Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Better. . . Mod Note: The first three posts are copied from the Political Cartoons Vol. 2 thread, posts #493, 498-499. A deeper exploration of that discussion deserves its own thread, and likewise avoids consuming the Political Cartoons thread with a specific digression.
Something to be said for art A Note for The Esotericist re: #493 above Liberals seem to adore that painting. MaddowBlog readers rallied up a Sad Keanu version right away. I'll get them MaddowBlog readers one day. Sad Keanu was a meme thingy I had been blissfully unaware of until that moment. Oh, right. Blame the artist, that's how it goes with books and music, right? So it's Jon McNaughton's fault for thoughtlessly leaving his painting so blatantly open to an obvious meming (memeing?). Meme exploitation. Meme ... Meme-o-rexploitation? Is it live, or is it memeorex. Keanizing? I don't know what it is. Such dedicated insanity. Such focused and simmering obsession. There is something to be said for art.
Thanks for the research, but not so much for the theorizing. A little extra on your part would have elucidated the answers. http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379 Yes, it means what I think it means. The globalist elites are taking over this country. Yes, the conservatives and liberals are blind to it, or they are complicit and have been bought out. You'll notice that the main moral presidents, regardless of party, are concerned about the common man. http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/?artpiece_id=379 "McNaughton responses to Criticisms of The Forgotten Man I would like to take a minute to explain some of the points of confusion for those who wish to interpret my picture. 1. Why did I paint this? Like many Americans I feel shock at the direction our country is heading. There is a great polarizing effect taking place in America today. There are many who swoon over Obama's policies of redistribution of wealth. What will the government give me? If you believe this is the proper role of government you will certainly see great CHANGE in your lifetime. I wanted to paint a picture that portrays the plight of the common man. Perhaps the FM is already experiencing this now or will in the future. My hope is that he will "wake up!" now before it is too late. 2. There is no racial meaning or undertone that the FM is not black. This is not a racial painting; it is about the vanishing of the American dream. 3. It is not a partisan painting. I take no favoritism of Republicans or Democrats. Both parties are guilty. 4. The only solution I offer is to take a 180 degree turn and return to the principles of the Constitution, which define a limited government, protect individual and states' rights and make no allowance for any of the baggage we have accumulated over the years in the form of entitlement programs. The only way to cure the cancer is to root it out and endure the painful healing. Perhaps, with God's help, we will survive. 5. Is it disrespectful to have in my painting the President of the United States standing on the Constitution? Is the President without reproach? I am simply one American speaking to another American. The painting symbolically suggests the actions of Barack Obama as well as other presidents. Yes, their actions speak louder than words—as do the brushstrokes in my painting. 6. I have endeavored to keep this information simple and to the point. The information is historical, if it is not familiar to you—Google it. 7. I picked the trashed papers based on the issues that I believe have been the most damaging to America. These issues have been trampled by politicians of both parties for over a century. When will the American people decide to defend the Forgotten Man? Let us raise our voices together and demand the kind of CHANGE that will truly save our way of life. 8. Why did I not mention critical information about some Presidents which defined their presidencies? My only purpose is to identify each President and with simplicity express what they have done to either help or hinder the Forgotten Man. I invite all to search deeper into the history of the painting's message and discover if what I paint is true. Can you truly say our house is in order when our debt is stealing away the future of every man woman and child in America?" . . . and, I don't know if you have gotten the impression that I am a conservative, I am not. Go ask adoucette or spidergoat, they'll tell you as much. I am an anarchist, an anti-statist, an anti-globalist. Just as the Pope and the King betrayed the Templars, I see the government of the U.S. and the globalists setting up the American people like a set of bowling pins. Morality and decency is after all, what, subjective these days? Why shouldn't they? They do after all, control the educational system, the University system, and the media. Of course these, "MaddowBlog readers" rallied up a version that was more soothing to their world view, it is after all what was predicted in 1984. Change one's perception of history and reality to fit with one's mindset. This is an effort to lessen cognitive dissonance. On that note, a cartoon with a little bite, and a whole lot of truth. . . . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The painter is another brainwashed god-bothering idiot. Those entitlement programs were the same ones that brought us out of the last Republican Great Depression. The president is a constitutional scholar, and the last president shredded the constitution. Ronald fucking Reagan increased taxes more than Obama!
