Check this chart of top marginal taxes for decades

[8537]

Then why was it created with the Federal Reserve Act by Congress, and why is the Board of Governors a Federal Agency whose members are appointed by The President?

Because it acts as the central bank for the United States. It is not part of government, as its owners will attest.

And by this comment you reflect you lack of understanding of the cronyist nature of the Federal Reserve and its de facto status as a fourth branch of government.

Are you capable of posting without being a snarky bitch?

But anyway, were the wildcat banks of teh 1840's part of big government?

Were the private script distributors of the Suffolk system part of big government?

Is the Bank of London part of big government?

I'll bow to your superior intellect in assuming you know the answer to those questions and the relevance.

 

[Avorysuds]

Your advocacy of Big Government programs because they reduced unemployment somewhat during the Great Depression neglects the fact that Big Government control of the money supply caused the Great Depression and high unemployment in the first place.

Big government? The Fed wasn't and isn't part of "big government"...but anyway....

Who said I dismiss the Feds role in helping cause the depression? That doesn't mean the federal government is incapable of improving the situation - as they did.

Wow, no need to talk to this 1 anymore.

 

[boedicca]

We're not discussing wildcat banks and private script distributors, nor are we discussing the Bank of London.

We're discussing the Federal Reserve whose Board of Governors are a Federal Agency. If you can't see how the banking system has colluded with Big Government to manipulate the money supply and inflation for the benefit of both with the government manipulating spending and tax policy as its part of the bargain, then you'll have to do some homework to understand.

Here's some recommended reading.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1282696128&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (9780912986395): G. Edward Griffin: Books[/ame]

 

[Misty]

Well let's put it at a flat tax of 91%. That sounds fair. Let everyone feel the sting of giving 91% of what you earn to the monster government.

 

[8537]

We're not discussing wildcat banks and private script distributors, nor are we discussing the Bank of London.

Exactly. Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about. We ARE talking about a private script distributor. You just don't know it...yet.

We're discussing the Federal Reserve whose Board of Governors are a Federal Agency.

They are not a Federal Agency. I don't what kind of confusion would lead you to such a conclusion. Try this on:

In which department branch of government does this alleged agency reside? Hint: it doesn't.

Here's some recommended reading.

Amazon.com: The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (9780912986395): G. Edward Griffin: Books

ah yes, the ultimate history of...well, someone's version of the history of the creation of the Fed. Ya can't have a discussion of the Fed without Alcoa subsidizers dragging that book out.

 

[8537]

Your advocacy of Big Government programs because they reduced unemployment somewhat during the Great Depression neglects the fact that Big Government control of the money supply caused the Great Depression and high unemployment in the first place.

Big government? The Fed wasn't and isn't part of "big government"...but anyway....

Who said I dismiss the Feds role in helping cause the depression? That doesn't mean the federal government is incapable of improving the situation - as they did.

Wow, no need to talk to this 1 anymore.

That really makes your point stand out! Your unmatched knowledge just shines on through with these kind of deep and insightful posts.

 

[Avorysuds]

Big government? The Fed wasn't and isn't part of "big government"...but anyway....

Who said I dismiss the Feds role in helping cause the depression? That doesn't mean the federal government is incapable of improving the situation - as they did.

Wow, no need to talk to this 1 anymore.

That really makes your point stand out! Your unmatched knowledge just shines on through with these kind of deep and insightful posts.

I like that you toss out that *everyone else* is trying to claim they are the most intellectual person on the boards if not on the planet, you should stop. I could just as easily claim that your undeniable courage to stand up for truth due to your obvious intellectual superiority is all just our dumb luck to whiteness...

 

[8537]

Wow, no need to talk to this 1 anymore.

That really makes your point stand out! Your unmatched knowledge just shines on through with these kind of deep and insightful posts.

I like that you toss out that *everyone else* is trying to claim they are the most intellectual person on the boards if not on the planet,

I didn't say "Everyone else". Only the ones attempting to be witty and displaying their own ignorance. Perhaps you could address the topic at hand instead of passing senseless missives as debate.

 

[Avorysuds]

That really makes your point stand out! Your unmatched knowledge just shines on through with these kind of deep and insightful posts.

I like that you toss out that *everyone else* is trying to claim they are the most intellectual person on the boards if not on the planet,

I didn't say "Everyone else". Only the ones attempting to be witty and displaying their own ignorance. Perhaps you could address the topic at hand instead of passing senseless missives as debate.

I have addressed the OP. My "everyone else" remark was that it seems almost everyone you do not agree with seems to fit under that childish attack of yours. Many people do not accept your version of history because of very basic flawed arguments you have put up, like The Fed Reserve is not directly linked and part of "Big Government."

FDR’s policies might have taken the country through a phase of "getting better," but in the end it was still considered incredibly horrible at best. If the war did not suck up and kill so many of the unemployed/poor the Great Depression could have gone for many more years.

 

[asterism]

Note the term available in my question. Just because someone makes more money and has more assets than another does not mean that he has more protection guaranteed by government.

Of course he does. People with more assets have more to protect - try telling your homeowners insurer that you want to pay the same rates as the guy down the street in a half-abandoned mobile home.

By that logic I should be entitled to priority service then.

I'll entertain your insurance model when the government prioritizes my requests accordingly. When I call 911, statistically I should be first in line. Your thoughts?

 

[8537]

I have addressed the OP. My "everyone else" remark was that it seems almost everyone you do not agree with seems to fit under that childish attack of yours.

Well, let's review the deep and thoughtful comments I was responding to:

Wow, no need to talk to this 1 anymore.

And by this comment you reflect you lack of understanding of the cronyist nature of the Federal Reserve and its de facto status as a fourth branch of government.

You poor naive little boobie.

hmm...it seems that the level of discussion was not pushed off the cliff by me.

Many people do not accept your version of history because of very basic flawed arguments you have put up, like The Fed Reserve is not directly linked and part of "Big Government."

I never said the Fed is not directly linked to the government - I said it's not part of the government. That's because it's not part of the government - it's a privately held entity.

FDR’s policies might have taken the country through a phase of "getting better," but in the end it was still considered incredibly horrible at best. If the war did not suck up and kill so many of the unemployed/poor the Great Depression could have gone for many more years.

Indeed, the economy still sucked in 1937. However, it was about 25% larger than it was when he took office, banks were no longer failing and fully 30% of those that were unemployed in 1933 were working in 1937. The boost to effective demand was helpful, but nothign compared to the fiscal stimulus created by going to war a few years later.

 

[8537]

Note the term available in my question. Just because someone makes more money and has more assets than another does not mean that he has more protection guaranteed by government.

Of course he does. People with more assets have more to protect - try telling your homeowners insurer that you want to pay the same rates as the guy down the street in a half-abandoned mobile home.

By that logic I should be entitled to priority service then.

I'll entertain your insurance model when the government prioritizes my requests accordingly. When I call 911, statistically I should be first in line. Your thoughts?

my thoughts? if your neighborhood is an upper income neighborhood, you DO have priority when you call 911.

 

[Avorysuds]

I have addressed the OP. My "everyone else" remark was that it seems almost everyone you do not agree with seems to fit under that childish attack of yours.

Well, let's review the deep and thoughtful comments I was responding to:

Wow, no need to talk to this 1 anymore.

hmm...it seems that the level of discussion was not pushed off the cliff by me.

Many people do not accept your version of history because of very basic flawed arguments you have put up, like The Fed Reserve is not directly linked and part of "Big Government."

I never said the Fed is not directly linked to the government - I said it's not part of the government. That's because it's not part of the government - it's a privately held entity.

FDR’s policies might have taken the country through a phase of "getting better," but in the end it was still considered incredibly horrible at best. If the war did not suck up and kill so many of the unemployed/poor the Great Depression could have gone for many more years.

Indeed, the economy still sucked in 1937. However, it was about 25% larger than it was when he took office, banks were no longer failing and fully 30% of those that were unemployed in 1933 were working in 1937. The boost to effective demand was helpful, but nothign compared to the fiscal stimulus created by going to war a few years later.

Again, your version of history is FDR was good because things were not as bad as they could possibly be... VS that against Harding/Coolidge and you seem to only want to believe that giant overbearing Government = awesome despite not at any point (even today) have these policies done well...

To me, you sound partisan. Credit of the economy doing truly amazing measured on any level during the 20's becomes magically attributed to, nothing? While FDR ran the country into the ground for near 12 years after continuing many of Hoovers "big Government" plans and you simply do what, blame everyone else?

FDR, and even Bush/Obama have all adopted the idea of Government>all... None of these presidents have done anything but had a failing economy. Even Bush with the housing boom managed only slowly erode the economy, it was inevitable under his policies, that’s why we see it getting worse with Obama forcing a even more “liberal” policy that was spun off Bush’s, much like we saw FDR do with Hoover’s policies.

What would you like to bet that things are just as bad if not worse by the end of Obama’s first term, unless he redirects his focus and shrinks Government, like Harding did.

 

[8537]

[

Again, your version of history is FDR was good because things were not as bad as they could possibly be... VS that against Harding/Coolidge and you seem to only want to believe that giant overbearing Government = awesome despite not at any point (even today) have these policies done well...

Coolidge's economy was vastly superior to that of FDR's. FDR's policies within month of taking office halted bank panics - we went from 3000+ bank failures in the year previous to 7 the year after the bill passed. That single step brought investment back to the market and stabilized credit for businesses. In the next four years, the economy grew at record pace. Of course it didn't dig out from a loss of 45% of GDP, but it certainly improved rather dramatically.

To me, you sound partisan. Credit of the economy doing truly amazing measured on any level during the 20's becomes magically attributed to, nothing?

Ah, no. The economy of the 20's did fairly well due to an expansion in manufacturing, an increase in demand due to rebuilding Europe, a credit bubble and a rising and more powerful middle class.

While FDR ran the country into the ground for near 12 years after continuing many of Hoovers "big Government" plans and you simply do what, blame everyone else?

Run into the ground? Record GDP growth is now called "running into the ground"? Anyone who claims the fastest four year stretch of growth is "running into the ground" might be considered a bit...partisan.

What would you like to bet that things are just as bad if not worse by the end of Obama’s first term, unless he redirects his focus and shrinks Government, like Harding did.

THis Harding claim is interesting. Harding cut taxes in 1923. Is that the tax cut that you claim solved the recession that ended in 1921?

 

[asterism]

Of course he does. People with more assets have more to protect - try telling your homeowners insurer that you want to pay the same rates as the guy down the street in a half-abandoned mobile home.

By that logic I should be entitled to priority service then.

I'll entertain your insurance model when the government prioritizes my requests accordingly. When I call 911, statistically I should be first in line. Your thoughts?

my thoughts? if your neighborhood is an upper income neighborhood, you DO have priority when you call 911.

False, and you cannot show a policy that exists to the contrary. That would be a violation of the 14th Amendment.

When I lived in Sandy Springs, GA (look it up) that was one of our major grievances. We were disproportionately taxed for unequal protection. That's what started the drive for incorporation, to the chagrin of Fulton County.

Now, onto the insurance model: insurance premiums are not set based on the value of the asset being protected, they are set based on the liability due if an event dictates a payment. I pay one rate for replacement cost of a new car and a much lower rate just to "protect the asset" of a much older but more valuable car. The insurance company will pay to fix it up to a certain limit and will cover my liability to others, but since they have no obligation to replace it they do not charge nearly the same premium.

Specific obligation correlates to price of premium, not the value of that which is being protected.

So what is the government's additional obligation in protecting the land and my house compared to those in areas not as valuable? None.

 

[Avorysuds]

[

Again, your version of history is FDR was good because things were not as bad as they could possibly be... VS that against Harding/Coolidge and you seem to only want to believe that giant overbearing Government = awesome despite not at any point (even today) have these policies done well...

Coolidge's economy was vastly superior to that of FDR's. FDR's policies within month of taking office halted bank panics - we went from 3000+ bank failures in the year previous to 7 the year after the bill passed. That single step brought investment back to the market and stabilized credit for businesses. In the next four years, the economy grew at record pace. Of course it didn't dig out from a loss of 45% of GDP, but it certainly improved rather dramatically.

To me, you sound partisan. Credit of the economy doing truly amazing measured on any level during the 20's becomes magically attributed to, nothing?

Ah, no. The economy of the 20's did fairly well due to an expansion in manufacturing, an increase in demand due to rebuilding Europe, a credit bubble and a rising and more powerful middle class.

While FDR ran the country into the ground for near 12 years after continuing many of Hoovers "big Government" plans and you simply do what, blame everyone else?

Run into the ground? Record GDP growth is now called "running into the ground"? Anyone who claims the fastest four year stretch of growth is "running into the ground" might be considered a bit...partisan.

What would you like to bet that things are just as bad if not worse by the end of Obama’s first term, unless he redirects his focus and shrinks Government, like Harding did.

THis Harding claim is interesting. Harding cut taxes in 1923. Is that the tax cut that you claim solved the recession that ended in 1921?

