Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Dementia means he's getting younger by the day...at least in his own mind.Oh my God! How old are you? Here, for your education: www.britannica.com/event/New-Deal
Life's little contradiction
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Mao - www.communistvoice.org/20cChinaLeft.html
Stalin - www.britannica.com/biography/Joseph-Stalin/Lenins-successor
Lenin - www.history.com/articles/lenin-stalin-differences-soviet-union
Hitler - www.factmyth.com/factoids/hitler-was-a-left-wing-socialist-liberal/
Mussolini - www.britannica.com/question/What-were-Benito-Mussolinis-political-beliefs
Mugabe - www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Mugabe
Castro - www.britannica.com/event/Cuban-Revolution
Che Guevara - www.britannica.com/biography/Che-Guevara
Pol Pot - www.britannica.com/biography/Pol-Pot
Jong family - www.nkleadershipwatch.org/kim-family/
Maduro - www.britannica.com/biography/Nicolas-Maduro
I gave all the links for brief bios on the people you list. It shows a similar pattern for most .... people fighting against colonial imperialists and repressive monarchy or authoritarian governments. Socialism in some cases, communism in others were the vehicles used .... BUT the people listed became just a flip side of the very people/governments they fought against. Some were just POS straight out the gate.
Now I KNOW you'll just ignore any (if not all) of the information given because comprehensive reading, critical review/analysis is something you avoid like the plague. So you'll just blow smoke to just end up with the same erroneous conclusion you previously stated.
Which is why you miss the entire point of the OP. Some of the people on your list were soundly educated, yet they turned out the way they did. Here in America, you have Ivy league educated people in our gov't that spew the most absurd, convoluted bilge one finds among the rabid theocratic belivers and pseudo-fascist social economic practitioners. Carry on.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
You do know that over 90% of the New Deal was tossed out as unconstitutional until FDR was able to pack the Supreme Court with Justices that were his picked "Yes men" don't you?
Aside from that, the question stands and your link shows nothing about that.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Short answer: No — the claim that “90% of the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional until FDR packed the Court” is not supported by historical evidence. Only a small number of major New Deal programs were struck down, and FDR never succeeded in packing the Supreme Court.
Walk through what did happen, because the real history is actually more interesting — and more complicated — than the talking‑point version you saw in that forum thread.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, let's see:
The various 'make work' programs like the CCC were costly failures on the whole.
Social Security turned into a Ponzi scheme and gives Americans a shit retirement many don't recognize as the shit job it is.
Income tax stripped anywhere from $1.5 billion to $7 billion out of the economy for government welfare and make work programs. Throw in on top of that that FDR imposed "excise taxes" on many consumer goods driving down consumption and hurting both corporations and individuals who could afford less.
Those taxes drove unemployment up rather than down.
The National Labor Relations act led to lots of violent strikes by unions and forced membership of workers in many industries previously not unionized where they didn't get sufficiently better pay or benefits as a result due to the dues the union extracted.
Much of the New Deal spending went to states that supported FDR and Democrats or to ones for political leverage. If anything, the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression rather than brought America out of it. That occurred because of WW 2 and the lead up to that war.
Was the New Deal a Success?
An answer to the question, ‘was the New Deal a success?’, including an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the New Deal.
The New Deal actually depressed the US GDP all the way up to 1940.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
back at you, asshole
Everyone is smarter than you. You are just a waste of time troll.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
You aren't Uncensored.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yep, to counter the congenital class & race bigotry ingrained in America, and to give the working, lower middle and even some of the middle class a shot at a decent life. Here are the current benefits to all Americans (that includes you) from the New Deal:
www.livingnewdeal.org/why-the-new-deal-still-matters-today/
Currently, your Cheeto Jeezus has done a similar SCOTUS packing to systematically undo the New Deal. Maybe you should do some honest research as to how life was for Americans (including you) previous to its enaction.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
As usual, the devil is in the details:Well, let's see:
The various 'make work' programs like the CCC were costly failures on the whole.
Social Security turned into a Ponzi scheme and gives Americans a shit retirement many don't recognize as the shit job it is.
Income tax stripped anywhere from $1.5 billion to $7 billion out of the economy for government welfare and make work programs. Throw in on top of that that FDR imposed "excise taxes" on many consumer goods driving down consumption and hurting both corporations and individuals who could afford less.
Those taxes drove unemployment up rather than down.
The National Labor Relations act led to lots of violent strikes by unions and forced membership of workers in many industries previously not unionized where they didn't get sufficiently better pay or benefits as a result due to the dues the union extracted.
Much of the New Deal spending went to states that supported FDR and Democrats or to ones for political leverage. If anything, the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression rather than brought America out of it. That occurred because of WW 2 and the lead up to that war.
Was the New Deal a Success?
An answer to the question, ‘was the New Deal a success?’, including an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the New Deal.historylearning.com
The New Deal actually depressed the US GDP all the way up to 1940.
www.historic-times.com/franklin-roosevelt-the-new-deal-and-a-nation-reborn/
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, lets see... From your link:
The New Deal built the three pillars of modern government in the United States. The first is Social Security
Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's crumbs for the stupid and lazy. People that actually had real jobs and careers get retirement plans, 401K's, IRA's and save some money. Sure, if you spend your life being a barista at Starbucks or a fry cook at Micky D's, Social Security may be all you get, but that's on you and your problem, nobody else's.
One grandkid that's already in a trade and working has a 401K, a big savings account, and is doing well. If he keeps that up, he'll have a comfortable retirement decades from now--No Social Security needed.
As retirement plans go, social security sucks. The ROI on it is nonexistent. That alone argues that it was devised and run by idiots.
The second pillar is Workers Rights.
Henry Ford was the progenitor of the 40 hour work week, not Unions, not the government, not the Left. Ford wanted his employees to have a reasonable work week and paid them sufficiently to buy one of his cars. That's smart capitalism at work, not Leftist politics. All FDR did was codify what was already being widely practiced by industry.
Unions are another problematic issue. Yes, there are times and places where unions are a necessity but on the whole, they are a net negative for workers. Today, unions get about 6% better pay than non-union workers. Dues eat up virtually all of that difference. Unions play politics that as much as half their members disagree with. The union is often corrupt to one degree or another. Unions often call arbitrary strikes and fight managers and owners over the most trivial bullshit.
Many unions also don't try to improve worker skills, flexibility, or encourage promotion. Doing this means they are likely to lose the member as they grow and rise in position.
On the whole, that's why unions today are in serious decline. They contribute little or nothing to improving worker's lives and often make them worse.
The third pillar is public investment.
This is a mixed bag. Government can contribute, but often it is the capitalist that does such things. The Carnage Libraries for example. The US railroad system was privately owned, and most of it still is. Yes, the government builds roads, but often it is private capitalists who put in the infrastructure then hand it over to government to operate in return for a tax break on the profits they make from developing land.
Then there's this dreck:
"...a time of deep despair and loss of faith in democratic government. In Europe that led to fascism,"
This shows the author of that piece is an historical illiterate. Fascism in Germany, the usual case held up as an example, was born out of brutal revenge, particularly by France, for WW 1. France and Britain wrecked the German economy with forced, massive, reparations for that war. The French, in particular, then squandered much of that on socialist programs that were utter and complete failures.
Spain and Italy were faced with serious radical Leftist, communist, uprisings which fascism offered a more palatable, nationalist, alternative. If anything, socialism and Leftist governments of the 20's and 30's in Europe caused much of the economic disasters that befell that region of the world.
zzzzzzzzzzz
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Well, let's see:
The various 'make work' programs like the CCC were costly failures on the whole.
Social Security turned into a Ponzi scheme and gives Americans a shit retirement many don't recognize as the shit job it is.
Income tax stripped anywhere from $1.5 billion to $7 billion out of the economy for government welfare and make work programs. Throw in on top of that that FDR imposed "excise taxes" on many consumer goods driving down consumption and hurting both corporations and individuals who could afford less.
Those taxes drove unemployment up rather than down.
The National Labor Relations act led to lots of violent strikes by unions and forced membership of workers in many industries previously not unionized where they didn't get sufficiently better pay or benefits as a result due to the dues the union extracted.
Much of the New Deal spending went to states that supported FDR and Democrats or to ones for political leverage. If anything, the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression rather than brought America out of it. That occurred because of WW 2 and the lead up to that war.
Was the New Deal a Success?
An answer to the question, ‘was the New Deal a success?’, including an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of the New Deal.
The New Deal actually depressed the US GDP all the way up to 1940.
90% of the New Deal was not tossed out as alleged above.
Short answer: No — the claim that “90% of the New Deal was ruled unconstitutional until FDR packed the Court” is not supported by historical evidence. Only a small number of major New Deal programs were struck down, and FDR never succeeded in packing the Supreme Court.
Walk through what did happen, because the real history is actually more interesting — and more complicated — than the talking‑point version you saw in that forum thread.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Once again, you take valid, documented history and try to replace it with your supposition and conjecture laden, revisionist opinions. I'll just quickly pull the rug out from under your error ridden screed:
- Henry Ford's business practice was UNIQUE unto itself ... it was NOT the business norm of the times. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford
- On Social Security in America: www.history.com/articles/social-security-history-fdr-new-deal
www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Social-Security-Expansion-Act-one-pager-Final.pdf
- Why Germany went the fascist way (a junior high version for you): www.kids.britannica.com/students/article/rise-of-Fascism-in-Germany/311390
- The eventual fall of France's imperialism was the impetus for its gov't change: www.britannica.com/place/France/The-Fourth-Republic
- Regarding Spain's fascist rise: www.historians.org/resource/the-rise-and-fall-of-fascism/
Note that there is a common thread of countries that were formerly monarchy based that went to fascism to socialism.
Now that little diversion is over, let's remember this about the OP: it was a statement that educational achievements and professional levels do not automatically equate a good moral compass. Slick Willy and all those who currently sail with the Orange Oaf prove that.
Jake Starkey
Verified User
Well, now, said Doc Holliday, as Taichiliberal took T. A. Gardiner's tripe like stripping down a broken Found On Road Daily.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Absolutely correct. That's why his innovation of a 40 hour work-week was so revolutionary. Because of the size of his business, that became the norm and then nationally adopted. Unions didn't do it, the Democrats didn't do it, and government sure as hell wasn't leading the way on it.
You offer nothing with your links. There is a common thread in them that amounts to an appeal to popularity fallacy. That means nothing. Social Security as a program is going broke. It offers a fraction of the cash at retirement that actual retirement plans like 401K's and IRA's do, among others. It is a sop to the poor and stupid, and your links don't change that.
Your link is unsecure, but I found a way in. Let's see:
The rise of the Nazis in Germany was intricately linked to the nation’s postwar economic problems.
Economic conditions dramatically increased popular discontent with the government and prompted many to look for a new leader who would restore Germany to its former glory. That leader soon emerged in the form of Hitler. An ardent nationalist with strong anti-Semitic convictions, Hitler argued that Germany had been defeated in World War I because of weak leadership, Jewish and Communist influences in the government, and an international conspiracy. Hitler advocated strong authoritarian leadership, through which he believed Germany could reestablish its dominance in Europe.
At the onset of the Great Depression, the Nazi party held 12 seats in the Reichstag (German parliament), and its popular support steadily increased as the economy worsened.
This is exactly what I stated. The rise of Hitler and the Nazis was due to the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the inability of Germany to economically recover from WW 1. Couple that to a national anger at being marginalized by France and Britain.
Just what I stated.
Colonial France fell because of a power vacuum in the immediate postwar years. There were already armed resistance movements in many French colonial possessions that had been encouraged and even armed and trained, to fight the Axis and Japan. These simply turned on France and demanded independence.
Metropolitan France also crippled their economic recovery post WW 2 by adopting a heavy dose of socialism.
Fourth Republic 1946-1958
A Brief History of French Socialists | Mises Institute
France did not adopt collectivism overnight. Rather, it has seen key periods that have made France fertile soil for a certain brand of aggressive socialism.
mises.org
Dreck.
Maybe read this instead:
The Fascist Reign in Spain - Common Reader
Francisco Franco, perhaps the ultimate litmus test for twentieth-century political ideology, gets a new biography of merit. But in attempting a more judicious portrait of Spain's most preeminent political figure, the authors often overlook considerable atrocities.
commonreader.wustl.edu
That happens when the Left overthrows the monarchy and replaces it with a socialist dictatorship of one sort or another. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
As usual, when you can dazzle me with your "brilliance" you try to baffle me with shoveling tons of BS.Absolutely correct. That's why his innovation of a 40 hour work-week was so revolutionary. Because of the size of his business, that became the norm and then nationally adopted. Unions didn't do it, the Democrats didn't do it, and government sure as hell wasn't leading the way on it.
You offer nothing with your links. There is a common thread in them that amounts to an appeal to popularity fallacy. That means nothing. Social Security as a program is going broke. It offers a fraction of the cash at retirement that actual retirement plans like 401K's and IRA's do, among others. It is a sop to the poor and stupid, and your links don't change that.
Your link is unsecure, but I found a way in. Let's see:
The rise of the Nazis in Germany was intricately linked to the nation’s postwar economic problems.
Economic conditions dramatically increased popular discontent with the government and prompted many to look for a new leader who would restore Germany to its former glory. That leader soon emerged in the form of Hitler. An ardent nationalist with strong anti-Semitic convictions, Hitler argued that Germany had been defeated in World War I because of weak leadership, Jewish and Communist influences in the government, and an international conspiracy. Hitler advocated strong authoritarian leadership, through which he believed Germany could reestablish its dominance in Europe.
At the onset of the Great Depression, the Nazi party held 12 seats in the Reichstag (German parliament), and its popular support steadily increased as the economy worsened.
This is exactly what I stated. The rise of Hitler and the Nazis was due to the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles and the inability of Germany to economically recover from WW 1. Couple that to a national anger at being marginalized by France and Britain.
Just what I stated.
Colonial France fell because of a power vacuum in the immediate postwar years. There were already armed resistance movements in many French colonial possessions that had been encouraged and even armed and trained, to fight the Axis and Japan. These simply turned on France and demanded independence.
Metropolitan France also crippled their economic recovery post WW 2 by adopting a heavy dose of socialism.
Fourth Republic 1946-1958
www.globalsecurity.org
A Brief History of French Socialists | Mises Institute
France did not adopt collectivism overnight. Rather, it has seen key periods that have made France fertile soil for a certain brand of aggressive socialism.
Dreck.
Maybe read this instead:
The Fascist Reign in Spain - Common Reader
Francisco Franco, perhaps the ultimate litmus test for twentieth-century political ideology, gets a new biography of merit. But in attempting a more judicious portrait of Spain's most preeminent political figure, the authors often overlook considerable atrocities.
That happens when the Left overthrows the monarchy and replaces it with a socialist dictatorship of one sort or another. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."
1. The issue came to a head in 1884, after the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions -- a predecessor of today’s AFL-CIO -- called for all workers to have eight-hour days by May 1, 1886. When that deadline wasn’t met, labor leaders upped the ante by calling for demonstrations ..... All of this occurred decades before Ford founded his company in 1903.
www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/sep/09/viral-image/does-8-hour-day-and-40-hour-come-henry-ford-or-lab/
2. As usual, facts and logic counter your stubborn, willful ignorance and opinion. Remember, a slightly complicated system allows the government to dip into the Social Security coffers:
www.legalclarity.org/when-did-the-government-start-borrowing-from-social-security/
But God forbid that the corporate and civilian wealthy pay a fair share of taxes to help out, much less insolvency:
www.truthout.org/articles/sanders-announces-legislation-to-reverse-trump-cuts-to-social-security/
3. You excerpted HITLER'S reasoning. Of course, there's more encompassing facts that tell a slightly different tale. Here's a better link that shows the dubiousness of your intellectual myopia:
The collapse of the Weimar Republic is certainly not the fault of Nazi extremists alone. It was a fundamentally fragile democracy that collapsed under the weight of the consequences of military defeat, the financial crisis and Germany’s authoritarian nationalist tradition. The rise of nationalism can be traced back to the very creation of the German Empire in 1871. With little to bind the newly created country together other than language, its founders, notably the Iron Chancellor Bismarck, deliberately created a collective national identity.
www.historic-times.com/the-weimar-republic-germanys-experiment-with-democracy-before-hitler/
4. You essentially parrot moot points from my link, then you re-iterate your "it's the socialist's fault" mantra despite the information in the link that demonstrates how the final colonial war within Algiers truly screwed up France's economy ... that there was a RIVALRY BETWEEN THE SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST FACTIONS, with the communists losing out in the end .... socialism under Mitterrand or Chirac or Sarkozy took a beating because France's import/export economy WITHOUT its colonial empire was screwed. So once again, you conclusion is erroneously incomplete in its substantiation.
5. What you don't like (but can't disprove or refute) you call "dreck". However, you source kind of overlooks the following:
www.theguardian.com/books/2012/mar/09/spanish-holocaust-paul-preston-review
6. Now you're just being insipidly stubborn. The HISTORICAL FACTS prove that when monarchies are replaced, the previous circumstances (economic, social, political) along with international influences determine how the new gov't (left or right) fairs. Hell, just look at what happened to the Philippines, or Chile or El Salvador. Remember Iran? The USA covert operations overthrew the (wait for it) DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADERSHIP, replaced him with the dictator Shah Pahvil and his CIA trained murderous SAVAT. They sat on the necks of their people for decades until the strongest, most organized civilian group overthrew them...unfortunately it was theocratic in nature.
And all done by SMART, WELL EDUCATED PEOPLE.
So again, when we look at POS like McConnell, Johnson, Hegseth, Kennedy, and the rest of the clown car ... just remember that these are the "smart people" that passed all the test at the "best" educational institutions.
Either you can deal with that, or continue down your stubborn detour.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Calls for one versus actually doing one and then getting government and industry in general to adopt it is another thing. Ford did that. It's like saying someone in 1825 recognized the need for a lightbulb but it took Edison another 60 years to patent one that actually worked...
http://www.politifact.com/factcheck...-hour-day-and-40-hour-come-henry-ford-or-lab/
Irrelevant to the FACT that Social Security has always had a near zero ROI because it only invests in government securities.
So, you're fine with Congress and government raiding it to pay for shit but upset with the idea that government could invest, in part or whole, any money in the system in the private sector.
This is precisely what I claimed. Hitler rose to power because of the Treaty of Versailles and its onerous terms on the German economy.
What difference does that make to what I stated?
Now you are off on a tangent.