Ozi Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 None of FDR's New Deal did anything to end The Great Depression in the United States. The Great Depression was ended by the run-up and execution of World War II. The so-called "racket" was the ultimate savior of the U.S. economy in the mid-20th Century. These are very annoying facts for some, but facts they be. I keep forgetting, the version of WWII you guys are taught is the Hollywood story, where all the American superheroes win the war. They tend to leave out the allies and more importantly, the Russian contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenKraft Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Smedley Darlington Butler (MAJGEN-USMC-Ret) •Born: West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881 •Educated: Haverford School •Married: Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905 •Awarded two congressional medals of honor: 1.capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914 2.capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917 •Distinguished service medal, 1919 •Major General - United States Marine Corps •Retired Oct. 1, 1931 •On leave of absence to act as director of Dept. of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932 •Lecturer -- 1930's •Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932 •Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940 I think his background gives him a certain credibility. Wrote his book before WWII. Extract: In the WWI a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? "I believe in adequate defence at the coastline and nothing else." Ummm.... yeah.... okay. But that only makes sense if you believe in the Labour Theory of Value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foamy T. Squirrel Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I keep forgetting, the version of WWII you guys are taught is the Hollywood story, where all the American superheroes win the war. They tend to leave out the allies and more importantly, the Russian contribution. Fortunately for me, the public school indoctrination and the Hollywood story didn't take with me. But then, I was raised by WWI, WWII, and Korean War vets. They always showed respect for our allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozi Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Smedley Darlington Butler (MAJGEN-USMC-Ret) •Born: West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881 •Educated: Haverford School •Married: Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905 •Awarded two congressional medals of honor: 1.capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914 2.capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917 •Distinguished service medal, 1919 •Major General - United States Marine Corps •Retired Oct. 1, 1931 •On leave of absence to act as director of Dept. of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932 •Lecturer -- 1930's •Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932 •Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940 I think his background gives him a certain credibility. Wrote his book before WWII. Extract: In the WWI a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? "I believe in adequate defence at the coastline and nothing else." Ummm.... yeah.... okay. But that only makes sense if you believe in the Labour Theory of Value. Simple return on investment would be an easier concept to manipulate, at least with that you can factor in collateral damage, even if that is your own troops. War doesn't produce goods or services, it is a consumer of those products. The production and sale of weapons is what makes the millionaires. And if it means the death of the consumer, they'll just get the government, who they control, to conscript more consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenKraft Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Smedley Darlington Butler (MAJGEN-USMC-Ret) •Born: West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881 •Educated: Haverford School •Married: Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905 •Awarded two congressional medals of honor: 1.capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914 2.capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917 •Distinguished service medal, 1919 •Major General - United States Marine Corps •Retired Oct. 1, 1931 •On leave of absence to act as director of Dept. of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932 •Lecturer -- 1930's •Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932 •Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940 I think his background gives him a certain credibility. Wrote his book before WWII. Extract: In the WWI a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? "I believe in adequate defence at the coastline and nothing else." Ummm.... yeah.... okay. But that only makes sense if you believe in the Labour Theory of Value. Simple return on investment would be an easier concept to manipulate, at least with that you can factor in collateral damage, even if that is your own troops. War doesn't produce goods or services, it is a consumer of those products. The production and sale of weapons is what makes the millionaires. And if it means the death of the consumer, they'll just get the government, who they control, to conscript more consumers. Uh oh. Hear that? That was the "WRONG" buzzer that just went off. War and the preparation for war are two of the greatest engines of technological innovation. But for the USSR threat, the U.S. never would have built the rocketry used in the Apollo and ISS programs. It is the competition with the Soviet Union that spawned the U.S. space program or, as JFK said: Why does Rice [university] play [the University of] Texas? “Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were "made in the United States of America" and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union. “Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding. “We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.” -JFK Rice University September 12, 1962 ... and, as a result of said space program, electronics and electronic miniaturization was developed. Indeed, we own our iPhones' development to the Cold War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozi Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 But for the USSR threat, the U.S. never would have built the rocketry used in the Apollo and ISS programs. That's the point, it didn't need a war, just a threat. War itself is a consumer. The only thing war generates is more profits for a minority and no shortage of dead bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StnCld316 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Smedley Darlington Butler (MAJGEN-USMC-Ret) •Born: West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881 •Educated: Haverford School •Married: Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905 •Awarded two congressional medals of honor: 1.capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914 2.capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917 •Distinguished service medal, 1919 •Major General - United States Marine Corps •Retired Oct. 1, 1931 •On leave of absence to act as director of Dept. of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932 •Lecturer -- 1930's •Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932 •Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940 I think his background gives him a certain credibility. Wrote his book before WWII. Extract: In the WWI a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle? "I believe in adequate defence at the coastline and nothing else." Collection of Income Taxes is Unconstitutional. It was developed as a temporary measure to pay for the wars. After Governments found out how many billions it generated. It has now become Governments main source of income. Without it the Country would be broke. In fact Countries are already broke. Massive deficits and debt. and there is no way out except for each Country go bankrupt one after the other. Just look at the trillions of dollars that have been wasted on this war fighting terrorism. Nowhere even close at putting a dent in it to get it stopped. The Middle East are the biggest winners as they are laughing at us fools for spending trillions of dollars over something that we have no control at ever stopping. The only way to beat the Middle East is to completely wipe them off the face of the earth, that's the only way to put an end to this BS once and for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenKraft Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 But for the USSR threat, the U.S. never would have built the rocketry used in the Apollo and ISS programs. That's the point, it didn't need a war, just a threat. War itself is a consumer. The only thing war generates is more profits for a minority and no shortage of dead bodies. Haha. Okay, Oz, but war itself is the best trade show ever! Look at how many Exocet Missiles the French sold after the Falkland Islands demonstration! Desert Storm showed all the nations of the world that the U.S. has some hardware that works in real combat situations. If you have ever gone to a munitions show, you would see that everybody has video of this or that weapon system bravely going around the wall and killing the whatever behind it. Great. So what? No, buyers want to see footage of what happens when the system is under attack -- live fire -- real bogies. You get the picture. Was is excellent for sales, and the U.S. never loses them. Post-war nation building is a different story. Since WWII, the U.S. has never won one of those -- it can't be done. The war in Iraq was over in about 27 days. Had the U.S. gone home, that would have been that. It was the nation building where it was neither wanted or feasible that cost so much blood and treasure. Win, Leave, Return if Necessary, Repeat as needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozi Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenKraft Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I keep forgetting, the version of WWII you guys are taught is the Hollywood story, where all the American superheroes win the war. They tend to leave out the allies and more importantly, the Russian contribution. Fortunately for me, the public school indoctrination and the Hollywood story didn't take with me. But then, I was raised by WWI, WWII, and Korean War vets. They always showed respect for our allies. Once again, the stupid son-of-criminals wishes to discuss the manner in which Americans are taught the history of WWII, since the only things it can knock down with its aussie xenophobic zeal are imaginary constructs -- straw dogs invented for the purpose of bitching about a country it knows nothing about. The Hollywood story of WWII is not what my parents were taught and it isn't what I was taught. Great emphasis has always been placed on recognizing the issues and contributions of the Allies, the Axis Powers, the post-WWII split between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., etc. That fool knows so little about American culture, it could fill a library -- if they had libraries there. Its stupidity and lack of knowledge are the equivalent of an American shouting out, "Throw another shrimp on the barbie!" again and again and again, thinking it shows great insight into Australian life, times, culture, and tradition. With folks like that as counterbalance, it's no wonder Australia is being taken over by left wing nut jobs. It has nothing to offer with respect to American culture, except that an implied admission that it is very very jealous of Americans and our achievements. Yeah, we know: Australia and a couple of Pommies won WWII, Asshat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenKraft Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Posted by: StnCld316 « on: February 09, 2015, 10:51:53 AM **** Collection of Income Taxes is Unconstitutional. It was developed as a temporary measure to pay for the wars. After Governments found out how many billions it generated. It has now become Governments main source of income. Without it the Country would be broke. In fact Countries are already broke. Massive deficits and debt. and there is no way out except for each Country go bankrupt one after the other. Just look at the trillions of dollars that have been wasted on this war fighting terrorism. Nowhere even close at putting a dent in it to get it stopped. The Middle East are the biggest winners as they are laughing at us fools for spending trillions of dollars over something that we have no control at ever stopping. The only way to beat the Middle East is to completely wipe them off the face of the earth, that's the only way to put an end to this BS once and for all. Well, yes and no as to constitutionality of the Progressive Income Tax. Earlier taxes were passed by Congress to pay for such things as wars, but the 16th Amendment authorized Congress to pass a graduated (“progressive”) income tax in 1913 and only about one percent of the U.S. population was required to pay the tax and the rate was one percent. From that point on, it cannot be said that the income tax is “unconstitutional,” inasmuch as our Constitutions specifically allows for it. That’s the hard, legal facts. However, I agree that it is contrary to sound fiscal policy and good economics. More importantly, it has become the foremost engine of social engineering and manipulation: corporate welfare, goodies to pork barrel beneficiaries, ways to encourage and discourage things the Several States and the People would like to do. The only solution is to repeal the 16th Amendment and replace it with a tax based not on income but on consumption. The more you buy, the more tax you pay. Food and medicines/medical care would be exempt, but all other goods and services would be subject to a national sales tax – a value added tax. No books to keep, no deductions if you are between 58 and 61 and live on a farm and are not required to pay the Railroad Earnings Reverse Surcharge listed in Schedule X of your IRS Form 2345.3c_1 (rev. today). You get money, you keep money. You buy stuff, you pay a tax. Nothing to file, ever. The new Constitutional amendment would also outlaw progressive state income taxes, allowing the states to raise their sales tax and property tax as high they can. Pretty soon, the stupid states will end up like California, with over 2.3 Trillion unfunded mandates to pay. LOL. The smarter states will lower taxes to encourage investment in those states (see Texas for examples as to how that may work). No 501©(3) charities, church exemptions -- zip. You buy, you pay. If you buy overseas, you pay when you import. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KarenKraft Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Muzzie Ayman Mohyeldin Pro-Islamist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts