America Freedom to Fascism [Archive]

Ice

10-24-2007, 06:29

Did you watch it because it has. Its the truth. Ill tell you all a little secret. i havent filed in over 30 years . In fact I dont ever remember filing other than in the Marines were all you had to do was sign the damn thing.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/JustNoLaw.htm

Some tax protestors like to argue that we can only be taxed by law, not by some mere "code" like the Internal Revenue Code. These protestors are often under the mistaken impression that the Internal Revenue Code was written by the IRS.
Basic Answer

This argument simply reflects ignorance of what the Internal Revenue Code is and where it came from.

The Internal Revenue Code is law. It was passed by the United States Congress. It does not come from the IRS. The IRS writes regulations that help implement the Code, but the Code itself was passed by Congress. Under the Constitution, if a bill is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, it is the law. That's what happened with the Internal Revenue Code, so the Code is the law.

The Code is called the "Internal Revenue Code" because that's the name chosen for it by the Congress. (See section 7701(a)(29).) So it does have the word "Code" in its name. But it is, absolutely, law passed by the Congress.
More Detail

Here's some further detail for readers who'd like to know the exact dates and citations for the law:

The Internal Revenue Code wasn't passed all at once. Congress is constantly tinkering with and amending it. The last comprehensive overhaul of the Code occurred on October 22, 1986, when Congress passed Public Law 99-514, entitled "A bill to reform the internal revenue laws of the United States."

There have been many amendments since then, but each amendment was passed by Congress. The current Internal Revenue Code is the result of the original law plus all the amendments over time. But the Code is still made up of laws passed by the Congress. It was not written by the IRS.

Laws passed by Congress can be found in a series of books called the Statutes at Large. If you want to look up the 1986 law, you can find it in Volume 100 of the Statutes at Large, beginning at page 2085.

A more convenient source is Title 26 of the United States Code. The problem with trying to find the law in the Statutes at Large is that, in order to tell whether the part you're reading (say, the 1986 tax law) is still good, current law, you'd have to read the entire Statutes at Large to see whether any later statute repealed or amended it. So you'd have to look through every statute that Congress has passed in the intervening decades. That's not very practical.

Fortunately, someone else has done that for you. The Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of Representatives compiles the Statutes at Large into a more usable source known as the United States Code. Whenever Congress passes a law that amends an already existing law (such as the income tax law), the Revisers strike out the old, obsolete portion and replace it with the new portion. That way, the U.S. Code always reflects the most current law.

But in any event, it's still the law as passed by the United States Congress. The Revisers have just compiled it into a more convenient, usable form.
Still More Detail

Some confusion may result from the fact that some Titles in the United States Code (but not Title 26) have been enacted as "positive law." In published editions of the U.S. Code, these titles are marked with an asterisk, and Title 26 is not one of them.

All this means is that, for some Titles, Congress, usually after many years of tinkering with and amending the Title, decided to pass one, single statute embodying all the law in the entire Title. When this is done, that one law in the Statutes at Large can also be used as a Title of the U.S. Code (until it gets amended again).

Congress never did this for Title 26. Title 26 is the compiled result of many separate statutes passed over a period of decades.

But that doesn't matter. Title 26 is still the law as passed by the Congress. Law created by many statutes over time is still law.

I'm not sure how the IRS hasn't caught you in 30 years.

CountArach

10-24-2007, 08:54

PanzerJaeger

10-24-2007, 09:05

I saw the thread title and got a little excited... :saint:

Good to see ya here G. ~:wave:

Gawain of Orkeny

10-24-2007, 16:12

I'm not sure how the IRS hasn't caught you in 30 years.

Want to make 10,000 dollars. Show me the law. The job of the IRS is to collect the most revenue it an voluntarily. They try to make you think your liable. Did you know that not one penny of your tax money goes to pay for government services. That every penny goes to the FED to pay off the interest the government owes it?

Who is not required to file quarterly estimated income taxes?

Title 26 USC, SEC. 6654. FAILURE BY INDIVIDUALS TO PAY ESTIMATED INCOME TAX.

States:

(e) Exceptions. -

1.Where tax is small amount. -- No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if the tax shown on the return for such taxable year (or, if no return is filed, the tax), reduced by the credit allowable under section 31, is less than $500.

2.Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year.--No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if --

A. The preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12 months.

B. The individual did not have any liability for tax for the preceding taxable year, and

C. The individual was a citizen or resident of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year . (emphasis added)

If your are a citizen you are exempt if you work within the borders of the US. Says so right there.

On who can the IRS enforce its criminal statutes?

*Internal Revenue Manual Chapter 1100 Organization and Staffing, section 1132.75 states:

"The Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statutes applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements..."

So their only supposed to investigate United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements. No mention of US citizens residing and working in the US

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?! Continue. It gets even more interesting.

Are you required by law to fill out a W-4 with an employer?

*26 C.F.R. 3402(p)-1(b)

(b) ... an employee who desires to enter into an agreement under section 3402

(p) ... shall furnish his employer with Form W-4.

The furnishing of such Form W-4 shall constitute a request for withholding...

Furthermore, *26 C.F.R. 31.3402(p)-1(b)(2) states:

"...An agreement under Section 3402(p) shall be effective for such period as the employer and the employee mutually agree upon. However, either the employer or the employee may TERMINATE the agreement prior to the end of such period by furnishing a signed written notice to the other...."

Did you realize that you were REQUESTING that tax be withheld from your paycheck ? If you don't make that REQUEST, what LEGAL authority is there to withhold tax (any money) from your pay? Do you think this might be an important thing to be told to employee's? Why weren't you told? Why don't the "tax pros" tell you?

Who is exempt from withholding of taxes?

IRS Publication 515. Instruction Manuel to withholding agent on withholding of taxes states:

" Evidence of residence.

If an individual gives you a written statement stating that he or she is a citizen or resident of the United States and you do not know otherwise, you do not have to withhold tax under the rules discussed in the publication."

This publication is based on 26 CFR, section 1.1441-5 (you will have to enter the numbers "26 * 1 * 1441-5" in the search fields to find this section) Under "Claiming to be a person not subject to withholding." Which states:

" (a) Individuals. For the purpose of chapter 3 of the Code, an individual's written statement that he or she is a citizen or resident of the United States my be relied upon by the payer of the income as proof that such individual is a citizen or resident of the United States. This statement shall be furnished to the withholding agent in duplicate. An alien may claim residence in the United States by filing form 1078 with the withholding agent in duplicate in lieu of the above statement.

(b) Partnerships and Corporations. ...

(c) Disposition of Statement and Form. The duplicate copy of each statement and form filed pursuant to this section shall be forwarded with a letter of transmittal to the Internal Revenue Service Center, Philadelphia, PA. 19255. The original statement shall be retained by the withholding agent."

This code section clearly states a US Citizen may claim that they are not subject to withholding (of income tax) IF they GIVE their EMPLOYER A STATEMENT OF CITIZENSHIP (in duplicate), INSTEAD OF PROVIDING A W-4 with a Social Security number on it. Did your employer ever show you this? Chances are they have never even heard of it! Why not?!

On who can a levy legally be served?

Title 26, USC section 6331(a). Levy and Distraint states:

" ...Levy may be made on the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency of Or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia."

Did you see US Citizen in that section anywhere?

By the way, on the "notice of levy" form 668-W(c) which goes out to the banks and employers etc from the IRS in order to levy wages and the like, the code section sited on the back of this form is the correct section 6331 dealing with "levy and distraint". However the section sited starts with paragraph(b) and following. The above paragraph (a) which address who a levy can be served on is left out entirely. I wonder why?

Are you required to use a Social Security number for identification?

Title 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

CHAPTER 7 - SOCIAL SECURITY

States:

§ 408. Penalties

(a) In general.

Whoever -

(1) ...

(8) DISCLOSES, USES, or COMPELS THE DISCLOSURE of the social security number of ANY PERSON in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.

THERE ARE NO LAWS THAT ALLOW FOR THE USE OF YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER ANYWHERE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR WITHOUT YOUR VOLUNTARY PERMISSION TO DO SO !

Who is required to have a TIN (taxpayer identification number)?

*26 C.F.R.(Code of Federal Regulations) §301.6109-1(d)(3) IRS individual taxpayer identification number-

*26 C.F.R.(Code of Federal Regulations)§301.6109-1(d)(3)(i) Definition. The term IRS individual taxpayer identification number means a taxpayer identifying number issued to an alien individual by the Internal Revenue Service, upon application, for use in connection with filing requirements under this title. The term IRS individual taxpayer identification number does not refer to a social security number or an account number for use in employment for wages. For purposes of this section, the term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States.

*The IR manual and some sections of the CFR are not available on the CFR search and therefore no link is available

The law is consistent! In short it applies to citizens ABROAD and foreigners at home. And it repeatedly says the income tax and related laws do NOT apply to U.S. Citizens living and working in the 50 states of the union!

Is this what you have always been told? If not, why not?

BUT

Once you start reading the law ( what a noval idea ) and realize the income tax does not apply to citizens living and working in the fifty states you will immediately begin to wonder how the IRS can get away with doing what they do to those people upon which the law appears not to apply?

Here's how the law works.

The only statutory liability that exists for income tax is the liability of the withholding agent and the employer for withheld taxes. The "Withholding agent" is the only "person" required under the law to withhold and pay income tax (on the earnings of foreigners). The employer withholds employment taxes.

No liability for tax is actually due to the US Treasury until the ACTUAL extent of that liability has been ASSESSED. Once a legal assessment has been executed THEN THE LIABILITY EXISTS, and the tax is due, and collection and enforcement actions may begin to secure and enforce payment.

WHEN YOU FILE A FORM 1040 YOU PERFORM A VOLUNTARY SELF ASSESSMENT THAT CREATES AND ESTABLISHES THE LIABILITY THAT PROVIDES THE NECESSARY JURISDICTION FOR THE IRS TO ENFORCE THE ASSESSMENT !

Even if you misapply the law in your self-assessment, the figures you calculate in your assessment are binding in a court of law (dumb but true). If you refuse to VOLUNTARILY assess yourself, THERE IS NO AUTHORITY IN THE LAW TO ASSESS INCOME TAXES except those "shown on returns" (see Sec. 6201. Assessment Authority), and there is no legal authority properly delegated to either prepare or execute a Form 1040 for a citizen without that citizen's explicit "consent."

THE IRS IGNORES THE LAW AND ATTEMPTS TO STEAL YOUR MONEY ANYWAY !

Its time to wake up people and throw off the shackles.

CrossLOPER

10-24-2007, 16:19

Its time to wake up people and throw off the shackles.
Enjoy your filthy, uneducated, backwater, tax-free country.

ICantSpellDawg

10-24-2007, 16:27

are you serious? what the heck?

Gawain of Orkeny

10-24-2007, 16:39

Heres the trailer to the movie (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4427402300933228251&q=there+is+no+law&total=3240&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8). At least watch that. This may be the most important film ever made.

Banquo's Ghost

10-24-2007, 16:47

Enjoy your filthy, uneducated, backwater, tax-free country.

I think you are being unfair. Just think of the advantages - the ability to prosecute wars will be forever removed.

I'm impressed by Gawain's commitment to the anti-war movement - by withholding his taxes, he strikes at the very heart of the military-industrial complex and denies equipment and materiel to the soldiers fighting in the field.

Awesome. :wink:

Louis VI the Fat

10-24-2007, 16:50

Who is not required to file quarterly estimated income taxes?

Title 26 USC, SEC. 6654. FAILURE BY INDIVIDUALS TO PAY ESTIMATED INCOME TAX.

States:

(e) Exceptions. -

1.Where tax is small amount. -- No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if the tax shown on the return for such taxable year (or, if no return is filed, the tax), reduced by the credit allowable under section 31, is less than $500.

2.Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year.--No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if --

A. The preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12 months.

B. The individual did not have any liability for tax for the preceding taxable year, and

C. The individual was a citizen or resident of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year . (emphasis added)

If your are a citizen you are exempt if you work within the borders of the US. Says so right there. But...but Gawain, it already says under 2A that you are exempt from paying taxes if 'The preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12 months' !!!

Now I would argue that quite a lot of years consist of twelve months, and that therefore Americans are exempt from paying taxes in those years!!1!!1!!! :idea2:

Unless, of course, on the odd chance that we somehow failed to understand the meaning of the above quotes...

macsen rufus

10-24-2007, 16:59

(e) Exceptions. -

1.Where tax is small amount. -- No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if the tax shown on the return for such taxable year (or, if no return is filed, the tax), reduced by the credit allowable under section 31, is less than $500.

2.Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year.--No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if --

A. The preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12 months.

B. The individual did not have any liability for tax for the preceding taxable year, and

C. The individual was a citizen or resident of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year . (emphasis added)

There, fixed it...

Gawain of Orkeny

10-24-2007, 19:12

Aaron Russo talks with IRS Commissioner (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7403366410552837196&q=income+tax+is+unconstitutional&total=143&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5)

From the movie. This is the guy who wrote the code he is talking to.

Protesters Win a Case Over I.R.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/24/business/24irs.html)

The federal government's campaign against income tax protesters suffered a major setback yesterday when a federal jury in Sacramento acquitted a former Internal Revenue Service investigator on charges of helping to prepare false tax returns.

The former investigator, Joseph R. Banister, 42, of San Jose, Calif., has become a hero to the tax protest movement, even though two of his clients are serving long prison sentences after following his advice.

Mr. Banister was acquitted on charges of conspiracy and helping to prepare three false tax returns for a small California manufacturer.

"Everything I have done in my entire career at the I.R.S. and after, I've done with integrity and honesty," Mr. Banister said after the verdict. "My clients wanted some answers to questions about what was required."

He added: "As a C.P.A., my duties are to my clients, to make sure they get the best results."

Mr. Banister resigned from the I.R.S. criminal investigation division in 1999 after he wrote a lengthy report asserting that no law requires the payment of taxes and that Americans were being tricked into paying them. The theories he has put forth have been uniformly rejected by the courts.

The I.R.S. declined to comment on the verdict. The prosecutor, Robert Twiss, said the verdict showed only that the jury did not believe the government had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only way they enforce this is through the intimidation of the courts as there is no law they cant site.

Tribesman

10-24-2007, 20:03

If your are a citizen you are exempt if you work within the borders of the US. Says so right there.

What lunatic blog have you been reading now Gawain ?:dizzy2:

It says you are exempt from the set additional tax penalties if you were living in the US in the 12 months and didn't owe any taxes for those 12 months and that was your reason for not paying tax for those 12 months.
Sooooo .... if you didn't have a taxable income and that is the reason why you didn't make a return on your taxable income additional penalties for not paying money that you didn't owe cannot be imposed because you didn't owe any money .

Marshal Murat

10-24-2007, 21:13

So what is the 16th amendment about?

Ice

10-24-2007, 21:46

What lunatic blog have you been reading now Gawain ?:dizzy2:

It says you are exempt from the set additional tax penalties if you were living in the US in the 12 months and didn't owe any taxes for those 12 months and that was your reason for not paying tax for those 12 months.
Sooooo .... if you didn't have a taxable income and that is the reason why you didn't make a return on your taxable income additional penalties for not paying money that you didn't owe cannot be imposed because you didn't owe any money .

That makes to much sense Tribesman.

Alright everyone, nobody file taxes. Let's see who is audited and has appear in court for income tax evasion.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-24-2007, 21:56

You havent shown me where I was liable the previous year and you cant. Someone watch the damn movie. If you follow any of this back it always leads to only three classes of people being liable. Foreigners working in the US, US citizens working abroad and Foreign companies doing bussiness within the US. Im not saying just that one clause exempts you because your a US citizen.

Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023)

Let's see that one hold up in court.

No Law for U.S. Income Tax (1/2) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7495369049512502126)

No Law for U.S. Income Tax (2/2) (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3308896048831630843&q=No+Law+for+U.S.+Income+Tax&total=87&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

So what is the 16th amendment about?

It made the income tax an indirect tax so as to be constitutional.

Tribesman

10-24-2007, 23:20

If you follow any of this back it always leads to only three classes of people being liable. Foreigners working in the US, US citizens working abroad and Foreign companies doing bussiness within the US. Im not saying just that one clause exempts you because your a US citizen.

Bollox Gawain , its exactly what you are saying , taking one clause relating to one issue and attempting to marry it to all issues when it is irrelevant to those issues .
another example would be...
Did you realize that you were REQUESTING that tax be withheld from your paycheck ? If you don't make that REQUEST, what LEGAL authority is there to withhold tax (any money) from your pay? Do you think this might be an important thing to be told to employee's? Why weren't you told? Why don't the "tax pros" tell you?

That relates to opting to have your employer responsible for deducting your tax liability at source rather than you settling your liabilty on income yourself , if you don't make that request the the responsibilty transfers to yourself (generally its a good move to opt to do it yourself if you have a decent accountant as your employer will only go through the basics as its your money not his so you end up paying more than you should ) .
Now the "tax-pros" will tell you that because they want to make money out of you by doing your tax returns instead of your employer or yourself doing them . So what you mean is why don't the "tax officials" tell you that ...they will tell you if you ask them , but if you don't ask you won't know .

BTW how did you manage to watch that film , the commentator is on mogodon or something isn't he:dizzy2:

Gawain of Orkeny

10-24-2007, 23:56

Bollox Gawain , its exactly what you are saying , taking one clause relating to one issue and attempting to marry it to all issues when it is irrelevant to those issues .
another example would be..

Watch that last video it walks you through it step by step.

That relates to opting to have your employer responsible for deducting your tax liability at source rather than you

That would make him a witholding agent. He is not resonsible to be one but they make employers think they are. You just dont seem to grasp all this legal hocus pocus they use.

If you can find the law there is lots of money in it for you. One site has had a 10000 dollar reward for 25 years now to anyone who can do so.

Tribesman

10-25-2007, 00:19

That would make him a witholding agent. He is not resonsible to be one but they make employers think they are. You just dont seem to grasp all this legal hocus pocus they use.

He is responsible once he accepts that position as an employer if requested , if he does not accept that position then the employee is liable .

Gawain of Orkeny

10-25-2007, 00:35

He is responsible once he accepts that position as an employer if requested

No he must first ask the IRS to be a wiithholding agent

if he does not accept that position then the employee is liable .

He would be if you could find a law that says so. Again its worth at least 10000 dollars to you.

woad&fangs

10-25-2007, 00:39

Only watched 3 minutes of the video in the OP but that was enough. If the 16th amendment was indeed not properly ratified and no action was ever taken to fix this than it does not exist and the government has no right tax our income.

TevashSzat

10-25-2007, 02:05

While all of your arguments are all very nice, why can't you then openly declare yourself as someone who isn't paying taxes to the IRS and see if they will do anything about it? Judging from your certainty, its almost impossible for you to lose in a court battle should the IRS do something

Gawain of Orkeny

10-25-2007, 02:11

While all of your arguments are all very nice, why can't you then openly declare yourself as someone who isn't paying taxes to the IRS and see if they will do anything about it

Are you kidding. I want nothing from the government. I dont even want them to know I exist. I have never had a bank account or a credit card. Im way off the radar screen and I intend to keep it that way. I dont even apply for veterans benefits Im entitled to.

TevashSzat

10-25-2007, 02:14

But doesn't that imply that you are indeed afraid of the government finding out? If the IRS was never legal, then you can easily go to court against the IRS and win, so you should have nothing to fear at all right?

Gawain of Orkeny

10-25-2007, 02:25

But doesn't that imply that you are indeed afraid of the government finding out?

No it means like an ex wife I have no use for them and would rather they treated me likewise until the constitution is restored.

hen you can easily go to court against the IRS and win, so you should have nothing to fear at all right?

Except the tyranny of the courts.

TevashSzat

10-25-2007, 02:28

But how will the constitution be restored unless you try to show everyone paying taxes that they actually don't need to?

Ice

10-25-2007, 02:38

But how will the constitution be restored unless you try to show everyone paying taxes that they actually don't need to?

It won't work. Check the Federal Reserve thread. I posted about 10 failed lawsuits on the subject.

TevashSzat

10-25-2007, 02:40

If all these lawsuits have failed, doesn't that imply that the notion of the IRS being illegal is quite baseless unless the whole judicial system is corrupted of course... (that was sarcasm just to let you know)

Gawain of Orkeny

10-25-2007, 02:46

doesn't that imply that the notion of the IRS being illegal is quite baseless unless the whole judicial system is corrupted of course...

Lets just say most.

Did you see that link where the Jury found the guy innocent because the Judge couldnt show them the law and tried to tell the he will tell them what the law is or says? Or should I show you how these courts call SCOTUS decisions irrelevant?

Tribesman

10-25-2007, 09:35

No he must first ask the IRS to be a wiithholding agent

Errrr...he does that when he registers as a business and employer and is not covered under any of the tax exemptions for his business .:dizzy2:

Xiahou

10-25-2007, 11:11

I actually watched part of the "theft by deception" video. After over 20mins of beating around the bush he finally makes his erroneous argument before moving onto the well-debunked Constitutional argument against income taxes.

Here we can put his argument to rest:

I've omitted a lot of detail here, but, as you can see, the "operative sections" all involve situations with some connection to foreign activities. From this, Rose concludes that the income a United States citizen gets from performing services within the United States is not taxable.

Nonsense. As noted earlier, because a United States citizen is taxed on all his or her income, from whatever source derived (see section 61), for most purposes it doesn't matter whether a citizen's income is from sources within or without the United States. But sometimes it does matter. The "operative sections" of regulation 1.861-8(f) are just a list of those situations in which it does matter (for more on when it does matter, see the basic 861 page). That's all this regulation does: it lists the code sections as to which it matters whether income is from sources within or without the United States. Section 61 is not listed, because, for the purpose of determining what constitutes a U.S. citizen's gross income, it doesn't matter whether the income is from sources within or without the United States.

In the end, that's what it all comes down to. The 861 argument, as articulated by Larken Rose, contains much, much buildup, but in the end it's all based on a misunderstanding of this regulation. The regulation just provides a list of the situations in which it matters whether income is from foreign sources or not. The regulation does not show that domestic income is not taxable. The above references, and particularly code section 61's definition of gross income as "all income from whatever source derived" (as opposed to section 871's limitation to "the amount received from sources within the United States"), shows that the domestic income of a U.S. citizen is subject to the income tax.

By the way, the notion that the whole thing turns on a regulation is somewhat ironic: most tax protestors are particularly insistent that they want the government to rely on laws (which have to be passed by Congress), not just regulations (which come from a government agency such as the IRS). link (http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/861det.htm)

I can't believe I actually wasted almost half an hour of my life listening to his droning nonsense- I want it back. :wall:

In case anyone still believes Rose's nonsense, it's worth pointing out that he tried his argument in court and was found guilty, and sentenced to 15mos (http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv05626.htm) in prison for failure to file a tax return. :laugh4:

Rose, a former co-owner of a medical transcription business, was convicted by a jury in August 2005 of five counts of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns. The evidence at trial established that Rose did not file returns for 1998-2002 despite earning $500,000 in income during those years. Rose claimed that he did not file returns for those five years because he believed that income he earned in the U.S. was not taxable according to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 861. The evidence, however, showed that Rose received more than a dozen notices from the IRS rejecting his Section 861 argument and that he received more than ten letters from members of Congress notifying him that his Section 861 argument was invalid. In addition, Rose admitted that he was aware of two court cases rejecting his Section 861 argument.

Ironside

10-25-2007, 11:12

Lets just say most.

Did you see that link where the Jury found the guy innocent because the Judge couldnt show them the law and tried to tell the he will tell them what the law is or says? Or should I show you how these courts call SCOTUS decisions irrelevant?

Gawain you're aware that if what you say is true, then unless you'll see the fastest ammendment going through in history (with a nice retroactive part stretching to 1913), you'll end up paying much more in taxes (through VAT for example), as the state has to gain an income from somewhere or get an economical collapse (as income taxes are about 60% of the budget).

Would be hillarious to see people's faces when they see the the new prices after that VAT though. :laugh4:

What, you seriously expected to keep the money you gained through no income taxes? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Gawain of Orkeny

10-25-2007, 14:32

Gawain you're aware that if what you say is true, then unless you'll see the fastest ammendment going through in history (with a nice retroactive part stretching to 1913), you'll end up paying much more in taxes (through VAT for example), as the state has to gain an income from somewhere or get an economical collapse (as income taxes are about 60% of the budget).

Why? None of this money goes to running the government. It all goes to the Fed. You people dont realise youve been duped it seems.

Tribesman

10-25-2007, 15:21

Why? None of this money goes to running the government. It all goes to the Fed. You people dont realise youve been duped it seems.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Of course it goes to running the government , the debt that it pays off is the debt that has accumulated from running the government . :dizzy2:
Perhaps in the mogodon fuelled realms of those lunatic blogs such things are just too hard to understand .

Ironside

10-25-2007, 16:05

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Of course it goes to running the government , the debt that it pays off is the debt that has accumulated from running the government . :dizzy2:
Perhaps in the mogodon fuelled realms of those lunatic blogs such things are just too hard to understand .

Took a while for me to get it aswell, he differs for unneeded things like defense, justice, foregin affairs and wants to keep the essentials, like ss (social security), medicaid/-care and unemployment and welfare aid. Or was it the opposite?

Anyway removing ss and income tax would give a nice budget on about 200 billions. That the debt cost 430 billions in interest a year atm is a minor detail. :laugh4:

BTW Gawain I'm somewhat to the left, so having a big effective goverment isn't getting duped. :beam:

Gawain of Orkeny

10-25-2007, 17:11

Location: Eire
Posts: 7,147

Default Re: America Freedom to Fascism

Quote:
Why? None of this money goes to running the government. It all goes to the Fed. You people dont realise youve been duped it seems.

Of course it goes to running the government , the debt that it pays off is the debt that has accumulated from running the government .

The Grace Commission Report (http://www.freecanadian.net/articles/grace.html)

With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government.

You could not be more wrong. Look the Fed prints the money and then lends it to the government at interest. This is the debt that our income tax goes to pay. But why are we having a private banking cabal doing this when the government is authorised to to coin our money and regulate its value. Were paying for something we dont need to make the bankers rich. Its as plain as the nose on your face. We are becoming a nation of serfs.

The Rothschilds
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant
on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" -- Mayer Amschel
Bauer Rothschild

Senators & Congressmen

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States" -- Sen. Barry Goldwater (Rep. AR)

"This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President
[Wilson} signs this bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized....the worst
legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill." --
Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. , 1913

"From now on, depressions will be scientifically created." -- Congressman Charles A.
Lindbergh Sr. , 1913

"The financial system has been turned over to the Federal Reserve Board. That Board asministers the finance system by authority of a purely profiteering group. The system is Private, conducted for the sole purpose of obtaining the greatest possible profits from the use of other people's money" -- Charles A. Lindbergh Sr., 1923

"The Federal Reserve bank buys government bonds without one penny..." -- Congressman
Wright Patman, Congressional Record, Sept 30, 1941

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.
There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the
International bankers -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions.
They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people
of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers" -- Congressional
Record 12595-12603 -- Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and
Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932

"I have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs....I think the major cause is
that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices in doing something terrible and
unforgiveable to our wonderful country. Deep down in our heart, we know that we have given our
children a legacy of bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected." -- John
Danforth (R-Mo)

"These 12 corporations together cover the whole country and monopolize and use for private
gain every dollar of the public currency..." -- Mr. Crozier of Cincinnati, before Senate Banking and
Currency Committee - 1913

"The [Federal Reserve Act] as it stands seems to me to open the way to a vast inflation of the
currency... I do not like to think that any law can be passed that will make it possible to submerge
the gold standard in a flood of irredeemable paper currency." -- Henry Cabot Lodge Sr., 1913

From the Federal Reserves Own Admissions

"When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in out account to cover the check,
but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn.
When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." -- Putting it simply, Boston Federal
Reserve Bank

"Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just
a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." -- Modern Money Mechanics Workbook,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975

"The Federal Reserve system pays the U.S. Treasury 020.60 per thousand notes --a little over
2 cents each-- without regard to the face value of the note. Federal Reserve Notes, incidently, are
the only type of currency now produced for circulation. They are printed exclusively by the
Treasury's Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the $20.60 per thousand price reflects the Bureau's
full cost of production. Federal Reserve Notes are printed in 01, 02, 05, 10, 20, 50, and 100 dollar
denominations only; notes of 500, 1000, 5000, and 10,000 denominations were last printed in
1945." --Donald J. Winn, Assistant to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system

"We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar
we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous;
if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important
subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present
civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
--Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank

From General Law
"The entire taxing and monetary systems are hereby placed under the U.C.C. (Uniform
Commercial Code)" -- The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966

"There is a distinction between a 'debt discharged' and a debt 'paid'. When discharged, the debt
still exists though divested of it's charter as a legal obligation during the operation of the discharge, something of the original vitality of the debt continues to exist, which may be transferred, even
though the transferee takes it subject to it's disability incident to the discharge." --Stanek vs. White,
172 Minn.390, 215 N.W. 784

"The Federal Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities..." -- Lewis vs. United States
9th Circuit 1992

"The regional Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies. ...but are independent,
privately owned and locally controlled corporations." -- Lewis vs. United States, 680 F. 2d 1239
9th Circuit 1982

Tribesman

10-25-2007, 18:01

You could not be more wrong
No Gawain I am correct .
Look its simple , you bold this ....... In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government. ...which is correct , however it is all gone because it pays for past expenditure on the services taxpayers expected from the government , the services they get now will be paid for by future taxpayers , its what happens when you have to borrow huge amounts of money .
Now the government could of course renege on the debts it has , but since it efectively owes itself most of the money that would screw its bookkeeping up , it would also screw up its credit standing .
Since not all of the debts it has accumulated are owed to itself if it reneges on those debts too it is royally screwed , and since it cannot raise enough money to fund itself without massive long term borrowing and reneging on its debts will shut out any borrowing options apart from those on very very unfavourable terms which will screw it even further .

Now I can see what you are on about , and how you envision the policy to fix it , however it is a policy that is normally associated with crazy banana republics that upon implimentation ends with them going into a rapid spiral of terminal decline .

Gawain of Orkeny

10-25-2007, 18:35

however it is all gone because it pays for past expenditure on the services taxpayers expected from the government

It does no such thing. It goes to pay the interest on the loans the Fed gives us.
Until the IRS,The FED and the income tax we had no inflation . We had no debt. The founders warned of this very thing and thats why the constitution says that they cannot print paper money nevermind let a private monopoly to do it and charge us for it. Again its why we had a revolution in the first place

Ironside

10-25-2007, 18:53

You could not be more wrong. Look the Fed prints the money and then lends it to the government at interest. This is the debt that our income tax goes to pay. But why are we having a private banking cabal doing this when the government is authorised to to coin our money and regulate its value. Were paying for something we dont need to make the bankers rich. Its as plain as the nose on your face. We are becoming a nation of serfs.

I'm not following you here. Because firstly, it would apply to all the money the goverment get and has absolutly nothing with income taxes to do.

As for putting it independently from the state and benefitting on it (I'm not so certain that it's the case, none of your quotes are even about that), red up what the nobel prize in economy went to this year. Doing money fiddling to cover up the goverment's spending pants would otherwise be quite common.

"Neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities, intrinsically, a 'dollar' bill is just
a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries." -- Modern Money Mechanics Workbook,
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1975

And gold is just a lump of metal, that only can be pratically used in circuits. -- Ironside 2007

Money is just that, something people have decided to have a fixed value compared to all other products.

It does no such thing. It goes to pay the interest on the loans the Fed gives us.
Until the IRS,The FED and the income tax we had no inflation . We had no debt. The founders warned of this very thing and thats why the constitution says that they cannot print paper money nevermind let a private monopoly to do it and charge us for it. Again its why we had a revolution in the first place

Impressive. Did you know that the Romans had inflation? Spain had it (it was one of the things that killed the Spanish might).
Did you also know that the US has inflation data from about 1790 and forward? Seems to have been deflation occationally though.

The US public debt is quite young, only well documented from about 1790... But it was very, very low at 1835 though.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-25-2007, 19:32

I'm not following you here. Because firstly, it would apply to all the money the goverment get and has absolutly nothing with income taxes to do.

What are you talking about? For around 150 we paid for all the things the government was supposed to do with no income taxes. In fact most of the time the government ran at an embarrassing surplus. The main purpose of the income tax is to stop inflation by removing some of that excess money the Fed prints every year. This way they get to print more and charge the government more interest on it. It makes money out of thin air.

And gold is just a lump of metal, that only can be pratically used in circuits. -- Ironside 2007

Except for the fact that almost as far back as you can look and in almost every civilization it has always been precious. Its finite unlike paper money. Again paper money is nothing but debt. Its an IOU .

Money is just that, something people have decided to have a fixed value compared to all other products.

Only as long as people have faith in it. In reality the emperor has no clothes.

Impressive. Did you know that the Romans had inflation? Spain had it (it was one of the things that killed the Spanish might).
Did you also know that the US has inflation data from about 1790 and forward? Seems to have been deflation occationally though.

Maybe I should have but it another way. The consumer price index didnt really move for 139 years until the birth of the fed.

Inflation in my adult years increased average prices 1,000% or more:

*

a postage stamp in the 1950s cost 3 cents; today's cost is 39 cents - 1,300% inflation;
*

a gallon of full-service gasoline cost 18 cents before; today it is $2.28 for self-service - 1,267 % inflation;
*

a new house in 1959 averaged $14,900; today it's $282,300 - 1,795% inflation (+1,510% if quality-adjusted);
*

a dental crown used to cost $40; today it's $740 - 1,750% inflation;
*

an ice cream cone in 1950 cost 5 cents; today its $2.50 - 4,900% inflation;
*

monthly government Medicare insurance premiums paid by seniors was $5.30 in 1970; its now $88.50 - 1,664% inflation;
*

several generations ago a person worked 1.4 months per year to pay for government; he now works 5 months.
*

and in the past, one wage-earner families lived well and built savings with minimal debt, many paying off their home and college-educating children without loans. How about today?

Few citizens know that a few years ago government changed how they measure and report inflation, as if that would stop it - - but families know better when they pay their bills for food, medical costs, energy, property taxes, insurance and try to buy a house.

Is inflation a threat to society, beside the prices we pay and the fact fewer children have a full-time mother at home? Consider this famous quote:

"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
Lord John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), renowned British economist.

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/hodges/2006/images/0106_1.gif

NFLATION HISTORY

Stable consumer prices for 125 years.
And then, prices soar up, up and away.

This chart shows the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) from 1800 to today, a period of more than 200 years.

For the first two-thirds of this chart the consumer price index oscillated at or below the 50 point price index mark, indicating relatively stable consumer prices for nearly a century and a half.

Thus, 125+ years of near nil inflation.

But in the past 75+ years, especially after World War II, the consumer price index in this chart took off - - inflating prices more than 1,000 times higher.

Note: prior to 1913, a period of relatively stable prices, there was no Federal Reserve Bank. This chart calls into question the stated purpose of creating a Federal Reserve in 1913 to assure price stability, when thereafter prices soared instead of becoming more stable. This chart appears to shout that > > the Federal Reserve was created for the purpose of generating inflation.

The data source for this chart is from estimates made by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, incl. data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (link #10)

With those soaring prices, let us now look at what happened to the purchasing power of a single dollar - - from 1950 to today > >

Infaltion (http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/hodges/2006/0106.html)

Tribesman

10-25-2007, 20:21

It does no such thing. It goes to pay the interest on the loans the Fed gives us.

Errrrrrr...gawain what were the loans given to the government for errrr......what does a government borrow money for:dizzy2:
Now I understand that you have certain theories , supported by "evidence" from really very very reliable sources , and while some would call these theories and sources "conspiracy theories" I find that "nuts" has less letters and is just as appropriate:2thumbsup:

We had no debt. The founders warned of this very thing and thats why the constitution says that they cannot print paper money nevermind let a private monopoly to do it and charge us for it. Again its why we had a revolution in the first place
Absolute bollox , but quite handily it ties into that other tripe about paper .

Now these founders ,they would be those fellows who had this little war of revolution right , that little war that created a thing called the United States national debt :yes: But of course you had no debt until income tax:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: .
Now this debt that they didn't have , it came in several non-existant forms didn't it , it had non existant pieces of paper that were made out of gold :yes: Of course a piece of paper is worthless isn't it , it just has words on it , its just something you print , completely valueless , hmmmmmm....these valueless pieces of paper , were they paid to the value that was printed on them or were they paid to the value of a piece of paper ?

But of course the founding fathers not wanting to be saddling their new country with debt could have just ignored what they owed , it was after all only paper and completely worthless . The only ever so slight problem with that option was that if they had done that their credit rating would have gone through the floor , but hey they didn't do that because they had to borrow more money ...you know , build up more debt that you ridiculously claim never existed :dizzy2:

Ironside

10-25-2007, 21:06

What are you talking about? For around 150 we paid for all the things the government was supposed to do with no income taxes. In fact most of the time the government ran at an embarrassing surplus. The main purpose of the income tax is to stop inflation by removing some of that excess money the Fed prints every year. This way they get to print more and charge the government more interest on it. It makes money out of thin air.

I'm saying that if the state borrows money from the Fed, they borrow all thier money, not only the income tax. We'll come to the purpose later

Except for the fact that almost as far back as you can look and in almost every civilization it has always been precious. Its finite unlike paper money. Again paper money is nothing but debt. Its an IOU .

And why has it been precious? Because it's rare, looks nice (no corrosion for example) and has no practical use, making it unlikely that you'll make tools of the precious metal.

A finite resource = finite economy. And it starts to get very whacky if it start to be rare or too common (the Spanish inflation was partially due to too much gold and silver). For example, a lot of silver coins are melted away because the silverprices were higher than the coins were worth... Happened multiple times.

Only as long as people have faith in it. In reality the emperor has no clothes.

Same with gold, it's only useful in a working economy.

several generations ago a person worked 1.4 months per year to pay for government; he now works 5 months.
*

That has to do with the enlargement of the goverment. Partially probably also because we can afford higher taxes now (as an indirect cause).

and in the past, one wage-earner families lived well and built savings with minimal debt, many paying off their home and college-educating children without loans. How about today?

Few citizens know that a few years ago government changed how they measure and report inflation, as if that would stop it - - but families know better when they pay their bills for food, medical costs, energy, property taxes, insurance and try to buy a house.

There's part of the economy that's partly running on pyramid systems (allowing loans to buy houses increased the prices on houses as well, and increases the economy at the same time), but that's another issue.

It has also been a slight increase on the living standard during that time as well. Living as you did in the past is still very cheap.

Is inflation a threat to society, beside the prices we pay and the fact fewer children have a full-time mother at home? Consider this famous quote:

"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
Lord John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), renowned British economist.

You want the moms to be full-timers at home by force or? :no: They are still able to do that if they want to, in the same class that could do it before, namely, the upper and middle class. The ones that were employed as maids had it a bit harder...

Stable consumer prices for 125 years.
And then, prices soar up, up and away.

This chart shows the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) from 1800 to today, a period of more than 200 years.

For the first two-thirds of this chart the consumer price index oscillated at or below the 50 point price index mark, indicating relatively stable consumer prices for nearly a century and a half.

Thus, 125+ years of near nil inflation.

First, if the prices varies between 1 and 5% from one year to another, you have yearly variations that are much larger then a variation between 150-300%, second, if the inflation followed the same pattern as the Swedish one did, you'll notice that it wasn't especially stable at that time either (http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____33831.asp)
The diffence is that it now goes up every year. This is because currently deflation is bad, very bad, so you want to avoid that (you also want to avoid high inflation, but it's taken some time to get there). This has the added effect of making the curves increase very fast.

But in the past 75+ years, especially after World War II, the consumer price index in this chart took off - - inflating prices more than 1,000 times higher.

Note: prior to 1913, a period of relatively stable prices, there was no Federal Reserve Bank. This chart calls into question the stated purpose of creating a Federal Reserve in 1913 to assure price stability, when thereafter prices soared instead of becoming more stable. This chart appears to shout that > > the Federal Reserve was created for the purpose of generating inflation.

The data source for this chart is from estimates made by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank, incl. data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (link #10)

Sweden had the same development, as had Britain. They came up with the same brilliant idea in 1668 and 1694, but it took them 200-250 years to get it working... Or there is no spoon link. Or you'll need atleast something else to explain why the Fed behaves as all other national banks.

Besides, inflation is really baaad for interests (the claimed purpose of why the Fed wants inflation), to put a practical example I had recently. An Iranian exchange student commented on the low interest bank rates in Sweden (getting 3-5% is impressive), while he had about 8-9% at home. Thinking for a second on why, I asked him about the inflation in Iran. The answer? 10-12%. So you'll still end up losing money putting them in the bank, unlike the Swedish ones (inflation on about 2% atm). So to profit from high inflation, you'll need even higher interest rates and that's not always easy to get.

Ice

10-25-2007, 21:51

For one, and Jesus I never thought I'd say this, I agree with Tribesman. I also agree with Ironside.

Just give it up guys. If Gawain wants to hide under a rock and browse lunatic reactionary websites, it's his choice. We have put up more than adequate. information/defense for the counter position.

Gawain, if you feel so strongly about your beliefs and that you are correct, why don't you go out and do something rather than posting on an internet gaming forum?

Banquo's Ghost

10-25-2007, 22:01

Gawain, if you feel so strongly about your beliefs and that you are correct, why don't you go out and do something rather than posting on an internet gaming forum?

Well, to give him his due, he does seem to have taken a stand by refusing to pay any taxes. If your IRS is anything like the taxman over here, that's pretty brave.

Gawain of Orkeny

10-25-2007, 22:09

Errrrrrr...gawain what were the loans given to the government for errrr......what does a government borrow money for

You mean why did they claim to need the loans or why did they take them in reality when they can coin the money themselves. This is a no brainer.

hat little war that created a thing called the United States national debt But of course you had no debt until income tax

And paid it off

Perpetual Debt: From the British Empire to the American Hegemon (http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1419)

The Jeffersonian Opposition to Government Debt

From 1800 to 1860, the glorious Jeffersonian epoch of American history, the country's political elite viewed government debt as a temporary expedient, to be contracted only for pressing national purposes and then discharged within the lifetime of the generation who contracted it. Amassing debt to fund grandiose national projects and then funding it to perpetuity was regarded as monarchical, English, and corrupting.

In the 1790s, Hamilton, Morris, and other arch Federalists had sought to graft this statist model upon the infant republic, but they were overthrown by the Jeffersonian Republicans in "the Revolution of 1800." Hamilton's rationale for a perpetual public debt included his belief that it would help keep up taxes and preserve the collection apparatus. He believed Americans inclined toward laziness and needed to be taxed to prod them to work harder. There is no surprise why voters opted for Jefferson and liberty.

The next president, James Monroe, another Virginia republican, reinstituted the sinking fund and in eight years (1817-25) shaved the debt down to $84 million. During his one-term (1825-29), John Quincy Adams continued the process of paying off debt until it was $58 million. Notice that because of the second war with England, a conflict that brought not one benefit to the people of the United States, unless one considers military and naval prestige to be worth a blood and wealth sacrifice, the country paid taxes for 20 years just to bring the national debt back down to where it had been when Jefferson left office in 1809. However, Jefferson's principle was being followed. The debt contracted to fund the war had been paid for in just over 19 years.

The Jacksonian Era

It was left to the next president, Andrew Jackson of Tennessee, to finish the work. Under his administration, the last outstanding bond was retired, and in 1835 the country stood un-encumbered of a single dollar of national debt! The country remained debt free for one more year (1836) but it would never again enjoy this desideratum. From 1837 through 1843, the federal government ran deficits totaling $46 million, financed by treasury notes. Such were the fruits of the panic of 1837, the depression of 1839-43, and annual tariff reductions. However, the debt had risen to only $16 million when James K. Polk, a Jeffersonian Democrat from Tennessee, took office in 1845.

I'm saying that if the state borrows money from the Fed, they borrow all thier money, not only the income tax. We'll come to the purpose later

And my question is why? Yes the money from tarriffs and corporate income tax pay for the running of the government just as they have always done. The income taxes all go to pay off the fed that regular citizens pay. Its all smoke and mirrors. Money from nothing. Get your kicks for free.

And why has it been precious? Because it's rare, looks nice (no corrosion for example) and has no practical use, making it unlikely that you'll make tools of the precious metal.

Bcause you cant destroy it and its rare and it seems a human trait to want it.

A finite resource = finite economy.

It does not. It means your money is defined and stable. You can find more gold and silver or even add platinum to the list. The point is it takes human endeavor to go get this stuff. You cant just print it up.

Same with gold, it's only useful in a working economy.

But always valuable unlike paper money. Most of which is now only worth value as antiques.

That has to do with the enlargement of the goverment

As was its purpose. It was a deal between congress and the bankers. Unlimited money to keep themselves in office. A credit card with no limit and us poor slobs paying the bills.

Partially probably also because we can afford higher taxes now (as an indirect cause).

Now I know your daft. We used to work a month and a half to pay off our taxes now its close to 5 months. People didnt used to be in debt up to their eyeballs. They actually had savings.

There's part of the economy that's partly running on pyramid systems (allowing loans to buy houses increased the prices on houses as well, and increases the economy at the same time), but that's another issue.

The whole thing is a pyramid scheme. Those who get new money make out and it drops as it gets passed down the line. This is their way of taxing us without raising taxes.

It has also been a slight increase on the living standard during that time as well. Living as you did in the past is still very cheap.

No its not. Again my farther had 7 kids and was in the Navy and had no problems making ends meet. Try that today.

Ice

10-25-2007, 23:00

Well, to give him his due, he does seem to have taken a stand by refusing to pay any taxes. If your IRS is anything like the taxman over here, that's pretty brave.

Brave, I suppose. I'm kind of curious Gawain, how you haven't been audited the 30 years you have paid your taxes?

Ironside

10-25-2007, 23:14

And my question is why? Yes the money from tarriffs and corporate income tax pay for the running of the government just as they have always done. The income taxes all go to pay off the fed that regular citizens pay. Its all smoke and mirrors. Money from nothing. Get your kicks for free.

You're aware that tariffs are pretty much dead and that the corparate tax doesn't even cover half the military budget?
What does your limited goverment contain exactly btw?

It does not. It means your money is defined and stable. You can find more gold and silver or even add platinum to the list. The point is it takes human endeavor to go get this stuff. You cant just print it up.

It is not stable, I've mentioned it in the other thread. At at least 2 points in US history, it's been favorable to melt down silver coins than to keep them as coins. The fist time was due to low gold prices (making it profitable to melt the silver to buy gold dollars and then buy more silver dollars) and the second time due to high silver prices.

Only printing it up leads to those nice hyperinflations, that's why you have an organisation handling it, instead of people like Mugabe.

But always valuable unlike paper money. Most of which is now only worth value as antiques.

Nope, it's only considered more stable during crises. It isn't useful during the really nasty ones were stuff with more practical use is more favorable.

As was its purpose. It was a deal between congress and the bankers. Unlimited money to keep themselves in office. A credit card with no limit and us poor slobs paying the bills.

Points to other national banks that are slighty older.

Now I know your daft. We used to work a month and a half to pay off our taxes now its close to 5 months. People didnt used to be in debt up to their eyeballs. They actually had savings.

And so does people that can control their spending today.

The whole thing is a pyramid scheme. Those who get new money make out and it drops as it gets passed down the line. This is their way of taxing us without raising taxes.

I said it before and say it again. Inflation is costing all people money, making it a poor investment.

No its not. Again my farther had 7 kids and was in the Navy and had no problems making ends meet. Try that today.

With or without the goverment support designed to support these particular cases (I mean we get stuff like children benefits here)? Signs of big goverment yes, but living today has also been designed after this.

Not sure in either case, depends on the salary (both absolute and relative). But how much do you "need" today compared to what you had back then? The only 2 big expensives that you need to have is a place to live and food.

Tribesman

10-25-2007, 23:52

And paid it off

Did they hell . every time they made inroads into the debt another expansion or war would come along and put them back worse than when they started .

Papewaio

10-28-2007, 23:34

You do not want to use in the long term a precious metal as a standard. Because it fluctuates wildly in value under normal conditions... just look at how gold has doubled since 9/11. It's not because of any drastic changes in the world economy or that gold is being used more in industry, it is a price hike based on a knee jerk fear based emotional response (the same sort of emotions that drives the share markets massive quick turn arounds for 80% of investors).

In the long term the metals are only precious as long as they are relatively rare and relatively underused.

If a youth serum that used a kg of gold per person to make them live a thousand years and wham the price of gold would rocket. Using gold as the standard would then make every other items value change with it.

If an asteroid is found that is high in gold content and mined. Wham the price of gold would plunge.

OR if fusion is found and seawater was appropriately filtered you could get tonnes and tonnes of gold (and freshwater too)... again the precious metal market would change and if they were the standard that everything was based on then everything would be effected.

The main reason gold can be used as a standard is that it has such a little amount that is used for industry. Ideally the standard should have no industrial use so that it doesn't fluctuate widely due to seasonal demand. So the ideal standard is an ideal... currency.

The Wizard

10-29-2007, 16:29

You know, you don't even need to drag all these laws and constitutions into all of this. Even down here on the European continent I can argue, based on idealist law theory and just plain and simple political philosophy that the state has no right whatsoever to steal my income for it to use to further its own power-mongering ends. It's my money. Why should I submit to organized, legalized theft on a massive scale? Why should I fund state repression?

Gawain of Orkeny

11-01-2007, 05:50

Give this a try

Zeitgeist - The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 1 of 5) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ)

Tribesman

11-01-2007, 10:02

Give this a try

Errrrr...right , so the twin towers was a controlled explosion done by a bunch of satanists who run the world in the name of Christianity and control the worlds banks:dizzy2: .....did I miss anything out Gawain ?

Furious Mental

11-01-2007, 10:11

"It's my money. Why should I submit to organized, legalized theft on a massive scale? Why should I fund state repression?"

Your money is printed by the government. It means something only because the government promises to redeem it and protects it integrity, just as your bank account (which is nothing than a debt owed by your bank) means something only because a bank can generally be trusted to pay on demand. To use money is to implicitly submit to the rule of the government whose laws give it more than just intrinsic value, and to submit to the obligation to support said government. You can take the position you do only because you know everyone else won't. If everyone did then the government would collapse and, although it would stop taking your money, your "money" would then be completely worthless.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-02-2007, 01:51

Your money is printed by the government

No its not its printed by the Fed. Those are Federal Reserve Notes. Besides even the US government is not allowed to print paper money. At least according to the constitution.

Furious Mental

11-02-2007, 02:27

For all intents and purposes it makes no difference. The integrity of American currency depends on the American government.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-02-2007, 02:56

For all intents and purposes it makes no difference.

Right :help:

The integrity of American currency depends on the American government.

And on what does the integrity of the American government depend on? Again if they were crated to stop inflation they have failed miserably. They were formed to control inflation and that they have done very well at making themselves rich.
Youve all been programmed to believe this BS.

I guess what the constitution says is no longer important to any of you. Not many libertarians around here.

Furious Mental

11-02-2007, 03:25

No, I don't care what your constitution says. I am not American; I could not care less about the arguments which you people have over your Federal Reserve and the printing of money and all the rest of it. I am just pointing out a simple truth- that it is contradictory to complain about the government "stealing" one's money when the value of that money depends entirely on the government which is accused of stealing.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-02-2007, 03:38

that it is contradictory to complain about the government "stealing" one's money when the value of that money depends entirely on the government which is accused of stealing.

Its not their money its ours. And the government doesnt control it the Fed does. If you dont care bud out.

Ice

11-02-2007, 08:03

If you dont care bud out.

Rofl, yes sir!

Furious Mental

11-02-2007, 09:42

"Its not their money its ours."

I didn't say it isn't. But the fact is that your money is worth something only because of your government. To use modern money is to implicitly accept the obligation to financially support the government that is responsible for its face value, because if no one financially supported that government it would collapse, the money would be worthless, and you would have to do all transactions based on the intrinsic value of what is being exchanged. It is clearly contradictory to speak of the government "stealing" when one willingly uses the currency it is responsible for. The same goes for property generally; if there were no government there would by definition be no property rights, it would simply the rule of the strongest individuals or groups. "Owning" anything presupposes a government to protect one's ownership, and that means submitting to its laws, which might involve the government appropriating said property for its own purposes.

"And the government doesnt control it the Fed does"

No, the US government ultimately does control it. It has simply delegated the task of printing money to the US Federal Reserve through legislation. The existence of that institution could just as easily be terminated, and the money supply put under the control of something else. And the currency which it prints is worth something only because according to other laws it is legal tender in the US. What it comes down to is that your money is worth something because the laws of your government say it is legal tender and it has created a central banking system to ensure that it does not become worthless. If you had no government your money would just be a pile of paper and metal or a number in a bank account which would probably cease to exist. And if there were no taxes there would be no government. It has zero to do with your constitution; it is just a simple truth which is applicable in every country on earth, that modern currency requires a government to maintain its integrity because it has no intrinsic value.

Redleg

11-02-2007, 12:33

One must also remember even if the currency or coin was based upon a precious metal standard - the value of that coin or currency is still dependent upon how well the issuing government upholds that oligation and value.

Besides that in the constitution congress was given the authority to coin money. So to claim that the constitution does not give congress the authority to have currency printed is not necessarily true either. Read the wording of the constitution.

From Article 1, section 8 of the United States Constitution.

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Now why it does not state to print currency - I can not find wording in the consitution that prohibits its printing either, especially since Congress is allowed to regulate the value thereof. This particlur part of the constitution would allow Congress to establish a means to regulate the value of the coin of the United States.

Now does anyone wish to discuss the difference between being allowed to coin money and regulate the value thereof and the printing currency and regulating the value thereof?

There is not much difference between the two - coin uses metal which might or might not hold its value based upon the regulation of the vaue of it, the same as using printed currency.

Being upset about a large government agency that costs the tax payers money to manilupate (SP) our economic proserity (SP) is a valid arguement. However claiming that the agency in itself is facist and unconstitutional is reaching.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-02-2007, 14:46

I didn't say it isn't. But the fact is that your money is worth something only because of your government

:wall:

No its only worth something because we the people accept it. We are the government. Or supposedly.

To use modern money is to implicitly accept the obligation to financially support the government that is responsible for its face value,

In other words you are now a serf.

No, the US government ultimately does control it. I

Have you ever seen the head of the FED ask permission to raise or lower rates from the government ? This is nonsense. No they tell the government what to do.

One must also remember even if the currency or coin was based upon a precious metal standard - the value of that coin or currency is still dependent upon how well the issuing government upholds that oligation and value.

But the gold gives you a means of checking to see if their honest.

Now why it does not state to print currency

It did originally and was struck down because of exactly what Im telling you. They removed the part about printing money as they said it would lead to ruin. They as usual were correct.

Redleg Im surprised you dont know this.

Husar

11-02-2007, 16:07

In other words you are now a serf.
That is mostly due to the fact that we cannot change politics for the better by voting since one party is worse than the other. :juggle2:

Xiahou

11-02-2007, 16:35

It did originally and was struck down because of exactly what Im telling you. They removed the part about printing money as they said it would lead to ruin. They as usual were correct.So if instead of a $20 bill, we had a $20 coin all would be well? Seems like a meaningless distinction to me.

Have you ever seen the head of the FED ask permission to raise or lower rates from the government ? This is nonsense. No they tell the government what to do.The Fed was setup by Congress. The power to abolish it or make changes to it is still held by Congress. It operates only with the implicit approval of Congress.

Furious Mental

11-02-2007, 16:38

"No its only worth something because we the people accept it. We are the government. Or supposedly."

No. You have it backwards. The government maintains the integrity of the currency and therefore people use it because it is convenient in everyday life. In countries where the currency has become worthless the reason is not that one day everyone decided they dislike the government so they would stop using the currency (after all what group of people would make a collective decision to trigger the implosion of their economy), the reason is that the government was irresponsible or otherwise incapable of meeting its responsibility. An example is Zimbabwe.

"In other words you are now a serf."

No, a serf is someone from the middle ages who holds land from a landlord without being able to leave it and subject to manorial obligations. You can spit diatribes like this all you want, it will not change the fact that the integrity of the money in your property and your security of tenure over your property depends on your government and its laws.

"
Have you ever seen the head of the FED ask permission to raise or lower rates from the government ? This is nonsense. No they tell the government what to do."

I didn't claim the US government does directly control interest rates. But that makes no difference. As I said, your government chose to delegate the responsibility of controlling the money supply to the US Federal Reserve by legislation. That does not change the fact that ultimately the US government or the government of any other country with an independent central bank is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the currency, just as the fact that a government might contract out the construction of a bridge or even the whole public transport system does not mean the government is not ultimately responsible for transport infrastructure.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-02-2007, 16:43

So if instead of a $20 bill, we had a $20 coin all would be well? Seems like a meaningless distinction to me.

Gold has intrinsic value. Its always worth something. Paper is not.

The Fed was setup by Congress.

The Fed was set up by the Fed. It got approval from congress. However congress does not have the power to bestow its powers and responsibilities to a private company. And a cabal holding a monopoly at that.

The power to abolish it or make changes to it is still held by Congress. It operates only with the implicit approval of Congress.

Yup. Congress is quite aware of this . Its a deal they made with the devil. They now have unlimited money. All they have to do is ask the fed to print it up for them so they can keep buying their way into power with pork barrel projects. Let the people pay. I cant believe your are all this naive. My dad used to pay about 5% of his wages in taxes. Were no around 50%. This is slavery at worst and serfdom at best.

Ice

11-02-2007, 16:43

Have you ever seen the head of the FED ask permission to raise or lower rates from the government ? This is nonsense. No they tell the government what to do.

There is a reason for that, Gawain.

Like I said two other times, keeping monetary policy and fiscal policy separate was the core idea of making the central bank independent from the government.

The position was essentially created in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. See also History of central banking in the United States. The chairman is one of seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate who have staggered terms of 14 years each. The chairman is appointed for a four-year term by the President of the United States (subject to Senate confirmation). In practice, the chairman is often re-appointed, but can not serve longer then his or her 14 year term as governor plus whatever is left over from the term of the governor that preceded him or her. By law, the chairman reports twice a year to Congress on the Federal Reserve's monetary policy objectives. He or she also testifies before Congress on numerous other issues, and meets periodically with the Secretary of the Treasury.

Let's see, he is nominated by the president and approved by Congress.

He has to report to Congress twice a year and meets with the Secretary of the Treasury to discuss issues.

He is the most power man controlling the central bank which Congress can abolish at any time.

Yeah, it's a real free for all. We should just let the government directly control our money supply. What a brilliant idea that would be. :wall:

Xiahou

11-02-2007, 16:47

Gold has intrinsic value. Its always worth something. Paper is not.Where does it say that the coins have to be minted in gold? They could be made out of any metal- or even plastic. None of the coins issued by the government are gold.

Redleg

11-02-2007, 16:47

:But the gold gives you a means of checking to see if their honest.

Gold gives a measure to check it does not give honesty to the actual coin. Coins are currently made with very little precious metal - it is valued upon what value the government has placed upon it.

It did originally and was struck down because of exactly what Im telling you. They removed the part about printing money as they said it would lead to ruin. They as usual were correct.

Redleg Im surprised you dont know this.

The text of the Constitution that was ratified in the 1790's does not state that currency shall not be printed, not in any copy or text that I have seen. Now it might be in the orginial document - which I have not seen in person, but that would have been to easy to prove that the text of the constitution has been changed, and that all the history texts that contain the constitution are inaccurate to include all the history books on the subject.

It might have been an arguement in the initial drafting of the constitution but the wording was not removed after it was ratified - it would take a constitutional amendment for that to have taken place. Which would be consitutional because it followed the constitutional process.

So what it boils down to - is was it an arguement that took place during the drafting of the constitution and during the ratification process that particuler point was done away with in the comprise process that also brought in the first 10 amendments - or did someone forge our constitution and we have been operating for 200 odd years with a forged constitution.

I wonder if some realize why the Federal Government took to printing currency in the first place? I know some of the history behind why the Federal Reserve was created and why the government began to print currency along with coins, so one will have to delve into history to answer that question. But it goes along with several historical bank collaspes and the reasons behind those collaspes.

Again arguing that the Federal Reserve is a wasteful government agency might be a valid arguement - calling it unconstitutional and facist is not a valid arguement.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-02-2007, 16:59

Like I said two other times, keeping monetary policy and fiscal policy separate was the core idea of making the central bank independent from the government.

Bu that power lies with congress according to the constitution

He has to report to Congress twice a year and meets with the Secretary of the Treasury to discuss issues.
Thats a nice way of saying he tells them what to do.

I think I posted these already but what the heck

Banking & Federal Reserve Quotes

The Rothschilds
"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested from it's profits or so dependant
on it's favors, that there will be no opposition from that class." -- Rothschild Brothers of London, 1863

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" -- Mayer Amschel
Bauer Rothschild

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and
commerce." -- James A. Garfield, President of the United States

"We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it". -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)

He also like Paul was the head of the banking and finance.

"The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen.
There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the
International bankers -- Congressman Louis T. McFadden (Rep. Pa)

"Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government's institutions.
They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people
of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers" -- Congressional
Record 12595-12603 -- Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and
Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932

From the Federal Reserves Own Admissions

"When you or I write a check there must be sufficient funds in out account to cover the check,
but when the Federal Reserve writes a check there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn.
When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating money." -- Putting it simply, Boston Federal
Reserve Bank

"We are completely dependant on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar
we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous;
if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system.... It is the most important
subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present
civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied very soon."
--Robert H. Hamphill, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank

Reflecting on the bill he signed

"A great industrial nation is controlled by it's system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world-- no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." -- President Woodrow Wilson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

"If Congress has the right [it doesn't] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be used by...[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations." -- President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." -- James Madison

"Should government refrain from regulation (taxation), the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent and the FRAUD can no longer be concealed." -- British Lord John Maynard Keynes (the father of 'Keynesian Economics' which our nation now endures) in his book "THE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE" (1920).

"But if in the pursuit of the means we should unfortunately stumble again on unfunded paper money or any similar species of fraud, we shall assuredly give a fatal stab to our national credit in its infancy. Paper money will invariably operate in the body of politics as spirit liquors on the human body. They prey on the vitals and ultimately destroy them. Paper money has had the effect in your state that it will ever have, to ruin commerce, oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice." -- George Washington in a letter to Jabez Bowen, Rhode Island, Jan. 9, 1787

There are pages and pages of this stuff

Tribesman

11-02-2007, 17:59

There are pages and pages of this stuff
Yes pages and pages of it , why not give some more of Mc.Faddens "wisdom"...the Jews made America abandon the gold standard , the Jews hold all Americas gold while the gentiles are left with paper , the Jews made the russian revolution .
definately a well rounded individual who certainly doesn't have a habit of spouting excrement ?:dizzy2:
Now one could say that he sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theorist :yes: . and given the title of the topic it could be said that he is the very model of a 1930s school of thought that became a regime that was known as fascist .:thumbsdown:

Gawain of Orkeny

11-02-2007, 18:09

Yes pages and pages of it , why not give some more of Mc.Faddens "wisdom"...the Jews made America abandon the gold standard , the Jews hold all Americas gold while the gentiles are left with paper , the Jews made the russian revolution .

So your going to pick on one man out of all those. Why dont you use Jefferson or Madison? Besides he has a point or are the Rothchilds Muslims or Christians?

Tribesman

11-02-2007, 18:29

Wow Gawian goes from just conspiracy theories onto the mother af all conspiracy theories

macsen rufus

11-02-2007, 18:55

I'm keeping a "watching brief" on this fascinating thread, but I do find myself with strong sympathies for some of Gawain's points (there has to be a first time for everything, Gawain :2thumbsup: )

Namely: the value of a currency is dependent upon public confidence in that currency. No currency can anymore be claimed to be backed by REAL GOODS (such as gold) quite simply because the amount of "money" in circulation far exceeds the value of the real goods in the economy (I'm afraid my memory is too faded to recall the source of the info but I did see one estimate of approximately 20-fold). I think recent events in the financial markets surrounding hedge funds, sub-prime loans etc etc should underline the fact that "financial vehicles" do not represent concrete value, and that a loss of confidence causes a "correction".

Also currency is loaned into existence as credit - the value is only created through the investment made with the borrowings into the real economy. The calculation being that a business can borrow say $100, turn it into goods it can sell at $120 in order to be able to make itself $10 and pay back $10 interest to the bank. The degree to which borrowings are invested or spent determine whether that "loaning into existence" creates serfdom or freedom. Money borrowed purely to finance consumption will tend to enslave; money borrowed to invest in an enterprise to generate a return will create REAL wealth, as it directly adds to the real goods and services available in the economy. Either way the bank wins and other people do the real work in the economy.

Ice

11-02-2007, 20:58

Bu that power lies with congress according to the constitution

Yes... Congress gave the power to the FED, which has been said, about 10 + times.

Think what would happen if politicians controlled our completed monetary policy?

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer someone more specialized in the field.

Thats a nice way of saying he tells them what to do.

Considering Congress can pretty much absolve the entire Bank, I doubt that.

There are pages and pages of this stuff

Which makes it no less ridiculous.

Ironside

11-02-2007, 23:49

Namely: the value of a currency is dependent upon public confidence in that currency. No currency can anymore be claimed to be backed by REAL GOODS (such as gold) quite simply because the amount of "money" in circulation far exceeds the value of the real goods in the economy (I'm afraid my memory is too faded to recall the source of the info but I did see one estimate of approximately 20-fold). I think recent events in the financial markets surrounding hedge funds, sub-prime loans etc etc should underline the fact that "financial vehicles" do not represent concrete value, and that a loss of confidence causes a "correction".

That is the problem with a system that has a large part of it's wealth depending on how fast the money change hands, aka me hoarding 100 bucks at home= no wealth (until I use it again, banks are using your money at this time so they don't hoard the money in that way), while those 100 bucks changing hands 40 times = 4000 bucks in national wealth. :juggle2:
And as loans and credit are an excellent lubricant is such a system... Works excellent except when it crashes (most commonly due to previous overconfidence = economic bubble)

That said, money with an incentric value got it's own problems. Too high and it gets melted down, or burnt (aka why it's feaseble to burn money during hyperinflation, it's heating value is worth more than it's monetary value), too low and it's running exactly the same way as the current system.

And limited money creates that mercantillistic thinking that would make United Fruit look like nothing, as limited resources causes strife.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-03-2007, 00:42

Yes... Congress gave the power to the FED, which has been said, about 10 + times.

Except as I keep telling you the constitution doesnt give them the power to transfer it. Of course that means nothing.

Think what would happen if politicians controlled our completed monetary policy?

They couldnt under the constitution. Who do you think had most of the gold back then? We the people. Now we have none.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer someone more specialized in the field.

Specialized in ripping you off . Man you people are naive.

Considering Congress can pretty much absolve the entire Bank, I doubt that.

Their not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Their in on the deal and doing very well by it. No more having to raise taxes to increase revenue let the Fed control it. Inlfation and taxes have the same effect, they destroy the value of your money.

Again the Fed supposedly was made to stop inlaltion and keep our money stable. For 150 years our money was stable until the Fed came along. Now the dollar of 1913 is worth 4 cents. Thats a real good job they have done. Even if it were legal they should be fired for gross mismanagement.

We didnt even have paper money until the Civil war when Lincoln issued greenbacks. He did this because the banks would only lend money at high interest and it has been rumored that this was the real reason for his death. Kennedy did the same and wound up the same way.

Ice

11-03-2007, 01:31

Except as I keep telling you the constitution doesnt give them the power to transfer it. Of course that means nothing.

It doesn't have to directly spell it out. Congress is allowed to pass such legislation. It is isn't forbidden in the constitution.

They couldnt under the constitution. Who do you think had most of the gold back then? We the people. Now we have none.

For the love of god Gawain, gold may have worked 200 years ago, and even that is desputable. Going back to the freaking gold standard today would be a horrible idea.

Proof? Look how fickle gold prices have been in the past say 5-10 years.

Specialized in ripping you off . Man you people are naive.

We... are... naive? Funny.

Their not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Their in on the deal and doing very well by it. No more having to raise taxes to increase revenue let the Fed control it. Inlfation and taxes have the same effect, they destroy the value of your money.

......

Yeah, sorry Gawain, inflation does not equal taxes. Not a freaking long shot. Please, like I've been asking, show me some proof of this. None of this freedom underground garbage that you are spewing, BUT REAL SOURCES if that's possible.

Again the Fed supposedly was made to stop inlaltion and keep our money stable. For 150 years our money was stable until the Fed came along. Now the dollar of 1913 is worth 4 cents. Thats a real good job they have done. Even if it were legal they should be fired for gross mismanagement.

A balance between stable inflation, unemployment, and GDP growth is a good idea.

Look what happened during the depression. We actually had deflation, but with horribly high levels of unemployment and GDP grow. Sure, your dollar was worth more, but people will literally starving. You may actually enjoy this do to your so called libertarian view points, care only for one's self, but this sounds horrible to me.

We didnt even have paper money until the Civil war when Lincoln issued greenbacks. He did this because the banks would only lend money at high interest and it has been rumored that this was the real reason for his death. Kennedy did the same and wound up the same way.

Please, more conspiracy theories.

Gawain of Orkeny

11-03-2007, 01:53

It doesn't have to directly spell it out. Congress is allowed to pass such legislation. It is isn't forbidden in the constitution.

Ever read the 10th amendment?

For the love of god Gawain, gold may have worked 200 years ago, and even that is desputable. Going back to the freaking gold standard today would be a horrible idea.

Proof? Look how fickle gold prices have been in the past say 5-10 years.

It worked 100 years ago very well thank you.. Maybe if we were still on the gold standard it wouldnt fluctuate so much. And who has all the gold now?

Yeah, sorry Gawain, inflation does not equal taxes. Not a freaking long shot. Please, like I've been asking, show me some proof of this. None of this freedom underground garbage that you are spewing, BUT REAL SOURCES if that's possible.

It does the same thing to your money. Takes it away. Devalues your labor. It eats away your ability to save. Kind of funny freedom being an underground idea.

You better go back to economics 101 if you dont think inflation equals a tax. In fact its called the inflation tax

Next you will tell me Income tax isnt used to control inflation either.

A balance between stable inflation, unemployment, and GDP growth is a good idea.

4 cents on the dollar is a good idea? :wall: How come we have to work longer and harder today than ever just to make end meet ? Other than the fact that to support the debt were running we have to keep consuming all kinds of worthless crap and have become a consumer culture. We stop buying stuff we dont need and it all goes down the tubes. Dont worry that wont happen. Weve all been programmed too well.

Please, more conspiracy theories.

Yup. Thats how they do it so openly. They count on people like you. Here just for you . Shangri-La (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7529796520626310639&q=the+kinks+shangri+la&total=31&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)