And thus, it is our responsibility, as the voters who elected the folks who set that policy. Well, assuming we live in the same state.
I work for a state government, too. The voters evidently don't want us spanking it on their dime. Wasting time on Slashdot is fine, it seems, because the filters let me come here, but sausage polishing (or fingering the sushi, I guess...) is a no no.
If you want to spank it on the taxpayer's dime, do it in a bathroom stall like the rest of us.
What are you hoping to accomplish here? As for me, well, first I was amused. Then annoyed. Then amazed. Then amused again, and now I'm just curious how long your obsession is going to last.
You do know you are espousing a VERY minority position, right? A small minority of Americans believe what you believe. Most Americans ADORE FDR and believe he did the right thing. YEah, 'propaganda.' Hahaha, good excuse. Keep on spinning, you loon.
Me, I think FDR didn't do enough. He had the fat-cat capitalists over a barrel, he could have nationalized everything. But FDR was a centrist, not a left winger like me. Obama is a centrist, too, not a socialist, so never fear, he won't change the 'free' market system.
I know you why you want to get rid of government. You think you are better than other people, and it is your right, as a superior being, to profit from those less gifted than you. You want to get rid of anything standing in the way of you dominating others and telling them what to do. You hate freedom, and you know that the government protects the freedoms of the powerless, and you HATE that, don't you?
How do you define 'depression?' What OBJECTIVE criteria do you use to measure the end of one?
By any sane definition, the depression ended in three years. You can redefine 'depression' to mean anything you like, but the rest of the world won't even understand you.
You loons just can't accept the truth that socialism fixed what capitalism broke. Haha! Dance, fascist, dance.
Good one, except Hitler, Stalin, and Mao never practiced socialism. I suppose you believe that the USSR was a Republic because that's what the name said? Your uneducated braying continues to amuse.
You have no good answer as to why FDR was elected for a record four terms. Hilarious. Yes, 'propaganda,' that must be it. You have no proof, you offer no data, you toss out patently insane rantings as if they were cold hard truth: this just continues to amuse me so much, I can't stop.
You think that by getting the last word, you win. Which makes me laugh even harder.
And you are performing for my amusement, jumping through the hoops I set up, dancing to my whims. So what? You keep posting, I keep posting, who is really making who dance here? Hypocrite.
By 1946, the economy was well above pre-depression levels. What caused that growth in GDP? Why did everyone think FDR did a great job? Why was he elected for four terms?
I doubt you'll answer those questions, because you ignore any truth that doesn't fit your preconceptions. Instead, you'll dissemble and change the subject, because you have no data to support your position. You make wild, outlandish claims without backing them up. If you do answer the questions, it should be interesting watching you contort yourself like a circus performer to make the truth fit your world view.
So, what did 'fix' the depression? The war? How could government spending on a war fix the depression when government spending on crucial infrastructure couldn't?
Do you have a better criteria than GDP to use to measure the end of a depression? What is your criteria?
You've lost, you have no data to back up your claims, you keep moving the goalposts, you quote well know nutbags, and you're too dumb to understand that no one is reading this but you and me. Get it? You lost a long time ago, but you think that getting the last word means you've won. What an idiot.
Look at GDP. Look at the definition of depression. Continued, quarter after quarter growth IS NOT a depression. Three years. That's it. Everyone knows it, only retards who live in an echo chamber and lie to each other believe otherwise.
Wrong, look at any graphs of the GDP. By the time of Pearl Harbor, socialist policies had brought the GDP to where it would have been had the recession never even happened. To claim that government spending on a war fixed a problem that government spending on crucial infrastructure couldn't is outside the bounds of sanity. It speaks of a fundamental disconnect in your mind that keeps you from perceiving anything that threatens your world view, and allows you to hold two totally contradictory views at the same time. Fascinating.
You can't rewrite history. Look the graphs of GDP. Things started to turn as soon as he started his socialist policies, and they kept getting better until he stopped when the Republicans convinced him to. You can't rewrite the raw data, anyone can look at it, I don't even understand what you're trying to do here. WWII solved the depression, what a laugh, look at the numbers. The depression was OVER by 1933, when the GDP started climbing again.
Continued, quarter after quarter growth at pre-depression rates is NOT a depression. Yes, it took until 1937 for the GDP to reach 1929 levels, and then the Republicans convinced FDR to back off of his socialist policies because EVEN THEY admitted the economy had been fixed, and that caused a recession. But reimplementation of some policies put the economy on an incredibly steep rise well before WWII.
It is accurate to say that by the time of Pearl Harbor, socialist policies had brought the country to the point it would have been at had the recession never happened. FDR's policies worked. It is ridiculous to say that government spending on a war solved the problem, but government spending on crucial infrastructure didn't.
The historical record is there for anyone to look at, no matter how you try to rewrite history to suite your world view.
Most economists agree, 60% maximum tax rate is the high point of the Laffer curve. Even the lowest estimate puts it at 35%. Lower it any more, and the government is losing money. With all the loopholes, our effective tax rate is around 10% of GDP. The government would make more money by raising taxes, there is absolutely no doubt. Look at any recent studies, you can find dozens of them on the wiki page for 'laffer curve.'
You're the only one dancing. You really can't stand to not get 'the last word.' That happened a while ago, like I said, you are talking to yourself. Nobody here but you and me.
You keep asserting things with no proof. It's not like you are going to convince me, and NO ONE ELSE is reading this. Get it? It's just you and me here now.
Modding me down won't change the facts. Look at the economic data from the time. This is why everyone loved FDR. This is why he was elected for FOUR TERMS. He fixed things with socialism, where Hoover had left things up to the free market and made them worse.
You may hate the truth, but the truth doesn't care.
The after effects took longer to clean up, but the depression stopped as soon as that idiot Hoover got the boot. Growth restarted after FDR began implementing his policies. The restart of growth signals the end of the depression.
It took another three years of FDR's policies before the economy had reached the pre-depression peak, but of course, right then was when the Republicans demanded FDR stop his socialist policies, and we slid into a short recession around 1937. But FDR stopped listening to the idiots, and growth restarted in less than a year.
The proof is in the numerical data, which you refuse to even acknowledge. Face facts, you've lost every round of this debate and you just keeping looking more and more foolish. Your ad hominems only amuse me, your straw men don't work, you have no facts or figures to support your claims, and you keep repeating yourself, as if saying the same debunked crap will work differently the umpteenth time you try it. You've lost, badly, and your continued feeble attempts at a come back only make you look obsessed.
By repeating the mistakes, do you mean 'doing nothing and letting the free market sort it out,' which is what Hoover did? Or do you mean, 'Enacting mildly socialist, temporary policies that begin to fix things immediately,' like FDR did?
FDR fixed the Great Depression with socialism, much as conservatives hate to admit it and try to rewrite history, the facts speak for themselves. Just look at economic data from the time. When Hoover did nothing, things got worse. When FDR started enacting his policies, things started to get better. When the Republicans made him scale back his policies, things got worse until he started them back up again.
Ahahaha, oh that is rich. Man, you are always good for a laugh.
Oh. My. GOD! jcr tricked me into admitting the truth! The depression was over in three years. Look up the definition, you twit. I'm measuring from the time that growth stopped to the time it started again. Three years. Growth started again as soon as FDR started fixing things. It would have started sooner had Hoover done anything useful. Funny how Nutbard only focuses on the Hoover years, and claims it was because he tried to regulate things. But he didn't, he let the free market take it's course, and everything turned to shit. As soon as FDR was elected and started doing socialism, things got better.
Really, though, if you are interested in discussing this further, let's take it to my journal. I made one just for you, don't you feel special?
I really wish you were right. According to the Supreme Court, corporations are people with civil rights like you and I. Immortal people with orders of magnitude more power than an individual. Isn't that special?
This is not as outlandish a scenario as it seems. JordanL scrotum is very valuable on the black market. They use it as an appetite suppressant in Asia. Or so I've been told. I have never hunted JordanLs for sport or profit. Objection! Leading the witness!
People need to be informed of the other kinds of 'jobs' that the companies they do business with perform. It will help them make rational decisions about who they want to do business with. Where they want to get their books published, where they want to get their colon checked, who they want to buy their drugs from, you know, that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, people do not like it to be known that they are in the side business of helping kill random strangers. It tends to put a damper on business. So we have governments and courts. But the word never seems to get out to enough people, and it is just ever so easy to ignore the deaths of random strangers. They are just a statistic connected at one remove to the publisher of a fake journal.
Suppose I am a publisher. Suppose I take a job from the mafia, to print and put up a bunch of fliers offering $10,000 for your nut sack, JordanL? And suppose your nut sack is delivered to the mafia, should I be partially liable for your loss?
Yoga is good. If only I weren't so lazy. Exercise is good too. Bright lights help some people. I can never stick with anything. Meditation is good. I've tried these things. They help. Why can't I stick with them? Just believing I'm lazy and bad, and punishing myself for it all the time doesn't seem to work. I'd keep a day planner or a schedule, but you know. You have to stick with it for that to work. I've actually written 'check day planner' in a day planner before. Doesn't work.
Smoking pot is good for some, not good for others. It too has worked for me. It makes other people even more depressed, or paranoid and nervous. And it may stop working for you, or turn bad at any time, but that is true of SSRIs too.
I had a weird childhood, some really good, some really bad. Bad at the wrong times, though, so my serotonin imbalance got triggered. My wife has serotonin imbalances too. But different in some ways. She's really organized, almost to the point of OCD, so that works out for me. Better than a day planner.:)
In general, it sucks to be a smart and empathic kid in a bad environment.
Corporations are people like you and I with a right to free speech. Merck is just presenting the scientific facts that are important to them. The so-called scientific method is just a cultural idea, not the final arbiter of 'Truth.' What is truth? Isn't it 'true' that Vioxx may have helped people? Isn't it 'true' that it didn't kill everyone?
The doctors are just looking out for themselves, and if they didn't do it, someone else would. And people's lives? Really now. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. So some people died.
Who is the government to tell people what they can and can't sell? People die all the time, but markets and corporations are eternal. Who is the government to tell people what they can and can't imbibe? Alcohol kills people, cigarettes kill people?
People die all the time, but markets and corporations are eternal. Doesn't that mean they are better than us? Who are we to tell them what to do? Oh sure, they are made up of people, but we're made up of cells. I know I don't care too much when I get a cut and a few skin and red blood cells sacrifice themselves for my well being.
In the end, a few people died so a corporation could grow. Is that so bad?
Oh no. They will get a fine far less than the money they made doing it, which is corp-speak for "please keep doing it." None of the executives will get any time. None of the doctors involved will get a reprimand, heck, this is just an advertisement that they play ball. On to the next corporate gig.
Oh don't even TRY the "I'm playing you" game with ME buster, I practically invented that one.
I am now bored with any pretense of trying to play you, or diss you, or strawman your arguments. I am genuinely curious about your continued interest. Let's take it to a journal entry.
And let the record show, "you win." Through sheer bullheadedness, but eh? A win's a win, right?
Do you know, if you google the exact phrase 'joking to the lawn,' you'll find no pages? I wonder how long until Google indexes this page? You will be the first example of the phrase on the Internet.
Wow.
I assume it means that an "Alice's Restaurant" reference won't find an audience at Slashdot? I doubt you and I are the only ones here familiar with that song. But still, nice turn of phrase, "Joking to the lawn." Conjures up the sound of crickets chirping for me.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
And thus, it is our responsibility, as the voters who elected the folks who set that policy. Well, assuming we live in the same state.
I work for a state government, too. The voters evidently don't want us spanking it on their dime. Wasting time on Slashdot is fine, it seems, because the filters let me come here, but sausage polishing (or fingering the sushi, I guess...) is a no no.
If you want to spank it on the taxpayer's dime, do it in a bathroom stall like the rest of us.
What are you hoping to accomplish here? As for me, well, first I was amused. Then annoyed. Then amazed. Then amused again, and now I'm just curious how long your obsession is going to last.
You do know you are espousing a VERY minority position, right? A small minority of Americans believe what you believe. Most Americans ADORE FDR and believe he did the right thing. YEah, 'propaganda.' Hahaha, good excuse. Keep on spinning, you loon.
Me, I think FDR didn't do enough. He had the fat-cat capitalists over a barrel, he could have nationalized everything. But FDR was a centrist, not a left winger like me. Obama is a centrist, too, not a socialist, so never fear, he won't change the 'free' market system.
I know you why you want to get rid of government. You think you are better than other people, and it is your right, as a superior being, to profit from those less gifted than you. You want to get rid of anything standing in the way of you dominating others and telling them what to do. You hate freedom, and you know that the government protects the freedoms of the powerless, and you HATE that, don't you?
How do you define 'depression?' What OBJECTIVE criteria do you use to measure the end of one?
By any sane definition, the depression ended in three years. You can redefine 'depression' to mean anything you like, but the rest of the world won't even understand you.
You loons just can't accept the truth that socialism fixed what capitalism broke. Haha! Dance, fascist, dance.
Good one, except Hitler, Stalin, and Mao never practiced socialism. I suppose you believe that the USSR was a Republic because that's what the name said? Your uneducated braying continues to amuse.
You have no good answer as to why FDR was elected for a record four terms. Hilarious. Yes, 'propaganda,' that must be it. You have no proof, you offer no data, you toss out patently insane rantings as if they were cold hard truth: this just continues to amuse me so much, I can't stop.
You think that by getting the last word, you win. Which makes me laugh even harder.
And you are performing for my amusement, jumping through the hoops I set up, dancing to my whims. So what? You keep posting, I keep posting, who is really making who dance here? Hypocrite.
By 1946, the economy was well above pre-depression levels. What caused that growth in GDP? Why did everyone think FDR did a great job? Why was he elected for four terms?
I doubt you'll answer those questions, because you ignore any truth that doesn't fit your preconceptions. Instead, you'll dissemble and change the subject, because you have no data to support your position. You make wild, outlandish claims without backing them up. If you do answer the questions, it should be interesting watching you contort yourself like a circus performer to make the truth fit your world view.
Face facts, socialism works.
So, what did 'fix' the depression? The war? How could government spending on a war fix the depression when government spending on crucial infrastructure couldn't?
Do you have a better criteria than GDP to use to measure the end of a depression? What is your criteria?
You've lost, you have no data to back up your claims, you keep moving the goalposts, you quote well know nutbags, and you're too dumb to understand that no one is reading this but you and me. Get it? You lost a long time ago, but you think that getting the last word means you've won. What an idiot.
Look at GDP. Look at the definition of depression. Continued, quarter after quarter growth IS NOT a depression. Three years. That's it. Everyone knows it, only retards who live in an echo chamber and lie to each other believe otherwise.
Wrong, look at any graphs of the GDP. By the time of Pearl Harbor, socialist policies had brought the GDP to where it would have been had the recession never even happened. To claim that government spending on a war fixed a problem that government spending on crucial infrastructure couldn't is outside the bounds of sanity. It speaks of a fundamental disconnect in your mind that keeps you from perceiving anything that threatens your world view, and allows you to hold two totally contradictory views at the same time. Fascinating.
You can't rewrite history. Look the graphs of GDP. Things started to turn as soon as he started his socialist policies, and they kept getting better until he stopped when the Republicans convinced him to. You can't rewrite the raw data, anyone can look at it, I don't even understand what you're trying to do here. WWII solved the depression, what a laugh, look at the numbers. The depression was OVER by 1933, when the GDP started climbing again.
Continued, quarter after quarter growth at pre-depression rates is NOT a depression. Yes, it took until 1937 for the GDP to reach 1929 levels, and then the Republicans convinced FDR to back off of his socialist policies because EVEN THEY admitted the economy had been fixed, and that caused a recession. But reimplementation of some policies put the economy on an incredibly steep rise well before WWII.
It is accurate to say that by the time of Pearl Harbor, socialist policies had brought the country to the point it would have been at had the recession never happened. FDR's policies worked. It is ridiculous to say that government spending on a war solved the problem, but government spending on crucial infrastructure didn't.
The historical record is there for anyone to look at, no matter how you try to rewrite history to suite your world view.
Most economists agree, 60% maximum tax rate is the high point of the Laffer curve. Even the lowest estimate puts it at 35%. Lower it any more, and the government is losing money. With all the loopholes, our effective tax rate is around 10% of GDP. The government would make more money by raising taxes, there is absolutely no doubt. Look at any recent studies, you can find dozens of them on the wiki page for 'laffer curve.'
Right, we still have the WPA, and that's why our infrastructure is in such great shape and our bridges aren't falling down and such.
You're the only one dancing. You really can't stand to not get 'the last word.' That happened a while ago, like I said, you are talking to yourself. Nobody here but you and me.
You keep asserting things with no proof. It's not like you are going to convince me, and NO ONE ELSE is reading this. Get it? It's just you and me here now.
Modding me down won't change the facts. Look at the economic data from the time. This is why everyone loved FDR. This is why he was elected for FOUR TERMS. He fixed things with socialism, where Hoover had left things up to the free market and made them worse.
You may hate the truth, but the truth doesn't care.
The after effects took longer to clean up, but the depression stopped as soon as that idiot Hoover got the boot. Growth restarted after FDR began implementing his policies. The restart of growth signals the end of the depression.
It took another three years of FDR's policies before the economy had reached the pre-depression peak, but of course, right then was when the Republicans demanded FDR stop his socialist policies, and we slid into a short recession around 1937. But FDR stopped listening to the idiots, and growth restarted in less than a year.
The proof is in the numerical data, which you refuse to even acknowledge. Face facts, you've lost every round of this debate and you just keeping looking more and more foolish. Your ad hominems only amuse me, your straw men don't work, you have no facts or figures to support your claims, and you keep repeating yourself, as if saying the same debunked crap will work differently the umpteenth time you try it. You've lost, badly, and your continued feeble attempts at a come back only make you look obsessed.
By repeating the mistakes, do you mean 'doing nothing and letting the free market sort it out,' which is what Hoover did? Or do you mean, 'Enacting mildly socialist, temporary policies that begin to fix things immediately,' like FDR did?
FDR fixed the Great Depression with socialism, much as conservatives hate to admit it and try to rewrite history, the facts speak for themselves. Just look at economic data from the time. When Hoover did nothing, things got worse. When FDR started enacting his policies, things started to get better. When the Republicans made him scale back his policies, things got worse until he started them back up again.
Ahahaha, oh that is rich. Man, you are always good for a laugh.
Oh. My. GOD! jcr tricked me into admitting the truth! The depression was over in three years. Look up the definition, you twit. I'm measuring from the time that growth stopped to the time it started again. Three years. Growth started again as soon as FDR started fixing things. It would have started sooner had Hoover done anything useful. Funny how Nutbard only focuses on the Hoover years, and claims it was because he tried to regulate things. But he didn't, he let the free market take it's course, and everything turned to shit. As soon as FDR was elected and started doing socialism, things got better.
Really, though, if you are interested in discussing this further, let's take it to my journal. I made one just for you, don't you feel special?
I really wish you were right. According to the Supreme Court, corporations are people with civil rights like you and I. Immortal people with orders of magnitude more power than an individual. Isn't that special?
This is not as outlandish a scenario as it seems. JordanL scrotum is very valuable on the black market. They use it as an appetite suppressant in Asia. Or so I've been told. I have never hunted JordanLs for sport or profit. Objection! Leading the witness!
People need to be informed of the other kinds of 'jobs' that the companies they do business with perform. It will help them make rational decisions about who they want to do business with. Where they want to get their books published, where they want to get their colon checked, who they want to buy their drugs from, you know, that sort of thing.
Unfortunately, people do not like it to be known that they are in the side business of helping kill random strangers. It tends to put a damper on business. So we have governments and courts. But the word never seems to get out to enough people, and it is just ever so easy to ignore the deaths of random strangers. They are just a statistic connected at one remove to the publisher of a fake journal.
Suppose I am a publisher. Suppose I take a job from the mafia, to print and put up a bunch of fliers offering $10,000 for your nut sack, JordanL? And suppose your nut sack is delivered to the mafia, should I be partially liable for your loss?
Yoga is good. If only I weren't so lazy. Exercise is good too. Bright lights help some people. I can never stick with anything. Meditation is good. I've tried these things. They help. Why can't I stick with them? Just believing I'm lazy and bad, and punishing myself for it all the time doesn't seem to work. I'd keep a day planner or a schedule, but you know. You have to stick with it for that to work. I've actually written 'check day planner' in a day planner before. Doesn't work.
Smoking pot is good for some, not good for others. It too has worked for me. It makes other people even more depressed, or paranoid and nervous. And it may stop working for you, or turn bad at any time, but that is true of SSRIs too.
I had a weird childhood, some really good, some really bad. Bad at the wrong times, though, so my serotonin imbalance got triggered. My wife has serotonin imbalances too. But different in some ways. She's really organized, almost to the point of OCD, so that works out for me. Better than a day planner. :)
In general, it sucks to be a smart and empathic kid in a bad environment.
Corporations are people like you and I with a right to free speech. Merck is just presenting the scientific facts that are important to them. The so-called scientific method is just a cultural idea, not the final arbiter of 'Truth.' What is truth? Isn't it 'true' that Vioxx may have helped people? Isn't it 'true' that it didn't kill everyone?
The doctors are just looking out for themselves, and if they didn't do it, someone else would. And people's lives? Really now. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. So some people died.
Who is the government to tell people what they can and can't sell? People die all the time, but markets and corporations are eternal. Who is the government to tell people what they can and can't imbibe? Alcohol kills people, cigarettes kill people?
People die all the time, but markets and corporations are eternal. Doesn't that mean they are better than us? Who are we to tell them what to do? Oh sure, they are made up of people, but we're made up of cells. I know I don't care too much when I get a cut and a few skin and red blood cells sacrifice themselves for my well being.
In the end, a few people died so a corporation could grow. Is that so bad?
Oh no. They will get a fine far less than the money they made doing it, which is corp-speak for "please keep doing it." None of the executives will get any time. None of the doctors involved will get a reprimand, heck, this is just an advertisement that they play ball. On to the next corporate gig.
Oh don't even TRY the "I'm playing you" game with ME buster, I practically invented that one.
I am now bored with any pretense of trying to play you, or diss you, or strawman your arguments. I am genuinely curious about your continued interest. Let's take it to a journal entry.
And let the record show, "you win." Through sheer bullheadedness, but eh? A win's a win, right?
Do you know, if you google the exact phrase 'joking to the lawn,' you'll find no pages? I wonder how long until Google indexes this page? You will be the first example of the phrase on the Internet.
Wow.
I assume it means that an "Alice's Restaurant" reference won't find an audience at Slashdot? I doubt you and I are the only ones here familiar with that song. But still, nice turn of phrase, "Joking to the lawn." Conjures up the sound of crickets chirping for me. :-)