Published: Tuesday, Nov. 27 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
.....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?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments