Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were many other factors at work during the years you use to justify your conclusions, and those factors may have nothing to do with tax rates at all.
...factors that you only mention but fail to elaborate in order to test those supposed factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Keep in mind, these are the same people who think the best economic stimulus to creating jobs is millions of out of work people collecting unemployment compensation.
I couldn't have chosen a better example of a discredited conservative myth. Liberals believe that unemployment compensation is stimulative because it is. But of course, conservatives reject science and math because it is contrary to their preconceived ideology and beliefs.
Zandi [of Moody's] estimated that each dollar spent on extending unemployment benefits generated $1.61 in economic growth. Extending benefits had the third-greatest bang-for-the-buck of any component in the stimulus package, after increasing food stamps and subsidizing work-sharing, both temporary measures. To quote Zandi, "No form of the fiscal stimulus has proved more effective during the past two years than emergency UI benefits."
Conservatives say that extending benefits for too long causes workers to become less motivated to look for jobs, which keeps the unemployment rate high and hurts the economic recovery.
Quote:
A paper from economists Rob Valletta and Katherine Kuang at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco suggests this effect is likely quite small. To show this, they graphed average unemployment duration among both those who have lost their jobs (who are eligible for unemployment benefits) and those who have quit or just entered the job market (who are not). The differential between the two, then, can be said to be caused by extending unemployment benefits:
...factors that you only mention but fail to elaborate in order to test those supposed factors. I couldn't have chosen a better example of a discredited conservative myth. Liberals believe that unemployment compensation is stimulative because it is. But of course, conservatives reject science and math because it is contrary to their preconceived ideology and beliefs.
Conservatives say that extending benefits for too long causes workers to become less motivated to look for jobs, which keeps the unemployment rate high and hurts the economic recovery.
The loop holes that were in effect in the 50s meant no one payed 90% tax rate.
I am not that old but they did have ratio write-offs. The largest was 1017-1 so if you put a dollar in your company you got to deduct 1017. You could also deduct all interest on credit cards, hell everything was deductible http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/.../041812wsj.jpg
With a few minor changes I pretty much agree with you:
What have republicans done lately? Oppose education spending (Rick Perry wants to abolish the DOE), etc.
Can you be surprised that minorities oppose cutting education funding? Can you be surprised that they don't vote republican in great numbers?
No, it's not surprising at all. The liberal dominated education system is just the starting point for the indoctrination and dumbing down of the masses, which extends and continues through the mass media and entertainment industries, which have created this upside down view of history and political ideology. That's the reality to which the affected are, by obvious design, totally clueless.
The DOE is the reason the United States has plummeted from #1 in the world, to 24th in eduction, so anyone with the slightest grasp of reality or common sense couldn't wait to see that defunct, insidious agency eliminated, along with all of the other disastrous federal agencies (which would cover just about every single one of them).
What the poor deluded masses do not understand is that these minority entitlement programs, quota systems, and the lowering of education standards which are the HalLmark creation of Democrats, are just a more sinister and camouflaged form of slavery ... keeping the poor as perpetual slaves to the very government plutocrats that promise cradle to grave support in return for their votes. This keeps the poor on the government plantation, and totally dependent.
Every single policy objective of the Left-Democrat-Socialist is steeped in racism and totalitarianism, bar none.
1) Gun Control - it's origin can be traced back to keeping black african slaves unarmed so as to not be able to threaten their masters. More modern gun control efforts were initiated and championed by the Ku Klux Klan, with almost every one of it's members, Leftist Democrats.
2) Planned Parenthood - when a Republican suggests eliminating that vile organization of eugenists, the dumbed down minority masses have been conditioned and trained to respond with allegations of racism, when it is this group's charter mission to keep down the population numbers of minorities ... Margaret Sanger, the mother of planned parenthood, referred to blacks as "weeds" that needed to be removed from the garden. That's why you will never find Planned Parenthood Facilities and Abortion Clinics in wealthy neighborhoods ... they are always found in the poor, minority communities. It's very sad that people can be convinced to embrace the death of their own children as some grand "benefit". Truly sad.
3) The Charlatans - every single one of these democratic cretins ... from Jessie Jackson to Al Sharpton are the modern day Uncle Tom protagonists who sell their followers this bill of goods that keep them disempowered and on the government plantation. Their only means of survival and reason for being is to convince their faithful that they desperately need them, else they'd be crushed by this systematic racial oppression that really doesn't exist, except that which is created by the democrats. That's right, generational dependancy on government is the only means by which the Democrats have survived for the past 50 years ... else they would have been stamped out like the cockroaches that they are long ago, and they know it, which is why they changed tactics from being overtly racists, to being the insidious destroyers of dreams, disguised as friends bearing gifts.
I could go on .... name one social or political platform agenda of the Left Wing, and I'll define for you how it is designed to be ultimately divisive and destructive.
1) Gun Control - it's origin can be traced back to keeping black african slaves unarmed so as to not be able to threaten their masters. More modern gun control efforts were initiated and championed by the Ku Klux Klan, with almost every one of it's members, Leftist Democrats.
Don't forget, Even knowing how to read and write gave a slave power so they were not allowed to learn how to read or write. How many kids that went to our government run inner city schools are illiterate? That is why taking your educational studies serious is considered too white. Of course they don't teach basic personal finance either.
Jessie Jackson to Al Sharpton are making BIG money. If you believe they are standing up for black rights then why don't they come to the defense when a black republican is attacked. No, instead they encourage these attacks on black republicans because they went off the plantation.
