The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

@Baldimo,

Quote:

Why try to separate the 2, Lenin himself said Socialism is Communism.

Lenin wasn't particularly objective nor does he get to define the meaning of the terms as they are used today.

Quote:

Where have they succeeded in the US?

Well that's what I'm asking you. You write as if we've had some experience with communism — I'm saying that it was never established here and thus there are no "lessons to be learned" from something that never occurred.

Quote:

Is this part of the "no one has done it correctly yet" defense of socialism/communism?

There is no "it". A successful political revolution, like any successful political transformation, is based on the conditions of the day; to base a contemporary US socialist movement on Soviet or Chinese "communism" would be ridiculous.

Quote:

Sorry to say, but it has indeed failed in every place it has been attempted...

Again, there is no "it". The regimes you're referring to weren't all part of some monolithic bloc with identical practices and results. And none of them took place under conditions remotely similar to what we see here today. You don't really think that Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution has any relevance to, say, the kind of "socialism" espoused by Bernie Sanders, do you?

Quote:

Socialism and Communism are the antithesis of what our country was founded on.

So what? The country was founded over two hundred years ago. You think Trumpism is what they had in mind?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Just as property tax is a tax levied against property income tax was a tax levied against “excess wealth.”
It is a very simple concept when taxes are passed they specify what they tax and the 1913 law that created the current income tax specified that it was a tax on excess wealth and only excess wealth. No working man was ever intended to pay income tax.

____________________________________________________
That is just right-wing propaganda a simple look at the tax tables for 2018 shows that to be a lie. The tax forms determine what taxes are paid. The right-wing propaganda incorporates children and those retired on social security to come up with their lie on income taxes. The people collecting social security already paid income tax on their social security, but the Republicans are complaining they can’t tax it twice once when they earned and again when they draw it. Social security is not like payments to 401K which are exempted from taxes when paid in but taxed when withdrawn. There are 61,903,360 people drawing social security the retired account for 19% of those in the right wing lie not paying income tax but they already paid income tax on that money once. They paid income tax all their lives and it is just a big nasty misleading lie and that is how the rich shifted the tax on excess wealth on to the workingman.

____________________________________________________
You can’t avoid debating the 100-year tax law because that is the law that created the income tax it may have been perverted but that is the income tax law. It did not have to say excess wealth it specified excess wealth by the amount it taxed. The figures leave no doubt whatsoever what it was intended to tax.

1 Reply

@Zardoz,

Quote:

Just as property tax is a tax levied against property income tax was a tax levied against “excess wealth.”

Nice twist of the words. In your example, a property tax would be imposed on "excess property", not just property.
In reality, property tax is just a tax on owning property, just like an income tax is a tax on income. No justification for "excess" anything.

Quote:

It is a very simple concept when taxes are passed they specify what they tax and the 1913 law that created the current income tax specified that it was a tax on excess wealth and only excess wealth. No working man was ever intended to pay income tax.

You have't proven this fact, and everything I read about doesn't match up with your socialist rhetoric.
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/C82515A4B6B7A24C85257D1B0041C86E?OpenDocument

Quote:

That is just right-wing propaganda a simple look at the tax tables for 2018 shows that to be a lie.

What is? I checked the post you were "replying" to, and this comment has no reference to anything I said. I posted no 'tables' and the only link in that post was to wikipedia and their article on the 1913 tax law.

Quote:

The tax forms determine what taxes are paid. The right-wing propaganda incorporates children and those retired on social security to come up with their lie on income taxes. The people collecting social security already paid income tax on their social security, but the Republicans are complaining they can’t tax it twice once when they earned and again when they draw it.

Are you purposefully misstating the stance on "double tax"? The GOP is heavly against double taxation, it's the left who want to follow this practice.

Quote:

Social security is not like payments to 401K which are exempted from taxes when paid in but taxed when withdrawn.

Social security is the tax you pay off your pay check... Should they tax the tax and then charge you a tax?
401k's are pre-tax for a reason, it encourages people to invest in their own retirement instead of being trapped on SS and cat food.

Quote:

There are 61,903,360 people drawing social security the retired account for 19% of those in the right wing lie not paying income tax but they already paid income tax on that money once.

On what money, the SS tax/fee? As I noted above, SS is the tax/fee and it is taken out prior to income tax, so in effect, SS is a "pretax" fee. That money going into SS is not "taxed" prior to being taken.

Quote:

They paid income tax all their lives and it is just a big nasty misleading lie and that is how the rich shifted the tax on excess wealth on to the workingman.

Stop with the lies. You are now trying to mix SS with income tax. Is this how the socialists fool the stupid people?

Quote:

You can’t avoid debating the 100-year tax law because that is the law that created the income tax it may have been perverted but that is the income tax law.

