@paulb10486 part of that case was also that the federal reserve note does not count as income which is absolutely true. for under the constitution only gold and silver can be made legal tender. nor does the congress have the authority to delegate the power to make currency to a private, unaccountable, central bank which is independent of the congress.
that's like the president delegating the control of the military to Blackwater.
@paulb10486 that was becuz they blocked the video from his first case to be presented u goof. and again the court system is fucked up. (ex. the case of those cops getting off scott free for not enforcing a restraining order which resulted in the death of children)
google the government vs whitey harrel and click the link under triallogs(dot)com
Please look more into something before commenting. This video is not telling you the whole truth only the pieces you want to hear. To say Bill Gates should pay is true who wouldn't feel that way but under this policy he would pay much less tax than you and I.
For example
under the current structure Bill Gates would be closer to 35% on his income of which he invests in community organization and charities along with toys that a person of his work ethic has earned.
the average joe who may make 25,000 would under the current system could still receive a tax return.
However
Under a flat tax that average Joe and his 25k are exepmt of 10k leaving 15K of taxable income at 17% $2550 I dont know about you but this is alot of money to someone making 25K take home.
as apposed to the person who make 1million a year minus his deduction of 10k that leaves 990,000 multiply that by 17% $168,300 yes a significant number but this still leaves almost 822k to live on.
The current system is based on the ability to pay kings were overthrown by their people becasue a flat tax was not fair to everyone and punishes the poor by taking the same cut of pay from the poor as the rich lets be honest I could live off 822K better than 22k, everything in the current system is structured so that the rich who have the best ability to pay, pay more which allows those who can afford less to pay less.
Americans have only had to pay income tax for the last hundred years. If our government was to stop blowing so much money away would they need to tax us on income at all?
Hasn't the GOP party realized an unintended consequences of a flat tax. There are 1.3 Mil Accountants in the US according to bls.gov. Surely a flat tax would put all the accountants and as many bookkeepers out of work. Rick Perry is a moron. Political suicide
Until Government controls spending and we have a balanced budget it will make no difference which system we have. What provisions are there to prevent the flat tax to be raised?
I only wish that all you naysayers out there would bother to study the proposal before you open your naysayer mouths....you sound like BIDEN. You have absolutely no idea of what your talking about, other than to try and impress others...You are the very reason that we have this 500 lb gorilla setting on americas back.....wise up and shut up until you can be more intelligent on the subject matter of.....a flat tax system....(Just think, you would no longer have to fear the IRS)....
What garbage! Flat Tax won't work. That is imbalanced. The rich get away with more money. It is just like a permeant Bush Tax cut. I would rather experience a nation with more money flow from the rich to the poor. This Flat Tax would remove a lot the flow of money between different wage earners. Moreover, they are trying to advertise this form of taxing to retards. It makes Americans seem like they are mentally incapable of calculating taxes. NO THANK YOU FLAT TAX
There are too many tax credits in the IRS code. Lobbyists with money and influence are able to slip in tax breaks for their industries as earmarks in un-related bills.
As far as revenue generation, elimination of tax breaks would keep deadbeats with the ability to hire lobbyists from getting out of paying taxes.
@dab0331 That "the rich are the job creators" is just another Republican talking point.
Jobs are created when there is extra demand for goods & services. Jobs are then created by small business entrepreneurs with their own money or through loans, or by companies amassing cash through sale of shares, regardless of whether any shareholder or CEO is rich.
You're just another fox fiction fucked fool mindlessly repeating the Republican sound bites.
"those taxes you advocate just end up bailing out business like AIG at the tax payers expense."
Those who are in support of a progressive flat tax are, in reality, the ones who are in favor of preventing any kind of tax increases on middle and low income earners. You seem to suggest that an increase on these individuals (by favoring a "flat tax") would be of interest of not only them, but our overall economic system. If you had a basic understanding of economics, you would know this
@dab0331 First off, provide me with the language in the constitution that explicitly rules out that form of tax system. Id also advise you to look up the 16th amendment and previous rulings by the supreme courts and the federal courts on this manner (see cheek v US).
@paulb10486 the 16th amendment was never fully ratified so it's illegitimate. and no its not bullshit. just like how north dakota was legally not a state until just recently when they discovered a techincality within its constitution which barred it from being one.
@dab0331 Those who believe the 16th amendment is not legitimate are fringe ideologues (like yourself) who tend eschew basic facts, especially when it comes to history. This subject matter, just as the courts found in porth v brodrick, are unsubstantial, far-fetched, and frivolous. Congress voted to ratify it, skeptics challenged, but the courts subsequently dismissed the arguments youre raising. quit fighting it.
@paulb10486 "Those who believe the 16th amendment is not legitimate are fringe ideologues (like yourself) who tend eschew basic facts, "
not all of the states ratified it u fukcing tard. you're the same kind of ppl who believe that the federal income tax is legal when there's no statute for it. and ppl like u denied the fact that north dakota was technically not a state becuz of its constitution. it was all over the freaking news. look it up.
@dab0331 Actually, they in fact did (some states retroactively). Again, that argument has exhaustively been used - mostly by those who have attempted to evade taxes (while still using our services, by the way) - but all unsuccessfully. The courts, time and time again, have knocked down those who have challenged its constitutionality from your ilk. But go ahead, dont pay your income taxes (that is if youmake enough) and see what happens to you. You'll be laughed out of court all the way tojail.
@dab0331 Those who believe the 16th amendment is not legitimate are fringe ideologues (like yourself) who tend eschew basic facts, especially when it comes to history. This subject matter, just as the courts found in porth v brodrick, are unsubstantial, far-fetched, and frivolous. Congress voted to ratify it, skeptics challenged, but the courts subsequently dismissed the arguments youre raising. quit fighting it.
@dab0331 further, if the progressive tax system is contrary to the principles of equality, why do all respectable economists recognize that a flat tax is inheritantly regressive, including bruce bartlett, an economist who held senior postion for ronald reagan and george hw bush? He agreed cains 9-9-9 tax plan in the nytimes overwhelmingly favored high income earners, getting rid of popular middle class tax credits, and severely curtailing government revenues, which would exacerbate the debt.
@paulb10486 respectable economists?? u mean those idiot keynesians who didn't see the collapse coming while all the austrian economists and ron paul did?? yeah lets trust those idiots.
they believe that a progressive tax acts like a cushion to recessions which is only half true. but the idiots are too blind to see that that 's just one side of the coin and that a progessive tax in turn prolongs recessions becuz it taxes productivity.
@dab0331 paul krugman - a nobel prize winning (and self-proclaimed keynesian) economist of princeton university, did. Dean Baker, another liberal favorite, did so as well. You should also check out simon johnsons work.
@dab0331 Your last comment is merely a hypersimplistic, hollow talking point that dignifies very little truth to reality. Today, the wealthy, with respect to income tax, are at its lowest since WWII. The US experienced tremendous growth in the 50's, 60's, 70's, late 80's, and, of course, the 90's when the wealthy were taxed at rates higher than they are today. If your logic was sound with respect to taxation and growth, we should be seeing heavy investment and job growth. We havent.
@dab0331 Based on your comments, it seems quite apparent that you are not very well-versed when it comes to the difficult, complex issues. In fact, you dont seem to be very well-versed in a lot of things other than fox news talking points. But if you do some simple fact checking, perhaps you'll understand the realities of these policies rather than getting caught up in questionable - and oftentimes debunked - ideological principles. Your're doing yourself a disservice
@paulb10486 and yes our tax money does go to bailing out corporations. and contrary to what u believe federal taxes dont go to things such as schools or local roads. those are funded by state and local taxes, such as property taxes.
u have your head in the sand becuz it's already become known that the federal reserve had given out 16 trillion dollars in bailouts behin closed doors. and printing money out of thin air IS a tax becuz it makes your dollar worth less.
Also, the inflation rate, despite the flurry of 08 bailouts, has remained at a stable and healthy 2% clip. The worry, especially with the lack of demand in the marketplace, has actually been deflation. go figure. Those are the facts.
@dab0331 Im well aware of that "report." Its also not secret, just lightly reported. Im also aware that many of pauls finding were, once again, severely taken out of context and omit key information that allowed Paul and his ideologues to reach such an assertion - which is that the fed can, has, and does destroy the dollar it creates. the real number is around $2trillion. Politifact, a nonpartisan factchecking site, graded Pauls statement as "mostly false." I suggest you take a look at it.
@paulb10486 out of context?? give me a fucking break. printing out $16 trillion dollars and "loaning" it 1st off destroys our dollars value and 2nd of all is completely stupid to do in a time of severe debt.
$2 trillion dollars? give me a fucking break. politifact is a fucking liberal ass site with disinformation. i'm well aware of that site.
@dab0331 Our tax money has indeed gone to bailing out corporations. but that, in reality, only happens during unique circumstances (see S & P crisis)...The responsibility of the states is to run and administer the public school system. The bulk of our nations public school systems (same goes with infrastructure), however, is funded by the government, including supplemental education centers, grants, and services. It makes up 3% of the FY 12 budget ($129 billion)
@paulb10486 keynessian economics is based on the assumption that deficits actually promotes growth becuz of "economic stabalizers". the whole philosophy is fucking ass backwards. if your'e in credit card debt u dont fucking do the run around & keep on paying your bills with another credit card. u cut spending.
im not arguming its funed by the government but public schools are funded by LOCAL governments. not the Feds and the income tax.
@dab0331 Thats a gross mischaracterization of the keynsian economic philosophy. I suggest you do some more research from someone coming from a more objective position. as for public schools, yes, money does come from its respected local government. Almost 50%, actually. But the state and federal government subsidizes the other half, which you did not specify. Thats where you are wrong (again).
i just took an economics class last semester and that was the key point the teacher made us remember. that deficits are in someway a good thing and balancing the budget is bad. absolute garbage!
@dab0331 So am I supposed to believe that you, a student devoid of a college degree, is more qualified than your economics professor - who most likely likely has at least his masters degree, if not PHD, in the field? You have much to learn as a student.
@paulb10486 again there are several cases which are quite easy to find on the net. the income tax is a fraud and so is fractional reserve banking and keynesian economics
@dab0331 Sure, there are many places you can information supporting your claim. I can also find web-sites that claim the holocaust never existed, either. Its important you keep in mind that most (if not all) these sites are not observed as legitimate, especially when it comes to blogs, as they are commonly engineered by individuals with a political agenda. Perhaps you learn about these basic things as you work your way through school. You have much to learn.
@paulb10486 and that is why i dont believe the politico site you sited. its a bullshit site. but i can find u actual news articles and videos of ppl being aquited of tax evasion BECUZ THERE IS NO STATUTE.
i guess u still believe there's weapons in iraq too. [rolls eyes]
@dab0331 As for consitutionality of the 16th amendment "argument", you mentioned individuals being acquitted regularly yet you cant prove it. If you have no credible sources or documentation of it, im not only curious as to how you expect me to believe you, but now im rather curious as to how the hell you got to these fantasy's of yours? I have, several times over, undermined this assertion of yours (and every other one, by the way) with FACTS and REALITY. are you really as dumb as you sound?
@paulb10486 and despite plenty of ppl kicking and screaming about this ppl like u are freaking sheep and can't look it up yourself when there's video after video, article after article, exposing it.
@dab0331 Are you calling 200 million americans, including ron paul himself, sheep for paying their income taxes? Im familiar with your positions, buddy, but it doesnt make them right. Just ask the courts.
@dab0331 Congressman Paul is not a legitimate source. His positions are well-documented on the issue and has gone nowhere with the issue. He continues to be laughed at by many, including many in his own party.
Citing Joe banisters position are actually even more comical. You might want to take a look at the banister/thompson case. And if you have time, take a look at how the United states tax court felt about these frivolous positions of his on exactly august 27, 2008. I win.
@paulb10486 "And if you have time, take a look at how the United states tax court felt about these frivolous positions of his on exactly august 27, 2008. I win."
cuz the courts are fucked up.
these are hte same courts which say the police don't have an obligation to protect u and let cops get off scott free when a mother phoned them again and again to enforce a restraining order on her ex-husband who had kidnapped her kids.
@dab0331 Answer this for me: If the US government was truly collecting certain federal taxes illegally from its citizens since 1908 as you wingnuts suggest, why havent we seen, for instance, ALL tax lawyers and constitutional scholars, 1.) uniformally express these truths more vocally to the public and their clients, and 2.) not pay these taxes without facing criminal charges?
@paulb10486 "Answer this for me: If the US government was truly collecting certain federal taxes illegally from its citizens since 1908 as you wingnuts suggest, why havent we seen"
becuz the media is controlled by the banks. THEY OWN THE CORPORATE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
and it's suppressed becuz it would be detrimental to the politicians' mass spending.
@dab0331 Nope, thats not true. Just your paranoia again getting the best of your young and feeble mind. Millions upon millions of people are familiar with your position. Yet, it has not gotten them ANYWHERE (except for jail). grow up and stay in school. you have much to learn.
@dab0331 No need for a statute, buddy. and those who have challenged the court using that argument have lost EVERY TIME. You continue to fail sufficient proof to prove your point otherwise. You are a joke.
@dab0331 Whats also quite baffling to me is that if you hypothetically strip away the 16th amendment, the US would lose its primary source of income. That would mean extremely important, incredibly popular social programs such as social security, medicaid, medicare, defense, thousands of tax credits and services, defense, etc would all be severely cut, if not eliminated. It would also substantially increase the deficit. But thats just another hole to poke through in ron paul fantasy world.
@dab0331 Again, refer to the 16th amendment, which allowed congress to levy income taxes. Various income taxes were then passed separately via individual bills. Those bills were later collected and put together into what is now known as the internal revenue code in the 1930s. The fact is no federal statute is required to authorize taxation. Its redundant seeing how the amendment authorizes it in the first place. End of discussion. Your conspiracy crap is childish.
@paulb10486 "And again, please find and send CREDIBLE articles with DETAILED information. As for videos, fox newss, at least in my eyes, is not legitimate"
how about u do yourself a favor, phone up the IRS, and ask them to give you the actual STATUTE (not a regulation) which says u have to file a federal tax return.
You wont find it.
the day u do u hit me up and post a youtube video on it. I'd LOVE to see it.
@dab0331 You dont need a statue to collect the tax, dummy. It would be redundant. Please refer to my earlier comment on the matter for elaboration on the matter.
Also, people have confronted the IRS about those same concerns. Ultimately, they either had to pay up, give up their property, or go to jail. just ask your "insider" joe banister.
@paulb10486 "You dont need a statue to collect the tax, dummy. It would be redundant. Please refer to my earlier comment on the matter for elaboration on the matter."
you're a fucking idiot. of course u need a statute. if it's not statute its not a LAW!!!! let me say that again... LAW!!!
the same way a president can't make a law by executive order or signing statements. executive orders can be used to regulate the military and such but it can't be used as a law.
@dab0331 Again? you never mentioned the whitey harrell case. I looked him up and found some interesting albeit predictable facts surrounding his past. Here they are:
@dab0331 In 89 and 90, Harrell failied to file income tax returns. IRS determined deficiencies for both years, and Harrell filed a petition in the Tax Court. They warned his argument was frivolous and if he persisted with his argument the court would impose damages against him under section 6673. He did not heed warning and imposed a $3000 against Harrell and in favor of the US. Harrell v. United States, T.C. Memo. 1994-406, aff'd without published opinion (7th Cir. 1995).
@dab0331 Harrell was also one of several plaintiffs who attempted another action for damages under section 7433, contending that they were exempt from income tax bc illinois was not a "state" as defined by the IRS. The district court dismissed the complaint and imposed sanctions under everyone who signed the complaint, including Harrell. LaRue v. Collector of Internal Revenue, No. 95-3036, (U.S.D.C. C.D. Ill. 6/21/1995)
@dab0331 Harrell also did not file income tax returns for 91, 92, and 93. and the IRS issued additional notices of deficiencies. Harrell petitioned the Tax Court again, this time claiming that he did not receive income but payments "traded for labor of equal value from which there can be no taxable gain." The tax court affirmed the deficiencies, noting ""there is nothing in petitioner's filings but tax protester rhetoric, unsupported assertions, and legalistic gibberish."
@dab0331 In 2006, Harrell was charged again with three counts of criminal failure to file illinois income tax returns for 96, 97, and 98 and was convicted of all three counts on 12/17/2008 (People of the State of Illinois v. Gaylon L. Harrell, No. 2006CM215). Harrell filed a motion to dismiss the prosecution on the grounds that it was barred by the federal paperwork reduction act, but the motion was DENIED....
@paulb10486 'it was only necessary to prove a defendant was consciously aware that a failure to file his income tax return was practically certain to be caused by his conduct." Wendt at p. 395. ......... Therefore, since Mr. Harrell's subjective mental state or intent in failing to file a tax return is irrelevant to the charge, the videotape purportedly demonstrative of his mental state is not probative of any issue, it is thus barre"
@paulb10486 I believe that ruling had a chilling effect on the entire trial. The defense was on pins and needles not to mention the video tape or the outcome of the first trial. When Whitey's attorney even got close, the State's attorney, James Rustic, was on his feet with an objection that was immediately upheld.
@dab0331 ......In 2009, Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2500 and court costs, and payment of his taxes for 96, 97, and 98, plus penalties and interest.
