Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: This is what we are up against. A small army of COWARDS who will stop at NOTHING to prevent the TRUTH from being understood.

Posted 2 years ago on Nov. 10, 2014, 7:16 p.m. EST by StillModestCapitalist (343)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The following entry is just one of thousands which have been improperly flagged by a small army of die-hard conservative cowards working 24/7 on Craigslist to prevent others from understanding the truth or even getting a chance to read and judge for themselves.

Another round of improper flagging, misrepresentation, and ignorance. (Nationwide.)

All on the part of my die-hard partisan critics. Say that reminds me.

I fully expected you to go there little conservative. No, I didn't claim that the rich were paying 90% tax rates of any kind during or following the Great Depression. I never have. I know better. You see, I understand the difference between 'book rates' and 'effective rates'. I also understand the concept of a 'loophole'. So does everyone and their grandmother. Still, effective rates for the classes do rise and fall based on tax policy. They always have. Otherwise, there would have been no recovery at all.

Damn right the rich were paying much higher EFFECTIVE tax rates during the later years of and following the Great Depression. Otherwise, there would have been no recovery. Damn right they had no choice but to continue paying those much higher EFFECTIVE tax rates in spite of tweaks and fluctuations for approximately 40 years after resulting in the most just distribution of 'after tax' income and bottom line wealth in American history. Not equal in 1976 or even close. But reasonable.

If you still have the gall to stand by your 'no they didn't' argument, then I challenge you to answer the following five questions:

1. Did Ronald Reagan's adviser Arthor Laffer understand the difference between a 'book rate' and an 'effective rate' when he introduced his 'Laffer Curve'?

2. Did Ronald Reagan understand the difference between a 'book rate' and an 'effective rate' when he took the office of President?

3. Why did Ronald Reagan drastically reduce the highest marginal tax rates?

4. Why did Ronald Reagan drastically reduce the 'capital gains' tax rates?

5. If you STILL have the GALL to stand by your 'no they didn't' argument, then what does that make Ronald Reagan? A dead liar or a dead moron?

Wrong again little conservative. The timeline shatters your claim. (Nationwide.)

In one of your early remarks on the issue, you made a reference to 'static' wealth. Your point being that wealth isn't just transferred from one party to another. It's expanded as well. It's a common argument. True in some cases. Dead wrong in others. Yet your latest claim with regard to the growth of the American middle class following the Great Depression is that it was due essentially, to a transfer of wealth from the rest of the world. Not from the rich.

No little conservative. You see, there was in fact, a massive infusion of new US currency along with a massive public works program enacted prior to WWII. Taxes were raised significantly on the majority but DRASTICALLY on the rich prior to WWII. This began to shift the transfer of actual buying power back in favor of the lower majority.

The Great Depression was officially ended in 1939. GDP had been restored to it's previous high. Unemployment rates, although still high, were already well on their way back down prior to WWII. The middle and lower classes were already on their way to a recovery prior to WWII. The necessary, the VITAL transfer of wealth from rich back to poor was already under way. Again, the Great Depression was officially ended in 1939 under FDR, the most fiscally liberal President in American history.

When our troops finally joined the war effort OVER TWO YEARS LATER, millions of American women took the places of men on the production lines. Because the US government was the primary employer of men AND the primary customer of US manufacturing, the lower majority ended up with huge economic gains. As a direct result, again because of those drastically increased taxes and the infusion of new currency, the rich, although still rich, ended up with a net loss in actual buying power.

In other words, WWII resulted in a continued transfer of wealth from rich Americans back to poor Americans. This was the recovery for the American middle class. A NECESSARY and VITAL transfer of wealth from rich to poor.

I'll never deny that we've imported the raw materials of our wealth from all over the world but that was going on before the Great Depression. Still, the economy tanked because of a record high concentration of wealth. Although much of the growth following WWII was related to rebuilding, that growth continued to benefit the US middle class, in terms of relative (actual) buying power, specifically because of those higher taxes on the rich. Higher taxes, which like many a real world fact, blow conservative economic theories right out of the water.

Say that reminds me.

Ronald Reagan promised to reduce the National debt. That was one of his 'stated goals'. Instead, he nearly tripled it. Meanwhile, in the midst of his 'economic growth' (bad growth, you need to learn the difference), consumer debt skyrocketed as billions of dollars were transferred from poor back to rich on his watch and that of his little partisan puppet and your conservative hero, Milton Freedman.

So much for 'trickle down' or 'supply side', the thoroughly dis-proven theory of Reaganomics. So much for Ronald Reagan's 'stated goals'. Like I've been saying all along, both parties are horribly corrupt. The difference being that because of pressure from voters, Democrats act in the interests of the lower majority more often than Republicans. For that reason, I intend to help get a Democrat elected in 2016 as I did in 2008 (with over 10,000 web entries and hundreds of phone calls) UNLESS a solid Republican with a proven willingness to compromise ends up running in which case, I MAY support him or her depending on the circumstances.

Regarding Obama: Of course, his stated goals have not been met. They never will be. I've already admitted that he is at best, a cheap copy of FDR. Of course, the 'shovel ready' jobs, for the most part, didn't materialize. Welcome to the real world of unrealistic campaign promises, government/business corruption, and relentless die-hard partisan obstructionism.

By the way, I'm posting every single one of my improperly flagged SF entries on OWS from now on.

Go ahead. Make my day.

Now get back up there and answer those five questions.

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/4753454874.html

1 Comments

1 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by WSmith (2696) from Cornelius, OR 2 years ago

I feel your pain with regard to CL, it's entirely censored by the Right. Why CL does nothing about it is puzzling.

But you have Obama wrong, FDR did not have an anti-democracy, 1%-Con, Congress willing to blatantly Obstruct and Sabotage anything he tried to do, like Obama does, which MSM does not report, and the Non-Voters can't discern.