Your study is one of the most cited by conservatives who fear any government regulation and intervention in the market, despite the lack of those contributing to the onset of the Great Depression, and due to unscrupulous lending, the recent housing bubble and recession. It does not consider those employed by New Deal government programs as they are labelled temporary workers. It also levies the blame on NIRA, which was ruled unconstitutional a couple years later anyway.

I'll keep saying handwave until you actually address the arguments. Even at the end of your post you so come so close to actually saying what your argument is, but also can say that this solution relies on negotiation and win-win outcomes. I still have no idea what this solution supposedly is, but I do now know that FDR was a apparently raging asshole instead. Clearly you're of the libertarian variety, but I still think it's funny you believe that most of the bottom and middle class have any leverage with which to negotiate in the first place. But rail on about the "government's gun" - I'm sure its violence and abuses in creating an 8 hour workday, ending child labor, and enduring the food companies sold didn't kill people during the last guilded age keeps you up at night. Just like it's providing the most basic of social safety nets in the industrialized world during the last depression apparently does.

But hey, keep on stroking people like Romney and hold a magnifying glass to the working poor. You want every penny for welfare recipients to be accounted for, not realizing that such policies only create more administrative overhead that as a libertarian you should be trying to avoid. If a great deal of welfare/SNAP recipients were drugged up all day, then sure, enforce stricter policies. But there already are a huge number of restrictions and conditions for money so little it could be considered supplementary at best. But then you have the hypocrisy to say that Romney dodging taxes to pay his fair share is just fine because his fair share is more. So you tell me not to use "because he has it" as a reason he should pay, when that appears to be your only argument for why he shouldn't. You're pretty much saying "Fuck you, got mine" on his behalf, but you think it's absurd that people have been voting against their own interests.

It also perfectly illustrates how elites have the means to make use of loopholes that the middle and lower class do not, and how some people like you cheer them for that. I take issue with the wealth of the Waltons because their operations and income are subsidized by tax dollars, and as I showed, they make use of more legal loopholes to keep more money - literally hundreds of millions of dollars' worth that is added to the deficit or made up by other taxpayers. But you'd rather side with them over those they purposely under employ and who rely on social services, who you think should be piss tested at every opportunity. Then you sling disingenuous horseshit like how anyone can take advantage of these "deductions" by moving their vast sums of money into an offshore account like Romney, or the "deduction" where corporations can lower their tax bill by paying executives more, a loophole estimated to cost about $10 billion to taxpayers annually. And after all this, I still don't even know what you're actually arguing for. Sounds pretty fitting for today's Republicans, I guess.