Ted Cruz Plots Government Shutdown Fight Over Planned Parenthood

originally posted by: muse7

Less taxes + less government = more freedom!

Who needs firefighters or police anyway?!

Especially when they are funded with locally raised property taxes and are on municipal salaries that have nothing to do with the federal government!

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: greencmp

Government jobs are not "subsidized" by taxation - they are PAID by taxation (of one sort or another) - what is you point??

Most federal jobs aren't necessary to the operation of our government.

Eliminate federal income tax and let the states raise their own income taxes for both greater civic autonomy and as a handbrake to national tyranny.

Taxes is taxes - states will need government jobs to receive and spend whatever taxes they raise too - again, what is your point??

Taxes were never meant to be collected by the federal government directly from the citizens of the member states of the federation.

The money could be just as easily raised through state legislation if it is truly necessary.

The point is that it affords the states the ability to withhold funding instead of having to beg for the money back from the feds who stole it from their citizens.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Teikiatsu

"Less government" is not limited to Federal institutions.

If we live close to one another, we can discuss it at the town meeting.

Otherwise, when Americans discuss politics at the national level, they are talking about federal matters.

a reply to: greencmp

Federal taxes are completely legal an in accordance with the current constitution, and there has never been a prohibition against them.

So - now that we have established that Govt = Govt, and Taxes = Taxes, perhaps you would care to reframe whatever objection it is you have into terms that are sensible and apply in the real world and are relevant to this thread?

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: greencmp

Federal taxes are completely legal an in accordance with the current constitution, and there has never been a prohibition against them.

So - now that we have established that Govt = Govt, and Taxes = Taxes, perhaps you would care to reframe whatever objection it is you have into terms that are sensible and apply in the real world and are relevant to this thread?

The 16th amendment was what allowed the federal government to tax citizens of the union, not before.

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.

a reply to: greencmp

Nope - income tax was collected during the civil war under the revenue acts of 1`861 and 1862 and there were multiple other proposals to levy them dating back to 1812.

the 16th amendment exempted income taxes from the apportionment requirement - it did not make them legal because they were ALREADY legal.

From your link:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the Tax Court, stating:[53]

It did not take a constitutional amendment to entitle the United States to impose an income tax. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 601 (1895), only held that a tax on the income derived from real or personal property was so close to a tax on that property that it could not be imposed without apportionment. The Sixteenth Amendment removed that barrier. Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes.

now - again - perhaps you could get back on topic??

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: greencmp

Nope - income tax was collected during the civil war under the revenue acts of 1`861 and 1862 and there were multiple other proposals to levy them dating back to 1812.

the 16th amendment exempted income taxes from the apportionment requirement - it did not make them legal because they were ALREADY legal.

now - again - perhaps you could get back on topic??

Interesting angle, I'll have to check that out but, clearly income taxes on any side of a civil war certainly do not constitute the taxation of the members of the union. The constitution doesn't authorize direct taxation and it expressly reserves anything not specified to be verboten.

Many unconstitutional things were done in the civil war.

a reply to: greencmp

Yes the question of income tax related to whether it was a DIRECT or INDIRECT tax - and the 16th amendment sorted that out - note that I edited my post to include a quote from the wiki article after you quoted me.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: greencmp

Yes the question of income tax related to whether it was a DIRECT or INDIRECT tax - and the 16th amendment sorted that out - note that I edited my post to include a quote from the wiki article after you quoted me.

Pretty good argument but, if I don't see it expressly authorized in the constitution, I can't accept that it would be constitutional considering the tenth amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I suppose it doesn't change much in the discussion since the 16th amendment removed all doubt.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: Teikiatsu

"Less government" is not limited to Federal institutions.

But not at the same magnitude. Look into true federalism sometime. Before the New Deal, the size of the federal government was less than the size of most state governments.

ANY Christian Pastor who uses his pulpit to preach political support for ANY policy should immediately lost the tax free status for their Church.

Churches have their tax free status only so long as they follow the 1st Amendment. The minute they get involved in politics, they no longer support separation of Church and State and therefore should no longer enjoy tax free contributions.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: greencmp

Nope - income tax was collected during the civil war under the revenue acts of 1`861 and 1862 and there were multiple other proposals to levy them dating back to 1812.

And the SCOTUS declared them unconstitutional in the late 1800s, until such time as the 16th amendment was ratified.

originally posted by: babybunnies
ANY Christian Pastor who uses his pulpit to preach political support for ANY policy should immediately lost the tax free status for their Church.

Churches have their tax free status only so long as they follow the 1st Amendment. The minute they get involved in politics, they no longer support separation of Church and State and therefore should no longer enjoy tax free contributions.

Jeez not this argument again. No, the pastor should not. First Amendment covers freedom of speech too.

Tax code 501c3 only taxes a religious institution that spends a majority of its time propogandizing for a political purpose. The occasional discussion from the pulpit or open talks at a bible study do not qualify.

And why did you say 'Christian pastor'? Why leave out other religions?

Ted Cruz is a disgrace to the office he holds. Just thinking of him makes me wanna puke. The guy’s a self-serving, self-righteous, narcissistic SOB. He’s probably at this very moment standing somewhere naked in front of a mirror and wondering how one could possibly improve on perfection, while at the same time dreaming of how others must envy him for his social, political and intellectual stature.

One thing’s for sure, he’s not thinking of how he might contribute to making this country greater, or what he can do to improve the lives of the average American citizen. He didn’t go to Washington to follow a dream or fulfill some lofy, noble vision. He went there to tear the place down. Damn the country, to Hell with it’s people, and down with the Establishment. Burn Baby, Burn! We’re all just collateral damage in his delusional quest to become God.

I’ll be damned if I can think of a single positive thing he’s done in office. He apparently doesn’t legislate. I guess he must spend his time just plotting against Obama, figuring out where to lay traps to disrupt the business of governing, inventing new conspiracies and scandals to ruin the lives of others, and oh yeah, running for President.

I just thought of the perfect Presidential ticket: Cruz/Huckabee for President!.

Wow! I’m getting sick again...

PS: If you don’t want to pay taxes, but do want things like clean water, sewage disposal, a military, highways, bridges, and so on, and so on... I guess that means you wanna free ride. Living in a civilized society isn’t free, you know. Of course if that’s not acceptable, another alternative is you can go live in a cave. By all means, go for it...

originally posted by: netbound
Ted Cruz is a disgrace to the office he holds. Just thinking of him makes me wanna puke. The guy’s a self-serving, self-righteous, narcissistic SOB. He’s probably at this very moment standing somewhere naked in front of a mirror and wondering how one could possibly improve on perfection, while at the same time dreaming of how others must envy him for his social, political and intellectual stature.

One thing’s for sure, he’s not thinking of how he might contribute to making this country greater, or what he can do to improve the lives of the average American citizen. He didn’t go to Washington to follow a dream or fulfill some lofy, noble vision. He went there to tear the place down. Damn the country, to Hell with it’s people, and down with the Establishment. Burn Baby, Burn! We’re all just collateral damage in his delusional quest to become God.

I’ll be damned if I can think of a single positive thing he’s done in office. He apparently doesn’t legislate. I guess he must spend his time just plotting against Obama, figuring out where to lay traps to disrupt the business of governing, inventing new conspiracies and scandals to ruin the lives of others, and oh yeah, running for President.

PS: If you don’t want to pay taxes, but do want things like clean water, sewage disposal, a military, highways, bridges, and so on, and so on... I guess that means you wanna free ride. Living in a civilized society isn’t free, you know. Of course if that’s not acceptable, another alternative is you can go live in a cave. By all means, go for it...

Wow I could exchange Cruz for Obama and say the same three first paragraphs, legislate -> lead, Cruz -> America. Same for Boehner, Reid, Pelosi and McConnell actually.

As for the p.s. I'd be happy to pay those taxes to my State to handle those issues (except military) as was the Founder's original intent.

a reply to: netbound


netbound....it's called "republican welfare".....as long as the "other people" are paying for republican largesse, that's ok.....but if a republican has to pay for poor people, then that's "government waste"...and what gets me the most, is that the programs cut by republican politicians in Washington, help out the poor and middle class republicans in those politicians own districts...in other words, the regular republican voters in red states, getting paid minimal wages, vote for their own demise!!.......stupid is, as stupid does

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: greencmp

Nope - income tax was collected during the civil war under the revenue acts of 1`861 and 1862 and there were multiple other proposals to levy them dating back to 1812.

And the SCOTUS declared them unconstitutional in the late 1800s, until such time as the 16th amendment was ratified.

no it did not.

it declared SOME taxes on SOME income to be unconstitutional where they were unapportioned direct taxes - this is the Pollock Case.

But that did not include what we today think of as income taxes - ie taxes on wages and salaries - those were considered indirect taxes that did not need to be apportioned and never had or have been:

After Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends, and rental income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be "direct" (and thus required to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, "indirect" (and thus required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity).

(my bolding)

originally posted by: charolais
Am I the only one who gets creeped out by Ted Cruz?


His religious views / agenda are what drives the majority of his campaign, so I am not shocked in the least.

Cruz is approaching the end of his time in government. I'm sure another crazy will be along to replace him shortly though.

originally posted by: greencmp
Pretty good argument but, if I don't see it expressly authorized in the constitution, I can't accept that it would be constitutional considering the tenth amendment.

So do you agree there is no right to vote? The constitution never grants that ability, it only mentions ways in which it can not be taken away from someone.

Numerous court rulings have backed this interpretation.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: netbound


netbound....it's called "republican welfare".....as long as the "other people" are paying for republican largesse, that's ok.....but if a republican has to pay for poor people, then that's "government waste"...and what gets me the most, is that the programs cut by republican politicians in Washington, help out the poor and middle class republicans in those politicians own districts...in other words, the regular republican voters in red states, getting paid minimal wages, vote for their own demise!!.......stupid is, as stupid does

Do you know why they do this? They're constantly bombared with being told they're a leech on the system, they're causing economic chaos, and that they're dragging the country down. Most of these people aren't trying to do any of that, so they instead choose to get by with less for the benefit of society... all the while the real welfare costs in corporate welfare actually do cause those problems but go untouched.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
Pretty good argument but, if I don't see it expressly authorized in the constitution, I can't accept that it would be constitutional considering the tenth amendment.

So do you agree there is no right to vote? The constitution never grants that ability, it only mentions ways in which it can not be taken away from someone.

Numerous court rulings have backed this interpretation.

The constitution limits government, not people.