Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes

[Truth-Bringer]

Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes and ran the government solely from trade tariff revenue.

"1800 - With the assistance of his Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, newly elected Republican President Thomas Jefferson sought to reorient the fiscal policy of the United States. Jefferson’s four main goals included: (1) a reduction in government expenditures, (2) a balanced budget; (3) a decrease in the size of the national debt, and (4) alleviation of the tax burden. The latter two objectives seemed to conflict with one another; specifically, Jefferson's desire to abrogate Hamilton's funded debt plan and retire all government obligations as judiciously as possible required a steady stream of revenue.

Nevertheless, Jefferson abolished all internal taxes, including the whiskey excise tax and the land tax. Meanwhile, the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, though a diplomatic minefield for American statesmen, proved a significant stimulus to the economy of the United States. Vigorous commerce enriched merchants while customs duties swelled the federal Treasury. By 1808 the national debt had been reduced from $80 million to $57 million, even though the Louisiana purchase had added an $11 million liability. By 1806, duties proved so lucrative that Gallatin and Jefferson fretted about what to do with the surplus above that required for debt retirement. Treasury reserves increased from $3 million to $14 million between 1801 and 1808."

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1777-1815.htm

"Jefferson got repealed all the direct federal taxes passed by the Federalists and boasted that ordinary Americans would never see a federal tax collector in their whole lives."

http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm

"In his term, Jefferson wanted to limit the national government's power. He also wanted to cut the federal budget and lower taxes. Jefferson promised to pay off the national debt, which at that time was $83 million. He encouraged agriculture and trade. To help cut spending, he appointed Albert Gallatin as secretary of treasury. Gallatin worked in the House of Representatives and was a brilliant financer. He greatly cut military and naval spending. Gallatin also cut the staff of the executive branch. Together, he and Jefferson cut the national debt to $43 million. This allowed Jefferson to repeal exise taxes on whiskey and other products and ended all internal taxes."

http://home.earthlink.net/~mrstephen...ng%20page.html

"When Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1802, direct taxes were abolished and for the next 10 years there were no internal revenue taxes other than excises."

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fac...xes/ustax.html

(Note: the government's site is inaccurate on details. Jefferson was elected in 1800 and the excise taxes were repealed also.)

[USMC the Almighty]

Yeah, TJ and his embargoes were so successful...

[Truth-Bringer]

Yeah, TJ and his embargoes were so successful...

Since "Treasury reserves increased from $3 million to $14 million between 1801 and 1808" and the American people had the highest standard of living in the world, I'd say his policies were very successful.

Americans became the richest people in the world at that time precisely because they were not taxed and were paid in gold and silver.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world was pretty much mired in poverty:

"The Tzar did not share real power with these groups, and the poor classes were the most destitute and impoverished in Europe. In fact, up until the 1850's, the vast majority of Russia's millions of citizens were peasants -- and the majority of these peasants were still serfs! Russia was still based on repressive and grueling serf-based agriculture, while other countries in Europe were undergoing the industrial revolution! Poverty, illiteracy, suffering, and cruelty were the defining characteristics of Russian social and political life. With no protections under law, there was no way to voice discontent or work for change."

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/distance/hist/reform.htm

(Note the excuses at the end - Americans didn't have any legal protections for revolting against the British - but they did so to secure their freedoms. If you want more rights, you have to be willing to fight for them. The Russians apparently weren't...)

While the following site on the mining industry doesn't mention taxes (rather conveniently - since it seems liberal) the population figures it shows are revealing. All these people are choosing to immigrate to the United States instead of elsewhere which proves that "word on the street" was that Americans were doing well and if you wanted a chance at prosperity, you should move to America:

"In 1850, there were about two hundred Chinese people in America. When the Gold Rush occurred, the white workers in the West left their jobs to mine gold, drawing many Chinese to America. Their main goal of coming was to make enough money here to have a more comfortable life when they went back to China. By 1880, there were over 100,000 Chinese here."

(^ proving they made their money - which was tax free and which was more than they could make in China - and went back with an improved standard of living thanks to our free(er) market economy.)

The other population shifts occur, the link says, due to high food prices in Europe and various famines. But it fails to explain why they were suffering from agricultural problems. We'll see an example of why below by looking at Hungary.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J003298F/immigration.htm

Here's an interesting bit of history - and this really was the predominant experience for most other people in the world:

"In the early to mid-eighteenth century, Hungary had a primitive agricultural economy that employed 90 percent of the population. The nobles failed to use fertilizers, roads were poor and rivers blocked, and crude storage methods caused huge losses of grain.

(the rulers - i.e. government - were mismanaging things and had stifled the economy so that there was no incentive for anyone to perform these jobs...imagine that...)

Barter had replaced money transactions,

(The economy broke down due to government mismanagement...again, imagine that...)

and little trade existed between towns and the serfs. After 1760 a labor surplus developed. The serf population grew, pressure on the land increased, and the serfs' standard of living declined. Landowners began making greater demands on new tenants and began violating existing agreements. In response, Maria Theresa issued her Urbarium of 1767 to protect the serfs by restoring their freedom of movement and limiting the corvee. Despite her efforts

(government action failed to resolve what government action created in the first place...again, imagine that...)

and several periods of strong demand for grain, the situation worsened. Between 1767 and 1848, many serfs left their holdings. Most became landless farm workers because a lack of industrial development meant few opportunities for work in the towns.

(With the nobles and royals - i.e. government - managing the economy, there was no free industry - the market was stifled)

Joseph II (1780-90), a dynamic leader strongly influenced by the Enlightenment, shook Hungary from its malaise when he inherited the throne from his mother, Maria Theresa. Joseph sought to centralize control of the empire and to rule it by decree as an enlightened despot. He refused to take the Hungarian coronation oath to avoid being constrained by Hungary's constitution.

(Uh oh...I'm already nervous...sounds a little Bush or Clinton-like...)

In 1781 Joseph issued the Patent of Toleration, which granted Protestants and Orthodox Christians full civil rights and Jews freedom of worship.

(hmmmm... so there wasn't much personal freedom either in the absence of economic freedom...well imagine that...)

He decreed that German replace Latin as the empire's official language and granted the peasants the freedom to leave their holdings, to marry, and to place their children in trades.

(peasants - the common people had no property rights, no marriage rights, and no right to educate their children due to previous government action...it's a shame we can't get the tax rates on them...I'm sure it's high)

The "Kingdom of Hungary", "Kingdom of Croatia", and the "Grand Principality of Transylvania" became a single imperial territory under one administration, called "Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen". When the Hungarian nobles again refused to waive their exemption from taxation,

(so the other lesser rulers were exempt from taxation due to previous government action...talk about some hypocrites...they want to run everybody else's life but be exempt from their own rules)

Joseph banned imports of Hungarian manufactured goods into Austria and began a survey to prepare for imposition of a general land tax.

(and of course the guy loses to his own megalomania and blocks free trade and raises taxes...somehow I knew we wouldn't have a happy ending on this one...LOL)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_in_the_18th_and_19th_century

[USMC the Almighty]

You make a strong argument, but look at the direct effects of the Embargo Act. The results were disastrous as exports plunged from $108 million in 1807 to $22 million in 1808. Smuggling was rampant.

If the Emgargo Act was so successful, then why would Congress repeal it, and replace it with the intriguingly name Non-intercourse act, repeal that, and replace it with Macon's Bill (#2), and ultimately repeal that for good?

[RadicalActor]

I don't think embargoes are successful.

They hurt both the domestic and the world economy.

[Truth-Bringer]

I don't think embargoes are successful.

They hurt both the domestic and the world economy.

I'm not advocating an embargo. You guys are getting off topic.

[Truth-Bringer]

You make a strong argument, but look at the direct effects of the Embargo Act. The results were disastrous as exports plunged from $108 million in 1807 to $22 million in 1808. Smuggling was rampant.

Oh I think the Embargo Act would have never been enacted had Britain and France not been at war with each other. It was a mistake and was repealed at the end of Jefferson's term. It was made as a political, not an economic, decision.


If the Emgargo Act was so successful, then why would Congress repeal it, and replace it with the intriguingly name Non-intercourse act, repeal that, and replace it with Macon's Bill (#2), and ultimately repeal that for good?

Look, I don't advocate embargoes or high tariffs. I would support only a flat tariff. But what you are failing to acknowledge is the original intent of the Constitution on these matters and how the government was supposed to be funded. Here are the details:

"Thomas Jefferson, one of our most important founding fathers, confirmed the purpose of the separation of powers between state and federal governments. He confirmed that the purpose of the federal government was to regulate commerce and interaction with foreign countries and that it never had the authority or jurisdiction to invade within states, either through legislation or through police powers:

"The extent of our country was so great, and its former division into distinct States so established, that we thought it better to confederate [U.S. government] as to foreign affairs only. Every State retained its self-government in domestic matters, as better qualified to direct them to the good and satisfaction of their citizens, than a general government so distant from its remoter citizens and so little familiar with the local peculiarities of the different parts." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:483

"I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

"My general plan [for the federal government] would be, to make the States one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and several as to everything purely domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:227

"Distinct States, amalgamated into one as to their foreign concerns, but single and independent as to their internal administration, regularly organized with a legislature and governor resting on the choice of the people and enlightened by a free press, can never be so fascinated by the arts of one man as to submit voluntarily to his usurpation. Nor can they be constrained to it by any force he can possess. While that may paralyze the single State in which it happens to be encamped, [the] others, spread over a country of two thousand miles diameter, rise up on every side, ready organized for deliberation by a constitutional legislature and for action by their governor, constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811. ME 13:19

Note that Jefferson said that the federal government was given jurisdiction over foreign affairs only, which includes foreign commerce. The only exception to this general rule is subject matter within the states over the following:

1. Slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment.

2. Counterfeiting under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

3. Mail under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution.

4. Assaults and infractions against its own officers under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution.

5. Treason under Article 3, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

Every other type of subject matter jurisdiction exercised by the federal government within the states is not authorized by the Constitution, and therefore can only be undertaken with the voluntary consent and participation of the state governments and the people within them. This type of consensual jurisdiction is called “comity”.

Jefferson’s statements above are also fully consistent with our system of federal taxation. For instance, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution limits federal taxation powers to commerce with foreign nations and between, but not within, states. 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f) also reveals that the only specific sources of “gross income” that are taxable under Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code are those associated with Domestic International Sales Corporations (DISC) and Foreign Sales Corporations (FSCs), both of whom are involved in commerce with foreign countries only. Even the IRS' own publications in the Federal Register confirm that this was the original intent of the founders. Below is an excerpt from the Federal Register, Volume 37, page 20960 dated October 5, 1972:

"Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention [see Federalist Paper #45] reveal clearly that the framers of the Constitution believed for some time [and wrote this requirement into the Constitution] that the principal, if not sole, support of the new Federal Government would be derived from customs duties and taxes connected with shipping and importations. Internal taxation would not be resorted to except infrequently, and for special [emergency] reasons. The first resort to internal taxation, the enactment of internal revenue laws in 1791 and in the following 10 years, was occasioned by the exigencies of the public credit. These first laws were repealed in 1802. Internal revenue laws were reenacted for the period 1813-17, when the effects of the war of 1812 caused Congress to resort to internal taxation. From 1818 to 1861, however, the United States had no internal revenue laws and the Federal Government was supported by the revenue from import duties and the proceeds from the sale of public lands. In 1862 Congress once more levied internal revenue taxes. This time the establishment of an internal revenue system, not exclusively dependent upon the supplies of foreign commerce, was permanent."

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SeparationOfPowersDoctrine.htm

[vyo476]

Unfortunately, the only truly damaging portion of Jefferson's economic policies was the principal of "protection." Tariffs and duties cause the price of imported goods to rise, meaning that domestic goods would generally have lower prices in American markets - meaning that Americans would buy domestic good more often than foreign goods. This seems peachy until you examine what Americans needed and Americans could provide in 1800. Jefferson's original vision of America was of an agricultural society, and that was backed up by the overwhelmingly agricultural nature of most of its economics (the only other major economic subgroup being the merchants, and they were just as necessary to Jefferson's vision as the farmers). So, there were plenty of farmers in America and they were producing food just fine...so instead it was manufactured goods, like textiles, that Americans were in want of. Jefferson's tariffs and duties had the negative affect of bringing industry to America - the protection afforded by the tariff meant that new domestic industrial businesses had a fighting chance in American markets against established European manufacturers, which would otherwise have been able to out-price the upstart American manufacturers. In essence, Jefferson's repeal of all internal taxes killed his vision of American society and just gave aid to Hamilton's vision of a class-based industrial America. Personally I think we would have been better off accepting low federal taxes to Jefferson's limited federal government and an extremely limited and selective tariff to encourage some level of independence from foreign markets. If we have to choose between two evils, taxes vs. industrialism (which eventually lead to corporatism) than I would certainly pick taxes any day of the week. Except Friday.

[Truth-Bringer]

Unfortunately, the only truly damaging portion of Jefferson's economic policies was the principal of "protection." Tariffs and duties cause the price of imported goods to rise,

And we have both right now. The percentage of tariffs charged is based on the product/resource. They've been eliminated for some products/resources, but still exist for others. Hey, why aren't you writing your Congressman telling them to stop making the prices for your goods higher?

Tariffs, if moderate to low in level, are definitely superior to taxes because they don't tax any citizen directly or impede commerce within the United States.

But I'm all for eliminating both tariffs and taxes and experimenting with user fees as a source of government revenue ;-)

[zerorelations]

And we have both right now. The percentage of tariffs charged is based on the product/resource. They've been eliminated for some products/resources, but still exist for others. Hey, why aren't you writing your Congressman telling them to stop making the prices for your goods higher?

Tariffs, if moderate to low in level, are definitely superior to taxes because they don't tax any citizen directly or impede commerce within the United States.

But I'm all for eliminating both tariffs and taxes and experimenting with user fees as a source of government revenue ;-)

I wouldn't say that tariffs are superior to taxes. They have the same effect. Tariffs tax the citizens directly too since tariffs raise the price of the imported goods.

[palerider]

Do you have nothing better to do that flit around the internet cutting and pasting the same old drivel on board after board after board?

If you believe anything like what jefferson did would work today, you know even less about economic theory than I had given you credit for. Jefferson thought that this country would be better off as a farming nation than as an industrial nation. So much for his long term economic credibility. The man had some great ideas but his economomic theories were not among them.

[Truth-Bringer]

Do you have nothing better to do that flit around the internet cutting and pasting the same old drivel on board after board after board?

The truth needs to be spread. People certainly aren't going to learn about true history from the public fool system. Do you have nothing to do but follow me around? :D


If you believe anything like what jefferson did would work today, you know even less about economic theory than I had given you credit for. Jefferson thought that this country would be better off as a farming nation than as an industrial nation. So much for his long term economic credibility. The man had some great ideas but his economomic theories were not among them.

The U.S. existed and prospered just fine without internal taxation for a very long time. The experiment worked once, it's time to try it again.

[palerider]

The truth needs to be spread. People certainly aren't going to learn about true history from the public fool system. Do you have nothing to do but follow me around? :D

There is no truth that is applicable today to be found within Jefferson's mistake. Had he not convinced congress to repeal taxes and institute tarrifs, the US would have become a world power much earlier.

If you want to spread some truth, tell people that libertarians are whiney "mine mine mine" types who simply don't want to accept any personal responsibility.

The U.S. existed and prospered just fine without internal taxation for a very long time. The experiment worked once, it's time to try it again.

Actually, jeffersons policies were responsible for an economic setback. A shrinking of the economy does not constitute prosperity. The experiment failed back then when world trade was in its infancy, today it would be a disaster. Anyone with an ounce of economic savy could see this. I guess you really do know less about economics than I had given you credit for.

[Rokerijdude11]

Do you have nothing better to do that flit around the internet cutting and pasting the same old drivel on board after board after board?

If you believe anything like what jefferson did would work today, you know even less about economic theory than I had given you credit for. Jefferson thought that this country would be better off as a farming nation than as an industrial nation. So much for his long term economic credibility. The man had some great ideas but his economomic theories were not among them.

Man arent you the pillar of pleasentness so far every post ive read of yours you seem to think your so much more intelligent and better than the people responding.At least there are some in this country who accept whats happening and are trying to raise the awareness of others despite people like you



Um your assesment of what Libretarian's are is simply childish, and one dimensional,and frankly WRONG. Nothing like pigeonholing everybody into one demographic
problem being that is how we got racism ....


sorry bud Im a Libretarian and i do not exhibit any of the tendancies you have spewed from your pie hole..dont want to accept persoanal responsibility ......your rich pal ....and so far off the mark its incredulous


Do YOU have nothing better to do than Flit around the internet and spew trash out of your finger tips as i say every post of yours ive read degenerates to the same thing

been a pleasure reading your tripe it has amused me this morning

[palerider]

sorry bud Im a Libretarian and i do not exhibit any of the tendancies you have spewed from your pie hole..dont want to accept persoanal responsibility ......your rich pal ....and so far off the mark its incredulous

So far, in this one short post, you have exhibited them all.


Do YOU have nothing better to do than Flit around the internet and spew trash out of your finger tips as i say every post of yours ive read degenerates to the same thing

been a pleasure reading your tripe it has amused me this morning

Care to philosophically defend libertarianism from any charge that I have made? You either embrace the philosophy and the paradox within it, or you don't. If you don't then you prove my point about picking and choosing and further reinforce my assesment of libertarians.

[Rokerijdude11]

So far, in this one short post, you have exhibited them all.




Care to philosophically defend libertarianism from any charge that I have made? You either embrace the philosophy and the paradox within it, or you don't. If you don't then you prove my point about picking and choosing and further reinforce my assesment of libertarians.

your amusing pal

[vyo476]

Man arent you the pillar of pleasentness so far every post ive read of yours you seem to think your so much more intelligent and better than the people responding.At least there are some in this country who accept whats happening and are trying to raise the awareness of others despite people like you



Um your assesment of what Libretarian's are is simply childish, and one dimensional,and frankly WRONG. Nothing like pigeonholing everybody into one demographic
problem being that is how we got racism ....


sorry bud Im a Libretarian and i do not exhibit any of the tendancies you have spewed from your pie hole..dont want to accept persoanal responsibility ......your rich pal ....and so far off the mark its incredulous


Do YOU have nothing better to do than Flit around the internet and spew trash out of your finger tips as i say every post of yours ive read degenerates to the same thing

been a pleasure reading your tripe it has amused me this morning

Do you have anything useful to contribute...? Ah, you don't fit palerider's demographic generalization about Libertarians. Good for you. You've just joined an elite club that includes African Nazis and Christian communists.

I'm not sure what you're saying half the time. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to the ways in which palerider's assessment of Libertarianism are wrong. Perhaps you'd like to enter into debate with Truth-Bringer about some of the finer points of your philosophy which you, Rokerijdude, have yet to even touch on, casting into some doubt whether you are really a Libertarian or just an angry little man who likes to post in forums. Perhaps you don't feel that any of that is necessary and you'd like to continue with your vague, undefined statements that lack credibility and evidence (not to mention grammar).

Please. If you have something constructive to contribute, do so, and do so in a way that we can look at it as constructive. Truth has been more or less carrying the Libertarian flag alone here and if you could actually provide some backup, I'm sure it would be appreciated. As such, though, all you're doing is making the Libertarian argument look worse.

[Rokerijdude11]

Do you have anything useful to contribute...? Ah, you don't fit palerider's demographic generalization about Libertarians. Good for you. You've just joined an elite club that includes African Nazis and Christian communists.
so NOW i am a Nazi and a Communist? Superb debate tactics. way to troll for new members ,the team should be PROUD of your percieved accomplishment.

rich
I'm not sure what you're saying half the time. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us as to the ways in which palerider's assessment of Libertarianism are wrong. Perhaps you'd like to enter into debate with Truth-Bringer about some of the finer points of your philosophy which you, Rokerijdude, have yet to even touch on,

considering I only have 6 posts thats quite a mis-represented statement huh? are you the official backup batter on this one? sure has that feel to me .I have no need to Debate with truth bringer at all I know why shes here .it quite obvious to any thinking individuals.Im a Libreatarian ..does that mean i automatically fall in line with EVERY point in its philosophy? based on that are you a Dem or Pub? do you Blindly automatically fall in line with EVERYTHING your parties philosophy stands for? Honestly? I highly doubt it......


casting into some doubt whether you are really a Libertarian or just an angry little man who likes to post in forums. Perhaps you don't feel that any of that is necessary and you'd like to continue with your vague, undefined statements that lack credibility and evidence (not to mention grammar).


Casting some doubt? what do i really care if YOU of all people believe I am a Libretarian or not? I know what i have voted the last 4 elections.thats all that counts really.I have No need or desire to "prove" anything to you or anyone else....My statements lack credibility? hahahahaha your a funny child.ohhh i see we are again to deal with the "Grammar" police!!! thats always best to throw out when your at a loss for anything else.its the same at all internet sites isnt it? you demonstrate very well how it works..


if your looking for grammar perhaps you should be at a grammatically inclined webpage huh? whatever thats a compliment your just too shallow to see it .Thank You


Please. If you have something constructive to contribute, do so, and do so in a way that we can look at it as constructive. Truth has been more or less carrying the Libertarian flag alone here and if you could actually provide some backup, I'm sure it would be appreciated. As such, though, all you're doing is making the Libertarian argument look worse.
I didnt say anything about the Libretarian party or its principles..........I was commenting on the Rude childish manner in which pale rider was treating a Friend of mine.
And i told him that i felt he has a one dimensional Viewpoint of Liretarians he Has decided that we must all be robotic and accepting of the entire Libretarian philsophy
whic is simply a childish View of how it really works
Im 100% Behind T-B......you really just dont know

[vyo476]

I did not say you were a Nazi or a communist. The statement was meant to mean that you have a joined a demographic group that includes people who join groups that go against their interests, ie. Christians who become involved in communism (which is by definition atheistic). I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

When I suggested you enter into debate with Truth-Bringer I was suggesting that the two of you discuss how your views on Libertarianism are similar or different. I was in no way suggesting that you were a puppet of a stringent philosophy. I was merely thinking that two Libertarians discussing the tenets of your philosophy would enhance how those of us who do not follow it view it. You are correct that I do not blindly follow my party's policies. It would be rather tough to as I consider myself an independent.

If you don't care whether or not people can tell what you stand for, why are you here?

By the laws of the United States of America I have not been a child for more than a year now. As such, at nineteen, those of a more advanced age probably still consider me a child and I myself do consider myself to be a child in some regards. I am also a humorist. I like making people laugh. That said, I'm not sure how either of those two things pertains to your lack of evidential support for your statements.

I don't see how expecting people to at least attempt to use proper grammar in their posts is incorrect in any way. When I commented on your grammar I had already enumerated several of my points and it was really little more than a footnote, which calls into question why you thought I was "at a loss for anything else" to throw at you. Really, it just makes it easier to read your posts if you made an attempt at proper grammar and sentence structure and would mean that we would have an easier time discussing things with you. I'm going to guess, though, that this doesn't matter in the slightest to you, so we can forget it.

This thread is supposed to be about the repeal of taxes during the Jefferson administration. I suggest we all get back to that topic now.

[Rokerijdude11]

The Floor is open

[palerider]

Im a Libreatarian ..does that mean i automatically fall in line with EVERY point in its philosophy? based on that are you a Dem or Pub? do you Blindly automatically fall in line with EVERYTHING your parties philosophy stands for? Honestly? I highly doubt it......


Do you recognize the difference between a philosophy and a party line? Being a conservative, I hold to conservative principles. If I didn't, then I couldn't honestly call myself a conservative. Being conservative, doesn't mean being a republican, or following the republican party line.

The same can be said for liberals as well. Their philosophy is liberal and if they don't hold with the tenets of the liberal philosophy, they couldn't honestly call themselves liberals.

Libertarians on the other hand have made their philosophy and their political party one in the same. If you are a libertarian that picks and chooses the parts of your philosophy that you like and disregards those that you don't, then you personify one of the flaws commonly found within libertarian acolytes.

Making a political party of a philosophy is just one more example of the shortsightedness of libertarianism.

[Rokerijdude11]

in your opinion that is

well thanks for the opinion

[palerider]

in your opinion that is

well thanks for the opinion

You believe that it is only my opinion that there is a difference between a political philosophy and a political party line? Are you arguing that there is no difference?

Or are you just trying substitute a "cute" zinger for an intelligent rebuttal to my point?

[Truth-Bringer]

I wouldn't say that tariffs are superior to taxes. They have the same effect. Tariffs tax the citizens directly too since tariffs raise the price of the imported goods.

But what you're missing is that you're free NOT TO BUY THE HIGHER PRICED IMPORTED GOODS in favor and buying products made in the good ole U.S. of A.

[Truth-Bringer]

There is no truth that is applicable today to be found within Jefferson's mistake. Had he not convinced congress to repeal taxes and institute tarrifs, the US would have become a world power much earlier.

ROTFL. You like the de facto empire we have, don't you? You're definitely a Neocon sympathizer, if not an outright Neocon yourself. One should not crave "world power" - if you look back at history that has led to the ruin of many nations and empires. The de jure republic should be restored to the original intent of the Constitution with the new protections to outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude and extend civil rights to all races and genders.

If the income tax were repealed tomorrow and neutrality declared, we would instantly become the largest tax haven on the planet. We would be flooded with foreign investment.


Actually, jeffersons policies were responsible for an economic setback. A shrinking of the economy does not constitute prosperity.

ROTFL. You are one serious liar, aren't you? There was no economic setback, as has been already stated:

"By 1808 the national debt had been reduced from $80 million to $57 million, even though the Louisiana purchase had added an $11 million liability. By 1806, duties proved so lucrative that Gallatin and Jefferson fretted about what to do with the surplus above that required for debt retirement. Treasury reserves increased from $3 million to $14 million between 1801 and 1808."

http://www.tax.org/Museum/1777-1815.htm

[Truth-Bringer]

Care to philosophically defend libertarianism from any charge that I have made?

That's already been done:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=899

[Truth-Bringer]

Do you recognize the difference between a philosophy and a party line? Being a conservative, I hold to conservative principles. If I didn't, then I couldn't honestly call myself a conservative.

And yet you admit Bush is not a conservative, and you still voted to place him in power. So it looks like you will readily compromise your alleged "conservative principles" at will.

That's a negative character trait by the way.;)

What good are your principles if you knowingly empower people who won't uphold them?

[palerider]

And yet you admit Bush is not a conservative, and you still voted to place him in power. So it looks like you will readily compromise your alleged "conservative principles" at will.

Is this the best you can do? Are you saying that you never vote for anyone who isn't a libertarian? Do they have to identify themselves as libertarians for you in order for you to decide whether they are better or worse than the one they are running against? Or do you just sit out of any election in which you can't vote for a libertarian? Honestly, I do hope that is the case because it would mean that you don't get to vote very often.

That's a negative character trait by the way.;)

Insisting that a candidate agree with you on every issue before you support them is the negative character trait truth bringer. One who thinks that way is spoiled and immature, and selfish. It is a clear indication that you must have things exactly your way, or no way.


What good are your principles if you knowingly empower people who won't uphold them?

By supporting bush, I got a supreme court that has tipped back towards conservativism. Abortion is a big issue with me and I was willing to compromize in some areas in order to gain in others. That, my dear, is called maturity and someday you may grow into it. Or not.

[palerider]

That's already been done:

http://houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=899

That hardly constitutes a defense. If, in your mind, it does, however, it reveals much about how you think.

[Rokerijdude11]

You believe that it is only my opinion that there is a difference between a political philosophy and a political party line? Are you arguing that there is no difference?

Or are you just trying substitute a "cute" zinger for an intelligent rebuttal to my point?

thanks for your opinions

[Truth-Bringer]

Is this the best you can do?

LOL. Nice dodge. You really should just admit when you're cornered. It makes you look like an idiot when you try to argue with an unarguable point. But obviously, you must enjoy looking like an idiot, because you do it quite a lot... Again, you voted for Bush and you admit he's not a conservative - so you did compromise your principles.

Are you saying that you never vote for anyone who isn't a libertarian? Do they have to identify themselves as libertarians for you in order for you to decide whether they are better or worse than the one they are running against? Or do you just sit out of any election in which you can't vote for a libertarian? Honestly, I do hope that is the case because it would mean that you don't get to vote very often.

Another complete and total dodge. And, yes, I only vote for people who identify themselves as libertarians, but you'd be surprised how many there are, so no, I don't sit out any elections. If there is no libertarian on the ballot - I write the names in.



Insisting that a candidate agree with you on every issue before you support them is the negative character trait truth bringer. One who thinks that way is spoiled and immature, and selfish. It is a clear indication that you must have things exactly your way, or no way.

Again, a complete and total dodge of your own negative character trait. One cannot have complete agreement (unfortunately), but one should have at least 95% agreement with a candidate on the issues. One should at least be firmly politically aligned with the candidate and share the same general political philosophy - which of course, you've already admitted, you do not share this with Bush...



By supporting bush, I got a supreme court that has tipped back towards conservativism. Abortion is a big issue with me and I was willing to compromize in some areas in order to gain in others. That, my dear, is called maturity and someday you may grow into it. Or not.

Your alleged "maturity" is nothing of the sort. In your case it's stupidity. You HOPE you got a Supreme Court that's slightly more conservative, but there's no guarantee of that, as Souter showed Bush's pappy. Regardless, Bush's idiocy with the national debt, government spending, and the growth of government pretty much guarantees a Democrat comeback at some point. What if 3 more judges retire under a Democrat President? Then say bye bye to whatever alleged gains you claim you made, if it turns out you made any at all...

So Abortion is a big issue with you... Well, the Republicans had control of the White House and Congress for several years in a row AND...nothing changed...Abortion is still fully legal and still occuring. Do they want to stop it or not? Bush has done nothing to stop it - and he's had the power to do so. Here's a pretty damaging critique of Bush's real abortion stand from a conservative pastor:

BUSH BETRAYS PRO-LIFE CAUSE AGAIN, BACKS FEDERAL AID TO OVERSEAS ABORTION PROVIDERS

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin107.htm

IS THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT GULLIBLE, NAÏVE, OR WILLINGLY IGNORANT?

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin221.htm

"Some point to Bush being a "Pro-life" president. They're wrong there, too. Bush is a pro-abortion president if ever there was one. For those who still labor under the delusion that they're supporting a man who supports the unborn, dig this:

Bush said four years ago he would not outlaw abortion through a human life amendment. He could have but he didn't. Bush recently made it clear he would not use abortion as a litmus test for his judicial appointments. Why not? And since the G.O.P. controls both houses why can't the guy get his judges confirmed?

W. and his "pro-life" buddy Senator Rick Santorum threw pro-life Congressman Pat Toomey right under the bus when they both campaigned for the very pro-abortion Senator Arlen Spector. Let's see, "pro-life" Bush and Santorum backed a screaming pro-abort when they had the chance to help true-blue friend of the unborn, Patrick Toomey get elected"

From: http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett51.htm

Your problem, shetland pony rider, among other things..., is that you believe the hype as long as the person telling you what you want to hear is a Republican or self-described conservative. They can spoon feed you anything they want, and you'll sit by and lap it up like a good little doggy, regardless of reality. That's called DENIAL - and you've got a full blown case of it.

Now admit that you've attempted to defraud the good people of this forum, old man, and apologize to them for wasting their time.

[Truth-Bringer]

That hardly constitutes a defense. If, in your mind, it does, however, it reveals much about how you think.

What it constitutes is me completely dismantling you and your bogus "arguments," you delusional old coot.

[The Founders Intent]

"My general plan [for the federal government] would be, to make the States one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and several as to everything purely domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:227
This supports the concept that I believe Madison once used to describe the US govt as both national in some respects and federal in others.