Posted on 11/20/2010 12:13:04 PM PST by American Dream 246
DJ, when Javitz was first elected to Congress in 1946, I believe that the NY-21 comprised Washington Heights, part of Harlem and part of the Bronx, most similar to Rangel’s NY-15 among today’s CDs: here’s a very interesting Time Magazine article about the 1944 special election in which Torrens (whose surname is Catalan, by the way, but perhaps he was an Irishman with a Spanish ancestor from the days of the Invincible Armada) narrowly defeated an old Republican who had served in Congress prior to WWI (!), with the Republican carrying the district’s Harlem precincts. Of course, maybe that special election was the last one held under the old lines and when Torrens was reelected in November 1944 (and when Javitz was elected in 1946) the district no longer included Harlem, since I recall that it was in 1944 when they finally redistricted in NY (for the first time since 1922 IIRC) and they finally drew a black-majority district in Harlem, which elected Adam Clayton Powell that year.
Oopd, forgot the link to the 1944 article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,932363,00.html
William S. Bennet represented the bulk of the Upper West Side, Harlem to Washington Heights (from 1905-1911), exclusively in Manhattan (then the 17th) and he and 2 other Manhattan GOP seats were captured by the Democrats in the anti-Taft 1910 midterms. The districts were reconfigured for 1912. Bennet ran again in a 1915 special in the 23rd (which was about half of his old seat, including Washington Heights and extended into central Bronx, excluding the South Bronx), but lost the following year (even with Charles Evans Hughes at the top of the ticket). It was redistricted again in 1918 (where Washington Heights and part of Harlem became exclusively the 21st and the 23rd exclusively the west and central parts of the Bronx).
You were correct in that there was apparently no redistricting from about 1918 until 1944. The lines Torrens won under in the February 1944 special over Bennet* were the same. The new lines for the 21st in November 1944 was extended southward along the Hudson (Upper West Side) and Harlem was wholly excised for Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.’s new 22nd. Those same lines were in place for 1946. In 1952, the last of Javits’ terms, the 21st and the 16th (formerly the 22nd) were streamlined a bit, but the 21st acquired more of Harlem.
You are also correct virtually all of Javits’ old district lay within Rangel’s today, but the evolution of the district followed to Nadler’s (the last of the upper part of Manhattan was apparently removed in 2002).
*As an aside, had Bennet won in ‘44 and been reelected for the same period as Javits, he would’ve served alongside his son, Augustus, who won a single term in November ‘44 in the 29th district (which was Rockland, Orange, Sullivan & Delaware Counties). Augustus was an odd one. He ran against Hamilton Fish (the FDR antagonist one) in the GOP primary and lost, but ran on the Democrat, Liberal & ALP lines and beat Fish in the general by a 53-47% margin, but officially aligned with the GOP at his swearing-in. He was beaten by Katharine St. George in the 1946 GOP primary.
That was an interesting article you linked, which showed Northern Blacks hadn’t been fully corralled onto the Democrat plantation and could still prove a pivotal swing bloc. If they were that politically sophisticated now, they’d never have ended up with the situation they’re now in, allowing themselves to be used and abused.
Nadler has lost weight? Gastric bypass?
Yes, back in 2002. I imagine given his morbid obesity, had it not been done, his lifespan would’ve been greatly shortened (I doubt he’d have made it to 63, his current age).
I don’t think it should be legal and believe the Constitutional finding that it is has no real basis within the Constitution or the beliefs of the Founders. IN GENERAL electing Republicans will increase the chances of putting conservative justices on the Court but that is not always a guarantee since the majority of Justices sitting on Roe were Republicans.
However, when there are two pro aborts in the General Election those concerned about this nation have to vote for the Republican. Every Democrat elected is a disaster on many levels.
Given that the “Rich” pay most of the federal income taxes and the bottom 50% pay NOTHING you seem unaware that the ability to stimulate the economy is dependent upon the ability of of the “Rich” to INVEST. Ever heard that term?
I’m sure you approved of the “Yacht Tax” from a few years back. You know, the one where the luxury boat industry was almost destroyed by a new “Soak the Rich tax” and thousands of high paying jobs were lost as builders went out of business. I’m sure Ronnie would have supported that one....NOT.
The Federalist Party was destroyed by the rise of a Democrat party willing to do or say anything to get elected. Federalists assumed that leading a spectacularly successful government and bringing the new nation up to a par with those which had existed for hundreds of years would assure its continuance in power. They were not willing to use dirty tricks and election fraud to win elections (like a certain party today.)
But they did not count on the genius of Jefferson and his manipulation of the morons (and slavers) of the nation. Then after knocking Adams out the Democrat Vice President assassinated Hamilton, the greatest force within Federalism. This assured the destruction of federalism even though Jefferson did not disturb the financial system it established against his will. A system which was remarkable in its success and which laid the financial framework for the growth of a dazzling new empire. Thanks Alexander.
As it was, there was a convention at Hartford some years later for the ex-Federalists to discuss secession so that they could cozy up to the Brits and sell out the nation for a renewed river of money, money, money in trade with the Brits. This while we were fighting the War of 1812. Andrew Jackson with the able assistance of Pierre Lafitte dispatched the last Brit army at New Orleans and sent Brit General Pakenham's thoroughly ventilated corpse back to his widow in England, stuffed into a whiskey barrel to preserve the remains. There was never another Brit invasion of our nation.
The Federalist Party was destroyed by its own leaders' manifest greed, xenophobia, Alien and Sedition Acts, and a general attitude that the nation should be run by the upper crust who owned much of it. This was understandably never very popular with the rank and file of the public who did not own much of it. God so loved poorer people that He made a great many more of them than he did of the self-centered aristocracy. John Adams, certainly an honorable fellow in his own right, was victimized by the extreme Hamiltonian wing of the Federalists and was unable to gain re-election after the way they discredited the Federalists permanently. His relationship with Hamilton was, understandably, not much warmer than Jefferson's.
There is always a dream among the comfortable, however, that, if they could just control the government and, through the government, all those unruly and disruptive folks who wanted a share of governance at the expense of the natural self-imagined nobility of the aristocrats, they could thrive and prosper and to hell with the wogs. Such modest members of the public (the wogs) actually dared imagine that they had lives to live for their own purposes and not merely to convenience the guys in the mansion on the hill. Well, did you ever....???
After the demise of the Federalist Party, its forces re-entered politics as Whigs dedicated to (what else?) money, money, money. They called for extraconstitutional "internal improvements" federally financed to line their pockets with other people's taxed (confiscated) money. You may recall that, as a Whig, Lincoln also made a lot of money as a railroad lawyer, bringing land condemnation actions to facilitate the development of a network of railroads across Illinois. This subordinated the interests of the serfs in their own land to the grand schemes of the business moguls.
It is true that Jefferson did not disturb the financial arrangements established by Hamilton, particularly the national banking schemes. That was left to Andrew Jackson who had the noble privilege of finishing off Mr. Biddle's corrupt bank once and for all. The nation did quite nicely until the Federal Reserve was established through the chicanery of the J. P. Morgans, the Nelson Payne Aldriches and their political friends. Well, as Jefferson was fond of saying: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Since the Whigs were perpetrating the same policies of comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, that had destroyed their Federalist predecessors, they shared the fate of their Federalist predecessors and were destroyed. People had, after all experienced the glory that was Jackson.
Hope springs eternal, however, and the same old gang reconstituted itself sneaking around under the banner of abolitionism with financial malice aforethought, as the Republican Party (in its early days). The GOP has survived where its predecessors had failed and the Democrat Party evolved into the Demonrat Party of communist and social issue revolutionary enemies of our nation and its people (acid, amnesty, abortion, whatever perversions young Muffy and Skipper and their airhead polo club pals may adopt, disarmament, national cowardice, etc., in other words, the priorities of elitist Obamao and his elitist lapdogs).
The nation needed another Jackson and got one in Ronald Reagan. We await a worthy successor to him (and it won't be Senator Nancyboy). Thanks, Old Hickory. Thanks, Gipper. Thanks, Aaron Burr. In retrospect, the only worthwhile policy of Hamilton was protection of American industry.
If the theory, heavily subsidized by the comfortable, that there is some sort of automatic relationship between cutting the taxes of the comfortale and shifting those taxes to the afflicted and a rise in job creation. where are those jobs??? Before social conservatives elected Ronaldus Maximus, there was a 70% rate in taxes on the most comfortable levels of income. Ronaldus Maximus slashed those taxes to the more recent (pre-Dubya) 39.5%. Dubya reduced that rate further to 35%. Where are the jobs???? Maybe the tax cut money went into tax-free municipal bonds representing lavish and unnecessary spending to insure that the comfortahle not have to, well, pay taxes on the income therefrom. As Leona Helmsley famously said to her accountant before her stay in the federal hoosegow, "Taxes??? Those are paid only by the little people!!!"
When the bonds are bought, the money generated from Mr./Ms. Gotbucks is divided between graft for the compliant politicos, sugar for the Davis-Bacon protected unions, and more largely unnecessary and inefficiently costly gummint expenditures.
The yacht industry never had thousands of jobs to lose. How WOULD America survive without its yacht "industry?" A lot easier than it is surviving without its steel industry, its auto industry, its defense industry and a raft of other once American industries outsourced to Bangladesh to improve the "bottom line" of the comforted comfortable and to deconstruct the American economy to provide the entire profit to the comforted comfortable. Ask yourself whether even your boy Hamilton would agree.
Other uses of tax cut money: ever more costly jewels and baubles for the trophy bride or paramour, vacations in NeverMeverLand (quite devoid of American workers), purchasing long completed art works, coin colletions, stamp collections, and other collectors' items, being a big shot at multiple annual charity balls (thereby providing the money necessary for the charity execs to fight [whatever cause] in true style and receive an income to put those execs in the top tax bracket without visible results for the objects of the "charity,") all tax exempt according to the near religious demands of the comfortable.
Even Ronaldus Maximus was not perfect but he came closer than any POTUS since Old Hickory.
What percentage of soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, police, tow truck drivers, nursing home workers, hospital workers, factory workers, mechanics arise from that 50% who pay no income taxes? What percentage from those who wallow in comfort?
You leave out the fact that there was essentially NO UNEMPLOYMENT when W was in charge.
If unemployment was low under Dubya, it is certainly not low now under Obama yet the taxes on the upper crust remain the same as under Dubya adfter his cuts. I am happy to blame Obama if that is what you are driving at. I am a bit of an agnostic on the claim that shaving upper bracket tax rates automatically creates jobs.
OK, you’ve been around for a long time, so I don’t know how you don’t know this stuff.
1) It’s not Obama in particular I blame, it’s the democrat party in congress who has been stifling the economy with one regulatory nightmare after another since taking power in 2006. Probably starting with the energy bill. From 07 to 08 we kept warning and warning, this will kill jobs and the democrat response was essentially, shut up, you lie, you’re a racist.
2) When we talk about tax rates impacting jobs, yes we are talking about upper crust too, but we’re largely talking about sole proprietorships who have to claim all of their revenue as income. Those are the folks who can’t afford to hire, to expand, to even enter business because of the current tax and regulatory schemes.
So, how do you see higher taxes and government spending as being able to boost the economy? Please point out to a time in history when the government has spent us out of a recession. And how do you propose to determine who most deserves to get the largesse? How do you keep it from being funneled into the pockets of ‘bamas buddies, like it is now?
I am primarily a Roman Catholic social conservative and then a military and foreign policy conservative and criminal justice conservative and, in my youth, I was a libertarian party state officer but the libertarian reaction in support of abortion put an end to that just as the Demonrat reaction guaranteed that I would not ever consider being a member of the party of my ancestors.
I would also blame the Congressional Demonrats as well as Obamao for the economic mess we are in but somehow, with more than 50 million babies sliced, diced and hamburgerized allegedly under the rule of law, with perversions posing as "marriage" being crammed down our throats daily, I don't have much emotion left over for the terror suffered by those making more than a quarter of a million per year being jeopardized by having a mere 4.5% (of the 35% by which their taxes on that income have already been slashed courtesy of the election of Ronaldus Maximus by social conservatives, leaving them a net tax cut of 30.5%) restored to their tax bill.
This discussion between me and several here did not start over whether the taxes on the comfortable and comforted ought to be raised but rather over a hypothetical question. That question was as follows: IF the bulk of the Bush tax cuts such as the elimination of the estate tax (greatest boon to the wealthy of all Bush tax cuts), the elimination of the marriage penalty and cuts in middle class taxes could ONLY be preserved in a legislative deal allowing the 4.5% cut on taxes on income above $250,000 to expire, should that deal be made? Nothing prevents coming back later after the GOP dominated House is seated in January to get the rest and maybe more of tax cuts of all kinds.
I would make that deal which concededly would benefit me and many others here without harming very many of us at all. I grew up in a labor union family. I am not impressed at all by the hysteria over "class warfare" which is usually directed in reality against folks of modest means in favor of people who are quite comfortable whether they admit it or not. Those people of comfort have repeatedly (see Connecticut income tax revolt 1991 as one prime example) stabbed conservatives of more modest means inn the back for their own advantages (reducing investment taxes and sales taxes but establishing for the first time a 4.5% tax on wages and salaries translated as let the kid flipping burgers at Mickey D's pay taxes instead of Mr./Ms. Megabucks, Connecticut 1991). Meanwhile, John F'n Kerry of the Boston and Viet Cong Kerrys, parks his brand new yacht at Newport, Rhode Island to evade the sales and use tax imposed by Massachusetts on his new toy while Mickey O'Brien, a less fashionable guy, pays every nickel of sales and use tax on the ten-year old rusted out beater of an automobile that he uses to get to work at his modest job. Ditto the many abuses of Clan Kennedy, and of upper crust tax evaders and avoiders across the fruited plain. When they evade their taxes, we more modest folks pay more into the insatiable maw of gummint liberal spending (the real problem) but we are NOT to view these shenanigans as "class warfare against us.
In the Connecticut income tax war of 1991, one long-time wealthy contributor to taxpayer groups, a man solidly conservative, told the anti-tax leader that he would have to side with Weicker's income tax because if he were to support the resistance his materialistic wifey might divorce him. My reaction to hearing of this was to urge the rest of the tax rebels to drop the opposition to investment taxes. If the megabucks crowd whom we had ritually supported for decades would stab us in favor of Weicker, they should be divorced politically by us unless we look forward to a future as stooges.
The GOP is the only party capable of putting a stop to abortion in this country and to sexual perversion posing as "marriage." It is the only party that has a foreign policy backbone since McGovern seized the Democrat Party permanently for its communist fringe nuts in 1972, the only party that will develop and deploy weapons systems and to fight wars as necessary. It is also the party of resistance to gummint regulation and taxation (although our pampered upper crust are all too susceptible in their political naivete to green everything and environmental whackoism and racial hucksterism and feminaziism and, rather than investing in American jobs, specialize in exporting those jobs to Bangladesh in an effort to approach taking every nickel produced as a limit). I have been a sole proprietor and sole proprietors do NOT "claim all of their revenue as income," just all of their NET income, not unlike those who work in their businesses and that is a result of the proprietor limiting his taxes by choosing IRS Code Subchapter S as his/her form of business organization. In perfect obedience to the IRS Code, you can deduct a lot of personal expenses against your business income, a luxury not available to those earning wages or salaries. In any event, the argument was only about income above the $250,000 level (the highest bracket income only). The argument is not about raising the rate on any income for anybody below that $250,000 level.
I see no boost whatsoever in the economy from increases in taxes or increases in gummint spending. I would abolish the gummint skewels which squander record levels of money from everyone with almost no visible return on the spending except lining the pockets of the privileged on the gummint skewel payrolls. I would abolish OSHA. I would abolish many State Department functions, the entire Department of Energy, the entire Department of "Education," every non-defense expenditure of the Pentagon, most foreign military bases, the EPA, the Bureau of Land Management and that just scratches the surface. Give me a free hand and you would need Sherlock Holmes and a few million crack bloodhounds to track down what little would remain. Sharply curtail the resources of the federal courts which have too much money and too many employees on their hands to avoid sticking the judicial nose where it belongeth not. I would not pay reparations to 85,000 people of the 14,000 applying for same as allegedly abused black and American Indian farmers to the tune of $6 or $8 billion out of Obamao's "stash" of our tax money nor one nickel for affirmative action for anyone, wealthy or modest of means. Welfare schemes would be a bad memory. HUD likewise. Federal block grants. Subsidies to "higher education." University studies of the sex lives of furbisher louseworts or of just about any other university "studies" not related to studies of physics necessary to the development of first rate weapons systems. Need I go on? That is a small sample of the words and the music.
Neither our nation nor any other has EVER spent its way out of recession or depression but you knew that or you would not have asked. I do not propose to determine who most deserves largesse. The market will do that which is why God invented the market. I would keep the largesse from being funneled into the pockets of Obamao's buddies like it is now by eliminating the largesse for them and everyone else. What the gummint has not grabbed the gummint cannot give away or funnel to anyone.
I got started in conservatism (I confess) as a teenager in support of Barry Goldwater. When I eventually learned of his status as a social anarchist who bragged about bringing his own daughter to an abortion mill and who supported the homosexuality of other descendants, I had solid proof that supporting him was a grave mistake.
Other than that, about 46 years of experience in the conservative movement, being a state chairmen of Young Americans for Freedom, Young Republicans, College Republicans, the Conservative Union, a GOP Congressional nominee, a GOP Town Committee Chairman, a delegate to several GOP state conventions, active involvement in leadership in two state tax revolts (one successful and one not), representing as an attorney (without fees) 1100 arrested pro-lifers (very few convicted) and arrested NRA members (none convicted), among many other things, is how I know what I know. What I am arguing against here is what I hear every day on the radio from Rush and Sean and Mark yakking against "class warfare" but actually practicing it. I have no more interest in taxing people for being successful than I have in business news (which is to say practically none) or stock market reports or on the invention of technical wonders such as mythical variable veeblefritzers. I am obsessed instead with the Catholic Faith and New York Yankees baseball and to some extent with increasingly rare tolerable entertainment such as old movies, Frank Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Dean Martin, 1950s doo-wop, Buddy Holly, the Beach Boys and ABBA, truly great gangster movies, David Lean films such as Dr. Zhivago, musicals like Chicago, the Wind and the Lion, The Agony and the Ecstasy, GWTW, Meg Ryan (a classic Fairfield, CT beach bunny). I hate the Beatles and most music after them. The Rolling Stones are reprehensible human beings but made good music. I believe in social normality. I also had a Jesuit prep school education soooo long ago that the Jebbies were still Catholic and furiously so. I also believe in the infinite variety, fascinating nature and miraculous hospitality of the exceptional young ladies of my own distant youth, aging, no doubt gracefully, wherever they may be today. And also, male and female, young and old, conservative and not, of any race or creed whose intellectual companionship has always made life worthwhile. My working class parents and relatives and their working class friends, nobly struggling and generally succeeding economically against the tide, stumbling from time to time and always coming back with determination. AND my Irish grandmother with an attitude from Cork by way of South Boston and a supporter of the sainted James Michael Curley in his wars against Fitzgeralds and Kennedys.
A non-negotiable fact is that the greatest exemplar of the automakers' craft was the incomparable Ford-powered 427 cubic inch, Dual Overhead Cam, Shelby Cobra (not Mustang Cobra). Add two wings and you could go airborne with ease. That car and its little brother with the 289 power plant sent Enzo Ferrari back to the drawing board and drove a lot of their victims out of racing.
Conservatism is a far richer and more complex tapestry than is supposed by many here. I have yet to meet a genuine "fiscal conservative." They are either liberal cheapskates or phonies. I know plenty of conservatives who are not class warriors against their own folks of modest means but partake fully in the rest of conservatism. Conservatives oppose taxation even for other people but it is not a life or death issue and they tend to shun obsessive materialism for its own sake.
Long though this post may be, I trust that I have answered your questions. If not, ask further.
OK, I guess you answered my questions. I don’t think we disagree really. I’ve pissed you off, and I apologize for that. Yes, ultimately I would say take the deal about the 250K’ers, but I’d rather see it raised to a million because of those sole proprietors I was talking about - they get killed by tax increases. And there was not much in your post I don’t agree with. BUT - I think if we were able to slash the tax rates across the board we would see economic activity, REAL economic activity start driving the economy forward. I got irritated under Bush that people would really dog him for the economy when it was actually pretty darned good. And now people that Bashed Bush for his economic policies refuse to hold this a-hole to the same standard. I don’t like that. Hell, things weren’t perfect under Bush, but they never will be until Jesus comes back. But where I take issue is taxing “the rich” more because “they can afford it.” If anything I think the tax ought to be pushed downward because everybody needs to have some skin in the game. And I think if you don’t PAY taxes you shouldn’t get to vote. Because voting essentially determines how MY money is going to be spent and if you aren’t kicking in anything, you need to go to the back of the bus.
Since last we exchanged opinions, things have escalated to a new level as it is discovered that the Federal Reserve secretly printed up more than three trillion dollars in totally unsecured funny money for Santa Dubya and Santa Obama to take around in the airborne presidential sleigh with eight tiny reindeer. $160 billion to General Electric and (presto!) GE becomes the fanatically dedicated "green" pushing corporation along with its subsidiaries NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, none of which saw fit to inform Joe Sap in the general American public as to how the dollar is being devastated by such schemes.
We have thus secretly bailed out the privileged of most NYC investment banks, European Central Banks, European Union, and a lot of other swell and fashionable folks. Their mansions lifestyle in the Hamptons (or on the French and Spanish Rivieras or the Isle of Capri will be saved for another season as the economy for ordinary folks is destroyed along with meaningful employment, American manufacturing activity, the REAL economy and REAL production, not the carefully preserved elitist paper-shuffling.
Why don't we start toward your goal of voter reduction more modestly? Anyone receiving a welfare check (not a taxed Social Security check) ought not be allowed to vote for two years after the last check is received. The government would then be elected by those who fund it. This is a moderate position since it does not give multiple votes to high income folks.
Also, this week's "food safety" bill needs to be defunded immediately in January even if we are going to be accused of trying to kill poor children by "protecting corrupt food producers." The enforcement agents for this monstrosity will be new employees of Homeland Security Department, not FDA, not Agriculture but the ever more empowered brown shirts of Homeland Security. Apparently it is a combination of Archer Daniels Midland and Monsanto (now largely owned by George Soros) who pushed this monstrosity which will put large numbers of small farmers out of business and massively raise the price of the food on the ordinary Americans' tables and also require lots of Monsanto products to be purchased by farmers who can not afford them and do not need them. Almost every one of my neighbors is working small farms but not for long if this nonsense survives.
Remember when Obamao said we needed a domestic security force as large, as well-funded, and as well armed as the US military, but not the military? Good jobs at good wages terrorizing Americans, jobs filled by leftist losers yearning to destroy your freedoms and mine. This is what he meant and is another down payment on his dream of quasi military suppression of the unruly American public. Food fascism? Homeland Security! Bring your genitals to the airport ready to be scanned, photoed and/or groped? Homeland Security! What's next? Gummint skewel curricula overseen by Homeland Security thugs?
The $3 trillion printing orgy of the Fed is more than four times what the "tax cut for the rich" is supposed to cost over the next decade. Rush and Sean and the other talk show hosts are obsesses with that one tax provision because it affects them. To Rush's credit, he took time away from the non-stop tax whining to note the Fed's shenanigans. I have no interest or desire to see a 4.5% hike in taxes on the income of people who are doing well in life but it is not the only issue out there that needs immediate attention, nor is it the most important.
Though I am sure you won’t learn from it I will try and demonstrate some reality.
1)Municipal bonds are NOT exempt from federal taxes only possibly state.
2)The economic boom of the 90s was begun by Reagan’s tax cuts. They created plenty of jobs just as Harding’s cuts did in the 20s and Kennedy’s in the 60s.
3) Bush’s cuts were somewhat undermined by the body blow the economy received because of 911 and the market collapse following. But they eventually took hold and created plenty of jobs. However, since these cuts were not permanent cuts but were designed to expire they also did not produce the maximum impact.
4) More than tax cuts are necessary and they were not forthcoming. More regulations were enacted not fewer and the Democrats would not allow the housing giveaways to be reined in even though McCain and other Republicans were calling for them.
5) Though I’m sure Leona Helmsley political economic pronouncements are sufficient for you they are false. HALF of the “Little People” pay NO federal income taxes. Bush’s tax cuts removed millions from the requirement to pay fed taxes. The majority of taxes are paid by a small percentage of the population and even more are paid when rates are low as federal revenues clearly showed after Reagan’s cuts.
6) American skilled labor manned the Yacht factories and they were severally impacted by the Class Warfare of the “yacht tax” which ended up only destroying the industry and its jobs rather than raising revenue. But those of you supporting such anti-Reagan taxes were happy just to see the RICH take it up the butt weren’t you? I’m sure the people who made their motors and supplied the materials to build a boat agree.
7) Bush’s tax cuts affected the sailors, soldiers, widows and orphans by REMOVING almost all of them from the tax rolls. You really should do some research before peddling the Leftist Class WArfare line among those who know better.
Killing by crooks is as old as the nation. And Burr’s murder of Hamilton was the worst example. As you noted Burr’s background was steeped in corruption and his low character was why Washington would have nothing to do with him. Of course, he loved the incorruptible genius, Hamilton and admired his courage and patriotism. And W knew character and knew H’s was sterling having had his services throughout almost the whole Revolutionary War.
It was H’s desire to thwart the plots of secession which led to his death. Burr’s role was to win the NY governorship and split the nation but did not count on H’s brilliance. Burr never would tell H what he was being challenged for so clearly he intended to kill him no matter what. But the Democrats had already plotted in the mid-nineties to challenge H to duels until one of them killed him. Word got out about the plot so it was dropped.
Had H been available to lead US armies (at time of his death he would have been the top general) the War of 1812 might never have happened. Since his military capabilities were well known by London. But his skills at diplomacy were removed by the RAT killer. We blundered into that war and were completely unready for it.
Skillful Jeffersonian propaganda defeated the Federalists most of which was based upon nothing but lies. H was opposed to the A and S Acts in any case but the rest of the federalists were convinced that there was treasonous actions among the democrats and they were right. Only Napoleon’s defeat in Haiti kept a French army off the N. American continent. H had been warning of French power for a decade while Jefferson was cozying up to the murderous Reign of Terror.
Hamilton and the Federalists laid the cornerstone for American greatness and was fought every step of the way by the Jeffersonian frauds. Then Jefferson made the deal with H to leave the system in place and the federalists (at H’s urging) allowed him to become president. Burr did not forget.
Jefferson was far more “comfortable” than H ever was. His comfort was assured by the labor of folks he enslaved.
Jackson was a great soldier but a lunatic in just about every other area and his destruction of the Second National Bank brought on a ten year depression (the greatest until the 30s) only relieved when gold was discovered in California which inflated the money supply. Lincoln’s problems financing the Civil War would have been made much easier had there been a central bank. And the period after the War was one of tremendous instability and monetary upheaval because of a lack of central banking. It produced political movements which were major factors in national elections especially in the West, the Populists and Greenbackers.
BTW the creation of the Federal Reserve System was pushed by the “little people” the Left always speaks of, the miners, farmers and settlers of the West, and was fought against for decades by the Money Center banks in the East because it reduced their economic power. Contrary to whackO theories it was not the idea of the Big Money Boys. It took about thirty years for them to sign on.
Hamilton’s tariff policies were not particularly protectionist except for defense industries but were revenue tariffs designed to fund the government. This required good relations between the US and Britain (from which our imports came) which allowed his enemies to spread the LIE that he was Pro British. A LIE which you continue to spread. The Left hated Hamilton in 1790 and still does. But it generally hates anyone who is a 100% patriot and who devoted his whole life to making the nation great and the Union strong.
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.