Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
Still waiting for [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] to address this. Why won't he pay a 90% tax rate if it is so good for the country? Does he lack patriotism? His he too greedy? And why won't his fellow liberals also practice what they preach?
His silence on this issue is deafening...
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 junior, watching you have a meltdown because the facts simply contradict your absurd ideology is amusing - but it's also painful as you desperately try to twist those facts just a little bit closer to your very fucked up socialist/communist ideology.
There was nothing "Keynesian" about Reagan's Administration. Defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government you ignorant fuck'n tool. Properly allocating taxes on Constitutional responsibilities is not "Keynesian". It's called a Republic buffoon. But because you can't dispute the booming economy created by Reagan, the only thing you can hope to do is lie by using your favorite ideological terms and hope that nobody calls you out on it.
You need to go back to school and write a thesis in which you actually learn reality (well, I mean, I just took you to school - but I talking an accredited university junior).
The economies of the Reagan/Bush (28-32% tax) years, produced one of the lowest job growth and GDP growth records in the past 60 years. To say Reagan created a boom economy is backwards of reality. I already cited the US govt stats on that in previous posts.
Listen junior, watching you have a meltdown because the facts simply contradict your absurd ideology is amusing - but it's also painful as you desperately try to twist those facts just a little bit closer to your very fucked up socialist/communist ideology.
There was nothing "Keynesian" about Reagan's Administration. Defense is the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government you ignorant fuck'n tool. Properly allocating taxes on Constitutional responsibilities is not "Keynesian". It's called a Republic buffoon. But because you can't dispute the booming economy created by Reagan, the only thing you can hope to do is lie by using your favorite ideological terms and hope that nobody calls you out on it.
You need to go back to school and write a thesis in which you actually learn reality (well, I mean, I just took you to school - but I talking an accredited university junior).
The economies of the Reagan/Bush (28-32% tax) years, produced one of the lowest job growth and GDP growth records in the past 60 years. To say Reagan created a boom economy is backwards of reality. I already cited the US govt stats on that in previous posts.
Say, Reagan created 15 million jobs... since when is that low job growth?
And what you also need to remember is what party controlled the house and senate at the time?? That has a lot to do with thing as well, you see, when democrats control them, things go sour..The economies of the Reagan/Bush (28-32% tax) years, produced one of the lowest job growth and GDP growth records in the past 60 years. To say Reagan created a boom economy is backwards of reality. I already cited the US govt stats on that in previous posts.
Say, Reagan created 15 million jobs... since when is that low job growth?
Ask Reagan's US Bureau of Labor Statistics. They're the ones who said it was low (1.1% compared to almost 2.5% under Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton) Truman & Eisenhower's 2.1% job growth was also better than the 1.1% of the dismal Reagan/Bush years.
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?
Still waiting for [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] to address this. Why won't he pay a 90% tax rate if it is so good for the country? Does he lack patriotism? His he too greedy? And why won't his fellow liberals also practice what they preach?
His silence on this issue is deafening...
Maybe he doesn't gross enough money, to be ABLE to pay 90% of his gross income.
The economies of the Reagan/Bush (28-32% tax) years, produced one of the lowest job growth and GDP growth records in the past 60 years. To say Reagan created a boom economy is backwards of reality. I already cited the US govt stats on that in previous posts.
Say, Reagan created 15 million jobs... since when is that low job growth?
Ask Reagan's US Bureau of Labor Statistics. They're the ones who said it was low (1.1% compared to almost 2.5% under Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton) Truman & Eisenhower's 2.1% job growth was also better than the 1.1% of the dismal Reagan/Bush years.
What's right with america?
[
That's all nice and stuff, but the fact is, if you consider capital to be the proceeds of labor, then, sorry, no, 1% is not doing 43% of the physical labor in this country.
Now, here's the thing, I realize that, yes, there is a need for concentrations of wealth. But we've gotten to the point where it has become destructive, where a clown like Mitt Romney can go into a factory town, borrow against a factory without making any upgrades, demand a bunch of concessions from the people who do the work, pay himself nice dividends out borrowed money, and then let the whole thing go bankrupt and leave someone else holding the bag.
And your side wanted to put him and his magic underroos in the White House.
Stop lying, that is not what Bain Capital did.
No, that's exactly how Bain Capital operated.
Look up KB Toys, AmPad, GS Steel, or any of the other companies Bain looted for a quick profit.
Not every responsibility is in the Constitution. Govt has responsiblities, whether they're in the Constitution or not.
I agree with JoeB,
while guessing that he means the 1% don't earn ALL of that 43% (or even most of it). Sure, investors "put forth" money, and do risk it (although many investments are every low risk)
At the same time though, much of this discussion comes down to the definition of the word "earn". I'd say a soldier in Afghanistan who puts forth his LIFE, and risks it, and sometimes loses it, is doing more "earning than the investor is. Likewise with coal miners, firefighters, and other people with much riskier occupation than the investor.
Also many business owners don't do the management of the business, They have hired managers for that.
The point is, though, that assets are created by the labor of others. Therefore my definition stands.
Why's that? If you don't cap tax on SS, they you can't cap how much you draw from it neither.I agree with you on one point, SS taxes should be collected on all income, not just the first 106K.
the rest of your post is either partisan bullshit or insane jealousy.
and why do you hate horses?
No it's not. Because the unemployment isn't only Obama's unemployment (and I've raked Obama over the coals as much as anybody here). It's also House Republicans' fault. How about when Obama proposed small tax increases on the rich to pay for (badly needed) infrastructure jobs, and the Republicans shot it down ? That's just one example.
How about the fact that history has proven higher taxes means less jobs? So yes, the Republican's rightfully blocked Obama's "plan" which said the cure for cancer is adding more cancer cells....
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?
Some comeback
POS lazy ass scum. That better?
Is it any wonder why conservative opinion is so respected?
That is what s wrong with the country?
Legos?
I don't agree. We can take all wealth of all the rich and it won't run our government for much more than a few weeks. You need to add that current tax rate to local rates. We actually pay about 50% in taxes when you add it all up. Raising taxes will kill this struggling economy, it is not what we need.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.
Most people who hear me say I want to raise taxes on the rich, don't understand where I'm coming from, or what I'm really saying. First off, I'm a long-time Conservative going back to the Eisenhower years - long before the Reagan low tax era. Back in the 50s being a Conservative meant one thing primarily >> CONSERVING America's values, principles, and culture. Of utmost importance was NATIONAL SECURITY, which right after World War II and Korea, meant being BIG and STRONG with a high-powered military, and a BIG, STRONG GOVT (FBI, CIA, INS, etc) to protect America. High taxes on the rich was the way to go to power all this, certainly not the small, weak govt advocated by today's "conservatives".
As for the won't run our government for much more than a few weeks notion, consider that it's been 34 YEARS since Reagan took over, started lowering taxes, and singlehandedly changed the idea of what it is to be "Conservative." So taking all the wealth of the rich in a one-time shot and seeing how long that could run the govt, isn't the idea at all. We've had 34 years of low taxes. That wouldnt be reset overnight or in one year. But restoring America's normal tax rates on the top bracket, of the past, over the course of 15 years (together with eliminating waste) would eliminate the debt.
As for killing this economy. Tax raises on the rich could easily pay for itself, many time over just by spending the increased taxes on just one subject >> IMMIGRATION.
The additional revenue could hire many more ICE agents, CBP officers, build Mexican border fence, hire more airport and port security, and build more immigration courts and jails. Once that is all done, then go after 12 Million or more illegal aliens currently draining the US economy of $40 Billion/year in remittances + tens of Billions more in welfare.
In the end, the raised taxes will not only have helped the economy by creating new jobs, but it will have helped it by putting millions of AMERICANS back to work in the jobs that the illegals had, and with the wages of those jobs now going right back into the US economy, instead of being wired out of the country, and reinserted into other countries' economies.
Ame®icano;8638595 said:
That is what s wrong with the country?
Legos?
Is that ALL you could see?
WTF am I asking, of course it is.
