Many differences between Republicans 100 years ago and Republicans today

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Whos Life RU Living? Ogden, UT
    Nov. 30, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    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."

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Nov. 29, 2012 8:27 a.m.

    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..

    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.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Nov. 28, 2012 9:16 a.m.

    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 difference.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 10:13 p.m.

    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?).

  • Curmedgeon Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 10:04 p.m.

    LDS Liberal -

    if you have a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney, you need to have someone different do your taxes.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 8:04 p.m.

    @ 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 happiness.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 6:58 p.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 6:29 p.m.

    "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 G.H.W.Bush administration.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 5:09 p.m.

    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.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 4:26 p.m.

    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 descriptive.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 27, 2012 4:06 p.m.

    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 this forum.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 3:45 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    Isn'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 citizenship)?


    Deep Space 9, Ut

    To "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.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 2:40 p.m.


    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 Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 27, 2012 1:32 p.m.

    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 way.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 1:19 p.m.

    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.....

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 1:11 p.m.

    "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 father

    Sounds like the polar opposite of Tea Party conservatism.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 1:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 27, 2012 12:55 p.m.

    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 share."

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 27, 2012 12:45 p.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 27, 2012 12:39 p.m.

    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 West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 12:20 p.m.


    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 Romney's.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 11:05 a.m.

    red state pride
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    I 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 Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 27, 2012 10:55 a.m.

    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.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Nov. 27, 2012 10:52 a.m.

    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.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    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?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Nov. 27, 2012 10:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 10:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 27, 2012 10:01 a.m.

    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!

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 9:52 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 27, 2012 9:28 a.m.


    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.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 9:22 a.m.


    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.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    Excellent letter, thank you.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 27, 2012 8:57 a.m.

    @ 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!

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 8:44 a.m.


    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 8:14 a.m.

    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"?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 27, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    @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".

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Nov. 27, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Nov. 27, 2012 7:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 27, 2012 7:46 a.m.

    @ 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?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 7:06 a.m.

    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.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 6:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 27, 2012 6:04 a.m.

    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.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Nov. 27, 2012 4:46 a.m.

    .....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?