Lucky...

But don't you disagree with most or all social welfare? Tell me, which method(s) of assisatnce do you agree with? And yet you don't post any of the 3 I posted to pick them apart; just dismiss them as irrational. I would say a socialist; communism is for peopel who are far virtually complete governmental control for the benefit of the gov.

Data? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data It's right there, numbers, information. I'm not talking nationalist rhetoric about how the the US is the best ever and how tax cuts, my friends, are the answer for everything. I'm talking numerically-based information.

Well, I'd hate for you to actually have to admit that opinions other than your own actually have merit, I know it'd be terrible for you. If you have another option, state it. I don't see how tax uncreases, new deals, WWII and social spending didn't have a major role in recovery, but let's hear it.

GDP wise, yes. Unemp was still 15% in 37 from 25% in 33 tho. Technically we were out in 33 when the GDP was +, but unemp kept things ugly for years. It was tehre, and it's relevant, but I ddin't reseach that.

Oh, I can't wait for your "data". So many of your other post have been so enlightening. Yes I know, filled with responses by posters like you ignoring data and deferring to rhetoric.

They thought they were, then the economy tanked again in '37. 5 years recovery after the worst mess ever is a win. Esp since recovery was pretty quick after the Revenue Act of 1932 and New Deals.

Well, you didn't leave an option for "none of the above". I mean, leaving only three possible responses, all of which coincide with your point of view is great way to do a poll... I guess I could have made an option for hocus pocus so you could have played. Sorry to have disinfranchised you.

When the gov taxes they don't tax the poor. The bottom 50% pay < 3% of all taxes, so let's understand taxes are almost exclusively for the rich. And the early recovery was without any real increase in military spending, so how was that a product of the war?

So how do you explan the recovery from 33 to 37? GDP not only flipped shortly after Hoover's Recovery Act of 1932 loaded with tax increases on the rich, but FDR increased taxes and social programs too. WWII spending wasn't until 38-39ish and we didn't enter the war until 42.

So the poll seems to be left at: 21 - only WWII 3 - Only Taxes and New Deals 13 - both This is what I thought the results would be. It seems to be the common perception that the war brought us out, we hear it all the time and virtually everyone seems to parrot that, so I did a little research. Here's my take. Depressions / recessions don't have start and stop dates like a football season, they transition and are very dynamic. If we go strictly by definition we must declare a recession gone when the GDP goes positive at all. Of course the employment mess can take years to reestablish, so that isn't reasonable. But it's important to look at data to see what the economy is doing, factor in tax systems and social programs to retrospectively determine what works and what does not. Let's look at the Great Depression timeline. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gpd20-40.svg The GDP before and after the GD are depicted here. The GDP fell immediately as the October 1929 crash hit and turned positive in early 1933. Even tho there was another recession in 1937-38 during the recovery, the GDP had recovered to pre-GD levels before that recession. And after the 37-38 recession was recovered, the GDP once again hit levels way above that of pre-GD GDP before the start of the war. So we can hardly say the war pulled us out of the GD or the 37-38 recession, so what was it? Let's look at unemployment. Even tho that is not a strict component to whether we are in a depression/recession, it is a byproduct and usually the last thing to heal. http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/recovery.htm The first graph depicts the unemployment rate from 1929 to 1942. Unemployment was down to < 5% in 42, making me think the war had nothing to do with the recovery of the GD, as we entered the war in Dec 8, 42, officially. So to bring all of the evidence together and make sense of the recovery we must understand any military spending, taxation and social spending and in this case New Deals. When the GD kicked off, Hoover thought a laissez faire approach would work and even cut taxes. He thought, as many conservatives do today, that the market will correct itself in all times. After things went horribly with the recovery he decided to be proactive and increased taxes on the rich with his Revenue Act of 1932. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1932 GDP fell drastically and Unemp flew up to 25% during these years of tax cuts and then, in 1933, flipped around and 4-5 years of economic success were realized. Unemp fell to 15% and the GDP flew past pre-GD levels. The things enacted from right before the recovery until the 37-38 recession were: - Hoover tax increase - New Deal 1933 - 2nd New Deal 34-36 It is clear that between the kickoff of the GD in 29 until the 37-38 recession within the depression that was wholly a recovery without the assistance of WWII. But the growth from the 37-38 recession was aided by WWII spending. I went into this research thinking it was wholly tax increases on the rich, New Deals and the sort, but after reading a bunch I think it was both. Of course I think it was primarily tax increases and New Deals, esp since that's what initiated the recovery and Hoover's inaction and tax cuts exacerbated the recovery and deepened the damage. I guess I would say that 70% of the recovery was due to taxes on the rich, New Deals and social spending. What would have happened if WWII never happened? Well, conservatives would say that tax cuts would fix everything and liberals would say that tax increases and social spending would be the answer. We'll never know, but what we do know is that Hoover's inaction and tax cuts early on obviously prolonged recovery and ignored human suffering. A series of tax increases and social spending obviously led to a quick set of relief that lasted 4-5 years. Of course military spending is just essentially a government social program that is more justifiable than conventional social spending, so I guess it was more borrowed social spending that once again supplied the ultimate recovery. BTW, the 91% max tax rate was not repealed below 88% until 1963, during a great economic time, so once again high taxes are a positive thing.

No need to be so sensitive about being outed. Your free to your opinion. (Gross tax Liability) - (federal payments received) = Net Tax Liability Net Tax Liability > 0 Dollars , a discount or rebate on a persons tax expense. Net Tax Liability < 0 Dollars, a government hand out. I can be for or against the stimulus payments. You can be for or against them. Does that change the equation somehow? You either pay in, or you cash out. So what you complaining about is Earned Income Credit and the likes. You're equating the stimulus to EIC if the receiver is on EIC or hasn't paid in. The reason people get EIC is due to them having kids and very, very low income.

As was mentioned before, the amount that I received was far exceeded by the amount that I paid in. I received a discount, or a rebate, on my overall tax expense. I am not specifically against the distribution of the stimulus funds that are mentioned above. That being said I would like to know how much federal tax the recipients have paid in over the past 5 or 10 years. If recipients have been receiving the "earned" income tax credit for the last few years, or haven't had any federal tax liability lately (if ever), then they aren't receiving a "rebate" or a "discount". Quite the opposite, they are actually making a net profit, and that is wealth redistribution plain and simple. You can agree with giving the contributing individuals of the tax system a rebate, and at the same time disappove with distributing funds to individuals that don't contribute any tax revenue to the system. They are two totally seperate concepts. I see, so your nice tax write-off for yourself and per child is great and fine, as it benefits you, but people well into poverty are theirves. I wonder if people in higher classes look at you and the comparatively small taxes you pay and think you are fucking the system? Of course they do, and the people above them do the same, etc... We are a classist nation, with clearly divided classes rather than a baseline of descent benefits for all. Interesting read I had the other day, this article establishes that clearly divided classes being a key element for fascism. http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/fascism-movement1.htm ·Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy. So for others to denounce people well into poverty getting any benefit from a stimulus is to keep them into that class and a furtherance of immobility between the classes. ·Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State. Then deny them help they cannot afford and we have fulfilled this element; do for yourself or die. ·Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State. And then with a president like Bush this really fit. Of course having the WH, Congress and SCOTUS all highly conservative this became a real nightmare of an authoritarian model. Of course we put them there, so we got the government we deserved. Was it fascist? To a very certain degree and wanting the ultra-poor to not have a stimulus is a furtherance of that. Yes, that is exactly what I said. Now excuse me, I need to go take welfare checks and foodstamps from more poor undeserving single mothers. Oh, so you agree that ideals that worry of the underclass getting assistance, stimulus, etc are fascist?

Perhaps they couldn't afford the policy they had, typical of young couples. Or for people like my GF who would pay at least 400 month with a big deductable. She's played by the rules, yet she cannot enjoy a deserved retirement. There are endless stories that deem a public option necessary. Yea, it wasn't like they were operating on a showstring, they wanted that trip to Paris they were robbed out of when she became pregnant. Yes, other than Hanity, Limbaugh, Colter and a couple others the media is ALL liberal and ALWAYS out to deceive us.

Business are the People.This country is made up of small businesses that are owned by The People, The Large Evil Corporations are Owned "By the people" who are shareholders. The Businesses are what provide Jobs for the people. We have the freedom to start our own Businesses if we think we can do things better/smarter/faster/cheaper. Businesses and People are one and the same. Just ironically the poor who go unrepresented are almost always the ones not owning the business or having insurance. So we are talking largely a class issue here. Of course then there's my GF who has been at her job for 29 years with the county, she has Crone's and cannot retire because of her preexisting condition; gotta love America.

