How did an idea that was practiced nowhere prior to the 1980s become associated with traditionalism …

Home Forums History How did an idea that was practiced nowhere prior to the 1980s become associated with traditionalism …

Viewing 18 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #184801
      Anonymous
      Guest

      How did an idea that was practiced nowhere prior to the 1980s become associated with traditionalism and conservatism?

    • #184802
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because the John Birch Society convinced the American public that governments doing anything economic (including taxes for anything other than military funding) is "communism", "un-American". and "un-Christian".

      • #184803
        Anonymous
        Guest

        and they were right

      • #184804
        Anonymous
        Guest

        And they were unironically right. We spend hundreds of million of dollars a year researching selfies and birds on cocaine on the taxpayer dollar yet they piss their pants because they have to borrow money every year to keep the government running. Something isn’t right
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XxYwWg7F8I

        • #184809
          Anonymous
          Guest

          That’s not a problem with the model in general, that’s just a problem with americans being scrotebrains

          • #184811
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Actually it is a problem with the system, the federal government basically should exist outside having a military ready to defend from invaders

            • #184813
              Anonymous
              Guest

              The Constitution defines what powers the government does and doesn’t have and it can be amended as circumstances dictate. The problem comes when corrupt power grabbing politician try to create powers that don’t exist via stretching the commerce and general welfare clauses.

              >that pic
              Ok, now zoom out a bit and show that part where the federal income tax rate was 0% for all of US history before Wilson’s regime (aside from a brief period of taxation during the Civil War).

              The very existence of the income tax is itself a leftist/progressive position.

              Twice a Federal income tax was passed, once during the Civil War as an emergency revenue-raising measure and again in the 1890s (a whopping 2% tax on incomes over $4k a year). It was justified under the revenue clause. The Supreme Court disagreed and threw it out. As a result, they made sure to nail it to the Constitution with the 16th Amendment to ensure this couldn’t happen again.

              • #184814
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Same with the 14th amendment which was never actually ratified the federal government just said "yeah this is in the constitution now"

                • #184874
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  July 28, 1868
                  scrotebrain

                  • #184875
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    There were plenty of states that didn’t vote or voted no for the necessary ratification of the 14th amendment, at one point the fed just said "fuck it" and declared it law.

                    • #184876
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >There were plenty of states that didn’t vote or voted no for the necessary ratification of the 14th amendment
                      It still reached the 3/4ths threshold. Cope.

                      • #184878
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No I don’t think it did, they had to issue a "joint resolution" (whatever the fuck that means) forcing it into law

                      • #184879
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Ah right, there’s two checks in order to pass an amendment as it has to be ratified by congress and 3/4 of the states. 3/4 of the states never ratified it so they declared it law with just the joint resolution. So it’s an amendment that doesn’t actually exist legally.

                      • #184880
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >3/4 of the states never ratified it so they declared it law with just the joint resolution.
                        [citation needed]

                      • #184881
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >[citation needed]
                        Count the blue and green states, that’s not 3/4

            • #184815
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >we’re going to arbitrarily draw the line here because uhhh because uhhh it just has to be there okay
              americans being scrotebrains

              • #184816
                Anonymous
                Guest

                There’s nothing arbitrary about it. The federal government as it is now is not allowed by the constitution. Pretty much the entirety of the executive branch shouldn’t exist

                • #184817
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >shouldn’t exist but does anyway
                  americans
                  being
                  scrotebrains

                  • #184818
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Not really Americans, nobody voted for it

                    • #184819
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >amerisharts, despite muh second amendment, just lets the government do whatever they want without their consent
                      americans
                      being
                      scrotebrains

                      • #184820
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        most of it was done during wars where the federal government took over the national media

                      • #184821
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >excuses
                        >complacency
                        ABR

                      • #184823
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Implying you’re a shining beacon of patriotism

                      • #184822
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Almost all major expansions of government power/stomping on civil liberties happened due to a war going back to the Alien & Sedition Acts.

                • #184885
                  Anonymous
                  Guest
                  • #184886
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    0/10

                    • #184887
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      >quoting the constitution as written

                      • #184888
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Where does it say the executive branch can create new agencies

                      • #184889
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >constitution gives congress the right to levy taxes and appropriate them
                        >it’s somehow unconstitutional for congress to create agencies

                        schizo tier logic tbh

                      • #184891
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Congress is the legislative branch you actual scrote

                      • #184892
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Every permanent agency in the government is there because of an act of congress.

                        I don’t know where you’re getting the idea of the executive branch creating new agencies. They can create temporary, shitty organizations within or between existing agencies, but they can’t appropriate funds or create anything that the next president can’t immediately undo via executive order.

                      • #184893
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Can you tell me when congress passed a bill for… hmmm… lets see…. the creation of the FBI?

                      • #184894
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The FBI started as a sub-branch of the Secret Service during the Wilson Administration, didn’t become its own thing until Coolidge.

                      • #184895
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Right so it’s an organization that operates without any rules or parameters, fundamentally, under control of the president with enough autonomy to seek goals and aspirations outside their relationship with the president that wasn’t formally created by the federal government run by unelected officials.

                        Am I missing anything?

                      • #184896
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        So I googled it, what happened is

                        >Roosevelt wants somebody to keep track of anarchists
                        >congress doesn’t want it to happen, so Roosevelt has the DoJ hire a few dozen people using DoJ funds (before this, the DoJ hired private investigators to investigate specific federal crimes)
                        >as this small, shitty agency achieved successes, congress began to appropriate more money, and provide statutory authorization for the FBI to hire more investigators

                        Sources:

                        https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fbi-founded
                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation#Legal_authority

                        And here’s the actual statute

                        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/533

                        The TL;DR of all of this being that the executive branch can’t actually do very much unless congress gives them money.

                      • #184897
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Aren’t organizations like the CIA exempt from budgetary restrictions by congress?

                      • #184900
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        No, there’s just a "black budget." The way it works it that congress knows how much the total is for all secret programs, and signs off on that total, but only the intelligence subcommittees know what specific programs the money is going to, because those guys have security clearances.

                        There have actually been a lot of pretty big political battles between the White House and congress over intelligence funding, especially the big spy satellite programs.

                      • #184903
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Budgets don’t actually mean anything or constrain spending in any way, spending is constrained by logistical details like putting money in people’s bank accounts or whatever.
                        Most government departments don’t spend what is budgeted, they either spend less or, for big programs like Medicaid, there’s enormous fraud and the spending is arbitrary.
                        It’s not like there is a computer calculating that X Medicaid spending is allowed and once that number is hit the computer stops working. What happens when government benefit funds out out of money (soviet collapse being an extreme example) is that they just keep spending like nothing happened.
                        The government doesn’t have a bank account, from the governments perspective it just issues a wire from the treasury- not the fed or anything else- and money is created. The fact that the government borrows to cover its expenses is incidental, it doesn’t actually need borrowing, it just hits a button and sends the transfer. The fed also has barely any relation to this, it happens to buy bonds the government issues, but the treasury spends more than it borrows and although this claims to be from a trust fund it actually doesn’t matter.

                      • #184904
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Federal law prohibits agencies from spending more than what they’ve been appropriated by congress.

                        Yes, the government prints money to spend, but it can’t spend anything that hasn’t been appropriated.

                      • #184906
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        All agencies get a discretionary budget too though, where they can spend it however they like and don’t have to tell congress what its being spent on, right?

                      • #184907
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yeah, but congress has to agree to give them that. It can be taken away just as easily.

                        To give an example, back in the 80s, the Reagan administration wanted to support the Contras, and congress passed a resolution forbidding federal funds from being used to support them, so Olly North had to go sell spare helicopter parts to Iran to raise the money, because he couldn’t get a cent of federal funds. That’s how Iran-Contra happened.

                        Appropriations is the one area where Congress absolutely does not fuck around, because they know that’s the one key advantage that makes them more powerful than the White House.

                      • #184908
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        If congress is so powerful then how did the CIA manage to fund a war that congress forbade them from doing and nothing happened to the CIA?

                      • #184909
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Iran-Contra wasn’t a CIA thing, it was rogue National Security Council guys. The ringleader, Ollie North, was a colonel in the Marine Corps.

                        Those guys didn’t go to jail, basically because Ollie’s secretary destroyed most of the evidence, and Reagan was too popular for congress to attack too strongly.

                        This being said, it still caused a massive shitstorm in Washington that the Reagan administration never really recovered from.

                      • #184911
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I mean, the NSC’s job was to be pit bulls to attack the soviet union, so I don’t doubt that they thought they were patriots selling of surplus to start a war against communists. This is why abundant runaway executive agencies are a bad thing

                      • #184913
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        NSC’s normal job is to just be a council of all of the other agencies, to give advice to the president. They only have like 100 permanent employees, precisely because everyone was scared that it would just become one more redundant agency. With this being said, different presidents tend to use it differently.

                        For example, Truman didn’t want to use it at all because he was scared that all of the professional bureaucrats would team up and outnumber him, while Eisenhower ran it the way he ran his staff officers back during WW2, while Kennedy wanted it to function more like a think tank, and Johnson basically just wanted it to rubber stamp the decisions he had already made.

                        I think it’s useful for the president to have some lee way to set up the office the way he wants to, but there is definitely a line. After Iran-Contra, there was a pretty clear consensus that the NSC should never be involved in operations ever again.

                      • #184898
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Can’t the executive impound fund for things no longer useful, like the gunboats after the Louisiana purchase? Or well, could, I don’t know if that power was limited after decades of partisan shit flinging.

                      • #184901
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Nah, the law is that if congress appropriates money for a specific program, it can only be spent on that program.

                        I remember an interview a while ago where Mattis was complaining that he wished he could take some money from DoD and give it to the State Department, but he legally can’t.

                      • #184902
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        DoD gets so much money for scrotebrained bullshit so that makes sense

        • #184826
          Anonymous
          Guest

          boomer meme

          most government spending is either social security, defense, medicare, or medicaid. Those four programs alone are like 75%.

          The reason why Republicans are such schizos is that they want to cut the government, without realizing that a majority of government spending is things that Republicans actively benefit from.

          • #184827
            Anonymous
            Guest

            social security medicare and medicaid didn’t exist until the 40’s, all those new deal programs that FDR was printing money for probably exacerbated the depression. But man on man did it buy him votes

            • #184830
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >NOOO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE ECONOMY IS BAD BECAUSE..
              >IT JUST IS, OKAY?

              • #184832
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Basic bitch welfare is fine, as long as you’re not borrowing money for it. The government uses welfare as a shield while they dump money into volcanoes elsewhere

              • #184834
                Anonymous
                Guest

                still crying about Trump huh?

                rent free

            • #184831
              Anonymous
              Guest

              and in republics/democracies, that’s what matters.

            • #184837
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Historically illiterate

              • #184838
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Medicare existed before LBJ he just took out all the regulations on who qualifies for it. YOU GET FREE HEALTHCARE AND YOU GET FREE HEALTHCARE EVERYBODY GETS FREE HEALTHCARE!
                *don’t forget to vote democrat*

                • #184839
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  god I wish

                  The current system is bonked because it forces people to buy a product with no price transparency and no real competition. Systems like Medicare and Tricare fix this by limiting prices, so that sellers can’t take advantage of the lack of competition to jack prices up.

                  Health care in general behaves more like a utility than a commodity, but brainlets don’t understand basic economics, so they think that MUH FREE MARKET will fix it even if there’s no competition and no price incentive.

                  • #184842
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Competition died because of federal regulations. Ever wonder why all the old hospitals were founded by nuns?

                    • #184846
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      The fundamental issue, I think, is that America is lapsing into oligarchy.

                      So the federal government intervenes, but in a way that maximizes profits rather than public well being. Whereas Euros pay half of what we do for health care because it isn’t run by an overglorified mafia.

                      • #184849
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The fed does not care about profitable healthcare, they do care about profitable pharmaceuticals though.
                        >Euros pay half of what we do
                        For worse healthcare

                      • #184850
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >For worse healthcare

                        I always hear this, but I don’t really believe it. We have health outcomes that are just as bad.

                        Granted, this is also because we’re fatter, lazier, and more prone to shooting each other. But even then, it raises the obvious question of why we’re spending a lot of money fixing medical problems instead of spending a much smaller amount of money on preventing the problem from happening in the first place.

                      • #184851
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Because welfare was never about the betterment of people’s QOL, it’s about buying votes. And having a dependent class of permanent voters is better than divvying out service to both sides of the table

                      • #184852
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Prior to FDR, welfare systems were state and city-level and yes they were about buying votes. If you voted for the wrong party you might find your old age pension stopped showing up in the mail. So he decided to Federalize these programs and take them out of state hands.

                      • #184859
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >state programs were more corrupt that federal welfare
                        Yeah sure, uh huh

                      • #184854
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        buying votes and preventing new money, more money is always taken in taxes than is ever given back. that’s why everyone who wants more welfare programs is always a freaking scrotebrain.

                      • #184853
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The thing is that what the Americans did with healthcare is the worst of the both words. Especially the Obamacare proper, but even now it’s shit, just not shit to the point of collapsing on itself. If Obamacare was good for insurance companies that would be ok. And at first glance you could say it probably was – the prices have risen, so well, more money for them, right? This is still understandable. A result of lobby, it’s despicable but in a certain cynical way normal.
                        The problem is that they couldn’t possibly raise the prices enough to be able to still provide their services in all states iirc. Ohio(which experienced 3x rise of insurance costs) had its only insurance provider that still stayed there declare that once his contract with the state runs out, they’re out – and there would be noone to replace them. It’s an obvious hint that it wasn’t even a policy that enriched lobbyists, it was just a plain and simple disaster.

                        American system meanwhile gives you neither the financial lightness of the full private system or the careless safety of the proper public one.

                        >For worse healthcare

                        I always hear this, but I don’t really believe it. We have health outcomes that are just as bad.

                        Granted, this is also because we’re fatter, lazier, and more prone to shooting each other. But even then, it raises the obvious question of why we’re spending a lot of money fixing medical problems instead of spending a much smaller amount of money on preventing the problem from happening in the first place.

                        >I always hear this, but I don’t really believe it.

                        Americans in 1900 could’ve expected amazing results when they’ve introduced some kind of policy, because Americans were just in general good people. Americans aren’t like that anymore. Things have changed. What you are going to get is something you can find in Eastern Europe – long queues to specialists or even GP’s included. To understand how "special" the situation is let’s look at the GP thing – in Czech Republic there was a fee, for a very, very short time where you’ve had to paid an equivalent of 25 or 50 cents(I forgot exact price, even for their standards – a pocket change) to register to any kind of doctor. Queues disappeared. Then the fee was dropped – queues returned. These kinds of idiocies are more likely to happen than getting what you’re getting now, except paid for with taxes.

                      • #184855
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Americans in 1900 could’ve expected amazing results when they’ve introduced some kind of policy, because Americans were just in general good people.
                        >Americans were good people in 1900
                        >when there were routine lynchings and anyone that wasn’t a white male was 3/5ths a human

                      • #184857
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        Yes. They were good people, and therefore did not permit evil to take root in their country, as opposed to today where evil has not only taken root, but has become a whole forest.
                        I suppose you also think God turning Sodom & Gomorrah into salt was also evil.

                      • #184858
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >and thats a GOOD thing

                      • #184864
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        The only reason or law that evil understands & follows is violence. It is not evil to protect the people of your family, blood, town, and nation from savages, or thieving rapists, dealers of drugs, or vicious murderers. The liberal argument is that by taking any force of action against the savage, we become the savage, when this is not true. The heart of civilized men holds a deep and abiding respect for the law, love of his people, and a basic goodwill to keep towards God. The liberal uses the convictions of God-fearing men much like the devil himself does, he tries and confuse his morality by turning it against him and the greater protection of his people. He judges him by standards the liberal himself does not hold, only using the morality of the moral man to protect the evil man who holds none of such morality, because in the liberal view, morality is a constraining, disgusting, evil thing, and any enemies of it are an ally of his. Thus he tries and deceive the good men of a nation that Christ intended for us to turn the other cheek ad infinitum, and that the thieving rapist, or the murderer, should be protected, that he is more like Christ than them. This is a lie, a perversion, and an attack against the good grace of God.

                        Yes, it is a good thing to put evil in it’s place, whether that is at your heel or under the ground.
                        To protect your people by your true testimony and taking up of arms, the innocent among your and other nations, to shepherd people to Christ, to crush the serpents underneath your heel, to impale the devils who take and possess human form, to say a prayer of their souls, all of this to protect Christ. Granted, I am a layman, and no priest, and thus you should not think I speak with utmost divine authority, and please tell me if I err in any of what I have said. But my point is, all of this is, yes, a good thing.

                      • #184882
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Granted, I am a layman, and no priest, and thus you should not think I speak with utmost divine authority
                        https://youtu.be/skz9odeewpc

                      • #184865
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        I know you were born yesterday but please get some sense. The lynchings are in fact an example of the goodness of the Americans. They didn’t trust their governments to deliver justice so they’ve did it themselves. You can hate them for perhaps wrong perceptions of what justice is, however I will show you what trust in these authorities against the common stupid bumfuck redneck gut feeling does.
                        https://www.newspapers.com/clip/39252122/leo-steins-circle-s-ranch-busted-and/

                        Circle S Ranch was a facility for troubled boys that operated for good 30 years before it was closed for – as you can probably guess from the fact that "Stein" surname shows up in the link – child abuse. Thing was people knew what was happening there for good 20 of these 30 years, if not longer. They even informed authorities about it from time to time – but the authorities checked all the proper licenses and everything was fine.
                        Now a redneck scrotebrain, when he would hear a kid was told to masturbate while thinking of freaking his mother would call other redneck scrotebrains and the ranch would be closed much sooner than 30 years in. It would be violent, perhaps you’d be able to find photos of Steins hanged and beaten into a pulp somewhere in an article bemoaning this brutal lynching, but that’s years and years of child abuse not happening. The much nicer, more "moral"(in your sense) American meanwhile informed authorities who did nothing and then just looked away. In fact you can find archived internet posts of Steins neighbors – they were still in disbelief around 2006 or so.

                        Now who’s more "good", people who react in complete freaking rage over a crime to the point of taking the course of justice into their hands, or people who apathetically look away when evil happens in front of their eyes because authority says everything’s fine?

                        fox news and rupert murdoch and every GOP president worshipping his network since the 80s is the reason
                        Milktoast dems normalized it by not acting on the issue because it’s """""UNPOPULAR"""""

                        Yeah the great conservative control over all the media and through these media strikes again.

                      • #184905
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >Circle S Ranch
                        >S stands for Stein
                        >garden gnomes are called garden gnomes because they refuse to mark things with a cross and instead use a CIRCLE (garden gnomel)
                        These freaking Christ killers, man.

                      • #184872
                        Anonymous
                        Guest

                        >routine lynchings
                        More people have been murdered in Chicago this year than were lynched from 1900 to 1909. Lynchings never made up more than a couple percent of annual homicides at any point in our history, and a good sized chunk of lynching targets were likely guilty of the crimes they were accused of to begin with. Lynchings are basically a meme.

                    • #184848
                      Anonymous
                      Guest

                      Thomas Edison or Henry Ford couldn’t have existed in the 21st century, everything they did would be illegal or much too expensive.

                  • #184914
                    Mrrandom
                    Guest

                    Except tricare and medicare offer such low prices that it could never exist on it’s own. Doctors and providers would refuse patients or else go bankrupt.

          • #184828
            Anonymous
            Guest

            thing is you can only offer social benefits within the limit of what you can reasonably pay for. countries like Sweden do offer lavish social benefits but never more than they can afford and they always try to maintain a balanced budget.

            • #184829
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Sweden actually borrows a lot of money for their welfare

            • #184833
              Anonymous
              Guest

              Doesn’t the nordic/uwugay model involve being business-friendly and taxing the fuck out of the populace? Also, borrowing money?
              By the way, who the fuck has all that money governments keep borrowing, where do those millions of dollars come from. I know it comes from the IMF/World bank etc but, where does the money itself come from, wtf. I’ll need to look into this.

              • #184835
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >who the fuck has all that money governments keep borrowing
                Governments are buying each other’s debt while going into debt. It’s pretty sustainable

                • #184868
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  What.

                  • #184869
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    Welcome to modern financial system. Your currency’s value is determined by your ability to buy and pay for other’s debt and other’s willingness to buy and pay for your debt.

                  • #184870
                    Anonymous
                    Guest

                    It’s a feedback loop. The WORLD is dependent on the US having a strong economy. The US doesn’t HAVE an economy right now. We’re pumping out government bonds to other countries like nothing else right now to keep the country going. At some point those bonds if this pattern were to continue, would be worthless, and the entire world’s economy would collapse. That’s what it means to be the reserve currency

              • #184836
                Anonymous
                Guest

                It’s mostly just the high taxes and business friendly parts.

                The meta is to have high income taxes and low corporate taxes, because corporate taxes cuck your industry, while income taxes don’t.

          • #184883
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >defense
            from what exactly?

    • #184805
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >How did an idea that was practiced nowhere prior to the 1980s
      There were very few Federal level taxes prior to FDR’s time. Also why is Mussolini sitting next to FDR?

    • #184806
      Anonymous
      Guest

      In the US at least there is official no political party which even pretends to represent conservatism or traditionalism. Remember during the last RNC at the most high-profile opportunity to outline a platform, they officially designated the political pillars of the Republican Party as "whatever Trump tweeted yesterday" and various other culture war crank conspiracies. Even the churches are merely recruiting and funding arms of the political mafias.
      If you ask an American to give an example of a traditional value they will repeat an incorrect cartoon nonsense statement.

      • #184807
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Most people are scrotebrains so of course they have no idea what the country should stand for. There’s people who think the welfare state is a value

    • #184808
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’d just like to post this.

      • #184810
        Anonymous
        Guest

        […]

        you do know they had high taxes back then because there was a war they had to pay for, right?

    • #184812
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >that pic
      Ok, now zoom out a bit and show that part where the federal income tax rate was 0% for all of US history before Wilson’s regime (aside from a brief period of taxation during the Civil War).

      The very existence of the income tax is itself a leftist/progressive position.

      • #184824
        Anonymous
        Guest

        prior to the income tax there were tariffs

        • #184825
          Anonymous
          Guest

          very small amounts, only to keep the government running

    • #184840
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >94% tax rate under FDR
      The guy was a crippled closet commie but it wasn’t 94%

      • #184841
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It was, but nobody paid the sticker price because there were a ton of exemptions.

        • #184843
          Anonymous
          Guest

          This, taxers were super high but only the rich knew how to get around them. So it was essentially a tax on the middle class and a tax on the rich in name only

      • #184844
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The tax rate under FDR was something like 67%, it wasn’t 90% until Truman.

        • #184845
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I’m pretty sure it hit 90% when we entered the war or sometime after, like 1943

    • #184847
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Now do 1890.

    • #184856
      Anonymous
      Guest

      fox news and rupert murdoch and every GOP president worshipping his network since the 80s is the reason
      Milktoast dems normalized it by not acting on the issue because it’s """""UNPOPULAR"""""

    • #184860
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Yeah sure, uh huh

      • #184861
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This is LULZ, you can spot a source of corrupt what was essentially charity pre-federal welfare programs, right?

    • #184862
      Anonymous
      Guest

      No one can cut spending in the US, the entire global economy depends on the America having huge budget and trade deficits. Look up Triffin’s dilemma.

      • #184863
        Anonymous
        Guest

        maybe the whole world should fuck off then

        • #184866
          Anonymous
          Guest

          The one that benefits the most from having the usd as global reserve currency is the US not the rest of the world.

          • #184867
            Anonymous
            Guest

            None of it comes our way, it goes into the pockets of whoever’s sucking the government’s boots. The noly thing being the reserve currency does is encourage deficit spending without producing anything. Without the rest of the world constantly buying our debt they would be soviet tier in 5 years

    • #184871
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #184877
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Mississippi did not officially ratify the 13th Amendment until 2003.

    • #184884
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because the top tax rate used to affect so few people back then

    • #184890
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      Yeah anon, with my newly declared "war powers" that I just came up with I’m going to have to ask you to delete this post or face the consequences

    • #184899
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Neoliberalism doesn’t actually mean anything, it’s just diminishing returns and state failure. The conservative part is "not making it worse".

    • #184910
      Anonymous
      Guest

      […]

      You don’t even have any rights.

      • #184912
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >americans still think they are the only country with freedom

    • #184915
      Anonymous
      Guest

      FACT: Waco was a false flag staged by the ATF because Congress was threatening to disband them so they did that to go "See? See? This is why you need us!"

    • #184916
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Because boomers were brainwashed that communism is when government does things

      Yeah Republicans talk against government spending, except on social security and defense contractors

Viewing 18 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id