Wealth inequality

[Quantum Windbag]

Equality of wealth doesn't happen in real life.

Can I assume that by equality of wealth you don't mean equal distribution, as in communism? I am a strong proponent of equitable distribution of wealth, which sometimes is misunderstood as advocating for equality.

Some poeple choose to be poor - pennyless in fact. I have interviewed people who choose to be homeless, on the street and begging to get by. One of these people was an ex-lawyer! He chose to get out of a successful career and become a "bum".

Considering the absolutely punishing negative effects of being without money in such a money-oriented culture as ours, anyone who, as you've described, chooses to lead a destitute lifestyle is pathologically self-destructive and probably would be hospitalized were it not for Ronald Reagan's cruelty.


My parents (and grandparents) suffered through the Great Depression. The stories they told about that experience made a strong impression on me. My father's advice to us was to get an education, use it to obtain a high-level civil service job, avoid debt, and invest in nothing but U.S. Savings Bonds.

I followed his advice and I have no regrets apart from losing my late wife. I'm not wealthy but I'm quite comfortable and I want for nothing.


Some people are motivated by entrepreneural spirit, most are not. Some people like sports, some do not. And so on.

Under ideal conditions the top 10% will always control 90% of the money.

Under ideal conditions, such as existed during the decades between the late 1940s and Ronald Reagan, The Man From General Electric, the Nation's wealth resources will be equitably distributed, meaning poverty in the lower class will be minimal, the middle class will achieve the American Dream, and there will exist a reasonably opulent upper class with a minimum of excessive (hoarded) wealth.

Why is that? It boils down to money management. You can "have things" or have money. If you are smart and invest your money in the right way you can go from pennyless to millionaire in less than a week - there are those who do just that! Most of us are unwilling to risk that much because sometimes those same people go from millionaires to pennyless in the same amount of time. The difference is they plan for that and just start over.

Not all rich people start with nothing but quite a few do. The difference between them and us is how they use money.

The factor of greed, i.e., the Gordon Gekko orientation, plays a major part in the nature and practices of this category. Many (most?) financially successful people are motivated by the same energy that drives compulsive gamblers. And as with gamblers the factor of luck also has much to do with their success or failure.

If you truly support equitable wealth distribution you would be arguing for lower taxes and cutting government spending in order to prevent the government from stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

 

[MikeK]

Did anyone else notice how the idiot that made this video made some stupid assumptions, misrepresented some facts, and conflated things that are not equivalent?

Thanks for that clearly expressed opinion. Now how about some specifics.

 

[MikeK]

If you truly support equitable wealth distribution you would be arguing for lower taxes and cutting government spending in order to prevent the government from stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Did you ever consider that you are the one that is confused, or do you want to end up like olderandwiser and end up ignoring the real world and living in a fantasy world where magic trumps math?

I advocate much higher taxes on the One Percent -- not lower.

As for reduced government spending I agree it is necessary but I'm not sure we would agree on which areas to cut, which could make for a separate discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did anyone else notice how the idiot that made this video made some stupid assumptions, misrepresented some facts, and conflated things that are not equivalent?

Thanks for that clearly expressed opinion. Now how about some specifics.

Read the thread, I already provided them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you truly support equitable wealth distribution you would be arguing for lower taxes and cutting government spending in order to prevent the government from stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

I advocate much higher taxes on the One Percent -- not lower.

As for reduced government spending I agree it is necessary but I'm not sure we would agree on which areas to cut, which could make for a separate discussion.

Why put higher taxes on the, to quote you, 1%? Are you trying to discourage people from getting rich, or trying to support stupid government programs that give money to the rich people who do things you think are proper?

I am sure we wouldn't, you support giving money to rich people, and I oppose it.

 

[jadeX]

folu dot me/France

Gerard Depardieu Wants His Freedom Back

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I guess you missed the point. "Not enough revenues" can also refer to the loss of the tax stream, and not on spending at all. If the GDP rises, it's safe to say that businesses are doing significantly better which (in the fixed 35% business rate we have had for a few years now) ought to mean MORE revenue. If employment is down, the tax stream suffers. Likewise, if major companies like Exxon Mobil (who had earnings of $73 bn in 2011) get to pay 2% ($1.5 bn as opposed to the $31bn @35%) that shortfall has to be made up somewhere. Bush 41 realized that, and became a 1 term Republican for increasing revenues rather than applying pressure to corporations (the Reagan legacy, I presume) - so this isn't a "liberal only" approach.

You're making a huge mistake trying to equate household finances with the national economy - a lot of people do it, but it makes no sense at all. Your household, for instance, doesn't set the budget terms for 10 years down the road. It doesn't have to account for the unexpected (you might, granted, but only if you're lucky enough not to be living paycheck to paycheck as an awful lot of us do). And - this is most important - you can't live off the bank as our economic system mandates that the government must.

1797, after the Revolutionary war, the US went into a recession and was on the verge of defaulting on European loans that got us through the war. The US government began subsidizing corporations in order to capitalize on the industrial boom that was beginning. That spending pulled us out of a recession and stopped the default.

In the 1930's we suffered through the Great Depression, and although Lord Keynes was only just coming to the forefront as the top economist of the time, FDR used massive amounts of federal spending to get people back to work and end the depression. WWII helped as well, since the government - at the height of private prosperity - capped the economy by instituting rationing, which forced savings and investments until 1947 - and that began 30 years of solid prosperity. So, you really don't have to look too far to see at least one country save it's ass tomorrow by spending like crazy today.

Likewise, if major companies like Exxon Mobil (who had earnings of $73 bn in 2011) get to pay 2% ($1.5 bn as opposed to the $31bn @35%) that shortfall has to be made up somewhere.

Your math is a bit off.
In 2011, Exxon's operating income was $73.5 billion, income tax expense was $31 billion.
In 2012, Exxon's operating income was $79 billion, income tax expense was $31 billion.
Looks like 42% and 39%. A bit more than your 2% claim.


XOM Income Statement | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

Yep - Income for Exxon in 2011 was $73.3 bn. It's tax provision (42%) was $31.1 bn. They paid (in 2011) $1.5 bn. Getting out my calculator, 2% of $73.3 bn is $1.466 bn. Please excuse the rounding errors.

Incidentally, they were able to defer $1.6 bn in further tax liabilities to another tax year. I guess when you only make $73.3 bn, it's hard to pay the entire $3.1 bn all at once, huh?

Do some self comparison. Assuming that you worked last year, pull out your tax form and divide your total taxes paid by your AGI.

Yep - Income for Exxon in 2011 was $73.3 bn. It's tax provision (42%) was $31.1 bn. They paid (in 2011) $1.5 bn.

Their income statement says your claim is wrong.

 

[Wiseacre]

" I guess you missed the point. "Not enough revenues" can also refer to the loss of the tax stream, and not on spending at all. If the GDP rises, it's safe to say that businesses are doing significantly better which (in the fixed 35% business rate we have had for a few years now) ought to mean MORE revenue. If employment is down, the tax stream suffers. Likewise, if major companies like Exxon Mobil (who had earnings of $73 bn in 2011) get to pay 2% ($1.5 bn as opposed to the $31bn @35%) that shortfall has to be made up somewhere. Bush 41 realized that, and became a 1 term Republican for increasing revenues rather than applying pressure to corporations (the Reagan legacy, I presume) - so this isn't a "liberal only" approach. "

No, I don't think I missed your point, you're talking about bringing in more revenue to meet spending (which always rises) by raising taxes. As opposed to lowering spending or at least not spending more than last year.

You're making a huge mistake trying to equate household finances with the national economy - a lot of people do it, but it makes no sense at all. Your household, for instance, doesn't set the budget terms for 10 years down the road. It doesn't have to account for the unexpected (you might, granted, but only if you're lucky enough not to be living paycheck to paycheck as an awful lot of us do). And - this is most important - you can't live off the bank as our economic system mandates that the government must.

I see no reason why the gov't shouldn't keep their expenditures to within a reasonable distance of revenue, seems to make a lot of sense to me. As opposed to trying to raise more revenue to get close to the increased spending. And that 10 year budget crap is just that - crap. Congress and the president make deals to make spending cuts years down the road, that you and I both know are not binding. All they're doing is looking at the current year, same as we do at home.

1797, after the Revolutionary war, the US went into a recession and was on the verge of defaulting on European loans that got us through the war. The US government began subsidizing corporations in order to capitalize on the industrial boom that was beginning. That spending pulled us out of a recession and stopped the default.

I'm gonna have to see a link about that. I do not believe corps were subsidized back then by the US gov't. I'll do some checking myself on it. I do think there were no income taxes then, for people or for businesses. The US Gov'ts main source of income was in tariffs on stuff coming into the country and on duties on some products made here, such as whiskey. Which is why the whiskey rebellion occurred, farmers in the western state distilled whiskey and sold it as a significant source of income.

Added: I did find a reference to Congress authorizing a bounty (subsidy) in 1791 for the New England fisheries who were in economic trouble. Dunno the particulars. Also, Alexander Hamilton put forward a Manufacturing Report in about 1792 that proposed further subsidies for certain industries, which were not supported. At any rate, claiming that such subsidies had much to do with getting the US out of a recession and averting a default is somewhat dubious.

In the 1930's we suffered through the Great Depression, and although Lord Keynes was only just coming to the forefront as the top economist of the time, FDR used massive amounts of federal spending to get people back to work and end the depression. WWII helped as well, since the government - at the height of private prosperity - capped the economy by instituting rationing, which forced savings and investments until 1947 - and that began 30 years of solid prosperity. So, you really don't have to look too far to see at least one country save it's ass tomorrow by spending like crazy today.

I don't think so, the economic numbers leading up to the 2nd WW were not very good, the private sector still sucked and UE was very high going into 1940. Had we not spent outragious sums of money for lend-lease, and the subsequent war effort, FDR's programs would not have ended the depression. Nice that you gave a little credit to a world war, but had there been no war there would have been no recovery. The private sector didn't really take off on it's own until after the war was over and the boys came home looking for work. THAT was the real end of the Great Depression, it had little to do with FDR's spending.

Now let's talk a little bit about more current history, as in the Obama Stimulus Bill that was widely hailed as the end to our economic woes. Except it wasn't, what do we have to show for $862 billion that was spent? Bush43 spent on average about $2.4 trillion/year, Obama about $3.6 trillion, so where's the recovery? What has that extra spending gotten us? An economy that's going nowhere and a UE rate that has stubbornly clung to almost 8%. That argument might have some legs if the liberals had some better results to show for the $6 trillion in new debt during Obama's tenure.

 

[oldernwiser]

Likewise, if major companies like Exxon Mobil (who had earnings of $73 bn in 2011) get to pay 2% ($1.5 bn as opposed to the $31bn @35%) that shortfall has to be made up somewhere.

Your math is a bit off.
In 2011, Exxon's operating income was $73.5 billion, income tax expense was $31 billion.
In 2012, Exxon's operating income was $79 billion, income tax expense was $31 billion.
Looks like 42% and 39%. A bit more than your 2% claim.


XOM Income Statement | Exxon Mobil Corporation Common Stock - Yahoo! Finance

Yep - Income for Exxon in 2011 was $73.3 bn. It's tax provision (42%) was $31.1 bn. They paid (in 2011) $1.5 bn. Getting out my calculator, 2% of $73.3 bn is $1.466 bn. Please excuse the rounding errors.

Incidentally, they were able to defer $1.6 bn in further tax liabilities to another tax year. I guess when you only make $73.3 bn, it's hard to pay the entire $3.1 bn all at once, huh?

Do some self comparison. Assuming that you worked last year, pull out your tax form and divide your total taxes paid by your AGI.

Yep - Income for Exxon in 2011 was $73.3 bn. It's tax provision (42%) was $31.1 bn. They paid (in 2011) $1.5 bn.

Their income statement says your claim is wrong.

Maybe I am... a little.

XOM Annual Income Statement - Exxon Mobil Corp. Annual Financials says not by very much.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep - Income for Exxon in 2011 was $73.3 bn. It's tax provision (42%) was $31.1 bn. They paid (in 2011) $1.5 bn. Getting out my calculator, 2% of $73.3 bn is $1.466 bn. Please excuse the rounding errors.

Incidentally, they were able to defer $1.6 bn in further tax liabilities to another tax year. I guess when you only make $73.3 bn, it's hard to pay the entire $3.1 bn all at once, huh?

Do some self comparison. Assuming that you worked last year, pull out your tax form and divide your total taxes paid by your AGI.

Yep - Income for Exxon in 2011 was $73.3 bn. It's tax provision (42%) was $31.1 bn. They paid (in 2011) $1.5 bn.

Their income statement says your claim is wrong.

Maybe I am... a little.

XOM Annual Income Statement - Exxon Mobil Corp. Annual Financials says not by very much.

Darn those US companies for doing business outside the US.
$31 billion it is. Glad your source agrees.

 

[MikeK]

If you truly support equitable wealth distribution you would be arguing for lower taxes and cutting government spending in order to prevent the government from stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Did you ever consider that you are the one that is confused, or do you want to end up like olderandwiser and end up ignoring the real world and living in a fantasy world where magic trumps math?

I advocate much higher taxes on the One Percent -- not lower.

As for reduced government spending I agree it is necessary but I'm not sure we would agree on which areas to cut, which could make for a separate discussion.

Why put higher taxes on the, to quote you, 1%? Are you trying to discourage people from getting rich, or trying to support stupid government programs that give money to the rich people who do things you think are proper?

Why?

Because it's one of the things FDR did to pull us out of the Great Depression. He imposed a 91% tax on the upper income level. But I'm sure that in spite of the fact it obviously worked you will find fault with it.

I am sure we wouldn't, you support giving money to rich people, and I oppose it.

I support giving money to rich people? What arithmetic led you to that conclusion?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I advocate much higher taxes on the One Percent -- not lower.

As for reduced government spending I agree it is necessary but I'm not sure we would agree on which areas to cut, which could make for a separate discussion.

Why put higher taxes on the, to quote you, 1%? Are you trying to discourage people from getting rich, or trying to support stupid government programs that give money to the rich people who do things you think are proper?

Why?

Because it's one of the things FDR did to pull us out of the Great Depression. He imposed a 91% tax on the upper income level. But I'm sure that in spite of the fact it obviously worked you will find fault with it.

I am sure we wouldn't, you support giving money to rich people, and I oppose it.

I support giving money to rich people? What arithmetic led you to that conclusion?

FDR pulled us out of the Great Depression? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?

 

[Wiseacre]

Guys, this is the CDZ. You either knock off the insults and barbs or you're gone from here.

 

[midcan5]

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24

Having moved far enough up the food chain, I always laugh when conservatives or others give reasons, often apologies, for wealth and inequality, I wonder do they know wealthy people, in almost all cases the people are the same even though most start on third base but think they hit a triple.

"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Core morality tells us that people have a right to what they earn by their own efforts freely exercised. It is this part of core morality that Ayn Rand objectivists, libertarians, and other right wingers tap into when they insist that taxation is slavery... The trouble with such arguments is that nothing is earned, nothing is deserved. Even if there really were moral rights to the fruit of our freely exercised abilities and talents, these talents and abilities are never freely acquired or exercised. Just as your innate and acquired intelligence and abilities are unearned, so also are your ambitions, along with the discipline, the willingness to train, and other traits that have to be combined with your talents and abilities to produce anything worthwhile at all.... We don't earn our inborn (excuse the expression "God given") talents and abilities. We had nothing to do with whether these traits were conferred all of us are not. Similarly, we didn't earn the acquired character traits needed to convert these talents into achievements. They, too, were the result of deterministic processes (genetic and cultural) that were set in motion long before we were born. That is what excludes the possibility that we earned or deserve them. We were just lucky to have the combination of hardwired abilities and learned ambitions that resulted in the world beating a path to our door....No one ever earned or deserved the traits that resulted in the inequalities we enjoy -greater income and wealth, better health and longer life, admiration and social distinction, comfort, and leisure. Therefore, no one, including us, has a right to those inequality. Core morality may permit unearned inequalities, but it is certainly not going to require them without some further moral reason to do so." Alex Rosenberg 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality'


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24

Having moved far enough up the food chain, I always laugh when conservatives or others give reasons, often apologies, for wealth and inequality, I wonder do they know wealthy people, in almost all cases the people are the same even though most start on third base but think they hit a triple.

"Many conservatives and libertarians defend the current levels of income inequality on the basis of merit. They claim the rich got rich because they worked harder, longer or smarter than the rest. However, researchers have conducted a vast number of empirical studies on what factors contribute to success, and in what proportion. A classic example of one of these studies is the 1972 book Inequality, by Christopher Jencks. (1) And these studies show that the meritocrat's position is not just arguably wrong, but clearly wrong." The rich get rich because of their merit.


"Core morality tells us that people have a right to what they earn by their own efforts freely exercised. It is this part of core morality that Ayn Rand objectivists, libertarians, and other right wingers tap into when they insist that taxation is slavery... The trouble with such arguments is that nothing is earned, nothing is deserved. Even if there really were moral rights to the fruit of our freely exercised abilities and talents, these talents and abilities are never freely acquired or exercised. Just as your innate and acquired intelligence and abilities are unearned, so also are your ambitions, along with the discipline, the willingness to train, and other traits that have to be combined with your talents and abilities to produce anything worthwhile at all.... We don't earn our inborn (excuse the expression "God given") talents and abilities. We had nothing to do with whether these traits were conferred all of us are not. Similarly, we didn't earn the acquired character traits needed to convert these talents into achievements. They, too, were the result of deterministic processes (genetic and cultural) that were set in motion long before we were born. That is what excludes the possibility that we earned or deserve them. We were just lucky to have the combination of hardwired abilities and learned ambitions that resulted in the world beating a path to our door....No one ever earned or deserved the traits that resulted in the inequalities we enjoy -greater income and wealth, better health and longer life, admiration and social distinction, comfort, and leisure. Therefore, no one, including us, has a right to those inequality. Core morality may permit unearned inequalities, but it is certainly not going to require them without some further moral reason to do so." Alex Rosenberg 'The Atheist's Guide to Reality'


"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."UBI and the Flat Tax

"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners."

Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

 

[MikeK]

FDR pulled us out of the Great Depression? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. quote]

In the same way as contemporary right-wingers refuse to acknowledge Obama's successful handling of the near economic disaster created by George W. Bush, FDR's committed critics continue to insist he had nothing to do with enabling the rise from the Great Depression. And while there presently are university level economics professors who passionately disagree on the subject, including two from the same school (UCLA), the following are rock solid facts upon which seriously interested parties can base their own conclusions.


(Excerpt)

The New Deal was a set of economic programs, passed by Congress during President Roosevelt's first term, 1933-1937, in response to the Great Depression. The programs of The New Deal programs were to provide relief, recovery, and reform. The programs started in the first 100 days of President Roosevelt's first term, and were to deliver relief to the unemployed, and to those in danger of losing their homes, as well as, deliver recovery to agriculture and business, and reform, in general.

The first and one of the largest of The New Deal Programs was The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)- which allowed the federal government to build dams and power plants in the Tennessee Valley, coupled with agricultural and industrial planning, to generate and sell the power, and to engage in area development. The TVA was given an assignment to improve the economic and social circumstances of the people living in the river basin.

Emergency Banking Act - provided the president with the means to reopen viable banks and regulate banking;

Federal Securities Act - to stiffen regulation of the securities business.

Economy Act - cut federal costs through reorganization of and cuts in salaries and veterans' pensions

Beer-Wine Revenue Act- legalized and taxed wine and beer.

Civilian Conservation Corps Act - Three million young men, between the ages of 18 to 25, found work in road building, forestry labor and flood control through the establishment of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) *

Federal Emergency Relief Act - established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration to distribute $500 million to states and localities for relief. Administered by Harry Hopkins for relief or for wages on public works, that federal agency would eventually pay out about $3 billion.

Agricultural Adjustment Act - established the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to decrease crop surpluses by subsidizing farmers who voluntarily cut back on production

Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, permitted the president to inflate the currency in various ways

The summer of 1935, President Roosevelt brought more programs under The New Deal, into effect.

Joint resolution to abandon the gold standard

National Employment System Act - established the U.S. Employment Service

Home Owners Refinancing Act - established the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) to refinance non-farm home mortgages

Glass-Steagall Banking Act - instituted various banking reforms, including establishing the Federal Bank Deposit Insurance Corporation, that insured deposits up to $5,000, and later, $10,000

Farm Credit Act - provided for the refinancing of farm mortgages

Emergency Railroad Transportation Act - increased federal regulation of railroads
National Industrial Recovery Act - established the National Recovery Administration and the Public Works Administration


What program did Roosevelt create to end the Great Depression

(Close)


* I should mention that my own parents suffered through the depth of the Depression. My reverence for FDR is based on things they told us, such as his creation of the CCC, a federal make-work program which employed my father when my family was on the verge of destitute poverty. My parents said the Depression seemed hopeless when FDR was elected but within the first year of his presidency things began looking up, slowly but steadily.

So I'll take my parents word for what they lived through rather than xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FDR pulled us out of the Great Depression? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?

In the same way as contemporary right-wingers refuse to acknowledge Obama's successful handling of the near economic disaster created by George W. Bush, FDR's committed critics continue to insist he had nothing to do with enabling the rise from the Great Depression. And while there presently are university level economics professors who passionately disagree on the subject, including two from the same school (UCLA), the following are rock solid facts upon which seriously interested parties can base their own conclusions.


(Excerpt)

The New Deal was a set of economic programs, passed by Congress during President Roosevelt's first term, 1933-1937, in response to the Great Depression. The programs of The New Deal programs were to provide relief, recovery, and reform. The programs started in the first 100 days of President Roosevelt's first term, and were to deliver relief to the unemployed, and to those in danger of losing their homes, as well as, deliver recovery to agriculture and business, and reform, in general.

The first and one of the largest of The New Deal Programs was The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)- which allowed the federal government to build dams and power plants in the Tennessee Valley, coupled with agricultural and industrial planning, to generate and sell the power, and to engage in area development. The TVA was given an assignment to improve the economic and social circumstances of the people living in the river basin.

Emergency Banking Act - provided the president with the means to reopen viable banks and regulate banking;

Federal Securities Act - to stiffen regulation of the securities business.

Economy Act - cut federal costs through reorganization of and cuts in salaries and veterans' pensions

Beer-Wine Revenue Act- legalized and taxed wine and beer.

Civilian Conservation Corps Act - Three million young men, between the ages of 18 to 25, found work in road building, forestry labor and flood control through the establishment of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) *

Federal Emergency Relief Act - established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration to distribute $500 million to states and localities for relief. Administered by Harry Hopkins for relief or for wages on public works, that federal agency would eventually pay out about $3 billion.

Agricultural Adjustment Act - established the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to decrease crop surpluses by subsidizing farmers who voluntarily cut back on production

Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, permitted the president to inflate the currency in various ways

The summer of 1935, President Roosevelt brought more programs under The New Deal, into effect.

Joint resolution to abandon the gold standard

National Employment System Act - established the U.S. Employment Service

Home Owners Refinancing Act - established the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) to refinance non-farm home mortgages

Glass-Steagall Banking Act - instituted various banking reforms, including establishing the Federal Bank Deposit Insurance Corporation, that insured deposits up to $5,000, and later, $10,000

Farm Credit Act - provided for the refinancing of farm mortgages

Emergency Railroad Transportation Act - increased federal regulation of railroads
National Industrial Recovery Act - established the National Recovery Administration and the Public Works Administration


What program did Roosevelt create to end the Great Depression

(Close)


* I should mention that my own parents suffered through the depth of the Depression. My reverence for FDR is based on things they told us, such as his creation of the CCC, a federal make-work program which employed my father when my family was on the verge of destitute poverty. My parents said the Depression seemed hopeless when FDR was elected but within the first year of his presidency things began looking up, slowly but steadily.

So I'll take my parents word for what they lived through rather than accept the cynically jaded opinions of those who are equivalent to today's Fox News category of brainwashed Obama critics.

Yes, he created the New Deal, and it did not end anything. The end of WWII ended the depression.

 

[Katzndogz]

It supposes that the real owners of assets are those who never worked to acquire those assets. Everything, money, homes, cars, flat screen television sets, really belongs to the government to subdivide and distribute.

 

[Againsheila]

FDR pulled us out of the Great Depression? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?

In the same way as contemporary right-wingers refuse to acknowledge Obama's successful handling of the near economic disaster created by George W. Bush, FDR's committed critics continue to insist he had nothing to do with enabling the rise from the Great Depression. And while there presently are university level economics professors who passionately disagree on the subject, including two from the same school (UCLA), the following are rock solid facts upon which seriously interested parties can base their own conclusions.


(Excerpt)

The New Deal was a set of economic programs, passed by Congress during President Roosevelt's first term, 1933-1937, in response to the Great Depression. The programs of The New Deal programs were to provide relief, recovery, and reform. The programs started in the first 100 days of President Roosevelt's first term, and were to deliver relief to the unemployed, and to those in danger of losing their homes, as well as, deliver recovery to agriculture and business, and reform, in general.

The first and one of the largest of The New Deal Programs was The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)- which allowed the federal government to build dams and power plants in the Tennessee Valley, coupled with agricultural and industrial planning, to generate and sell the power, and to engage in area development. The TVA was given an assignment to improve the economic and social circumstances of the people living in the river basin.

Emergency Banking Act - provided the president with the means to reopen viable banks and regulate banking;

Federal Securities Act - to stiffen regulation of the securities business.

Economy Act - cut federal costs through reorganization of and cuts in salaries and veterans' pensions

Beer-Wine Revenue Act- legalized and taxed wine and beer.

Civilian Conservation Corps Act - Three million young men, between the ages of 18 to 25, found work in road building, forestry labor and flood control through the establishment of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) *

Federal Emergency Relief Act - established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration to distribute $500 million to states and localities for relief. Administered by Harry Hopkins for relief or for wages on public works, that federal agency would eventually pay out about $3 billion.

Agricultural Adjustment Act - established the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to decrease crop surpluses by subsidizing farmers who voluntarily cut back on production

Thomas Amendment to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, permitted the president to inflate the currency in various ways

The summer of 1935, President Roosevelt brought more programs under The New Deal, into effect.

Joint resolution to abandon the gold standard

National Employment System Act - established the U.S. Employment Service

Home Owners Refinancing Act - established the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) to refinance non-farm home mortgages

Glass-Steagall Banking Act - instituted various banking reforms, including establishing the Federal Bank Deposit Insurance Corporation, that insured deposits up to $5,000, and later, $10,000

Farm Credit Act - provided for the refinancing of farm mortgages

Emergency Railroad Transportation Act - increased federal regulation of railroads
National Industrial Recovery Act - established the National Recovery Administration and the Public Works Administration


What program did Roosevelt create to end the Great Depression

(Close)


* I should mention that my own parents suffered through the depth of the Depression. My reverence for FDR is based on things they told us, such as his creation of the CCC, a federal make-work program which employed my father when my family was on the verge of destitute poverty. My parents said the Depression seemed hopeless when FDR was elected but within the first year of his presidency things began looking up, slowly but steadily.

So I'll take my parents word for what they lived through rather than accept the cynically jaded opinions of those who are equivalent to today's Fox News category of brainwashed Obama critics.

Yes, he created the New Deal, and it did not end anything. The end of WWII ended the depression.

No, the beginning of WWII ended the depression. We sold our arms to the allies and didn't enter the war until they ran out of money. The end of WWII brought about the strong middle-class due to many projects started to put the men who came back from the war back to work. They also heavily pushed for the women who went to work during the war to become homemakers, leaving those jobs vacant for the men.

 

[MikeK]

No, the beginning of WWII ended the depression. We sold our arms to the allies and didn't enter the war until they ran out of money. The end of WWII brought about the strong middle-class due to many projects started to put the men who came back from the war back to work. They also heavily pushed for the women who went to work during the war to become homemakers, leaving those jobs vacant for the men.

There are two schools of thought as to what constitutes the end of the Great Depression, one being the opinion of the academic economists whose calculations are based on various academic factors, the other being the opinion of those citizens, including my own father and two uncles who were lifted from the depths of poverty by FDR's federal make-work programs. And there were millions of them.

My understanding is FDR's approach to ending the Depression was slow but sure, and it eliminated much suffering. The critics insist there was a faster way to end it but it would not have addressed the street-level suffering for several years. According to my parents, and every one of their contemporaries I've ever spoken with, listened to, or read, the Depression ended when FDR ("The Man") gave them work, and pride, enabling them to put food back on their tables, pay doctor bills, and buy shoes for their children.

FDR was bitterly criticized -- but not by the People.