Historically Accurate
By Mitch Berg
Last week, I noted that some scolds on the left were tut-tutting about the “historical accuracy” of calling tax protests “Tea Parties”.
Being me, the English major, I noted that “language changes”.
Mark Steyn being Mark Steyn, he noted that they’re wrong; it is perfectly historically accurate (emphasis added):
OK, to be less absolutist about it, my interests include finding a road at the end of my drive every morning, and modern equipment for the (volunteer) fire department and a functioning military to deter the many predators out there, and maybe one or two other things. But 95 percent of the rest is not just “special interests” but social engineering – a $400 tax credit for falling into line with Barack Obama and Susan Roesgen. That’s why these are Tea Parties – because the heart of the matter is the same question posed two-and-a-third centuries ago: Are Americans subjects or citizens? If the latter, then a benign sovereign should not be determining “your interests” and then announcing that he’s giving you a “tax credit” as your pocket money.
He who forgets history probably votes Democrat anyway.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Terry:
“There was no income tax when the federalist papers were written.”
So what. Congress had other powers of taxation. Raising those taxes, it could generate any level of taxation it wanted.j
“The Federal Government they gave birth to had no power to tax citizens directly”
Terry say hello to Art 1 Section 9 “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” The U.S. Govt can directly tax via a capitation tax, a tax on real property, and a tax on personal property. It could even levy an income tax before the 16th Amendment if it could figure a way to make it proportional.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:04 pm
This is the real thing, folks. Regardless of centuries of constitutional scholorship, regardless of the in depth of commentary on the Constitution by the Founders, laid out clearly in the Federalist papers, RickDFL thinks the Constitution says that a majority in the House and sixty votes in the senate allows you to steal the wages and property of everyone in the country
Do you agree with this statement or not, RickDFL?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Terry:
“Do you agree with this statement or not, RickDFL?”
“Regardless of centuries of constitutional scholorship” I don’t think there is any saying there is an upper limit on the tax power. You have not cited a single example.
“regardless of the in depth of commentary on the Constitution by the Founders, laid out clearly in the Federalist papers,” Ditto
“a majority in the House and sixty votes in the senate” See above. It a majority and the Pres or 2/3rd
“to steal the wages and property of everyone in the country” It is not stealing if it is done legally and Congress does have the power.
Terry this is really pathetic even for you. Your just repeating your assertions. Point to some evidence for your position.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 am
Careful, Rick. Terry might just retaliate by calling you a fascist again.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:01 am
What is my position, RickDFL?
Look very closely at what I have written.
You have this very annoying habit of assuming I have taken a positions that I have not.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 am
RickDFL said:
“It could even levy an income tax before the 16th Amendment if it could figure a way to make it proportional.”
Don’t you mean “progressive” and not “proportional”? Or are you not into creating “morality” at the moment.
RickDFL seems to be pro-fascism, angryclown, but I see no reason for Terry to repeat himself. *shrug*
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 am
Terry:
Maybe you should state your opinion, clearly. Do you think there is any Constitutional limit on the amount of tax revenues Congress can raise?
Troy: There is no Constitutional requirement that taxes be progressive. Prior to the 16th Amen, there was a requirement that direct taxes be levied “in proportion to the census” i.e. falling on states in proportion to their population. Try to keep up.
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 am
RickDFL:
My point was a tangent, like most of yours.
Am I surprised you missed that? No.
Is “keeping up” with you like standing in place, waiting for you to show up. Yes.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
DickheadDFL doesn’t understand the constitution.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Liberal Fascists want to abolish the constitution. Thanks for letting us know your position, DickheadDFL.
“A republic, if you can keep it.” – Ben Franklin
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm
K-Rod:
And one of those powers granted to the United States by the Constitution is the power to tax in certain ways and raise an unlimited amount of revenue. (You’ll notice even Terry has given up on trying to deny that.) Saying otherwise is an attempt to abolish the Constitution.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Please let us know where in the Constitution is spells out specifically the right for the federal government to redistribute wealth.
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
K-Rod:
The Constitution gives Congress the power to raise any amount of money and to spend it on just about anything. Ergo it has the power to redistribute wealth. Art 1 Sec. 8 “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:12 pm
No, RatioRick. Once again your ability to comprehend is raising its ugly head. Nowhere in what you just quoted does it say that Congress can do anything BUT “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” United States is NOT people or persons. Ergo, you are full of crap – again!
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
“United States is NOT people or persons.”
I don’t see your point. Are you saying the Federal government can not make payments to individuals?
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:55 am
I don’t see your point. Are you saying the Federal government can not make payments to individuals?
What payments? Who’s talking about payments? I called you out for not being able to comprehend simple english, and you come back with a non-suquitur. You prove yet again you have zero comprehension skills.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
“If found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” – DickheadDFL
April 27th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Ergo it has the power to redistribute wealth.
It has the “power” also to line up random citizens and shoot them like dogs. It doesn’t have the ethical or moral imperative to do so.
I has the power to levy taxes. “Redistributing wealth” is a policy – and history shows it’s a broadly stupid one.
Feel free to revel in government’s “right” to be stupid and immoral. We’ll remember.