The endisnighe, if I ran for President, would you vote for me?

reply to post by Subjective Truth


I can agree with that. I think that this government needs to go on a diet. We can't spend ourselves into oblivion. Frankly I think that it's wrong that our government doesn't always have a balanced budget. The most efficient way to control spending is to require a balanced budget.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What is your stance on the so called "Personal Income Tax"?

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

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.

www.archives.gov...

Pretty much sums that up right?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

I can agree with that. I think that this government needs to go on a diet. We can't spend ourselves into oblivion. Frankly I think that it's wrong that our government doesn't always have a balanced budget. The most efficient way to control spending is to require a balanced budget.

Well I hate to say it but right now we have no party we can vote for that is willing to do that. They are one in the same and Obama is just like Bush. I just wish the Democrats would see this and out the progressives and move back to the center. This country should run a little right of center that is the best. And I thought the renewal of the patriot act and the expansion of the wars would do it but I was wrong. I dont know what it will take to wake them up anymore.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Subjective Truth]

reply to post by whatukno

Pretty much sums that up right?

Does it? Are you suggesting that Congress didn't all ready have the power to lay and collect taxes on income prior to passing the 16th Amendment?

Are you suggesting that this Amendment "authorized" Congress to pass a non apportioned tax directly upon income?

I have no idea what you think you've summed up, by posting a copy of the 16th Amendment, and I can only assume from this that you are indeed an advocate of perpetual income taxation. Frankly, what I think you effectively summed up is that you don't have a clue what the 16th Amendment means. Not good considering your political ambitions.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by whatukno

 

Pretty much sums that up right?

Does it? Are you suggesting that Congress didn't all ready have the power to lay and collect taxes on income prior to passing the 16th Amendment?

Are you suggesting that this Amendment "authorized" Congress to pass a non apportioned tax directly upon income?

I have no idea what you think you've summed up, by posting a copy of the 16th Amendment, and I can only assume from this that you are indeed an advocate of perpetual income taxation. Frankly, what I think you effectively summed up is that you don't have a clue what the 16th Amendment means. Not good considering your political ambitions.

What do you mean by political ambitions? Please clarify how this ties in.

reply to post by whatukno


There are two supreme court decisions that stated as FACT that the 16th amendment did not grant any more taxation powers to the Federal government.

SO, your quote of the 16th amendment means NOTHING.

[edit on 4/9/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by Subjective Truth


Wuk is running for the House of Representatives and if elected will be a part of the legislative process, and as such, should be expected to understand the law.

reply to post by Subjective Truth


I don't know, this is starting to get into Glen Beck territory, and if we start pulling out Glen's chalkboard, I can see how this government can go from a little right of center (like Glen wants) to a full blown theocracy.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Subjective Truth

 

I don't know, this is starting to get into Glen Beck territory, and if we start pulling out Glen's chalkboard, I can see how this government can go from a little right of center (like Glen wants) to a full blown theocracy.

You mean Anarchy because that is the far right and a Oligarchy is the far left and I would say we have more government now then ever before so which way are we heading? I know already but many others need to see the truth. And dont get me wrong I hate Anarchy just as much if not more. But we need to see threw the lies to find the truth.





And many hate Glen Beck the man and attack him but believe and say the exact same things he does. We should not look at the men saying it but what he is saying. We are lost in the hero worship and need to look at issues one by one instead.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am not a lawyer, (which is part of the problem with our laws and part of the problem with congress too) But I do understand fairly well the law.

I probably understand it better than most politicians.

Frankly if you are earning an income, more than likely you are required to pay taxes on that income.

If you don't like it, well, you don't like it. If you want to pay less in income tax, well, my suggestion would be to make the government more efficient so that they will have to raise less taxes in order to run.

But if you think I am here to just make you happy, it's not going to happen. If I am elected it's to do the best job I can for the people. Not to win a popularity contest. I may not win. I might. I can only promise that I will do the best job I can. If you don't like what I do. That is fine, it's your decision not to vote for me.

If I am elected, I may do things that Conservatives like, I might do things that Liberals like. People in my district are going to influence my decisions more than a person on a message board. People who elect me are going to influence me more than any lobbyist will.

reply to post by whatukno


I still to this day have never even seen a Glen Beck episode and am not even sure which "news" agency he works for, let alone know anything about his "territory".

The 16th Amendment was written in a response to a SCOTUS ruling in Pollack v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. where a portion of an earlier revenue law was struck down as unconstitutional because that Court viewed the non apportioned tax on income in that revenue law as being a direct tax not apportioned.

Congress then passed the 16th Amendment. It was challenged as unconstitutional and two of those challenges made their way to the Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., and Stanton v. Baltic Mining. Both opinions were rendered by Chief Justice White who explained that 16th Amendment was indeed Constitutional because it did not do what Brushaber and Stanton were claiming it did. Chief Justice White further explained that what the 16th Amendment did do was prohibit any future courts from viewing a non apportioned tax on income as anything other than an excise tax placed upon specific activities.

What activities those are, was not made clear by the 16th Amendment, and unless you are one who imports or manufactures tobacco, or imports and distills whiskey, it is not so clear what specific activity is being taxed in the Internal Revenue Code either.

reply to post by whatukno


My questions have nothing to do with my feelings, and I do not elect politicians to make me happy, I make me happy, okay?

As to your clarification that you are not a lawyer, I would suggest that you don't need to be one in order to understand the law, and when one has to hire a lawyer because they don't understand, that becomes a good sign the legislation passed was or is not law, but merely evidence of it. All statutes, codes and ordinances are nothing more than evidence of law. The law itself is self evident, and if it has to be explained, then clearly it is not self evident law, but just legislation.

You sound more and more just like all the other politicians in the way you avoid answering questions directly and instead lecture and talk down to those whose questions you don't like. You and Pelosi, "Sheesh oh Pete".

Edit to fix the typo, sorry Wuk.

[edit on 9-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


It's "Shesh oh Pete".

I should probably have that trademarked

I have tried to make my stances clear. Sorry if taxes piss you off, not my fault. The only thing I can do is, if elected, try and reduce the size of the government so that they don't have to take as much from you in taxes.

That is the only real way to reduce taxes. Taxes aren't going away. Sorry but that's the breaks of it. I can work as much as I can to reduce the size of government, reduce the waste in government, and then and only then can you reduce taxes.

Otherwise you get deficits and increase the national debt.

reply to post by whatukno


You keep insisting, and unfairly given my several posts that stressed the importance of taxation and its necessity, that taxes piss me off. This is sheer disingenuous nonsense. What pisses me off is the fast and loose way in which legislatures ignore the law in order to expand government. Taxation is a big part of that expansion. I can only assume that your insistence on trying to characterize me as someone who doesn't like taxes, (honestly I don't know who does, but that is besides the point), and can't accept the reality of them, is because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth just like the typical politician.

You will pay lip service to reducing taxes, but can offer no effective way in how you would do that, and instead want us to believe that taxes can't be cut until spending is, never mind the fact that the spending spree Congress has gone on since the passage of the income tax couldn't have happened without that income tax, there are only two ways to spend, either with cash, (or check), or credit. Even with an income tax in place, The United States is in very real jeopardy of loosing their credit rating, and this will be a major problem for us all. The only answer is to dramatically reduce that spending. I have seen you agree that we must starve the beast, but you don't offer any solutions to how we do that, just like a typical politician.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I have offered plenty of specific ways to save money, reduce government size and thus enable us to reduce taxes. If you didn't read them, that is not my concern.

You have had quite the antagonistic stance during this thread. No matter what the response I have given you, for some reason it's not good enough. Well sorry, don't vote for me then. Frankly I am not trying to get elected just to appease you Jean Paul Zodeaux, but work towards the goals to fix the problems in this country. They won't be fixed overnight. They are going to take time and effort. I am willing to put in that effort if given the time.

