Should America Bid Farewell to Exceptional Freedom?

[Immanuel]

Do you really yearn for the "freedom" of pre-1930 America?

Ask the blacks in this country how "free" they were
Ask workers how free they were to unionize and get a 40 hr work week and a safe working environment
Try being a gay American in the pre-1930s
How free were you if the air you breathed or the water you drank was poisoned by some factory trying to make a buck?

So, you don't like Social Security or income tax and feel they enslave you. Before FDR, Social Security was either whatever meager savings you could accumulate or living off your kids. Millions of old people lived in misery and poverty once they could no longer work.
What do you propose we substitute for the income tax? the Tax Fairy?

For one, the Social Security Ponzi scheme has been debunked here multiple times. That you still cling to it as some sort of panacea is ludicrous.

And equating wanting less government intrusion in our lives to being racist or homophobic is a red herring.

It is a simple fact that government is eating up more of our personal resources every day.

And tell me did the government tax me to allow blacks equal rights?

Did the government tax me to allow women to vote?

Did the government tax me to allow workers to form unions?

Does the government force people to join unions?

All those things you mention came not from government but from the people themselves.

No one here who truly believes in liberty would stand for anyone not having equal standing.

But denying that government is exercising more and more control over us and is costing us a bigger and bigger portion of our money is you being blind by choice.

If Social Security were a "Ponzi scheme," it never would have worked from the first year out. The only reason it can't work now without some adjustment is because people are living longer, thereby collecting longer, and more in benefits are paid out than taken in.

As for the rest of your analysis, assuming you are griping about the possibility of taxes being raised, even if that happens, the rate will be increased only to the level under the Clinton Administration, and I don't recall too many unhappy people during the 90's.

Careful, some of us, me included, might think you are advocating HCR death panels in order to save Social Security.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

I wonder if you guys EVER really think about what you're saying. I'd bet a dollar to a dime, you have no clue of Carter's economic policy or what actually happened during his administration. All you have in your brain are Reagan's campaign slogans. Maybe you should check out Volker before you make any other claims.

Yup, wonder that to. THey just are way to simply minded to realize the current situation in the middle east was 50+ years in the making, with many presidents that have come and gone contributing to the animosity and rise of terrorism.

You got that right.
Bill Clinton's mindless bombing campaigns, designed to remove attention from the Monica Lewinsky affair, certainly escalated tensions enormously. In fact 9/11 was a response to Clinton, not Bush.

One would think that even a ragtag bunch of expatriated Arabs could figure out that in order to make a statement against President Clinton by blowing up buildings, it would be wise to do it while he was still President.

 

[MaggieMae]

For one, the Social Security Ponzi scheme has been debunked here multiple times. That you still cling to it as some sort of panacea is ludicrous.

And equating wanting less government intrusion in our lives to being racist or homophobic is a red herring.

It is a simple fact that government is eating up more of our personal resources every day.

And tell me did the government tax me to allow blacks equal rights?

Did the government tax me to allow women to vote?

Did the government tax me to allow workers to form unions?

Does the government force people to join unions?

All those things you mention came not from government but from the people themselves.

No one here who truly believes in liberty would stand for anyone not having equal standing.

But denying that government is exercising more and more control over us and is costing us a bigger and bigger portion of our money is you being blind by choice.

If Social Security were a "Ponzi scheme," it never would have worked from the first year out. The only reason it can't work now without some adjustment is because people are living longer, thereby collecting longer, and more in benefits are paid out than taken in.

As for the rest of your analysis, assuming you are griping about the possibility of taxes being raised, even if that happens, the rate will be increased only to the level under the Clinton Administration, and I don't recall too many unhappy people during the 90's.

Careful, some of us, me included, might think you are advocating HCR death panels in order to save Social Security.

Immie

My comment wasn't even close.

Frankly, I don't understand why there should be a maximum annual wage subject to Social Security tax. Currently it's at $106,000 which means the wealther are getting a free ride.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Ronald Reagan was the biggest wealth distribution socialist in our history.

That's a flat out lie and your graph doesn't show that at all.

The figures don't lie. Since the Reagan Revolution we had the biggest wealth redistribution in history.

Only it went from the working class to the wealthiest 5% of the country

Wrong. Wealth redistribution is taking the money one person earned and handing it over to someone who didn't. That's what the Marxists have been doing since FDR. Reagan started to reverse that and lessened the taking of people's money by the government allowing them to keep what they rightly earned. That's not wealth redistribution.

What that graph shows is that if you take the government constraints off of people, the folks who know how to make money will continue to make money and get richer and of course they would. Why on earth wouldn't they? They knew what to do to get rich in the first place. DUH!

