Jump to content





- - - - -

Ron Paul: What if the People Wake Up?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
102 replies to this topic

#91 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,778
  • Reputation: 2,457
Moderators

Posted 02 March 2010 - 03:00 PM

You're just a sheep that believes in "facts."

#92 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 03:42 PM

I know the first income tax was ruled as unconstitutional, but the law as it is today has never been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.


this is what our differences are coming down to.

the constitution originally had outlined that the government has the authority to impose indirect taxes, while it was left up to the census of the states as to whether or not a direct tax was to be collected from its inhabitants. orginally, the federal government did not have the power to impose an income tax.

i do realize that the 16th amendment vaguely gives congress the authority to collect new taxes, however, this amendment is an abomination to the economic powers originally intended by the constitution's founding fathers, resulting in the establishment of the federal reserve, which is an unconstitutional entity. as stated before, one of the main communist/socialist economic principles was the establishment of a centralized bank. the income tax is a result of this power hungry banking takeover. as long as the federal reserve exists, we will forever be indebted to them. that makes a ton of sense.

and sorry, i don't consider the IRS codes to be the law.

Edited by venom, 02 March 2010 - 03:44 PM.


#93 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 03:46 PM

Sooooo 1% inflation could be hyperinflation if you want it to be....


no. 1% inflation is nowhere near considered to be excessive, as stated by the definition of hyperinflation. excessive would be the 120% that we printed out of thin air last year.

#94 Cat

Cat

    Terminally bored

  • Joined: 20-May 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 9,051
  • Reputation: 1,484
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 03:48 PM

You're just a sheep that believes in "facts."


If I was arrested for a crime I didn't not commit I'm pretty sure I would not want you on the jury for my case.

#95 ChucktownK

ChucktownK

    Gitmo Nation Detainee

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,043
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 03:52 PM

If I was arrested for a crime I didn't not commit I'm pretty sure I would not want you on the jury for my case.


:nono:

#96 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • Joined: 02-December 08
  • posts: 5,633
  • Reputation: 186
SUPPORTER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 04:07 PM

Just admit it everyone, we are screwed. The 21st century has featured the Texas chainsaw massacre and now the community organizer as president.

#97 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,778
  • Reputation: 2,457
Moderators

Posted 02 March 2010 - 04:17 PM

no. 1% inflation is nowhere near considered to be excessive, as stated by the definition of hyperinflation. excessive would be the 120% that we printed out of thin air last year.


So inflation was at 120% last year?

#98 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • Joined: 02-December 08
  • posts: 5,633
  • Reputation: 186
SUPPORTER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 04:49 PM

So inflation was at 120% last year?


No but the money supply did double last year and the amount of goods stayed the same or decreased slightly. Twice the money for the same amount of goods will ultimately lead to inflation.

#99 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • posts: 12,778
  • Reputation: 2,457
Moderators

Posted 02 March 2010 - 04:51 PM

Yes, but hyperinflation?

#100 pantherfan49

pantherfan49

    Angry inventor

  • Joined: 02-December 08
  • posts: 5,633
  • Reputation: 186
SUPPORTER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 05:05 PM

Yes, but hyperinflation?


No, not yet. Will it happen? I don't know. Even though the money supply has doubled, people have put it back into their savings or cash on hand, so the money in circulation hasn't doubled.

#101 PanthersFanNY

PanthersFanNY

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,669
  • Reputation: 44
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 07:17 PM

this is what our differences are coming down to.

the constitution originally had outlined that the government has the authority to impose indirect taxes, while it was left up to the census of the states as to whether or not a direct tax was to be collected from its inhabitants. orginally, the federal government did not have the power to impose an income tax.


So you would go back to the way the constitution was originally written? There are numerous things in the constitution that weren't in it to begin with. The fact remains that income tax was never found to be unconstitutional by the supreme court.

i do realize that the 16th amendment vaguely gives congress the authority to collect new taxes, however, this amendment is an abomination to the economic powers originally intended by the constitution's founding fathers, resulting in the establishment of the federal reserve, which is an unconstitutional entity.


The Supreme Court (who knows infinitely more than you) has consistently found that the Federal Reserve is constitutional under Article 1 section 8 clause 18 of the constitution. You might (who am I kidding you probably don't) know this as the necessary and proper clause. Please find where the fed was declared unconstitutional.

as stated before, one of the main communist/socialist economic principles was the establishment of a centralized bank. the income tax is a result of this power hungry banking takeover. as long as the federal reserve exists, we will forever be indebted to them. that makes a ton of sense.


I thought we were talking about income tax. The Federal Reserve is an entirely different story. Are you trying to change the subject?

and sorry, i don't consider the IRS codes to be the law.


This has to be one of the dumbest things you have said so far in this thread. What in the hell do you mean you don't consider it to be law? And it isn't "IRS Codes" because the IRS didn't create, write, or enact it. Congress wrote it, congress passed it, and the president signed it. It is Section 26 of the United States Code. They named it the Internal Revenue Code, but that doesn't mean it was created by the Internal Revenue Service. If you're going to just start not considering actual laws in the UNITED STATES CODE to be law, then why stop there? Why don't you just say "fug it" to all laws? You can't just pick and choose what laws you consider to be laws based on what Ron Paul says in his monthly newsletter.

#102 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,931
  • Reputation: 536
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 07:45 PM

coming from the guy who works at the IRS, i wouldnt expect you to say otherwise. the federal reserve has every bit to do with the income tax. the income tax only exists because of the establishment of the federal reserve, which according to our founding principles, is an unconstitutional entity. the creation of currency was originally intended to be carried out by our government, not by a private bank that we would forever be in debt to. as stated before, that concept makes about zero sense, as we are now dealing with a bank that answers to no one, and has ultimate power over our currency and it's value. consider bernanke and co. to be Obama's boss.

perhaps i should've mentioned that when i refer to the constitution, i am referring to its original intentions. to make the argument that it's an outdated document is globalist/progressive rhetoric. the founding fathers weren't stupid by any means, and were completely aware of the checks and balances needed to prevent dictorial rule. as corruption grows amongst congress and it's special interests, you end up with what was once to be considered unconstitutional principles, passed into being. the patriot act also falls into this category.

as thomas jefferson put it, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Edited by venom, 02 March 2010 - 07:48 PM.


#103 ChucktownK

ChucktownK

    Gitmo Nation Detainee

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 12,043
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 02 March 2010 - 07:52 PM

coming from the guy who works at the IRS, i wouldnt expect you to say otherwise. the federal reserve has every bit to do with the income tax. the income tax only exists because of the establishment of the federal reserve, which according to our founding principles, is an unconstitutional entity. the creation of currency was originally intended to be carried out by our government, not by a private bank that we would forever be in debt to. as stated before, that concept makes about zero sense, as we are now dealing with a bank that answers to no one, and has ultimate power over our currency and it's value. consider bernanke and co. to be Obama's boss.

perhaps i should've mentioned that when i refer to the constitution, i am referring to its original intentions. to make the argument that it's an outdated document is globalist/progressive rhetoric. the founding fathers weren't stupid by any means, and were completely aware of the checks and balances needed to prevent dictorial rule. as corruption grows amongst congress and it's special interests, you end up with what was once to be considered unconstitutional principles, passed into being. the patriot act also falls into this category.



Government workers are taken advantage of by the government in that American workers have a very good work ethic in those sectors when it comes to following rules to the law. With that said, the bureaucrats aren't given ANY leeway in cases where common sense CLEARLY is called for but not allowed.

I listened to a recently let-go employee of the DOT say on the radio (wouldn't disclose her name) that a lot of practices they did were EXTREMELY wasteful and wrong where it concerned the public. She also said that the public would be angry if they saw some of the practices they encouraged. Putting good American workers on the front line of extremely bad policies is the name of the game.

Edited by ChucktownK, 02 March 2010 - 09:22 PM.