Abolish the Welfare System in America Vol. Mature Discussion

[RustyShackleford]

Forget it. These number don't prove **** btw

For example a the minimum wage in 1955 (a year you used) was $1. Working a normal 40 hour week would take home just over $2000 and would have to pay taxes on it. THE MATH DOESN'T"T ADD UP. You said something stupid and instead of saying that you were exaggerating, you're doubling down acting like I can't grasp the concept that money went further back then. I'm not debating that, I'm debating the jackass claim that minimum wage was taking of a family of 4 comfortable, and you don't even realize that the numbers YOU'RE posting keeps hurting your case

But yeah, whatever, I ain't Future, I ain't got the stamina for dudes like you, so keep living in your bubble. Enjoy

the tax rates were MARGINAL TAX RATES. you honestly believed people paid 90% of their income to the government? thats near slavery wages bro

You're acting so stupid right now. First off I know how taxes work first of all and you're completely came outta left field with this now. Where the **** did I say people paid 90% of their salary to the government.

Or do you realize that you are so damn wrong you just throwing crazy **** out to side track the debate.

What a Joke

 

[andycrazn]

You're acting so stupid right now. First off I know how taxes work first of all and you're completely came outta left field with this now. Where the **** did I say people paid 90% of their salary to the government.

Or do you realize that you are so damn wrong you just throwing crazy **** out to side track the debate.

What a Joke

then why dont you throw me some tax rates so i dont have to assume? you just said "pay taxes" but didnt throw how much the taxes were. so i had to throw some marginal tax rates that everyone talks about when comparing now with the 50s.

 

[-Red-]

So you're really wasting your time castigating people who receive public assistance when your real beef is with the fact that the dollar is not backed by the gold standard anymore? Is this accurate?

we got off it because the war on poverty, and various other war on ________ became such a burden that we had to become a fiat currency.

1. So your response is to demonize people that are so impoverished that they need government assistance for basic survival necessities like food and shelter?

2. What would you have proposed in place of the New Deal programs in the 1930s? Subsidized housing? Food stamps?

 

[andycrazn]

1. So your response is to demonize people that are so impoverished that they need government assistance for basic survival necessities like food and shelter?

2. What would you have proposed in place of the New Deal programs in the 1930s? Subsidized housing? Food stamps?

fdr shouldnt have dont any deal. that was a big mistake. look at social security. its about time its bankrupt since we hit the debt ceiling and turbo tax timmy is raiding that fund to buy us some time. everything the government does have an unintended consequence to it. by them giving us a program we therefore lift certain burdens/responsibilities. if a man didnt save for retirement they have SS to fall back on. imagine if it wasnt in place. that man would be more likely to save for it and have a decent fund to retire with and not rely on anyone else. now we paying into a fund with no return. straight negative ROI

 

[knowledgebones72]

1. So your response is to demonize people that are so impoverished that they need government assistance for basic survival necessities like food and shelter?

2. What would you have proposed in place of the New Deal programs in the 1930s? Subsidized housing? Food stamps?

fdr shouldnt have dont any deal. that was a big mistake. look at social security. its about time its bankrupt since we hit the debt ceiling and turbo tax timmy is raiding that fund to buy us some time. everything the government does have an unintended consequence to it. by them giving us a program we therefore lift certain burdens/responsibilities. if a man didnt save for retirement they have SS to fall back on. imagine if it wasnt in place. that man would be more likely to save for it and have a decent fund to retire with and not rely on anyone else. now we paying into a fund with no return. straight negative ROI

you do realize that if it weren't for the new deal, america would've fell apart and would have been taken over by some other country by now, right?

if it wasn't for the new deal, we would probably be speaking either german or russian by now.

that's how vulnerable america was during the great depression. that's why we NEEDED World War II. But we wouldn't have made it to WWII if it wasn't for the New Deal.

Anarchists were a real thing during the great depression, and they were organized in large networks and had huge numbers. America was literally about to fall apart and head into chaos without the New Deal.

There was literally a huge tent city set up directly outside of the White House a la the Occupy movement and the military had to intervene a few times using violent force to try to get them to move.

You, sir, do not know how to run a country.

 

[andycrazn]

you do realize that if it weren't for the new deal, america would've fell apart and would have been taken over by some other country by now, right?

if it wasn't for the new deal, we would probably be speaking either german or russian by now.

that's how vulnerable america was during the great depression. that's why we NEEDED World War II. But we wouldn't have made it to WWII if it wasn't for the New Deal.

Anarchists were a real thing during the great depression, and they were organized in large networks and had huge numbers. America was literally about to fall apart and head into chaos without the New Deal.

There was literally a huge tent city set up directly outside of the White House a la the Occupy movement and the military had to intervene a few times using violent force to try to get them to move.

You, sir, do not know history as well as you would like us to think you do.

rollinrollinrollinrollinrollinrollin

WE HAD TO GO TO WAR? REALLY? we were the last one to go INTO WAR. the great depression was caused by the same thing we went through in the last decade. did you know our economy was in the crapper in 1920 THAT WAS WORSE THAN the great depression? wilson suffered a stroke at the time that this happened so he couldnt do anything to "help" jumpstart the economy with any stimulus bs. unemployment rose FASTER than the great depression. but because he didnt do anything that the economy rebounded into the roarin 20s. with the help of the fed the liquor kept pouring and malinvestment ROSE, thats what led to the great depression.

there were tents in front of the white house because the vets were promised something that the president didnt give. i dont care what branch of government your in, but trusting a politician to give what you want is just foolish.

 

[-Red-]

1. So your response is to demonize people that are so impoverished that they need government assistance for basic survival necessities like food and shelter?

2. What would you have proposed in place of the New Deal programs in the 1930s? Subsidized housing? Food stamps?

fdr shouldnt have dont any deal. that was a big mistake. look at social security. its about time its bankrupt since we hit the debt ceiling and turbo tax timmy is raiding that fund to buy us some time. everything the government does have an unintended consequence to it. by them giving us a program we therefore lift certain burdens/responsibilities. if a man didnt save for retirement they have SS to fall back on. imagine if it wasnt in place. that man would be more likely to save for it and have a decent fund to retire with and not rely on anyone else. now we paying into a fund with no return. straight negative ROI

You didn't answer either of the questions.

 

[gatzbygordon]

 

[knowledgebones72]

you do realize that if it weren't for the new deal, america would've fell apart and would have been taken over by some other country by now, right?

if it wasn't for the new deal, we would probably be speaking either german or russian by now.

that's how vulnerable america was during the great depression. that's why we NEEDED World War II. But we wouldn't have made it to WWII if it wasn't for the New Deal.

Anarchists were a real thing during the great depression, and they were organized in large networks and had huge numbers. America was literally about to fall apart and head into chaos without the New Deal.

There was literally a huge tent city set up directly outside of the White House a la the Occupy movement and the military had to intervene a few times using violent force to try to get them to move.

You, sir, do not know history as well as you would like us to think you do.

rollinrollinrollinrollinrollinrollin

WE HAD TO GO TO WAR? REALLY? we were the last one to go INTO WAR. the great depression was caused by the same thing we went through in the last decade. did you know our economy was in the crapper in 1920 THAT WAS WORSE THAN the great depression? wilson suffered a stroke at the time that this happened so he couldnt do anything to "help" jumpstart the economy with any stimulus bs. unemployment rose FASTER than the great depression. but because he didnt do anything that the economy rebounded into the roarin 20s. with the help of the fed the liquor kept pouring and malinvestment ROSE, thats what led to the great depression.

there were tents in front of the white house because the vets were promised something that the president didnt give. i dont care what branch of government your in, but trusting a politician to give what you want is just foolish.

Yes we had to go to war. That's the only that took us out of the depression.

We were able to make money through manufacturing war supplies, taking over oil depositories in the middle east, and selling war bonds.

We didn't get into the war because of some noble idea; we got into it because Germany and Russia were getting lots and lots of money together in the first world war, and we saw there was a rift to be taken advantage of the second time around.

We saw that there was an opportunity to grab lots of land in Asia.

The entire roaring 20's was a sham: you said it yourself it was all malinvestment and people taking advantage of the lack of technology that could keep accurate records. People were making up numbers left and right and basically printing their own stocks and bonds. The roaring 20's was only roaring for the 1%; everyone else was living in poverty. There was no FDIC (another part of the new deal) so whenever a bank failed you simply lost all of your money no matter how responsible you were in saving it.

You can't say that the economy in the 20's was worse than the great depression AND things bounced back until less then a couple years later when the actual great depression happened (in 1929, which is in the 20's mind you) and lasted for 10 years. All that means is that the economy in America was horrible for about 20 years until FDR and WWII came and cleaned things up.

You're right: the tent cities in front of the White House were made up of veterans in protest to broken promises. You don't think that was symbolic of a larger problem in America at that time? If our veterans were doing bad enough to live in tent CITIES, not a couple tents or like an occupy wall street setup, but a tent CITY, then what about people who weren't promised anything AT ALL and were living in shantytowns that were taking America over?

like i said bruh bruh you don't know history like you think you do. if you're gonna say we didn't need to go into WWII then that right there shows you only know a very basic level of US history.

 

[gatzbygordon]

 

 

[andycrazn]

You didn't answer either of the questions.

i said fdr shouldnt have done a "Deal" none of those government programs wouldve started if he didnt do that right?

i dont think people of any societal status should be receiving ANYTHING from the government. from the special contracts corporations get, to the farm subsidies, to the man on the street struggling.

lets not talk about government helping us with money for a second and replace it with getting yambs. virgins that cant get yambs or people that just suck at talking to women get the yambs subsidized by the government by going to their yamb clinics. the governments can create jobs for the chicks that work there and its going to be a safe and controlled environment. how would you feel in this situation? sure there would be people getting yambs on a regular basis that would go in there to get some quick yambs. but is that fair?

 

[knowledgebones72]

America has a problem with overpopulation and too many people.

We don't have a problem with too much income.

Try another analogy.

 

[andycrazn]

Yes we had to go to war. That's the only that took us out of the depression.

We were able to make money through manufacturing war supplies, taking over oil depositories in the middle east, and selling war bonds.

We didn't get into the war because of some noble idea; we got into it because Germany and Russia were getting lots and lots of money together in the first world war, and we saw there was a rift to be taken advantage of the second time around.

We saw that there was an opportunity to grab lots of land in Asia.

The entire roaring 20's was a sham: you said it yourself it was all malinvestment and people taking advantage of the lack of technology that could keep accurate records. People were making up numbers left and right and basically printing their own stocks and bonds. The roaring 20's was only roaring for the 1%; everyone else was living in poverty. There was no FDIC (another part of the new deal) so whenever a bank failed you simply lost all of your money no matter how responsible you were in saving it.

You can't say that the economy in the 20's was worse than the great depression AND things bounced back until less then a couple years later when the actual great depression happened and lasted for 10 years. All that means is that the economy in America was horrible for about 20 years until FDR came and cleaned things up.

You're right: the tent cities in front of the White House were made up of veterans in protest to broken promises. You don't think that was symbolic of a larger problem in America at that time? If our veterans were doing bad enough to live in tent CITIES, not a couple tents or like an occupy wall street setup, but a tent CITY, then what about people who weren't promised anything AT ALL and were living in shantytowns that were taking America over?

rollinrollin
read the treaty of versailles. germany HAD TO PAY OFF THE WAR. they were BROKE. they suffered hyperinflation which led to the uprising of Hitler. their currency was so devalued to the point where foreigners would go into germany and austria and buy off their stuff and cross back the border. ernest hemingway wrote a first hand account on how life was in germany when they suffered through it.

the middle east agreement happened in 44. wouldnt it take at least a few years just to start production over there AFTER they signed the agreement? by then the war was over.

we got people manipulating and cooking books in todays world. are we lacking technology still that we can do that? look up rehypothecation and how corzine stole a bunch of money and gave it to jpm and used the excuse that it was "vaporized". everyone didnt live in poverty, it was just that the CREDIT was EASY. CHEAP MONEY+LONG TERM= MALINVESTMENT. there was bank runs which is natural and shouldnt be producted by FDIC or any other insurance program. its the customers duty to see if their bank that they use is solvent. if not PULL OUT and go somewhere else. its just like getting bad service at like a mcdonalds and going to burger king. people were doing it now and increased the risk of BoA going through a bank run 2 years ago even though they are insanely insolvent.

Name Dates Duration (months) Time since previous recession (months) Peak unemploy­ment GDP decline (peak to trough) Characteristics
Great Depression Aug 1929 –
Mar 1933 3 years
7 months 1 year
9 months 24.9%[31]
(1933) −26.7% Stock markets crashed worldwide. A banking collapse took place in the United States. Extensive new tariffs and other factors contributed to an extremely deep depression. The United States did remain in a depression until World War II. In 1936, unemployment fell to 16.9%, but later returned to 19% in 1938 (near 1933 levels).
Recession of 1937–1938 May 1937 –
June 1938 1 year
1 month 4 years
2 months 19.0%[32]
(193 −18.2% The Recession of 1937 is only considered minor when compared to the Great Depression, but is otherwise among the worst recessions of the 20th century. Three explanations are offered for the recession: that tight fiscal policy from an attempt to balance the budget after the expansion of the New Deal caused recession, that tight monetary policy from the Federal Reserve caused the recession, or that declining profits for businesses led to a reduction in investment.[33]
Recession of 1945 Feb–Oct 1945 8 months 6 years
8 months 5.2%[32]
(1946) −12.7% The decline in government spending at the end of World War II led to an enormous drop in gross domestic product, making this technically a recession. This was the result of demobilization and the shift from a wartime to peacetime economy. The post-war years were unusual in a number of ways (unemployment was never high) and this era may be considered a "sui generis end-of-the-war recession".[34]
Recession of 1949 Nov 1948 –
Oct 1949 11 months 3 years
1 month 7.9%
(Oct 1949) −1.7% The 1948 recession was a brief economic downturn; forecasters of the time expected much worse, perhaps influenced by the poor economy in their recent lifetimes.[35] The recession began shortly after President Truman's "Fair Deal" economic reforms. The recession also followed a period of monetary tightening.[30]

even after government intervention they had to balance the budget which still led to high unemployment and a horrible GDP. (which i think is highly flawed to begin with)

 

[jordan2233]

the whole country is on welfare

 

[-Red-]

You didn't answer either of the questions.

i said fdr shouldnt have done a "Deal" none of those government programs wouldve started if he didnt do that right?

i dont think people of any societal status should be receiving ANYTHING from the government. from the special contracts corporations get, to the farm subsidies, to the man on the street struggling.

lets not talk about government helping us with money for a second and replace it with getting yambs. virgins that cant get yambs or people that just suck at talking to women get the yambs subsidized by the government by going to their yamb clinics. the governments can create jobs for the chicks that work there and its going to be a safe and controlled environment. how would you feel in this situation? sure there would be people getting yambs on a regular basis that would go in there to get some quick yambs. but is that fair?

Bro, you're using ***** as an analogy for basic human survival needs like food and shelter...

And I guess your answer to the first question is "yes" and your answer to the second question is "nothing."

OK, you got it bro...

 

[jordan23dotcom]

Some of y'all think y'all are so smart lol. The gov is so intricate, complex, and fragile the slightest change or shift would cause a huge chain reaction both to the US and the rest of the world. Gay marriage is killing the gov, how much more this?

 

[teamjordan79]

America has a problem with overpopulation and too many people.

We don't have a problem with too much income.

Try another analogy.

disagree. Maybe China does and even then there are provinces that are scantly populated. It just seems that way because we are all crammed into metropolitan areas for the most part. In fact, you can fit everyone in the world into the state of Texas, give everyone a house....just saying.

 

[andycrazn]

Bro, you're using ***** as an analogy for basic human survival needs like food and shelter...

