Never have so few complained so much about having to do so little!

[bvar22]

In the 50s, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower set the Income Tax Rate on the RICHEST Americans at 91%, and Corporate taxes around 50%.
The majority of the Republican & Democratic Party, and most Americans believed that the RICH and War Profiteers should do their part in Paying Off the huge National Debt accumulated fighting WW2 & Korea.

Of course, the RICH Whined and Complained that this was TOO much.They screamed that they were being treated unfairly, that they would just stop working and creating jobs, and would LEAVE America before they would pay such high rates.
To paraphrase Churchill,
[font size=3]Never have so few complained so much about having to do so little![/font]

…but President Eisenhower went ahead anyway.
He gave the very RICH two choices:

Choice 1: Continue to amass huge personal wealth, and the government will take 90% past the point of RICH, and use THAT to build infrastructure, create jobs, pay teachers, fund schools, provide minimal social services to ALL Americans, and provide low interest mortgages for new home buyers.

Choice 2: At the point of RICH, stop siphoning exorbitant salaries, perks, and extreme benefits from your business, and instead make YOUR business one of the BEST places to work in our country
with High Wages, good benefits, and safe working conditions for YOUR workers.

Most of America’s RICH took Choice 2, and instead of sucking all the money OUT of their businesses, they re-invested it in high salaries and good benefits for their workers.

This encouraged competition among businesses for the very BEST Workers. If the Corporate Owners couldn’t spend the money on Yachts, they chose to spend it hiring and keeping the very best workers AWAY from the competition. This dynamic helped build the Largest, Wealthiest, and most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the WORLD had ever seen.

Both Owners and Employees benefited greatly.
In the 50s and 60s, there was actually PRIDE and LOYALTY in working for a good employer who ”Took Care of his People.”

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower’s idea of a significant marginal rate cut was to push the top rate down to 91 percent from 92 percent. Corporate taxes hit 50 percent. Jobs proliferated, wages rose, and the economy prospered.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare.html

Unfortunately, some of the very RICH wanted to be even RICHER,
and worked tirelessly to change this balance.
Ultimately, they were successful, and since the 80s,
it has been a downhill Race-to-the-Bottom for Americans who Work for a Living,
and immense accumulation of WEALTH for the 1% Corporate Owners.
Low Personal Taxes on the Corporate Owners has encouraged them to Suck-the-Wealth OUT of their businesses, and cut wages and benefits for their workers.


President Obama and the “Centrist” Democratic Party Leadership were recently successful in raising taxes on the RICH from
36% to 39.5%... for a total increase of 3.5%.
He says this Low Rate is "fair".

I disagree.
Going by HISTORY, I believe it needs to be doubled To about 80% on the Top marginal Rate in order to restore the dynamic we saw in the 50s.
This WILL encourage the Corporate Owners to NOT suck their businesses DRY in the current Race to the Bottom. Like Republican President Eisenhower, I believe the RICH and WAR Profiteers should do Their Part in paying down the debt,
and in making America a good place to WORK.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity99%![/font]

[Just Saying]

1. I couldn't agree more.

The worst part is that they are so put of touch and feel so entitled that they can't even comprehend how the middle and poor class live. They mig as well spew "Let them eat cake" at this point.

[Cosmocat]

13. The worst part actually

now, unlike 60 years ago, there is a near majority in every election that actually has bought, to them know as fact, that the wealthy paying more than 35% would destroy the country, and that it is SO UNFAIR to the wealthy to expect them to pay more than 35%.

What is different now, is that somehow, the ultra rich have half the middle class fighting against THEIR, and the country's best interest on behalf of the ultra rich.

[tiredtoo]

40. Problem with this statement.

" the ultra rich have half the middle class fighting against THEIR, and the country's best interest on behalf of the ultra rich."
We are assuming we know what "their interest" is.
Many of the middle and lower class have given up on any improvement it their financial well being. They are convinced this is their lot in life and have switched their interests to say.. guns, religion or some other imaginary comfort item. Until we find a way to refocus their thoughts on having a chance at upward mobility, we are wasting our time trying to get them in our camp.

[Cosmocat]

56. Yeah

I think it is still their/our best interests, but you are correct on a big part of how their votes are coopted.

Would be nice to toe up to the line and have a focused and unified battle over our economic best interests, an honest discussion of the ACTUAL wealth redistribution that has occurred over time and how we can work toward having everyone have a productive, contributive life, enjoy the ride getting their AND be able to have a reasonably comfortable retirement.

[n2doc]

2. And the super rich don't even pay close to that 39%

As we all saw with Mittens, The super rich have many loopholes and tax shelters that they use to drop their rates below that of the middle class.

The other thing they have done is tirelessly worked to reduce the inheritance tax. That way they can have a permanent oligarchy that runs everything in the US.

[bvar22]

3. I agree. The Inheritance Tax is the MOST Fair of ALL taxes...

..IF you want to claim you live in a Meritocracy where people are encouraged to Pull Themselves UP,
and NOT a Plutocracy of the Idle Rich, which is exactly what the USA has become.

Out of ALL the "developed" countries in the WORLD,
the US is the MOST "Stratified".
If you are BORN RICH in the USA,
you are more likely to STAY RICH
than in in other developed country.

The same is true if you are Born Poor.

[Igel]

4. They never did.

That's the secret with those rates.

We shift effortlessly between complaining about the current low effective tax rate on the wealthy and the old marginal tax rates.

It's nice rhetoric, but don't confuse it with anything very meaningful.

[bvar22]

5. The Established Rate IS the National Public Standard.

THAT is WHAT we STAND for.
That is the FLAG we wave to establish what is "Fair" and what is "Cheating".

The Loopholes, special deals, dodges, and loose interpretations are ALL
After-the Fact, and everybody KNOWS those are weasel holes to avoid doing Your Fair Part.

After we establish what is "FAIR",
we CAN close the loopholes and weasel holes without changing The POLICY.

[hfojvt]

72. they don't really need loopholes and shelters

One thing Obama and the DEMOCRATS who voted for it did with ATRA, is to LOWER the tax rate on dividend income. Instead of being taxed at 39.6% it is now, permanently, taxed at only 20%. Something that saves Romney almost a million a year in income taxes.

That's probably not what most people think of as a loophole. Romney does not need accountants or clever tricks to save himself that million dollars. All he needs is to own a lot of stock. Something he has always done anyway.

Bill Gates too. Remember when the Bush tax cuts passed in 2003? One thing that odious law did was reduce the tax rates on dividends to just 15%. What happened then? Microsoft announced its FIRST dividend. http://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/Microsoft-surprises-will-issue-first-ever-1105495.php

Of course, Mr. Bill Gates, as the owner of a whole lot of Microsoft stock, got lots of money with that dividend. And thanks to Bush and the Republicans, saved a whole lot on his taxes on that pile of money.

And now that beat goes on - permanently. Shifting the tax burden OFF of unearned income and ON to earned income.

[abelenkpe]

6. K&R

[smallcat88]

7. As dead Republican presidents go

this would certainly explain why Reagan is their hero instead of Eisenhower. While I agree with you 100% the real question is how do we get Washington to work well enough to do it again? All the Occupy protests have had virtually no effect, either on Washington or Wall Street in terms of legislation. Congress knows their approval ratings suck, they clearly don't care. I argue endlessly with Repubs in my family - to no effect. They're so convinced of their own position that facts don't matter (Bill Maher's 'bubble' is very apt). Sometimes I worry that R's in Wash. are so stupid they're going to push this country to the point of another civil war before they start to get the point. If then.

[bvar22]

11. There is a solution.

It may take some time,
but you can do your part starting today.

Our neighbors in Latin America have given us a Blue Print for "change".
Many countries in South and central America have successfully wrested their governments from the hands of the Global 1% in near bloodless Ballot Box revolutions.

The MEDIA in their countries were against them too.
They used Word of Mouth and local organization to spread the WORD,
and they STOOD together In The Streets and at the Ballot Boxes.

When the American Working Class and The Poor realize that WE have more in common with each other than we have in common with the 1% and their Mouth Pieces in Washington,
then WE can have "change" too.

OCCUPY was just another historic step in the long WAR for Working Class Rights.
As a part of this fabric, it was a HUGE success in that it CHANGED the Conversation,
and added one more PROUD chapter to OUR history.
We may NOT have a piece of legislation YET,
but it has only been one year.
You must be prepared to fight for decades, like our Grandfathers, Great Uncles, and THEIR fathers, and proudly carry the OWS flag along with the hundreds of other flags that represent our movement.


VIVA Democracy!
I PRAY we get some here soon.
We outnumber THEM.

[smallcat88]

14. Hope you're right

but I'm already 50 years old. Don't know how many more decades I've got. Fortunately, all my younger relatives are D's. All the R's are older, go figure! Kind of worried that the only workable solution may be to just wait for the old fools to die.

[jwirr]

16. Every high school senior should be asked to read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein as part of their

literature class. Rather we know it or not we are as much a victim (the 99%) as were those Latin American neighbors. We are fighting the same idiology that wants us all to be none union slave labor to the 1%. I suspect we will have to wait until we have that majority that the rethugs are so afraid of but it will come. I lived through those Eisenhower years as a high school student. Unfortunately I was one of four Democrats in the whole high school and worked hard against him. I never thought I would learn to respect him as I grew older.

[mountain grammy]

28. It should be REQUIRED reading in every high school in the land.

I was an adolescent during the Ike years, so don't remember much except that my parents, both Democrats, respected and admired Eisenhower, but they didn't vote for him. My dad didn't live long enough to see Kennedy elected. Boy, he would've loved that!

[bvar22]

36. No chance of that.

Last Labor Day, I attended a "Labor Day Picnic".
At this Picnic, we started a conversation with the family sitting in the grass
next to us.

We were informed that their daughter young girl (17?) would graduate this year from the Local High School, and the parents were very proud of her "Straight A" High School Career. She claimed that "American History" and "Math" were her favorite subjects.

Since it was "LABOR Day" (and I'm a UNION THUG),
and she claimed the American History was her favorite subject,
I asked her what she thought about the History of the LABOR Movement in the USA.
Her eyes went blank.

She could NOT comprehend WHAT in the World I was talking about.
She said that in HER school, they were taught that "Entrepreneurship" and "Private Enterprise" built America.

...AT A LABOR DAY PICNIC!!!!!!

I was stunned into silence.
I went to school in the 50s & 60s.
The HISTORY of the LABOR Movement was taught in MY classrooms (my family too),
and given a HIGH priority.

I did some research and discovered that the History of the Labor Movement [font size=3]has been systematically erased from out High School American History Books.

How school textbooks distort labor history[/font]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-school-textbooks-distort-labor-history/2012/09/03/7ba02488-f51d-11e1-86a5-1f5431d87dfd_blog.html

If the History of the Labor Movement has been erased from our History Text Books,
what chance is there for Naomi Klein?

I am ashamed of The World we are leaving to our young.

[mountain grammy]

80. They taught precious little of it when I was in HS in the sixties.

But at least we read "The Jungle" and "Grapes of Wrath" and learned about the massacres that nearly wiped out the American Indians. I don't think even that much realistic history is allowed now. Might lead to too much critical thinking.

I learned from my Mom and my family, mostly union. My children learned from me and my husband. I made sure they read about Mother Jones, Walter Reuther, Eugene Debs and others. Both my sons had union jobs and served as shop stewards and had positions in their locals, as I did when I worked.

Children learn nothing in school anymore.. damn the right wing corporate bastards who are running (and ruining) this country.

and, really, I agree. What chance is there for Naomi Klein?

[Enthusiast]

50. I agree about Occupy. Huge success in changing the conversation.

We need much more of it.

[HangOnKids]

8. K & R!

Great Post.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

9. The way I put it is Reaganomics is a proven failure so we should set the top rate back to 70%.

[bvar22]

12. I was just listening to the Thom Hartmann replay on RT,

....and HE was arguing for a return to the Kennedy rates too.

According to Thom,
Kennedy agreed to drop the rates on the Top Bracket to 71%,
but he closed loopholes and "special" deductions so that the effective rate was HIGHER than before.

We KNOW what WORKS.
We KNOW what BUILDS America.
This is NOT "theory".
This is HISTORY.

So WHY aren't there MORE Democrats willing to point that out?


Great minds and all that stuff......

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. Republicans OWN the talking points in DC and one of them is "Tax & Spend Liberals"...

Democrats FEAR that crap.

[bvar22]

19. Seems like an environment that is Tailor Made for a...

[font size=3]We Want OUR America Back TOO![/font] Campaign
focusing on Tax and Trade Policy that we already KNOW works.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

23. You have to understand what's at stake for them,...this is about Saint Ronney...

They have got their history books claiming Jimmy Carter was the worse President EVER.

Reagan to them was the "shining city on a hill" period. They honestly believe they are in a Holy War defending the Faith.

They really believe this is a battle against Communism.

[bvar22]

27. Yeah. I LIVE in the Rural, RED, South too.

I am amazed at the religious reverence many pay to Conservative Family Values,
and Reagan made us PROUD to be Americans again,
and that The RICH are the Job Creators.

I have learned to NEVER take that shit Head On,
but change the conversation to as soon as possible to
[font size=3]"Is YOUR family doing better NOW, or in the 70s?"[/font]
and then make The SUPER RICH the bad guys ASAP with
"They NEVER trickled down on ME,
and WHERE are all the fucking jobs?
You know, its been 30 Fucking YEARS!!!"

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. Here's the way I talk to them....

Tax cuts for the rich were originally sold to the public by claiming the rich couldn't AFFORD to give you a raise or hire more people because the government was taking it all away in excessive taxes. The public only supported it because they were promised increased wages and more jobs. Well, the rich got their tax cuts and now have the NERVE to tell American Workers they expect too much when they haven't gotten a pay raise in 30 years. The really PATHETIC THING is they also got a segment of the population to defend the rich from any TALK of a tax increase and these saps have been told that such talk is unpatriotic and treasonous and should be met with blind hatred and VIOLENCE.

If that doesn't get through to them, I usually kick their ass.

[bvar22]

33. I hear ya.

Its IS getting a little easier to bring up Pocket Book Issues around this part of the Woods. EVERYBODY is hurting, and everyday MORE is being demanded from Americans who have little or nothing left while the RICH are RICHER than they have EVER been.

"If cutting taxes on RICH people made them create jobs,
we would ALL be drowning in money! Somebody is LYING!"
is REAL easy to say around here these days.

You can stand on a platform in the local WalMart in RED America surrounded by Card Carrying Republicans and SCREAM it,
and get a round of applause today in RED America.

People are PISSED.
It is time for "change",
but Which Way will they go?

Unfortunately for today's "Centrist" Democratic Party,
there is NOT much of a Track Record for opposing the RICH and the BIG Corporations. Voters no longer have a good reason to Go To the Democratic Party as the SpokesParty for Everybody who ISN'T RICH.
They have BLOWN any chance of THAT.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

34. Unfortunately, these people STILL believe the Republicans are their heroes....

ESPECIALLY since the Republicans are going around saying the REASON people are hurting is because Obama is BLACK!!!!

[matthews]

18. Because you'll get three posts hidden in three weeks? nt

[bvar22]

21. Yeah. I've been watching that shit.

Its getting bad.

[mbperrin]

10. Yes, very good explanation of taxes as behavior modifiers.

No one expected to collect the 91% - they expected business to invest and create jobs with all that tax-deductible expense.

And they did.

Look at this way - Uncle Sam is your investment partner, and with a 91% tax rate, he will cover 91% of your losses in an innovative new venture that didn't pan out. Not a bailout, just a recoup of 91% of the money lost. This means new ideas will be tried, new inventions will be made.

NOW you can only deduct about a third of that, so business got 200% more risky than before. Why no innovation these days, few startups? RISK is huge compared to the past.

So yes, put the wealthy to work. I'd personally prefer a 99% top rate, but I'd settle for 91.

Well, I can dream.

[ErikJ]

15. Only 20% top tax on the richest now.

The capital gains and dividend income are taxed at a top rate of only 20%. It was the same as the income tax rate up until 1924 (77%) until the Republicaqns took over in 1921 when it was cut lower than the income tax and has been lower ever since. The richest really do control the country --for the past 90 years.

[badtoworse]

20. The problem is that now there is Choice #3

Move your business and your assets offshore. In the 50's, the US was the only game in town. That is no longer true.

[bvar22]

24. That just isn't true.

The USA was not The Only Game in Town,
and there were many RICH here that insisted that they would LEAVE because of the high taxes.
They didn't.
This is not the first time they have tried that pathetic whine.

Like ALL Spoiled Children,
as soon as you cater to them, you have lost.
They need to be told directly and firmly,
[font size=3]"If you want to Live Here and Do Business HERE,
you WILL play by OUR Rules.
Otherwise you are FREE to Move Out, but you can NEVER come back!"[/font]

The USA was not The Only Game in Town after WW2.
The MOST lucrative markets were in Europe and Japan.
The Marshall Doctrine established that ALL reconstruction was to be done by Local Businesses.
Germany was in charge of rebuilding Germany, and German Firms led the way in the rebuilding. The same was true in Japan, and every other country that was forced to rebuild after WW2.

Where do you think Mercedes and Mitsubishi and Bayer come from?

[badtoworse]

37. "you WILL play by OUR Rules."

Your post would be laughable if it weren't so sad. They've been playing by our rules all along, and the money and the jobs have already moved offshore - incentivized by the very tax policies you are praising.

"The MOST lucrative markets were in Europe and Japan.
The Marshall Doctrine established that ALL reconstruction was to be done by Local Businesses.
Germany was in charge of rebuilding Germany, and German Firms led the way in the rebuilding. The same was true in Japan, and every other country that was forced to rebuild after WW2."

So there actually weren't any opportunities for American companies to invest in that rebuilding and after the rebuilding was done, where do you think our jobs started moving? To the newly rebuilt infrastructure where where tax rates were lower (and people were willing to do the same work cheaper).

I'll stand by my position that wealthy people and corporations have many more options for avoiding confiscatory taxation now than they did 60 years ago. We should stop fantasizing about 90% marginal rates and start thinking about a tax policy that might be competitive with the rest of the world.

[bvar22]

71. You can stand with Sean Hannity, Mitt Romney, and other conservatives.

You can even use the Conservative hit words like "confiscatory taxation"
as you market your conservative Talking Point THEORIES about what would happen.

I'll stick with proven HISTORY, and old style Democratic Party Liberalism.
The RICH SHOULD pay their Fair Share,
and I believe that the Fair Share established by Eisenhower or JFK worked the best for EVERYONE involved.

[badtoworse]

74. How would you describe a 90% marginal rate, if not confiscatory?

I'm a conservative if I don't support your 90% top tate? Who knew?

BTW, you might want to check your history. It was JFK that proposed a reduction in the top rate from 91% to 65% in his 1963 SOU Address. LBJ signed it into law after Kennedy was assasinated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1964

From the Wiki piece: "Unemployment fell from 5.2% in 1964 to 4.5% in 1965, and fell to 3.8% in 1966.[4][5] Initial estimates predicted a loss of revenue as a result of the tax cuts, however, tax revenue increased in 1964 and 1965.[4][6]"

[bvar22]

75. JFK lowered the top rate to 71%, as I believe I've mentioned in this thread.

According to JFK, he did so BECAUSE the national debt from WW2 and Korea [font size=3]was PAID OFF[/font],
so he supported a Tax Schedule that was "FAIR",
and set the Top marginal Rate at 71%.
I KNOW because THAT is the rate I paid in the 60s.


Can I deduce from your reply that you support a Top marginal rate of 71% (The JFK rate)?
You seem to be pimping 71% with your "statistics".
You consider 71% Good for Growth, but 80% "confiscatory"?


The Conservative RICH used the same old Threats & Whines you have used in this thread back then too. They said this tax rate was "confiscatory",
and threatened to [font size=3]Go ALL Gault and LEAVE the USA.[/font].

Eisenhower and Kennedy laughed and said
"Go Ahead, but IF you want to LIVE here,
and do Business HERE,
you WILL Pay YOUR Fair Share".

Guess what happened.

HISTORY is on MY side.

"Back in the 1950s, when the top marginal tax rate was more than 90 percent, real annual growth averaged more than 4 percent. During the last eight years, when the top marginal rate was just 35 percent, real growth was less than half that. Altogether, in years when the top marginal rate was lower than 39.6 percent — the top rate during the 1990s — annual real growth averaged 2.1 percent.

In years when the rate was 39.6 percent or higher, real growth averaged 3.8 percent. The pattern is the same regardless of threshold. Take 50 percent, for example. Growth in years when the tax rate was less than 50 percent averaged 2.7 percent. In years with tax rates at or more than 50 percent, growth was 3.7 percent.



As Linden put it, “these numbers do not mean that higher rates necessarily lead to higher growth. But the central tenet of modern conservative economics is that a lower top marginal tax rate will result in more growth, and these numbers do show conclusively that history has not been kind to that theory.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/20/249061/chart-taxes-economic-growth/

[Spitfire of ATJ]

25. Move your operations to China and lose your "American" status....

Make these bastards go to a Chinese court for their business law.

Imagine their surprise to find out that not all judges can be bought.

[badtoworse]

38. China's not the only game either

The US has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. That's what we keep hearing from companies that paid ZERO in taxes.

[badtoworse]

43. Actually, I heard that from KPMG

Here are some rates from their website:

United States - 40%
Global Average - 24.05%
Europe - 20.6%
Asia - 22.36%
North America - 33%
Latin America - 27.61%
Africa - 28.63%

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/services/Tax/tax-tools-and-resources/Pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx

See also:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/us-corporate-tax-rate_n_1392310.html

[Spitfire of ATJ]

44. But nobody PAYS that.

[Enthusiast]

54. Exactly. A number of corporations pay less than zero taxes.

The government writes them a check every year.

[Enthusiast]

52. The US doesn't have the highest EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate in the world.

You are the first "Democrat" I have ever seen on DU defending the Republican position on corporate taxes. I assume you are a Democrat. Are you a Democrat?

[badtoworse]

61. Don't you think other countries have deductions that lower their effective rates as well?

How about a link on effective global tax rates?

I'm realist when it comes to corporate taxes - corporations operate in a competitive environment and their goal is to make money for their investors. You need to be competitive (i.e. generate returns) in order to attract investment capital and part of being competitive is minimizing your tax liabilities. I expect corporations to act in the best interest of their investors because that is what they are supposed to do. Why would you invest in a company that did otherwise? Around here, many would call that corporate greed, but in the business world, it's reality.

I would like to see corporations invest in the US so we can grow private sector jobs, but I don't see that happening with many of the proposals I see here that involve increasing the corporate tax load. In my opinion, it would make a bad situation worse. Obama's idea of lowering the corporate rate to 28% is a very good start (ETA: provided it resulted in a lower tax bill), but that should also apply to small business. that has traditionally been a major source of job growth.

[Enthusiast]

63. I suspect other nations have tax rates dependent

on domestic job creation. We reward outsourcing. Lowing tax rates on corporations has not been shown to be effective at creating jobs in this country. Any reduction in corporate tax rates should be directly in proportion to the jobs they create. Obama's idea is just one more bad Obama idea.

[ctsnowman]

64. Many states that vote red have

higher registered Democratic voters on the rolls. The Reagan Democrat is still with us. I don't know about the poster you asked but it sure sounded like Romney talking points to me.

[byronius]

22. The insidious evil of indolent, incompetetent Big Wealth has made me a Leveller.

They would burn us all in an oven for profit if they could get away with it, and they almost can. I've become a fan of 99% tax rates over 10 million a year in personal income, period, similar to what FDR suggested. Clearly concentration of wealth is poisonous; for us, for them, for the planet.

[DirkGently]

26. Absolutely. n/t

[Historic NY]

29. Rich, I thought you were talking about congress...

[geckosfeet]

30. I'm with you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. You forgot to mention …

That when He did all of this … He had: 1) Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress; 2) Did not have an opposition party that signed pledges NOT to raise taxes … ever; 3) Did not have an opposition party that has sworn to never support/agree with anything he proposed … even when they proposed it first; and he did not face members of his own party that, in order to demonstrate their Democratness, pick random times to oppose him … just to show they’re not in lock-step with the president.

There are a couple more differences; but …

[bvar22]

67. Always with the excuses.

Maybe the Democratic Party GOT those majorities by FIGHTING FOR traditional Working Class Democratic Party VALUES?

Here.
I'll let Harry Truman explain it to you.

[font size=4]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]


[font size=3]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]

[1StrongBlackMan]

77. Facts are always excuses ...

to those that wish to ignore them.

Maybe the Democratic Party GOT those majorities by FIGHTING FOR traditional Working Class Democratic Party VALUES?

Actually, history has it that Truman inherited those majorities from FDR and FDR got those majorities by being the "not republicans", since america was being crush by a depression under 10 years of republican rule.

[bvar22]

78. Those are NOT "facts".

That is wishful thinking.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. Then please define ...

the term "Fact."

Or better yet, please point out a single thing I have posted that is "wishful thinking" and not a fact.

Actually, history has it that Truman inherited those majorities from FDR and FDR got those majorities by being the "not republicans", since america was being crush by a depression under 10 years of republican rule.

Here, for your convenience (though I doubt you will respond).

[SammyWinstonJack]

35. rec!

[Uncle Joe]

39. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bvar.

[reformist2]

42. +1000. I think you hit the nail on the head about the purpose of the 91% tax rate!

It wasn't for the government to reap a windfall, but to provide an obvious incentive for employers to use that money on (gasp!) their employees and their (gasp!) community!

And it worked!

[Major Hogwash]

45. Income tax reform starts in the House . . . which is currently being controlled by the Rethuglicans.

But, you were aware of that, weren't you??

[bvar22]

69. Income Tax Reform begins when Americans start DEMANDING it.

I'm doing MY part,
and I see you are doing yours.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

46. Armchair activists!

[world wide wally]

47. A higher tax rate is more of an incentive to REINVEST in your business instead of hoarding cash and

having to pay taxes on it.

It doesn't take a genius to figure this out.

[B Calm]

51. BINGO! Thom Hartmann has been preaching this for years!

[KansDem]

55. I agree, except...

They're hoarding their cash in secret, offshore tax havens.

How much tax are they paying on an account in the Caymans?

[avaistheone1]

48. B I G K&R!!!

[Enthusiast]

49. Kicked and Recommended!

Nailed it.

[KansDem]

53. They lied to us...

They wanted tax breaks so they could "create" jobs. They lied. They took Reagan's "trickle down" tax breaks and "created" jobs offshore ("create" = pay foreign labor pennies and sock the rest in secret off-shore tax havens).

They lied to us. Now it's time to pay us back...

[leveymg]

57. Never thought I'd say this, but on tax policy, I Like Ike!

Dump Nixon.

[Civilization2]

58. yup,. I have been arguing this for years,. TAX the obscene over wealthy.

90% of all income over a million dollars, at the top of the scale.
0% for income below 30k.

(and some sht in the middle there,. to get the balance right.)

Pushing "job creators" to reinvest and actually create jobs that are well paid, is the point,. as well as having a reasonable limit on vast wealth that leads to power hungry scum-balls like we have now running rampant.

[pampango]

59. The top income tax rate in Germany and the UK is 45%. We can at least go that high.

Spain and the Netherlands have rates over 50%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_European_countries

I definitely agree that higher tax rates for the rich motivate them to "stop siphoning exorbitant salaries, perks, and extreme benefits from your business, and instead make YOUR business one of the BEST places to work in our country with High Wages, good benefits, and safe working conditions for YOUR workers."

With progressive taxes less profit stays in their hands which decreases the incentive to maximize short term profits and increases the incentive to invest in a long term business that treats its workers and customers well. This is what happened in the 1950's and 1960's in the US and in Europe today.

[99Forever]

60. Beyond a K&R.

Excellent post, Bvar.

Centrist Democrats are the problem, NOT the solution.

[kentuck]

62. Why does President Obama love taxcuts so much?

Especially corporate tax cuts? Does anyone think corporate tax cuts create jobs? There is no evidence to suggest that it does? In fact, because it creates more incentive to move jobs overseas, it could be argued that these type of taxcuts actually cause jobs to be lost.

[ctsnowman]

65. K & R

One would think that we Democrats could agree with this yet I see many responses that are just so Romney-esk. The message has been hijacked be it in textbooks like you said or on panels of "great" thinkers in the MSM.

[maddiemom]

66. Eisenhower: the last great Republican president.

He was liberal and an advocate for the 99% compared to Clinton and Obama. AND he warned in early days about the military/industrial takeover. Even Nixon, who despite his unpleasant and paranoid attitudes, advanced overall progress in government. Who do the Republicans worship? Ronald Reagan! Defines their modern day party to a T.

[joanbarnes]

68. This is all true, I lived it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

70. It's much cheaper to buy politicians. They have. And they will.

[Blanks]

73. Finally a subject on which we agree.

I also think that a lot of the issues with the TPP would be resolved if we had a high tax on corporate profits and the high marginal tax rate. We would have other countries buying American, less jobs shipped overseas because there is less benefit at the top for squeezing out profit etc.

Really this is THE problem that we have in this country, it should be job one.

[virgogal]

76. The article refers to yachts. The Kennedys had a yacht in this period. Kept the yacht makers working