Agnostic.com

5 2

Woodrow Wilson a PROGRESSIVE president, created the Federal reserve in 1913, to STABILIZE the economy, they are doing the exact opposite, benefit of hindsight? The federal reserve is a marxist organization!!! In 1935, 22 years after the creation of the federal reserve, the new deal was created by roosevelt, another liberal president!!! The dollar was still backed by gold!!! Social security and massive welfare programs were created. These programs bankrupted the united states, so the treasury was losing all of its gold, in order to fund this massive spending, Roosevelt signed executive order 6102 to rob its own citizens of the money they rightfully earned! You can own dollars backed by gold, but you couldn't own the physical gold. That sounds extra retarded to me. So, in 1971, president ford, a Republican, removed the dollar from gold standard, it only took 36 years for the usa to go broke as a result of these entitlement programs. He also made it legal for Americans to have gold again. From history, its obvious the progressives are destroying the united states prosperity. After 1971, prices became unstable to fiat currency and inflation.

Rich177 5 June 29
Share

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

The 1950s are calling, and they want their Red Scare back!

0

The REAL problem is the super-rich and the corporations pay almost NO taxes, a deliberate ploy by Republicans to starve the government of the money it needs to operate. It used 'supply-side economics' as the rationale, claiming the rich would use the money to invest in new industry, thus stimulating the economy.
BUT instead, they shipped all the jobs overseas and put their windfall profits into tax shelters or offshore banks.
So they lied.
NOW they'll use the gigantic federal deficits as an excuse to cut programs to protect the environment, food and drug supply, workers' rights, services to the needy, etc., instead of doing the obvious thing and RAISE TAXES and CUT MILITARY SPENDING.
Hopefully people will finally wake up and VOTE this time, give Democrats the majority, and install a democratic socialist system like the one enjoyed in Europe. The Republicans could then resume their intended roles as needed checks on overly-exuberant spending, and as insurers the rich continue to keep enough of their profits to be amply rewarded for their entrepreneurship and innovative genius.
One can hope.
Meanwhile, loonies such as the Ayn Rand Objectivists can squeal like stuffed pigs about the 'Makers' and 'Takers' from the peanut gallery, where they belong.

Kim Kiyosaki is a woman and she has more balls than you. She wouldn't depend on a man or the government for her money. She has 80 million dollars net worth while you cry for more handouts instead of actually learning, studying, and doing something to improve yourself and all you offer is a bunch of excuses.

@Rich177 Kim who?
I'm semi-retired after a (fairly) successful career and am always looking to improve myself. Who the heck are you?
Btw, I love my Social Security and 'government handouts,' which I earned and accept gratefully, thankful the government has done some things right in the past--hopeful it reverses it's current ruinous course set for us by the greedy Republicans.
In my book, the only issue is, who gets the money? The super-rich and the military, or the lower- and middle-classes, who do most of the actual work instead of living off interest and capital gains?
The rich know they were born on third base and didn't hit a triple, had advantages not available to less fortunate people, and don't care. Their concerns are for themselves, their friends and family, period. They want to continue aristocratic, dynastic rule.
Only the government has the power to redistribute wealth and establish other avenues to upward mobility, so the lower classes have a shot at the good life, rather than society ossifying into a rigid class system.

@Storm1752 there you go spouting off ignorance. Kim Kiyosaki was homeless without a job and millions in debt. You're on 3rd base because you don't have millions in debt lol

@Rich177 Homeless and MILLIONS in debt? Impressive.
What's your success story? Walk seven miles barefoot to a one-room schoolhouse every day? Raid the dumpster behind the McDonald's every evening? Study by candlelight in a cardboard box in the woods every night?
Your living in an ideological box yourself. Knowing about the socialist systems in Europe, how can you justify hoarding your money while people starve? Don't you ever feel guilty? I'm assuming you use every tax dodge and loophole available to you and probably pay next to nothing, am I right? And you tell yourself it's okay because 'those people' are stupid, lazy bums, right? And you watch Fox News religiously and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are practically members of the family. Comfortably esconsed in your fantasy world, your rationalizations seem perfectly understandable, indeed praiseworthy.
I read The Richest Man in Babylon...good advice, if you have that 10% to save every week. Believe it or not, a lot of people don't have it. Some people need that education at which you scoff; sometimes your sure-fire formula for success won't or can't work, things go wrong...not to YOU, of course, you're too smart for that, work too hard, are just too darn much of a Winner to end up like that. Some people aren't so lucky--oh sorry, luck has nothing to do with it, right? Tough guys like you make their OWN luck! Hahaha.
Anyway, like it or not, government and bureaucracy are facts of modern Life, and are necessary for a reasonably efficient and smooth-functioning civilization to exist. Sorry if that upsets you.
I'm also sorry if your ideas of Supermen overcoming all obstacles, and heroically beating all odds, to emerge victorious, is just a fantasy in most cases. As is your hero John Galt. Hank Rearden is just a character in a wildly improbable fantasy novel by a bitter woman, disillusioned by war.
So rant on. In November there'll be a major power shift, and your Republican allies will be out on the street. Since they're all millionaires themselves no tin cup or EBT card will be needed. They'll be fine.

@Storm1752 you're so far off I'm laughing. Everything you just wrote is pure fantasy. I'm not sure you're interested in learning anything here, but I'll post for the benefit of others reading this, if not for your benefit. In the book, the richest man in Babylon, you'll notice that money was physical gold and silver, of which today we have a fiat currency. That's one huge difference. When you save currency today, you lose to inflation. I disagree that the wild west we live in today even remotely resembles anything civilized, and frankly, it's not smooth operating like you think it is. Real life, true stories abound of people who had it far worse than you and chose to study money and learn and made an effort to be financially free rather than live in fear collecting a check because they are afraid the government will take it from them. They aren't superman, they are ordinary people that resolved not to be a government dependent/slave.

@Rich177 The main point is, revenue SHOULD equal expenditures. Your personal attacks mean nothing to me, except to betray the weakness of your arguments. I doubt very many people are reading this anyway. No on wants to read garbage, which is what happens when people resort to name-calling.
Republicans have deliberately created monstrous deficits in order to force the Democrats to agree to sharply curtailed spending. This has resulted in, among other things, severe understaffing of the FDA, the EPA, and all other agencies. It has resulted in sharp reductions in social services, among other things. And STILL there are deficits approaching a TRILLION dollars a year (and forget about this year!).
The Pubs think, perhaps correctly, eventually a showdown (for real) will happen, and they will win, the government will be stripped to the skeleton, and it will shrink to pre-New Deal proportions.
Either that, or they really do believe their supply-side fantasy, which I find unfathomable.
Either that, or they hope eventually they'll gain enough of a political advantage their brand of change will happen unilaterally,
most power will devolve back to the States, and/or
the incipient oligarchy will cement permanent dominance, and/or
an imminent Constitutional Convention will allow sweeping changes to our basic charter in their favor.
Or some other fundamental change will occur.
Short of that, it should be obvious the budget SHOULD be balanced, regardless of ideology. If it requires steep increases in taxation, it should occur. If there is a tax rebellion as a result, so be it.
If that occurs and there are draconian cuts in spending as a result, so be it. There may be riots in the streets and/or many people may suffer and die, but in the long run the fiscal house would be put back in order.
It can't go on this way, is for sure.

@Storm1752 dude, be quiet and listen. You have a lot to learn, nothing you say remotely even adheres to reality, it's pure fantasy. You sorely lack any kind of financial education and your personal financial situation is proof of that. You don't ask advice from a 600 pound man how to lose weight, and you don't learn about money from a broke government dependent slave. Have enough humility to realize you don't have the answers. Now, from observation, even if the green new deal was put into practice and we had a 100 percent tax, it wouldn't even cover the expense. Your idea of taxing 100 percent is foolishness because you don't understand basic economic principles. Why would anyone bother going to work if they were taxed at 100 percent? Pure folly. A simple game like sim city can teach you that the higher you raise taxes, the people leave your city, that's why theres a great California exodus happening. If theres nobody living in your city, who will you steal money from (or tax)? On the spending, you are woefully ignorant regarding money once again. We have a FIAT currency. That means the dollar, as of right now, is not only completely worthless, it's an IOU to the taxpayer , and guess who gets to pay back the money borrowed from them? The taxpayer! Perfect! It's just giving a drunk full access to the bar, the politicians can spend to their hearts content, but for some reason, you think not enough taxes is the problem......hahahahaha. Funny guy! If you could borrow money from me and make me pay it all back, why not right? Anyways, that's not the point. You are so sorely lacking on financial education, it's no wonder you're broke and dependent and you will die that way if you don't start studying and learning about money. Concepts like inflation and deflation mean nothing to you. You could start there, look up economic inflation/deflation and see if you can start to understand what's going on right now in the world.

@Rich177 You're amazing. Just the fact you say I said I suggested we tax people 100% tells me you simply are either attempting to confuse/anger me or channel me into a non-productive dead end, or you haven't read what I wrote, or are creating a straw dog. Also, saying I suggested the problem is not taxing at a high enough rate is blatantly inaccurate. Of course I said nothing of the kind.
Similarly, your apparently feigned and exaggerated condenscension leaves me with the distinct impression you wish not to address my various points, which I can repeat in distilled form: the Democrats have TRIED to work with Republicans to get closer to a balanced budget by offering to cut spending in return for a proportionate increase in taxes. They have consistently refused, insisting on budget cuts alone. In fact, whenever possible they do cut taxes alone, unilaterally, especially on those in the higher tax brackets. Now in a country of about 350 million people, spending can only be cut so much before the government itself becomes non-functional. If that is the GOAL, of course, this is not a problem; rather, it is a means to an end.
Clearly, you're an Objectivist Libertarian. In my opinion, that is an extremely impractical, unrealistic position. In other words, you are not even TRYING to deal with reality. You are taking what you consider a principled stance, but it is largely a symbolic representation of what you consider an IDEAL state of affairs "in a perfect world," not a realistic, pragmatic one which would lead to effective governance, or even a productive conversation..
So I again find myself engaging with a non-serious person whose aim is not to compromise and accommodate, but rather establish a initial position and stick to it despite attempts to reach a deeper understanding of the issues involved.
I'll continue this charade as long as you wish, but with regret and increasing disinterest, since nothing substantive is being accomplished, and more importantly, will not BE accomplished if this 'chat' continues past the point at which into it has already devolved, a pointless impasse.
I WILL say it's too bad Republicans in Congress almost to a man, these days, have the same uncompromisingly absolutist attitude as you. It's really a 'miracle' anything gets done!
(Oh that's right, nothing DOES get done!)

@Storm1752 the united states is already spending over 110 percent of the GDP. Raising taxes doesn't mean collecting more taxes. Businesses flee high tax environments. Elon Musk is moving his business out of California. It's just a fundamental misunderstanding that you believe increasing taxes guarantees more tax revenue. That's even without regard to the moral issues regarding stealing from people for having the nerve to be productive citizens instead of sitting at home all day. The fact that Democrats want to increase spending (lol) when we already spend more than the nation produces.....I'm speechless. Regardless, continue on. The green new deal is being pushed by Democrats and that will only increase spending beyond the 110 percent GDP and even a 100 percent tax rate wouldn't pay for it, but it sounds good to you because you're lazy and don't want to make an effort to make your own money. There's no strawman here, Ocasio Cortez, marxist supporter and many other Democrats you voted in are pushing these absurd programs. And, finally, yes, it's the government's goal to cause INFLATION, absolutely, by spending and printing more dollar bills.

@Rich177 There you go again with the name-calling...you really should do something about that. Lazy: in November, 2016 I got rear-rammed by a semi truck, which fractured my spine in three places (if you must know), so I have a physical disability. What's your excuse? What do YOU do which is so industrious? Nothing. You simply have knowledge of how to manipulate that FIAT currency you're so keen on criticizing.
I don't buy the supply-side argument 'your kind' is always pushing. Less taxation equals more tax revenue? Baloney. That only works up to a point: about 30% is the figure I've heard. Yes of course states are always competing for business, and business will often go where taxes are lower and other incentives are higher. For instance, "Right to Work" states are popular, because they're union-free so the businesses can really stick it to employees. Duh. All that means is Big Business (ie, the Oligarchs) have succeeded in more or less doing away with union/worker protections on the federal level. Other federal regulations are also conveniently lacking, making this capital flight possible. This is a result of "federalism" run amok, power inappropriately devolving to the states because federal rules have been quietly eliminated by successive Republican administrations, Congressional actions, and the concerted and sustained 'lobbying' (bribery) of greedy business interests. These same interests lied to the American people (through pliant politicians) that they would reinvest the money saved in taxes into domestic industry; instead of course they exported that money (read, jobs) to Asia, Mexico, South America, etc.) where labor is plentiful and dirt cheap.
A short analysis of the "green new deal:" it's a fantasy, of course, sort of like your libertarian fantasies from your angle. It's an environmental wet dream, how it SHOULD be if everybody took 'climate change' seriously, and if degradation/destruction of the environment meant as much as it arguably should. Clearly, as can be amply demonstrated via Fox News, AM Radio, and right-wing 'thinkers' in general, the natural world is simply another, minor, cost of production. Since that cost cannot be externalized, it is just denied outright. This is necessary, as you surely know, because corporations are people, with the same rights as individuals, a bit of pernicious fiction visited upon us by the Supreme Court sometime early on in the 19th century, people who MUST maximize profits for shareholders at ALL costs--the environment, workers' rights, you name it. Therefore it is their DUTY to lie if necessary to maximize profits. Earlier on in the history of the United States, corporations operated under charters, and had to demonstrate to government they were conducting themselves in the public interest. That was all conveniently done away with by the oligarchic elements, of course. Too bad there weren't campaign finance laws back when it might have made a real difference!
Well I'm rambling. The "green new deal" is only a wish list of what SHOULD be done, not resembling anything remotely doable, unless the far-left somehow was swept into office with gigantic majorities in Congress and into the White House, and even then the Supreme Court might very well strike down much of the entire agenda.
Indeed it is only the 'Deep State' which prevents the fascist Oligarchs from finalizing their complete takeover of the federal government. It might take that Constitutional Convention, now on the horizon, to finish the job.

@Storm1752 I'm done here after this post. Like you just admitted, it's an excuse. I don't need excuses. I need results. Strawman: never claimed less taxation increases tax revenue. In fact, I don't think taxes are constitutional especially since they are collected without consent. Less taxes increases productivity. You have an employee mindset, which clearly shows more lack of financial education. With your excuse, you still manage to post here online, and you can make your money online posting stuff, operating your own business. Your clearly don't know how money works. Price controls fail miserably. Your lack of financial education is showing through more and more, the rich do not hoard cash, they borrow and spend. Actually, the courts responsibility is to the creditors, not the shareholders. Seems like you support the green new deal to me, not a strawman after all. Have a good day I'm done here.

1

Your time line for actions is good but your reasons for having done them is way off. Programs that help people did not bankrupt the country, allowing the rich to not pay taxes on the money they made did it. And we keep doing this like the last tax act the Cheeto put into action. This moved one and a half trillion dollars to the rich to invest and make the economy better. It did absolutely nothing. No we have the virus and the funding for it and so far over half the money has gone to the rich in tax breaks and perks from their business operations. We have the ability to do much better with the money and spur the economy but it is not going to happen as long as the money in any form goes to those who do not need it.

I can't even read your statement, it's so ignorant financially it hurts. Ever wonder why its impossible to tax the rich and have a booming economy? Look at it this way: if you tax the rich there won't be any rich people. Look at it another way: nobody is ENTITLED to another man's money just because he has more. That's just ignorant. Think of a guy that busted his ass selling vacuums all day and made a lot of money versus a guy who drank until he passed out everyday after work. Do they deserve to have the same amount of money? In your view, its economic equality, in my view, its bullshit. The cheeto you refer to is actually a liberal in my view because he's giving out handouts to people for simply existing. The handouts didn't go to the rich to invest, it's far more insidious than that. The handouts are to create inflation, rising prices, in order to defeat deflation, prices dropping. A massive economic collapse where nobody has a job, all the banks and businesses close and you have nothing to buy as productivity freezes. This is a result of fiat currency, keynesian economics.

@Rich177 What school of economics did you attend? I do not understand your comments as they do not seem to follow what has been discussed in many of the books I have read.

@dalefvictor school doesnt teach about money, they teach you how to be an employee. Professors who depend on a job for money are not qualified to teach about money because they only know how to trade their time for money. Read books by Jim Rickards, the death of the dollar, formerly in the CIA. Follow Robert Kiyosaki and learn about money. Read the richest man in Babylon. The study of money is way deeper than just being a good bitch who obeys so the rich man can give me a paycheck. We're in the same boat, I believe, me and you. Fear and desire control our behavior towards money. You see, when you offer a job to someone, the desire to buy stuff motivates them to work. Once they have stuff, the fear of losing it keeps them working. Once you are on social security, the fear of losing that check causes you to stay unemployed and dependent/enslaved to the government. To obtain financial freedom, you must first see your fear and overcome it.

@Rich177 Thank you for your comments.

2

That's right, after all the only thing that's important is the money on your own pocket. Screw the vulnerable and marginalized of society.. it's their fault they were born in the first place. If they can't share in the American society because they are not white, well that's just too bad. They should have been born white, that's their fault too. America is only for the white privilege, to hell with helping others out. Help yourself first, screw everybody else.

t1nick Level 8 June 29, 2020

You're racist

Its racist to say black people can't create value to society or that people with disabilities are incapable is demeaning to them as well. You don't have white privilege, you are not superior, you're just a racist loser

Sarcasm, an attempt to display the overly one sided argument in your original post. I was making fun of your original post.

Ive been the primary person on this site decrying white privilege for the last two years.

@t1nick For some reason I just started noticing this, thanks to you for the effort. I support you and your effort.

@t1nick I got that, the sarcasm, but its demeaning and racist to say you have privilege and that only white people are capable of contributing to society in a meaningful way. It's also demeaning to people with disabilities. Some of the most productive winners in society are people with disabilities. They don't need no handouts, they need assholes like you to stop speaking on their behalf saying they aren't capable.

@Rich177

I'm sorry I offended your sensibilities. But by the way you worded your post, you put economics and money over people. I have been teaching and a social activist in marginalized communities for 32 years. I know the messages they get from the mainstream white community. White privilege is real and they pay the price everyday because of it.

@Rich177

Do you know what sarcasm is?

@t1nick looks like you're holding them back, maybe you should get out of their way.

0

Nuts

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:510660
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.