Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

About that history thing ...
Posted by: McQ on Friday, October 31, 2008

Just a reminder, in case it has slipped your mind:
Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 — roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.
And we all are well aware of the economic situation, correct? So how does Mr. Obama plan on securing the funds in order to spend that 4.3 trillion?

Most likely just like it was done previously - and with the same results:
The next president and Congress should take a lesson from their predecessors' failed policies during the Great Depression. That's when President Hoover signed into law the Revenue Act of 1932, which ended the low-tax policies of the 1920s with the largest peacetime tax hike in the history of the country.

The Revenue Act hiked corporate income taxes, doubled the estate tax, and raised the top personal income tax rate to 63 percent. Wartime excise taxes were revived, and new taxes were slapped on gasoline, tires, cars, telephones, bank checks, electricity, toiletries, jewelry, stock transfers, and so on.

That was followed by President Roosevelt endorsing a further increase in the top income tax rate, which reached 79 percent in 1936. Other new taxes that sprouted in that decade include a tax on dividends, a capital stock tax, liquor taxes, and the Social Security payroll tax. Roosevelt claimed that forcible wealth redistribution was "the American thing to do."

Well, we know how that particular exercise in patriotism worked. During the Great Depression, the stock market fell by 90 percent, the economy contracted by 30.5 percent, and unemployment reached 24.9 percent.
So far, as I read it, the Obama plan is to do exactly what the Revenue Act did in 1932 - raise taxes on the top personal income taxes (now down to $200,000 and likely to keep falling), increase the estate tax, increase corporate income taxes, increase the capital gains tax and add in a windfall profits tax as a populist punishment for the oil companies reaping profits considered to be "too high" for Obama's taste.

All of that will still not bring in the tax revenues he needs for his 4.3 trillion spending spree. Think about it - increasing the capital gains tax will drive investment down. Increasing corporate income taxes will either a) be passed on to consumers, b) be internalized and paid for with reduced head count or c) have corporations seek a better off-shore business climate. Consequently the quest for new revenues will be driven to taxing (or increasing taxation on) just about everything else but incomes - property, clothing, food, gasoline, power, medicine - you name it, you'll find it costing you more. And windfall profits?

Well, does Chevron have to be headquartered in Houston?

Oh, and there is an entire, untapped and fertile field for new taxes that has Democrats just salivating - the internet.

So bottom line - the Obama plan is almost a repeat of a plan that most economists now acknowledge both deepened and prolonged the worst economic downturn of the past century. We're setting ourselves up to repeat that.

Make any sense to you?
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

Wow ... you avoided the issue pretty well with that comment, didn’t you?

Hold on - didn’t Obama say he doesn’t take contributions from special interests?

Oh, wait, the way he processes credit cards, he has no idea who contributes, does he?
Written By: McQ
It makes perfect sense. You can’t rule a people unless they are dependent on you. What better way to ensure ever increasing government power than by forcing things to require your power.

It’s a feedback loop. One that benefits statists regardless how bad things get. People want to believe that someone, anyone, can help them out of their mess and they’ll give your rights away if they think it will help, regardless of how many times you show them it won’t.

That video of that girl claiming Obama is going to pay for her gas and house payment is a prime example why this happens.
Written By: Robb Allen
McQ, maybe I missed something, but I thought the article linked in that comment was about how those who would get bailout money want Obama to win, which kind of illustrates your point.
Written By: Robb Allen
I’m not sure how linking Wall Street and the Democrats makes my point that we’re about to elect someone who is going to implement the same tax policy which drove us into a depression under very similar circumstances.
Written By: McQ
Maybe I misread it. Didn’t give much more than a cursory glance, but it looked like it was saying that the people who benefit from Obama’s socialize stances give money to him. History be damned.
Written By: Robb Allen
McQ - Make sense to you?

If you WANT to damage the US economy, it makes perfect sense. Do dems (spit) want to do that? I’d say that they do. Consider:

1. In the past several election cycles, the dems (spit) have run on a platform of "bad economy, vote for us!" In other words, a bad economy is GOOD for them.

2. Dems (spit) rely on buying and ultimately extorting votes: "Vote for us and we’ll give you something!" becomes "If you don’t vote for us, it’ll be taken away." When the economy is doing well, people don’t look to the government to give them things; they are indifferent. Indeed, they might be a little inclined to wonder what the government needs with all the tax money it is taking from them. But when the economy is bad... Well! We’ve all been conditioned to expect Uncle Sugar to bail us out. Bad economy = chance to make more permanent voters.

3. A strong US economy is somehow unfair to everybody else in the world. Why should Americans be able to drive SUV’s while people in Africa starve?

4. A strong US economy emits lots of CO2. SanFran Nan wants to save the planet and thinks that the only way to do that is by cutting our CO2 output. Best way to do that? Less industrial activity and less driving. Best way to do that? Destroy US industry. No industry, no CO2. No industry, no jobs. No job, no money for gas.

5. SOME economists may have determined that FDR’s policies prolonged the Depression, but not all. Even if he DID prolong it, conventional wisdom is that he saved the country. What dem WOULDN’T want to follow in those shoes? And don’t think that The Annointed One doesn’t know that the MSM and all those libs in academia won’t rush to annoint him as FDR v2.0 no matter what he does. As Rush says, it’s style over substance: as long as The Annointed One continues to spout the same sort of feel-good pap that makes his current supporters swoon, he’ll be credited with the same jaunty, confident attitude that FDR had, and will receive the same kind of credit for encouraging the country in its darkest hour... even if he is at the same time putting out the lights.

6. It isn’t JUST about good economics. Indeed, I’d say that, for the dems (spit), it’s about social engineering and propaganda. In their view, some people just have too much money, and it should be taken away from them. Never mind that this is theft AND ultimately hurts other people: we gotta make things FAIR in this country. This is the dubious logic behind taxing the oil companies. Never mind that they will pass higher taxes on to the consumer in the form of higher prices and / or cut production and research: they must PAY for their "obscene" profits! (sadly, McCain seems to be of this mind, too) Ditto pharm companies. And while they’re doing this destructive work, they will very publicly pat themselves on the back for "fighting for the little guy" and "standing up to corporate fatcats". Hope it makes you feel better when you don’t have a job, have to pay $10 / gallon for gas, and can’t get medicine when you’re sick.

So, yeah, what the dems (spit) plan to do makes perfect sense to me... as long as I understand their motivations. It’s sort of like understanding the mind of a terrorist, a pedophile, a serial killer, or any other type of degenerate / criminal: what they do makes perfect sense once you understand the thought processes of their diseased minds.
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
A chicken in every pot.
Written By: Crusader
ph2c3w alaeodmbasqm, [url=]zutznsgjwimn[/url], [link=]qijrvsgebnza[/link],
Written By: mawninhoavu
480a4D nyuwsbvrzgje, [url=]lqzbuobojnlr[/url], [link=]oxrdfuxhshzi[/link],
Written By: wvuyxvl

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks