Let's see.

Conservatives say tax cuts on the rich help the economy.

Yet, taxes on the rich have hardly ever been lower, the economy sucks.

Liberals say that the tax rate on the rich does not have a major impact on economic growth. Let's see who's right.

http://kemstone.com/Journal/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/marginalGrowth.jpg

Oh, would you look at that! Back in the 1930s when tax rates on the wealthiest were 90% Yes, 90%! The growth rate averaged about the same as it does now, perhaps a little higher even. Rapid drops in the marginal tax rate did not have any appreciable impact on the economic growth rate.

Imagine that. The conservatives have been lying to everyone all these years. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that conservative politicians get most of their financial support from the wealthiest citizens?

It's interesting that you hate government, yet love your political party, while I like government and hate my political party.

A misconception my friend, no doubt fueled by my own words at times. Limited government that protects rights (and private property, which is the cornerstone of liberty) is vital and necessary. I love guv when it works and stays in its playpen. We don't have to have daily gladiatorial combat for food and gasoline.

It's all the rest of guv that annoys me. To me the State will always be, "the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." The bigger the government the smaller the citizen.

Re this sift: there is a level of practicality involved in these events. It could just as easily been Ron Paul speaking, so it's not necessarily Hillary Clinton's fault. However, she saw the whole thing and said nothing, whereas Paul might have protested the treatment. Even Obama may have acted in a more practical manner than just ignoring it. It was just Hillary's "bad luck" she was talking about the right to peacefully protest as this poor fellow was roughly carted off for that very act.

As for political parties, I'm aligned with the one closest to my beliefs that also has a measurable impact. As much as I admire libertarianism, the Libertarian Party (LP) remains a barely-known, misunderstood micro-entity. There's a reason the Pauls are Republicans and not card-carrying LPers, and I salute them for it. Change in the major parties comes from within.

Up until FDR, both major parties understood the meaning and intent of the Constitution. You could argue that 25% unemployment was a national emergency in the 1930s and justify some of FDR's actions. But most of what he started is still with us today.

After FDR, only one party even "pretended" to follow the Constitution, the other abandoned it for rule by men (or popularity) instead of by law.

From my perch, you hate the 'Crats (??) because they're not left-wing enough. Am I correct?

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/1930s-stuntman-Parkour-is-not-new

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Stingray. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Next thing you know, Al Qaeda's threats will provoke a decade-long military incursion in a foreign country, wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, and many tens of thousands of innocent lives, essentially sinking the American economy into a great recession to rival, or surpass, the depression of the 1930s...

Or Al Qaeda's threats will provoke the TSA to boost security to the point of violating American's civil liberties, making it such that nobody will want to fly.

Or create a generally divisive tenor throughout the country such that power is passed off to opposing parties every election cycle because neither party has any vested interest in rectifying the problems, only extending them, while simultaneously preventing any third party candidate from getting traction in the public opinion.

Good thing that won't happen. Cause that'd be death to America (as we know it) by a thousand cuts, to be sure.

"Guess Who?"

by

Thomas Sowell

Guess who said the following: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." Was it Sarah Palin? Rush Limbaugh? Karl Rove?

Not even close. It was Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treasury under Franklin D. Roosevelt and one of FDR's closest advisers. He added, "after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

This is just one of the remarkable and eye-opening facts in a must-read book titled "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Professor Burton W. Folsom, Jr., of Hillsdale College.

Ordinarily, what happened in the 1930s might be something to be left for historians to be concerned about. But the very same kinds of policies that were tried-- and failed-- during the 1930s are being carried out in Washington today, with the advocates of such policies often invoking FDR's New Deal as a model.

Franklin D. Roosevelt blamed the country's woes on the problems he inherited from his predecessor, much as Barack Obama does today. But unemployment was 20 percent in the spring of 1939, six long years after Herbert Hoover had left the White House.

Whole generations have been "educated" to believe that the Roosevelt administration is what got this country out of the Great Depression. History text books by famous scholars like Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., of Harvard and Henry Steele Commager of Columbia have enshrined FDR as a historic savior of this country, and lesser lights in the media and elsewhere have perpetuated the legend.

Although Professor Schlesinger admitted that he had little interest in economics, that did not stop him from making sweeping statements about what a great economic achievement the New Deal was.

Professors Commager and Morris of Columbia likewise declared: "The character of the Republican ascendancy of the twenties had been pervasively negative; the character of the New Deal was overwhelmingly positive." Anyone unfamiliar with the history of that era might never suspect from such statements that the 1920s were a decade of unprecedented prosperity and the 1930s were a decade of the deepest and longest-lasting depression in American history. But facts have taken a back seat to rhetoric.

In more recent years, there have been both academic studies and popular books debunking some of the myths about the New Deal. Nevertheless, Professor Folsom's book "New Deal or Raw Deal?" breaks new ground. Although written by an academic scholar and based on years of documented research, it is as readable as a newspaper-- and a lot more informative than most.

There are few historic events whose legends are more grossly different from the reality than the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt. And there are few men whose image has been more radically different from the man himself.

Some of the most devastating things that were said about FDR were not said by his political enemies but by people who worked closely with him for years-- Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau being just one. Morgenthau saw not only the utter failure of Roosevelt's policies, but also the failure of Roosevelt himself, who didn't even know enough economics to realize how little he knew.

Far from pulling the country out of the Great Depression by following Keynesian policies, FDR created policies that prolonged the depression until it was more than twice as long as any other depression in American history. Moreover, Roosevelt's ad hoc improvisations followed nothing as coherent as Keynesian economics. To the extent that FDR followed the ideas of any economist, it was an obscure economist at the University of Wisconsin, who was disdained by other economists and who was regarded with contempt by John Maynard Keynes.

President Roosevelt's strong suit was politics, not economics. He played the political game both cleverly and ruthlessly, including using both the FBI and the Internal Revenue Service to harass and intimidate his critics and opponents.

It is not a pretty story. But we need to understand it if we want to avoid the ugly consequences of very similar policies today.

wow... that looks not intimidating at all.

seaplanes? Really Iran?? seaplanes?

Welcome to the 1930's.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I think whether or not "progress" automatically implies positive goals is irrelevant. Let's substitute "change". Can we agree that "change" is an emotionally-neutral equivalent?
He's saying it's inaccurate to say blacks have changed because, again, it implies that they were doing something wrong in the past and now, because they've changed, we treat them as equals.
They haven't changed, whites have. Blacks have not stopped doing things wrong, whites have.
>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^xxovercastxx:
3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement
Context be damned!
His point is that it's often presented as if blacks have finally come around and are living up to our ideals, as if they've progressed to the point where white people no longer find it necessary to beat, enslave, lynch and oppress them. The truth is, whites have finally come around and stopped treating Blacks like shit. Whites are the ones who've made progress, as we've learned to treat blacks like other people.
>> ^dannym3141:
Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."
Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.
Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!
Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.
Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.


The words that you put into his mouth reach the point he was failing to make very well. I actually think YOU are missing the context of the definition. The advancement means "advancement" towards a goal. The "development" is development towards a goal. (see my original comment) I'm still not buying this emotional connotation that "progress" means "moving away from something we consider bad".
You know cancer progresses, right? This is an emotional connotation that he is affixing and then attacking. If he's referring to people who consider "progress" to mean something different to its actual definition as he describes it, then at least he could say that's who he's addressing?



The problem i have here is that he's NOT saying "change". You are, and you're right, and i agree with what you're saying, but chris rock did not say that.

I think whether or not "progress" automatically implies positive goals is irrelevant. Let's substitute "change". Can we agree that "change" is an emotionally-neutral equivalent?

He's saying it's inaccurate to say blacks have changed because, again, it implies that they were doing something wrong in the past and now, because they've changed, we treat them as equals.

They haven't changed, whites have. Blacks have not stopped doing things wrong, whites have.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement
Context be damned!
His point is that it's often presented as if blacks have finally come around and are living up to our ideals, as if they've progressed to the point where white people no longer find it necessary to beat, enslave, lynch and oppress them. The truth is, whites have finally come around and stopped treating Blacks like shit. Whites are the ones who've made progress, as we've learned to treat blacks like other people.
>> ^dannym3141:
Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."
Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.
Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!
Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.
Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.


The words that you put into his mouth reach the point he was failing to make very well. I actually think YOU are missing the context of the definition. The advancement means "advancement" towards a goal. The "development" is development towards a goal. (see my original comment) I'm still not buying this emotional connotation that "progress" means "moving away from something we consider bad".
You know cancer progresses, right? This is an emotional connotation that he is affixing and then attacking. If he's referring to people who consider "progress" to mean something different to its actual definition as he describes it, then at least he could say that's who he's addressing?

>> ^xxovercastxx:

3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement
Context be damned!
His point is that it's often presented as if blacks have finally come around and are living up to our ideals, as if they've progressed to the point where white people no longer find it necessary to beat, enslave, lynch and oppress them. The truth is, whites have finally come around and stopped treating Blacks like shit. Whites are the ones who've made progress, as we've learned to treat blacks like other people.
>> ^dannym3141:
Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."
Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.
Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!
Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.
Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.



The words that you put into his mouth reach the point he was failing to make very well. I actually think YOU are missing the context of the definition. The advancement means "advancement" towards a goal. The "development" is development towards a goal. (see my original comment) I'm still not buying this emotional connotation that "progress" means "moving away from something we consider bad".

You know cancer progresses, right? This is an emotional connotation that he is affixing and then attacking. If he's referring to people who consider "progress" to mean something different to its actual definition as he describes it, then at least he could say that's who he's addressing?

3. advancement in general.
4. growth or development; continuous improvement

Context be damned!

His point is that it's often presented as if blacks have finally come around and are living up to our ideals, as if they've progressed to the point where white people no longer find it necessary to beat, enslave, lynch and oppress them. The truth is, whites have finally come around and stopped treating Blacks like shit. Whites are the ones who've made progress, as we've learned to treat blacks like other people.

>> ^dannym3141:

Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."
Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.
Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!
Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.
Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.

>> ^CircleMaker:

>> ^dannym3141:
Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."
Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.
Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!
Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.
Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.

I get what you're saying, but I think Chris Rock was using the word 'progress' to mean 'get better than you were before.' In that light, it's really whites that have progressed, beyond Jim Crow laws and lynch mobs. Black people have historically done a lot to help that process along, but they did not themselves undergo any change in thinking, akin to that which white people have since those days; they always saw unequal treatment as unfair, while their oppressors didn't progress to that point until more recently. At least that's my understanding of what he was saying, and I don't even know what documentary they're talking about.


I know he was using the word in that way, i'm explaining that he's wrong.

>> ^dannym3141:

Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."
Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.
Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!
Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.
Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.


I get what you're saying, but I think Chris Rock was using the word 'progress' to mean 'get better than you were before.' In that light, it's really whites that have progressed, beyond Jim Crow laws and lynch mobs. Black people have historically done a lot to help that process along, but they did not themselves undergo any change in thinking, akin to that which white people have since those days; they always saw unequal treatment as unfair, while their oppressors didn't progress to that point until more recently. At least that's my understanding of what he was saying, and I don't even know what documentary they're talking about.

Progress:
–noun
1.
a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage:
"the progress of a student toward a degree."
"the progress of the sun across the sky."
--ion "the progression of time."

Sorry, has to be a downvote. He's associating negative emotional connotation with a word which just doesn't deserve it. There HAS been progress. If black people were even more segregated than they were in 1930, that would also be a form of progress. However, the goal was set by martin luther himself - equality. Progress has been made towards that goal.

Contrary to your opinion, i would say this video is a bad point well made. It must be well made if he managed to convince people into a false definition of a word everyone knows!

Toss emotion regarding race issues aside for one moment when reading my post, please.

Edit: Love chris rock by the way, but this is just nonsense. The word "progress" does not imply that the situation progressed from was a rational situation.