Kurt Vonnegut on "Equality"

[JoeNormal]

So the Fed and Warren Gamaliel Harding weren't able to stop the boom and bust cycles by indirect means apparently. That's where the New Deal came in.

And effectively stopped all speculation bubbles, inflationary cycles, and recessions.

We have not had a single recession since the "New Deal" was imposed....

All bets are off since the republicans in the last 30 or 40 years have been ******* with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There was a reason that the American people overwhelmingly supported the New Deal. The suffering during the depression was intense and even before it, boom and bust cycles were frequent and turbulent. Life during the busts sucked big time for most people.

One thing most people did have back then however was a little patch of land they could subsist on. That's increasingly rare these days. What would most people do in a depression without assistance?

I find it humorous that modern day libertarians think they could somehow survive that scenario. What special skills or talents do you think you have that you could use to stand on your own two feet if society weren't there to provide most of what you need?

1. Where does the Constitution suggest that such
Got some more for ya,' Ab.....


" The suffering during the depression was intense and even before it, boom and bust cycles were frequent and turbulent. Life during the busts sucked big time for most people."

1. The attempt to mitigate 'boom or bust' cycles goes back to 1913...not 1932.
"Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to tame the business cycle ..."
Boom and Bust Banking: The Causes and Cures of the Great Recession


2. "America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt."
Not-So-Great Depression - Jim Powell - National Review Online

a. "Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.
As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm


And this:
FDR extended a recession and made it into "The Great Recession"

Don't believe me?

3.In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI



Now...aren't you glad to have come here for an education?

So the Fed and Warren Gamaliel Harding weren't able to stop the boom and bust cycles by indirect means apparently. That's where the New Deal came in.

1. Where does the Constitution suggest that such 'stopping of the boom and bust cycles' is authorized?

2. On what basis are you suggesting that 'stopping of the boom and bust cycles' is possible?


3. Why do you insist on proving that, for Liberals, whatever they find unsatisfying they can ban?


4. Have you ever read the Constitution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think article 1, section 8 pretty much spells it out. What would your proposed amendment say instead? Maybe use this as an exercise in constitutional law.

Are you saying that the above are part of the enumerated powers?

One of the few college level law courses I've ever taken clarified the notion that there are two types of laws that we live by - de jure and de facto. Enumerated powers are de jure law. The social contract is de facto.

If you write a nice letter, and include your series of posts in this thread, I feel certain you can get your money back.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So the Fed and Warren Gamaliel Harding weren't able to stop the boom and bust cycles by indirect means apparently. That's where the New Deal came in.

And effectively stopped all speculation bubbles, inflationary cycles, and recessions.

We have not had a single recession since the "New Deal" was imposed....

The sarcasm will be lost on the folks for whom it is intended.

 

[JoeNormal]

1. Where does the Constitution suggest that such
Got some more for ya,' Ab.....


" The suffering during the depression was intense and even before it, boom and bust cycles were frequent and turbulent. Life during the busts sucked big time for most people."

1. The attempt to mitigate 'boom or bust' cycles goes back to 1913...not 1932.
"Congress created the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to tame the business cycle ..."
Boom and Bust Banking: The Causes and Cures of the Great Recession


2. "America's greatest depression fighter was Warren Gamaliel Harding. An Ohio senator when he was elected president in 1920, he followed the much praised Woodrow Wilson— who had brought America into World War I, built up huge federal bureaucracies, imprisoned dissenters, and incurred $25 billion of debt."
Not-So-Great Depression - Jim Powell - National Review Online

a. "Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a "stimulus" plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, "We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation." In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.
As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America's economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding's free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women's rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history. Still, he is ranked as one of the worst presidents by many in academia's ivory tower
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/02/obama_should_channel_harding_n.htm


And this:
FDR extended a recession and made it into "The Great Recession"

Don't believe me?

3.In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.” The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI



Now...aren't you glad to have come here for an education?

So the Fed and Warren Gamaliel Harding weren't able to stop the boom and bust cycles by indirect means apparently. That's where the New Deal came in.

1. Where does the Constitution suggest that such 'stopping of the boom and bust cycles' is authorized?

2. On what basis are you suggesting that 'stopping of the boom and bust cycles' is possible?


3. Why do you insist on proving that, for Liberals, whatever they find unsatisfying they can ban?


4. Have you ever read the Constitution?

Yes, I've read the Constitution. That doesn't make me or you an expert in Constitutional law. Did you see my post about de jure vs. de facto?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So the Fed and Warren Gamaliel Harding weren't able to stop the boom and bust cycles by indirect means apparently. That's where the New Deal came in.

