What Is Wrong With America ?

[RKMBrown]

[quo


No one paid 90%. In those days there were thousands of exemptions and deductions.

Did you sleep through 9/11?

Yes, there were a lot of deductions, but the top payers still paid around 48%, which was pretty reasonable.

As far as 9/11, yeah, that was bad, but Bush had exactly the wrong solution.

Cutting taxes might have made sense when Kennedy did it in 1962 to stimulate the economy, but it made no sense in 2001. the problem in 2001 was not a lack of capital, it was an overage of inventory because most companies had overproduced during the 1990's. Hense, they cut back on manufacturing until the inventories were used up.

Not that Conservatives are even making that argument anymore about tax cuts stimulating the economy being a good thing. No one buys that anymore. Now the argument is pitting the "earners" against the "takers". When in reality, the takers are usually people who worked hard all their lives and found the "earners" had looted their company's pension funds.

Dumb, POS, or Liar you pick.

 

[rightwinger]

[quo


No one paid 90%. In those days there were thousands of exemptions and deductions.

Did you sleep through 9/11?

Yes, there were a lot of deductions, but the top payers still paid around 48%, which was pretty reasonable.

As far as 9/11, yeah, that was bad, but Bush had exactly the wrong solution.

Cutting taxes might have made sense when Kennedy did it in 1962 to stimulate the economy, but it made no sense in 2001. the problem in 2001 was not a lack of capital, it was an overage of inventory because most companies had overproduced during the 1990's. Hense, they cut back on manufacturing until the inventories were used up.

Not that Conservatives are even making that argument anymore about tax cuts stimulating the economy being a good thing. No one buys that anymore. Now the argument is pitting the "earners" against the "takers". When in reality, the takers are usually people who worked hard all their lives and found the "earners" had looted their company's pension funds.

Liar.

Some comeback

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes, there were a lot of deductions, but the top payers still paid around 48%, which was pretty reasonable.

As far as 9/11, yeah, that was bad, but Bush had exactly the wrong solution.

Cutting taxes might have made sense when Kennedy did it in 1962 to stimulate the economy, but it made no sense in 2001. the problem in 2001 was not a lack of capital, it was an overage of inventory because most companies had overproduced during the 1990's. Hense, they cut back on manufacturing until the inventories were used up.

Not that Conservatives are even making that argument anymore about tax cuts stimulating the economy being a good thing. No one buys that anymore. Now the argument is pitting the "earners" against the "takers". When in reality, the takers are usually people who worked hard all their lives and found the "earners" had looted their company's pension funds.

Liar.

Some comeback

POS lazy ass scum. That better?

 

[rightwinger]

Liar.

Some comeback

POS lazy ass scum. That better?

Is it any wonder why conservative opinion is so respected?

 

[RKMBrown]

Some comeback

POS lazy ass scum. That better?

Is it any wonder why conservative opinion is so respected?

Is it any wonder why lazy ass scum POS are called lazy ass scum POS?

You want someone to pat you on the back for doing nothing, give you a reach around? Find a libtard, circle up and jerk away.

 

[P@triot]

Do you have any proof from history that higher taxes mean less jobs?
How do you explain the booming economy in the 50s despite a 90% upper tax rate?
How do you explain the economy crashing under Bush despite his slashing taxes?

I explain it with the fact that everything you just stated never happened. If you would actually research facts instead of turning to your liberal propaganda "comfort food" you would know this.

“Democrats defend high tax rates on the basis of the rates in the mid-twentieth century.18 But that’s another distortion. It is true that FDR raised the top rate in 1935 to 79 percent. But what we never hear is that it only applied to incomes over $5 million—the equivalent of $76,000,000 per year today. In 1935 only one man in the entire U.S.A. paid a penny at that rate—John D. Rockefeller.19 The reality is that from 1935 through the 1970s the highest tax rates did pass 70 percent, 80 percent, and for a time even 90 percent, but those rates were aimed only at billionaire industrialists, not small business owners. Only a handful of taxpayers in America ever paid the top rates.2”

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

You get that chief? Only one man ever paid that rate. But hey - keep up with your "taxing everyone 90% is a good thing" fallacy. It's done wonders in the Obama economy (which has seen 10% unemployment at the longest rate of above 8% unemployment in U.S. history).

By the way - Obama (and Clinton) collapsed the U.S. economy. Under Bush, the highest unemployment ever hit was 7.2% - and that was only for a couple of months. Obama created 10% unemployment (thanks in part to Clinton collapsing the housing market).

Root is a righting douchebag

Come back with a legitimate source

Ok.....

Only ONE man paid the top tax rate in 1935

Only a handful of Americans ever paid the top tax rate

Now what junior? Once again I proved that you can't deal with reality. If it's not the liberal propaganda that has become comfort food for you, you're can't handle it.

 

[P@triot]

How do you explain the booming economy in the 50s despite a 90% upper tax rate?

Funny thing about liberals - every one of them raves about higher and higher and higher taxes and what it will do for this country.

Yet, not a one of them is willing to pay the taxes they so love and admire. So tell me RW, why haven't you paid 90% on your income? You know damn well you can send more to the IRS than the minimum required by them. Yet you don't do it - why? Hell, you won't even send an extra $100, much less 90% - why?

 

[Blueyez7579]

I truly think our constitution has been annihilated. In God We Trust, one nation under God, than what is with the immoral rights that are being pushed mainstream into the faces of our youth. There is no God left in our country and it is going to be up to our generation to do something about it. We all talk big (me included) and yet sit back and watch all of our rights and beliefs be taken from us so they can be given to others in the name of diversity. I often think of taking a public forum myself, passing out flyers and giving an open mic to the people to stand up and be heard by our peers. Maybe that will rally enough for a movement.


~ Gina 😉

 

[P@triot]

I truly think our constitution has been annihilated. In God We Trust, one nation under God, than what is with the immoral rights that are being pushed mainstream into the faces of our youth. There is no God left in our country and it is going to be up to our generation to do something about it. We all talk big (me included) and yet sit back and watch all of our rights and beliefs be taken from us so they can be given to others in the name of diversity. I often think of taking a public forum myself, passing out flyers and giving an open mic to the people to stand up and be heard by our peers. Maybe that will rally enough for a movement.


~ Gina 😉

I agree with you 100%. But there is not much anyone can do. If you try to do it through legal and proper channels, you lose because Obama and the Dumbocrats don't follow the law. Obama has violated the Constitution several dozen times - most recently this week when he delayed another part of Obamacare. The president does not have the power to alter law in any capacity. Yet he does it over and over and over. Furthermore, when good people tried to change things through legal channels, he used the IRS to illegally attack Tea Party organizations and delay their operations so he could steal the election like the piece of shit marxist that he is.

If you use force like our founders, then you are a criminal (a status I'm not particularly fond of). In my humble opinion, it's going to come to a second civil war. Fortunately for us, Dumbocrats are too stupid to realize that the overwhelming members of our military are on our side...

 

[Blueyez7579]

You couldn't have said that better. I agree, another civil war is necessary. I just worry how many civilians are actually for our country now. That's the scary part.


~ Gina 😉

 

[Spiderman]

How do you explain the booming economy in the 50s despite a 90% upper tax rate?

Funny thing about liberals - every one of them raves about higher and higher and higher taxes and what it will do for this country.

Yet, not a one of them is willing to pay the taxes they so love and admire. So tell me RW, why haven't you paid 90% on your income? You know damn well you can send more to the IRS than the minimum required by them. Yet you don't do it - why? Hell, you won't even send an extra $100, much less 90% - why?

The economy wasn't booming because of the tax rates in the 50s.

The manufacturing centers of Europe were devastated in WWII and were nowhere near recovered leaving the US not only as the world power but also with the largest manufacturing capacity.

That's what caused the economy to boom.

 

[Londoner]

How do you explain the booming economy in the 50s despite a 90% upper tax rate?

Funny thing about liberals - every one of them raves about higher and higher and higher taxes and what it will do for this country.

Yet, not a one of them is willing to pay the taxes they so love and admire. So tell me RW, why haven't you paid 90% on your income? You know damn well you can send more to the IRS than the minimum required by them. Yet you don't do it - why? Hell, you won't even send an extra $100, much less 90% - why?

Higher taxes. Lower taxes. Your taxes. My taxes. Blah blah blah. You're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

The national conversation has become so weighted down by moronic talking points. We've heard this shit for decades. Say something new or interesting.

Republican seniors in places like Florida want Social Security and Medicare. Some republican voters actually move to districts with better public schools because they want to give their children the best chance. Republican governors and voters in their districts want disaster relief, though only when they get hit. Do you know how much disaster relief Republican governors in the gulf have begged for and received. Stop repeating tired Rush Limbaugh garbage and learn some facts.

Do you know how much of our tax dollars goes into the military protection of overseas supply chains, so that our capitalists can have efficient access to global labor and materials? Do you know how much of our tax dollars go into the military defense of just Exxon's oil fields, or the thousands of oil fields across the globe, many in unstable regions.

Do you know how much of our tax dollars goes into harnessing the water and energy in just the Colorado River? Over a hundred thriving profit centers, from San Diego to Phoenix to every little town you can think of in a huge swath of the Southwest is dependent on the public revenues that flow into the Colorado. If you were an informed citizen you'd know that, but you're a Fox News drone who terminally repeats the same garbage.

Do you know how much profit comes from our satellite system? Can you name the fucking industries - over 100 thousand businesses - that profit from the satellite system? Do you know where the satellite system came from? It came from the tax revenue that poured into the Cold War NASA and Pentagon budgets.

Do you know how much tax revenue was poured into Boeing through the military budget? Do you know how much of those subsides help build our commercial aviation industry?

How about the 80s commercial electronics boom. Do you know how much of that technology came out defense related industries? [The Lefties don't know either because they hate Defense. I wrote my final university thesis on the brilliant military Keynesianism of Ronald Reagan (whom I defend to my Lefty detractors). Reagan added tens if thousands of defense sector jobs in places like San Diego and Orange Counties. Those places thrived in the 80s partly because Reagan's massive army of government workers poured into local ("Main Street") businesses and spent money. Sure, Reagan talked a good game about small government, but he went to school on FDR Truman and Eisenhower, all of whom brilliantly used defense and infrastructure jobs to stimulate the economy).

Listen son I don't want to pay higher taxes either, but that is partly because I don't think tax policy is the only battlefield here - it just happens to be one of those high profile issues that appeals to the fucking monkeys who watch FOXNews, but who can't even provide a list of what taxes pay before because Sean Hannity never told them.

If you want to join this debate, you're going to have to learn some of the above shit. Rather than ignorantly spouting talk radio bromides, we need people like you to become more literate about this stuff. For instance, there's plenty of " after market" stuff we can do to preserve things like Defense related technologies and the Patent system, which is an instrument used by the nanny government to protect research investments.

But we can't even start the conversation if you've never studied what the Patent system is, or who supplies it, or how it works, or how it is funded. Nor can we can we talk about the lobbying empire that has formed like a cancer around our political machinery so that our noble free market capitalists can suck subsidies, and market advantages and bailouts from the nanny state.

We can't have any of these conversations because people like you are stuck in the same tired talking points that have been around forever. Turn off Rush Limbaugh and study some of this stuff so you can say something interesting. Stop clogging the public debate with tired bumper stickers. You're just ensuring that the status quo never changes.

 

[1776]

The tax rate in the 50s was also low because welfare state wasn't implemented yet. Once the Federal GOV got involved with picking and choosing who got this and that, they had to steal from the rich and working to support lazy scum sitting on their asses, see the 60s and 70s....and today.

How do you explain the booming economy in the 50s despite a 90% upper tax rate?

Funny thing about liberals - every one of them raves about higher and higher and higher taxes and what it will do for this country.

Yet, not a one of them is willing to pay the taxes they so love and admire. So tell me RW, why haven't you paid 90% on your income? You know damn well you can send more to the IRS than the minimum required by them. Yet you don't do it - why? Hell, you won't even send an extra $100, much less 90% - why?

The economy wasn't booming because of the tax rates in the 50s.

The manufacturing centers of Europe were devastated in WWII and were nowhere near recovered leaving the US not only as the world power but also with the largest manufacturing capacity.

That's what caused the economy to boom.

 

[Iceweasel]

You couldn't have said that better. I agree, another civil war is necessary. I just worry how many civilians are actually for our country now. That's the scary part.


~ Gina 😉

It won't happen but it won't be civilians vs government, most cops and military are conservatives. I remember arguing with a liberal back in the Bush days when he called for a revolution against the right. When I asked him which side he thought was better equipped he dropped the subject.

 

[protectionist]

The tax rate in the 50s was also low because welfare state wasn't implemented yet. Once the Federal GOV got involved with picking and choosing who got this and that, they had to steal from the rich and working to support lazy scum sitting on their asses, see the 60s and 70s....and today.

Funny thing about liberals - every one of them raves about higher and higher and higher taxes and what it will do for this country.

Yet, not a one of them is willing to pay the taxes they so love and admire. So tell me RW, why haven't you paid 90% on your income? You know damn well you can send more to the IRS than the minimum required by them. Yet you don't do it - why? Hell, you won't even send an extra $100, much less 90% - why?

The economy wasn't booming because of the tax rates in the 50s.

The manufacturing centers of Europe were devastated in WWII and were nowhere near recovered leaving the US not only as the world power but also with the largest manufacturing capacity.

That's what caused the economy to boom.

FALSE! I was alive in the 50s and in school at the time, and was reporting in my current events classes on this stuff. There was a whole lot of welfare state going on then, with huge numbers of Mexicans entering the country illegally and helping themselves to welfare benefits by way of the anchor baby racket and false documentation, just like they do now. This is why Eisenhower got his friend Gen. Joseph Swing to carry out a mass deportation program (Operation Wetback) in 1954.

 

[Iceweasel]

Blah blah blah.

Talking points railing against talking points. Priceless.

Infrastructure is a basic function government, it should be funded. The excuse for taxing isn't a good excuse for not being fiscally responsible. We are in very serious debt, you left out that particular detail. We can't tax our way out of it.

 

[rightwinger]

I explain it with the fact that everything you just stated never happened. If you would actually research facts instead of turning to your liberal propaganda "comfort food" you would know this.

“Democrats defend high tax rates on the basis of the rates in the mid-twentieth century.18 But that’s another distortion. It is true that FDR raised the top rate in 1935 to 79 percent. But what we never hear is that it only applied to incomes over $5 million—the equivalent of $76,000,000 per year today. In 1935 only one man in the entire U.S.A. paid a penny at that rate—John D. Rockefeller.19 The reality is that from 1935 through the 1970s the highest tax rates did pass 70 percent, 80 percent, and for a time even 90 percent, but those rates were aimed only at billionaire industrialists, not small business owners. Only a handful of taxpayers in America ever paid the top rates.2”

Excerpt From: Wayne Allyn Root. “The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide.” Regnery Publishing, 2013-03-26. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/ultimate-obama-survival-guide/id601965000?mt=11

You get that chief? Only one man ever paid that rate. But hey - keep up with your "taxing everyone 90% is a good thing" fallacy. It's done wonders in the Obama economy (which has seen 10% unemployment at the longest rate of above 8% unemployment in U.S. history).

By the way - Obama (and Clinton) collapsed the U.S. economy. Under Bush, the highest unemployment ever hit was 7.2% - and that was only for a couple of months. Obama created 10% unemployment (thanks in part to Clinton collapsing the housing market).

Root is a righting douchebag

Come back with a legitimate source

Ok.....

Only ONE man paid the top tax rate in 1935

Only a handful of Americans ever paid the top tax rate

Now what junior? Once again I proved that you can't deal with reality. If it's not the liberal propaganda that has become comfort food for you, you're can't handle it.

Only one huh? rest paid what? 85%?

Let's see? Mitt Romney paid a total of 14% effective tax rate. How many people paid more than that in 1935?

At least in that depression the wealthy were expected to chip in

 

[protectionist]

Blah blah blah.

Talking points railing against talking points. Priceless.

Infrastructure is a basic function government, it should be funded. The excuse for taxing isn't a good excuse for not being fiscally responsible. We are in very serious debt, you left out that particular detail. We can't tax our way out of it.

Nor can we get out of it by just cutting services. We need to cut waste AND raise taxes on the rich to amounts (70%+) we commonly had before Reagan came along and turned into a low tax big debt nation. Before him the debt was 1 Trillion. Now after 34 years of his low tax mode (28-39%), we're at 17 times that.

 

[Londoner]

The tax rate in the 50s was also low because welfare state wasn't implemented yet.
That's what caused the economy to boom.

Are you fucking kidding me? Eisenhower's rate on the top bracket was over 90% at one point. The tax rate stayed consistently above 70% in the 50s & 60s, an unmatched period of economic growth. Eisenhower used the revenue to put Americans to work building things like the national interstate system, which had a multiplier effect for business that is incalculable. This is why he is one of my favorite presidents.

Reagan continued Eisenhower's big government spending, most by aggressively expanding defense related jobs, especially in Southern California. But he lowered taxes to 27% (and than slowly walked them back up because congress got sick of him expanding the debt limit 18 times. Reagan never covered the revenue gap to pay for things like his Star Wars Missile Defense Shield, which ultimately collapsed into a rat's nest of defense sector hand-outs. Study it yourself. The program turned out to be one of the most expensive farces in modern government history, and it signaled Washington's shift to a corrupt lobbying culture where large corporations like Lockheed Martin went for no-bid access to the taxpayer's wallet.)

But let's get to the point. Let's compare the Reagan tax rates to the Eisenhower tax rates. Eisenhower wanted to do BIG things, but he fucking paid for it with the highest text rate in US history. And the economy grew like never before. He was a brilliant republican president. Eisenhower didn't mind giving business huge subsidies. He didn't mind giving business the advantage of the taxpayer's wallet when it came to a large research projects. He didn't mind putting our great veterans to work building the interstate system and shoring up our large suburban infrastructure. But he paid for it; he didn't leave future generations with a huge bill for all the shit he wanted Government to do. He was one of our greatest presidents, and a very real Republican.

Reagan, on the other hand, invented the modern deficit presidency. He lowered taxes and he didn't pay for the shit he wanted government to do. He took a big giant shit on HW Bush, who was left trying to pay Reagan's bill. Reagan fucking tripled the debt of Jimmy Carter. The nation has never recovered from the deficit crisis that Reagan put us in. He increased subsidies to big business (and Saudi Arabia) by over 500%, but he stuck future generations with the fucking bill.

Don't lie about the tax rate in the 50s. Don't you dare soil the history of a great republican president like Eisenhower, who raised taxes and paid for his shit responsibly. Don't you dare confuse him with snake oil salesman like Reagan who spent like a drunken sailor and left the nation deeply in debt.

Listen, I know the Dems are going to spend like idiots, but I depend on Republicans to live up to their press clippings and pay for their shit. The last great Republican President was Ike (and Nixon was not far behind). After that, Republican presidents have merely created a culture of crony capitalism, feeding corporate vampire squids with endless subsidies and bailouts, and sticking future generations with the bill. America swallowed poison in 1980. We turned government into an ATM for big business, and we've never paid for it. My wife's best friend is a lobbyist for a large global biotech firm, one that has a staff of 200 lobbyists who suck the nanny state dry. Our capitalist class loves the corporate welfare state, and they love funding FoxNews, who never talks about who really owns our politicians and drains the treasury. Great presidents like Eisenhower was against corporate welfare. He used taxes to make them pay their fucking bills. Reagan ended that, and bankrupted future generations.

 

[Blueyez7579]

I agree. Without cutting waste we will get nowhere. It's the same thing In the schools but on a smaller scale. Required to purchase through contracts that make things more expensive. It doesn't make sense to me. Someone is gettin paid and that's the problem. The good of all is not what's in sight. It's the good of the pocket of the man/woman at top


~ Gina 😉