- This topic has 115 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
How did an idea that was practiced nowhere prior to the 1980s become associated with traditionalism and conservatism?
-
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".
-
and they were right
-
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-
That’s not a problem with the model in general, that’s just a problem with americans being scrotebrains
-
Actually it is a problem with the system, the federal government basically should exist outside having a military ready to defend from invaders
-
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.
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.
-
Same with the 14th amendment which was never actually ratified the federal government just said "yeah this is in the constitution now"
-
July 28, 1868
scrotebrain-
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.
-
>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.-
No I don’t think it did, they had to issue a "joint resolution" (whatever the fuck that means) forcing it into law
-
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.
-
>3/4 of the states never ratified it so they declared it law with just the joint resolution.
[citation needed] -
>[citation needed]
Count the blue and green states, that’s not 3/4
-
-
-
-
-
-
>we’re going to arbitrarily draw the line here because uhhh because uhhh it just has to be there okay
americans being scrotebrains-
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
-
>shouldn’t exist but does anyway
americans
being
scrotebrains-
Not really Americans, nobody voted for it
-
>amerisharts, despite muh second amendment, just lets the government do whatever they want without their consent
americans
being
scrotebrains-
most of it was done during wars where the federal government took over the national media
-
>excuses
>complacency
ABR -
Implying you’re a shining beacon of patriotism
-
Almost all major expansions of government power/stomping on civil liberties happened due to a war going back to the Alien & Sedition Acts.
-
-
-
-
sis, did you not pass the 8th grade?
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-ii-
0/10
-
>quoting the constitution as written
-
Where does it say the executive branch can create new agencies
-
>constitution gives congress the right to levy taxes and appropriate them
>it’s somehow unconstitutional for congress to create agenciesschizo tier logic tbh
-
Congress is the legislative branch you actual scrote
-
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.
-
Can you tell me when congress passed a bill for… hmmm… lets see…. the creation of the FBI?
-
The FBI started as a sub-branch of the Secret Service during the Wilson Administration, didn’t become its own thing until Coolidge.
-
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?
-
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 investigatorsSources:
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fbi-founded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation#Legal_authorityAnd 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.
-
Aren’t organizations like the CIA exempt from budgetary restrictions by congress?
-
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.
-
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. -
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
DoD gets so much money for scrotebrained bullshit so that makes sense
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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.
-
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
-
>NOOO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN THE ECONOMY IS BAD BECAUSE..
>IT JUST IS, OKAY?-
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
-
still crying about Trump huh?
rent free
-
-
and in republics/democracies, that’s what matters.
-
Historically illiterate
-
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*-
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.
-
Competition died because of federal regulations. Ever wonder why all the old hospitals were founded by nuns?
-
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.
-
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 -
>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.
-
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
-
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.
-
>state programs were more corrupt that federal welfare
Yeah sure, uh huh -
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.
-
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.
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.
-
>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 -
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. -
>and thats a GOOD thing
-
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. -
>Granted, I am a layman, and no priest, and thus you should not think I speak with utmost divine authority
https://youtu.be/skz9odeewpc -
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?
Yeah the great conservative control over all the media and through these media strikes again.
-
>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. -
>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.
-
-
Thomas Edison or Henry Ford couldn’t have existed in the 21st century, everything they did would be illegal or much too expensive.
-
-
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.
-
-
-
-
-
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.
-
Sweden actually borrows a lot of money for their welfare
-
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.-
>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-
What.
-
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.
-
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
-
Video related, the world’s economy
https://youtu.be/lbgCnJblcuQ?t=72
-
-
-
-
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.
-
-
-
>defense
from what exactly?
-
-
-
-
>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? -
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.-
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
-
-
I’d just like to post this.
-
[…]
you do know they had high taxes back then because there was a war they had to pay for, right?
-
-
>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.
-
prior to the income tax there were tariffs
-
very small amounts, only to keep the government running
-
-
-
>94% tax rate under FDR
The guy was a crippled closet commie but it wasn’t 94%-
It was, but nobody paid the sticker price because there were a ton of exemptions.
-
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
-
-
The tax rate under FDR was something like 67%, it wasn’t 90% until Truman.
-
I’m pretty sure it hit 90% when we entered the war or sometime after, like 1943
-
-
-
Now do 1890.
-
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 sure, uh huh
-
This is LULZ, you can spot a source of corrupt what was essentially charity pre-federal welfare programs, right?
-
-
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.
-
maybe the whole world should fuck off then
-
The one that benefits the most from having the usd as global reserve currency is the US not the rest of the world.
-
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
-
-
-
-
-
Mississippi did not officially ratify the 13th Amendment until 2003.
-
Because the top tax rate used to affect so few people back then
-
[…]
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
-
Neoliberalism doesn’t actually mean anything, it’s just diminishing returns and state failure. The conservative part is "not making it worse".
-
[…]
You don’t even have any rights.
-
>americans still think they are the only country with freedom
-
-
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!"
-
Because boomers were brainwashed that communism is when government does things
Yeah Republicans talk against government spending, except on social security and defense contractors
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.