And effectively stopped all speculation bubbles, inflationary cycles, and recessions.

We have not had a single recession since the "New Deal" was imposed....

All bets are off since the republicans in the last 30 or 40 years have been ******* with it.

This makes all of it clear.

So, you are the "reliable Democrat voter.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

So the Fed and Warren Gamaliel Harding weren't able to stop the boom and bust cycles by indirect means apparently. That's where the New Deal came in.

1. Where does the Constitution suggest that such 'stopping of the boom and bust cycles' is authorized?

2. On what basis are you suggesting that 'stopping of the boom and bust cycles' is possible?


3. Why do you insist on proving that, for Liberals, whatever they find unsatisfying they can ban?


4. Have you ever read the Constitution?

Yes, I've read the Constitution. That doesn't make me or you an expert in Constitutional law. Did you see my post about de jure vs. de facto?

Although not an expert, I'm somewhere between you and expert.

 

[JoeNormal]

And effectively stopped all speculation bubbles, inflationary cycles, and recessions.

We have not had a single recession since the "New Deal" was imposed....

All bets are off since the republicans in the last 30 or 40 years have been ******* with it.

This makes all of it clear.

So, you are the "reliable Democrat voter.'

I usually register a protest vote with the Green party since I live in a state with reliably republican lemmings.

 

[Uncensored2008]

All bets are off since the republicans in the last 30 or 40 years have been ******* with it.

ROFL

Stupidity: The foundation of leftism.

"The New Deal" was a basic restructuring of the relationship between the people and the government. In many ways, it was a reversal of roles. Prior to the New Deal, government was a servant of the people, empowered to conduct a few tasks. National defense, a system of tort between states, and the conduct of foreign policy.

Roosevelt, as a Fabian, reversed this role. The New Deal made government the master, and the people a kept servant.

The claims of the New Deal are spurious at best. While embracing Keynesian philosophy was a central theme with the Roosevelt administration, the New Deal did not attempt to alter the business cycle on a persistent basis. Public works and stimulus spending were absolutely used, but as an immediate response, not as a means of altering the cycle. Further, they resoundingly failed. While WPA and other programs offered a lifeline to many Americans, they did virtually nothing to get the economy rolling. The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. Government spending may well have saved some Americans from starvation, but utterly failed to offer a return of investment.

The merits of welfare in tough economic times are a discussion of their own, but the claim that the New Deal altered the business cycle is laughably absurd.

 

[JoeNormal]

1. Where does the Constitution suggest that such 'stopping of the boom and bust cycles' is authorized?

2. On what basis are you suggesting that 'stopping of the boom and bust cycles' is possible?


3. Why do you insist on proving that, for Liberals, whatever they find unsatisfying they can ban?


4. Have you ever read the Constitution?

Yes, I've read the Constitution. That doesn't make me or you an expert in Constitutional law. Did you see my post about de jure vs. de facto?

Although not an expert, I'm somewhere between you and expert.

I guess the de jure/de facto thing must've gone over your head.

 

[boedicca]

All bets are off since the republicans in the last 30 or 40 years have been ******* with it.

ROFL

Stupidity: The foundation of leftism.

"The New Deal" was a basic restructuring of the relationship between the people and the government. In many ways, it was a reversal of roles. Prior to the New Deal, government was a servant of the people, empowered to conduct a few tasks. National defense, a system of tort between states, and the conduct of foreign policy.

Roosevelt, as a Fabian, reversed this role. The New Deal made government the master, and the people a kept servant.

The claims of the New Deal are spurious at best. While embracing Keynesian philosophy was a central theme with the Roosevelt administration, the New Deal did not attempt to alter the business cycle on a persistent basis. Public works and stimulus spending were absolutely used, but as an immediate response, not as a means of altering the cycle. Further, they resoundingly failed. While WPA and other programs offered a lifeline to many Americans, they did virtually nothing to get the economy rolling. The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. Government spending may well have saved some Americans from starvation, but utterly failed to offer a return of investment.

The merits of welfare in tough economic times are a discussion of their own, but the claim that the New Deal altered the business cycle is laughably absurd.

Well done!

 

[NYcarbineer]

All bets are off since the republicans in the last 30 or 40 years have been ******* with it.

ROFL

Stupidity: The foundation of leftism.

"The New Deal" was a basic restructuring of the relationship between the people and the government. In many ways, it was a reversal of roles. Prior to the New Deal, government was a servant of the people, empowered to conduct a few tasks. National defense, a system of tort between states, and the conduct of foreign policy.

Roosevelt, as a Fabian, reversed this role. The New Deal made government the master, and the people a kept servant.

The claims of the New Deal are spurious at best. While embracing Keynesian philosophy was a central theme with the Roosevelt administration, the New Deal did not attempt to alter the business cycle on a persistent basis. Public works and stimulus spending were absolutely used, but as an immediate response, not as a means of altering the cycle. Further, they resoundingly failed. While WPA and other programs offered a lifeline to many Americans, they did virtually nothing to get the economy rolling. The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. Government spending may well have saved some Americans from starvation, but utterly failed to offer a return of investment.

The merits of welfare in tough economic times are a discussion of their own, but the claim that the New Deal altered the business cycle is laughably absurd.

What amazing rubbish!!!! lol you never fail to produce.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What amazing rubbish!!!! lol you never fail to produce.

What a well thought out response.

No wonder you're a Bolshevik....

 

[JoeNormal]

All bets are off since the republicans in the last 30 or 40 years have been ******* with it.

ROFL

Stupidity: The foundation of leftism.

"The New Deal" was a basic restructuring of the relationship between the people and the government. In many ways, it was a reversal of roles. Prior to the New Deal, government was a servant of the people, empowered to conduct a few tasks. National defense, a system of tort between states, and the conduct of foreign policy.

Roosevelt, as a Fabian, reversed this role. The New Deal made government the master, and the people a kept servant.

The claims of the New Deal are spurious at best. While embracing Keynesian philosophy was a central theme with the Roosevelt administration, the New Deal did not attempt to alter the business cycle on a persistent basis. Public works and stimulus spending were absolutely used, but as an immediate response, not as a means of altering the cycle. Further, they resoundingly failed. While WPA and other programs offered a lifeline to many Americans, they did virtually nothing to get the economy rolling. The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. Government spending may well have saved some Americans from starvation, but utterly failed to offer a return of investment.

The merits of welfare in tough economic times are a discussion of their own, but the claim that the New Deal altered the business cycle is laughably absurd.

The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. WTF are you talking about? WWII could be seen as the largest scale example of Keynesian theory ever practiced and it created decades worth of expansion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yes, I've read the Constitution. That doesn't make me or you an expert in Constitutional law. Did you see my post about de jure vs. de facto?

Although not an expert, I'm somewhere between you and expert.

I guess the de jure/de facto thing must've gone over your head.

You poor sad thing.

We have a Constitution.
It is called the 'law of the land' for a reason.

When folks break the law of the land, no matter the rationalization that you see fit to insert, it is not to be praised.
It is to be abjured.


It seems that you avoid learning like a blonde avoids showers at the Bates Motel

 

[boedicca]

All bets are off since the republicans in the last 30 or 40 years have been ******* with it.

ROFL

Stupidity: The foundation of leftism.

"The New Deal" was a basic restructuring of the relationship between the people and the government. In many ways, it was a reversal of roles. Prior to the New Deal, government was a servant of the people, empowered to conduct a few tasks. National defense, a system of tort between states, and the conduct of foreign policy.

Roosevelt, as a Fabian, reversed this role. The New Deal made government the master, and the people a kept servant.

The claims of the New Deal are spurious at best. While embracing Keynesian philosophy was a central theme with the Roosevelt administration, the New Deal did not attempt to alter the business cycle on a persistent basis. Public works and stimulus spending were absolutely used, but as an immediate response, not as a means of altering the cycle. Further, they resoundingly failed. While WPA and other programs offered a lifeline to many Americans, they did virtually nothing to get the economy rolling. The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. Government spending may well have saved some Americans from starvation, but utterly failed to offer a return of investment.

The merits of welfare in tough economic times are a discussion of their own, but the claim that the New Deal altered the business cycle is laughably absurd.

The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. WTF are you talking about? WWII could be seen as the largest scale example of Keynesian theory ever practiced and it created decades worth of expansion.

Your economic and historical illiteracy is showing.

FDR was worried, for good reason, that the country would fall back into a recession or depression after the war time spending bulge was done, and was planning more government spending and taxes to continue his big government putsch.

When he died, Truman proposed increased spending, but the Democrat Controlled Congress refused, and CUT TAXES instead. It was yeas of austerity and pent up demand, combined with a great deal of available labor and decreased tax burdens which led to prosperity. The last important aspect is that There Was No Global Competition. The rest of the developed world was largely in ruins. The U.S. productive capacity was basically the only game in town.

 

[JoeNormal]

Although not an expert, I'm somewhere between you and expert.

I guess the de jure/de facto thing must've gone over your head.

You poor sad thing.

We have a Constitution.
It is called the 'law of the land' for a reason.

When folks break the law of the land, no matter the rationalization that you see fit to insert, it is not to be praised.
It is to be abjured.


It seems that you avoid learning like a blonde avoids showers at the Bates Motel

Yes, I know how compelling the black/white, either/or, good/bad modes of thought are to cons. So tell me why you think you're more of a legal expert than I am.

 

[Trajan]

Today's left encourages those who aren't living a healthy lifestyle to change their diet and to exercise regularly.

Harrison Bergeron is physically weighted down because of his great physique.

Today's left encourages making education more accessible and affordable to everyone.

Harrison Bergeron is a super intelligent person who constantly gets his ears severely rung to keep him from thinking.

Not quite true. The left mandates diet without regard to individual needs and requirements. The allotment is the same for the weightlifter as it is for the chess player.

The education is the lowest and basest form of instruction formed out of a need for mediocrity.

Nowhere is Kurt Vonnegut's vision more true than in schools where everyone gets the same award, there are no winners or losers. Birthdays are forbidden because not everyone was born on the same day. Holidays are discouraged because no day is any better than any other.

We're closer to Vonnegut's satire now than at any other time.

Yet double lunch is available to those who want more and a student doesn't have to eat school lunch if they have special needs. Brown bags aren't banned.
Honor rolls are still posted.
Students still receive a class rank.
Aspiring student athletes don't make the varsity team every year.
Championships in all high school sports are won each year.
And on and on and on.

.

Hummm, funny that, to me that this is even a question or has to 're-affirmed ' eh?

 

[JoeNormal]

ROFL

Stupidity: The foundation of leftism.

"The New Deal" was a basic restructuring of the relationship between the people and the government. In many ways, it was a reversal of roles. Prior to the New Deal, government was a servant of the people, empowered to conduct a few tasks. National defense, a system of tort between states, and the conduct of foreign policy.

Roosevelt, as a Fabian, reversed this role. The New Deal made government the master, and the people a kept servant.

The claims of the New Deal are spurious at best. While embracing Keynesian philosophy was a central theme with the Roosevelt administration, the New Deal did not attempt to alter the business cycle on a persistent basis. Public works and stimulus spending were absolutely used, but as an immediate response, not as a means of altering the cycle. Further, they resoundingly failed. While WPA and other programs offered a lifeline to many Americans, they did virtually nothing to get the economy rolling. The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. Government spending may well have saved some Americans from starvation, but utterly failed to offer a return of investment.

The merits of welfare in tough economic times are a discussion of their own, but the claim that the New Deal altered the business cycle is laughably absurd.

The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. WTF are you talking about? WWII could be seen as the largest scale example of Keynesian theory ever practiced and it created decades worth of expansion.

Your economic and historical illiteracy is showing.

FDR was worried, for good reason, that the country would fall back into a recession or depression after the war time spending bulge was done, and was planning more government spending and taxes to continue his big government putsch.

When he died, Truman proposed increased spending, but the Democrat Controlled Congress refused, and CUT TAXES instead. It was yeas of austerity and pent up demand, combined with a great deal of available labor and decreased tax burdens which led to prosperity. The last important aspect is that There Was No Global Competition. The rest of the developed world was largely in ruins. The U.S. productive capacity was basically the only game in town.

Uh huh. And these 'tax cuts' resulted in a top income tax bracket of 91%? What were they before?

 

[Trajan]

All bets are off since the republicans in the last 30 or 40 years have been ******* with it.

ROFL

Stupidity: The foundation of leftism.

"The New Deal" was a basic restructuring of the relationship between the people and the government. In many ways, it was a reversal of roles. Prior to the New Deal, government was a servant of the people, empowered to conduct a few tasks. National defense, a system of tort between states, and the conduct of foreign policy.

Roosevelt, as a Fabian, reversed this role. The New Deal made government the master, and the people a kept servant.

The claims of the New Deal are spurious at best. While embracing Keynesian philosophy was a central theme with the Roosevelt administration, the New Deal did not attempt to alter the business cycle on a persistent basis. Public works and stimulus spending were absolutely used, but as an immediate response, not as a means of altering the cycle. Further, they resoundingly failed. While WPA and other programs offered a lifeline to many Americans, they did virtually nothing to get the economy rolling. The multipliers and turns predicted by Keynes failed to manifest. Government spending may well have saved some Americans from starvation, but utterly failed to offer a return of investment.

The merits of welfare in tough economic times are a discussion of their own, but the claim that the New Deal altered the business cycle is laughably absurd.

What amazing rubbish!!!! lol you never fail to produce.

I bet you beleive that too.......you never fail to disappoint.