Maybe you should try some fancy words, then. One worked well for Darla in describing your personal imbecility!
Raising Taxes On The Rich Would Reduce Income Inequality
- Thread starter Yoda
- Start date
Maybe you should try some fancy words, then. One worked well for Darla in describing your personal imbecility!
How sad....you're missing some good stuff .... some entertaining, some educational, etc...too bad.
You are probably correct on both counts here, certainly on the latter one!
Some people certainly paid it, in fact the effective rate was close to 70 percent for the richest taxpayers during those years. And that is a hell of a lot more than either Romney or Dick Cheney ever paid.
Yes, Dwight Eisenhower did preside over a balanced budget. If he had a surplus he paid down the war debt, which is one of the reasons he gave for vetoing a tax cut when it came cross his desk, but not to fear Kennedy was glad to reduce the rate as one of his first acts as president. So who says Democrats are all for higher taxes? Kennedy did something not even the moderate Eisenhower thought prudent.
You don't read much do you dunce?
In 1969 199,517 people were considered below poverty. In 2012, the last year of available census data, that number had grown to 310,648. In addition, the Federal Government spent over $20 trillion on the war Johnson declared in 1964. I think that by anyone's measure, at least those with at least half a brain, which excludes dunces like you, that is a massive failure.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html
Yet here we are debating things as dumb as taxation as being a way to reduce income inequality; an even dumber premise.
50 Years Later, LBJ's 'War On Poverty' Has Proven A Total Failure
By Lloyd Billingsley
On January 8, 1964, U.S. President Lyndon Baines Johnson, also known as LBJ, famously declared a “War on Poverty.” Fifty years later, those curious about how the war came out should consult Sasha Abramsky, an authority on the subject.
His recent book The American Way of Poverty has been hailed as the second coming of The Other America, the 1962 book by the late socialist Michael Harrington. That one influenced Lyndon Johnson to launch the war on poverty in the first place.
British-born Abramsky is a senior fellow at the Demos think tank and writes for the Nation. His book chronicles cases of the “long-term poor,” accompanied by Dorothea Lange–style photos.
These victims, still suffering in poverty, would seem to confirm that LBJ’s War on Poverty was indeed a lost cause. The author concedes that the war “failed,” but he offers an explanation: The war succeeded in bringing poverty to center stage but “technocrats took control,” and they set about “reducing a massive moral conundrum – poverty amidst plenty – into a set of scientific and statistical data. Once that occurred, the energy was sucked out of the process.”
That, according to Abramsky, is why LBJ’s War on Poverty failed. It was not because the War had any strategic defects or caused much collateral damage. The author never questions that the federal government was fully up to the task. But it does come through that the problem of poverty remains.
“Not since the Great Depression have so many people been beaten down by vast, destructive forces,” writes Abramsky. To fix it will require a more militant approach, nothing less than a “War on Poverty Mark II.” The author says this one can succeed despite a determined enemy.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...js-war-on-poverty-has-proven-a-total-failure/
Any more stupid questions?
LMAO; what a pathetic moron you are!
The only thing Snarla calls is your name when she wants to do her little bitch boy from behind. So please STF you irrelevant vagina dunce.
Romney or Cheney ? How about Gore or Clinton....or how about Kerry or Teresa Heinz, how about Hillary or Obama?
The Democrats of today would make JFK puke....
Rune really is THAT incredibly stupid. The irony is that he thinks he is smart; now THAT is hilarious!! LMAO
We know enough from the ignorance that erupts from dunces like you on this forum that you are gullible unthinking morons. The rest is subjective based on that.
For instance, we all know that you are Snarla's whiney little bitch vagina boy who she likes to use from behind with her BIG strap on. Do you cry when she gives you the business vagina boy? LMAO
Twit; or was that twat?
You're a good little vagina bitch for Snarla aren't you shit-for-brains? LMAO
Wrong again shit-for-brains; It was nowhere near that level considering that rate did not kick in until they made over $300K and it does not take into consideration the tax deductions allowed at the time.
You’re another dunce who doesn’t know the difference between marginal tax rates and effective tax rates.
But I am sure you have some credible links to back up your assertions right?
Really? This is just another typical cheap partisan shot by low information dunces like you who are permanently stuck on stupid. I am sure you have some credible links to back up your assertions right?
One thing we do know, Romney and Cheney paid a hell of lot more into the Federal Treasury than Obama and O’Biden.
He only had a budget surplus for three of his eight years. When MARGINAL rates were increased to 92% from 91% the surplus went to deficit for the next three years. When rates were lowered back to 91%, the deficit went to surplus for two years then back to deficits the largest coming at the end of his second term.
Facts are NOT your forte’.
So once again, I see NOTHING to support the absurd and moronic premise of this thread that supports the claims that raising Marginal tax rates on the rich will equate to better income equality; a moronic argument to begin with and almost as stupid as the “fairness” arguments from low information dunces on the left.
maineman
Banned
no one is asking for "income equality". No one on the left is saying that the rich shouldn't be rich, or that there will not always be poor. It is the growing disparity between the very rich and everyone else that is disturbing to me personally. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to run the trend lines out thirty more years and see that, by then, the top one tenth of one percent will own nearly everything, and the rest of us will own what little is left. My signature line is prescient in that regard.
It to me is the control they exert over our elected offices and how corporations have been given personhood. Our representatives spend more time raising money than figuring out their constituents problems.
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
You claim to "have more than I need".
Why do you have more than you need? Are you greedy? Why aren't you giving it to the government to reduce income inequality? Why aren't you finding one if these poor people you care about and giving them all of your excess?
Why? Are you too greedy?
Teflon Don
I'm back baby
Why do you need an elected official to figure out your problems? Can't you figure out your problems yourself?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
He calls dumpster diving work now? Who can we talk to at Comcast to fuck his connection up permanently?
How do you know what I think yurt?
[h=1]Us population in 1969?[/h]
In: US History, Decade - 1960s [Edit categories]
Answer:
Population: 202,676,946
When the clock strikes midnight and we move from 2013 into 2014 the United States population will have reached a new record of more than 317 million people, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. That will keep us as the third most populous country on the planet, behind only China (1.35 billion) and India (1.23 billion). Overall, the world population will top 7.1 billion at the start of 2014.
Looks like you don't do math.
You proved nothing moron, I asked how much worse the situation would be if not for Johnson's initiative.
You replied with an opinion piece from a right magazine (the Capitalist Tools!) you fucking idiot.
There is no way to prove it one way or the other,
Yes, you really are that ignorant and stupid you conservative dunce!
maineman
Banned
a combination of luck, breeding, upbringing, education, innate intelligence, very hard work for many many years... all that plus finding and trusting a great financial advisor. How about you?
I don't think so. How about you?
see Learned Hand quote posted earlier in this thread. This issue is one that is not going to be solved by individual largesse, but only by a societal commitment.
ALL my excess? I guess I am not THAT virtuous a person if that is what you think is required for virtue. Do YOU have any excess? How do YOU answer those same questions? I personally tithe at my church, and, over and above tithing, we have set up a charitable trust that gives even more to worthy causes in our former home state. How about you?