It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Which changes would you make to the constitution?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: harvestdog
I said remove the income tax. What does capping the tax rate have to do with it? If I have lost my job, I do not look to steal money from other places to keep my standard of living. First I must take into account the loss of income and adjust my standard of living accordingly. Only then can I be in a position to find another source of income on the up and up.


Think in legal terms, which is what the Constitution and every other law is, a legal document. You said remove the income tax, you said nothing about preventing other taxes to replace it. If the income tax were abolished you would see 100 or 1000 new taxes the very next day, and they would more than likely be regressive taxes, meaning unless you're in the top 5% of income earners chances are you would be taxed more.




posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Aazadan


True resistance to the government cannot be made physically these days which is what the second is all about. It can only be made by hitting the finances or using cyber weapons which is protected under the first rather than the second.


Bitcoin is the weapon protected by the first amendment
and can be used to fight this battle.

You made reference to Bundy?? have a look at this:
www.scrippsmedia.com... ew-bill-he-helped-shape-297730431.html


edit on 9-4-2015 by wasaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: wasaka
13. Modify - Abolish "Debt" Slavery
16. Abolish - Income tax

A sales tax is Constitutional, incomes tax is not.


Sales tax is also regressive. Do you favor regressive taxation so that the less you make, the greater a percentage of your income you pay in taxes?



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: wasaka
Bitcoin is the weapon protected by the first amendment
and can be used to fight this battle.


Bitcoin is one of them.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: wasaka
13. Modify - Abolish "Debt" Slavery
16. Abolish - Income tax

A sales tax is Constitutional, incomes tax is not.


Sales tax is also regressive. Do you favor regressive taxation so that the less you make, the greater a percentage of your income you pay in taxes?


Not perfect, but better. No tax of food, but yes it
would still be regressive... still if you want to buy
XYZ then you know you will be taxed for it. Then
paying taxes becomes a choice. I like that better.
And it allows people to rise up without holding
them back... so it isn't THAT regressive.

Income tax is straight out of the Communist Manifesto
and ought not be built into a Capitalist system. As
Raul Paul father once said, "True capitalism has
never been tried."

If I could "fix" the Constitutional, that would be
one primary objective. Another is to restore
the natural rights of the individual under
common law. Again, never really tried.

On both scores our system has been corrupted
a long time ago.








edit on 9-4-2015 by wasaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: wasaka
Not perfect, but better. No tax of food, but yes is
would still be regressive... still if you want to buy
XYZ then you know you will be taxed for it. Then
paying taxes becomes a choice. I like that better.
And it allows people to rise up without holding
them back... so it isn't THAT regressive.


Doesn't that encourage the government to continue policies that make saving money and practicing financial responsibility unattractive so that people instead spend it on goods, which gets taxed, which then feeds the coffers?



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan
Well if that's the case then I slap all of those bills down since I am the decider-in-chief at the moment.

Kidding aside, If the people want more taxes and more government support, then I guess they can have them at whatever the cost. I would like to cut the fat out of our budget ultimately. There seems something wrong working a job that they could never do, and have to pay them a cut of it at the end of the day. And I doubt that it takes a reduction of revenue, for the politicians to "need" more funding for their pet projects and interests. In fact I would not be surprised if they want to raise taxes without cutting anything.

Perhaps if we were honest about the bloat of our government's budget, we would see there are plenty of programs and agencies that have overstayed their welcome.

In the end it is up the the citizens to take a stand and make the change. But if we are going to allow extortion tactics to rule the day, then I will be fine when the next mortgage bubble expands to busting point, so I may sell my house and buy a place away from everyone, government included.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: wasaka
Not perfect, but better. No tax of food, but yes is
would still be regressive... still if you want to buy
XYZ then you know you will be taxed for it. Then
paying taxes becomes a choice. I like that better.
And it allows people to rise up without holding
them back... so it isn't THAT regressive.


Doesn't that encourage the government to continue policies that make saving money and practicing financial responsibility unattractive so that people instead spend it on goods, which gets taxed, which then feeds the coffers?


Saving money is difficult, but no one can really
say not doing so is the governments fault. That
is only an excuse, and there are many.

Government isn't perfect.
Saving money isn't easy.
Such is life.



If I could "fix" the Constitutional, that would be
one primary objective. Another is to restore
the natural rights of the individual under
common law
. Again, never really tried.

On both scores our system has been corrupted
a long time ago.





edit on 9-4-2015 by wasaka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: wasaka
Saving money is difficult, but no one can really
say not doing so is the governments fault. That
is only an excuse, and there are many.

Government isn't perfect.
Saving money isn't easy.
Such is life.


The government can't make you do it but they can make it more attractive to spend rather than to save. If you look at the current example, banks can get money at a rate of 1 basis point or 0.0001%. They get the money so inexpensively so that they can push loans onto the customer base. These loans then fuel spending. We've been operating under this system since the 2001 recession but after 2008 it was pushed to the extreme to try and keep the economy moving.

Savings are discouraged through low interest rates, while spending is encouraged through those same interest rates. It's not healthy for the economy to be in that situation, but an economy fueled only by a sales tax is encouraged to act in that manner. It also encourages other activities such as planned obsolescence so that purchases are never one time, but instead repeated over and over again, which results in taxation over and over again. Atleast income is only taxed once.
edit on 9-4-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I'm pretty sure those fall under the violent class of crimes.


How? None of them involve violence. That's literally the rational for why white collar crimes get shorter sentences than violent crimes. That's why embezzlement, which doesn't even require seeing the victim, has a shorter sentence than armed robbery, even if the embezzler steals $100,000 and the armed robbery steals $1,000.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I mean violent in regards to harming someone else. Harm doesn't have to be physical.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
dbl post.
edit on 9-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: wasaka
Saving money is difficult, but no one can really
say not doing so is the governments fault. That
is only an excuse, and there are many.

Government isn't perfect.
Saving money isn't easy.
Such is life.


The government can't make you do it but they can make it more attractive to spend rather than to save. If you look at the current example, banks can get money at a rate of 1 basis point or 0.0001%. They get the money so inexpensively so that they can push loans onto the customer base. These loans then fuel spending. We've been operating under this system since the 2001 recession but after 2008 it was pushed to the extreme to try and keep the economy moving.

Savings are discouraged through low interest rates, while spending is encouraged through those same interest rates. It's not healthy for the economy to be in that situation, but an economy fueled only by a sales tax is encouraged to act in that manner. It also encourages other activities such as planned obsolescence so that purchases are never one time, but instead repeated over and over again, which results in taxation over and over again. Atleast income is only taxed once.


Planned obsolescence is an added problem
which certainly contributes to the unsustainable
problem we have in the West. However, like bad
government, it is no excuse not to save.

The world is not a perfect place.
Buy gold, buy silver, buy bitcoin.

I see the problems you see, but rather than
dream of fixing the problems (or Constitution)
and realistic about being prepared for an EMP
attack and the total collapse of society.

You can't eat gold, silver or bitcoin,
so I also invest in survival foods, etc.
Our society is heading for collapse.

My advice: RUN



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

AND your training is?

SIGH ,here is what would happen if they tried disarming us first...www.bob-owens.com...
Unless they can hit EVERYONE at once and cover EVERY armored movement( NOBODY can ,I was scout) then sorry you are an insufficent person to state that where as I AM trained to oppose greater numbers and could do exactly as I have said so. I took CO s helmets from their tents in the middle of field camps.
Thermals can be spoofed and the USAF bases can be overrun.

edit on 9-4-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

Mother and her son?



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
AND your training is?


Military training? None. I would be absolutely useless as anything other than cannon fodder in a small scale battle, and I probably wouldn't even get that right.

I am however pretty good at predicting behavior, creating strategies, and figuring out the details to implement those strategies.


Unless they can hit EVERYONE at once and cover EVERY armored movement( NOBODY can ,I was scout) then sorry you are an insufficent person to state that where as I AM trained to oppose greater numbers and could do exactly as I have said so. I took CO s helmets from their tents in the middle of field camps.


They don't have to hit everyone. Organized resistance would be absolutely impossible. In order to counter act the air supremacy, and even ground supremacy of things like tanks anyone who retaliates would have to revert to guerrilla tactics and act as a domestic insurgency. The goal wouldn't be to control ground but to create expense. You would never go up against a tank in combat, instead you would look to roadside IEDs or ambushing groups of 2-3 off soldiers at a time when they're off base and off duty.

If we took this a step further (and tactics would eventually evolve to this) any real attack probably wouldn't even target the military, instead it would involve attacking civilians because you can cause even more economic damage that way, as people would be afraid to go out and shop. Throwing a grenade into a packed subway car, explosives in a backpack at a church picnic, a sniper on a freeway overpass during rush hour... those sorts of things are how any determined group would fight back.

Those reactions would also get whoever fights back labeled as terrorists, and the military would have no problem targeting them despite them being American citizens.

The point is, the Second Amendment is only good for symmetrical warfare... victim against criminal for example. It does little for asymmetrical warfare. None of what I mentioned above requires a right to bear arms to accomplish. There are many guns out there, and explosives can be made with off the shelf legal components.

While I would certainly argue we shouldn't get rid of the 2nd (largely on the basis that people like it, plus once it's gone it's never coming back), I think the protections it was intended to have given us though have largely been rendered irrelevant by military advances.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

No one has mentioned perhaps the worst violation of the current Constitution and that is the abuse by the Executive Branch and the imbalance of power that has resulted.

I don't know where that fix/tweek should be placed or by what means but all the other 'good ideas' posted here pale if this one isn't fixed and soon.....



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Aazadan

No one has mentioned perhaps the worst violation of the current Constitution and that is the abuse by the Executive Branch and the imbalance of power that has resulted.

I don't know where that fix/tweek should be placed or by what means but all the other 'good ideas' posted here pale if this one isn't fixed and soon.....



It would probably involve a change to Article 2 Section 2 which would require creating an entirely new amendment.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I mean violent in regards to harming someone else. Harm doesn't have to be physical.


Ok, I see what you mean. Like "victimless crimes" shouldn't be crimes.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Any insurgency that targets it's own civilians will eventually fail. Civilian support is critical.

All that high tech equipment the military has has it's own liabilities. Fuel, maintenance issues, internet, food for large numbers, so on.

The target is infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. Bridges. Rail and road. The higher the tech in the weaponry the more subject to replacement parts, etc.

Long guns all over the place will eventually win out...bank on it.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join