>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^RFlagg:
Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


The argument isn't really about countries that are more atheist versus countries that aren't. It's that the United States has uniquely been a Christian nation since its founding. We are one nation, under God. Most people don't understand what that means; they think it is archaic when it is really the most important founding principle we have. The rapid decline in civil society has to do with the fact that, for the first time generations of Americans are growing up without the judeo-christian ethic being instilled in them from society, especially from their schools. And what we've seen since 1963 is a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crimes, teen pregnancy, STDs, the divorce rate, broken families, drug use, etc..the list goes on. There are the top 7 problems we had in our schools according to government records in 1940 vs 1990:
1940
1. Talking out of turn
2. Chewing Gum
3. Making noise
4. Running in the Halls
5. Cutting in Line
6. Dress-code violations
7. Littering
1990
1. Drug abuse
2. Alcohol abuse
3. Pregnancy
4. Suicide
5. Rape
6. Robbery
7. Assault
So, the argument is really that, we as a society have collectively turned our back on God, and therefore God has also turned His back on us. The principle is, you reap what you sow, and that's exactly what is going on right now. That's why this nation is facing calamity after calamity, because we have lost our way and we refuse to repent and turn back to our Creator.


You are picking and choosing your details man. I think you are also getting your 'facts' about the 40's and 50's from tv shows and movies and using them to spin your idea of 'how golden and free of crime America was before we turned out back on God.' And what about the decades before the 50's, certainly we hadn't 'turned away from god', so how do you explain the debauchery of the 20's, the turn of the century 'robber barons' that lived in luxury while their sweat-shops were worked by the masses of poor and children. The herione gangs and the waves of violence around 1910, 15.

It is really funny how some people (mostly white, older and male) see the 40's and 50's as this shining era of godly love, no crime and family harmony. It was all like 'leave it to beaver'. Dad made the big bucks, mom stayed at home and the most the kids ever got into trouble was when they broke a neighbors window. Yes, generally crime rates were low in the 40's and 50's but you cant attribute that to people 'having the fear of god' back then but skip over times that had just as much, if not even more religious fervor but also plenty of social upheaval and crime. Point of fact crime rates right now in most states are at historical lows, nearly to the levels of the 50's, but you still see murders every day. The information age has changed these things. In the 50's the only news you had was local. You might never have heard about some crime rave in another state.

Other things can attribute to the lower crime rates of those years. How many young men were serving in WWII during the 40's, that certainly would account for a drop in crime rates. And as to the 50's, the threat of nuclear war was constant. 'In God We Trust' wasn't added to money in the mid 50's because it was a particularly religious era, but rather because if the threat of communism. The term used to denote a healthy and proper family in the 50's wasn't coined the 'nuclear' family for nothing.

Last I'd like to point out that the US was 'never' designed as a Christian Nation and has only receive that monicker in the last number of years. I know bible-thumpers and hard-right politicians would have you think, hell have even changed school books, to wipe out ideas like the simple fact that many of the founding fathers wanted nothing to do with religion, though certainly not all. You can twist the words of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson all you want, but they above all abhorred the idea of religion influencing politics. This is not to say that they were all anti-religion, many advocated religion as a personal foundation of morality, but to hear modern republicans suggest they wanted Christianity to be the basis of the constitution and this country, they would be rolling over in their graves.

I know an older Christian that I greatly respect who blames the recent collapse of conservatism on the fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. He was in seminary school when it happened. The fundamentalists moved in and started a wave of ideological contraction that has become the basis for the social side of modern neo-conservatism.

In that regard I blame fundamental Christianity for the general stupidification of the US.>> ^RFlagg:

Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.

Income taxes started in the 1860s. Not sure about capital gains. I don't buy your point that poor immigrants got wealthier when there were no taxes. Wealthy individuals have most often gotten rich on the labor of poorer people (think slavery).
Diverting from productive to unproductive is a matter of opinion on what is productive. I think we waste so much money on the military, but politicians are afraid to say that. Only a small percent is spent on welfare and I would argue that does improve our chances in the future.
Not sure if you've seen this... http://videosift.com/video/Understanding-the-National-Debt-and-Budget-Deficit I am concerned about the debt, but I also believe it's being used to score political points and is part of the fear agenda.
It's class envy (or wealth redistribution) when you talk about raising taxes on the rich, but what was it called when the tax rates were decreased and the loopholes were created.
>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.

And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.
The main difference then was that government was much smaller. It didn't divert resources from productive places to unproductive places. It wasn't able to run huge deficits because of the gold standard, so the interest on the national debt never became a burden...And when the government borrows from other countries, 99% of it is spent on welfare and warfare rather than something that increases future returns to make the debt repayable.
...The point is, using class envy is a political game that needs to be ignored...

In the past era, we hit a communications Boom. The onset of media has both enslaved and set the people free in different aspects.

TV and the internet has allowed people to communicate all over the world in the snap of a finger and compare ideals. This has educated the people on their subjugation and people have started to stand up and gain a voice for themselves. This IS NOT that the people have turned their back from any divine entity so much as they see the truth of Control and Enslavement both to religious ideologies and to political dominance. People are just now starting to free themselves from the chains and shackles of being force fed how they should see, hear, talk and think.

This is just the beginning, and I expect it to get worse, as people stand up all over the world and demand their own personal rights and opinions be observed, instead of dictated like Kings, Queens and Religion have been doing for centuries. Those that seek to dominate and rule over others will start to feel the backlash of the free spirit.

The key export for religion has always been control. The goal of the church has always been to enslave the weak minded and control them; tell them how to think, tell them how to act and direct them on every aspect of their lives.

So if you want to sell us that as a society, we have turned our backs from religion, then you better look at why. It hasn't been on a whim. It's because people are opening their eyes and standing up against the lies and the bull that they have been fed for countless years. Now that people can successfully communicate en mass, they are learning, and knowledge is power. People are standing up against authority because they are realizing that their authority was forced and not earned. Forced through, lies, deceit, cheating and all the other things that come with power.

As the people revolt, the power tries to hold on tighter by trying to limit what we have, whether it's free speech, freedom of movement, gathering in large numbers or communicating and sharing ideas (see the pattern here?)

The decention of society is due to the power struggle of the population finally looking up and identifying his prison guard.

Good or bad for society is yet to be seen but that's what's going on. People can accept some rules when the rules are equal but those rules no longer serve the people but are used to keep the people down then they are no longer rules but edicts!

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^RFlagg:
Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


The argument isn't really about countries that are more atheist versus countries that aren't. It's that the United States has uniquely been a Christian nation since its founding. We are one nation, under God. Most people don't understand what that means; they think it is archaic when it is really the most important founding principle we have. The rapid decline in civil society has to do with the fact that, for the first time generations of Americans are growing up without the judeo-christian ethic being instilled in them from society, especially from their schools. And what we've seen since 1963 is a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crimes, teen pregnancy, STDs, the divorce rate, broken families, drug use, etc..the list goes on. There are the top 7 problems we had in our schools according to government records in 1940 vs 1990:
1940
1. Talking out of turn
2. Chewing Gum
3. Making noise
4. Running in the Halls
5. Cutting in Line
6. Dress-code violations
7. Littering
1990
1. Drug abuse
2. Alcohol abuse
3. Pregnancy
4. Suicide
5. Rape
6. Robbery
7. Assault
So, the argument is really that, we as a society have collectively turned our back on God, and therefore God has also turned His back on us. The principle is, you reap what you sow, and that's exactly what is going on right now. That's why this nation is facing calamity after calamity, because we have lost our way and we refuse to repent and turn back to our Creator.

>> ^RFlagg:

Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...
>> ^Fairbs:
Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.



The argument isn't really about countries that are more atheist versus countries that aren't. It's that the United States has uniquely been a Christian nation since its founding. We are one nation, under God. Most people don't understand what that means; they think it is archaic when it is really the most important founding principle we have. The rapid decline in civil society has to do with the fact that, for the first time generations of Americans are growing up without the judeo-christian ethic being instilled in them from society, especially from their schools. And what we've seen since 1963 is a dramatic increase in the rate of violent crimes, teen pregnancy, STDs, the divorce rate, broken families, drug use, etc..the list goes on. There are the top 7 problems we had in our schools according to government records in 1940 vs 1990:

1940

1. Talking out of turn
2. Chewing Gum
3. Making noise
4. Running in the Halls
5. Cutting in Line
6. Dress-code violations
7. Littering

1990

1. Drug abuse
2. Alcohol abuse
3. Pregnancy
4. Suicide
5. Rape
6. Robbery
7. Assault

So, the argument is really that, we as a society have collectively turned our back on God, and therefore God has also turned His back on us. The principle is, you reap what you sow, and that's exactly what is going on right now. That's why this nation is facing calamity after calamity, because we have lost our way and we refuse to repent and turn back to our Creator.

>> ^BansheeX:

And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.



So you're saying that the glorious late-robber-barons era during which there was abject poverty for the masses, including things like child labor, and people had a life expectancy of ~35 years, as "much wealthier" than the golden era of the 50s and 60s?

>> ^Fairbs:

Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.


And 100 years ago the income tax and capital gains tax was 0... for everyone. And the rate of growth during that period of time has never been equaled since. So here we have a clear point in history where rich people were not being taxed at all and poor immigrants got much wealthier in short order.

The main difference then was that government was much smaller. It didn't divert resources from productive places to unproductive places. It wasn't able to run huge deficits because of the gold standard, so the interest on the national debt never became a burden. Today, the national debt is so large and short term that interest rates can't go up without causing unpayable interest. Without healthy interest rates, there are no savings. Without savings, there is no real investment to upgrade those shovels to bulldozers. And when the government borrows from other countries, 99% of it is spent on welfare and warfare rather than something that increases future returns to make the debt repayable.

That being said, Romney isn't the solution. This guy is just like GWB, will say anything to get into office. The point is, using class envy is a political game that needs to be ignored. Raising taxes on anyone doesn't come close to stopping the coming currency collapse. You guys are doing the economic equivalent of playing with your dicks. And it's going to become painfully obvious in the next 10 years regardless of which one of these clowns you elect.

Problem is, they say the reason we were doing better was because we had God in schools, then we took him out of the schools and everything else... everything comes to how god was involved back then and less so now therefore we are paying the punishment of not having god in our lives... never mind how well many of the more atheist countries are doing (they think atheist countries are more like the old USSR)...

>> ^Fairbs:

Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.

Something most Republicans can't grasp is our country is better off when the rich are taxed more. 40 years ago, taxes on capital gains were 80%, but now Romney feels he's taxed too much at 15.

The President isn't open? What about Romney and his record low tax return openness? What about Romney sharing in detail what loopholes he'll close and which programs he'll shut or cut back on so he can afford this 20% tax cut and huge increase in military budget? I mean we know he'll close funding for PBS (.00012% of the federal budget), end food stamps (best I can find is about 6% of the budget, which is at least a measurable amount, of course about half those people on food stamps work, and it works out to about $1.43 a meal mostly for kids, elderly and disabled people)... I mean we know he won't close the carried interest loophole or most of the loopholes involved with capital gains, so exactly which loopholes is he closing, how is he closing them and when. I would say Romney is the one who isn't open. If I had Trump's money I would give $1 million for each year of tax returns (5 more years minimum up to 15 years) and $10 million for giving full details about his tax plans... to anybody but the church and it's related charities... heck why not allow some of it go just to encourage him...

That's not what progressive means, in this context. A progressive tax system is one where you pay a (progressively) higher rate when you have more income. What you have is a regressive tax system.

Do you happen to know what percentage of U.S. companies actually pay tax at the stated high rate? How does that compare to other countries? I know that quite a few of your companies weasel their way out of paying any tax at all, but I don't know how many overall manage this.

The ancient Roman empire also had social welfare, of a sort, increased after 122 B.C. See http://www.roman-empire.net/society/society.html for an overview. Then, as now, it was expensive to run.

The comparison is actually quite fair, except that in ancient Rome it was expected that wealthy citizens would give back to society and the idea of unbounded avarice as a virtue would have been quite foreign to them... so in a sense it's back to front.
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Not quite sure how comparing that to the US economy makes any sense. The US has the highest corporate tax rate on Planet Earth now. We have very high capital gains taxes (compared to global averages). Our income tax is so "Progressive" right now that the bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay 5% of the taxes. Over 75% of the Federal Government's 1.6 trillion dollar budget is dedicated to social programs for the poor.
Only way comparing it to the vid makes sense if if you contextualize it by stating that it is the GOVERNMENT that is deciding the screw the poor by the process of its own incredible incompetence, malfeasence, and mismanagement. Since only about 20 cents on the dollar comes 'out' of government versus what goes in, then yes - the U.S. Federal Government is entirely oriented around screwing the poor.
But of course, that's not what Prog-Lib-Dytes mean. To a leftist, the video means "tax breaks for the rich" ... (insert liberal talking point) et al.

Not quite sure how comparing that to the US economy makes any sense. The US has the highest corporate tax rate on Planet Earth now. We have very high capital gains taxes (compared to global averages). Our income tax is so "Progressive" right now that the bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay 5% of the taxes. Over 75% of the Federal Government's 1.6 trillion dollar budget is dedicated to social programs for the poor.

