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.

 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009-Oh man....

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Actually, Other than the first post from me, the rest of these are treemanx's words, as he felt it his duty to make his opinion known on someone else's thread that was shut down by a moderator shortly after his arrival. So perhaps he will revel in his own intellect and superior command of life liberty and justice for all! Does anyone recall This sites motto?




posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 02:51 AM
link   
How can some people blame unemployment on the government? It's not like they came in and shut the company down or fired you personally.

Hell, I'm unemployed, but the government had nothing to do with it.

I read an article the other day about train workers being on strike and as part of their "deal" with the industry, they want their employers to provide them with daliy doses of Viagra. What the hell are these people thinking? It's not your employers responsibility to ensure that you have a satisfactory sex life. Viagra has nothing to do with these people performing their job, getting paid and supporting their families.

Autoworkers and the Unions in Detroit are more responsible for their demise than the government is. The Unions think people should get paid $100/hr to build new cars. They demand that their workes be disgustingly overpaid and smothered in ridiculous benefits and bonuses. The workers are just as guilty, because they're the ones standing there with their hands out instead of calling BS on the whole ordeal.

None of them ever took in to consideration the fact that their selfish greed would cause the prices of cars to go up. Making even the low priced basic models too expensive for the general public. Labor goes up, prices go up, sales go down, jobs get cut, company goes bye-bye.

Again, the government had nothing to do with these people losing their jobs.

The government tried to help these companies with their multi-billion dollar bail outs, just like they did the banks. The banking system is the backbone of American economics which is why they were given bail outs. Without a strong banking system, everyone suffers.

But again, we see the selfish greed of individuals supercede the best interests of business. CEO's giving themselves million dollar bonuses and retirement packages to reward themselves instead of rewarding the American and Global customer bases that kept them in business to begin with. GREED not Government caused all of this.

I will agree with you that the government has made decisions that may have affected the economy and some businesses, but nothing so drasticly overwhelming that forced the business doors closed and forced people out of work.

I'll also agree that the government has been abusing their powers and overstepping their bounds on some planes, but attempting to place the blame of unemployment directly on the shoulders of the government is a flat out falsehood and needs to be recognized as such.

The bail outs and stimulus plans are there to help these companies. They give money to the states to help fund projects that will create jobs. People go to work and make money, in turn they spend that money at other companies making them money, in turn creating a need for more workers. There is a pattern here.
More money = more workers = more spending = more workers = more money = more spending.

When companies can make more money they can lower their prices, in turn driving up sales, in turn driving down prices, in turn driving up sales, in turn means more money, in turn creating more jobs .. and the cycle repeats from the beginnig.

Perfect example of Reagan's Trickle Down Economics.

It's not an instant overnight fix to the problem, but it is a step forward to recovery with a proven method and successful track record.

This is not the first time that the economy and unemployment has been in the crapper. America will bounce back and rebuild because she is resilient.

The problem is ... Somewhere down the road, this whole behavioural pattern with start ALL OVER AGAIN. It always will until We The People relaize that there is no single individual worth the sacrifice of the common good.

There are no excuses or reasoning that can justify one person making fifty million dollars a year while another person is homeless and hungry in America. NONE!



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


There is no such thing as a direct income tax currently being levied by Congress on the people. The so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax on income but rather an indirect tax on income meaning that what is being taxed or should be taxed are specific activities named by the Internal Revenue Code. The common belief is that Congress passed the 16th Amendment in order to bypass a requirement of the Constitution that demands that all direct taxes be apportioned among the states. This is a fallacy, however, and Congress does not have the legal authority to give themselves any more power than was originally granted them by the Constitution.

Congress did not act illegally by passing the 16th Amendment nor is the 16th Amendment unconstitutional. The purpose of the 16th Amendment is better understood in the historical context that brought about its creation. In 1894 Congress passed a Revenue Act that was ruled as unconstitutional in a seminal Supreme Court ruling known as Pollack v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. It was the Pollack Court that has viewed that particular income tax as a direct tax levied upon income without apportionment and struck down the entire income portion of that Act as unconstitutional. This was the impetus for the passage of the 16th Amendment.

It is often claimed that the 16th Amendment did authorize a direct tax without having to deal with the burden of apportionment but this claim is categorically false and careful readings of both Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. both reveal that contrary to popular belief then and now what the 16th Amendment did was prevent the courts from ever viewing a non apportioned tax on income as a direct tax and instead must view such a tax as being an indirect tax. Had the Pollack Court viewed the Revenue Act of 1894 as an indirect tax rather than direct then an entirely different ruling would have been the case.

The importance of this lies in the basic way that the so called "Personal Income Tax" is being enforced by tax collectors today. Since SCOTUS made clear and has consistently held, (neither Brushaber nor Stanton have ever been overturned), that the so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax and therefore not subject to the rule of apportionment and is instead an indirect tax subject to the rule of uniformity, then it should be understood that is not income per se that is being taxed but rather income is what is used to measure the amount of tax that is owed. What is supposed to be taxed are specific activities named with in the Internal Revenue Code.

Much of the confusion regarding this so called "Personal Income Tax" comes from the way Title 26 of the IRC has been enforced and indeed, in the way most people have come to believe that they have somehow been made liable for a tax and therefore subject to this so called "Personal Income Tax". I continually refer to this current income tax as so called because the very nature of the name of this tax implies that it is personal income that is being taxed. Congress can name a bill what ever they want and the name of the bill often times has nothing to do with the content in it. The "Leave No Child Behind" Act is just a title and little of the content has anything to do with leaving children behind. The so called "Patriot Act" is just a title and it is highly dubious that there is anything patriotic at all about the content of that Act.

Just because the name of the tax being currently levied as an income tax is called "The Personal Income Tax" doesn't mean that it is yours or my personal income that has been taxed. Indeed Title 26 Section 1 is pretty clear that income itself is not what is being taxed but rather "taxable income" is what is being taxed. What is "taxable income"? Taxable income is defined by the IRC...



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


...in Section 63 as being either "gross income" or "adjusted gross income". What is "gross income" and adjusted gross income"? Section 61 defines "gross income" as being "all income from whatever source derived..." and Section 62 defines "adjusted gross income" as being "gross income minus the following deductions..." Herein lies the rub, and where many become confused enough to believe that their income is what is being taxed and ultimately what has made them liable for this tax; "all income from whatever source derived...". However, if all income is what is being taxed then why the games of semantics by the IRC? Why first call it "taxable income" then define that as "gross income" in order to make clear that it is income that is being taxed? It is not made clear and why it hasn't been made clear is that income is not what is being taxed.

Let's go back to to the beginning with Section 1 which is subtitled Tax imposed. One would think that given the title of that it would be made perfectly clear what sort of tax is being imposed. It is important for people to know the nature of a tax if they are expected to know whether they are liable for that tax. After all, we are all presumed to know the law in the U.S. so based upon that presumption the people have ever right to expect clear language from the statute or legislation that would endeavor to make them liable for and/or subject to such legislation. So then, how clear is Section 1 of Title 26 when it comes to explaining the nature of the tax imposed? Here is the beginning of that Section:

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and

(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income.
Over $36,900 but not over $89,150 $5,535, plus 28% of the excess over $36,900.
Over $89,150 but not over $140,000 $20,165, plus 31% of the excess over $89,150.
Over $140,000 but not over $250,000 $35,928.50, plus 36% of the excess over $140,000.
Over $250,000 $75,528.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.

Clear enough? Is it? Let's consider this. Why would a Section of a Revenue Act that claims to explain the nature of the tax being imposed begin with "Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses" before finally getting to the heart of the matter and saying not so clearly that; "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—"? Reason dictates that if someone is filing a return, joint or other wise, they have all ready been made liable for the tax, otherwise why would they be filing at all? And again, it was not the personal income of those married individuals that a tax had been imposed upon but rather "taxable income".

It is the circumlocution of the Code itself that is confusing. In order to understand what "taxable income" means one must turn to Section 63 that in turn makes one turn to Sections 61 and 62 and not only that if one is to truly understand the nature of this so called "Personal Income Tax" then one must also find what is meant by "taxable year" and that definition can be found in Section 441 but only then forces us to turn to Sections 7701 and 1313 in order to know what is meant by "taxpayer". You made reference to the taxpayer in your post and most people tend to understand that word to mean anyone who pays taxes. However, the IRC has a much more specific definition of the word "taxpayer". Section 7701 first states:

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

Then goes on to...



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 


...to list several definitions including person, partnership and partner, corporation, all the way down to but not ending with number (14) which is "taxpayer" and that definition states:

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

Then Section 1313 defines "taxpayer" again stating:

(b) Taxpayer
Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.

Both of these definitions make clear that as far as the IRS is concerned or at the very least should be concerned the term "taxpayer" refers only to those who are subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law. What has made you or I or most people subject to this so called "Personal Income Tax"? Is it at all possible that most people are not even liable for this tax and therefore not subject to the applicable revenue laws? Is it possible that given the circumlocution of the revenue law and the excessive verbiage that add up to, depending upon who you listen to, anywhere from a million words to 5.6 million words on, depending upon who you listen to, anywhere from 2,500 to 3.458, to 6,000 pages? Regardless of how many words on how many pages there are in regards to the IRC it is a lot and is taxing in itself for the average person to read and understand this law.

However, since we are presumed to know the law, it would be prudent to for the average person to understand that in order to be held liable for a particular law legislated by Congress then that law must be easily understood. An excess of verbiage that confounds understanding of the law is legislation that people can't be held liable for if they can effectively illustrate they just don't understand it. This applies not only to the IRC but to the current "health care" legislation as well. I am not suggesting that people stop paying the taxes they owe. Taxes are a necessary part of having government but if you are not liable for this so called "Personal Income Tax" and therefore not subject to the applicable revenue laws then why would you pay the tax? If your landlord approached you and informed you that last year you only paid 12 months worth of rent and as such still owed two more months would you pay that?

There is too much reliance upon "our leaders" in terms of We the People affecting change. If this is truly a government of the people by the people and for the people then perhaps it is high time we as individuals just start doing what is necessary to ensure we may enjoy our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of property and happiness.



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

They explained that money would go to the States and then the states would fix roads and Bridges. This would create jobs.


create jobs?????
in most states public works jobs are union jobs. most union workers that work these type jobs work at least part of the year and when they don't work they don't have to go looking for work to collect unemployment like the rest of us.
all they have to do is be signed up at there local union hall.(this is the way it works in calif)
Most union workers get payed 3 to 4 times what a non union worker doing this same type work would be payed and love working jobs with 2 to 4 months of government payed vacation every year,

This should be called by its real name "The Union Vote and Over Payment Act"

None of this will help many of the millions of non union unemployed.
the few that might get work will be when the unions are short of workers and they will work under union white cards and be dumped by the unions as soon as The jobs are over,

this is just the democrats buying the union vote



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join