Forum Post: We need a new Roosvelt!
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 17, 2011, 11:52 p.m. EST by Algee
(182)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We need another president like Roosvelt! He made the united states a strong nation and look at it now. He who kicked ass at Wall street and helped destroy the nazis. Are we really going to wait till another depression hits us, before we do something?
The ugly truth. America's wealth is STILL being concentrated. When the rich get too rich, the poor get poorer. These latest figures prove it. AGAIN.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. In 1928, the rich were already way ahead. Still, they were given huge tax breaks. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated 44 percent of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes were left to share the rest. When the lower majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed.
Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a public works program, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some US wealth was gradually transferred back down to the majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the richest 1 percent held less than 20 percent. The lower majority held the rest. And rightfully so. It was the best year ever for the middle and lower classes. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own 40 percent of all US wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. If there is no redistribution, there will be no recovery.
Note: A knowledgable and trustworthy contributor has gone on record with a claim that effective tax rates for the rich were considerably lower than book rates during the years of redistribution that I have made reference to. His point was that the rich were able to avoid those very high marginal rates of 70-90% under the condition that they invested specifically in American jobs. His claim is that effective rates for the rich probably never exceeded 39% and certainly never exceeded 45%. My belief is that if true, those effective rates for the rich were still considerably higher than previous lows of '29'. Also that such policies still would have contributed to a partial redistribution by forcing the rich to either share profits and potential income through mass job creation or share income through very high marginal tax rates. This knowledgable contributor and I agree that there was in effect, a redistribution but disagree on the use of the word.
One thing is clear from recent events. The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. Book rates for the rich remain at all time lows. Their corporate golden geese are heavily subsidized. The benefits of corporate welfare are paid almost exclusively to the rich. Our Federal, State, and local leaders are sold out. Most of whom, are rich and trying to get even richer at our expense. They won't do anything about the obscene concentration of wealth. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
For the good of society, stop giving so much of your money to rich people. Stop concentrating the wealth. This may be our last chance to prevent the worst economic depression in world history. No redistribution. No recovery.
Those of you who agree on these major issues are welcome to summarize this post, copy it, use any portion, link to it, save it, show a friend, or spread the word in any fashion. Most major cities have daily call-in talk radio shows. You can reach thousands of people at once. They should know the ugly truth. Be sure to quote the figures which prove that America's wealth is still being concentrated. I don't care who takes the credit. We are up against a tiny but very powerful minority who have more influence on the masses than any other group in history. They have the means to reach millions at once with outrageous political and commercial propaganda. Those of us who speak the ugly truth must work incredibly hard just to be heard.
Don't believe this outrageous crap about the rich paying 37% of the taxes in America and the poor paying none. It's a trick. A spin on statistics to make it seem as if the rich are overtaxed. They aren't. But they damn well should be. We're in this mess because of them.
Be careful when you hear or read anything regarding the PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes paid by any particular group, it's a terribly misleading statistic. The rich pay a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL FEDERAL INCOME taxes now than 10 years ago because they have a larger PERCENTAGE of OVERALL INCOME in America now than 10 years ago. That statistic regarding 37% of Federal Income Taxes is one of the most misleading in the history of propaganda.
When you account for all FEDERAL, STATE, and LOCAL taxes and fees, the middle class actually pay about the same rate (as a percentage of income) as the rich. The difference is within 5 percent. It shouldn't be that way. The rich should pay a MUCH higher rate simply because they are horribly over-paid. We aren't. They own 43% of all financial wealth in America. We share the rest. But it gets even more disgusting. The devil is in the details.
Corporate profits have been partially subsidized with federal, state, and local revenue. This benefit has been hoarded at the top. Business managers make up the largest group of one percent club pigs. Plus 40% of the market is owned by the top 1%. Their record territory dividends have been partially subsidized by federal, state, and local revenue. The benefits have not been shared proportionally with the little guy. The lopsided division of growth across quintiles proves it.
The highest percentile has grown more than 10 times faster than the middle percentile over the last 30 years. This is true EVEN AFTER taxes. When you account for inflation and the actual cost of living (tied to record high profits in energy, finance, and healthcare), the middle class have actually lost relative buying power while the top 1% have drastically increased their income and bottom line wealth.
In 1976 (when their taxes were much higher), the top one percent reaped 9 percent of all private income and held less than 20 percent of all private wealth in America. Now, they reap 21 percent of all private income and hold over 40 percent of all private wealth. Meanwhile, the lower majority (those who are still employed) are working more hours and have less to show for it.
Just to make it crystal clear: The rich do not pay 37% of all taxes. They never have. They pay roughly 37% of all FEDERAL INCOME TAXES which account for less than 1/2 of total government revenue. The rest is drawn from a number of sources and across income levels. The rich harp on this 'Federal Income Tax' statistic because it leads people to believe that they pay 37% of ALL taxes. They don't. Their share as a group represents just over their share of income. The difference is within 5 percent. In fact, the 2nd percentile actually pays a slightly higher rate on average than the top percentile.
If the rich want to pay a lower share of the taxes in America, then they should get themselves a lower share of the income in America. In other words, don't be so rich to begin with. After all, this obscene concentration of wealth actually CAUSES economic instability. It CAUSES poverty. It will CAUSE the next Great Depression.
No more excuses.
RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!
Roosevelt saved capitalism and created the basis for US world imperialism. World War II was nothing but a struggle between rival imperialisms dressed up to look like a fight for democracy. Not a model we need to emulate.
