Reality sets in for Oregon governor

[Flopper]

let me find the link i had read, it could have been when income tax was first instituted with employer taking out the taxes....? give me a few minutes...to find it.

The income tax was implemented twice in the 19th century and then struck down as unconstitutional. Then they rammed through the 16th amendment in 1913 and yes, it was never meant to hit middle class and lower income earners, but that is why you never give the government that kind of power in the first place.

It's hard to say what the United States would be like today without an income tax or some equivalent means of raising revenue. However, I believe had there not been an income tax in 1913, there would have certainly been one at outbreak of WWI and if not, then during the great depression, or WWII, or the cold war, or with the demand for services that only the federal government could provide.

That's exactly why we should have never adopted an income tax. We never would have gone to war in 1917 if we didn't have one.

Nations go to war and then find ways to pay for it. Not having the income to finance a war has never stopped us. I rather doubt the lack of funds would have stopped the US after Pearl Harbor. It certainly did stop us in the revolutionary war or civil war.

Lincoln would not have been able to prosecute his war without his illegal income tax. The Founding Fathers funding their war by debasing the currency. FDR did the same thing. In all cases, the government has never been honest with citizens about the true cost of war.

No country knows what the true cost of war will be. Besides, cost is often irrelevant particular when the war is seen as a war of survival.

 

[bripat9643]

The income tax was implemented twice in the 19th century and then struck down as unconstitutional. Then they rammed through the 16th amendment in 1913 and yes, it was never meant to hit middle class and lower income earners, but that is why you never give the government that kind of power in the first place.

It's hard to say what the United States would be like today without an income tax or some equivalent means of raising revenue. However, I believe had there not been an income tax in 1913, there would have certainly been one at outbreak of WWI and if not, then during the great depression, or WWII, or the cold war, or with the demand for services that only the federal government could provide.

That's exactly why we should have never adopted an income tax. We never would have gone to war in 1917 if we didn't have one.

Nations go to war and then find ways to pay for it. Not having the income to finance a war has never stopped us. I rather doubt the lack of funds would have stopped the US after Pearl Harbor. It certainly did stop us in the revolutionary war or civil war.

Lincoln would not have been able to prosecute his war without his illegal income tax. The Founding Fathers funding their war by debasing the currency. FDR did the same thing. In all cases, the government has never been honest with citizens about the true cost of war.

No country knows what the true cost of war will be. Besides, cost is often irrelevant particular when the war is seen as a war of survival.

WW I was not a "war of survival," whatever that means. The Civil War was not a war of survival for the North. The Spanish American war was not a war of survival. Not even WW II was a war of survival.

Whether they know what the cost will be, while they are fighting it they hide the true cost from the voters. If you believe in democracy, then you should support the government being upfront about the cost of the war, not hiding it with inflation and price controls.

 

[Flopper]

It's hard to say what the United States would be like today without an income tax or some equivalent means of raising revenue. However, I believe had there not been an income tax in 1913, there would have certainly been one at outbreak of WWI and if not, then during the great depression, or WWII, or the cold war, or with the demand for services that only the federal government could provide.

That's exactly why we should have never adopted an income tax. We never would have gone to war in 1917 if we didn't have one.

Nations go to war and then find ways to pay for it. Not having the income to finance a war has never stopped us. I rather doubt the lack of funds would have stopped the US after Pearl Harbor. It certainly did stop us in the revolutionary war or civil war.

Lincoln would not have been able to prosecute his war without his illegal income tax. The Founding Fathers funding their war by debasing the currency. FDR did the same thing. In all cases, the government has never been honest with citizens about the true cost of war.

No country knows what the true cost of war will be. Besides, cost is often irrelevant particular when the war is seen as a war of survival.

WW I was not a "war of survival," whatever that means. The Civil War was not a war of survival for the North. The Spanish American war was not a war of survival. Not even WW II was a war of survival.

Whether they know what the cost will be, while they are fighting it they hide the true cost from the voters. If you believe in democracy, then you should support the government being upfront about the cost of the war, not hiding it with inflation and price controls.

I think you would have a hard time convincing Americans that the country was not in a war of survival in Dec. 1941.

 

[bripat9643]

That's exactly why we should have never adopted an income tax. We never would have gone to war in 1917 if we didn't have one.

Nations go to war and then find ways to pay for it. Not having the income to finance a war has never stopped us. I rather doubt the lack of funds would have stopped the US after Pearl Harbor. It certainly did stop us in the revolutionary war or civil war.

Lincoln would not have been able to prosecute his war without his illegal income tax. The Founding Fathers funding their war by debasing the currency. FDR did the same thing. In all cases, the government has never been honest with citizens about the true cost of war.

No country knows what the true cost of war will be. Besides, cost is often irrelevant particular when the war is seen as a war of survival.

WW I was not a "war of survival," whatever that means. The Civil War was not a war of survival for the North. The Spanish American war was not a war of survival. Not even WW II was a war of survival.

Whether they know what the cost will be, while they are fighting it they hide the true cost from the voters. If you believe in democracy, then you should support the government being upfront about the cost of the war, not hiding it with inflation and price controls.

I think you would have a hard time convincing Americans that the country was not in a war of survival in Dec. 1941.

In 1941 the US went to war for revenge, not survival. furthermore, Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us so he could drag the U.S. into the war. Americans have been lied into going to war almost every single time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nations go to war and then find ways to pay for it. Not having the income to finance a war has never stopped us. I rather doubt the lack of funds would have stopped the US after Pearl Harbor. It certainly did stop us in the revolutionary war or civil war.

Lincoln would not have been able to prosecute his war without his illegal income tax. The Founding Fathers funding their war by debasing the currency. FDR did the same thing. In all cases, the government has never been honest with citizens about the true cost of war.

No country knows what the true cost of war will be. Besides, cost is often irrelevant particular when the war is seen as a war of survival.

WW I was not a "war of survival," whatever that means. The Civil War was not a war of survival for the North. The Spanish American war was not a war of survival. Not even WW II was a war of survival.

Whether they know what the cost will be, while they are fighting it they hide the true cost from the voters. If you believe in democracy, then you should support the government being upfront about the cost of the war, not hiding it with inflation and price controls.

I think you would have a hard time convincing Americans that the country was not in a war of survival in Dec. 1941.

In 1941 the US went to war for revenge, not survival. furthermore, Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us so he could drag the U.S. into the war. Americans have been lied into going to war almost every single time.

Ahh yes this old lie. keep claiming it enough and some will believe it.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln would not have been able to prosecute his war without his illegal income tax. The Founding Fathers funding their war by debasing the currency. FDR did the same thing. In all cases, the government has never been honest with citizens about the true cost of war.

No country knows what the true cost of war will be. Besides, cost is often irrelevant particular when the war is seen as a war of survival.

WW I was not a "war of survival," whatever that means. The Civil War was not a war of survival for the North. The Spanish American war was not a war of survival. Not even WW II was a war of survival.

Whether they know what the cost will be, while they are fighting it they hide the true cost from the voters. If you believe in democracy, then you should support the government being upfront about the cost of the war, not hiding it with inflation and price controls.

I think you would have a hard time convincing Americans that the country was not in a war of survival in Dec. 1941.

In 1941 the US went to war for revenge, not survival. furthermore, Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us so he could drag the U.S. into the war. Americans have been lied into going to war almost every single time.

Ahh yes this old lie. keep claiming it enough and some will believe it.

It's a documented fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No country knows what the true cost of war will be. Besides, cost is often irrelevant particular when the war is seen as a war of survival.

WW I was not a "war of survival," whatever that means. The Civil War was not a war of survival for the North. The Spanish American war was not a war of survival. Not even WW II was a war of survival.

Whether they know what the cost will be, while they are fighting it they hide the true cost from the voters. If you believe in democracy, then you should support the government being upfront about the cost of the war, not hiding it with inflation and price controls.

I think you would have a hard time convincing Americans that the country was not in a war of survival in Dec. 1941.

In 1941 the US went to war for revenge, not survival. furthermore, Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us so he could drag the U.S. into the war. Americans have been lied into going to war almost every single time.

Ahh yes this old lie. keep claiming it enough and some will believe it.

It's a documented fact.

Only in lalala land.

 

[bripat9643]

WW I was not a "war of survival," whatever that means. The Civil War was not a war of survival for the North. The Spanish American war was not a war of survival. Not even WW II was a war of survival.

Whether they know what the cost will be, while they are fighting it they hide the true cost from the voters. If you believe in democracy, then you should support the government being upfront about the cost of the war, not hiding it with inflation and price controls.

I think you would have a hard time convincing Americans that the country was not in a war of survival in Dec. 1941.

In 1941 the US went to war for revenge, not survival. furthermore, Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us so he could drag the U.S. into the war. Americans have been lied into going to war almost every single time.

Ahh yes this old lie. keep claiming it enough and some will believe it.

It's a documented fact.

Only in lalala land.

In reality.

 

[Arizona Willie]

WW I was not a "war of survival," whatever that means. The Civil War was not a war of survival for the North. The Spanish American war was not a war of survival. Not even WW II was a war of survival.

Whether they know what the cost will be, while they are fighting it they hide the true cost from the voters. If you believe in democracy, then you should support the government being upfront about the cost of the war, not hiding it with inflation and price controls.

I think you would have a hard time convincing Americans that the country was not in a war of survival in Dec. 1941.

In 1941 the US went to war for revenge, not survival. furthermore, Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us so he could drag the U.S. into the war. Americans have been lied into going to war almost every single time.

Ahh yes this old lie. keep claiming it enough and some will believe it.

It's a documented fact.

Only in lalala land.

==========
No it < IS > a FACT.

Roosevelt knew the attack was coming and instead of having it intercepted, he chose to allow it to arouse Americans to war. Prior to Dec 7 American opinion was STRONGLY AGAINST WAR. America wanted isolationism.

Honestly, my being born that day was NOT the cause of the war.

 

[bripat9643]

I think you would have a hard time convincing Americans that the country was not in a war of survival in Dec. 1941.

In 1941 the US went to war for revenge, not survival. furthermore, Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us so he could drag the U.S. into the war. Americans have been lied into going to war almost every single time.

Ahh yes this old lie. keep claiming it enough and some will believe it.

It's a documented fact.

Only in lalala land.

==========
No it < IS > a FACT.

Roosevelt knew the attack was coming and instead of having it intercepted, he chose to allow it to arouse Americans to war. Prior to Dec 7 American opinion was STRONGLY AGAINST WAR. America wanted isolationism.

Honestly, my being born that day was NOT the cause of the war.

Not only did he know it was coming, he created the conditions that pretty much forced Japan to go to war with the United States. Britain, the Netherlands and the USA all agreed to cut off all exports of oil to Japan. At that time there were no other sources of oil. Without oil, Japan would go under. Churchill and Roosevelt knew Japan would go to war over oil.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You two are as stupid as hell, but just keep proving it with your ignorant revisionist history. We cut off oil because japan RENEWED the war in China.

 

[bripat9643]

You two are as stupid as hell, but just keep proving it with your ignorant revisionist history. We cut off oil because japan RENEWED the war in China.

Hmmmmm, yeah, right. That's the cover story.