History scares the hell out of me

[patmckinneyracing]

Well I've been sitting here studying history for my exam tomorrow and were basically covering the Depression onto the Korean War. After sitting here reading over policies of Herbert Hoover and FDR, it literal kinda threw me back. Barrack Obama's policies follow the exact same policies that Herbert Hoover enacted, although he was a Republican.

His plan to solve the Great Depression was to use government spending and requested 427$ million from Congress to combat or "stimulate" the economy. This failed along with the fact that Hoover was trying to keep a balanced budget. He enacted policies that would "prevent mortgage foreclosures and keep banks afloat". This fell under the jurisdiction of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Unfortunately the head of RFC was removed, and all these proposals failed to do anything. Hmmm sound familiar?

Well now comes along FDR with his progressive reforms. Of course the New Deals did nothing for the economy except severe regulation in the work place (good thing at the time). The government soon was regulating farming production, even though the Supreme Court said it was unconsitutional, they came up with a later bill called the "Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment act". Basically the government paid farmers to keep production low to avoid surplus. The government gained control of all the banks and went through them thoroughly with new regulations. Then came WW2, which kick started our economy, created jobs, and revitalized the American people.

What followed all these government programs and reforms that mirror Obama's exact plan thus far? "The highest and most progressive peace time taxes in the history of the country". I guess we know what's coming...

Reading this book is showing me that we are re-living a big mistake. Sure we haven't seen the taxes that will follow all this legislation because it hasn't happened yet. At the same time, back then people believed in the individual success and not government intervention...aka "the self made man". So healthcare was not an issue, and they had a balanced budget. Do we have a balanced budget? No. Last time I checked we were somewhere near 13 trillion dollars. I stopped looking cause it disgusts me.

It's amazing how we are re-living the biggest mistake in our country's history without even realizing it. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[carmangary]

Lot's of people realize it. But, there are a lot of lazy people who think "ah, free health care, more unemployment checks, more tax cuts, etc" and don't give a rats butt what it really means.

 

[Oldsmoletick]

It's a worn out saying, but History does have a tendancy to repeat itself.....

 

[patmckinneyracing]

I know its been brought up a lot, I just didn't plan on reading a word for word, page after page explanation of the policies of the 1930's and 40's and how close they are to what's going on today.

 

[Matman1490]

I suppose it would surprise you to point out 2 things...

First, GWB and Bushco Lied us into two separate wars, then kept people blind to the real costs of the wars, by keeping line items for funding off the books, resulting in 2/3's of that 12 Trillion dollar deficit you are complaining about before BO ever was cosidered a candidate. Part of the reason the deficit has increased as fast as it has, is becasue the current adminstration isn't trying to hide to costs of miitary actions like the previous administration.

Second, Take another look at the tax policies of both Bushco and BO... While BO has actively been trying to find ways to CUT taxes on households making less than 250K /yr, GWB's only tax cuts went to homes making a million a yr or more. In Fact, GWB never refused a tax increase on middle and lower income homes... Never! not once! meanwhile he consistently passed tax cuts fo millioaires and GOP supporters.

If you want to talk who did what, thats fine, just make sure the facts back you up...

 

[patmckinneyracing]

IMO the rich should not have to pay more taxes because of their success. The only people who want the wealthy to pay more taxes are those to lazy to actually work and get ahead in life, except those that get the nice CEO kickbacks. So taxing the wealthy basically kills any incentive for anyone to get over a certain income.

BO has been trying to find tax cuts for the lower/middle class? How do you figure? With all these new government programs, two stimulus packages, and spending left and right by both the president and congress, that is a recipe for massive taxes across the board and inflation. If anything, yes the lower class needs more taxes along with a chunk of the middle class because those are the ones using up the welfare system and other government assistance programs, not the rich. Sorry if I believe in the "Self-made man" concept. The poor need to quit with the "I deserve this..." handouts from the government, when they really don't. Some may need social security and welfare due to disabilities and that is fine with me. It's the ones who mis-use the system that I can't stand.

So what if GWB kept it off the books, it showed up anyway in deficit no matter how much they wanted to hide it.

As far as the two wars, my father fought in both of them and I'm glad he did. Kuwait needed our help in the first war to ensure Iraq did not gain control of the oil fields. WTF is wrong with the second war!? They attacked first and took out the twin towers with our own planes for god sake. So there is plenty of justification for both wars since Saddam Hussein was funding terrorist cells in the Middle East anyway.

 

[Matman1490]

So what if GWB kept it off the books, it showed up anyway in deficit no matter how much they wanted to hide it.

So what? HE LIED thats so what! there were no WMD's, and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11... That is FACT.

As for the second war, I was talking about Afghanistan, not a clue what you are talking about. You mentioned Kuwait, that was Bush 41's bag, not GWB's, and has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

And no.. Afghanistan didn't attack us either.. Al Queda did, and they were heavily backed by Pakistan, not Afghanistan, althought they are bullying both governments to get what they want.

As i said, get your facts straight. Bush sr, shold have finished the job back in the early 90's but, instead wimped out and ran.. then along comes GWB and he wants nothing more than to avenge his family name even if he has to lie his way in the door to start soimething. Iraq and afghanistan had nothing to do with national security and everthything to do with being a power play for oil for the Bushco administration... If I am so wrong on this, then can you explain why the only industry that prospered while he was in office was the oil and gas markets?

 

[patmckinneyracing]

Ok let me correct myself. I was referring to desert storm under GB 1 and the Iraq war under GB 2.

Were bullying the Afghan government? Um last time I checked they invited us in as they began to take a stand against terrorism just like we do. We have been working with their government. Yes the main terrorist cells are in Pakistan, we have yet to get there because we have not gained permission to enter the country.

Iraq basically did attack us on 9/11 because they were the main sponsors of the terrorist cells that attacked us. To say that Iraqi government had nothing to do with it is completely farce.

As far as Bush 2 trying to keep the war costs off the books, he can try to keep it out of the book. The problem is, it is going to show up in the GDP and overall deficit anyway, no matter what he does. So even if he did lie, the numbers don't lie.

 

[85 Cutlass Brougham]

I am no fan of Obama, and voted against him in the last election. However, I am also no fan of Bush either. While I am not of the opinion that he lied about WMD's ( I think they went to Syria in that large convoy that was leaving Iraq just prior to the invasion in order to avoid detection), I am also not a fan of what he did with the Patriot Act either. Shades of Woodrow Wilson and the Sedition Act come to mind... Likewise, his stimulus bill never should have been either. The idea of giving cash to people and hoping they spend it is foolhardy at best. The only thing that may help is real improvement to infrastructure, and then only to pave the way for prosperity when it returns, not to bring prosperity itself. After all, prosperity does not spring from the working class but rather trickles down to them when the entrepreneurs succeed and need to hire them. This is something that Marx, and all those who came after him have always failed to understand.

As for Obama, he is a socialist that lied to the American people with a bunch of populist rhetoric in order to get elected. All the crap about transparency proved to be a lie, as has much of the ethical bullshit he and the rest of the Democrats promised us. His stimulus plan was just a thinly veiled package of political paybacks to the core constituency groups that supported him. Very little of it is targeted towards meaningful improvements to infrastructure that would put us in a more competitive position for the future. Likewise, the heath care reform bill is little more than a bill to set the stage for the government to completely take over the system. It makes it unprofitable to be in the health insurance business. Since people will be required by law to buy coverage it means that it will in essence force the government to step in and become an insurer when the insurance companies leave the business. Frankly, it is an unprecedented breech of personal freedom to be required to purchase a product or service by law just for being a citizen of this country. People should have the right to opt out of buying coverage if they so choose. Then again, we are no longer a free country, so I guess the government will micromanage our financial decisions like this more and more in the future. I foresee a future when we will all be forced to exercise "for our own good", much like Winston, standing in front of the telescreen in Orwell's "1984". After all, it is to help control health care costs for the government.

I will also say this about favoring those under $250k: Just because someone makes a lot of money does not mean they should be forced by law to pay for government programs to help those less fortunate. Instead, I say tax the poor at a higher rate because they are the ones that cost the government the most money. The rich do not need subsidized housing, or food stamps, or tuition assistance for their kids but yet they are expected to provide these things for everyone else. Screw that. The rich do enough as their economic activity helps to provide jobs and build the economy for those whose lives they affect.

 

[Snaffle]

I will also say this about favoring those under $250k: Just because someone makes a lot of money does not mean they should be forced by law to pay for government programs to help those less fortunate. Instead, I say tax the poor at a higher rate because they are the ones that cost the government the most money. The rich do not need subsidized housing, or food stamps, or tuition assistance for their kids but yet they are expected to provide these things for everyone else. Screw that. The rich do enough as their economic activity helps to provide jobs and build the economy for those whose lives they affect.

While I agree with you that you should not be FORCED to buy a service such as health insurance, I think it will be a relief for some of the 'lower class' to have an option aside from financial disaster or bankruptcy due to a catastrophic illness.

I'm not sure of what to make of the quoted statement though. By the $250k standard, I guess I'm considered poor, but I pay for my own health insurance and my rent, heat, electric, and every single other expense that even the rich are responsible for. I can say with confidence that I don't make anywhere near 250k, actually consider it somewhere close to 1/8th of that. I'm not complaining, I'm fully aware it's my responsibility to do something to improve my situation. So while I do not have the money to contribute as much as someone making over $250k, I am certainly not a drain on the government.

And if someone is solely living off the government (SSI, food stamps, etc) how are they going to contribute by being taxed more? I'm not trying to be arguementative, I just don't quite see how that would work, and I'm not sure I understand why it would be just to implement a higher tax to someone in my income bracket when I do not recieve any "freebies" from the government?