I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

It was ****** by an elephant, that's the whole problem.

It just means you want to have buttsex with lolgaxe, right?

In regards to corporate tax rates, I'd like to see a low corporate tax rate; let the company do its business. Highly tax salaries above a certain threshold, dividends above a certain threshold, and capitol gains from trading stocks above a certain threshold (I'm sure TLW can find a loophole, and that should be taxed, too). Basically, let the corporation have cash to hire, build, grow, and set some aside for a rainy day, but have a relatively high tax rate for people cashing out on it massively.

Just for him? If not, when and where?

Puts a whole new spin on "It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue."

I think we need lolgaxe (chest) pics first.

Back on topic, behold, Infographics!

You can be a student and still be employed, even if it's part time. Like I am.

That's a terrible picture of a hipster.

Did you not read any of my posts or the link I provided? My whole point is about tax rate changes made as the war was winding down. WTF? You just responded with a bunch of statements which don't counter anything I said. Was there a point to your post?

This is what I was commenting on: Which is wrong. During World War II taxes were increased. Also, and I admit it was my mistake for not pointing it out initially, but government spending (both military and public works, but mostly military) were actually increased during that time. In 1940 Federal Spending was about 9% of the GDP, and by 1945 it was about 41.5%, while defense spending went from about 1.5% in 1940 to a whopping 37% in 1945.

So no, during World War 2 taxes weren't reduced, nor was spending.

Edited, Nov 10th 2011 4:47pm by lolgaxe

Yes. Outstanding deduction there Watson. During WW2, taxes were increased and spending massively increased *and* ... wait for it... our debt massively increased.

AFTER WW2 (technically, while it was winding down), there was a choice about what to do with all the returning veterans and all of the people employed in the war effort. And it was at that time that FDR wanted to continue the spending and high taxes and use that money to provide jobs and social services to the people. Congress rejected this and instead lowered taxes and lowered spending and... evil people that they were... left all those people to fend for themselves. The result? The biggest economic boom in our nations history (and possibly in any nations history).

I'm not talking about what happened between 1940 and 1945. I'm talking about what happened after 1945 and the choices that were made. I'm talking about this because it shows that lowering taxes and decreasing spending absolutely can result in massive employment and a huge economic boom. Given the constant talk by the left that the only way to solve our current economic woes is to increase spending and taxes, this would seem relevant. Also relevant is that this argument is justified "because of our massive debt", but debt at the time in question (1945) was much much higher relatively speaking than our debt is today.


The point being that lowering taxes (especially on corporations) and decreasing spending was the absolute right choice then, so why do liberals just automatically discount this as even a possible solution?

Edited, Nov 10th 2011 6:01pm by gbaji

Um... Because "during" WW2, while we were spending all that money, and tax rates were so high, our debt skyrocketed. Then (meaning at the point we were in 1945) we made a decision to cut taxes and reduce spending. If you'd bothered to read the link you'd have understood what I was talking about. What part of "we made a decision to lower taxes and spending" made you think I was talking about the time period in which we had high taxes and spending?

I was making a point about the two different approaches dummy. You seriously couldn't figure that out?



You misread it, didn't bother to read the link I provided, and completely failed to grasp what I was talking about even after I clearly explained it several times. Don't blame me for this.



Huh? No. Spending and taxes (and debt) were high all during the time period we were fighting WW2. Arguably, those things increased during that period of time (I could look up the exact numbers if you want, but it really doesn't matter for the point I'm making). The point, as I have stated at least 4 times now, is that as WW2 was winding down (that's in 1945 in case you are historically challenged), FDR intended to replace the war spending with domestic jobs and social program spending. Then he died (did you read the link?). 6 months later (after FDRs death, since you apparently can't follow a logical train of thought and have to have such details spelled out to you), Truman attempted to get congress to pass the plan FDR had laid out. They rejected it soundly. Then (as in after that point in time, in case you're still being stupid), they embarked on a plan to lower taxes across the board, massively lower corporate taxes, and massively cut spending. That plan phased in over a few years, but the point is that they chose to go in the exact opposite direction that FDR had wanted.


And, despite the conventional wisdom that the free market would not be able to employ all those people, and there would be massive poverty and whatnot, instead, the exact opposite happened and we had a major economic boom. This is relevant because the liberals of today are making the same assumptions the liberals of that time did. They were wrong then. They are wrong now. But instead of facing that they were wrong, they instead ignore the actions made after 1945 and the effect they had on the economy, and pretend that the economy recovered in the lead up to and during WW2 and that the post war boom was just a continuation of their own policies coming to fruition.





I didn't sling any faulty data around. You misread what I wrote, made a frankly bizarre conclusion, and then tried to make the whole argument about something completely stupid. It's almost like you don't want to look at the actual series of events during that time period because it might just disprove some of your hard held assumptions.