Paul Ryan's Speech Bubble

You can't win the trust of voters by lying about the day a plant closed? Why not? They lied about WMD in Iraq. They lied about John Kerry's service in Vietnam. People believed those lies because they wanted to. The lies were told loud enough and often enough that the blind followers repeated the lies loud and often. The country went from a surplus under Clinton to a deficit under Bush, but it is now Obama's fault. Tell it loud. Tell it often.

Another nice article by Ms. Estrich. However, it has the usual two flaws, cognitive dissonance and the failure to address the true issues of this election.

As to the cognitive dissonance, Ms. Estrich writes, "Ryan made me feel old. I'll admit that. I looked at him and thought: My God, this guy, who's basically never done anything but be a member of the House of Representatives and give canned political speeches, thinks he's ready to be president? Wild." Change the name from Ryan to Obama, and the House of Representatives to the Illinois State Legislature and you have the question we all should have been asking four years ago. But we didn't ask and the country voted (With Ms. Estrich's approval) for an amateur who has turned into a world class failure. So Ms. Estrich wants us to all start thinking deeply about candidate qualifications now?

And that leads to the second issue. This article again fails to address the issue of why the public should vote for the proven failure that is the Obama administration. The electorate may not be certain that Romney-Ryan can turn things around. They however do have a deep seated near certainty that their rivals can't do that job. Why should anyone vote to return a sure failure to office? Do we really want another 4 years like the last term?This is the true issue of this election. Ms. Estrich's article amounts to little more than to ask us to "ignore the man behind the curtain".

Susan, sadly, no one really cares much about the second banana. It really does not matter that Ryan has repeatedly lied about the GM plant closing. People just dont pay attention to that garbage. They concentrate on the top of the ticket. Perhaps a few women may be turned off by Rep. ryan/akin 's work to end abortion in the United States, but that will be a minority. They are just not that sophisticated. Romney could have nominated Lindsay Lohan for the job and no one would care. It is all about the guy at the top.
I listened carefully to the Romnerd acceptance speech last night. It should properly be labled, THE GREAT CHICKEN LITTLE SPEECH. All Gloom and doom and very short on any specifics looking forward. People will begin to notice that lack of any substance. The very thing the Republicans accused Barack Obama of doing in the last election. That is unlikely enough to unseat the president.
Here in Eastern Ohio, I listen to the people arguing politics over the morning diner counters and they just dont like Mitt Romney. They are not polite about what they say and rather blunt about Mr. Romney's religion and his investing his money in overseas banks. If you want to lead America, you ought to have enough trust in America to keep your money in U.S. banks where it could be used for loans to AMERICAN businesses. That is the theme that I hear over and over. People from Eastern Ohio also are keenley aware of what the auto bailout has done to boost the local economy. The Lordstown auto plant is working three full shifts and the local tool and die makers that supply these auto plants KNOW that the auto bailout worked. The workers were outraged that Mitt Romney opposed that bailout and THEN TRIED TO TAKE CREDIT FOR THAT BAILOUT. That is what matters to Ohio voters. Ryan on the ticket does not change that reality. It is all about Mitt.

It's getting pretty obvious - The Dems are running scared.

Having inwardly digested all this Republican BS, it seems the Republicans main complaint is President Obama hasn't fixed the mess they created fast enough.

Now they want another four years to tear down what he has done, start more wars, repeal all regulations which were recently enacted to protect us, the 99%. They'll give even more tax breaks to the so-called 'job creators' which even with all the tax breaks they've received the past 12 years, still aren't creating jobs here in the USA.

Republicans can only accomplish their goal by subterfuge and lies.

I learned that at least 50% of the population are ignorant to the facts and are not willing to search it out. I learned that the same 50% care nothing about others when they put politics above people.

Our politicians have tarnished the position of POTUS. They have taught our children that it is ok to make fun of and lie about the POTUS. Check your facts people, more than half of what was said by Ryan and Republicans was taken out of context, twisted truth, and/or was flat out false. The sad part is these candidates may know this but they said what they said anyway.
If Romney is so good then why can't he win in the States he has the most experience in, by a landslide?

Ask youself why he does not have Massachusetts and New Hampshire wrapped up?

He has one ambition and that is to top his Dad. Another notch on his ambition belt.

If he had no money he would not be where he is today, this election and nomiation has been bought. Flip-Flop-Flip-Flop.... The issues is his ability to change direction is to suit his needs.

Mitt is a great guy? With all that money why is he not a philanthropist with foundations to support MS and Cancer?

He is a great guy in his circle of friends and church community, so am I, what of it. He does not care for you or me, he cares about becoming the POTUS and that is the wrong reason to run. He will spend as much money and say whatever it takes to be elected.

Morgan stated: "Having inwardly digested all this Republican BS, it seems the Republicans main complaint is President Obama hasn't fixed the mess they created fast enough."

Four years is 'fast'? Maybe on a geological timescale four years is fast. On a political timescale this is eons. I suspect the public might be more forgiving if there was any indication that the Obama team had any real plans (not faux plans made for political points a year before an election) for the economy beyond massive deficit spending and hoping that the economy will get better. I guess demanding that a doubling of the national debt in 4 years actually produce some discernable improvement in the economy is asking an awful lot. Well, I'm willing to give someone else a shot at trying to improve the economy. After all, how can it get worse?

When given a choice between a known/proven failure and a possible failure, I suspect most people will vote against the known failure.

If that were true, Old Navy, George W. Bush would not have been elected twice. But he was.

Re: robert lipka
Thank you for sharing.

Re: morgan "...he[Romney] cares about becoming the POTUS and that is the wrong reason to run." As opposed to obama who only ever tells the truth?

Lipka complains about "doom and gloom". No Romney was simply stating the abysmal record of this absolute failure of an administration.

These are the facts underlying Romney's truth telling. No one could be happy with this. This is actual doom and gloom.

obama's actual record of failure.

1. Unemployment. 42 months straight of unemployment over 8% under obama. Actually now about 9.36%. Worst recovery ever.

2. National debt approaching $16 trillion dollars. Almost $6 trillion added by the economic incompetent obama in just under 4 years.

3. obama is a record setting failure for example (a) first ever debt/credit down grade, (b) annual federal spending highest percentage of GDP since WWII, c) Budget defecit highest since WWII, (d) Federal debt 67% of GDP highest since WWII, (e) Employment just 58% of population. Lowest since 1983 (f) Long term unemployment 45% of total unemployed highest since 1930s (g) homeownership rate 60% lowest since 1965 (h) percentage of taxpayes paying income tax 49% lowest in modern era (j) Government dependency 47% highest in American history.

More and more of the same is the inevitable result if boy incompetent gets back in.


As for the GM bailout. It was a monumental illegal crony capitalist failure !

GM is back on the ropes and will soon need to be "saved" again.

And that notwithstanding the "bailout" (much vaunted by the idiot class) was no more than an illegal structured bankruptcy that offended all the laws of contract. As Estrich should well know.

The "bailout" was no more than crony capitalism at its most rank. obama simply paid off his entirely worthless Auto Workers Unions (UAW), saved their outrageous pensions and screwed over other union and non union workers and investors and all of us not UAW members.

These are the facts

1. US Government/obama with our money buys 60% share of the new GM for $30.1 billions giving GM the necessary "debtor in possession" funds reserve the court required for Chapter 11 filing.

2. The AWUs (UAW) were given 17% ownership stake in GM (65% in Chrysler) in lieu of money GM owed for union pension committments. That is we paid for the pensions of worthless UAW layabouts. At the time this equated to about 40c on the dollar, but those shares could be sold and were sold. The Unions did indeed make an initial sale right after the IPO and generated $4 billion profit on your money, which the UAW kept.


3. Private secured investors were given a settlement of 29c on the dollar. These private investors included other union's pension funds like for example Federated Teachers Association, which screamed foul and took the matter to court where the action failed. Seems some unions are more equal than others in crony boy's eyes. It should be noted here that it has long been established that secured creditors are to be paid out first. The boy crony simply ignored the law.


4. Common stock holders were completely wiped out, when new GM emerged from bankruptcy. The old GM stock was worthless.


5.New GM was allowed to keep $45 billion business loss tax credit carried forward from the old GM. Another crony move unheard of in bankruptcy and also done at your expense.


6. Delphi a parts supplier network had all debts owed to it by old GM cancelled. Pensions of Delphi non union employess were cast aside.


As it stands now the taxpayer is still on the hook for GM, but GM and its UAW thugs will share any profits. If GM goes down again and it will, you the taxpayer will be on the hook again. This is the privatising the reward for GM and the UAW thugs and socializing the risk on you.


obama played us all for suckers and will do so again.

Sober up people! Get this thief out of office.

Hi Susan, I would really enjoy crossing you while you are under oath. Although I've hear that the oath doesn't mean much in California these days, I would hope that's not true. However, there can be no question about it, you do a fantastic job of spinning the truth into a lie by simply leaving out a few critical details. I assume therefore, you've mastered Barry's Advanced Techniques for Liars. I compliment you for ignoring any and all rules of decency. as do so many other principals of the democratic party.
I cannot help but wonder, are you a student of the Weimar Republic? Barry seems to be ... If he should be re-elected, perhaps he won't tamper with your freedom, however, I wouldn't want to a bet one way or the other.
Sincerely, Doug Macnair

Capiscan wrote: "If that were true, Old Navy, George W. Bush would not have been elected twice. But he was."