And when they are in a debate that they are losing or you don't agree with them Dems and Libs always resort to calling the opponent a racist which is simply an attempt to silence the opponent.
I am reading a biography on LBJ now,and from what I've read,he believed in the Civil Rights bill,but knew he wasn't going to get it done all at once.It was going to have to be done in stages.He alienated the southern states,but many northeast liberals didn't like him either.They couldn't believe a white man from Texas could care about black people,but he did.He also cared greatly about the poor.The Great Society was about a hand up,not a hand out.He never meant for able bodied people to spend their lives on welfare.If it wasn't for Viet Nam,He might have been remembered as a good President.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
According to Civil Rights Act of 1957 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the Act was primarily a voting rights bill. The 1964 bill was far more extensive and barred racial discrimination in housing, schools, employment and public facilities -- like restaurants. To exclaim that the 1964 Act was weaker than the 1957 Act is just false.
LBJ weakened it. You can sugar coat it to distort history, but by fact LBJ led the push to weaken the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Because of course Liberal Johnson wanted a weak bill that would not upset his white southern base. LBJ insisted that they weaken the federal government's ability to enforce the states for registering black voters in 1957. And hence registered blacks only rose by about 2-3%.
Liberals have a long history of dividing the country into niche voting groups...then he realized that blacks could be a niche group. Of course these niche voting groups must be loyal and if someone were to dare leave like Stacey Dash - they get called the N word by liberals...Even LBJ, the liberal, used the N word on a routine basis as president. By the 1960s as president of the US he should have known better.
I am not talking about Democrats vs. Republicans, but liberals vs. Conservatives.
As history has shown, liberals are always on the right side of the facts, while Conservatives are knuckle dragging mouth breathing idiots.
When has a conservative been right?
then tell me why when a liberal is confronted with the truth about an issue, they start calling the person they are argueing with a racist, sexist or hate mongerer? I dont see cons doing that, just liberals.
Liberalism ended slavery in this country.
Liberalism got women the right to vote.
Liberalism got African-Americans the right to vote.
Liberalism created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.
Liberalism ended segregation.
Liberalism passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
Liberalism created Medicare.
Liberalism passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things; every one.
Some argue it was a non-radical revolution with little change. Most white men still couldn't vote, most blacks were still slaves, most white women were still second class citizens, the rich were still rich, the poor were still poor, Native Americans were still getting exploited, England already protected the solid majority of rights afterwards, people still rebelled against the US government in a short term after the Revolution, etc...
Ironically, it tends to be liberal historians that argue these points that the revolution had little real change and was instigated by smugglers upset that they couldn't make more money illegally.
I am not talking about Democrats vs. Republicans, but liberals vs. Conservatives.
As history has shown, liberals are always on the right side of the facts, while Conservatives are knuckle dragging mouth breathing idiots.
When has a conservative been right?
The free love and drug movement of the 1970's resulted in a lot of single parent families, crime relative to addictions etc. While the peace\anti-war\civ rights movements had a lot of positive social changes, this was not one of them.
Anyone seeing black and white so clearly has an extreme lack of historical knowledge as well as a few screws loose.
Let's also be very clear about the fact that "classic" liberalism ... often referred to as "Jeffersonian Liberalism" is the EXCACT POLAR OPPOSITE of modern day "progressive liberal" ideology in practical application. The two ideologies are diametrically opposing philosophies as defined today, and this dichotomy in which the two seem to have reversed fundamental ideological values can be explained in that neither conservative or liberal really defines a particular set of values, but only represent either the defense of established traditional values, whatever they happen to be (conservative=conserve tradition) while liberalism being the abandonment of those values, promoting radical change from established tradition and rejection of the status quo.
The founding fathers were viewed as radical extremists (liberal) by the British and the traditional minded colonists who's conservative philosophy favored maintaining British rule over the colonies, rather than the extreme change inherent in breaking the long established European model of Monarchial rule in favor of independence. The traditional relationship of King-Commoner or Sovereign-Subject class status was at the time, hundreds of years old, and the idea that a commoner was an equal to the King, and a sovereign in his own right, with the full right of self determination, was viewed as offensively radical, and extreme. How dare the peasants declare themselves as equal to the Royalty .... this was the self serving "statist" view from the King's point of view.
But today, the philosophy of individual liberty, and limited government authority and power is the traditional American ideological view which was established by the founding fathers and the Constitution. Consequently, those who defend those values, and want to maintain those restrictions on government power are, by proper definition, "conservatives", while those who view the constitution as antiquated, and embrace a radical change (or a return to the authoritarian, statist, collectivist system of all powerful government as in the old European monarchial model) are today's modern "progressive liberal" extremists.
If you were to apply todays ideological definitions in labeling the founding fathers, they would OBVIOUSLY have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common with progressive liberalism. The values promoted by today's progressive liberal .... the statist view of authoritarianism versus self determination ... the collectivist view which promotes the power of government overriding individual rights ... the restrictions on individual liberty which can be found in every progressive liberal policy, from gun control to government deciding what you can eat and drink, defines that all powerful authoritarian-monarch system that the founders abhorred and rejected.
So, the reverse or backward nature of modern liberalism resides in the illogical belief that the restoration of the old authoritarian model of Monarchial "subjugation" of the masses is some form of "progress", when it really defines an extreme regression to that of mass slavery of the people, returning them to the lower status of "subjects" or "commoners".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
