At 10/9/12 06:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: All Taxes are unconstitutional and literally against the law that is until they rewrote the law book to suite the need's of the Fascist Nationalist agenda. See it's a fairly simple philosophy in Taxing the middle class until it disappears.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The United States does not ban state income taxes or any other state tax. That's left to the state's constitution.

At 10/9/12 06:22 PM, Feoric wrote:

The United States does not ban state income taxes or any other state tax. That's left to the state's constitution.

The "Propaganda" has overtaken your logic my friend.

At 10/9/12 06:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 10/9/12 06:22 PM, Feoric wrote:

The United States does not ban state income taxes or any other state tax. That's left to the state's constitution.

The "Propaganda" has overtaken your logic my friend.

What shitty propaganda then. I mean propaganda is supposed to get us riled up against something, or making us believe we're making record production in agriculture when everyone is starving or that driving alone is driving with Hitler. Instead the propaganda we have tells us that states can levy taxes.

At 10/9/12 07:01 PM, Warforger wrote: Instead the propaganda we have tells us that states can levy taxes.

Wow, sounds like FASCISM to me.

At 10/9/12 06:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: All Taxes are unconstitutional

Yeah, the Constitution called me last night and told me about this topic and I quote: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes". Article 1 section 8.

At 10/9/12 06:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
All Taxes are unconstitutional and literally against the law that is until they rewrote the law book to suite the need's of the Fascist Nationalist agenda. See it's a fairly simple philosophy in Taxing the middle class until it disappears.

You mock and embarrass all serious and educated libertarians within America. If you wish the party to actually succeed and get its message across, educate yourself and avoid propaganda (e.g. Youtube videos). However, it may just be easier for you to keep your mouth shut.

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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States" www.archives.gov

I will tell you guys I am not a happy camper right now. Not only did Obama do poorly in the debate and is now paying for it, but he lost to a complete phony of a candidate.

Right now, Mitt's supporters are all hoohah about their candidate and I don't blame them for that. He is a skilled debater. But it amazes me how people (liberals and conservatives) can plug up their ears to the truth of a candidate's political stance, when the populist BS being spewed out is a direct contradiction of what he's been campaigning on. Note: My problem is with the contradiction, not the populist stance in general. In 2008, that was what candidate Obama was, the populist. Romney has decided to become the populist in the few key instances he was afforded the national stage.

As I'm typing this, it's clear that I have nothing real to say here. Just venting frustration and hope Obama gets his shit together.

At 10/9/12 07:33 PM, Saen wrote:

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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States" www.archives.gov

Tax levies to pay the Debts you say ROFLMAO do you realize that the US National Debt is literally impossible to repay or manage. I don't think there has been any as you say "paying of debts" for quite some time in the ol united states of Fascism. You do realize when you say "Defense" what it really amounts to oppression by way of force and "Welfare" of the US has really not ever been in a good position for the fact that it once was one of the most well off nations in the world.

At 10/9/12 08:39 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 10/9/12 07:33 PM, Saen wrote:

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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States" www.archives.gov

Tax levies to pay the Debts you say ROFLMAO do you realize that the US National Debt is literally impossible to repay or manage.

What makes you think the national debt is meant to be repaid? The government doesn't manage finance like a household.

At 10/9/12 08:45 PM, Feoric wrote:

What makes you think the national debt is meant to be repaid? The government doesn't manage finance like a household.

Yes it's all about oppression and issuing debt to enable oppression. Nice try with attempting to mitigate the gravity of the 30+ Trillion ..... US combined debt though. Who pays down this unplayable debt by the way ?

At 10/9/12 08:58 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Yes it's all about oppression and issuing debt to enable oppression. Nice try with attempting to mitigate the gravity of the 30+ Trillion ..... US combined debt though. Who pays down this unplayable debt by the way ?

Congratulations, you're entirely wrong. There's absolutely no reason that the debt needs to be paid in full, that's not how sovereign debt works when you print your own money. It's essentially just an accounting tab. It's really cute how you think this is somehow oppression. Do you know how cheap it is for us to borrow money right now? Do you have any idea what our bond yields are right now? Do you even know what that is?

At 10/9/12 09:11 PM, Feoric wrote:

Congratulations, you're entirely wrong. There's absolutely no reason that the debt needs to be paid in full, that's not how sovereign debt works when you print your own money. It's essentially just an accounting tab. It's really cute how you think this is somehow oppression. Do you know how cheap it is for us to borrow money right now? Do you have any idea what our bond yields are right now? Do you even know what that is?

Taxation is tantamount to oppression so why keep paying on an arbitrary debt with an arbitrary debt based inflated currency ? It takes a voters mentality to not see the simple logical fallacy involved here.

At 10/9/12 09:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Taxation is tantamount to oppression so why keep paying on an arbitrary debt with an arbitrary debt based inflated currency ? It takes a voters mentality to not see the simple logical fallacy involved here.

Taxation is not tantamount to oppression. There, I put as much effort into my argument as you did with yours. I guess that makes this a tie?

At 10/3/12 10:56 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/3/12 10:39 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Unless anything weird happens, all we have got between now and the election are the debates. As it is right now, Obama has a slim lead.

Agreed. I think Obama's chance of winning are between 52-54%.

This alone proves that a number of people still keep forgetting that our current President of 2008 has a number of broken promises to begin with, a number of broken promises they should of looked into, but noooo, they still keep voting for him, not knowing about the major consequences that will be brought about to this very nation if he's ever allowed to be re-elected.

He's only meant for one term and one term only as Steve Jobs said it himself, his re-election will only do the American people a LOT more harm then good!

Why a lot more harm then good, there's a rather good chance a number of states within this nation will decide to succeed from the nation, native tribes will more then likely go back to there old ways, this nation is arleady coming CLOSE to another Cival War and there won't, and I REPEAT won't be another Abraham Lincoln to save us this time.

That said, those who voted for our current President to be re-elected again, I deeply suggest to re-consider the idea and void your own votes that are getting closer to getting our current President to be re-elected again, I say once and I say again, our current President of 2008 is meant for one term and one term only!

At 10/10/12 05:58 AM, Thecrazyman wrote:

This alone proves that a number of people still keep forgetting that our current President of 2008 has a number of broken promises to begin with.

I have been yelling in public and on these forums that Obamney lied to get into power as his main cornerstone to his first campaign was "I will bring the troops home and END THE WAR OF TERROR". Then Obamney got into power sent MORE troops to Afghanistan and starter the war on Iraq some years later. Quote Obama 2007 Campain: "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr9ywEFRQkQ Many people on these forums seem to think there was only ever the war on Iraq and they have forgot about the War of Terror and Afghanistan. Well guess what everyone the fucking war of Terror is over and they killed not only Saddam Hussein but also Binladen allegedly so mission accomplished and you guy's still think a war is about "Terrorists" LOL so dumb just do dam dumb to fall for that propaganda people. If Romney gets into power it will be business as usual as he is even more Fasict and the US absolutely cannot afford to loose there "War Economy".

At 10/9/12 06:08 PM, LemonCrush wrote: It's pretty simple. Most americans don't pay taxes.

A load of shit

As for people not wanting to take responsibilty for themselves. It's evident in every singe Obama bumper-sticker. He's the welfare king. And that's why he gets votes. Look at his whole campaign. It revolves around "I handed over billions to a bankrupt corporation", and "I'm handing over healthcare and student loans".

Even more shit

Plenty of people manage to get emergency care. And they do it on other people's dime. Obama's system does nothing to fix that at all. He's just replacing it with the same exact thing, at higher cost to taxpayers. My ex sister in law was having seizures and went to the ER on someone else's dime. There has never been an issue with people getting emergency care. If emergency care is the reason for Obamacare, then he's proposing a fix to something that's already in place.

Youre either trolling or you clearly have no idea how the world works and whats happening around you. Either way, can you stop posting here please.

At 10/9/12 06:13 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/9/12 06:08 PM, LemonCrush wrote: It's pretty simple. Most americans don't pay taxes.

Hint: payroll tax, sales tax, social security tax, medicare tax, unemployment tax, property tax, sin tax...

Unemployment tax is paid by employers. Social Security & Medicare taxes are split between employee and employer...to fund entitlement programs designed to give the taxpayer a return later in life (unfortunately, it is unlikely that Gen X and younger will see much of a return).

As for the rest, you need to look at tax benefits for the federal level for low income 'taxpayers'. Under the Bush tax 'cuts' (rates would be a more accurate term), my ex-wife and I were making $50K/yr. Our effective tax rate was -13%. That made-up for the amount we spent on sales taxes, property taxes, and 'sin taxes'. Maybe it didn't cover the cost of Social Security and Medicare taxes, but theoretically I'm going to get that money back when I turn 60 or 70-something.

And one little history lesson on 'sin taxes': FDR used them (called luxury taxes) to make-up revenue, he called them 'luxury taxes' as a way to get the poor on his side. Unfortunately, his administration found that taxing yachts and fur coats brought in less revenue than it cost to enforce them. So they cut those taxes...but kept taxes on alcohol and cigarettes...because both poor and rich alike drank and smoke. Why? Because enough ppl used those to make taxing them profitable. And it did hurt the poor more than the rich, BUT the poor did not have the benefit of things like the Earned Income Credit where even if they do not pay taxes, or are required to even file, will get money back.

At 10/10/12 09:06 AM, Cootie wrote: I thought Obama had this all wrapped up, but it seems like Mitt Romney whipped his ass in the debates a few days ago. Even so, Obama will likely pull through... just with a smaller gap between the two. All I hear is "Romney Romney Romney", but then again I live in Alabama so of course Republicans are a HUGE majority.

It is looking bad for Obama:

* For the first time in the campaign Romney is leading nationally in the RCP Average by 1%. However, in most recent polling by Gallup and Pew this number is even greater. According to Gallup Romney has a 2% lead, and Pew has him at 49% to Obama's 45%.

* Obama is running a campaign based on conceeding the white, working class vote in favor of a coalition of minorities and women...a risky gambit today (will probably be effective in 2020 or 2024). However, Pew has Romney and Obama tied at 47%. Obama cannot afford to lose any ground on a key demographic like women. At 47%...he's lost a dramatic 9%.

* Swing states like Florida, NC and Colorado are swinging towards Romney...now leaning Romney. Some swing states like Ohio, Iowa and Virginia are still leaning Obama but have lost their statistical edge. Before the debate Obama was leading by 5%, now he's leading by only 0.7%.

* Obama does have some mixed good news. 1) His job approval is slightly above water. His RCP average is +2%. 2) September unemployment dropped to 7.8% (unfortunately, much of the press surrounding it is actually negative).

Plus there are other things that can happen between now and November 7:

* The hearings on the Benghazi attack could undermine much of Obama's pitch that he's good at foreign policy.

* Biden's performance in the debate tomorrow. Many of my staunch Republican friends and family think that Ryan has this in the bag. Afterall, Biden is known for some pretty spectacular gaffes. However, Biden has considerable congressional experience where he has had to work with Republicans. Obama is more typical of liberals in this regard in that he tends to stereotype and dismiss conservative and libertarian arguements and therefore is not prepared to debate them head on. But Biden does not have this problem, plus most of his gaffes occur in front of friendly audiences...not ones filled with Republicans or Independants or a mix.

* Obama's performance in the next two debates. Obama's back is going to be against the wall. This is where the Chicago style politics begin. I expect him to come out swinging at the next debate and I expect him to take debate prep more serious. Plus the bar is lowered for him now...and raised for Romney.

In conclusion: things are looking favorable for Romney at this point. If the election were held today I would guess Romney would win 52%-48%. He needs to keep this up. If the next three debates break for the Republicans I give Romney a 52-55% chance of winning.

LINKS

Obama Job Approval

RCP National Average

Sun Times Article

Chicago Tribune

Obama's debate affect

At 10/9/12 08:45 PM, Feoric wrote: What makes you think the national debt is meant to be repaid? The government doesn't manage finance like a household.

Yes...the US government is a legalized Ponzi Scheme. They can keep spending as long as they have enough revenue or credit to pay off its creditors. And yes in the past we have been able to keep the national debt down to a sane and sustainable level...which it currently is not at thanks to Bush and Obama.

But here's a huge problem: CHINA. At some point they are going to want their money back...and at the same value they lent it to us (ie: not in dollars whose value has been deflated). Things are not going to be pretty when China turns us over to their collections agency. There will be a day of reckoning.

At 10/9/12 06:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: All Taxes are unconstitutional and literally against the law that is until they rewrote the law book to suite the need's of the Fascist Nationalist agenda. See it's a fairly simple philosophy in Taxing the middle class until it disappears.

I did a text search of the Constitution for the term 'tax' and cut and pasted the relevent passages here. But pretty much...taxes ARE constitutional.

Article 1

Section 2
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...

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 Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

At 10/10/12 04:16 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/9/12 06:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: All Taxes are unconstitutional and literally against the law that is until they rewrote the law book to suite the need's of the Fascist Nationalist agenda. See it's a fairly simple philosophy in Taxing the middle class until it disappears.

I did a text search of the Constitution for the term 'tax' and cut and pasted the relevent passages here. But pretty much...taxes ARE constitutional.

and you never once thought for even a moment that they might have re ratified the rule book to suite there agenda. Keep drinking the koolaid.

At 10/10/12 04:20 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 10/10/12 04:16 PM, TheMason wrote:

I did a text search of the Constitution for the term 'tax' and cut and pasted the relevent passages here. But pretty much...taxes ARE constitutional.

and you never once thought for even a moment that they might have re ratified the rule book to suite there agenda. Keep drinking the koolaid.

1) Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof. If you have some sort of proof...please present it.

2) The correct terms would be 'edited' or 'amended' instead or 're ratified' [sic]. Also a true intellectual would know it is suit instead of suite and their instead of there.

3) The majority of what I cut & paste was from the text of the Constitution...not any admendents. Only the 16th Amendment was ratified after the original Constitution.

At 10/10/12 04:02 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/9/12 08:45 PM, Feoric wrote: What makes you think the national debt is meant to be repaid? The government doesn't manage finance like a household.

Yes...the US government is a legalized Ponzi Scheme.

Oh come on man....I thought you were smarter than this.

At 10/10/12 05:46 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 10/10/12 04:02 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 10/9/12 08:45 PM, Feoric wrote: What makes you think the national debt is meant to be repaid? The government doesn't manage finance like a household.

Yes...the US government is a legalized Ponzi Scheme.

Oh come on man....I thought you were smarter than this.

And while yes, there are some differences between households and the federal finances, I thought you were smarter than your post indicates. :)

At 10/10/12 04:02 PM, TheMason wrote: But here's a huge problem: CHINA. At some point they are going to want their money back...and at the same value they lent it to us (ie: not in dollars whose value has been deflated). Things are not going to be pretty when China turns us over to their collections agency. There will be a day of reckoning.

I.....

China and Hong Kong hold about 7.5% of the U.S. debt. That's all. The debt China owns is just an agreement which is this: "you give us $x today (buying the bonds), and we'll give you $y every six months for z-years (interest), and then give you $x back at the end of those years (bond maturation)". It's really that simple. That's how bonds work. It's not some power transfer that can be used to force the US Government to do anything. China having X% of our debt does not give them any sort of leverage over us. It's actually in China's best interest to keep the US economy healthy, as they depend on those interest payments from their investments in US treasuries to support their social programs and infrastructure projects to keep their population happy. China should be the one worried, not us.

At 10/10/12 06:58 PM, Feoric wrote: China and Hong Kong hold about 7.5% of the U.S. debt. That's all. The debt China owns is just an agreement which is this: "you give us $x today (buying the bonds), and we'll give you $y every six months for z-years (interest), and then give you $x back at the end of those years (bond maturation)". It's really that simple. That's how bonds work. It's not some power transfer that can be used to force the US Government to do anything. China having X% of our debt does not give them any sort of leverage over us. It's actually in China's best interest to keep the US economy healthy, as they depend on those interest payments from their investments in US treasuries to support their social programs and infrastructure projects to keep their population happy. China should be the one worried, not us.

I know how bonds work, and yes it is that simple.

I also know how the Chinese government...excuse me; Chinese Communist Party...works and how they define their self-interest. They are terrified of unrest, and therefore they are terrified of fluctuations in their domestic economy. Deflating the value of the dollar, considering China pins the value of its currency on ours, causes their economy to experience inflation.

One of the things that policies like Quantitative Easing does is causes deflation, therefore effecting China's currency. That 7.5% will be paid back in dollars that are not worth as much as the dollars they invested in our bonds. They are getting shafted, which then inspires bad trade behavior. Beijing understands this principle...it seems the American Left does not.

At 10/11/12 09:20 AM, TheMason wrote: They are getting shafted, which then inspires bad trade behavior. Beijing understands this principle...it seems the American Left does not.

You kidding?! China LOVES the US debt. The US debt that China holds allows China to lower its currency value and undercut the rest of the world. If China were to ask for the US to pay back its debt, they would be crippling their exports, and thus destroying their economy. China's ownership of our debt is of no worry to us at all.

At 10/11/12 11:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

You kidding?! China LOVES the US debt. The US debt that China holds allows China to lower its currency value and undercut the rest of the world. If China were to ask for the US to pay back its debt, they would be crippling their exports, and thus destroying their economy. China's ownership of our debt is of no worry to us at all.

Until China stops sending the 90% of the goods you Americans take advantage of everyday.

At 10/11/12 11:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/11/12 09:20 AM, TheMason wrote: They are getting shafted, which then inspires bad trade behavior. Beijing understands this principle...it seems the American Left does not.

You kidding?! China LOVES the US debt. The US debt that China holds allows China to lower its currency value and undercut the rest of the world. If China were to ask for the US to pay back its debt, they would be crippling their exports, and thus destroying their economy. China's ownership of our debt is of no worry to us at all.

Sorry...but you're grossly underinformed here. The global financial crisis has shaken their faith in getting into bed with us. Further policies such as QE3 has effected the value of their currency domestically. Leaders of the CCP are nervous about our financial health and policies. You're thinking sooo 2007. :)

At 10/11/12 12:48 PM, TheMason wrote:

Sorry...but you're grossly underinformed here. The global financial crisis has shaken their faith in getting into bed with us. Further policies such as QE3 has effected the value of their currency domestically. Leaders of the CCP are nervous about our financial health and policies. You're thinking sooo 2007. :)

I agree although I have not done research on the "QE3" I wholeheartedly agree on the getting into bed part LOL and the old way of thinking 07 and prior.