Furthermore, you completely ignore other factors. The world economy changed as a whole during the 60s and 70s in particular. U.S. companies couldn't afford to pay factory workers overly gracious wages and benefits when Europe and Japan were coming back online and bringing competition to American industry again. The destruction caused in that part of the world in WWII is the primary reason why we could have such high tax rates in the 40s and 50s and pay workers so highly and still have a strong economy.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Attempting to apply a small set of tenets to 100 times more citizens has proven difficult. It isn't rocket science, son.

Apparently it is for the U.S. government. The only reason the same tenets aren't working today is because the government keeps getting its hands into everything. If they'd stay the hell out of everyone's business and stop interfering and live within their Constitutional guidelines we'd be just fine.

Freedom isn't reserved just for a few.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If Social Security were a "Ponzi scheme," it never would have worked from the first year out. The only reason it can't work now without some adjustment is because people are living longer, thereby collecting longer, and more in benefits are paid out than taken in.

Wrong. Social Security is very much a Ponzi Scheme because there are less workers supporting the recipients than there were when the program was implemented. There were 16 workers for every recipient back in the 1930s. Today there are two and now you have the Baby Boomers, the largest generation, retiring. People don't have eight kids like they did back in those days to sustain the system.

Furthermore, the Federal Government spent away the Social Security "Trust Fund" years ago on other crap and all that's left now are IOUs. The money is already gone.

The unfunded liabilities of Social Security are in the tens of trillions.

 

[Gunny]

I'd just skip page 15. It's all Jake Starkey and Dr Gregg doing each other without a clue.

 

[Immanuel]

If Social Security were a "Ponzi scheme," it never would have worked from the first year out. The only reason it can't work now without some adjustment is because people are living longer, thereby collecting longer, and more in benefits are paid out than taken in.

As for the rest of your analysis, assuming you are griping about the possibility of taxes being raised, even if that happens, the rate will be increased only to the level under the Clinton Administration, and I don't recall too many unhappy people during the 90's.

Careful, some of us, me included, might think you are advocating HCR death panels in order to save Social Security.

Immie

My comment wasn't even close.

Frankly, I don't understand why there should be a maximum annual wage subject to Social Security tax. Currently it's at $106,000 which means the wealther are getting a free ride.

Close enough.

And I don't really disagree with you on the cap, but the fact is that they don't get benefits to compensate for the additional taxes that they would be paying above that limit. Not that it would hurt them if they had to pay additional taxes.

$106k is by no means wealthy either although it is a step in the right direction.

Immie

 

[MaggieMae]

That's a flat out lie and your graph doesn't show that at all.

The figures don't lie. Since the Reagan Revolution we had the biggest wealth redistribution in history.

Only it went from the working class to the wealthiest 5% of the country

Wrong. Wealth redistribution is taking the money one person earned and handing it over to someone who didn't. That's what the Marxists have been doing since FDR. Reagan started to reverse that and lessened the taking of people's money by the government allowing them to keep what they rightly earned. That's not wealth redistribution.

What that graph shows is that if you take the government constraints off of people, the folks who know how to make money will continue to make money and get richer and of course they would. Why on earth wouldn't they? They knew what to do to get rich in the first place. DUH!

Furthermore, you completely ignore other factors. The world economy changed as a whole during the 60s and 70s in particular. U.S. companies couldn't afford to pay factory workers overly gracious wages and benefits when Europe and Japan were coming back online and bringing competition to American industry again. The destruction caused in that part of the world in WWII is the primary reason why we could have such high tax rates in the 40s and 50s and pay workers so highly and still have a strong economy.

Reagan's economy didn't do all it intended. You only tell some of the factors. The debate over Reagan's successes and failures rages on.

BW Online | June 21, 2004 | The Real Economic Legacy Of Ronald Reagan

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

President Clinton took office in 1993, when those huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget (the "Rubinomics" policy of his Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin) brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited.

Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.

There were differences, of course. Under Clinton, unemployment was lower than under Reagan, poverty declined more, and wages rose faster for ordinary workers. But the essential truth remains: Strip away doctrinaire rhetoric, and here's the lesson of nearly two decades of economic activity: Decisive Presidential leadership that tackles the greatest threat of the day produces the policy mix best suited for growth. Sometimes that means lower taxes, sometimes higher. Sometimes it means less regulation, sometimes more.

Sadly, presidential leadership isn't possible without cooperation from both parties to make things happen. Gone are the days when both Reagan and Clinton could pull the whole team together and make wise decisions for the nation as a whole through compromise.

 

[Gunny]

The figures don't lie. Since the Reagan Revolution we had the biggest wealth redistribution in history.

Only it went from the working class to the wealthiest 5% of the country

Wrong. Wealth redistribution is taking the money one person earned and handing it over to someone who didn't. That's what the Marxists have been doing since FDR. Reagan started to reverse that and lessened the taking of people's money by the government allowing them to keep what they rightly earned. That's not wealth redistribution.

