quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

Was America a socialist country in the 50's?
How about the 60's,70's 80's and 90's ?
All of these decades had higher tax rates than we have today....Were we not just as free ?

America was far from a socialist country in the 50's, or the 50, 70, 80 and 90s.

The 90s did not have higher effective tax rates.

However, the 50s while thought of as the "golden years" are thought of that not because everyone had a job and everyone had a five flat sceen HD TVs, two cars and a house but because the man had the job and the woman stayed at home and the family was the focus of life and one had a car and some had TVs and there were no entitlements like we have today. We were very free.

You see, it is not the tax rate, it is what you do with it that makes one un-free or free. The one paying the high tax is not un-free it is the person getting the money for free that is inslaved to that entitlement.

As far as tax rate vs. economy, the 50s were good but if you were to compare one black and white TV and no house and a rental instead and one car maybe and one breadwinner working then you would then quickly some to realize the economy was not as great as say the 90 and early 2000s, when we had a low tax rate. What can I say, the "devil is in the details", right?

quote:

YES I do envy those who keep 85% of their millions (80% of which is enjoyed by the top 5%) while I can only keep 65% of my good salary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

You know, at first I wrote "duped into writing" but then realized I was plain wrong. Many who voted for "Change" with Obama knew exactly what he was for, the end of America as a captialistic society, the one the Greatest Generation fought for and died for, the one we grew up in and gave us our great public education of the 50s, 60s, and 70s., the great roads and bridges and great scientific discoveries and great advances in the standard of living, a standard that was greater than any place on this planet. It got that way not on the backs of the poor but on the investiments of the rich and the work of anyone who wanted to make themselves better. That is the essence of captialism, invest capital, provide jobs, purchase a higher standard of living and continue the cycle by saving and investing. There are no entitlements in a capitalistic society, instead there is opportunity and self reliance and the only limit to what you can achieve is up to you and for those who cannot work because they are truely unable to, there is compassion and there is help but there are no entitlements for the lazy and the leaches of American society. None. Because while America rewards those who strive to achieve it does not take from those who achieve and give it to those who choose not to achieve. America does this because a free man or free woman is free to enjoy the fruits of their labor without having to give it to a man or woman who chooses not to work. Life can be hard in America but only if you or your parents choose for it to be hard.

My mother was a divorcee. She raised two boys from age 6 on by herself living in a two bedroom duplex and paying for it with two jobs at times. We did not have a lot of clothes but what we had were kept patched and our shoes never had holes and they were never dirty. We always had food even if mom had to buy dry powder milk and mix it with regular milk to make it stretch. We had oat meal in the morning and something hot and good in the evening. We did not have a car for twelve years and walked or took a cab or got rides, that was done alot in those days, friends with cars gave rides to those without. We bought 6 cent a loaf three day old bread and enjoyed it but mom never took food stamps when they were offered because we had enough and one did not take charity if there was another option. We slowly progressed and were able to buy encyclopedias for eventually so we could have them for study at home, mom got into nursing school and got a job at the hosptial and we did very well always and in later years did much better but never thought of ourselves as victims and "poor". The poor did not have powdered milk and as long as you had family and at least some job you could make it and even be very happy. So, if we were on "entitlements" then we likely would have stayed poor and never progressed and mom would have stayed home, sat on the couch watching TV and getting fat on crappy food bought with food stamps at the grocery or buying dollar menu shit from McDonalds and we certainly would not have progressed. Now we were progressive in that we always got better whereas those with an entitlement mentality stayed in one place on the economic scale or even get worse.

Life can be hard in America but not because you are poor but because you can work but choose to stay poor.

quote:

You know, at first I wrote "duped into writing" but then realized I was plain wrong. Many who voted for "Change" with Obama knew exactly what he was for, the end of America as a captialistic society, the one the Greatest Generation fought for and died for, the one we grew up in and gave us our great public education of the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

quote:

Then economy depended on refinancing and cashing out your home equity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

