Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Five Preposterous, Persistent Conservative Myths

Posted 10 years ago on April 2, 2012, 6:59 a.m. EST by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Five Preposterous, Persistent Conservative Myths by Paul Buchheit With the mainstream media in the hands of the mostly conservative wealthy, it's difficult for average Americans to learn the truth about critical issues. The following five conservative claims are examples of mythical beliefs that fall apart in the presence of inconvenient facts:

  1. Entitlements are the Problem

Beyond the fact that we're 'entitled' to Social Security and Medicare because we pay for them, these two government-run programs have been largely self-sustaining while supporting the needs of millions of Americans.

Medicare is much less costly than private health care. Social Security, which functions with a surplus, would not be in danger of a long-term shortfall if the richest 10% (those making over the $106,800 cutoff) paid their full share.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently reported that 91% of entitlements go to the elderly or disabled, or to members of working households needing supplemental assistance. Only 9% of entitlement dollars go to non-working but employable individuals, and most of that is for medical care, unemployment, and survivor benefits.

  1. Charter Schools are the Answer

Free-market adherents have a lot of people believing that the public school system needs to be 'saved' by charter schools. That belief is not supported by the facts. A Stanford University study "reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well as their traditional public school counterparts."

A Department of Education study found that "On average, charter middle schools that hold lotteries are neither more nor less successful than traditional public schools in improving student achievement, behavior, and school progress."

Charter schools also take money away from the public system. For example, the Los Angeles Unified School District loses nearly $7,000 in state money for each student who transfers to a charter. In Florida, the entire $55 million budgeted in 2011 for school maintenance went to charters. Governors in several states plan to direct money to schools that serve upper-middle-income families.

Furthermore, charter school teachers have fewer years of experience and a higher turnover rate, and according to one study were less likely to be certified.

Perhaps most damning are studies by the University of Colorado and UCLA which found that some charter schools segregate students by race and income. Said researcher Gary Miron of Western Michigan University, "Parents are selecting schools where their child will experience less diversity."

  1. Corporate Taxes Are Too High

This one is easy. The facts can be found in U.S. Office of Management (OMB) figures, which show a gradual drop over the years in Corporate Income Tax as a Share of GDP, from 4% in the 1960s to 2% in the 1990s to 1.3% in 2010. That's one-third of what it used to be.

Also coming from the OMB is the percent of Total Tax Revenue derived from corporate taxes. The corporate share has dropped from about 20% in the 1960s to under 9% in 2010.

Finally, in a U.S. Treasury report of global competitiveness, it is revealed that U.S. corporations paid only 13.4% of their profits in taxes between 2000 and 2005, compared to the OECD average of 16.1%. A similar PayUpNow.org analysis of 100 of the largest U.S. companies found that less than 10% of pre-tax profits in 2010 were paid in non-deferred U.S. federal income taxes.

Corporate tax avoidance is rampant at the state level, too. A new study by Citizens for Tax Justice, which evaluated 265 large companies, determined that an average of 3% was paid in state taxes, less than half the average state tax rate of 6.2%.

  1. Jim Crow is Dead

Even though white Americans are the nation's most frequent drug users and dealers, the people in jail for these offenses are overwhelmingly black. In some states, African Americans make up 80-90% of all drug offenders sent to prison.

As a nation, we lead the world in rates of imprisonment, and drug offenses have accounted for two-thirds of the increase in federal inmates.

Once drug users are in prison, they're stigmatized for life. As stated by Michelle Alexander, author of "The New Jim Crow": "Rather than rely on race, we use our criminal justice system to label people of color "criminals" and then engage in all the practices we supposedly left behind...Once you're labeled a felon, the old forms of discrimination - employment discrimination, housing discrimination, denial of the right to vote, and exclusion from jury service - are suddenly legal. As a criminal, you have scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a black man living in Alabama at the height of Jim Crow."

  1. Poverty Is Declining Everywhere

There's something disturbing about World Bank researchers using mathematical functions to determine who's living in poverty. But free-market fanatic The Economist liked the results, proclaiming that "poverty is declining everywhere."

That's easy to say when the World Bank gets to set its own poverty threshold, at $1.25 per day. The organization admits there was little change in the number of people living below $2 per day between 1981 and 2008. And almost half the world lives on less than $3 a day.

Another fact is that the rapid growth of China accounts for most of the global poverty changes. China is where hundreds of millions of starry-eyed young people went from zero income on the farms to a few dollars a day under oppressive factory working conditions. The GDP may show a decline in poverty, but a "quality of life" index wouldn't make that mistake.

6 and 7. Evolution and global warming don't exist.

These are just too preposterous for words.

Progressive activists continue to work toward the day when poverty is down everywhere, and minorities receive equal treatment, and education is properly funded, and tax subsidies rather than entitlements are minimized. But that day is being delayed by make-believe messages from the American conservative.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8708) 10 years ago

Great post! Thanks!!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Also missing, is the simple fact that (R)epelican'ts create HUGE, invasive government programs and agencies, and then bitch about big government when Democrat takes office.

We're up to 7!!!!

[-] 1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 10 years ago

And of course the Democratically controlled Whitehouse AND Congress have worked their asses off to undo all that? Nope, much more of the same, paid by the same masters.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 10 years ago

the biggest grower of govt,...........................little barry soetoro.

