Newest Members
BCtejas, JHNebraska, mike42069, JACKL, Personman
12491 Registered Users
Today's Birthdays
kb8715 (114), rom2057 (57), terrapin (51)
Who's Online
3 registered (WriterKeith, 2 invisible), 17 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
12491 Members
74 Forums
64158 Topics
447718 Posts

Max Online: 418 @ 07/02/12 07:29 AM
Twitter
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#290577 - 06/07/09 12:20 AM Re: The Obama Thread [Re: Hauser]
Trucker51 Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 2826
Loc: Denver, CO
Perhaps you would enjoy living in Dallas or Houston, or San Antonio, or even El Paso??? Some of the things that Ron Paul says have some merit, and some of the things that he says I don't agree with. I still think that a consumption sales tax instead of an income tax with hundreds of loopholes would more-fairly tax the wealthiest among us while encouraging spending on all but the biggest-ticket items. You can certainly tell which side of the oil selling & burning crowd that Mr Paul stands on too. One other thing that all the naysayer Rupublicans, your Ron Paul included, always seem to forget, is that they will have to wait until November, 2012 to try to elect another President, and until November of 2010 to attempt to do anything about the balance of power in the Congress. And right now President Obama and the Democrats in Congress enjoy a sizeable majority in both popularity and electability.

Your whole rant is beginning to sound a lot like the fans of the Cleveland Browns or the Detroit Lions when they say: "Maybe next year". Either support the current administration as has been traditional in democratic politics here in America or get out there and start pounding the pavement knocking on doors, trying to tell everyone why your candidate is better for America, which is also a tradition here too. The chance that Ron Paul has of substantially effecting National economic policy is substantially less now than it was during the last election cycle.

Susan Boyle he is not!!!

Mark

_________________________
"We stay here, we die here. We've got to keep moving". Trucker Mark



Top
#290583 - 06/07/09 01:10 AM Re: The Obama Thread [Re: Trucker51]
FormerTexan Offline
Site Administrator
MaleSurvivor
Registered: 09/12/04
Posts: 11179
Loc: Denver, CO
I would like to suggest a departure from the "fair share" mentality. There is no such thing as "owing" income taxes. There is only the idea that we are charged by the government. We are billed. Something you owe is a liability for a service or product directly rendered, or from directly borrowing via contract (such as a mortgage). This idea that I make compensation for my labor, and somehow "owe" for this is a farce invented by crooked government in ages past. If I make no compensation for labor, then somehow I don't "owe" anything. Therefore it was never a true liability to begin with.

After finding out what my income tax goes for (interest on the national debt), I've concluded that with the idea of abolishing the phony debt comes with it the idea that paying interest on that debt is fraud against the people. There is no "fair-share" about it. I did not sign the note, nor did I consent to such a scam. Did any of the rest of you sign the note authorizing this national debt? Somehow I highly doubt it. Obama knows this is a scam, and should not be promoting "fair-share" mentalities. Ron Paul has the right idea - shut down the bankers' enterprise called the (un)Federal Reserve, and shut down its collection agency called the IRS, an organization which operates under the color of law.

_________________________
List of things ain't nobody got time for:

1. That


If I could meet myself as a boy...

Top
#290588 - 06/07/09 01:35 AM Re: The Obama Thread [Re: FormerTexan]
Trucker51 Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 2826
Loc: Denver, CO
Still we as a nation have to fund all of our other programs with some form of taxation, even if we did as your desire and just abolished the national debt. I was watching a discussion on just abolishing the debt owed to bondholders over at GM and I must say that they weren't too happy. The GM bondholders have already organized and are going to fight in court, saying that in all previous bankruptcies that the bondholders got paid first. They are really unhappy that GM workers should end up with an ownership stake when the bondholders are getting shutout.

How do you think that our mostly Chinese bondholders would react if we told them to take a hike on repayment? My guess is that the end result wouldn't be much different than our Pacific war against Japan, which was mainly over our attempt to deny them access to raw materials and oil within their own sphere of influence. Are you willing to fight the Chinese to protect the interests of our people here at home?

We would still abolish the IRS if we went to a consumption tax (national sales tax) rather than an income tax.

_________________________
"We stay here, we die here. We've got to keep moving". Trucker Mark



Top
#290602 - 06/07/09 08:21 AM Re: The Obama Thread [Re: Trucker51]
Hauser Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 11/12/05
Posts: 2962
Loc: United States
Mark, I'll speak out once in a while in forums like this, or at the Denver Post and my hometown newspapers, etc, but be an activist I will not.

Mark? The ship of state is sinking. All the rich people are getting in the lifeboats and we the lowly working/middle-class are being locked in steerage. There is no saving this country. We're going the way of the 17th Century Spanish Empire, the 20th Century British Empire, and the Soviet Empire. We've learned NOTHING from history, and we've regressed as a society. There is no hope. I'm just going to ride it out as best I can. I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist.

My advice to the people; STOP LISTENING to Mainstream Media. We're not even CLOSE to riding out this economic turmoil, not even CLOSE. Time will prove me right.

As soon as this summer is over, and the Holiday Season seals the fate of even more commercial entities, ghost malls and vacant storefronts will dominate the landscape as we drive to the only employer still hiring. The only employer the will still be hiring will be the Government (if you're lucky and happen to know someone) or WalMart.

We deserve the government we get. We the American people ABSOLUTELY deserve this. WE are responsible for this. We have been bad Stuarts of the Government that is supposed to serve US. We have abdicated our responsibilities as citizens to be studiously informed about the true nature of government, the history of governments that run amok without regard to individual property rights, and completely ignoring the fates of Empires of the Past. It's already gone too far. It's just a matter of time now.

I can elaborate on how I arrived at this viewpoint if you wish.


Top
#290624 - 06/07/09 10:57 AM Re: The Obama Thread [Re: Hauser]
FormerTexan Offline
Site Administrator
MaleSurvivor
Registered: 09/12/04
Posts: 11179
Loc: Denver, CO
Quote:
Still we as a nation have to fund all of our other programs with some form of taxation


Many of those programs have no Consitutional authority to begin with, and should be abolished. The Congress has no authority in Article 1, Section 10 for the Dept of Education, healthcare, and several other sectors. Without authority, there is simply no need to fund them.

For those departments Congress does have authority for, well how did we do it before the income tax? Remember, the personal federal income tax goes only to pay interest on the national debt. This is hardly what I would call a "worthy program." Your personal federal income tax does not go to pay for any "service," almost all of which don't benefit me anyway.

How did we fund the legitmate programs before 1913 and 1941? How did this republic manage to fund their federal government from 1787 to 1941? We had tariffs, duties, imposts, excises. Along came 1913, and the 16th Amendment was declared law (it was not lawfully ratified, I have a copy of the book that demonstrates this). But, the personal federal income tax did not start until 1941, with the passage of the Victory Tax Act, to help fund the war. And even with this act, it was VOLUNTARY. But people used propaganda and coercion to get others to pay their "fair share." Even Donald Duck was in on the game.

As it stands, the personal federal income tax goes to enrich the private stockholders of the federal reserve bank. Is this what people want to fund? We always hear "tax the rich." The Fed stockholders are among the richest in the world. I'd say their windfall profits tax needs to be mighty hefty if we're to "tax the rich." But "tax the rich" never works. "Rich" is never defined in the public square. Some people think I'm rich.


_________________________
List of things ain't nobody got time for:

1. That


If I could meet myself as a boy...

