When Fascism Comes To America

There are currently about 22 million millionaires in the U.S. 8.8% of the population. The "tax the rich" mantra seems to go after anyone making $400,000 per year or more, that probably comes close to double, if not more, of the 22 million, of those that are considered "rich". But being a millionaire doesn't necessarily mean that a person has a million dollars laying around, stuffed in their pockets, or in a savings account. Often, most of their money is tied up in property and equipment, that their employees use to produce a product or service. Their house and lifestyle can be just as modest as as a doctor or dentist or lawyer that makes half of what they make. Yet they take far more risks, it's common for employees to get hurt on the job and try to sue them for everything they have. All one has to do is drive around any city or industrial area and see shuttered warehouses, buildings, etc. But liberals are every bit as jealous of them as they are of the really filthy rich, like Bezos, or Zuckerberg, or Gates, or Musk. Or Pelosi, or Biden. WHOOPS, scratch those last 2. But anyway, when they seek to destroy all millionaires, they often to either destroy them, or cause them to raise their prices. The Bezos, the Gates etc. always find ways to exploit the governments tax the rich schemes to become even richer, because they're so much smater than the Democrats who want to further tax them. It's the ones that only have in total assets 1, or 2, or 3 million that take the hit on higher taxes, and the poor ALWAYS pay the price, in higher prices, fewer services.Now Phat, the gang can call someone besides you every name except the father of a girl dog.

It is, and his Message 99 proves it. In part;

quote:

---

Good place to start.
Then a wealth tax, like Warren's plan. Then Biden's >400K plan and so on, gradually get the country back
to the FDR-Eisenhower levels.

---

"Start", "so on", "gradually" easy to see that many tax-the-rich advocates aren't satisfied with current proposals of taxing only those making $400,000 per year or more, they want to see gradual increases in the future that will include those making less than that, as well as assets that two other posters here deny could be threatened with new taxes.Concerning the 90% Eisenhower tax rate claim, here's a link from USA Today (not a conservative source) that briefly exposes that for what it is.Fact check: Viral post exaggerates tax rates under Eisenhower

quote:

---

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that the corporate tax rate under Eisenhower was 90%. The corporate rate ranged from 30% to 52% between 1952 and 1963. One part of the tax code did reach over 90%, but that rate only applied to the top earners' individual income taxes – not corporate income taxes.

---

Even if tax rates were somewhat higher in the 1950's, it's ridiculous to compare that day and time to today. It's a completely different world now.Your question to them, "let's define the rich", has gone unanswered. As Message 97 shows, the "over $400,000" incomes wouldn't include most millionaires. Some Democrats (Joe Manchin and his constituents?) might agree that most millionaires aren't to be considered "rich", while others (AOC and her constituents would angrily disagree. I have no college, but have made it to age 68 and know something about history and human nature. It amazes me to (recently) see websites showing colored maps of different states in the U.S., ranking them "dumb", or not, based ONLY on the percentages of their populations with college degrees. A lot of famous people, who contributed a lot to society, did not have college degrees. The ones who made those maps and claims - many would consider them to be pretty dumb. The U.S. founders didn't make college education an issue in any way, in how the government should operate. Don't forget climate change!! Did you watch the rather long link Taq put up in Message 17 Did you at least get through the part from about 3 1/2 to the 5 minute mark? I can't take the time to copy it word for word, but to summarize, he talks about how fascism is about a "psychological law of the mental unity of crowds." When individuals identify with crowds, they lose the ability to think for themselves. Crowd psychology acts as a hypnotiser. Fascism seeks to sway the crowd by telling them what they want to hear. To "emotionally charge the crowd to ideas that gets them excited. Climate change activism excites liberals because they believe new laws will harm "the rich". The climate change narrative continues day by day - ABC World News Tonight (that I regularly watch) spends a considerable portion of their half hour news show each evening sensationalizing about the weather, no matter how normal snow is in winter, heat is in summer, in past history. Climate change alarmism is fascism in its purest form.

That's a laughable liberal talking point that very few people believe.

To call the current Republicans fascist is the same as calling U.S. framers fascist. With adjustments for 200 + years of changing times, there is no difference between them. Liberals can't call U.S. framers fascist, to do so would expose them as the America haters they really are. They actually despise U.S. framers as much as they do today's Republicans.U.S. framers, as well as Republicans up to only a couple of decades ago, didn't have to deal with small children being exposed to drag shows. Didn't have to deal with new countless atheist perversions of gay marriages, tranny boys competing in girls sports, openly gay political figures and mainstream media anchors, on and on.Liberals delight in the John Adams quote about the U.S. not being founded on the Christian religion. But he also said this;

quote:

---

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

---

John Adams - Our Constitution was made only for a moral...The "fascist" term is largely outdated, since it refers first and foremost to the dictatorship of Benito Mussolini, of almost 100 years ago. Only a small minority of U.S. liberals have dredged it up recently as a way of name-calling Republicans. The term "conservative" is a desirable label, many people claim it who aren't actually conservative. The terms "liberal" and "atheist" aren't as desirable as "conservative", but they can be grudgingly accepted. "Fascist", "racist" "nazi"- those are the real offensive ones.Mussolini's fascism included "nationalism". A patriotism, a loyalty to a dictator. Let's look at the definition of nationalism;

quote:

---

1)spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation.
2)devotion and loyalty to one's own country; patriotism.
3)excessive patriotism; chauvinism.
4)the desire for national advancement or political independence.
5)the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.
6)an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation

---

U.S. founders can be accused of those things just as easily as today's Republicans can. Liberals falsely equate fascism with Trump's "Make America Great Again". "Great" might have been the translated Italian word that Mussolini used. But they conveniently forget about Lyndon Johnson's term, "Great Society". No one that I know of called him a fascist. It's hard (impossible) to find an offensive term for traditionalists who promote liberty and limited government. Liberals attempts to use the fascist label has done little more than expose the fascism in themselves, that Taq's link, especially minutes 3 thru 5, clearly exposes. It demonstrates perfectly the fascism in climate change alarmism.Mussolini was no fan of free speech. The way you and I get insulted here, don't you think the word fascism fits? Cheers went up here, when Faith was banned. Cheers went up nationwide when Trump was banned from Twitter. Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, and many in the mainstream media are calling for censorship of Fox News. Pure fascism. Republicans don't even come close to it.Mussolini favored gun control.They call the very small January 6th riot as fascism, while saying nothing about BLM riots all over the country, which were dozens of times bigger. They say nothing about their fascist cries of "Trump Russian Collusion" in 2017, which were all fascist lies, proven as lies by a multi-million dollar investigation. It goes on and on, in their lust for increasing government power. Just like Mussolini desired.

I watched all of the first one, very good of course. I'll try to get to part two over the weekend or early next week. Best I can tell, the vid isn't very recent, probably 25 or so years old. Several very recent events fit right in with what is implied and predicted in this vid.They're optimistic about us not yet being at the point of no return, but I'm really not. It's a slow process, but it seems to pick up speed as it gains momentum. As a teen in the late 60's, I used to "camp out" in adjoining yards and fields near my parents country home. Sleeping bags & snacks, with friends and brothers, it was about the only time I ever stayed up past midnight. We'd have our AM transistor radios, and "Garner Ted Armstrong's" radio show would come on at midnight. Those shows were scary, similar to that video. The warnings by only a few, have been going on for a long time. The late 60's might seem like an innocent, care free time looking back from today, but it was a very frightening time, especially for a draft fearing teenager. I'm glad I'm not any younger.Let's see; My Message 129 explains the first part of that question. Your vid the last part. If they won't read my short post, you can't expect them to watch an hour and a half video. They probably don't even know who the power-seeking, gun controlling, free speech hating Mussolini was.

Since I'm up on you and your helpers about 10 to 1 when it comes to "trying", maybe you could TRY reading it again. Or even responding to it, without going into a Mussolini style rage. Were the U.S. founders fascists? John Adams, for referring to morality?