• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

America's Decline. A Self Inflicted Wound.

DarkNoon said:
👉America once had a high capacity national security state where it taxed winners, built infrastructure, funded military superiority, protected global markets, and used that global dominance to keep the domestic system prosperous. BOTH parties later tried to keep only the half they liked.

That broke the feedback loop that won us the Cold War. That's why we are where we are.

The fact both sides of the political spectrum here are trying to pick this apart should say everything to people paying attention. If both parties becoming defensive then clearly I am onto to something. ;)

Wake up America. Both parties have been a cancer to this nation for sometime now and is becoming terminal.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with you all the time, but good to see someone on the site is seeing through the mirage.
 
DarkNoon said:
Nope. We where in fact a liberal welfare democracy.

Also please tell me or show me where I said social policies? That's not what I mean in any way when I say a liberal welfare democracy. Pretty sure you know that and like director trying to take away very valid points by dragging it into technicalities.

Don't worry I'll center the conversation back on track and won't let anyone take it away from center point.

FACT: Corporations where taxed more then half their income and the individual wealthy where taxed up to 90% of their income as well. So convenient Republicans & even Democrats in Congress like to leave that little note out and pretend America was built by magic... And yet another fact, they still had money to grow their businesses and their own private wealth.

That tax welfare system essentially went into building infrastructure at home and building/maintaining the military & our global presence.

Again where do you see social policies in my argument again? Because there isn't. 🥱

DEMs wanted to keep the welfare democracy and rid the arms/global presence, WRONG. Then the GOP want to rid the welfare democracy and build the arms, WRONG. The answer is BOTH. Like it was before.

So please. Would you like to try again and actually discuss my very valid points?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry I don’t equate welfare system or state with infrastructure or defense. Maybe this is the problem here.
Welfare state/system is defined as
the system refers to government programs designed to support individuals and families in need, particularly the poor and disabled, by providing financial assistance and services to help them achieve self-sufficiency. In the United States, this includes programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food assistance, and healthcare support.

so if by welfare democracy you mean a mixed economic system, absent large social services. ie infrastructure, defense, research education. Then we agree.

Comparing expenditures in 1960 to today though that is not what’s happening. We have basically flipped percentage’s of actual fed expenditures between social welfare programs and defense.


As far as the progressive federal effective tax rates the wealthy pay a higher total percentage today than in 1960. Vs the bottom 50% of earners which in 1960 paid 8-10% of federal taxes. Compared to today where the bottom 50% pay between 2-3%. That means 97% of federal income taxes come from the top 50% today, vs 90% in 1960.

So we collect a greater percentage individual federal taxes today from the top 50% of earners, less from the bottom 50%.
While expending by far a much larger percent of federal revenues today on welfare and social safety net programs.
Compared to defense and infrastructure.


Regarding corporate tax rates it is true corporations pay a smaller effective total today compared to 1960. I will only remind everyone that contrasting today’s individual retirement plans. They are almost exclusively based on corporate stock performance. Vs 1960 where it was money markets, bonds, and bank savings.

So do we tax corporations more and risk gutting all Americans retirement vehicles.


So in answer to your question,
what worked? The expenditure / revenue models of 1960 or 2024. Were we have inverted social walfare program percents with defense
In 1960 the federal budget was basically balanced +/-. In 2024 we are looking at a 1.8 trillion dollar deficit.
 

Have not watched a good informative video like that in awhile. Very good quality. Highly related to this threads topic too coincidentally.

No it's not about Elon.
 
GBS61 said:
Start a revolution! Smash everything, forget your political partisanships, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, smash everything! Unite!
Click to expand...
This is not a Republican or Democrat question. And all your arguing for is to continue swimming upstream with one hand bound to the waist. “Capitulation”

We can be complete isolationist - close our borders and bases overseas, suspend ALL foreign aid and ignore the world. Or we can act like nations act, in self-interest.
But I rather think you mean capitulate.
 
Publius said:
We can be complete isolationist - close our borders and bases overseas, suspend ALL foreign aid and ignore the world. Or we can act like nations act, in self-interest.
Click to expand...
Yes, all of that and moved to Mars

Why do I say this? The USA has become very harmful to humanity.

75 million Americans voted for a criminal, that says a lot about your mental stability!
 
Last edited:
GBS61 said:
Yes, all of that and moved to Mars

Why do I say this? The USA has become very harmful to humanity.

75 million Americans voted for a criminal, that says a lot about your mental stability!
Click to expand...
You can probably make anyone a criminal if you dig hard enough... good example owns a business in Quebec and speak English lol. Jay walking? If it can be punished by the state ans you've done it then youre a criminal by definition, whether or not its in the best interests of society to pursue such charges is a different question.
 
JPod said:
You can probably make anyone a criminal if you dig hard enough... good example owns a business in Quebec and speak English lol. Jay walking? If it can be punished by the state ans you've done it then youre a criminal by definition, whether or not its in the best interests of society to pursue such charges is a different question.
Click to expand...
To date, Donald Trump does not own any active businesses or significant corporate assets registered in his name in Quebec. His business assets are primarily managed by his American conglomerate, The Trump Organization, and no major Canadian subsidiaries are registered with the Quebec Enterprise Registrar under his direct control.

Sorry, no Quebecer voted for him; let's just say you're digging a little too deep. Furthermore, to be clear, I didn't say that 75 million Americans were criminals, but they knowingly voted for a criminal as president.
 
Last edited:
GBS61 said:
To date, Donald Trump does not own any active businesses or significant corporate assets registered in his name in Quebec. His business assets are primarily managed by his American conglomerate, The Trump Organization, and no major Canadian subsidiaries are registered with the Quebec Enterprise Registrar under his direct control.

Sorry, no Quebecer voted for him; let's just say you're digging a little too deep. Furthermore, to be clear, I didn't say that 75 million Americans were criminals, but they knowingly voted for a criminal as president.
Click to expand...
Don't forget, impeached TWICE! If he's such a criminal, why isn't he in jail? That's what they wanted to do isn't it?
Why would anyone want to own a business in Canada and get taxed to death?
I don't know about the other 75 million, but I KNOW I'm a little CRA, CRA myself. :ROFLMAO:
GT8JRFSXwAAOSXm.jpg
 
Just a quick thank you to those posting in this thread.
So far it’s been civil, and on topic.
Thank you!

Let’s keep it from becoming about one individual.
Again, keep up the good conduct.
 
GBS61 said:
To date, Donald Trump does not own any active businesses or significant corporate assets registered in his name in Quebec. His business assets are primarily managed by his American conglomerate, The Trump Organization, and no major Canadian subsidiaries are registered with the Quebec Enterprise Registrar under his direct control.

Sorry, no Quebecer voted for him; let's just say you're digging a little too deep. Furthermore, to be clear, I didn't say that 75 million Americans were criminals, but they knowingly voted for a criminal as president.
Click to expand...
I'm not sayign he owns a business there at all... just that if one were to own a buisness in quebec and then offer services in english that would be agaisnt the law and criminal by definition no matter how stupid it is. Therefore because of all these stupid laws that exist for many other things likely many people could technically be considered criminals. Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean theyre a bad person. Therefore using the term DJT criminal doesn't really hold much weight as many many many good people could also reasonably be considered criminals for petty offenses that arent known about or prosecuted. Using the term DJT criminal is nothing more than emotional pandering language.
 
JPod said:
I'm not sayign he owns a business there at all... just that if one were to own a buisness in quebec and then offer services in english that would be agaisnt the law and criminal by definition no matter how stupid it is. Therefore because of all these stupid laws that exist for many other things likely many people could technically be considered criminals. Just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean theyre a bad person. Therefore using the term DJT criminal doesn't really hold much weight as many many many good people could also reasonably be considered criminals for petty offenses that arent known about or prosecuted. Using the term DJT criminal is nothing more than emotional pandering language.
Click to expand...
No, breaking a law isn't a crime here in Canada. For example, a citizen who doesn't pay their taxes (they've broken the law) doesn't go to jail, but the state can seize their assets. A minor offense, like shoplifting, gets you three days in jail, not even that. DJT has 37 charges against him; you can't compare that to a citizen who committed a minor offense.
 
À propos de la Coupe du Monde

Intervention du président fasciste

Le cas le plus récent et frappant d’un président intervenant pour changer l’application des règles en faveur de son pays est celui de Donald Trump.

Donald Trump (États-Unis) L’Intervention (2026) : Lors de la Coupe du Monde 2026, la star américaine Folarin Balogun reçoit un carton rouge direct contre la Bosnie-Herzégovine, ce qui entraîne normalement une suspension automatique pour le match suivant.

L’action : Donald Trump appelle directement le président de la FIFA, Gianni Infantino, pour contester la sanction et exiger une révision. Le résultat : En invoquant l’article 27 de son code disciplinaire, la FIFA cède à la pression de la Maison-Blanche et transforme la suspension en une peine avec sursis. Balogun est ainsi autorisé à jouer immédiatement en huitièmes de finale contre la Belgique, déclenchant un énorme scandale international. Un télégramme officiel est envoyé directement au président de la FIFA pour plaider la cause de son joueur.

Benito Mussolini (Italie) L’Intervention (1934 et 1938) : Le dictateur italien utilisa les Coupes du monde organisées en Italie (1934) puis en France (1938) comme outils de propagande politique. L’action : « Il Duce » n’a pas modifié les règles écrites du jeu, mais il a dicté les siennes en visitant les arbitres et en se rendant dans les vestiaires pour exercer une pression psychologique extrême. En 1938, il envoya à son équipe le célèbre message « Gagner ou mourir. » Le résultat : Les arbitres intimidés ont pris des décisions biaisées et outrageusement favorables à l’Italie. L’Italie a remporté les deux tournois, et la FIFA a ensuite suspendu deux arbitres à vie face à des preuves évidentes de corruption.
 
Translation (by Google Translate)

About the World Cup

Intervention by a Fascist President

The most recent and striking instance of a president intervening to alter the application of rules in his country's favor involves Donald Trump.

Donald Trump (USA) – The Intervention (2026): During the 2026 World Cup, American star Folarin Balogun received a straight red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina, which normally entails an automatic suspension for the following match.

The Action: Donald Trump called FIFA President Gianni Infantino directly to contest the sanction and demand a review. The Result: Citing Article 27 of its disciplinary code, FIFA yielded to pressure from the White House and converted the suspension into a suspended sentence. Balogun was thus permitted to play immediately in the Round of 16 against Belgium, sparking a massive international scandal. An official telegram was sent directly to the FIFA President to plead the player's case.

Benito Mussolini (Italy) – The Intervention (1934 and 1938): The Italian dictator used the World Cups hosted in Italy (1934) and subsequently in France (1938) as tools for political propaganda. The Action: "Il Duce" did not alter the written rules of the game, but he imposed his own by visiting referees and entering locker rooms to exert extreme psychological pressure. In 1938, he sent his team the famous message: "Win or die." The Result: Intimidated referees made biased decisions that were outrageously favorable to Italy. Italy won both tournaments, and FIFA later handed down lifetime bans to two referees in the face of clear evidence of corruption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom