.....and 50 years ago the democrat party embraced the grand wizard of the KKK as
one of their own, and voted against the "civil right" amendment. So
what's your point?
Go back even further and you'll find a Republican party under Lincoln that
preserved the Union, ended slavery, and promoted equal rights, while today some
Republicans want to secede, and most care more about preserving class
distinctions to benefit the wealthy and obstructing the work of Congress than
finding realistic solutions to the nation's problems. Lincoln is turning
over in his grave.
It is interesting to note that the progress in this country has largely come
from liberals. Early on, conservatives opposed the Declaration of Independence
from England over worries about property rights (including slavery -- indeed, a
key compromise Jefferson and Adams made to Southerners in 1776 for the support
of independence was to allow their keeping of slavery). Major
social advances in this country, nonetheless, from the eventual freeing of
slaves to women's sufferage to civil rights to the allowance of businesses
to make money on the Internet to emerging rights for gays to the acceptance of
science and technology -- many of which we take from granted today -- have come
from progressives of their respective eras.
Steve,Isn't it interesting the difference 151 years can make? in 1861
the dem party instigated a civil war to keep blacks in slavery. 100 years or so
ago Woodrow Wilson (D) required re-segregation of the military to keep blacks
from serving with whites.Oh, and the 16th amendment? weren't
the initial tax rates around 3%?And how can you say the rich are
being shielded from taxes when they pay 90% of the personal income taxes? I
guess the truth doesn't matter when you've seen class warfare as a
successful political tactic.
@ lost in DC! Amen! Your comment was the best I have seen! If the 90&
"succeed" (there are many ways they can leave) how will the 47% survive?
Who is going to pay the Democrat's bills? It seems very strange to me that
the Democrats demean and castigate the "rich" in America. Of all people,
Democrats should thank the rich and revere them because without them, what hope
do they have?
Steve is right, for whatever it means. The two parties have switched
ideological underpinnings since the formation of the Republican party in
Lincoln's day. I like to think that the Dems found true righteousness,
while the Repubs sold their soul to Mammon. But then the sad truth is really
that both parties have sold out to Mammon.
Mountainman, said it as succintly and accurately as I've ever seen from a
mormon/repbulican. We should "revere" the rich. Case closed..turn out
the lights..we now understand mormonism, and modern conservatism.
@Pragmatistferlife. Why do you hate the rich? I don't. I want to become
rich myself someday! I said of all people the Democrats should revere the rich
because the rich are paying about 80% of all federal income taxes paid, while
about half of the population pays no federal income taxes at all! That's
why you should revere the "rich".
Baron,based on your previous comments, Iwould suspect you would call
medicare a social advance. Would it surprise you to learn that the legislation
was sponsored by repubs?freeing the save was by progessives? how do
you figure? The most adamant abolishonists were hard-rightAnd I
guess the civil war and re-segregation of the military forced by dems was also
Mountanman: I feel sorry for you. You revere the rich and aspire
to become rich, but why? So you can help pay 80% of federal taxes? So you can
look down your nose at those who don't earn enough to pay taxes, and who
struggle to make ends meet? So you can squander your wealth on expensive toys,
fast cars, McMansions, and vacations in the Caribbean? Enjoy
squeezing through the eye of the needle. I would recommend Dickens' "A
Christmas Carol" for your holiday reading.
@ Crudmudeon. Well, thanks (I guess) for the personal attack! You do not know
me. So your suggestion that I "look down my nose" at the poor is false!
It might be true that I give more money to the needy than most people you know.
And if I ever do become wealthy, it will allow me to help other people help
themselves more (including paying more taxes). I will allow Good to determine
my worthiness. But thanks for the scolding. Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Excellent letter, thank you.
Mountanman:The disdain with which you routinely treat the 47% in
your comments belies your protestations of altruism. But if your goal in
pursuing wealth is truly to care for the needy, good for you. You would be
among a remarkably few who can pull that off. And a merry Christmas to you as
Re:HaHaFor the record,ZERO Southern Republicans voted
for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while 8 Southern Democrats voted in favor.
Overall, far more Democrats than Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights
Since the Republican party had pledged to fight the “twin relics of
barbarism; slavery and polygamy."Which made Utah 99%
Anti-Republican...Brigham Young himself divided LDS Church congregations right
down the middle and "assigned" half to vote Republican just to establish
some sort of political balance, not because he agreed with any of it.
Let's be clear on something: 8 of the 10 wealthiest counties in America
voted for Barack Obama. Warren Buffett, who loves to talk the talk of higher tax
rates but doesn't walk the walk is no Republican. Bill Gates is not a
Republican. So can we end the notion that the Republican Party is the "party
of the rich"? I love the way people on the left love equal protection
under the law until you achieve a certain level of income- then it's mob
rule. I have moral issues with any one citizen paying a higher tax rate
than others but it won't affect me one bit so go ahead and take your
"pound of flesh" and raise tax rates on the "rich". It probably
won't increase revenue, it definitely won't help grow the economy, and
it will have zero effect on debt and deficits but if it makes some unhappy
people happy then have at it.
Crudmdgeon. You think I have distain for the 47%? What I do observe frequently
is the strong distain, envy and outright hatred many of the 47% have for those
people who provide their benefits and entitlements. It is highly hypocritical to
receive something that they did not earn and then not only demand more, but hate
and demean those who provided it! It is the height of pride and selfishness. You mentioned I should see "A Christmas Carol". I have many times and
I noticed that Bob Cratchet was grateful for what he received, worked hard for
it, did not hate Mr. Scrooge and didn't constantly demand more! Distain
goes both ways and I see much more of it from the left than I do from the
right!By the way, I meant to type God (not Good) to be my judge as He will
be for each of us!Thanks for the good wishes!
I find it interesting how the left "embraces" concepts that were
considered "extreme" just five, ten or twenty years ago; then they label
anyone who does not comply as being an "extremist".Sometimes
eliminating old ways of thinking is great, such as ending racism, but leftism is
usually merely about recycling hate to another persons advantage; such as
affirmative action, and then avoiding criticism by demeaning anyone who notices
the hypocritical hate nouveaux, by calling them an extremist. A sort of
prophylactic shaming - designed to avoid a rational conversation as to just how
extreme the left has become, and how much it represents a mirror image of what
it claims to despise.I.e; a conversation about how Republicans have
changed - when in reality Democrats have completely convoluted themselves by
embracing race baiting, gender warfare (typified by faux-choice hypocrisy),
class envy etc.
The 16th amendment was only ratified properly by 4 states. The income tax is
designed to destroy the middle class and put everybody on welfare. 1913 was the
day America died thanks to Woodrow Wilson.
My goodness. We live in a time when rich folks have never had it better, when
tax rates have never been lower, when corporate profits have never been higher.
Now the President proposes to increase the top marginal tax rate from 35% to
39%, to the point where it was during the greatest economic expansion in
history. And the outcry! "The rich pay 90% of the taxes as it
is!" Yes, and doesn't it occur to you that that's a bad thing?
When income inequality is so vast that the super-rich, undertaxed as they are,
still command that huge a percentage of our wealth? Isn't the American
dream one of equality of opportunity? Wouldn't an America in which the
middle class was better off, with more opportunities for investment and
entrepreneurship, be more commensurate with our values?
lost in DC,"Isn't it interesting the difference 151 years
can make? in 1861 the dem party instigated a civil war to keep blacks in
slavery. 100 years or so ago Woodrow Wilson (D) required re-segregation of the
military to keep blacks from serving with whites...."____________________That first part of your post is a distortion
of history. The Democratic Party wasn’t defined by slavery, it was divided
by it. Southern Democrats broke from the party and ran their own candidate for
President when the Democratic convention rejected their resolution to extend
slavery into new territories. Sectionalism was what split the party in the 1860
election and the entire country afterwards.You’re right about
Woodrow Wilson segregating the military. Wilson was a Southerner who thought
W.D. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation was realistic American history.
Mike in Cedar City,".....The two parties have switched
ideological underpinnings since the formation of the Republican party in
Lincoln's day....."____________________So true. The
Democratic Party was the party of state’s rights and the GOP was the party
of strong centralized Federal Government. The term progressive Republican seems
like an oxymoron these days as the Tea Party has become to the GOP what the Klan
was to the Democrats in the 1920s, an albatross that was a threat to the
party’s viability. A bad sign is how recent secessionist rumblings are
being encouraged by some Republicans. So much for patriotism.
red state prideCottonwood Heights, UTI have moral issues with
any one citizen paying a higher tax rate than others....=============== Me too!Does that make you a Liberal?My tax burden is much higher than Mitt Romney's.[Who never
could name ONE single tax loop-hole he vowed to close or disclsed his own taxes
like his Father did.]And as for the "amount" of $$$
collected in taxes that ultra-conservatives keep parrtoing from Rush Limbaugh --
Did it ever occur to you when 1% owns 80% of everything, they SHOULD be
paying 80% of the taxes?Please, don't let a little thing like
numbers or fairness stand in the way of your radio programs.
Craig,the repubs and whigs were NOT divided in their opposition to
slavery, while a significant portion, if not MOST, dems supported it.LDS lib,I seriously doubt your effective tax rate is higher than
Mountainman..why do I hate the rich? Seriously where do you get that? By almost
any standard I am at least very well off..the increase in marginal tax rates on
incomes over 250 will affect me more than likey and I'm still for it. LDS
Liberal has said it well when he says 1% own 80% of the wealth so they should be
paying 80% of the taxes. I'm probably not in the 1% but pretty close and
feel that it's an honor to give back to an economy and government
that's given me much.
lost in DC,"....the repubs and whigs were NOT divided in their
opposition to slavery, while a significant portion, if not MOST, dems supported
it...."____________________I don't know where
you're getting your history from but it was a split over slavery that
precipitated the dissolution of the Whig Party after the election of 1852.
Anti-slavery Whigs (Lincoln among them) then began the Republican Party.
Democrats, as I already said, were regionally divided over the slavery issue and
always had been.
I could tell this was a liberal spouting when they hadn't bothered to do
simple research into the history of income taxes. Had the author bothered to do
a simple Google search, they would have found that income taxes were around
during the civil war. See "A Short History of the Income Tax " in the
WSJ.The interesting thing about the Republican party is that
throughout their history, they have been for unity and equality. In contrast
the Democrats have been about division and servitude. Now, we have seen that
people are willing to live in servitude as long as their bellies are full.To "LDS Liberal" but we don't tax wealth. We tax income.
The wealthy account for about 17% of the total wages paid, yet they pay 38% of
all income taxes. So, by your measures, they are paying double their "fair
After the Civil War, blacks began moving north to escape Southern Democrat Jim
Crow laws. In the industrialized north, while the established Republicans were
busy hob-knobbing the wealthy Oil, Railroad, and Banking barons;
NorthernDemocrats began quietly taking up issues being ignored by Republicans
such as poverty and labor (think unions and regulations for safer working
environments, sanitation, pollution, ect.).Northern Democrats slowly
morphed into something altogether different while those in the South remained
unchanged.Fastforward to 1960s. Civilrights was a huge issue
and LBJ made it central to his campaign. But, in order to do so, he turned his
back on the still largely racist South. He made it clear Democrats were solidly
in favor of unions, working men/women, and MINORITIES(and other liberal causes)
and by so doing made SouthernDemocrats became aware they were no longer welcome
in the party. Meanwhile- Arizona Republican Barry Goldwater, stood
firmly against the Civilrights. And like today's TeaParty, Goldwater's
AntiCivil rights position was an invitation to Southerners that the new (and
improved?) GOP was for them.Certainly there is more...but
that's a 200 word limit basics of how the parties switched positions today.
"Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being
complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The
conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having
weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden
and slashing surgery."--John Randolph, founding fatherSounds
like the polar opposite of Tea Party conservatism.
Eric, you said " American dream one of equality of opportunity?"The answer to that is NO, American dream "WAS" the ability to
pursue whatever your dreams were... it was NEVER about equality... that is the
FAR left thinking.....
Isn't it wonderful?The Democrats have spent $6a trillion more
than they have.The Democrats have added millions to the welfare
rolls.The Democrats, with Obama leading the charge, want Republicans
to pay for what the Democrats have done.If you believe Obama's
class warfare statements, you'll agree, otherwise you'll believe in
the 14th Amendment and you'll require the "takers" to pay their own
Eric,The actual quote was written by James Truslow Adams in 1931,
"life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity
for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or
circumstances of birth."Do you see anywhere "Equality"
in the statement?
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahIsn't it wonderful?If you believe Obama's class warfare statements, you'll agree,
otherwise you'll believe in the 14th Amendment and you'll require the
"takers" to pay their own way.1:32 p.m. Nov. 27, 2012--------------- Um Mike, Don't look now, but I
believe your Constitutional underwear is showing....Don't you
mean 16th Amendment (income taxes), and not 14th amendment (definition of
Space 9, UtTo "LDS Liberal" but we don't tax wealth. We
tax income. [Buzzz, wrong! The 16th amendment to the Constitution
gave Congress the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever
source derived. Capital Gains, Inheritance, ect. BTW - Property tax is a
perfect example of taxes on ownership (i.e., wealth), not income.}I'm only trying to argue for argument's sake, just doing my
sworn duty to defend the Constitution you guys keep trying to trample.
To "LDS Liberal" do you read your own posts. If I live in a van by the
river, and have $1 trillion sitting in the bank, I would have a lot of
"wealth", but would only be taxed on the interest that I earn. My
wealth is not taxed, only the income. Property taxes again, are not taxing
wealth, but property, hence property tax. Also, property tax is not a federal
power, that is a state power.If you are "just doing my sworn
duty to defend the Constitution you guys keep trying to trample" why do you
continue to support Obama and his burning of constitutional guaranteed rights?
Your inability or refusal to look at him only adds to your lack of credit in
So, Confused, you're not in favor of equality of opportunity? In other
words, some folks should have the opportunity to pursue their dreams, and others
just shouldn't. And you're okay with that. That's your vision
of America; a place where some people are allowed to have dreams and try to work
to make them come true, and other people (most people?) should just give up,
'cause nothing good will ever happen, so why try? And that's your
version of the American Dream?If so, then good screen name. Very
LDS Liberal,Mike Richards is correct. The operative word is
"equality". Look it up. That word has Been law since the time of
Lincoln. No person is required to carry more of the tax burden than any other
person, unless you still believe in slavery.
"The final line for me to cross in complete alienation from the right was my
recognition that Obama is not a leftist. In fact, he's barely a liberal ---
and only because the political spectrum has moved so far to the right that
moderate Republicans from the past are now considered hardcore leftists by
right-wing standards today. Viewed in historical context, I see Obama as
actually being on the center-right."--Bruce Bartlett--the man who actually
drafted the Kemp-Roth tax bill which became Ronald Reagan's tax cut, a
senior economic adviser to Reagan and a senior treasury official in the the
This letter's conclusions are factually wrong. Yes, in 1913, there was a
1% tax on household incomes over $3,000/year, with much higher rates from
$500,000/year and up. But that first income tax provided less than 10% of
federal revenues, and transfer payments basically didn't exist.Today, income taxes of various kinds bring in about 60% federal revenues, and
transfer payments account for well over half of all federal spending. In other
words, having nearly half of Americans vote themselves money from the other half
was not a real danger in 1913. Now, it is a very real danger, and already
happened when Obama played Santa Claus to his constituents and essentially
bought the election with increased "benefits", i.e transfer payments,
i.e. their neighbor's money.
@ LDS liberal - like I said in my post - if raising taxes on the rich makes some
unhappy people happy then have at it- no skin off my back. I'm all about
LDS Liberal - if you have a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney, you
need to have someone different do your taxes.
Not all of the 47% are on welfare or using food stamps. Much of this 47% are on
social security, something I would argue they earned through hard work over the
decades. I guess when Mitt Romney made those comments at that dinner perhaps he
forgot about these particular people. In the end it seemed that Romney could
not run away from that fateful slip of the tongue (if that's what it was?).
LDS Liberal’s post at 11:05 a.m. Nov. 27, 2012 said; “My tax
burden is much higher than Mitt Romney's.”“tax
burden”, not “tax rate”That's a HUGE
I am so tired of the 47% percent comment....Mitt never said 47% of
Americans..... He DID say 47 percent of people who SUPPORT Obama....there is a slight difference..Eric,I believe EVERYONE has
the right to dream and succeed.... the only thing is that they need to do what
is required of them to succeed, not give an handout to succeed.
Dear Confused,Please don't confuse others."There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no
matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent
upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government
has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to
health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an
entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for
this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ...
[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they
should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."