‘Wilkow!:’ Reverting to the 1950s

Nov. 28, 2012 8:18pm Christopher Santarelli

Apparently Twinkies make Paul Krugman think about taxes. In his column last week, Krugman took the iconic American treat’s recent bankruptcy as an opportunity to fantasize abut the 1950s’ labor power and marginal tax rate on top income earners; 91 percent!! On TheBlaze TV Wednesday, Andrew Wilkow put into context the social and economic conditions at that time which should be taken into account before comparing tax rates and chuckling “those were the days.” Watch a clip from “Wilkow!” Wednesday below:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (11)

TEXASQUINN
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 4:37pm
What krugman fails to see is the global economy of today. If you had one store(US) in your town, they might be able to get away with higher prices (taxation) unfortunately for krugman he does realize, that the US was at the forefront of manufacturing (production) and had limited competition. Today the US must compete against Germany, India, China, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan etc… all of which were NOT big manufacturers in the 1950. So krugman thinks Joe’s grocery store should double the price of milk and other groceries in order to gain more revenue, which the 5 other grocery stores, hope he does. We have a $50 billion/month trade deficit, squeezing producers and forcing them out of the country will only increase that deficit and continue the decline of the wealth in this country and hurt the poorer among us, most of all!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
lessoneleg
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 8:14am
this moron doesn’t take into account that our 1950′s had a huge advantage over today’s incomes. They had a massive After-Tax income that we today only dream about. Our After-Tax incomes are much smaller than Sixty years ago. And it’s shrinking faster with Progressive Liberals ever reaching hands pulling more dollars from the wallets.
98% of Black females exclusively voted for Obama, 95% of all Black males again voted for Obama. More hispanic this time around voted for Obama. Entitlements in this four year cycle will hit an all time high. More spending, less providers, more demands on those that actually do provide taxation will be the next cycle of four years.
Liberals can bemoan all they want, but their partners in the Democrat voter count are not forking over sufficient funds to cover their never ending demands on the system to entertain them. Taxation isn’t the answer to the liberal world of wonderful. It’s the insationable hunger of spending that’s crippling the US government. Whacking the top 10% will not be enough to stop the hunger of spending on entitlements. The liberals must redefine “rich”. And that is where it’s going. Expect the new definition for “rich” to be any income of $50,000 per year. Obama’s whacky Administration is spending and there just isn’t enough “rich” incomes to attack. So they will redefine rich, and it will shock you.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
truthspeare
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 2:25am
I.
We reaffirm the self-evident truths that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;

We reaffirm the Constitution of the United States of America, as amended (hereinafter, “Constitution”); and

We reaffirm loyalty to the United States of America and to applicable laws;

Furthermore, we declare the following additional truths to be self-evident:

No person or government owns the labor or other wealth of another person;

A law enacted by a government, which derives authority from the consent of the people, that exceeds the consent of the people is void ab initio to the extent that such law or its application exceeds the consent of the people; and

The right to individual self-defense is endowed by the Creator and, thus, inalienable.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- November29
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 5:25am
  The left loves to talk about the 91% top marginal tax rate in the 50s. But that rate only affected 0.1% of the wage earners in this country, and many of them found way around paying it. The biggest hing about the 1950s is that the tax base was much larger, now the top 10% pay 70% of the total federal tax bill. Read fresh political commentary at: http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com/
  
  Report this comment
truthspeare
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:16am
The Government of the United States is currently engaged in the enforcement of the Affordable Health Care Act (hereinafter, “Act”). This law exempts, from its mandates, certain persons, but not others, certain corporations and similar entities, but not others, certain religious groups, but not others, and certain Government employees who enacted the law, but not others, while at the same time, mandating full compliance by citizens exercising the Christian faith, to include the institutions and entities organized to fulfill the dictates of their Creator.

The Act has created alienable secular rights that supersede certain sacred inalienable individual rights guaranteed to members of the Christian faith which, in pertinent part, requires members to fund artificial means of birth control, to include, but not limited, to contraception and abortions.

The Act forces members of the Christian faith to make the untenable choice to either comply with the law or disobey the sacred law of their Creator.

The application of the Act: is a violation of the freedom of religion rights incorporated in the First Amendment of the Constitution afforded to members of the Christian faith; is void ab initio because forcing Christians to disobey their Creator exceeds the consent of the people reflected in the First Amendment to the Constitution; and is a violation of the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
truthspeare
Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:01am
IV.

The Government of the United States of America is incapable of providing, at all times and at all places, within its territorial jurisdiction, effective personal protection to each and every citizen, especially during times of war, national emergency, and disaster, and, especially, when it fails to secure national borders.

The Government is incapable of preventing, at all times and at all places, within its territorial jurisdiction, non-law-abiding citizens from using fully automatic, semi-automatic, single-shot rifles or handguns, to harm the person or property of law-abiding citizens.

The Government passed laws that prohibit the private ownership of fully automatic firearms. The Government may seek to pass a similar law with respect to semi-automatic firearms.

Bans of either automatic or semi-automatic prevent law-abiding owners from using these firearms to defend similar threats from non-law-abiding citizens. The result is that a law-abiding citizen may counter the threat of a fully automatic weapon with a single-shot hand gun or rifle, or shotgun. This has the effect of denying law-abiding citizens the right of meaningful, effective, self-defense. A law-abiding citizen should not be subjected to the untenable choice to either violate firearm laws or to deny themselves the right to meaningful, effective, self-defense.

The Government denial of individual self-defense is a violation of the inalienable right to self-defense and the inalienable r

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- truthspeare
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:11am
  Effective tax rate payers lack access to many Government activities they fund, e.g., Medicaid, WIC, local services in other States. Effective tax payers have equal access to benefits of other Government activities, e.g., post offices, federal courts, federal roads, national security.
  
  The application of the tax law: is a violation of the equal protection rights of the Constitution afforded to effective tax rate payers; is void ab initio because the grossly disparate outcome, absurd by nature, exceeds the consent of the people reflected in the Constitution; and is a violation of the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
  
  Report this comment
- truthspeare
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:13am
  Bans of either automatic or semi-automatic prevent law-abiding owners from using these firearms to defend similar threats from non-law-abiding citizens. The result is that a law-abiding citizen may counter the threat of a fully automatic weapon with a single-shot hand gun or rifle, or shotgun. This has the effect of denying law-abiding citizens the right of meaningful, effective, self-defense. A law-abiding citizen should not be subjected to the untenable choice to either violate firearm laws or to deny themselves the right to meaningful, effective, self-defense.
  
  The Government denial of individual self-defense is a violation of the inalienable right to self-defense and the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The right to keep and bear arms is afforded to citizens by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
  
  Report this comment
truthspeare
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 11:51pm
Andrew has it right. I would add that our tax system as applied is without doubt unconstitutional. It amounts to making “labor slaves” and “success slaves” of our best and brightest. It requires this group to pay for nearly 100% of current federal government operations and some state operations , even though this group is composed of only one-half of taxpayers. There is no way this constitutional. Given that Thomas Jefferson is one of my heroes, I have drafted what I think a Declaration of Nullification and Emancipation might look like in the future. The system will collapse if we maintain the current tax and debt course. Below is an excerpt.

II.

The Government of the United States of America (hereinafter, “Government”) derives authority from the consent of the people, as set forth in the limitations placed upon it in the Constitution of the United States of America, as amended (hereinafter, “Constitution”). These limitations, as reflected in the Constitution, are reflected in the enumerated of powers and in the reservation rights reserved and guaranteed to each individual and to each State, respectively.
The Government has enacted or applied laws that exceed the enumerated powers or that violate the rights guaranteed to individuals. These laws were enacted and applied by the process set forth in the Constitution, and affirmed, in some cases, by the Supreme Court of the United States, but exceed the consent of the people granted in the Constituti

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- truthspeare
  Posted on November 29, 2012 at 12:08am
  III.
  
  Currently, the Government exercises authority to tax the income of citizens. This application results in the collection of property, namely from the labor or other income, from certain citizens, who compose a group of approximately one-half of all current tax payers who have an effective tax rate.
  
  This application, in pertinent part, results in the taking of property for redistribution to the following persons or entities that have no labor or property taken based on income tax:
  
  Non-effective tax rate payers;
  
  Non-citizens living in the United States of America;
  
  States and citizens thereof, for the sake of funding non-enumerated federal activities in which effective tax rate payers do not reside in such States, thereby denying them the rights of voting and due representation;
  
  Foreign countries and their citizens;
  
  International organizations and instrumentalities; and
  
  Pay the interest and principal on the Government debt used to fund redistribution activities.
  
  The application of the income tax law requires effective tax payers to fund nearly the entire amount of Government activities, while at the same time requiring no income based tax from others. While the Government assesses non-income based taxes, effective tax rate payers are required to also pay these taxes the same as others.
  
  Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on November 28, 2012 at 11:36pm
What do you expect from a commie like Krugman?
File him under bad science fiction writers.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.