• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Ed The Fascism Checklist, Trump 2025

So the boom years when the US gained its greatest prosperity were during the high tax rates. And, starting in 1964, income tax rates declined, this decline continued until 1987, through the point at which you are complaining about.

So, in fact, the USA during its period of higher taxation was its boom years.

Or do you not consider the 1950s and 60s boom time?
You're intentionally leaving out that during the 1950's effective tax rate was 42-45% with the effective tax rate of the top 1% actually paid at 30-35%. Nobody in the top 1% was paying 91% due to deductions and specific tax strategies used by the wealthy. The US did enjoy a booming economy post WW2. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. The money that had been pumped into the economy to support the war effort allowed the US to boom temporarily. But as Reagan said, we cannot continue to live above our means by borrowing from our children's future because sooner or later the bill comes due. That bill came due in the mid 1970's.

The economic decline I referred to in the mid 1970's happened during the Carter years. The economy experienced increased interest rates, increased consumer costs and lower energy production. Of course Carter had a run of bad luck with OPEC and the loss of the oil leases which added to his headaches.

If one builds an economy based on growth, and rewards success rather than bleeding it, the result is success. Increased revenue will be the result. Of course we still need a balanced budget and the US needs to stop giving money away rather than paying its own debts.
 
There is so much wrong with this. Except maybe the “I lived,” but I’m taking your word for it, so can’t be 100% sure of that.
The difference would seem to be that History agrees with my interpretation. As well as the voting public in 1980 and 1984.
 
They don't have to be the single richest person in the country. To be a member of a class that rules by right of birth, to be among a whole class of the super-rich, to own all of the land of a country, to enjoy privileges not open to ordinary people- these all indicate inequality.


Not actually true. The monarch does have significant political power- they just choose not to exercise it. As for voting, whilst the monarch is technically allowed to vote, in practice they don't. Firstly, the royal family is supposed to be above party politics. Secondly, members of the aristocracy are not allowed to vote if they are in the House of Lords. As a part of the aristocracy, there is an assumption/understanding that the royals should not vote. This is nowhere near the same situation as the average man on the Clapham omnibus.

I assume this is sarcasm?

Your argument seemed that the fact that it is a democratic monarchy meant more inequality. Yet, we see that the monarchs are NOT the richest, and NOT the most powerful. The richest are not the monarchs or the royal family. So you can't say inequality its due to monarchy. Is it any more unequal than a democratic republic?

If the King or the Royal Family or peers did vote, they would count exactly one vote. Exactly the same as Clapham omnibus man. So what?
If the king was the richest, or actually had political power, AND people actually bothered to listen to him if he tried to exercise it, you might have a point. But he is not and does not.

Bit of a side track admittedly, as I do agree with the article posted above that a republic is just one way of expressing a democracy. It think its all just titles anyway, as nobody thinks the democratic expression of the "Republic of France" is anything like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", despite the latter has Democracy in the name and the former doesn't.

The reality of the expression is what matters, not the title.
 
You're intentionally leaving out that during the 1950's effective tax rate was 42-45% with the effective tax rate of the top 1% actually paid at 30-35%. Nobody in the top 1% was paying 91% due to deductions and specific tax strategies used by the wealthy. The US did enjoy a booming economy post WW2. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why. The money that had been pumped into the economy to support the war effort allowed the US to boom temporarily. But as Reagan said, we cannot continue to live above our means by borrowing from our children's future because sooner or later the bill comes due. That bill came due in the mid 1970's.

The economic decline I referred to in the mid 1970's happened during the Carter years. The economy experienced increased interest rates, increased consumer costs and lower energy production. Of course Carter had a run of bad luck with OPEC and the loss of the oil leases which added to his headaches.

If one builds an economy based on growth, and rewards success rather than bleeding it, the result is success. Increased revenue will be the result. Of course we still need a balanced budget and the US needs to stop giving money away rather than paying its own debts.
Was that 91% the tax rate then or not?
Is that 42%-45% higher or lower than it is now?
 
If one builds an economy based on growth, and rewards success rather than bleeding it, the result is more profits for the rich, leading to extreme greed for more success, leading to undue influence on politicians to maintain the obscene profits regardless of their impact on the country..
Sound like anyone we all know who is president-elect or owner of an electric car company?
Increased revenue will be the result.
LOL. For whom. ;)
Of course we still need a balanced budget and the US needs to stop giving money away rather than paying its own debts.
Then the government should not be giving hundreds of billions to help support, or in many cases bail out, failed "big businesses" who turn profits into buy-backs for shareholders. For example, space rocket ventures, electric car companies, ICE car companies, aircraft builders, banks, military contractors, etc., etc. That list goes on a long way.

I'm sure you will agree, given these are the major sinks of government giveaways.
 
Your argument seemed that the fact that it is a democratic monarchy meant more inequality. Yet, we see that the monarchs are NOT the richest, and NOT the most powerful. The richest are not the monarchs or the royal family. So you can't say inequality its due to monarchy. Is it any more unequal than a democratic republic?
The very presence of a privileged elite demonstrates inequality.
If the King or the Royal Family or peers did vote, they would count exactly one vote. Exactly the same as Clapham omnibus man. So what?

Again, as you seem to have missed it: peers can't vote. Moreover, they get to shape legislation based on privilege, not on an electoral mandate.
If the king was the richest, or actually had political power, AND people actually bothered to listen to him if he tried to exercise it, you might have a point. But he is not and does not.

You don't have to be the sole richest person in the country to benefit from the privileges of being a royal.
Bit of a side track admittedly, as I do agree with the article posted above that a republic is just one way of expressing a democracy. It think its all just titles anyway, as nobody thinks the democratic expression of the "Republic of France" is anything like the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", despite the latter has Democracy in the name and the former doesn't.

The reality of the expression is what matters, not the title.
Agreed. It would be nice if Gulliver Foyle would return to support his point, because it seems to me to be unsupportable.
 
Right up until the 1970's when interest rates hit record highs and the economy was brought to a standstill by the failed Democrat economic policies of Jimmy Carter. That's when the "No Gas Today" signs were posted at most filling stations. That ended Jimmy Carter's tour of duty in 1980. The economy recovered under Reagan's trickle down economics and interest rates were lowered. I lived it. That's why Reagan won in a landslide in 1984.
The economy had grown by 5% in 1976, and it continued to grow at a similar pace during 1977 and 1978. Unemployment declined from 7.5% in January 1977 to 5.6% by May 1979, with over 9 million net new jobs created during that interim, and real median household income grew by 5% from 1976 to 1978.
 
The monarch does have significant political power- they just choose not to exercise it.
I can’t be sure about the UK, but I think it is the same as in Denmark: if the king actually tried to exercise this significant power, the king would loose his crown.
In Denmark this came close to happen in 1920 when the king decided to choose his own government instead of the popular elected one. The attempt lasted less than a week, and no king has dared to try again since.
 
Trickle-down works best when the economy expands rapidly. In this case the rich see the point that they can still accumulate a lot of wealth even with rising wages. Like in China in the past 20 years.

When the growth happens more slowly, it is more tempting to continue accumulating wealth by squeezing the wages.

Limiting further accumulation of wealth is of course out of the question.
 
The problem with that is your aren't building your reserves for when the expansion stops. That boom period is your best chance to collect as much tax as possible. When growth slows down or reverses, then you can cut taxes and still supprot the services people will need.
 
The difference would seem to be that History agrees with my interpretation. As well as the voting public in 1980 and 1984.
Nonsense. The voting public may have agreed, and we all know that public opinion does not dictate what a fact is. Evidence and history has shown that you are completely effing wrong. Good afternoon.
 
The German Weimar constitution likewise stipulated regular elections, but it was dismantled easily enough once the police had been won over, and the military did nothing.
The US military I knew back in the day wouldn't stand for shenanigans, but it's hard to say, anymore. The leaders with half a brain probably either retired, resigned, or failed to reenlist the first time he was elected. I sure as heck wouldn't have stayed in after the country elected a fascist even once. But we didn't have that problem when Bill Clinton was president, and I admittedly didn't reenlist, anyway.

Also, my former LT's Facebook has either been taken over by a Russian troll, or he's been brainwashed into the cult, not sure which. Much respect lost. He wasn't nearly that idiotic back in the day. Sounds more like a certain Drill Sergeant I rather despised (not because he was a drill... he was an incompetent psychopath even by Army standards... seemed to think the worst stereotypes were an instruction booklet).
 
Last edited:
Rewriting of history is the only way the "trickle-downers" can make their economic theories work.
Rewriting history has become a GOP standard:
The 2020 election was stolen.
The Jan6 rioters were really patriots just taking a regular ol' tourist tour through the Capitol.
The FBI instigated Jan6.
Trump saved Obamacare/ACA.
Mexico paid for the Wall.
and the list goes on....
 
add "trickle down economics works" to that list of lies again, it's a doozey that will survive MAGA.
 
If you view it as trickle down, you will always be poor. One criticism of lefty economic thinking that seems to stick, is that lefties have no notion of how to create wealth.
All those lefty blue states keeping the red states afloat may have a differant opinion.
 
"One criticism of lefty economic thinking that seems to stick, is that lefties have no notion of how to create wealth." You mean like George Soros, Tom Speyer, Eli Broad, Jon Stryker, Steven Spielberg or Dirk Ziff, I wonder if Bill Gates counts as a lefty Billionaire?
 
I wonder if they consider Warren Buffet a lefty, after all, he's endorsed democrats in the past. He didn't endorse anyone this time, but did criticize Trump quite often.
 
I can’t be sure about the UK, but I think it is the same as in Denmark: if the king actually tried to exercise this significant power, the king would loose his crown.
In Denmark this came close to happen in 1920 when the king decided to choose his own government instead of the popular elected one. The attempt lasted less than a week, and no king has dared to try again since.
Overt power or influence is rarely exercised, but a lot goes on behind the scenes. A recent example is when Boris Johnson tried to prorogue Parliament. This required the assent of the Queen, which would have involved her in political manouvering. Quiet talks were held, and it was made clear to Bojo that the Queen could, if pushed, refuse his request, leading to a political crisis. Johnson was forced to back down, not by the use of actual power, but by the quiet threat of it.
 
Rewriting history has become a GOP standard:
The 2020 election was stolen.
The Jan6 rioters were really patriots just taking a regular ol' tourist tour through the Capitol.
The FBI instigated Jan6.
Trump saved Obamacare/ACA.
Mexico paid for the Wall.
and the list goes on....
....and there appears to be no way of countering it.

With the likes of Fox and TwiX having a huge megaphone to spread lies and disinformation and the mainstream media having an obligation (and/or desire) to report on the lies because *balance*, the lies get a huge platform to be spread.

Here in the UK, Musk is actively undermining our democratically elected government by spreading lies about our government and especially its role w.r.t. a right wing demagogue who goes by the alias of Tommy Robinson. The government appears powerless to counter these lies. Acknowledging them only legitimises them and ignoring them just allows them to be spread uncontested.

How many Americans believe that Haitian refugees were (a) in the country illegally and (b) eating cats and dogs ?
 
Overt power or influence is rarely exercised, but a lot goes on behind the scenes. A recent example is when Boris Johnson tried to prorogue Parliament. This required the assent of the Queen, which would have involved her in political manouvering. Quiet talks were held, and it was made clear to Bojo that the Queen could, if pushed, refuse his request, leading to a political crisis. Johnson was forced to back down, not by the use of actual power, but by the quiet threat of it.
You are right, and it is a very good example of this power. I think it will work when the king (or queen) has the support of the people which Johnson would not have in that situation. The Danish king in 1920 knew that it was not just the politicians that would be enraged by his move, but the people. In fact, at the time, just after the Russian revolution, every politician feared a communist takeover.
The Spanish king Juan Carlos prevented a coup in 1981, and this was probably not because he had the support of the people, but rather because the coup was led by officers who professed an allegiance to the king.
 
....and there appears to be no way of countering it.

With the likes of Fox and TwiX having a huge megaphone to spread lies and disinformation and the mainstream media having an obligation (and/or desire) to report on the lies because *balance*, the lies get a huge platform to be spread.

Here in the UK, Musk is actively undermining our democratically elected government by spreading lies about our government and especially its role w.r.t. a right wing demagogue who goes by the alias of Tommy Robinson. The government appears powerless to counter these lies. Acknowledging them only legitimises them and ignoring them just allows them to be spread uncontested.

How many Americans believe that Haitian refugees were (a) in the country illegally and (b) eating cats and dogs ?
Worse yet, the more they lie, the more they normalize lying. For everyone. Every time I see a particularly stupid idea get actual traction, like that you shouldn't use sunscreen because it causes skin cancer, I think about how the postfact society makes people more succeptible to, well, lies and conspiracy theories.

The far-right probably loves lying about everything, because they don't realize that the more they do it, the higher the chance gets that other people will invent lies that hurt them.
 
I wonder if they consider Warren Buffet a lefty, after all, he's endorsed democrats in the past. He didn't endorse anyone this time, but did criticize Trump quite often.
i think that's more of a statement on how insane right wing economic theory is than being supportive of leftism
 
So Trump's Johnson won the speakership, not in the first vote, but in vote 1.02. Two individuals that didn't vote for Johnson changed their minds after Trump talked to them. I can imagine that Trump complimented them on how nice their families are and how it would be awful if something were to happen to them.............
 
Already many corporations forbid employees from talking politics in the workplace, for their own "safety."

Uhhh, most corporations prohibited employees from talking politics at work long before Trump came along. This has been standard practice for many decades now. Similarly, federal employees have been prohibited from talking politics on the job for many years now. I'm guessing you've never worked in a corporate office or for the federal government. I've done both.

You folks live in some kind of paranoid woke alternative reality. You see demons and threats in Trump and MAGA where none exist.
 
Uhhh, most corporations prohibited employees from talking politics at work long before Trump came along. This has been standard practice for many decades now. Similarly, federal employees have been prohibited from talking politics on the job for many years now. I'm guessing you've never worked in a corporate office or for the federal government. I've done both.

You folks live in some kind of paranoid woke alternative reality. You see demons and threats in Trump and MAGA where none exist.
Ah yes, the vaunted "free speech" of the USA.
 
Uhhh, most corporations prohibited employees from talking politics at work long before Trump came along. This has been standard practice for many decades now. Similarly, federal employees have been prohibited from talking politics on the job for many years now. I'm guessing you've never worked in a corporate office or for the federal government. I've done both.

You folks live in some kind of paranoid woke alternative reality. You see demons and threats in Trump and MAGA where none exist.
My irony meter just exploded. None is so blind as he who will not see.
 
Uhhh, most corporations prohibited employees from talking politics at work long before Trump came along. This has been standard practice for many decades now. Similarly, federal employees have been prohibited from talking politics on the job for many years now. I'm guessing you've never worked in a corporate office or for the federal government. I've done both.
So you can provide details to back this up.
You folks live in some kind of paranoid woke alternative reality. You see demons and threats in Trump and MAGA where none exist.
Define "woke" first.
 
Uhhh, most corporations prohibited employees from talking politics at work long before Trump came along. This has been standard practice for many decades now. Similarly, federal employees have been prohibited from talking politics on the job for many years now. I'm guessing you've never worked in a corporate office or for the federal government. I've done both.

You folks live in some kind of paranoid woke alternative reality. You see demons and threats in Trump and MAGA where none exist.
Yup! Just as I said, "Already."
 
Whenever someone says the US is a Republic and not a democracy, I usually reply "I don't drive a car, I drive an Audi!"

The US is a republic and a democracy.Norway is a monarchy and a democracy.
russia is a republic and a dictatorship.
Saudi-Arabia is a monarchy and a dictatorship.
The US is the first but not the second, because its leadership isn't selected on democratic principles. Neither party is really interested in the will of the people, just that of their paymasters.
 
I suppose this could go anywhere, but Trump has gone beyond his usual deranged rhetoric of calling for the arrest and imprisonment of his political rivals, and called explicitly for for the complete overthrow of civil society, using as his excuse that the Supreme court has granted him "absolute immunity."

“We should throw Jack Smith out with them, the mentally deranged people. Jack Smith should be considered mentally deranged, and he should be thrown out of the country,”

Exile? The government declaring its opponents mentally unfit and thus unprotected by law? It may be apocryphal that Trump had the speeches of Hitler on his bedside table, but whatever he did have it was sure as hell not The Gulag Archipelago!
 
Back
Top Bottom