That was the tax law 100 years ago and hasn't been the same tax law since then. When the law passed, the max tax was 7%, the prevision and greed came when the politicians raised it to almost 70% 5 years later. I'll provide the link from above again, I think you avoid the links and don't really read them.

History 1913 tax law:
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/C82515A4B6B7A24C85257D1B0041C86E?OpenDocument

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

The original income law is the law that gives the government the authority to tax “excess wealth” no one can dispute that the only income taxed was “excess wealth” as it would have had to been over $100,702.15 in today’s dollars before it would be subject to tax. That tax law has never been repealed modified but never repealed.
____________________________________________________
If you read the actual debate that took place in the halls of Congress and the articles written in the New York Post the tax was about taxing excess wealth. If the tax was about taxing income it would have taxed the first dollar it did not only income over $4,000 in 1913 dollars and it taxed only excess wealth.

____________________________________________________
The robber barons and the ungodly greedy were running amok at the time. There have always been people in our country who realize that greed is a cancer and have tried to deal with it. When the income tax on the ungodly greedy was raised to 93%. The intent of the law and who was to be taxed by the law is extremely clear. It has nothing to do with redistribution it simply let those who use the most government serves pay for those serves.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you changed positions? According to you and Romney less than half of the people pay income tax now. But now you say there are no free rides which is it?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

If someone put a gun to your back and took your wallet would you be upset? There are far more effective weapons than guns in our society and one of them is political power. During Reagan term in office that gun (political power) was put to the middle class’s back and raised social security five times and raised the age that you could collect in order to cut the tax on the ungodly greedy from 70% to 28%. As fast as the social security came in one door it went out the other to fund the humongous tax cuts for the ungodly greedy. As the baby boomers retire that money will have to be paid back to social security and there is only one way to do that and that is to raise the income tax back to 70% on the ungodly greedy. What did Trump and the Republicans do? They cut the income tax on the ungodly greedy again and borrowed trillions to do it.

If you were driving down the interstate and hydroplaned with your car headed into traffic on the other side the road. Would you try to steer it away from traffic on the other side the road? Or would you do nothing to correct it because it was already headed that way. The country has been hydroplaning for the last 50 years going out of control and it is high time we corrected the course.

1 Reply

@Zardoz,

Quote:

The original income law is the law that gives the government the authority to tax “excess wealth” no one can dispute that the only income taxed was “excess wealth” as it would have had to been over $100,702.15 in today’s dollars before it would be subject to tax. That tax law has never been repealed modified but never repealed.

And your point is, you don't think you should be paying income taxes? You need to re-read the law, it says INCOME TAX... nothing about excess wealth.

Quote:

If you read the actual debate that took place in the halls of Congress and the articles written in the New York Post the tax was about taxing excess wealth. If the tax was about taxing income it would have taxed the first dollar it did not only income over $4,000 in 1913 dollars and it taxed only excess wealth.

"The Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Tariff Act, the Underwood Tariff, the Underwood Act, the Underwood Tariff Act, or the Underwood-Simmons Act (ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114, October 3, 1913), re-imposed the federal income tax after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment and lowered basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%, well below the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909. It was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson on October 3, 1913."

Quote:

The robber barons and the ungodly greedy were running amok at the time.

Successful people who created and controlled industries and ushered the World into a new era. Compare the US at that time until the 1980's and compare Russia of the same time, which was going through it's Red Revolution. By the 1980's, which was a better place to live?

Quote:

There have always been people in our country who realize that greed is a cancer and have tried to deal with it.

Yes, greedy people who never once built or created anything in their lives, so they sought to take what they didn't create under the guise of fairness. It is never about fairness, but about jealousy and envy.

Quote:

When the income tax on the ungodly greedy was raised to 93%. The intent of the law and who was to be taxed by the law is extremely clear. It has nothing to do with redistribution it simply let those who use the most government serves pay for those serves.

Yeah, it sure was. It was the greedy politicians and their sycophantic followers who think they have a right to someone else's earnings. It has everything to do with redistribution as a majority of that money is used on social welfare programs and other such things.

Quote:

Have you changed positions? According to you and Romney less than half of the people pay income tax now. But now you say there are no free rides which is it?

This is where it's important to quote my words because when I looked at the post from May... it didn't indicate what you are talking about. You'll notice I quote everything you write when I reply.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

Lenin wasn't particularly objective nor does he get to define the meaning of the terms as they are used today.

You mean the guy who started this whole horror show isn't considered an authority on his own political system? Just because you want to bring socialism-lit to the US, doesn't mean you get hide the truth about socialism/communism to fit your own needs.

Quote:

Well that's what I'm asking you. You write as if we've had some experience with communism — I'm saying that it was never established here and thus there are no "lessons to be learned" from something that never occurred.

Oh, since we have seen it fail every where else, we should give it a chance here, we don't get to learn and judge from history?

Quote:

There is no "it". A successful political revolution, like any successful political transformation, is based on the conditions of the day; to base a contemporary US socialist movement on Soviet or Chinese "communism" would be ridiculous.

No, it's very relevant. What you fail to see is when people refuse to go along with your "revolution" you will resort to the same tactics, force of govt and gun to make people comply. It has taken place all over the world whenever these political ideals try and florish. Waiting to get socialism/communism to work properly has led to the deaths of millions and millions of people at the hands of their own govts. To think US Socialists will suddenly get it right is naive.

Quote:

Again, there is no "it". The regimes you're referring to weren't all part of some monolithic bloc with identical practices and results. And none of them took place under conditions remotely similar to what we see here today. You don't really think that Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Revolution has any relevance to, say, the kind of "socialism" espoused by Bernie Sanders, do you?

Yep, the tried and true, "No one has do it properly" argument. Yes, I do see the same crap in Bernie Sanders, when people refuse to give up their rightfully earned income and property, there will be blood shed by his political machine, exactly like has happened every where it has spread. History and socialism repeat themselves. When you think the majority can vote away people's rights and property and income, you will have problems that will lead to death for the citizens.

Quote:

So what? The country was founded over two hundred years ago.

That's what you got? It's old and Liberty is an out dated belief? You say things like this and then wonder why people hold on to the 2nd Amendment?

Quote:

You think Trumpism is what they had in mind?

What is Trumpism, is it going to morph into some meaning of fascism?

1 Reply

@Zardoz,

Quote:

If someone put a gun to your back and took your wallet would you be upset?

I think you know the answer to that.

Quote:

During Reagan term in office that gun (political power) was put to the middle class’s back and raised social security five times and raised the age that you could collect in order to cut the tax on the ungodly greedy from 70% to 28%.

Raised it from what to what and in what way? I've no problem with raising the age to retire, in fact we should be raising it to about 70. People are living longer and the retirement age should reflect that.

The lowering of the income tax had nothing to do with SS and everything to do with a failing economy. Reagan turned that economy around and lowered interest rates on borrowing money. There were all things which led to a booming 80's economy.

Quote:

As fast as the social security came in one door it went out the other to fund the humongous tax cuts for the ungodly greedy.

That is only partially true. You forget who was in control of Congress and more importantly the House of Reps... DNC control for 40 years, that's who was in control of the purse strings. Look at your own elected DNC politicians who had to propose the bills that Reagan signed.

Quote:

As the baby boomers retire that money will have to be paid back to social security and there is only one way to do that and that is to raise the income tax back to 70% on the ungodly greedy.

Income tax and SS tax are not the same thing and they do not go into the same "accounts". Stop with the socialist BS.

Quote:

If you were driving down the interstate and hydroplaned with your car headed into traffic on the other side the road. Would you try to steer it away from traffic on the other side the road? Or would you do nothing to correct it because it was already headed that way. The country has been hydroplaning for the last 50 years going out of control and it is high time we corrected the course.

No, this country has been doing just fine for the last 50 years and we have led the way for the modern world when it comes to innovation and medical advancement. Sorry, we won't be giving up 1st place in the world.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

You are right the people that buy the corn pay the tariff on corn but if they give some of the corn to a homeless shelter the shelter does not pay the tax. Congress didn’t stutter when they placed a tax on excess wealth they clearly levied a tax only on incomes of over a $100,000 in today’s dollars.
Other people’s money? Tell me about it. When a CEO takes half of the earning of a company for himself and leaves only half for the hundreds of other employees who manufactured the company products. That is other people’s money.

“in 1967 the medium income at age 25 was $33,000, in 1983 it was $29,000, In 2013 it was less than $25,000. (Dollars adjusted for inflation)

Source: ”Tailspin: The People and Forces Behind America Fifty-Year Fall – and those Fighting to Reverse It” by Steven Brill

That was other people’s money. With a gun you can rob a few people but with political power you can rob millions. You notice that there was fifty-year decline this correspond to the conservative rise to power.

____________________________________________________
For someone to be greedy they would have to receive the ungodly greedy tax money but taxes are paid to the government and most of that goes to the military so there is no greed involved except on the part of the ungodly greedy. A 93% income tax needs to be reinstated on incomes over a million to pay off the national debt tripled by Reagan to give the ungodly greedy huge tax cuts. The National debt would have been paid off in the early nineties had it continued to be paid at the same rate other presidents except Reagan paid it down. All the presidents up to Reagan paid the debt down. When the conservatives took over they decided they could give huge tax cuts on credit (other people’s money).
_________________________________________________________________________________

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

You mean the guy who started this whole horror show isn't considered an authority on his own political system? Just because you want to bring socialism-lit to the US, doesn't mean you get hide the truth about socialism/communism to fit your own needs.

The Bolsheviks who established the Soviet Union overthrew a nearly feudal state ruled by a corrupt royal family. Neither of these describes the USA, now or then. Lenin's concept of a "vanguard party" was his response to conditions in Russia, not a prescription for socialist reform in an advanced capitalist society. There were different conceptions of socialism before Lenin and there have been different conceptions of socialism after Lenin. In fact, socialists usually use the term "Marxist-Leninist" to more accurately describe that type of political stance and differentiate it from other, more democratic, concepts of socialist thought.

Quote:

What you fail to see is when people refuse to go along with your "revolution" you will resort to the same tactics, force of govt and gun to make people comply.

Don't pretend to be a soothsayer. You don't know the future.

Quote:

Yes, I do see the same crap in Bernie Sanders, when people refuse to give up their rightfully earned income and property, there will be blood shed by his political machine, exactly like has happened every where it has spread.

Libertarians love to decry the "socialism" of the income tax. Um, how many USAmericans are killed every year for not paying their taxes?

Quote:

You say things like this and then wonder why people hold on to the 2nd Amendment?

I don't see the connection. What do flintlocks and muzzleloaders have to do with it?
It is not "out dated" butr the

1 Reply

@Zardoz,

Quote:

You are right the people that buy the corn pay the tariff on corn but if they give some of the corn to a homeless shelter the shelter does not pay the tax.

And...

Quote:

Congress didn’t stutter when they placed a tax on excess wealth they clearly levied a tax only on incomes of over a $100,000 in today’s dollars.

You are still trying to argue over a 100 year old law that has since been modified, welcome to modern day tax law.

Quote:

Other people’s money? Tell me about it. When a CEO takes half of the earning of a company for himself and leaves only half for the hundreds of other employees who manufactured the company products. That is other people’s money.

You've already tried using this one, with no evidence that it has actually happened. More Marxist claptrap.

Quote:

“in 1967 the medium income at age 25 was $33,000, in 1983 it was $29,000, In 2013 it was less than $25,000. (Dollars adjusted for inflation)

Last time I checked, the median income for about the last decade has been in the mid-50's and going up.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200838/median-household-income-in-the-united-states/

Quote:

That was other people’s money. With a gun you can rob a few people but with political power you can rob millions.

In this case the robber with the gun is the govt, robbing millions and millions of Americans of their income to provide things for other people. I'm not against the social safety net in general terms, but it should be updated to our current economy and not be based on idea's from a different era when we had a fundamentally different type of economy.

Quote:

You notice that there was fifty-year decline this correspond to the conservative rise to power.

I actually see it as a the fault in the rise of the extreme left, which started in the early to mid 60's with the Vietnam war. It has only gotten worse, the anti-american hippies of the 60's are now in charge of our Universities and a majority of our education system. The left has only gotten more and more extreme as they have been sheltered in academia. We haven't gotten more "conservative" in the last 50 years, we have become more liberal and that isn't a bad thing in some area's. Civil rights for blacks is a good thing, gay people no longer have to live in the shadows and can live the same lives as straight people, to include serving in the military and we even have women CEO's and politicians. These are all good things to come out of left, but now that those battles have been won, they are moving farther and farther to the left, we actually have socialist's running for public office as socialists... Can you imagine if that had tried to happen 50 years ago? How would that have gone over during the cold war?

Quote:

For someone to be greedy they would have to receive the ungodly greedy tax money but taxes are paid to the government and most of that goes to the military so there is no greed involved except on the part of the ungodly greedy.

I thought I had seen some nonsense out of you before, but this one about takes the cake. Do you really think the majority of the money the US govt takes in goes to the military?
https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
The facts from 2016:
Four health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — together accounted for 26 percent of the budget in 2016, or $1 trillion.
Social Security: Last year, 24 percent of the budget, or $916 billion, paid for Social Security
Defense and international security assistance: Another 16 percent of the budget, or $605 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities.
Sorry to tell you, but only 16% goes towards military spending, 50% of the federal budget SS and other Social Safety net depts.
Why do the facts never match the rhetoric?

Quote:

A 93% income tax needs to be reinstated on incomes over a million to pay off the national debt tripled by Reagan to give the ungodly greedy huge tax cuts. The National debt would have been paid off in the early nineties had it continued to be paid at the same rate other presidents except Reagan paid it down. All the presidents up to Reagan paid the debt down. When the conservatives took over they decided they could give huge tax cuts on credit (other people’s money).