@paulb10486 again you dismiss the facts with the coinage conspiracy theory. there is a conspiracy but no theory.
idiots like u dont accept anything until u hear it from every other talking head sheeple out there
like the fact that north dakota was never a state until just now becuz of it's constitution which didn't require its governor & officials take an oath, which nullified its statehood.
i guess that must of been a conspiracy too. [rolls eyes]
@dab0331 His one "victory" is that he was acquitted of failing to file illinois state income tax returns in the People of the State of Illinois v. Gaylon L. Harrell, No. 97CF89 (Cir. Ct. of St. Clair Co. Ill.) But that ruling had nothing to do with the meritless "statue" issue that you keep raising.
@paulb10486 "Nobel peace prize has nothing to do with the pulitzer prize so I'm not sure what your point was with that. further, the wall st journal, time magazine, etc - which were merely simple examples for you - are not owned by banks"
LOL keep thinking that. they are owne by the banks. the rockefellers, the rothschilds, and the morgans.
and the point of obama and the peace prize is that awards mean jack shit. they're merely political tools.
@dab0331 Newscorp owns wall st journal. Time mag. is owned by time warner. the rockefellers, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with those publications or their content.
Your stupidity is becoming more and more apparent as you spew your nonsense. I feel dumber after reading your posts.
@paulb10486 "Newscorp owns wall st journal. Time mag. is owned by time warner. the rockefellers, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with those publications or their content."
keep telling yourself that. it's called owning stock. not to mention they subsidize those companies. corporations are tied into the banks.
u dont have to necessarily own a company to own it. u just have to own the interest of it's heads and representatives. and that interest is $
@dab0331 First of all, you are quoting an OPINION from a partisan-driven and self acclaimed friend of whitey harrel, Bob Minarek. His OPINION has absolutely no credibility. So to suggest that the jurors were intimidated, bias, or whatever is not only a subjective interpretation of the case, but completely meritless considering the source of these concerns. Why should anyone be surprised by his take?
@paulb10486 again the he was found guilty becuz he wasn't allowed to present his video or even talk about the previous trial and the fact that their aint no bullshit statute. not to mention one of hte jurors was intimidated.
so until u can provide an actual LAW that states u have to file an income tax sit down cuz i won and you're just a necio.
One more thing: Harrells previous trials are public record. Its not necessary for him to discuss a trial that 1.) been settled and, 2.) has no relevancy to the present case. And considering he lost those cases, how would it have been in his interest to discuss them?
Is this 1800? The "marque and reprisal" hasnt been exercised since 1815 (which would make WWI and WWII illegal too, right?) Provide a respected constitutional expert who represents your position. I want one.
@paulb10486 "Is this 1800? The "marque and reprisal" hasnt been exercised since 1815 (which would make WWI and WWII illegal too, right?)"
NO DUH!! becuz those were formally declared. the president didn't just drag us into those wars.
the president has the righ to repel invasion defensively such as pearl harbor but he doesn't have the right to take those troops all the way to tokyo before asking permission from the congress.
It was obvious you completely missed my underlying jab. Im not going to take the time to spell it out for you.
And you do know, based on your logic, that every single one of our elected members have, according to you, turned their backs on the constitution since the 1900's, right?
@paulb10486 "And you do know, based on your logic, that every single one of our elected members have, according to you, turned their backs on the constitution since the 1900's, right?"
not all. just most. mainly out of ignorance and indoctrination
@dab0331 Im not familiar with freddy and mac. But I am familiar with Newts work with fannie mae and freddie mac. Im also familiar of the fact that he earned a substantial sum of money regularly with speech appearances - just as you mentioned. However, he did that kind of work AFTER he was kicked out of congress over ethic charges, so your example doesnt work.
And yes, politicians do make quite a bit of money relative to the average american, especially with their private ventures. That is why they are subject to the tax in the first place. But that doesnt answer my question: why would ALL well off politicians and judges - especially those with conservative, free market values - be interested in taxing themselves more when they could be earning substantially more? What is the incentive?
@paulb10486 "And yes, politicians do make quite a bit of money relative to the average american, especially with their private ventures"
the president makes $400,000 dollars while congress gets over $100,000. that's a fucking retarded amount. and we wonder why we have corruption and career politicians who only care about getting reelected.
Ron Paul is the only one who'd have that knocked down to around the average american's salary.
@paulb10486 "The judge certainly thought so, and thats all that matters. Now, give me a case where the defendant used the statute argument and won. Its a simple request. "
that's like saying give me a case where a soldier refused to fight an unconstitutional war and won.
of course they're gonna crucify him at all costs. just cuz he didn't win doesn't make it any less illegal.
plz tell me where congress has the power to make fiat money?? HHHMMMM
@dab0331 The other baseless conspiracies you keep raising have repeatedly been denied over and over again by the courts. The reality is that your own interpretation of the constitution and law, however faulty and deluded they are, doesnt matter. The courts are - and always will be - the ultimate arbitrator, regardless of how you feel about them.
@dab0331 Now, Ive simply asked you to provide legitimate, court-documented instances where individuals have legally avoided and been acquitted of these tax provisions, specifically with the groundless "statute" argument and North Dakota angle, and you have failed to provide it. Rather astonishingly, however, you seem to only find instances of convicted tax frauds who failed miserably on several counts challenging the system...
@paulb10486 i never failed to provide. my example was clear. the only reason he was found guilty was becuz he was denied to allow evidence and bogus grounds.
just cuz its a court case don't mean shit. the system is fucked up and bias.
my brother's friend was run over by a drunk cop and the cop was never convicted even after providing evidence of him at a bar drinking from a shot glass. yet he claimed it was "water".
@dab0331 You certainly did fail. A friend of the defendant, with absolutely no legal background, and whom shares political agendas is not legitimate, moron. How is that difficult to understand? And this video thing you keep bringing up was entirely irrelevant to the case, which is why it was denied. Further, the case had NOTHING to do with the statute arguments. Are you that thick?
@paulb10486 and no it's not irrelevant. if you're not alowed to even mention the previous trial let alone present the tape of course its gonna hinder them.
and yes the statute has everything to do wiht it. that and the fact that the green back is not a form of legal tender under the constitution.
@dab0331 The judge certainly thought so, and thats all that matters. Now, give me a case where the defendant used the statute argument and won. Its a simple request.
@dab0331 The reason why you have problems the system is because it doesnt agree with your ideological positions. The fact is our justice system is some of the worlds most transparent and sound there is. Is it perfect? No. But in this case the courts from all over the country, from red states to blue, have routinely and unequivocally denied your argument.
@dab0331 Your brothers friend has absolutely nothing to do with the rulings we have discussed. To suggest that it does is simply a logistical fallacy. Id also advise your brothers friend to hire a better lawyer if indeed that were the case.
@paulb10486 "Your brothers friend has absolutely nothing to do with the rulings we have discussed. To suggest that it does is simply a logistical fallacy. Id also advise your brothers friend to hire a better lawyer if indeed that were the case."
if hope u or one of your family members get run over by a drunk cop. i rarely wish ppl death but you're one of hte few exceptions.
@paulb10486 sum other examples is the fact that we haven't declared a war since WW2 when only the congress can take us to war; not the president.
not to mention the courts (which apparently u believe are the sole arbiters of what's right and constiutitonal) used to also say that slavery was legal. but righteousness is on our side and we will change it. the courts never change until the ppl do and wake up from their sheeple trance.
As far as slavery, you might want take a look at the original authors of the constitution, which you libertarians treat as the bible. The courts, which were geographically divided on the issue, made their judgments based on the language of the constitution.
@paulb10486 none of those were declared wars. the president can't drag us to war just like he can't legislate law through executive order or signing statements.
nor are those "wars" those are resolutions to use military force. not the same thing.
a president cant go fight some country nilly willy, get troops killed, and then shame the congress into supporting him. that's a run around congress to keep the blame on the president & avoiding presenting their case to the ppl before going
But then again, I suppose I should listen to a grammatically challenged, fallacious thinking, hyper-paranoid freshman junior college student, who thinks hes a constitutional expert by reading ron paul blogs. That says it all. You trolls are a riot...
@paulb10486 "Also, prove how they are unconstitutional, please. I'd like you to use our justice system as a reference"
amendment 9 & 10 make it clear that any power not specifically granted to the federal gvnt is then reserved for the states and the people.
so these make it clear that no power specifically granted to the federal government is therby denied by default and left to the states or to the people.
The programs constitutionality has been challenged, yet the programs as we know them today were held up in court (see Helvering v. Davis).
Today, we have seen no serious challenges regarding its constitutionality that are now being litigated. It must be because americans love their socialized, anti-american programs
@paulb10486 article 1 section 8 states the congress has the power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
THAT'S IT. they dont have the power to determine what is to be made legal tender. so naturally this right is left to the states....
@dab0331 First off - and your not going to like this - the supreme court affirmed the constitutionality of paper money in a number of cases, including in 1871 (Knox v Lee and Parker v Davis) and 1874 (Julliard V Greenman). You can read up on the cases for yourself.
On a side note, its quite frankly not practical, especially in todays advanced economy, to be using that form of currency. I have an inkling that the authors of the constitution did not envision some of todays advances materializing the way they have.
@paulb10486 "On a side note, its quite frankly not practical, especially in todays advanced economy"
1st of all ITS ILLEGAL!
2nd how is it not practical?? u're an idiot. if it wasn't for the fiat money our dollar would be worth more. but it loses value becuz they print it carelessly which mean's everyone is being taxed secretly. if its so practical why charge taxes?? becuz if they simply printed money u'd have hyper inflation & ppl would catch on to the scam of it all.
Nope, youre wrong again. It is legal. Again, see where the supreme court ruled on the issue.
And you're a fool to believe the forms of currency we use today is worthless. Let me ask you this: are you not able to purchase anything in return with the money in your wallet?
And we're currently NOT suffering from hyperinflation, like you seem to suggest (2010: 1.6%). The Fed is able to control those potential problems with, among other things, interest rates.
@paulb10486 "Nope, youre wrong again. It is legal. Again, see where the supreme court ruled on the issue."
the supreme court isn't the sole arbiter of constitutionality. if hope u also know that had 1 more justice from the supreme court voted in favor of the legality of the chicago gun ban the the 2nd amendment would of been dead.
it's not constitutional. plain and simple. ONLY GOLD AND SILVER SHALL BE MADE TENDER IN THE PAYMENTS OF DEBTS!!
Hey, I agree with you on those cases. However, the justice department didnt, which is something Ive had to accept until someone successfully challenges them.
@paulb10486 "And we're currently NOT suffering from hyperinflation, like you seem to suggest (2010: 1.6%). The Fed is able to control those potential problems with, among other things, interest rates."
the point is that we would suffer if hyper inflation if they simply printed money to fund their operations. but if they can simly print money than there's no point in taxes. its a HIDDEN tax which makes those prospects of raising taxes u cited SEEM to work. but its an illusion
@paulb10486 again.. my personal finances would APPEAR pretty good if i borrowed a million dollars every month but someday the bill will be come home to.
Whats funny is that todays economists are actually hoping for a more healthier 4% inflation rate, not the meager 1.6 that we endured in 2010, and definitely not the -0.4% in 2009 (See Oliver Blanchard)
Yet, the economic expert that you are, you make us out to be Zimbabwe or something, which is obviously completely ridiculous.
@paulb10486 healhty inflation?? get the fuck out of here. inflation is never good.
what they need to to stop the artificially low interest rates which only increases moral hazard and malinvestment.
and obviously u know nothing of the record of history. the reason gold & silver is legal tender is becuz the founding fathers tried simply printing money carelessly during the revolution and it didn't work.
not to mention the dollar is on the verge of collapse. the world wants to dump it
@paulb10486 uhave to be an idiot to think deflation is bad.. deflation means your money is worth more. that is always a good thing.
those keynesian economist are concerned about overproduction becuz keynes ideas are based on demand creates its own supply while classical & austrian economics is based on supply creates its own demand.
when things become plentiful business owners naturally slow down production becuz of supply & demand.
@dab0331 Their muse be a lot of stupid economists from both sides of the proverbial aisle.
Here are some of the things use miss: 1.) falling prices worsen the position of the debtors by increasing the the real burden of their debts. B/c of this, debtors are more likely to be forced to cut their spending when their debt burden rises, while creditors arent likely to increase their spending by the same amount. So, deflation exerts a depressing effect on spending by raising debtburdens(see fisher)
@dab0331 Youre thinking of it in a micro perspective, which is your mistake. Economists are discussing this problem in a much more broader, macro discernment. Your understanding fails to consider the overall complexities of the marketplace.
Hyperinflation has been a problem at times, especially when you look at post WWI germany and, like Ive mentioned, Zimbabwe. But its never been a problem in the united states, which is what you were implying.
@dab0331 Also, in a deflationary economy, when people expect falling prices, they become less willing to spend, and in particular, less willing to borrow. after all, when prices are falling, just sitting on cash becomes an investment with a positive real yield. and anyone considering borrowing, even for a prouctive investment, has to take account of the fact that the loan will have to be paid back in real dollars that are worth more than the dollars you borrowed....
@dab0331 ...when that happens, the economy, especially under todays consditions, stay depressed b/c people expect deflation, and deflation may continue b/c the economy remains depressed. Its a deflationary trap economists worry about from both political stripes
America is only successful due to geographic circumstances.....
when sht levels off everyone shts a brick, get used to it.
DocUnsane 2 weeks ago
I maintain a politician could screw up even a simple 5-minute form. Nevertheless, the need for a flat tax seems obvious.
HomelessOnline 2 weeks ago
@paulb10486 i win
dab0331 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 not to mention one of the jurors was intimidated to vote guilty
dab0331 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
@paulb10486 part of that case was also that the federal reserve note does not count as income which is absolutely true. for under the constitution only gold and silver can be made legal tender. nor does the congress have the authority to delegate the power to make currency to a private, unaccountable, central bank which is independent of the congress.
that's like the president delegating the control of the military to Blackwater.
dab0331 2 months ago
@paulb10486 that was becuz they blocked the video from his first case to be presented u goof. and again the court system is fucked up. (ex. the case of those cops getting off scott free for not enforcing a restraining order which resulted in the death of children)
google the government vs whitey harrel and click the link under triallogs(dot)com
dab0331 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
Lets just think about who actually produces the wealth....
23lFrench 2 months ago
Please look more into something before commenting. This video is not telling you the whole truth only the pieces you want to hear. To say Bill Gates should pay is true who wouldn't feel that way but under this policy he would pay much less tax than you and I.
For example
under the current structure Bill Gates would be closer to 35% on his income of which he invests in community organization and charities along with toys that a person of his work ethic has earned.
OwenYeagermeister 3 months ago
the average joe who may make 25,000 would under the current system could still receive a tax return.
However
Under a flat tax that average Joe and his 25k are exepmt of 10k leaving 15K of taxable income at 17% $2550 I dont know about you but this is alot of money to someone making 25K take home.
as apposed to the person who make 1million a year minus his deduction of 10k that leaves 990,000 multiply that by 17% $168,300 yes a significant number but this still leaves almost 822k to live on.
OwenYeagermeister 3 months ago
The current system is based on the ability to pay kings were overthrown by their people becasue a flat tax was not fair to everyone and punishes the poor by taking the same cut of pay from the poor as the rich lets be honest I could live off 822K better than 22k, everything in the current system is structured so that the rich who have the best ability to pay, pay more which allows those who can afford less to pay less.
OwenYeagermeister 3 months ago
Americans have only had to pay income tax for the last hundred years. If our government was to stop blowing so much money away would they need to tax us on income at all?
AresCassell 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hasn't the GOP party realized an unintended consequences of a flat tax. There are 1.3 Mil Accountants in the US according to bls.gov. Surely a flat tax would put all the accountants and as many bookkeepers out of work. Rick Perry is a moron. Political suicide
elizabethpowell 4 months ago
Until Government controls spending and we have a balanced budget it will make no difference which system we have. What provisions are there to prevent the flat tax to be raised?
SuperShutterbug 4 months ago
I like how this video argues that Bill Gates will pay more in taxes. Look up "Bill gates flat tax" on youtube and see what he says thats not true.
radix3d 4 months ago
I only wish that all you naysayers out there would bother to study the proposal before you open your naysayer mouths....you sound like BIDEN. You have absolutely no idea of what your talking about, other than to try and impress others...You are the very reason that we have this 500 lb gorilla setting on americas back.....wise up and shut up until you can be more intelligent on the subject matter of.....a flat tax system....(Just think, you would no longer have to fear the IRS)....
gabillh1 4 months ago
What garbage! Flat Tax won't work. That is imbalanced. The rich get away with more money. It is just like a permeant Bush Tax cut. I would rather experience a nation with more money flow from the rich to the poor. This Flat Tax would remove a lot the flow of money between different wage earners. Moreover, they are trying to advertise this form of taxing to retards. It makes Americans seem like they are mentally incapable of calculating taxes. NO THANK YOU FLAT TAX
kangsan2014 4 months ago
@kangsan2014 ". I would rather experience a nation with more money flow from the rich to the poor."
HAHAHA all that taxation u advocate goes to bailing out corporations.. like AIG... LOL LOL
dab0331 4 months ago
There are too many tax credits in the IRS code. Lobbyists with money and influence are able to slip in tax breaks for their industries as earmarks in un-related bills.
As far as revenue generation, elimination of tax breaks would keep deadbeats with the ability to hire lobbyists from getting out of paying taxes.
nightfrog65 4 months ago
A flat tax is a huge tax cut for the rich. It means higher taxes for the middle class, & lower taxes for the rich.
Then again, Republicans always want to give tax cuts to the rich.
It's their solution to everything.
megarational 4 months ago
@megarational you forget though that jobs are created by the rich of the private sector not by government beauracrats.
dab0331 4 months ago
@dab0331 That "the rich are the job creators" is just another Republican talking point.
Jobs are created when there is extra demand for goods & services. Jobs are then created by small business entrepreneurs with their own money or through loans, or by companies amassing cash through sale of shares, regardless of whether any shareholder or CEO is rich.
You're just another fox fiction fucked fool mindlessly repeating the Republican sound bites.
megarational 4 months ago 3
@megarational "that is just another Republican talking point."
ppl who make stupid comments like that don't own their own business nor have family member who do.
you have no understanding of simple economics.
those taxes you advocate just end up bailing out business like AIG at the tax payers expense.
i doubt u even know what money is or how it's created.
dab0331 4 months ago
@dab0331
"those taxes you advocate just end up bailing out business like AIG at the tax payers expense."
Those who are in support of a progressive flat tax are, in reality, the ones who are in favor of preventing any kind of tax increases on middle and low income earners. You seem to suggest that an increase on these individuals (by favoring a "flat tax") would be of interest of not only them, but our overall economic system. If you had a basic understanding of economics, you would know this
paulb10486 3 months ago
@paulb10486 LOL.. you're the one wiht messed up economics. its simple.
1st its progressive tax is unconstitutional and contrary to the principles of equality.
2nd by that tax money u advocate just goes to bailing out corporations, the nanny state, or foreign governments.
3rd by taxing the rich unfairly & by too much u kill their incentive to invest in the US and create jobs.
dab0331 3 months ago
@dab0331 First off, provide me with the language in the constitution that explicitly rules out that form of tax system. Id also advise you to look up the 16th amendment and previous rulings by the supreme courts and the federal courts on this manner (see cheek v US).
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 the 16th amendment was never fully ratified so it's illegitimate. and no its not bullshit. just like how north dakota was legally not a state until just recently when they discovered a techincality within its constitution which barred it from being one.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Those who believe the 16th amendment is not legitimate are fringe ideologues (like yourself) who tend eschew basic facts, especially when it comes to history. This subject matter, just as the courts found in porth v brodrick, are unsubstantial, far-fetched, and frivolous. Congress voted to ratify it, skeptics challenged, but the courts subsequently dismissed the arguments youre raising. quit fighting it.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "Those who believe the 16th amendment is not legitimate are fringe ideologues (like yourself) who tend eschew basic facts, "
not all of the states ratified it u fukcing tard. you're the same kind of ppl who believe that the federal income tax is legal when there's no statute for it. and ppl like u denied the fact that north dakota was technically not a state becuz of its constitution. it was all over the freaking news. look it up.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Actually, they in fact did (some states retroactively). Again, that argument has exhaustively been used - mostly by those who have attempted to evade taxes (while still using our services, by the way) - but all unsuccessfully. The courts, time and time again, have knocked down those who have challenged its constitutionality from your ilk. But go ahead, dont pay your income taxes (that is if youmake enough) and see what happens to you. You'll be laughed out of court all the way tojail.
paulb10486 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 bullshit. not all the states ratified it and there is neither a statue which authorizes the IRS to collect them.
there are DOZENS if not hundreds of court cases documenting this, it was in the news, and ppl have been aquited of tax evasion becuz of it.
THERE IS NO STATUTE!!!!
dab0331 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 NO STATUTE!!!!!!
watch?v=W5UcPeSb8kg
dab0331 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dab0331 Those who believe the 16th amendment is not legitimate are fringe ideologues (like yourself) who tend eschew basic facts, especially when it comes to history. This subject matter, just as the courts found in porth v brodrick, are unsubstantial, far-fetched, and frivolous. Congress voted to ratify it, skeptics challenged, but the courts subsequently dismissed the arguments youre raising. quit fighting it.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 further, if the progressive tax system is contrary to the principles of equality, why do all respectable economists recognize that a flat tax is inheritantly regressive, including bruce bartlett, an economist who held senior postion for ronald reagan and george hw bush? He agreed cains 9-9-9 tax plan in the nytimes overwhelmingly favored high income earners, getting rid of popular middle class tax credits, and severely curtailing government revenues, which would exacerbate the debt.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 respectable economists?? u mean those idiot keynesians who didn't see the collapse coming while all the austrian economists and ron paul did?? yeah lets trust those idiots.
they believe that a progressive tax acts like a cushion to recessions which is only half true. but the idiots are too blind to see that that 's just one side of the coin and that a progessive tax in turn prolongs recessions becuz it taxes productivity.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 paul krugman - a nobel prize winning (and self-proclaimed keynesian) economist of princeton university, did. Dean Baker, another liberal favorite, did so as well. You should also check out simon johnsons work.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 Your last comment is merely a hypersimplistic, hollow talking point that dignifies very little truth to reality. Today, the wealthy, with respect to income tax, are at its lowest since WWII. The US experienced tremendous growth in the 50's, 60's, 70's, late 80's, and, of course, the 90's when the wealthy were taxed at rates higher than they are today. If your logic was sound with respect to taxation and growth, we should be seeing heavy investment and job growth. We havent.
paulb10486 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Based on your comments, it seems quite apparent that you are not very well-versed when it comes to the difficult, complex issues. In fact, you dont seem to be very well-versed in a lot of things other than fox news talking points. But if you do some simple fact checking, perhaps you'll understand the realities of these policies rather than getting caught up in questionable - and oftentimes debunked - ideological principles. Your're doing yourself a disservice
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 and yes our tax money does go to bailing out corporations. and contrary to what u believe federal taxes dont go to things such as schools or local roads. those are funded by state and local taxes, such as property taxes.
u have your head in the sand becuz it's already become known that the federal reserve had given out 16 trillion dollars in bailouts behin closed doors. and printing money out of thin air IS a tax becuz it makes your dollar worth less.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
$16 trillion in bailouts is simply not true.
Also, the inflation rate, despite the flurry of 08 bailouts, has remained at a stable and healthy 2% clip. The worry, especially with the lack of demand in the marketplace, has actually been deflation. go figure. Those are the facts.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "$16 trillion in bailouts is simply not true."
maybe u should look up the secret bailouts which were exposed by the first ever audit of the Fed.
again it was all over the news.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Im well aware of that "report." Its also not secret, just lightly reported. Im also aware that many of pauls finding were, once again, severely taken out of context and omit key information that allowed Paul and his ideologues to reach such an assertion - which is that the fed can, has, and does destroy the dollar it creates. the real number is around $2trillion. Politifact, a nonpartisan factchecking site, graded Pauls statement as "mostly false." I suggest you take a look at it.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 out of context?? give me a fucking break. printing out $16 trillion dollars and "loaning" it 1st off destroys our dollars value and 2nd of all is completely stupid to do in a time of severe debt.
$2 trillion dollars? give me a fucking break. politifact is a fucking liberal ass site with disinformation. i'm well aware of that site.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 No need for the language, dab0331. Just because facts conflict with your paranoid positions does not make them "liberal" or illegitimate.
I suggest you read the politifact article again. It seems you are having trouble fully comprehending its findings.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 Our tax money has indeed gone to bailing out corporations. but that, in reality, only happens during unique circumstances (see S & P crisis)...The responsibility of the states is to run and administer the public school system. The bulk of our nations public school systems (same goes with infrastructure), however, is funded by the government, including supplemental education centers, grants, and services. It makes up 3% of the FY 12 budget ($129 billion)
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 keynessian economics is based on the assumption that deficits actually promotes growth becuz of "economic stabalizers". the whole philosophy is fucking ass backwards. if your'e in credit card debt u dont fucking do the run around & keep on paying your bills with another credit card. u cut spending.
im not arguming its funed by the government but public schools are funded by LOCAL governments. not the Feds and the income tax.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Thats a gross mischaracterization of the keynsian economic philosophy. I suggest you do some more research from someone coming from a more objective position. as for public schools, yes, money does come from its respected local government. Almost 50%, actually. But the state and federal government subsidizes the other half, which you did not specify. Thats where you are wrong (again).
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 gross mischaracterization? bullshit.
i just took an economics class last semester and that was the key point the teacher made us remember. that deficits are in someway a good thing and balancing the budget is bad. absolute garbage!
dab0331 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 So am I supposed to believe that you, a student devoid of a college degree, is more qualified than your economics professor - who most likely likely has at least his masters degree, if not PHD, in the field? You have much to learn as a student.
paulb10486 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "So am I supposed to believe that you, a student devoid of a college degree, is more qualified than your economics professor "
yeah an economics professor who still believes there's a law saying u have to file a federal income tax return. LOL
just cuz u got a fucking degree dont mean shit. the man who built the Titanic said it was an unsinkable ship. we all know what happened.
you're what we like to call sheeple.
how bout u do ur own work and google or youtube it
dab0331 2 months ago
@paulb10486 again there are several cases which are quite easy to find on the net. the income tax is a fraud and so is fractional reserve banking and keynesian economics
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Sure, there are many places you can information supporting your claim. I can also find web-sites that claim the holocaust never existed, either. Its important you keep in mind that most (if not all) these sites are not observed as legitimate, especially when it comes to blogs, as they are commonly engineered by individuals with a political agenda. Perhaps you learn about these basic things as you work your way through school. You have much to learn.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 and that is why i dont believe the politico site you sited. its a bullshit site. but i can find u actual news articles and videos of ppl being aquited of tax evasion BECUZ THERE IS NO STATUTE.
i guess u still believe there's weapons in iraq too. [rolls eyes]
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 As for consitutionality of the 16th amendment "argument", you mentioned individuals being acquitted regularly yet you cant prove it. If you have no credible sources or documentation of it, im not only curious as to how you expect me to believe you, but now im rather curious as to how the hell you got to these fantasy's of yours? I have, several times over, undermined this assertion of yours (and every other one, by the way) with FACTS and REALITY. are you really as dumb as you sound?
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 no proof?? i just gave u the damn video!!! it even states the man's name!!!!
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 You never sent me anything with a video link or documentation on the matter. Ill be waiting.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 and despite plenty of ppl kicking and screaming about this ppl like u are freaking sheep and can't look it up yourself when there's video after video, article after article, exposing it.
it's called APATHY!!!
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Are you calling 200 million americans, including ron paul himself, sheep for paying their income taxes? Im familiar with your positions, buddy, but it doesnt make them right. Just ask the courts.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "Are you calling 200 million americans, including ron paul himself, sheep for paying their income taxes? "
Ron Paul is not a sheep. he just doesn't want confrontation and wants to change it legislatively; becuz he's a legislature.
dab0331 2 months ago
@paulb10486 here's your proof sheeple.
watch?v=bgIs6t7wr0A news broadcast
watch?v=W5UcPeSb8kg documentary (i suggest u look up the entire version)
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Congressman Paul is not a legitimate source. His positions are well-documented on the issue and has gone nowhere with the issue. He continues to be laughed at by many, including many in his own party.
Citing Joe banisters position are actually even more comical. You might want to take a look at the banister/thompson case. And if you have time, take a look at how the United states tax court felt about these frivolous positions of his on exactly august 27, 2008. I win.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "And if you have time, take a look at how the United states tax court felt about these frivolous positions of his on exactly august 27, 2008. I win."
cuz the courts are fucked up.
these are hte same courts which say the police don't have an obligation to protect u and let cops get off scott free when a mother phoned them again and again to enforce a restraining order on her ex-husband who had kidnapped her kids.
AND THEN KILLED THEM!!
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Answer this for me: If the US government was truly collecting certain federal taxes illegally from its citizens since 1908 as you wingnuts suggest, why havent we seen, for instance, ALL tax lawyers and constitutional scholars, 1.) uniformally express these truths more vocally to the public and their clients, and 2.) not pay these taxes without facing criminal charges?
That should shut you up.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "Answer this for me: If the US government was truly collecting certain federal taxes illegally from its citizens since 1908 as you wingnuts suggest, why havent we seen"
becuz the media is controlled by the banks. THEY OWN THE CORPORATE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
and it's suppressed becuz it would be detrimental to the politicians' mass spending.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Nope, thats not true. Just your paranoia again getting the best of your young and feeble mind. Millions upon millions of people are familiar with your position. Yet, it has not gotten them ANYWHERE (except for jail). grow up and stay in school. you have much to learn.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 blah blah blah that's all i hear from you. until u can provide an actual STATUTE you're just a freaking hard headed goat.
u say there is no proof but the fact that there is no statute is proof enough. just sit down and plug yourself back into the Matrix.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 No need for a statute, buddy. and those who have challenged the court using that argument have lost EVERY TIME. You continue to fail sufficient proof to prove your point otherwise. You are a joke.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 Whats also quite baffling to me is that if you hypothetically strip away the 16th amendment, the US would lose its primary source of income. That would mean extremely important, incredibly popular social programs such as social security, medicaid, medicare, defense, thousands of tax credits and services, defense, etc would all be severely cut, if not eliminated. It would also substantially increase the deficit. But thats just another hole to poke through in ron paul fantasy world.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 Again, refer to the 16th amendment, which allowed congress to levy income taxes. Various income taxes were then passed separately via individual bills. Those bills were later collected and put together into what is now known as the internal revenue code in the 1930s. The fact is no federal statute is required to authorize taxation. Its redundant seeing how the amendment authorizes it in the first place. End of discussion. Your conspiracy crap is childish.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 I believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? news to me.
And again, please find and send CREDIBLE articles with DETAILED information. As for videos, fox newss, at least in my eyes, is not legitimate.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "And again, please find and send CREDIBLE articles with DETAILED information. As for videos, fox newss, at least in my eyes, is not legitimate"
how about u do yourself a favor, phone up the IRS, and ask them to give you the actual STATUTE (not a regulation) which says u have to file a federal tax return.
You wont find it.
the day u do u hit me up and post a youtube video on it. I'd LOVE to see it.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 You dont need a statue to collect the tax, dummy. It would be redundant. Please refer to my earlier comment on the matter for elaboration on the matter.
Also, people have confronted the IRS about those same concerns. Ultimately, they either had to pay up, give up their property, or go to jail. just ask your "insider" joe banister.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "You dont need a statue to collect the tax, dummy. It would be redundant. Please refer to my earlier comment on the matter for elaboration on the matter."
you're a fucking idiot. of course u need a statute. if it's not statute its not a LAW!!!! let me say that again... LAW!!!
the same way a president can't make a law by executive order or signing statements. executive orders can be used to regulate the military and such but it can't be used as a law.
dab0331 2 months ago
@paulb10486 and again you're overlooking the case of The Government vs Whitey Harrell.
I WIN!!!!
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Again? you never mentioned the whitey harrell case. I looked him up and found some interesting albeit predictable facts surrounding his past. Here they are:
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 In 89 and 90, Harrell failied to file income tax returns. IRS determined deficiencies for both years, and Harrell filed a petition in the Tax Court. They warned his argument was frivolous and if he persisted with his argument the court would impose damages against him under section 6673. He did not heed warning and imposed a $3000 against Harrell and in favor of the US. Harrell v. United States, T.C. Memo. 1994-406, aff'd without published opinion (7th Cir. 1995).
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 Harrell was also one of several plaintiffs who attempted another action for damages under section 7433, contending that they were exempt from income tax bc illinois was not a "state" as defined by the IRS. The district court dismissed the complaint and imposed sanctions under everyone who signed the complaint, including Harrell. LaRue v. Collector of Internal Revenue, No. 95-3036, (U.S.D.C. C.D. Ill. 6/21/1995)
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 Harrell also did not file income tax returns for 91, 92, and 93. and the IRS issued additional notices of deficiencies. Harrell petitioned the Tax Court again, this time claiming that he did not receive income but payments "traded for labor of equal value from which there can be no taxable gain." The tax court affirmed the deficiencies, noting ""there is nothing in petitioner's filings but tax protester rhetoric, unsupported assertions, and legalistic gibberish."
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 In 2006, Harrell was charged again with three counts of criminal failure to file illinois income tax returns for 96, 97, and 98 and was convicted of all three counts on 12/17/2008 (People of the State of Illinois v. Gaylon L. Harrell, No. 2006CM215). Harrell filed a motion to dismiss the prosecution on the grounds that it was barred by the federal paperwork reduction act, but the motion was DENIED....
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 'it was only necessary to prove a defendant was consciously aware that a failure to file his income tax return was practically certain to be caused by his conduct." Wendt at p. 395. ......... Therefore, since Mr. Harrell's subjective mental state or intent in failing to file a tax return is irrelevant to the charge, the videotape purportedly demonstrative of his mental state is not probative of any issue, it is thus barre"
dab0331 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 I believe that ruling had a chilling effect on the entire trial. The defense was on pins and needles not to mention the video tape or the outcome of the first trial. When Whitey's attorney even got close, the State's attorney, James Rustic, was on his feet with an objection that was immediately upheld.
- quotes from the triallog site
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 ......In 2009, Harrell was sentenced to two years probation, a fine of $2500 and court costs, and payment of his taxes for 96, 97, and 98, plus penalties and interest.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 again you dismiss the facts with the coinage conspiracy theory. there is a conspiracy but no theory.
idiots like u dont accept anything until u hear it from every other talking head sheeple out there
like the fact that north dakota was never a state until just now becuz of it's constitution which didn't require its governor & officials take an oath, which nullified its statehood.
i guess that must of been a conspiracy too. [rolls eyes]
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 His one "victory" is that he was acquitted of failing to file illinois state income tax returns in the People of the State of Illinois v. Gaylon L. Harrell, No. 97CF89 (Cir. Ct. of St. Clair Co. Ill.) But that ruling had nothing to do with the meritless "statue" issue that you keep raising.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "Nobel peace prize has nothing to do with the pulitzer prize so I'm not sure what your point was with that. further, the wall st journal, time magazine, etc - which were merely simple examples for you - are not owned by banks"
LOL keep thinking that. they are owne by the banks. the rockefellers, the rothschilds, and the morgans.
and the point of obama and the peace prize is that awards mean jack shit. they're merely political tools.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Newscorp owns wall st journal. Time mag. is owned by time warner. the rockefellers, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with those publications or their content.
Your stupidity is becoming more and more apparent as you spew your nonsense. I feel dumber after reading your posts.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "Newscorp owns wall st journal. Time mag. is owned by time warner. the rockefellers, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with those publications or their content."
keep telling yourself that. it's called owning stock. not to mention they subsidize those companies. corporations are tied into the banks.
u dont have to necessarily own a company to own it. u just have to own the interest of it's heads and representatives. and that interest is $
stupid.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 First of all, you are quoting an OPINION from a partisan-driven and self acclaimed friend of whitey harrel, Bob Minarek. His OPINION has absolutely no credibility. So to suggest that the jurors were intimidated, bias, or whatever is not only a subjective interpretation of the case, but completely meritless considering the source of these concerns. Why should anyone be surprised by his take?
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 again the he was found guilty becuz he wasn't allowed to present his video or even talk about the previous trial and the fact that their aint no bullshit statute. not to mention one of hte jurors was intimidated.
so until u can provide an actual LAW that states u have to file an income tax sit down cuz i won and you're just a necio.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
One more thing: Harrells previous trials are public record. Its not necessary for him to discuss a trial that 1.) been settled and, 2.) has no relevancy to the present case. And considering he lost those cases, how would it have been in his interest to discuss them?
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "One more thing: Harrells previous trials are public record. Its not necessary for him to discuss a trial that "
yes it is necessary in order to present their case to the jury.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Sure, because bringing up a past case that he had already lost is sure to help him this time around (eyes rolling)
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 oh. and authority to use military force is only lawful under the constitution in the form of "marque and reprisal".
example... the barbary wars. we had beef with someone we went in took them out and left as quickly as we came in. same goes with targeting Bin Laden.
but they passed the line when they made it into a full scale war and changed the mission into nation building.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
Is this 1800? The "marque and reprisal" hasnt been exercised since 1815 (which would make WWI and WWII illegal too, right?) Provide a respected constitutional expert who represents your position. I want one.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "Is this 1800? The "marque and reprisal" hasnt been exercised since 1815 (which would make WWI and WWII illegal too, right?)"
NO DUH!! becuz those were formally declared. the president didn't just drag us into those wars.
the president has the righ to repel invasion defensively such as pearl harbor but he doesn't have the right to take those troops all the way to tokyo before asking permission from the congress.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
No duh? What are you, a 12-year old girl?
It was obvious you completely missed my underlying jab. Im not going to take the time to spell it out for you.
And you do know, based on your logic, that every single one of our elected members have, according to you, turned their backs on the constitution since the 1900's, right?
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "And you do know, based on your logic, that every single one of our elected members have, according to you, turned their backs on the constitution since the 1900's, right?"
not all. just most. mainly out of ignorance and indoctrination
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
of course, buddy. of course. What terrible americans.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "All politicians and judges want to secretly be subjected to paying income taxes?"
u do know that they make a shit load of money right? shit new gingrich made $60,000 dollars a speech and got millions from freddymac
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Im not familiar with freddy and mac. But I am familiar with Newts work with fannie mae and freddie mac. Im also familiar of the fact that he earned a substantial sum of money regularly with speech appearances - just as you mentioned. However, he did that kind of work AFTER he was kicked out of congress over ethic charges, so your example doesnt work.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "However, he did that kind of work AFTER he was kicked out of congress over ethic charges, so your example doesnt work."
becuz they made sure to take care of him DUH!!.
$60,000 a fucking speech? give me a frekaing break. someone's holding his dick for him.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
And yes, politicians do make quite a bit of money relative to the average american, especially with their private ventures. That is why they are subject to the tax in the first place. But that doesnt answer my question: why would ALL well off politicians and judges - especially those with conservative, free market values - be interested in taxing themselves more when they could be earning substantially more? What is the incentive?
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "And yes, politicians do make quite a bit of money relative to the average american, especially with their private ventures"
the president makes $400,000 dollars while congress gets over $100,000. that's a fucking retarded amount. and we wonder why we have corruption and career politicians who only care about getting reelected.
Ron Paul is the only one who'd have that knocked down to around the average american's salary.
dab0331 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "The judge certainly thought so, and thats all that matters. Now, give me a case where the defendant used the statute argument and won. Its a simple request. "
that's like saying give me a case where a soldier refused to fight an unconstitutional war and won.
of course they're gonna crucify him at all costs. just cuz he didn't win doesn't make it any less illegal.
plz tell me where congress has the power to make fiat money?? HHHMMMM
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 The other baseless conspiracies you keep raising have repeatedly been denied over and over again by the courts. The reality is that your own interpretation of the constitution and law, however faulty and deluded they are, doesnt matter. The courts are - and always will be - the ultimate arbitrator, regardless of how you feel about them.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 Now, Ive simply asked you to provide legitimate, court-documented instances where individuals have legally avoided and been acquitted of these tax provisions, specifically with the groundless "statute" argument and North Dakota angle, and you have failed to provide it. Rather astonishingly, however, you seem to only find instances of convicted tax frauds who failed miserably on several counts challenging the system...
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 i never failed to provide. my example was clear. the only reason he was found guilty was becuz he was denied to allow evidence and bogus grounds.
just cuz its a court case don't mean shit. the system is fucked up and bias.
my brother's friend was run over by a drunk cop and the cop was never convicted even after providing evidence of him at a bar drinking from a shot glass. yet he claimed it was "water".
provide the law!
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 You certainly did fail. A friend of the defendant, with absolutely no legal background, and whom shares political agendas is not legitimate, moron. How is that difficult to understand? And this video thing you keep bringing up was entirely irrelevant to the case, which is why it was denied. Further, the case had NOTHING to do with the statute arguments. Are you that thick?
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 and no it's not irrelevant. if you're not alowed to even mention the previous trial let alone present the tape of course its gonna hinder them.
and yes the statute has everything to do wiht it. that and the fact that the green back is not a form of legal tender under the constitution.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 The judge certainly thought so, and thats all that matters. Now, give me a case where the defendant used the statute argument and won. Its a simple request.
paulb10486 2 months ago
Comment removed
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 The reason why you have problems the system is because it doesnt agree with your ideological positions. The fact is our justice system is some of the worlds most transparent and sound there is. Is it perfect? No. But in this case the courts from all over the country, from red states to blue, have routinely and unequivocally denied your argument.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 Your brothers friend has absolutely nothing to do with the rulings we have discussed. To suggest that it does is simply a logistical fallacy. Id also advise your brothers friend to hire a better lawyer if indeed that were the case.
I win.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "Your brothers friend has absolutely nothing to do with the rulings we have discussed. To suggest that it does is simply a logistical fallacy. Id also advise your brothers friend to hire a better lawyer if indeed that were the case."
if hope u or one of your family members get run over by a drunk cop. i rarely wish ppl death but you're one of hte few exceptions.
dab0331 2 months ago
@paulb10486 sum other examples is the fact that we haven't declared a war since WW2 when only the congress can take us to war; not the president.
not to mention the courts (which apparently u believe are the sole arbiters of what's right and constiutitonal) used to also say that slavery was legal. but righteousness is on our side and we will change it. the courts never change until the ppl do and wake up from their sheeple trance.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 First off, its "some", not "sum."
"havent declared war since WWII"
Um...Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan?
As far as slavery, you might want take a look at the original authors of the constitution, which you libertarians treat as the bible. The courts, which were geographically divided on the issue, made their judgments based on the language of the constitution.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "Um...Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan?"
no none of them were formally voted on. NONE OF THEM u fucking idiot.
and yes we every american knows the pragmatic approach the founders took to slavery in order to preserve the union.
but that's past and none of the actions taken today are in the constitution. none of the recent wars and none of this fiat money bullshit.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 None of them? Here are the votes and dates from both chamber authorizing military force:
Vietnam: US senate: (88-2); House: (414-0) on August 7th, 1964
Gulf War: US senate: (52-47); House: (250-183) on January 12th, 1991
Iraq: US senate (77-23); House (296-133) on October 16, 2002
Afghanistan: US senate (98-0); House (420-1) on September 14, 2001
This information is on the internet, you know? You are dumber than a pile of rocks.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 none of those were declared wars. the president can't drag us to war just like he can't legislate law through executive order or signing statements.
nor are those "wars" those are resolutions to use military force. not the same thing.
a president cant go fight some country nilly willy, get troops killed, and then shame the congress into supporting him. that's a run around congress to keep the blame on the president & avoiding presenting their case to the ppl before going
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
Everything you just said is factually wrong.
But then again, I suppose I should listen to a grammatically challenged, fallacious thinking, hyper-paranoid freshman junior college student, who thinks hes a constitutional expert by reading ron paul blogs. That says it all. You trolls are a riot...
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "Now medicare, ss, and all those extremely popular government programs (even for nutjob libertarians) are unconstitutional to you?"
popular or not they are unconstitutional and we live in a REPUBLIC. not a democracy. a nation of laws which isn't subject to the whims of the mob.
those programs and our overextension the military into foreign lands and bases and war after war is the reason we can't afford it.
cut them off and you dont need any income tax.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
You're characterizing elected officials as whims of the mob? Provocative.
Also, prove how they are unconstitutional, please. I'd like you to use our justice system as a reference.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "Also, prove how they are unconstitutional, please. I'd like you to use our justice system as a reference"
amendment 9 & 10 make it clear that any power not specifically granted to the federal gvnt is then reserved for the states and the people.
so these make it clear that no power specifically granted to the federal government is therby denied by default and left to the states or to the people.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
The programs constitutionality has been challenged, yet the programs as we know them today were held up in court (see Helvering v. Davis).
Today, we have seen no serious challenges regarding its constitutionality that are now being litigated. It must be because americans love their socialized, anti-american programs
You would make a terrific presidential candidate
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 article 1 section 8 states the congress has the power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
THAT'S IT. they dont have the power to determine what is to be made legal tender. so naturally this right is left to the states....
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 First off - and your not going to like this - the supreme court affirmed the constitutionality of paper money in a number of cases, including in 1871 (Knox v Lee and Parker v Davis) and 1874 (Julliard V Greenman). You can read up on the cases for yourself.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "First off - and your not going to like this - the supreme court affirmed the constitutionality of paper money in a number of cases,"
paper money isn't the problem. it's the fact that it's backed by absolutely nothing which means it's ILLEGAL.
u & I do something illegal we get thrown in jail and crucified. the government does something illegal, jack shit happens.
AGAIN you're court citations mean jack shit to me when the highest law of the land says otherwise.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
On a side note, its quite frankly not practical, especially in todays advanced economy, to be using that form of currency. I have an inkling that the authors of the constitution did not envision some of todays advances materializing the way they have.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "On a side note, its quite frankly not practical, especially in todays advanced economy"
1st of all ITS ILLEGAL!
2nd how is it not practical?? u're an idiot. if it wasn't for the fiat money our dollar would be worth more. but it loses value becuz they print it carelessly which mean's everyone is being taxed secretly. if its so practical why charge taxes?? becuz if they simply printed money u'd have hyper inflation & ppl would catch on to the scam of it all.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
Nope, youre wrong again. It is legal. Again, see where the supreme court ruled on the issue.
And you're a fool to believe the forms of currency we use today is worthless. Let me ask you this: are you not able to purchase anything in return with the money in your wallet?
And we're currently NOT suffering from hyperinflation, like you seem to suggest (2010: 1.6%). The Fed is able to control those potential problems with, among other things, interest rates.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "Nope, youre wrong again. It is legal. Again, see where the supreme court ruled on the issue."
the supreme court isn't the sole arbiter of constitutionality. if hope u also know that had 1 more justice from the supreme court voted in favor of the legality of the chicago gun ban the the 2nd amendment would of been dead.
it's not constitutional. plain and simple. ONLY GOLD AND SILVER SHALL BE MADE TENDER IN THE PAYMENTS OF DEBTS!!
plain and fucking simple u freaking douche
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
Our justice system is the ultimate arbiter, and they ruled that it was constitutional. You lost, plain and simple.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "Our justice system is the ultimate arbiter, and they ruled that it was constitutional. You lost, plain and simple. "
yeah the same ones that back the patriot act the the spying of the american ppl without a warrant.
and hte killing of american citizens without due process.
and the same government which has now passed legislation which makes america a warzone & they can detain u indefinetly wihtout a lawyer.
you're a fucking joke.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
Hey, I agree with you on those cases. However, the justice department didnt, which is something Ive had to accept until someone successfully challenges them.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "And we're currently NOT suffering from hyperinflation, like you seem to suggest (2010: 1.6%). The Fed is able to control those potential problems with, among other things, interest rates."
the point is that we would suffer if hyper inflation if they simply printed money to fund their operations. but if they can simly print money than there's no point in taxes. its a HIDDEN tax which makes those prospects of raising taxes u cited SEEM to work. but its an illusion
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
Yeah, nice try. Wrong again.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 again.. my personal finances would APPEAR pretty good if i borrowed a million dollars every month but someday the bill will be come home to.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Im not arguing that. But your example is a mischaracterization of the policies.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331
Whats funny is that todays economists are actually hoping for a more healthier 4% inflation rate, not the meager 1.6 that we endured in 2010, and definitely not the -0.4% in 2009 (See Oliver Blanchard)
Yet, the economic expert that you are, you make us out to be Zimbabwe or something, which is obviously completely ridiculous.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 healhty inflation?? get the fuck out of here. inflation is never good.
what they need to to stop the artificially low interest rates which only increases moral hazard and malinvestment.
and obviously u know nothing of the record of history. the reason gold & silver is legal tender is becuz the founding fathers tried simply printing money carelessly during the revolution and it didn't work.
not to mention the dollar is on the verge of collapse. the world wants to dump it
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
Actually, its history goes back to the civil war.
The dollar is not on the verge of collapse. In fact, American bond markets remain one of the worlds safest investments.
Here are five CONSERVATIVE economists with concerns over DEFLATION:
John Makin, Ricardo Caballero, Scott Sumner, Armino Fraga, and Irving Fisher, just to name a few. I suggest you take a look at what they have to say.
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 uhave to be an idiot to think deflation is bad.. deflation means your money is worth more. that is always a good thing.
those keynesian economist are concerned about overproduction becuz keynes ideas are based on demand creates its own supply while classical & austrian economics is based on supply creates its own demand.
when things become plentiful business owners naturally slow down production becuz of supply & demand.
government interference is not needed.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Their muse be a lot of stupid economists from both sides of the proverbial aisle.
Here are some of the things use miss: 1.) falling prices worsen the position of the debtors by increasing the the real burden of their debts. B/c of this, debtors are more likely to be forced to cut their spending when their debt burden rises, while creditors arent likely to increase their spending by the same amount. So, deflation exerts a depressing effect on spending by raising debtburdens(see fisher)
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 "falling prices worsen the position of the debtors by increasing the the real burden of their debts"
it's a 2 way street. it makes debtors increased burden but it increases the money of everyone else who didn't get themselve in that situation.
hyper inflation/deflation has only become a serious problem in history becuz of the careless printing of money.
the market is the best regulator of prices becuz it's based on reality.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331 Youre thinking of it in a micro perspective, which is your mistake. Economists are discussing this problem in a much more broader, macro discernment. Your understanding fails to consider the overall complexities of the marketplace.
Hyperinflation has been a problem at times, especially when you look at post WWI germany and, like Ive mentioned, Zimbabwe. But its never been a problem in the united states, which is what you were implying.
paulb10486 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@paulb10486 "WWI germany and, like Ive mentioned, Zimbabwe. "
becuz the US is the most powerful nation on earth. we don't have to worry about nations bombing us to collect on thier debt. we just keep delaying it.
WW1 germany was at the mercy of the treaty of versaille and zimbabwe is dirt poor and can't defend itself. they can't just delay the problem.
like when mexico refused to pay its debts int he 1800's & was invaded by france, england, and spain.
dab0331 1 month ago
@dab0331 Also, in a deflationary economy, when people expect falling prices, they become less willing to spend, and in particular, less willing to borrow. after all, when prices are falling, just sitting on cash becomes an investment with a positive real yield. and anyone considering borrowing, even for a prouctive investment, has to take account of the fact that the loan will have to be paid back in real dollars that are worth more than the dollars you borrowed....
paulb10486 2 months ago
@dab0331 ...when that happens, the economy, especially under todays consditions, stay depressed b/c people expect deflation, and deflation may continue b/c the economy remains depressed. Its a deflationary trap economists worry about from both political stripes
paulb10486 2 months ago
@paulb10486 and when they do dump it as the world reserve currency it's gonna be worth jack shit.
no one's gonna wanna lend us shit and we're gonna be in pre-nazi germany's situation.
russia & china already dumped the dollar in thier bi-lateral trade with eachother.
dab0331 2 months ago
@dab0331
Nope, you are wrong. Its that simple.
paulb10486 2 months ago