Should Employed people only be allowed to vote?

The 50s and 60s did have superior economic growth rates, along with higher taxes and more income equality.

That the facts don't agree with your propaganda narrative do not make them irrelevant or wrong.

The average real growth rate in 77-79 was a superior 5.2% per year.

A major reason Carter was a one term president is that he appointed Paul Volcker to stop the inflation cycle Carter inherited, which Volcker did in 1980 by stomping on the money supply brakes and sending interest rates soaring - and sending the country into a recession. Which, unfortunately for Carter, was an election year.

 

So why are you not advocating for those tax rates, since you sit there day after day blathering on about how great the 50's and 60's were? You dodged my question.

And again, time to get over your 50's and 60's fetish. We're not the only game in town, anymore, where the rest of the world was either developing or rebuilding. We also don't have the same demographics that we did, then. But that's not a part of the 50's or 60's you'd be interested in preserving. It's not too surprising that less people became willing to sacrifice their wealth for the greater good of American society as the country becomes more 3rd world, filled with foreign looking, sounding, and behaving peoples.

5.2% in increasingly inflated dollars. Inflation at 18% under Carter.

Right, they should have just let those 18% inflation rates continue. Print more money, and spend it.

It's rare to come across a Carter apologist. Even most Democrats grudgingly admit the guy sucked. Not you, though! Go Team Democrat! Woo!

 

how in the world do you sleep at night?

 

voting rights only for the employed would lead to a revolution that would bring equality back to this great nation.

 

Heaven forbid that the average American voter be indifferent and lazy. I can't imagine what that would be like...

This idea is fairly ridiculous. There are unemployed people who care about our country, and there are employed people who don't. In any case, voting isn't restricted to those who are not indifferent or lazy.

 

1) We don't need them that high, and 2) it would be political unfeasible in the current RW propaganda soaked climate.

I'm not sure what "fetish" you are talking about. I'm simply stating the fact that we had the best economic growth when the top tax rates were 70-91% and we had greater equality where all Americans shared in the growth.

I appreciate you hate those concepts and so you wish to pretend these aren't facts. But your political bias notwithstanding, they are facts, as inconvenient to your political bias as they may be.

"Real" growth means in inflation adjusted dollars. I assume that folks have a modicum of understanding of economics. Obviously a misplaced assumption in your case.

Why should they have done that?

RW propaganda has created many false myths many conservatives regurgitate regularly. I simply correct them with truth and facts.

 

1) Dropping them from 70% to 50% was called "trickle down" and is, to this day, considered by progressives to be the beginning of the downfall of the American economy. I'll assume you will want them higher than 50%, considering your long history of decrying "trickle down" policies. 2) It's funny you complain about RW propaganda when most media outlets that people watch are disseminating LW propaganda. You wouldn't have a problem with that though, obviously.

Your 50's and 60's fetish that you constantly talk about.

Are you making a causal argument? You always seem to stop just short of doing that for some reason (hedging). We also had the best economic growth back when blacks did not have equal rights and the percentage of non-white minorities in general was a lot lower than it is now.

Or I didn't see "real" in your post when I read it the first time. My mistake. But why cherry pick 1977-1979?

Because you're complaining about Paul Volcker stopping the inflation cycle. Should he have not done this?

You can call your partisan apologia whatever you like.

 

Reagan later cut the rate to 28%. I've stated several times that I think a 50% top rate would probably be sufficient. Give the vast amount of wealth that has been accumulate by the top, I can see an argument for a little higher surcharge.

You're the one obsessed about it.

Nope. But it is evidence of the fallacy that tax cuts produce faster growth or that the economy did worse when the middle class shared in the gains.

Dispells another RW propaganda myth you've regurgitated about "The horrible economic conditions in the late 70's ..." The economic conditions of the late 70s were pretty good, inflation aside. Real GDP growth was robust and unemployment was mostly below 6%. it was 1980 when the Fed sent interest rates sky high that the economy turned south.

The Fed eased off the brakes in late 1980 and the economy grew by a real 7.4% in 4thQ1980. But that data wasn't reported until after the election.

What are you babbling about? Could you please quote me where I am "complaining about Paul Volcker stopping the inflation cycle."

You mis-characterize more than just about any other member here.

I call it facts and the truth. I've posted the sources and data; any one can confirm it for themselves.

