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.

 

Taxes and Homeland Insecurity

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
If you believe that the true fiscal duty lies in cutting taxes, but not spending, then you're not a real fiscal conservative, I don't care what side of the aisle your on, that's just BS. More taxes certainly isn't the answer...But, if we're going to talk taxes and fairness, how about cutting 79,985 of the 80,000 pages of tax code. If you want an example of government policy that ONLY benefits the SUPER rich(Not talking the change Bill Gates has either, there are bigger wallets) look no further than the US Tax Code. Simplicity is key folks...Complexity is to the advantage of those who can afford the army of lawyers it takes to understand it.

If you think there's a shred of difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue, you're also sorely mistaken. Since the ratification of Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 taxes have only increased. I've gone over this before, and quite frankly taxes are a boring discussion. But we have to try to understand why we're having this argument to begin with.

Republicans AND Democrats wanna spend. And they want you to pay for it. They have a vested interest in passing certain legislation...Let's face it, just because they're democrats doesn't mean they're not sucking the corporate tit. I thought people would have learned this after the 2004 election when Kerry ran on George Bush's platform. Is it any wonder the talking monkey got elected again if that was the choice? We've seen no change in policy...The "new" leadership claims precedent from the "old" leadership, while blaming the old leadership for the woes the new leadership must face...Er...Continue- Examples:

Rachel Maddow on Obama's pre-crime policy


Yep...Pre-crime. With the loose terms with which terrorism is being defined does anyone really trust this or future government with this sort of power? Why pay for it? I posit there are places in government where cuts can be made, like the DHS. The Department of Homeland Security. Why? Why not?! The DHS is the most visible footprint, in my eyes, of the former Bush administration. When this cabinet level department was created in 2002 this is what was said about it:

From Wired.com


Since the events of 9/11, a range of legislation detrimental to fundamental freedoms and privacy rights has been rammed into law, without any assurance that our safety will improve as a result.
Law enforcement interests pushed through a variety of surveillance measures, including some unrelated to terrorism, that had long been rejected as inappropriate in a free society.
Important protections related to monitoring and intelligence gathering, established after serious past abuses, were swept away with the assurance that this time the government won't abuse its powers.


"Grave questions of invasion of privacy"


Nov 26, 2002 | President Bush signed the landmark Homeland Security Act into law Monday, setting in motion the most ambitious reorganization of the federal government in decades. Already, though, critics on both the right and the left are worried that measure will create a mechanism for unprecedented spying on U.S. citizens.
One program in particular is emerging as a concern: the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness system. Privacy experts say the program will allow the government to routinely mine thousands of databases -- from drivers' licenses to bank statements to telephone records -- to compile dossiers with scant regard for people's innocence or guilt.




Much of these fears have been realized. Today the Obama administration oversees an Assassination program that puts American citizens in the cross-hairs on suspicion. Two months into his presidency the Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn Michigan V. Jackson...What is that? Well:

Supre me Court Overturns Landmark Case Michigan v. Jackson — With The Support of the Obama Administration


At issue in this case was the continued interrogation of a murder suspect who had invoked his right to counsel. Under Michigan v. Jackson, when a suspect has invoked his right to counsel, police may not initiate interrogation until counsel has been made available to the suspect. In this case, a Louisiana businessman Lewis Ferrari was found dead on the kitchen floor from gunshot wounds to his head and chest. Neighbors identified the van of Jesse Jay Montejo (later forensics found Mr. Montejo’s DNA under Mr. Ferrari’s fingernails). Police interrogated Montejo who, after five hours and various explanations, asked for a lawyer.


What if you're charged with terrorism for...I don't know, reading the Wikileaks file dumps...With the Total Information Awareness program, they'll know you did. So...

You wanna cut taxes? I sure do! And I posit there are ways to pay for it...If you look hard enough... We have a structure set up that is being actively kept in place by the very group of people we elected in 2006 and 2008 to dismantle it. They have yet to do so.

I'm all for cutting taxes, but the taxes I do pay I don't want going to draconian BS like this. My guess is, you don't either.




posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Hmmm.... good thread, but I think a bigger question is how taxes exist when the 16th Amendment was never "truly" ratified. There has been a long-standing debate around the fact that we the people should never have paid taxes in the form that we do today.

The Law That Never Was

How Some States Did Not Legally Ratify 16th Amendment

S&F otherwise... everything else was on point.


~Namaste



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne
 


I'm well aware of the controversy surrounding the 16th Amendment. But this thread is really about a current political discussion being hashed out right now in Congress. The argument is that the "Tax Cuts"(in quotes for a reason) have not been paid for. I argue, personally, that taxes don't need to be paid for, they need to be accommodated...Which means cut out crap. DHS is among the bigger chucks of crap we're being forced to pay for.

All I'm saying is that if congress were serious about tax cuts NOT in quotation marks, if they were serious about protecting our civil and individual rights in any capacity, getting rid of the DHS would be a great start.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Indeed.

I would argue that government spending is more economically destructive than government taxation.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 





I would argue that government spending is more economically destructive than government taxation.


Actually it is Government borrowing that is the big problem. The US Government borrows "pixie Dust" from the Federal Reserve, (Checkbook but no money to back it, bouncy bouncy rubber check)

We then pay the Federal Reserve back with our Wealth, that is our labor. On top of that, if the bankers screw-up, the tax payer ends up holding the tab because we act as insurance when the bankers gamble with the money they stole from us.

This is the biggest case of outright FRAUD in the USA and it has gone on for one hundred years.



posted on Dec, 10 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 

All for it hack away.
I'll make an effort and feel myself up everyday to check for explosives so they won't have to! How's that for Patriotic!!!


edit on 10-12-2010 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
7

log in

join