First, the bolded text. See, you managed to totally avoid giving credit to Harding/Coolidge but when it came to the Depression you instantly proclaim that FDR had record GDP growth and saved the banks from failing…

I see it as instead of Government intervention during Harding we see a halt, then a decline in Governments role in people’s lives. Do you see the MASSIVE difference between FDR and Harding’s policies? While no one policy put us in or got us out of a depression you don’t connect the dots that Government intrusion PROLONGED the depression while Harding’s avoidance to Governmental aide allowed the economy to sort itself out, and then grow.

Read this, it’s pretty quick to read. Not-So-Great Depression - Article - National Review Online

See, you keep saying Harding lowered taxes in 1923, but you don’t again seem to look at the Government cut in spending Harding did, and also that he was pushing for tax cuts so hard. People that employee others invest and hire people when they see that happening. Under FDR just the opposite happened, if the Government was not employing so many people the unemployment rate would have been much higher, again like we see today under Obama.

 

[Avorysuds]

8537. I have to add this. Under FDR the US was not on it's way out of the Great Depression. It was not until WWII that sucked up and KILLED most the unemployed did unemployment really drop, and by drop I mean in the privet sector.

Take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan today. If Obama actually pulled out of Iraq and didn't leave 50k troops (heh) while expanding the Afghan war, what would happen to unemployment? Just like under FDR... Obama and FDR depend on the war employing and killing the poor.

Now sir, image if Harding had a war to kill off and employe his unemployed and poor at the same time as doing his policies... Harding could have brought the unemployment down to less than 1% easy, being he was already close.


Now, image

 

[8537]

First, the bolded text. See, you managed to totally avoid giving credit to Harding/Coolidge but when it came to the Depression you instantly proclaim that FDR had record GDP growth and saved the banks from failing…

What do you believe Hardinng and Coolidge did to create the economy of the 1920's? It is very rare that a president deserves much credit or blame for the economy.

I see it as instead of Government intervention during Harding we see a halt, then a decline in Governments role in people’s lives. Do you see the MASSIVE difference between FDR and Harding’s policies?

Well, yes, I see a policy difference there - though cutting the top marginal rate by 1 point isn't exactly a "decline in government in people's lives".

While no one policy put us in or got us out of a depression you don’t connect the dots that Government intrusion PROLONGED the depression while Harding’s avoidance to Governmental aide allowed the economy to sort itself out, and then grow.

That's because I don't believe the premise. Let's try this one more time, because you keep avoiding it: Between 1933 and 1937, the economy GREW at record pace. in other words, after FDR implemented the Bank act and other reforms, private sector GROWTH of the economy began at record pace. The economy grew more in that four years than during just about any time before or since. It GREW. The Depression wasn't a singular downfall. It was too very distinct recessions with an intervening period of significant growth.

See, you keep saying Harding lowered taxes in 1923, but you don’t again seem to look at the Government cut in spending Harding did, and also that he was pushing for tax cuts so hard.

The 1920/1 recession ended within months of Harding taking office. if you want to point to policies he put in place during those first few months that caused the end of the recession (except those related to rebuilding Europe, which are just modified Keynesian policies with which you almost certainly must disagree)

People that employee others invest and hire people when they see that happening. Under FDR just the opposite happened,

Well, except that's not true. The data is available, you know? You can't just make shit up or accept what you heard on the radio. Private sector employment increased dramatically during the 33-37 expansion. The expansion was broad based, from services to manufacturing to government.

 

[8537]

8537. I have to add this. Under FDR the US was not on it's way out of the Great Depression.

yes, you and others have repeated that ad nauseum. Unfortunately, it doesn't become true through repeated repetition.

It was not until WWII that sucked up and KILLED most the unemployed did unemployment really drop, and by drop I mean in the privet sector.

The US "only" lost 387,000 people. That's not exactly "most" of the unemployed". World War 2 helped end the second recession of the 1930's because it was a gigantic, massive intrusion of government into spending and deficits. I'm glad you believe the war ended the Depression, because it nicely proves my point: Government-sponsored increases in aggregate demand encourage by deficits during a recession can help mitigate and end the effects of that recession.

 

[Bern80]

No, were way too far in the hole to rely on some failed economic theory of the past. It's time to cut spending and raise taxes.

It's time for some sacrifice and pain.

Don't you get it? Taxes are like crack to politicians. Do you give an addict more crack in the hopes that they'll get their problem under control? Of Course not. Why the fuck does government NEED more money? On top of that taking away the incentives to be successful is just plain stupid economic reasoning.

To discharge this massive national debt we've accumulated.

That's Washington's problem. They have no right to pass the buck on to John Q. Taxpayer for their innefficiency. You're just letting them off the hook.