The FED Caused the Great Depression

I must say I found your post very disturbing. You wrote, “1947 105.7% <- Greatest generation paying 91% top tax rates.” Those people did not choose to have 91% of their income stolen by Democrats to pay for Democrat violations of the Constitution. I guess you still can’t wrap your head around the idea that other people’s money is not YOURS, or that of YOUR chosen representatives to take and spend for what YOU want. Do you think 91% of a person's living needs to be stolen by the Democrats for them to be “Great?” Most don’t think slavery is “great.” Democrats taking 91% of a person’s income is VERY close to slavery. My Democrats have much for which to be proud.

How much of YOUR income is taken away in taxes? If it is not close to 91% you COULD donate the rest to Democrat organization, and hand it out to the poor on the street until you get to the magic number of 91%. I’ll bet you don’t do that at all, just want OTHER people to get THEIR money taken from them for such proposes. You can’t be THAT hypocritical can you…?

The Left is SO delusional. Reality never enters the picture for them. They should be institutionalized for delusion and insanity, if not imprisoned for treason.

The following quotes are all from the Conservative news paper USA TODAY. The Article is titled “U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions”

Usdebtclock.org has unfunded US liabilities at $114 Trillion. Of course all that money stems from entitlement promises created after Democrat President FDR threatened the Supreme Court so they would stop ruling his New Deal unconstitutional. Google the “Switch in Time that Saved Nine.” All that money will create future debt in the US so it should be calculated in the true cost of Democrat violations of the Constitution in this country,

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The USA TODAY article goes on…

Of course there must be Leftist delusion incorporated in the story.

CBO computer simulations crash in 2037 (26 years) with all the debt to pay for Democrat violations of the Constitution.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE&feature=relmfu"]YouTube - &#x202a;The Path to Prosperity (Episode 1): America's two futures, visualized&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

You write of the “cancer” starting with tax cuts. Another Liberal LIE!

can•cer&#8194; &#8194;/&#712;kæns&#601;r/ Show Spelled
[kan-ser]

–noun
1. Pathology .
a. a malignant and invasive growth or tumor, especially one originating in epithelium, tending to recur after excision and to metastasize to other sites.
b. any disease characterized by such growths. 2. any evil condition or thing that spreads destructively; blight.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cancer

The “cancer” is the unconstitutional growth of government to satisfy Democrat Tyranny.

There is not enough money in the world to pay for current Democrat promises and constitutional violations. It would not be ENOUGH to take 91% or MORE of everyone’s earnings to pay for the Democrat party’s flimsy grasp of reality yet they continue to want MORE!

 

Then I'm sure you support increasing tax revenues from the 60 year relative low to as part of a plan to reduce the deficits, right?

Or are you just another hypocrite that only cares about deficits if you get your way?

 

What do you mean “Or are you just another hypocrite that only cares about deficits if you get your way?” I’m saying we MUST cut all unconstitutional spending . That produces NO deficits! ROTFLMAO!!!!

As I keep point out you CAN'T collect ENOUGH tax money! How are you going to collect enough tax money to pay $130 Trillion dollars? Sure I'm in favor of a balanced budget amendment, because Americans WOULD NEVER ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE TAXED ENOUGH TO PAY FOR DEMOCRAT VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION, and would DEMAND spending cuts which would ultimately destroy the Democrat party. That is just fine with me!

 

So you won't agree to increase tax revenues which are the relatively lowest in 60 years as part of a plan to reduce the deficit. You only want what you want or forget it.

You are just another hypocrite.

Sure we could.

We don't need to pay $130 trillion dollars all at once.

Flat out false.

The "greatest generation" of Americans allowed themselves to be taxed at top marginal tax rates of up to 91%.

It's just the selfish "tea party" "me" generation that won't allow taxes to be increased even though tax revenues are the lowest in 60 years.

 

I'm all for raising taxes.....at the State level.

Most of the "social programs" can be and should be financed and implemented at the State level. Federal "social programs" should be cut completely and federal staffing levels that manage these programs should be cut to only what is needed to "organize and assist" the State's programs so that all states are fairly similar across borders.

As it is now, States are duplicating, and in some cases, are enhancing Federal programs. This is causing a duplication of work and is making the system very inefficient. This inefficiency increases the operating cost of these programs and is driving consumer prices up. It also puts a high burden at the Federal level to "police" these programs.

Increase State revenue to cover the extra burden that the Federal level absorbs. With a more efficient system, the States should easily be able to cover the extra costs and States might be able to become solvent again.

At the Federal level, increase corporate taxes, or at least make sure they pay their fair share. Decrease the middle class and low class taxes. The over all revenue should actually increase from corporate taxes. Spending is decrease by programs being ran at the State level, and the deficit will decrease.

 

>>>Did someone hold a gun to the bankers' heads to borrow that artificial money from the Fed? Just as in '29, the bankers are on the ground. They are supposed to KNOW when loans are getting risky. That is their job. Instead, their incentive is to make loans regardless of the risk, sneak the loans by the auditors, take their fees, and go home.

 

So you won't agree to increase tax revenues at the federal level which are the relatively lowest in 60 years as part of a plan to reduce the deficit.

And do you purport to care about the deficits too? Or you only care about them if they are reduced in a way that you approve of?

 

They do not need to be increased at Federal level if the corporation would pay their share. However, most corporations have one or two politician in their pocket, so they get the tax breaks.

You keep throwing that 60 year figure and I'm not sure what you are talking about. Federal Tax revenue was way lower 60 years ago:



http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/...ederal Revenue Chart&state=US&color=c&local=s

Or are you talking about as a percent of GDP?



If so, then yes, in 2009, that was the case, but it is on the rise in 2010 and is projected to close to a new high in 2012.

No need to get rude.

 

Yes, relative to GDP, that is what was meant by "relative" revenues.

Your chart 1) includes state and local revenues 1) contains projections from 2010, that probably assume the Bush tax cuts would expire. They have been extended for 2 years.

Sorry. Just a question. I see so many who complain about the deficits but who refuse to do anything about them unless it is done their approved way. What is your answer?

 

2010 is actual. 2011 is projected. I don't if the "tax cuts are projected or not, but since this is straight from the Government, I would assume it is current.

Cutting the deficit is paramount. I personally feel that the middle and poor classes are tapped out on what they can contribute. Raising taxes on those that make over $250,000 is going to put a big burden on small business, as they would be caught up in that increase as well. "S" Corporations would be the hardest hit, which would greatly increase unemployment.

Increasing taxes on the "filthy rich" is not going to increase revenue that much....beside, it is the "filthy rich" that are making the rules (on both sides of the political isle).

If you want to significantly increase Federal revenue, then the tax breaks given to corporations need to be decreases. Of course that may increase the chances to they may move out of country, but for the most part, I doubt they will.

 

According to the CBO, the richest 1% paid an effective rate of 37% in 1979, which by 2005 was down to 31%.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8885

Total gross income is about $13 trillion. 6 percentage points would equate to $140 billion. That's a dent.

I have a different take on corporations. I think when you increase taxes on corporations, they pass thru at least a portion of it in higher prices, so it in effect is a tax on consumers.

Better instead to cut corporate taxes and increase taxes on the people who benefit from the corporations -- executives and shareholders.

Instead, the Republicans they have slashed dividend taxes while leaving the corporate tax alone. They are no dummies.

 

Our current debt...at this moment...is $14.2 Trillion. Our interest that we own on loans is $3.6 Trillion since the first of the year already.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

A 6% tax increase on the wealthiest 1% equal less then 1% of our current debt, not even considering the interest. For increased taxes to pull us out of the mess we are in, we would have to really lower the bar on whom we call rich. As that bar gets lowered, the small businesses will get sucked into the vacuum.

Small business will not be able to pass their cost on to the consumer and still be competitive, especially against corporations. This will put a lot of small businesses out of business. Since small businesses account for about 75% of the jobs, this will increase unemployment, therefore widening the gap between rich and poor.

So what. It would be no different then a sales tax that everybody pays. Corporations also have to compete against small businesses. If they price their product too high, the small business industry will just get stronger.

What, you don't think that the executives and shareholders are not going to pass their "losses" on through the price of their product? They have portfolios that dictate their desired net income. Trust me, that net income will not decrease no matter what the tax rate is as long as the market can bear the price increase of their product. So in the end, you have accomplished nothing.

Both sides of the political isle do not want to touch corporate tax. Neither side are your "friend". If you think that the Republicans or the Democrats are acting in your best interest, then you are naive. They are working for their best interests.

The system is upside down. We have allowed the Federal Government too much power. More power then the Constitution intended. Get things back to the State level where things can be ran more efficiently and more personal. Cut the Federal "fat hog" and restrict the spending to those things best done at the Federal Level and the deficit will quickly diminish over time. Just throwing more money at the problem (increasing taxes) is not going to solve anything. All it will do is shift the problem to other areas.

 

HIgher risk meaqns higher profits: ever been to the horse races?

It's all the same thing.

 

Not a word of truth in anything you've said.

Oh, and here's the proof of the proof of the tax rates. I picked 1955, when our standard of living was the highest:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=475

 

As soon as they prove that they have cleaned up all the waste, fraud, abuse and duplication I will agree to a tax hike, get busy ya got a lot of work to do.

 

Professor Peabody, the wealthy already pay most (68%) of the taxes. Now the loopy liberals want them to pay even more.

Out tax structure is wasteful "income redistribution" at its very worst!

Check this out.



The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shouldered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. http://www.american.com/archive/2007...pays-the-taxes

 

I'm glad i'm in the bottom 50% earning $220,000.00 per year. I don't think I'll ever get beyond the 50% with an income of $260,000 per year. I'll give money away before I do that.

 

Great Pic!
Here is my take…


The following expenses are absolutely unconstitutional, and the federal involvements in those expenses were started by Democrat violations of the Constitution.

Social Security 19 cents.
Welfare 15 cents.
Medicare 12 cents.
Education 3 cents.

Total = 49 cents.

The following categories can encompass constitutional spending depending on how defined, but have been expanded beyond any true constitutional limit.

Health 10 cents.
Resources and technology 3 cents.

We'll deduct half the value of each for my example totaling 6.5 cents.

49 cents + 6.5 cents = 55.5 cents.

Veterans Benefits are clearly constitutional since Congress has the power “To raise and support Armies” and such benefits are compensation for the same.

The government can also hire employees to carry out legitimate powers of government. So we have the following expenditure.

Federal employee retirement 3 cents.

Since most federal employees are employed in activities which are not called for in the Constitution we can easily divide this number in half to 1.5 cents.

Running total of unconstitutional government 55.5 cents + 1.5 cents = 57 cents.

Of course as I keep stating, the American people would never pay enough in tax money for both legitimate functions of government AND Democrats violations of the Constitution so deficits are run. The interest on the debt according to the pic is 5 cents. Without having to finance Democrat violations of the Constitution we wouldn’t have hardly any debt, so we wouldn’t pay hardly any interest. We can EASLEY divide the 5 cents in half if we were not obligated to fund Democrat violations of the Constitution (probably a lot more).

That leaves the running total of unconstitutional government to 57 cents + 2.5 cents = 59.5 cents.

I must also point out that almost all other legitimate constitutional expenses (except the military) easily fit in less than the 7 cents “other” category.

Now that we all see the cost of unconstitutional government (59.5 cents of every dollar spent by government) only allowed after Democrat FDR threatened the Supreme Court so they would stop ruling his New Deal unconstitutional (Google the “Switch in Time that Saved Nine”) we can see that spending is the problem. We can see that violating the Constitution is the problem. No amount of tax increases will solve the problem since that new money will just be spent on any number of OTHER unconstitutional wealth distribution or social engineering schemes of Democrats. Even while facing such harsh reality those on the Left call for MORE and HIGHER taxes to pay for NEW and INCREASED constitutional violations.

What tax rate will be enough? When do people get to spend their OWN money for what THEY want? Ask a Leftist those questions some time and see what kind of an answer you get. The answer might shock you.

Well that’s “my take.” Now we will see who wants to take away from “my take…”

 

That's simple. The rate of tax necessary to cover expenditures.

 

You don't WANT to understand because if you understood REALITY it would destroy your ideology. It is not what I want; it is conforming to the accepted standards of society, or the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution.

il•le•git•i•mate&#8194; &#8194;/adj., n. &#716;&#618;l&#618;&#712;d&#658;&#618;t&#601;m&#618;t; v. &#716;&#618;l&#618;&#712;d&#658;&#618;t&#601;&#716;me&#618;t/
[adj., n. il-i-jit-uh-mit; v. il-i-jit-uh-meyt] adjective, noun, verb, -mat•ed, -mat•ing.

–adjective

1. born of parents who are not married to each other; born out of wedlock: an illegitimate child.

2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom.

3. unlawful; illegal: an illegitimate action.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegitimate​

"Big Government" started AFTER FDR threatened the Supreme Court in 1937 so they would stop ruling his New Deal unconstitutional. The Court then allowed the New Deal, and even reversed several of their decisions done only a scant couple of years before. All “big government” of today is built on those illegal precedents. If Democrat wealth distribution and social engineering schemes were LEGITIMATE (See definition above) why did FDR have to threaten the Supreme Court so they would stop ruling such "legitimate" schemes unconstitutional?

The truth is the Democrat party is the party of lies, threats, and coercion; Treason. You don't like that, or at least don't want that fact known and understood. Too bad, and too late! ROTFLMAO!!!

 

If you ignore more than half the taxes like SS and excise taxes the poorer pay more of, I agree you can distort the figures to make it look like the rich are paying more.

But in fact they are paying much less in taxes than they were 3 decades ago and getting richer at the expense of less wealthy groups.

Check this out:










Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...but-unequal-charts-show-growing-rich-poor-gap


Folks wonder where the middle class has gone. It's right there on that graph.

In the past three decades, the richest have gotten richer, and paid relatively less taxes, while other income groups at best stagnated. The richer are relatively richer than any time since before the Great Depression.

And what is the Republicans' plan? Cut taxes they mostly pay even more. Eliminate estate taxes. Reduce investment taxes.

And cut teachers' salaries to make up for the resulting deficits.

I wish I could say the Dems were a lot better, but they are only marginally so. Obama's has largely only given lip service to raising investment taxes and installing a more progressive tax system in America.

It's always somewhat amazed me that so many Americans not only tolerate this but a large percentage seems to support or encourage it.