- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
I think we need to raise taxes as part of the solution to our debt crisis and I don’t agree with republicans who buy into the 20% of GDP max tax concept. Even the Laffer Curve (basis of Reganomics) has a 70% revenue max. We can and should bring in more revenue and cut the spending.
We are addicted to spending money we don’t have and we have somehow let the politicians convince us that recessions should never happen. Breaking news: recessions are necessary and printing money so that we can spend more money might make the pain of recession go away for now but it will result in absolute disaster down the road. We need to embrace the recession, cut spending, raise taxes and cut government regulations.
Last edited by Donc; 04-17-11 at 09:32 PM.
The haggardness of poverty is everywhere seen contrasted with the sleekness of wealth, the exhorted labor of some compensating for the idleness of others, wretched hovels by the side of stately colonnades, the rags of indigence blended with the ensigns of opulence; in a word, the most useless profusion in the midst of the most urgent wants.Jean-Baptiste Say
(smile) Hmmm, they are talking about Tax Revenues....
Those lower taxes have helped give the U.S. government the lowest revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product of seven industrialized countries surveyed in 2010 by the Congressional Research Services. (The other countries were Japan, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and France.) The U.S. also had the lowest spending as a percentage of the GDP.
Can you tell us why that would be...or do you prefer to toe the Party Line?
Obama is NOT 50 feet tall, he is ONE inch deep.
No. I don’t believe it and I don’t refute it. Not until I see how the numbers were derived. The article makes a lot of statistical claims but does not provide a single source or method of calculating such numbers.
apparently, there were four years with lower rates 1913 - 1916
here a graph from a different place with the similar info
Last edited by Simon W. Moon; 04-17-11 at 10:26 PM.
I may be wrong.
1) The top marginal rate isn't the average tax rate of the bracket it encompasses.
2) The top marginal rate had different thresholds for all those years.
It's a very difficult question to answer, even 1912 on. You'd have to find the average tax rate for each year for the top 1%, who fell into a different income bracket each year.
Give a man a fish, or he will destroy the only existing vial of antidote.