harry truman on "socialism"

He's clearly trolling with such a ridiculous post

 

which explains why "dark brandon " is necessary

"i didn't give 'em hell, i just told 'em the truth and they thought it was hell." truman

 

We already have programs based on socialism. Some of them work. Unfortunately, for full out socialism to work, EVERYONE has to contribute. That will never happen in America. Too many lazy self entitled liberals that want something for nothing.

 

I think it's a blemish in our history that we are the only nation to have used a nuclear weapon to kill people. I don't know if more or less people would have died if the war had continued, but it's still a low point in our past.

But what is laughable about this is this new found "outrage" from somebody who has never been known to oppose anything their party has done, and now suddenly finds it "shocking", which has always been the pro-nuclear armament party. And this only because you suddenly realized that a democrat was President at the time. And that he explained the benefits of socialism. You just saw that Truman was right, and decided to find something... anything.... to attack him. Just so nobody expected you to respond to the POINT made by @Rampart on the OP. And then realized that the best way to avoid the topic was equating "socialism" to "dropping bombs".

It's just hilarious that you don't realize how ridiculous that is.

 

no one , not bernie or aoc, no one is calling for anything close to "full out socialism."

 

You sure about that? Didn't Bernie want 90% tax rate or something crazy like that? That is SOCIALISM if basically ALL your money goes to the government.

 

your post, mr @Golem , is a great example "how to drop a bomb on a hijacker." congratulations.

 

True dat

 

Trump and other billionaires have been exploiting tax loop holes way before he was president. This was even known way before he was president. You would think the left would have fixed this by now between all the years of clinton and obama. I'm in full agreement Trump should pay his fair share so why aren't your left wing lunatic leaders doing anything about it and more importantly , why HAVEN'T they done anything about it in the past?
I know why!
because they are exploiting those SAME loopholes but even worse because they are doing it at the federal level

 

We had a top rate of 91% during WW2. Ronnie Reagan had a top rate of 50% his first 6 years, was he a socialist?


The effective tax rate

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/





SOMETHING HAPPENED

 

that is a marginal tax rate, approximately what joe dimaggio paid on the upper end of his joint return with norma jean. i never heard of the yankee clipper complaining that his pay from the yankees was too high and kicked him into a higher bracket.

 

LMOAROG, Don't understand how Congress works huh?

Democrats have a 50-50 Senate, over the past 30 years, show me when we had a super majority in the Senate?

CONservaDems like Manchin and Sinema kill US

Where were ethe loopholes here:


For people whose income ranked between the top 1 percent and top 0.5 percent, the effective tax rate for individual, corporate, payroll and estate was 34.0 percent in 1960, 36.1 percent in 1970, 37.6 percent in 1980, 31.5 percent in 1990, 35.7 percent in 2000 and 31.3 percent in 2004.


WOW PRETTY CONSISTENT


For those earning between the top 0.1 percent and 0.5 percent of the income curve, the numbers were 41.4 percent in 1960, 44.6 percent in 1970, 43.0 percent in 1980, 33.0 percent in 1990, 38.4 percent in 2000 and 33.0 percent in 2004.

OK A LITTLE MORE MOVEMENT

For those earning between 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent, the rates were 55.3 percent in 1960, 59.1 percent in 1970, 51.0 percent in 1980, 34.3 percent in 1990, 40.2 percent in 2000 and 34.1 percent in 2004.

WOW PRETTY BIG TAX CUTS RIGHT?

Finally, for those in the top 0.01 percent of the income distribution, the effective tax rate was 71.4 percent in 1960, 74.6 percent in 1970, 59.3 percent in 1980, 35.4 percent in 1990, 40.8 percent in 2000 and 34.7 percent in 2004'

HOLY SH*T???


BTW, THAT'S AS THE "SHARE" OF THE PIE HAS TRIPLED HISTORICAL NORMS FOR THE RICHEST

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-obama-says-tax-rates-are-lowest-1950s-ceos-/

 

Clinton went from 31% to 39.6%, created 3 new tax brackets, GOP said it would lead to a recession, remember?

SENATE PASSES CLINTON BUDGET BILL, 51-50

Aug 7, 1993 — The bill delivered some of Clinton's top priorities: expanded wage subsidies and tax credits for the working poor, increased funding for food ...

...Through 10 hours of debate, Democrats fended off several last-gasp efforts by Republicans to scuttle the bill, including a challenge to the constitutionality of a provision making the tax increase on upper-income Americans retroactive to Jan. 1.

Republicans hammered away at the bill, calling it Democratic budgetary deception that would do little to reduce the deficit and would undermine the economy with a barrage of new taxes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...es-vote/e9c37591-86f5-4ca8-ad84-f6e8368999cb/

Obama Proposes Tax Incentives, Says GOP Is Delaying Economic Progress

The president called for an extension of the Bush tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 and for the cuts to expire for families making more than that amount.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ican-leadership-of-delaying-economic-progress

January 1, 2013

The Senate approved a bipartisan agreement early Tuesday morning to let income taxes rise sharply for the first time in two decades, fulfilling President Obama’s promise to raise taxes on the rich and avoiding the worst effects of the “fiscal cliff.” The agreement, brokered by Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), passed 89 to 8 in a highly unusual New Year’s morning vote. It now heads to the House, where leaders have not guaranteed passage but top officials believe it could win passage in the next few days.


...The deal came together barely three hours before the midnight deadline, after negotiators cleared two final hurdles involving the estate tax and automatic spending cuts set to affect the Pentagon and other federal agencies this week.

Republicans gave in on the spending cuts, known as sequestration, by agreeing to a two-month delay in budget reductions that would be paid for in part with new tax revenue, a condition they had resisted. And the White House made a major concession on the estate tax, agreeing to terms that would permit estates worth as much as $15 million to escape taxation by the end of the decade, Democrats said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...c044e2-534d-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html


YEAH, IT'S BEEN THE DEMOCRATS CODDLING THE RICH *shaking head*

 

Se we are in agreement that ONLY Democrats can fix this. And that they'll have to do it alone.

Because you keep voting for Republicans. If you REALLY want this fixed, vote for Democrats. You just admitted that ONLY they can fix this. And that Republicans are not going to help.

If you refuse, then you have answered your own question. The reason they haven't done anything in the past is YOU.

 

You say so. I've pretty much decided that just because Truman could doesn't mean that he should have. It's been a while since this was discussed here. Perhaps having the might doesn't give one the right, even if you're feeling pejorative about your own forces. That said, perhaps it is a better course to simply demonstrate that you could wholly destroy your enemy, so they should stop. At least give them the warning, give them a demonstration, and folks do comply. And while you might refer to that as Pacifist, I can assure you that it really has to applicability to me.

 

I already tried that with 2 terms of Obama. STILL NOT FIXED. I also tried it with Bill Clinton. They've had many years in power to do something about it. As I said, THEY ARE IN ON IT

So are the right wing politicians

Its the one thing they all can actuall stand together on....screwing people over with taxes

I know you are too wrapped up in the hive to notice, but the leftist elite does NOT want this gravy train to end anytime soon

 

You read the posts of others through your own lens. Be outraged somewhere else...

 

Nuclear weapon or a bow and arrow -- dead is dead, killing is killing. Anyone against dropping the bomb on Japan should have been willing to come ashore and capture Japan in person. Maybe they would have lived through the action.

 

Obama and Clinton are not going to fix it. CONGRESS might. If it has a strong enough majority and not too many blue dogs... Not an easy task, but... who said anything worthwhile was easy? You and I are sure of ONE thing: Republicans are NOT going to fix it.

 

So, you suggested democrats could fix taxes. And yet, they haven't. Even now, with the super majority, they haven't. You suggest they can, history shows they won't. So which is it?

More, How many folks must I carry with me? How many folks might that be? I mean, if we are going to be all generous and such, if these folks are now my financial burden, can I claim them as the dependents that they are? And if not, why?

 

civilians have been a legitimate target since industrialization, they produce the armaments, think Shermans march

 

Likely true. What folks like Bernie and AOC are demanding is subsidization of their new welfare class of progressive who just exist so they can live off of the largess of others.

 

Golly, and that worked out so well for the union...

 

japan was and had been ruled by the military for some time, the japanese strapped explosives to the heads of scuba divers to explode landing craft, do you think that mindset just needed more time?

 

No. The poster I responded to does. You need to understand what you are getting into when you get into a debate.

Oh God! So now we should add to the many embarrassing things you have said (in this thread alone) that you don't know what a "super majority" is.