The 1956 Republican Party platform --- LIBERAL!!! 😲 😆

[Nomad]

Viral meme says 1956 Republican platform was pretty liberal

Liberals are getting nostalgic about the 1950s Republican agenda -- at least judging by the social media meme several re

www.politifact.com

So sad seeing what they've turned into today.

 

[Yakuda]

View attachment 59806

View attachment 59807

Viral meme says 1956 Republican platform was pretty liberal

Liberals are getting nostalgic about the 1950s Republican agenda -- at least judging by the social media meme several re

www.politifact.com

So sad seeing what they've turned into today.

Let's go in order

Between 1950 and 1957 just under 2 million people immigrated to America. During the Biden administration its estimated that 7.2 entered illegally. In 1956 the estimated population of the US was 169 million. To think the federal govt can endlessly support a population that's 3x bigger than 1956 is asinine.

 

[Nordberg]

It was a program that would have made America a better and wealthier place. This is when the wealthy started to clamp down on progressivism.

 

[Nomad]

Let's go in order

Between 1950 and 1957 just under 2 million people immigrated to America. During the Biden administration its estimated that 7.2 entered illegally. In 1956 the estimated population of the US was 169 million. To think the federal govt can endlessly support a population that's 3x bigger than 1956 is asinine.

Upon what do you base your claim that the gub'mint is supporting "all" (or nearly all) of them, considering most of them work, pay taxes and support themselves?

 

[Yakuda]

Upon what do you base your claim that the gub'mint is supporting "all" (or nearly all) of them, considering most of them work, pay taxes and support themselves?

View attachment 59837

where did I suggest they did? I didn't. But with increasing numbers the reasonable assumption is the need to provide more assistance goes up. It's a matter of probability. Since nearly half of Americans already don't pay federal income taxes the demand is growing while the revenue stream is I support it shrinks.

 

[Nomad]

where did I suggest they did? I didn't. But with increasing numbers the reasonable assumption is the need to provide more assistance goes up. It's a matter of probability. Since nearly half of Americans already don't pay federal income taxes the demand is growing while the revenue stream is I support it shrinks.

The one percent own enough of the wealth in this country to easily pay for anything and everything the less fortunate need and never even feel it.

But the right is too greedy to pass laws that require them to pay enough in taxes to cover it, so they don't.

 

[Crepitus]

View attachment 59806

View attachment 59807

Viral meme says 1956 Republican platform was pretty liberal

Liberals are getting nostalgic about the 1950s Republican agenda -- at least judging by the social media meme several re

www.politifact.com

So sad seeing what they've turned into today.

Well yeah, the two parties basically swapped sides in the early 60s. The civil right movement drove it.

 

[Yakuda]

The one percent own enough of the wealth in this country to easily pay for anything and everything the less fortunate need and never even feel it.

But the right is too greedy to pass laws that require them to pay enough in taxes to cover it, so they don't.

Give me the numbers. Prove it.

Simple minded drivel. What does "enough" mean?

 

[Crepitus]

Give me the numbers. Prove it.

Simple minded drivel. What does "enough" mean?

In this case it means "almost all".

 

[Yakuda]

In this case it means "almost all".

To leftists yes but what does almost mean?

 

[Nomad]

Give me the numbers. Prove it.

Simple minded drivel. What does "enough" mean?

$49 trillion is 7 to 10x the entire annual federal budget.


The amount spent on welfare programs is about one quarter to one half of that figure.


So the math is simple enough for even a dumbass like you to figure out.

$49 trillion minus $2 trillion = $47 trillion left over to spend on mansions, yachts, luxury cars, jewelry, expensive vacations, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Yakuda]

View attachment 59848
$49 trillion is 7 to 10x the entire annual federal budget.

View attachment 59849
The amount spent on welfare programs is about one quarter to one half of that figure.

View attachment 59851
So the math is simple enough for even a dumbass like you to figure out.

$49 trillion minus $2 trillion = $47 trillion left over to spend on mansions, yachts, luxury cars, jewelry, expensive vacations, etc., etc., etc.

I understand it entirely and that's your problem. What you need to show is why the "1%" should be expected to make up revenue shortfalls if the govt is already poorly managing the money they already receive. One example is justify why a senator or representative needs a salary of approximately $147,000/year. That's more than most Americans make in a year. Plus they get pensions and 401K plans that the govt matchee the members contribution. Where do you think the gift gets it's money?

 

[Phantasmal]

View attachment 59806

View attachment 59807

Viral meme says 1956 Republican platform was pretty liberal

Liberals are getting nostalgic about the 1950s Republican agenda -- at least judging by the social media meme several re

www.politifact.com

So sad seeing what they've turned into today.

Ike was my dad’s favorite President.

 

[cawacko]

The one percent own enough of the wealth in this country to easily pay for anything and everything the less fortunate need and never even feel it.

But the right is too greedy to pass laws that require them to pay enough in taxes to cover it, so they don't.

The top 1% do own a big chunk of wealth, but most of it isn’t cash sitting in a vault. It’s tied up in companies, real estate, and stocks. They already pay about 40% of federal income taxes, so it’s not accurate to say they don’t pay.

Could the tax code be changed? Sure, but it wouldn’t ‘easily’ cover everything. Federal spending runs in the trillions, so the math is more complicated than just soaking the rich.

 

[Nomad]

The top 1% do own a big chunk of wealth, but most of it isn’t cash sitting in a vault. It’s tied up in companies, real estate, and stocks. They already pay about 40% of federal income taxes, so it’s not accurate to say they don’t pay.

Could the tax code be changed? Sure, but it wouldn’t ‘easily’ cover everything. Federal spending runs in the trillions, so the math is more complicated than just soaking the rich.

They earn a huge amount of interest/dividends/profits on those investments and more importantly.

And of course, it wouldn't be necessary for the 1% to foot the entire bill for welfare programs. But they could take a lot more of it off the shoulders of the working class.

The difference between what percentage of US taxes they pay vs what percentage of the wealth they own is way more than enough to be able to afford to pay more.

The right loves to blabber about the US being a nation based on Christianity and Christian values, then gets angry and nasty when you suggest that the wealthiest among us actually live up to the teachings of the Bible.

 

[Nomad]

I understand it entirely and that's your problem. What you need to show is why the "1%" should be expected to make up revenue shortfalls if the govt is already poorly managing the money they already receive. One example is justify why a senator or representative needs a salary of approximately $147,000/year. That's more than most Americans make in a year. Plus they get pensions and 401K plans that the govt matchee the members contribution. Where do you think the gift gets it's money?

Stop moving the goal posts and changing the subject bitching about Congressional salaries.

That wasn't what you demanded before.

The answer to "WHY" lies in how the right loves to blabber about the US being a nation based on Christianity and Christian values, then gets angry and nasty when you suggest that the wealthiest among us actually live up to the teachings of the Bible.

So it's an issue of morality, plain and simple.

Putting human decency and our supposed "Christian values" above greed for more money.

 

[Lionfish]

View attachment 59806

View attachment 59807

Viral meme says 1956 Republican platform was pretty liberal

Liberals are getting nostalgic about the 1950s Republican agenda -- at least judging by the social media meme several re

www.politifact.com

So sad seeing what they've turned into today.

Looks like the Republicans did a great job.

 

[Yakuda]

Stop moving the goal posts and changing the subject bitching about Congressional salaries.

That wasn't what you demanded before.

The answer to "WHY" lies in how the right loves to blabber about the US being a nation based on Christianity and Christian values, then gets angry and nasty when you suggest that the wealthiest among us actually live up to the teachings of the Bible.

So it's an issue of morality, plain and simple.

Putting human decency and our supposed "Christian values" above greed for more money.

I'm not moving the goal posts. You provided the numbers I asked for. I am remiss in not thanking you so I apologize. Thank you for the numbers. Now moving on why should the 1% who manage and invest their money wisely be expected to prop up the govt who are not so.wise?

Christian values? Like Matthew 25:1-23? The wise virgins had enough oil to keep their lamps lit while the foolish ones tried to get the wise virgins to give them some of their theirs. The wise virgins wisely told them to move on. You people with this Christian things as if that's is suppose to make people acquiesce to your position? LMFAO

 

[cawacko]

They earn a huge amount of interest/dividends/profits on those investments and more importantly.

And of course, it wouldn't be necessary for the 1% to foot the entire bill for welfare programs. But they could take a lot more of it off the shoulders of the working class.

The difference between what percentage of US taxes they pay vs what percentage of the wealth they own is way more than enough to be able to afford to pay more.

The right loves to blabber about the US being a nation based on Christianity and Christian values, then gets angry and nasty when you suggest that the wealthiest among us actually live up to the teachings of the Bible.

I think the tradeoffs matter here. If you raise taxes, will the wealthy change their behavior in ways that hurt growth or investment? Are there unintended consequences? On the surface it sounds simple to say tax the rich and give it to the less fortunate through government programs, but in the real world it rarely works out so neatly.

For example, look at many welfare programs. They were well-intentioned, but in practice helped break up families and ended up disempowering many of the very people they were supposed to help.

 

[Nomad]

I'm not moving the goal posts. You provided the numbers I asked for. I am remiss in not thanking you so I apologize. Thank you for the numbers.

You're welcome. It was my pleasure.

Now moving on why should the 1% who manage and invest their money wisely be expected to prop up the govt who are not so.wise?

Christian values? Like Matthew 25:1-23? The wise virgins had enough oil to keep their lamps lit while the foolish ones tried to get the wise virgins to give them some of their theirs. The wise virgins wisely told them to move on. You people with this Christian things as if that's is suppose to make people acquiesce to your position? LMFAO

1) You are assuming all poor people are poor due to some fault of their own. While I'm sure many are, I'm also sure many aren't.

2) in the Bible, when Jesus speaks, he makes no distinction between those who are poor by their own fault and those who are poor by no fault of their own. Christian charity makes no such distinctions.

And also, it wouldn't even be necessary for the 1% to foot the entire bill.

There's the entire upper 10% who own another vast sea of wealth.

And since the working class already chips in, their share could stay as it is.

Point is, there is plenty of money to help the needy, be the civilized nation we like to think we are and still have enough for everything else in the Federal budget.