Have you watched Michael Moore's "capitalism a love story" it depicts FDR as the greatest American president that has ever served the American people.
Mr Moore must be on drugs or got his education at the agenda driven censored schools that you did.
That would probably be Lincoln, but people can't remember that far back and even he had his flaws.
That is the craziest thing I've ever read. I'm not a racist, nor am I a proponent of slavery. What Lincoln did was every bit as wrong as what continues to be done for the last 50 years. However, his actions took much longer for any since to cumulatively exceed in actual damage.
Why did the United States bankrupt, and upon whom, in 1871? What were the terms of the BK? Was it ever discharged? Did FDR ever sign any papers relative to the 1871 debt instruments?
And FDR was indeed a great man - not perfect, but far superior to Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, etc, etc.
OK. But the New Deal was a VERY BIG DEAL - a great victory for Social Justice in this country. And it took BALLS to implement it - something Obama is sorely lacking, according to a prominent Democrat strategist, no less!!!
"CARVILLE: OBAMA NEEDS A PAIR"
http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1011/carville_obama_needs_some_balls.html
Roosevelt clearly was more able to take risks than Obama, but what they both share is that they are both hack politicians from one of the two parties of the 1%.
I don't share your negative view of FDR. Lumping him with the likes OBAMA is grossly unfair.
If Obama and FDR share nothing else (and they do share a lot) it is that they are both members and the tutular leaders of the Democratic Party, one of the two major parties of the 1% and the Party most responsible for co-opting and eviserating every social movement this nation has seen since the days of the Populists in the late 19th century. FDR was a past master at co-opting the labor movement, the outstanding social movement of opposition in his day, which has crippled the labor movement (and virtually all other social movements) ever since. Obama is trying the same move on OWS which is a greater danger to it than are black blockers or police repression.
Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration hit the little guy worst of all. In 1934, Jacob Maged, a 49-year-old immigrant, was fined and jailed three months for charging 35 cents to press a suit rather rather than 40 cents mandated by the Fed's dry cleaning code. The NRA was later ruled unconstitutional.
To raise farm prices, Roosevelt's farm policy plowed under 10 million acres of cultivated land, preventing wheat, corn and other crops from reaching the hungry. Hog farmers were paid to slaughter about 6 million young hogs, protested by John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. New Deal relief programs were steered away from the South, the nation's poorest region. A reported 15,654 people were forced from their homes to make way for dams. Farm owners received cash settlements for their condemned property, but the thousands of black tenant farmers got nothing.
I'd like to know where all this information comes from, if it is not scholarly source there could be a chance it isn't all that true. If it is true let us remember that back then especially after such an economic catastrophe, government policy was meant reorganize America as a whole. Some projects may not have worked, some might not have been fair for all people and some might not have worked. If you think about it would you not prefer a publicly active president, who transformed the US into a model of growth and prosperity? It must not also be forgotten that during the harsh years of the great depression, crop yields had been good and many farmers hid their cereal from people in order to make a greater profit. While the American people were starving, farmers were making a profit.
What you need to realize is that while the Depression was global it was only a Great Depression in the US. It lasted longer in the US because of the policies of the National Recovery Administration.
What would you have preferred? Nazism? Italian fascism?
Why would I want that? Fascism is just socialism in a capitalist veneer. I would prefer a system that was fair to the small businesses.
And by the way I was talking about the UK, Canada, France, Belgium, the Netherlands not Nazi Germany. Hitler rose to power in the 30s due to the failed policies of the Weimar Republic and the post WWI debt. His National Socialist Workers Party gained traction because of his talk of defaulting on the WWI debt and building a stronger Germany where all would have a fair wage, a strong dollar, and economic security.
Which Roosevelt?
You have quite the twisted and perverse perception of what actually happened with either of the cousins. Both were as evil and/or misguided as Abraham Lincoln and their actions all set the stage for exactly where we are now, with the final fate soon to be revealed to all.
You're a product of the federally mandated outcome based and no child left behind education system, correct?
It was just a suggestion to see how people would react. I'm not even American I am a French immigrant living in Canada. My first thought was that we needed a man of action, actions that would help people.
Yall can have all the Lincoln's and FDR's you can scrape off the bottom of barrels.
Roosevelt's central banking ''reform'' broke up the strongest banks, those engaged in commercial investment banking, because New Dealers imagined that securities underwriting was a factor in all bank failures, but didn't touch the cause of 90 percent of the bank failures: state and federal unit banking laws.
Canada, which allowed nationwide branch banking, had not a single bank failure during the Depression. The New Deal Fed hiked banks' reserve requirement by 50 percent in July 1936, then increased it another 33.3 percent. This triggered a contraction of the money supply, which was one of the most important factors bringing on the Depression of 1938--the third most severe since World War I. Real GNP declined 18 percent and industrial production was down 32 percent.
Too much of a control freak. His threat to stack the supreme court by increasing it's size to 16 unless repubicans went along with the new deal was the biggest blow to freedom and outright ignoring of the constitution we have ever seen.
Need new congress in there no more tea party. I'd like to see what Obama could do with some support. Now that the crisis has stabilized we can really see how we got here and how we might change things.
Yeah, we sure do! The question is, how?!!
We may never find a man like him again, but we must put our faith in the people. They are everything, all that we do, we do for them.
Please read Puff's post on this subject and my "occopy democratic headquarters."