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

Skip to comments.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK … NOT EXACTLY A HISTORIAN (General Wesley Clark is a COMMUNIST)
Nealz Nuze ^ | 6/17/2003 | Neal Boortz

Posted on 06/17/2003 5:27:22 AM PDT by xrp

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK … NOT EXACTLY A HISTORIAN 

Retired Army General Wesley Clark has been very effective in keeping his face and opinions in the media forefront the past year or so.  There’s a reason for that. Political aspirations.  Clark is toying with the idea of announcing as a Democratic candidate for President of the United States.  Truth is, he’s after the number two spot.  Vice Presidential candidate for now, the Oval Office Later.

Clark was a guest on Tim Russert’s Meet the Press this past Sunday. The questioning turned to Clark’s political ambitions and his feelings on the Bush tax cut.  Clark says that he would not have supported the tax cuts … and gave the following reason: 

“Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation.”

Sorry, General Clark.  You have the Constitution of the United States mixed up with the Communist Manifesto.  Don’t feel bad though.  This is a very common problem with Democrats.  Your political bedmates just can’t seem to tell the difference between the two, and apparently either can you.

This country was most definitely NOT founded on the principle of progressive taxation.  In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that a progressive income tax was unconstitutional!  It was only after the States ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution that a progressive income tax became possible. 

 

So, just where does this idea of progressive taxation come from?  Since you’re running for president, General Clark, we would have hoped you would have known this.  But, since you don’t, I have a little reading assignment for you.  It’s a document written in 1848 by two characters named Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.  It’s called the “Manifesto of the Communist Party.”  “Communist Manifesto” for short. 

 

Buried in the middle of the Communist Manifesto you will find a list of things that will have to be accomplished in the “most advanced countries” in order to bring about the realization of the dream of a proletariat revolution.  You don’t have to read far on that list, General Clark, to see where just what type of government is founded on the principle of progressive taxation.  Item number two reads “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

So, General Clark.  There you go.  It’s not the United States that was founded on the principle of progressive taxation … it’s Communism.  It would have been nice if Mr. Russert had been aware of this fact, but even if he were it would have made no difference.  Tim Russert has made his opposition to tax cuts for people who actually pay taxes very clear over the past year.

 

You might also be interested in knowing, General Clark, that Item number 10 on the Communist Manifesto list is “Free education for

all children in public schools. …”  That’s government schools, General Clark.  You might want to avoid saying that government schools were one of the founding principles of the United States.  They weren’t.

Some advice, General Clark:  If you intend to pursue your run for the Vice Presidential nomination it might be advisable to refrain from citing portions of The Communist Manifesto as part of the founding principles of our country.


TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: communistmanifesto; constitution; election; engels; marx; progressivetax; taxes; wesleyclark
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
Amazing that the loser Clark once served as a general in the United States Armed Forces.

United States FOUNDED on the principle of PROGRESSIVE TAXATION???

1 posted on 06/17/2003 5:27:22 AM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: xrp
He's just another globalist and third wayer
but then so is Newt G Bill C and Tony the B
2 posted on 06/17/2003 5:30:40 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
That line struck me as sort of a throw-away speak-before-thinking line. If he actually thought about it, he'd realize how preposterous it is.

That having been said, I wouldn't want a president or VP who speaks before thinking.
3 posted on 06/17/2003 5:33:26 AM PDT by VoiceOfBruck (you can never be too thin, too rich, or too paranoid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation.”

Clark has as much chance of becoming Pres as does my dog Clancy.

4 posted on 06/17/2003 5:37:40 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER (proud member of a fierce, warlike tribe of a fire-breathing conservative band of Internet brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
I had no idea Marx/Engels were responsible for a progressive tax. I always thought they had advocated equal income for everyone regardless of effort exerted, skill level, etc.
5 posted on 06/17/2003 5:57:37 AM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: xrp
I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation.”

The sad thing is that many people will hear this statement and believe it. Americans have been pretty much conditioned to accept the statements of those high places as being based on truth.

7 posted on 06/17/2003 5:59:27 AM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
The Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management.


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".


3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.


4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.


5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).


6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.

We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) madated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.


7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.


8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920s, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.


9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.



10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

People are being taxed to support what we call "public" schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education". Click here to learn how it all came about and here to see if YOU are a practicing Communist.
8 posted on 06/17/2003 5:59:43 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Do you really mean that progressive taxation is communism?
(I would say that it is insanity but not communism) If you go back a few years time to the days of the Communist bloc you would be surprised to know that they actually did not pay any tax at all.

I have to add visible tax, asd the state stole their money before it was it was paid as a (low) salary.

Russia after the downfall of the communist party was a grab for free economy, with hardly no one, at least not the wealthiest paying any tax. The poor bastards that had to pay any tax was the one an the lowest level. (If they got any salary.)

It is a complicated world, today in Russia thay pay a flat rate of 13 % or something similar in income tax.


9 posted on 06/17/2003 6:00:21 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Clancy gets my vote.
10 posted on 06/17/2003 6:01:46 AM PDT by Tijeras_Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
I would vote for Clancy. What type of dog is Clancy? If he is a Beagle, I would find a way to vote twice.
11 posted on 06/17/2003 6:06:05 AM PDT by 7thson (I think it takes a big dog to weigh a 100 pounds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
I had no idea Marx/Engels were responsible for a progressive tax.

The following are the basic tennets from the Communist Manifesto. Read them then look around, you'll find it interesting how much of it we accept as a normal part of our American life

"Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in he hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc"

12 posted on 06/17/2003 6:08:23 AM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Rocket Scientist Russert let that remark slide by without a follow up like "Wesley, you moron, do you really believe the crap that comes out of your mouth?"
13 posted on 06/17/2003 6:08:49 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
Do you really mean that progressive taxation is communism?

It is a plank of the Communist Manifesto. See #12. Study the other planks as well, it may surprise you.

14 posted on 06/17/2003 6:10:44 AM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
You might be interested in the Ten Planks of the Connumist Mennifesto. If you take a close look, you will find that almost every one is the official policy of the U.S. government.
15 posted on 06/17/2003 6:13:17 AM PDT by zeugma (Hate pop-up ads? Here's the fix: http://www.mozilla.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xrp
..I have a little reading assignment for you. It’s a document written in 1848 by two characters named Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. It’s called the “Manifesto of the Communist Party.” “Communist Manifesto” for short.

I would suggest he read "The Constitution of the United States of America" since he apparently hasn't heard of it before.

16 posted on 06/17/2003 6:21:08 AM PDT by zip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Trouble is, Russert agrees with everyone Clark said.
17 posted on 06/17/2003 6:24:46 AM PDT by OldFriend (Hilary Knew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: xrp
What a riot! This country was most certainly not founded on the principle of progressive taxation. Maybe he thinks he's in Sweden. This country didn't even have an income tax until early last century.
18 posted on 06/17/2003 6:42:25 AM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Clark is the shovel man in the weazel parade.
19 posted on 06/17/2003 6:43:05 AM PDT by hgro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrp
As a side bar, the military traditionally has conservative values. If it went to the dark side, as with so many other countries, it would be all over.
20 posted on 06/17/2003 6:48:46 AM PDT by stevio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants; templar
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Yep, that is only the latest abomination against freedom which has been popularized by the War on Drugs. Predictably, property confiscation has been expanded beyond drug offenses to other crimes against the State. But when you give it a nice name like "Asset Forfeiture" it sounds so, well... progressive.

21 posted on 06/17/2003 7:02:31 AM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stevio
As a side bar, the military traditionally has conservative values. If it went to the dark side, as with so many other countries, it would be all over.

The military structure is about as socialist as it gets.

22 posted on 06/17/2003 7:11:37 AM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Taxes should be progressive to some degree. All of the leading Flat Income Tax plans include a standard deduction and even some of the NRST plans include a poverty level tax rebate. This essentially makes all of these tax reform proposals "progresive", if you look at the real percentage in taxes that a person making (or spending, in the case of the NRST) $12,000, $50,000, or $100,000 pays, the higher number pays a higher percentage (the rate approaches the "flat" rate).

Why is this the case? Because the less surplus income a peson has, the less they are able to afford to pay taxes. But they key is to avoid brackets and to keep the rate increases moderate at all levels, so as not to punish success. Rebates and deductions are pretty ideal in this regard.

The big downside with letting the poor off the hook for taxes, however, is that they benefit from the taxes paid by others, which simply encourages them to want more entitlements. Sometimes, I think it is too bad that we've got an obsession with letting everyone vote, even if they don't understand anything about government, contribute nothing to its operation, and can't find their own country on a globe.

23 posted on 06/17/2003 8:07:10 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
The big downside with letting the poor off the hook for taxes, however, is that they benefit from the taxes paid by others, which simply encourages them to want more entitlements. Sometimes, I think it is too bad that we've got an obsession with letting everyone vote, even if they don't understand anything about government, contribute nothing to its operation, and can't find their own country on a globe.

Why not include a vote as a function of the amount you pay in tax, say Number of votes = (log(amount paid in tax/100+10)rounded to 2 decimals!
24 posted on 06/17/2003 8:52:25 AM PDT by AdmSmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xrp
The stated Communist principle is: From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.
25 posted on 06/17/2003 10:11:05 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Pump up the volume!! MSNBC just announced it will air, live, a speech Clark is about to make to some Democrat organization, I think, in Washington. 1:15 pm time right now...I can hardly wait. NOT!

But it is interesting Russert gave him the serious MTP airtime he's giving to all presidential candidates, followed so closely by this speech. Maybe it's a slow news day for MSNBC, haven't heard them cover the Roe in Roe V Wade make her big announcement...no surprise there, but it seems unusual for MSNBC to cover a speech by Wesley Clark unless they think (or want it to be), significant.I'll have to check to see if other news networks are showing it too.

26 posted on 06/17/2003 10:19:59 AM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
MSNBC has just done another promo of what's upcoming, this time with no mention of the Clark speech. "Drats", I bet Clark is saying, if the hearing for the hit and run priest took his airtime!
27 posted on 06/17/2003 10:29:39 AM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Bump.
28 posted on 06/17/2003 10:51:31 AM PDT by DoctorMichael (....they stab it with their steeley knives, but they just can't kill the beast....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
The first progressive American tax was the Direct Tax of 1798, signed into law by President John Adams. It was also the first direct tax ever imposed by the federal government.

The next two direct tax levies were signed into law by President and Founding Father James Madison during the War of 1812. It was also during Madison's tenure that the first progressive income tax was proposed by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Dallas.

The first progressive income tax was signed into law by the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.

Clark was dead on right. Go look it up.

And be ashamed.
29 posted on 06/17/2003 2:30:05 PM PDT by Sofa000King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sofa000King
Clark was dead on right. Go look it up.

Uh, you need work on your dates. There was no progressive tax mentioned in the Constitution upon ratification nor part of the federal government for a decade hence - by your own dates you provide here. So Clark's statement I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation is false, as is yours.

30 posted on 06/17/2003 2:33:35 PM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: petenrepeat
This moron will be on Buchanan and Press at 6:00pm, in just a half hour. I hope Pat lays into him for his doing in that immoral war.
31 posted on 06/17/2003 2:33:51 PM PDT by MadelineZapeezda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...." Article I, Section 2.

The very first "direct Tax" levied was progressive, and was not declared unconstitutional. Better go argue that one with Oliver Ellsworth.
32 posted on 06/17/2003 2:53:59 PM PDT by Sofa000King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sofa000King
The very first "direct Tax" levied was progressive, and was not declared unconstitutional. Better go argue that one with Oliver Ellsworth.

Uh, once again, dude, there is no provision for progressive taxation in the constitution, only the ability to choose to levy such. If this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation, it would have been part of the Constitution from the git-go, not part of a legislative action a decade later.

I guess you're one of those Clintonian types who can take events that happened a decade apart and claim they happened at the same time.

33 posted on 06/17/2003 2:59:16 PM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sofa000King
Shame? What is it to you -- a cheap penny to flip one way or the other, eh? Well here follows the true coin.

Instead of favoring "progressive" taxation the Founders actually disfavored it! The Founders were very wary of DIRECT taxation -- taxes on wealth, property, land, income, holdings, etc. Direct taxation INCLUDES "progressive" [income] taxes. They saw those as ripe for abuse, essentially not checkable by the public. Exactly what history has born out.

The Founder's favored INDIRECT -- import and export levies, sales tax, etc. Taxes on TRANSACTIONS, not holdings. Such taxation has a natural feedback from the citizens. If they can't bear it, the level of it, they reduce the transactions! No law, no vote, no insurrection -- peaceful and quiet like. Effective. A marvelously effective and potent check on abuse.

And so too history bears that out -- check out the states and their histories of sales taxation. The public is quick and fierce to hold such taxation in check.

Here is what Founder Hamilton said, in Federalist 21, December 12, 1787:

There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, gthat is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.

Impositions of this kind usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of land, or the number of the people, may serve as a standard. The state of agriculture and the populousness of a country have been considered as nearly connected with each other. And, as a rule, for the purpose intended, numbers, in the view of simplicity and certainty, are entitled to a preference. In every country it is a herculean task to obtain a valuation of the land; in a country imperfectly settled and progressive in improvement, the difficulties are increased almost to impracticability. The expense of an accurate valuation is, in all situations, a formidable objection. In a branch of taxation where no limits to the discretion of the government are to be found in the nature of things, the establishment of a fixed rule, not incompatible with the end, may be attended with fewer inconveniences than to leave that discretion altogether at large.

Hamilton astutely notes a major consideration, a corruptive factor, in taxing holdings. The valuation. He talks of real estate, land. Yet his reservations apply to any form of holding -- and even to that "transaction" we call income. Income comes in gross and net, and we tax the net, creating many opportunities for mischief -- all well proven in history. Even if we taxed the gross, there would be problems. For a person deserves and desires the first quaff of his own bottle.
34 posted on 06/17/2003 2:59:25 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xrp
Gee, I thought America was founded on the principles of a massive central government and affirmative action.
35 posted on 06/17/2003 3:01:00 PM PDT by Eternal_Bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sofa000King
Wesley, is that you? Your first two posts, after signing up on FR today, was to make the same refutation to the same article posted twice - and you went to this trouble several hours apart. Hmmm....
36 posted on 06/17/2003 3:07:02 PM PDT by dirtboy (Not enough words in FR taglines to adequately describe the dimensions of Hillary's thunderous thighs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
I always thought they had advocated equal income for everyone regardless of effort exerted, skill level, etc.

I would imagine that would be the practical result if they could implement a 'perfect' progressive system.

37 posted on 06/17/2003 3:07:13 PM PDT by StriperSniper (Frogs are for gigging)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bvw
...And here's what Alexander Hamilton had to say in Federalist Paper #30:

"The power of creating new funds upon new objects of taxation, by its own authority, would enable the national government to borrow as far as its necessities might require. Foreigners, as well as the citizens of America, could then reasonably repose confidence in its engagements; but to depend upon a government that must itself depend upon thirteen other governments for the means of fulfilling its contracts, when once its situation is clearly understood, would require a degree of credulity not often to be met with in the pecuniary transactions of mankind, and little reconcilable with the usual sharp-sightedness of avarice."

http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_30.html

Indicating that in times of necessity, a federal government could guarantee foreign loans by reserving the authority to levy new types of taxes upon its citizenry.

And the very first time it happened, it chose to make its taxes progressive.

The imposition of the first tax as a progressive tax is foundation in itself; the very first precedent. That's something which Wesley Clark obviously knew and understood when he said what he said, and what Neal Boortz obviously didn't know at all.
38 posted on 06/17/2003 3:17:14 PM PDT by Sofa000King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith
If we were to prequalify voters before they could vote, I'd be interested in only two categories (those qualified and those not) and would not want to get into the business of trying to weigh power. Qualification could include a basic civics test (all of the possible questions and answers could be provided -- you just have to ), some proof that you contribute to the government, or even voluntary government service ala Starship Troopers. The idea would be to stop people who have no stake in the system from raping it and I think that's a yes/no decision.
39 posted on 06/17/2003 3:24:05 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sofa000King
Oops, sorry. That line should read, "[t]he imposition of the first DIRECT tax as a progressive tax...."

And what are you trying to deny anyway? The first direct tax WAS progressive. Does that make John Adams and the Congress of 1798 communists? Did Marx learn his commie ways fifty years after the fact from the United States? That's rubbish.

And no, I'm not the General. I am, however, highly offended at the waving of the "commie" brush at Clark's statement, not particularly because of the typical hypercon ad hominem smear to which we are all accustomed, but because by its uninformed implication it also smears the founders of this great nation that I love.

That is offensive to history, and therefore it's offensive to me.
40 posted on 06/17/2003 3:26:30 PM PDT by Sofa000King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
bump for later review
41 posted on 06/17/2003 3:44:19 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sofa000King
Hamilton mentioned ad-hoc, temporary, specific-purpose impositions of taxes in Federalist 21. That was in a very LIMITING form -- specific purpose, a dedication of the revenue to a prescribed specific need. If only our cuurent "representatives" sworn to the Constitution would respect such limitations as they act as fiduciary agents on OUR behalf!

You say "And the very first time it happened, it chose to make its taxes progressive."

Well the first federal TAXES -- the FOUNDATION, per your construct -- were INDIRECT taxes. Excise taxes on spirits and imports duties. That happened under Washington's Admistration, and we had a brief insurrection over it.

Hamilton, himself, put it down, IIRC.

42 posted on 06/17/2003 3:50:16 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sofa000King; dirtboy; MadelineZapeezda; bvw
".......shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...." (Article I, Section 2).................Refers to an 'apportionment' in direct relation to the number of people in that state, NOT their income; much the same as the number of House Representatives per state is 'apportioned' by relative numbers of people within the states when population numbers are compared. This statement therefore has nothing to do with a "progressive" tax.

Good luck with remedial reading lessons.

Sofa000King
Since Jun 17, 2003

And be ashamed.

No need to be.......................newbie.

43 posted on 06/17/2003 4:36:18 PM PDT by DoctorMichael (I see Idiots..............everywhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sofa000King
You might want to review the SIX supreme court decisions ruling a progressive income tax UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thus the need for the 16th Amendment.
44 posted on 06/17/2003 5:17:03 PM PDT by Phantom Lord (Distributor of Pain, Your Loss Becomes My Gain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bvw
I think that my omission, which I mentioned in my previous post, have caused us to sort of miss each other. That's my bad.

I don't disagree that the first federal taxes were indirect. I don't disagree that Hamilton was all for limitations of taxes in general.

However, the first DIRECT tax ever imposed was in fact a progressive tax. I doubt you'll disagree with that.

DoctorMichael's unnecessarily rude comments do manage to point out that I have failed to clarify what I was trying to say. My sole point, DoctorMichael, was to show that direct taxes are provided for in the Constitution, but if you think about your own reading skills for a moment you might ask yourself how a penniless piece of property who counts as three-fifths of a person can contribute any direct revenue at all.

To reiterate:

* Even Hamilton conceded that the authority to levy new forms of taxation needed to be preserved for the federal government;

* Direct taxes are explicitly provided for in the unamended Constitution;

* The very first direct tax was progressive. So was the second, and so was the third. None of them were successfully contested as unconstitutional.

I suspect that this is the idea that General Clark intended to convey in his remarks to Tim Russert. What I KNOW he did not do is confuse the first progressive American taxes with Karl Marx's prattle, something which a lot of you readers seem to be willing to swallow hook, line, and sinker.

And again, that is something some of you should be ashamed of endorsing and believing, because it is untruthful, and because it obscures our national heritage in the name of slinging mud.

45 posted on 06/17/2003 5:26:58 PM PDT by Sofa000King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sofa000King
Wesley Clark's statement, like any time one gets in front of a mike by being only ONE statement is being overplayed against him -- that I would agree. That the statement on its face sticks out like a sore thumb and begs such rash comment I would also agree and think you might give that aspect of it some weight.

Yapping with the media, things don't always come out the way a person means ... yet Clark is practised and trained in such interviews and may by that be measured more closely than a person less familiar with such interviews.

His statement links tightly a view of what America "is all about" with "progressive taxation".

"Progressive Taxation" is a flag term of long standing, and it's awfully hard to imagine Clark is not acquainted with its most common familiar meanings -- one meaning -- a positive one to them -- that is favored to liberals and progressives even ones unfamiliar with Marx. That is indeed a parallel -- but not exactly the same -- meaning Hamilton used in talking about having staged rates of taxes on increasing sizes and values of land property. In that common sense it means "progressive income tax rates staged by level of income". I don't think anyone knows or can easily infer what Hamilton's views on a progressive income tax would be.

The second, very well-known meaning of the term "progressive taxation" is exactly that of Marx -- a LEVELER of a tax code -- one that grabs bigger slices from the economically gifted and able, so as to knock them down to the level of the less gifted and/or able, It is known to the right-wing anti-communist as well as all socialists, communists, and folks (such as Clark) exposed to the Fabian traditions of socialism at Oxford.

That Clark so casually linked that Marxian Ideal to his American Ideal is very reasonably, yet a bit rashly (because it is only one statement and not a series of such), castigated for so being a radical mischaracterization of Founding American Ideals.

46 posted on 06/17/2003 6:10:38 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: bvw
The people on this post seem pretty knowledgeable about history, the constitution, communism, and Marx. Can someone here help me answer some questions?

First off I'm curious about the relationship of communism to our constitution. The very first part of the constitution states: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Doesn’t communism have something to do with collectivism? Or is communism just an economic system like capitalism? Did Marx have any statements or declarations regarding our form of government or our constitution specifically?

The parts of the statement that I have included that seem to be collectivist in nature is “We the People” and then “promote the general Welfare”. What types of statements are these in relation to government, communism, and capitalism?

I’m also curious how taxation relates to communism. Was there taxation in the Soviet Union? I thought the government owned everything (no private property) and all the means of production so there was no need for taxation there?

I’ve also been curious about how socialism and communism are related. What are the similarities and differences?

Boortz also talked about public schools being communist in nature? Is this true? When did the government (state or federal governments) begin to pay for public schools? What percentage of the population has been trained by public schools?

I would appreciate all the help I can get as I often go head to head with some pretty tough and sharp liberal debaters. Thanks.
47 posted on 08/27/2003 7:23:44 PM PDT by hermes509 (Questions For The Experts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: hermes509; Nick Danger
There are far better choices than me on FR to explain the relationships.

But I will note a few things. I give more weight to the preamble than most, including the Supreme Court. I consider it to give the desired scope of authority that the Federal Goverment must stay within. I also consider the order of the clauses important. To acheive each desired item in the preamble requires that the prior items be first satisfied. For example, the Union must be formed before all others, even establishing Justice. And domestic tranquility could never be assured without first establishing Justice. It is of some amazement than that "providing for the common defense" requires that the Union have had been formed, Courts and Justice established, and that internal riot and insurrection surpressed. Yet without those three, there would be no whole nation to be commonly defended.

Having provided for common defense, and it's precdendent necessities -- Union, Justice, Tranquility, we then promote the general Welfare.

In addition to the order, note also the verbs used -- to form, to establish, to insure, to promote, to secure. The verb choices have meaning. Note the capitalisations: Order, Union, Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Blessings, Liberty, Posterity. Defense is NOT capitalized! All caps, non-caps are important. So too the modifiers: more perfect, domestic, common, general.

These are all important in both the time of the making and adoption of the Constitution and for all times after. That both now and for-all-times aspect is explicit in the words "to ourselves and our Posterity".

Of all clauses, it may be the "to promote the general Welfare" which is been most abused, and causing strife. The best interpretation I have seen of it it that is a very limited meaning. That it means only that the effect of Federal action and laws be to better the welfare of all -- the general population -- and not special interests, or arbitrarily limited classes. If so held, that limiting would implode such beasts as the tax code, and most pork-barrel allocations of funds. Such a limitation -- that the law be to all, or no law at all, would reduce the whole behemoth to a puppy size.

I also note that clause reading "the Blessings of Liberty" was for a long time in the Convention a different wording. The older wording was 'the Blessings of Property"! Towards the end of the Convention "Liberty" was exchanged for "Property", with some profer that Liberty included all rights and regards to private Property, and freedom of other actions as well.

That is, respect and regard for private property is a fundatmental tenent of our Constitution. That is opposite of the "collective" -- where all property is held in common.

The fact is that the great social utopia sought by socialists and communists (except those totally motivated by spite, hate, and redemption-thru-deconstruction motives -- a sigificant and historically highly important yet by numbers tiny segment) is best achieved in the very framework of ideals laid down in that preamble -- and respect for private property is key! In Liberty, not the despotism of Marx.

48 posted on 08/27/2003 9:07:43 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bvw
Thanks for the quick response bvw -- I was afraid this thread was dead. I'm not sure what you mean by "There are far better choices than me on FR to explain the relationships." Is there another thread on this topic?

Can you point me in the direction of a good book regarding the convention. I was particularly interested in the property = liberty part. Liberty is indeed a much larger concept than property. In fact, the primary synonym for liberty is freedom. Within that we could talk about economic, political, physical, and social freedom. Property (particulary private) would fall into economic freedom. Such words are too big to be easily defined so I am curious to see some of the comments by the founders regarding their definition of liberty.

So what type of system do we have today in the United States? We have progressive taxation. We also have laws regarding an individuals right to own private property. And for the most part, it seems that our government has little say on marketplace supply and the means of production. Does adding more taxes make us more communist?

I have more questions, but will stop here as the more I write the more I realize how complicted these ideas really are. I think one of the things that is complicating the whole discussion in my mind is the tie in between political systems and economic systems. Communism seems opposed directly to capitalism and I believe that is how Marx wrote about it (please correct me if I'm wrong). Our constitution, on the other hand, seems to exist at some level beyond just economics, with the possible exception that one needs to fund a government somehow and liberty refers to property rights.
49 posted on 08/28/2003 2:20:44 PM PDT by hermes509
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: hermes509
Straight capitalism doesn't work, any more than communism. Both form into upside-down pyramind oligarchic tyrannies, following by social breakdown and vassalage.

Nothing in the Constitution establishes Capitalism. But the Constitution, of itself, is against communism. at the Federal level. At the state level, it could be -- a stretch, but sure.

Nothing as to property rights or of contract law, of itself, establish or deny Capitalism. Property rights would deny communism.

Yet a state or commonwealth could charter up as a communist state. In Pennsylvania, we find "commons" -- common areas theoretically available to all to graze livestock on etc. In PA, all the deer are claimed by the state. Even on my property -- the commonwealth claims it owns them. Could expand that concept into full Shaker-ite down-home communism, or even Marx's despotic revoluting kind.

But they break down. The economic models. What is good? Liberty! Respect for property, for marriage, for parents, care for the widows and orphans, the poor, the sick and the respectful burial of the dead. The rest is bosh and posh.

50 posted on 08/28/2003 5:28:01 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

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