 

I'm currently unemployed. The owner sold his business and everything was completely changed and everyone was laid off. Been actively looking for a job since before we were officially notified about it but I still haven't been able to find one. Are you saying because of the actions of other people I should not be allowed to have a say in what goes on? Especially when those people or laws that come up for vote could effect me? Why do you get to make that choice for me? Who are you to try and deny me my rights when I haven't committed any criminal offense? Whether I vote or not is my choice to make, not yours.

 

We have the same tax rates on the rich that we had when Clinton was President and a balanced budget was achieved. By that measure, the tax rates we have now are "sufficient". But more would never be enough, especially when progressives always insist on spending more, if not restrained.

Not really. I just explain why it's foolish.

Tax cuts produced faster job growth when Kennedy did it. They produced faster job growth when Reagan did it. How is this a fallacy?

1976
7.7

1977
7.1

1978
6.1

1979
5.8

1980
7.1

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data

How is this "mostly below 6%"?

Why would this have helped Carter? GDP dropped by the same percentage in the 2nd quarter. The economy was volatile because of inflation even after they "eased off the brakes".

You're defending Carter's economic record by blaming Volcker for monetary policy to stop inflation. As if it was all his idea and Carter wasn't responsible for putting him in that position.

Yes, you can call your partisan apologia whatever you like.

 

Wow! talk about a thread going off track, one of the few times I think going off track has actually improved a thread.

 

That could mean both you and the business owner became unemployed at the same time (assuming the business owner was even employed by the business he built). I wonder if the OP realizes many folks who not only contribute to the economy, but have a huge impact on it are not employed.





​

 

Criminals can't vote.

Illegals wouldn't dare to vote because they might get caught and deported, and you have to register in your district.

The unemployed wouldn't bother to vote and it is only 5%-10% of the population anyway.

So what's the point?

 

We have a lot more debt now and we've squandered the savings for the boomer retirements, so we need a little more than that.

I can see why you'd be obsessed about it. It really cuts against cherished RW propaganda. Kinda like that Clinton surplus "myth" thing so many conservatives obsess about.

The top tax rate was 70%. See the OP as to why as well as my post commenting on it.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data [/quote]

How is this "mostly below 6%"?

Carter wasn't president in 1976 and I was looking at the last couple years of the 1970s and the monthly data. You can definitely see a downward trend there 1977-79.

Strong economic growth is generally viewed as a positive as would lower interest rates. Reagan's campaigners cleverly used the high interest rates against Carter with the "misery index" thing.

Yes, concurrent with the Fed stomping on the money supply and sending interest rates skyrocketing.

By 1981 the Fed saw that inflation was still going so they stomped on the brakes again and sending interest rates sky high a second time. That time it worked, the Fed eased off, and growth resumed. By the time the '84 election came along the economy was growing well.

Carter did put Volcker in to stop inflation which is what Volcker did. I never said that Carter wasn't responsible.

Could you please quote me where I am "complaining about Paul Volcker stopping the inflation cycle." Thanks.

Facts aren't apologia.

 

We finally agree on something.

 

I'd say any eligible American can vote except for those on public assistance(food stamps, housing, etc.) because it is an obvious conflict of interest.

 

I think he's confusing you with those on public assistance who will always vote for anyone who promises them more free stuff.

 

Except by default I would fall into the same category as them.

 

Just admit you hate the concept of a free nation unless things are done your way and get it over with.

So the day after you get your way on this then who is next?

People making minimum wage? I mean really wtf do they know?

People who don't graduate high school?

People who rent?

People who don't own 20 acres or more?

Where does it stop?

 

Those people already don't vote. Poor people are the lowest represented class of people of eligible voters, and most of them are too young to vote, or in such poor health someone would have to vote for them and probably does.

 

Not necessarily. You know how everyone has that one family member that no one else likes to associate with? Well that would be my aunt in my family. She hasn't had a job in maybe 15 years if not longer. She's lazy, she mooches from the entire family, and she milks the system for whatever she can. She can work, she just chooses not to. And yeah, she votes. And to preempt anyone from saying "typical liberal", she votes republican.

 

Sorry kid, you don't protect Israel, we do.

 

How about those owning/running businesses that get bailouts, tax incentives and other corporate welfare? Isn't that also an obvious conflict of interest?

 

Money for nothing (welfare) and tax incentives aren't the same thing. So I'd say no, because they aren't living off the public dole, they ARE giving back to their communities, and they are far fewer in numbers than those on welfare.

 

There are a lot of every type who don't vote. It's those who do that throw an election.