Third Party & Independents Archives

Kennedy was assassinated and no one knows why.

There’s a question, but that’s what we’re supposed to settle for, the question. Why did Kennedy get assassinated? They even made a movie that ended just like that.


The stock market crashed 16 years after the Federal Reserve was created to prevent fluctuations. At least that's what they told everyone. Yet, no one questions why it crashed that day in 1929. We just settle for Robber Barons and the roaring 20's excuse? Isn't that suppose to explain it all to us?

For years after the Reagan tax cuts the economy thrived. We were told it wouldn't work before they did it. We were told it wouldn't work when it passed. We were told it wasn't working while it was in effect (deficits). We are being told it won't work now, and when it does work we will still be told it isn't working. Why do we have the same argument every time there are tax cuts?

My Dad didn't say
"I can't believe the government is behind 9/11."
He said,
"I refuse to believe the government is behind 9/11."

His subconscious wouldn't let him say "can't" because he knew they could. His conscious made him "refuse" to believe it. Perhaps that was a self defense mechanism.

That self defense mechanism allows our government to get away with things we don't want to know about. They lie to us routinely. We continue to elect people who have convinced us they lie. We consider it normal, part of the game. Why? Why do we let corruption and lies dominate our government? We know it's all slight of hand and showmanship, but we allow it to flourish! Why?

I'd like to draw similarities between the first half of this country's history with the second half, the dividing line being 1913. What was life like for Joe Shmo before 1913 compared to life after the three most profound pieces of legislation ever to effect our government was passed. I think that would be an interesting read.

What was the festering problem that divided the states before the Civil War? What was the difference between politics then and politics now? What are the similarities?

We can't get anyone interested in these types of discussions, can we? We need the "grab em by the " moment to make us take notice. We need Facebook to get our friends to watch us kill ourselves, or fracture bones, or whine about petty grievances, or smiling pets and babies. Maybe I'm limiting myself. I think a lot of us are.

One thing I can thank Trump from the bottom of my heart for is he made politics interesting. I think it is interesting because it is different than normal stuffy politics. Watching Trump move into Hillbilly's camera during the debate was genius. Clearly different. I loved it.

Discussion on WatchBlog is getting boring and stuffy. It's the same discussions over and over again. How many times and how many ways can you call someone a racist or a sheep or a Nazi or Communist? There's a lot of ways, folks! WatchBlog proves it!

Don't you think a relevant and serious discussion about history would benefit us in the long run? Wouldn't a shared revelation of our history be beneficial to our discussions? Do you think an enlightenment of our shared history would dispel the distrust we have for each other?

I mean us, WatchBlog users. Wouldn't we benefit by simply picking a subject in history and learn what we can of it? Wouldn't our discussions be better if we used that history to draw parallels to our current events? Perhaps we could actually find solutions to current problems that were buried when our ancestors solved the same problem years ago? How do we know it can't happen? Why is it impossible to get along? It isn't. We're just being told we can't get along because the people running the show use our division to further their goals.

I think we should know why Kennedy was assassinated. I think we should dispel the notion that tax cuts cause deficits. I think we should have a serious discussion about the effects the year 1913 had on this country.

WatchBlog should be the medium we use to discuss these topics and many more. We're not getting anywhere calling each other names and insulting each other's intellect. We can do better than this. I'm all for starting a post about the effects of the 16th, 17th amendments, and the Federal Reserve Act. I don't want the subject to be discounted for the same tired reasons it always is. I want to seriously compare the differences before and after that particular event in the history of our country.

I'm very curious about that, and I'm very curious about what all of us have to say about the history of our country. Can we put aside our current disagreements for a while to study our shared history of this country? I think this would make the WatchBlog experience a much more enjoyable experience for all of us.


Posted by Weary_Willie at April 12, 2018 8:40 PM
Comments
Comment #426232

Here, here. Or is it hear, hear? Enihoo, that sort of represents the intellect I have to mount a serious discussion on most anything political. Problem is, one has to rely on what has been said/surmised before. No way to go off an spend a coupla mil - lions investigating something.

As it relates to Kennedy, as I recall the gov’t said there was no Russian conspiracy, that Oswald acted alone, that Jack Ruby was just a pissed off bar keep.

I thought maybe in 20 years the gov’t would come out and say that Russia did it. Maybe assassinating a president is 40 years serious or 100 years serious.

I always thought the Ruskies did it because they were made at Kennedy for the Cuban dust up. Caused them to loose face and so on - - -

Oswald visited Cuba and could have colluded with the Ruskies at that time.

Nothing we can do about it here at WB unless Judge Judy, Heraldo, or some pundit makes an issue out of it and gets it back in the mainstream news.

I’d like the CIA to put it before the people as to how they know there was no conspiracy. Otherwise, I’ll keep having a strong intuition the Ruskis did it.

I’m willing to debate something serious if someone would write up something serious.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at April 13, 2018 1:10 PM
Comment #426238
We just settle for Robber Barons and the roaring 20’s excuse? Isn’t that suppose to explain it all to us?

I would suggest, Weary, that it behooves conservatives to settle for the explanation you have came up with, it allows their ideology to remain intact. Myself I know there was more to it. A while back I suggested a rather non-biased history book for you that covered the period between WWI and WWII. It goes into some detail on the crash and the reasons for the crash if you want more than conservative talking points on the issue.

For years after the Reagan tax cuts the economy thrived. We were told it wouldn’t work before they did it. We were told it wouldn’t work when it passed.

Short term it did probably due to the business cycle but lets not forget there was a tax increase in there as well.Of course debt rose like we were in a world war.

I think we should know why Kennedy was assassinated.

Have you looked into the time frame of when the South Vietnamese leaders were executed and who ordered it? Then a few weeks later the Kennedy assassination.

I think we should dispel the notion that tax cuts cause deficits.

Does dispel the notion actually mean continue the myth?
“During Reagan’s presidency, the national debt almost tripled and the U.S. went from being the world’s largest creditor nation to the world’s largest debtor in under eight years.[3][4]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

I think we should have a serious discussion about the effects the year 1913 had on this country.

How do we fund a modern America without income taxes? America has went from a 3rd world country to a first world country after the 16th amendment. Why not compare the US after 1913 with other countries like Mexico or most South American countries that didn’t have an income tax.

Lets remember it was a progressive tax that we started with now we have regressive taxation, thank you conservatives.

The 17th amendment is a no brainer Weary it lowered the level of corruption in Congress and gave the people the power of the vote.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 13, 2018 2:23 PM
Comment #426239

I believe you are sincere in your suggestion regarding the group studying and commenting on the history of this great nation Weary.

However, as you can read from j2t2’s comments, there is no consensus even of history. The study of history is not a hard science like physics or chemistry. There are no rules or accepted guidelines for the study of history. There are only opinions Weary…and we already have plenty of those.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 13, 2018 4:07 PM
Comment #426240

Already we have 2 different theories about the Kennedy assassination. One from Roy Ellis saying the Russians are responsible, and j2t2 says the Vietnamese are responsible. Both are interesting, but the first time I heard about the Vietnamese. My take would be the military industrial complex and it’s big money men.

Comparing pre-1913 America to a third world country is not accurate. Our country was thriving in an industrial revolution and the only reason the Fed was implemented is to stop the fluctuations in the stock market. That goal was never reached and the proof of that was dramatically apparent in 1929.

To say the 17th cured corruption in the senate is pie in the sky wishful thinking! It did nothing of the kind. How many senators go into office broke and leave millionaires? And again, we accept that as normal.

The 16th amendment isn’t responsible for this country’s success. Our success was progressing by leaps and bounds from the mid 1800’s on because of the industrial revolution.

To think the only funding for the federal government comes from income tax is short sighted at best. I read once the income tax collected from the 16th amendment can only pay the interest on our debt. Our country funded the federal government just fine before the 16th by having the states contribute as per the original mechanism in the constitution. The individual wasn’t needed. Also, the states were not barred, as per the 10th, from installing their own income tax if they choose. It’s very narrow minded to think the federal government can only be funded by an income tax.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 13, 2018 5:57 PM
Comment #426250

Weary I’m not saying the Vietnamese are responsible for the Kennedy assassination. I’m saying it is one of many possibilities because the Diem bros were executed early November 1963 after a coup backed by the USA. Two weeks later the president of the USA was assassinated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_South_Vietnamese_coup

Posted by: j2t2 at April 14, 2018 1:16 PM
Comment #426257
To think the only funding for the federal government comes from income tax is short sighted at best. I read once the income tax collected from the 16th amendment can only pay the interest on our debt.

I don’t know where you get the idea, probably some right wing propaganda site, but income taxes make up the lions share of the Federal income.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-where-do-federal-tax-revenues-come-from

Posted by: j2t2 at April 14, 2018 5:05 PM
Comment #426263

I was also pointing out the many possibilibies. There are 3 now on this thread.

Thanks for the info on the federal budget, however I wouldn’t mind leaving out the partisan pot shots if we could.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 14, 2018 5:46 PM
Comment #426264

Yep, mea culpa, j2t2. I could have rephrased that comment about your opinion of the Vietnamese.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 14, 2018 5:53 PM
Comment #426270
Our country funded the federal government just fine before the 16th by having the states contribute as per the original mechanism in the constitution.

Tariffs and excise taxes were the main source of funding the government with exceptions for the wars when an income or property tax was levied to pay for the costs of war. With the 16th amendment a progressive income tax was the new source of income for the federal government.

So the question is do we go back to what you would consider the good ol days with tariffs and such or perhaps return to a progressive income taxation as the original intentions were. Currently the US has those that don’t produce paying less taxes than those that do. It called the capital gains tax. IMHO that should be reconsidered as it allows for repressive taxation.

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

The 16th amendment brought us into the modern age Weary why mess it up? Especially with so much robotics and such causing the loss of jobs all over the world.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 14, 2018 7:58 PM
Comment #426279
Why do we have the same argument every time there are tax cuts?

I would suggest it is because conservatives continue to perpetrate the lie that tax cuts pay for themselves. It is all part of their starve the beast plan to get rid of medicare medicaid and social security and other government programs. The question should be why do conservative movement followers still believe the lie? Not only believe it but defend it by telling themselves and others any information to the contrary is from biased sources. They simply cannot accept their ideology is flawed.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/stancollender/2018/04/15/on-the-deficit-gop-has-been-playing-us-all-for-suckers/#4ed8ab1c4694

Posted by: j2t2 at April 15, 2018 10:38 AM
Comment #426280
The 16th amendment brought us into the modern age Weary why mess it up?

I see it differently, j2t2. I believe the 16th was a result of the industrial age, not the vehicle that produced it.

This is the original funding mechanism drafted into the constitution.
Article 1: Section 9

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

This mechanism worked throughout pre-1913 history, the exception being the Civil War where Lincoln had almost dictatorial powers. It was removed at the war’s conclusion.

Another attempt to lay income taxes didn’t pass muster at the Supreme Court.

As per Wikileaks:

A new income tax statute was enacted as part of the 1894 Tariff Act.[16][17] At that time, the United States Constitution specified that Congress could impose a “direct” tax only if the law apportioned that tax among the states according to each state’s census population.

This ruling followed the original restraints on funding, but…

Due to the political difficulties of taxing individual wages without taxing income from property, a federal income tax was impractical from the time of the Pollock decision until the time of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment

The “political difficulties” during this time are what interest me. What “political difficulties” made this approach impractical? I don’t think we are aware of the political difficulties of that time. I would like to discuss them, because…

1) The Federal Reserve Act was passed because of the 1907 stock market crash. It was said the Act would reduce these episodes by having the federal government control the market. As we have seen, this didn’t work. The evidence being The Great Depression in 1929 and subsequent failures in the banking industry that followed.

2) The 17th amendment was ratified to solve the problem of corruption in the senate, and again this problem was not solved, just ignored. When senators can enter congress with meager incomes and exit millionaires, there is corruption. The 17th amendment must have been for another reason, just as the Federal Reserve Act must have been for another reason. The stated reasons have proven to be false in both cases. I want to expose the truth.

3) The 16th amendment was a politically motivated venture. There was no underlying need for an income tax as there was during the Civil War when our country was facing destruction. This was at a time when our country was thriving. The Progressive movement was gaining strength by substituting cooperation between the federal government and the states with a notion the federal government is superior to the states. This was a time when Woodrow Wilson deemed the Constitution a living document, representative of the group at the expense of the individual. The concept of checks and balances and the separation of powers, and of personal freedom were deemed antiquated and retarding. The 16th amendment was icing on the federal government’s cake. It was simply a funding mechanism used to purchase the power to dominate the states.

Had the 16th amendment not been ratified our country would have continued the historic advances gained without it. The original funding mechanisms would have continued to fund a federal government working with the states, instead of dominating them. History has proven the original funding mechanisms were adequate to fund a constitutional government.


Posted by: Weary Willie at April 15, 2018 10:57 AM
Comment #426281

Why the partisan deflection, j2t2?

You’re playing the typical hypocritical partisan game, j2t2. This is the classic Democratic’s bait and switch. Democratics vote for a bill and then blames Republicans for passing it. How can tax cuts pay for themselves if they are immediately followed by huge spending increases?

The Senate voted 65-32. The House approved it 256-167.

Democratics voted for the legislation in your link. It’s disingenuous to blame Republicans exclusively. Let’s get off the partisan politics and have an intelligent discussion about what gives these people the authority to do this, OK?

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 15, 2018 11:25 AM
Comment #426284

Thanks for your discussion of the 16th and 17th amendment Weary. I don’t believe there is much public interest in repealing either; and that genii is out of the bottle to stay.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 15, 2018 5:05 PM
Comment #426285

If I had a choice of only one, I would repeal the 17th to return oversight and control of the federal government to the states, as it was pre-1913.

My goal here is not to repeal the 16th… yet. I want to expose the possibility fake news was used to put these amendments into effect. The Federal Reserve Act is not doing what was intended. The 17th did not eliminate corruption, and destroyed the checks and balance the states were assigned. The 16th is being taken advantage of by the federal government in ways that are not allowed by the constitution.

If amendments were written in stone the U.S. would be an alcohol free zone, and we would have a federal police state enforcing it here and around the globe. Refer to the prohibition of drugs and the militarization of police and foreign involvement to enforce it. Consider what a police state we could have if this behavior started a century ago!
When we discount the constitution and allow the federal government the ability to create their drug wars and wars on poverty, we’ve shot our constitution in the foot. The 16th funds this behavior. The 16th and 17th allows this to happen.

How much public interest was there in ratifying the 16th and 17th amendments? Do we know how the public felt about the issue? I believe they thought it wouldn’t affect them. It was the rich whose income was originally taxed.

Please remember, all three of these pieces of legislation were passed in the same year! There was no internet. Mail took days. Was it passed in the smoke filled rooms without the public’s input? Was the same class warfare we experience now used to influence public opinion then? Was the 16th’s implementation even legal? Some have expressed doubts and are automatically considered crackpots and conspiracy theorists to stifle debate, so who knows?

We’re past due for a national discussion about the federal government’s proper role as laid out in the constitution. I think we need to realize the federal government was not intended to be every person’s solution to all their problems. At least consider it possible the 16th and 17th may have lead us down a path that is not sustainable. Our constitution wasn’t ratified in 1913 and there are options available! There’s no harm in discussing possibilities.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 15, 2018 6:39 PM
Comment #426287

First of all Weary what partisan thing you talking about? I mentioned neither repub nor dem I focused on conservatives only.

Weary I have to disagree with you on how our Senators and representatives voted on the Trump tax cuts. It was along partisan lines except for 12 repubs that voted no. So I don’t know where you got your information but rest assured it was all repub, those tax cuts.

Have we noticed a trend here yet?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 16, 2018 12:19 AM
Comment #426307

I wasn’t referring to the tax cuts in 2017. I was talking about the massive spending bill that followed this year.
Again, how can you say tax cuts don’t work when they’re always followed by massive spending increases?

Focusing on conservatives only is partisan, j2t2.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 16, 2018 10:19 AM
Comment #426309

j2


“The 17th amendment is a no brainer Weary it lowered the level of corruption in Congress and gave the people the power of the vote.”

Actually, that isn’t true. The people already had their vote. It’s called the house of representatives. Senators represent the state, not the people. It makes more sense for the the state legislatures to choose the senators. If the people don’t like who their state representatives are choosing, they can replace them in the next election cycle.

Posted by: dbs at April 16, 2018 1:04 PM
Comment #426310


j2

“I don’t know where you get the idea, probably some right wing propaganda site, but income taxes make up the lions share of the Federal income.”


Income ? You mean revenue ? There’s a difference. Income is earned, revenue isn’t. The gov’t doesn’t earn that money. It takes it by force. It doesn’t belong to them. It belongs to those who earned it.


Posted by: dbs at April 16, 2018 1:15 PM
Comment #426315

It was a devastating news. We should be our brothers keeper. A man going around the street killing innocent people needs to be jail for life.

USA Sugar Mummy Accept Your Request. Chat With Her Now

Posted by: Masterpee at April 17, 2018 6:55 AM
Comment #426317

This is a good blog
It is necessary for you to make the right escorts service choice in Bangalore. The best Bangalore escorts by us are being provided in Bangalore, in which there are many beautiful and VIP models call girl available. Our call girls provide escorts services independent of Bengaluru. Variety of type is provided in which the customer can choose which kind of call girls in Bangalore as per their requirement We have a proper and escorts service in Bangalore.
Bangalore escorts service

Posted by: Bangalore escorts at April 17, 2018 7:18 AM
Comment #426318

“Income is earned, revenue isn’t. The gov’t doesn’t earn that money. It takes it by force.”

And that pretty much brings us to why the ‘Progressive Era’ ushered in the beginning of the end.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2018 8:47 AM
Comment #426319

The “Progressive Era” also brought us a “progressive tax”. The progressive tax system screams bias, bigotry, and class warfare against people who just happen to earn more than others.

10% of 100$ = 10$
10% of 100,000 = 1000$
Both are 10% but the person making 100,000$ pays 100 times more than the person making 100$. 10% is fair to both.

The progressive tax system isn’t fair, it’s bigoted against the rich and punishes those who make more than others. Half the people in this country pay no tax while people earning more pay everything. Declaring some have no responsibility while putting the deficit on others isn’t fair, it’s bias. I’m at a loss as to the logic used in thinking it’s fair.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 17, 2018 9:25 AM
Comment #426320

Jesus where to begin. Lets see the age old whine about taxes being unfair to the rich man…f**cking really!

Or the whine about taxes being “forced” upon us despite having representation in Congress. You guys sound like spoiled kids, not the founding fathers who dealt with the real issue of forced taxation, the taxation without representation.

Weary you actually believe the math nonsense you created! On the same amount of money, the first $100 every pays the same amount of tax, unless you are very rich and pay none or your money in taxes. The poor man has no more income to pay taxes on some others have the %99,000 and pay based upon current rates. And you feel bad for the rich guy who pay taxes on it all! You think fair is taxing everyone at the rate of the poorest amongst us!

Posted by: j2t2 at April 17, 2018 9:32 PM
Comment #426326

j2

“Jesus where to begin. Lets see the age old whine about taxes being unfair to the rich man…f**cking really!”

What the f@#k are you babbling about ?

“Or the whine about taxes being “forced” upon us despite having representation in Congress.”

Spoken like a true welfare recipient.


“The poor man has no more income to pay taxes on some others have the %99,000 and pay based upon current rates. And you feel bad for the rich guy who pay taxes on it all! You think fair is taxing everyone at the rate of the poorest amongst us!”

The poor don’t actually pay any income tax. In fact if they have children they get money that they never even paid in. Remember the first 24k for a couple is exempt. It’s called the standard deduction. A flat tax rate would be fair.

Posted by: dbs at April 18, 2018 5:42 AM
Comment #426330

You complain about my math?! Wow!

This is your math:

pay nothing = pay 90%

You guys preach,(Jesus where to begin) about equality and then come up with math that is the exact opposite of equal.

My math:

10% = 10%

Where did you go to school, j2t2?

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 18, 2018 9:41 AM
Comment #426331

How is taking money from poor people every week and then making them beg to get it back, fair?

How is making people forfeit their 4th and 5th amendment rights to get their tax return back, fair?

How is bribing people to stay in low income brackets, fair?

How is taking money from one person to pay someone else to NOT earn a wage, fair?

It seems the Progressives’ idea of equality only applies to the wishful thinking of said Progressive. The actual actions of said Progressive is anything but equal.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 18, 2018 12:08 PM
Comment #426332

It’s all ‘fair’ because it leads to the votes needed to satisfy selfish and emotional desires.
Without those, the ‘Progressive Era’ would not exist.

Posted by: kctim at April 18, 2018 1:03 PM
Comment #426343
What the f@#k are you babbling about ?
The class warfare perpetrated by conservatives and libertarians dbs. As an example.”The progressive tax system isn’t fair, it’s bigoted against the rich and punishes those who make more than others.”
Spoken like a true welfare recipient.

That is the real issue isn’t it dbs, the thought someone on welfare is getting something for nothing. Living high off the hog, why they have the best of everything and still don’t pay taxes. The myth is powerful but it is still a myth.

The poor don’t actually pay any income tax. In fact if they have children they get money that they never even paid in.

If it is such a good deal dbs why aren’t you doing just that?

A flat tax rate would be fair.

A flat tax is a regressive tax not a fair tax.


It seems the Progressives’ idea of equality only applies to the wishful thinking of said Progressive. The actual actions of said Progressive is anything but equal.

Weary here is the whys of the 16th amendment.
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-11-3-b-the-income-tax-amendment-most-thought-it-was-a-great-idea-in-1913.html

It’s all ‘fair’ because it leads to the votes needed to satisfy selfish and emotional desires. Without those, the ‘Progressive Era’ would not exist.

Oh please kctim, this angry and jealous comment is as emotional as any progressive era reform.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 18, 2018 9:11 PM
Comment #426349

j2

“That is the real issue isn’t it dbs, the thought someone on welfare is getting something for nothing.”

Bingo ! They’re living on the backs of those who go to work everyday.


“If it is such a good deal dbs why aren’t you doing just that?”

Because I’m not lazy. And actually there are plenty of people getting back in return, more than they pay in. Redistribution through the tax code. Yes it’s real.

“A flat tax is a regressive tax not a fair tax.”

Actually it isn’t. It’s simple math. The more you make the larger your tax bill.


“The class warfare perpetrated by conservatives and libertarians dbs. As an example.”


We’re not the ones trying to pit one group against another in order to get votes. It seems you’ve got that assbackwards. You know, the evil rich people, racists, etc. It would be the left stoking the fires of discontent to get votes.

Posted by: dbs at April 19, 2018 5:47 AM
Comment #426352

It was simply a statement of fact, J2.
I have no idea how you get “angry and jealous” from that.

Posted by: kctim at April 19, 2018 8:54 AM
Comment #426353

One taxpayer wrote to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, “I have purposely left out some deductions I could claim, in order to have the privilege and the pleasure of paying at least a small income tax… .”

Were you that one taxpayer, j2t2?

If you would notice through the article you linked to, a very few people paid income tax in 1914. It was only after WWI income tax doubled and started to effect more and more people. After WWII the income tax doubled again. It’s been steadily rising more and more since.

They lied, j2t2. Typical bait and switch. Nose under the tent as a way to get the camel inside. They gave the cookie jar to the kids and now all the cookies are being eaten and the kids are clamoring for more.

You’ve also got a lot of nerve trying to blame class warfare on conservatives. People who are being assaulted don’t initiate the violence, they try to avoid it.

It’s also a shame this post has degenerated into a partisan pissing contest, again.


Posted by: Weary Willie at April 19, 2018 9:14 AM
Comment #426354

One question I had about the 16th was if class warfare was used to get it passed. It was answered by j2t2’s linked article:

The public and most newspapers seemed to favor it. The main argument for ratification was that the amendment would force the wealthy to take on a fairer share of the federal tax burden that had in the past been largely carried by those earning relatively little.

And there it is. Yes, class warfare was used to get it passed. Most Newspapers is another clue. They were probably lapdogs for the government back then, also.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 19, 2018 9:23 AM
Comment #426372
And actually there are plenty of people getting back in return, more than they pay in. Redistribution through the tax code. Yes it’s real.

We should be thankful for this dbs. This helps to correct the income inequality problem we have in this country. It also helps to keep the version of capitalism we have going strong.

Actually it isn’t. It’s simple math. The more you make the larger your tax bill.

You are confusing the progressive taxation we have with the flat tax dbs. A flat tax system would favor the rich.It is regressive.

Were you that one taxpayer, j2t2?

It was written in when 1914 or so …what do you think Weary. However I do wish it was me saying that at the time, telling all them “only the good times Americans” what I thought of them. It is sad those that claim to be the most patriotic scoff at true patriots like this letter writer. Accepting responsibility for the rights and freedoms we have is nothing to laugh at IMHO Weary. Freedom isn’t free and the rich think they are to good to pay their fair share in blood or fortune.

You’ve also got a lot of nerve trying to blame class warfare on conservatives. People who are being assaulted don’t initiate the violence, they try to avoid it.

Surely you jest Weary… Hard to take you serious when you talk such crap.


You know, the evil rich people, racists, etc. It would be the left stoking the fires of discontent to get votes.

What do you think your stroking dbs when you mention the poor and those on welfare ?
Posted by: dbs at April 19, 2018 5:47 AM

Posted by: j2t2 at April 19, 2018 11:30 PM
Comment #426373

Conservatives who think the latest tax cuts were good for the country need to go back to school IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 19, 2018 11:49 PM
Comment #426375

The tax cuts were good for the country, j2t2. It’s the following spending increases that will do the damage. I think the Democratics want the damage so they can blame Trump, and to further the myth that tax cuts are bad. I think they are that devious.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 20, 2018 12:47 AM
Comment #426394

First of all tax cuts don’t do what they are intended to for any length of time Weary and they end up contributing to the deficit and debt of the country. Tax cuts work only when they are timed right usually during a downturn in the economy to spur growth. This time with no downturn in the economy it was a political ploy used to gain voted by the repubs.

If I were part of the right wing base I would fell insulted that our elected leaders would cut taxes then increase spending so much as if the difference would be made up with the anticipated economic growth from the tax cuts. If you think this happened unintentionally then don’t perhaps you aren’t insulted. Blaming the dems for the spending increase is laughable Weary you should be ashamed of yourself if you actually believe this myth.

The same Congress still controlled by the same repubs and the same administration weren’t surprised at all and in fact the omnibus bill was brought to the table by repubs and was passed through Congress just as they have been for years. Nope Weary you guys own this fiscal calamity this cutting taxes during the good times and spending like a conservative republican at port.

Does “intentional damage we call starve the beast” ring a bell. My god it amazes me how you guys can not see through this right wing crap. Actually blaming the dems for this as if the omnibus bill came on like a surprise!

Posted by: j2t2 at April 20, 2018 11:22 AM
Comment #426398

Cooperation has to be purchased, j2t2. It’s standard operating procedure in D.C. If you say it isn’t, you’re either lying or incredibly ignorant. It’s all made possible by the 16th and 17th amendments. The 16th provides the money everyone in D.C. is worshiping. The 17th provided the people a method to eliminate the state’s influence. We have a government of caterers, j2t2, not leaders.

I’ve maintained my position of supporting the vilified few that you call Tea Party politicians. Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and those who voted against this spending bill. It nullified the benefits of the tax cuts, in my opinion. It’s same ol’, same ol’. 6 months down the line we’re going to be going through the same thing again. Rinse and repeat. It’s been going on for decades. Our federal government has devolved into people fighting for money the federal government shouldn’t be allowed to have.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 20, 2018 3:03 PM
Comment #426399

It is a lack of cooperation these past 9 years that is more the story Weary. These shorter term spending bills are because of Tea Party politicians refusing to cooperate with other elected officials and do their job. They are extremist that refuse to budge on anything except hurting the country with all the nonsense spouted by right wing extremist.

IMHO the real problem is the propaganda of the right that has infected so many Americans about our system of government. To really believe the government is to big because we have a social safety net for the poorest amongst us and then seeking to destroy all aspects of the government unless it is military related is why the atmosphere in DC is so bad.

The 16th amendment didn’t say worship the money of we the people and use it for a military industrial complex Weary. The 16th amendment gave the country a means to fund the government in the modern era. Blaming the 16th amendment for funding the government is ridiculous.

This mess you speak of is more due to amoral opportunist than the 16th amendment. It is more due to the negativity of conservatives who when in charge of the government are so corrupt they spend more time with their lawyers then actually doing the will of the people. It is like blaming the gun not the person Weary. “If only we didn’t have the 16th amendment we wouldn’t have corruption in government” is what you would have us believe Weary. Yet before the 16th amendment we had corruption in government. Who do you think financed the railroads post civil war Weary?

The 17th amendment solved problems that were created when governors appointed Senators to the Federal government. The people of the state not the political and corporate backers of the governor decides who they want to represent them. I don’t see a problem with that. Just think if we had a governor like our current president who appoints only Trump loyalist to positions in the government without regard to abilities. We could have complete incompetent f**ktards voting as Senators. Instead we have Senators elected by the people to represent them. Now the special interests have to be in DC to bribe those that vote instead of paying the governor to get their own man in place.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 20, 2018 4:18 PM
Comment #426403
To really believe the government is to big because we have a social safety net for the poorest amongst us and then seeking to destroy all aspects of the government unless it is military related is why the atmosphere in DC is so bad.

Another big lie, j2t2. The SS safety net was plundered years ago by politicians. SS is now a benefit. It wasn’t a benefit when it started, but it is now. It’s part, just part, of that big government we’re trying to restrain. How is it these things happen, but only one side gets the blame, j2t2? How does that work?

Blaming the 16th amendment for funding the government is ridiculous.

This is what I call a loss of credibility. How can you be taken seriously with comments like that. Screw you, j2t2. The least you could do is take this seriously. This forced defamation is getting old. Your ridiculous flailing is why our country is failing. It’s sickening.

You’re too ignorant to carry on a conversation with, j2t2.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 20, 2018 6:21 PM
Comment #426434

Weary it seems the truth, instead of setting you free, has hurt your feelings. This emotional outburst of name calling and diversion hopefully will make you feel better about things. I would suggest in the future if these historical topics are to much for you to handle emotionally you stick to more current subjects.

Social Security has been attacked by conservatives for years after the LBJ era blunder. If only we Americans would see the light and let the banksters be entrusted with SS we would all be better off. Just like we trust them with health insurance and well we see they have only plundered and looted the system.

The social safety net I was referring to includes WIC and workfare as well as medicare/ medicaid. The constant attacks on these systems by the libertarian right and the conservative movement are well documented Weary.

Prior to the 16th amendment the government used regressive taxation to fund itself after wards a progressive taxation to fund itself, all of a sudden it was by force! Yet I am the ignorant one because I support both amendments according to someone who would set us back a century or two by repealing these amendments. Go figure. Are you sure it is my ignorance that has you so emotional or is it you have no credible response to my previous post?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 21, 2018 1:11 PM
Comment #426437

All your last comment said was government is the best thing since sliced bread and if it wasn’t for conservatives we would be living in a utopia. Sorry, j2t2. Your partisan bend is not conducive to an intelligent conversation. You might as well just comment that you are right and I am wrong. It would save you some time.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 21, 2018 2:29 PM
Comment #426438

Perhaps Weary that is what you heard and sadly enough I am not surprised that you had to translate to conservative talking points to disagree with what was said.

So lets address the supposed one sided partisan “bend” shall we. Before you decide it is one sided I ask you to consider the subject. The progressive era and the 16th and 17th amendments from the progressive era. Don’t you see the partisan bend to that when you try to tell us how wrong these things are you blame the times. And if only they were repealed things would be so much better.

The facts are conservatives support regressive taxation and the appointment of Senators by a strong governor. While the liberals support progressive taxation and the people of the state electing Senators to represent us in DC. I would suggest both of us are partisan on these issues.

Of course I think you are wrong in wanting to repeal these two amendments some 100 years after they were made part of the Constitution. I have stated the reasons I think they were the right amendments at the right time.

Please realize Weary that I have gave you point of view some thought and simply disagree with it. You do not like income taxes so you want to repeal the 16th amendment. You want state officials to appoint Senators because you believe this is a better way to control the federal government.

I base my opinion on the whys and the history of the country prior to these two amendments becoming part of the Constitution in a relatively short time frame and with more than enough of the states favoring both amendments.

So nothing about the greatest thing since sliced bread, but more of a the system of government is fine it is the people who shape our politics that are off.


Posted by: j2t2 at April 21, 2018 4:23 PM
Comment #426439

I started this post asking for a discussion of options. I didn’t get that from you. I got partisan rhetoric and excuses and myths. There are options, but not when you shut down discussion with stupid, blame game, diversions.

Debate with you is a waste of time.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 21, 2018 4:41 PM
Comment #426441

From my perspective Weary I put forth my point of view and you were unable to discuss what was put froth choosing instead ot use diversions such as ” I got partisan rhetoric and excuses and myths.”. You claim there are “options” yet you fail to mention said options when you comment on what I have said.

So not to be deterred with such comments I ask you now Weary to put your options on the table. to be specific which comments that I have made are excuses or myths? Instead of general statements be specific and offer up a reliable source that would prove your accusations. I do.

It sounds to me like you are unable to defend your anti-Constitution position choosing instead the same old conservative sore loser tactic of insulting the messenger. So stop it my friend, step up to the plate and give me a reason to think repealing either or both amendments would be in the best interests of the people of this country.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 21, 2018 9:50 PM
Comment #426442

“If only we Americans would see the light and let the banksters be entrusted with SS we would all be better off”

No…if only the democrats who decided that spending it when there was a surplus was a great idea, because after all, we can just pay it back later. It needs to be off the table for anything except soc. sec. No more incorporating it into the general fund to spend on things like welfare, and food stamps.


“The social safety net I was referring to includes WIC and workfare as well as medicare/ medicaid. The constant attacks on these systems by the libertarian right and the conservative movement are well documented”


Yep..because it’s black hole that creates lazy lumps of flesh that live off the hard work of others. Get a f#@king job, or 2 if need be, or starve. No one owes these lazy sh!t bags a thing.

Posted by: dbs at April 22, 2018 7:25 AM
Post a comment