You know, at first I wrote "duped into writing" but then realized I was plain wrong. Many who voted for "Change" with Obama knew exactly what he was for, the end of America as a captialistic society, the one the Greatest Generation fought for and died for, the one we grew up in and gave us our great public education of the 50s, 60s, and 70s., the great roads and bridges and great scientific discoveries and great advances in the standard of living, a standard that was greater than any place on this planet. It got that way not on the backs of the poor but on the investiments of the rich and the work of anyone who wanted to make themselves better. That is the essence of captialism, invest capital, provide jobs, purchase a higher standard of living and continue the cycle by saving and investing. There are no entitlements in a capitalistic society, instead there is opportunity and self reliance and the only limit to what you can achieve is up to you and for those who cannot work because they are truely unable to, there is compassion and there is help but there are no entitlements for the lazy and the leaches of American society. None. Because while America rewards those who strive to achieve it does not take from those who achieve and give it to those who choose not to achieve. America does this because a free man or free woman is free to enjoy the fruits of their labor without having to give it to a man or woman who chooses not to work. Life can be hard in America but only if you or your parents choose for it to be hard.

My mother was a divorcee. She raised two boys from age 6 on by herself living in a two bedroom duplex and paying for it with two jobs at times. We did not have a lot of clothes but what we had were kept patched and our shoes never had holes and they were never dirty. We always had food even if mom had to buy dry powder milk and mix it with regular milk to make it stretch. We had oat meal in the morning and something hot and good in the evening. We did not have a car for twelve years and walked or took a cab or got rides, that was done alot in those days, friends with cars gave rides to those without. We bought 6 cent a loaf three day old bread and enjoyed it but mom never took food stamps when they were offered because we had enough and one did not take charity if there was another option. We slowly progressed and were able to buy encyclopedias for eventually so we could have them for study at home, mom got into nursing school and got a job at the hosptial and we did very well always and in later years did much better but never thought of ourselves as victims and "poor". The poor did not have powdered milk and as long as you had family and at least some job you could make it and even be very happy. So, if we were on "entitlements" then we likely would have stayed poor and never progressed and mom would have stayed home, sat on the couch watching TV and getting fat on crappy food bought with food stamps at the grocery or buying dollar menu shit from McDonalds and we certainly would not have progressed. Now we were progressive in that we always got better whereas those with an entitlement mentality stayed in one place on the economic scale or even get worse.

Life can be hard in America but not because you are poor but because you can work but choose to stay poor.

quote:

You know, at first I wrote "duped into writing" but then realized I was plain wrong. Many who voted for "Change" with Obama knew exactly what he was for, the end of America as a captialistic society, the one the Greatest Generation fought for and died for, the one we grew up in and gave us our great public education of the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Complete, absolute, unmitigated bullshit. The rest is pablum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

YES I do envy those who keep 85% of their millions (80% of which is enjoyed by the top 5%) while I can only keep 65% of my good salary.

Now see, "there you go again". :)

The left news organizations and some Obama ads forget to tell you Mitt is taxed at the "capital gains" (remember 'capitalism and "the harm of"?) tax rate with is a progressive tax rate in that it's achieved goal is to encourage investments and therefore economic growth and jobs and Mitt's income is not wages but purely from investments using capital (there is that bad word again that does "harm"), ie. "capital" as in "his money", that he either makes some profit by building businesses or he loses money when those businesses go bust and hopefully he pans out to the good. This is not the tax rate you and I pay because we don't incur losses in our wages since we don't risk them as he does (not counting 401ks you and I have).

So, capital gains tax rates are different from wages and salary tax rates and Mitt and other investors including small businesses pay those at those rates. It is influenced by losses and gains in profit and charitable contributions and the tax rate is supposed to encourage investment in our economy.


Romney paid 30percent of his income to charity last year and the year before and the year before that.

The current VP Biden paid 1.5 percent of his vast income to charity. Obama more than 1.5 percent but nothing near what Romney paid percentage wise.

Who is "progressive" and who cares more for people?

quote:

The economy until 1959 was just what you say it wasn't...as millions more bought houses then than have since in any 10 year period. Mortgages that were $100/mo...were soon $1000/mo.

BWomen went to work so the 'family' could afford to buy a house...she had to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

You know, at first I wrote "duped into writing" but then realized I was plain wrong. Many who voted for "Change" with Obama knew exactly what he was for, the end of America as a captialistic society, the one the Greatest Generation fought for and died for, the one we grew up in and gave us our great public education of the 50s, 60s, and 70s., the great roads and bridges and great scientific discoveries and great advances in the standard of living, a standard that was greater than any place on this planet. It got that way not on the backs of the poor but on the investiments of the rich and the work of anyone who wanted to make themselves better. That is the essence of captialism, invest capital, provide jobs, purchase a higher standard of living and continue the cycle by saving and investing. There are no entitlements in a capitalistic society, instead there is opportunity and self reliance and the only limit to what you can achieve is up to you and for those who cannot work because they are truely unable to, there is compassion and there is help but there are no entitlements for the lazy and the leaches of American society. None. Because while America rewards those who strive to achieve it does not take from those who achieve and give it to those who choose not to achieve. America does this because a free man or free woman is free to enjoy the fruits of their labor without having to give it to a man or woman who chooses not to work. Life can be hard in America but only if you or your parents choose for it to be hard.

My mother was a divorcee. She raised two boys from age 6 on by herself living in a two bedroom duplex and paying for it with two jobs at times. We did not have a lot of clothes but what we had were kept patched and our shoes never had holes and they were never dirty. We always had food even if mom had to buy dry powder milk and mix it with regular milk to make it stretch. We had oat meal in the morning and something hot and good in the evening. We did not have a car for twelve years and walked or took a cab or got rides, that was done alot in those days, friends with cars gave rides to those without. We bought 6 cent a loaf three day old bread and enjoyed it but mom never took food stamps when they were offered because we had enough and one did not take charity if there was another option. We slowly progressed and were able to buy encyclopedias for eventually so we could have them for study at home, mom got into nursing school and got a job at the hosptial and we did very well always and in later years did much better but never thought of ourselves as victims and "poor". The poor did not have powdered milk and as long as you had family and at least some job you could make it and even be very happy. So, if we were on "entitlements" then we likely would have stayed poor and never progressed and mom would have stayed home, sat on the couch watching TV and getting fat on crappy food bought with food stamps at the grocery or buying dollar menu shit from McDonalds and we certainly would not have progressed. Now we were progressive in that we always got better whereas those with an entitlement mentality stayed in one place on the economic scale or even get worse.

Life can be hard in America but not because you are poor but because you can work but choose to stay poor.

quote:

You know, at first I wrote "duped into writing" but then realized I was plain wrong. Many who voted for "Change" with Obama knew exactly what he was for, the end of America as a captialistic society, the one the Greatest Generation fought for and died for, the one we grew up in and gave us our great public education of the 50s, 60s, and 70s.

Complete, absolute, unmitigated bullshit. The rest is pablum.

Why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The economy until 1959 was just what you say it wasn't...as millions more bought houses then than have since in any 10 year period. Mortgages that were $100/mo...were soon $1000/mo.

BWomen went to work so the 'family' could afford to buy a house...she had to.

I was there. My father purchased a small home. I was modest. Most were but could have been bigger if the woman had worked.

Nowadays you say women went to work so they could afford to buy a home...she had to. Is that really true? She must spend hundreds of dollars per month on child care. She must spend hundreds of dollars on clothes. She must spend thousands of dollars a year on car payments so she can go to work. So let me suggest that if one went back to a 1000 square foot house, single car, single TV, no credit cards, we would not need a second income and there would be more jobs for the "breadwinner". What do you think? It is called living more "simply". I think you might have heard about it as many espouse it now.

quote:

I would love to see a list of all of Mitts money he actually risked and lost, I bet it one of shortest lists on record.

quote:

I don't give a damn about all of the so-called risks Mitts didn't really take by risking more borrowed and other people's money, than as not.

quote:

I don't give a damn about about his charitable giving. Everybody could give more..making millions and paying only 15%. I'll take that trade off every year.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The economy until 1959 was just what you say it wasn't...as millions more bought houses then than have since in any 10 year period. Mortgages that were $100/mo...were soon $1000/mo.

BWomen went to work so the 'family' could afford to buy a house...she had to.

I was there. My father purchased a small home. I was modest. Most were but could have been bigger if the woman had worked.

Nowadays you say women went to work so they could afford to buy a home...she had to. Is that really true? She must spend hundreds of dollars per month on child care. She must spend hundreds of dollars on clothes. She must spend thousands of dollars a year on car payments so she can go to work. So let me suggest that if one went back to a 1000 square foot house, single car, single TV, no credit cards, we would not need a second income and there would be more jobs for the "breadwinner". What do you think? It is called living more "simply". I think you might have heard about it as many espouse it now.

Because housing went up so fast and so far it took 28 to 33% of two incomes to qualify for a Freddie or Fannie conventional mortgage. They would not lend even at say 60% of one income.

Anything less and we are talking renting for a very long time. I don't don't refer to that as 'capitalism' making me richer.

You suggest that every woman who went to work had all of these costs, they did not. Much of family life then and now and has been deferred, like kids and luxuries... because of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The economy until 1959 was just what you say it wasn't...as millions more bought houses then than have since in any 10 year period. Mortgages that were $100/mo...were soon $1000/mo.

BWomen went to work so the 'family' could afford to buy a house...she had to.

I was there. My father purchased a small home. I was modest. Most were but could have been bigger if the woman had worked.

Nowadays you say women went to work so they could afford to buy a home...she had to. Is that really true? She must spend hundreds of dollars per month on child care. She must spend hundreds of dollars on clothes. She must spend thousands of dollars a year on car payments so she can go to work. So let me suggest that if one went back to a 1000 square foot house, single car, single TV, no credit cards, we would not need a second income and there would be more jobs for the "breadwinner". What do you think? It is called living more "simply". I think you might have heard about it as many espouse it now.

Because housing went up so fast and so far it took 28 to 33% of two incomes to qualify for a Freddie or Fannie conventional mortgage. They would not lend even at say 60% of one income.

Anything less and we are talking renting for a very long time. I don't don't refer to that as 'capitalism' making me richer.

You suggest that every woman who went to work had all of these costs, they did not. Much of family life then and now and has been deferred, like kids and luxuries... because of it.

You know, I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying it is true. I have never depended no my wife to work or pay for our house. It meant sacrifices since obviously the house could have been much bigger and the cars both newer and maybe a trip on a cruise liner every year or so, but we did good anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk
All cute right wing talking points there but I wasn't talking about Education. Simply the funding for that education. For, if you lower taxes from the level they are now one will have to raise the boats even higher just to get to this current funding level on that lower tax rate. No?

quote:

Tax rates in most districts in Ohio haven't risen in many many years. Do you suppose that has had a large affect on the overall health of the school system? Or, are you of the mind that says higher class sizes and elimination of programs are a better way to improve an education system that is falling behind the rest of the world daily.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So, what you're saying is that without the Progressives, we'd still have children working in mines?

No, I don't see where I said that. But that was the history of it.
Are you saying that owners/managers will not exploit labor whenever they can?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

All of your flag waving support the troops(yet lets not pass any bills to support the veterans,eh?)

I am a veteran. I did not know I needed anything more. Yes, I'm sure I don't need anything more. How about you, are you a veteran and if so, what did you need that somehow I did not seem to need?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

The economy until 1959 was just what you say it wasn't...as millions more bought houses then than have since in any 10 year period. Mortgages that were $100/mo...were soon $1000/mo.

BWomen went to work so the 'family' could afford to buy a house...she had to.

I was there. My father purchased a small home. I was modest. Most were but could have been bigger if the woman had worked.

Nowadays you say women went to work so they could afford to buy a home...she had to. Is that really true? She must spend hundreds of dollars per month on child care. She must spend hundreds of dollars on clothes. She must spend thousands of dollars a year on car payments so she can go to work. So let me suggest that if one went back to a 1000 square foot house, single car, single TV, no credit cards, we would not need a second income and there would be more jobs for the "breadwinner". What do you think? It is called living more "simply". I think you might have heard about it as many espouse it now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

No ,the sentence in question does not,in fact,say "one must undo the harm done by America" not in the least ,not even close.

Of course it does. America is captialism. Capitialism drives America's economy. If one says "undo the harm caused by captialism" then one is saying "undo the harm done by America".

It's just that simple. It does not take fourteen cable new network talking heads to get to the basics. The basics are the America is captialism and to "undo the harm" is to undo America and change it into something not America.

If I am hyper-partisan it is for America,and I am proud of it. I will not apologize for America nor the basis of her economy and growth, capitialism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
you are convinced that this President and his policies are designed to turn this country into your standard socialist paradise