Ain't going to happen, we won't see tax rates that high, those days of leftist theft are over. The biggest issues the US has faced is the rise of govt control. When you look at govt regulations on business from the 1970's until today, there is an exponential growth of govt regulations, which have had a crippling effect on small business, which should be the backbone of our nation, but they aren't. The cost of "doing business" is too high and taxes are too high. The only reason big business isn't as effected by these regulations is because they can afford the lawyers to make sure their company is in compliance, while small business's can't. The owner spends more time on regulations than they do running their business.

0 Replies

@hightor,

Quote:

The Bolsheviks who established the Soviet Union overthrew a nearly feudal state ruled by a corrupt royal family. Neither of these describes the USA, now or then. Lenin's concept of a "vanguard party" was his response to conditions in Russia, not a prescription for socialist reform in an advanced capitalist society. There were different conceptions of socialism before Lenin and there have been different conceptions of socialism after Lenin. In fact, socialists usually use the term "Marxist-Leninist" to more accurately describe that type of political stance and differentiate it from other, more democratic, concepts of socialist thought.

A difference without distinction. You can try and limit to the USSR all you want to, but when the majority vote for such things as "land reforms" which have happened everywhere socialism, even the democratic kind, has spread. South America is rife with such property and business grabs.

Quote:

Don't pretend to be a soothsayer. You don't know the future.

I don't need to be a soothsayer, I've read history. There is no such thing as a none violent socialist govt. When the people refuse to cooperate, force will be the only option left to the socialist in power.

Quote:

Libertarians love to decry the "socialism" of the income tax. Um, how many USAmericans are killed every year for not paying their taxes?

I don't think income tax is inherently "socialist", but the socialist sure love to use it as a weapon against the wealthy. I'm not a "taxation is theft" kind of guy.

Quote:

I don't see the connection. What do flintlocks and muzzleloaders have to do with it?

Flintlocks and muzzleloaders... that's funny, as if that is what the 2nd Amendment was about. I"m more concerned with the current push by the leftists in the US to ban guns and at the same time, they are trying to push for more extreme versions of socialism. It's a 2 pronged approach to limit guns and start chipping away at the Constitution.

Quote:

It is not "out dated" butr the

incomplete thought?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

incomplete thought?

Yeah, sorry about that and thanks for pointing it out.

The Constitution isn't "outdated", nor is the conception of "liberty". But the document isn't revealed scripture; it will always be interpreted with one eye on the present and one on the past. That's the only way it can retain relevance.

Quote:

South America is rife with such property and business grabs.

Sure, and you want to know why? It's because the previous system was considered oppressive and, lacking democratic traditions, armed revolution and promises of radical redistribution of wealth were seen as the path to power and the key to maintaining popular support, respectively. While I don't consider the USA to be a "worker's paradise" I don't consider it to be a right wing banana republic either — yet. I don't see class divisions as being so strong as to trigger the sort of civil violence and retribution seen in revolutions which have taken place in under-developed countries.

One of the theories of socialism, "De Leonism" — which decidedly isn't "Leninist" — was developed by Daniel De Leon. "The success of the De Leonist plan depends on achieving majority support among the people both in the workplaces and at the polls, in contrast to the Leninist notion that a small vanguard party should lead the working class to carry out the revolution." (wiki) De Leon envisioned a socialist government being installed through a constitutional amendment!

1 Reply

@hightor,

Quote:

Yeah, sorry about that and thanks for pointing it out.

No problem.

Quote:

The Constitution isn't "outdated", nor is the conception of "liberty". But the document isn't revealed scripture; it will always be interpreted with one eye on the present and one on the past. That's the only way it can retain relevance.

There is no keeping an eye on the past, modern day universities teach that our entire way of life is bound to the "patriarchy and racism" and therefore isn't relevant in todays world.

Quote:

Sure, and you want to know why? It's because the previous system was considered oppressive and, lacking democratic traditions, armed revolution and promises of radical redistribution of wealth were seen as the path to power and the key to maintaining popular support, respectively. While I don't consider the USA to be a "worker's paradise" I don't consider it to be a right wing banana republic either — yet. I don't see class divisions as being so strong as to trigger the sort of civil violence and retribution seen in revolutions which have taken place in under-developed countries.

One of the theories of socialism, "De Leonism" — which decidedly isn't "Leninist" — was developed by Daniel De Leon. "The success of the De Leonist plan depends on achieving majority support among the people both in the workplaces and at the polls, in contrast to the Leninist notion that a small vanguard party should lead the working class to carry out the revolution." (wiki) De Leon envisioned a socialist government being installed through a constitutional amendment!

Once again a difference without a distinction. People voting to take away the land, business's and income of others.

Quote:

The De Leonist victory at the polls would be accompanied by a transfer of control of the factories, mines, farms and other means of production to workers councils organized within the industrial unions. De Leonists distinguish this event from the general strike to take control of the workplaces advocated by anarcho-syndicalists and refer to it instead as a "general lockout of the ruling class".[citation needed]

The existing government would then be replaced with a government elected from within the socialist industrial unions and the newly elected socialist government would quickly enact whatever constitutional amendments or other changes in the structure of government needed to bring this about, adjourning sine die. Workers on the shop floor would elect local shop floor committees needed to continue production and representatives to local and national councils representing their particular industry.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Leonism

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

So you are currently attending a university? You have a basis for what you claim university history classes teach? One core study for history majors is historiography, and that method will quickly make any false claims obvious. At the same time, it is not inaccurate to portray western history as having been male-dominated and racist. That's not unique to western history, either. Both the Chinese and the Japanese cultures have at their core the conviction that they are superior to all other nations.

Nevertheless, that you are uncomfortable with being told that western culture is patriarchal and racist is not a reason to hide that obvious fact. After the Spanish war in 1898, Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem, "The White Man's Burden" to admonish Americans about the racial burden they had now assumed. Maybe you'd be more comfortable with that viewpoint.

https://www.kukutrust.org/wp-content/uploads/WhiteMansBurden.jpg

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

No such thing as “excess wealth’? Really. Some of the ungodly greedy have enough wealth to live in style for the next 300 generations. You don’t think that is “excess wealth?” The ungodly greedy get rich by stealing from their employees, the stock holders or both. Excess wealth is real not a communist idea. It can be measured, banked, held in your hands, it is very real.
_________________________________________________________________________________
During my terms as president of the local not one penny was spent on campaign contributions in fact we did not endorse anyone for mayor in the last mayoral election. There is a big difference between a $100 contribution and a $100 million contribution to political PACs.

____________________________________________________
If the tax code was written to tax only income over $100,000 (in today’s dollars), and it fact it was, then it was written to tax excess wealth. You can tax oranges, or you can tax tires, and you can tax excess wealth.

___________________________________________________
You will not pay taxes based on a tax calculator, but you will pay taxes based on the tax form and only on the tax form. That form is extremely simple no more than a post card according to Republicans. What would you need a tax calculator for? To con the public into believing they got a tax cut until after the election when in fact their taxes are going up. They can say but my tax calculator said I got a tax cut. The IRS will simply say you owe what the tax form says, period.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

I have been married 45 years and owned rental property and used the short form most years. The EZ may be for singles but the short form is only a page. Republicans claim that 90% of the people will be able to file a short form and that the form will be only a post card under the new tax law. Only 19 million out of 330 million Americans will file the long form according to Forbes. Paul Ryan is pictured proudly waving the post card that will be used in a photo opportunity. If you claim the standard deduction the only information necessary on the short form is the income personal information, married number of dependents, birth dates, social security numbers and the amount of tax paid. It is an extremely simple calculation from there. According to Republicans the purpose of tax reform was to make it simple and after all they did away with the personal deductions which will make many pay more taxes this year. Thank god for republicans they took a $10,000 tax deduction away from many working people with several children. But the ungodly greedy got millions in tax cuts funded by raising taxes on working people.
__________________________________________________________________________________
So, who do you believe funded the Pew Research Center? Peter Rabbit. The think tanks were started and funded by the ungodly greedy to write white papers for the congressmen they own to use justify their voting for whatever the ungodly greedy wanted. These were chartered as non-profit organizations so ungodly greedy could donate to them and deduct them from their taxes. But then you still believe peter rabbit started them.
How can you say with a straight face that the income tax didn’t tax excess wealth when it only taxed income over a $100,000 in today’s dollars? That means the tax law recognized the difference between income and excess wealth. At the time the ordinary income exemption was $4,000 (a $100,000 in today’s dollars). This recognize the fact that no one would pay income tax on income below that level because congress understood that money was needed to support their families and only when someone had excess wealth would it be taxed. There is no other way to look at the figures are clear and don’t lie.

____________________________________________________
Working people as a group are pretty honest and pay their taxes but the rich will cheat every chance they get and the richer they are the more likely they are to cheat. See a pattern there the more dishonest you are the more likely you are to get rich. I always enjoyed catching them in their tax scams, but you could never do more than make them pay what they owed.

____________________________________________________
The current Governor of WV is a tax deadbeat who owes millions in taxes to the state. He had of course been a Republican who changed his registration to democrat shortly before the primary. After he won the election his true colors came out and he changed his affiliation back to Republican. Then he decided the state needed to borrow $2.5 billion to fix roads. He decided that the interstate was in such bad shape that it should be completely rebuilt between two towns. When the lying SOB got on the television and said that that section was in such bad shape I couldn’t believe it. I frequently drove that stretch and it was not any worse than the rest of the interstate. Don’t get me wrong we have roads that are in bad shape, but it will be the ones that are in good shape that the money will be wasted on and no doubt kickbacks will be the rule. The workers will make prevailing wage because that is the law at least on paper most likely if it goes down like other jobs and if it is non-union they will sign a paper that they were paid the prevailing wage and then they will have to kick back a good portion of the wage under the table to the company.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

You will never get rid of the Welfare for the rich programs because the rich own the government. America’s infrastructure is falling apart, and the Republicans are to blame for not funding infrastructure replacement.

____________________________________________________

You are talking about what the Republicans call “entitlements” like social security, Medicare unemployment, and welfare. The Republicans want to use the law to force all sorts of people who can’t support themselves to have babies even they know they can’t support. Every effort to stop abortion makes the welfare problem worse. The Republicans always want to stop abortion, but it is alright to starve the babies to death after they get here.
That explains a whole lot. You have no clue how to do your own taxes. I on the other hand have never paid to have my taxes done. I had to learn the tax laws to do my own taxes. In New Jersey only 60% will get a tax cut under the Republican tax scam.

____________________________________________________
I still don’t think that you understand that you get to choose the standard deduction or the to itemize deductions and you got personal exemption until the Republicans eliminated under the guise of cutting taxes.
Both my father and mother came from large families neither were ever on welfare. Just because you have a large family does not mean you are on welfare.

____________________________________________________
The tax laws states that taxes will only be levied on “net income” not gross income. There was a $4,000 exemption in 1913 ($100,000 in today’s dollars). You want income levied on gross income and that was clearly not the intent of the law.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

So you are currently attending a university? You have a basis for what you claim university history classes teach?

I'm not currently attending University, but that isn't a requirement to knowing what is being taught in schools today. My step-daughter graduated from UW Madison in 2016, I talked with her about things that were taught, I've been paying attention to the news and youtube is filled with video's by either students or professors reporting on the current day curriculum at schools.

Quote:

One core study for history majors is historiography, and that method will quickly make any false claims obvious. At the same time, it is not inaccurate to portray western history as having been male-dominated and racist.

So says Postmodernism theory, which it seems has become the basis for modern day history teaching. It is no longer a study of political, economic or diplomatic history, socialism/communism lost, so they moved on to social history, which has gotten us to the point where many college students are SJW's, wanting to undo current society to "right the wrongs" of this countries founding. It's the whole scam of "intersectionality" for current left-wing identity politics.

The left started out about 20 years ago telling us we needed to teach Critical Thinking to our children, this has been replaced by Critical Theory. Critical thinking wasn't a bad thing, it helped children consider different approaches to problems. Now, if you try to apply critical thinking to what is taught in schools today, you are labeled any number of "isms or ists" for challenging their precious meanings.

You should watch some of the lectures by Jordan Peterson on youtube, he covers several of these subjects quit well.

Quote:

That's not unique to western history, either. Both the Chinese and the Japanese cultures have at their core the conviction that they are superior to all other nations.

The entire world shares this history, the US isn't special.

Quote:

Nevertheless, that you are uncomfortable with being told that western culture is patriarchal and racist is not a reason to hide that obvious fact.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable, I don't by the hype to feel guilty. Kids today are being fed a line of BS by our education system, it's an attempt to put forth socialism and nothing more.

Quote:

After the Spanish war in 1898, Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem, "The White Man's Burden" to admonish Americans about the racial burden they had now assumed. Maybe you'd be more comfortable with that viewpoint.

Considering it's been well over 1oo years since slavery was ended, I think this modern day push by leftists is nothing more than a power grab. Leftist have created a new power structure based on identity, and the more "marginalized" groups you belong to, the more power you have.

Historiography:
Historiography is the study of the methods of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches. Scholars discuss historiography by topic – such as the "historiography of the United Kingdom", the "historiography of Canada", "historiography of the British Empire", the "historiography of early Islam", the "historiography of China" – and different approaches and genres, such as political history and social history. Beginning in the nineteenth century, with the ascent of academic history, there developed a body of historiographic literature. The extent to which historians are influenced by their own groups and loyalties – such as to their nation state – is a debated question.[1]

The research interests of historians change over time, and there has been a shift away from traditional diplomatic, economic, and political history toward newer approaches, especially social and cultural studies. From 1975 to 1995, the proportion of professors of history in American universities identifying with social history increased from 31 to 41 percent, while the proportion of political historians decreased from 40 to 30 percent.[2] In 2007, of 5,723 faculty in the departments of history at British universities, 1,644 (29%) identified themselves with social history and 1,425 (25%) identified themselves with political history.[3]

Postmodernism:
Postmodernism is a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late-20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism and that marked a departure from modernism.[1][2][3] The term has also more generally been applied to the historical era following modernity and the tendencies of this era.[4]

While encompassing a wide variety of approaches, postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward the meta-narratives and ideologies of modernism, often calling into question various assumptions of Enlightenment rationality.[5] Consequently, common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.[5] Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies.[5] Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, subjectivism, and irreverence.[5]

Postmodern critical approaches gained purchase in the 1980s and 1990s, and have been adopted in a variety of academic and theoretical disciplines, including cultural studies, philosophy of science, economics, linguistics, architecture, feminist theory, and literary criticism, as well as art movements in fields such as literature and music. Postmodernism is often associated with schools of thought such as deconstruction and post-structuralism, as well as philosophers such as Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and Fredric Jameson, though many so-labeled thinkers have criticized the term.

Intersectionality:
Intersectionality is an analytic framework which attempts to identify how interlocking systems of power impact those who are most marginalized in society.[1] Intersectionality considers that the various forms of what it sees as social stratification, such as class, race, sexual orientation, age, disability and gender, do not exist separately from each other but are complexly interwoven. While the theory began as an exploration of the oppression of women of color within society, today the analysis is potentially applied to all categories (including statuses usually seen as dominant when seen as standalone statuses).

Critical Theory:
Critical theory is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. As a term, critical theory has two meanings with different origins and histories: the first originated in sociology and the second originated in literary criticism, whereby it is used and applied as an umbrella term that can describe a theory founded upon critique; thus, the theorist Max Horkheimer described a theory as critical insofar as it seeks "to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them".[1]

In sociology and political philosophy, the term critical theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. This use of the term requires proper noun capitalization, whereas "a critical theory" or "a critical social theory" may have similar elements of thought, but not stress its intellectual lineage specifically to the Frankfurt School. Frankfurt School theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.[2] Critical theory was established as a school of thought primarily by the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm. Modern critical theory has additionally been influenced by György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, as well as the second generation Frankfurt School scholars, notably Jürgen Habermas. In Habermas's work, critical theory transcended its theoretical roots in German idealism and progressed closer to American pragmatism. Concern for social "base and superstructure" is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much of contemporary critical theory.[3]

All of the above definitions were pulled from the Wikipedia pages.
www.wikipedia.org

1 Reply

@Zardoz,

Quote:

No such thing as “excess wealth’? Really. Some of the ungodly greedy have enough wealth to live in style for the next 300 generations.

No, no such thing as excess wealth. To think such a thing exists, you would have to think that there is a "maximum" amount of wealth someone should be allowed to have. Only greedy people think someone else has to much.

Quote:

The ungodly greedy get rich by stealing from their employees, the stock holders or both. Excess wealth is real not a communist idea. It can be measured, banked, held in your hands, it is very real.

All you really have are platitudes you can't prove.

Quote:

During my terms as president of the local not one penny was spent on campaign contributions in fact we did not endorse anyone for mayor in the last mayoral election. There is a big difference between a $100 contribution and a $100 million contribution to political PACs.

I don't believe you. If you had any signs printed for any reason during a campaign season, you spent money on political causes.
The fact you didn't "endorse" anyone for the last election, doesn't mean you didn't run anti-person or anti-proposal ads or flyers.
I'm actually looking forward to a drop of campaign donations from unions, now that they can't force people to pay dues, they won't have as much money to push their anti-american views.

Quote:

If the tax code was written to tax only income over $100,000 (in today’s dollars), and it fact it was, then it was written to tax excess wealth. You can tax oranges, or you can tax tires, and you can tax excess wealth.

The US govt can technically tax just about anything it wants to, that includes the income of everyone working in the US.

Quote:

You will not pay taxes based on a tax calculator, but you will pay taxes based on the tax form and only on the tax form.

You would never pay actual taxes based on what the calculator says, but it can be a good indicator for general purposes.

Quote:

That form is extremely simple no more than a post card according to Republicans.

I guess you haven't heard of the 1040-ez form? Depending on your income and things you own, you can have a very simple tax form. If you own property or investments or pay alimony like I do, it is a more complex tax form. You can thank Bill Clinton for our modern day complex tax model, that all changed in 1996.

Quote:

What would you need a tax calculator for? To con the public into believing they got a tax cut until after the election when in fact their taxes are going up. They can say but my tax calculator said I got a tax cut. The IRS will simply say you owe what the tax form says, period.

Which election, mid-terms? Won't have an impact on things, thanks to the DNC and their continued push to the left with more extreme candidates, the GOP is going to keep a majority in Congress. The 202o election will be a bigger election with a much bigger impact, people will see the games played in the 2018 election and I think 3rd party candidates are going to do well and is going to upset the 202o election in a big way. I also think the GOP is going to try and Primary Trump and run someone against him.

0 Replies

The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know