for all the bailouts...go Fed! What I pull from this is exactly what I've said before...while the Fed may regulate the smaller booms and busts, it in fact makes the larger ones worse...the aftermath of 1929 was broken up by WW2, eventually...the 2000's were only saved by massive government bailout programs. The next one is going to be so bad neither the Fed nor the Government will be able to stop it, because that's what happens when you prop up good debt on top of bad. You're quick to blame all of this on "libertarian policies"...I'm wondering which, exactly? Can you name one single "libertarian policy" and it's direct effect on anything?

Only the people who are dumb about it. Considering that's a whole bunch of people, though, I guess that gets to the real crux of it...people, as a whole, are incapable of making the proper decisions for themselves, and therefore need more "educated" or "enlightened" leaders to make those decisions for them?

There's this magical little concept called anarchy. It has this fascinating tendency to breed government.

Just because "Libertarianism" was new doesn't mean it's gotten any more effective.

You can think the Constitution would "stand on its own" but it never would've happened without the Bill of Rights. It also never would've shed slavery.

We've had less busts after the Fed than before it. That's very difficult to argue with.

Deregulation and tax decreases on the wealthy/corporations are the primary push of most Libertarian economic policies. When you deregulate banks you tend to get unlimited credit, which is always poison to the American economy. You can go on and on about how people are supposedly to spontaneously become enlightened but the world doesn't work like that.

All of the above helped fuel the 1920s. Minus the ability to set monetary policy, once again, it might have been even worse.

Wanting to destroy our system to lead to a less effective one isn't just detrimental to America, it's detrimental to the whole world.

[Latrinsorm]

Let's assume it does close loopholes. My original point is the same...who do you think that would hit harder, an already multi-billionaire like Soros, or the capitalist business owners at the bottom end of the spectrum? His intent is the same, it's not my fault you can't see it.Can't see what doesn't exist, baby. Too much hard science.
Your implication is clear in your post. It needs no inference on my part.I guess you have to ask yourself who knows what I meant better, me or you.
So it's ok if someone does 100 things wrong, as long as they do 1 thing right? That's your argument? You're a numbers man...which side of that would show likely intent?In that case I would go with wrong. In this case, how about 1 thing wrong? Can we start with 1?
I have on several, several occasions. You either blatantly ignore it or chase it to a "correlation is not causation" and then stop posting about it.How about 1 time? Can we start with 1?
Let's start off by saying "Libertarianism" as you describe it was a relatively new idea during the time of our Founding...nothing like it had been done ever in the history of the world. ... The Fed was formed in 1913, a full 16 years before Black Tuesday...lot of good that did.I wonder if you can see the dissonance here.
What I pull from this is exactly what I've said before...while the Fed may regulate the smaller booms and busts, it in fact makes the larger ones worse...the aftermath of 1929 was broken up by WW2, eventually...the 2000's were only saved by massive government bailout programs. The next one is going to be so bad neither the Fed nor the Government will be able to stop it, because that's what happens when you prop up good debt on top of bad.GDP per capita growth
1774-1800: 0.38% (http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8007.pdf) per year
1800-1860: 0.94% per year (ibid)
1870-1912: 1.77% (http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2012/09/us-real-per-capita-gdp-from-18702001.html)
1913-1932: -0.38% per year (ibid)
1933-2013: 2.45% (http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-per-capita/table/by-year) per year
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

And as for making large ones worse: 08 and 09 add up to -5% right on the nose, 74 and 75 to -4%. Those sound pretty bad until you look at 1893 and 1894 -11%, 1907 and 1908 -10%, and we don't even have figures for earlier events such as the Panic of 1837.

[Jarvan]

If Soros supports a millionaire tax (http://blogs.wsj.com/davos/2012/01/25/billionaire-soros-backs-millionaire-tax/), in what way does that make everyone else poor while keeping him rich?

People like Buffet and Soros who want a Millionare tax want it because it taxes INCOME. First off, these people don't care, Soros has 26 BILLION. What does it matter to him. But a Millionare tax would make it very much harder for other people to reach his level of money. And money = Power. That's what they don't want. Now if they called for everyone with a net worth of 100 Mill or greater to have to pay a 30% wealth tax on their wealth, THEN that would be different. But nope.. they just don't want people to amass as much wealth as them. Big difference.

[Jarvan]

Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman recently had a episode about wealth.

It shows that there has always been, and always is income inequality. It's pretty much a fact of nature.

Israel when it was formed, had no wealthy people really, and no poor, just about everyone was equal. Can that be said today? That was what.. 60-70 years and they look pretty much just like the US in income inequality? Look at any political philosophy you want, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism... they are all the same in the regards that some are uber rich, some are rich, some are in the middle, and the vast are poor.

I don't know about anyone on these forums, but I never got employed by a poor man.

[Thondalar]

Let them eat cake. Trickle down. Scraps for the masses. It is all the same thing. What it amounts to is worship and obedience to the rich. A kind of "yessir! right you are sir! very good sir!" attitude.

So...you're perfectly fine with being obedient to your rich, but not mine? Let's get it straight, here. We've already established that the movers and shakers on both sides of the issues are extremely rich, way more so than any common person...yet you're quite willing to use wealth as a negative when it comes to the rich on the other side of the aisle, but not your own. Your rich are somehow more right than my rich. How is this so?


First, who said I was angry that people are rich?

Oh, I'm quite sure you're happy with your people being rich, you're just mad that people you don't like are rich. See above.


Second... if you think everyone is reasonably rich you are completely out of touch with reality. Totally and completely.

"reasonably rich" is the rub, here. How many American-born citizens have to worry about unclean water? How many live their life every day without sturdy shelter or food in their stomach? Some, I'm sure...but how many? Can you tell me? I could tell you, but you wouldn't believe my numbers because they come from me. So I want to see yours. How bad is it in America for naturalized American Citizens compared to the rest of the world?


Yes. I believe in social proprietorial business. Also environmentalism, equality, justice, positiveness, peace, and many more things I get labeled as a bad guy for.

Aha. So, my question was "do you really think there is a system possible in which every single person in the United States is Mansion and Mercedes wealthy"...and your answer is yes.

I believe in environmentalism, equality, justice, positiveness, and peace as well...my entire body of posts on these boards bares that out. That means precisely dick to your assertion, just now, that you are entirely fucking clueless about the most basic concepts of economics and population.


Yes, there is debate over that quote, but the truth is not lost. When the opulent say "trickle down" it's pure elitist bullshit.

Well yeah, when the truth is based on a myth, it's pretty much not truth anymore. What "opulent" says "trickle-down"? Do you even know? You're just regurgitating shit man. Please, do some research. Please?


This is an interesting tangent. I'm glad you are worried about proper education.

I'm more worried about your lack of it when attempting to speak to adults. It makes you look foolish.


What I am worried about is corporations being labeled as citizens and how much influence one has over the other.

Just going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess you haven't read the majority opinion (or even any of the dissenting opinions!) on this court case, or even bothered to try to comprehend the actual effects of law under any circumstance. MSNBC says it's bad, so damnit! It's bad.

[Back]

So...you're perfectly fine with being obedient to your rich, but not mine? Let's get it straight, here. We've already established that the movers and shakers on both sides of the issues are extremely rich, way more so than any common person...yet you're quite willing to use wealth as a negative when it comes to the rich on the other side of the aisle, but not your own. Your rich are somehow more right than my rich. How is this so?



Oh, I'm quite sure you're happy with your people being rich, you're just mad that people you don't like are rich. See above.



"reasonably rich" is the rub, here. How many American-born citizens have to worry about unclean water? How many live their life every day without sturdy shelter or food in their stomach? Some, I'm sure...but how many? Can you tell me? I could tell you, but you wouldn't believe my numbers because they come from me. So I want to see yours. How bad is it in America for naturalized American Citizens compared to the rest of the world?



Aha. So, my question was "do you really think there is a system possible in which every single person in the United States is Mansion and Mercedes wealthy"...and your answer is yes.

I believe in environmentalism, equality, justice, positiveness, and peace as well...my entire body of posts on these boards bares that out. That means precisely dick to your assertion, just now, that you are entirely fucking clueless about the most basic concepts of economics and population.



Well yeah, when the truth is based on a myth, it's pretty much not truth anymore. What "opulent" says "trickle-down"? Do you even know? You're just regurgitating shit man. Please, do some research. Please?



I'm more worried about your lack of it when attempting to speak to adults. It makes you look foolish.



Just going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess you haven't read the majority opinion (or even any of the dissenting opinions!) on this court case, or even bothered to try to comprehend the actual effects of law under any circumstance. MSNBC says it's bad, so damnit! It's bad.

Ok I am going to bow out. For now.

I've got a mouth full of hot ramen, a Tecate, and it's been long day.

I'll destroy you tomorrow. Enjoy the rest.

[Thondalar]

There's this magical little concept called anarchy. It has this fascinating tendency to breed government.

Is this because people are incapable of actually taking care of themselves, or because some people have an overwhelming need to control other people, and most people are ok with being controlled?


Just because "Libertarianism" was new doesn't mean it's gotten any more effective.

Oh, right, the old "well, that was 250 years ago, they couldn't possibly have known what we know now, so therefore their methods are automatically outdated and antiquated"....wait...


You can think the Constitution would "stand on its own" but it never would've happened without the Bill of Rights. It also never would've shed slavery.

Not sure where you get this from. I understand fully the caveats made in order to make it happen blah blah blah...we've talked about all that on these forums ad nauseum...what I'm getting at is, much like the Interstate system, just because it happened the way it did doesn't mean it couldn't have happened any other way.


We've had less busts after the Fed than before it. That's very difficult to argue with.

I never did argue that. Matter of fact, I argued that it made them all much smaller...except for the really big ones. That's been my argument all along, which history has born out. The Fed didn't stop 1929, and it didn't stop 2008...the government wasn't able to step in and prevent 1929, but it was able to somewhat prevent what could have been in 2008, albeit at unforeseen future cost...what's going to happen next time? When you artificially prevent the booms and busts that are the natural evolution of things, you only build yourself up to a bigger failure in the long run. Smoothing over every minor problem eventually catches up to you. This will be no different.


Deregulation and tax decreases on the wealthy/corporations are the primary push of most Libertarian economic policies. When you deregulate banks you tend to get unlimited credit, which is always poison to the American economy. You can go on and on about how people are supposedly to spontaneously become enlightened but the world doesn't work like that.

Correct, and why should they? They've been conditioned that they can make stupid decisions and everything will be alright. If we remove those safety nets, people will be more inclined to be more careful with their money.

As far as taxes go, I'm all for a logical tax situation, regardless of whatever the actual percentages may be. We've got so caught up in "raising taxes" or "reducing taxes" that we've lost sight of the fact that the raw number on any tax bracket doesn't really mean anything because of how convoluted our tax code is. Abolish the IRS, remove the income tax, and flat tax all sales and goods. Done. Rich people buy more shit, they pay more taxes. Poor people buy less shit, they pay less taxes. Keep the SS and Medicare deductions from every pay check, give the bottom 25% a refund of that once a year like a tax return. Nobody else gets a tax return. If you haven't had a job you don't get SS or Medicare.


All of the above helped fuel the 1920s. Minus the ability to set monetary policy, once again, it might have been even worse.

Nothing else, right? The Fed existed in the 1920's, why didn't they stop this obviously dangerous boom?


Wanting to destroy our system to lead to a less effective one isn't just detrimental to America, it's detrimental to the whole world.

That, we agree on. What has happened in the last 90 years is destroying our system...

[Thondalar]

Ok I am going to bow out. For now.

I've got a mouth full of hot ramen, a Tecate, and it's been long day.

I'll destroy you tomorrow. Enjoy the rest.

Lol...do some research, homie. Hopefully you'll get some education.

[Thondalar]

Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman recently had a episode about wealth.

It shows that there has always been, and always is income inequality. It's pretty much a fact of nature.

Israel when it was formed, had no wealthy people really, and no poor, just about everyone was equal. Can that be said today? That was what.. 60-70 years and they look pretty much just like the US in income inequality? Look at any political philosophy you want, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism... they are all the same in the regards that some are uber rich, some are rich, some are in the middle, and the vast are poor.

This is true except that in Capitalism the "vast" are not poor, the poor is a vast minority compared to any other system. Capitalism breeds the largest "middle class", and has a higher "top end" of that middle class, than any other system that has ever existed on this planet. It's just historical fact.


I don't know about anyone on these forums, but I never got employed by a poor man.

Nobody ever has.

[Warriorbird]

Is this because people are incapable of actually taking care of themselves, or because some people have an overwhelming need to control other people, and most people are ok with being controlled?



Oh, right, the old "well, that was 250 years ago, they couldn't possibly have known what we know now, so therefore their methods are automatically outdated and antiquated"....wait...



Not sure where you get this from. I understand fully the caveats made in order to make it happen blah blah blah...we've talked about all that on these forums ad nauseum...what I'm getting at is, much like the Interstate system, just because it happened the way it did doesn't mean it couldn't have happened any other way.



I never did argue that. Matter of fact, I argued that it made them all much smaller...except for the really big ones. That's been my argument all along, which history has born out. The Fed didn't stop 1929, and it didn't stop 2008...the government wasn't able to step in and prevent 1929, but it was able to somewhat prevent what could have been in 2008, albeit at unforeseen future cost...what's going to happen next time? When you artificially prevent the booms and busts that are the natural evolution of things, you only build yourself up to a bigger failure in the long run. Smoothing over every minor problem eventually catches up to you. This will be no different.



Correct, and why should they? They've been conditioned that they can make stupid decisions and everything will be alright. If we remove those safety nets, people will be more inclined to be more careful with their money.

As far as taxes go, I'm all for a logical tax situation, regardless of whatever the actual percentages may be. We've got so caught up in "raising taxes" or "reducing taxes" that we've lost sight of the fact that the raw number on any tax bracket doesn't really mean anything because of how convoluted our tax code is. Abolish the IRS, remove the income tax, and flat tax all sales and goods. Done. Rich people buy more shit, they pay more taxes. Poor people buy less shit, they pay less taxes. Keep the SS and Medicare deductions from every pay check, give the bottom 25% a refund of that once a year like a tax return. Nobody else gets a tax return. If you haven't had a job you don't get SS or Medicare.



Nothing else, right? The Fed existed in the 1920's, why didn't they stop this obviously dangerous boom?



That, we agree on. What has happened in the last 90 years is destroying our system...

Much like the Communists you have this magical "end of history" viewpoint. "Oh, the people and the economy will suddenly be fine!'

Government bodies didn't prevent crashes that your favorite ideas caused and you want to remove them completely as a solution? This is a society destroying level of crazy. "They didn't stop it so lets completely take away all chance for them to!"

If we remove the safety nets people will make dumb credit decisions, tank our economy, and starve.

Then you want to shaft the poor even more with a flat tax because you know they fail at funding any government without voodoo economics. "Mysterious jobs will appear and make our plan work!"

We can really demolish that pesky GDP.

[Thondalar]

Much like the Communists you have this magical "end of history" viewpoint. "Oh, the people and the economy will suddenly be fine!'

Government bodies didn't prevent crashes that your favorite ideas caused and you want to remove them completely as a solution? This is a society destroying level of crazy. "They didn't stop it so lets completely take away all chance for them to!"

If we remove the safety nets people will make dumb credit decisions, tank our economy, and starve.

Then you want to shaft the poor even more with a flat tax because you know they fail at funding any government without voodoo economics. "Mysterious jobs will appear and make our plan work!"

We can really demolish that pesky GDP.

Man, WB, I thought we were making progress. You really believe all of this tripe? C'mon, man. I never said anyone would be fine, I said we have to take the lesser of two evils...I've also said our society hasn't progressed enough to the point where a fully Libertarian society is a possibility. However, I will say that we've moved so far away from what's actually the "moderate" middle-ground that it will take a good dose of Libertarianism to bring us back in balance. I stick by that.

You're the one sticking by your "Government bodies", I'm simply showing you the fallacy of your belief. The simple answer is that no system is completely perfect, we have to go with the "most" perfect...and we disagree on what that most perfect is. That's the crux of most political conversations...the chest-thumping is always about the other guy hating poor people, or hating freedom, or hating this or hating that...when in reality we all kinda like freedom and want to help poor people. We just disagree about how we do that.

If we remove the safety nets, of course people will make dumb decisions and tank our economy and starve. Guess what, bro? That happened anyway. And will continue to happen. The difference is, it'll continue to get worse if we keep propping it up. It's the most basic of learned behaviors. Pavlov's Dog for the modern human. Can you honestly tell me that you would be more willing to risk your money if you knew there was nothing to get it back if you lost, rather than if you knew the government would bail you out if you lost? Seriously? What is the rewarded behavior there?

I don't want to "shaft the poor" over anything. I said the bottom 25% gets a full refund of all their tax expenditures. How is that shafting them, exactly?

[Gelston]

Tell me, how many federal holidays don't have a bloody origin?

[Androidpk]

Tell me, how many federal holidays don't have a bloody origin?

Washingtons birthday! Oh wait..

[Thondalar]

Tell me, how many federal holidays don't have a bloody origin?

Well certainly Columbus Day. He was a Saint.

[Androidpk]

Well certainly Columbus Day. He was a Saint.

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/liam-neeson-taken-2-native-americans-columbus-day-ecards-someecards.png#lol%20columbus%20day%20425x237

[Jeril]

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/liam-neeson-taken-2-native-americans-columbus-day-ecards-someecards.png#lol%20columbus%20day%20425x237

rofl.

[Warriorbird]

Man, WB, I thought we were making progress. You really believe all of this tripe? C'mon, man. I never said anyone would be fine, I said we have to take the lesser of two evils...I've also said our society hasn't progressed enough to the point where a fully Libertarian society is a possibility. However, I will say that we've moved so far away from what's actually the "moderate" middle-ground that it will take a good dose of Libertarianism to bring us back in balance. I stick by that.

You're the one sticking by your "Government bodies", I'm simply showing you the fallacy of your belief. The simple answer is that no system is completely perfect, we have to go with the "most" perfect...and we disagree on what that most perfect is. That's the crux of most political conversations...the chest-thumping is always about the other guy hating poor people, or hating freedom, or hating this or hating that...when in reality we all kinda like freedom and want to help poor people. We just disagree about how we do that.

If we remove the safety nets, of course people will make dumb decisions and tank our economy and starve. Guess what, bro? That happened anyway. And will continue to happen. The difference is, it'll continue to get worse if we keep propping it up. It's the most basic of learned behaviors. Pavlov's Dog for the modern human. Can you honestly tell me that you would be more willing to risk your money if you knew there was nothing to get it back if you lost, rather than if you knew the government would bail you out if you lost? Seriously? What is the rewarded behavior there?

I don't want to "shaft the poor" over anything. I said the bottom 25% gets a full refund of all their tax expenditures. How is that shafting them, exactly?

Whenever I hear "society has progressed to a point" it sounds like Communists and I tend to zone out.

Your flat tax shafts the poor by not actually paying for the government successfully.

I take a look at the America we've made by not destroying ourselves and it does a tremendous amount of good for billions every day. I compare it to the America of our brief Libertarian policy booms and I see which one I'd pick. In your lust to destroy everything we might take down the entire global economy and cause devastating war again in the process.

[Gelston]

I am wearing full chain mail armor right now. My Halloween costume is going to be sick.

[Gelston]

I thought the coif would pull on my long hair, but it doesn't.

[Thondalar]

Whenever I hear "society has progressed to a point" it sounds like Communists and I tend to zone out.

Your flat tax shafts the poor by not actually paying for the government successfully.

I take a look at the America we've made by not destroying ourselves and it does a tremendous amount of good for billions every day. I compare it to the America of our brief Libertarian policy booms and I see which one I'd pick. In your lust to destroy everything we might take down the entire global economy and cause devastating war again in the process.

This is all incredible, incredible speculation that you can come up with nothing solid to base it on. Lust to destroy everything? Have you lost your mind?

[Warriorbird]

I am wearing full chain mail armor right now. My Halloween costume is going to be sick.

I think you just managed to both out cool and out nerd us at once. Nice job!

[Warriorbird]

This is all incredible, incredible speculation that you can come up with nothing solid to base it on. Lust to destroy everything? Have you lost your mind?

You want to remove all entitlements, all barriers to trade, and all borrowing. You're going for system smashing.

[Gelston]

I think you just managed to both out cool and out nerd us at once. Nice job!

Perhaps. Either way, I am ready for zombies. (Not what my Halloween costume is based on.)

[Thondalar]

You want to remove all entitlements, all barriers to trade, and all borrowing. You're going for system smashing.

Overnight, in one fell swoop, it probably would have a pretty poor effect, only because we've been coddled for so long. As it was done gradually, so shall it be undone gradually.

[Androidpk]

I thought the coif would pull on my long hair, but it doesn't.

Hippy

[Gelston]

Hippy
No, redneck.

[Thondalar]

No, redneck.

Business in the front, party in the back.

[Androidpk]

No, redneck.

Join the dark side. Throw on a headband and you could pass for a younger Willie Nelson!

[Gelston]

Join the dark side. Throw on a headband and you could pass for a younger Willie Nelson!

I prefer to drink Budweiser and drive a truck.

[Gelston]

I'm actually sitting outside with the radio going and my firepit going.

[Androidpk]

I'm actually sitting outside with the radio going and my firepit going.

Are you hooting and hollering? I had my firepit going earlier but everyone up here is lame so I put it out. Drinking by yourself is boring.

[Thondalar]

I'm actually sitting outside with the radio going and my firepit going.

There are some coals left glowing from the barbecue I performed earlier, but that's about it...I do have some Eric Church on tho.

[Gelston]

I was at a cook out earlier, but I always like sitting in front of a fire.

[Androidpk]

I was at a cook out earlier, but I always like sitting in front of a fire.

Pool boy >_>

[Gelston]

Pool boy >_>
There was a pool, but I don't work them.

[Stretch]

I just took a massive dump. I can tell today is going to be a good day

[Gelston]

I just took a massive dump. I can tell today is going to be a good day

Okay Methais.

[Latrinsorm]

People like Buffet and Soros who want a Millionare tax want it because it taxes INCOME. First off, these people don't care, Soros has 26 BILLION. What does it matter to him. But a Millionare tax would make it very much harder for other people to reach his level of money. And money = Power. That's what they don't want. Now if they called for everyone with a net worth of 100 Mill or greater to have to pay a 30% wealth tax on their wealth, THEN that would be different. But nope.. they just don't want people to amass as much wealth as them. Big difference.George Soros made $4b in 2013. He very much has a personal interest in income taxes. Soros and Buffett are also old enough to have paid the 90% brackets in the early stages of their careers, and therefore they have no reason to believe that a much much much smaller tax will keep other people from attaining their levels of wealth.

Not all cynicism is factually the case.
When you artificially prevent the booms and busts that are the natural evolution of things, you only build yourself up to a bigger failure in the long run. Smoothing over every minor problem eventually catches up to you.This is neither empirically true nor rationally sound. The recessions around the turn of 1900 were twice as severe as the Great Recession, you only feel the Great Recession was worse because you don't care about history. You believe you do, but what you really care about is what certain people say happened in history.
The Fed existed in the 1920's, why didn't they stop this obviously dangerous boom?The federal government wasn't socialist enough. Once we elected FDR things were great.

I would also like to say that your claim that I ignore data and you provide it is taking a(nother) pretty big hit by your ignoring the data I cited in my last post. You didn't even do a cursory "context is important, therefore your data is bad and I don't have to cite any data at all to back up my position". Not good, Thondie.

[Bobmuhthol]

Chiming in to remind everyone that Jarvan is and forever will be a fucking idiot.

[AnticorRifling]

Back pays all of his wait staff, bussers, washers, cooks, etc. $25/hr pre tips because he practices what he preaches. Good guy Back, good guy.