Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Real patriots don't whine about paying taxes
Share:
by ishambat | November 10, 2010 at 04:00 am
152 views | 2 Recommendations | 13 comments
http://open.salon.com/blog/kent_pitman/2010/11/09/real_patriots_dont_whine_about_paying_taxes
"As Rachel Maddow pointed out Monday, the very first issue the Republicans seem to have planned will be tax cuts for the rich—which will add $700 billion to the deficit over the next ten years. So much for the party of fiscal responsibility.
Republicans have billed themselves as everything good related to money. They tell us they are the party of fiscal responsibility, of economic prosperity, and of jobs. The historical record doesn't bear that out.
The New York Times laid it out clearly in a 2008 article where they observed that since 1929 there have been about 40 years under Republican presidents and 40 years under Democratic presidents, and so they followed what would happen to money if you invested it only under one or the other. If you had taken $10,000 and invested it in an S&P stock market index fund in 1929, allowing it to grow only when there was a Republican president, it would be worth $11,733 today, that is, it would have grown on average 0.4% per year. But that includes the Great Depression under Hoover, so they computed it also without counting him and it came out to $51,211, which is 4.7% per year. It might seem a tidy sum until you see that if you did the same under only Democratic presidents, your money would be worth $300,671, which is 8.9% per year. The Times article has some really nice graphics to illustrate this.
As Former U.S. Representative Richard Gephardt (D-MO) has been known to say, “if you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote for Democrats.”
"
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (13)
at 07:21 on November 10th, 2010
Under these broad terms it should be pointed out that Democracies habitually elect liberal governments during "good times" and conservative governments during "hard times".
at 15:21 on November 10th, 2010
Yeah, Democrats elect governments and you don't.
This level of being full of crap must not have been easy to achieve.
at 15:53 on November 10th, 2010
DEMOCRACIES not Democrats idiot. Talk about a level of stupidity.
at 17:05 on November 10th, 2010
Even then you are full of crap.
FDR, Carter and Obama, and to a lesser extent Clinton, were elected in bad economic times.
Hoover, Eisenhower, Bush Sr. and to a lesser extent Nixon were elected in good economic times, and Bush Jr. was put into place through fraud and corruption in the middle of America's biggest ever peacetime boom.
Play again?
at 17:44 on November 10th, 2010
You obviously have a problem with English comprehension or can't read anything material that doesn't fit your preconceptions. The economic conditions that prevailed under Clinton were disappearing prior to GW taking office. 2.7million jobs went south during Bush's first 100 days. But hey. Whatever gets your hate on.
at 19:58 on November 11th, 2010
Whereas at the time of Obama taking office, America was in its worst place since the Great Depression.
You claimed that democracies elect liberals in good times and conservatives in bad times. I have shown that that was not the case.
at 15:49 on November 10th, 2010
Reality is that when my government paid for hearing is restored on December 1st 2010 a radical man representing Baby Boomers will emerge as a political force.
at 20:02 on November 11th, 2010
Good luck.
at 18:19 on November 10th, 2010
Republican philosophy says "All for one"; Democrats philosophy says 'One for all';
In a two party capitalist government the balance is kept by these two parties.
The bigger the government involvement, the more taxes need to be collected.
It's really not the governments fault that this is happening. It's the voters who keep voting in individuals that don't represent the best interest of the public and America's future.
at 18:19 on November 11th, 2010
Why would people complain about tax cuts for the "rich" when some 47% of Americans paid nothing in income taxes last year? On that basis you can only say that the "rich" are paying more than their fair share.
at 20:02 on November 11th, 2010
Interesting angle. Under Clinton, the top bracket tax was 39%, the economy was booming and the budget was finally brought into balance. Bush blew a huge hole in the budget by cutting that tax rate without making corresponding spending cuts and while increasing military spending. There are many who claim that cutting taxes always creates prosperity and raising taxes always undermines it, but the events under Clinton and Bush show how wrong that claim is. A vast part of the reason for Clinton boom is that he convinced the investors that it was safe to invest in America because the budget was being brought into balance. Whereas investors have been scared to invest in America over the last 10 years because the budget is out of whack.
at 05:25 on November 12th, 2010
at 17:23 on November 15th, 2010
I don't know where these numbers come from. If they include the retired and the children then no wonder. Of course there are the unemployed, of whom there are many more now than there were when I was there. At any rate, the unemployed, the children and the retired and the homemakers would not be paying income taxes; I don't know of any other group that isn't.