Comments about ‘Letter: Many differences between Republicans 100 years ago and Republicans today’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 27 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Othello, WA

.....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?

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

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.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

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.

Hayden, ID

@ 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?

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

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.

salt lake city, utah

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.

Hayden, ID

@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".

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

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-right

And I guess the civil war and re-segregation of the military forced by dems was also "progresive"?

Salt Lake City, UT


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.

Hayden, ID

@ 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!

one old man
Ogden, UT

Excellent letter, thank you.

Salt Lake City, UT


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 well.



For 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 Act.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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.

red state pride
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Hayden, ID

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!

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

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.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

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?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments