December 15, 2017
Boston College History Prof says Trump Tax Plan will Trigger Great Depression
Timothy Birdnow
The media has grown hysterical in their condemnation of the modest tax cuts being promoted by the GOP and President Trump. A quick Google search turned up dozens and dozens of mainstream articles desperate to condemn these cuts as the second coming of Herbert Hoover. Doubt me?
Well, see what Bill Moyers and Company have to say:
Heather Cox Richardson says:
"The Republican Tax Bill Is a Poison Pill That Kills the New Deal
Today’s Republicans would have fit right into Herbert Hoover’s administration."
End excerpt.
This doofy chick doesn't know that Franklin Roosevelt ran to the Right of Hoover, and in fact was more conservative about economic matters than The Wonder Boy (as Calvin Coolige called Hoover) who pushed through tax increases and draconian regulations over the economy. Of course liberals never do know history, and journalists are especially prone to historical ignorance, holding a worldview based on mythology and easy sloganeering.
The article continues:
"With Republicans in uncontested power in Washington, he tweeted, they had a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enact real comprehensive tax reform and get our economy moving.†Many Trump supporters thought reform meant relief for the "forgotten Americans†he talked about on the campaign trail. But Republicans had other plans, intending to take a wrecking ball to the system of American government that has been in place since 1933 and replace it with one based in their own ideology. If the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act†becomes law, they will have succeeded."
End excerpt.
First, the Forgotten Man was not the poor guy out of work but the poor guy who was working and had to pay for the charity bestoyed. Liberals don't know the genesis of that expression. Clearly she has never read Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man" which explains it succinctly. The term was the creation of William Graham Sumner, who, in an 1883 speech, bemoaned the guy stuck paying for others good intentions as The Forgotten Man. FDR hijackied the term but the real forgotten man is the person paying taxes so politicians can buy votes. Try reading a book Ms. Richardson, and get your nose out of the Washington Post.
And this tax cut plan is more modest than that of George W. Bush, or especially Ronald Reagan, yet it "takes a wrecking ball" to our government and entire way of life, according to this author. Huh? How exactly does it do that. And does she really think the New Deal was so great? From the Misses post cited above:
"Concentrate on FDR's "criminals": the poor tailor Jack Magid, thrown into prison for the crime of pressing a suit for a price FDR didn't approve of; the old age pensioners cast into poverty by FDR's deliberate actions against the businesses their retirement savings were invested in; and all those peoples' families, who suffered along with them.
Concentrate for a moment on the fact that there was "anger that the price (of meat) was so high" (p. 221) due to FDR's deliberate policy of paying farmers to destroy food during a time of hunger. Notice how the "argument was valid" that "the NRA helped big business at a cost to smaller businesses" (p. 227). And laugh at the wonder of it all, that this man is still regarded as a "friend of the people.""
Concentrate for a moment on the fact that there was "anger that the price (of meat) was so high" (p. 221) due to FDR's deliberate policy of paying farmers to destroy food during a time of hunger. Notice how the "argument was valid" that "the NRA helped big business at a cost to smaller businesses" (p. 227). And laugh at the wonder of it all, that this man is still regarded as a "friend of the people."
End excerpt.
These were the same Forgotten Men who, in the last election, put Donald Trump in office. Obama and the Democrats ignored them as much as Roosevelt did, in fact, more than FDR. Barack Obama and the Democrats had a policy of high energy prices, high taxes, and stagnant economic growth. The working class found itself being squeezed out of existence, and they fought back. During the New Deal the public never quite rebelled, largley because% 5 they had no champion. The GOP put forward a series of "bum of the month club" candidates and never did come up with a good message. Much like the RINO class today, they were more interested in promoting FDR"s policies in a "smarter" fashion. The public saw no value in elected me too politicians then, and they still don't.
And Hoover increased spending from 3.3 Billion in 1930 to 4.6 billion in 1032, a 48% increase. He ran budget deficits of 52.5% and 43.3% in 1031 and 1932, larger increases than Roosevelt ever had. He promoted bloated regulatory agencies like the Federal Farm Burea which imposed strict price controls. He suppored high wages as the key to economic growth, the Demand-side economics of John Maynard Keynes and FDR. He signed the Davis-Bacon Act which paid out high wages for government construction projects and ushered in unionization and he further promoted labor unions with Norris-LaGuardia Act, driving prices up and forcing immigrants and minorities out of the market. And of course we cannot forget he promoted the tax increase of Smoot Hawley. He also created massive public works projects and heavy consumer financing guaranteed by governemtn.
Hardly Laissez Fairez.
And all of this led to the Great Depression. Yet our dear author misses the whole point:
"Democrats based their system on a distinctive ideology: The government must keep the economic playing field level for all Americans. As people at the bottom prospered, they would fuel economic growth for everyone."
End excerpt.
Hello! The poor do not pay taxes, the poor do not give people jobs, the poor do not provide health insurance or buy expensive items. That all comes from the business class. John Kennedy, liberal icon, understood that; he called for tax cuts to stimulate economic growth back in 1962.
Richardsson argues:
"In fact, the Republican policies did increase worker productivity by about 43 percent, but the profits went to business owners. So did the benefits of the tax cuts"
And bemoans the fact that wealthy people did better than poorer people. I guess she missed it; the twenties were called the Roaring Twenties because it was a time of great prosperity. She says Republicans damaged what had been, an intrusive and activist government. True, because Woodrow Wilson was the protFascist (Mussolini said he modeled his system of what Wilson was doing) and the nation suffered through TWO bad depressiions, one in 1919 and again just a couple of years alter, and they were the direct result of Wilsonian policies of intervention into the economy. It was only when Harding and Coolige rolled back regulations and taxes that the economy was restored, and it would have continued had not Hoover tried to manage it like some sort of engineering project.
She continues:
"When Republican Party leaders ignored the Hoover holdouts and embraced a philosophy similar to that of the Democrats, the discredited faction howled that the Grand Old Party had become a "Me, too†party embracing socialism. In the 1950s, with America enjoying a prosperity and standard of living unimaginable to the rest of the world, they insisted that Democrats and Eisenhower Republicans were cozying up to Communists and crushing the US economy. To save America — and the Republican Party — they demanded a return to the ideology of the 1920s."
What universe does this woman reside in? The Depression began showing signs of returning immediately after the War ended, but stopped when Republicans cut taxes
Oh, did I mention the Trump cuts are more modest than either Bush or Reagans?
She goes on to spin a conspiracy theory worthy of the most deranged paranoid schizophremic, claiming the GOP wants people to be poor.
Sadly, this author is a professor of American history at Boston College.
Do read the entire stupid thing.
The media has grown hysterical in their condemnation of the modest tax cuts being promoted by the GOP and President Trump. A quick Google search turned up dozens and dozens of mainstream articles desperate to condemn these cuts as the second coming of Herbert Hoover. Doubt me?
Well, see what Bill Moyers and Company have to say:
Heather Cox Richardson says:
"The Republican Tax Bill Is a Poison Pill That Kills the New Deal
Today’s Republicans would have fit right into Herbert Hoover’s administration."
End excerpt.
This doofy chick doesn't know that Franklin Roosevelt ran to the Right of Hoover, and in fact was more conservative about economic matters than The Wonder Boy (as Calvin Coolige called Hoover) who pushed through tax increases and draconian regulations over the economy. Of course liberals never do know history, and journalists are especially prone to historical ignorance, holding a worldview based on mythology and easy sloganeering.
The article continues:
"With Republicans in uncontested power in Washington, he tweeted, they had a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enact real comprehensive tax reform and get our economy moving.†Many Trump supporters thought reform meant relief for the "forgotten Americans†he talked about on the campaign trail. But Republicans had other plans, intending to take a wrecking ball to the system of American government that has been in place since 1933 and replace it with one based in their own ideology. If the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act†becomes law, they will have succeeded."
End excerpt.
First, the Forgotten Man was not the poor guy out of work but the poor guy who was working and had to pay for the charity bestoyed. Liberals don't know the genesis of that expression. Clearly she has never read Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man" which explains it succinctly. The term was the creation of William Graham Sumner, who, in an 1883 speech, bemoaned the guy stuck paying for others good intentions as The Forgotten Man. FDR hijackied the term but the real forgotten man is the person paying taxes so politicians can buy votes. Try reading a book Ms. Richardson, and get your nose out of the Washington Post.
And this tax cut plan is more modest than that of George W. Bush, or especially Ronald Reagan, yet it "takes a wrecking ball" to our government and entire way of life, according to this author. Huh? How exactly does it do that. And does she really think the New Deal was so great? From the Misses post cited above:
"Concentrate on FDR's "criminals": the poor tailor Jack Magid, thrown into prison for the crime of pressing a suit for a price FDR didn't approve of; the old age pensioners cast into poverty by FDR's deliberate actions against the businesses their retirement savings were invested in; and all those peoples' families, who suffered along with them.
Concentrate for a moment on the fact that there was "anger that the price (of meat) was so high" (p. 221) due to FDR's deliberate policy of paying farmers to destroy food during a time of hunger. Notice how the "argument was valid" that "the NRA helped big business at a cost to smaller businesses" (p. 227). And laugh at the wonder of it all, that this man is still regarded as a "friend of the people.""
Concentrate for a moment on the fact that there was "anger that the price (of meat) was so high" (p. 221) due to FDR's deliberate policy of paying farmers to destroy food during a time of hunger. Notice how the "argument was valid" that "the NRA helped big business at a cost to smaller businesses" (p. 227). And laugh at the wonder of it all, that this man is still regarded as a "friend of the people."
End excerpt.
These were the same Forgotten Men who, in the last election, put Donald Trump in office. Obama and the Democrats ignored them as much as Roosevelt did, in fact, more than FDR. Barack Obama and the Democrats had a policy of high energy prices, high taxes, and stagnant economic growth. The working class found itself being squeezed out of existence, and they fought back. During the New Deal the public never quite rebelled, largley because% 5 they had no champion. The GOP put forward a series of "bum of the month club" candidates and never did come up with a good message. Much like the RINO class today, they were more interested in promoting FDR"s policies in a "smarter" fashion. The public saw no value in elected me too politicians then, and they still don't.
And Hoover increased spending from 3.3 Billion in 1930 to 4.6 billion in 1032, a 48% increase. He ran budget deficits of 52.5% and 43.3% in 1031 and 1932, larger increases than Roosevelt ever had. He promoted bloated regulatory agencies like the Federal Farm Burea which imposed strict price controls. He suppored high wages as the key to economic growth, the Demand-side economics of John Maynard Keynes and FDR. He signed the Davis-Bacon Act which paid out high wages for government construction projects and ushered in unionization and he further promoted labor unions with Norris-LaGuardia Act, driving prices up and forcing immigrants and minorities out of the market. And of course we cannot forget he promoted the tax increase of Smoot Hawley. He also created massive public works projects and heavy consumer financing guaranteed by governemtn.
Hardly Laissez Fairez.
And all of this led to the Great Depression. Yet our dear author misses the whole point:
"Democrats based their system on a distinctive ideology: The government must keep the economic playing field level for all Americans. As people at the bottom prospered, they would fuel economic growth for everyone."
End excerpt.
Hello! The poor do not pay taxes, the poor do not give people jobs, the poor do not provide health insurance or buy expensive items. That all comes from the business class. John Kennedy, liberal icon, understood that; he called for tax cuts to stimulate economic growth back in 1962.
Richardsson argues:
"In fact, the Republican policies did increase worker productivity by about 43 percent, but the profits went to business owners. So did the benefits of the tax cuts"
And bemoans the fact that wealthy people did better than poorer people. I guess she missed it; the twenties were called the Roaring Twenties because it was a time of great prosperity. She says Republicans damaged what had been, an intrusive and activist government. True, because Woodrow Wilson was the protFascist (Mussolini said he modeled his system of what Wilson was doing) and the nation suffered through TWO bad depressiions, one in 1919 and again just a couple of years alter, and they were the direct result of Wilsonian policies of intervention into the economy. It was only when Harding and Coolige rolled back regulations and taxes that the economy was restored, and it would have continued had not Hoover tried to manage it like some sort of engineering project.
She continues:
"When Republican Party leaders ignored the Hoover holdouts and embraced a philosophy similar to that of the Democrats, the discredited faction howled that the Grand Old Party had become a "Me, too†party embracing socialism. In the 1950s, with America enjoying a prosperity and standard of living unimaginable to the rest of the world, they insisted that Democrats and Eisenhower Republicans were cozying up to Communists and crushing the US economy. To save America — and the Republican Party — they demanded a return to the ideology of the 1920s."
What universe does this woman reside in? The Depression began showing signs of returning immediately after the War ended, but stopped when Republicans cut taxes
Oh, did I mention the Trump cuts are more modest than either Bush or Reagans?
She goes on to spin a conspiracy theory worthy of the most deranged paranoid schizophremic, claiming the GOP wants people to be poor.
Sadly, this author is a professor of American history at Boston College.
Do read the entire stupid thing.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:39 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1353 words, total size 9 kb.
27kb generated in CPU 0.009, elapsed 0.3517 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.346 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.346 seconds, 157 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
