Should The Rich Be Required To Pay Higher Taxes In the US?

[hadit]

Let's just make them pay 90%...

Let's make everyone pay 90%... starting with YOU, YOU PIECE OF SHIT.

All the way into the 1960's anyone who earned more than $300,000 a year paid 91% of the excess in taxes. 'Course back then CEO's earned 25 times what a carpenter or electrician made. Now the rich have fixed the game and they've got nearly all the money. They won't quit until America becomes a Lord/Serf society. If you count all the fees, taxes etc. that an average earner makes he's being taxes at twice the percentage of his/her gross income that the rich are. Payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, federal excise tax, property tax, fees on everything from auto registration to a fishing license. The upper nuts are supposed to be paying 35%-40% but none of them do. Their lawyers and accountants see to that. I have a buddy in MS who owns a metal building construction company and he told me that if he ever had to pay more than 20% he would fire his accountant and hire a new one.

Yeah, and how many people in the 1960s earned more than $300,000 a year?

What.... five people? Maybe?

Do you think that only 5 people in the 1960s were that wealthy? The Rockefellers, J. Paul Getty, Howard Hughes, Daniel Keith Ludwig? You think that was it?

There were hundreds of super wealthy in the 1960s, just as there are today. The difference is, you didn't know about it. You didn't know about it because they didn't have the statistics we do today. Information was not public. Additionally, people hid their income in different ways, or had compensation other than cash... just like today.

Moreover, yes the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Did you know that unlike today, where with at top marginal rate of 39%, the top 1% are paying almost 40% of all income taxes..... in 1960 with a 91% top marginal rate, the top 1% only paid 16% of all income taxes.

Once again, you people spout off, while being completely disproved by the facts. You can't "make" people pay a tax. You can set a tax rate, but dude, if I'm CEO.... I can choose my own pay....

It's not a fixed game. Zuckerberg started with nothing, and now he's a billionaire. How did he do that, if the game was fixed?

There are hundreds of people that all became millionaires in the last few years. How is that possible if the game is rigged?

The Mexican immigrant who set up a global drone firm - BBC News

This Mexican immigrant created a multi-million dollar international company. I suppose he missed your dumb little memo saying the game was rigged. Idiot.

You are just wrong. As you people always are.

You people?? I'm 81 years old. I was there. Plenty of workers earned more than $300K per year. We're talking big war years when weapons systems were invented and manufactured. Ever hear about the nuclear weapons programs? Ever hear about Jack Kennedy's little decade long arrangement for a trip to the moon? Whatever it was we actually had a middle class. Now the goddam selfish assholes want it all and if the present tax structure stays the way it is they will end up getting it.

That useless daughter who inheirited Sam Walton's wealth never has done an honest days work in her life. She's worth $40 billion and openly opposes a minimum wage. Just how much money does an arrogant, selfish ***** need before they begin to relax occasionally? Her tight ass would pinch the head off a ten penny nail.

First off, it's none of your business what someone else inherits or doesn't. Someone that's 81 years old, should have learned that by now. That's 6-year-old elementary school lesson. You don't get a toy, just because bobby got a toy.

Second, it's not for you to judge someone that you have never met. I've never met you.... can I tell everyone what a greedy envious jerk off you are? No? I'm not allowed to judge you, when I don't know you? Can you apply that to yourself in this thread?

Again, I had these people called "parents" and they taught me stuff like... DO NOT JUDGE PEOPLE YOU DON'T KNOW. That is what crappy scum suckers do.

Thirdly, statistically you are incorrect. While we don't have specific numbers, because the IRS didn't keep specific numbers at the time.... we do have 'income ranges'. The range of income is from several different brackets. Even so, only about a thousand people (couples), were in that highest income range. Thus we can conclude that only a fraction of those (couples), paid the highest marginal rate. A few hundred at best.

But then you have to take into account, when. Why? Because the effective tax rate fell.... even though the marginal rates did not.

In 1953, according to the IRS historical data, the effective tax rate on the top 1% was about 49%, and by 1960, fell to 31%.

Do understand what happened? The wealthy over time, moved to reduce their tax burden. They changed their CEO contracts to get lower tax compensation. Who the heck is going to work for $9 out of every hundred they work for? You wouldn't. I wouldn't. No one would.

So over time, the top marginal rate, collected less and less tax revenue. Why you are shocked by this, I don't know.

And those of you who think that you are going to raise taxes, and fix our debt problem... you are crazy.

View attachment 50127

Look back at the 1950s. The longer the 92% tax rate was in place, the lower the revenue to GDP got. They were collecting LESS revenue from the economy relative to GDP, over time.

Again... the longer you go with super high tax rates, the less revenue you generate.

If you think you are going to raise taxes, and collect endless piles of money to fix Social Security and Medicare, and all your other socialist programs, you people are nutz. Sorry.

Tax increasers NEVER think people will adjust to tax changes and take steps to pay as little as possible. They also seem to think the very rich do not know how to make income disappear.

 

[hadit]

Kevin Phillips book "Arrogant Capital" is very instructive on the relationship of the rich to a countries debt............many make a living out of national debt........so in some ways want it high.....but also don't want to see a country default. ...So those types of influential people probably dont ever want to see our debt go down to far, certainly not to zero.

this explains in part why they try to manipulate the debate to ignore debt levels resulting from low taxes on the wealthy.

China props up our nation with a huge amount of debt purchase.....but they are having troubles themselves now..........so our level of sustainable debt is going down......

Which means it is more important than ever to tax the wealthy at higher levels in order not to become like Greece.

If you're going to do that, you must also stop the increase in spending. Heck, if we even just froze the budget at current levels and only allowed it to increase by the amount of inflation, it would quickly be in balance. As it stands now, however, any new revenue would be met by even greater levels of spending, thus getting us nowhere. Tie any tax increase dollar for dollar to spending cuts and you might get somewhere.

 

[Boss]

The context is that there are plenty of "unfilled positions" that simply don't pay enough to be filled for full employment purposes; and, it should come out of the capital gains preference, not labor.

I don't know what you are trying to say because you're words aren't making sense here.

I have no idea what you mean by "unfilled positions that don't pay enough.." If a capitalist has a position available, it has to pay enough if he fills it. If he doesn't fill it, perhaps it's because he isn't offering enough? If he has people breaking down his door to get it, perhaps he is offering too much? Or maybe he is offering about right but there is a lack of supply or abundance of supply of labor? Jobs are not confined to a single moronic liberal birdbrain scenario... they vary widely across many different fields.

Now what I think maybe you are trying to say is... you want capitalists to pay people more for labor. But the problem is, free market capitalism isn't determined by your whims or your emotive bleating. It works on principles of supply and demand. So if you want better paying jobs, you have to increase demand for labor or reduce supply of labor. Trying to mandate what you want into being through political power isn't working and isn't going to ever work.

you merely need a clue and a Cause regarding that which you claim to want; capitalism and the laws of demand and supply.

any unfilled positions mean they are simply not paying enough under any form of capitalism. and, since the capital gains preference is supposed to help with full employment, it should come out of that, not labor. there are no unfilled positions under any form of Capitalism, only "stingy Capitalists".

Again... what in the hell are you talking about? You sound like a total moron trying to use big people words and failing badly. "Capital gains" are gains made when financial capital is used and generally refers to a tax which is subsequently applied to those gains. I don't have a clue what you mean by "preference is supposed to help" ...it makes no sense.

"Stingy" capitalists are the same as "greedy" capitalists, they don't last very long in a free market system. Another capitalist always comes along who is less stingy, less greedy and who is more than willing to take their business.

It sounds as if you don't really have a clue as to how free market capitalism works. I guess you somehow think a free market capitalist's first priority and reason to exist is to provide jobs that pay well for people. Sorry, that is not how free market capitalism works. In fact, I don't even know what kind of system that is... Narnia Capitalism?

 

[dcraelin]

if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......

so the rich should pay more in taxes

also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.

1. The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
2. There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
3. Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.

Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.

well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......

We're not paying the debt down at all. In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year. That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.

3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus. as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.

He was forced to do so. Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?

I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy

And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction. The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending. We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see. Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.

we dont have the time to sit around and wait for your supposed pressure to build up to realization....we have to accept that from the beginning of the country basically a certain level of government spending is inevitable.....and that a certain level of tax revenue is needed.....now maybe you dont want to take it back up to even....but need more taxes on the rich now so that debt doesnt get past the point of no retrun.

 

[dcraelin]

if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......

so the rich should pay more in taxes

also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.

1. The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
2. There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
3. Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.

Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.

well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......

We're not paying the debt down at all. In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year. That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.

3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus. as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.

He was forced to do so. Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?

I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy

Yeah...and guess where the debt came from. When Obama took office the annual interest on the existing debt was so high that now over two trillion extra dollars have been borrowed during his terms just to pay it. These figures are a matter of the debt bureau and can be verified:

.....................Total U S Debt....................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Is Obama a big spender?

yep its like Kevin Phillips said..........the rich love debt...you can see how when we were getting close to a point where the debt would be paid off............republicans pushed tax cuts to increase the debt again.

 

[dcraelin]

Kevin Phillips book "Arrogant Capital" is very instructive on the relationship of the rich to a countries debt............many make a living out of national debt........so in some ways want it high.....but also don't want to see a country default. ...So those types of influential people probably dont ever want to see our debt go down to far, certainly not to zero.

this explains in part why they try to manipulate the debate to ignore debt levels resulting from low taxes on the wealthy.

China props up our nation with a huge amount of debt purchase.....but they are having troubles themselves now..........so our level of sustainable debt is going down......

Which means it is more important than ever to tax the wealthy at higher levels in order not to become like Greece.

If you're going to do that, you must also stop the increase in spending. Heck, if we even just froze the budget at current levels and only allowed it to increase by the amount of inflation, it would quickly be in balance. As it stands now, however, any new revenue would be met by even greater levels of spending, thus getting us nowhere. Tie any tax increase dollar for dollar to spending cuts and you might get somewhere.

I doubt your assertion that freezing would quickly bring budget to balance. but tieing tax increases to spending cuts may be a bi-partisan answer.

 

[bedowin62]

there is no level of taxation that will keep pace with what the Left promises or proposes.
if you cant admit that why rant about the rich?

 

[Campbell]

if you play poker you may realize that those with more money on the table, generally have an advantage in gaining even more money.......same with an economy......

so the rich should pay more in taxes

also because history has shown that the government, no matter how much certain pols claim they want to cut...doesnt get cut.........so at least tax the rich enough so that we can pay down our debt and not become like greece.

1. The wealthy already pay more in taxes.
2. There isn't enough there to eliminate the Obama deficit and pay down the debt.
3. Any new revenue to the treasury would trigger an automatic feeding frenzy from the democrats that would more than completely swamp any gains with new spending.

Thinking you can just tax the rich more and fix the debt is a fool's dream.

well they need to pay more to help pay down the debt faster......

We're not paying the debt down at all. In fact, we are running half trillion dollar deficits every year. That is the whole point, we cannot pay down the debt if we are adding to it, and taxing the rich more won't eliminate the Obama deficit.

3. is a straw man argument, a convenient one for those wishing to bankrupt this country. Clinton is one Democrat that proves you wrong, he ran, I believe, a brief budget surplus. as maybe Obama has also.....both undoubtedly ran better budgets than the Bushes and Reagan.

He was forced to do so. Do you remember who had control of Congress at the time and held his feet to the fire?

I m not really arguing partisanship................. taxing the rich is about the only option we have left to at least chip away at the debt because if you tax poorer people, especially now, you will crash the economy

And I'm pointing out that Washington WILL NOT apply any new revenue to debt reduction. The last Congress that came close was the one that held Bill Clinton's spending in check enough to allow revenue to catch up to spending. We currently have RECORD levels of revenue flooding into the treasury right now, yet still have deficits as far as the eye can see. Until Washington gains some spending restraint, any new revenue is as useful as handing a meth addict a hundred dollar bill to get his electricity turned back on.

LMAO!!! Held Bill Clinton's spending in check!! Bill Clinton raised tax rates on the rich and paid for his spending. The goddam Republican party has been cutting taxes ever since Reagan and the stupid bastards never have cut their spending a dime. They borrowed from foreign banks. I'll bet that was one helluva Fox News Report that pulled that rubbish out of their ass for you. Modern Republicans stand for the wealthy and corporations and the only other thing that comes to mind is BOMB, BOMB, BOMB.....BOMB BOMB IRAN!! The Republicans have never seen a war they didn't love...just as long as the kids of folks who couldn't afford college go to some miserable desert 10,000 miles from home to fight and die in it!

.................................Total U S Debt.......................................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)(President Clinton raised tax rates while he still had a Democrat congress)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[bedowin62]

actually bill clinton lowered taxes on the very richest Americans when he lowered the capital gains tax


geesh

Reagan had a Democrat-majority Congress,. in the budget-producing House for all 8 years, and believe at least 4 years in the Senate
Clinton had a REPUBLICAN-MAJORITY CONGRESS when the budgets were balanced. In clinton's first 2 years when he had a Dem-majority Congress no budget came close to being balanced

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[Londoner]

During the postwar years, American workers had the highest wages in our history..

And then Reagan took office. He said our corporations were being strangled by high wages and environment regulations and high taxes.

So we listened to Reagan and declared war on unions. We did everything possible to lower American wages.

We traded the GM model (high wages, good benefits, strong Union) for the Walmart model (low wages ,reduced or no benefits, no union). As a result, Walmart (our largest private sector employer) barely pays its employees enough to survive.

The result has been a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of Walmart's owners. They now make all the money - and so they should have a much higher tax burden.

You can't squeeze water from a stone. If you're going to lower the wages of workers to that of subsistence, you will lose them as a source of revenue.

However, the Reagan Revolution made a deal with the devil. It lorded over a massive lowering of American wages while also cutting taxes on the wealthy. The result was a permanent structure of deficits, making it impossible to finance basic defense, infrastructure and entitlements (SS & Medicare) without going into crippling debt.

This move also destroyed the American Middle Class, who were now forced to borrow the money they used to make in wages. Research what happened to family debt starting in 1980 as wage-strapped families turned increasingly to credit in order to survive.

American families had to do something to compensate for the money that never trickled down - so they borrowed like never before. Reaganomics lead our transition from manufacturing to finacialization, so that our wage-fucked middle class could borrow money to buy stuff made in communist China (the place where our capitalist producers got cheap labor).

In other words, Reaganomics was a credit hoax that created massive short term profits for the wealthy as everyone else slipped into terrible debt. By the time GWBush came to office, American consumers were so ******* strapped that they turned their homes into ATMs.

You get this right? First we borrowed money to make up for insufficient wages/benefits. Then when traditional sources of credit dried up, we borrowed against the fake/bubble/paper value of our homes. Meanwhile our government was borrowing heavily from China to make up for the failure of Reaganomics to make increase the revenue as promised.

It was a ******* nightmare built on top of 30 years of borrowing. And it blew up in 2008.

Reaganomics promised small government and sound fiscal management. It ended with soviet style surveillance (illegal wiretapping/Patriot Act) and the bailout of the free market, which choked itself on the criminal mismanagement of risk.

We swallowed poison in 1980 and now we are suffering the consequences.

 

[Boss]

During the postwar years, American workers had the highest wages in our history..

And then Reagan took office. He said our corporations were being strangled by high wages and environment regulations and high taxes.

So we listened to Reagan and declared war on unions. We did everything possible to lower American wages.

We traded the GM model (high wages, good benefits, strong Union) for the Walmart model (low wages ,reduced or no benefits, no union). As a result, Walmart (our largest private sector employer) barely pays its employees enough to survive.

The result has been a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of Walmart's owners. They now make all the money - and so they should have a much higher tax burden.

You can't squeeze water from a stone. If you're going to lower the wages of workers to that of subsistence, you will lose them as a source of revenue.

However, the Reagan Revolution made a deal with the devil. It lorded over a massive lowering of American wages while also cutting taxes on the wealthy. The result was a permanent structure of deficits, making it impossible to finance basic defense, infrastructure and entitlements (SS & Medicare) without going into crippling debt.

This move also destroyed the American Middle Class, who were now forced to borrow the money they used to make in wages. Research what happened to family debt starting in 1980 as wage-strapped families turned increasingly to credit in order to survive.

American families had to do something to compensate for the money that never trickled down - so they borrowed like never before. Reaganomics lead our transition from manufacturing to finacialization, so that our wage-fucked middle class could borrow money to buy stuff made in communist China (the place where our capitalist producers got cheap labor).

In other words, Reaganomics was a credit hoax that created massive short term profits for the wealthy as everyone else slipped into terrible debt. By the time GWBush came to office, American consumers were so ******* strapped that they turned their homes into ATMs.

You get this right? First we borrowed money to make up for insufficient wages/benefits. Then when traditional sources of credit dried up, we borrowed against the fake/bubble/paper value of our homes. Meanwhile our government was borrowing heavily from China to make up for the failure of Reaganomics to make increase the revenue as promised.

It was a ******* nightmare built on top of 30 years of borrowing. And it blew up in 2008.

Reaganomics promised small government and sound fiscal management. It ended with soviet style surveillance (illegal wiretapping/Patriot Act) and the bailout of the free market, which choked itself on the criminal mismanagement of risk.

We swallowed poison in 1980 and now we are suffering the consequences.

Again... EVERYTHING you are saying is prefaced on a supposition that no one has any control over their class in life. A "worker" is merely a "worker" from the time he is born until he dies... like things were across 19th century Europe and Asia where Socialism was born.

In AMERICA we have freedom to be anything we please. If we don't like the conditions of being "workers" we can be bosses instead. We have that freedom here. If we don't like being among the 99%, we can strive to be among the 1%... we have that freedom here.

You want to use statistics over the past 30 years and look at this one group as if no one ever attains status in another group. This is patently false and dishonest but it's how Socialism is promoted. It is also why Socialism has failed to take off here and why you have to keep on promoting "class warfare" rhetoric to make your points.

 

[Campbell]

actually bill clinton lowered taxes on the very richest Americans when he lowered the capital gains tax


geesh

Reagan had a Democrat-majority Congress,. in the budget-producing House for all 8 years, and believe at least 4 years in the Senate
Clinton had a REPUBLICAN-MAJORITY CONGRESS when the budgets were balanced. In clinton's first 2 years when he had a Dem-majority Congress no budget came close to being balanced

libs are losers who lie to themselves

By god I know the Republicans weren't responsible for anything good during Clinton's tenure. They had constant investigations going on for the entire two terms and finally impeached him for a blow job. I got so tired of seeing and listening to Kenneth Starr that I could have puked. That little fiasco cost American tax payers over $100,000,000 and they still didn't manage to remove him from office and he left at the end of his terms at a 65% approval rating. Bud!! You should start watching something besides Faux News.

 

[Campbell]

During the postwar years, American workers had the highest wages in our history..

And then Reagan took office. He said our corporations were being strangled by high wages and environment regulations and high taxes.

So we listened to Reagan and declared war on unions. We did everything possible to lower American wages.

We traded the GM model (high wages, good benefits, strong Union) for the Walmart model (low wages ,reduced or no benefits, no union). As a result, Walmart (our largest private sector employer) barely pays its employees enough to survive.

The result has been a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of Walmart's owners. They now make all the money - and so they should have a much higher tax burden.

You can't squeeze water from a stone. If you're going to lower the wages of workers to that of subsistence, you will lose them as a source of revenue.

However, the Reagan Revolution made a deal with the devil. It lorded over a massive lowering of American wages while also cutting taxes on the wealthy. The result was a permanent structure of deficits, making it impossible to finance basic defense, infrastructure and entitlements (SS & Medicare) without going into crippling debt.

This move also destroyed the American Middle Class, who were now forced to borrow the money they used to make in wages. Research what happened to family debt starting in 1980 as wage-strapped families turned increasingly to credit in order to survive.

American families had to do something to compensate for the money that never trickled down - so they borrowed like never before. Reaganomics lead our transition from manufacturing to finacialization, so that our wage-fucked middle class could borrow money to buy stuff made in communist China (the place where our capitalist producers got cheap labor).

In other words, Reaganomics was a credit hoax that created massive short term profits for the wealthy as everyone else slipped into terrible debt. By the time GWBush came to office, American consumers were so ******* strapped that they turned their homes into ATMs.

You get this right? First we borrowed money to make up for insufficient wages/benefits. Then when traditional sources of credit dried up, we borrowed against the fake/bubble/paper value of our homes. Meanwhile our government was borrowing heavily from China to make up for the failure of Reaganomics to make increase the revenue as promised.

It was a ******* nightmare built on top of 30 years of borrowing. And it blew up in 2008.

Reaganomics promised small government and sound fiscal management. It ended with soviet style surveillance (illegal wiretapping/Patriot Act) and the bailout of the free market, which choked itself on the criminal mismanagement of risk.

We swallowed poison in 1980 and now we are suffering the consequences.

Again... EVERYTHING you are saying is prefaced on a supposition that no one has any control over their class in life. A "worker" is merely a "worker" from the time he is born until he dies... like things were across 19th century Europe and Asia where Socialism was born.

In AMERICA we have freedom to be anything we please. If we don't like the conditions of being "workers" we can be bosses instead. We have that freedom here. If we don't like being among the 99%, we can strive to be among the 1%... we have that freedom here.

You want to use statistics over the past 30 years and look at this one group as if no one ever attains status in another group. This is patently false and dishonest but it's how Socialism is promoted. It is also why Socialism has failed to take off here and why you have to keep on promoting "class warfare" rhetoric to make your points.

If you had been around back in the 30's following Hoover's depression you would feel differently. Hell....Hoover couldn't do anything about the banks and they closed their doors. George W. Bush would have had a bigger catastrophe at the end of his two terms if he hadn't been able to hand the most powerful financial institutions in the world three quarters of a trillion dollars. Republicans are full of shit and all the modern GOP stands for is corporations and the wealthy. One thing for sure...they'll never win another presidential election and if not for gerrymandering and hindering the poorest people in the country's voting rights they wouldn't win any kind of election. Blacks, Hispanics, Poor people, Trans genders, Gays, Lesbians, most young people etc. will continue to support the Democratic party because they're smart enough to see who takes care of them.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Tip for parasites......

Its not the govt's job to take care of you..... Hope that helps.

 

[danielpalos]

actually bill clinton lowered taxes on the very richest Americans when he lowered the capital gains tax


geesh

Reagan had a Democrat-majority Congress,. in the budget-producing House for all 8 years, and believe at least 4 years in the Senate
Clinton had a REPUBLICAN-MAJORITY CONGRESS when the budgets were balanced. In clinton's first 2 years when he had a Dem-majority Congress no budget came close to being balanced

libs are losers who lie to themselves

By god I know the Republicans weren't responsible for anything good during Clinton's tenure. They had constant investigations going on for the entire two terms and finally impeached him for a blow job. I got so tired of seeing and listening to Kenneth Starr that I could have puked. That little fiasco cost American tax payers over $100,000,000 and they still didn't manage to remove him from office and he left at the end of his terms at a 65% approval rating. Bud!! You should start watching something besides Faux News.

That may have been when the right started losing credibility when asking for honest Injeun contingents for their Cause; the left refuses due to excessive bifurcation by the Right.

 

[Campbell]

During the postwar years, American workers had the highest wages in our history..

And then Reagan took office. He said our corporations were being strangled by high wages and environment regulations and high taxes.

So we listened to Reagan and declared war on unions. We did everything possible to lower American wages.

We traded the GM model (high wages, good benefits, strong Union) for the Walmart model (low wages ,reduced or no benefits, no union). As a result, Walmart (our largest private sector employer) barely pays its employees enough to survive.

The result has been a massive concentration of wealth in the hands of Walmart's owners. They now make all the money - and so they should have a much higher tax burden.

You can't squeeze water from a stone. If you're going to lower the wages of workers to that of subsistence, you will lose them as a source of revenue.

However, the Reagan Revolution made a deal with the devil. It lorded over a massive lowering of American wages while also cutting taxes on the wealthy. The result was a permanent structure of deficits, making it impossible to finance basic defense, infrastructure and entitlements (SS & Medicare) without going into crippling debt.

This move also destroyed the American Middle Class, who were now forced to borrow the money they used to make in wages. Research what happened to family debt starting in 1980 as wage-strapped families turned increasingly to credit in order to survive.

American families had to do something to compensate for the money that never trickled down - so they borrowed like never before. Reaganomics lead our transition from manufacturing to finacialization, so that our wage-fucked middle class could borrow money to buy stuff made in communist China (the place where our capitalist producers got cheap labor).

In other words, Reaganomics was a credit hoax that created massive short term profits for the wealthy as everyone else slipped into terrible debt. By the time GWBush came to office, American consumers were so ******* strapped that they turned their homes into ATMs.

You get this right? First we borrowed money to make up for insufficient wages/benefits. Then when traditional sources of credit dried up, we borrowed against the fake/bubble/paper value of our homes. Meanwhile our government was borrowing heavily from China to make up for the failure of Reaganomics to make increase the revenue as promised.

It was a ******* nightmare built on top of 30 years of borrowing. And it blew up in 2008.

Reaganomics promised small government and sound fiscal management. It ended with soviet style surveillance (illegal wiretapping/Patriot Act) and the bailout of the free market, which choked itself on the criminal mismanagement of risk.

We swallowed poison in 1980 and now we are suffering the consequences.

Again... EVERYTHING you are saying is prefaced on a supposition that no one has any control over their class in life. A "worker" is merely a "worker" from the time he is born until he dies... like things were across 19th century Europe and Asia where Socialism was born.

In AMERICA we have freedom to be anything we please. If we don't like the conditions of being "workers" we can be bosses instead. We have that freedom here. If we don't like being among the 99%, we can strive to be among the 1%... we have that freedom here.

You want to use statistics over the past 30 years and look at this one group as if no one ever attains status in another group. This is patently false and dishonest but it's how Socialism is promoted. It is also why Socialism has failed to take off here and why you have to keep on promoting "class warfare" rhetoric to make your points.

Be Anything We Please!!! ROTFLMAO!!!

What you mean is the ones who have the background and means to graduate from an ivy league school. What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq? The naivety of Republicans never ceases to amaze me. 'Course right here in east TN it's even worse. Just to keep the state bright red the gun totin, tobakky chewing, truck driving class always votes Republican. They don't care as long as they can keep wheels on their homes.

Last year I bought a new pontoon boat. The salesman I dealt with told me he was living down the road on an abandoned industrial site in a camping trailer. Guess what?? Yep....a Republican.

That's not the end of it. Every barber shop, doctor's waiting room, automobile dealership etc. has their TV's tuned to Fox News and if you're not prepared to fight it would be best to leave it alone and not say shit!

Something else. I've had several pre cancerous growths removed from my face. My dermatologist never fails to mention what god has done for him lately while he's working on me. The waiting room there has a big copy with oversized print of the holly bibble beside every place to sit. I've never made a sound. When a man has a scalpel near the nose it wouldn't be advisable to get in a political or religious argument...either one.

 

[danielpalos]

Tip for "stingy Capitalists"; there is no need for a capital gains preference if you are unwilling to pay to ensure promptness in filling any given position under our form of Capitalism, with any laws of demand and supply.

 

[Campbell]

Tip for "stingy Capitalists"; there is no need for a capital gains preference if you are unwilling to pay to ensure promptness in filling any given position under our form of Capitalism, with any laws of demand and supply.

Oh they've got things going their way. Look at this and make note that the lowest half of earners haven't even broken even when adjusted for inflation:

 

[danielpalos]

I believe this is a legitimate question that should be advanced to our elected representatives in order to acquire and possess an answer even more comprehensive and definitive than even Madison's, Republican Doctrine; regarding the Utility of a Capital Gains preference.

 

[Boss]

What about the guy who barely gets through high school and ends up having to pull two tours in Iraq?

No one forced him to goof off and not study in high school OR join the military. Those were HIS choices. Again, in a free and open society, we have choices. You have the choice to be anything you want to be. That's exactly why so many people want to come here.