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 10 years ago

nice job

[-] 0 points by F350 (-259) 10 years ago

Might want to actually number your propaganda from 1-5 instead of using 1. just to make sure your fellow Drones can follow along with your bullshit.

[-] 5 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 10 years ago

Tough talk. You wanna talk about propaganda? Lets talk about that so called study you produced disproving global warming? You mad?

[-] -3 points by F350 (-259) 10 years ago

No I'm not pissed. Why the hell would I be?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

This post left off the sixth and most important of all.

The civil war is over, and the correct side won, whether you think it was about slavery, or States rights.

The correct side won. Admit it, so we can get on with moving forward.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 10 years ago

your kidding right lol!

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 10 years ago

1 entitlements arre sinking the usa

2 union ( leaders) hate charter schools, and school vouchers.

3 as of april 2012 , the USA has the highest corporate taxes of any country

4 the perpetuaters of racism in the usa,the justice twins, al and jesse.

5 global warming is scam,.......the cover blew off that a while ago.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago








[-] -1 points by glennmend (-6) 10 years ago

Hey it's Spring and where is the OWS goons that were supposed to come out in full force? Must have gotten freeze dried over the Winter!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

You mean like your brain or your ass? Hard to tell since they have the same lack of thinking ability. Your IQ goes down every time you sit.

[-] -1 points by glennmend (-6) 10 years ago

What is OWS down to a few hundred members or so??? You can get one more member if you start buying Michael Moore some more jelly doughnuts

[-] 0 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

The other ones have moved back in with their parents.

[-] -2 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 10 years ago

I will dismantle 2 of your "myths".

Medicare costs $11000 a "person". I buy my own health insurance and its $11000 per family. no matter how many in the family.

Only Japan as higher corporate income taxes.

I will even take a shot at the charter school theory. The Washington DC school system costs $23000 per pupil and has one of the lowest academic results of any school district. Charter schools do much better and for WAY less money.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 10 years ago

In 2009 the cost of medicare spending was 502 billion. Do the math, it's not 11,000

Conservative talking points are not the best place to get true information.

The entire National Health Expenditure is lower than $11,000 at $8,086 per person and that includes all forms of healthcare.

Historical NHE, including Sponsor Analysis, 2009:

NHE grew 4.0% to $2.5 trillion in 2009, or $8,086 per person, and accounted for 17.6% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Medicare spending grew 7.9% to $502.3 billion in 2009, or 20 percent of total NHE.

Medicaid spending grew 9.0% to $373.9 billion in 2009, or 15 percent of total NHE.

Private health insurance spending grew 1.3% to $801.2 billion in 2009, or 32 percent of total NHE.

Out of pocket spending grew 0.4% to $299.3 billion in 2009, or 12 percent of total NHE.

Hospital expenditures grew 5.1% in 2009, slower than the 5.2% in 2008.

Physician and clinical services expenditures grew 4.0% in 2009, slower than the 5.2% in 2008.

Prescription drug spending increased 5.3% in 2009, faster than the 3.1% in 2008.

The federal government share of health care spending increased just over three percentage points in 2009 to 27 percent, while the shares of spending by households (28 percent), private businesses (21 percent) and state and local government (16 percent) fell by about 1 percentage point each.


[-] 0 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 10 years ago

$502 billion divided by 45 million is 11155. you are sn idiot.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 10 years ago

thought you meant per person as in everyone. Which is why I included "The entire National Health Expenditure is lower than $11,000 at $8,086 per person and that includes all forms of healthcare."

You rather just let the old people die even though there is no problem covering them? Or what are you suggesting

[-] 2 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 10 years ago

Of course he is. If grandma can't afford her insulin its not my problem. Fuck her. Thats how these people operate

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 10 years ago

"Medicare is a national social insurance program, administered by the U.S. federal government, that guarantees access to health insurance for Americans ages 65 and older and younger people with disabilities as well as people with end stage renal disease."

aka the most expensive spectrum of people that need healthcare. It's expensive due to the people it helps and the problems they have, not due to the system set in place. I'm fine paying the 1.45% in taxes especially because I'll qualify for the program when I get to that age.

[-] 3 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 10 years ago

Yeah I agree with you. I was just saying thats how the right looks at it. They dont care if the elderly widow down the street has enough to eat. Or if the kid across town can afford shoes in the winter. Its not their problem.

[-] -2 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 10 years ago

To extend medicare to everyone, we need to tax everyone at about $7000 per person. Young people wont need much care but the system needs their money. Thats what Obamacare is trying to do.

There is a serious problem covering old people, medicare is nearing bankruptcy. Yes care will be rationed, it has to be under a public option.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

Proof of any of these claims? Links?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

2010 premiums averaged $143 per month per person, actually collected.

$1085 per month per person benefits received. Edit: $936

Government paid the shortfall of $942 per month per person. Edit: $793


[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

See, that wasn't so hard!

I looked at that page, and while it shows the overall finances (plus projected shortfalls if those 2010 proposals were passed) I didn't see a breakdown per-person. Where did the 143/1085 numbers come from? Did you do some math on the overall figures, or is there something on the page that I'm missing?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

The figures are based on 47 million medicare enrollees in 2010 from another source. It's simple math from there. I was surprised at the figure myself.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

Even more alarming is that total health care is around $2.5 trillion a year, $630 per person per month, or $1435 per working person. Based on 330 million US population and 145 million working.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 10 years ago

Yepperz. Lack of leadership throughout the health care(sic) industry(sic) has threatened health care.

I think we've been trying to tell you this anyway.

In fact lack of real corporate leadership is what got us here.

But that's OK, because they're rich, right? Guess who they took the money from?




[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

How much would it cost per working person if they were on a private plan?

My numbers are different:

Assuming that the overall cost of Medicare in 2010 is $523,590,000,000 (523,590 * 1,000,000 since the link's #s are in millions)

$523,590,000,000 / 46,600,000 people enrolled = $11,235.83 per person per year, or $936.32 per month. Of course that doesn't mean that each person got $11,000 worth of coverage, just that the overall total evens out to that amount.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

I get $936 too. My math skills can't be trusted after 2 AM. That figure represents the average benefit that each person received. Also interesting is how little they actually pay into the system considering the size of the benefits. 81 billion/47 million/12 months=$143

So the statement in the main post supporting the claim that "entitlements are the problem" is incorrect.

"Beyond the fact that we're 'entitled' to Social Security and Medicare because we pay for them, these two government-run programs have been largely self-sustaining while supporting the needs of millions of Americans."

Medicare is not even close to self sustaining.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

I'm having a hard time finding something that isn't just a summary of how Medicare is currently funded:


"Unlike Social Security, Medicare payroll taxes and premiums cover only 57% of current benefits. The remaining 43% is financed from general revenues. Because of rising health care costs, general revenues would have to pay for 62% of Medicare costs by 2030. As with Social Security, the tax base is insufficient to pay for this."

It seems like more revenue needs to be found in order to keep the program funded. I would be fine with increasing FICA taxes across the board, using funds from a Bush tax cut repeal, or cutting Pentagon spending to keep this program going.

I'm sure that there are a lot of administrative and other expenses that can be cut from the Medicare total as well. There has to be a ton of $ wasted on inefficient things in the program. Who knows?

[-] 0 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 10 years ago

Google it. I sm not doing your research for you. You occuturds just end up arguing your opinions with my facts. Prove me wrong.

[-] -2 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

You made the claim, you back it up. Prove yourself right.

I think you pulled those numbers out of your ass.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 10 years ago

I did a search for the number 11 in your medicare link, and it only shows up in the number 2011 for the year.

Your number "11,000 per person" is not in there.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 10 years ago

I already won. You have to resort to name calling and childish taunts instead of letting the facts speak for themselves.

Oh, and I don't count op-ed pieces as "proof." Post scientific papers, peer-reviewed publications, government statistics. You know, actual data instead of some dude's opinion. Use your first link as an example.


[-] -3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

You're full of shit.

1.) Medicare Part Ais free for most people. If you're 65 or over and eligible for Social Security, Railroad Retirement or civil service retirement, or dependents or survivors benefits, you're also eligible for Medicare Part A without paying any premium. If you're under 65 and have received Social Security disability benefits for 24 months, you're also eligible for free Part A coverage. If you aren't eligible for free Part A coverage, you can buy it for a monthly premium. With 30 to 39 Social Security or civil service work credits, you'd pay $233 a month; if you have fewer than 30 work credits, Part A costs you $423 a month. You can find out how many credits you have by checking the annual earnings record Social Security sends you or by going online at the Social Security website.

For Medicare Part B, everyone pays a monthly premium (which goes up each January 1). Most people pay $96.40 per month. If you're eligible for Medicaid benefits, Medicaid pays this Medicare Part B premium for you. Single people (or married filing a separate tax return) with an adjusted gross income over $82,000 per year pay higher premiums, as do couples whose combined gross income exceeds $164,000. Those premiums are:

income up to $102,000/$204,000 (single/couple), monthly premium of $122.20 per person income over those amounts and up to $153,000/$306,000 (single/couple), monthly premium of $160.90 per person income ver those amounts and up to $205,000/$410,000 (single/couple), monthly premium of $199.70 per person income over $205,000/$410,000 (single/couple), monthly premium of $238.40 per person.

Hardly the $11,000 per person per year you claim.

2.) Corporate tax rates are high in the US only before deductions and loopholes. They are among the lowest in the developed world in terms of what is actually paid.

3.) Charter schools, according to virtually every study published, perform worse on average than public schools. Although there are always exceptions, the charter school national average is clearly inferior to public ones. Their primary effect is to drain money out of the public system.





[-] 3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Study of the oldest school choice program in the nation:

The results of a new study show higher rates of graduation and attendance of four year colleges among students enrolled in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) than public school students not enrolled in the program.

“Students enrolled in the Milwaukee voucher program are more likely to graduate from high school and go to college than their public school counterparts, boast significantly improved reading scores, represent a more diverse cross-section of the city, and are improving the results of traditional public school students,” said the study’s press release.

“Among the new findings are that students enrolled in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP)—the nation’s oldest private school choice program currently in operation—not only graduate from high school on time by seven percentage points more than students enrolled in Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS), but they are also more likely to enroll in a four-year college and persist in college.”

The study was led by University of Arkansas Professor Patrick J. Wolf, who is also head of the School Choice Demonstration Project (SCDP.) Researchers at the SCDP have conducted evaluations of other school choice programs in cities such as Washington, New York and Charlotte.

To prove the higher level of “attainment” among voucher program students than those outside the voucher program, the study examined over time two similar samples of 801 9th grade students. The primary distinction between the two samples was one contained entirely students enrolled in the voucher program and the other did not. The study also compared two samples of 290 8th graders, one sample full of voucher participants and the other void of any.

In the case of each longitudinal comparison, the Milwaukee school choice enrollees were more likely to graduate high school by four percentage points and more likely to graduate on time by seven percentage points.

Additionally, the results over a period of four and five years respectively indicate a “20 percent gain in the likelihood of college enrollment” of voucher students. The students in the 9th grade samples were also more likely to stay in college through their first year by six percentage points.

According to the study’s summary of final reports, the schools that accept voucher recipients place a large amount of emphasis on graduation and educational attainment.

Said the summary,“Each school employs strategies to try to catch students up to grade-level that vary from extra instructional times to a no-excuses approach to discipline and homework to integrating the artistic and the academic to counseling students with troubled home lives.”

“Every high school and many of the elementary schools we visited emphasize high school graduation and college enrollment… High school teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors at the high schools we visited reported using interest inventories, career websites, career nights, and assistance with college applications as strategies to keep students focused on college and career preparedness.”

The study also tracked the performance levels of students in different subject areas such as reading, math and science. While school choice students displayed better results overall in reading, performances by non-voucher public school students indicated higher competency in math.

Ultimately, the study produced varying results related to achievement in the different subject areas, and only in charter schools that were once privately run was there a clear trend of higher achievement by voucher students when compared with students in public schools.

During 2009-2011, student enrollment in MPCP increased despite fewer schools participating in the program. The amount of students in the program stood at 23,426 for the 2011-12 school year, a 12 percent increase from the previous year.

Established 22 years ago, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) is the oldest private school choice program in the United States that is still in existence. Currently, the state of Wisconsin trails only Arizona in the percentage of students K-12 enrolled in a school choice voucher program.

[-] -2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Hey, shithead: did you not read where I stated, clearly, that there were exceptions? The whole COUNTRY'S charter schools ON AVERAGE, perform worse that public schools.

Now are you going to do a search to dig up a few more exceptions, or do you understand what "average" means?

Keep distorting: it's the only thing you do well.

[-] 3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Oh yeah, avoid what works.

So you don't think that a study of the oldest program in the nation would be the best? That's funny, I guess you were asleep at City College during the stats class. Do you work for the Teachers Union as well and now you are trying to protect this power grab too?

Keep up the invectives, its the only way you know how to talk. Your anger is amazing, I double over in laughter at how easy you go off the handle. Do you have a heart problem as well?

[-] -2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Keep ignoring the statistics and misrepresenting the facts, asshole.

Once again,did you not read where I stated, clearly, that there were exceptions? The whole COUNTRY'S charter schools ON AVERAGE, perform worse that public schools. Do you understand what "average" means?

Of course not. You just like your lies, misdirections and distortions.


[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 10 years ago

if your over 65 and getting SS, medicare is not free,......its deducted from your SS check.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Part A is free for most people. Part B is what people pay for. It is far less than what they would pay for private insurance.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

From the US Treasury and President Obama's Proposal (he is your man so you have to believe him, right?)

"The United States now essentially trades off greater tax expenditures, loopholes, and tax planning for a higher statutory corporate tax rate relative to other countries. This is a poor trade that produces a tax system that is uncompetitive relative to other countries, distorts business decision making, and slows economic growth. In recent years, our major trading partners have overhauled their tax codes, lowered their statutory corporate tax rates, and in some cases broadened their tax bases. The United States has not enacted similar reforms, leaving the United States with the second highest statutory tax rate among advanced countries. In April 2012, after the scheduled reductions in Japanese tax rates go into effect, the United States will have the highest statutory corporate income tax rate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)".

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

So you just confirmed what I said. The US has high STATUTORY rates that are hardly ever paid, due to loopholes. Thanks for proving my point.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Good, so you are for a reduction. This is coming from your man.

[-] -2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Nope, I'm for closing the loopholes so that they pay their fair share.

They currently only pay about 17% on average.

[-] 3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Seriously, where are all the fun people - Puffy, Blue Rose, Girl Friday, Donut King. Don't tell me they have all given up already?

I agree 100% with you regarding loopholes. I would simplify everything, go a flat or two brackets for income, and treat income, cap gains and corp all the same. Don't give anybody any incentives to avoid taxes. But that won't happen because you folks are too jealous that somebody else migth be doing well. and that irks you.

[-] -2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Flat taxes are regressive, and everyone but the most greedy acknowledges it. I say we should bring back the tax rates from the Eisenhower era, when the economy was growing for everyone.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

There was segregation in the Eisenhower era, should we go back to those too?

[-] -2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Love how you just go for misdirection and conflation of issues.

A smart country learns from its mistakes and crimes. Legally enforced segregation was a crime we stopped committing (though we still practice it as a nation). Hopefully we have learned never do do that again. Reagan was a criminally stupid mistake this country made. OWS is trying, among many others, to correct for the near criminal redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top that he ushered in. But people like you do not inspire optimism on either count for having learned one single lesson.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Misdirection? you are the one trying to make a correlatione between the Eisenhower era and high tax rates.

President Reagan was an excellent president and we have benefitted greatly from him.

Criminal redistribution of wealth - it's not your money to steal. You are the thief. You want to back to the era of low growth, high unemployment, high poverty and high inflation with decisions made in a centralized government. Jimmy Carter was smart enough to figure out his mistakes in the first two years and he didn't have enough time for the economy to recover.

Stop being so power hungry.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

You don't get it: it's not yours either! Unfair advantages due to systemic flaws are not freedom: they are its opposite.

The period of the HIGHEST growth, the MOST SUSTAINED expansion of the economy was during a time when we had the highest marginal tax rates, the most steeply progressive taxes in our history.

[-] 2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

The highest rates, but with a swiss cheese tax code. Come on, that's all you have?

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Reply to you nonsense below.

Of course there were lots of deductions. But one had to spend on something the government deemed important in order to make use of them. UNlike sitting on capital gains today and being able to pay a lower rate on money that did nothing but male money.

And even with those deductions, revenues were still higher from steeply progressive tax rates. Corporate taxes also were a greater percentage of GNP. There were no taxes levied on social security or unemployment, so those dependent on them didn't have to supplement the taxes the wealthy got out of paying.

Te "liberal wet dream" is not taking everything, but halting the 1% from doing so. And the other cream we have is for a return to some semblance of democracy rather than a bought and paid for legislature. We know you right wingers hate democracy, and prefer plutocracy, kleptocracy and corporate oligarchy, but are too dishonest to admit it.

[-] 0 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Spending on what the government deemed important? Hardly. It was the era of mass deductions and tax careers based on selling tax shelters to doctors. It was a mess and only the unfortunate few tripped into those extreme tax rates.

Revenues remain depressed because government, states too, have increasing built the system on the backs of those with higher and more volatile incomes. Spending remains higher because the recession and an utter lack of reform.

It is a liberal wet dream. Start with everything and what you get to keep is a gift from them. Even the hard line of half is skipped over with glee. Sure, someone earns money and government is entitled to more of it than they are. Wow.

You should think sometime that if government is so vulnerable to corruption, then making it bigger makes it worse. But you won't because you're a liberal.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

You are completely deluded with right wing Cool Aid coursing through your shriveled brain and heart.

It was an era of higher revenue generation more broadly based and steeply progressive. It was an era in which more of the costs of living were were mitigated by the government, and the system itself wasn't as skewed to favor the wealthy above all else, where capital gains were taxed more equitably, and estate taxes reduced effects of wealth accumulation.

As to increasingly bulding a system "on the backs" of high of those with higher incomes, that is a complete fabrication. There is no overall volatility . (And income mobility is worse here than in the entire developed world.) Individuals incomes can change (a bit) but the amount of money has not simply remained the same, but the economy as a whole has grown. What's more, the rich have gotten exponentially richer; their share of that expanding economy has not been volatile, unless you define volatility as growing steadily. The only movement downward has been the middle class. There is not only no volatility at the top, but steady gains at the expense of everyone else. The pie has gotten larger, but the share of the pie the rich have has grown so much faster than everyone else's, the middle class and poor have even smaller slices even as the economy grows.

SInce those at the top have gained, and are continuing to gain the most from the system - the top tier has been recovering from the recession faster than everyone else, and in fact now has even more than before - they should pay the most back into that system. But they don't, at least not in terms of percent of income.

And if you believe that high marginal rates are so full of swiss cheese as to be meaningless, why do you idiots put up such a fuss about eliminating the Bush tax cuts? After all, they don't mean anything anyway, according to you. Why does the right wing constantly bring up Kennedy's tax cuts of the top marginal rates if they weren't an issue to begin with? You're trying to have it both ways. And neither one is correct.

Spending does remain high, but that's not the issue: in fact it should be much higher. The issue is lack of revenues, and the tax breaks for the wealthy are a big part of that problem.

The corporate tax share of GNP is currently HALF of what it was in 1960. Billionaires pay a smaller percentage of their income on taxes than does the middle class and the poor.

That's what causes corruption; extreme concentration of wealth. It is not the size of government that is the main contributor to corruption, but the fact that so few have real access to government. It renders elections and the entire democratic process moot; As George Soros once famously said, he doesn't need to vote since he can buy whatever law he needs. Government is not so big after all: it is controlled by just a few oligarchs. But you don't see that because in YOUR right wing delusional wet dream, you will someday become one of them.

[-] 0 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Sorry, but government revenue as a share of GDP has been pretty stable at around 19% or so. Now it's low and spending is much higher. Your wet dream of a highly distorted tax code where only the unfortunate few that don't do the right planning (that's the 50s) get clipped is a bad idea. But, of course, that isn't what you want at all. You want the rate and you want it to stick. You want more from what people earn than they get to keep for themselves. They work and the collective takes most of it. Fairness at last. LOL.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

What are you talking about, the cost of living was mitigated by the govenrment. Government spending as a % of GDP was much lower in the 50's than now and transfer payments were almost non-existant.

Growth began to slow in the lay 50s and Kennedy ran on a platform of tax reductions.

Middle class income has not declined it has doubled since 1990. According to IRS data the bottom 50% of Americans reported $517billon of income in 1990. They reported $1.1 trillion in 2007. So what are you talking about?

Your mobility argument is utter nonsense as well. The rotaion of the high earners has increased since 1980. Use a simple data set like the Forbes 400 and you will see this. Use the S&P 500 and you see it.

Spending absolutely is the issue. All you have to do is look at where we are today. We are at an all time high as a % of GDP. How can you say spending is not a problem.

Any large bureaucracy breeds corruption. George Soros is the biggest hypocrite out there. He play in a zero sum game so if he is who you are idolizing, well we really have issues. He is your 1%er that has done nothing for society. Do you even know how he makes his money. He best against the people.

You are absolutely hopeless. I fear as to where you were taught your economics. Please tell me so I will not send my children there.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

I have a functional brain, which is more than you have.

[-] 2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Ouch! That still doesn't mean the liberal wet-dream of taking nearly everything was ever a reality. The period liberals pine away for had a tax code full of holes where in the end, those paying such punitive rates were the unfortunate few that simply didn't or couldn't plan their way around them.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Yes, it is I money. The concept of private property is stated in the constitution and ingrained in many subsequent law.

It was also a time when all of the other major countries were literally destroyed and you didn't have cheap labor. What happened when Germany and Japan got back on their feet, more competition. It's not the best decade for comparision.

And as you know correlation (if you can call it that) does not equal causality. As I mentioned before, we also had segregation in that decade. Maybe that is what caused such a decade of growth.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Reply to post below:

Those market "reforms" are creating homelessness for the first time in decades. THey are a disgrace., and due to the rise of the hard right parties.

As to the riots in Irland, they are pissed, and rightly so, that taxes are going up on the middle and lower classes at a time that disastrous bank imposed austerity measures have crippled the country and thrown millions out of work. The banks caused the problems there just as they caused the crash here, and the people are being forced to bear the brunt of the mess capitalism has made while the banksters are still getting their bonuses. That's the reason for the riots.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Entitlements in both Germany and Sweden have been rising and the government can't pay for them any more. Less people providing for more people not working and eventually you run out. That's the problem with the system.

The banks didn't cause the crisis there or here, the crisis was caused by overleverage which was a outcome of an easy money policy. Monetary policy is where this debate should be not necessarily fiscal policy. You could raise taxes if we could get sound monetary policy with some type of rule. John Taylor has been spot in with this for awhile now.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

You are full of shit, as usual. Unregulated derivatives that were leveraged over 40 to 1, credit default swaps, fraudulent lending practices, and the list goes on, all caused the recession when the bad bets couldn't be covered. It was pure capitalism at work, pure banksters run amuck, permitted by deregulation.

Germany is not only in no trouble, it is bankrolling the recovery for most of Europe. Their mixed economy is proving far more resilient and robust than our more lopsidedly capitalist one. And far more sustainable.

And it had been Krugman who's been spot on with virtually every single prediction he has made about both Europe and the States.

Go spew your fact-free (or distorted) right wing propaganda elsewhere. Nobody is stupid enough to buy it here.

[-] 1 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Just like the Euro helped sink the PIIGS, it helped bolster German exports. If Germany had the Dmark, its currency would be much higher and its exports would be much much weaker. In this way, Germany is draining some of the even more fucked up welfare states on the periphery. The comment too about Germany adopted more market-oriented policies, not fewer, has also helped.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Krugman is bitter because nobody listens to him, not even your man in the White House.

Did you not know about Agenda 2010 in Germany:

"That's how Germany became what it is today. A mere decade ago Germany was called "the sick man of Europe." It was still painfully digesting the unification of the former West Germany's relatively free and modern economy with the former Soviet-enslaved East. Ten years ago German unemployment was 8.2%—the same as Europe's overall—while U.S. unemployment was 5.7%. What did Germany do that allowed it to charge ahead and trade unemployment rates with the U.S.?

Starting in 2003, Germany under then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder began to implement a program of long-term structural reform called "Agenda 2010." The idea was to transform Germany into an economy where business has an incentive to invest, and where labor has an incentive—and an opportunity—to work. This was pro-growth reform that would be very familiar to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.

The centerpiece were labor-market reforms designed by a former human-resources executive at Volkswagen AG. The power of unions and craft guilds was curtailed, making it easier for unskilled youth to enter the job market and easier for employers to hire and fire at will. Germany's lavish unemployment benefits were sharply cut back. An unemployed person in social-democratic Germany today can draw benefits for only about half as long as his counterpart in capitalist America.

The immediate reaction was a brief rise in unemployment, as German business was allowed for the first time to optimize its labor force. And there was a backlash by powerful union and guild interests, costing Mr. Schroeder his bid for re-election. But Germany was transformed".

Yeah, I am really fact-free and distorted. Guess this is just magic.

How come you regulation didn't work with MF Global. Your socialist is in the White House, he should have caught it. How come Clinton's boys didn't catch Madoff when they were told to? Where are your regulators. How come they didn't catch Solyndra? I know they are all out still pushing liquefied natural gas. Ooops, that was a mistake. Don't worry somebody else will pay.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Funny how you mention Germany.

They have a FAR more robust social safety net, and FAR more redistribution of wealth than we do. So does Scandinavia. None of them seem to be complaining about their lack of freedom. And the reason is simple. A hungry man is not free: he is a slave to his next meal.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

And both Germany and Sweden have pushed strong free market reforms within the past ten years.

Did you see the riots in Ireland over the week-end complaining about higher property taxes. Why aren't these people obediently lining up to pay the government more.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 10 years ago

Ha, ha , ha! That's the way to out a lie!

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

The 50's were a different era when other macro factors were prevalent a la the end of the war. Growth slowed in the late part of the decade and the 60s and that's why Kennedy realized he had to lower taxes to spur growth.

The big point you miss is that it is not your money to steal. It's the people's money. You want to send all of the money to DC so they can make the decisions and you believe they make better decisions. I disgaree with you. You are taking away people's liberty and freedom to choose. This country was founded on those principles and have always been. Why try to change it when it has done so much good.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

I'd be happy with the rates during the Kennedy administration, too. The only taxes that aren't regressive are those with progressive rates. Mainstream economists and social scientists all agree.

And you can forget about your "liberty and freedom" blather. It is just a transparent cover for your greed.

[-] 4 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Greed: The label applied to those resisting what you'd like to take.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Greed: when the top 400 people in the country own as much wealth as the bottom 150,000,000.

And the fantasy that in supporting a system as grossly inequitable as that you will miraculously be among those 400 some day.

[-] -1 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

It isn't remotely credible that you'd stop at cleaning them out.

Greed: The label applied to those daring to resist what you'd like to take.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Reply to dishonesty below:

Trying to change the subject from income distribution for the entire citizenry to illegal immigration, are you? Is this a fucking game to you?

50% - fully one half, math wiz - of all American CITIZENS today live at or near the poverty line. 50%. That's 150 million citizens. 1% of the population owns 43% of the capital. One percent. That's the income distribution, moron.

And you want to conflate that with with immigration issues? Since illegal immigration as virtually no impact on those numbers, you are indeed a racist for bringing that up in this context. But you're too dishonest to even admit it to your self.

Impress ANYONE and acquire a conscience or at least a brain.

[-] -1 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Change the subject? It isn't changing the subject to bring up a major driver. How fucking dumb are you people? You think you can roll millions after millions of drop-outs into the country and not tilt the nation's income distribution? Find a 5th grade math teacher, ask him to sort it out for you.

And there you go, an issue of math becomes an issue of race for a leftist with poor reasoning skills. Maybe ask that math teacher is the way you feel about the numbers ever changes them. LOL.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

I has been done before and can be done again. There will always become super rich, but the overall distribution of wealth has, since the late 1930s (when it changed from circumstances very much like today) always been far more equitable. Clearly, you pine for the return of the Robber Barons. Oh, wait, you needn't pine. That's who rules America again today.

[-] -1 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

Maybe think about the income skew we're importing the next time you hear a leftist smear someone wanting the border controlled as a racist. Impress your 5th grade math teacher that you know what happens to an average after you add a bunch of below average numbers.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

See, it's not your money to steal. You can call me greedy, but that's not the point. I have a personal right to be greedy and mean and a bad person. You don't have to like me. But if I strive to outperform and I do well, then I should get the reward. You don't think so. You want me to work hard and outperform and take my money so that it can fund some idea that you think is better. You are taking my liberty away.

If I want that type of society then I would move to Russia.

[-] -1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

NO, you really don't get it. THe biggest threat to democracy is grossly inequitable distribution of wealth.

This country was not founded to keep taxes low, but as a rebellion against corporate oligarchy. The rallying cry wasn't "give me low tax rates", but rather "no taxation without representation". When you have obscene concentrations of wealth among a few, that gives those few grossly disproportionate access to the halls of power, and leaves democracy - the real flower of that first revolution - in the dust. You ARE living in Russia where a few rule the many - its just called by a different name.

Your "striving" is assisted by the infrastructure the people of this country built, and the playing field you strive on is is anything but even. " You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, "you are free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe you have been completely fair." -- LBJ

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

So the real point here is that you want to take from those who have done well to give to everybody else. What have they done, have they broken the law, did they steal this money from you and others. No, they have not. They earned their money fairly.

The infrastructure you speak of was built and payed for by everybody paying taxes for it. Just because you have not done well doesn't mean that you should steal from one person to give to another.

The best way to help people is a good paying job and the government can't provide that. So how are you going to do it. Your community organizer has no idea. We need people to take risks and create new companies and that is what drives innovation and unemployment. If we listened to you, and Obama, and Al Gore and the DOE we wouldn't be looking at the next 100 years of energy independence. Fortunately, Tom Mitchell didn't listen.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

They did NOT earn their money fairly. The system is skewed in their favor. For the last forty years, since your precious Alzheimer's president, the tax code has flattened, the laws increasingly favored those who already have and the myth of the level playing field has finally been shown clearly just how much of a lie it always was. For forty years the income distribution has, with the help of the government, gone from the middle and bottom to the top. It is well past time to restore balance and reason.

[-] 2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

How is the system skewed in their favor?

Nobody every said the playing field is level and nobody ever said you can make outcomes equal. If a black kid wants to get tattoos and wear a hoodie, he is not going to get hired. There is no govermental program that is going to change that. How do you make that change if you are so smart?

Boy, you have to throw barbs at everybody including past presidents.


[+] -8 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

What is it that you do?

What is it that you excel at?

Do you own your own company? Doing what?

Do you work for someone else? Doing what?

What has you all large and in charge?

[-] 3 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

I'm not successful at all. But I don't begrudge somebody who is. Do i begrudge these Facebook guys who will make a killing, even though I personally think it is a ridiculous product? No, good for them. They are better than me because they took the risk and are going to win.

Are they nice guys?

That's what America is all about, the freedom to go after your dreams, not subsidize some bureaucratic function in Washintgon.

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 10 years ago

You are so full of shit the EPA should send you a toxic clean-up crew.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Come on you can do better than that.

[-] 1 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 10 years ago

No, you are full of shit. You said Medicare is much less costly than private insurance. Its not, dumbfuck. it costs $12000/enrollee. Thats the true cost. I proved it, assclown. Just because an enrollee has lower premiums doesnt mean its less expensive, it only means someone else is paying the true cost. Now i am paying $1132/month for my health insurance thru United Healthcare, but that covers 4 people and that is the true cost, there isnt a second source defraying the rest of the cost. Gawd you are stupid. I judt destroyed your silly claim utterly foolush claim.

Nice backpedal on the corporate tax bullshit you spouted. I was right and you started backpedaling and ratioslizing your lies. eat it, liar. I love being right and brilliant.

Answer the quedtion. DC spends $23000/pupil, yes or no? Binary question, none of your waffling or backpedaling.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 10 years ago

Herr aflockofdoofi ist derjenige, der voll von sheisse ist!!

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

You proved NOTHING. You simply declared. You provided no links, no facts, only your own assertion.

How did I backpedal, since I only made a single post here? Are you hallucinating?

The issue is not simply DC or how much is spent. The issue issue is that charter schools have, on average nationwide, produced worse educational outcomes than public schools, and siphon money off of the system. I put up the links to articles and studies. What have you done besides farting out irrelevant bull?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 10 years ago

2010 premiums averaged $143 per month per person, actually collected.

$1085 per month per person benefits received.

Government paid the shortfall of $942 per month per person.


[-] 0 points by aflockofdoofi2 (-66) 10 years ago


There are 47 million retirees on medicare. the budget is over $500 million. Now do you know which is the numerator and which is the denomiator in the next simple math problem to get a true cost per enrollee?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

What does that have to do with cost to the patient? Nothing. That is the cost of medical care. Medicare and Medicaid have the lowest overhead of any insurance in the country. There is no money going to profits or advertising, and the bureaucracy is a fraction of that in private insurance, and the amount, measured in dollars, of actual health care would not be less: it would STILL be $500 million. But it would be steeply more expensive for the beneficiary under private insurance. And since medicare covers primarily seniors, who need far, far more medical care than any other demographic, the overall cost of health care the program pays for is not at all surprising. You are purposefully swapping the cost of medical care with the cost of the insurance. It is dishonest in the extreme.

Your numbers are a complete distortion of reality, and provided for that reason alone. Either that, or you are stupid beyond belief.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Epa, you are one angry guy? By the way, do you have a job or is this it?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

I hate lies are liars like you. Selfish greedy stupid racist asshole fucks like you piss me off.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

I own you. You are so easy to get upset. You got to stop or you are going to blow a blood vessel. This is to easy. Where is Puffy or Girl Friday or Rose, at least they fought a bit. We are losing all the good people around here.

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Yeah, and we're stuck with filthy asswipes like you.

[-] -2 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Can't control yourself can you.

[-] 1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 10 years ago

I love it. I'd love to meet this epa fool and see if it really lacks the good sense to run that rope smoker like that to a live person.

[-] 0 points by e2420 (-28) 10 years ago

where did racist come in?

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

I told him that Obama was an affirmative action student and he thinks that racist. He doesn't know how he got into Punahou and why he went from Oxy to Columbia.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

From several other posts this scumbag has made.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

How did he get into Punahou and why didn't he go directly to Columbia?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Funny how you never ask that of white men you dislike, bigot racist scum.

Which chapter of the KKK do you belong to?

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

How do you know I don't ask that. I know many white men who got in to college, not through AA but through financial donations. And when these types get into business if they don't achieve they are quickly put into positions of lesser authority. My initial point was Obama was inexperienced in the job and is learning on it.

And I will say it again, he is not a nice person. You can throw your barbs at me all you want, but that doesn't remove the fact that he one mean and conniving person.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

Reply to your post below.

Your false assumptions and ignorant bigotry speak for themselves. There are so many bile-filed hateful lies and misdirections and in your statement below that responding would be like continuing to talk to a Nazi. I won;t do it anymore. You are filth. And I would cast pearls to you.


[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

Don't like the truth, huh. I know the guy. Met Romney once in his last election and he and his family were very nice and delightful. And it wasn't a fundraiser - small dinner.

So how are you going to get the black unemployment rate down, any ideas? How about the general unemployment rate?

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

And you point to the one thing that you believe, in your racist brain, disqualifies him: affirmative action is mostly for Blacks, isn't it? Racist scum.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn1964 (-206) 10 years ago

He should have been disqualified because of his inexperience. The only reason he was at Punahou was because he was black. He spent the whole time there doped up. The only reason he got into Columbia was because he a liberal prof at Oxy who liked him. He fit the category.

He won over 90% of the black vote in the last election. He got that because he was black. What part of that is not true.

He was inexperienced and knows very little about how to lead because he hasn't lead anything.

You don't want to deal in reality and the elephant in the room. Why is black unemployment so much higher than white unemployment. Which of your government programs is suppose to fix that? Why hasn't it worked. Why didn't Solyndra hire more black kids.


[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 10 years ago

People like you make organic farmers want to get insecticide.

[-] -1 points by GumbyDamnit (36) 10 years ago

Wow! That's really scathing and hurtful!

Come on hate monging cesspool, you can do better than that.

[-] -2 points by hitintheheadgirl (-73) 10 years ago

They get awfully upset when you simply want to keep a little more than half of what you worked for. Greed describes you for wanting to keep some, but never them for wanting to take it all.

Medicare is also subsidized by non-government paying patients via cost shifting. It freeloads to an extent off of everyone else that pulls the full bill. It's a hidden cost of government fantasy-care the leftists never seem to want to consider. It's even worse for Medicaid.