Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: F. Y. I. Historical Tax Rates

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 29, 2012, 3:50 a.m. EST by GypsyKing (8719)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I keep encountering lies and distortions regarding taxes in their historical context; so I'm posting this tax timeline to clear up any ambiguity. The graph at the bottom of the link is most readily comprehended. Please note the contrast in the taxation rate of the top income bracket between 1951 and 1964, when America was in it's heyday, and the most current rate.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/TaxTimeline.htm

127 Comments

127 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

Last 30 years beginning with Reagan, our slide into this muck we're in now.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

The chart spells the story plainer than words. America was still a great country in the early 60's. Good jobs, good schools, a feeling of optimism about our future. And Income taxes were 91%, on income over 200K.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22254) 2 years ago

We have a lot of ground to recoup.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

We sure do! And these figures go a LONG WAY towards explaining the federal debt as well.

[-] 0 points by Centerrightcountry (16) 2 years ago

Your wet dream rate era was also an era of rampant deductions and tax avoidance possibilities. So, unless you have some fixation with CPAs and just want their job prospects brightened, you are, again, on the wrong path.

[-] -2 points by Perspective (-243) 2 years ago

Yup and then came all the lefty hippies and look where we're at now.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Man, you are funny. Crazy leftists like Johnson and Nixon and Carter and Ford and Reagan, and Clinton, and Bush Sr, and Bush Jr? We haven't had a leftist government since Roosevelt!

[-] -2 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 2 years ago

Wrong, it began, in earnest, the day the big world money chartered The Federal Reserve, everything else that has followed has only been part of the dog and pony show.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

GK : Here is an article and links that may also speak to your point :

fiat iustitia ...

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Great links! Thanks.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I say we give them less. Why should we give politicians more of our money?

There is a reason that 4 of the top 5 richest counties in the US are minutes from Washington DC.

Lower taxes are not the reason for the recession that began with the housing crash. Americans are a resilient people and they recovery has already begun. Let's keep it going! Getting people to work is what is most important right now.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thanks for revealing your clear Republican views. Lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes . . . That's what got us here. It's like saying the cure for alchoholism is booze.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2235) 2 years ago

I believe it was G.W.Bush who said "America is addicted (to oil), we must increase supply." ......

[-] 1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

I agree with you. Howcome there are billionaires when people are homeless on the streets? Tax the rich until society becomes roughly equal.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes, simply going back to the same level of inequity we had before isn't good enough. Joe's bias comes out over time, partly due to the themes he advocates. Everyone knows why he's bashing away about this right now, we're just supposed to pretend we don't, I guess.

As far as Occupy is concerned, if Obama is bad then Romney would be far, far, worse, and this Court's choice of subject and timing reveal It's clear political activism and bias.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I do not have Republican views as they are big spenders and control freaks just like the Democrats.

I would consider myself and independent liberal.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

It's not about recovering the system, it's about changing the system. I don't see how an independent liberal would want to affirm what has happened by simply suggesting we repeat it This cycle we go through is called, "fleecing the sheep."

Well, the sheep are tired of being fleeced.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Did I say anything about repealing anything? NO.

I was saying that the mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional. I think we can take that out without repealing the whole thing. I am hoping the Supreme court will do the right thing and strike that part out.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I didn't say anything about repealing anything either, so I don't know what you're talking about.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

oh I read it wrong you said repeat it.

[-] -1 points by forbetter (54) 2 years ago

lol good point GypsyKing!

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

higher taxes - yea give the govt more money to waste. no talk about the GSA Vegas junket for 800Million taxpayer dollars. You want me to give them even more ?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Since the Repubs. are clammoring about lowering corporate tax rates yet again, lets look at these figures once more and see what the tax rates were in America's heyday, post WWII, and compare them to current rates.

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Repubs are trying to lower corporate tax rate, BUT also get rid of loopholes, although they need to be specified, I agree. I see nothing wrong with a 25% tax rate with no loopholes. In addition to this most large corporations pay enormous property taxes on facilities owned (I live in Dallas and actually looked up the facilities owned by Exxon in Dallas and it came to over $120 million worth of property, or about $4 million in property taxes, which didn't include "inventory" or personal property taxes also paid by all companies here) They sponsor all kinds of civic programs, build kids ballparks, and generally are good corporate citizens and help their communities. I am sick of them being vilified constantly. Just think if you made $1 million, and paid $250k of it in taxes, then paid another $50-$75 in property taxes, employed a maid and gardener, donated 5%-10% to your church, paid another $20 or $30k in sales taxes on all kinds of purchases, and sponsored several local athletic teams who came calling, and then were called out by your neighbors for being a greedy pig.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

and they took 21 billion from the taxpayers. you only listed a few million they payed in local taxes and community projects. 21 BILLION. and you think they are being villified??? they are laughing in your face

.Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) Chief Executive Officer Rex W. Tillerson and four counterparts defended $21 billion in U.S. tax breaks that Democrats are seeking to recapture to reduce the federal deficit.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-11/exxon-s-tillerson-says-higher-oil-taxes-won-t-help-u-s-budget.html

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

I listed a few million by ONE company in ONE town (Dallas). There are hundreds of thousands of companies paying for government in EVERY town. The taxes on every property Exxon owns contain taxes for city, county, and school district, as well as a lot of times supporting a public hospital in there as well. Without these companies paying this tax, school districts would literally dry up and blow away. They employ the citizenry where they locate, pay all kinds of taxes, do all of the other things I mentioned, and make usually a 5%-10% profit. And they're literally demonized by folks like you. I wish they'd do a movie like It's a Wonderful Life where the guy sees what life would have been like if he were not born, except I'd like it to maybe take an assortment of our large industries and make them disappear. You still probably would shrug your shoulders and say "good riddance", as you watch your fellow citizens starve.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

Just last week Exxon announced a significant increase of 41% in its quarterly earnings in spite of a 4% drop in Exxon's oil production. This is an earnings trend that will certainly continue to barrel along, given that oil prices rose another 18 % in October alone.

and you see no problem here? decrease in production,, increase in profit? you cant see a problem?

nd so it continues. Billions ranging into the hundreds of billions of dollars being transferred to oil interests from a market that has left all vestige of market pricing based on supply and demand, while our government and its hapless agencies snore away.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/exxon-profits-ironically_b_1073342.html

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Exxon doesn't set the price of oil. They are also getting better and better at lowering their per well costs of drilling. Hey, I think all of the subsidies they get are ridiculous and should be stopped immediately. But I am all for them getting as much oil out of the ground as possible. If the game were rigged, why didn't they rig the natural gas market as well? The price of NG is below $2/MCF now, down from a high of over $13 in 2008, due to the increased exploration and drilling in shale rock over the past 4-5 years.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I'm sure those corporations are working overtime to get rid of their own loopholes, the ones they lobbied Congress for. They probably have their lobyists down there all day long, taking Congresspeople out to expensive two-martini luches, inviting them for trips on company yachts with call-girls, or boys throw in, begging to have their tax exemptions cancelled. I can see it now!

[-] -1 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

You didn't address any of the good things, the contributions that corporations make. Believe it or not, we're trying to reform the system with reasonable solutions, not engage in hyperbolic ridicule as you're doing. The question is, as always, how much? What do you think is a fair contribution from them that is reasonable? And if it is agreed, are we done? Or do we come back to them again to fund future pet projects of the left?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

to pay back the 21 BILLION that they take from the taxpayers. each year!

[-] 0 points by gforz (-43) 2 years ago

Fine, get the $21 billion back. Now what?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

In my opinion the Corporate Charter should be abolished, and we should return to privately owned business, so that business owners can return to conducting business honestly.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

As boring as tax analysis is, this sums up the whole story, and everybody should take it's meaning to heart.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

sobering

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Damn straight!

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Government spending as a % of GDP was also much lower.

[-] 4 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

It didn't have to be because all the money wasn't congregating ineffectually at the top of the economy. We could fix the economy tomorrow if the government created a lot more high paying jobs for the middle class - but if you advocate that they scream "socialism!"

No matter how they play it the formula is the same, more for us, less for you.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

An article that speaks to the gist of your post :

Also ...

And again finally :

radix omnium malorum est cupiditas ...

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thanks Shadz.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

You're welcome 'GK' & tho' I recommend RT's "The Keiser Report" ( http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/ ) to everyone, the latest episode is extremely relevant - especially the 'specialist guest' second half : http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-272-max-keiser/ .

fiat justitia ...

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yes! Not only is money congregating at the top of the economy, it's just being stolen. What is the difference between this and what Bernie Madoff was doing . . . really?

Bernie Madoff is serving a life term and these guys get a regulatory slap on the wrist. It's insane.

Then we blame "gubment" for the problem. The only problem with government here is that these guys haven't been given life sentances.

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Yep. Ain't no "Trickle down Crapitalism" any more these days as it is quite clearly more of a case of 'Hoover-Up Kaputalism' !!!

verum ex absurdo ...

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

It never did trickle down, it always sucked-up.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

True. Now 'TPTB' can't even maintain the illusion or try the same stupid schtick or silly spiel any more !!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

So what is it you want to do, how are you going to create more high paying jobs? Are these jobs going to be just for the middle class and not for others?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

It's completely wrong to blame one small part of our economy (tax rates) for it's overall health. There are many factors, and in order to make a direct connection you need evidence to support your conclusion. Saying that the supposed Cause happened at the same time as the Effect is not valid.

It's like saying eating all those doughnuts instead of salad caused a recent illness when in fact the real cause was a virus. Or that taking prayer out of public school has caused America's decline.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

What got us out of the first Great Depression was through using the Kenesian multiplier theory, which would tend to contradict that assertion.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Are you replying to the correct post?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Oops, sorry.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

And your proof of that is what? Even Kennedy's "Freedom for Fear" which only looked at it anecdotally says the government programs didn't work. The answer lies in the monetary system and if you want proof of it, we are living it right now. Your man Obama should thank Bernanke for the amount of liquidity he has put in and keeps in the system. This is the big difference between then and now.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

To be honest, you're just a broken record - a propoganda machine that goes on and on without ever thinking - not even worth responding to again.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 2 years ago

Sure, my message is correct and it is proven. Yours is not.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

or raising taxes will hurt the economy, or cutting taxes will help it, I get what you're saying

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

That's great. I think the most fair tax is 99%, don't you? How well as communism fared over the past 80 years?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

How about Sweden, Norway and Denmark?