Top
#290641 - 06/07/09 03:18 PM Re: The Obama Thread [Re: FormerTexan]
Trucker51 Offline
Member
MaleSurvivor

Registered: 05/20/08
Posts: 2826
Loc: Denver, CO
I would guess that a simple majority of Americans might say that both you and I are "rich", as we are both suburban homeowners living in above economic-average neighborhoods, and we drive newer cars that are paid for. Before the economic boom of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, etc, most urban Americans lived in much less expensive circumstance. Building the Interstate highway network and opening-up the suburbs to development was a large part of our suburban fortune, and also often contributed to the financial disparity often prevalent between many suburban residents and many less-fortunate inner-city residents. The cost of building the Interstate highways fell to Federal taxation. Should many increasingly less-fortunate inner-city residents have to pay to build and maintain Interstate highways that have increasingly stripped them of their jobs and lowered their economic outlook?

Conversely, should us more-fortunate Americans in the suburbs have to pay for inner-city public transportation when the primary beneficiary is those same less-fortunate inner-city residents, who also draw most of the welfare, AFDC, and food stamp benefits? Should us suburbanites have to contribute a heavy share of urban enterprise zone funding and Federal aid to formerly healthy inner-cities trying to draw jobs back to the economically displaced among us near downtown?

Both sides taxed their citizens in WW II, and both sides sold war bonds. And the civilians on the loosing side paid a heavy price, not only financially. Over time our rich have managed to insert many tax loopholes into tax code, while us middle-class taxpayers have only had some of the Democrats voicing some concern for us. That is one reason that I support a sales consumption tax over an income tax. If we paid a 10% Federal sales tax instead of our income tax, a $30,000 new car would incur a $3000 Federal tax liability. At the same time, a $5 Million Dollar house would incur a $500,000 tax liability. There wouldn't be any loopholes for the rich to exploit, no lobbyists corrupting Congress for tax breaks for their clients, no huge IRS bureaucracy to fund, no wealthy Americans getting away with not paying their fair share.

But to suggest that us less-wealthy Americans can somehow pressure Congress into dumping the national debt, by abolishing the Federal Reserve and declaring the debt null and void, is far-fetched, and would create huge enemies too. Just like us in the middle-classes, the Federal government can not continue to finance current spending by borrowing more and more money or just printing more and more money. In the former case we are increasingly mortgaging our future, and in the latter, our currency is increasingly devalued. The Bush Jr. administration doubled our cumulative nation debt to $10 Trillion, and left the Obama administration with a terrible mess to clean up.

What would you and Alan rather do, let half of the nation loose everything that they own and starve so that the other half can live an increasingly more-modest lifestyle? Maybe put a big wall up like in China to protect the more fortunate among us from the hordes of displaced poor? The Obama administration has been trying to encourage economic growth and has been updating our infrastructure, something that our previous administration neglected all across America. In some respects Obama's current policy is like Roosevelt's WPA and TVA projects, where Federal funds were used to provide jobs while building major public works thereby encouraging growth. Yes, already the Obama administration has proposed increasing our national debt by 30% to bail-out large areas of our nation that were hit hard by Bush administration neglect. But what is the alternative? Highways falling to pieces and major bridges falling down? How will that help our economy grow? Certainly there is the possibility that corruption, fraud, or waste will decrease the effectiveness of these programs, not unlike the history of our recent military spending in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, let's force the rich to pay their fair share through a consumption tax. And let's continue trying to stimulate our economy so that the worst case scenario does not play out. Let's keep funding alternative fuels technology so that we can free ourselves from foreign oil. Let's keep funding environmental initiatives so that our planet remains a fit place to live. Let's not get engaged in blaming each other among us for ruining our narrow view of where we should head and who should take the fall to pay for it.

We can all find our freedom and enjoy greater financial freedom and security if we will just work together.

Mark



_________________________
"We stay here, we die here. We've got to keep moving". Trucker Mark



Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2


Moderator:  ModTeam, TJ jeff 

I agree that my access and use of the MaleSurvivor discussion forums and chat room is subject to the terms of this Agreement. AND the sole discretion of MaleSurvivor.
I agree that my use of MaleSurvivor resources are AT-WILL, and that my posting privileges may be terminated at any time, and for any reason by MaleSurvivor.