Only way comparing it to the vid makes sense if if you contextualize it by stating that it is the GOVERNMENT that is deciding the screw the poor by the process of its own incredible incompetence, malfeasence, and mismanagement. Since only about 20 cents on the dollar comes 'out' of government versus what goes in, then yes - the U.S. Federal Government is entirely oriented around screwing the poor.

But of course, that's not what Prog-Lib-Dytes mean. To a leftist, the video means "tax breaks for the rich" ... (insert liberal talking point) et al.

So we have a Videosift guy who is whining about having to pay 35% on his wages but Mitt only had to pay 13.9% on his capital gains. Mitt's lower rate has nothing to do with him being 'better' or anything of the sort. It is entirely because Mitt's wealth is earned in an entirely different way.

@Winstonfield_Pennypacker Spoken like someone who gets a tax refund in April instead of having to write a big check.

No fucking shit it was taxed differently because he earned it in a different way. That's the core of the dispute: most taxpayers want all types of income taxed the same way.

And it wasn't always this way. The capital gains rate was dropped in '97 from 28% to 20%, and Bush pushed it down to 15% with his devastating (because it wiped out the surpluses we had) tax cut.

As to your rationale:

This is because capital gains investments are (A) risky and (B) directly benefit the business sector.

Anybody in the workforce can say the same. Having a job is highly risky, especially these days. And what job doesn't directly benefit the business sector? Even the guy scrubbing the company restroom is adding value.

Your second comment was about his charitable contributions. There is no way I could reduce my tax to 13.9% by giving 15% of my money to charity. If I could, I would. And half of Romney's charity was to an institution he's an insider of, the Mormon Church. I don't mind considering church donations as charity, but clearly Romney is not some ordinary parishioner giving to his church. He was an elder of that institution and still has a large influence.

The 100% serious straight faced republican answer is "because he's a better* person than you".

No - the answer is that you guys are comparing grapes and basketballs and then bellyaching about how it "isn't fair" that the grape doesn't bounce as high as a basketball. It accomplishes nothing except to prove how woefully ignorant you are, and how horribly succeptible you are to leftist bull$#!t.

I'll try to put this in a way that even a ProgLibDyte could understand... There's two reasons Romney only paid 13.9% taxes....

1. Most of his income was from capital gains investments - which are taxed at much lower rates than income taxes in nations all over the planet. This is because capital gains investments are (A) risky and (B) directly benefit the business sector. So capital gains investments are a behavior that should be rewarded - and even the government knows this. That's why CGI rates are only 15% even for guys like Buffett because government wants them dumping money into business capital to stimulate growth - and they aren't going to penalize that highly beneficial behavior with punitive tax rates just because you are stupid and feel butthurt about it.

2. Mitt Romney donated 15% of his income to charity - which is tax deductible. It is another thing that is never going to change, because giving money to a private charity is a bilion times more efficient than giving it to government, and that kind of behavior should be rewarded.

So we have a Videosift guy who is whining about having to pay 35% on his wages but Mitt only had to pay 13.9% on his capital gains. Mitt's lower rate has nothing to do with him being 'better' or anything of the sort. It is entirely because Mitt's wealth is earned in an entirely different way.

That's reality guys. I know it is not convenient to the liberal worldview, but even your left-wing radical pals like Bill Maher, Al Sharpton, and all the rest do the exact same things as Romney once they have earned enough money. And yet you don't seem to care about that. Curious. Very curious indeed, this thing you call 'selective outrage'... Facts are facts, and for true INCOME (not CGI) Mitt, Buffett, Gates, and everyone else pay higher taxes than you (or the same if you happen to hit the highest tax tier). The only way you leftists can ever conjure up your fakey, bologna arguments is to cook the books and crosstalk about completely different things. It is bullcrap, but you guys wolf it down like chocolate cake. Just proves how dumb you are when it comes to economics.

Not that I really care to defend Mitt Romney on anything, but he wasn't "caught" with money in the Caymans. Not only is it legal to invest money there, but he pays the same tax rate on that money as he does in the states. When the liberal media put out the story, they let you draw the inference, and you fell for it hook line and sinker. Yes, it gives certain tax advantages, like that isn't normal to invest your money in places that gives you those advantages. This is much ado about nothing. It's his 15 percent rate that he pays because most of his income is capital gains that is more eye opening.