“For a long time I've thought that "most beautiful" lists were absurd. It being widely accepted that fame is its own virtue, of course only famous people can considered be the most beautiful. All the rest of us are non-persons who exist only to admire the beautiful people.”
“Conservatism works great until your economy inevitably collapses in a in a speculative frenzy of Wall St. sell-offs. Then you have to elect liberals to come in a fix the whole mess - same as it ever was. Examples: the Coolidge-Hoover disaster had to be fixed by - FDR. Twelve years of Reaganomics left us the horrible economy of the early 1990's - fixed by Bill Clinton. Eight years of Bush, still recovering from that, but we have something like 46 consecutive weeks of job growth.
“Clearly, you didn't understand the meaning of my comment. The term "uppity" was used for added emphasis to the sarcasm of the comment as a whole. Maddow doesn't present her show as a straight news program and makes no claim to be unbiased. It is obviously presented as analysis of news stories with a bias toward a humanitarian point of view unlike Fox News, which is clearly propaganda and masquerades as news, but with a stridently anti-humanitarian point of view in favor of corporate interests.
I am not put off by this kind of analysis and that's why I watch her show. The whole point of her show is as a rebuttal to the misinformation that is peddled throughout the conservative media echo chamber. Fox makes its business misrepresenting the facts and Maddow's business is to attempt to correct the incalculable damage done by outlets like Fox.”
“Yes, I know you conservatives are very upset when your news isn't filtered through the bias of a pro-corporate point of view. It must be very upsetting for you that there are people out there reporting on issues without the imprimatur of Exxon, Monsanto and Big Pharma. Especially an uppity woman.”
GC1008 on Feb 25, 2014 at 11:04:42
“"Especially an uppity woman?" You really are sexist aren't you?
One of my favorite bumper stickers:
"Well behaved women rarely make history."”
“Funny how you cite a fact that disproves your point as a fact that supports your point.
Business expenditures on employee wages are pre-tax expenses. The business practice of paying employees more in order to lower the bottom line and avoid higher taxes was one that worked for many years until the age of Reagan. Money spent on wages is not literally a tax deductible. It’s an expense that is subtracted from the bottom line before taxes are calculated. Therefore, lowering tax rates on the highest earners greatly diminishes employer incentive to hire more workers and increase wages and in the long term cutting taxes holds down wages for the working class and increases the gap between the rich and the poor.
If cutting taxes resulted in increased revenues then maybe the Reagan or Bush administrations could have submitted a balanced budget JUST ONCE in their 20 years in the White House instead of doubling and tripling the national debt during those years. Of course we’ll never know how much those tax cuts would have decreased revenue because Reagan and Bush43 both massively increased federal spending at the same time which of course increases GDP, which in turn results in increased tax revenue.”
“Our current competitors protect their manufacturing jobs with very high import tariffs. China and India have much higher import tariffs on new cars, computers etc. India has a 100% excise on luxury vehicles and super bikes.
“It is true that many of the richest paid nowhere near the top rate in those decades, but they still paid a much higher percentage than they do now. This is why when JFK’s tax cut was passed in 1964 many Republicans voted against it. Even though the law cut the top rate down to 70%, it closed many tax loopholes and most of the richest ended up paying more in taxes after the law passed. That law also resulted in the period of largest GDP expansion in history. In fact, wherever you find taxes being raised after the Republicans destroy the economy you will usually find that good economies follow. Conversely, when the Republicans get everything that they want (i.e. low taxes and no regulation) you generally find economic crises, banking crises, high unemployment, and severe recessions.
When given a choice between paying more money to the IRS or giving their employees more, many employers found that a good way to avoid paying more in taxes was to increase their employees’ wages, which is one reason why a working class household on a single income did so much better in the 1950's and 1960's than they do now. Even though working class people paid higher tax rates in the 1950’s, they still were far better off than they are today in an economy where the richest often pay lower tax rates than those in the working class.”
jstanavgguy on Dec 31, 2013 at 07:32:20
“Yes, the rich always seem to pay more when taxes are cut.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
And when that happens, those at the lower end of the wage scale pay less.
Now, the reason that wages increase when tax rates drop is that employers seek ways to reduce their tax burden. Due to the fact that wages are deductible, that allows employers to reduce their taxes, while not harming their bottom line.
Another factor to keep in mind is that we had a different type of economy at that time. While then we had a production based economy, now we have an economy that is centered on the service and financial sectors.
And it is the very regulations that the left promotes that killed the production base of the economy. As regulations grew, they made the cost of doing business grow. This resulted in corporations seeking other venues for their manufacturing work. And this caused a massive shift of jobs from good paying manufacturing, to low paying service sector work.
We have people today who are working in Walmart, but 40 years ago would have been in a plant that actually made things.
If you want to change the pattern, create an environment that makes companies want to build things here, instead of just sell them here.”
A high tax rate would be the rate in the U.S. in the years during and following WW II when the top tax rate was at no point lower than 70% until the early 1980's.
It was during those decades that the U.S. built the greatest economy in the history of the world and rebuilt the middle class that had been destroyed by the supply side policies of Coolidge and Hoover.”
jshms on Dec 31, 2013 at 00:27:11
“we had no world competition after WWII since we blew up europe and parts of asia.”
jstanavgguy on Dec 30, 2013 at 20:29:34
“You are aware that those at the top of the income scale never actually paid those rates, right?
And you are also aware that those at the lower income levels paid a higher percentage of the tax burden when the rates were at that level.
My other question would be why the left supports so many policies that were advocated by marx as part of the progression to communism?”
Dosadi on Dec 30, 2013 at 20:03:24
“An then had it destroyed again by the voodoo economics of Reagan.”
“The Republican Party under Lincoln and Grant was the most progressive party in the history of the United States. Not just in ending slavery, but also the Land Grant Acts, which GAVE AWAY Federal lands for FREE public universities and farmland for those who were willing to go West and make their living farming. Among these universities is the illustrious (and Liberal) University of California at Berkeley, one of the finest universities in the world, which used to be free until Reagan, Pete Wilson and Schwarzenegger got hold of it.”
The Constitution grants the power to appoint Federal judges under the purview of the president while no such authority to block those appointments is granted to the Senate - other than their obligation to vote on those appointments. The Senate filibuster rule was adopted in 1917 by the Senate and has no Constitutional basis.”
“How I would love to see Noam Chomsky allowed on Meet the Press or the Hannity's show. Of course they know that Noam would demolish them so quickly that their game would instantly be over. The Fox hacks much prefer just to smear people like Noam from a safe distance rather than actually discuss the real state of things, which is why corporate news is ultimately so destructive.”