What is Federal Income Tax?

As far as education goes, quite a bit comes from the state.

Might depend on which state you live in. Where I live the county pays most of the school budget.

It seems to me that the way it was set up in the begining, each state had it's own military that was state funded.

There were militias and the regular army. The militias could be called up when needed but there has always been a regular army as far as I know.

Apperently, the Civil war had little to do about slavery.

Depends on who you talk to. I guess a fair way to put it is It was about states rights concerning the issue of slavery.

It would have been kind of nice to have learned about that in elementary school.

They usually do. Maybe its different depending on where you live.
The cival war is cover quite extensively where I live, no surprise since much of the war was fought in the area.

Last but not least.....our police departments are federaly funded

Not that I know of. Most of the budget (where I live anyway) is derived locally. There may be federal grants and what not, but I would say in most cases its paid locally perhaps with state support.

people who make $200,000 per year pay approx $70,000per year and again the companies match that).

Employers don't match income taxes, they match F.I.C.A.(Social security and Medicare taxes )

Originally posted by Skibum

As far as education goes, quite a bit comes from the state.

Might depend on which state you live in. Where I live the county pays most of the school budget.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. I only meant to distinguish between federal and state. Clearly, it doesn't come from Washington DC

In my state, I have to pay city and county school taxes.
Sorry for the confusion.

DontTreadOnMe

I hadn't seen your reply as I was writing mine when yours was posted. No worries.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
Thanks for all the links and info. It is truely amazing how corrupt the system is now days. It is hard to tell what is legal and what is not.

In a way, nothing is illegal, and everything is illegal. It depends on how much money, power, and connections one has.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
OpenSecret, I am anxious to get those books I have heard that they are well worth the read. I had forgoten about Icke, but I will get the the barnes and noble site later and order those.

Believe me, you have noooo idea how much pieces of the puzzel come together after you read "The Biggest Secret" then read "And the Truth Shall Set You Free". Those 2 books should be mandatory reading, mandatory homework, for everyone who surfs this site.

Originally posted by mrsdudara

Originally posted by orionthehunter
As far as where our tax dollars go, they go to pay for social security for the elderly, for education, for the defense of everyone in this country, for research which leads to new jobs here in the US, and to pay all of our services we receive from the government such as police going after thieves and murderers.

Whoah! No! MrsDudara is talking only about Federal Income taxes. The majority of taxes for education., police dept, fire dept come from county, town, and state taxes. Like home property tax. State sales tax. Stuff like that. Defense varies. Some if it is state, some is Federal.
BTW guess what? The goverment in the future wants everything to be more reliance on the goverment and less on the states. More goverment control. Which is the official reason for the Civil War.

Research for more jobs? LOLOL! You're missinformed there! Also at Barnes & Noble check out the book "Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore. He has a bluntly famous part where he says "How many Mexican, Hispanic, Asian, Black, Pacific Islander, CEO's of American companies are there? Now who's really been shipping your jobs overseas? Embezzeling companies into bankruptcy? Cutting back on benefits, pensions, and paid vacaton and unions? White men!".

The Federal Goverment doesn't make jobs. Companies do! The Federal Goverment doesn't run the companies. And about the creating new jobs. It's all indirectly related to the Federal Reserve which is the biggest scam going on in America. There's less new, well paying jobs - on purpose! You and others here at this site NEED to read those 2 books by David Icke I mentioned! Icke shows step by step how the scam of the Federal Reserve works, how it keeps new jobs from being created, how it bankrupts companies. All of it done on purpose!

Originally posted by mrsdudara
This is where I get confused. We pay social security tax, it is seperate from the Fed. Income tax.

Yep it's a seperate tax from Fed Income tax. But SS is still controlled by the Fed Goverment. It's still a Fed Goverment program. Did you know during the first 150 years of America there was no Social Security? And Americans were still able to make it? How is that?

Originally posted by mrsdudara
As far as education goes, quite a bit comes from the state. They have already threatened to take that away if a percentage of the districts in the state have not passed the "no child left behind" standards.

Correct. State taxes cover the majority of education. And you are already ahead of 90% of the population when you notice that the Fed Goverment is trying to take control over education from the states.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
Now, the military portion has been getting confusing the more I look into it. It seems to me that the way it was set up in the begining, each state had it's own military that was state funded. When needed, it came together to serve the nation as a whole. Somewhere that all changed and Im not too clear on the when and why's.

Correct again. Watch the movie "Gangs of New York" for some more info about this. At first the only military was state militias. In the Revolutionary War they agreed to unite under 1 commander, and be the Continential Army. After the Rev War they went back to being state militias.
One of the minor reasons for the Civil War (which isn't taught in any school or college) was to give more military power to the Federal Goverment. That was when the Draft Riots happened cuz the Fed Goverment had to find a way to raise a permenant army.

Originally posted by mrsdudara
Apperently, the Civil war had little to do about slavery. It would have been kind of nice to have learned about that in elementary school. Last but not least.....our police departments are federaly funded?????

[edit on 15-5-2005 by mrsdudara]

The American Civil War had absolutly nothing at all to do with American Slavery. The highest reason is covered in graphic detail by David Icke. Have you heard about the Skull & Bones secret society? The fact that they exist shows that secret societies do so exist. Back to the Civil War. Another older secret society which has no allegiance to any country, had ulterior motives. Abraham Lincoln wouldn't go with the program. So they on purpose instigated the Civil War, and then whacked Lincoln. Caleb Cushing pulled the strings in the North. Albert Pike pulled the strings in the South. They both met regularly in Paris to discuss how their string pulling was going. Both were members of the same secret society.

The KKK at its highest levels has nothing to do with racism, hating blacks, Asians, Indians, and Hispanics. All that is a smokescreen for what the KKK is really about. Which is the KKK is simply a new name for an older secret society which has as the main part of its agenda to sucker America. To sucker 99% of white Americans.

Ku Klux Klan = Ku Klux from Greek word Kuklos meaning circle. So the "Circle Clan" or "Clan of the Circle". A new name with the exact same meaning of the old name for an older secret society that changed its name to cover its tracks after it instigated the Civil War, made the South lose on purpose, and whacked Lincoln. And later paved the way for the creation of the Federal Reserve. Which is the biggest scam being done to all Americans, including 99.98% of all white Americans.

[edit on 15-5-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

I definitely agree that a lot of the education budget on the local level is paid through property taxes at least in my area. I get to take a deduction on my federal taxes for those payments since I itemize. I tend to think of all taxes paid to our governments (federal, state, and local) as just government taxes and group them all together as the cost of living with the governments. When you add all of those costs together, I believe almost 40 to 50 percent of my pay may be going to pay a tax to someone somewhere. I'm not sure of the exact number but that just seems to be about right when you add up all of the taxes.

Why all the animosity towards the Federal Reserve? A nation cannot exist on any significant economic level without a central bank. Jackson attempted to abolish the Fed, giving the money to the state banks (his so-called "pet banks") and the Free Banking Era resulted in one of the worst periods of U.S. economic history. The U.S. had no national currency- think about it. In fact, just look at what followed. Countless banks would issue scrip which was esentially worthless, as they were not based on any tangible assets, nor any kind of economic promise, as no nation or sizeable investor would want to invest in a single state surrounded by competitors and unable to promise the economic security, basis, or stable value of their investment. The scrip was redeemable in specie usually only at deliberatly impossible to access branches (the "wildcat banks"), and this gave rise to massive economic carpetbagging and inflation. Those proponents of state banking managed to ruin the national economy, as well as that of their individual states, long before the civil war occured.

Witness again, the bank rush following 1929 that eventually gave rise to the Federal Reserve system as we know it today. How many jobs and livelihoods would have been spared had it not been for a sound, solid central banking system in place at the time, to serve as a lender of last resort to the failing banks?

We tried the "state bank" system once and it was a failure. Next time you're able to purchase anything without a wheelbarrow full of banknotes or withdraw your money from the bank knowing the bank has cash at hand to give you, llet alone buy something from the next city down the highway or over the internet, you might want to stop and give some thanks to good old Alexander Hamilton.

-koji K.



[edit on 16-5-2005 by koji_K]

the paper money you have on you is not backed by gold. Its backed by the feds ability to collect income tax. Scary , huh ? Our taxes go to an unnecessary institution (do we really need a bank that charges other banks interest ?) that is owned by private banks. Our gov't is strictly forbidden from owning stock in a mamber fed bank.....I'm too chicken to do it, perhaps you can call a fed bank and ask them the tough questions....


www.realdemocracy.com...
WHO REALLY OWNS THE FEDERAL RESERVE?
Thomas Jefferson, declared, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Did Jefferson have a crystal ball when he spoke these words? Has a private bank taken control over our nation's money supply?

The following is a conversation with Mr. Ron Supinski of the Public Information Department of the San Francisco, Federal Reserve Bank. This is an account of that conversation reconstructed to the best of my ability from notes taken during the conversation on October 8, 1992.


CALLER - Mr. Supinski, does my country own the Federal Reserve System?
MR. SUPINSKI - We are an agency of the government.
CALLER - That's not my question. Is it owned by my country?
MR. SUPINSKI - It is an agency of the government created by congress.
CALLER - Is the Federal Reserve a Corporation?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Does my government own any of the stock in the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI - No, it is owned by the member banks.
CALLER - Are the member banks private corporations?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - Are Federal Reserve Notes backed by anything?
MR. SUPINSKI -Yes, by the assets of the Federal Reserve but, primarily by the power of congress to lay tax on the people.
CALLER - Did you say, by the power to collect taxes is what backs Federal Reserve Notes?
MR. SUPINSKI - Yes
CALLER - What are the total assets of the Federal Reserve?
MR. SUPINSKI - The San Francisco Bank has $36 Billion in assets.
CALLER - What are these assets comprised of?
MR. SUPINSKI - Gold, the Federal Reserve Bank itself and government securities

I think the correct question should have been, where in the Internal Revenue Code is anyone made liable to pay income taxes. Just because somebody says you are liable, doen't mean you are liable. Where in the Code is the income tax imposed and makes Americans, Citizens or anyone for that matter liable to pay? A statute must be explicit in stating that YOU are liable and must pay the specified tax. If you can find a statute that imposes an income tax, makes you liable, and states that you must pay that tax, you will have done something absolutely amazing! Why? Because the statue does not exist. Don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself.

US Code of Laws Title 26

Originally posted by n01ukn0w
I think the correct question should have been, where in the Internal Revenue Code is anyone made liable to pay income taxes. Just because somebody says you are liable, doen't mean you are liable. Where in the Code is the income tax imposed and makes Americans, Citizens or anyone for that matter liable to pay? A statute must be explicit in stating that YOU are liable and must pay the specified tax. If you can find a statute that imposes an income tax, makes you liable, and states that you must pay that tax, you will have done something absolutely amazing! Why? Because the statue does not exist. Don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself.

US Code of Laws Title 26

You'll find it here, the very first statute in the code (26 USC (A)(1)(a)(i)):

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov...:+26USC1

You are generally correct, if someone says you are liable, it doesn't mean you are liable. However, that does not apply if that someone is the legislative branch of government, your democratically elected leaders who make the rules. The US Code is the most fundamental set of laws the United States has after the Constitution, and it is formulated by the two houses of congress. Remember, the legislature makes the rules, the executive enforces them, and the judicial branch interprets them. This is American government in a nutshell.

Regarding the Federal Reserve, while it is *technically* not owned by the government, this does not make it some kind of wild elephant with no responsibilities.

Who owns the Federal Reserve?

The Federal Reserve claims that nobody owns it – that it is an “independent entity within the government.” The Federal Reserve is subject to laws such as the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act which cover Federal agencies but not private corporations; yet Congress gave the Federal Reserve the autonomy to carry out its responsibilities insulated from political pressure. Each of the Federal Reserve's three parts – the Board of Governors, the regional Reserve banks and the Federal Open Market Committee – operates independently of the federal government to carry out the Federal Reserve's core responsibilities. Once a member of the Board of Governors is appointed, he or she can be as independent as a U.S. Supreme Court judge, though the term is shorter.

In the 1982 case, Lewis v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals stated that the "Federal reserve banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of a Federal Torts Claims Act, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.". The opinion also went on to state that "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes."

Influence of Government

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the US Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. The Federal Reserve's financial independence arises because it is hugely profitable, among others, due to its ownership of government bonds. It returns billions of dollars to the government each year. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

-koji K.

Originally posted by koji_K
As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the US Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. The Federal Reserve's financial independence arises because it is hugely profitable, among others, due to its ownership of government bonds. It returns billions of dollars to the government each year. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

-koji K.

Ok, so what decisions are they making that do not have to be ratified?
Also, is there anyway to know how much of our taxes goes to the Federal Reserve?

Just so we are clear, I am in no way bashing the Federal Reserve.

I fork over 25%-35% of my hard earned money. I just want to know who is getting it, what they are doing with it, and why the heck they want so much.

If it is going to pay the salary of one of the many hard working men or women who fight for our country, no problem. If a lot of it goes into the Federal Reserve so that I can have the privilage to use one of their dollar bills......kind of have a problem with that.

Another thing.....would it be a better idea if instead of the whole social security thing, they just allowed us to stop paying taxes at like 55 or something?

[edit on 16-5-2005 by mrsdudara]

[edit on 16-5-2005 by mrsdudara]

The Federal Reserve is not funded by your income tax dollars at all, to my knowledge. Much of the Federal Reserve's money comes from interest from Federal and State Bonds, which are debts issued by the Federal Government which the Federal Reserve buys. In effect, the Federal Reserve *supplements* your tax money, by buying the debts of the Federal Government. You could argue that any federal bond holders are taking your income tax money, in that the federal government must pay interest on these debts, but tax money alone simply isn't enough to sustain all the functions of the federal government in the short term. (Or state and municipal governments, for that matter.)

In the long term, the federal reserve *adds* money to the government's supply:

The earnings of the Federal Reserve System come primarily from interest received on the Reserve Banks' holdings of U.S. government securities (which are used in the conduct of monetary policy) and from fees they charge depository institutions for providing services (such as processing and clearing checks). The expenses of the System are paid from these earnings. Any net earnings are paid yearly to the U.S. Treasury. For 2001, the payment was $27.14 billion.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...:Federal_Reserve

The Federal Reserve's main source of initial capital (as opposed to earnings) comes from the law which states that all national banks must keep a portion of their holdings on deposit at a Federal Reserve bank. This serves several purposes: First, it allows checks to clear efficiently, because the bookkeeping is all done at a Federal Reserve member bank. Second, it enables the Fed to bail out banks in trouble during a bank run (what happened following the crash of '29). Finally, having this money at hand allows centralized control of the money supply, again preventing massive inflation or other economic hazards which stem from unchecked, "free" money flow. The FDIC act provided insurance to all personal accounts at Federal Reserve Member banks (all national banks and some state banks) up to, I believe, $200,000. This money is insured by the Federal Reserve, so even if your bank goes out of business, you will not have lost up to that amount.

Many state banks opted not to join the Federal Reserve system (membership is required for national banks but optional for state banks), making them more prone to bank runs. However, other safety mechanisms following the Federal Reserve Act regulate state banking activity to make it safer for the consumer.

The types of decisions the Fed makes that do not require ratification are decisions such as setting the interest rate and tightening or loosening the money supply. These decisions must be made, however, in cooperation with the government's economic policies, otherwise they would lead to disaster and Congress would see no point in maintaining the Federal Reserve banks to begin with.

Regarding income tax breakdown, here is a chart I found from CBS news (it's a bit simple, but it's all I could find at the moment):



-koji K.



[edit on 16-5-2005 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K

The FDIC act provided insurance to all personal accounts at Federal Reserve Member banks (all national banks and some state banks) up to, I believe, $200,000.

That's a pretty good explanation and graphic of where the dollar goes koji_K but I thought the amount of insurance was typically $100,000 per depositor within the same institution unless you have deposits setup with different categories of legal ownership.

www.pueblo.gsa.gov...

Originally posted by orionthehunter

Originally posted by koji_K

The FDIC act provided insurance to all personal accounts at Federal Reserve Member banks (all national banks and some state banks) up to, I believe, $200,000.

That's a pretty good explanation and graphic of where the dollar goes koji_K but I thought the amount of insurance was typically $100,000 per depositor within the same institution unless you have deposits setup with different categories of legal ownership.

www.pueblo.gsa.gov...

oops, I think you're right on that. I do know if you have a personal account and a joint one with your spouse they are insured seperatly, and as you say, there are other ways of structuring the ownership so the practical effect is greater amount being insured. thanks!

-koji K.

Research for more jobs? LOLOL! You're missinformed there!

As far as what I stated earlier by government money going for or being spent on research and development leading to job creation here in the US, I still believe some of that money does cause job creation. Didn't the US government spend money to develop the first computers and didn't government funds get spent to create the internet? If you are saying the subsequent use of computers and the internet did not create a single job here in the US, then I will stand corrected.

www.nathannewman.org...

As far as the government not creating jobs I will agree with that if it is not a federally funded job. Companies do create jobs but some of those jobs are the end result of manufacturing, developing, and servicing the technologies created in part by our tax dollars at work in my opinion.

I believe our tax dollars are working to give the US a competitive edge or some might say the US corporations a competitive edge over foreign rivals. I believe a few of those resultant jobs do come here before someone looks at outsourcing them.

[edit on 16-5-2005 by orionthehunter]

Originally posted by koji_K
Quite simply, paying income tax is Constitutional, even notwithstanding any Amendment.

Sort of, but you're neglecting the business about apportionment. The modern income tax depends on the ability to tax without apportionment, which did require an amendment.

More importantly though, the Constitution does not give Congress the right to redefine the word "income". Wages were not considered "income" at the time the Constitution was written, and the 16th amendment does not broaden the scope of the definition. There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the IRS the right to redefine wages as income, and there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Feds the right to tax wages without apportionment (wages are not income and are thus not covered by the 16th amendment. They are a direct tax which must still be aportioned if anyone still cared about the Constitution [which they don't]). Actually, the Constitution specifically prohibits the taxation of wages (it's a form of slavery).

The profits, rents, and interest of public corporations is what was originally meant by "income". These were given special consideration since public corporations are artificial entities protected by the force of the state. Private profits, rents, and interest were also not considered "income".

Almost nothing the IRS does is Constitutional, but then again, almost nothing the federal government does at all is strictly Constitutional. That has been the case since the civil war, when the dictatorship of Lincoln destroyed our heritage of limited government forever.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by koji_K
Quite simply, paying income tax is Constitutional, even notwithstanding any Amendment.

Sort of, but you're neglecting the business about apportionment. The modern income tax depends on the ability to tax without apportionment, which did require an amendment.

More importantly though, the Constitution does not give Congress the right to redefine the word "income". Wages were not considered "income" at the time the Constitution was written, and the 16th amendment does not broaden the scope of the definition. There's nothing in the Constitution that gives the IRS the right to redefine wages as income, and there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the Feds the right to tax wages without apportionment (wages are not income and are thus not covered by the 16th amendment. They are a direct tax which must still be aportioned if anyone still cared about the Constitution [which they don't]). Actually, the Constitution specifically prohibits the taxation of wages (it's a form of slavery).

The profits, rents, and interest of public corporations is what was originally meant by "income". These were given special consideration since public corporations are artificial entities protected by the force of the state. Private profits, rents, and interest were also not considered "income".

Almost nothing the IRS does is Constitutional, but then again, almost nothing the federal government does at all is strictly Constitutional. That has been the case since the civil war, when the dictatorship of Lincoln destroyed our heritage of limited government forever.

On the one hand, I see your point regarding apportionment were the 16th Amendment not applicable. And I concede that it may be more crucial to the question of legality of income tax than other parts of the Constitution than I at first indicated.

However, numerous Federal court cases have considered the question of the 16th Amendment and declared the problem to be a "political question" outside their jurisdiction. That is to say, if the 16th Amendment truly was ratified as a result of fraud or foul play, it is up to the people to vote out the perpetrators of this fraud and vote in new ones who recognize the fraud.

You state that congress cannot redefine the word "income". This is true, however, the Supreme Court, as supreme interpreter of the wording of the Constitution, can. To this date it has not reversed decisions of the Federal judiciary holding that the word income does in fact apply to individuals. Such cases include U.S. v. Stillhammer, 706 F2d 1072 (CA10 1983) and Snead v. Comm., 733 F2d 719 (CA10 1984). In one case, the 10th circuit noted that the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment places the taxpayer in a position of involuntary servitude is "clearly unsubstantial and without merit." Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F2d 925 (CA10 1954).

I take no position on the history of the 16th Amendment. However, the law upholds the view that the ratification of said amendment was, for all legal purposes, valid. And the electorate has not, to date, elected a party or candidate who has changed this law, or any other which would nullify the current system of income tax. Historical arguments are all well and good, but the law is clear on what is required of the citizenry.

-koji K.

[edit on 16-5-2005 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K
Why all the animosity towards the Federal Reserve? A nation cannot exist on any significant economic level without a central bank.

Now keep going. Who in your opinion should own this central bank?

Originally posted by koji_K
Witness again, the bank rush following 1929 that eventually gave rise to the Federal Reserve system as we know it today. How many jobs and livelihoods would have been spared had it not been for a sound, solid central banking system in place at the time, to serve as a lender of last resort to the failing banks?

The Federal Reserve was in place years before 1929.

Originally posted by koji_K
We tried the "state bank" system once and it was a failure.
[edit on 16-5-2005 by koji_K]

You are missinformed. You also only scratched the surface. You have not investigated the BIG BIG BIG picture.
1. It has nothing to do with banks.
2. It's about who is allowed to print the money.
3. Yes, privatly owned banks can print money if the Federal Goverment allows them to.
4. The Federal Goverment can also print its own money. With no need for a bank. With no assistance from a bank. Cuz the Federal Goverment isnt a bank.

Go to your local major bookstore (like Barnes & Noble) ask where the books by David Icke are at. And start with "The Biggest Secret". Then next read "And the Truth Shall Set You Free". Barnes & Noble, and most other major bookstores allow everyone to read all books for free. They even encourage it! You can also choose to buy the books if you can afford em.

If everyone posting in this thread would read those 2 books, and the parts where Icke talks about the Federal Reserve, and the IRS, everyone in this thread would instantly be of the same mind, opinion. And have ALL the facts. (Icke lists all his sources at the end of every chapter.)

Originally posted by orionthehunter

Research for more jobs? LOLOL! You're missinformed there!

As far as what I stated earlier by government money going for or being spent on research and development leading to job creation here in the US, I still believe some of that money does cause job creation. Didn't the US government spend money to develop the first computers and didn't government funds get spent to create the internet? If you are saying the subsequent use of computers and the internet did not create a single job here in the US, then I will stand corrected.

When it comes to computers no the goverment didn't create them. The goverment didn't create the internet. Privatly owned colleges started the modern computer revolution. Privatly owned colleges created the internet. All the lab work was done on privatly owned college campuses.
I agree the goverment did give some extra money to the colleges that did the R&D for the modern computer revolution. And the R&D for the internet. But the bulk of the money was from students paying for college which the college used in the R&D.

Originally posted by orionthehunter
www.nathannewman.org...

As far as the government not creating jobs I will agree with that if it is not a federally funded job. Companies do create jobs but some of those jobs are the end result of manufacturing, developing, and servicing the technologies created in part by our tax dollars at work in my opinion.

I think we both have good points. Yes you're right there's directly made Federal Jobs (like the Post Office). But the majority of jobs in America are not goverment jobs. If the goverment suddently cancelled all its jobs, the country would still function, still go on.
So I'll say I agree the Federal Goverment does help make more jobs. But it's not the major force in making more jobs. Privatly owned companies are.

Originally posted by orionthehunter
I believe our tax dollars are working to give the US a competitive edge or some might say the US corporations a competitive edge over foreign rivals. I believe a few of those resultant jobs do come here before someone looks at outsourcing them.

[edit on 16-5-2005 by orionthehunter]

It's the opposite. The goverment is destroying US competivness, US edge. The US currently makes it very hard for American companies to do buisness in America. But that's the small picture. Just like a Russian Doll, (there's a doll inside a doll inside a doll inside a doll inside a doll) in the very, very, very, big picture - there is no US Goverment. And there are no private companies. It's all just a few secret societies controlling and running everything. There's even secret societies runing "lesser" secret societies. And secret societies inside secret societies!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Those who study the esoteric know that computers have existed on this planet 2,000 years ago, and possibly 12,000 years ago, and possibly millions of years ago, and possibly billions of years ago.

a 2000-year-old computer on the ocean floor.

www.uh.edu...

www.google.com...


The Piri Reis map is a map of Antartica before it had it's 2 mile thick polar ice cap. It was made from the view seen from a flying machine. With precision possible by using computers. The last ice age was roughly 12,000 years ago. The first ice age was millions of years ago.

There's parts of the Bible no priest, rabbi, or clergy will ever talk about. If you ask them about these parts of the Bible, they'll drop kick you in the stomach and run away!

In Ezekiel it gives the biography of the Son of Dawn. Back when he was a good guy. He was a goodguy before the War In Heaven. Which happened before Adam and Eve were made. Which means before the Earth was created in Genesis 1:2.

In his bio, it says he was in physical form, in Eden! On earth! And that he traveled to other planets! This means something happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Gen 1:2 is at minimum the second time Earth was re-created. Onward to computers... if the Son of Dawn was in physical form, and traveled to other planets, then he needed to travel in a physical object. What we today call a spaceship. It makes sense he had computers onboard his spaceship.

Also when he did attack Yahweh and tried to take over heaven he was in... physical form. Which means a physical spaceship battle happened. Armies of spaceships attacked armies of spaceships. Computers anyone?
Adam and Eve were created (depending on whose timeline one goes by) 6,000 years ago. Or 150,000 years ago. (check out the 12 Planet book series by Zecharia Sitchen). The Son of Dawn was a good guy before Adam and Eve were made, before Earth was remade. This potientially would have/could have, been billions of years ago. Computers in his spaceship back then.

Furthermore, since secret societies do exist. It's possible they used ancient esoteric knowledge to make modern computers. Based on writings, and even models, of ancient computers.

[edit on 17-5-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012

Go to your local major bookstore (like Barnes & Noble) ask where the books by David Icke are at. And start with "The Biggest Secret". Then next read "And the Truth Shall Set You Free". Barnes & Noble, and most other major bookstores allow everyone to read all books for free. They even encourage it! You can also choose to buy the books if you can afford em.

If everyone posting in this thread would read those 2 books, and the parts where Icke talks about the Federal Reserve, and the IRS, everyone in this thread would instantly be of the same mind, opinion. And have ALL the facts. (Icke lists all his sources at the end of every chapter.)

I don't want to sound closed-minded, but you lost me with this part. David Icke is the guy who writes about lizard-like aliens controlling the world? I know there are some arguments to be made against the failure of the free-banking era, but can you offer me anything that I could respectfully offer as a source in, say, a discussion with a constitutional theorist or banking law historian? (You mention he cites sources, so I suppose I will look through his books next time I'm in the bookstore.)

Further, I'm not sure what you mean about printing the money. Yes, the Fed controls the money supply, through the purchase and sale of treasury bonds. The treasury is the only government agency authorized to actually print money, although I have no doubt the government can authorize national banks to do so if it pleased, like some private banks do in the UK. The lesson of the free banking era I was trying to convey was the danger in letting just anyone print their own money. Such money becomes valueless without safeguards, which the states proved unwilling to implement.

Finally, regarding your point on who should own the central bank, the answer is, it should be state owned, which it is. However, for legal purposes, the bank is considered owned by no-one. This is in accordance with its charter, as a central bank it should be far removed enough from government so as not to be manipulatable for short term political ends. It's like Amtrak or the US Post Office, or how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used to be- a government chartered corporation.


-koji K.

[edit on 17-5-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 17-5-2005 by koji_K]

[edit on 17-5-2005 by koji_K]