Right, body typing infants is pathetic.

Exactly, I fault the gov and the conservative extremists for advocating the gov not offer a public option.

Just a late term abortion, according to some anti-life types. I got into a lengthy discussion about this a year ago at my local univ where the anti-abortionists set up a display of pics of aborted fetuses. I told him that until he fixes his party and they quit trying to shoot-down every public HC option in the name of money/corp profit while simultaneously trying to abolish abortions in the name of love and compassion they will come off as a joke. Once their arguments are consistent and they also want every human to have HC however it has to be done, they will have a solvent argument that people will listen to. Again, until then it will be a joke.

They shouldn't, which is why we need a public option. You seem like a descent guy, you just don't seem to understand the dynamic from the other side. So was slavery. I've never heard you say anything like that before. This is an extreme example, we could post example after another of other scenarios where you would say the same here, so let's quit the semantics and just offer teh public option and be done with the issue. I agree, let's just do the public option and let the ins co's operate as profits dictate.

Great, what a country; business before people......and they call us fascist. That's why the gov option, when business gets so corrupt that they disallow infants, or hell, adults for that matter, they need to have a competitor that keeps them in line. Exactly, parents can't afford preventative care or are otherwise disallowed, so we wait until he convulses and theeeeeen take him to the ER so they can try to revive him and theeeeeen pursue the parents until they BK and continue the idiocy over and over again. That's teh main dispute with HC, thanks for pointing it out.

Makes no sense, Dems want uni-care.

. I'm off today and the weather is crappy, so here I am on Al Gore's internet... I'm using Bush's internetsssssss.

Great way of showing your opinion, by refusing to answer questions about your opinion. You must be related to Kallend. I was asking. In my experience with insurance companies, there is usually more than one mitigating factor. Concede I will not, since the article does not cover any of the other information and you are unable to provide further information for your stand point. Mitigating? You mean disallowing or disqualifying factor? Mitigating doesn't make sense there.

Ok, you caught us, we were trying to use this kid as the poster child for HC reform when in reality he is a heroin addict, an old habit he picked up while serving in Nam. And then there's all the STD's he picks up from all the hookers he bangs. This infant is really a louse who wants the gov nipple stuck in his mouth, not mommies.

As was mentioned before, the amount that I received was far exceeded by the amount that I paid in. I received a discount, or a rebate, on my overall tax expense. I am not specifically against the distribution of the stimulus funds that are mentioned above. That being said I would like to know how much federal tax the recipients have paid in over the past 5 or 10 years. If recipients have been receiving the "earned" income tax credit for the last few years, or haven't had any federal tax liability lately (if ever), then they aren't receiving a "rebate" or a "discount". Quite the opposite, they are actually making a net profit, and that is wealth redistribution plain and simple. You can agree with giving the contributing individuals of the tax system a rebate, and at the same time disappove with distributing funds to individuals that don't contribute any tax revenue to the system. They are two totally seperate concepts. I see, so your nice tax write-off for yourself and per child is great and fine, as it benefits you, but people well into poverty are theirves. I wonder if people in higher classes look at you and the comparatively small taxes you pay and think you are fucking the system? Of course they do, and the people above them do the same, etc... We are a classist nation, with clearly divided classes rather than a baseline of descent benefits for all. Interesting read I had the other day, this article establishes that clearly divided classes being a key element for fascism. http://history.howstuffworks.com/european-history/fascism-movement1.htm ·Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy. So for others to denounce people well into poverty getting any benefit from a stimulus is to keep them into that class and a furtherance of immobility between the classes. ·Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State. Then deny them help they cannot afford and we have fulfilled this element; do for yourself or die. ·Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State. And then with a president like Bush this really fit. Of course having the WH, Congress and SCOTUS all highly conservative this became a real nightmare of an authoritarian model. Of course we put them there, so we got the government we deserved. Was it fascist? To a very certain degree and wanting the ultra-poor to not have a stimulus is a furtherance of that.

Yes, I agree, let them die. Here's a great example of the undoing of Bushenomics via Obama's stimulus: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm I know in chaos government that's a bad thing, but it is considered a positive thing with the rest of us.