The lefties have been banging on about this for thirty years and more. With a more accurate basis in reality and a less delusionary version of US history backing them. Where have you guys been?
Blind Faith Blind Faith This is called blind faith. The artist says, and you repeat. To wit: The globalist elites, then, are voters. One key identifier of libertarianism is that it overlooks the fact that individuals within a given collective actually comprise that collective. You can take almost any issue and watch how it goes. Why are Democrats so slow on marriage equality? Certes, they have their own personal moral outlooks, but it is demonstrable that the major factor Democrats at federal, state, and local levels fear is the electorate itself. Perhaps the idea that politicians are still on the voters' leash is strange to one whose political thesis depends on a mythical exclusion of the people, but it is nonetheless true. That people cannot keep as tight a leash on their government as they might want does not mean they have no say over the government any more than the idea that labor laws have ever fulfilled the doomsayers' predictions that not letting companies do whatever they want will ruin profitability. It's hard to figure McNaughton's criteria of morality. Of course, in understanding that, we learn a bit about the political commentary. For instance, McNaughton asserts, "It is not a partisan painting. I take no favoritism of Republicans or Democrats. Both parties are guilty." And that's fine. It's true that members of all political parties throughout American history have contributed to the trouble. However, here is where the interpretive problem starts. It's kind of like your description of yourself: You're not an anarchist. Call yourself whatever you want, but when you're bandwagoning with the "Reagan as the Champion of the Common Man" crowd, you're a conservative. And that's the thing with McNaughton's painting. Looking past the artist's divine healing of FDR, one starts to see that it really is, if not partisan, then definitely assertive of a political agenda. There are specific contexts in which one can simultaneously be a champion of the common man and work hard to reduce the common man's stature in society, such as Reagan did. One can easily say that they're not partisan if they identify instead according to ideas and idylls normally contained within a partisan structure. Such as McNaughton claiming it is not a partisan painting, yet going out of his way to attribute to Reagan's tax cut tremendous prosperity while speaking nothing of the predictable (predicted, fulfilled) expectations that his policies would reinforce economic stratification and constrain upward mobility. Overall, it's a fine painting, and a reasonably interesting historical benchmark. It certainly documents, quite boldly, an influential political outlook of the day, but its honesty is found in its explanation of the artist's view of the world, not in any supposition of historical accuracy. It is a high-end political cartoon, but like so many conservative political cartoons, invested in articles of faith about how to interpret facts. One wonders, then, what the artist would have depicted if Obama had lived up to the expectations of his liberal and leftist supporters. And for all of McNaughton's obsession over the gold standard and central banking, one might also wonder about life in these United States without these things. What would be our standard of living? How many billionaires and millionaires would the US have created since Nixon? How would wealth be naturally distributed? How big would the U.S. economy be? What health care would be available to the average wage laborer? What information would be available to schools? Would we be eating organic carrots or non-dairy, processed "cheese"? It always seems strange to me when people who fret about the American plutocracy advocate policies that would augment and strengthen the plutocrats. And this is another hallmark of pop-culture "libertarianism". We are in a period of rediscovery; Americans are once again becoming familiar with their voices as people, and their "voice" as "the People". Consider direct action: • Vietnam War: Protests against the war eroded public support for the Vietnam action, but also made the left even more reviled than it had been before. • WTO/WB/IMF: Liberal disgust at globalism and stacked-deck fiscal policies through these organizations only discredited liberalism and leftism. • Bush Adventures: Liberal dissent in the U.S. was denounced as sympathy for terrorism. While low-key protests did continue throughout the war, "the People" never took to the streets with anything remotely resembling the ferocious enthusiasm of the Vietnam-era counterculture, nor the twenty-first century direct action in Europe. • Tea Party: Threatening and demanding armed revolution while denouncing "socialism", "fascism", and government in general—and, oh, yeah, don't you dare screw with my entitlement checks from Social Security