Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wilson and Obama 100 years apart, but so alike
The Washington Times ^ | 4/15/2014 | Charles Hurt

Posted on 04/16/2014 3:23:52 AM PDT by markomalley

When Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Revenue Act of 1913, it probably sounded like a good idea.

Most people would pay less in taxes and the prices of everyday goods would drop, he promised. And the rich would — finally! — start paying their fair share.

In those days, tax collection was a highly diffuse business with various states and localities collecting taxes at various rates. The federal government mostly skidded by on exorbitant and uneven tariffs, and on booze and tobacco taxes.

This was always tough and disorganized business for the federal government. Those hardships became especially acute for the federal government when it wanted to launch wars thousands of miles away on other continents.

And, anyway, who could question the motives of Woodrow Wilson?

He was a celebrated professor with a sterling Ivy League background who ran for president on the promise to govern sensibly and never go to war. He maintained a grand worldview and would later be awarded the Nobel Peace prize in the category of “world organizing” on his gallant promises to establish lasting peace to end World War I, which would become mankind’s last war.

What could possibly go wrong?

If Vice President Joseph R. Biden had been alive back then, he could have described Wilson as “articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man!”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: bho444; presidents; wilson

1 posted on 04/16/2014 3:23:52 AM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley
When Woodrow Wilson signed into law the Revenue Act of 1913, it probably sounded like a good idea.

It was sold as a replacement for the hated protective tariff. Within a few years we had both the income tax and a protective tariff.

2 posted on 04/16/2014 3:30:00 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Was Wilson a muslim homo too?


3 posted on 04/16/2014 3:32:40 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

Probably not but he was from New Jersey so that may say it all.


4 posted on 04/16/2014 3:35:08 AM PDT by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

I always thought he was from the South.


5 posted on 04/16/2014 3:45:07 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

I don’t know where he was born, but he’s always been affiliated with New Jersey because I think he was a Princeton University graduate.


6 posted on 04/16/2014 3:56:41 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

By 1920 tariffs represented 13% of revenue, by 1940 6% so your post is inaccurate. The income tax killed tariff revenue. Now we depend on ChiComs to make our crap.


7 posted on 04/16/2014 4:05:57 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

“And the rich would — finally! — start paying their fair share.”

We often hear this phrase uttered by quasi-Marxists and hordes of the perpetually and chronically jealous, but what does it mean, really?

Somehow, because some individuals are economically successful, they’re expected to pay FAR MORE than everyone else.

What, precisely, are they receiving from the government which is supposedly in excess of everyone else?

Nothing.

In point of fact, those who are self-reliant and earn more on the basis of their efforts on behalf of themselves and their familioes, tend to take less from government and get less from government than anyone else.

And yet, we hear this phrase “fair share” as if it were written in stone that successful people somehow owed the government more than anyone else.

It is pure bunk, utter Marxism, Newspeak contrary to reality, and the product of nothing more than jealousy and covetousness of the property of others - some of the worst traits of a human race which can be very evil, indeed.


8 posted on 04/16/2014 4:10:46 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; jospehm20

He was born in Staunton, Virginia.


9 posted on 04/16/2014 4:32:28 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: central_va
By 1920 tariffs represented 13% of revenue, by 1940 6%

Why select those two years? And what does it matter what percentage of the government's revenue comes from one tax or the other? I think you are missing my point. The income tax was enacted in 1913 and was sold as a replacement for the burden on ordinary Americans from the protective tariff. It was a lie. The tariff came back right after the income tax was enacted and we wound up with both taxes. In 1922 the dutiable tariff rate was 39%. By 1930 it was 59%.

10 posted on 04/16/2014 4:32:53 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I remember one of my teachers saying he was southern. I guess Va. fits that.


11 posted on 04/16/2014 4:39:23 AM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jospehm20

Yes, he was born in Virginia but spent his political life in NJ as governor and president of Princeton U.


12 posted on 04/16/2014 4:44:22 AM PDT by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Yeah but, wasn’t Wilson a U.S. citizen? Makes a big difference.


13 posted on 04/16/2014 4:45:35 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Why select those two years? And what does it matter what percentage of the government's revenue comes from one tax or the other? I think you are missing my point. The income tax was enacted in 1913 and was sold as a replacement for the burden on ordinary Americans from the protective tariff. It was a lie. The tariff came back right after the income tax was enacted and we wound up with both taxes. In 1922 the dutiable tariff rate was 39%. By 1930 it was 59%.

Here is the link, YOU ARE INCORRECT. Tariffs revenues were almost ZERO in the 1940's.

Click here history of tariffs

You stand corrected. The actual revenue collected is what is important. Back then WE MADE OUR OWN STUFF.

14 posted on 04/16/2014 4:51:41 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: central_va

In your analysis you always overlooks one important point that is central in America........ we the people don’t want tariff’s .

We like the efficiency that allow purchase of imported goods at a price below those produced domestically. We live in a global market and take advantage of buying what we please.


15 posted on 04/16/2014 4:56:23 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 ..... History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bert
Marx was for "Free Trade". You are for "Free Trade". Both political parties are for "Free Trade".

The biggest threat to America are myopic people like you. Losing our industrial base to save few pennies on the dollar has to go down as one of the stupidest things ever done. See we could survive the coming economic collapse if we still HAD an industrial base. We could actually win another world war. BUT FREE TRAITORS have off shored out prosperity and security.

16 posted on 04/16/2014 5:08:57 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Here is the link, YOU ARE INCORRECT. Tariffs revenues were almost ZERO in the 1940's.

You link doesn't support that claim. Where does it say we had a near zero tariff in 1940?. Under Roosevelt? Really? The US has never had a zero tariff rate.

Here is a link to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff wiki page. Check under the "Tariff levels" section. For the 1920's see Fordney–McCumber. The average dutiable rate was 59% under SMT.

And you are still missing the point. What does the average American care about the percentage of revenue the government gets from the tariff vs. the income tax? What Americans were promised was that costs to themselves would go down because the tax burden would be shifted to the wealthy. Instead, the average American saw no change in the tariff and got a new tax on top of it.

17 posted on 04/16/2014 5:09:19 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Marx was for "Free Trade".

In what universe? Marx was for central economic planning - the exact opposite of free trade.

18 posted on 04/16/2014 5:12:22 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Smoot Hawley was irrelevant to the great depression. Why? Because trade wa ONLY 5% of the economy back then. Even if Smoot Hawley stopped ALL TRADE it would have only had a marginal impact.

Look at my link, and look at the charts. Look at INCOME from tariffs not the rates. TRY TO OPEN YOUR MIND AND LEARN.

19 posted on 04/16/2014 5:12:47 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

-- Karl Marx

On the Question of Free Trade - Link

20 posted on 04/16/2014 5:15:58 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bert

“We like the efficiency that allow purchase of imported goods at a price below those produced domestically. We live in a global market and take advantage of buying what we please.”

It has been nice while it lasted. Unfortunately the reserve currency status of the dollar is coming to an end. When it does, the ability of the Federal Reserve to print money to fund the current account and federal government deficits will also end.

The current generation of Americans inherited wealth accumulated through the hard work and productivity of past generations. We chose to live beyond our means through borrowing and at the same time dismantle the manufacturing economy that allowed the wealth to be accumulated. We are very much like children who inherit wealth and squander it instead of living productive lives. When the money runs out the individual has no friends, no resources and no skills to recover.

Once the dollar loses its reserve currency status, the rest of the world will no longer accept our dollars to purchase their manufactured goods and food. We will be a third world nation without the productive capacity (skilled people, industrial infrastructure, and investment capital) to restore our economy. The government will determine how to divide the scraps among the population.


21 posted on 04/16/2014 5:17:10 AM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

Yep. As bad as Wilson was (and he was bad), at least he was a Natural Born Citizen.


22 posted on 04/16/2014 5:19:06 AM PDT by Marathoner (When Obama fails, freedom prevails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South

Excellent post.


23 posted on 04/16/2014 5:23:00 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Woodrow Wilson was born & raised in Virginia. His presidential library is in Stanton, Virginia - in the Shenandoah valley. He is the first president after the Civil War from the states formerly in the Confederacy.
Immediately before he was president, he was the President of Princeton University.


24 posted on 04/16/2014 5:36:10 AM PDT by mason-dixon (As Mason said to Dixon, you have to draw the line somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Smoot Hawley was irrelevant relevant to the great depression

The relevance of the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act was not the revenue from tariffs collected by America. The relevance was the tariffs other nations imposed on American products in retaliation.

Discovering what elevated the 1930s depression to become the Great Depression is an interesting exercise.

25 posted on 04/16/2014 5:39:43 AM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mason-dixon
Woodrow Wilson also has a rest area named after him on the New Jersey Turnpike -- which is the greatest recognition anyone can achieve in New Jersey. In New Jersey, you ain't anything until you've had a bunch of toilets and urinals named after you!

/sarcasm off/

26 posted on 04/16/2014 5:40:57 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: central_va
It's a bit more complicated than "saving a few pennies on the dollar."

If you go back through history, you'll find that trade always grows in a low-to-high scenario, where things are produced where the costs are lowest and consumed by those with the strongest purchasing power. This is true regardless of whether you're dealing with products or services -- which is why multi-millionaires don't work as landscapers, and Mexicans do landscaping work in the U.S. but not in Mexico. As time goes on, the nation, region or person with the highest standard of living has an increasingly difficult time being competitive with other nations, regions, and people.

It's a complicated issue that will never be "solved," but I'd make the case that advances in other areas -- like the advent of containerized shipping and the growth of global telecommunications networks -- has had a far bigger impact on changes in trade patterns over the last 50 years than most people realize.

27 posted on 04/16/2014 5:48:31 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Like Marx you defend gloBULLism and Free Trade. How progressive of you.


28 posted on 04/16/2014 5:51:47 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MosesKnows

Imports during 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States’ GNP and exports were only 5.0%. Monetarists, such as Milton Friedman, who emphasize the central role of the money supply in causing the depression, note that the Smoot-Hawley Act only had a contributory effect on the entire U.S. economy.[21]


29 posted on 04/16/2014 5:54:05 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Also governor of New Jersey and yes, a graduate of Princeton and college professor.


30 posted on 04/16/2014 6:00:07 AM PDT by KosmicKitty (WARNING: Hormonally crazed woman ahead!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: central_va
That Marx/Engels article strongly criticizes free trade. The only grudging allowance they make in favor of free trade is their ridiculous assertion that it will bring about revolution (the old odious Immiseration Thesis).

Once again I am left to wonder if you even read the references you cite.

Sheesh!

31 posted on 04/16/2014 6:08:42 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I haven’t defended anything — any more than I would stand up and defend the sunrise this morning. I’ve simply explained it to you. If that’s “progressive” to you, then so be it.


32 posted on 04/16/2014 6:15:09 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: central_va; SeeSharp
Look at my link, and look at the charts. Look at INCOME from tariffs not the rates. TRY TO OPEN YOUR MIND AND LEARN.

Presidents Kennedy and Reagan proved that tax rates are the key determinant of tax revenues. It makes sense that tariff revenues were highest when tariff rates were lowest, that tariff revenues decreased as tariff rates increased, and that tariff revenues declined to near zero when tariff rates reached the punitive level that eliminated all profit. I am not arguing tariffs versus free trade, but merely observing that we always get more of what we reward and less of what we punish.

33 posted on 04/16/2014 6:24:15 AM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Besides this, the protective system helps to develop free trade competition within a country. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain protective duties. They serve the bourgeois as weapons against feudalism and absolute government, as a means for the concentration of its own powers and for the realization of free trade within the same country.

-- Karl Marx

So Karl is saying protectionism strengths the middle class and is a weapon against absolute government. Hmmm. Food for thought.

34 posted on 04/16/2014 6:32:21 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Excellent article by Charles Hurt, and good to see Woodrow Wilson receive the derision that his record as president deserves. Wilson was a tyrant who despised the Constitution and ignored it to the greatest extent he could get away with. Getting us into WWI was a terrible decision that set the USA on its ultimately-ruinous path to be the world’s policeman, busybody and sugar daddy, and Wilson enacted and twisted laws to punish and silence his political opponents. We Conservatives often view FDR as the architect of today’s welfare state, but the real structure of federal power was erected by the tyrannical academic, Woodrow Wilson.


35 posted on 04/16/2014 6:32:22 AM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
had a contributory effect

In other words, the effect was relevant.

36 posted on 04/16/2014 6:36:10 PM PDT by MosesKnows (Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"… 100 years apart, but so alike"

Two racists.

37 posted on 04/16/2014 6:49:07 PM PDT by Flag_This (Liberalism: Kills countries dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson