Why do Americans want European style Entitlements?

[peach174]

I think starcraftzzz has a problem, because in another thread, I and several others told him that you can't die from cancer from CO2.
He refuses to accept facts.
He is also trying to get this thread moved to the flame zone.

 

[Unkotare]

I think starcraftzzz has a problem

Yeah, he's an idiot.

 

[peach174]

Not what I said at all.
I'm sorry if you can not comprehend basic reading.

You saying stupid shit does not mean others cant read it means you said stupid shit. Have the balls to take responsibility for what you say.

I don't want anyone to be poor, I want the poor in America to rise out of poverty like they did during President Coolidge term and less government is how it's done.

So you don't want anyone to be poor but you advocate for policies that make them poor and poorer... Is it because you're an ass hole then?

The American people were the beneficiaries of the unprecedented prosperity of the 1920's. Unemployment was pared from its high in 1921 of 20% to an average of 3.3% for the remainder of the decade. The misery index which is a combination of unemployment and inflation had its sharpest decline in U.S. history under President Harding. The Gross National Product averaged 7% from 1924 to 1929. Wages, profits, and productivity all made substantial gains during the 1920's. Harding slashed federal spending by two billion from Wilson's last year and Coolidge maintained that spending level of 3.3 billion per year for the rest of the decade. The Harding-Coolidge tax cuts produced increased revenue that went to cut the national debt left by Wilson by one-third.
The Dem's have a real problem with this fact. It worked for Harding and Coolidge and Regan.

Jesus Christs nice of you to be so stupid to forget the years 1929-1934.

Many scholars and historians blame the Harding-Coolidge economic program for the stock market crash of 1929 as well as the great depression. The stock market crash of 1929 was not the calamity Americans have been made to believe. There were no major business or bank failures resulting from the crash. The crash of 1929 occurred in October and by December of that year the economy was once again calm and remained so for the next six months. The depression did not occur because of the stock market crash. There were several errors on the part of policy makers that plunged our economy into a deep depression. The inaction on behalf of President Hoover, New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Federal Reserve Board to curb over-speculation proved very unwise. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which President Hoover supported and signed into law helped to paralyze global commerce. The huge tax increases signed into law by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt retarded economic growth, ballooned the national debt, and sunk the nation deeper into the great depression. If Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt had moved to curb over-speculation and otherwise continued the economic policies of Harding and Coolidge, the nation may have been able to have avoided the great depression. Most certainly, the depression would not have been as deep and prolonged as it was.

 

[peach174]

I think starcraftzzz has a problem

Yeah, he's an idiot.

Yep I agree.
He really thinks that you can get cancer from CO2

 

[starcraftzzz]

I think starcraftzzz has a problem, because in another thread, I and several others told him that you can't die from cancer from CO2.
He refuses to accept facts.
He is also trying to get this thread moved to the flame zone.

Yes you saying you can't die from cancer means I have a problem
furthermore you posting whole threads that contain only insults also means I cause flame wars

 

[peach174]

I think starcraftzzz has a problem, because in another thread, I and several others told him that you can't die from cancer from CO2.
He refuses to accept facts.
He is also trying to get this thread moved to the flame zone.

Yes you saying you can't die from cancer means I have a problem
furthermore you posting whole threads that contain only insults also means I cause flame wars

got any examples?
Because it's pretty rare for me to post threads.
It's the other peach that posts a lot of threads.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Not what I said at all.
I'm sorry if you can not comprehend basic reading.

You saying stupid shit does not mean others cant read it means you said stupid shit. Have the balls to take responsibility for what you say.

So you don't want anyone to be poor but you advocate for policies that make them poor and poorer... Is it because you're an ass hole then?

The American people were the beneficiaries of the unprecedented prosperity of the 1920's. Unemployment was pared from its high in 1921 of 20% to an average of 3.3% for the remainder of the decade. The misery index which is a combination of unemployment and inflation had its sharpest decline in U.S. history under President Harding. The Gross National Product averaged 7% from 1924 to 1929. Wages, profits, and productivity all made substantial gains during the 1920's. Harding slashed federal spending by two billion from Wilson's last year and Coolidge maintained that spending level of 3.3 billion per year for the rest of the decade. The Harding-Coolidge tax cuts produced increased revenue that went to cut the national debt left by Wilson by one-third.
The Dem's have a real problem with this fact. It worked for Harding and Coolidge and Regan.

Jesus Christs nice of you to be so stupid to forget the years 1929-1934.

Many scholars and historians blame the Harding-Coolidge economic program for the stock market crash of 1929 as well as the great depression.

I doubt you could name a single scholar or historian without using the Google.

The stock market crash of 1929 was not the calamity Americans have been made to believe. There were no major business or bank failures resulting from the crash.

Thats like saying recession of 08 wasn't caused by the housing bubble IE it is like saying something wrong and stupid

The crash of 1929 occurred in October and by December of that year the economy was once again calm and remained so for the next six months.

Plz explain how stocks being down around 33% is "calm" Also plz explain how large job losses is "calm"

The depression did not occur because of the stock market crash. There were several errors on the part of policy makers that plunged our economy into a deep depression. The inaction on behalf of President Hoover, New York Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the Federal Reserve Board to curb over-speculation proved very unwise.

People not fixing the problems that cause the great depression does not mean they are the cause of the depression.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which President Hoover supported and signed into law helped to paralyze global commerce.

Global trade decreased by 20% 6 months after the market crash, but only by 10% 6 months after the Smoot-Hawley act. So the data does not say what you say it does
A tale of two depressions: What do the new data tell us? February 2010 update | vox - Research-based policy analysis and commentary from leading economists

The huge tax increases signed into law by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt retarded economic growth, ballooned the national debt, and sunk the nation deeper into the great depression.

Wait so according to you increasing government revenue results in more government debt. Plz stop saying such stupid shit.
Furthermore government debt before ww2 (1934-1940) did not grow at all. So again the data does not say what you say it does.
History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Furthermore the reason those tax increases hurt the economy was because they reduced the deficit also currently the GOP has blocked tens of billions in tax cuts Obama/democrats have tried to implement. So basically you are saying that the current GOP is hurting the economy. Now I bet you'll change your position.

If Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt had moved to curb over-speculation and otherwise continued the economic policies of Harding and Coolidge, the nation may have been able to have avoided the great depression. Most certainly, the depression would not have been as deep and prolonged as it was.

A lot of that over-speculation occurred during Coolidges years so blaming Hoover and FDR for things that occurred during someone else s presidency is not only dishonest its stupid.

Other than that Plz explain to us what this speculation was.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I think starcraftzzz has a problem, because in another thread, I and several others told him that you can't die from cancer from CO2.
He refuses to accept facts.
He is also trying to get this thread moved to the flame zone.

Yes you saying you can't die from cancer means I have a problem
furthermore you posting whole threads that contain only insults also means I cause flame wars

got any examples?
Because it's pretty rare for me to post threads.
It's the other peach that posts a lot of threads.

I meant posts not threads.

 

[peach174]

I still think you have the wrong peach, I don't post much at all in threads.
I don't try to make insults at anyone either. I just post the facts and opinion's.
I post correct information not insults.
I still have not seen an example.

 

[peach174]

[

quote=peach174;5293875]The huge tax increases signed into law by Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt retarded economic growth, ballooned the national debt, and sunk the nation deeper into the great depression.

Wait so according to you increasing government revenue results in more government debt. Plz stop saying such stupid shit.

Increasing huge taxes, means people can't afford to buy more things, that is what retarded the economic growth and yes history has proved that high taxes does balloon the national debt.

 

[starcraftzzz]

I
I don't try to make insults at anyone either.

Minus the past 2 sages of this thread or the last two pages of the environment thread

I just post the facts and opinion's.

Minus this whole thread

I post correct information not insults.

Minus this whole thread

I still have not seen an example.

Example few you posting posts with only insults, the last 3 posts you made before my post responding to yours.
Examples of posts of yours that are incorrect, every single post of which has any information.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Increasing huge taxes, means people can't afford to buy more things, that is what retarded the economic growth and yes history has proved that high taxes does balloon the national debt.

See this is part of the problem you are so stupid that you think people being able to buy things is equal to how much debt the government has.
Also nice of you to only respond to like 1/10 of my post.

 

[peach174]

See this is part of the problem you are so stupid that you think people being able to buy things is equal to how much debt the government has.
Also nice of you to only respond to like 1/10 of my post.

No, taking more of people's money to give to the government leaves them with less to spend and slows down economic growth.
Too high of taxes makes the rich and company's move out and go elsewhere and the government and or states losses those taxes.
Debt that the government has is because it spends more than it can take in and borrows too much.

I'm sorry sometimes I don't have the time to do the whole thing. I have a husband with MS and sometimes I have to leave the board to help him.

 

[starcraftzzz]

That doesn't really tell me much though, take a poll in North Korea or Iran and you will get results that say they are mostly happy also. I know those countries are not like that I am just saying.

What the poll does say is that's it's all relative.
Would Americans be happier if their healthcare costs were at the same level they are in 99% of the rest of the world? Damn straight they would be happier. In the rest of the world, nations negotiate the pricing of healthcare with healthcare providers, thus the cost per capita is about half what we pay in America and it doesn't cost taxes to do so.
Would Europeans be happier if they lived in McMansions like many Americans do, you bet!
It's all relative, isn't it?

Free health care isn't all its cracked up to be, health care is free in Egypt but I wouldn't even take my dog to those shit hole hospitals.

So according to you a health care system isn't better if it being performed worse in a 3rd world country then a 1st world country. Clearly you are a retard. So I apologize that you are dumber then 99% of people

 

[starcraftzzz]

According to this Forbes article, the US ranks 10th as the happiest nation following nine "socialist" countries.
The World's Happiest (And Saddest) Countries - Christopher Helman - Forbes

Now, what does that say?

It coulde say a bunch of stuff. For instance, it could mean that in the USA, the living conditions are horrible and the people see them for what they are and know for a fact that everybody else in the world bar none has it better and our lot in life just plain sucks.

It could also mean that no matter how good it is, people in the USA always see room for improvement and have learned through experience that if we just work a little harder, put in a little more effort and team up a little better with our peers, we can convert what's good into something better.

If yon Cassius is fat and happy, Ceasar lives. If he has a lean and hungry look, better wear a daggar proof vest. Ambition breeds best where there is room to grow.

Yes it is all relative, but in the modern world its relative to the world as a whole; so people view themselys to be happy if they think they are happier then most people. So this means people in Europe view themselves as happier then Americans.

Second there is no reason that Europeans view the world less accurately then Americans, or view more room for improvement (in fact since Europeans are richer then Americans they should view less room for improvement because they are better then Americans)

 

[starcraftzzz]

No, taking more of people's money to give to the government leaves them with less to spend and slows down economic growth.

Not if we spend that money more efficiently.
Furthermore you are not addressing the point. Every time i point out that you are wrong or saying something stupid you respond by quoting but leaving out what was said before and then reply with something different/new. If you were not such an egotistical douche bag you'd have the balls to defend or respond to what you said

Too high of taxes makes the rich and company's move out and go elsewhere and the government and or states losses those taxes.

Yep and all evidence shows that that the tax rate for the supper rich hat does that is above 65%
Where's the High Point on the Laffer Curve? And Where Are We? | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary
Brad DeLong: Where Is the Peak of the Laffer Curve?
Tax Justice Network: Progressive taxes can make you happy - new research
CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress
Debt that the government has is because it spends more than it can take in and borrows too much.

I'm sorry sometimes I don't have the time to do the whole thing. I have a husband with MS and sometimes I have to leave the board to help him.

So maybe you should realize that you not having the time to do actually research, to think and to actually analysis something means you do not have the best opinion on that subject.
So that is the real problem; you admit that you do not know what you are talking about yet you still think/insist that what you say is 100% true/correct no matter what.

 

[starcraftzzz]

No, taking more of people's money to give to the government leaves them with less to spend and slows down economic growth.
Too high of taxes makes the rich and company's move out and go elsewhere and the government and or states losses those taxes.
Debt that the government has is because it spends more than it can take in and borrows too much.

I'm sorry sometimes I don't have the time to do the whole thing. I have a husband with MS and sometimes I have to leave the board to help him.

Plz learn how to quote correctly, I mean shit All you have to do is push a butten but that seems to be to hard for you.
1) Overall the govt taking more money from people and using more efficiently then otherwise makes those people richer. The reason you think otherwise is because you exclude the benefits government creates. When you include ALL the data you find that Europe is better.
2) Govt debt is only bad if it is used to spend on wasteful things. So for example the govt going in debt to make 200 times more money then they borrowed is 2 years s not bad
So basically looking at debt/spending is ignorant; instead you should look at benefits of said spending

 

[peach174]

No, taking more of people's money to give to the government leaves them with less to spend and slows down economic growth.

Not if we spend that money more efficiently.
Furthermore you are not addressing the point. Every time i point out that you are wrong or saying something stupid you respond by quoting but leaving out what was said before and then reply with something different/new. If you were not such an egotistical douche bag you'd have the balls to defend or respond to what you said

Too high of taxes makes the rich and company's move out and go elsewhere and the government and or states losses those taxes.

Yep and all evidence shows that that the tax rate for the supper rich hat does that is above 65%
Where's the High Point on the Laffer Curve? And Where Are We? | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary
Brad DeLong: Where Is the Peak of the Laffer Curve?
Tax Justice Network: Progressive taxes can make you happy - new research
CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress
Debt that the government has is because it spends more than it can take in and borrows too much.

I'm sorry sometimes I don't have the time to do the whole thing. I have a husband with MS and sometimes I have to leave the board to help him.

So maybe you should realize that you not having the time to do actually research, to think and to actually analysis something means you do not have the best opinion on that subject.
So that is the real problem; you admit that you do not know what you are talking about yet you still think/insist that what you say is 100% true/correct no matter what.

I read books and reports from gov and states websites. I don't need to go to false things posted on the Internet. Hint - Wikipedia is not a good nor reliable source to use.
I have 50 years of of reading U.S. and world history in books, not bogus stuff on the net.
After all you are the one who thinks that CO2 and carbon causes cancer and autism.

 

[peach174]

No, taking more of people's money to give to the government leaves them with less to spend and slows down economic growth.
Too high of taxes makes the rich and company's move out and go elsewhere and the government and or states losses those taxes.
Debt that the government has is because it spends more than it can take in and borrows too much.

I'm sorry sometimes I don't have the time to do the whole thing. I have a husband with MS and sometimes I have to leave the board to help him.

Plz learn how to quote correctly, I mean shit All you have to do is push a butten but that seems to be to hard for you.
1) Overall the govt taking more money from people and using more efficiently then otherwise makes those people richer. The reason you think otherwise is because you exclude the benefits government creates. When you include ALL the data you find that Europe is better.
2) Govt debt is only bad if it is used to spend on wasteful things. So for example the govt going in debt to make 200 times more money then they borrowed is 2 years s not bad
So basically looking at debt/spending is ignorant; instead you should look at benefits of said spending

Europe is in big trouble just like us. Greece is going down and maybe a few others.

Gov. doesn't make money, they bring in money (taxes). Government does not sell products, they spend tax payers money.
When gov. prints too much money is devalues the dollar.
Debt and spending has to paid off eventually and I don't think that it's right to put that onto our future generations.

 

[starcraftzzz]

No, taking more of people's money to give to the government leaves them with less to spend and slows down economic growth.

Not if we spend that money more efficiently.
Furthermore you are not addressing the point. Every time i point out that you are wrong or saying something stupid you respond by quoting but leaving out what was said before and then reply with something different/new. If you were not such an egotistical douche bag you'd have the balls to defend or respond to what you said
Yep and all evidence shows that that the tax rate for the supper rich hat does that is above 65%
Where's the High Point on the Laffer Curve? And Where Are We? | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary
Brad DeLong: Where Is the Peak of the Laffer Curve?
Tax Justice Network: Progressive taxes can make you happy - new research
CHART: Since 1950, Lower Top Tax Rates Have Coincided With Weaker Economic Growth | ThinkProgress
Debt that the government has is because it spends more than it can take in and borrows too much.

I'm sorry sometimes I don't have the time to do the whole thing. I have a husband with MS and sometimes I have to leave the board to help him.

So maybe you should realize that you not having the time to do actually research, to think and to actually analysis something means you do not have the best opinion on that subject.
So that is the real problem; you admit that you do not know what you are talking about yet you still think/insist that what you say is 100% true/correct no matter what.

I read books and reports from gov and states websites. I don't need to go to false things posted on the Internet. Hint - Wikipedia is not a good nor reliable source to use.
I have 50 years of of reading U.S. and world history in books, not bogus stuff on the net.
After all you are the one who thinks that CO2 and carbon causes cancer and autism.

See this is your problem you think because you read books like "see spot runs" means you are smart.
Furthermore reading books those books apparently does not help b because every time you post you post pure bullshit. Come back when your response isn't "you stupid because I lie"