WARNING: Highly Dangerous Content > Logan Utah, Cache Valley, Bridgerland, Local Community Forums, News and Information > Bridgerland, Logan Utah, Cache Valley Utah

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search Members

Forums > Local Personal Posts > A CALL TO ACTION!

Subject: WARNING: Highly Dangerous Content

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Author

Messages

Gunrights
Posts:665

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

04/24/2007 12:50 PM
Video Available Again! The Truth Can Make You Sick A film by Director/Producer Arron Russo (Trading Places and others) entitled America: Freedom to Fascism is very highly disturbing and contains facts which the vast majority of Americans are unaware about their government and our monetary system (which has been very cleverly corrupted). Danger: watching this film will change your life forever. This is not a conspiracy theory. This film contains hard facts and history. Have you ever wondered why the US Dollar is worth $.03 of what it was in 1920. This film will tell you how this secret tax was imposed and how it effects us all. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 Watch this video at your own risk, if you dare. Your life will never be the same. Peace Unfornuately, Arron Russo passed away about three weeks ago. JW

Fiery Darts
Posts:135

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/24/2007 5:56 PM
A key argument made in the video is that income tax is illegal/unconstitutional. This idea has been kicked around for years (about 100 years or more), and the video merely rehashes some of the more popular arguments on the subject. Unfortunately for them, attacks on the income tax have been widely and throughly discredited. The best source that I've read is the precedent-heavy legal-oriented material at the Tax Protester FAQ. I might also warn that the production qualities of the video are poor, but that doesn't really have anything to do with its message and so it wouldn't be relevant to the discussion.

Gunrights
Posts:665

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

04/25/2007 9:25 AM
Because you believe in income redistribution (progressive income tax) you cannot think outside the box (no matter how open minded you like to think of yourself). It is too bad that you didn't watch the entire video. It involves more than the issue about income tax. You also ignored the several supreme court rulings which invalidate the 16th amend. and the fact that they cannot produce the law. Simply because a lawyer can produce reams of words does not produce irreputable proof. I have little patience with attorneys. They can argue endlessly in circles without ever coming to the meat of the matter. I only wish you would open your mind. But that is obviously asking way too much! Is it possible to make a dent in your thinking. So far you seem very rigid. The most important matter discussed in the video is about the Federal Reserve. They are more responsible for perpetuating the income dispartities in our country than any other. What people like you cannot see is that with government comes the opportunity for the industrialists to control things. They use government to achieve the opposite for which you desire, yet to worship at its feet. You think that only with another law or regulation than things will be more fair. Yet you ignore decades of such an approach with only the opposite effect. Since LBJ's "war on poverty" we have spent about a trillion dollars "helping the poor" only to have zero change. The demos love it because they have a very dedicated voting block (never mind that their interests are not being met). Untimately, what you ignore is human nature. I was like you, all stary eyed and beling that we could legislate change (ignoring all of history). Human nature has changed very little during the centuries. Only by recognizing this fact can we find solutions. Watch the whole video before you condemn it. You do not have all the answers.

Fiery Darts
Posts:135

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/25/2007 7:56 PM
Mr. Rights, A progressive income tax is not, by itself, income redistribution. Welfare, regardless of the distribution of tax rates, constitutes income redistribution. In any case, the only position that matters in terms of the legality and constitutionality of income tax is the legal position, and that position is uniformly in support of income tax. The few Supreme Court cases that ruled against some aspect of income tax were later (and often not much later) overturned. As for where the law is, it is written in plain language in the Constitution, the 16th Amendment, the entire tax code, and volumes of legal precedent. I'm not particularly interested in a debate over the legality of income tax because, like you said, people are very closed minded on the subject. It usually ends up being a shouting match over how the arguers wish the world to be. A far more interesting debate would be about the efficacy of income tax versus some other tax (tariffs, sales tax, property tax, etc.). Any argument that includes a substantial change in the government budget (at whatever appropriate level, be it federal, state, or local) is specious because any benefits that come from changing the budget can be obtained regardless of the method of taxation. If you want to discuss reducing the federal budget, that's another topic (and not a very interesting one most of the time because most people don't really understand the issues at hand, including me most of the time). When it comes to the Fed, I'm not nearly as familiar with it. I'm hardly an economist (I did take AP Economics and did well on the tests, but that was very basic economic theory and I've forgotten most of it since then) and I don't really understand some of the subtleties of the international markets. I am convinced that most opponents of the Fed also don't understand economics. This opinion is reinforced whenever people try to point to changes in the economy that can be traced back to the early 20th century as the rapid population, production, and technological growths offer highly plausible explanations for the changes in national and international markets since then, and the connection to the creation of the Fed and the abandonment of the gold standard can easily be seen as coincidental (and in fact they may be seen as a reaction on the part of the government to control and reduce the effects of changes that were already affected our economy at that time). As for welfare, I'd like to see a discussion of welfare that didn't rely on greedy arguments to oppose it. There are lots of reasons to oppose welfare, but most discussions of the subject turn to "income redistribution" arguments or something to that effect, which immediately marks all opponents of welfare as being motivated primarily by selfishness (even if this is not true, it is the perception). I am glad to see that you hinted at such arguments, but they need to be fleshed out more. Gun, I'm not opposed to new ideas. The problem that you have been having with me is that already heard most of the arguments that are going to be made on the subjects and I've already given them careful and thorough consideration. If you add that I'm a cynical skeptic when it comes to fringe theories, it becomes quite clear that I'll (almost certainly) never accept any arguments that income tax is illegal (I know that you think you have some new, iron-clad argument, but all of the arguments are decades old and have been thoroughly refuted in formal and informal discussions, so they're not going anywhere). I assure you that I can be convinced to change my mind, but it will take much better arguments than I have generally seen here to do so. I can tell that you put some thoughts into your posts, and I really appreciate that. And I will watch the whole video at some point. It might have to wait until my next bout of travel insomnia, but that won't take too long.

Debator
Posts:46

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/30/2007 5:39 PM
I have taken the time to watch the whole movie and I have a few comments. First, it reminded me of a Michael Moore movie - ignoring facts, cherry-picking data, and using choppy editing to pick out the statements the director was looking for rather than leaving them in context. Second, it fails to make its own point. If the movie really wanted to refute the tax system, it should have cited the arguments for the system and then refuted those. He sets out looking for the law that says that people have to pay taxes, and two hours later has nothing. I set out to answer the same question, and it took me 30 seconds. (See United States Code, Title 26, Section 1, 26 USC § 1.) As such, I have a law that says that we have to pay the income tax, all of the supporting Supreme Court decisions, and the 16th Amendment in support of the position that I have a legal duty to pay taxes, all of which are unrefuted by the movie. That's a big error in a work that claims to prove that there is no legal basis for the income tax system. (For a more complete refutation of the claims made in the movie, see http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm) If you have a more scholarly indictment of the income tax system, I'd be curious to read it.

Gunrights
Posts:665

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

05/01/2007 9:42 AM
First of all there is more to the movie than just the income tax debate. What concerns me far more than this issue is the decent towards tyranny and also the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has proven to be a seruptious tax mechanism which has lead to the dollar being about 3% of what it was in the 20's. Also the Fed has admitted that it was primarily responsible for the Depression lasting as long as it did. And by the way, I know someone who challenged the government on paying income taxes and is still free and not paying them. How do you explain that?

Debator
Posts:46

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/01/2007 11:25 AM
I understand that the movie was about more than just the income tax debate, but that is where the thrust of the movie was centered. I agree with you that there have been many very disturbing trends in this country that lead me to believe that we are just a step away from tyranny, many of which Mr. Russo cites in his movie (warrantless wiretapping, suspension of habeas corpus, broad unchecked emergency powers, etc.) but the movie still makes the link that the income tax system is somehow responsible for all of these other oppressive measures. By failing to successfully indict the income tax system, he has failed to make that link. As to the Fed, I'd like to see the source where the Fed admits to lengthening the Depression (or at least failing to end it). I don't know why the dollar is worth so much less now than it was 100 years ago, but I suspect that it has something to do with our ballooning population and economy, globalization of securities markets, increased complexity of daily life, etc. As far as the effects of that, I don't see it as a bad thing. The median standard of living has risen substantially since 1913 and it would appear to me that this is due in part to the stabilization provided by the Fed. About your acquaintance that doesn't pay his taxes: I don't have all the facts, so I cannot give a full explanation. My hunch is that your friend is either neglecting to satisfy a judgment entered against him (which can often take years because of the slow speed of the court system) or the IRS just doesn't have the resources to go after him; it has bigger fish to fry. In either scenario, it's only a matter of time before they get him. I've read a number of cases on the subject, and they have universally held that all citizens are subject to the tax code - no exceptions. However, I am curious to hear what he argued that "successfully" got him out of paying his taxes. Any further details would be appreciated. As always, your thoughts have helped me to examine things I've always taken for granted. Thank you for that.

unfettered_kittens
Posts:26

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/01/2007 2:46 PM
The Fed should be done away with! How do you like knowing Debator that your money has 0 value attached to it? In the old days when America was still the America the framers intended, all money had gold attached to it. Now its counterfeited legally. The movie was great John. Found it very informative.

Debator
Posts:46

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/02/2007 2:55 PM
Money, including gold, only ever has the value attached to it that people think it has. All money is based on faith. I hold a $1 bill and I know that it can be traded for $1 worth of goods. I also know that it can be traded for 600 Chilean pesos, 1/2 Euro, etc. It would be no different if I had gold, silver or any other good - it would only be worth what people thought it was worth. The only circumstance under which it would matter if my money was pegged to gold is if the government collapsed, at which point your money would still be worth nothing - it's highly unlikely that you would be able to trade your dollars in for gold at that point. Even a cursory analysis of how the Fed operates within our economy reveals its importance. It is an agency (it is subject to Congressional oversight) that helps to keep the economy stable by regulating interest rates and inflation. If you want more information, I recommend you consult someone with an advanced degree in economics as I don't think I could do the explanation justice.

Gunrights
Posts:665

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

05/02/2007 5:56 PM
When a money system is backed by a fixed desirable commodity like gold then the world maker determines what that unit (dollar) is worth. Without any attachment to anything fixed the government can print money whenever it wants. This leads to a devaluing of said unit. That is why the dollar is worth only 3% of what it was in 1920. There is little incentive to save since even with minimal inflation your dollar soon looses its worth. Already the government has made more commitments (entitlements) than it can/will collect. Within your lifetime you will experience severe devaluing of the dollar, severe economic hardships and most likely a resultant dictatorship. When the American public learned that it could vote itself access to the public largess and politicians made promises to gain votes it becomes only a matter of time before the whole house of cards collapses. Most likely you think that things will continue like they currently are forever. Take the time to learn what Germany went through in the late twenties and early thirties or what many other countries have experienced, with runaway inflation, devaluation and the resultant dictatorship. Currently about 1/3 of collected monies (taxes) goes toward just paying the interest on the debt. If any normal person was in the same condition most would call that impending bankruptcy. But of course you will argue that this is all nonsense. That there is such a thing as a perpetual motion machine and that giving control of our money supply to unnamed bankers who have no real interest in the common persons welfare is a great idea. Do you know what the definition of a statist is. That is what you are. You currently enjoy more benefit from taxes collected than you pay in and think that is great! I did too. If you ever get a real job with a mortgage and all of the rest, and especially if you start your own business then all of a sudden things start to look quite different. But this is all just a theoretical exercise with you. You are truly headed for the school of hard knocks. You are truly naive if you think that the Fed faces serious congressional oversight. This country is run by an oligarchy. The sooner you realize this the better off you will be.

Fiery Darts
Posts:135

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/02/2007 9:10 PM
Inflation is a complicated subject and economists disagree about the causes. Two theories are that the relative supply of money affects inflation (so that if more money is available than is demanded, then prices go up and we have inflation), and that a wide range of factors come to play in causing inflation. I find it interesting that people who are opposed to (or just distrustful of) the government are quick to point to the creation of the Fed and the abandonment of the gold standard as the key contributors to 20th century inflation. These theories ignore the other factors that drove the national (and international) economy at that time and since, such as the start of the industrial age, a large population boom, increased investing (and speculation) in the stock market, and a significant increase in the number of luxury items available to consumers. It seems more reasonable that the decisions to create the Fed and abandon the gold standard were driven by these changes, which also drove inflation, than inflation was driven by those two factors. The general economic consensus is that the gold standard was unsustainable and that the Fed has helped to minimize inflation since its creation. By the way, inflation was hardly new to this country prior to 1920. In 1920, the US dollar was worth about 8% of what it was worth shortly after the nation was founded (in 1790). Granted, that was 1200% inflation over 130 years versus 3300% inflation over 85 years, but given the other economic changes that have occurred since that time, it seems pretty reasonable. I would also like to add that along with prices being inflated (and the dollar being deflated accordingly), your wages have been inflated so that you probably make as much or more (in terms of purchase power) than your ancestors did in 1920. I think that the biggest complaint about inflation is not that the value of money is changing (which is a legitimate concern if you are saving, although it is a good thing you have are repaying a large loan such as a mortgage) but that people wish that they had the money/income that they have today, but that it carried the purchasing power that it would have had back then. This is similar to people buying lottery tickets because they have dreams of massive wealth, which will (almost certainly) never be fulfilled. As for your prophesies of doom, I fail to see the connection with the current sense of entitlement among voters and the German economy after their defeat in the first World War. The argument is that we are on a slippery slope (you didn't use the term, but that's what the call the argument in debates). Most slippery slope arguments, while compelling when viewed on the surface, don't hold up against historical precedent. Most people/groups/etc. decide that they've swung too far and pull in the reins and reverse the trend. Even in this country, it's easy to see a multi-decadal pattern of prevailing attitudes switching between relatively liberal and conservative positions. We have seen relatively liberal 20's, conservative 30's, liberal 40's (think Rosie the Riveter), conservative 50's, liberal 60's and 70's, conservative 80's, liberal 90's, conservative 00's. You could argue that the overall trend is towards liberalism, but it remains that the trend can be at least slowed and possibly reversed as attitudes swing back and forth.

Gunrights
Posts:665

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

05/03/2007 1:56 PM
Fiery Darts; I find it very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you because for one thing you do not really take a stand. I have spent the last eight years studying the subject of gun control extensively. I have read dozens of books, legal articles and criminologist’s journal publications. In other words, I know something about the subject. When I mentioned that seventeen different studies had found that firearms prevent somewhere between 2-2.5 million crimes a year, you simply dismiss this information with the statement that you had read contradictory studies. Do you really think that I am unaware of this? Are all studies equal? Can someone do a study towards forgone conclusions or be biased in their research and methods. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe. I encourage you to do your own research, I mean really do the work and then take your own stand. I freely admit that subjects like economics are not really hard science. When I began my college studies I first picked psychology as my major. It soon became apparent to me that psychology was at best a pseudo science, with many popular fads and opinions being masked as science. When I began BF Skinner was God at Utah State. Even at the age of eighteen I knew that human behavior could not be reduces to studies of laboratory rats. Since the psychology department wasn’t likely to change anytime soon, I eventually ended up in Chemistry. At least that was real science. As one gets further from the hard sciences, it becomes more and more difficult to use the scientific method. Doest that mean that nothing else is worth studying? Of course not. It does mean that one needs to be very careful and learn a great deal about a subject, which cannot be easily determined. It is very comforting to be among the majority, to be reasonable and to never stick your neck out. I for whatever reason am not comfortable there. I feel the need to think for myself. Am I always right? Of course not, but by writing this blog I am trying to encourage people to think for themselves. To not just take someone else’s word on any given subject. To learn to think critically. This seems lost on you.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

05/03/2007 8:59 PM
I agree with not being risky. This is especially true if you want to get funded. And you must get funded to get tenure. So you need to fall in line and do research which agrees with whatever is popular.

Zasch
Posts:134

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

06/29/2007 4:09 AM
I know this is a bit late, but: It is very comforting to be among the majority, to be reasonable and to never stick your neck out. I for whatever reason am not comfortable there. I feel the need to think for myself. Am I always right? Of course not, but by writing this blog I am trying to encourage people to think for themselves. To not just take someone else’s word on any given subject. To learn to think critically. This seems lost on you. Do you ever stop with the ad hominems? Attacking your opponent in this baseless and irrelevant manner is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for "free thought".

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Forums > Local Personal Posts > A CALL TO ACTION! > WARNING: Highly Dangerous Content

ActiveForums 3.7