Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: smokingfrog

Thank you very much! I saw a 2 min clip, but I knew there was something missing from it. Thanks again. I’ll watch it in a few minutes.

I have to say though, that from the small clip I did hear, ala “We had growth in the 40’s. 50’s and 60’s” mentions nothing of the fact that at that time, nothing was similar to today. The U.S. was on a gold standard, much of the industrialized world’s manufacturing base has been bombed into oblivion, and we weren’t facing the regulation stranglehold on productivity we are now.

The clip I heard said only that high taxes weren’t correlated with stunted economic growth, but there appears to be a lot more to the conversation than that one segment. Thank you again for the link!


35 posted on 06/29/2011 9:42:31 PM PDT by JDW11235 (I think I got it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: JDW11235

Also in the 40s 50s & 60s you didn’t have a lot of 2-income families. As more and more women have entered the workplace, there are more workers paying taxes but wages are probably lower too. Laura correctly points out that we have a spending problem, mainly due to entitlements. If they were raising taxes to pay down the debt that would be one thing, but they just want more money for more handouts.


37 posted on 06/29/2011 9:57:52 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open ( <o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson