Plus ça change. . .
During the 1896 election, employers warned their workers that if Democrat William Jennings Bryan won the election over Republican William McKinley, they shouldn’t even bother to show up for work the next day since a Bryan victory would mean economic collapse. In 1936, many employers put the following message in their employees’ pay envelopes:
Effective January 1937, we are compelled by a Roosevelt New Deal law to make a 1 percent deduction from your wages and turn it over to the government. You might get this money back . . . but only if Congress decides to make the appropriations for this purpose.
Nothing like this could go on today, of course. Could it?
Comments
WalMart is increasingly targeted by specific groups of politicians. Why is it odd or wrong that WalMart opposes these politicians? It is worth noting that, like Microsoft before it, politicians went after WalMart long before WalMart went after politicians.
I also don’t see what should even be controversial about noting higher taxes, where they came from, and questioning how well the taxes will be spent. Even in ultra-liberal San Francisco restaurants are routinely breaking out a separate charge on all bills as payment for the city’s new healthcare mandates: does that make them reactionary anti-new-dealers too?
Posted by: Robert L. www.neolibertarian.com | August 1, 2008 07:11 PM