Great video, explaining exactly whats wrong with our economy.
Btw, didn't you predict that Raynd's economic screed would be a B.O hit ? That means your credibility is in tatters & anything you offer on economic prognostications is a joke. Hell, any halfwit could see that the film would be a B.O turkey.
"Cultist", as punishment for your laughable predictions, I say your tax bracket should be raised in order to eliminate the debt & help fund some job programs.OOOOOPS---am I venturing into Keynesian territory--? 
-------LMFAO !
I never made any such prediction. Last I posted about it, I hadn't seen it, yet, so I had little to go on.
I'm in a fairly low tax bracket. You think I'm some kind of bazillionare? My Federal wages were a bit above $40,000. You want to increase taxes on my bracket?
Are you actually able to discuss the subject, the issues raised by the video, or do you only capable of personal attacks revealing your own biases and preconceptions?
...oh did you hear the news? Some assholes in England are getting married.
Listen you little piece of shit, why don't you come out to Southern California? There are some great English Pubs in Santa Monica. They would be thrilled to hear your feelings on the topic.
Maybe we can replace the dart board with your face while drinking a Newcastle Ale. Now that would be fun.
Yeah, my heritage is English. What's your? I'm in the mood for some ethnic slurs, especially as it relates to your background.
-- Modified on 4/28/2011 9:42:05 PM
lay off the ale. and pass me a Guinness you limey cunt. 
-- Modified on 4/29/2011 2:45:01 AM
He is a saint, but even saints run out of patience eventually.
-- Modified on 4/29/2011 5:37:31 AM
I'm OK with trash talking, even from Priapus and a few others. But I draw the line when a whiney snively useless little pot smoking progressive parasitic syphilitic pussy starts mouthing off (lol).
The Royals are assholes, but there my assholes.
Now that it's the day after, I hope you've calmed down. Even Willy gets a chance to be offended by the egregious display of yesterday. Keep in mind, as Churchill once said, we are "two peoples separated by a common language." We also have in common being two of the greatest empires of all time. In the case of Britain insert the word "former;" in the case of the US insert the words "soon to be former." As for the rest, see my comments in the thread above.
PS: How do you know Willy is "syphilitic?"
-- Modified on 4/30/2011 8:29:35 AM
Btw, when I used to live in L.A. used to hit those pubs. Nice places. So you actually give a shit about william & Catherine's marriage ?!---LMFAO !
Btw, perhaps Mein goes off the tracks sometimes, but he accurately called William & Catherine "figurehead parasites".
Many on this board would heartily concur.
No one else here gives a fuck about a bunch of inbreds, and for a change we aren't talking our homegrown variety from the deep south. lol
I resemble that remark!
Fuck No! I'm old school. When someone else starts trash talking, there better be able to back it up the old fashion way.
In my younger days I used to go to the Glens of Antrim pub. No longer there. Just a hole in the wall pub with lots of beer, whiskey, a dart board, and the occasional fight. But then I'm describing most British pubs.
sure you're familiar with Ye Olde King's head & Cock & Bull, both in Santa Monica. When I lived in L.A, hit those on several occasions.
use to spend a few evenings under the influence on Lincoln and Santa Monica Blvd's. Hang out at the beach, go to concerts at the Civic Auditorium, and finish the night off at a pub. Does bring back memories.
really enjoyed it. Thanks for the link.
when he said this about the Teabaggers:
"...they are sad unfortunate people, they are corporate America's useful idiots."
Nice argument. Lots of nice evidence and logic you provide there, Puck.
I have been exposed to a lot of left wing propaganda, as well. The article "mr.trouble" links to is more than propaganda. It has facts, arguments, figures, historical references, and in general, is a well thought our argument that government intervention is the cause of the problems, not the solution.
Can you do even half as well? Or are you just going to throw childish insults?
Roosevelt's policies led to the stronges economic growth and the greatest advances for the middle class in history - and the destruction of those policies, the stated goal of Republicans ever since that began in earnest with that senile fool Reagan has led to the destruction of the middle class.
Bunch of idiots voting against their own best interests while the corporations laugh all the way to the bank.
Useful idiots, indeed.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong and the Koch brothers invited mr.notrouble into the club and he's bangin high dollar hotties - that happen yet?
I thought not.
awash in wealth, lamenting the plight of the poor.
how many families could you feed with your blowjob budget?
talk about useful idiots....
Puck's Pawns....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
Hey, you've been carrying the trickle-down banner for years - why aren't you rich? You finally figuring out that trickle down means they're pissing on your head?
Some of us walk the walk. Then there's you, bitter boy. When they gonna let YOU in the club?
Hint: that would be never.
Like it has been said, the Great Depression lasted more than entire decade, through FDR's entire presidency. How is it that his policies led to strong economic growth and advances for the middle class? How long did the middle class have to wait?
Oh I know how long they had to wait! Till the end of WWII, after FDR's death, when the government started to slash spending and cut taxes, and began deregulating! With the Brenton-Woods agreement, we returned to a semblance of a gold standard and more stable money. The government stopped tinkering with the economy, so people could actually start planning long term and businesses could hire workers and know ahead of time how much they would cost to keep them on the payroll.
um, Puck? Most economists today agree that Roosevelt's policies did in fact actually prolong the Depression rather than shorten it. The link MNT provided is a very detailed discussion of WHY Roosevelt's policies did not achieve their goals.
If you can't be bothered to click a link and learn something, then go to the nearest University to you, check out some Econ 101 textbooks, and see what THEY have to say about Roosevelt these days. It might shock you to discover they mirror the information contained in NoTrouble's link.
I can understand ignorance, but I will never understand willful ignorance.
I understand it. People like this simply want the government to intervene, so they insist on believing anything that lets them get away with claiming that free markets cause all of the problems, and government is the solution.
I think he clicked on it and skimmed it long enough to find that it mentioned tax increases. That's all he needed to know. If an article mentions tax increases, that's all it mentions.
The article you cite has errors large and small, thus no credibility. Here's simple one that's easily checked. It says when Roosevelt became President the Depression had been going on for four years. Huh? The Crash of 1929 is generally considered to be the start of the Great Depression but the huge decline in productivity and the spike of unemployment didn't start right away. In fact, if you look at the historical data, the Depression didn't really get under way until late 1930 or even 1931. Calling the start date at Oct. 1929 is outlandish and done merely for the sake of arguement.
But the biggest distortion of the article is its assertion that the Recession of 1937 was caused by an increase in taxes. Only a supply-side propagandist would assert this in isolation as the cause. Yes, taxes were increased, and, yes, it was a factor -- but only a factor. In addition, spending was cut severely in an attempt to balance the budget. There were other factors, too, if you want to read the artilce below.
Just like much propaganda, you've got to be careful when citing a seemingly authoritative piece.
But the biggest distortion of the article is its assertion that the Recession of 1937 was caused by an increase in taxes. Only a supply-side propagandist would assert this in isolation as the cause. Yes, taxes were increased, and, yes, it was a factor -- but only a factor. In addition, spending was cut severely in an attempt to balance the budget. There were other factors, too, if you want to read the artilce below.
Just like much propaganda, you've got to be careful when citing a seemingly authoritative piece.
The authors clearly do not blame the tax increases in anything resembling isolation:
On top of this, Roosevelt’s rhetoric and actions turned increasingly anti-business. Roosevelt began to strongly support organized labor – which was nice for those who had union cards, but no help for those who didn’t have the connections or skin color to get one, and great harm for the economy as a whole. His support got results. In 1935, there were only 3.8 million union members in the U.S. By 1941, there were about 10 million, approximately a quarter of the workforce.
The 1936 elections gave the country de facto one-party rule – 76 Democrats in the Senate and 331 Democrats in the House of Representatives. Each new piece of legislation berated and punished business – such as the Wagner Act, the ever higher taxing Revenue Acts, and Undistributed Profits Tax. With the government growing larger while business lacked strong representation in the halls of power, it is no wonder that private investment stalled.
Yes, I did read those paragraphs, and what you're missing is that the first one is all about taxes while the other two make no attempt to quantify the impact at all. Still, I should not have used the words "in isolation," because clearly the article mentions other impacts. But what I also failed to emphasize is the original article completely failed even to mention the impact of budget cuts at all. Now THAT's really distorting things. My rather small mistake in a quick post is nothing like a complete failure to mention a major impact in a supposedly scholarly article. That omission renders it propaganda. Especially because in most writing about the 1936 recession, budget cuts are the ONLY thing mentioned. That's incorrect, too, but to ignore it is sloppy at best and an attempt to deceive at worst.
thus it's impact.
you are straining. BTW, GDP decline BEGAN in 1929 and FDR took office in March 1933, that's "nearly 4 years" Hardly a basis for dismissing the economics. But instead, more of a red herring a blind zealot would jump all over.
The GDP growth of the war years was a prosperity mirage that dissipated when government spending stopped, unlike the wealth-creating expansion from 1932 to 1936 that had been fueled by private investment. In 1936, GDP rose $10.5 billion while government spending rose just $2.2 billion. In 1942, GDP rose $35.2 billion while government spending rose $36.1 billion. The apparent growth during the war was all government spending.