55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2008 10:15 pm
It'd be really interesting to see the list.

Quote:


Day of Reckoning? Super Rich Tax Cheats Outed by Bank Clerk
Technician in Liechtenstein Turns Over Names of Americans With Secret Bank Accounts

By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
July 15, 2008

Hundreds of super-rich American tax cheats have, in effect, turned themselves in to the IRS after a bank computer technician in the tiny European country of Liechtenstein came forward with the names of US citizens who had set up secret accounts there, according to Washington lawyers investigating the scheme.

The bank clerk, Heinrich Kieber, has been branded a thief by the government of Liechtenstein for violating the country's bank secrecy laws.

He is now in hiding but scheduled to testify to the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Thursday via a video statement from a secret location, according to Congressional investigators.

Aides for committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) are scheduled to provide reporters with a background briefing later this morning in Washington on the committee's investigation of tax haven banks in Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5378080&page=1

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:14 am
Quote:


Day of Reckoning? Super Rich Tax Cheats Outed by Bank Clerk
Technician in Liechtenstein Turns Over Names of Americans With Secret Bank Accounts

By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
July 15, 2008

Hundreds of super-rich American tax cheats have, in effect, turned themselves in to the IRS after a bank computer technician in the tiny European country of Liechtenstein came forward with the names of US citizens who had set up secret accounts there, according to Washington lawyers investigating the scheme.

The bank clerk, Heinrich Kieber, has been branded a thief by the government of Liechtenstein for violating the country's bank secrecy laws.

He is now in hiding but scheduled to testify to the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Thursday via a video statement from a secret location, according to Congressional investigators.

Aides for committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) are scheduled to provide reporters with a background briefing later this morning in Washington on the committee's investigation of tax haven banks in Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5378080&page=1



There's also that interesting little law that requires a person to declare any amount over, what is it, 10 grand or so, that one moves in or out of the country. Failure to do so results in forfeiture, along with criminal penalties.

Forfeiture of all funds, penalties and interest for tax evasion, jail time for said criminal actions, whoa, there must be a lot of people shittin' their pants right about now.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:22 am
The current USA income tax laws are illegal because they tax different dollars of income of different persons differently.
Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I. Section 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:26 am
ican711nm wrote:
The current USA income tax laws are illegal because they tax different dollars of income of different persons differently.
Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I. Section 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Yeah, I'm sure that that's gonna be the number one defense mounted by each and every one of their lawyers. Laughing

Just 'cause you can read doesn't mean that you understand, Ican.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 11:44 am
JTT wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
The current USA income tax laws are illegal because they tax different dollars of income of different persons differently.
Quote:
The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I. Section 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Yeah, I'm sure that that's gonna be the number one defense mounted by each and every one of their lawyers. Laughing

Just 'cause you can read doesn't mean that you understand, Ican.

Just 'cause you can post doesn't mean that you understand, JTT.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 05:54 pm
conservatism defined.


0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 06:36 pm

It should be obvious to the most anti-Bush people that Bush is not a classical conservative: that is, a person who advocates and works to restore and preserve our constitutional republic as specified in our USA Constitution as amended.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 06:45 pm
conservatism = lies, bald-faced lies, lies of all manner and stripe, lies spoken with such audacity that it only makes it clear how natural lying is to these scum.

Quote:


After Pointing Out Domenici Lied Twice During Interview, Fox Invites Him Back To Keep ?'Telling The Truth'

Yesterday, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) appeared on the Fox Business Network to discuss President Bush's announcement that he would lift the executive order banning offshore oil drilling ?- which Domenici hailed as "wonderful news." After explaining to Fox host Elizabeth MacDonald why he had called Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) a "chicken" ?- "That's the best word I could come up with" ?- Domenici launched into a passionate exhortation to expand offshore drilling.

Domenici's rationale for drilling was so error-filled, however, that MacDonald was forced to repeatedly correct him, starting with the oft-cited issue of hurricane-caused oil spills:

MACDONALD: We saw with Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, a lot of oil spills occurred on those oil platforms -

DOMENICI: Not so! Not so! Don't em give you that baloney. There were none!

MACDONALD: No, there were 124.

Next, Domenici cited conservatives' favorite boogeyman, Chinese drilling off of Cuba:

MACDONALD: And you know what I think is upsetting a lot of Americans too is the idea that China owns leases off of Cuba. It's not just China, it's Vietnam, it's Spain. But even though they're not drilling yet -

DOMENICI: Sure they are!

MACDONALD: They haven't started drilling yet.

Yet Domenici's errors didn't dissuade the Fox anchor, who invited the senator back to the network to keep "about telling the truth":

DOMENICI: We ought to go through because they're not telling the truth, there's no risk, it ought to be done.

MACDONALD: We're about telling the truth on this network, and that's why we want you to come back.

http://thinkprogress.org/

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 06:50 pm
What else, more lies from a repuglican.

Quote:


Boehner falsely claims there's no ?'wildlife' in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In a press conference today previewing a House Republican trip to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that's meant to promote drilling, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) doubted the existence of actual wildlife in the refuge. "We're going to look at this barren, Arctic desert where I'm hoping to see some wildlife," said Boehner. "But I understand there's none there." Boehner repeated his skepticism during an interview on CNN, telling Wolf Blitzer, "I'll be looking for all that wildlife." Ironically, CNN paired Boehner's interview with b-roll of actual wildlife moving around the refuge.

Boehner would likely be less skeptical if he just visited the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's website for the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which notes that it is "renowned for its wildlife" and is inhabited by 45 species of land and marine mammals, 36 species of fish and 180 species of birds.

http://thinkprogress.org/

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 07:11 pm
We have drilled in Texas, Alaska and in many other places where wildlife not only survived but multiplied and flourishes to this day.

By the way, JTT, your bigotry against all conservatives and all Republicans is showing.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:18 pm
Just a suggestion, ican, JTT is beyond hope, so some of us have given up on even trying to reason with him. It is hopeless.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:40 pm
Okie is right Ican. I've ordered a new case of troll spray.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jul, 2008 10:51 pm
ican711nm wrote:
We have drilled in Texas, Alaska and in many other places where wildlife not only survived but multiplied and flourishes to this day.


I think I posted this someplace--maybe on the global warming thread--but many years ago we lived in the Texas Panhandle. Oil and natural gas exploration was just getting started in that area then, but there were a number of flyash and carbon black plants, both heavily polluting the air, land, and water. Once the oil companies came in and starting serious drilling and built or enlarged a refinery and began following local, state, and federal requirements to meet environmental concerns, it was technology developed by the oil companies that put scrubbers on the refineries and other carbon processing industries, learned how to capture escaping fumes so the area no longer smelled terrible, and now there is no evidence of polution from the heavy oil, gas, and other industries anywhere in the area from the Oklahoma line to Amarillo. It has been a beautiful thing to watch.

The most interesting thing though is that when we lived there decades ago, there was minimal and widely spaced industry and virtually no wild life. Maybe a jackrabbit or cottontail or a coyote once in a great while but you could go days or weeks without seeing any kind of wildlife except for a few birds and a tarantula now and then.

Now the whole area is heavily industrialized and teeming with oil and gas wells and much other industry. It is also teeming with deer, a few antelope, grouse, pheasant, qual, and quite an assortment of other critters. The deer have come in so thick that we don't drive certain roads after dark if we can help it for fear of hitting one.

A beautiful clean environment, wildlife, humans, and oil and gas production can thrive quite compatibly all in a relatively small area and certainly within large spacious ones.

I think in all things, practical common sense should override kneejerk emotionalism just about every single time.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 12:01 am
You don't have to reply to JTT if you don't like, but the content he is bringing into the dialog is not of his creation. You can still address it.

Feel free to ignore the bush one. It was comical, but altogether unrelated to a discussion on conservatives. You're right, he's not a conservative, he's just who they voted for.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 07:29 am
ican711nm wrote:
The current USA income tax laws are illegal because they tax different dollars of income of different persons differently.



"uniform" does not mean the same percentage of tax for everyone or everything no matter what.



The federal tax rate is considered uniform because it applies the same to everyone no matter where they live in the US. The taxes are based on amount of money earned. People that have the same taxable income pay the exact same Federal income tax.

I am curious where you got your idea of what "uniform" should mean, ican. It certainly wasn't from a source with any knowledge of the constitution.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 09:02 am
Well, ican's definition is one way to define it, one context, but we have gotten so far away from uniform, or flat, that no judge or even citizen would hardly define it that way, probably. But how do you pretend to know exactly how the meaning was meant to be defined, Parados? Are you a constitutional expert? A lawyer can make it mean most anything, can't he?

Our current sales tax laws are uniform, but if they decided to place a gradational tax on sales amounts, would that be uniform?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 11:34 am
The USA Constitution has conferred on Congress the right and requirement to establish uniform systems of taxation.

Quote:
USA Constitution Article I. Section 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: 1 uni·form Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: yünfrm
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): sometimes -er/-est
Etymology: Middle French uniforme, from Latin uniformis, from uni- + -formis -form
1 : marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations <the> <Great>
2 : marked by complete conformity to a rule or pattern or by similarity in salient detail or practice : CONSONANT, ALIKE <how>
3 : marked by unvaried and changeless appearance (as of surface, color, or pattern) <so>
4 : consistent in conduct, character, or effect : lacking in variation, deviation, or unequal or dissimilar operation ... the constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization -- R.B.Taney
synonym see LIKE, STEADY


Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=impost&x=25&y=7
Main Entry: 1im·post Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: impst
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin impositum, from neuter of Latin impositus, past participle of imponere to put upon, impose -- more at IMPOSE
1 : something imposed or levied : TAX, TRIBUTE, DUTY
2 : the weight carried by a horse in a handicap race
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 11:45 am
Our system of taxation IS uniform; everyone falls under the same laws. As people's income changes over time, they are subject to different areas of the same laws.

Not a hard concept to understand, Ican.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 12:15 pm
Sure, sure, cyclops, that is the traditional interpretation, but incomes are not uniformly taxed. Lower incomes are taxed at much lower rates than higher incomes. Ican has a legitimate question here, but as I said, tradition has gotten us so far from the original language of the constitution, but you know what, the language is still there. Explain it away, but I am not so naive as to believe all of our laws, particularly tax laws are in adherence to the constitution. Lawyers have made it mean what they conveniently want it to mean, not perhaps what it really means.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 12:18 pm
okie wrote:
Sure, sure, cyclops, that is the traditional interpretation, but incomes are not uniformly taxed. Lower incomes are taxed at much lower rates than higher incomes. Ican has a legitimate question here, but as I said, tradition has gotten us so far from the original language of the constitution, but the you know what, the language is still there. Explain it away, but I am not so naive as to believe all of our laws, particularly tax laws are in adherence to the constitution. Lawyers have made it mean what they conveniently want it to mean, not perhaps what it really means.


The Constitution never said that every person has to be taxed uniformly; only that taxation laws apply uniformly.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that they were referring to the States with that line, not each and every person in the country.

'Uniformly taxes' doesn't mean that the same rates apply to everyone; it means that the same rules apply to everyone, and they do. Anyone in America who earns money about a certain line is taxed the same way; we don't discriminate.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 03/01/2026 at 02:19:24