And I guess your answer to the first question is "yes" and your answer to the second question is "nothing."

OK, you got it bro...

how did people get food before the government started handing out stuff? they got it from the local community and food banks. churches was a big thing back then.

i guess what i said about how NO ONE OR ENTITY should benefit from the government didnt apply to your new deal question.

 

[knowledgebones72]

Germany and Russia getting money together, the Franz Ferdinand incedent leads to a war that leaves Germany out in the cold.

Hitler rises and Germany begins making a comeback, starting off WWII. At the same time Germany is rising America is going broke.

Germany solidifies a position, and this puts the rest of Europe in a position to need outside help. Enter US. What does US get out of it? All the German stuff that Russia was able to get during WWII. AKA the INDUSTRIAL spoils of the treaty of versailles. Not the dumbass little kingdoms and countries but the OIL and MINERALS not to mention the TECHNOLOGY and SCIENTISTS we got from negotiating with the best and brightest of Nazi Germany. We go from being offered stuff by France, Russia, and England to taking stuff to the point where we start moving in on Russia and by the end of WWII we have what becomes the Cold War. All of this is directly why the US emerged a superpower. Not because poor people miraculously got smarter with their money.

So that's you're first point debunked.

By the time the middle east agreement went down years of border negotiations had led to speculation and investment which in turn created enough money in itself. In order to get that oil we needed to be able to raise the billions needed for the technology and to deal with the locals, that didn't just pop up in 44 once the papers were signed.

So that's you're second point debunked.

You're third point...i never disagreed with you, so yea. Those in charge of capitalist financial institutions will always take advantage of the poor and use their money to play around with. According to your logic, in order to have a savings account, a worker in a steel mill should be analyzing trends in stocks and financial tools on a daily basis and moving his money around regularly according to said trends. Because that seems very realistic.

 

[andycrazn]

Germany and Russia getting money together, the Franz Ferdinand incedent leads to a war that leaves Germany out in the cold.

Hitler rises and Germany begins making a comeback, starting off WWII. At the same time Germany is rising America is going broke.

Germany solidifies a position, and this puts the rest of Europe in a position to need outside help. Enter US. What does US get out of it? All the German stuff that Russia was able to get during WWII. AKA the INDUSTRIAL spoils of the treaty of versailles. Not the dumbass little kingdoms and countries but the OIL and MINERALS not to mention the TECHNOLOGY and SCIENTISTS we got from negotiating with the best and brightest of Nazi Germany. We go from being offered stuff by France, Russia, and England to taking stuff to the point where we start moving in on Russia and by the end of WWII we have what becomes the Cold War. All of this is directly why the US emerged a superpower. Not because poor people miraculously got smarter with their money.

So that's you're first point debunked.

By the time the middle east agreement went down years of border negotiations had led to speculation and investment which in turn created enough money in itself. In order to get that oil we needed to be able to raise the billions needed for the technology and to deal with the locals, that didn't just pop up in 44 once the papers were signed.

So that's you're second point debunked.

You're third point...i never disagreed with you, so yea. Those in charge of capitalist financial institutions will always take advantage of the poor and use their money to play around with. According to your logic, in order to have a savings account, a worker in a steel mill should be analyzing trends in stocks and financial tools on a daily basis and moving his money around regularly according to said trends. Because that seems very realistic.

the treaty was for the first war...... so i dont know what the hell you are talking about with the whole ww2 and treaty thing. ive reread that paragraph a few times already and it doesnt make sense. i know about operation paperclip but that wasnt because we won. we protected their behinds from the stuff they did just so we can get their info.

quarterly reports would be sufficient enough. also never put all your eggs in one basket.

 

[knowledgebones72]

andycrazn you gotta be trolling because you seriously have no idea what it takes to run a nation.

like, no idea. in order to know how to run things you have to understand the symbiotic relationship between the rich and the poor. The rich NEED poor people to exist and need people to be poor in order for them to even be rich. The poor NEED the rich in order to provide for them. One is not more necessary than the other, and if you think 99% of the population becoming homeless and roaming the countryside wouldn't end up in the rich simply getting kidnapped and murdered and their homes taken over, then you just don't know history.

Which brings me to my main point, which is you just don't know history like you think you do.

 

[knowledgebones72]

Germany and Russia getting money together, the Franz Ferdinand incedent leads to a war that leaves Germany out in the cold.

Hitler rises and Germany begins making a comeback, starting off WWII. At the same time Germany is rising America is going broke.

Germany solidifies a position, and this puts the rest of Europe in a position to need outside help. Enter US. What does US get out of it? All the German stuff that Russia was able to get during WWII. AKA the INDUSTRIAL spoils of the treaty of versailles. Not the dumbass little kingdoms and countries but the OIL and MINERALS not to mention the TECHNOLOGY and SCIENTISTS we got from negotiating with the best and brightest of Nazi Germany. We go from being offered stuff by France, Russia, and England to taking stuff to the point where we start moving in on Russia and by the end of WWII we have what becomes the Cold War. All of this is directly why the US emerged a superpower. Not because poor people miraculously got smarter with their money.

So that's you're first point debunked.

By the time the middle east agreement went down years of border negotiations had led to speculation and investment which in turn created enough money in itself. In order to get that oil we needed to be able to raise the billions needed for the technology and to deal with the locals, that didn't just pop up in 44 once the papers were signed.

So that's you're second point debunked.

You're third point...i never disagreed with you, so yea. Those in charge of capitalist financial institutions will always take advantage of the poor and use their money to play around with. According to your logic, in order to have a savings account, a worker in a steel mill should be analyzing trends in stocks and financial tools on a daily basis and moving his money around regularly according to said trends. Because that seems very realistic.

the treaty was for the first war...... so i dont know what the hell you are talking about with the whole ww2 and treaty thing.

quarterly reports would be sufficient enough. also never put all your eggs in one basket.

America was not down with the treaty of versailles, so in order for us to join in WWII we demanded things that were given to other countries in the treaty. it's that simple.

oh, ok. because I work in a damn steel mill 14 hours a day and I can barely read to begin with, so I have time to catch up on quarterly reports every 3 months. In fact, I work in a damn steel mill 14 hours a day with a 2nd grade education, can barely read and am raising a family of 5 kids and my wife, and somehow know how to get a hold of some quarterly reports. because they're so readily available to a person of my social and economic class during the 1920's-30's. and with the whole 14 hour workday thing i definitely have time to go out and do the research it would take to simply know how to find the quarterly reports, let alone be able to decipher them and understand what i'm looking at, right?

 

[kix4kix]

Population control? Lmao *dips out*

 

[andycrazn]

andycrazn you gotta be trolling because you seriously have no idea what it takes to run a nation.

like, no idea. in order to know how to run things you have to understand the symbiotic relationship between the rich and the poor. The rich NEED poor people to exist and need people to be poor in order for them to even be rich. The poor NEED the rich in order to provide for them. One is not more necessary than the other, and if you think 99% of the population becoming homeless and roaming the countryside wouldn't end up in the rich simply getting kidnapped and murdered and their homes taken over, then you just don't know history.

Which brings me to my main point, which is you just don't know history like you think you do.

oh so you know what it takes to run a nation. ok buddy. the situation you described is when facism fails.

 

[andycrazn]

America was not down with the treaty of versailles, so in order for us to join in WWII we demanded things that were given to other countries in the treaty. it's that simple.

oh, ok. because I work in a damn steel mill 14 hours a day and I can barely read to begin with, so I have time to catch up on quarterly reports every 3 months. In fact, I work in a damn steel mill 14 hours a day with a 2nd grade education, can barely read and am raising a family of 5 kids and my wife, and somehow know how to get a hold of some quarterly reports. because they're so readily available to a person of my social and economic class during the 1920's-30's. and with the whole 14 hour workday thing i definitely have time to go out and do the research it would take to simply know how to find the quarterly reports, let alone be able to decipher them and understand what i'm looking at, right?

then how did he read and open up an account. it takes documentation to do that right? you assumed everyone back then was an idiot because they didnt get a public education.