What, am I running an online remedial history course now ?
It began with farmer groups like the Northwestern Alliance, the Southern Alliance, and the National Colored Farmers Alliance. In the early 1890s they were being ripped-off by high fees from grain elevator operators for storage and high fees from railroads to ship their crops. They were paying high tariffs on much of the equipment they had to buy, like farm machinery, making it far more expensive. They were heavily in debt purchasing expensive land and expensive equipment, and stuck with high interest rates on that debt.
They eventually banded together and produced a policy platform of demands, such as the elimination of high tariffs, the enactment of a progressive federal income tax, the dissolution of national banks to be replaced by regional subâtreasuries that could underwrite low-interest farm loans utilizing their crops as collateral, and the direct election of senators. These are some of the demands which were known as the âOcala Demandsâ.
In the next election, their Alliance took over the majorities of 8 state legislatures, elected governors in 4 different states, and sent 44 representatives to the U.S. House and elected 2 to the U.S. Senate. These successes led to the development of a national party, which allowed them to enact much of their agenda into law.
Sorry, I donât have any video.
Because repealing the tariff regime and replacing it with a progressive income tax LOWERED their taxes.
Well yes, as I posted, the tariff regime was horrendously regressive and oppressive, and they wanted a much fairer system. It was both.
It was a reference back to my previous post in regards to the tax cuts in the stimulus bill being larger than the tax cuts in the GOP bill, in regards to the Middle-class.
And I addressed that point in the second half of my post you just quoted, so quit using âDUH READING COMPREHENSIONâ as a crutch in your argument.
I also pointed out that the temporary Making Work Pay credit was the biggest cut for the middle class from the stimulus bill. You said I was wrong. If that wasnât, what was?
I disagree that youâve done anything to substantiate the claim that âthe American people rose up en masse to demandâ an income tax.
Clearly the 16th amendment was passed and there was support for that. But that is not necessarily evidence of âthe American people [rising] up en masse to demandâ it.
For the Umpteenth time, I had already specified in my OP that I was NOT referencing the incentivized credits, as they were intended to be temporary, yet you insist on repeatedly emphasizing that the âMaking Work Payâ credit was only temporary.
So, what is the point of jumping through the hoop of its relative size when it was excluded from the getgo ?
Well, if you donât think protests leading all the way to the formation of a national party which eventually resulted in an amendment to the constitution and many other parts of an agenda being enacted is substantial, then to each his own I guess.
Weâre not debating whether or not the support was âsubstantialâ. It was. Iâm questioning if âthe American people rose up en masse to demandâ it.
e.g. There is currently substantial support in the USA for legalization of medical marijuana. I would not say that the people have ârose up en masse to demandâ it.
OK so what are you talking aobut?
I think youâre talking about the # of seats that the Populist party held.
Which year did they have 44 seats?
Or are you talking about 8 seats one year, 11 another year⌠etc and summing up all the seats they ever had and not accounting for the same 6 guys holding the same seats 3-4 sessions in a row??
Because you ARE referencing the incentivized credits when you say that Obamaâs tax cuts from the stimulus bill were larger for the middle class than Trumpâs. The largest tax cut for the middle class in Obamaâs stimulus was the Making Work Pay tax credit. That is a fact. It was temporary. That is a fact. You are using Obamaâs temporary cuts to prove your point (that Obama did more for the middle class) on one post and dismissing Trumpâs cuts because they are temporary in another post. Iâm simply pointing that out. It doesnât invalidate your point, it just makes you look like a partisan that doesnât hold his own guy to the same standards as the other guy. Iâm guilty of it sometimes too (even though Trump isnât really my guy - I didnât vote for him).
Like I said in an earlier post, your argument that Obamaâs stimulus tax cuts were better for the middle class than Trumpâs tax cuts is a legitimate point. It may even be true (but itâs too early to tell). But that doesnât make my point, that Obamaâs tax laws over the course of his whole administration were likely worse for the middle class than Trumpâs tax laws will be (also too early to tell). My point is a perfectly legitimate counterpoint to yours, whether you like it or not.
Obamaâs tax cuts from the stimulus were $288 billion and that included the Making Work Pay credit. Trumpâs tax cuts were $1.5 trillion. When you take the largest tax cut for the middle class out of Obamaâs stimulus (youâre saying youâre not counting it), how can you still claim that he gave a bigger cut to the middle class?
I never claimed âObamaâs tax cuts for the middle class were larger than Trumpâsâ
I posted that the non-temporary tax cuts for the Middle-class within the stimulus bill were larger than the tax cuts for the Middle-class in the GOP tax bill.
The only âproblemâ I see is that youâre not paying attention.
Hate to break it to ya, but more than 90% of that $1.5 trillion went to the Rich & Corporate, and less than 10% went to the Middle-class. AND theyâre TEMPORARY. AND there are MILLIONS of American taxpayers who got NOTHING. AND there are MILLIONS MORE American taxpayers who got a TAX INCREASE.
Those who ran on the Alliance Platform. They were not an official party (yet), so they had to be on the ballot under one of the parties, but they were elected based upon their campaigning on the Alliance Platform.
a) you think the list of members of 52nd congress that I linked to is âopinionâ?
b) facts, proof, details, consistent information, civil discourse⌠more than I ever expect from you.