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.

 

Republicans’ Ex-Spokesman Calls For Armed Rebellion Over Obamacare

page: 2
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Destinyone
Rebellion yes. But not with guns. People opposed to Obamacare, should get a grassroots effort going to refuse to pay taxes.

Can you imagine how it would cripple the government if millions of people just said NO. How much of a financial hole it would put the administration in. How it would catch on like a wild fire....

Des


Bingo! Move to the head of the class Des.

What we have here is some legislation calling itself the Affordable Healthcare Act that is 2409 pages long, which in itself is cause for challenge of the legislation as an ex post argument since clearly the ex ante policy argument see no harm from this legislation, but we also have a tax code which is a five volume set with countless pages - so much so that no one in Congress can even agree on how many pages exist - and millions of words.

How can anyone of average intelligence or even better reasonably be expected to read legislation that has more pages than the vast majority of novels, histories, philosophies, and other non-fiction books, filled with a language we call "legalese" which is akin to the Pig Latin we spoke as children in hopes of speaking an incomprehensible language to others, the only difference being that legalese is truly incomprehensible but Pig Latin can be easily learned.

The complexity of the legislation itself gives way to ex post arguments and continued challenges, but if we are going to challenge the Affordable Healthcare Act over its complexity, and given that the Supreme Court has held that the "individual mandate" is a "tax" issue, how can we not also challenge the complexity of the tax code?

Stop filing valid tax returns is indeed a much better solution to this problem, and arguably a valid way of extricating oneself from an odious tax scheme.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by Catalyst317
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


WTH is going on in this country? Obamacare is now a reason to take up arms against the government?

*SIGH*


Indeed.
The massive corruption between the military industrial complex, bankers and government wasn't enough. The clear destruction of the freedoms of the American people with the Patriot Act wasn't enough. But according to many of the idiotic and ignorant right, providing health care to millions of other FELLOW CITIZENS is enough to take down the government.

The mind boggles at the complete and utter stupidity of these people. They seem to just be complete hypocrites, conveniently ignoring what their OWN RIGHT WING PRESIDENT did to directly harm them, while crusading against something that will benefit millions.

Of all the things to threaten the government over, this is just pathetic.


People keep saying that. That this law provides health care to millions. How? It doesn't provide them with anything, it is a law requiring them to purchase health care. This isn't social health care ala Europe. It is just a law saying you have no choice but to buy it. Of course, if you didn't have the money to buy it in the first place, how are you going to afford it now? Oh yea, the hypothetical premium decreases due to economies of scale. Except, that isn't happening.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Stop filing valid tax returns is indeed a much better solution to this problem, and arguably a valid way of extricating oneself from an odious tax scheme.



Are you saying we should file invalid tax returns or just not file at all? If you are saying we should file invalid ones are they invalid in our favor? i.e. do we get more deductions or more of a return or less?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Bakatono
 





...it is a law requiring them to purchase health care.


Respectfully, it is not even that. It is an act of legislation compelling "applicable individuals" to purchase an insurance policy. "Healthcare" is the lack of a better term, as is "Affordable".



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What is the point of this bill then?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   


I condescended to make some such statement as this in writing: —

"Know all men by these presents, that I, Henry Thoreau, do not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society which I have not joined."

This I gave to the town clerk; and he has it. If I had known how to name them, I should then have signed off in detail from all the societies which I never signed on to; but I did not know where to find a complete list.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Bakatono
 





Are you saying we should file invalid tax returns or just not file at all?


Filing "invalid" tax returns is a crime and a conspiracy to commit fraud upon the federal government. I would never, ever suggest that. In terms of not filing at all, let me start by saying that this ruling shines a light on the "income" tax and gives people cause to reevaluate their own voluntary self assessment and question how it was they even become subject to these "applicable revenue laws" to begin with.

What I am suggesting is that you should ask yourself how it was you became liable for any "income" tax to begin with, and if you can wade through principles of Constitutional taxation and the incomprehensible tax code and determine that you never were liable for any "income" tax, then why would you file any valid tax return?

If you find all that "legalese blah blah blah" too much to take and still find value in declining to file, that is your personal, moral, and ethical decision to make. At some point, every hero gets the call, and every hero will initially refuse the call, but there is always some circumstance that compels the hero to answer the call. Whether this ruling is your call to adventure or not is up to you, but if it is, what I am suggesting is that Des was spot on in recommending a velvet revolution. Lay down your arms for this one and simply decline to fund tyranny. That choice is yours. The strategy to that is either to successfully argue you're not even liable for the damn tax, or failing that to defy the tax, but that choice has to be yours. It is, in my opinion, a better choice than armed rebellion.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


What is the point of this bill then?


It is a great question, my friend, and if you can answer the point to the so called "Personal Income Tax" then you can probably answer that question for yourself. If you can't answer what the point is to "income" taxes in terms of the bill, then it is remains a good question, no?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Bakatono
 





...it is a law requiring them to purchase health care.


Respectfully, it is not even that. It is an act of legislation compelling "applicable individuals" to purchase an insurance policy. "Healthcare" is the lack of a better term, as is "Affordable".





Ok, It is requiring them to procure insurance for healthcare.


That being said. That which is affordable is subjective. Who is to make that determination? What I feel is affordable to me is up to me, but I doubt some bureaucrat will agree with me.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Yeah and then you'll be hit with tax evasion, that isn't any better than conspiracy to commit fraud. Haven't the majority of the income tax trials been ruled in favor of the IRS? You can't change the government whilst in prison.

The only way this would work would be if the whole entire country stopped filing,



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
How did Matt feel when The Heritage Foundation wrote this bill to begin with all those years ago. Did he change what he used to define himself as a Republican by or is he just as full of crap as all you lame ass "im down" posters?

You are mad at Obama so you want to point guns at fellow Americans.
Nice!



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


As you previously stated, the legalese is too much. It is too much for anyone to take. It is a language invented to obscure actual intent and confuse the general population so that it has to be "interpreted" by those annoited individuals we call lawyers and judges. They tell us what their "opinion" of the legal nonsense is and we follow it because, hey, we have no idea what it says anyhow. So yes, I do find it too much to take. It is nonsense.

In addition to that, glad you cleared up the tax return statement. The thing that throws the comment you made into question is when you state people should not file a "valid tax return" instead of saying they should not file any tax return. If you don't file, it can neither be valid or invalid. It doesn't exist. By saying they should not file a "valid tax return" that seems to advocate filing an invalid one, which would be criminal and is generally not a good idea.

As for me, I am unfortunately in a position where I have no choice but to file. I could elaborate, but I won't. If my life circumstances change in the future I may have the option you refer to, but it just isn't available to me at this time.

How about you, will you file or answer the call?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Bakatono
 





...it is a law requiring them to purchase health care.


Respectfully, it is not even that. It is an act of legislation compelling "applicable individuals" to purchase an insurance policy. "Healthcare" is the lack of a better term, as is "Affordable".


"Applicable". Is that as in "one who must file"? If the information I was given some years ago is correct, those who must file are, in fact, identified in the tax code but it does NOT apply to most employees ~ until they sign on the dotted line. Isn't that why the forms always refer to taxpayers as "if you are one who must file"? People assume they fall into that catagory with no evidence to back it up, but by their signature they become one of those who must file.

So what would happen if on January 1st (or rather the 2nd) every employee changed their W4 to exempt status? Would that not be the first step in a genuine tax revolt?


edit on 28-6-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I doubt ANYONE really knows what is in the obamacare bill. I'm willing to bet NO ONE actually read all 2000+ pages.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle


So what would happen if on January 1st (or rather the 2nd) every employee changed their W4 to exempt status? Would that not be the first step in a genuine tax revolt?


can that be done? Just fill out a new W4 and exempt yourself? What does that mean? Does that mean no federal income tax is deducted from our pay? Does it mean no taxable income is reported to the IRS? Or, does it mean that our taxable income is reported but we paid 0 so the IRS sends their jack-booted thugs, who are now armed, to our house to collect?


9.1.4.6 (05-30-2008) Directive No. 4 - Firearms

The nature of CI's activities requires the ability to respond in a safe and timely manner 24 hours a day. Special agents are not expected to be armed at all times, but must have access to their assigned firearm when required to perform official duties.

Special agents are authorized, but are not required, to carry their IRS-issued weapon when off-duty. When carrying their IRS-issued weapon off-duty, special agents are subject to all IRM provisions concerning firearms.

The SAC may authorize special agents to carry IRS-owned weapons other than the agents' assigned firearm (for example, shotguns).


Link



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by lives
 


Pretty silly reason to take up arms.

Affordable healthcare? Oh no, we can't have that! But banning gay marriage, abortion and starting mindless wars? We're down!

/sarcasm



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 





Yeah and then you'll be hit with tax evasion, that isn't any better than conspiracy to commit fraud.


26 USC § 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax


Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.


(Emphasis added)

Could you point to any credible statute of the tax code that effectively shows how "any tax imposed by this title" applies to you? I ask you to show only in regards to you because you have no lawful authority to assess any other persons tax liability. Presumably you've assessed your own liability. How was it you determined you were liable to begin with? How was it you became subject to the applicable revenue laws?



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Bakatono
 


The IRS has always been armed. I have a friend in the IRS that audits businesses and he HAS to have an armed body guard there at all times when he goes out to do the audit of the business just in case.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 





So what would happen if on January 1st (or rather the 2nd) every employee changed their W4 to exempt status? Would that not be the first step in a genuine tax revolt?


The more prudent strategy would be to nullify the agreement between employee and employer and revoke any and all signatures contractually authorizing an employees employer to "withhold" the tax to begin with.

If that employee determines that they never were liable for any "income" tax to begin with then "exemptions" do not apply. If one is not subject to the applicable revenue law and is not liable for any tax, it stands to reason they need no exemption from that tax.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


No, I couldn't, I have absolute know knowledge of tax laws. But all it takes is a jury to find you guilty due to confirmation bias. They have and they will.




top topics



 
26
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join