COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • lineholder

    Liberals constantly want to berate anything associated with the traditions that have contributed to this nation’s success, whether it has to do with free-market capitalism, patriotism and loyalty to this nation rather than to an agenda, quality of [insert your own favorite topic here], human behaviors that uphold high moral and/or ethical standards, etc.

    They implement policies that they call “progressive”, but those policies are leading our nation in the direction of low standards on practically everything. Low standard of living. Low standard of individual success. Low standard in healthcare and education. You name it…the standards are LOW.

    Those policies are failing this nation and its people and have been for a long time.

    In November 2012, we the people have our chance to say that the low standards of the Liberals simply aren’t good enough for this country. We want more for ourselves. We want more for future Americans.

    Vote Romney 2012!

  • citizenpaine

    We need to forge a way forward. I doubt anyone wants to go back to paying 58% on incomes over $250,000.

    • avgjo

      can restore it.

      And i would love to know how many people actually paid that. We’d have not had the prosperity we did if even the rich were paying that. Especially if the rich were paying that.

      • gerald ford

        Very wealthy people today are significantly more wealthy than the wealthy of the 1950s. People were less greedy, then. If they were making $250,000, that was a lot of money, and they felt fortunate. You didn’t hear them whine about paying too much in taxes. It was relative. They didn’t see themselves as “job creators,” entitled to lower tax rates than others. They were simply proud Americans with values. I don’t even remember a lot of whining during the Nixon era, when the tax rate for upper income earners was 70%! Can you imagine? The wealthy back then were of a different fiber–unlike these hedge fund bankers of today.

        Even more unimaginable is that JFK cut taxes on the wealthiest by 20%! But that’s like comparing Democrats to Republicans during the civil war. Not really applicable.

        • avgjo

          that are interested, and some even that are probably correct.

          However, I posed the question because I have heard people who know a whole helluva lot more about this matter than I state that the wealthy in those days almost never actually paid those rates – they were truly nominal, and with writeoffs etc. the bill was always lower.

          I vaguely remember a story about a distant relative who was very wealthy. She was a very patriotic lady born in the late 19th century. For whatever reason ( I really remember few particulars), the tax rate was officially something to the order of 90% ( I guess this was around WWII, when the rate was 91%). She paid it for I think two years, until her son found out. He then tried to reason with her that it wasn’t necessary. Patriot that she was, she continued on for a couple of years, but her son got through to her and she was able to legally reduce her tax bill very considerably. Point is, this was a very exceptional thing. And from what I understand of the time, this was very rare. Experience seems to bear this out. I don’t think it would have been possible for companies to provide the jobs and quality of life they did actually paying such taxes. Case in point: look at our currently and comparatively diminished quality of life. It is the result of too much taxation and too much regulation.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    Obviously, time moves forward no matter what we do.

    The question is whether we will secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity, or will we return to the normal human condition in which those at the top of the empires seek to impose their will on others.

    • 6eorge Jetson

      And if the United States morphs into a Unitary State then it will be toppled just like any other empire when it inevitably loses its coercive grip.

      A freedom-embracing United States, on the other hand, is defended by the many.

  • gerald ford

    the Cold War defense spending played a major role in stimulating the economic growth of the 1950s. A post-war housing boom and automobile heyday did not hurt either. So if Romney could find a way to cut entitlements and significantly increase spending on defense, that would do the trick.

    • commonsenseobserver

      …

      • gerald ford

        To me that’s a proven stimulus. I’m not saying I want to see a war. Just that defense spending is good for America’s economy.