My word, this should be obvious! Allow me to explain the difference between the two situations. On election day in 2004, the US unemployment rate was 5.4% and hadn't been any higher than 6.0% during Bush's presidency. In post war American history, these are pretty good (but not the best) employment numbers. Obama would sell his soul for even a 6.0% unemployment rate right now. Lets face it, the real unemployment numbers are double digit right now and just about everyone who isn't a rapid Obama partisan knows it and feels it. His numbers are the worse sustained post war record on the books. PERIOD. So the difference boils down to this: Bush numbers = good, Obama numbers = abysmal. As a wise man once said, "It's the economy stupid".

As an even wiser man once said, "don't take my word for it, check it yourself".

We have access to gov. and public records and they tell the real story and give the real numbers.

Economist and Author Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP,
while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.

(In their book Presimetrics: What the Facts Tell Us About How the Presidents Measure Up on the Issues We Care About, Kimel, who has built statistical software used by the military and NASA, and Kanell, who covers economics for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, use hard data to quantify and assess presidential performance on a variety of issues.)
Focusing on the presidencies from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush, and drawing on data from various government sources, they compare and rank presidential performance on issues such as taxes and healthcare. Kimel recently spoke to U.S. News about the merits of using data to assess presidents and why Ronald Reagan might not be as conservative as the public believes.)

According to the CBO, the U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001.

From FY2001 to FY2009, at the height of the Global Financial Crisis, spending increased by 6.5% of GDP (from 18.2% of GDP to 24.7%) while taxes declined by 4.7% of GDP (from 19.5% of GDP to 14.8%).

The Bush years spent not only the surplus left by a Democratic President, but spent so recklessly and were so irresponsible they put America in the worst recession we've every experienced and once again left it up to the Democrats to save their sorry asses and clean up all the messes they left behind. The only reason Bush or Cheney aren't in jail today is because they left the economy and our country in such dire straits we haven't had the opportunity or time to go after them. Neither Bush or Cheney can do much traveling because there are countries waiting even today to prosecute them for war crimes. What do Republican's do? Ignore both of them and pretend the Bush/Cheney years never happened which is impossible because they were so destructive that a newly elected President wasn't made aware of the totality of their errors until he was already sworn into office. No wonder he couldn't keep his campaign promises. He had no idea the extent of the damage done by those bozos. None of us did.

Bad enough they got us involved in two no win wars, but every day after Obama was in office we learned more and more of the extent of damage they'd done to our finances and how they'd set themselves and their wealthy friends up to win even while the rest of us lost.

To continue:
Spending increases (expressed as % of GDP) were in the following areas: Medicare & Medicaid (1.7%), defense (1.6%), income security such as unemployment benefits and food stamps (1.4%), social security (0.6%) and all other categories (1.2%). Revenue reductions were individual income taxes (3.3%), payroll taxes (0.5%), corporate income taxes (0.5%) and other (0.4%).
The 2009 spending level is the highest relative to GDP in 40 years, while the tax receipts are the lowest relative to GDP in 40 years. The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%).[3
2001 vs. 2012.

Tax receipts during the spendthrift Bush years were the LOWEST relative to GDP in FORTY YEARS! What was the Bozo thinking??!!
And guess what...Romney and Ryan plan to make tax receipts even lower!! While spending will be even higher!!

The 2009 spending level, the HIGHEST relative to GDP in 40 years was "a direct result of policies enacted by President Bush before he left office" and left Obama holding the bag.

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001 when the CBO forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009–2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion.
The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing", separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:
Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%).
Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010–2019 period, $5 trillion are DUE TO PROGRAMS FROM THE PRIOR ADMINISTRATION, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D.
Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011.

The major drivers were:
Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%

In October 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave the reasons for the higher budget deficit in 2009 ($1,410 billion, i.e. $1.41 trillion) over that of 2008 ($460 billion).
The major changes included: declines in tax receipt of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA);
$245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense – including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq.

This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.

The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.

So the difference boils down to Republicans-abysmal, Democrats-good.

Don't get your panties in a knot, girls. These stats are online and public domain. It's understood you don't and won't understand. But in words I'm sure you will understand and will respond with typical Republican faux outrage... Don't bullshit a bullshitter with your lies and half truths.

I'll allow you 50 percenters plenty of rope and will be watching how long it takes and which one of you bests twists truth into fiction and substitute your own reality by turning facts into fantasy.

If you don't remember anything else, remember this, folks:

"In 1993, when the budget deficit was at a record high, President Clinton could not get a single Republican vote for his deficit reduction package, because it raised taxes on the top 1 percent. Republican Bill Archer called it "job-killing poison." Newt Gingrich said it would lead to a "job-killing recession." Bob Dole said, "It's going to be terrible for small business."

Seven years later, after the longest economic expansion in history had added 22 million jobs and turned history's biggest deficit into history's biggest surplus, President Clinton said, "Time has not been kind to those predictions."

When President George W. Bush came into office, he applied the Republican philosophy of cutting taxes and regulations. In eight years, we went from the biggest surplus back to the biggest deficit and then plunged into a financial crisis.

Then Obama was elected. He spent stimulus money to bail out some businesses, slow foreclosures, save the auto industry and help stabilize the economy. The stock market came back, and the economy is growing slowly.

Why would we want to go back to Bush?"

Courtesy of Tom Rosshirt.

Susan is willfully ignorant. According to a local Janesville newspaper, the plant continued operations into 2009, building medium-duty delivery trucks for Japanese automaker Isuzu. I'm sure that the people who went to work every day at the plant knew it wasn't closed.

Susan is willfully ignorant. According to a local Janesville newspaper, the plant continued operations into 2009, building medium-duty delivery trucks for Japanese automaker Isuzu. I'm sure that the people who went to work every day at the plant knew it wasn't closed.

Morgan and Rosshirt provided an absolutely brilliant blizzard of statistics to show what a terrible president George Bush was and that in the face of a rapidly declining economy and tax income, President Obama chose to further increase Federal spending. Is there new information here? I don't think so. A couple of points:
(a) George Bush isn't running for President. The Constitution, as presently written, prevents him from ever being President again. That boogey man is dead. You can stop beating him now. He has been out of office for almost four years. However, Obama is president. This election is about him.
(b) President Obama had the chance to act responsibly with regard to deficit. Budgets can be cut as well as increased. Obama chose to ramp up Federal spending. The present administration is responsible for its own spending and policies.
(c) The results of the Obama spending and policies are less than satisfactory when measured against the one statistic that counts with the public, unemployment. Why doesn't Obama talk about this? Isn't he proud of what his policies and spending are accomplishing?
(d) What does the Obama administrations apparent solution to the lack of efficacy of its present policies and spending levels? You guessed it, more spending. Some minor increase in taxes on the reviled rich are proposed, but you would have to be even more innumerate than the typical Obama supporter to think that these minor increases will decrease the deficit by more than 1 or 2%.
In the face of all this failure, we are asked to send Obama back to 'finish' the job. To that, I'll provide a quote from one of the great Physicists: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Re: Old Navy comment #17, Old Navy you are half right ahd half wrong. Yes George W. cannot be re-elected but 17 out of the top 24 advisors to Mitt Romnerd are former members of the Bush administration. Those staffers were instrumental in instituting most of the economic policy of the Bush/Cheney debacle. We are now saddled with huge debt and huge debt service from that debt that daily is the engine that defines our Federal debt problem. And now Mitt Romney wants those guys back in charge again??? If we could separate out that debt from the spending currently being done by the Obama administration, things would look a lot different. Ultimately we will have to deal with that Bush debt and debt service charges that are an anchor on our current economy.
Debt per se and deficit spending is not all bad. Every family that has a mortgage and a car payment engages in deficit spending. If kept to a manageable level, it eventually works itself out as families pay off these obligations. The Federal government is not all that much different, it is just a matter of scale. I can still remember the day that I paid off the mortgage on my first house and the releif that I felt. Being able to buy my next home with cash was a great feeling as well. It took discipline and planning to do that. We need solid fiscal planning and the discipline to raise revenues (taxes) to begin to pay off this Bush debt. The problem is that so many politicians demagogue the tax issue and do not look ahead to the future of the country over their chances for re-election. Unfortunately, President Obama , who has not raised taxes on his watch, is one of those poiiticians who have not had the courage to raise the revenue to start us on a path to erasing that BUSH debt.

Lipka wrote:

"We need solid fiscal planning and the discipline to raise revenues (taxes) to begin to pay off this Bush debt. The problem is that so many politicians demagogue the tax issue and do not look ahead to the future of the country over their chances for re-election."

The statement is an excellent example of the real problem, innumeracy. The deficit is 1.5 Trillion dollars/ year. For the innumerate in the crowd, that is $1500 Billion dollars/ year. S1500 Billion represents all the wealth of the ~450 billionaires in the US. If you could confiscate this wealth (And who thinks you could get it all even if you tried?) you would solve the deficit problem for one year. $1500 Billion/year is the equivalent of all the earned income in this country greater than ~$100,000/year. If we confiscate all the earned income > $100,00 per year, we could solve the deficit problem. Unfortunately, if you did do that, most of the effected people would just stop working after earning the first $100K. The next year the deficit would just reappear.

The deficit isn't just a tax problem. The "dreaded "Bush Tax Cuts", at ~$200 billion/year, are paltry by comparison. This is a spending problem. Yes, people take out mortgages. But the amount owed generally begins to decrease immediately upon the first payment. We aren't anywhere near this state yet, and Obama will never get us there since he has absolutely no SERIOUS plans to reduce spending (plenty of vague faux plans set out for political points).

Romney may be a proto-failure, but Obama is a known failure. Down that path lies Greece.

Re: robert lipka You people are delusional. What Brakabama has done is unprecedented. This little jackass, BY HIMSELF, has TRIPLED this country's budget deficit for absolutely no reason other than buying political support. The budget deficits under Bush were pretty normal by historical standards. It says a lot about your pathetic candidate that bald faced lies are the only thing you frauds have to prop him up with. What do you get in return for whoring out your integrity this way? Or do you just hate yourself?

Re: Paul M. Petkovsek In other words, lie your ass off. The democrat credo.

Government spending is just the same as taxation. Just as one cannot spend one's way to prosperity one can not tax the economy to prosperity.
The annual deficit is the difference between spending and revenue. Entitlement spending is the primary driver of the deficit and debt. Expressed as a percentage of GDP Reagan ran a deficit economy of just over 4% as did Bush 1. Clinton ran a deficit economy of about 0.8% of GDP and Bush 2 about 3%. Obama is running deficit spending at over 8.9% of GDP which is double that of any president before him. By 2052 on this trajectory entitlement spending will eat up all revenue. But that is the obama/Democrat /Cloward and Piven plan.
The problem we face is not revenue but obama's deliberate pre meditated destructive entitlement spending, his stimulus spending on cronies with no return and the fiscal suicide pill known as obamacare.
Unlike previous presidents obama is deliberately using unsustainable deficit spending and the unconscionable increasing of debt as a weapon of mass destruction of the economy and of this Rebpublic and the Democrat party and the idiot classes (several of whom have posted above) are willing and active accomplices in that endeavor.

Government spending is just the same as taxation. Just as one cannot spend one's way to prosperity one can not tax the economy to prosperity.
The annual deficit is the difference between spending and revenue. Entitlement spending is the primary driver of the deficit and debt. Expressed as a percentage of GDP Reagan ran a deficit economy of just over 4% as did Bush 1. Clinton ran a deficit economy of about 0.8% of GDP and Bush 2 about 3%. Obama is running deficit spending at over 8.9% of GDP which is double that of any president before him. By 2052 on this trajectory entitlement spending will eat up all revenue. But that is the obama/Democrat /Cloward and Piven plan.
The problem we face is not revenue but obama's deliberate pre meditated destructive entitlement spending, his stimulus spending on cronies with no return and the fiscal suicide pill known as obamacare.
Unlike previous presidents obama is deliberately using unsustainable deficit spending and the unconscionable increasing of debt as a weapon of mass destruction of the economy and of this Rebpublic and the Democrat party and the idiot classes (several of whom have posted above) are willing and active accomplices in that endeavor.

Foolish, ignorant, and Wrong.
This is ridiculous. You are ridiculous.
The media and you bozos have been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%—even asking if that makes him a Socialist.
But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%.
Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%!
Shocking, right?
And for all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track.

So here's the Top Tax Rates on Regular Income and Top Tax Rates on Capital Gains Income going back to 1916. Don't forget, the wealthy were living very large, the middle class became the middle class, and the economy was doing great. Everyone prospered under high tax rates.

Reg. Inc. Capital gains

1916 15.0 % 15.0 %
1917 67.0 % 67.0 %
1918 77.0 % 77.0 %
1919 73.0 % 73.0 %
1920 73.0 % 73.0 %
1921 73.0 % 73.0 %
1922 58.0 % 12.5 %
1923 43.5 % 12.5 %
1924 46.0 % 12.5 %
1925 25.0 % 12.5 %
1926 25.0 % 12.5 %
1927 25.0 % 12.5 %
1928 25.0 % 12.5 %
1929 24.0 % 12.5 %
1930 25.0 % 12.5 %
1931 25.0 % 12.5 %
1932 63.0 % 12.5 %
1933 63.0 % 12.5 %
1934 63.0 % 31.5 %
1935 63.0 % 31.5 %
1936 78.0 % 39.0 %
1937 78.0 % 39.0 %
1938 78.0 % 30.0 %
1939 78.0 % 30.0 %
1940 78.0 % 30.0 %
1941 80.0 % 30.0 %
1942 88.0 % 25.0 %
1943 88.0 % 25.0 %
1944 94.0 % 25.0 %
1945 94.0 % 25.0 %
1946 86.5 % 25.0 %
1947 86.5 % 25.0 %
1948 82.1 % 25.0 %
1949 82.1 % 25.0 %
1950 84.4 % 25.0 %
1951 91.0 % 25.0 %
1952 91.0 % 25.0 %
1953 91.0 % 25.0 %
1954 91.0 % 25.0 %
1955 91.0 % 25.0 %
1956 91.0 % 25.0 %
1957 91.0 % 25.0 %
1958 91.0 % 25.0 %
1959 91.0 % 25.0 %
1960 91.0 % 25.0 %
1961 91.0 % 25.0 %
1962 91.0 % 25.0 %
1963 91.0 % 25.0 %
1964 91.0 % 25.0 %
1965 70.0 % 25.0 %
1966 70.0 % 25.0 %
1967 70.0 % 25.0 %
1968 75.3 % 26.9 %
1969 77.0 % 27.5 %
1970 73.5 % 32.3 %
1971 65.0 % 34.3 %
1972 60.0 % 36.5 %
1973 60.0 % 36.5 %
1974 60.0 % 36.5 %
1975 60.0 % 36.5 %
1976 60.0 % 39.9 %
1977 60.0 % 39.9 %
1978 60.0 % 39.0 %
1979 60.0 % 28.0 %
1980 60.0 % 28.0 %
1981 60.0 % 23.7 %
1982 50.0 % 20.0 %
1983 50.0 % 20.0 %
1984 50.0 % 20.0 %
1985 50.0 % 20.0 %
1986 50.0 % 20.0 %
1987 38.5 % 28.0 %
1988 28.0 % 28.0 %
1989 28.0 % 28.0 %
1990 28.0 % 28.0 %
1991 31.0 % 28.0 %
1992 31.0 % 28.0 %
1993 40.0 % 28.0 %
1994 40.0 % 28.0 %
1995 40.0 % 28.0 %
1996 40.0 % 28.0 %
1997 40.0 % 20.0 %
1998 40.0 % 20.0 %
1999 40.0 % 20.0 %
2000 40.0 % 20.0 %
2001 39.1 % 20.0 %
2002 38.6 % 20.0 %
2003 35.0 % 15.0 %
2004 35.0 % 15.0 %
2005 35.0 % 15.0 %
2006 35.0 % 15.0 %
2007 35.0 % 15.0 %
2008 35.0 % 15.0 %
2009 35.0 % 20.0 %
2010 35.0 % 20.0 %
2011 40.0 % 20.0 %
2012 40.0 % 20.0 %

One can levy heavy taxation and have a prosperous economy. America did it for years and years. Our problems started when taxes were reduced. Google it girls, it's out there for everyone to read.

To Morgan: Take a deep breath and think about the conditions in the world during the periods you site when the US had higher tax rates. In the 1950's (I like Ike!) until the early 1970's the rest of the world was recovering from World War II. There was no where else to profitably invest funds. By the 1980's these conditions began to disappear and they are now completely gone. Perhaps we need to adjust our taxation policy to adapt to economic reality?

By your logic, I could say that the country had no income tax prior to 1912, and was prosperous and happy. Perhaps we should go back to that economic model? Changing times require different policies.

Underlying and unwittingly illustrated by Morgan's frantic posts in defence of indefensible taxing and spending are two matters namely 1 that when faced with the facts of the total failure of this administration and faced with a choice of cutting spending, trimming budgets and acting in a fiscally responsible manner to reduce debt and manage the deficit or simply taxing taxing and taxing again in order to continue on a destructive deficit spending orgy that libs, demorats , progressives will never cut entitlement spending preferring to keep certain large sections of the population enslaved to government hand outs and 2 that the lib mindset is one of resentmentof success , of envy of what others have worked for and obtained and ultimately of self loathing.

Old Navy,
you could say that, but you'd be wrong. The federal income tax was first enacted in 1862 to support the Union's Civil War effort. The system was somewhat different than todays. It was eliminated in 1872, revived in 1894. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system.
We've always paid taxes, always. First to England's reps, then to our own, this country was founded and built by govt taxing the people. And tax rates are low, much too low for all the wealth in this country and taken from this country.
As to your other point, I first pointed that out on Buchanan's column showing the Republican argument on the economy was weak and a lie. They were trying to convince America it could be 'like it was in the good old days', not telling them the only reason they were that good is there was no competing markets except for what was right here on our shores.
But you're wrong in your conclusion. Take a look at when our infrastructure was built and more importantly, look around today and see how badly it has deteriorated. Taxes would have and should have been continued at the same rate because, once the middle class was well established and the country was growing with new roads and highways, then was the time to repair and remodel and grow our infrastructure and continue our high employment, continue to stimulate the economy for even more growth. What did they do?
Changing times do require different policies.
The rich do not pay enough in taxes and we need to return to the old system of high taxation, spending less and spending wisely.

Wright...you're an idiot.

I find a lot of the trash you write amusing and comical but even if it's just once in your life...think!

Or are you really so thick you don't know the population most enslaved to government handouts are the rich?

It is interesting that some of the above posters compare our economy to Greece. Years ago, the Greek shipping magnates pressed the Greek government to lower their tax rates to ZERO on the promise that they would then become job creators......once they got those tax breaks signed into law, the reneged on their promise and started parking their money not in Greek banks, but in overseas accounts away from the hands of the Greek government. The financial chaos that has ensued is a crisis that the Greeks now cannot control. The government went back to the tycoons and tried to retroactively tax these so-called job creators who basically gave the government the middle finger salute. They refused to give back even one cent to bail the Greek govenment out. The burden fell on the pensioners and they were made the scapegoat villians in this ongoing Greek tragedy. Does any of this sound familiar? Gue3ss who will be scapegoated in the U.S. ??? Poor old Granny who needs her Social Security check to buy milk for her kitty cat. No lets take even that away from granny before the rich should have to pay a dime extra in taxes.

An individual wrote: "Wright...you're an idiot. " Wow! What a convincing argument! I think I'll become a progressive!!!!

Seriously guys and gals, ad hominen attacks are pointless. They are the defense of those without a coherent argument. Please, let's attack the other persons facts, logic, and arguments. Let's not attack personalities.

I don't know your personalities, don't want to, don't need to. I didn't just show up at the dance. I know what you write.

Wright you're an idiot.

Morgan wrote:

"But you're wrong in your conclusion. Take a look at when our infrastructure was built and more importantly, look around today and see how badly it has deteriorated. Taxes would have and should have been continued at the same rate because, once the middle class was well established and the country was growing with new roads and highways, then was the time to repair and remodel and grow our infrastructure and continue our high employment, continue to stimulate the economy for even more growth."

Is this a serious argument? Why does it take as much money/year to maintain the Hoover Dam or the Interstate Highway system as it took to build it? Why would we "repair and remodel" something we had just built? Does the Federal government build/maintain the bulk of the infrastructure in this country, or do state and local governments? What is the combined total of spending on infrastructure each year? If not spent on infrastructure, what has the government been spending money on? Is any of this on a sustainable trajectory? Do you have any numbers to back up any of this rather chaotic conclusion of yours?

But far closer to the real point of these discussions, if "repair and remodel and grow our infrastructure" was the order of the day, why didn't President Obama do this with the $800 billion of stimulus funds instead of using it to primarily pay the salaries of public servants and UAW members (i.e., his cronies) who were about to be laid off? What is the government doing now with the $1,500 billion dollars in deficits (Not to mention the $4,000 billion budget) we are running up each year? Why isn't this far from paltry sum of money adequate to do the job? Perhaps we could reprogram some of this money and prioritize our spending BEFORE we reach out our hands to the public for more funds?

Obama doesn't get my vote because he doesn't want to keep spending under control. His first, and so far only impulse is to spend lots of money and demand more funds from the 'rich' to slow the hemorrhaging. As I pointed out in a previous post, this isn't a tax problem. This is a spending problem. The magnitude of the deficit is such that we don't have the funds to cover it even with confiscatory taxes placed on the 'rich'. Taxes can, and should be, on the table AFTER we try to control spending the way I would with my home budget (or a state government would), by prioritization and spending cuts.

Obama wasn't serious in his first term about this counties problems. Such a world class failure doesn't deserve a second bite at the apple.

Old Navy..

You still don't get it...?? I thought you were the "smart" one.

Doesn't matter. My points are out there, but I'm concerned about you. My cycling buddy always says you can lead a Republican to knowledge but you can't make them learn. Was he right?

I'm going to lead you once again, but I don't think this time you'll have a hard time understanding and I'll bet all your questions will be answered.

But I'm not going to lead you to knowledge, not this time. Oh no, I've learned my lesson.

I'm going to lead you to joseph wright.

I think you''ll find you'll have no trouble understanding each other and I'll bet he'll have the answers you want to hear.

Two peas in a pod so to speak.

Morgan wrote:

"I don't know your personalities, don't want to, don't need to. I didn't just show up at the dance. I know what you write. ... Wright you're an idiot. "

And by writing this, you've proven yourself a churlish boor. See how easy it is to call names? Unfortunately for you, you posted the proof of my statement yourself. In this case, it really isn't name calling.

When faced with facts that you didn't like and/or couldn't easily rebut, you resorted to name calling. There is too much of this kind of activity across the entire spectrum of politics and even on this blog. We immediately judge individuals as deficient based on their views. I'll say it again. argue against the other persons facts and logic. Leave personalities and name calling out of it. Unless of course you want to earn a reputation as a churl.

youtube has candidate obama pledging to keep the janesville plant open for the next hundred years in his own words look it up i tried to post the link, twice

Old Navy,

No, I didn't just come to the dance and every time you a-holes hijack Susan's column and insult and f*ck with people with opposing viewpoints, you may high five each other, but you have no admirers and no support except within your own limited circle.

You can't make it in the real world among real people, so though this may be your only outlet, I suggest whatever alternate reality you and your idiot savants occupy, you stay there.

Re: morgan
Morgan actually said "Or are you really so thick you don't know the population most enslaved to government handouts are the rich?"

Try to control the hormones the truly rich do not need handouts. LOL !


Again Morgan displays for all to see, the progressive/liberal/fascist/statist mindset which underlies all Morgan's thinking and which holds that the wealth one earns is not one's own property, but the state's property, or government's property or cummunity property for government to steal or to confiscate without limit and then to dole back out or to redistribute in phony infrastruture scams, or in phony green jobs scams, or in never ending entitlement programs or to the parasites, or to its cronies, or to its voters, or to selected sections of the population and all at its discretion.


How else could one interpret the notion that low tax rates or tax cuts or other tax breaks for the rich or for anyone are handouts. This is almost as ludicrous and to borrow from Morgam as "comical" as obama equating low tax rates or tax cuts with expenditure. It may not have occurred to Morgan or Morgan's ilk yet but there is such a thing as private property, of property rights and of private ownership.


No a handout occurs when earned property is confiscated from the earner or owner and given to another who is not prepared to earn for himself, the receiver being the beneficiary of an unsederved handout. For example illegal aliens becoming the beneficiaries of tax credits or the children of illegals getting subsidised education at the expense of income earners, or welfare without a work requirement, or monies paid out by obama to his green job bundlers or the UAW having its layabout member's pensions guaranteed by taxpayers.


Don't fret Morgan, if obama gets back in again the whole issue will become moot.


There will be little or no revenue for handouts, for bailouts, for welfare, for obamacare, for social security or all the other spending as the economy entirely tanks, as the rich withdraw and as production and business diminishes.
As Margaret Thatcher correctly said " [S]ocialist governments do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money." So it has been and so it always will be, particularly with Morgan's ilk assisting the process.

Morgan stated: "No, I didn't just come to the dance and every time you a-holes hijack Susan's column and insult and f*ck with people with opposing viewpoints, you may high five each other, but you have no admirers and no support except within your own limited circle.

You can't make it in the real world among real people, so though this may be your only outlet, I suggest whatever alternate reality you and your idiot savants occupy, you stay there. "

Wow! Just when you think it can't degenerate any further, someone takes it to a new level of spitefulness. Now we are using foul language and expanding our ad hominen attacks to others! I guess I must have won the war of logic and facts? I can see why Progressives are so successful at converting the undecided to their point of view.

Seriously, in the future let's stick to facts and legitimate debate. This type of back and forth is a bit distasteful. Sadly, this is a microcosm of politics in the US at this moment. We have all got to do better than this or the country is on the way to a very bad end.

How does one best describe the dems to be bussed in to fill Bank of America Stadium so that boy barack does not feel lonely?
1. A Morgansbord ?
2. A Confederacy of Dunces?
3. Rent a mob?
4. The gimme gimme gimmies?
5. Where's the free sh*t I was promised brigade?
6. The Food Stampers?
7 The welfare kings and queens,
8. Infanticide enablers?
9. A caliphate?
10 Occupy Bank of America Stadium?
Whatever one can call them, it will be the first time that the astro turf will be up in the seating.

Morgan said:

"I'll allow you 50 percenters plenty of rope and will be watching how long it takes and which one of you bests twists truth into fiction, substituting your own reality and turning facts into fantasy."

True to my word...I have been watching.. and given you plenty of rope and time. You certainly made good use of that rope, LOL, but now you're out of time. So...Congratulations! It's a tie. Both of you are equally adept at twisting truth into fiction, facts into fantasy, and an inability to recognize or accept truth or facts unless they come from your own limited knowledge and misinformation. I can only conclude, either you don't have the ability to google, or aren't yet willing to give up your ever so obvious lies and misinformation and replace them with facts and truth.

Keep having fun, girls, and don't feel badly. Even if no one takes you seriously but yourselves, even if no one but you believes your bs, at least there's something you're 'good' at doing.

Re Morgan.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

For the benefit of Morgan, these are the words of William Shakespeare spoken by Queen Gertrude, Hamlet's mother which have come to have the meaning that one can insist so fervently and frantically about something not being true that the greater liklihood is a supressed knowledge of the truth of the contrary argument.

What's up Morgan?

Is it obama's miserable failure that has your emotions and nerves raw and causing you to search out statistical crutches and false feelgoods or is it just that the patent miserable failures of all of the ecomomic policies and ideaologies held dear by libs are coming home to roost and getting to you?

Did your liberal brainwashing prove a falsity? Dreams of Utopia gone ? Free ride over? Or is it that even libs and progessives now understand that with obama we are all on a path to ruin?

LOL and long !

As I wrote earlier - The Dems are running scared!
I'd like to add that as an 'oldtimer' I've witnessed the Republicans and the Democrats over the past 75 years. If fact, I was an early Democrat. However something drastic has happened to that Party over the past forty years. They no longer truly support the working class people but rather themselves, the elitist class forever wanting more and more power over their subjects. They, as the so called progressives, have evolved into something sinister, much closer to the Facist and Marxist politcal bent.
God help us save our country.