The Asan Bay Overlook is one of many monuments that was erected by the National Park Service to honor the memory of those who liberated Guam in 1944. The monument has a wall recording those who died during the battle for Guam and a plaque dedicated to the Chamorro sailors who died during the attack on Pearl Harbor. The memorial overlooks the Asan Bay and also gives a brief overview of the Japanese capture of the island in 1941 and subsequent defense in 1944. This memorial is a wonderful place to visit and I would highly encourage anyone who visits the island to stop by. Enjoy all of the photos on the full page here.
A constant refrain that I hear from progressives is that the United States had 90% taxes during the 1950s and the country was still prosperous. Progressives seem to believe that it is a golden era that we need to emulate in all economic facets…
I wonder how many of these proud Party members have actually taken the time to think about what caused the United States to be the world’s pre-eminent economic power during the 1950s. Is it possible that 90% income tax rates on the wretched and vile “1%” led to economic prosperity (or at least didn’t hinder it) or is there something more to the story? Let’s start by taking a look at what taxes were paid to the Federal Government in the post WWII years (I bet WWII took a while to pay off also). A publication produced by UC Berkeley in 2007 entitled “How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax System? A Historical and International Perspective”provides much insight into what the “1%” actually paid in taxes in the 1950s. Let’s take a look:
“The 1960 federal tax system was very progressive even within the top percentile, with an average tax rate of around 35 percent in the bottom half of the top percentile to over 70 percent in the top 0.01 percent. This finding illustrates the theme that it is important to decompose the top of the income distribution into very small groups to capture the progressivity of a tax system. Although very top groups contain few taxpayers, they account for a substantial share of income earned, and an even larger share of taxes paid.
Interestingly, the larger progressivity in 1960 is not mainly due to the individual income tax. The average individual income tax rate in 1960 reached an average rate of 31 percent at the very top, only slightly above the 25 percent average rate at the very top in 2004. Within the 1960 version of the individual income tax, lower rates on realized capital gains, as well as deductions for interest payments and charitable contributions, reduced dramatically what otherwise looked like an extremely progressive tax schedule, with a top marginal tax rate on individual income of 91 percent.”
So the actualized income tax rate for the rich was 31%, not really much different from where it stands today. That is a most interesting point to come to terms with. Such results also show that Sandroids don’t actually know what they’re talking about when they claim that the United States had a 91% income tax rate.
“The greater progressivity of federal taxes in 1960, in contrast to 2004, stems from the corporate income tax and the estate tax. The corporate tax collected about 6.5 percent of total personal income in 1960 and only around 2.5 percent of total income today. Because capital income is very concentrated, it generated a substantial burden on top income groups. The estate tax has also decreased from 0.8 percent of total personal income in 1960 to about 0.35 percent of total income today. As a result, the burden of the estate tax relative to income has declined very sharply since 1960 in the top income groups.”
The true source of where the “1%” paid out comes to light. If you look at the current U.S. corporate tax rate, you will see that it is extremely high at 39.1%. Many progressives will also claim that many major corporations don’t pay any taxes. I really would like someone to tell me which of those evil corporations pays zero taxes. As for estate taxes, is there really a need to tax a citizen after he is dead?
“Second, the composition of top incomes has changed substantially. Figure 2 shows the breakdown into wage income, business income, capital income (including imputed corporate taxes), and realized capital gains. In the 1960s, top incomes were primarily composed of capital income: mostly dividends and capital gains. The surge in top incomes since the 1970s has been driven in large part by a steep increase in the labor income component, due in large part to the explosion of executive compensation. As a result, labor income now represents a substantial fraction of income at the top. This change in composition is important to keep in mind, because the corporate and estate taxes that had such a strong effect on creating progressivity in the 1960s would have relatively little effect on labor income.”
One of the other things that Progressives seem to forget about when discussing post WWII economic conditions is WWII. The United Kingdom had here cities heavily bombed and ended the war nearly bankrupt, France was occupied for four years and also suffered heavily; Germany lost millions, lost Prussia, and was rent in two; the Soviet Union lost 27 million people and had many of its cities decimated, the Chinese lost over 20 million fighting the Japanese and shortly thereafter underwent a Communist revolution; Japan lost millions, had its cities destroyed, and two nukes dropped on it. The only major power left without any massive loss of live or widespread destruction wrought in its homeland was the United States. The destruction of industrialized countries allowed the United States to produce the majority of the world’s economic output for a time without contest. When progressives say that the 1950s were a good time for the U.S. economy they have no understanding as to why.
Borrowed from Wikipedia
Keynesians think that war stimulates the economy right? Nothing said economic growth like the Nanking massacre!
“Because the Taliban are not able to muster groups of more than several dozen fighters, they have been unable to mount offensives on anything more than small checkpoints.
Afghan and coalition officials said security forces have been able to hold terrain despite the high casualty rate among soldiers and police.”
“We do not have any way to escape,” and “If we get any means of escaping, I will not stay for a second in the district. The government is failing in their governing, and it’s better to let the Taliban rule.”
I think that a good question to ask would be what is the purpose of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan? Are we there to break the will of the Taliban? Are we there just to help the Afghan government hobble along? Is victory the goal? Who are we even calling our enemies in Afghanistan?
One of the things that I must disagree with in the following video is the idea of a “War on Terror.” Terror is a tactic, a means to an end; not an entity to be fought, broken, or conquered. One could declare a war on a country, or the Taliban, or some actual group of people. But a war on the tactic of terror makes no sense and would be never-ending.
I’ve always found the idea behind “rules of war” as seen by many to be most curious. War by its very nature is not something that lends itself to nice rules. No matter what kind of Rules of Engagement you attempt to enact, innocent people will die. Quite horrible things often have to be done to break the enemies will to fight. A war effort should be a “Total War” effort to break the enemies will to fight, or simply not be fought at all.
I wonder if the President really thinks that he can control events in the Middle East with “red-lines”, drone attacks, and bombing campaigns, or if he’s simply doing what he must to show that he cares about what happens? If the threats in the Middle East are not going to be taken seriously, why waste the time, money, and lives on fighting a war where victory is never intended to be achieved? Perhaps the President will turn to the U.N. for help? Afghanistan seems to be falling back into the hands of the Taliban, and few really seem to care.
Bonus Round: Can you tell the difference between real news and satire?
Look, it’s the size of the United Kingdom!Danger close? Nonsense…
I’ll end this post just full of wonderful news with a video of Dear Leader and some propaganda photos to share with all of your friends. Enjoy fellow dhimmis!
Count Ciano’s arrival in Albania, 1939The Julia Alpini Division on the march into battle
If we’re being honest, how many countries in existence don’t have land taken from someone else? What land isn’t occupied land? Should reparations go all the way back to Cain and Abel? Who would get money for the Punic wars? I could bring up numerous wars and list the losers, but plenty of people have done that in the comments section of the Yahoo! News articles. Let’s take a look at some of them:
I mean really, why work to get money? Why spend less? Just make random demands for cash. Here are the specific stories for anyone who’s interested in getting some laughs out of the reparation demands:
I recently happened to stumble upon a video depicting just how successful the Arab Spring that President Obama was a big proponent of, is going. The video depicts Salafis in Tunisia and what they believe in. Just watch how much they want to live in peace and stand in awe of how they want to be in a prosperous, free republic.
By really any measure, Tunisia has had the least violent revolution and amount of bloodshed. The Tunisians live in a constitutional republic now. Compared to pretty much everyone around them, Tunisia is doing pretty well. If we turn our attention over to Libya the government that was formed after Gaddafi was removed from power no longer controls the two main cities of Benghazi and Tripoli. A civil war rages on and the body count continues to rise in Libya, probably safe to say that Libya is a failed state. But hey, the internationally recognized government is trying. One of the interesting things I should point out is that the Pentagon did more to try and stop the U.S. from entering the war in Libya than the State Department under Hillary Clinton did. The Washington Times piece on this aspect of the story is well worth your time. As we can all see, the 110 Tomahawks fired at Libya were for a good cause. I guess Hillary would respond to this criticism by saying something like “What difference does it make“.
Perhaps leftists will blame the Koch brothers or “Faux” News somehow. I’m sure that the Kos kids will try to find a way to absolve Williams. We should all just get off our high horse. Posted below is what one of the men actually on the damaged helicopter had to say:
Posted below is the response of Brian Williams:
Here’s a video of Brian Williams pushing his narrative in 2013:
Here’s Brian Williams’ apology for the “fog of memory”:
Conservativenuke's Weblog 
