Lberalism: Creating dependency since 1935

[red states rule]

Liberalism does create dependency. It increases the size of government to take care of us from cradle to grave without any responsiblity for ourselves

[KarlMarx]

And raising your taxes, too!




Tax Hikes. In the early 1920s, Treasury Secretary

Andrew Mellon ushered in an economic boom by
championing income tax cuts that reduced the top
individual rate from 73 to 25 percent. But the lessons of
these successful tax cuts were forgotten as the economy
headed downwards after 1929. President Hoover signed
into law the Revenue Act of 1932, which was the largest
peacetime tax increase in U.S. history. The act increased
the top individual tax rate from 25 to 63 percent. After his
election in 1932, Roosevelt imposed further individual and
corporate tax increases. The highest individual rate was
increased to 79 percent. State and local governments also
increased taxes during the 1930s, with many imposing
individual income taxes for the first time. All these tax
increases killed incentives for work, investment, and
entrepreneurship at a time when they were sorely needed.



remainder of article at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf

[red states rule]

And raising your taxes, too!




remainder of article at: http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0508-25.pdf

the top 1% pay about 36% of all Federal Income taxes. while the bottom 50% pay about 4%

[Pale Rider]

Liberalism does create dependency. It increases the size of government to take care of us from cradle to grave without any responsiblity for ourselves

Liberalism = communism. What more do you need to know?

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/5007/hitlery21ol7.jpg

[Hagbard Celine]

Hey, you know what else creates dependency? Blaming every goddamn thing on liberalism. Sorry your shit stinks. I'll talk to the "the liberals" about that.

[KarlMarx]

Liberalism = communism. What more do you need to know?

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/5007/hitlery21ol7.jpg

at one time, only the very rich paid an income tax... the rest of us did not... that ended in the 1930s with FDR... the reason was that he needed money to finance his programs (you know, the ones that "ended" the Great Depression)

FDR's primary reason for the New Deal and other programs was reform, not recovery.

It can be argued (very convincingly) that Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito did more to end the Great Depression than FDR.



Hey, you know what else creates dependency? Blaming every goddamn thing on liberalism. Sorry your shit stinks. I'll talk to the "the liberals" about that.
but.... blaming everything on Bush doesn't???

[red states rule]

Hey, you know what else creates dependency? Blaming every goddamn thing on liberalism. Sorry your shit stinks. I'll talk to the "the liberals" about that.

Besides creating dependency - what else does liberalism accomplish?

[Hagbard Celine]

Besides creating dependency - what else does liberalism accomplish?

For one, it balances society so that rightwing extremists such as yourself won't take-over society and turn the US into a fascist state.

[Hagbard Celine]

but.... blaming everything on Bush doesn't???Have I mentioned Bush? No. Seems someone has a chip on their shoulder.

[red states rule]

For one, it balances society so that rightwing extremists such as yourself won't take-over society and turn the US into a fascist state.

How has the $9 trillion in wealth transfers libs have enacted won the
"war on poverty"?

Libs whine how we need to spend more

[KarlMarx]

Have I mentioned Bush? No. Seems someone has a chip on their shoulder.
No... but the main stream media, Air America, the DNC, all of Hollywood, academia, Cindy Sheehan, democratic politicians, Al Gore and so forth seem to blame Bush for all of their shortcomings...

if I have a chip on my shoulder, they're carrying boulders on theirs

[red states rule]

No... but the main stream media, Air America, the DNC, all of Hollywood, academia, Cindy Sheehan, democratic politicians, Al Gore and so forth seem to blame Bush for all of their shortcomings...

if I have a chip on my shoulder, they're carrying boulders on theirs

It is called Bush Derangement Syndrome

Alot of libs have suffered from it since late 2000

[Hagbard Celine]

How has the $9 trillion in wealth transfers libs have enacted won the
"war on poverty"?

Libs whine how we need to spend more

How has the 507 billion--and climbing--spent in Iraq won the War on Terror when more terrorists have actually been created in Iraq than there were before 911?

Conservatives whine that we need to spend more.

[Hagbard Celine]

No... but the main stream media, Air America, the DNC, all of Hollywood, academia, Cindy Sheehan, democratic politicians, Al Gore and so forth seem to blame Bush for all of their shortcomings...

if I have a chip on my shoulder, they're carrying boulders on theirs

Oh really? Does the ratings leader, Fox News, blame Bush for it's shortcomings?

That chip on your shoulder sounds like it calls for a whaaa burger and french cries.

[red states rule]

How has the 507 billion--and climbing--spent in Iraq won the War on Terror when more terrorists have actually been created in Iraq than there were before 911?

Conservatives whine that we need to spend more.

We are fighting for the existence of our nation

Libs are getting people addicted to a government check

Now, what has the $9 trillion already spent on poverty solved?

[Hagbard Celine]

It is called Bush Derangement Syndrome

Alot of libs have suffered from it since late 2000

Read: I can't come up with a reasoned, logical or truthful response so I'll try imbecilic humor to try and pull attention away from this fact.

[red states rule]

Read: I can't come up with a reasoned, logical or truthful response so I'll try imbecilic humor to try and pull attention away from this fact.

OK

How about a real illness?

PEST

Post Election Selection Trauma

[KarlMarx]

Oh really? Does the ratings leader, Fox News, blame Bush for it's shortcomings?

That chip on your shoulder sounds like it calls for a whaaa burger and french cries.
Well... here are the facts.....

FDR DID increase tax rates during the Great Depression

The Great Depression ended in 1941, when we entered World War II, in spite of nearly 10 years of FDR's programs (some of which were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)

The Great Society and other social programs started by Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s have indeed spent trillions of dollars in "the war on poverty". The net effect of this so called "war on poverty" has been negligible.

Socialist programs that attempt to redistribute income do not work. Each time it has been attempted, the net effect has been to worsen the lot of those unfortunate enough to be part of the experiment.

The best way to combat poverty is to produce wealth, not to leave people on welfare... you can only spend a dollar once, but you can reinvest a dollar over and over again.... you give a man a fish, he eats for a day, you teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.... a bunch of investors put up funding for a fish producing facility will give the man a job whereby he can eat all the fish he wants, send his kids to school so that they can find better jobs than their Dad, he can buy a house, a car, perhaps give to charity to help others less fortunate than he.

Perhaps this bit of logic may escape you currently, given the state of mind you're in (pissy, and confrontational)... but think about it for some time and you'll probably see that this isn't an attack on you but a simple statement of the way things are....

[red states rule]

DESTROYING THE MYTH OF THE "DECADE OF GREED."

The left just loves to refer to the Reagan years as the "Decade of Greed." The implication is that higher income types got away with absolute murder during the '80's when it comes to paying income taxes. Well, let's take a look at some statics from the Internal Revenue Service to see just what the various income levels were paying in income tax in 1981, and what they were paying in 1991.

1983 -- THE BEGINNING OF THE DECADE OF GREED -- THE YEAR THE REAGAN TAX BREAKS TOOK EFFECT.

Here we find the top 1% of all income earners in the United States paying a total of 20.3% of all of the personal income taxes collected by the IRS. The top 10% were paying 49.7% of all income taxes, and the top 50% was paying 92.8%. The bottom 50% of all income earners were payign only 7.2% of all income taxes.

1993 -- THE DECADE OF GREED ENDS! CLINTON RAISES TAXES TO THE EVIL RICH WILL PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!

Ten years later, in 1993, we find the top 1% of all income earners paying 28.7% of all income taxes collected! Wow! Those rich SOB's really got away with murder, didn't they? The top 10% saw their share of total income taxes collected go from 49.7% to 58.8%. The greedy so-and-so's. The top 50% saw their share rise to 95.2% of all taxes, while the bottom 50% saw their share drop from 7.2% to 4.8%.

IT'S 1998 --- HOW ARE THE EXPLOITERS OF THE POOR DOING NOW?

The September 23, 1998 issue of The Wall Street Journal has the new numbers for us. The share of the taxes being paid by the top 1% has gone up again! For the year 1966 they are approaching 33%.

YEAH .. BUT THOSE RICH BASTARDS ARE EARNING SO MUCH THEY STILL WEREN'T PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE

OK, fine. What would you consider a fair share? If the top 10% was earning 70% of all the income but only paying 58% of the taxes, that wouldn't be fair, would it? Well ... let's see what the figures show.