and Medicare—is apparently credible direct action. Ordinarily, liberals would scratch their heads and say, "Really? I mean, public discourse is one thing, but mass-hysterical hypocrisy is something else entirely." To the other, the left might also thank the Tea Party and American media institutions; what was formerly without respectability is now importantly respectable. Which, of course, brings us to: • Occupy: Now that direct action and public protest are respectable again—apparently because the right wing has taken its turn—the Occupy Movement found tremendous success despite the striking ego defense shown by conservative political institutions and major media outlets. Apparently the end of corruption in American politics is not a clear goal, to judge by the head-scratching among pundits; yet at the same time, the media discourse changed almost radically, and for the first time in decades, income inequality was a respectable issue on the radar. We are, as a people, discovering anew the awesome power of the voice; or, as folks in Virginia reminded, silence—a silent protest against the upcoming personhood bill prompted Republican sponsors to ask that the state senate vote be delayed. But part of this bizarre libertarian complaint against the institutions is that the politicians have done all they do wrong without attending the people at all. This is an easy critique because it demands little or no actual attention to political machinations in the country. Why are conservatives running on social issues after spending three years blasting Obama for the economy? Is it simply because they know they've played their hand on the economic front? Well, if that's the case, they're responding to the people, who are increasingly weary at the whole cat-and-mouse game of Republicans trying to stall the economic recovery in order to complain about the lack of economic recovery. Is it because they know people still respond to these social issues? In that case, they're playing directly to the people, and gambling that voters will take up the social conservative cause in exchange for not paying attention to economic machinations. The People, as such, are not only still an important factor in the game, but one of the primary influences on the board. Politicians still pander to people, though admittedly it often seems that this is in order to continue backrooming their merry way to plutarchy. And people still elect them. Actually, it seems more the fact that Sad Keanu was the obvious joke. There is certainly some ego defense at play in the liberal response to the cartoon. Indeed, that is probably part of why liberals are giving the McNaughton painting any credibility at all. But one of the lasting points to emerge from this painting will be, much like your offering of "a cartoon with a little bite, and a whole lot of truth", the proposition that the People are somehow helpless in the fashioning of what we so loathe. And what arises from that is a juxtaposition of competing worldviews. "Libertarian" is to conservatives what "progressive" is to liberals. It is just a word, and one intended to evade the historical accretions of the more standard labels. Progressives tend to seek to make the best of what they have in the political context, such as President Clinton's surrender to the Reagan economy, which many view as a political necessity according to the mood of voters—i.e., the will of the People. Libertarians tend to look back to a mythical golden age, pretending that if we just turn back the clock to the 1950s, or the nineteenth century, or even the founding of the Republic, that all will go well in the twenty-first century, and the gilded eras of American mythic glory will return. But that's not the way it goes. If there is a bridge over a canyon, one might think to tear it down. Now then, do we build a new, safer bridge? Or do we simply leave the gaping chasm and pretend that transportation is that much better for having eliminated entirely that crossing? Whatever gripe libertarians might have with the Federal Reserve and other central-bank ideas, they offer nothing to undertake the role of various institutions they would destroy in order to maintain certain effects of prosperity and societal health. They would knock down the bridge and not build a new one, pretending that their return to this particular gilded era will only offer benefits without creating any problems. That seems to be the painter's realm, though. "I invite all to search deeper into the history of the painting's message," writes McNaughton, "and discover if what I paint is true." Plenty will find historical issues to pick with his interpretation. If the elites of the GOP mostly just like us because we have in our ranks many who will write apologia in exchange for 30 pieces of silver, then lambast us for that. But saying that libertarianism is dominated by the Reds is not the same as saying that libertarians dominate the Reds. If they are using us, it reflects poorly on us, but it does not follow that we are ascendant in their ranks. If anything, it makes us look even worse, because we sold ourselves to them and all we got in return was this lousy t-shirt that they charged us 29 pieces of silver for. —Thoreau____________________ Notes: Deutsch, Barry. "A Brief History of Corporate Whining". Ampersand. September 4, 2009. LeftyCartoons.com. February 21, 2012. http://leftycartoons.com/a-brief-history-of-corporate-whining/ Thoreau. "Libertarians are way too hip on double entendre to ever call themselves 'Teabaggers'". Unqualified Offerings. March 16, 2010. HighClearing.com. February 21, 2012. http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/16/10870
Wow, the look on Bush's face is perfect. He looks like a confused idiot. Obama OTOH I don't really know. Is he really duplicitous? Which is kind of how I read his expression. I think, like Spidergoat, he really does think that what he'd doing is a good thing. He is a Statist after all. Almost all of them are. They see no moral conundrum with using force to take from one person and give to another. Partly they can't see a world without the USD. It's like not being able to see a world without God. Americans don't know what money is. They don't understand where it comes from. If you tell them it's debt, that the money in their hand is debt, they think you're an idiot. Even when they do understand, by the time they fully grasp the system, they're for some weird reason enamored by it. When they should feel sickened. Oh well, these things have to run their course. Let's see what the next ten years bring to America.
Hey way is Reagan not with the dipsticks on the right? Reagan did not give a shit about the common man! Hey I'm all for de-federalization, but states will have to make their own entitlement programs of varying design.
Don't let yourself be conned by the Left -vs- Right, Dem -vs- GOP... they're both the same. The Great Depression was caused by Statism and greatly prolonged by the Federal Reserve. The government paid farmers to destroy their own crops through the Agricultural Adjustment Act which led to people starving to death. Get this, following WWII many didn't want to bring home the troupes. Keynesians worried that without employment the economy would tank. All sorts of jobs programs were initiated. However, like most things the government does, these were so utterly slow to be rolled out, that the government was too late! Deregulation and private enterprise had the economy doing fine before any of these programs were on the ground. Here's something interesting: Why do economist think free trade between currencies is "good" for economic prosperity but within countries it's "bad". What's the rational? There isn't one. It's all about controlling the Cattle. If you control the money, you control the man. It's as simple as that :shrug: That's what this boils down to. Think about this. If the government is doing so well, why does it continue to grow? One would think it'd be shrinking, you know, as it "solved" various social problems. But, it doesn't does it? What incentive would a bureaucrat have in solving a problem? They don't. Just the opposite. Once you convince people they need the State to solve the problem, well, life's good for you - as long as the problem is never solved. You know, I was raised believing in God. It's funny now looking back on it. God I mean. What a joke. I was also raised to believe to look to the State to look out for me. I wasn't ever taught much about money, as in, it's relationship to debt. Actually, looking back on things, I suppose having gone through public school and public University, I was raised to be a worker bee. Never to question the system, but how to be a part of it. God and Country. In the middle ages you had very large populations of poor and a small ruling theocracy and aristocrats parasitizing them. The State should be teaching us to be independent. Logically I mean. That's what you want right? An independent free nation. But it doesn't. Why? Well why would it. It wants us dependent on it - or at least to believe we are. Which is exactly the opposite. It's dependent on us! Lastly, think of Steve Jobs. He did more than most, if not all, politicians to bring a better world to Americans. Yet, he never started a charity. Never donated. There's no "Jobs Foundation". Why? Because he was a greedy SOB? Was he? Would it matter? He enhanced millions of people's lives. See, we're programmed somehow not to see this. We only see he didn't donate money and he had so much he should have. No, that's not right. It doesn't matter what he did with his money, it's his and he can do with it what he wanted to. What matters is that he pursued his passion and in so doing made our lives better for it. Was he motivated by greed? Suppose he was (he wasn't but that's besides the point). He made our lives better. How do we know that? Because The free-Market (that's us) demanded his products. He was only able to become wealthy by giving us what we wanted. It's something to think about.
And you are being conned by the all parties are the same party. And your conception of history is all screwy. We got out of the depression shortly before the war, thanks to doubling down on investment, but only after we tried austerity and it failed. After WWII, most of the other major centers around the world of manufacturing were destroyed, except for the US (and the USSR). That gave us a huge head start, we even loaned money to other countries so they could buy our products. You would have had to try very hard in that economic climate to fail at business. The government has to be scaled for society, which the census tells us is growing. It actually tries to prevent a total power monopoly on the part of rich people and corporations, and so it keeps you free. It's an extension of our own will. Wouldn't you feel more free if you didn't have to worry about health care? Don't you realize these things have been solved already by the Europeans and the British? Our insurance companies are the ruling theocracy. They are the parasites, preying on our need not to die or live in pain.
Is the guy on the bench out of work? Gee, I wonder where he'd be if 13 trillion dollars hadn't evaporated during the meltdown. Oh, he's probably distraught because the economy tanked because of unregulated leveraging, not social policy, and he's probably wondering why so many Americans are griping about the thing he needs most: federal assistance. Yes, this picture makes perfect sense, though I'm not sure why the painter is aping Rush Limbaugh. A publicity stunt maybe?
The government was trying all sorts of things (such as destroying crops) and yet unemployment was in the high teens as WWII started. Most people agree the Federal Reserve helped to prolong the great depression through sheer incompetence. There's a new book out on the GD that has some interesting facts. I'll see if I can't find it. Yes, this makes sense. This is where I disagree. Exactly the opposite in fact. The government is actually IMO indoctrinating and enslaving. I work in the medical field so I'm not going to go into it other than to say it's immoral to force an innocent person to do something against their will. You can not force doctors to treat people for specific pay. That's wrong. The solution is to break the many MANY levels of monopoly. Which isn't going to happen - as a matter of fact, it will only get worse. That's besides the point. What do you mean the government is protecting you from big business? Give me an example. I see it exactly the opposite. They're selling us out to big business. With Bush it was the War Machine like Halliburton. With Obama it's the Banking elite like GoldmanSux and BofA. Seriously, Corzine was tapped by Obama as his adviser. Corzine stole $1.2 billion dollars and crashed a 200 year old banking firm. No one, ever, in the history of markets did what he did. He'd not even going to get a slap on the wrist. He should be doing life in prison. That's crazy. I've posted the $40 billion dollar additional bailout. Seriously, people in the regulatory business are gobsmacked at the way the banks are pulling Obama's strings. People who worked on the S&L crises have suggested that tens of thousands of bankers and affiliates should be in prison for fraud. That didn't happen and soon, the Statue of Limitations will run out and it's not going to happen. All that debt has been shoveled onto the little guy. The banks are still making record profits. It's sick. I mean, seriously sick. I really don't know what else to say. If you think Obama gives two shits about us, well, I don't know what to say other than that's what people said about GW Bush :shrug: Seriously, I know Americans who think GW Bush's a hero. Why? I can't understand how they can't see it. It's frustrating.
There is a concentrated effort to undermine the legacy of the New Deal, you should know the Heritage Foundation's tactics by now. They say the ND prolonged the depression, but they are wrong. Are you really going to believe the same people that were responsible for the depression? I don't think so. Legislation like the Credit Card Act of 2009 is what I'm talking about: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...forms-to-Protect-American-Credit-Card-Holders
In the first place, no one except possibly the military is "forcing doctors to treat" anyone. Doctors are as free to quit their jobs as the rest of us - from a practical point of view quite a bit more free, actually, these days. In the second, paying a set fee for a service is kind of normal in the real world. Most businesses do that routinely - Walmart has a certain amount they will pay for widgets, I have a certain amount I will pay for car repairs, it's how deals are made. And all of that started with Obama's administration, according to people who "worked on the S&L crisis" ? Bizarre. Look: Why are you guys picking this month to become outraged? One of the problems Obama has in prosecuting, say, Goldman Sachs, is that their Reagan Era corruption of Congress and the Executive Branch has changed the laws and regulations over the years - the worst of what they did was arguably legal, the rest was arguably approved by government agency, and they have the lawyers to make that argument last a long, long time. Another problem is that they have all the money: the transfer of wealth under Reaganomics has advanced quite a ways, to the point that a small number of people exercising private control of their own wealth have great influence on the fate of the US economy as a whole - so they have to be bribed and cajoled and persuaded. Isn't that what you say you want - a government that can't push rich people around?
Laughably simplistic. We are forced to do things all the time, that's part of living in a society rather than anarchy. We have to register our cars, we have to get a driver's license, we have to stop at stop signs, if we ride the bus we can't smoke, we can't smoke in a public building, if you are under 21 and drink you can be arrested, if you report to an ER with a gunshot wound and refuse to answer questions about it you will be placed under arrest, we are forced to cross the street at crosswalks, if you want to join the military you are forced to pee in a cup, if you earn income beyond a certain amount you are forced to file a tax return, the police force you to own a valid ID, if you want to fly in a plane you are forced to be inspected for weapons, even if you are homeless and want to sleep on the street or in a tent somewhere the police can force you to move, if you want to be president you are forced to prove you are a citizen...
I'll look at the evidence myself. I don't subscribe to the Heritage Foundation, however, it doesn't matter WHO says what, but what is being said. It's not like there was a "New Deal", so, we need to clear that away. Also, definitely some of the things the US government was doing was clearly harming the economy during the depression. The unemployment was at record highs when WWII broke out. Part of the problem is this idea that Uncle Sam can take care of things. When clearly, no central administration can act as effective or efficient as the person on the ground. Take the tariffs as an example. The purposeful destruction of crops in the USA while Russians starved by the millions. Absolutely idiotic. All that food should have been exported. Anyway, I'm not sure if I can make a clear enough case to you Spidergoat? I'll try to, but, from my experience it's not likely to happen. This seems like a good idea. I can see your POV. I can certainly see the appeal. It's simply NOT a good idea. The ideal solution is for Individuals to understand the agreement they signed when they took out a credit-card and to use the free market to ensure there's competition such that the individual makes the choice and the Market replies by offering a competitive card. In a sense, you're trying to argue we need "Smart Phone Act of 2001" so that Apple, one day in the future, offers an iPhone4. No, we don't. We need a savoy consumer who chooses the company that provides the best phone for value and free competition (more on this and the CC) It really is that simple. I've been using credit cards for years and have never once had a problem. Never. I've used them in four different countries. Never had a problem once. The only problem I see is that we don't have monetary competition and this crooked immoral central banking cartel could/is corrupting such services like CC. So, part of the solution is to get rid of the central bank. Did I make my case? Probably no. But, do you see my POV? I can see your POV - but I don't think it's the correct way to go mainly because removes ever more responsibility from the individual and makes them even more dependent on the State. That is exactly the opposite of what you want in a free Liberal minded open society. AND so, we'll get exactly the opposite. We'll have a dependent society that's led around by the nose, right into non-sense like the Iraq War and WMD. WE must have individuality and people MUST take responsibility for their own choices and their own actions. Am I making it better? My case I mean. In this case, if the CC holder gets in to deep, they can file for bankruptcy. The company that was screwing them looses. Simple as that. Both parties learn what not to do in the future.
OMG you have got to be kidding me. You're going to hold a gun to a doctors head, tell them to do the surgery or quit??? And you have the gall to call that free voluntarism??? You don't think THAT is the very definition of violence? Jesus, you're exactly 180 degree from the way the real world work. Completely mistaken. No one pays a "set free". Walmart scouts around for the best deal and take that deal. You have no comprehension as to how the economy works. Well, I don't blame you, given the sad state of public education and the horrid job the News does giving actual information to the public it's no wonder. I did NOT say that. I'll state one more time, there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. They both support theft and, sadly, this mentality has fully integrated into our psyche to now the Citizens think it's moral too! Do you think it's immoral to steal from an innocent person? I need to know your answer to this question before I can continue in this debate. If you think YES, it's perfectly moral, well we have different morals and can't expect to ever reach an agreement. It'd be like saying: Oh course we burn these women, that's not violence, they're witches! If you've in that deep, well, it's really a waste of time - isn't it? I mean, you'd have to go back and look at the rational for why one thinks violence is acceptable. The GFC was the largest Economic Fraud in the history of humanity. Please list the names of the Banking elite who have been sent to prison over the last 5 years.
We do not HAVE to register our cars. Why would you? Do you feel you should register your PC with the State? How about your TV? - A drivers license can be up the State not the central government. - A 21 year old drinking age is ridiculous. It's 20 in Japan, 18 in Australia, there is no age in many countries and yet other, like Iran, ban it outright. Lets leave that up to the individual and family. - Answering questions about a gun shot in ER is mentally perverse. - Jaywalking can be handled at the local level. - You should not pay income tax. - You should not have to have an ID. - You should not have to pee in a cup unless the employer states it's part of the job application process. If you don't like it, start a company that hires people based on how create and good they are and not on some silly pee test. - Airlines can handle their own security. Which they used to. What next? Security stops and random pat-downs to inter New York, Detroit? - You should be allowed to sleep on the street. - To be POTUS, yes, you have to be a citizen. Do you think it's immoral to use violence against an innocent person?
Yes, there was. It's the name for the body of legislation created in the first few years of Franklin Roosevelt's administration. Such as cutting back on the government stimulus too early and getting a recurrence of recession in '37, yep. That's false. I've noticed that that's my most frequent single response to your posts, btw. You post an unusual number of easily checked factual claims that are quite obviously false. Here's an immediate, five second Google hit on various stats circa the Great Depression and WWII http://www.shmoop.com/great-depression/statistics.html How much of your larger view of political history and economic reality is based on simple factual errors you could check in a few seconds? Not at all. He doesn't have to do the surgery, and I don't have to pay him. No guns involved, on either side. I'm not going to hire him and pay him if he won't do the job I need done. Why should I? Walmart then pays the set fee - that's what a "deal" is, a setting of fees. If they can't get the fee set low enough, they turn down the deal. There's nothing wrong with setting fees - people are perfectly free to turn down deals, right? You pay a "set fee" every time you hire a plumber. No. I firmly believe, for example, that "people" who make tons of money by using the roads, banking system, airports, internet setup, educational system (employee capability generation), legal and judicial infrastructure of private property establishment, military protection, ports and treaties and internationally defended currency etc, and then refuse to pay for all this stuff they used, which was provided to them by others, are behaving immorally, as well as shortsightedly. Isn't that what you say you want - a government that can't push rich people around?
You're wrong, unemployment was 20% in 1939. Try reading one of the links you searched. That's not what you said earlier. Good we agree. That's not a "set fee". Try wording things clearer in the future. Stop being obtuse. A set fee is set by the State. Paying a plumber is a deal. It's not set. You can call the plumber, see his rate, make him an offer and agree. Only an idiot pays the price tag. Please don't tell me you pay the price tag? What? You walk into the electronic shop and pay the "set fee"? If you do, well, you're an idiot. Well, your not only wrong but morally bankrupt as well. Again, you're mistaken. False again. Some people make good sheep. How many Banking elite went to prison?
