[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I do not like O’Malley at all, but come the fuck on…
[/quote]
And people wonder why Trump is resonating so well, when you can’t even say that all lives matter without getting blowback.
A real candidate would have said it louder while grabbing his nuts.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I do not like O’Malley at all, but come the fuck on…
[/quote]
And people wonder why Trump is resonating so well, when you can’t even say that all lives matter without getting blowback.
A real candidate would have said it louder while grabbing his nuts.
[/quote]
O’Malley doesn’t have any nuts. The left removed them several years ago.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Remember this part: When a behavior is rewarded it is often repeated. Does this apply to the banksters? If so, we are in trouble.[/quote]
Dodd/Frank did more to hurt the economy.
You better educate yourself:
If tax cuts are bad then your hero should have eliminated them right?
Dodd/Frank again read above.
Now you tell me!
You should have said something in 1980 when Reagan cut taxes for everyone and the economy created about 20 million new jobs.
Here’s how it works. Those who add to the job market get their taxes cut. They then add to the economy by creating new jobs. Those new jobs go to people who then use their new found income to purchase goods and services from other businesses.
Now if you don’t think that’s the way it works please tell me your interpretation of how it goes. If there is less money available to business people there will be less jobs --simple stuff.
Not at all- America is still the greatest country in the world even after 6 1/2 years of Obama making one bad decision after another. We are so strong we have (so far) withstood the pounding of the Muslim and Chief. Oh sorry I don’t know that he’s a Muslim it’s just that after trying to harm Israel and give Iran the bomb, and not using the full force of our military to stop ISIS one does wonder.
Go read some American history of this great country…go on…
[/quote]
Didn’t vote for Obama and he is not my hero. However with people like you it’s an either/or Dem or Rep. You are unable to think out of those boundaries as a lifetime of propaganda has molded your thought process.
If people do not have money to spend in the first place why would/could anyone open a business? So they could sell nothing to those who have no money to spend? Pretty simple stuff.
Why was the tax bracket in the 90 percentile in the 1950’s and the economy did extremely well? And what about what really counts, the effective tax rate?
Go read some history not written by the victors and you may find it surprising. But to do that you may have to question your political belief system, your ideology, your personal Jesus. And that will prove too difficult to do. So it is easier for you to walk around like a knuckle-dragging jingoist that you are then deal with the facts and reality. The mainstream politicians love people like you. You help to continue the façade. Useful idiot. Pawn in their game. Call it what you like.
Dodd/Frank? Again it is not between the Dems and Reps but between classes. More propaganda you have bought into hook, line and sinker.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Didn’t vote for Obama and he is not my hero.[/quote]
Good.
I think out of the box all the time. But when it comes to politics there is a very high likelihood that we are either going to elect a democrat or a republican. While both parties have their problems I prefer a republican. Therefore, it is…a democrat or a republican. Those thinking otherwise are living in la la land where it’s all warm and fuzzy.
I already addressed this. One more time: The more money that job creators have in their hands the more jobs they can create. And…THAT’S where people get money to spend. Simple really…
Because there were more write offs than Hillary Clinton lies. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE ever paid 90% in taxes. Do some reading of American history like I asked you to do you would have realized this.
I am a job creator, never once dragged my knuckles on the ground. I vote republican (among other reasons) because they allow me to keep more of my money so that I am able to continue to expand my business. Simple stuff…stop drinking the leftist koolaid, join the real economy and you can do well too.
This country has been very, very good to me. And if you work hard and smart it will be good to you too.
Bye 
Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Didn’t vote for Obama and he is not my hero.[/quote]
Good.
I think out of the box all the time. But when it comes to politics there is a very high likelihood that we are either going to elect a democrat or a republican. While both parties have their problems I prefer a republican. Therefore, it is…a democrat or a republican. Those thinking otherwise are living in la la land where it’s all warm and fuzzy.
I already addressed this. One more time: The more money that job creators have in their hands the more jobs they can create. And…THAT’S where people get money to spend. Simple really…
Because there were more write offs than Hillary Clinton lies. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE ever paid 90% in taxes. Do some reading of American history like I asked you to do you would have realized this.
I am a job creator, never once dragged my knuckles on the ground. I vote republican (among other reasons) because they allow me to keep more of my money so that I am able to continue to expand my business. Simple stuff…stop drinking the leftist koolaid, join the real economy and you can do well too.
This country has been very, very good to me. And if you work hard and smart it will be good to you too.
Bye
[/quote]
You help to make my point for me when you say things such as this"
I think out of the box all the time. But when it comes to politics there is a very high likelihood that we are either going to elect a democrat or a republican. While both parties have their problems I prefer a republican. Therefore, it is…a democrat or a republican. Those thinking otherwise are living in la la land where it’s all warm and fuzzy.
I already addressed this. One more time: The more money that job creators have in their hands the more jobs they can create. And…THAT’S where people get money to spend. Simple really…
Once again you missed the basic points.
Really? So there were enough write off’s to make the taxes lower than today?
Where did you find this information from?
I am a job creator, never once dragged my knuckles on the ground. I vote republican (among other reasons) because they allow me to keep more of my money so that I am able to continue to expand my business. Simple stuff…stop drinking the leftist koolaid, join the real economy and you can do well too.
So are you saying you would continue to expand your business and hire people even if no one had the money to buy your product or service?
You say "This country has been very, very good to me. And if you work hard and smart it will be good to you too.
The absolute destruction of the middle class and decline in upward mobility say otherwise but you keep on believing in the right-wing fantasy instead of looking at facts.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Really? So there were enough write off’s to make the taxes lower than today?
Where did you find this information from?[/quote]
I have no idea what you do for a living, or even if you actually have a job. But, here’s how it works: when a democrat is elected to the Presidency the first thing (or very close to the first thing) he does is raise taxes on job creators. Carter did it, Clinton did it and Obama did it.
You have not noticed this because you are not a job creator. The extra money that I give to the federal (and state) government I am (obviously) unable to use to expand my business and hire more people, nor am I able to use that money to give raises to my current employees.
That in turn harms the economy. And that’s why we have had such a lackluster recovery. Obama doesn’t get it either. The democrats main plan for success is to pander to those who feel that the government owes them something. Hence, they tax those who have earned it and give it to those who have not earned it.
Try as I may I am not getting my point across. One more time, if we have a thriving economy by allowing job creators to keep more of their money and expand their businesses people will in fact have more money in their pockets (more people working) which in turn further helps the economy. They now have money to go out and buy goods and services.
[quote]You say "This country has been very, very good to me. And if you work hard and smart it will be good to you too.
The absolute destruction of the middle class and decline in upward mobility say otherwise but you keep on believing in the right-wing fantasy instead of looking at facts.
[/quote]
You make an interesting point. You are correct the middle class is on a decline. The biggest decline has been under Barack Obama! And the reason is he has raised taxes on job creators which in turn harms the middle class by giving them less opportunities for employment. Furthermore, there are more people on food stamps, welfare and other government programs than ever before. Is it a coincidence that Obama has been President for almost 7 years? I think not.
Please think about this: If you take money away from job creators and give it to the government how do we expand business, which grows the economy? All we’ve done is expand government. Government does not create new products and services for profit. So, it is a dead end isn’t it?
Just use logic.
Not offended by planned parenthood crunching babies:
But offended by some words:
Hillary said, ?Comments like these are offensive and they have no place in our political dialogue. I am disappointed and I?m really offended personally. I know Governor Huckabee. I have a cordial relationship with him. He served as the Governor of Arkansas. But I find this kind of inflammatory rhetoric totally unacceptable.?
What a bunch of crap.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Not offended by planned parenthood crunching babies:
But offended by some words:
Hillary said, ?Comments like these are offensive and they have no place in our political dialogue. I am disappointed and I?m really offended personally. I know Governor Huckabee. I have a cordial relationship with him. He served as the Governor of Arkansas. But I find this kind of inflammatory rhetoric totally unacceptable.?
What a bunch of crap.
[/quote]
She is merely pandering to her base. The far left that vote in the democratic primaries couldn’t care less about selling aborted fetus body parts. But they just can’t stand what Huckabee said.
No one really knows who Hillary Clinton is as she (like many politicians) change with the latest poll. That’s one reason Trump has many on the right excited. He is speaking his mind, his actual thoughts, not talking points, and in a brash way. He’s is the anti-politician. But, that won’t last he will crash and burn like Herman Cain. Anyone remember him? He was leading the polls for a while four years ago.
Anyway, Hillary is saying what they want to hear.
I don’t hear anyone really talking about John Kasich, what’s up with that?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t hear anyone really talking about John Kasich, what’s up with that? [/quote]
I could be a couple of things:
He announced late and many others stole his thunder.
He’s a fairly low key guy and doesn’t arouse much excitement until you really tune into him. He’s certainly one of the most sincere politicians that I’ve seen in a long time.
Anyway, as time goes by I think he will be a real contender…for the VP spot. As you know Ohio is a must win state for the GOP and Kasich is popular Governor. I think he would fit really nicely at the bottom of the ticket.
Your thoughts?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t hear anyone really talking about John Kasich, what’s up with that? [/quote]
I could be a couple of things:
He announced late and many others stole his thunder.
He’s a fairly low key guy and doesn’t arouse much excitement until you really tune into him. He’s certainly one of the most sincere politicians that I’ve seen in a long time.
Anyway, as time goes by I think he will be a real contender…for the VP spot. As you know Ohio is a must win state for the GOP and Kasich is popular Governor. I think he would fit really nicely at the bottom of the ticket.
Your thoughts?[/quote]
Makes sense.
At this point he is my first choice for President followed by Walker, Rubio, and Bush (in no particular order) then Fiorina and Carson, and then everyone else.
It’s early though.
I’m not sure I see him accepting the Vice Presidency, but I could be wrong.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t hear anyone really talking about John Kasich, what’s up with that? [/quote]
I could be a couple of things:
He announced late and many others stole his thunder.
He’s a fairly low key guy and doesn’t arouse much excitement until you really tune into him. He’s certainly one of the most sincere politicians that I’ve seen in a long time.
Anyway, as time goes by I think he will be a real contender…for the VP spot. As you know Ohio is a must win state for the GOP and Kasich is popular Governor. I think he would fit really nicely at the bottom of the ticket.
Your thoughts?[/quote]
Makes sense.
At this point he is my first choice for President followed by Walker, Rubio, and Bush (in no particular order) then Fiorina and Carson, and then everyone else.
It’s early though.
I’m not sure I see him accepting the Vice Presidency, but I could be wrong. [/quote]
Oh I don’t know Kasich seems like a team player to me.
I like your list of contenders although I would not put Carson anywhere near the top. I think that he’s one guy Hillary could actually beat.
Anyway, I have never seen such an outstanding list of republican candidates in my life.
The official trailer for 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Really? So there were enough write off’s to make the taxes lower than today?
Where did you find this information from?[/quote]
I have no idea what you do for a living, or even if you actually have a job. But, here’s how it works: when a democrat is elected to the Presidency the first thing (or very close to the first thing) he does is raise taxes on job creators. Carter did it, Clinton did it and Obama did it.
You have not noticed this because you are not a job creator. The extra money that I give to the federal (and state) government I am (obviously) unable to use to expand my business and hire more people, nor am I able to use that money to give raises to my current employees.
That in turn harms the economy. And that’s why we have had such a lackluster recovery. Obama doesn’t get it either. The democrats main plan for success is to pander to those who feel that the government owes them something. Hence, they tax those who have earned it and give it to those who have not earned it.
Try as I may I am not getting my point across. One more time, if we have a thriving economy by allowing job creators to keep more of their money and expand their businesses people will in fact have more money in their pockets (more people working) which in turn further helps the economy. They now have money to go out and buy goods and services.
[quote]You say "This country has been very, very good to me. And if you work hard and smart it will be good to you too.
The absolute destruction of the middle class and decline in upward mobility say otherwise but you keep on believing in the right-wing fantasy instead of looking at facts.
[/quote]
You make an interesting point. You are correct the middle class is on a decline. The biggest decline has been under Barack Obama! And the reason is he has raised taxes on job creators which in turn harms the middle class by giving them less opportunities for employment. Furthermore, there are more people on food stamps, welfare and other government programs than ever before. Is it a coincidence that Obama has been President for almost 7 years? I think not.
Please think about this: If you take money away from job creators and give it to the government how do we expand business, which grows the economy? All we’ve done is expand government. Government does not create new products and services for profit. So, it is a dead end isn’t it?
Just use logic.
[/quote]
There was a bigger loss of jobs in the Bush presidency and he cut taxes. So what happened?
In 1968 minimum wage was at it’s highest and we had under 4% unemployment. In 1982 (I believe) it went down and we had almost 8% unemployment so there is no correlation that conservatives like to blab about.
Please think about this: If no one has money to spend to buy things then no jobs could be created. Spenders create the jobs more so than business owners. However you won’t understand this as you have put yourself on a self-congratulatory pedestal and believe that YOU are the one who keeps the economy humming along.
So once again, you would expand your business and hire employees if very few people had the money to spend on your products and/or services just because you get a tax cut?
And another question you dodged: where is the evidence that the tax write-offs were so great that it allowed wealthy individuals to pay less in taxes when they were upwards of 90% than they pay today?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Please think about this: If no one has money to spend to buy things then no jobs could be created. Spenders create the jobs more so than business owners. However you won’t understand this as you have put yourself on a self-congratulatory pedestal and believe that YOU are the one who keeps the economy humming along.[/quote]
Where do these “spenders” get money to spend if they do not have jobs? And how do job creators create more jobs if the government steals more money from them?
All you have to do is just a tad of research. There were more write-off’s prior to the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. And a whole lot more write-off’s in the 1950’s when taxes were so very high. So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed.
Remember “Spenders” as you call them only get money to spend if they are working! And they can only work if there are jobs. And there can only be more jobs if job creators are allowed to keep more of their hard earned money.
Once again LOGIC!
Zeb,
You have been claiming that during the high tax years during the war and postwar that rich people weren’t actually paying high taxes because of “write offs” and that the postwar boom was in part because rich people had all this extra discretionary income and spend it.
Source?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Please think about this: If no one has money to spend to buy things then no jobs could be created. Spenders create the jobs more so than business owners. However you won’t understand this as you have put yourself on a self-congratulatory pedestal and believe that YOU are the one who keeps the economy humming along.[/quote]
Where do these “spenders” get money to spend if they do not have jobs? And how do job creators create more jobs if the government steals more money from them?
All you have to do is just a tad of research. There were more write-off’s prior to the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. And a whole lot more write-off’s in the 1950’s when taxes were so very high. So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed. [quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Please think about this: If no one has money to spend to buy things then no jobs could be created. Spenders create the jobs more so than business owners. However you won’t understand this as you have put yourself on a self-congratulatory pedestal and believe that YOU are the one who keeps the economy humming along.[/quote]
Where do these “spenders” get money to spend if they do not have jobs? And how do job creators create more jobs if the government steals more money from them?
All you have to do is just a tad of research. There were more write-off’s prior to the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. And a whole lot more write-off’s in the 1950’s when taxes were so very high. So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed
Remember “Spenders” as you call them only get money to spend if they are working! And they can only work if there are jobs. And there can only be more jobs if job creators are allowed to keep more of their hard earned money.
Once again LOGIC!
[/quote]
No jobs could be created unless there was a demand for something.
Remember “Spenders” as you call them only get money to spend if they are working! And they can only work if there are jobs. And there can only be more jobs if job creators are allowed to keep more of their hard earned money.
Once again LOGIC!
How can anyone work if no one has money to spend?
Even if they cut your taxes to zero, are you saying you would still expand your business if no one had money to spend? And furthermore would you even be in business?
You say “All you have to do is just a tad of research. There were more write-off’s prior to the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. And a whole lot more write-off’s in the 1950’s when taxes were so very high. So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed.”
Proof?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Even if they cut your taxes to zero, are you saying you would still expand your business if no one had money to spend? And furthermore would you even be in business?[/quote]
where do people get money to spend? Are you claiming that it can only be given to them by a government willing to steal more money from those who are working?
Here is your answer for the fourth and I hope final time. Those who work have money to spend. There are more opportunities to work if there are more businesses to work for.
Let’s break it down for simplicity sake. If there are 10 people in the world. 2 of them own a business. That means there are 8 people who must work for either business A or business B. Four of them work for business A and four of them work for business B. All of a sudden business A shuts its doors and is no longer around. Now we have 4 people who do not have any place to work as business B does not have the money to expand. We have 4 people who need government benefits. And one other interesting point, business B can now pay their workers a smaller wage as there is no competition.
Do you follow my reasoning?
[quote]You say “All you have to do is just a tad of research. There were more write-off’s prior to the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. And a whole lot more write-off’s in the 1950’s when taxes were so very high. So in reality the rich paid much less and that’s one reason the economy boomed.”
Proof?
[/quote]
Out of 45.6 million tax payers in 1958 236 people actually paid thet highest bracket of 91%.
The article goes on to say:
“In 1958, the richest taxpayers contributed 3.5% of income taxes for the year. TODAY, 41% of income taxes are paid by those same income brackets. Even though the rates were 91%, the government collected a lot less taxes from the rich, and a lot more from the middle class and the poor. So basically, if we were to re-establish the tax code of the 1950’s in it’s entirety as liberals want, then the richest taxpayers would have to get an enormous tax cut, and taxes would have to be substantially raised on the middle class and the working poor.”
"It would seem, according to them, the economy grew at an enormous rate while the rich were paying 91% on an income over $1,000,000. Common sense tells us that NOBODY, I repeat, NOBODY, is dumb enough to work for $0.09 on the dollar. Especially not somebody who is smart enough to earn that much money in the first place. You might as well consider yourself a government slave at that point.
Peter Schiff had some great facts about this on his radio show today, all taken directly from the IRS’ website. So, in 1958 how many people ACTUALLY PAID that 91% tax rate that liberals seem to love? 236 PEOPLE! That’s out of 45.6 MILLION taxpayers at the time! How many people do you think paid taxes over 35% in that year? 8,549 people paid over 35%. Less than 2/10th’s of 1% paid over 35% tax rate. Today, 2,500,000 people pay taxes of 35% (10% of taxpayers). In 1958, the richest taxpayers contributed 3.5% of income taxes for the year. TODAY, 41% of income taxes are paid by those same income brackets. Even though the rates were 91%, the government collected a lot less taxes from the rich, and a lot more from the middle class and the poor. So basically, if we were to re-establish the tax code of the 1950’s in it’s entirety as liberals want, then the richest taxpayers would have to get an enormous tax cut, and taxes would have to be substantially raised on the middle class and the working poor. That is the reality. Despite the high rates, the rich paid much less in taxes due to all of the tax shelters, loopholes, deductions, etc… Basically rather than looking at ways to grow their business, people looked for all kinds of ways to avoid taxes.
Be on the lookout for Schiff’s op-ed in the next couple days. Hopefully the WSJ runs it, as the NY Times will likely not do it. The facts are the facts people… sorry to disappoint you my liberal friends, but nobody is dumb enough to have paid that 91% tax rate back in the 50’s, and it was not the reason for economic growth. "
The article was taken from an Internet discussion regarding the 1950’s tax rate: