Chart of the Day

Threedee said:
Actually, if we are going to go with my religious background, then I will be happy to oblige. I am a Catholic, and I can tell you this:

America has very little in common with the historic values of my faith
-Except for the early development of English Common Law, no where else on Earth can the Catholic Church be seen to have promoted democracy or limited government, or constitutionalism.

-America was founded largely by people who were virulently anti-Catholic.

-Even my hero, John Adams, was strongly prejudiced growing up and I got to read some very juicy writings of his. He later came to view Catholicism with warm regards and even attended Masses in Pennsylvania, the only place aside from Rhode Island where it was tolerated.

-The only semi-prominent Founding Father who was Catholic was John Carroll.

-Most ethnic minorities in America were historically targeted for coming from Catholic countries (Irish, Slavs, Germans, etc.).


Historically, Catholics came to this country, and then proceeded to attack its principles by voting Democrat. It has always been fiscally liberal because the tyranny of government is viewed in Catholic circles as compassionate and charitable.

As a fully assimilated Catholic/European who has no recollection of persecution, I have come to believe in the values of the American experiment, but it is in spite of what the Church has usually done in this country, which is to blindly follow liberals in destroying this country and its principles. My concept of 1/4 is the idea that anything more than 25% is clearly punative, and therefore against the right of property.
Click to expand...

That's true about the anti-catholic sentiment in the US. There was never a large Catholic population in this nation till the Irish immigration during the potato famine occurred. The church's heirarchy is also pretty much opposed to freedom of religion too. That and Democracy are something that they have had to accept in modern times but have never promoted.

But also keep in mind. In our early years this nation was populated, from a religious standpoint, by immigrants who were extremely devout (the Puritans for example) and those who wished to escape religion period. Most of our founding fathers were either Unitarians or Deist and when they formulated our Government they were adamant that in no way shape or form that it be based upon the Christian Religion. Those in the RR who this our nations Government was based upon Christian principle just simply don't know their history.

The point being, however, is that there has always been this strange dichotomy in our nation between the relgiously fervent or fundamentalist and those who wish to be free from religion. Oddly enough, there's no place in the world with the healthy diversity of religion as there is in this nation and it's all due to tolerance and a secular government that will not nor cannot recognize the establishment of an official religion.
 
What sort of society do we want? A third world nation where the top 5% own the wealth of the nation, or one in which everyone has an opportunity? Republicans work for a third world nation, and since Reagan have done a good job, democrats and intelligent republican presidents, I include Eisenhower and Nixon, want a prosperous society where everyone has a piece of the pie they rightly own as citizens.

"There is no historical evidence that tax cuts spur economic growth. The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent. During this period, the general tax rate climbed as well, but it reached a plateau in 1969, and growth slowed down five years later. Almost all rich nations have higher general taxes than the U.S., and they are growing faster as well."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm
http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I Chapter VIII
 
Dungheap said:
graph.jpg



Here's a chart of the top income tax rate in the U.S. dating back to 1920 including Obama's proposed increase in the tax rate. See that creeping socialism at the end of the chart there?

It's war on entrepreneurs! Soak the rich! Socialism!
Click to expand...

Great chart... to bad it really doesn't show us anything. The tax brackets mean little. Show a chart of the average effective tax rate. That is what matters.

This is why we should have a flat tax with a standard deduction and why we should toss out the entire current tax code.
 
Dungheap said:
graph.jpg



Here's a chart of the top income tax rate in the U.S. dating back to 1920 including Obama's proposed increase in the tax rate. See that creeping socialism at the end of the chart there?

It's war on entrepreneurs! Soak the rich! Socialism!
Click to expand...


notice anything about the year 1928?
 
evince said:
notice anything about the year 1928?
Click to expand...

You mean the fact that the roaring twenties occured when tax rates were cut drastically?

Or perhaps you were pointing out that by rasing taxes drastically in the early thirties the depression was prolonged by about ten years???
 
No the fact that the tax rates were very low and then we had an economic metldown.

why the correlation?
 
Here is a real chart of the day.. Gosh i seem to remember the democrats freaking out over bushs deficit spending early on in his presidency.. Why no outrage at this ridiculous looking thing:
Federal%20Deficit%20Borrowing%203.jpg


FYI.,.. and dont tell me this is Bush's fault that obama is creating a 2-3T deficit.. that my friends is his administrations penwork alone.
 
evince said:
No the fact that the tax rates were very low and then we had an economic metldown.

why the correlation?
Click to expand...

It wasn't the tax rates desh... it was the lack of regulations.... Glass Steagall was put in place because of what the Kennedy's, Rockefellers, Rothchilds etc.... did during the down turn. There was no SEC in place either. (not that the SEC did shit during the 90's and 2000's)

The tax rates do equate to the economic boom seen during the twenties.
 
Superfreak said:
You mean the fact that the roaring twenties occured when tax rates were cut drastically?

Or perhaps you were pointing out that by rasing taxes drastically in the early thirties the depression was prolonged by about ten years???
Click to expand...

It's almost like dsylexia to view the chart her way.
 
evince said:
So you agree with SF?
Click to expand...

I agree that the chart shows when taxes were low in the '20's the economy was booming. When we were in the mist of the Great Depression taxes were extremely high. That is how I read that chart.

Now of course that is a very facile answer to say taxes were the only contributer to good or bad times. But going from this chart my paragraph above is what I believe.
 
you have to read this shit one way or the other Desh.. You cant say clinton gets credit for the 90's boom.. but that in the 20's the low taxes set us up for the great depression as a lagging effect. Your picking your way of reading things based on what you want to believe.
 
Chapdog said:
you have to read this shit one way or the other Desh.. You cant say clinton gets credit for the 90's boom.. but that in the 20's the low taxes set us up for the great depression as a lagging effect. Your picking your way of reading things based on what you want to believe.
Click to expand...

Where did I say those things?

I was noticing that we gave the corporate world a very low tax rate and how did they repay us?
 
thanks, now cawcko will embarass himslef with grand descriptions of How the trojans manage to beat the high school teams and a couple DivII caliber teams in the PAC10..
USC would have 2 losses annually the last decade if they were in the SEC
 
evince said:
Where did I say those things?

I was noticing that we gave the corporate world a very low tax rate and how did they repay us?
Click to expand...

that chart is personal income tax, not corporate income tax.

And what did corporations do to us?
 
Topspin said:
thanks, now cawcko will embarass himslef with grand descriptions of How the trojans manage to beat the high school teams and a couple DivII caliber teams in the PAC10..
USC would have 2 losses annually the last decade if they were in the SEC
Click to expand...

USC vs. the SEC during the 2000's

USC 4 wins - SEC 0 wins

Toppy - Out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top