What that graph shows is that if you take the government constraints off of people, the folks who know how to make money will continue to make money and get richer and of course they would. Why on earth wouldn't they? They knew what to do to get rich in the first place. DUH!

Furthermore, you completely ignore other factors. The world economy changed as a whole during the 60s and 70s in particular. U.S. companies couldn't afford to pay factory workers overly gracious wages and benefits when Europe and Japan were coming back online and bringing competition to American industry again. The destruction caused in that part of the world in WWII is the primary reason why we could have such high tax rates in the 40s and 50s and pay workers so highly and still have a strong economy.

Reagan's economy didn't do all it intended. You only tell some of the factors. The debate over Reagan's successes and failures rages on.

BW Online | June 21, 2004 | The Real Economic Legacy Of Ronald Reagan

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

President Clinton took office in 1993, when those huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget (the "Rubinomics" policy of his Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin) brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited.

Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.

There were differences, of course. Under Clinton, unemployment was lower than under Reagan, poverty declined more, and wages rose faster for ordinary workers. But the essential truth remains: Strip away doctrinaire rhetoric, and here's the lesson of nearly two decades of economic activity: Decisive Presidential leadership that tackles the greatest threat of the day produces the policy mix best suited for growth. Sometimes that means lower taxes, sometimes higher. Sometimes it means less regulation, sometimes more.

Sadly, presidential leadership isn't possible without cooperation from both parties to make things happen. Gone are the days when both Reagan and Clinton could pull the whole team together and make wise decisions for the nation as a whole through compromise.

Oh well. Skip page 16 too.

 

[MaggieMae]

Attempting to apply a small set of tenets to 100 times more citizens has proven difficult. It isn't rocket science, son.

Apparently it is for the U.S. government. The only reason the same tenets aren't working today is because the government keeps getting its hands into everything. If they'd stay the hell out of everyone's business and stop interfering and live within their Constitutional guidelines we'd be just fine.

Freedom isn't reserved just for a few.

I think you need to re-read The Constitution and tell us which parts, strictly as written, even conservatives are comfortable with today. Hell, you (collectively you) don't even like the Constitutionally mandated 10-year Census Report!!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Do you really yearn for the "freedom" of pre-1930 America?

Ask the blacks in this country how "free" they were
Ask workers how free they were to unionize and get a 40 hr work week and a safe working environment
Try being a gay American in the pre-1930s
How free were you if the air you breathed or the water you drank was poisoned by some factory trying to make a buck?

So, you don't like Social Security or income tax and feel they enslave you. Before FDR, Social Security was either whatever meager savings you could accumulate or living off your kids. Millions of old people lived in misery and poverty once they could no longer work.
What do you propose we substitute for the income tax? the Tax Fairy?

For one, the Social Security Ponzi scheme has been debunked here multiple times. That you still cling to it as some sort of panacea is ludicrous.

And equating wanting less government intrusion in our lives to being racist or homophobic is a red herring.

It is a simple fact that government is eating up more of our personal resources every day.

And tell me did the government tax me to allow blacks equal rights?

Did the government tax me to allow women to vote?

Did the government tax me to allow workers to form unions?

Does the government force people to join unions?

All those things you mention came not from government but from the people themselves.

No one here who truly believes in liberty would stand for anyone not having equal standing.

But denying that government is exercising more and more control over us and is costing us a bigger and bigger portion of our money is you being blind by choice.

If Social Security were a "Ponzi scheme," it never would have worked from the first year out. The only reason it can't work now without some adjustment is because people are living longer, thereby collecting longer, and more in benefits are paid out than taken in.

As for the rest of your analysis, assuming you are griping about the possibility of taxes being raised, even if that happens, the rate will be increased only to the level under the Clinton Administration, and I don't recall too many unhappy people during the 90's.

SS is a Ponzi scheme because it takes the payments of one person to provide the benefits for another.

There is no investment, no capital appreciation. The reason it worked for as long as it did was because the baby boomers were paying into SS to support the benefits to a much smaller population.

The reason it is failing now is that there are less people paying in to support the benefits being paid out.

You do know that SS has been nothing but an off the books slush fund for indiscriminate government spending right?

And the point of my other responses was not solely taxes.

RightWanker put forth the proposition that we who want less government infringement on our freedoms were somehow racist and homophobic.

But giving minorities equal access and expanding their freedoms did not lessen anyone else's freedoms.

The ultra left progressive idiocy of today is lessening our freedoms by allowing the government more control over our lives.

If you don't see the plain as day fact the the government being allowed to force us to buy insurance is a lessening of liberty then there really is no point in arguing with you as you are devoid of all reason.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Reagan's economy didn't do all it intended. You only tell some of the factors. The debate over Reagan's successes and failures rages on.

BW Online | June 21, 2004 | The Real Economic Legacy Of Ronald Reagan

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

President Clinton took office in 1993, when those huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget (the "Rubinomics" policy of his Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin) brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited.

Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.

There were differences, of course. Under Clinton, unemployment was lower than under Reagan, poverty declined more, and wages rose faster for ordinary workers. But the essential truth remains: Strip away doctrinaire rhetoric, and here's the lesson of nearly two decades of economic activity: Decisive Presidential leadership that tackles the greatest threat of the day produces the policy mix best suited for growth. Sometimes that means lower taxes, sometimes higher. Sometimes it means less regulation, sometimes more.

That article states quite clearly that Reagan's tax cuts stimulated the economy and lead to a recovery. What is criticized are the increased deficits, but that wasn't because of tax cuts; that was because of increased spending, the same thing W did. Tax cuts do pay for themselves if you keep spending constant and cut taxes in the right proportion. Federal revenues increased after Reagan took office with extremely lower tax rates. You can't outspend the increase, though. The deficits would have been even higher if he hadn't cut taxes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think you need to re-read The Constitution and tell us which parts, strictly as written, even conservatives are comfortable with today.

Well your first failed assumption is that I am a conservative and I'm not so you'll have to ask one of them. I'm a libertarian.

Hell, you (collectively you) don't even like the Constitutionally mandated 10-year Census Report!!

I filled my Census form out and sent it back in. I've heard few people complain about the Census itself. What they complain about are some of the overreaching questions, but really most of that stuff is regarding the American Community Survey, which is sent to people at random in lieu of the Census and every couple of years rather than every ten.

 

[boedicca]

The U.S. doesn't have an Undertaxed Problem, it has an Overspending Problem.

Just sayin'.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Oh wow. When does your book come out? I'm sure the CIA will be most interested in your analysis.

Considering it's fact...I'm sure they would.

Hey PP -- Maybe you need to brush up on the Rules and Regulations for this board, i.e.:

Rep System Guidelines: Our reputation system is designed to provide a feedback and credibility mechanism. Abuse of the system (repeated neg repping of the same person without cause or positive rep "trading" among users) will not be tolerated. Rep system abuse will result in warnings to cease. Continued abuse will result in random acts of rep manipulation of abusers by admins. Abuse the system, and we will mercilessly toy with you.

Perhaps you should grow the fuck up and quit whining....no one will give your pathetic ass one iota of sympathy for being a goddam crybaby.

 

[antagon]

Reagan's economy didn't do all it intended. You only tell some of the factors. The debate over Reagan's successes and failures rages on.

BW Online | June 21, 2004 | The Real Economic Legacy Of Ronald Reagan

Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened.

President Clinton took office in 1993, when those huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget (the "Rubinomics" policy of his Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin) brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited.

Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology.

There were differences, of course. Under Clinton, unemployment was lower than under Reagan, poverty declined more, and wages rose faster for ordinary workers. But the essential truth remains: Strip away doctrinaire rhetoric, and here's the lesson of nearly two decades of economic activity: Decisive Presidential leadership that tackles the greatest threat of the day produces the policy mix best suited for growth. Sometimes that means lower taxes, sometimes higher. Sometimes it means less regulation, sometimes more.

That article states quite clearly that Reagan's tax cuts stimulated the economy and lead to a recovery. What is criticized are the increased deficits, but that wasn't because of tax cuts; that was because of increased spending, the same thing W did. Tax cuts do pay for themselves if you keep spending constant and cut taxes in the right proportion. Federal revenues increased after Reagan took office with extremely lower tax rates. You can't outspend the increase, though. The deficits would have been even higher if he hadn't cut taxes.

this is a fallacy about the reagan revenues. there's no escaping the fact that reagan's tax policy started the country down the debt/deficit pathway, and that the laffer curve was arbitrary if not mythological.

 

[uscitizen]

Exceptional Freedom?

Is that like Super duper mega colossal Freedom?

Excepting freedom?

 

[Old Rocks]

Wrong-o Boy-o.

A right doesn't exist only when exercised.

You yourself have lost nothing...you have no intent of exercising this so called right and neither do any other conservatives

You're right...we work for a living, make wise career choices and save our money for tough times...unlike people like you who only live and work for the moment and live the me me me me me me me me me I I I I I I I I I gimme gimme gimme gimme gimme lifestyle. Now perhaps you understand why this whole progressive/socialist turn the country is taking pisses us off.

Well, baby, this ol' blue collar liberal missed not one hour of work because of this near depression. Now I suppose I could state that was because of my brilliance and work ethic. However, given the number of people that are working 8 to 10 hours a day, trying to get a job, I am quite willing to state that I was very lucky to be where I am at.

And now this old blue collar liberal is once again joining the ranks of the over employed.

 

[Avatar4321]

The U.S. doesn't have an Undertaxed Problem, it has an Overspending Problem.

Just sayin'.

Actually, it has an overtaxed and over spending problem.