Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: nodeal on April 04, 2009, 10:40:09 AM
-
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had failed very few students but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "Ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."
"All grades will be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade meaning, obviously, no one will receive an A." They all agreed to this. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a C. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great dismay the professor failed them all. Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."
:-X
-
The impossible flaw: Human Greed.
The feathering of one own nest.
-
Very true dat - socialism simply does nothing more than expose human nature for what it really is.
-
awesome argument against socialism ::)
oh and the last two posters...those are the exact reasons why capitalism fails
-
This smells of bullcrap.
-
awesome argument against socialism ::)
oh and the last two posters...those are the exact reasons why capitalism fails
So whats your plan Obama? :D
-
For you bitches afraid of socialism, take a look at the Scandinavian countries and try to come back here with a straight face and say socialism is bad.
-
Everyone should read Capitalism and Freedom...
-
EXACTLY!
good post. Socialism is for the weak and lazy.
-
One could make a compelling arguement against true capitalism also...
-
This smells of bullcrap.
i got that in an email last week from a republican friend of mine. sounds like what some stupid texas educator would do.
-
Move
-
huge beyond belief!
-
One could make a compelling arguement against true capitalism also...
The thing is not to become an ideologue; be open minded enough to accept that absolutist values in political philosophy rarely carry currency and should be treated with suspicion.
-
The thing is not to become an ideologue; be open minded enough to accept that absolutist values in political philosophy rarely carry currency and should be treated with suspicion.
okay "true adonis"
-
Most of the time if something is good on paper but not good in reality is because it was executed in the wrong manner.
-
okay "true adonis"
Am I now a gimmik for TA? Wow... :o
-
awesome argument against socialism
oh and the last two posters...those are the exact reasons why capitalism fails
Capitalism succeeds because it COPES with human nature and greed. It does not try to pretend that greed doesnt exist. It is a system that says that in order for people to try to satisfy thier greed, they need to do things that other people want.
-
I have to wonder political party Jesus would join.
Dems: Anti-war. All about helping the poor. Welfare - Jesus did give a whole lotta bread and fish to the hungry.
Repubs: Start pre-emptive wars and 'acquire' another nations resources. Jesus didn't steal.
-
For you bitches afraid of socialism, take a look at the Scandinavian countries and try to come back here with a straight face and say socialism is bad.
I have read a lot about the economies of Scandinavian countries because I hear them used so often as examples of "successful socialism". This argument falls a bit flat because these countries do have a lot of capitalism blended into their economies. In the past few decades many state run industries have been privatized to stave off economic stagnation. Their economies have become significantly more capitalistic and they have done quite well as a result.
It might surprise you to learn that they have lower corporate tax rates than America. They are also extremely friendly to private foreign investment, something that no socialist would approve of. Scandinavian nations make it pretty easy to start new businesses. They also have relatively large black markets to avoid the high income and sales / consumption taxes.
Not to mention the societal differences between Scandinavia and other nations- these are high IQ nations with the lowest corruption in the world. And they have a lot of natural resources. Something that works well there is not necessarily going to be successful elsewhere.
-
Am I now a gimmik for TA? Wow... :o
nonono ;D that's not what i meant...i was referring to all the "big" words 8)
-
I have to wonder political party Jesus would join.
Dems: Anti-war. All about helping the poor. Welfare - Jesus did give a whole lotta bread and fish to the hungry.
Repubs: Start pre-emptive wars and 'acquire' another nations resources. Jesus didn't steal.
Come on 240; Dems and Repubs at the end of the day=same party
-
You're defending a capitalist ideal which doesn't exist in America. The current American system is ruthless capitalism for the poor and generous socailism for the rich. 2 words: government bailout.
-
I have to wonder political party Jesus would join.
Dems: Anti-war. All about helping the poor. Welfare - Jesus did give a whole lotta bread and fish to the hungry.
Repubs: Start pre-emptive wars and 'acquire' another nations resources. Jesus didn't steal.
Im not religous, nor am I any kind of a Bible expert, but is there any place in the gospels where Jesus says that he is against war? And Jesus never stole from people to give to others. And he never preached stealing from someone to give to others. There is nothing moral about giving someone somebody else's money. That is a very easy thing to do. Why cant you people recognize that?
-
awesome argument against socialism ::)
oh and the last two posters...those are the exact reasons why capitalism fails
It's a perfect and very valid example of the flaw of Socialism. Obviously, you have no idea about Capitalism, which is the only economic construct that is proper and benevolent.
-
I have to wonder political party Jesus would join.
Dems: Anti-war. All about helping the poor. Welfare - Jesus did give a whole lotta bread and fish to the hungry.
Repubs: Start pre-emptive wars and 'acquire' another nations resources. Jesus didn't steal.
once jesus heard those people were trading in the fish and bread for drugs, he stopped giving it to them immediately. google it.
-
Considering socialism doesn't work...................
-
Considering socialism doesn't work...................
bailing out the banks was socialism.
without it, however, AIG and citi and others would have failed. We'd all be fvcked at the momement - retirement savings would have disappeared, and lots of other messy stuff.
So yes, the banking bailout (socialism) worked in that it kept our $ system from falling apart.
-
bailing out the banks was socialism.
without it, however, AIG and citi and others would have failed. We'd all be fvcked at the momement - retirement savings would have disappeared, and lots of other messy stuff.
So yes, the banking bailout (socialism) worked in that it kept our $ system from falling apart.
national debt, borrowing money, and printing tons of it out of thin air is a big contributor to our declining economy...so borrowing more money, printing more out of thin air, and therefore increasing the overall national debt is NOT the answer.
-
bailing out the banks was socialism.
without it, however, AIG and citi and others would have failed. We'd all be fvcked at the momement - retirement savings would have disappeared, and lots of other messy stuff.
So yes, the banking bailout (socialism) worked in that it kept our $ system from falling apart.
........and like Europe, it won't work in the long run. IT'S A TEMPORARY FIX!!!! It's like taking a cortisone shot in the hamstring, it feels great until you run on it then all of the sudden...RIIIIIIIIIIIP, it tears and isn't worth a shit.
-
national debt, borrowing money, and printing tons of it out of thin air is a big contributor to our declining economy...so borrowing more money, printing more out of thin air, and therefore increasing the overall national debt is NOT the answer.
Like Obama, I don't really think 240 understands business. You create debt to get out of debt.
-
national debt, borrowing money, and printing tons of it out of thin air is a big contributor to our declining economy...so borrowing more money, printing more out of thin air, and therefore increasing the overall national debt is NOT the answer.
correct.
but we needed SOMETHING to stop the unemployment/lack of consumer spending spiral we were on.
the stimulus package did that. it watered down money, but created 4 million jobs. Plus it stabilized the banks, stopped the runs, and restored confidence. Plus the dow has been up 4 weeks since the stim package was signed, now over 8000 points.
Europe is sitll 6 months behind us - meaning they'll feel the brunt shortly - but it looks like obama's plan may just work. Yes, it watered down money by printing extra, but it stopped the freaking bleeding. Should we do a stim package every year? of course not. Did we need one this time? yeah, we did.
Besides - remember that Clinton inherited a big recession in 92 from Bush 1. he did his own major spending/stim package. And it worked. A year later, employment was thru the roof. Clinton (who I personally dislike, i admit) was able to grow the DOW from 3000 to 10,000 during his term. Bush 2 took it from 10,000 back down to 8000 when he left.
So yeah, sometimes ya gotta spend a bit to restore confidence, get ppl working and spending again.
-
........and like Europe, it won't work in the long run. IT'S A TEMPORARY FIX!!!! It's like taking a cortisone shot in the hamstring, it feels great until you run on it then all of the sudden...RIIIIIIIIIIIP, it tears and isn't worth a shit.
Yes. Something had to put these ppl to work. To get them spending again. To freeze and remove those toxic assets that were sucking down the insurance and finance giants.
Today,
4 million ppl are getting jobs.
4 million people are spending again.
A lot of the bad mortgages are gone now.