The amount of spending that I would cut the most is in the military. There is no real need to have our troops all over the world. If you do that, it would go a long way in reducing the amount the government spends. End the wars, that would reduce the amount the government spends, end farm subsidies, that would reduce the amount the government spends. Those are a start, further cuts would require more research than I am willing to put in on an online message board.

reply to post by whatukno


Here is my very first reply to you in this thread:

Oh yeah "sheesh oh pete", that's the one. I understand the humor, I just don't understand the ridiculous animosity between the two of you. I love you both and expect great things from the two of you and don't see any greatness from this tit for tat one upsmanship going on. You two don't have to agree in order to both accomplish the same thing. You don't even have to work together, but you do have to work! Humor is fine when it is funny. I'm a three stooges fan myself, so if you want amuse then the both of you can slap each other and poke each other in the eyes, but this stupid rhetoric has nothing to do with the job ahead.

Here is a part of my next reply to yours:

As End is said, you are indeed funny and very clever, which is why I expect so much from you. I am all for fun, I just can't understand why you two aren't working together rather than use each other to tear the other one down. Neither one of you have endorsed the other's campaign, (to the best of my knowledge), and let it be said that if both of you are running for office, I endorse you both, but not without expectations. It would disingenuous of you to suggest I lack humor, (although you might find my humor wanting), as the three of us have all engaged in plenty of that together.

That reply was fairly lengthy so I will just quote on more paragraph from that reply:

Is that really too much to ask? Neither one of you are enemies of freedom. Quit bickering and endorse each other and let's get down to the "real" problem of getting our country back on track. Or, keep slapping each other and poking each other in the eyes, whatever floats your boat.

The next few replies between you and I were a silly argument on the nature of BTS which culminated in this reply from me:

On the very first page of the link you provided, there is not a single thread created by you, but inexplicably, you expect me to troll through each thread to find your contributions. Fuggedaboutit! I am not required to do such work, you as a candidate are required to show me in "reality", or at the very least your prospective constituents, what it is you will do to effectively protect their rights.. I don't care how funny you are, I care how much you are willing to fight for freedom.

This is my next reply to you which was essentially an agreement of what you had said to End, in the matter of not bailing out big business and not taxing the hell out of them, while continuing with my own thougts

Big business is antithetical to anti-trust laws all ready in place. No, we should not bail out big business and should enforce anti-trust laws that support a free market scenario. Your heart seems to be in the right place on this issue but we must tax if we are to have a government, and in doing so we must at some point realize that a big government is unsustainable, so what becomes paramount is what sort of taxation is proper and what is not? I suggest, income taxation is only proper as a direct tax only in dire circumstances and all other taxes remain in the category of indirect taxes which would include tariffs. Whether End is right about tariffs or not is not as humorous as birth certificates but a much more valid debate. But then again, I'm a "hypocrite" so what do I know?

Now here is a part of my next response to you:

You know what Whatukno? Your last response to me combined with your response to End is a great example of how difficult it can be in choosing the best candidate. While your understanding of the problems with big government makes you a very attractive candidate, especially your desire to away with DHS, but then there is your response to End over the Citizen's United ruling.

That was another lengthy post of mine where I clarified my disagreement with you on the Citizens United ruling, and ended with this:

It is going to a very hard uphill battle for you, and I don't mean your campaign, I am assuming you will be elected, and if your are that is where the real battle begins. I would feel better about you as a legislator if you understood that the First Amendment is not about who gets rights, it is about what Congress can't legislate.

It is going to a very hard uphill battle for you, and I don't mean your campaign, I am assuming you will be elected, and if your are that is where the real battle begins. I would feel better about you as a legislator if you understood that the First Amendment is not about who gets rights, it is about what Congress can't legislate.

There was a brief post I made in reply to you, and then later another reply by me that was more debate over Citizens United that ended as such:

There is much to like about your positions but it is nonsensical to think you can prevent business from influencing people. McDonald's, Coca-Cola, GM, and Microsoft, to name just a very few, have all influenced people. In fairness, I probably should just assume that you mean that business has no business influencing people in a political campaign, but of course, that sort of thinking would then necessarily mean that the press or media would have to be restrained from offering any analysis or opinion of political campaigns, which is a horrible idea, not to mention unconstitutional.

My next reply to you ended as such:

Also, I would ask the same of you, since your are running for The House of Representatives, what say you on the matter of taxation? What say you of this so called "Personal Income Tax", and how would you approach taxing the public in a way that does not punish anyone, yet manages to generate the necessary revenue to keep government running?

Here is your reply:

Should I do like other candidates and tell you what I think you want to hear instead of how I really feel?

And my response:

Are you serious? I mean I'm pretty sure your just being clever, but come on! I realize the matter of taxation is a difficult one, and not a very entertaining, but it is the central issue to all governments for without it government can't run. Taxation is necessary but income taxation is not. I offer the first 90 years of our country's history as evidence. If you are an advocate for income taxation then say so. If you are, it would certainly be easier to just say so, than attempt the very difficult issue of finding a better solution as End is trying to do.

But you finally lost me, when you first posted this:

Taxes are going to be a part of your life as long as you are alive. There is no real way around it.

But, in order to lower taxes, (which is what everyone wants to hear) you have to reduce spending. Which the government has to do. Of course, you still will have to pay taxes. But it will be a less amount because there would be less things for the government to have to spend it on.

Of which I responded to with this:

Your first statement is just empty rhetoric. Who here has stated that there should be no taxation? Or are you suggesting that the so called "Personal Income Tax" will be a part of my life as long as I am alive, and that there is no way around that?

Your next statement is akin to putting the cart before the horse. Lower taxes and spending will necessarily have to be reduced or the government goes into even more debt. You are avoiding my question and attempting to "answer" it by answering some other question, of which I never asked.

What is your stance on the so called "Personal Income Tax"?

You answered that by posting a copy of the 16th Amendment, and suggested that summed up your stance on the current income tax, so I responded with:

Does it? Are you suggesting that Congress didn't all ready have the power to lay and collect taxes on income prior to passing the 16th Amendment?

Are you suggesting that this Amendment "authorized" Congress to pass a non apportioned tax directly upon income?

I have no idea what you think you've summed up, by posting a copy of the 16th Amendment, and I can only assume from this that you are indeed an advocate of perpetual income taxation. Frankly, what I think you effectively summed up is that you don't have a clue what the 16th Amendment means. Not good considering your political ambitions.

But where you truly lost me was when you made this remark:

I have tried to make my stances clear. Sorry if taxes piss you off, not my fault. The only thing I can do is, if elected, try and reduce the size of the government so that they don't have to take as much from you in taxes.

I do not appreciate at all that you treated my valid questions of income taxation as an attack on taxation. Prior to this, I showed strong support of your candidacy, even though I disagree with many of your stances. I began in this thread suggesting that we don't need to agree to work together and I still believe that, but if your going to ignore the positive things I say about you and focus on the negative, then working together becomes much more difficult.

I, of course, can't vote for you, because I am not in your district, but you are stumping in other peoples threads, which I support, but in doing so, you leave yourself vulnerable to questions from people outside of your constituency. I would suggest that you would have been better off to simply answer that you don't know what to think about income taxation at this point and that the matter has to be studied more thoroughly and you would try to get back with a thoughtful response sometime in the future. While that can seem like a typical politicians answer, it is a valid one. That I could have supported.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But if you want an answer on taxation I have provided it. The only way to reduce taxes is to cut spending. If you don't like income taxes, well, find me a person who does.

The government is an over-bloated mess. But it's a mess that we have to pay for. Even if every single tax saving idea I have should pass, you would still pay taxes on income.

I am not sure what you want. All I am doing is being honest. That is all I can be. I can do my best to represent the people of my district and what they want. I really didn't want to stump in this thread at all, but you moaned and groaned about me joking around with End and decided to push us all into a serious discussion about our political views.

reply to post by whatukno


You are 100% correct that I moaned and groaned about the kidding around and decided to push you both into a serious discussion about political views, because politics these days is very serious.

I understand that your answer is the only way to reduce taxes is to cut spending, and while I don't agree with that and know for a fact that you can reduce taxes before cutting spending, but I will stress that your insistence on cutting spending is a good one, and honorable. You have outlined how you would begin cutting some of that spending and again I agree with you completely.

I guess my major concern is that as legislator you are going to have to understand the multitude of laws on the books, which strikes me as damn near impossible to do, but even if you couldn't possibly come to understand all the laws on the books, the least you could do is come to understand the current revenue laws in regard to taxation. It is not a matter of whether I like income taxation it is a matter of law, and as such it a law that fills up five volumes, which is ridiculous. It is also a law that expects everyone to understand it, but I have never met a soul who does, including tax attorneys, tax accountants, and tax collectors.

How is this okay? How is it a law that seemingly no one understands is law? Congress has attempted to avoid the obvious pain of apportionment that comes with direct taxation so wrote an Amendment forcing the courts to view all non apportioned taxes on income as an indirect tax on activities. But what activity are you engaged in that would make you liable for this income tax? What activities are End involved in that would make him liable for an income tax?

Further, while the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to ensure all future non apportioned taxes on income were viewed as an indirect tax, this has not been the outcome, and it doesn't take too much research to discover that there are plenty of lower court decisions that hold the mistaken belief that the 16th Amendment authorized Congress to pass a direct tax on income without apportionment. In fact, many Congressman, tax collectors, tax attorneys, and even judges will often misquote the 16th Amendment in defense of this argument stating that Congress was authorized to lay a tax on income "without regard to apportionment" That is not what the 16th Amendment states.

It is a horrid law, not because it is an income tax, and to be sure income taxation is odious, but because no one understands it. How can it be Constitutional to enforce a law no one understands? Where is the due process of law in that? I don't care if you support income taxation as much as I care that you would make an attempt to reverse Congress' proclivity towards legislating Bills that are a minimum of a thousand pages, and some running into the tens of thousands of pages! Such legislation is good for certain cottage industries, and it is certainly good for lawyers, but is not good for the people. I would love to hear you say that you will do everything you can to ensure that any legislation passed on your watch will be short concise laws that serve to protect individual rights, or at the very least make better government.

I actually suspect that you are in agreement with most of that, but I would hear you say it, and if you are not in agreement with that, well you should certainly say that, I just won't love hearing it, but that's not your problem. If you are willing to act as a legislator that will reign in Congress' love for creating a bill that constitutes a tome, then even if you are an advocate of (responsible) income taxation, I will certainly moan and groan about that, but if I were your constituent, I would probably vote for you anyway.

There is so much that needs to be done, and you are just one man, so you can't be expected to do it all on your own, of course. But I don't thinks it is too much to expect when asking you to use your influence to bring us legislation that is easily understood, and frankly self evident. The need for taxation is self evident, the need for income taxation not so much. That ignorance of the law is no excuse is self evident, confusing legislation is not, and just because it is confusing, it does not make people who don't understand that law ignorant of law, it simply makes the legislation incomprehensible.

I do appreciate your willingness to engage with me, as I am sure your campaign is keeping you pretty busy, and of course, you have a life too! I will continue to keep my expectations of you high, because you are so willing to engage in the serious issues at hand. I think you should stump in as many threads as can be tolerated, not because this site is filled with your constituents but because it can only make you sharper in your actual campaign. Here is the place to risk failure so you don't have to in the real world. That is all I have been trying to get you do, really.

reply to post by endisnighe


Well,you can't be any worse than what we already have.
Do you know what this country really needs?It is a womans'
touch.
I would like to nominate myself for the office of president
of the U.S.A.I would also keep any promises I made before
being elected...
1.Close our borders
2.Choose our friends more wisely
3.punish our enemies instead of pampering them
4.Make english the national language(no more,press 1 for english)
5.Fire the entire cabinet and start over
6.A rifle and handgun in every law -abiding citizen's home
7.NO socialist government
8.More patriotic pride
9.Keep our noses out of other nations' business
10.Bring back our troops
11.Kick the U.N. out of our country
12.Do away with the federal reserve
13.No more golden parachutes for failed businesses
14.No more bailouts for corrupt businesses
15.Improve our infrastructure
15.Improve our school system,make it easier for kids' to go to college
This is all I can think of right now,have a great day!

you have my vote as i think the local vagrant, living in a card board box could do a better job in politics than these azz clowns that have been in office for over 20 years!
have my vote!