55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 12:43 pm
Now this is funny.
The dems constantly claimed that the Bush stimulus plan was a waste of money, a failure, and wouldnt amout to anything, but guess what.

They want to do it again!!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5P_x5HfhQA0&refer=worldwide

Quote:
July 15 (Bloomberg) -- Congressional Democrats are considering a second round of rebates to taxpayers, saying the benefits of the first checks sent to more than 100 million households this year are being eroded by rising energy prices.

``We will be proceeding with another stimulus package, and we once again hope we will work in a bipartisan way,'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after House Democratic leaders met with a group of economists to discuss the spreading housing crisis and rising gas prices
.

So even though the dems say the plan was a failure, they want to do it again.
That sure fits the definition of insanity.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 12:46 pm
I don't mean to argue pointlessly, cyclops, the interpretation you put forward here is the practice, and that is the way it has been interpreted, but we do not tax people the same. Rich people and people with higher incomes are taxed differently than poorer people and people with lower incomes. To suggest that the constitution was simply saying we cannot tax somebody named Smith differently than somebody named Jones, is I think an oversimplification, and possibly where the interpretation has gone awry long ago.

Again, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I would love to have heard what the original writers of the constitution would have to say about our tax laws if they would now wake up from a deep sleep and be reincarnated into the present day situation. I doubt they would say, oh yeah, all of your practices are exactly what we intended. I doubt that very very seriously. I would bet they would look at a bunch of this, and say how in the world did you screw this up and twist the original intent into your convoluted ways of doing things? In fact, they might just suggest another tea party.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 12:49 pm
okie wrote:
I don't mean to argue pointlessly, cyclops, the interpretation you put forward here is the practice, and that is the way it has been interpreted, but we do not tax people the same. Rich people and people with higher incomes are taxed differently than poorer people and people with lower incomes. To suggest that the constitution was simply saying we cannot tax somebody named Smith differently than somebody named Jones, is I think an oversimplification, and possibly where the interpretation has gone awry long ago.

Again, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I would love to have heard what the original writers of the constitution would have to say about our tax laws if they would now wake up from a deep sleep and be reincarnated into the present day situation. I doubt they would say, oh yeah, all of your practices are exactly what we intended. I doubt that very very seriously. I would bet they would look at a bunch of this, and say how in the world did you screw this up and twist the original intent into your convoluted ways of doing things?


You misunderstand me (and them); the States must levy federal taxes uniformly amongst themselves, that is to say, the Federal tax rate is the same in RI as it is in VA.

Rich people are not taxed 'differently' then poor people; they pay proportional taxes as to their income, just as the poor people do.

Look, we're never going to agree on this, and simultaneously, the tax system in America isn't going to change to anything else. So I think we should move on to a different topic.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 12:55 pm
You are probably correct in the interpretation, cyclops, and I don't care to argue the point anymore either, but I do think ican has a legitimate question to ask if the framers were right here to ask. My central point is that the government has a screwed up tax system, and it needs to be revised. Taxes have so many loopholes and graduations to them, that unformity cannot be claimed in all aspects of the system, that is for sure. It may be uniformly applied, but the taxes themselves are not uniform.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 01:02 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Now this is funny.
The dems constantly claimed that the Bush stimulus plan was a waste of money, a failure, and wouldnt amout to anything, but guess what.

They want to do it again!!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5P_x5HfhQA0&refer=worldwide

Quote:
July 15 (Bloomberg) -- Congressional Democrats are considering a second round of rebates to taxpayers, saying the benefits of the first checks sent to more than 100 million households this year are being eroded by rising energy prices.

``We will be proceeding with another stimulus package, and we once again hope we will work in a bipartisan way,'' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after House Democratic leaders met with a group of economists to discuss the spreading housing crisis and rising gas prices
.

So even though the dems say the plan was a failure, they want to do it again.
That sure fits the definition of insanity.


I think it is safe to say that the Conservative point of view is that if the government has all that money to return to the taxpayers, they took too much money to begin with.

(Not ignoring your point about the original incentive checks being widely disparaged on line here. However, the Democrats in Congress really didn't put a damper on that in the first round and of course are now trying to repair their single digit approval rating by magnanimously (for the first time) taking the lead in giving the people back more of their own money.)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 04:14 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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

Incredible double think!

The tax rate on each and every dollar of income is not uniform. It depends on the individual's personal situation. That is not only discriminatory, it is illegal.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 04:29 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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

Incredible double think!

The tax rate on each and every dollar of income is not uniform. It depends on the individual's personal situation. That is not only discriminatory, it is illegal.


Dollars don't have rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Every person is taxed according to the same scale, a graduated scale.

Just b/c you can't conceive of anything other then a flat tax, doesn't mean that it is illegal or discriminatory in any way. And as I said to Okie, you certainly can't believe that our system is going to change within your lifetime.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 05:26 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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

Incredible double think!

The tax rate on each and every dollar of income is not uniform. It depends on the individual's personal situation. That is not only discriminatory, it is illegal.

The un-uniform tax is applied uniformly, ican, do you get it now? They don't leave out any citizens that are taxed, at least those that the taxes apply to, uniformly....... You have to be a lawyer to understand all of this, and so you and I are not qualified to figure this out. Only cyclops knows.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 05:30 pm
I am apparently not the only one; for while there have been many of you who do not agree with our method of taxation, there have been startlingly few legal challenges or Constitutional challenges which have stopped the system from working the way that it does. If the Constitution were so easily interpreted in the fashion you claim, it is difficult to see why this has not happened...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 06:10 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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

Incredible double think!

The tax rate on each and every dollar of income is not uniform. It depends on the individual's personal situation. That is not only discriminatory, it is illegal.


Dollars don't have rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Every person is taxed according to the same scale, a graduated scale.

Just b/c you can't conceive of anything other then a flat tax, doesn't mean that it is illegal or discriminatory in any way. And as I said to Okie, you certainly can't believe that our system is going to change within your lifetime.

Cycloptichorn

Laughing
It's you and me who have rights to our property.

Quote:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Dollars are included in our property. If the government taxes my property at a different rate than it taxes your propertty, it is illegal and discriminatory. When any of my dollars of income are taxed at a greater rate than other people's dollars of income, I and my properrty are being discriminated against and it is illegal. When any of my dollars of income are taxed at a lesser rate than other people's dollars of income, they and their properrty are being discriminated against and it is illegal.

Consider the tax on real property. The local real property tax rate on a $100 thousand dwelling is the same as on a $100 million dwelling, and on a $10 thousand dwelling anywhere in the county. That, buster, is a uniform and legal tax.

Rolling Eyes By the way, the fact that Hitler's genocide when he was an adult did not change in his lifetime did not make his genocide legal until he died.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 06:17 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I am apparently not the only one; for while there have been many of you who do not agree with our method of taxation, there have been startlingly few legal challenges or Constitutional challenges which have stopped the system from working the way that it does. If the Constitution were so easily interpreted in the fashion you claim, it is difficult to see why this has not happened...

Cycloptichorn

You are wrong again, Cyclo. There are currently millions of Americans who refuse to file income tax returns in protest of the illegality of the current income tax laws. More interesting is the fact that very few are being indicted for their refusal. Their number is increasing every year.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 06:24 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I am apparently not the only one; for while there have been many of you who do not agree with our method of taxation, there have been startlingly few legal challenges or Constitutional challenges which have stopped the system from working the way that it does. If the Constitution were so easily interpreted in the fashion you claim, it is difficult to see why this has not happened...

Cycloptichorn

You are wrong again, Cyclo. There are currently millions of Americans who refuse to file income tax returns in protest of the illegality of the current income tax laws. More interesting is the fact that very few are being indicted for their refusal. Their number is increasing every year.


You have pivoted to a discussion of criminal behavior, when your original argument was based around an interpretation of the Constitution. When asked why this has not resulted in a change to our system, you have no response on the reason no legal challenge has upheld your claim?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 06:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I am apparently not the only one; for while there have been many of you who do not agree with our method of taxation, there have been startlingly few legal challenges or Constitutional challenges which have stopped the system from working the way that it does. If the Constitution were so easily interpreted in the fashion you claim, it is difficult to see why this has not happened...

Cycloptichorn

The Democrats invented this discriminatory and illegal income tax back in 1913 when Wilson was president. The Democrats made the income tax even more discriminatory and illegal when Roosevelt was president. The Democrats have taken special care to get likethinking judges into the federal court system to legislate their views and not to interpret the Constitution and other federal law. The Democrats have been seeking and continue to seek power, while the Republicans are accomplices in that they are seeking to "go along to get along."

It's long past time to stop this discrimination and illegality. If we don't we will end up as a tyranny.

Quote:
...
Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his man servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.


Quote:
Wisdom circa 1778: Alexander Fraser Tytler, better known as Lord Woodhouselee (1747 - 1813)

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 06:48 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I am apparently not the only one; for while there have been many of you who do not agree with our method of taxation, there have been startlingly few legal challenges or Constitutional challenges which have stopped the system from working the way that it does. If the Constitution were so easily interpreted in the fashion you claim, it is difficult to see why this has not happened...

Cycloptichorn

You are wrong again, Cyclo. There are currently millions of Americans who refuse to file income tax returns in protest of the illegality of the current income tax laws. More interesting is the fact that very few are being indicted for their refusal. Their number is increasing every year.


You have pivoted to a discussion of criminal behavior, when your original argument was based around an interpretation of the Constitution. When asked why this has not resulted in a change to our system, you have no response on the reason no legal challenge has upheld your claim?

Cycloptichorn

Wrong again, oh ignorer of truth.

I have been describing the current federal income tax discriminatory and illegal from the beginning. Right from the beginning I pointed out that in violating the USA Constitution, it is violating the "supreme law of the land."
Quote:

Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 08:49 pm
You can't even get your history correct ican.

The first income tax was signed into law during the Civil war by a Republican President.

Quote:
In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an "inheritance" tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history-more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jul, 2008 08:57 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I am apparently not the only one; for while there have been many of you who do not agree with our method of taxation, there have been startlingly few legal challenges or Constitutional challenges which have stopped the system from working the way that it does. If the Constitution were so easily interpreted in the fashion you claim, it is difficult to see why this has not happened...

Cycloptichorn

You are wrong again, Cyclo. There are currently millions of Americans who refuse to file income tax returns in protest of the illegality of the current income tax laws. More interesting is the fact that very few are being indicted for their refusal. Their number is increasing every year.

Please tell us you are not paying income tax ican. I can't wait to see your trial.

I envision it something like this one..
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/25539759.html?location_refer=$urlTrackSectionName
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 01:02 am
Can a law be "illegal"?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 09:51 am
A law can be ruled unconstitutional by any court.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 10:02 am
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I am apparently not the only one; for while there have been many of you who do not agree with our method of taxation, there have been startlingly few legal challenges or Constitutional challenges which have stopped the system from working the way that it does. If the Constitution were so easily interpreted in the fashion you claim, it is difficult to see why this has not happened...

Cycloptichorn

You are wrong again, Cyclo. There are currently millions of Americans who refuse to file income tax returns in protest of the illegality of the current income tax laws. More interesting is the fact that very few are being indicted for their refusal. Their number is increasing every year.

We need change. Scrap the income tax system on corporations and individuals, and watch the economy boom, and we could once again begin competing against foreign businesses on a more equal footing. Replace it with a national retails sales tax, excluding food, etc. etc. It would need some refinement, but it would have lots of beneficial side effects, one big one get rid of the IRS in its present form.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jul, 2008 12:43 pm
parados wrote:
You can't even get your history correct ican.
...
Quote:
In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law.
...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html


Quote:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
History of the U.S. Tax System
...
The Civil War

When the Civil War erupted, the Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which restored earlier excises taxes and imposed a tax on personal incomes.
...
On July 1, 1862 the Congress passed new excise taxes on such items as playing cards, gunpowder, feathers, telegrams, iron, leather, pianos, yachts, billiard tables, drugs, patent medicines, and whiskey. Many legal documents were also taxed and license fees were collected for almost all professions and trades.

The 1862 law also made important reforms to the Federal income tax that presaged important features of the current tax.

The need for Federal revenue declined sharply after the war and most taxes were repealed. By 1868, the main source of Government revenue derived from liquor and tobacco taxes. The income tax was abolished in 1872. From 1868 to 1913, almost 90 percent of all revenue was collected from the remaining excises.

The 16th Amendment

Under the Constitution, Congress could impose direct taxes only if they were levied in proportion to each State's population. Thus, when a flat rate Federal income tax was enacted in 1894, it was quickly challenged and in 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional because it was a direct tax not apportioned according to the population of each state.
...
By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.
...
World War I and the 1920's

The entry of the United States into World War I greatly increased the need for revenue and Congress responded by passing the 1916 Revenue Act. The 1916 Act raised the lowest tax rate from 1 percent to 2 percent and raised the top rate to 15 percent on taxpayers with incomes in excess of $1.5 million. The 1916 Act also imposed taxes on estates and excess business profits.
...
The Bush Tax Cut
...
The 2001 tax cut will provide additional strength to the economy in the coming years as more and more of its provisions are phased in, and indeed one argument for its enactment had always been as a form of insurance against an economic downturn. However, unbeknownst to the Bush Administration and the Congress, the economy was already in a downturn as the Act was being debated. Thankfully, the downturn was brief and shallow, but it is already clear that the tax cuts that were enacted and went into effect in 2001 played a significant role in supporting the economy, shortening the duration of the downturn, and preparing the economy for a robust recovery.
...
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 09/21/2024 at 03:43:41