# Rebublican use of the term "class warfare" **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 18, 2011, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727 "2011-09-18T18:12:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/141 "2011-09-23T16:44:23Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Thank you. > > So, on what Constitutional basis did Jefferson enact the Louisiana Purchase? He would never be inconsistent in his beliefs about enumerated powers, would he? Apparently, the Louisiana purchase fell under under the treaty-making clause of the Constitution. Which is FAR less of a stretch than any recent “interstate commerce” decision of the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/142 "2011-09-23T17:52:56Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Apparently, the Louisiana purchase fell under under the treaty-making clause of the Constitution. Which is FAR less of a stretch than any recent “interstate commerce” decision of the Supreme Court. Well, then this sounds like it might need some looking into. Does anyone know of any supreme court decisions upholding congresses ability to pass laws providing for the general welfare? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/143 "2011-09-23T18:00:31Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Does anyone know of any supreme court decisions upholding congresses ability to pass laws providing for the general welfare? How many legs does a dog have if the Supreme Court decided that the tail is a leg? ---
**Author:** ![Phatlewt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a698b9/32.png) [@Phatlewt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phatlewt)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/144 "2011-09-23T18:02:17Z")
Distilling a complex subject such as Constitutional interpretation down to a simple matter? Check. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/145 "2011-09-23T18:51:11Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > How many legs does a dog have if the Supreme Court decided that the tail is a leg? I’d still like to hear how they rationalized it if it’s opposed to what the constitution says. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/146 "2011-09-23T19:20:18Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin](http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s25.html) > > “Whereas, our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money.” > > Now that I did provide a cite, did that make a difference? No? I thought so. On further thought, he’s lamenting that the Constitution was interpreted in the way that it was interpreted. They same way we appear to be interpreting it now. Perhaps they should have been a little more clear when writing that section. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/147 "2011-09-23T20:31:46Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > There is already a progressive tax system, wherein income at different levels is taxed at different rates, no? So why NOW is is “class warfare”? > > Plus, the term “class” is typically used in social systems where it is difficult, if not impossible to change your class. Does this imply that the extremely wealthy are a distinct type of person - a type that you and I can never aspire to be? Right. We ALREADY have a progressive tax system. That’s the status quo. To make it MORE progressive pits class against class. With your second point, I would meet you in the middle and say that it is difficult, but not impossible to change classes. That being said, some poor schlub working for 9 bucks an hour sure can’t see that light at the end of the tunnel. For him, it’s rich v. poor and this tax plan promotes that. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/148 "2011-09-23T20:35:10Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Thank you. > > So, on what Constitutional basis did Jefferson enact the Louisiana Purchase? He would never be inconsistent in his beliefs about enumerated powers, would he? I’ve never understood why Jefferson gets the historical ballbuster for the Louisiana Purchase. Sure, acquiring new territory isn’t mentioned in the constitution. So is that power reserved to the states or the people under the 10th? No. States can’t enter treaties with foreign nations. The people? How would they do that? Possibly through their elected representatives in Congress? To his credit, Jefferson did talk about an amendment to give him that power, but his advisers worried that the opportunity might pass in the interim. I don’t see the equivalency between doubling the size of the country for pennies in a one time transaction versus enacting vast social programs that continue forever. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/149 "2011-09-23T20:38:06Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > To his credit, Jefferson did talk about an amendment to give him that power, but his advisers worried that the opportunity might pass in the interim. > > I don’t see the equivalency between doubling the size of the country for pennies in a one time transaction versus enacting vast social programs that continue forever. I never argued any equivalency; I argued that Jefferson was very flexible in interpreting enumerated powers when it suited him. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/150 "2011-09-23T21:05:03Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I never argued any equivalency; I argued that Jefferson was very flexible in interpreting enumerated powers when it suited him. Disagree. That implies that Jefferson was looking at the text of the Constitution, twisting and turning it for his own political devices and pet programs. In one circumstance, Jefferson went ahead with something obvious to everyone that was in our best interests, but still did so with apprehension that he could be violating the constitution. So, he made a judgment call to proceed with reservations. In other words, he wasn’t “flexible” because it “suited him.” He reluctantly did it because it was obviously the best course for everyone, and it was still questionable that it was a violation. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/151 "2011-09-23T21:08:07Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > In other words, he wasn’t “flexible” because it “suited him.” He reluctantly did it because it was obviously the best course for everyone, and it was still questionable that it was a violation. Would a President be justified in making a judgement about legislation on that same basis today? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/152 "2011-09-23T21:17:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Right. We ALREADY have a progressive tax system. That’s the status quo. To make it MORE progressive pits class against class. By that argument, making it less progressive would also do so, would it not? So, were Bush’s tax cuts “class warfare”? If they were, then shouldn’t we end that warfare as soon as possible? ---
**Author:** ![otternell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecc23a/32.png) [@otternell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/otternell)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/153 "2011-09-23T21:18:29Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Would a President be justified in making a judgement about legislation on that same basis today? (I just gotta chime in) other presidents yes, clearly not THIS current president. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/154 "2011-09-23T21:25:00Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Right. We ALREADY have a progressive tax system. That’s the status quo. To make it MORE progressive pits class against class. So ANY time there is a change to tax rates, a class war has de facto broken out? The US is pretty much continually at war with itself then, as the amount of $$ it takes to put you in a particular tax bracket changes every single year. Also, as **Chronos** has pointed out, Bush’s tax cuts must have been by definition “class war” as well. If any adjustment to the tax code leads to the term “class warfare”, then Paul Ryan’s statement does not have any meaning at all, other than to stir things up for political gain. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/155 "2011-09-23T21:25:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > By that argument, making it less progressive would also do so, would it not? So, were Bush’s tax cuts “class warfare”? If they were, then shouldn’t we end that warfare as soon as possible? You could argue that it would be bringing the classes closer together, thereby brokering a truce in the “warfare.” Unless you are arguing that the poor would be pitted against the rich in a “they are still paying much, much higher, but just not as high as they used to” battle. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Would a President be justified in making a judgement about legislation on that same basis today? It depends on the situation, how questionable the violation might be, and the agreement of others. Remember, Jefferson needed 2/3s of the Senate to ratify the Louisiana Purchase. Whatever trap I might be walking into (:)) if Obama can get 67 Senators, then my answer is “yes”. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/156 "2011-09-23T21:59:24Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > So ANY time there is a change to tax rates, a class war has de facto broken out? No. When there is a change in tax rates, there should be a change in tax rateS. Note the S. Every bracket needs to be changed. When you do so, it is “class-neutral”. When you specifically raise only a particular bracket, thus targeting ONLY one “class” - that’s “class warfare”. Pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/157 "2011-09-23T23:17:34Z")
> [@](#): > > You could argue that it would be bringing the classes closer together, thereby brokering a truce in the “warfare.” No, bringing the classes closer together is exactly what Obama’s proposing, that started this whole tempest in a teapot. Bush’s changes were driving the classes further apart. > [@](#): > > No. When there is a change in tax rates, there should be a change in tax rateS. Note the S. Every bracket needs to be changed. OK, let’s raise the taxes on the rich _and_ lower them on everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/158 "2011-09-24T00:42:12Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No. When there is a change in tax rates, there should be a change in tax rateS. Note the S. Every bracket needs to be changed. When you do so, it is “class-neutral”. When you specifically raise only a particular bracket, thus targeting ONLY one “class” - that’s “class warfare”. Pure and simple. So then the lower tax rate for capital gains (which clearly favors the weathy class as the poor do not have assets that gain in value) is an example of “class warfare” against the poor then, yes? Are you currently agitating to have capital gains taxed at the same rate as salary income? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/159 "2011-09-24T00:48:34Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > So then the lower tax rate for capital gains (which clearly favors the weathy class as the poor do not have assets that gain in value) is an example of “class warfare” against the poor then, yes? Are you currently agitating to have capital gains taxed at the same rate as salary income? Capital gains rate for the “poor” is already 0. Cannot be lowered. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2011, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727/160 "2011-09-24T01:23:11Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Capital gains rate for the “poor” is already 0. Cannot be lowered. 😃 “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to pay income tax on capital gains.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rebublican-use-of-the-term-class-warfare/596727.md?page=9)