In 1993, at the end of the Decade of Greed, the top 1% were paying 28.7% of all taxes. They earned only 13.8% of all earned income. Oops! sounds like they are paying a bit more than their fair share, doesn't it? What about the top 10%? They were paying 58.5% of the income taxes but earning only 39% of the income. The top 50%? Paying 95.2% of the taxes, earning 85% of the income. The bottom 50%? Earning only 15% of the income but paying just 4.8% of the income taxes.

Update ... In 1996 the share of the income earned by the top 1% reached 16%. Remember: They're paying one third of all the taxes. So ... who is getting away with not paying their fair share? Looks like the bottom 50% to me ... not the evil, hated, mean, nasty, wicked rich.

These figures came from The Tax Foundation and IRS Statistics, 1983 through 1993. You go and do your own research and verify them! Then tell me just what the hell Bill Clinton was talking about when he said that the rich need to pay "their fair share."

---------

There are about 199 million voters in this country. Seventy million of these voters have absolutely no federal income tax liability at all. Do the math. This means that 35 percent of voters are entirely out of the federal income tax picture. I think a good argument could be made that these people shouldn't be voting at all.

OK ... We've taken care of 35% of the voters. I'm sure you can see that these net tax consumers are hardly going to be voting Libertarian or Republican.

The next group of voters are the 129 million (out of the 199 million total) who actually pay federal income taxes. Roberts divides the voters who actually pay taxes into the top 25 percent and the bottom 75 percent. About 97 million voters make up the bottom 75 percent of income earners who actually pay some federal taxes. This 75 percent pays a whopping 17 percent of all federal income taxes collected. So, let's add this 97 million voters who pay about 17 percent of the federal income taxes to the 70 million voters who pay nothing. That adds up to 167 million voters out of a total of 199 million. More math --- this means that 84 percent of all voters amount for 17 percent of all income taxes paid.

Now we go to the remaining voters. The 32 million we have left. These are the higher income earners. The high achievers. These 32 million Americans pay 83 percent of all federal income taxes collected. They account for 16 percent of the voters.

Come on, folks. Do you have to be hit with a truck here? Sixteen percent of the voters in this country are paying 83 percent of the federal income taxes. The Democrats and leftists don't need their votes. They need their money for their big government, welfare state spending programs. When Ted Kennedy called for a tax increase last week who do you think he was talking about ? That 16 percent, that's who. The 16 percent of Americans who are paying 83 percent of the taxes. And where did Kennedy want to spend the money? On the other 84 percent of voters, that's where.

It's foolproof, my friends. If you have 1000 voters who are going to cast votes on your future --- and if you can take money away from 160 of those voters to be used to buy votes from the other 840 ... you have it made. Election assured.

We're at the edge, folks. We're rapidly approaching the point where the ballot box is no longer going to work for the high-achievers in this country. At that point there are two viable options: Open revolt, or simply withholding your labor. What's it going to be?

Wake up. We're being fattened for the kill.

http://www.federalbudget.com/whopays.html

[nevadamedic]

OK

How about a real illness?

PEST

Post Election Selection Trauma

Yea but the cure for that is RECOUNT! :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Yea but the cure for that is RECOUNT! :laugh2:

but the results of the recount caused Bush Derangement Syndrome

[Yurt]

How has the 507 billion--and climbing--spent in Iraq won the War on Terror when more terrorists have actually been created in Iraq than there were before 911?

Conservatives whine that we need to spend more.

You know you just compared 507 billion $$ to 9 trillion $$ as if to make your point.

Besides, you can't prove at all, that if that money WAS spent on liberal yearnings, that it would make any difference. So, 507 billion and you still have the SAME benefits, if not more, that you had before 2001..........save for any more terrorists attacks in this country.

Libs complained about Reagan's spending too, waaaaaaaa, the wall came down.

What exactly are you trying to say?

[nevadamedic]

but the results of the recount caused Bush Derangement Syndrome

Wow, President Bush has hit the big time, he has his own syndrome! :laugh2::salute:

[red states rule]

Wow, President Bush has hit the big time, he has his own syndrome! :laugh2::salute:

That is Bush's fault as well