Choose: Prosperity vs Redistribution

[PoliticalChic]

6. “The High Tide of American Conservatism: Davis, Coolidge, and the 1924 Election," by Garland Tucker… in the presidential election of 1924, both major political parties nominated a bona fide conservative candidate, Democrat John W. Davis and Republican Calvin Coolidge. Both were exemplary servants who articulately expounded a similar philosophy of limited government and maximum individual freedom; and the Twenties were in many ways a Golden Age for conservative governance.

1. Both men revered Jefferson’s philosophy of limited government and individual freedom (and, coincidentally, Davis was born on Jefferson's birthday and Coolidge was born on the Fourth of July)

b. The enduring consequence of the election of 1924 was the philosophical divergence of the two parties -- Democrats leftward and Republicans rightward.

c. Both became successful lawyers; Davis tried 140 cases before the US Supreme Court, a record at that time. Both possessed unimpeachable integrity. Both became gentlemen's gentlemen; both became lawyer's lawyers. Both were Jeffersonian conservatives: like our Founding Fathers, less was more when it came to government.

d. He quotes Paul Rubin: "We now know that FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression because the economy never fully recovered in the 1930s, and actually got worse in the latter half of the decade."

And then, quotes Paul Johnson: "Coolidge Prosperity was huge, real, widespread and it showed that the concept of a property-owning democracy could be realized."

John Davis returned to a law practice, after losing the 1924 Election, and, as a true conservative, broke with FDR, who led the Democrat Party away from conservatism, to the extreme left. Calvin Coolidge returned to private life after the White House. The Coolidge legacy is important; but few historians have acknowledged it. It would not be until the 1970s, that the Coolidge economic prosperity was re-examined.


The prosperity was not built on stock speculation but on his tax cuts. Ronald Regan would discover the clue to the boom during the Coolidge years, and duplicate his economic policies.




7. And these are the truths we are left with....

"Coolidge Prosperity was huge, real, widespread..."
"FDR's policies likely prolonged the Great Depression"


So....why is Coolidge hidden in the back pages of history and Roosevelt idolized?

Because Liberals own and operate the schools and the media.




Happy birthday to 'Silent Cal.'

 

[Mac1958]

 

[PoliticalChic]

I will certainly fill in large gaps you may have in perspectives of Calvin Coolidge, versus that of Franklin Roosevelt, as representatives of Republican vs Democrat.

I'm sure you'll spew on for pages.

But the fact is, look at all the things named after FDR, and then look at all the things NOT named after Calvin Coolidge.

No one considers Coolidge to be a great president or even a good one.

Fact not in evidence.

The Mail-Order Bride from Hell babbles again.

Post #21 is the lesson you've been begging for.


You should take notes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And your point is that you refuse to learn??

Got it.

 

[Mac1958]

And your point is that you refuse to learn??

Got it.

My point is that you're a coward who doesn't have the nerve to answer a direct question.

But you can run with your point if you'd like.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And your point is that you refuse to learn??

Got it.

My point is that you're a coward who doesn't have the nerve to answer a direct question.

But you can run with your point if you'd like.
.

You don't like 'fence sitter'???

How about 'Yellow Line'???

 

[Mac1958]

And your point is that you refuse to learn??

Got it.

My point is that you're a coward who doesn't have the nerve to answer a direct question.

But you can run with your point if you'd like.
.

You don't like 'fence sitter'???

How about 'Yellow Line'???

Whatever name-calling that works for you is fine with me.

That doesn't change the fact that you keep avoiding my direct question.

Do you really think it's not obvious?

Who knows. Maybe you do.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And your point is that you refuse to learn??

Got it.

My point is that you're a coward who doesn't have the nerve to answer a direct question.

But you can run with your point if you'd like.
.

You don't like 'fence sitter'???

How about 'Yellow Line'???

Whatever name-calling that works for you is fine with me.

That doesn't change the fact that you keep avoiding my direct question.

Do you really think it's not obvious?

Who knows. Maybe you do.
.

1. A marked difference between Republicans and Democrats is how they view economics.
Democrats regularly reinvent communist principles of coercion, taxation and the material equality, while Republicans favor prosperity and individualism.

"The Left has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world."
Dennis Prager



2. With the above in mind, we should compare the Republican, Calvin Coolidge, whose birthday is this very day, July 4th, 1878, the man who led us into the 'Roaring Twenties'

a. 'After the depression [1920-1921] the United States proceeded to enjoy the “Roaring Twenties,” arguably the most prosperous decade in the country’s history. Some of this prosperity was illusory—itself the result of subsequent Fed inflation—but nonetheless the 1920–1921 depression “purged the rottenness out of the system” and provided a solid framework for sustainable growth."

The conclusion seems obvious to anyone whose mind is not firmly locked into the Keynesian or monetarist framework: The free market works."
The Depression You’ve Never Heard Of: 1920-1921 | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty


b. "The 1920s were an age of dramatic social and political change. For the first time, more Americans lived in cities than on farms. The nation’s total wealth more than doubled between 1920 and 1929, and this economic growth swept many Americans into an affluent but unfamiliar “consumer society.” The Roaring Twenties - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

c. "The 1920s earned their moniker—the "Roaring Twenties"—through the decade's real and sustained prosperity, dizzying technological advancements, and lively culture. The decade marked the flourishing of the modern mass-production, mass-consumption economy, which delivered fantastic profits to investors while also raising the living standard of the urban middle- and working-class." Economy in The 1920s

d. "A tide of economic and social change swept across the country in the 1920s. Nicknames for the decade, such as “the Jazz Age” or “the Roaring Twenties,” convey something of the excitement and the changes in social conventions that were taking place at the time. As the economy boomed, wages rose for most Americans and prices fell, resulting in a higher standard of living and a dramatic increase in consumer consumption.... The American economy's phenomenal growth rate during the '20s...." A New Society: Economic & Social Change


A big 'ol happy birthday to Calvin Coolidge, Republican!!!



Compare that to the gloom that Franklin Roosevelt inflicted on the nation when he extended the recession into a decade long Great Depression.

 

[Toro]

PC, you aren't answering his question.

It's a reasonable one.

At what point does government taxation become "tyranny?" Is it 5% of incomes? 15%? 25%? 35%?

What is it?

 

[Mac1958]

PC, you aren't answering his question.

It's a reasonable one.

At what point does government taxation become "tyranny?" Is it 5% of incomes? 15%? 25%? 35%?

What is it?

Good luck!
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you aren't answering his question.

It's a reasonable one.

At what point does government taxation become "tyranny?" Is it 5% of incomes? 15%? 25%? 35%?

What is it?

Was there anything in my posts....

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt

....that you'd like to discuss?

 

[Toro]

PC, you aren't answering his question.

It's a reasonable one.

At what point does government taxation become "tyranny?" Is it 5% of incomes? 15%? 25%? 35%?

What is it?

Was there anything in my posts....

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt

....that you'd like to discuss?

Yes, I'd like to discuss.

I'd like to know at what level does government taxation and spending become tyranny.

What do you think?

 

[Mac1958]

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you aren't answering his question.

It's a reasonable one.

At what point does government taxation become "tyranny?" Is it 5% of incomes? 15%? 25%? 35%?

What is it?

Was there anything in my posts....

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt

....that you'd like to discuss?

Yes, I'd like to discuss.

I'd like to know at what level does government taxation and spending become tyranny.

What do you think?

How about we stick to the reason for this thread.

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt


If you're more interested in beginning a thread on some other topic....please, don't let me stop you.


If not, I'll assume that my posts convinced you that the truth about the two Presidents that were the subject of the posts has been hidden in one case and burnished in the other.

 

[Toro]

PC, you aren't answering his question.

It's a reasonable one.

At what point does government taxation become "tyranny?" Is it 5% of incomes? 15%? 25%? 35%?

What is it?

Was there anything in my posts....

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt

....that you'd like to discuss?

Yes, I'd like to discuss.

I'd like to know at what level does government taxation and spending become tyranny.

What do you think?

How about we stick to the reason for this thread.

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt


If you're more interested in beginning a thread on some other topic....please, don't let me stop you.


If not, I'll assume that my posts convinced you that the truth about the two Presidents that were the subject of the posts has been hidden in one case and burnished in the other.

You see, I have a degree in economics, including taking an honours course in economic history. I've studied that era. My thesis for that class was on the post-war period. To understand the post-war period, you had to understand what happened in the inter-war period. And it's not as clear-cut as you make it, since all you ever do is link to sites that are highly ideologically biased that have an ideological axe to grind.

The boom of the 1920s eventually led to the Depression. The latter half of the 1920s was as false of an economy as the last years of the 1990s or the last few years under Bush in the 2000s, since they were all driven by bubble economies. You present a false dichotomy by holding up the 1920s to the 1930s, just like holding up the economy under Clinton in the 1990s was better than it was under Bush in the 2000s, and thus concluding that the economy under Democrats is better than under Republicans.

Educated and knowledgeable people understand this. You present a straw man.

And FTR, a free market, capitalist economy is better than a centrally-planned economy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you aren't answering his question.

It's a reasonable one.

At what point does government taxation become "tyranny?" Is it 5% of incomes? 15%? 25%? 35%?

What is it?

Was there anything in my posts....

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt

....that you'd like to discuss?

Yes, I'd like to discuss.

I'd like to know at what level does government taxation and spending become tyranny.

What do you think?

How about we stick to the reason for this thread.

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt


If you're more interested in beginning a thread on some other topic....please, don't let me stop you.


If not, I'll assume that my posts convinced you that the truth about the two Presidents that were the subject of the posts has been hidden in one case and burnished in the other.

You see, I have a degree in economics, including taking an honours course in economic history. I've studied that era. My thesis for that class was on the post-war period. To understand the post-war period, you had to understand what happened in the inter-war period. And it's not as clear-cut as you make it, since all you ever do is link to sites that are highly ideologically biased that have an ideological axe to grind.

The boom of the 1920s eventually led to the Depression. The latter half of the 1920s was as false of an economy as the last years of the 1990s or the last few years under Bush in the 2000s, since they were all driven by bubble economies. You present a false dichotomy by holding up the 1920s to the 1930s, just like holding up the economy under Clinton in the 1990s was better than it was under Bush in the 2000s.

Educated and knowledgeable people understand this.

"The boom of the 1920s eventually led to the Depression."

No it didn't.

This led to the Depression:

4. Franklin Roosevelt did his best to extend the economic downturn, and the only possible explanation is that he wanted a reason to obviate the Constitution. And he said as much.
But, here's the economic proof: he knew how to end the recession, swore to do so, and- once elected- did the very opposite:

The basis of FDR's 1932 campaign to win the presidency from Herbert Hoover was his emphatic promise to the suffering American people, that he would balance the budget. Of course, he also promised that he would use the government to create jobs, and that they "had a right to a comfortable living."
American Founders | The Heritage Foundation



5.The part about balancing the budget had a certain resonance as President Harding had veered sharply away from federal spending and solved as big a recession in about one year. Certainly Franklin Roosevelt knew this, as he hammered away at Hoover's spending. October 19, 1932, he nailed Hoover, observing that in recent years federal expenses had increased by $1 billion "and that I may add, is the most reckless and extravagant past that I have been able to discover in the statistical record of any peacetime Government anywhere, any time." Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


a. Roosevelt went further! The cause: "It arises from one cause only and that is the unbalanced budget at he continued failure of this administration to take effective steps to balance it! If that budget had been fully and honestly balanced in 1930, some of the 1931 troubles would have been avoided. Even if it had been balanced in 1931, much of the extreme dip in 1932 would have been obviated. Every financial man in the country knows why this is true."
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


b. And this: "... carrying out the plain precept of our Party, which is to reduce the cost of current Federal Government operations by 25 percent." Ibid.



Guess what he did?

Roosevelt expanded the federal government and ran up deficits much greater than those of Hoover.
Notice that I quoted FDR's actual promises, and his words.



Soooo, as I stated:
Coolidge and the Republicans.....prosperity

Roosevelt and the Democrats......equalized poverty.





Here's your problem:
The more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise an individual is.

Your misguided study of the economics of the Roosevelt era is the reason I am forced to provide threads such as this one.

 

[Toro]

PC, you aren't answering his question.

It's a reasonable one.

At what point does government taxation become "tyranny?" Is it 5% of incomes? 15%? 25%? 35%?

What is it?

Was there anything in my posts....

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt

....that you'd like to discuss?

Yes, I'd like to discuss.

I'd like to know at what level does government taxation and spending become tyranny.

What do you think?

How about we stick to the reason for this thread.

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt


If you're more interested in beginning a thread on some other topic....please, don't let me stop you.


If not, I'll assume that my posts convinced you that the truth about the two Presidents that were the subject of the posts has been hidden in one case and burnished in the other.

You see, I have a degree in economics, including taking an honours course in economic history. I've studied that era. My thesis for that class was on the post-war period. To understand the post-war period, you had to understand what happened in the inter-war period. And it's not as clear-cut as you make it, since all you ever do is link to sites that are highly ideologically biased that have an ideological axe to grind.

The boom of the 1920s eventually led to the Depression. The latter half of the 1920s was as false of an economy as the last years of the 1990s or the last few years under Bush in the 2000s, since they were all driven by bubble economies. You present a false dichotomy by holding up the 1920s to the 1930s, just like holding up the economy under Clinton in the 1990s was better than it was under Bush in the 2000s.

Educated and knowledgeable people understand this.

"The boom of the 1920s eventually led to the Depression."

No it didn't.

This led to the Depression:

4. Franklin Roosevelt did his best to extend the economic downturn, and the only possible explanation is that he wanted a reason to obviate the Constitution. And he said as much.
But, here's the economic proof: he knew how to end the recession, swore to do so, and- once elected- did the very opposite:

The basis of FDR's 1932 campaign to win the presidency from Herbert Hoover was his emphatic promise to the suffering American people, that he would balance the budget. Of course, he also promised that he would use the government to create jobs, and that they "had a right to a comfortable living."
American Founders | The Heritage Foundation



5.The part about balancing the budget had a certain resonance as President Harding had veered sharply away from federal spending and solved as big a recession in about one year. Certainly Franklin Roosevelt knew this, as he hammered away at Hoover's spending. October 19, 1932, he nailed Hoover, observing that in recent years federal expenses had increased by $1 billion "and that I may add, is the most reckless and extravagant past that I have been able to discover in the statistical record of any peacetime Government anywhere, any time." Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


a. Roosevelt went further! The cause: "It arises from one cause only and that is the unbalanced budget at he continued failure of this administration to take effective steps to balance it! If that budget had been fully and honestly balanced in 1930, some of the 1931 troubles would have been avoided. Even if it had been balanced in 1931, much of the extreme dip in 1932 would have been obviated. Every financial man in the country knows why this is true."
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


b. And this: "... carrying out the plain precept of our Party, which is to reduce the cost of current Federal Government operations by 25 percent." Ibid.



Guess what he did?

Roosevelt expanded the federal government and ran up deficits much greater than those of Hoover.
Notice that I quoted FDR's actual promises, and his words.



Soooo, as I stated:
Coolidge and the Republicans.....prosperity

Roosevelt and the Democrats......equalized poverty.





Here's your problem:
The more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise an individual is.

Your misguided study of the economics of the Roosevelt era is the reason I am forced to provide threads such as this one.

You are simply regurgitating highly partisan and ideological platitudes that are not based on empiricism and are worthy only of an anti-intellectual message board.

The decline in production began in August 1929 and ended in March 1933, the month FDR was sworn in.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

You might be able to make the argument that FDR's policies retarded the recovery, but to say FDR caused the Depression when the economy began to expand during the month he was sworn in is very silly.

You are not making a serious argument. Clearly, you are making a highly ideological and partisan argument that is not based on empirical fact. No amount of C&Ping in the absence of thought changes this.

Sorry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Was there anything in my posts....

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt

....that you'd like to discuss?

Yes, I'd like to discuss.

I'd like to know at what level does government taxation and spending become tyranny.

What do you think?

How about we stick to the reason for this thread.

prosperity vs redistribution

Republicans vs Democrats

Coolidge vs Roosevelt


If you're more interested in beginning a thread on some other topic....please, don't let me stop you.


If not, I'll assume that my posts convinced you that the truth about the two Presidents that were the subject of the posts has been hidden in one case and burnished in the other.

You see, I have a degree in economics, including taking an honours course in economic history. I've studied that era. My thesis for that class was on the post-war period. To understand the post-war period, you had to understand what happened in the inter-war period. And it's not as clear-cut as you make it, since all you ever do is link to sites that are highly ideologically biased that have an ideological axe to grind.

The boom of the 1920s eventually led to the Depression. The latter half of the 1920s was as false of an economy as the last years of the 1990s or the last few years under Bush in the 2000s, since they were all driven by bubble economies. You present a false dichotomy by holding up the 1920s to the 1930s, just like holding up the economy under Clinton in the 1990s was better than it was under Bush in the 2000s.

Educated and knowledgeable people understand this.

"The boom of the 1920s eventually led to the Depression."

No it didn't.

This led to the Depression:

4. Franklin Roosevelt did his best to extend the economic downturn, and the only possible explanation is that he wanted a reason to obviate the Constitution. And he said as much.
But, here's the economic proof: he knew how to end the recession, swore to do so, and- once elected- did the very opposite:

The basis of FDR's 1932 campaign to win the presidency from Herbert Hoover was his emphatic promise to the suffering American people, that he would balance the budget. Of course, he also promised that he would use the government to create jobs, and that they "had a right to a comfortable living."
American Founders | The Heritage Foundation



5.The part about balancing the budget had a certain resonance as President Harding had veered sharply away from federal spending and solved as big a recession in about one year. Certainly Franklin Roosevelt knew this, as he hammered away at Hoover's spending. October 19, 1932, he nailed Hoover, observing that in recent years federal expenses had increased by $1 billion "and that I may add, is the most reckless and extravagant past that I have been able to discover in the statistical record of any peacetime Government anywhere, any time." Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


a. Roosevelt went further! The cause: "It arises from one cause only and that is the unbalanced budget at he continued failure of this administration to take effective steps to balance it! If that budget had been fully and honestly balanced in 1930, some of the 1931 troubles would have been avoided. Even if it had been balanced in 1931, much of the extreme dip in 1932 would have been obviated. Every financial man in the country knows why this is true."
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Campaign Address on the Federal Budget at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania


b. And this: "... carrying out the plain precept of our Party, which is to reduce the cost of current Federal Government operations by 25 percent." Ibid.



Guess what he did?

Roosevelt expanded the federal government and ran up deficits much greater than those of Hoover.
Notice that I quoted FDR's actual promises, and his words.



Soooo, as I stated:
Coolidge and the Republicans.....prosperity

Roosevelt and the Democrats......equalized poverty.





Here's your problem:
The more years in the university in the study of the social sciences, the less wise an individual is.

Your misguided study of the economics of the Roosevelt era is the reason I am forced to provide threads such as this one.

You are simply regurgitating highly partisan and ideological platitudes that are not based on empiricism and are worthy only of an anti-intellectual message board.

The decline in production began in August 1929 and ended in March 1933, the month FDR was sworn in.

http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

You might be able to make the argument that FDR's policies retarded the recovery, but to say FDR caused the Depression when the economy began to expand during the month he was sworn in is very silly.

You are not making a serious argument. Clearly, you are making a highly ideological and partisan argument that is not based on empirical fact. No amount of C&Ping in the absence of thought changes this.

Sorry.

"You are simply regurgitating highly partisan and ideological platitudes..."

Stop lying.

I thought you were smarter than this.

I quoted FDR's promises, and then, what he actually did.



You learned nothing in the economics program other than to give obeisance to the god, Roosevelt.



It certainly wasn't this that caused the Depression:

a. 'After the depression [1920-1921] the United States proceeded to enjoy the “Roaring Twenties,” arguably the most prosperous decade in the country’s history. Some of this prosperity was illusory—itself the result of subsequent Fed inflation—but nonetheless the 1920–1921 depression “purged the rottenness out of the system” and provided a solid framework for sustainable growth."

The conclusion seems obvious to anyone whose mind is not firmly locked into the Keynesian or monetarist framework: The free market works."
The Depression You’ve Never Heard Of: 1920-1921 | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty


b. "The 1920s were an age of dramatic social and political change. For the first time, more Americans lived in cities than on farms. The nation’s total wealth more than doubled between 1920 and 1929, and this economic growth swept many Americans into an affluent but unfamiliar “consumer society.” The Roaring Twenties - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

c. "The 1920s earned their moniker—the "Roaring Twenties"—through the decade's real and sustained prosperity, dizzying technological advancements, and lively culture. The decade marked the flourishing of the modern mass-production, mass-consumption economy, which delivered fantastic profits to investors while also raising the living standard of the urban middle- and working-class." Economy in The 1920s

d. "A tide of economic and social change swept across the country in the 1920s. Nicknames for the decade, such as “the Jazz Age” or “the Roaring Twenties,” convey something of the excitement and the changes in social conventions that were taking place at the time. As the economy boomed, wages rose for most Americans and prices fell, resulting in a higher standard of living and a dramatic increase in consumer consumption.... The American economy's phenomenal growth rate during the '20s...." A New Society: Economic & Social Change




It was Roosevelt and it was no accident.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you'd like me to prove that the authors of the economics texts you used were lying....I can certainly do so.

 

[regent]

So when the Great Depression hit why did the American people call on Democrats for help rather than Republicans, and why then did the people elect FDR four times in a row, and why is FDR rated America's greatest president?