Reply With Quote
No, this began as fake news and is still being presented as true by multiple rubes on this board.
I guess the decades of welfare hasn't really benefitted black Americans because now is the time to give reparations to non slaves.
No, this began as fake news and is still being presented as true by multiple rubes on this board.
When a country is flush with cash to overflowing it's easy to screw around with it. When we're up to our neck in Recession again we'll rue these days.
You seem upset.
well the idea of reparations is a silly idea to begin with and should upset the masses.
The problem with this horse theory is that no matter what democrat gets through you'll demonize them. When the polls came out after Biden announced and he was at like 50% i went to the front page of Daily Wire to check out what they had to say. Well after Shapiro and others saying for months that Biden was too moderate to do anything in the Democratic field as soon as he looked even 2% good for the nomination they just started going in on him for being a dangerous, far-left maniac meanwhile he's basically been a standard generic Democrat for nearly 50 years
It seemed like Yang was caught off guard on the 'how ya gonna pay for it?'
"Excuse me?"
Robert Morris did indeed offer to pay for them with a... tax.
1781 Superintendent of Finance Robert Morris attempted to expand governmental powers beyond the limits set by the Articles of Confederation. He released a Report on Public Credit, calling for the Confederation government to assume the entire national debt, issue new interest-bearing debt certificates, and impose tariffs and internal taxes to pay the interest costs. This plan essentially prefigured Alexander Hamilton’s later fiscal program.
Morris’s attempts to raise revenue were rebuffed at every turn. Rhode Island, for example, objected to his proposal for a national tariff (an import duty of 5 percent on foreign goods), leading to its defeat in Congress.
If we're gonna talk history, better not gloss over the important details, tbh...
Guess Robert Morris was both a Trumpist or a commie, depending on who you ask...
Glad we could not gloss over details that support my thesis.
I disagree, it doesn't, but glad we agree that "the country was not about a federal overreach in the form of taxes" is revisionist history.Glad we could not gloss over details that support my thesis.
You asked me to review the history of this country's founding. That's the exercise we've done here.
I will agree that taxation was a thorny topic back then, but not because of 'federal overreach' (that concept will come up much later, when there was actually an organized federal government), but because taxation from the British is what largely triggered the American Revolutionary war.
" By allowing the East India Company to sell tea directly in the American colonies, the Tea Act cut out colonial merchants, and the prominent and influential colonial merchantsI disagree, it doesn't, but glad we agree that "the country was not about a federal overreach in the form of taxes" is revisionist history.
You asked me to review the history of this country's founding. That's the exercise we've done here.
I will agree that taxation was a thorny topic back then, but not because of 'federal overreach' (that concept will come up much later, when there was actually an organized federal government), but because taxation from the British is what largely triggered the American Revolutionary war.
The Tea Act revived the boycott on tea and inspired direct resistance ...
The act also made allies of merchants and patriot groups like the Sons of Liberty. Patriot mobs intimidated the company’s agents into resigning their commissions."
So the Boston Tea Party wasn't fundamentally about taxation, but the King with the Tea Act giving the East India Company an import monopoly AND selling directly rather than to colonial middlemen.
the catch phrase "no taxation without representation" masks the real history of the Boston Tea Party
Biden
Down 10
https://www.dailywire.com/news/48996...mpaign=dwbrand
You can disagree all you want; it doesn't make you not blatantly wrong. It wasn't just the British. They would've nipped those issues in the bud much sooner if they believed in a non localized tax system. They didn't. Shay's rebellion would be a good example of that. , we fought the most expensive Civil War in history to that point and no federal income tax was ins uted. Clearly, things changed over time for reasons that can be debated; but it's of no matter on your idea that taxes were a strong backbone of the initial American foundation.I disagree, it doesn't, but glad we agree that "the country was not about a federal overreach in the form of taxes" is revisionist history.
You asked me to review the history of this country's founding. That's the exercise we've done here.
I will agree that taxation was a thorny topic back then, but not because of 'federal overreach' (that concept will come up much later, when there was actually an organized federal government), but because taxation from the British is what largely triggered the American Revolutionary war.
good.
warren 2020
That appearance on the JV stage paying dividends?
i had previously named her as my preferred candidate. if biden/sanders lose votes she's the next one upThat appearance on the JV stage paying dividends?
Did you find a house?
Trump would wipe the floor with Pocahontas, tbh.
indeed. purchased a condo. closing in ~2 weeks
you'd say that for every democrat tbh
was there for just over 24 hours, had about 5-6 viewings that we had targeted, made 2 offers, got the one we wanted more. worked out pretty well all things considered. and ridiculously cheap compared to the LA market
Can't imagine buying anything in CA. Get ready to sign a million papers. Hand cramps, tbh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
