Skarp endorses...

[ontheblack]

If you want to just look at the 20th century and cut off the timeline at 1999, you will find the numbers still show greater GDP over the time frame where the top marginal rate was high.

That also takes into account the fact that the top marginal rate was above 90% from 1944 until 1963 when JFK dropped it to 70%. One would think that with that high of a rate, we would have been in a depression for two decades instead of an annualized GDP of over 3%.

What we didnt have then was deficits anything like what we have seen since the 80s, even though we saw incredible infrastructure improvements in the 50s and 60s.

If you were running for POTUS, what would your tax/deficit solution proposal look like?

[anonlooker]

I'm pressed for time so this is a bit of a rush job, but you'll get the idea.

A graduated tax inversely proportional to income.

The rich should be taxed the least, if at all. Since they have the money and knowledge to build companies, thereby creating more jobs, and the more jobs they create the more money they make, and the more citizens are paying taxes, win win all the way around.

The upper mids are probably college grads (or otherwise educated) and most likely to continue their upward mobility and eventually become employers, thus joining the rich in driving the economic success of the country, so they should pay some nominal tax, after deductions for higher education and private schools, household services like gardening and maids, first class travel and 5 star hotels, and payments on anything shiny, new and less than two years old. This will give them incentive to travel a lot, buy bigger properties, and replace their luxury cars on a regular basis, which in turn ensures more jobs at the lower tax levels.

The lower mids are working their way up, but still too dependent on the government. Tax them less than the poor, since they probably have insurance, and sustain residential rental housing markets, buy cheap cars and appliances, and eat fast food, thus keeping low level workers employed.

Tax the lower income brackets most heavily. They use a disproportionate amount of government services and should have to carry that burden. This should also give them incentive to work harder, learn more, or do whatever it takes to earn more money.

Lastly, a 100% tax on illegal immigrants, who are stealing jobs from legal citizens. At this tax rate, one would hope these folks will eventually realize there is no free lunch, and head back to wherever they came from.

In short order the rich will invest heavily in becoming richer, which in turn employs more people at all income levels, which in turn creates a windfall of tax revenues and thus reduces the deficit. Why is this so hard to understand?

[GIMNEPIWO]

So, if we dig up Reagan ( which I would fully support ) ... How long would it take for him to turn this pile of sh*t around ?

I'd rather dig up John Wayne and give him immunity.

Second ... Do we have a third ?

[DonnieS]

I'm pressed for time so this is a bit of a rush job, but you'll get the idea.

A graduated tax inversely proportional to income.

The rich should be taxed the least, if at all. Since they have the money and knowledge to build companies, thereby creating more jobs, and the more jobs they create the more money they make, and the more citizens are paying taxes, win win all the way around.

The upper mids are probably college grads (or otherwise educated) and most likely to continue their upward mobility and eventually become employers, thus joining the rich in driving the economic success of the country, so they should pay some nominal tax, after deductions for higher education and private schools, household services like gardening and maids, first class travel and 5 star hotels, and payments on anything shiny, new and less than two years old. This will give them incentive to travel a lot, buy bigger properties, and replace their luxury cars on a regular basis, which in turn ensures more jobs at the lower tax levels.

The lower mids are working their way up, but still too dependent on the government. Tax them less than the poor, since they probably have insurance, and sustain residential rental housing markets, buy cheap cars and appliances, and eat fast food, thus keeping low level workers employed.

Tax the lower income brackets most heavily. They use a disproportionate amount of government services and should have to carry that burden. This should also give them incentive to work harder, learn more, or do whatever it takes to earn more money.

Lastly, a 100% tax on illegal immigrants, who are stealing jobs from legal citizens. At this tax rate, one would hope these folks will eventually realize there is no free lunch, and head back to wherever they came from.

In short order the rich will invest heavily in becoming richer, which in turn employs more people at all income levels, which in turn creates a windfall of tax revenues and thus reduces the deficit. Why is this so hard to understand?

How dare you use common sense !

[longbat]

Planned Parenthood is fighting back against a claim by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain that abortion clinics are put in African American communities as part of a "planned genocide" to kill black babies before they are born.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/30/planned-parenthood-rejects-cain-claim-abortion-clinics-are-aimed-at-black/#ixzz1cK5uUwsl

Herman Cain? Kiss him goodbye...

[Skarp]

Planned Parenthood is fighting back against a claim by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain that abortion clinics are put in African American communities as part of a "planned genocide" to kill black babies before they are born.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/30/planned-parenthood-rejects-cain-claim-abortion-clinics-are-aimed-at-black/#ixzz1cK5uUwsl

Herman Cain? Kiss him goodbye...

The worthwhile portion:

"Known as the mother of the birth control movement, Sanger, who died in 1966, founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, long before abortion was legal. It was the predecessor to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Sanger, who is often an object of scorn in the pro-life movement, worked in many black communities and opened the first family planning clinic in Harlem in the 1930s. While having written many articles on the superiority of the white race and eliminating the "unfit," Sanger insisted that her work in the black community was not motivated by a desire to rid society of blacks."

Riiiiiiiight.

Cain is spot on. The left has always been an ideological proponent of various eugenics efforts, from it's unquestioning allegiance to Darwin, to forced sterilization, euthanasia, abortion--the list goes on and on. To the left, there are always categories of people who would be better off dead, or better off never being born. This is because the left doesn't view an individual human life as intrinsically valuable, except insofar as it is useful to the collective--a view which informs virtually all of their policy preferences, most notably massive taxes and big, paternalistic government.

Those are the facts. They are easily discoverable in the words of the left's most revered leaders and philosophers, and in the practical political application of leftist theory, both here and abroad, spanning many decades. Kudos to Cain for calling them out on it.

[fastpitchdad05]

Planned Parenthood is fighting back against a claim by Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain that abortion clinics are put in African American communities as part of a "planned genocide" to kill black babies before they are born.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/30/planned-parenthood-rejects-cain-claim-abortion-clinics-are-aimed-at-black/#ixzz1cK5uUwsl

Herman Cain? Kiss him goodbye...

The worthwhile portion:

"Known as the mother of the birth control movement, Sanger, who died in 1966, founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, long before abortion was legal. It was the predecessor to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Sanger, who is often an object of scorn in the pro-life movement, worked in many black communities and opened the first family planning clinic in Harlem in the 1930s. While having written many articles on the superiority of the white race and eliminating the "unfit," Sanger insisted that her work in the black community was not motivated by a desire to rid society of blacks."

Riiiiiiiight.

Cain is spot on. The left has always been an ideological proponent of various eugenics efforts, from it's unquestioning allegiance to Darwin, to forced sterilization, euthanasia, abortion--the list goes on and on. To the left, there are always categories of people who would be better off dead, or better off never being born. This is because the left doesn't view an individual human life as intrinsically valuable, except insofar as it is useful to the collective--a view which informs virtually all of their policy preferences, most notably massive taxes and big, paternalistic government.

Those are the facts. They are easily discoverable in the words of the left's most revered leaders and philosophers, and in the practical political application of leftist theory, both here and abroad, spanning many decades. Kudos to Cain for calling them out on it.

Ok, but asking to accept conspiracy theories is a bit of slippery slope, don't you think? Sounds almost, well, leftish.

[Skarp]

Ok, but asking to accept conspiracy theories is a bit of slippery slope, don't you think? Sounds almost, well, leftish.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy in the sense that you mean it. People with certain value systems, beliefs, agendas, personal convictions, etc., gravitate toward certain activities and career paths. You won't find many conservatives working at planned parenthood. You'll find a bunch of people who subscribe to a similar set of beliefs, which, by and large, are acquired through indoctrination (in schools, universities, on television, etc.) with leftist ideology and a perverse leftist narrative about the way the world operates.

Ever wonder why the vast majority of teachers, lawyers, judges, professors, journalists, career civil servants, non-profit employees, and the like self-identify as liberal, and vote overwhelmingly for Democratic candidates? It is because liberals (i.e., "progressives") actively seek out positions in which they will be able to exert influence in furtherance of their political/philosophical agendas, and those are the career paths that tend to facilitate that. Progressives are, by definition, perpetually dissatisfied with the status quo, and always therefore seeking to change it...a task which they invariably view themselves as uniquely qualified for. That is what accounts for the fact that Planned Parenthood is staffed by a bunch of mindless automatons who blindly execute the Darwinian/Sangerian mission upon which the organization was founded. There is no need to conspire...they all march naturally in lockstep already.

[Blind Squirrel]

Is Cain electable? If a significant percentage (40 something?) of Americans pay no income tax and they hear that he will add 9% onto the sales tax as well as having them pay 9% income tax, it seems likely they will vote for whoever he runs against. Even if they would still not pay any income tax I doubt many would voluntarily sign up for paying 9% more on their purchases.

I may be misunderstanding his plan as I haven't paid much attention, but then the typical American voter doesn't tend to look too deeply into this stuff before voting. They form opinions based upon sound bites and headlines and biased talking heads from their favored news source.

John

[DonnieS]

Is Cain electable? If a significant percentage (40 something?) of Americans pay no income tax and they hear that he will add 9% onto the sales tax as well as having them pay 9% income tax, it seems likely they will vote for whoever he runs against. Even if they would still not pay any income tax I doubt many would voluntarily sign up for paying 9% more on their purchases.

I may be misunderstanding his plan as I haven't paid much attention, but then the typical American voter doesn't tend to look too deeply into this stuff before voting. They form opinions based upon sound bites and headlines and biased talking heads from their favored news source.

John

John, thats my thought - I just cant wait to hear it brought up - look this group of the whole society does not carry its weight in any way shape or form, and we are going to change that. That ought to go over great.