Tin_Foil_Hat
Member
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 190
I thought Cavuto was on Fox.
Ron Paul on Ed & Elaine Brown -- reported in Concord Monitor (NH paper)
- Thread starter LizF
- Start date
I thought Cavuto was on Fox.
Highmesa
Member
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2007
- Messages
- 220
Yeah, the campaign's first retraction. That's when you know you're a real campaign.
It will be interesting to see how this flies. If it was one of the MSM candidates, they'd make an off cuff remark or two on the evening news and let it go. I wonder how they'll treat the "maverick."
It will be interesting to see how this flies. If it was one of the MSM candidates, they'd make an off cuff remark or two on the evening news and let it go. I wonder how they'll treat the "maverick."
Ronstock '08
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 91
Just watched the interview. Cavuto is clueless. "if we didn't collect income taxes we couldn't pay for that building (The Capitol) you're standing in" Ron Paul's response "How did this building get built, the income tax didn't start until 1913" Lol
Original_Intent
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2007
- Messages
- 9,381
That is awesome )
AZ Libertarian
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 450
Yes - that's the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? Show them the law, and be done with it....
unless there ISN'T one, eh?
Trevorjustco
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 16
Yes - that's the crux of the biscuit, isn't it? Show them the law, and be done with it....
unless there ISN'T one, eh?
The problem is showing them a law that they will be willing to accept.
It appears that they wouldn't accept a law that says:
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013 a tax determined in accordance with the following table:..."
JaylieWoW
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 806
Ron Paul has said time and time again that the IRS is one of the departments he would like to abolish. He does however show he is realistic in this aspiration by also saying that "so long as we think it is the governments responsibility to take care of us from cradle to grave, we cannot abolish the income tax". Much harder sell IMHO, there are way too many people now who are dependent. He does, however, make concessions by saying it would have to be gradient because of the current rate of dependency. In other words, a generation of SSI & Social Security dependents would have to be gradually weaned off or lump sum paid in order to invest how they see fit.
In other words, until the general population is willing to accept liberty and the personal responsibility that goes along with it, we will never be able to get rid of "high" taxation. Although he is fundamentally against the "Fair Tax" or a "Flat Tax", I could see him supporting it as a way to at least get rid of the income tax. Though I have to agree completely that it is senseless to get rid of the income tax and just replace it with another tax. I'm lukewarm on my support of the Fair Tax. One thing that does pique my interest in it is that I'm a Step Mom and I'm tired of seeing my husband pay for more than 50% of the support of his two children and not getting any income tax break for it. At the very least, the Fair Tax plan would remedy the gross unfairness of our tax code always being behind present day real life circumstances.
In other words, until the general population is willing to accept liberty and the personal responsibility that goes along with it, we will never be able to get rid of "high" taxation. Although he is fundamentally against the "Fair Tax" or a "Flat Tax", I could see him supporting it as a way to at least get rid of the income tax. Though I have to agree completely that it is senseless to get rid of the income tax and just replace it with another tax. I'm lukewarm on my support of the Fair Tax. One thing that does pique my interest in it is that I'm a Step Mom and I'm tired of seeing my husband pay for more than 50% of the support of his two children and not getting any income tax break for it. At the very least, the Fair Tax plan would remedy the gross unfairness of our tax code always being behind present day real life circumstances.
AZ Libertarian
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 450
Show me the statutes listing who your quote PERTAINS to.....
You won't find 'non-federal citizens of the 50 states, deriving 'income' (a term NOT defined ) from labor inside the U.S.' on that list.
Don't get me started. I'm busy working towards a Ron Paul Presidency.
cjhowe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,407
Asked and answered here :
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm
and here:
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html
and a nice overall rebuke of Russo's film
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm
I support the abolition of the IRS as it is unnecessary when the federal government is only carrying out the duties for which it has the power to carry out. This will likely result in a higher state tax, but that's a tax that we in our communities have better control over and is less prone to be influenced by lobbyists.
AZ Libertarian
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 450
I'll read yours IF you read mine.....
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/00-Archives.htm
________________________________________________________
AND IN ADDITION.....
Fear of IRS misplaced, real problem is the system
By US Representative Ron Paul
Imagine that you have taken a position contrary to the official dictates of the government in your nation. Instead of simply facing criticism from opposing political sides, you find your life turned upside-down; every aspect of your life is closely scrutinized. Without warning, your life savings are seized, your personal, private records divulged far and wide. Suddenly, how willing are you to continue holding your views?
It sounds almost like a slice of life from the dictatorships of the world's past or in the modern third world.
Or is it?
For many years the fearful power of the Internal Revenue Service has been used in just that fashion against Americans.
It's unfortunate enough that IRS employees - unfairly perhaps the most hated individuals in the nation - by the virtue of their jobs have to enforce tax policies which run contrary to our nation's notion of freedom, but what is worse is that these individuals have many times been used to carry out far less appropriate agendas for elected officials and federal bureaucrats.
This tactic has been used by Republicans and Democrats alike; neither are without the sin. We know that Richard Nixon often used the IRS - or at least the threat of the IRS - to silence groups opposed to his re-election efforts.
In recently released White House recordings, former President Nixon made it abundantly clear that he wanted the IRS to be cracking down on groups (like "the Jews," he said) and individuals who were contributing to the Democrats. It has recently been revealed that Mr. Nixon was planning on having the IRS investigate every member of Congress because "it worries the (expletive) out of the thieves… It really does. Even if a person isn't a thief…"
Likewise, it is becoming increasingly clear that President Clinton's White House has engaged in similar tactics.
Diverse groups, ranging from small churches in Texas to the NRA, are reporting that the threat of the IRS has been held over their heads unless they repent of their often conservative views.
The hypocrisy is palatable: Vice President Al Gore can go to a Buddhist Temple and hold a fundraiser without an official eye being batted. President Clinton regularly invited speaks at churches, and Jesse Jackson actually makes political fundraising speeches from pulpits, yet the IRS takes no action. The unions spend millions of dollars - without any opposition - promoting liberals and bashing conservatives.
Yet conservative groups and churches have lately come under intense scrutiny by the IRS. All of them are groups which tend to hold views opposite those of the President, Vice President and the Democrats.
But again, this has nothing to do with partisanship. If anything, the power of the IRS has been fairly well used and abused by members of both political parties.
While looking at the countless number of cases of the IRS being used as a political tool of administrations past and present may be interesting and even instructive, we should instead be focusing on what has allowed these cases to occur.
The problem is not with the IRS agents themselves, but with the policies behind the Internal Revenue Service.
First, under the state of the law, the IRS is a tool of the Executive Branch, the presidency. The IRS must follow - almost without question - the orders of the executive.
Second, the Internal Revenue Code is bulky, confusing and downright unintelligible: an individual of the absolute best intentions can violate major sections of the code without realizing it. The code itself makes it likely we all have violated something - we just haven't been caught. And that is preciously what keeps so many people up late into the night worrying about - what they may have unknowingly done, and what the results may be.
Third, under the administrative law which governs the IRS and all other federal agencies, a person found to be violating the code must prove themselves innocent, a concept which runs contrary to our judicial system in virtually every other area of law. This has the real effect of forcing individuals to passively submit to the agency's decrees not because the individual believes they did anything wrong, but simply because they do not have the resources to prove their innocence.
Taken individually, all three are bad. But when added together, the IRS becomes a recipe for disaster. Or worse.
The answer is not to simply revise the code, or to make the IRS more independent, or to have an added layer of judicial review, the answer is to fundamentally change the way we collect taxes in this nation. The nonsensical body of law which governs the IRS is too far removed from sanity to be saved. And the graduated income tax system is neither fair, economically sound, moral nor useful.
In my mind, the jury is still out on whether a flat tax or a national sales tax is the absolute best way to go (my main goal is for lower taxes, across-the-board), but both will go a long way toward eliminating the politically powerful weapon known as the IRS.
We need not only a simpler, fairer system to eliminate the second problem I described, but also a smaller, more inexpensive agency responsible for collecting the taxes to solve the first. Finally, by making Congress directly responsible for the levy and collection of taxes - as constitutionally prescribed - the third problem vanishes by placing legal questions squarely in the hands of the legitimate federal court system. And best of all, Congressmen - the direct representatives of the people - become more accountable.
There is no reason why we must fear the IRS. But in fact, there is no real reason to even have an IRS.
Like so many of the problems we see in our nation today, the heavy political hand of the IRS being used against individuals is not ultimately traceable to the employees of the federal government, but to the elected officials who have allowed unconstitutional principles and practices to take hold in our country. It is only when we restore the integrity of the Constitution, and follow the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, that we will see these problems corrected.
To paraphrase Mr. Nixon, the system treats us all like thieves, even though we aren't.
There is no reason why we must fear the IRS. But there are plenty of reasons why we should end the IRS.
found HERE:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst97/tst042097.htm
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/00-Archives.htm
________________________________________________________
AND IN ADDITION.....
Fear of IRS misplaced, real problem is the system
By US Representative Ron Paul
Imagine that you have taken a position contrary to the official dictates of the government in your nation. Instead of simply facing criticism from opposing political sides, you find your life turned upside-down; every aspect of your life is closely scrutinized. Without warning, your life savings are seized, your personal, private records divulged far and wide. Suddenly, how willing are you to continue holding your views?
It sounds almost like a slice of life from the dictatorships of the world's past or in the modern third world.
Or is it?
For many years the fearful power of the Internal Revenue Service has been used in just that fashion against Americans.
It's unfortunate enough that IRS employees - unfairly perhaps the most hated individuals in the nation - by the virtue of their jobs have to enforce tax policies which run contrary to our nation's notion of freedom, but what is worse is that these individuals have many times been used to carry out far less appropriate agendas for elected officials and federal bureaucrats.
This tactic has been used by Republicans and Democrats alike; neither are without the sin. We know that Richard Nixon often used the IRS - or at least the threat of the IRS - to silence groups opposed to his re-election efforts.
In recently released White House recordings, former President Nixon made it abundantly clear that he wanted the IRS to be cracking down on groups (like "the Jews," he said) and individuals who were contributing to the Democrats. It has recently been revealed that Mr. Nixon was planning on having the IRS investigate every member of Congress because "it worries the (expletive) out of the thieves… It really does. Even if a person isn't a thief…"
Likewise, it is becoming increasingly clear that President Clinton's White House has engaged in similar tactics.
Diverse groups, ranging from small churches in Texas to the NRA, are reporting that the threat of the IRS has been held over their heads unless they repent of their often conservative views.
The hypocrisy is palatable: Vice President Al Gore can go to a Buddhist Temple and hold a fundraiser without an official eye being batted. President Clinton regularly invited speaks at churches, and Jesse Jackson actually makes political fundraising speeches from pulpits, yet the IRS takes no action. The unions spend millions of dollars - without any opposition - promoting liberals and bashing conservatives.
Yet conservative groups and churches have lately come under intense scrutiny by the IRS. All of them are groups which tend to hold views opposite those of the President, Vice President and the Democrats.
But again, this has nothing to do with partisanship. If anything, the power of the IRS has been fairly well used and abused by members of both political parties.
While looking at the countless number of cases of the IRS being used as a political tool of administrations past and present may be interesting and even instructive, we should instead be focusing on what has allowed these cases to occur.
The problem is not with the IRS agents themselves, but with the policies behind the Internal Revenue Service.
First, under the state of the law, the IRS is a tool of the Executive Branch, the presidency. The IRS must follow - almost without question - the orders of the executive.
Second, the Internal Revenue Code is bulky, confusing and downright unintelligible: an individual of the absolute best intentions can violate major sections of the code without realizing it. The code itself makes it likely we all have violated something - we just haven't been caught. And that is preciously what keeps so many people up late into the night worrying about - what they may have unknowingly done, and what the results may be.
Third, under the administrative law which governs the IRS and all other federal agencies, a person found to be violating the code must prove themselves innocent, a concept which runs contrary to our judicial system in virtually every other area of law. This has the real effect of forcing individuals to passively submit to the agency's decrees not because the individual believes they did anything wrong, but simply because they do not have the resources to prove their innocence.
Taken individually, all three are bad. But when added together, the IRS becomes a recipe for disaster. Or worse.
The answer is not to simply revise the code, or to make the IRS more independent, or to have an added layer of judicial review, the answer is to fundamentally change the way we collect taxes in this nation. The nonsensical body of law which governs the IRS is too far removed from sanity to be saved. And the graduated income tax system is neither fair, economically sound, moral nor useful.
In my mind, the jury is still out on whether a flat tax or a national sales tax is the absolute best way to go (my main goal is for lower taxes, across-the-board), but both will go a long way toward eliminating the politically powerful weapon known as the IRS.
We need not only a simpler, fairer system to eliminate the second problem I described, but also a smaller, more inexpensive agency responsible for collecting the taxes to solve the first. Finally, by making Congress directly responsible for the levy and collection of taxes - as constitutionally prescribed - the third problem vanishes by placing legal questions squarely in the hands of the legitimate federal court system. And best of all, Congressmen - the direct representatives of the people - become more accountable.
There is no reason why we must fear the IRS. But in fact, there is no real reason to even have an IRS.
Like so many of the problems we see in our nation today, the heavy political hand of the IRS being used against individuals is not ultimately traceable to the employees of the federal government, but to the elected officials who have allowed unconstitutional principles and practices to take hold in our country. It is only when we restore the integrity of the Constitution, and follow the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, that we will see these problems corrected.
To paraphrase Mr. Nixon, the system treats us all like thieves, even though we aren't.
There is no reason why we must fear the IRS. But there are plenty of reasons why we should end the IRS.
found HERE:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst97/tst042097.htm
Last edited:
cjhowe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,407
Okay, I read yours. It's a group of people who filed an unsuccessful law suit for which they made no claim. I fail to see how it relates to anything. But, I read yours, so please read mine.
AZ Libertarian
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 450
what a waste of time
If that's all you have to say, then you didn't read anything. If all you want to do is to detract from the efforts of those of us who are trying to wake up the masses and campaign for Ron Paul with your arguements and links to IRS dogma sites then PLEASE start a meetup group for whomever you want to see elected, and have a nice day, OK? You obviously don't/won't hear my words so I will put them to better use elsewhere.
If that's all you have to say, then you didn't read anything. If all you want to do is to detract from the efforts of those of us who are trying to wake up the masses and campaign for Ron Paul with your arguements and links to IRS dogma sites then PLEASE start a meetup group for whomever you want to see elected, and have a nice day, OK? You obviously don't/won't hear my words so I will put them to better use elsewhere.
cjhowe
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,407
The group that you pointed to is suing to have the IRS give guidance on who has to pay income tax and what statute is governing that guidance. The judge in the case ruled that the IRS does not have that burden and that the petitioner did not make a claim for which the court could compel the IRS to do. Thus, it's a frivolous lawsuit.
As far as the Aaron Russo film, it's not a sound theory based on the statutes.
He went on and on about a SCOTUS ruling that the 16th amendment gave no additional taxing authority. That's true. The government already had the authority to tax wage income, simply not the ability to collect it without apportionment. Thus, the 16th amendment allowed it to be collected without apportionment.
Every single point of contention that Russo makes in the film has been struck down in court.
I will stand right next to you in favor of ending the IRS, but this will only happen through the legislature, not through the courts and not through civil disobedience. Be rational.
It really disappoints me when I go to talk about Ron Paul to someone and having to start with refuting the connection between Ron Paul and the 9/11 truthers and the connection between Ron Paul and Aaron Russo and Ron Paul and Alex Jones. These are not like minded people.
Is the system gamed? Sure. However the only way to bring it even remotely back to a level playing field is by removing government regulation, through the same process that put the regulation in. Not by crying and not by being paranoid.
As far as the Aaron Russo film, it's not a sound theory based on the statutes.
He went on and on about a SCOTUS ruling that the 16th amendment gave no additional taxing authority. That's true. The government already had the authority to tax wage income, simply not the ability to collect it without apportionment. Thus, the 16th amendment allowed it to be collected without apportionment.
Every single point of contention that Russo makes in the film has been struck down in court.
I will stand right next to you in favor of ending the IRS, but this will only happen through the legislature, not through the courts and not through civil disobedience. Be rational.
It really disappoints me when I go to talk about Ron Paul to someone and having to start with refuting the connection between Ron Paul and the 9/11 truthers and the connection between Ron Paul and Aaron Russo and Ron Paul and Alex Jones. These are not like minded people.
Is the system gamed? Sure. However the only way to bring it even remotely back to a level playing field is by removing government regulation, through the same process that put the regulation in. Not by crying and not by being paranoid.