[-] 0 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

Those are small-population countries with homogeneous populations. They are socialist, not communist, countries, by the way.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Who the HELL here ever said anything about communism exept you?

The truth is none of you want answers, that's why you're here, to disrupt and confuse.

[-] -1 points by MikeInOhio (13) 2 years ago

Apparently I am doing a great job because you are seriously confused about everything.

Again, I wouldn't run my mouth if I was as poorly educated as you.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

how about we increase the taxes for the bottom 50% who pay zero fed income tax? That sounds fair to me - 10% flat tax for all income period. That's the only truly "fair" tax. the same for everybody. Otherwise you get into this ridiculous debate that is incapable of being resolved just by it's open ended nature. keep a couple of deductions like mortgage interest on your primary residence & investment in new equipment if you own a business. That's it. AND you don't get to vote on what someone else pays in taxes if you don't pay any yourself.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Increase taxes on those below the poverty level and lower them for the 1%. Gotcha! Now whay are you here again?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

everyone pays the same rate. that's fair. people in poverty can seek charity - the old fashion way. You are not "entitled" to welfare payments.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I'm not going to bother replying to known trolls anymore, and I recomend others just let their comments die on the vine.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

So, in a country that 225 years old, we have only been paying taxes to the federal government for 99 years. Maybe we should downsize the federal government by using the tax rate prior to 1913.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Maybe we should go back to treating every medical condition with leaches.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

It would work as well as funding excessive government with income taxes.

I am glad we can agree on this point. Great post GK!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Not everything old is good. Life in 19th century America was ""nasty, brutish and short" for most Americans, in spite of how it's been glamourized.

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Yes, but the ideas are new and revolutionary. The founders were brilliant and put together a government that would insure the liberty and property of individuals that formed a country that would change the world for the better. OWS seems to be wanting to revolutionize back to the days when individuals were the possession of the government. That has been tried before and has led to misery. This is one case where the new government is far better than the old.

[-] 0 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

did you know the federal income tax only came along when prohibition was enacted to replace the tax on booze? then when prohib was repealed they kept the income tax anyway. figures right lol! now look at it

[-] 0 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

Income tax started in 1913. Prohibition in 1919.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 2 years ago

What about deductions? The liberal wet dream days was extreme rates, but a swiss cheese tax code where only dummies actually paid it. Smarten up and drop the propaganda.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

You're right - nothing makes sense, and there's an exception to every rule, so just give it up and go back to that job you don't have - that won't pay the mortgage on the house you don't own, and shut up and let the oligarchy handle it - after all, it's their country.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by NOAMISRICH (28) 2 years ago

Again, the rich back then DID NOT pay 90% in taxes.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

America was NOT in it's "heyday" between 1951 and 1964, there were several recessions and growth was not as high as it was in the eighties or the mid 2000's......

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

“A commitment to classical budget principles was adopted by the Federal government in an attempt to reduce the size of the Federal budget, improve operating efficiency of departments, and to reduce waste. A reliance was put on private investment in the belief that economic growth would therefore take care of itself. Government expenditures on military and defense declined slightly following the end of the Korean War and those funds were redirected into highway and airport grants as well as into social welfare programs. The expanding role of government in the economy led to huge increases in taxes, especially income taxes, and a corresponding increase in the amounts of services that the Government was providing. Tax rates continued to climb during this period as the government needed ever increasing funding to finance new activities. By the end of 1953, Eisenhower faced a lagging economy as a result of the Korean armistice's sharp military cutbacks. A mild recession reached its peak in January 1954 with unemployment rates topping out over 6 percent. Eisenhower's first order of business was to ask Congress to curb the growth of federal spending. His budget for 1954 reduced Truman's proposed expenditures of $79 billion by $5 billion and cut the projected deficit of nearly $10 billion in half. In April, he approved a revised request for new appropriations of nearly $63.2 billion, with the largest reduction coming, ironically, in national security programs. Putting a balanced budget above defense prevailed because Ike insisted that the real issue was the long-term security of the U.S., to survive. In fiscal year 1955, he cut the defense budget by another $5 billion.” ...........

“By mid- 1955, the country had pulled out of the previous year's recession and gross national product was growing at a rate of 7.6 percent. The boom was so great that the budget for 1956 predicted a surplus of $4.1 billion. With the surges in production and the economy, the 1950s is often recognized as the decade that eliminated poverty for the great majority of Americans.

Over the decade, GNP per capita almost doubled and the public welfare reacted accordingly as the cost of living index rose by just 1 percent and unemployment dropped to 4.1 percent (Barach, 90).

An average of three million people per year were added during the postwar "Baby Boom". With their rising incomes and increasing public welfare, booms in consumer spending were prevalent and items that had been previously thought of as luxuries were now necessities. Examples of this include fashion clothing, televisions, washing machines, etc. The propensity of the mid-fifties is attributable to the middle-class family striving for the American dream through increasing their number of material possessions. In fiscal year 1958, Eisenhower's budget of $73.3 billion sparked debate because it marked an increase of $2.8 billion over the previous fiscal year, despite analysts' predictions of a slight surplus. A Battle of the Budget ensued over the highest expenditure proposal in peacetime, with fears of an upcoming depression if spending continued at current levels. Eventually, Congress provided Eisenhower with $4 billion less than he had requested. The economy turned sharply downward in the summer of 1957 and reached its low point in spring 1958. Industrial production fell 14 percent, corporate profits plummeted 25 percent, and unemployment rose to 7.5 percent (Vatter,115). The president did little to stimulate the economy because he worried about inflation - not unemployment - as the real danger. Subsequently, fiscal year 1959 realized a $12 billion deficit, a new record for a budget shortfall during peacetime.”

This looks like days full of hay to me.

http://homepages.gac.edu/~jcullip/workexamples/mea.html#http://www.gac.edu/~jcullip/workexamples/mea.html#3

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

wow, did you copy and paste that yourself....how scholarly of you.....

nice how you parrot the opinions of others....

Now go research the facts yourself, douche.....Look at the recessions, look at the diminishing force in the market place we were becoming due to the war ravaged countries repairing their infrastructure, and rising to compete with us (see: China, Japan, etc) Then look at the wage and employment pressures in the US, who denied and fought that change, and the crumbling US manufacturing infrastructure due to the labor pressures and tax policy that were a disincentive to investment and expansion to many small and medium sized countries.....

The only thing "Hay" about the years succeeding the war, was that we had a few years of being the only game in town, so the market pressures were abated for those few years.....but people got used to the absence of market forces which create a need for efficiency.....so when the cheaper products began reaching our shores from those rebuilding countries, in the late 50's early 60's, they were welcomed....and our workers and manufacturers couldn't compete due to regulation and out of reality compensation, benefit, regulatory, and taxation costs.......

you don't even digest and research this stuff.....you just go looking for someone else's work to plagiarize.....get a clue, douche

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

There are lies, damn lies, and then things slammer said.

If you think 4% unemployment and over 8% growth are not so good, tell me when we’ve had that under GOP president in the last thirty years? No fair using the Great Bill Clinton years For more than a couple of months.

oh forgot...douchebag

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

nice cherry-picking...AGAIN

the rate was only near 4% for a single year out of that range 51-64 (using annual numbers), staying around 5.5% for most of that time...

from 2004-2007 it was 5.5, 5.1, 4.6, 4.6.... and, after the cap gains rate cut in 1997 the rates stayed below 5% for 5 years, never exceeding 6%, even during the recession of 2002-03......it was 6.8% in 1958

and GDP growth was fits and starts all throughout the dropping below zero in 54, 57,58, 61....and near zero in 52 and 59....

from 1983 to 2007, there were only two negative growth years, 91 and 2001.....

why don't you do some research, instead of running off half stupid and parroting the statements of others.....you wouldn't look so damn stupid

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The right always wants to bring back the bad parts of the past, gays in the closet, blacks knew their place, and men slept with whom they pleased, those are the things they want to bring back from the 50’s cause you know the 50’s were so great. But talk about the tax rates of the 50’s and all of a sudden “it was hell.”

Tell you what Mr. Distracter, want to see what the pros thought of the 50’s instead bogging people down with a bunch of misleading numbers.

So before we get started you have stated that we had negative growth in 54, 57, 58 and 61 which would mean much worse recessions than we just went through, I don’t see how we kept unemployment down to 5.5% avg throughout all those years. But to show once again what a huge liar you are it might be worth it, so for the record you say we had recessions in 54, 57 58 and 61 resulting in more bad years in a decade than we have had in the past 30, OK I’ll take on that lie, if that’s what you are saying.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

I have no idea what you are talking about?

Civil rights legislation was blocked by democrats (some who remained for many years or are legacies of those who were opposed: Byrd, Gore, Hollings, Faubus, Wallace)....so don't put the "bad parts of the past" on republicans......it's not republicans who consider minorities some sort of perpetual underclass that cannot survive on their own and who have to be "kept" in place or supported......

I don't care what the "pro's" (those you parrot) say...do your own analysis of what occurred....but, feel free to spin the facts as you always do....

I'll help you with the data, since you have trouble with that:

From Q3/53-Q2/54 = -10.55 (-2.4, -6.2, -1.9, +0.5)

From Q1/57-Q2/58 = -6.6 (+2.5, -1, +3.8, -4.1, -10.4, +2.5)

From Q2/60-Q1/61 = -3.8 (-1.9, +0.7, -5, +2.4)

.

From Q4/82-Q3/90 = NO negative GDP growth

From Q4/90-Q1/91 = -5.4 (-3.5, -1.9)

From Q2/91-Q4/00 = NO negative GDP growth

Q1/01 = -1.3

Q3/01 = -1.1

From Q4/01-Q4/07 = No negative GDP Growth

The 80's, 90's, and 2000's were more "Hayday" than the 50's.....

Sorry....

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Wait a minute do I see you cutting between fiscal years? I thought you hated that, Ok so we start off with you admitting that Clinton did balance the budget after all, right?

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

economic growth and federal budgets are two distinctly different things, GDP is the private economy......fiscal year budgets are governmental spending/revenue

apples and oranges

and no, Clinton never balanced a budget, for two reasons..."HE" never got one of HIS budgets passed, and when you include the borrowing against Social Security receipts there was never a "balance"...EVER

To "balance" a budget you must stay within the confines of that "budget"

You do understand the words Fiscal Year Budget.....right? that when one ends and another begins the data cannot be carried over to claim that "parts" of each budget were balanced...you DO understand that...right?

You do understand the Federal Budgets have a specific beginning and ending date (Oct 01-Sept 30) and the data for one year does not apply to the analysis of the previous or succeeding years......

Just so we're clear...

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Here's something for those who really want to see what happened:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-do-we-stop-this-from-happening-again/

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Thanks for the link.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

it's an outline by news story about the GOP's rush to stop Washington from taking in too much money, back in the summer of 2001, I think it's a big story going into what we are trying to "balance the budget" we need to remember we did this before, the GOP love to sign pledges, I want a pledge they will not cut taxes if we fix this, again

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

once again there was no budget that was "balanced"...not one, since 1952.......ZERO

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Date Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding

03/30/2000 Not Available Not Available 5,788,541,874,357.52

08/22/2001 Not Available Not Available 5,779,164,972,811.46

Here we see at the end of President Bill Clinton’s presidency that public debt was stable for 15 months. It is your position that by picking dates it is easy to show this happening at any point. I have ask you to demonstrate this at any other time in the past 40 years, as I know it is a lie, and you have failed to do so. So you continue to call me a lair when there ample evidence that I am not so you continue to prove that you are.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

your dates not only span over two fiscal year budgets, but also span over two separate congressional sessions.......the 106th and the 107th congresses....... Unfortunately for you, that is not how balanced budgets work, and that period was far from stable.......just because you can post a beginning and end date taht gives the appearance of stability doesn't mean that the facts support it.. at the end of fiscal 2000 in Sept of 2000 the debt was 5,674,178,209,886.86 So, your stability added 105 billion to the debt in less than a year.....although you try to paint a different picture........ and the debt at the beginning of FY 2000 in Oct of 1999 was 5,656,270,901,633.43 so the 106th congress and Clinton added 132 billion in debt in only 6 months from oct-march Your cherry picking and faulty analysis is laughable.... I guess if the person who owned a used car that you purchased only drove it 100 miles 6 months before you bought it, and you only drove it 150 miles the nine months after you bought it you could claim it was barely used.....even if they beat the shit out of it prior to that six months and you did the same 9 months after....... get your head out of your ass..... Clinton didn't pass budgets anyway...he only signed the budget presented to him.....if anyone is responsible for your fallacious point it would be the republican congress...NOT Clinton....who, again, under a Democrat Congress had higher deficits than Reagan.....

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Ok for 15 months at the end of the Clinton presidency and at no other time in past forty years nothing was added to the public debt of America. Is that better we both agree that is true and any statement to the contrary is a lie, correct?

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

it isn't true........because in the fiscal year budget that ended in the first part of that 15 months the spending/revenue created debt, and in the fiscal year budget that began in the second part of that 15 months the spending/revenue created debt......

you cannot cherrypick dates that encompass two fiscal year budgets, authorized under two entirely different legislative budgets and say there was a balance......the end of one thing and the beginning of another cannot by their very nature create a balance.......there is NOT continuation from one budget cycle to the next, there must be a reconciliation of the encapsulated spending/revenue at the end of a budget year and a fresh start in the beginning of a new budget year...

I don't know how to explain it any other way.....you simple refuse to see the reality of budgetary spending because it doesn't support your assertion....so you have to make up your own guidelines to attempt to give it credibility.......you are not living in reality....

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Yes, because opinion stories from news reporters are facts......hahaha!

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not sure what you're trying to lie about now, are you saying the Republicans weren't running all over Washington crying about how the government was taking in too much money. Are you saying that didn't happen?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Talk about bullshit and cherry picking!!

Do you ever get embarssed by the crap you have to say?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So in your world time is not continuous? Where 15 continuous months don’t encompass a year, you really do live in a fantasy world, not even reality censors you when you start spinning tales.

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

not in discussion of "budgets" which have a beginning and end date clearly known and specified......and when those 15 continuous months don't have any trend of less spending, just a random up and down where there ARE periods of increased deficit, followed by periods of decreased deficit......you simple cherrypick a number from one year that is low, and find another 15 months later that is low.....if you moved either of your numbers even a few weeks/months you get a different result......

and your numbers are not based on the analysis of "budgets" which since you apparently have a difficult time grasping, I will define for you.....

BUDGET:

"budg·et (bjt)

n.

1. a. An itemized summary of estimated or intended expenditures for a given period along with proposals for financing them: 'submitted the annual budget to Congress.' b. A systematic plan for the expenditure of a usually fixed resource, such as money or time, during a given period: 'A new car will not be part of our budget this year'. c. The total sum of money allocated for a particular purpose or period of time: 'a project with an annual budget of five million dollars.'

You notice "given period" in the definition? the "Given Period of USA Federal Budgets is Oct1-Sept30.......not Jan-Fen, or July-June, or Aug-the following Oct........

Are you really that confused and trapped by the defense of your ideology that the definition of simple words must be discarded to create a false "proof" to your incorrect assertions? Seriously?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Date Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding

03/30/2000 Not Available Not Available 5,788,541,874,357.52

08/22/2001 Not Available Not Available 5,779,164,972,811.46

Here we see at the end of President Bill Clinton’s presidency that public debt was stable for 15 months. It is your position that by picking dates it is easy to show this happening at any point. I have ask you to demonstrate this at any other time in the past 40 years, as I know it is a lie, and you have failed to do so. So you continue to call me a lair when there ample evidence that I am not so you continue to prove that you are.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This is like saying adding to you credit card debt only matters if you look at certain dates, you use a bunch of bullshit to try and keep people from knowing the truth, we were doing pretty good till Bush fucked it up, and that is simple truth you can make that not true by rewriting a bunch of definitions, you do this only to run from truth those of us who tell the truth to start with, don't need to hide behind bullshit.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

no, that is what YOU are saying.......

You are saying exactly that.......thanks for the analogy...

your assertion is if you have a $2000 limit credit card and you charge up $1000 dollars in Jan then don't use it again until April of the following year when you charge the remaining $1000 dollars that for the 15 months in-between your budget was balanced, and you were doing something right......despite the fact that in the end you have more debt than you began with......

YOU need to face reality and face that without the Republican congress elected in 1994, Clinton and the Democrats would have continued to run deficits larger than all but one year of Reagan's......and that we would be in much worse shape than we are now...

And...

If the Democrats in 2007 hadn't raped the economy through bad regulatory and legislative policy which eroded consumer and commercial confidence in the economy that the reduction in deficit spending would have continued......

Your TRUTH is nothing BUT bullshit.....

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

yeah that's right after Bush came in debt went up, that's my point

[-] -2 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

debt went up every year under Clinton.......and he never had a recession....he just left one for Bush43

Reagan and Bush41 left the economy flush for Clinton........

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

hmmm I'm having trouble finding that GDP number for before 1960, could you help me out with a link?

oh and like Johnson didn't know he would lose the south for a generation, how stupid do you think people are?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you for the link,

GDP growth 1951 to 1964, 205%, 1981 to 1994 238% kudos you win based on GDP, over the time period, I did not know that, good job, I will look at some quality of life issues, hard to believe every economic professor in the country could be wrong, but maybe that explains a lot of things.

Still you would think that if cutting rates was a big deal, going from 90% to 15% would have more effect.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You do know that GDP has little to do with economic conditions for most people in the country?

The fifties resulted in huge movement of people out of poverty, less wealth to the rich and more to workers than the 80's/90's, it is the kind of economy we should be trying to build and exposes the lie that giving more to the rich will trickle down, the most people did far better when rates where much higher on the wealthy, and we grew almost as fast, but with much more growth in wages, just a little less growth in the trust funds.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

Atlanta (Coke), Detroit (Ford/GM), Toledo (AMC/Jeep), Pittsburgh (Steel), Bethlehem (Steel), LA (Movies/Oil), Houston (Oil/Shipping), Gary IN (Steel), Spring Hill TN (Saturn).......and I could go on all day. These ALL prove that "trickle down" does work......that a business can open, and feed ancillary and supporting commerce for the workers of the original business, then more people can branch out and create more new business and service industry to support those growing numbers of workers....

I think you have an incorrect view of "trickle down"...it doesn't mean that if I make more money I directly give you more money for the same level of service or effort that you have always been giving....it means that the base expands, and it works great until the labor unions, government regulators and tax and spend liberals get their greedy hands into the mix......

We have already discussed the 50's and pointed out that they weren't the salad days everyone falsely believes they are.....and there wasn't less "wealth" to the "rich", and even though there may have appeared to be less "income", it was only because assets were sheltered from taxation, and deductions were many for businessmen, and individual taxpayers.....when Reagan lowered the capital gains rate there was an EXPLOSION of new industry and investment......I guess you don't remember the massive expansion of tech in the 80's-today.....and the relatively flat level of tech from the end of WW2 through the late seventies.....there were inventions, Television (but TV remained largely unchanged for a couple decades, not he case after Reagan) Computers (but they never really took off until there was money to invest in the potential, and that didn't occur until the 80's), etc, etc, etc......

If you want "salad days" for this country those would be from the mid eighties to the mid 2000's, and that period was EXACTLY spurred by supply-side "trickle-down" economics...and largely controlled legislatively and administratively by Republicans (even Clinton's top advisor Dick Morris was a Republican conservative, and Clinton was more concerned about his place in the history books that he was his ideology.....so when he saw it was working, he shifted far to the right)

and no one "gives" more to the rich.....I guess you don't understand what earning money means.....you must think there is some benevolent force that distributes money to people?

The reason that "most people" aren't doing as well now, as opposed to 60 years ago, is that there used to be lots of semi-skilled jobs in the marketplace, and those who got college degree's had a ticket to guaranteed employment......that is not the market we enjoy anymore......now if you want a better life you have to expand your skills and talents and expend some effort to improve yourself.....you can't go run a punch machine for 50 years and retire with a gold watch.....we aren't the only game in town in the marketplace anymore like we were when most of the world was still rebuilding from the destruction of a world war, and our industrial infrastructure was not only untouched, but was increased due to the war.....

The disparity in effort and preparation is a far greater chasm, now...than the disparity in wages......the amount of professional development done by your so-called "most-people" is very low.....most stop at college, many perhaps attend a seminar every year or couple of years, and large numbers attend only brief meetings where they grumble and refuse to learn anything new........

While those at the top levels of income set daily goals for improvement, attend seminars and workshops on a regular basis, they read non-fiction books about self-improvement, and work on their own development rather than seek diversion and entertainment......

and the proof is in the results.....

But, I don't know why I'm bothering to tell you, you will deny anything that doesn't support your philosophy of the loser identity and make someone else at fault and worthy of blame......it's much easier to shake a fist and complain than look in the mirror and make real changes...I get it

That is what OWS is all about, another distraction from having to look into the mirror of reality and come to terms with problems in personal philosophy and professional/personal development.......

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The lowest paid work the hardest, a great disparity indeed, how do we fix this?

The high tax rates of the fifties allowed us to pay down debt, build the freeways and the St. Laurence waterway, things that private money would never do, in the eighties people like Al Gore funded the internet and it did do some good then too, but it is a pure lie that high tax rates keep us from achieving growth, which the substantial growth of the fifties proves.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

who says they work the hardest? simple tasks don't generate much in the way of income....whether they are physically demanding or not......

the high marginal tax rates of the 50's didn't create any more revenue compared to GDP than did the rates of the eighties.....in fact, in 1988 the historically low rates of 15 and 28% FLOODED the treasury with revenue.......which the Democrats in charge of congress (both houses) promptly spent.....

and there was no "pay down" of the debt in the 50's.....there were two years where there were small surpluses, preceded and followed by massive amounts of deficits.....

why do you keep posting this clear bullshit?

Please try some facts, instead of grasping at anything that appears at first glance to back up you incorrect point......you really are beginning to look like a retard.....and I am getting tired of doing retarded laps where you are proven wrong by data and you then simple start fresh with the same point that was just disproved......I think you are actually retarded and cannot engage in critical thinking or factual analysis...you simply take a position and will defend it despite the evidence to the contrary....

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

“A commitment to classical budget principles was adopted by the Federal government in an attempt to reduce the size of the Federal budget, improve operating efficiency of departments, and to reduce waste. A reliance was put on private investment in the belief that economic growth would therefore take care of itself. Government expenditures on military and defense declined slightly following the end of the Korean War and those funds were redirected into highway and airport grants as well as into social welfare programs. The expanding role of government in the economy led to huge increases in taxes, especially income taxes, and a corresponding increase in the amounts of services that the Government was providing. Tax rates continued to climb during this period as the government needed ever increasing funding to finance new activities. By the end of 1953, Eisenhower faced a lagging economy as a result of the Korean armistice's sharp military cutbacks. A mild recession reached its peak in January 1954 with unemployment rates topping out over 6 percent. Eisenhower's first order of business was to ask Congress to curb the growth of federal spending. His budget for 1954 reduced Truman's proposed expenditures of $79 billion by $5 billion and cut the projected deficit of nearly $10 billion in half. In April, he approved a revised request for new appropriations of nearly $63.2 billion, with the largest reduction coming, ironically, in national security programs. Putting a balanced budget above defense prevailed because Ike insisted that the real issue was the long-term security of the U.S., to survive. In fiscal year 1955, he cut the defense budget by another $5 billion.” ...........

“By mid- 1955, the country had pulled out of the previous year's recession and gross national product was growing at a rate of 7.6 percent. The boom was so great that the budget for 1956 predicted a surplus of $4.1 billion. With the surges in production and the economy, the 1950s is often recognized as the decade that eliminated poverty for the great majority of Americans.

Over the decade, GNP per capita almost doubled and the public welfare reacted accordingly as the cost of living index rose by just 1 percent and unemployment dropped to 4.1 percent (Barach, 90).

An average of three million people per year were added during the postwar "Baby Boom". With their rising incomes and increasing public welfare, booms in consumer spending were prevalent and items that had been previously thought of as luxuries were now necessities. Examples of this include fashion clothing, televisions, washing machines, etc. The propensity of the mid-fifties is attributable to the middle-class family striving for the American dream through increasing their number of material possessions. In fiscal year 1958, Eisenhower's budget of $73.3 billion sparked debate because it marked an increase of $2.8 billion over the previous fiscal year, despite analysts' predictions of a slight surplus. A Battle of the Budget ensued over the highest expenditure proposal in peacetime, with fears of an upcoming depression if spending continued at current levels. Eventually, Congress provided Eisenhower with $4 billion less than he had requested. The economy turned sharply downward in the summer of 1957 and reached its low point in spring 1958. Industrial production fell 14 percent, corporate profits plummeted 25 percent, and unemployment rose to 7.5 percent (Vatter,115). The president did little to stimulate the economy because he worried about inflation - not unemployment - as the real danger. Subsequently, fiscal year 1959 realized a $12 billion deficit, a new record for a budget shortfall during peacetime.”

This looks like days full of hay to me.

http://homepages.gac.edu/~jcullip/workexamples/mea.html#http://www.gac.edu/~jcullip/workexamples/mea.html#3

so this guy got it compeletly wrong? it sounds about right to me, where did he get it wrong?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

everybody whop has ever had a job says it, have you ever been to work? I use to hear that all the time, and saw it too, the less you're paid, the harder you work.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

holy s**t, I'll be back

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Only correct if you are in the 1%. Ever hear the words "jobless recovery?" You are missing the whole point. The point is not aggrigate wealth, but income distribution, and furthermore, you know it.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Notice how he left out the really high growth of the 90's, I wonder why?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/djia-reagan-238-clinton-325-bush-22-obama-154-3yea/

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yeah, I wonder why?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Did you see the "Reagan" did it? Why don't they ever tell us Cater brought the Wall down?

Talk about cherry pickers!

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

It's all nothing but lies and propoganda from the right wing, and lying by omission is their first and formost tactic. People really need to study our own history from non-biased sources, because the compliant media had largely written, or I should say whitewashed, American history since WWII, and the truth is not what is, but mostly what isn't, written by the mainstream publishers.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

that is true, with the passing of Wallace, I was thinking about how newspeople can't tell the truth anymore, I mean if there was a truthful story about wealth in America, anybody who reported it would be labeled a leftie if they were as honest and truthful as possible, take me for instance I just tell the truth and people call me a leftie, they have done this because they can, we have to trun that can into can't, but nobody is going to pay to get that message out there.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Agreed! That is why the people who say the media has a left-wing bias are insane. If the media even gets near the actual truth it is accused of left-wing bias because we no longer have truth, either in the present stream of information, or in the current modern history texts.

What we have is a manufactured narrative.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

as you have said, this didn't happen by accident, that is why we need places like this where we can develop the counter points, I just hope those with other skills read them....

[+] -4 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

the 90's were an extension of the 80's, as much as you lib's like to deny that....and the largest period of growth in the 90's was AFTER the Republican congress, and the Cap Gains rate reduction of 97......

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (5907) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

oh yeah I forgot to confuse the facts with your spin, sorry

[-] -1 points by JanitorInaDrum (134) 2 years ago

But the better question is, WHY was it implemented?

Note that it was implemented within ONE YEAR of the Federal Reserve being chartered and prior to WWI.

The answer is not that income tax was implemented in order to grow the Federal Government to it's current day behemoth and very bloated size, that's resulted in order to perpetuate the illusion of democracy.

Another good question to answer is when did Abstract Vehicle and Property titles come into being, why, and how were such possessions papered prior? Ibid for birth certificates.

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

One of the functions of government, is to prevent the rise of a dispairity of wealth, that turns society into a wasteland. Without government, in a capitalist system, this takes place very quickly as wealth is concentrated. The question then becomes, do we want to govern ourselves, or be governed by feudal lords?

I know the answer to that for myself very clearly - I want a return to democracy, unpolluted by private money, and I want to govern myself.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

"When America had its heyday"

I hate to break it to you, the largest period of growth of the US tax revenue occurred from 2004-2007...AFTER the Bush43 tax cut.....

and the longest peacetime period of economic growth occurred from 1982-2007

The 50's and 60's were NOT America's "heyday"....except to those attempting to revise history......

and the top tax rates also had massive amounts of deductions and the effective rates NEVER came close to the marginal rates.......not even close. There was also much less investment in new technologies and industry due to the confiscatory Capital Gains rates during those times......

also, during those years we were the only advanced nation with a manufacturing and production infrastructure not negatively effected by the war, or civil unrest (ours, in fact, was stimulated by the war effort)......if the 50's and 60's were anything they were static and inert.....but they weren't a dynamic and full of progress.....that happened in the 80's, 90's, and early-mid 2000's when enterprise and industriousness was unleashed by a reduction in tax penalty for investment.......

[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

Yeah, and the standard of living for most Americans has been in steady decline since the early sixties. Anybody who says otherwise is full of it. In 1964 even bus drivers and grocery clerks could own their own home and raise a family. So, if you've been in the 1%, it's been great since '64. For everyone else it's been a long slide to the bottom. The graph shows why.

[+] -4 points by slammersworldwillnotbecensored (-184) 2 years ago

you are delusional and uninformed.......if everything was so flush in 1964 why did they create welfare/medicare/ext......under the lie of "the Great Society"

your myopic view is just sad.....

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8719) 2 years ago

I didn't "create" that chart. It's historical fact.