- Other are still buying Treasuries only the are buying the longer bonds IMO as they hold a higher interest rate than the short term issues that the Fed is using to keep interest rates down.YOU will get no argument out of me regarding the commerce and the necessary and proper clause being usurped by the three branches of government. SCOTUS will be forced kicking and dragging into the review of these usurpation.It is important that all of us contact the political class and inform them of their usurpation. Write to the Justices and tell them, write to the editors and get it into the news. Using the media to pressure the SCOTUS to hold real hearings and review usurpation vs the FF and the Constitution. If we can succeed in getting a full and honest review then we have a chance to restore.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here is tax theory that does not meet the Locke standard and I question if it meets the "TAKING" clause of the 5th amendment the four R plan - is it Consitutional or is it just more usurping? [see number two - direct conflict with the direct tax requirement to be per enumeration and in violation of the just compensation clause of the 5th as it it not equal in assessment or distribution?]
The Four "R"s
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2010)
This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (February 2011) Taxation has four main purposes or effects: Revenue, Redistribution, Repricing, and Representation.[citation needed]- The main purpose is revenue: taxes raise money to spend on armies, roads, schools and hospitals, and on more indirect government functions like market regulation or legal systems.
- A second is redistribution. Normally, this means transferring wealth from the richer sections of society to poorer sections.
- A third purpose of taxation is repricing. Taxes are levied to address externalities; for example, tobacco is taxed to discourage smoking, and a carbon taxdiscourages use of carbon-based fuels.
- A fourth, consequential effect of taxation in its historical setting has been representation. The American revolutionary slogan "no taxation without representation" implied this: rulers tax citizens, and citizens demand accountability from their rulers as the other part of this bargain. Studies have shown thatdirect taxation (such as income taxes) generates the greatest degree of accountability and better governance, while indirect taxation tends to have smaller effects.[3][4]
[edit]
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Studies have shown thatdirect taxation (such as income taxes) generates the greatest degree of accountability and better governance"is it something I should readily understand but don't? my bias against the residuals of income tax may be blinding me to the obvious?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Larry, look at the 16th amendment [no statement to permit a "PROGRESSIVE" tax rate] to tax income with no requirement for enumeration as "DIRECT" taxes are required under Article I section 8 - I am the only one seeing the conflict and the apparent usurpation. They are not allowed to TAKE from taxpayer A at a higher percentage so that some can be given to taxpayer B without JUST COMPENSATION. Humm I find no mention what so ever of REDISTRIBUTION.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;5thnor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.16thThe 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.
- Permalink Reply by on
- "Federalism has more than one dynamic. It is true that the federal structure serves to grant and delimit the prerogatives and responsibilities of the States and the National Government vis-à-vis one another. The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States. The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that States function as political entities in their own right."Justus Kennedy: Bond v. United States 2011In other wordsThe Tenth Amendment explicitly states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the statesby the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The "peculiar and invaluable form of government" (CHAPTER XXXII.) of which Rawle, LL.D., was fond has a few features that ought to be regarded as bugs, instead.For example, consider just one of the provisions of Section 8 of Artcle I. In mind I have the second clause, "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States". Of course, what Washington, et al., really meant is the power and privilege to borrow money on the credit of tools and of useful idiots, imbeciles, and morons who are forced to pay debts accumulated in their names by other people, namely, legislators, governors, bureaucrats, and so on.It should go without saying that there is a serious moral hazard established when A obtains a license to borrow on the credit of B, and, furthermore, to rely upon intimidation and violence to make B pay A's debts. In no other context would this be regarded as anything but perverse and evil. Yet when the term, "government", is invoked as an excuse, people become averse to thinking logically government borrowing. Perhaps also a little populistic claptrap such as "We the People" and is expedient for all the As to get the Bs to go along with the scam.This evil, government borrowing, must be stopped, and if circumstances make it impossible to abolish this evil without abolishing Publius' imperial government, then it is that government itself which must then be abolished. It so happens that there are other good reasons to oppose Publius' government. One clue that this is so can be found in Article VII, although I won't explain any further now what that clue is.Btw, we should thank Teddy Jack Eddy profusely for bringing Rawle's work to our attention and, furthermore, for highlighting the GOP's approval of it. It would be interestsing to find out what comments, if any, were made by Lysander Spooner, another lawyer, about Rawle's apologetics for "Constitution for the United States of America". Even if Spooner never so much as heard of Rawle, however, anyone familiar with Spooner's three essays titled, "No Treason", ought to be able to predict the tone and theme of what Spooner might have said or written in response to Rawle and his howlers, e.g. the misleading remark about "voluntary association" in the 2nd paragraph of "Introduction".See No Treason, No. 1, which is followed by No Treason, No. II and No Treason, No. VI . (There are no No. III, IV, or V.) Also, scanned copies of both the 1825 and 1829 editions of Rawle's book are available for free from Google Books.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Welcome to the discussion Paul.thanx and you're welcome.. I'll have to absorb your post a little before trying to add to it. I expect others here won't have to though...-------------All - (Lock especially seems to always contest me on these posts :~})I sometimes post my strong dislike of the effects of herding our populations to cities, urban mentality in general, especially the density (population and mental), and the intense progessive disease that resides in urban areas. And that we now have over 80% of our population living in urban areas- for the 1st time. There's a Jefferson quote that supports my opinion;When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas JeffersonWell, theres a news article today in support of my opinion I can't resist throwing into the mix as well. Here's an excerpt;This may come as no surprise to residents of New York City and other big urban centers: Living there can be bad for your mental health.Now researchers have found a possible reason why. Imaging scans show that in city dwellers or people who grew up in urban areas, certain areas of the brain react more vigorously to stress. That may help explain how city life can boost the risks of schizophrenia and other mentaldisorders, researchers said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/06/23/big-city-got-down-stress-s...
- Permalink Reply by on
- Welcome and thank you for bring Spooner back into the world of discussion. He was a very interesting man and it is interesting to read his Bio with a eye toward how we now use the Federal Reserve System to issue currency through the banks. This is a version of his concept of the banks issuing currency backed by land values [full faith and credit of the US government]. He recognized the need for a method of exchange[commerce funding] that was not limited by the metal currencies as those were mostly centered in the large cities so the west was limited in it's ability to conduct commerce.He held a view of the natural rights of man to finance and form shops and farms so they could escape poverty. He used the law to force issues which is still the case but now we have a SCOTUS that usurps and permits governments to usurp the Constitution. I need to spend some more time with him as the man saw the future and looking back will help us understand why we are where we are today.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Well, one of the problems with Spooner's thought is that he harbored a few flawed ideas about economics, or, rather, catallactics, as Ludwig von Mises preferred to call the science of exchange. You mentioned money and banking. Spooner also succumbed to the labor theory of value, which has been totally discredited, as it deserved to be.Still, Spooner was quite good concerning voluntary association and so was radically antiamerican in the sense of opposing Publius' imperial government, the one set up by Washington, Hamilton, et al. during the years 1786-1789. So it should suprise no one that most Americans have never even heard of Spooner, much less been given while young a fair and thorough introduction to Spooner's antistatism. Most Americans are educated in governmental schools or in private schools which are sympathetic to or tolerant of statism. The governmental schools might become both radically unstable and poorly funded if Spooner's liberalism became popular among students, and the latter schools are unlikely, albeit mostly for ideological reasons, to give Spooner a fair reading. Some of the latter schools are Christian ones, esp. Catholic. If so, they are tolerant, to say the least, of statism. See Modern Catholic Dictionary, esp. for entries for liberalism, government, and service, for some clues about the magnitude of the bishops' tolerance for statism and a related concept, collectivism. Supposedly "the rights of society in civil law" are neglected by liberalism. But it's not at all clear how a set, which is what we mean when we say or write 'society', could have rights. In fact, a set isn't even a living being, so how could it have rights? (On the other hand, we could construe society as activity, at which point it would be silly on its face to claim that society has rights.)Another barrier to respect for Spooner is that he opposed Christianity per se and he had sharp words about the character of Jesus of Nazareth. So if most or all of one's relatives are Christians, as is true for me, there's not much room for sympathy to Spooner. If one is the son of a civil servant who is or was employed by the government of Detroit, then so much the worse. In fact, I never even heard of Spooner until I was 40.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Permalink Reply by on
- Smart guy for a Progressive?
- Read his works again - he would be a Progressive today?
No comments:
Post a Comment