• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

This nails it.

I Liked this coment left by a reader:

By libertarian's logic, the period from 1945 to 1970 should have been an economic disaster: we spent money on building highways, airports, the space pogram, the GI Bill, the Marshall Plan, the Cold War, and more. Taxes on the highest brackets were set at 91%. According to libertarians, we must have done everththing wrong, yet after World War Two (by the the way, the largest public works project in American History that also ended unemployment), we saw the longest and most sustained period of growth and prosperity in Amrericcan History--and it extended beyond the wealthy to people in all classes. Moreover, the debt was reduced considerably by 1974, in spite of it all. There is little historical rhyme or reason to link government spending to economic fortunes. 1835 is the only year ever that we have had no national debt in the US. Yet a year later, the Panic of 1837 plunged the country into a recession. The point: the recession might not have been CAUSED by being in the black, but by the same token, it did not prevent it either. Austerity, to all you libertarians, is a policy of barking up the wrong tree! Get with the picture: a laissez-faire system is great for generating profits for the few, but without rules and balance, it won't achieve anything else, and in the long run, it will lead to the decay of the American Republic.
 
Cut wasteful government programs and apply a 15% flat tax to all.

Next.

You forgot to add the part about making an amendment to the constitution requiring a balanced budget. :D

X's 2 on the flat tax, as long as the politicians aren't allowed to raise it, EVER.
 
Why is it that the Progressives/Liberals alway think they are entitled to the money that some else made?

Get off your ass and make your own.
 
I Liked this coment left by a reader:

By libertarian's logic, the period from 1945 to 1970 should have been an economic disaster: we spent money on building highways, airports, the space pogram, the GI Bill, the Marshall Plan, the Cold War, and more. Taxes on the highest brackets were set at 91%. According to libertarians, we must have done everththing wrong, yet after World War Two (by the the way, the largest public works project in American History that also ended unemployment), we saw the longest and most sustained period of growth and prosperity in Amrericcan History--and it extended beyond the wealthy to people in all classes. Moreover, the debt was reduced considerably by 1974, in spite of it all. There is little historical rhyme or reason to link government spending to economic fortunes. 1835 is the only year ever that we have had no national debt in the US. Yet a year later, the Panic of 1837 plunged the country into a recession. The point: the recession might not have been CAUSED by being in the black, but by the same token, it did not prevent it either. Austerity, to all you libertarians, is a policy of barking up the wrong tree! Get with the picture: a laissez-faire system is great for generating profits for the few, but without rules and balance, it won't achieve anything else, and in the long run, it will lead to the decay of the American Republic.

This. Post WWII growth was insane, and it's the reason why people like my parents, and a large population of 45-65 year olds exist.

It was the first time since the depression that people had spending money, and it was the beginning of mass consumerism. (Babies, houses, cars, tv's.)

Is it just me, or are people blatantly ignoring history?
 
I would question the idea of the largest public works project being after WWII. As far as I recall from history class, Roosevelt's Public Works Administration, in conjunction with the Reclamation Service/Bureau of Reclamation, dwarfs just about any publics works before or since.
 
I would question the idea of the largest public works project being after WWII. As far as I recall from history class, Roosevelt's Public Works Administration, in conjunction with the Reclamation Service/Bureau of Reclamation, dwarfs just about any publics works before or since.

The original post stated WWII was the largest project, not after WWII.

Think about it for a second more people were working during the early 1940s (WWII) than during the later part of the depression when all the large scale infrastructure projects (Hoover Dam, TVA, bridge & highway building) were going on. WWII saw the 1st large scale employment of women beyond the textile industry working outside the home.

Again, I am not the author of that comment, I cut-n-pasted from the comments section of the link.
 
I read an article recently that the government (federal) can pull in about 19% of GDP on average regardless of the stated tax rate.
Source:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254034/hausers-law-reality-isnt-negotiable-veronique-de-rugy
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/wsj-hausers-law.html

It doesn't seem to matter how you split it up. That's all they manage to collect. Based on that, (you know, working with that thing called "reality") the fed needs to stay within/around that range on a continuing basis. We're currently spending around 25% GDP. Every projection shows that percentage going up, not down.

Regardless of who you think should pay more taxes, somebody needs to pay more taxes to make up the difference. Problem is, no mater what the tax rate is set at, you run up against the 19% wall.
The other choice is for the govt. to spend less.

Note about taxes: The wealthy are just like everyone else. They don't like giving money to the government. They just have the resources to avoid giving it up. Trying to force more then they're will to give doesn't work. They(the wealthy) have the means to shelter their wealth, or flee. That's what happens in every country that tries to confiscate wealth.(It's that ugly "reality" thing again.)
 
I
The other choice is for the govt. to spend less.

Trying to force more then they're will to give doesn't work. They(the wealthy) have the means to shelter their wealth, or flee. That's what happens in every country that tries to confiscate wealth.(It's that ugly "reality" thing again.)

The "business practices" of the Federal Reserve is what need to be scrutinized and changed. The reason that we are experiencing rapid inflation is due to the Fed driving the value of the dollar down by printing more money in their historically flawed attempt to "stumulate" the economy.

2008 Quantatative Easing (money printing) predictions by Wall St Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122973431525523215.html

2010 Fed prints more money: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592471354774194.html

2011 Definition of insanity http://www.financeandeconomics.org/Articles archive/2011.01.05 Money dies.htm
 
It's the uber-rich that are the problem... the so-called "elite".


Quantitative Easing = the exit strategy of an endgame... The FED is only prolonging the inevitable by design.


For a better understanding of the Federal Reserve...

Money, Banking, & The Federal Reserve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N--ecIbbTpY

The Creature From Jekyll Island (lecture)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_VqX6J93k

The Money Masters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn4eDi4QJDk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIsEBcSAJq8
.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top