Joe, you can say I don't understand business, but the following men - Bush, Obama, Mccain, Geitner, Bernake, Greenspan - they all do. And they all said we needed this bill to stop the bleeding.
I dont like corporate welfare any more than you do - but i understand our country needed it to stop the bleeding and remove the poisons of plummeting dollar value, bad assets, and spiking unemployment.
-
........and like Europe, it won't work in the long run. IT'S A TEMPORARY FIX!!!!
Reagan used socialism when he created the earned income credit (EIC). Welfare for every parent in america making small money.
Was reagan a socialist, joe?
-
correct.
but we needed SOMETHING to stop the unemployment/lack of consumer spending spiral we were on.
the stimulus package did that. it watered down money, but created 4 million jobs. Plus it stabilized the banks, stopped the runs, and restored confidence. Plus the dow has been up 4 weeks since the stim package was signed, now over 8000 points.
Europe is sitll 6 months behind us - meaning they'll feel the brunt shortly - but it looks like obama's plan may just work. Yes, it watered down money by printing extra, but it stopped the freaking bleeding. Should we do a stim package every year? of course not. Did we need one this time? yeah, we did.
Besides - remember that Clinton inherited a big recession in 92 from Bush 1. he did his own major spending/stim package. And it worked. A year later, employment was thru the roof. Clinton (who I personally dislike, i admit) was able to grow the DOW from 3000 to 10,000 during his term. Bush 2 took it from 10,000 back down to 8000 when he left.
So yeah, sometimes ya gotta spend a bit to restore confidence, get ppl working and spending again.
Nothing should have been done, it should have ran it's CYCLE, private companies should have filed BK. Freddie and Fanny (where it all started) should have went under.
-
Nothing should have been done, it should have ran it's CYCLE, private companies should have filed BK. Freddie and Fanny (where it all started) should have went under.
joe-
If AIG went under, most major banks who were insured thru them would have gone under too.
The repercussions... we can't even begin to imagine them. We're talking major structural damage to society. How pissed would you be if you lost your life savings? You'd have a lot of nuts taking to the streets looting and killing. Yes, ya would.
Banks can't fail. You can't let them.
Letting AIG fail would mean most banks fail. it's the biggest insurer. And then you'd have secondary failures of thousands of other firms. I don't think you understand all the effects. When you say "It should have went under", you're really saying "we should have let our american financial system collapse".
-
Reagan used socialism when he created the earned income credit (EIC). Welfare for every parent in america making small money.
Was reagan a socialist, joe?
Before I answer this, I'll research this. knowing you I have a feeling this isn't socialism like you would like it to be!
Rob, in the years that I've known you, you have gone from Republican, to democrat, to liberal to what appears now as socialist. It's disappointing and disturbing.
-
Ron, in the years that I've known you, you have gone from Republican, to democrat, to liberal to what appears now as socialist. It's disappointing and disturbing.
i'm no socialist. However, I agree with the majority of economists and finance experts worldwide who believe letting AIG fail would have led to a collapse of the finance industry, end of confidence, end of dollar and worse.
Joe, if 300 million people lose all their money, they're gonna riot. We don't want that. We don't want packs of hungry armed pricks roaming thru our neighborhoods, do we?
I'm an American. I love my guns. I am against welfare for most people. I'm all for the death penalty. I think drunk drivers should be kneecapped on the spot. I have voted repub and libertarian my whole life. You were a clinton voter in 92. I have never voted dem.
You call me a socialist because I understand the raminifications upon society of "money dying". Joe, what do you do if your local grocery store isn't there anymore? You die of starvation. Or, you kill other people with food. neither prospect interests me. I'd prefer our economic system stay afloat.
If wanting to live in a society with a working money makes me a 'socialist', that is your belief. I have an MBA and understand politics. I also understand the bailout was needed to save the US economy and society. You say "let it fail" like it's that simple. it's not.
-
correct.
but we needed SOMETHING to stop the unemployment/lack of consumer spending spiral we were on.
the stimulus package did that. it watered down money, but created 4 million jobs. Plus it stabilized the banks, stopped the runs, and restored confidence. Plus the dow has been up 4 weeks since the stim package was signed, now over 8000 points.
Europe is sitll 6 months behind us - meaning they'll feel the brunt shortly - but it looks like obama's plan may just work. Yes, it watered down money by printing extra, but it stopped the freaking bleeding. Should we do a stim package every year? of course not. Did we need one this time? yeah, we did.
Besides - remember that Clinton inherited a big recession in 92 from Bush 1. he did his own major spending/stim package. And it worked. A year later, employment was thru the roof. Clinton (who I personally dislike, i admit) was able to grow the DOW from 3000 to 10,000 during his term. Bush 2 took it from 10,000 back down to 8000 when he left.
So yeah, sometimes ya gotta spend a bit to restore confidence, get ppl working and spending again.
i just hate how the word "crisis" is used repeatedly as an excuse to recklessly (i truly believe it is reckless) spend money. im weary of using fear to push an agenda. if this spending is restoring confidence in anybody, than it is restored in the minds of uninformed people. in order to feel soothed by these stimulus packages, you must be ignorant to a certain extent.
is it reasonable to say that part of the reason we are in such a horrible situation today is because of the spending of former president's (like clinton) that offered "temporary relief"? if pumping fresh money into the economy was the real solution, would we have an economic problem today?
when your economy is in a shithole, you can't expect to fix it with patches of borrowed money...it makes things progressively worse.
-
when your economy is in a shithole, you can't expect to fix it with patches of borrowed money...it makes things progressively worse.
If the economy is in a shithole because of shattered confidence and spiraling unemployment, then a band-aid can work.
You don't do it every year. You do it once very 10 or 30 years, when you really need it.
I'm sure all of us has been in a jam before, where you're gonna lose your house, car, etc, but then someone lends you some $, you get thru the tough times, and then you rebuild. it's like that. Yes, it's socialism, but it's also called "giving the domestic economy a boost".
Joe wasn't crying about socialism when Exxon and the oil companies got tax breaks and federal money - all while scoring the biggest profits in the history of mankind. That was some kinda handout. They were getting federal subsidies/$. If some poor elementary school in NYC asks for $100k for teachers, that's socialism. If Mr. CEO asks for $150 million in tax cuts, that's capitalism. Uh...
-
It's a sticky situation for a stud like Obama to inherit.
-
Simple Q, joe.
If (as most experts agree) the bailout saves the american finance system, should we do it.
yes or no?
if bailout saves the dollar, your life savings, and our society, should we bail out? Or should we refuse, let things collapse, and sit around in mud huts without electricity talking about how we did the right thing and took a stand against socialism?
So would you support a bailout if it meant keeping your home, your way of life? (the answer of course, is yes)
-
If the economy is in a shithole because of shattered confidence and spiraling unemployment, then a band-aid can work.
you may think it works until you realize that the application of these "band aids" (whether it be from borrowing, printing, or over spending - gotta come from one of the three) over the past years is part of the problem. some would even say it is THE problem.
i dont care if its called socialism or capitalism, all just words to me. i care about the policies being implemented by those who are supposed to be in charge... and im not trying to put all the blame on democrats (though sometimes i prefer it that way ;D). i think it is both dems and repubs in power that are not adhering to a plan that is in favor of a long-lasting, strong economy.
-
all this democrat bullshit is enough.
Just don;t use MY money for this shit... most democrats in office are not even paying TAXES...(about 4 busted in the news in the past 2 months)
the solution is simple:
Everyone who believes in socialism/communism/hugging trees/Obamaism, just donate 80% or YOUR income to the "cause," just don't take MY money. End of story.
the dems always want to spend, spend, spend.... as long as it is not THEIR money.
-
Eugene V. Debs is my personal hero.
I have many others as well.
Just a small note to Coach:
You know the very pledge of allegiance, that you hold so dear to your and your Republican hearts....You know, the one that produces a little tear in the eye everytime your kind utter it.....Well it was written by a famous Socialist. His cousin, Edward Bellamy, was also a very famous Socialist with a great book, called Looking Backwards. Look into it.
-
i'm no socialist. However, I agree with the majority of economists and finance experts worldwide who believe letting AIG fail would have led to a collapse of the finance industry, end of confidence, end of dollar and worse.
Joe, if 300 million people lose all their money, they're gonna riot. We don't want that. We don't want packs of hungry armed pricks roaming thru our neighborhoods, do we?
I'm an American. I love my guns. I am against welfare for most people. I'm all for the death penalty. I think drunk drivers should be kneecapped on the spot. I have voted repub and libertarian my whole life. You were a clinton voter in 92. I have never voted dem.
You call me a socialist because I understand the raminifications upon society of "money dying". Joe, what do you do if your local grocery store isn't there anymore? You die of starvation. Or, you kill other people with food. neither prospect interests me. I'd prefer our economic system stay afloat.
If wanting to live in a society with a working money makes me a 'socialist', that is your belief. I have an MBA and understand politics. I also understand the bailout was needed to save the US economy and society. You say "let it fail" like it's that simple. it's not.
You are the man Rob, THE FUCKING MAN, YOU HEAR ME, THE FUCKING MAN!
-
I am a socialist.
-
TA and 240, go hug some fucking trees hippies...
If Obama said he was going to take 80% of your paycheck and give it to Lakisha with 9 kids at the age of 23, I bet you would change your views in a matter of minutes...
-
TA and 240: getbig's resident communists.
-
TA and 240: getbig's resident communists.
No. I am a Socialist. Not a Communist. A gigantic and stark difference. Perhaps you are too dim to realize the fact of this reality.
-
just one step away.... comrad.
-
just one step away.... comrad.
Not even close. Do you not know the difference? Do you feel comfortable knowing that you are too ignorant to delineate either form of governance in its respective right?
-
socalsim just does not make any sense. please help me try to understand it.
I bust my ass in school, then 8 years post grad work, etc etc. get a great job that pays well.
Under your socialism, they just take my money and give it to someone who doesn't work... so whats my motivation to keep working if I will get the same even if I didn;t work? why would anyone strive to be a harder worker? Just does not make any sense to me, so seriously, can someone explain how society would be better off if NOONE had ANY DRIVE to become better? there would be no advances in technology and society would come to a stand still.
also, if people like me stopped working (after realizing i can just stay home and still get a check), where would the money come from to support other non-workers? If you penalize the providers and they stop providing, where would the money come from????
-
socalsim just does not make any sense. please help me try to understand it.
I bust my ass in school, then 8 years post grad work, etc etc. get a great job that pays well.
Under your socialism, they just take my money and give it to someone who doesn't work... so whats my motivation to keep working if I will get the same even if I didn;t work? why would anyone strive to be a harder worker? Just does not make any sense to me, so seriously, can someone explain how society would be better off if NOONE had ANY DRIVE to become better? there would be no advances in technology and society would come to a stand still.
also, if people like me stopped working (after realizing i can just stay home and still get a check), where would the money come from to support other non-workers? If you penalize the providers and they stop providing, where would the money come from????
Try again. That is not what Socialism is at all.
-
Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.
-
correct.
but we needed SOMETHING to stop the unemployment/lack of consumer spending spiral we were on.
the stimulus package did that. it watered down money, but created 4 million jobs. Plus it stabilized the banks, stopped the runs, and restored confidence. Plus the dow has been up 4 weeks since the stim package was signed, now over 8000 points.
Europe is sitll 6 months behind us - meaning they'll feel the brunt shortly - but it looks like obama's plan may just work. Yes, it watered down money by printing extra, but it stopped the freaking bleeding. Should we do a stim package every year? of course not. Did we need one this time? yeah, we did.
Besides - remember that Clinton inherited a big recession in 92 from Bush 1. he did his own major spending/stim package. And it worked. A year later, employment was thru the roof. Clinton (who I personally dislike, i admit) was able to grow the DOW from 3000 to 10,000 during his term. Bush 2 took it from 10,000 back down to 8000 when he left.
So yeah, sometimes ya gotta spend a bit to restore confidence, get ppl working and spending again.
If memory serves, Clinton did no inherit a recession. There was a recession during Bush 1 but I believe it ended prior to Clinton.
-
so TA, explain how socialism it not taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers?
That is the basis of your bullshit ideology, where "everyone would share the benefits of industrialization?"
-
I don't buy into the argument that without these bailouts our economy would collapse. Look at all the hardships we have endured as a nation: Revolutionary War, Civil War (and entire generation of young men decimated), financial panics in the 1830's, 1870's, and 1900's, World Wars, stagflation of the 1970's...
And we were going to fall to pieces because big banks made stupid loans? I'm not buying this at all. Politicians indulged in panic-mongering with very little substance to their accusations. Fuck these banks. Let them die due to their own incompetence. That's how capitalism works. Sometimes it's unpleasant but in the long term the feedback that it provides keeps economies progressing.
There were many banks that did not make irresponsible loans. If the big banks failed these rational banks would be picking up the viable pieces of the failed banks. That's what has happened every other time. Instead we are endlessly bailing out zombie banks.
My toddlers will be paying for this bullshit for their entire lives.
-
Research Cleveland Public Power. Dennis Kucinich, mayor at the time, enabled the people to take total control of the Privately held Cleveland Power company that was running rampant with high charges to its citizens in a monopolistic fashion.
Kucinich was able to turn the Power company to the trust and complete control of the Citizens which resulted in millions and millions and millions of savings for the city as well as providing all citizens with almost non-cost power.
There were even mafia hitmen sent to kill Dennis Kucinich because of vested corporate and government interest was being taken away and the power spread to nothing but the people.
The entire entity is now citizen controlled with democratically controlled decision making processes amongst the citizens. That my friend, is Socialism, when the control is relegated to the citizens and no one else. Not the government, special interests, monopolistic corporations, but solely to the people.
-
answer this TA:
if Obama was to take 80 % of your paycheck and give it to lazy ass people, would you be ok with it? seriously?
dems would all become rebulican if they had to spend their OWN money.
-
Research Cleveland Public Power. Dennis Kucinich, mayor at the time, enabled the people to take total control of the Privately held Cleveland Power company that was running rampant with high charges to its citizens in a monopolistic fashion.
Kucinich was able to turn the Power company to the trust and complete control of the Citizens which resulted in millions and millions and millions of savings for the city as well as providing all citizens with almost non-cost power.
There were even mafia hitmen sent to kill Dennis Kucinich because of vested corporate and government interest was being taken away and the power spread to nothing but the people.
The entire entity is now citizen controlled with democratically controlled decision making processes amongst the citizens. That my friend, is Socialism, when the control is relegated to the citizens and no one else. Not the government, special interests, monopolistic corporations, but solely to the people.
but the problem is that the majority of american people are stupid... shit, look, they elected Obama! (seriously some of these stats are staggering, like 50% don;t know how many states their own, 70% don;t know how many planets their are, etc...)
-
answer this TA:
if Obama was to take 80 % of your paycheck and give it to lazy ass people, would you be ok with it? seriously?
dems would all become rebulican if they had to spend their OWN money.
That is not Socialism. That is a broken tax system. Furthermore, all Obama is doing is moving the tax level up 3 percent on the top 4 percent of Americans, which you are not a part of.
Also, under Eisenhower, Taxes for the highest earners were giving 91 percent of income. This also happens to be the biggest peace time growth in history.
My own feeling of taxes are more of a Scandinavian model where a National Sales tax on all new goods is implemented. Used goods, food and shelter being free from tax. 23 percent on all items. That is true Socialist tax plan in my opinion.
-
but the problem is that the majority of american people are stupid... shit, look, they elected Obama! (seriously some of these stats are staggering, like 50% don;t know how many states their own, 70% don;t know how many planets their are, etc...)
The majority of those stats make up Mccain/Palin voters as well. Americans are a stupid people which is why they have an all or nothing mentality. Americans are easily the dumbest in the first world.
-
Obama is doing great IMO, he inherited a mess :-\
-
That is not Socialism. That is a broken tax system. Furthermore, all Obama is doing is moving the tax level up 3 percent on the top 4 percent of Americans, which you are not a part of.
Also, under Eisenhower, Taxes for the highest earners were giving 91 percent of income. This also happens to be the biggest peace time growth in history.
My own feeling of taxes are more of a Scandinavian model where a National Sales tax on all new goods is implemented. Used goods, food and shelter being free from tax. 23 percent on all items. That is true Socialist tax plan in my opinion.
I meant to affix this historical tax chart. As you can see, Obama is not much different than Bush. Only 3 percent difference when it comes to taxes. :-\
-
I meant to affix this historical tax chart. As you can see, Obama is not much different than Bush. Only 3 percent difference when it comes to taxes. :-\
Note that the previous lowest tax rates occurred under Harding and Hoover, also the worst economic disaster in modern History with some economists attributing to the low tax rates.
-
with some economists attributing to the low tax rates.
Names or it didn't happen...
-
Names or it didn't happen...
Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin, conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction".
-
Names or it didn't happen...
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=33320
The Check Tax: Fiscal Folly and The Great Monetary Contraction
William D. Lastrapes
University of Georgia - Department of Economics
George Selgin
University of Georgia
The Journal of Economic History (1997)
Abstract:
Although its role has been overlooked by monetary historians, a two-cent tax on bank checks effective from June 1932 through December 1934 appears to have been an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction. According to our estimates, the currency-demand deposit ratio was about 15 percent larger, and the M1 money stock about 12 percent smaller, ceteris paribus, than each would have been in the absence of the tax. The contractionary consequences of the check tax had in fact been anticipated by many legislators who were, nevertheless, unable to prevent the measure from being included in the Revenue Act of 1932.
JEL Classifications: E31, E51, N12
Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 19, 1997 ; Last revised: January 31, 1998
Suggested Citation
Lastrapes, William D. and Selgin, George,The Check Tax: Fiscal Folly and The Great Monetary Contraction. The Journal of Economic History (1997). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=33320 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.33320
Export to: Export Citation What's this?
Contact Information
William D. Lastrapes (Contact Author)
University of Georgia - Department of Economics ( email )
Athens, GA 30602-6254
United States
706-542-3569 (Phone)
706-542-3376 (Fax)
George Selgin
University of Georgia ( email )
Athens , GA 30602
United States
706-542-2734 (Phone)
-
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=33320
The Check Tax: Fiscal Folly and The Great Monetary Contraction
William D. Lastrapes
University of Georgia - Department of Economics
George Selgin
University of Georgia
The Journal of Economic History (1997)
Abstract:
Although its role has been overlooked by monetary historians, a two-cent tax on bank checks effective from June 1932 through December 1934 appears to have been an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction. According to our estimates, the currency-demand deposit ratio was about 15 percent larger, and the M1 money stock about 12 percent smaller, ceteris paribus, than each would have been in the absence of the tax. The contractionary consequences of the check tax had in fact been anticipated by many legislators who were, nevertheless, unable to prevent the measure from being included in the Revenue Act of 1932.
JEL Classifications: E31, E51, N12
Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: May 19, 1997 ; Last revised: January 31, 1998
Suggested Citation
Lastrapes, William D. and Selgin, George,The Check Tax: Fiscal Folly and The Great Monetary Contraction. The Journal of Economic History (1997). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=33320 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.33320
Export to: Export Citation What's this?
Contact Information
William D. Lastrapes (Contact Author)
University of Georgia - Department of Economics ( email )
Athens, GA 30602-6254
United States
706-542-3569 (Phone)
706-542-3376 (Fax)
George Selgin
University of Georgia ( email )
Athens , GA 30602
United States
706-542-2734 (Phone)
Props to you TA for trying to build up a system thats failed time and time again. keep trying tho.
-
Props to you TA for trying to build up a system thats failed time and time again. keep trying tho.
Democratic Socialism is killing the United States in all of the Scandinavian countries at the moment. Also, note that Business and Corporate tax are and have always been HIGHER than in any Democratic Socialist country. Compare the systems and you will see that the United States is not at the top of any statistic.
Democratic Socialism has never failed.
-
Selgin and Lastrapes have a lot of other papers noting the failures of Hoover, Harding and Coolidge`s tax proposals.
-
Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin, conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction".
Huh? How do you go from two economists saying that a tax on bank cheques (I think it was 2 or 3 percent) contributed to a monetary contraction to saying that these economist claim that low taxes contributed to the Great Depression?
-
Huh? How do you go from two economists saying that a tax on bank cheques (I think it was 2 or 3 percent) contributed to a monetary contraction to saying that these economist claim that low taxes contributed to the Great Depression?
Check out some of their other papers.
-
Check out some of their other papers.
Explain to me how you believe that this paper, which suggests that a rise in taxes contributed to the Great Depression equals "the worst economic disaster in modern History with some economists attributing to the low tax rates."
-
Explain to me how you believe that this paper, which suggests that a rise in taxes contributed to the Great Depression equals "the worst economic disaster in modern History with some economists attributing to the low tax rates."
Another good paper.
Tax Cuts, Confidence, and Presidential Leadership
Date: Sep. 17, 2008
Tax Cuts, Confidence, and Presidential Leadership
Joseph J. Thorndike is a contributing editor with Tax Analysts. E-mail: jthorndi@tax.org.
* * * * *
How should a president respond to economic turmoil? Sympathy or reassurance? Confidence or concern? Occupants of the White House have usually erred on the side of optimism, while candidates for the top job have shown a penchant for gloom. So what happens when a president becomes a candidate?
Most have failed to thread the needle. Usually they end up looking out of touch (George H.W. Bush) or defeatist (Jimmy Carter), depending on their tack. And almost invariably, they go down to swift and ignoble defeat. The bully pulpit can be a poor platform for reelection.
Consider the unhappy fate of Herbert Hoover, the nation's 31st president and one of its most maligned public servants. He served a single term from 1929 to 1933 -- just long enough to preside over the darkest days of the Great Depression. While still in office, this progressive Republican -- once considered a national hero for his humanitarian work -- found himself vilified for his tepid response to the crisis. Contemporaries signaled their scorn by coining new words:
Hooverville -- one of the sprawling encampments of homeless Americans that grew up in the early thirties.
Hoover blankets -- newspapers used to cover people forced to sleep outside.
Hoover flags -- pants pockets turned inside out to signal poverty.1
Later generations were similarly unkind. In the modern political lexicon, Hoover's name has become a synonym for failure and ineptitude. Today the engineer from Iowa is best remembered for his empty optimism. "Prosperity," he famously predicted in the early days of the Depression, "is just around the corner."
Actually, the quotation is apocryphal. But it captures the essence of Hoover's rhetorical strategy. Like most incumbent politicians, he was something of a Pollyanna. He certainly made liberal use of reassuring platitudes:
"The fundamental business of the country, that is the production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis."2 (October 25, 1929 -- the day after the Black Thursday stock market crash.)
"Any lack of confidence in the economic future and the basic strength of business in the United States is simply foolish. Our national capacity for hard work and intelligent cooperation is ample guaranty of the future of the United States."3 (November 15, 1929.)
"I am convinced we have now passed the worst and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover."4 (May 1, 1930.)
By and large, Americans (and markets) were unconvinced. After a brief rally, Wall Street continued to sink. In fact, stock speculator Bernard E. Smith claimed that he made a fortune by selling short every time Hoover made hopeful comments about the economy.5
For all his optimism, Hoover was not some sort of modern-day Nero, fiddling while the nation was engulfed by an economic conflagration. Rather, he worked assiduously and even creatively to promote recovery. Upbeat rhetoric played a key role in this effort, but so did more tangible policy innovation, including tax reform.6
Hoover's Tax Cut
When it comes to taxes, Hoover is best remembered for the Revenue Act of 1932, the largest -- and most poorly timed -- peacetime tax increase in American history. By almost any reckoning, it made the Depression worse, not better. But in that pre-Keynesian age, most policymakers -- including Hoover -- believed that deficits were an obstacle, not a means, to recovery.7 (For more on the 1932 revenue act, see Tax Notes, Sept. 1, 2003, p. 1201, Doc 2003-19534 [PDF], or 2003 TNT 170-30 .)
The 1932 act was not, however, Hoover's first venture into tax revision. In October 1929, just a few weeks after the great stock market crash, he asked Congress to cut taxes, not raise them. If the 1932 law in retrospect seems horribly misguided and counterproductive, then the 1929 act seems more consistent with modern theories of countercyclical fiscal policy.
And in some respects, it was. The Revenue Act of 1929 was designed to promote recovery. It marked a notable foray into fiscal activism, especially for a Republican administration. But the law's mechanism for promoting recovery was hardly Keynesian. Rather, it was rooted in traditional theories of public finance -- theories emphasizing the importance of balanced budgets and fiscal rectitude, not deliberate deficits and stimulatory spending.
On October 21, 1929, Hoover signaled his intention to ask for a tax cut. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon told lawmakers that he expected a budget surplus in each of the next two fiscal years. As a result, he suggested, Congress would have ample room to cut taxes. Ways and Means Chair Willis Hawley, R-Ore., responded warmly. "In the past," he told reporters, "each reduction in taxes has stimulated business and resulted in another surplus the subsequent year."8
Three days later, Wall Street took the first of several swoons. Mellon insisted that plans for a tax cut remained intact. It was, he implied, simply a routine refund of excess revenue to overburdened taxpayers.9
In fact, the tax cut had already become a vital element in Hoover's response to the market crash. In a series of extraordinary meetings, administration leaders and Federal Reserve officials agreed that a tax cut might promote growth by increasing private demand for goods and services. But even more important, they believed it would bolster "business confidence" -- that elusive sense within the business community that all was well with the world.
But how exactly was a tax cut supposed to boost confidence? Wasn't it a signal of worry and concern? Not for the Hoover administration. The psychological impact of the tax cut depended heavily on the personal and political reputation of Andrew Mellon. The dour Pittsburgh banker was a well-known champion of tax reduction, having orchestrated a series of sweeping tax cuts during his decade of service to GOP presidents. But he was even better known as a fiscal conservative, his party's most vigorous champion of debt reduction and balanced budgets. It was this latter element of Mellon's reputation that administration officials hoped to exploit.
Affordable or Imperative
In the weeks leading up to Hoover's budget address in early December, Mellon insisted repeatedly that tax cuts were affordable, even in the face of a market meltdown. "Our estimates indicate that the government should close both the fiscal years 1930 and 1931 with a surplus," he said in a formal statement to the press. (And in fact the government did finish 1930 with a surplus of $738 million. By 1931, however, shrinking revenues had created a deficit of $462 million.) "Taking all factors into consideration, the secretary of the Treasury, with the approval of the President, will recommend tax reduction to the Congress."10
Mellon proposed to Congress a 1 percent cut in corporate income tax rates, as well as a similar reduction in "normal" rates for individuals. (Individual taxes were then levied using both "normal" and "surtax" rates. Normal rates were designed to remain relatively low and more or less constant. Surtax rates were considerably higher, reaching 24 percent in 1929, and applied only to taxpayers in upper brackets.) For corporations, the promised cut meant a rate reduction from 12 percent to 11 percent; for individuals, rates would drop from 1.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent to 0.5 percent, 2 percent, and 4 percent, respectively.
The administration implied -- and many observers agreed -- that Mellon would never countenance a tax cut in the face of an uncertain revenue stream. If the secretary was confident that revenue would remain high in the years to come, then the economy must truly be sound. "The action of the government today," wrote one reporter commenting on the tax cut, "was taken as still another means of assuring the nation that the government was satisfied that business was on such a firm basis that revenues will continue to assure a comfortable surplus."11
The president added his own voice to Mellon's message of reassurance. And he did so by denying that he was engaged in happy talk. "My own experience," he told reporters, "has been that words are of no very great importance in times of economic disturbance. It is action that counts. The action of the Federal Reserve Board in establishing credit stability, ample capital, the confidence of the administration in undertaking tax reduction, with the cooperation of both political parties, speaks a good deal stronger than any number of statements" [emphasis added].
The Hoover-Mellon tax cut, in other words, was not designed to fix economic problems, at least not directly. Rather, it was intended to minimize them, thereby boosting confidence and promoting recovery. In fact, Mellon insisted specifically that the tax cut was not a response to the market crash. It was, rather, a signal that the crash was just a passing phenomenon, a temporary detour on the path to prosperity.12
Business leaders welcomed Mellon's plan. C.B. Clark, chair of the taxation committee for the National Retail Dry Goods Association, hailed it as "a stabilizing force that comes with great timeliness for the retailer." The principal value of the tax cut was symbolic, he pointed out. "The consumer who had no stock market losses was beginning to be afraid that hard times were coming and that 'Santa Claus was dead,'" he said. "The timely and convincing statement of Secretary Mellon removes this fear that something terrible was going to happen."13
Not everyone was convinced. Carter Field, writing in The Washington Post, suggested that the tax cuts were a sign of fear, not confidence. In normal times, Mellon would never have supported a tax cut premised on a probable surplus, waiting instead for an actual surfeit. If the secretary was willing to break with tradition and act on mere projections, then the situation must truly be grim.14
Hoover's Speech
In his State of the Union message, delivered December 3, Hoover stressed the virtues of cutting taxes. "We cannot fail to recognize the obligations of the government in support of the public welfare," he declared, "but we must coincidentally bear in mind the burden of taxes and strive to find relief through some tax reduction. Every dollar so returned fertilizes the soil of prosperity."15
Like Mellon, Hoover stressed the affordability of a tax cut. "Congress will be fully justified in giving the benefits of the prospective surpluses to the taxpayers," he told lawmakers, "particularly as ample provision for debt reduction has been made in both years through the form of debt retirement from ordinary revenues."16
A few days later, tax cut supporters mounted a rally on the Capitol steps. Speakers included film and radio stars, as well as civic leaders from around the nation. Actress Mae Murray (famous for her role in the Ziegfield Follies and later as a contract star for MGM) presented lawmakers with signed petitions in support of the Hoover cuts. Murray's former costar, comedian Ed Wynn, was also on hand to lend his support. (Wynn is best known to modern moviegoers as Uncle Albert in Mary Poppins, but he was a major radio star of the late 1920s.) "I feel like a piece of carpet, I am so kept down by taxes," Wynn told reporters at the rally.17
Inside the Capitol, the Hoover-Mellon plan was well received. Republicans were broadly supportive, and even many Democrats signed on. Like many of his party colleagues, Sen. David Walsh, D-Mass., promised to support the tax cut. "Apparently it will have a desirable psychological effect upon the business public," he said, "now somewhat disconcerted and apprehensive by reason of the collapse of the stock market."18
Sen. James Couzens, a maverick Republican from Michigan, offered similar thoughts. "On the basis of the merits of the joint resolution, I would be unalterably opposed to it," he acknowledged, "but based on this indeterminate psychology, I hesitate to put my judgment against the judgment of any others who claim it will have a great psychological effect."19
But at least one lawmaker balked. Sen. George Norris, R-Neb., ridiculed psychological arguments for the cut. Perhaps the government should fire its fiscal experts and replace them with psychologists, he suggested wryly: "They ought even to discharge the Senate chaplain and hire a psychologist to lecture to us instead of having a preacher to pray to us."20
Such skepticism fell on deaf ears, and both houses soon passed Hoover's tax cut without major changes. But of course it had no discernible effect on the economy. And as revenues began to shrink, Hoover and Mellon -- both fiscal conservatives to the core -- decided that deficits were the most serious threat to business confidence. Where once they had placed their faith in rosy assessments of the economy, they soon offered steely resolve instead. Beginning in late 1930, both began agitating for a tax hike.
Still, Hoover's tax cut is worth remembering for at least two reasons. First, it underscores the dilemma facing incumbent presidents (or the candidates of incumbent parties, like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.). As they walk the tightrope between concern and confidence, it's easy to overemphasize the latter. Hoover was not the first president to make that mistake, and he almost certainly won't be the last. It may even be an occupational hazard.
Historically, Hoover's 1929 experiment in confidence-building is important to reviving his reputation -- which remains in tatters with the public, if not with historians. Hoover was a fascinating and creative politician. Indeed, some modern-day conservatives revile him as a proto-New Dealer, indulging in some of the same governmental activism that Roosevelt embraced in the 1930s. He was not, to be sure, a good president; among other things, he was a hopeless communicator in an age that needed a great one. But he was not a do-nothing president. And that's worth remembering.
FOOTNOTES
1 Examples drawn from Michael E. Parrish, Anxious Decades (New York: W.W. Norton, 1992), p. 240.
2 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21979.
3 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22005.
4 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22185.
5 Parrish, Anxious Decades, note 1 supra.
6 Over the last 30 years, historians have tried to revive Hoover's reputation, giving him credit for good intentions, if not effective performance. For one of the more influential assessments of his presidency, see Joan Hoff Wilson, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive (Boston: Little Brown, 1975).
7 E. Cary Brown, "Fiscal Policy in the Thirties: A Reappraisal," American Economic Review 46 (1956).
8 "Federal Taxes Due for Slash," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 22, 1929, p. 3.
9 "Treasury Officials Blame Speculation," The New York Times, Oct. 25, 1929, p. 1.
10 Arthur Crawford, "Unite on 160 Million Tax Cut," Chicago Daily Tribune, Nov. 14, 1929, p. 1. Surplus and deficit figures from Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2009 (Washington: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, 2008), p. 21.
11 "Mellon Outlines Plan," The New York Times, Nov. 14, 1929, p. 1.
12 "Cut in Tax Under Way," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 15, 1929, p. 1.
13 "Tax Cut Welcomed by Retail Expert," The New York Times, Nov. 17, 1929, p. N6.
14 Carter Field, "Tax Cut Prophecy Seen as 'Lifeline' to Administration," The Washington Post, Nov. 17, 1929, p. M15.
15 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22021.
16 Id.
17 "Parade for Tax Cuts," The New York Times, Dec. 8, 1929, p. 20.
18 "Predicts the House Will Speed Tax Cut," The New York Times, Nov. 16, 1929, p. 1.
19 "Senate Votes Big Tax Cuts," The New York Times, Dec. 15, 1929, p. 1.
20 Id.
-
If memory serves, Clinton did no inherit a recession. There was a recession during Bush 1 but I believe it ended prior to Clinton.
Nevertheless, for the next several years high unemployment, massive government budgetary deficits, and slow Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth affected the United States until late 1992
WIKi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession
-
That hasn't explained to me why you think these two economists believe low taxes contributed to the Great Depression when their paper implies that it was the implementation of the cheque tax that contributed to the Great Depression.
-
That hasn't explained to me why you think these two economists believe low taxes contributed to the Great Depression when their paper implies that it was the implementation of the cheque tax that contributed to the Great Depression.
The Check Tax was just another dismal element of Hoover`s Overall Tax Policy. If you are signed up with JSTOR you can access all of their papers regarding Hoover and his failed tax policies.
-
That hasn't explained to me why you think these two economists believe low taxes contributed to the Great Depression when their paper implies that it was the implementation of the cheque tax that contributed to the Great Depression.
Also be sure to click on these as they will provide you with some insight as to Hoover`s shortcomings.
1 Examples drawn from Michael E. Parrish, Anxious Decades (New York: W.W. Norton, 1992), p. 240.
2 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=21979.
3 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22005.
4 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22185.
5 Parrish, Anxious Decades, note 1 supra.
6 Over the last 30 years, historians have tried to revive Hoover's reputation, giving him credit for good intentions, if not effective performance. For one of the more influential assessments of his presidency, see Joan Hoff Wilson, Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive (Boston: Little Brown, 1975).
7 E. Cary Brown, "Fiscal Policy in the Thirties: A Reappraisal," American Economic Review 46 (1956).
8 "Federal Taxes Due for Slash," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 22, 1929, p. 3.
9 "Treasury Officials Blame Speculation," The New York Times, Oct. 25, 1929, p. 1.
10 Arthur Crawford, "Unite on 160 Million Tax Cut," Chicago Daily Tribune, Nov. 14, 1929, p. 1. Surplus and deficit figures from Office of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2009 (Washington: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, 2008), p. 21.
11 "Mellon Outlines Plan," The New York Times, Nov. 14, 1929, p. 1.
12 "Cut in Tax Under Way," Los Angeles Times, Nov. 15, 1929, p. 1.
13 "Tax Cut Welcomed by Retail Expert," The New York Times, Nov. 17, 1929, p. N6.
14 Carter Field, "Tax Cut Prophecy Seen as 'Lifeline' to Administration," The Washington Post, Nov. 17, 1929, p. M15.
15 John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, available at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22021.
16 Id.
17 "Parade for Tax Cuts," The New York Times, Dec. 8, 1929, p. 20.
18 "Predicts the House Will Speed Tax Cut," The New York Times, Nov. 16, 1929, p. 1.
19 "Senate Votes Big Tax Cuts," The New York Times, Dec. 15, 1929, p. 1.
20 Id.
-
The chosen will use their dark hounds to ruin the U.S
240, you need a kick up the ass; riots are exactly what the chosen who run the Fed do NOT want to happen; riots that might end with their fractional reserve house of cards crashing down in the midst of 100 million pissed off whites is the last thing they want.
So they bail THEMSELVES out [after ROBBING YOU] with who's money? they bail themselves out with YOUR money, knowing full well that by fucking you assways by stealth is a safe bet because - due to your seemingly infinite stupidity - you will never riot in response [to a spoon fed bail out]... goyim scum that you are.
You stupid cunt, like I said before, what is sitting on the horizion for your kids is a nightmare the likes of Coach and yourself both fully deserve, say hi to you brown grand kids, I only hope you live long enough to see them fully consumed by the enjolyment they will derive from mowing the lawn of their local La Raza rep.
Shit stirring chosen, and their begging bowl 'blame whitey' pets treat you with the contempt you deserve.
BTW TA, please dont make me show you up again as the Googling fuckwit you so clearly are re: your ignorance of communsim, sociallism and the comparative dynamics therein.
Yours is quite the fuckin parasitic, bat faced mongolid life indeed.
Wanker.
-
That is not Socialism. That is a broken tax system. Furthermore, all Obama is doing is moving the tax level up 3 percent on the top 4 percent of Americans, which you are not a part of.
Also, under Eisenhower, Taxes for the highest earners were giving 91 percent of income. This also happens to be the biggest peace time growth in history.
My own feeling of taxes are more of a Scandinavian model where a National Sales tax on all new goods is implemented. Used goods, food and shelter being free from tax. 23 percent on all items. That is true Socialist tax plan in my opinion.
How do you know this?? In fact, I am...Search the old squadfather threads, I even posted my license. I am salaried at 250k, and with Obama in, he proposes a tax hike nearly approaching the 50% mark. but thats not the big issue, he also wants to take a cap off of social security (not just up to 102K). All this stems to around them taking 60-65% in taxes! rediculous!
-
The Check Tax was just another dismal element of Hoover`s Overall Tax Policy. If you are signed up with JSTOR you can access all of their papers regarding Hoover and his failed tax policies.
So where do they say that low taxes contributed to "the worst economic disaster in modern History"? I mean, I studied economics for 6 years, have a masters degree in economics, worked as an economist and still keep an interest in the subject but have yet to hear anyone say that the great depression was caused by low taxes. Makes no sense theoretically or empirically.
-
How do you know this?? In fact, I am...Search the old squadfather threads, I even posted my license. I am salaried at 250k, and with Obama in, he proposes a tax hike nearly approaching the 50% mark. but thats not the big issue, he also wants to take a cap off of social security (not just up to 102K). All this stems to around them taking 60-65% in taxes! rediculous!
Um. The highest rate is 39.6 percent.
How is 39.6 percent magically turned into 50-60-65 percent? Bush was just 3 percent lower on the top earners. Ronald Reagan was the last President to have a tax rate of over 50 percent for the top earners. Isn`t Reagan supposed to be one of your Republican Tax Heroes. Isn`t it a bit ironic? :)
-
Adonis I'm surprised it took you till the third page to respond.
-
dipshit, read the entire post...
ok, taxes approach 40 some percent, then take the tax off SSI, and anyone making a few hundred grand, taxes then approach 60%... I could explain this, but you would just google up some other bullshit... you remind me a lot of tbomz... try to appear smart by just googling shit...
-
So where do they say that low taxes contributed to "the worst economic disaster in modern History"? I mean, I studied economics for 6 years, have a masters degree in economics, worked as an economist and still keep an interest in the subject but have yet to hear anyone say that the great depression was caused by low taxes. Makes no sense theoretically or empirically.
Inequality of wealth distribution due to taxation rates is a frequent cause I see related to a cause in The Great Depression.
I believe the entire study of economics to be hinged on the Tinkerbell Effect. Of course that is my own objectiveness on the subject.
-
Adonis I'm surprised it took you till the third page to respond.
I really did not want to respond at all because the whole discussion is hackneyed and superfluous as there is too much literature to contend with regarding these type of topics. This thread would need to be at least 1 million replies long to even cover less than 1 percent of the subject matter at hand.
-
Taxes suck; you should be able to keep what you earn.
-
dipshit, read the entire post...
ok, taxes approach 40 some percent, then take the tax off SSI, and anyone making a few hundred grand, taxes then approach 60%... I could explain this, but you would just google up some other bullshit... you remind me a lot of tbomz... try to appear smart by just googling shit...
Explain it to me. Where is the SSI tax and what is it. I admit, the tax code is too big for any one human to understand it. There is not a single person alive that can interpret or knows the entire tax code. It is billions of pages.
But, Federal Tax rates are 39.6 percent at their highest, so the Federal rate is not changing much at all. It sounds like you have a problem perhaps with your state taxes.
If not, please explain. I am willing to listen.
-
dipshit, read the entire post...
ok, taxes approach 40 some percent, then take the tax off SSI, and anyone making a few hundred grand, taxes then approach 60%... I could explain this, but you would just google up some other bullshit... you remind me a lot of tbomz... try to appear smart by just googling shit...
Here is what I was able to find on SSI:
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ssa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=215&p_created=956064531
What is the Social Security tax (AKA FICA) rate?
Answer
The 2009 contribution rate, also known as the FICA tax rate, is 7.65% for employees and 15.30% for self-employed people. The rates are broken out as follows:
6.2% (Social Security portion) on earnings up to the maximum taxable amount ($106,800 in 2009)
1.45% (Medicare portion) on all earnings.
The maximum Social Security tax withheld in 2009 is $6,621.60.
Set by law, these rates haven't changed since 1990.
Maximum Earnings Taxable
Program 2007 2008 2009
Social Security
$97,500
$102,000
$106,800
Medicare No Limit for any year after 1993
-
I really did not want to respond at all because the whole discussion is hackneyed and superfluous as there is too much literature to contend with regarding these type of topics. This thread would need to be at least 1 million replies long to even cover less than 1 percent of the subject matter at hand.
well thanks for spicing things up you socialist! ;D
-
SSI taxes: 15% for me since i am self employed...
currently the most they can take out of my income is around 15,000. the cap is 102,000. however, Obama wants to get rid of the cap, and say a physician makes 300,000, then thats 45,000 in taxes just to social security, which is close to 16% for you entire income! not just limited to 102k. so combine the 40 some percent to an additional 15, and we are looking at 55% of total income going to Obama!
so i would be working from January to August JUST to cover taxes...ie. All my income for more than half the year will go 100% to the government. my arguement, is let me just give 30%
also, Obama also proposed that anyone making over 250k, taxes could go up even higher, approaching 50%, so then combine that with SSI, and there could be a risk of 65% of my total income going to the government. sounds pretty fucked up to me.
-
SSI taxes: 15% for me since i am self employed...
currently the most they can take out of my income is around 15,000. the cap is 102,000. however, Obama wants to get rid of the cap, and say a physician makes 300,000, then thats 45,000 in taxes just to social security, which is close to 16% for you entire income! not just limited to 102k. so combine the 40 some percent to an additional 15, and we are looking at 55% of total income going to Obama!
so i would be working from January to August JUST to cover taxes...ie. All my income for more than half the year will go 100% to the government. my arguement, is let me just give 30%
also, Obama also proposed that anyone making over 250k, taxes could go up even higher, approaching 50%, so then combine that with SSI, and there could be a risk of 65% of my total income going to the government. sounds pretty fucked up to me.
Uh,
The maximum Social Security tax withheld in 2009 is $6,621.60
-
Uh,
The maximum Social Security tax withheld in 2009 is $6,621.60
listen up man. That was the max, but they are PROPOSING (that means it hasn't been done yet, but may in the near future) taking the cap off. if they take the cap off, up, up, up goes the taxes for people making over 100K.
-
Caps Off For Obama
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Entitlement Reform: Barack Obama wants to eliminate the earnings cap on income to save the Social Security system. His plan would only hurt the people in it and damage the economy that supports it.
It's no surprise that a liberal Democrat like Barack Obama would want to fix a problem like Social Security by raising taxes on the rich. Except, when liberals aim for the rich, they hit Joe Sixpack right between the eyes while they make the problem worse.
In an op-ed published Friday in the Quad City Times, the former state legislator and freshman U.S. senator proposed eliminating the earnings cap on Social Security taxes, now set at the first $97,500 of income, saying that by doing so "we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."
Well, a recent report from the Social Security Administration examined the effects of doing just that. The SSA's actuarial study found that eliminating the cap entirely would postpone the arrival of Social Security's deficits by all of six years.
Obama says the "projected cash shortfall over the next 75 years is relatively small and can be readily solved," suggesting that this is not the person we want holding the nation's wallet.
The Heritage Foundation estimates that Social Security will have an unfunded liability over the next 75 years of more than $27 trillion (that's with a "t," Barack) in 2003 dollars. Small change for a liberal.
Lost in Obama's calculations is that many of the people who would be affected by eliminating the earnings cap are small-business owners who employ more than half the nonfarm private-sector work force and create two of every three new jobs in this country.
The self-employed would be subject to a double whammy, since they pay both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax.
Small businesses and individual entrepreneurs are the driving force of rapid innovation and economic growth in this country. At least 55% of them file their taxes as individuals.
When government increases their taxes, fewer workers get hired, fewer workers get raises, fewer workers have health insurance, more workers get laid off and consumers pay higher prices.
Earlier this year, the Heritage Foundation analyzed the effect of eliminating the earnings cap. The think tank found that in the first year alone, the take-home pay of 10.3 million workers would be reduced by an average $5,650. Taxes would be raised on 4 million workers over the age of 50.
Taxes would also be raised on 3 million small-business owners. By fiscal 2015, the number of job opportunities lost would exceed 865,000 and personal savings would decline by more than $55 billion.
And if you think this would raise taxes only on the "rich," think again. According to Heritage, taxes would be raised for 97,065 carpenters, 110,908 police officers, 254,992 nurses, 208,562 post-secondary teachers and 237,000 dentists.
Eliminating the earnings cap would raise taxes for many middle-class families, impose a huge burden on small business, slow the economy and cost jobs. You don't help the people riding the wagon by punishing the people pulling it.
In the same piece, Obama says he will "fight against efforts to privatize Social Security," even though personal retirement accounts would be the real solution to retirement security and could be black America's ticket to the American dream. They'd be the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised, letting the poor and minorities accumulate wealth that would not die with them but could be passed on to their heirs.
Obama's plan would be the final step in turning Social Security from a safety net to a wealth-distribution scheme. He says that "we have always believed that a lifetime of hard work and honest living should be rewarded with a secure and dignified retirement."
With other people's money? How about rewarding a lifetime of hard work by letting people keep the money they've earned?
-
Caps Off For Obama
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Entitlement Reform: Barack Obama wants to eliminate the earnings cap on income to save the Social Security system. His plan would only hurt the people in it and damage the economy that supports it.
I don’t think so. Ensuring that the social safety net stays strong only helps this country.
It's no surprise that a liberal Democrat like Barack Obama would want to fix a problem like Social Security by raising taxes on the rich. Except, when liberals aim for the rich, they hit Joe Sixpack right between the eyes while they make the problem worse.
Social Security’s wage base for 2009 is $106,800 – per person. Joe Sixpack makes about $29,000.00 (The overall median income for all 155 million persons over the age of 15 who worked with earnings in 2005 was $28,567.)
In an op-ed published Friday in the Quad City Times, the former state legislator and freshman U.S. senator proposed eliminating the earnings cap on Social Security taxes, now set at the first $97,500 of income, saying that by doing so "we could virtually eliminate the entire Social Security shortfall."
Well, a recent report from the Social Security Administration examined the effects of doing just that. The SSA's actuarial study found that eliminating the cap entirely would postpone the arrival of Social Security's deficits by all of six years.
Removing the wage base cap would eliminate any shortfall. Why? The paper cited employs an extremely pessimistic 1.7% rate of growth for all years covered in the study. The CBO did the same study at a more modest rate of growth and the shortfall was eliminated.
Even accepting the 1.7% rate as gospel, an adjustment to the benefit formula will make up the difference. Alternatively a modest benefit cut would accomplish the same thing.
Obama says the "projected cash shortfall over the next 75 years is relatively small and can be readily solved," suggesting that this is not the person we want holding the nation's wallet.
The Heritage Foundation estimates that Social Security will have an unfunded liability over the next 75 years of more than $27 trillion (that's with a "t," Barack) in 2003 dollars. Small change for a liberal.
More useless shit from the Heritage Foundation. “unfunded liability”. . . what a crock of shit.
If the government does absolutely nothing to social security, it will still pay all of its benefits fully until 2042 and 75% thereafter.
Lost in Obama's calculations is that many of the people who would be affected by eliminating the earnings cap are small-business owners who employ more than half the nonfarm private-sector work force and create two of every three new jobs in this country.
The self-employed would be subject to a double whammy, since they pay both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax.
Small businesses and individual entrepreneurs are the driving force of rapid innovation and economic growth in this country. At least 55% of them file their taxes as individuals.
When government increases their taxes, fewer workers get hired, fewer workers get raises, fewer workers have health insurance, more workers get laid off and consumers pay higher prices.
Anyone earning over $106,800 will see a very modest increase in taxes.
Earlier this year, the Heritage Foundation analyzed the effect of eliminating the earnings cap. The think tank found that in the first year alone, the take-home pay of 10.3 million workers would be reduced by an average $5,650. Taxes would be raised on 4 million workers over the age of 50.
Those are 10.3 million people earning approximately 3 times what the average worker earns. Good for them I say.
Taxes would also be raised on 3 million small-business owners. By fiscal 2015, the number of job opportunities lost would exceed 865,000 and personal savings would decline by more than $55 billion.
Those are 3 million people earning approximately 4-5 times what the average worker earns. Good for them I say.
And if you think this would raise taxes only on the "rich," think again. According to Heritage, taxes would be raised for 97,065 carpenters, 110,908 police officers, 254,992 nurses, 208,562 post-secondary teachers and 237,000 dentists.
Eliminating the earnings cap would raise taxes for many middle-class families, impose a huge burden on small business, slow the economy and cost jobs. You don't help the people riding the wagon by punishing the people pulling it.
Wrong. Most middle class families earn a household income of $50,233.00
(In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.)
How does a tax increase for dollars earned after $106,800 change the tax burden of the average American household? It doesn’t.
In the same piece, Obama says he will "fight against efforts to privatize Social Security," even though personal retirement accounts would be the real solution to retirement security and could be black America's ticket to the American dream. They'd be the greatest anti-poverty program ever devised, letting the poor and minorities accumulate wealth that would not die with them but could be passed on to their heirs.
Here we go again. Privatization helps the brokers of wall street and hurts everyone else. Soc. Sec. is social insurance…not a wealth creating system. All privatization schemes are garbage. All of them. They never add up. The sure way to kill social security is to privatize it.
Oh yeah, we already have a system of private accounts for retirement, they’re called IRAs.
And don't worry about the 'heirs' of SS. The author of this article never heard of beneficiaries.
Obama's plan would be the final step in turning Social Security from a safety net to a wealth-distribution scheme. He says that "we have always believed that a lifetime of hard work and honest living should be rewarded with a secure and dignified retirement."
With other people's money? How about rewarding a lifetime of hard work by letting people keep the money they've earned?
An article rife with errors and misstatements also concludes with an appeal to the selfish impulse. What a shock. All rightwing politics can be broken down to the Fredo Corleone worldview:
There was something in it for me, Mikey…
-
even the social security administration said removing the cap would only delay bankruptcy by 6 years!
yeah, thats a sure fix!
-
even the social security administration said removing the cap would only delay bankruptcy by 6 years!
yeah, thats a sure fix!
The SSA did not say anything about bankruptcy. The controversy involves a shortfall in benefits paid, not the bankruptcy of the entire system.
Removing the cap on the wage base is a total solution if the economy grows at a normal rate. Otherwise if the economy performs less than expected over the years, removing the cap is still an extremely sound step toward full payment of the benefits.
-
I have to wonder political party Jesus would join.
Dems: Anti-war. All about helping the poor. Welfare - Jesus did give a whole lotta bread and fish to the hungry.
Repubs: Start pre-emptive wars and 'acquire' another nations resources. Jesus didn't steal.
Neither.
-
Neither.
I am sure Jesus was in favor of killing unborn babies, gay marriage, and stealing 50% of what people make.
-
Excellent post!
I am sure Jesus is in favor of killing 40 Million babies since the 70s... good call 240.
-
An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had failed very few students but had, once, failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "Ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."
"All grades will be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade meaning, obviously, no one will receive an A." They all agreed to this. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a C. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great dismay the professor failed them all. Then he sent all of them this note: "A socialistic government will also ultimately fail - because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed."
:-X
:-X
-
the problem is companies that were too big to fail. It all boils down to that. They knew the govt would bail them out.
GM gets bailed out tomorrow AM. They knew it was coming, and there is no fear there.
-
the problem is companies that were too big to fail. It all boils down to that. They knew the govt would bail them out.
GM gets bailed out tomorrow AM. They knew it was coming, and there is no fear there.
This plan is unreal. The UAW is going to ownt he company along with the govt.
-
Corporate Socialism is the worst form of socialism. Poorly run companies with oversight by corrupt and incompetent politicians stealing money from the tax payer to continue the largely fictional perpetuation of our economic system- The "Too Big Too Fail" Myth encourages big companies to cry poor to Uncle Sam, who then in turn pays them to stay in business. The housing and credit debacle that is currently happening to this country is just the beginning. When deadbeats know they're bullet proof and multi billion dollar corporations know that outside of some public shame there are no consequences to failure, what possible utility is accomplished by bailing them out? What incentive is there not to fail?
The shamelessly evil scumbags in Washington are using this opportunity to make the entire country hopelessly dependent on the government-- Politicians will have all the power, control all the money and will independently navigate where we go from here. Just like the first post that began this thread, we are all going to be F students and the government is going to be the Professor handing out the grades.
Scary, Scary stuff.