Comment: I'll give a try at being specific, as I 50/50% agree/disagree

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Be Specific (see in situ)

Cyril's picture

I'll give a try at being specific, as I 50/50% agree/disagree

I'll give a try at being specific, as I 50%/50% agree/disagree with baxter re: the usefulness of Russo's film.

I've done some homework if only for myself, interested in the possible actual value or flaws of the film.

I agree Russo may have hastily rephrased or copied from unverified sources quotes only attributed to Wilson, while it is unclear whether any actual records of these exist.

The WP page points this out, there:

That's where I agree. Quoting dead or alive personalities' words should be done as faithfully as is possible (ideally: verbatim and with the existence of a publicly accessible record) while some slight adjustments to today's grammar use are probably always acceptable if no more and no less of the original idea and opinion remains conveyed.

So, that's where I find baxter's concern absolutely valid. Otherwise, a firm proponent of the income can always get back at you (us) pointing out to you (us) that you (we)'re not even capable of finding reliable sources about one of the main actors by that time (Pres. Wilson) -- on the excuse of too much approximate quotations.


Where I disagree is even though Russo may have given a little bit too much in the emphasis, IN THE FORM and in some quotations, the core facts remain the same, very debatable and subject to legitimate concerns, per the same undisputed WP source, for that instance, anyway:

1. Taft was the first to propose a 2% income tax on corporations, and it was in 1909 :

Income Tax opponents can legitimately ask: is there any valid rationale to explain the factually enormous drift of both the scope of the income tax (target tax payers pool in the active population, from 1909/1913 until now) and of the magnitude of tax ... we are at way more than just 2%, and it's supposedly peace times (unlike "the withholding tax on wages introduced in 1943 and [...] instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945" possibly temporarily justifiable during WAR times, only : )

2. About the installment of the Federal Reserve, one can legitimately wonder about the coincidental tightness of the vote with the period chosen and participation :
Dec. 23, 1913 - Senate agreed to conference report on H.R. 7837 (v. 51 Cong. Rec. 1487-88) by 43 yeas to 25 nays and 27 not voting but with 13 announced pairs
Dec. 23, 1913 - President signs H.R. 7837, Pub. L. No. 63-43.
Apr. 10, 1914 - report of the Federal Reserve Bank Organization Committee

Which is consistent with what is reported in Russo's film.

As well as, finally:

3. it is still today acknowledged and undisputed that the preparatory revision of the Federal Reserve Act had been crafted by Aldrich et al. ("representatives of the nations top finance and industrial groups") on Jekyll Island, during a meeting that had been kept secret:

One can genuinely ask: why would the authors of the preparatory revision of a supposedly benefacting act (to protect the nation from other financial or monetary crisis to occur) NOT be proud or very glad and willing to advertise some more their contribution (even if only in a quick outline), fairly PRIOR to vote and the enactment of the text before Congress/Senate, instead of keeping it secret and VERY close to what the agenda deadline eventually turned out to be?

My personal opinion, is beyond one's will to be very nitpicking, Russo's film is still a fairly good tool to at least attract the public opinion's attention on too many coincidences that make both the income tax' installment and evolution AND the Federal Reserve... VERY suspect wrt their actual designers' intent.

'Hope this helps

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius