Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Krandor]

hmm yes, truly the party who wants to defend human rights and equality is the one trying to bring us down

Can you be this delusional? Are you seriously trying to imply that being a Republican suddenly makes you not care about Human Rights or Equality?

[Churchill]

I'm pretty sure unincorporated self-employed have to pay taxes too, and if things were truly voluntary as you're saying, people wouldn't you know, go to jail for tax evasion. I feel like you and Churchill aren't presenting the whole picture... that burden is on me suppose but I get the feeling this exact contention has been made before and rebuked.

The people that have had the money to endure the governments persistence in these cases have been acquitted. I don't know the story, but I'm pretty sure they were self employed (could be wrong). Obviously when you go against the government, they're going to hit you in ways that have nothing to do with a court of law...those who persisted had their cases dropped. In all of the tax cases to date, the Judges threw out any mention of the Supreme Courts prior rulings for precedence on the matter.

[Enkidu]

So, let me get this right: You 1) think that if the Democratic Party gets control of the government, that they are going to stop "milking us dry" (actually, could you explain this phrase please; I'm not sure what you mean by it) which somehow has to do with human rights (?) and 2) that the Democrats will go back to the original interpretation of the Constitution. Is there anything else they're going to do for us?

End world hunger, replant the rain forests, and cure AIDS. Duh.

[Daimen-G]

^^@Krandor: Patriot Act, Gitmo, Republicanizing the DoJ, Government can imprison suspects of terrorism indefinitely, enhanced interrogation, etc.

So, let me get this right: You 1) think that if the Democratic Party gets control of the government, that they are going to stop "milking us dry" (actually, could you explain this phrase please; I'm not sure what you mean by it) which somehow has to do with human rights (?) and 2) that the Democrats will go back to the original interpretation of the Constitution. Is there anything else they're going to do for us?

1a) I believe we'd be better off with Dems in control, yeah.

1b) By "Milking us dry", I'm referring to the kind of Trickle-Down economics the Republicans subscribe to that wreck the hell out of the middle and lower classes in addition to small business owners while benefiting the top 1% and largest corporations. Laissez Faire The-Free-Market-Will-Regulate-Itself hands off approaches have not and will never work.

2) As far as the constitution goes, "going back to the original interpretation" is a pretty loaded statement, so no, I don't think they'll do that. I think they'll attempt to update it in ways that best serve the nation. <3

[Beckwin]

That's such a shaky argument to make. It's equally plausible that America had its greatest prosperity DESPITE those things, thanks to having a technological advantage in the early stages of globalization, and for numerous other reasons.

Saying my argument is shaky means you think Church's argument is even shakier, since the America of 1789 didn't stay in that form for very long thus we have no sort of evidence to stand on to speculate that it could've allowed us to do better. But the fact of the matter is that America under the income tax and the Fed achieved the highest GDP and per capita of the world. Prior to that, and the two world wars, America wasn't such hot shit globally and was riddled with domestic problems. The wealth that resulted certainly has it's problems (terrible distribution imo, but it's literally always been that way, yay capitalism) and hit a few snags but by and large we've found economic success previously unheard of in the country.

[Darus Grey]

Interesting story Darus.

In my line of work I can often work as an "independent contractor" getting "1099'ed" so no taxes are taken out of my checks. I hear of people doing what you are doing and wonder...

When you are audited, does your business come up as a factor in the audit? How do the auditors respond when the lack of filing regarding the business comes up?

I present all income earned(including self-earned) in my itemized lists but list it as non-taxable income.

It's been my experience that most IRS auditors and management are fully aware of the tax code. There's also specific policies set by the upper-echelons that agents are not allowed to comment on the code unless relevant to their job. I.e. you ask them and they'll refuse to answer the question. Like most of government it's an exercise in misinformation.

But the fact of the matter is that America under the income tax

Fact: Not a single cent of Income tax is applied to anything but interest on money borrowed from the *federal reserve*, doesn't go to infrastructure, to social programs, to salaries, only to the federal reserve, who is a private entity not controlled by the government.

[Krandor]

^^@Krandor: Patriot Act, Gitmo, Republicanizing the DoJ, Government can imprison suspects of terrorism indefinitely, enhanced interrogation, etc.

Most of which were brought into play while the entire country was in a heavy terrorism scare and had the support of members from both parties.

Case in point : Obama voted for the Patriot Act.

[Churchill]

Saying my argument is shaky means you think Church's argument is even shakier, since the America of 1789 didn't stay in that form for very long thus we have no sort of evidence to stand on to speculate that it could've allowed us to do better. But the fact of the matter is that America under the income tax and the Fed achieved the highest GDP and per capita of the world. Prior to that, and the two world wars, America wasn't such hot shit globally and was riddled with domestic problems. The wealth that resulted certainly has it's problems (terrible distribution imo, but it's literally always been that way, yay capitalism) and hit a few snags but by and large we've found economic success previously unheard of in the country.

FIAT currencies will do that, yeah. An extended period of war from the 60's to the 90's, extensive investment from other countries, oil being traded on the dollar, all based on inflation can make a country look very prosperous.

The fact that China could crash our market in a day says a lot.

[Daimen-G]

And there is bipartisan support for getting rid of it. Bush took advantage of "terr" to pull a whole bunch of stupid shit that wouldn't have flown otherwise, Bush still has a 30% approval rating, which means most Republicans still think he's doing a good job, which means fuck Republicans.

e: also, if the repubs were decent human beings, most of these things would be getting swept away by congress now rather than just sitting there festering.

[Beckwin]

Fact: Not a single cent of Income tax is applied to anything but interest on money borrowed from the *federal reserve*, doesn't go to infrastructure, to social programs, to salaries, only to the federal reserve, who is a private entity not controlled by the government.

Assuming that's true, that still has no bearing on my historic assessment. America, while having an income tax (let's say we give it all to secret Jew bankers), still achieved new levels of prosperity.

[Darus Grey]

Assuming that's true, that still has no bearing on my historic assessment. America, while having an income tax (let's say we give it all to secret Jew bankers), still achieved new levels of prosperity.

I don't disagree with that, but I think it's more correct to say we achieved it DESPITE the income tax.

[Beckwin]

FIAT currencies will do that, yeah. An extended period of war from the 60's to the 90's, extensive investment from other countries, oil being traded on the dollar, all based on inflation can make a country look very prosperous.

The fact that China could crash our market in a day says a lot.

Then you have the 90s which were the most prosperous and simultaneous the most peaceful (yes, relative) decade in modern history.

[Krandor]

And there is bipartisan support for getting rid of it. Bush took advantage of "terr" to pull a whole bunch of stupid shit that wouldn't have flown otherwise, Bush still has a 30% approval rating, which means most Republicans still think he's doing a good job, which means fuck Republicans.

There are always people who will blindly follow their parties candidate no matter what actions they take. You could dig up similar situations (in terms of the president making horrendous decisions but still having people in favor of him) with candidates from either side.

But if you want to coat it all with "most republicans hate human rights and are terrible human beings" then by all means go for it. The fact you already stated there are people from both sides wanting the Patriot Act removed already invalidates your earlier comments.

Edit : Beautiful, I added in the terrible human beings comment before you edited and was expecting you to rebuke with "I never said that", thanks for saving me the trouble.

[Quicklet]

Saying my argument is shaky means you think Church's argument is even shakier, since the America of 1789 didn't stay in that form for very long thus we have no sort of evidence to stand on to speculate that it could've allowed us to do better. But the fact of the matter is that America under the income tax and the Fed achieved the highest GDP and per capita of the world. Prior to that, and the two world wars, America wasn't such hot shit globally and was riddled with domestic problems. The wealth that resulted certainly has it's problems (terrible distribution imo, but it's literally always been that way, yay capitalism) and hit a few snags but by and large we've found economic success previously unheard of in the country.

Wouldn't it occur though that a lot of that GDP has been sustained through the investments (i.e. imports) of foreign nations? A lot of our "economic troubles" have coincided with modernization of high population countries and new competition for jobs on the global market. Economic processes are so convoluted that there's no real merit in economic arguments in a debate because there's no established way to disprove them.

Also, what Churchill said. A lot of modern (i.e. Keynesian) economics is founded on what I would consider extremely debatable premises and assumptions about individuals' psychology.

Edit: Oh and the 90's also gave rise to one of the largest economic bubbles (dot.com) in history. Was that ALSO part of the prosperity? Prosperity that's built on a foundation of sand can't stand forever.

[pohibaba]

1a) I believe we'd be better off with Dems in control, yeah.

You don't think that the Democrats are going to be raising taxes once they gain full power?

1b) By "Milking us dry", I'm referring to the kind of Trickle-Down economics the Republicans subscribe to that wreck the hell out of the middle and lower classes in addition to small business owners while benefiting the top 1% and largest corporations. Laissez Faire The-Free-Market-Will-Regulate-Itself hands off approaches have not and will never work.

Can you please give me an example of a Laissez-Faire government at any point in history? The closest that America has ever come to it was also one of our greatest points of economic growth, so I doubt you really want to be discussing that.

2) As far as the constitution goes, "going back to the original interpretation" is a pretty loaded statement, so no, I don't think they'll do that. I think they'll attempt to update it in ways that best serve the nation. <3

Can you please give me an example of a Constitutional Amendment that the Democrats have introduced recently (or even talked about introducing once they gain full control) that will benefit the country.

[Daimen-G]

But if you want to coat it all with "most republicans hate human rights and are terrible human beings" then by all means go for it. The fact you already stated there are people from both sides wanting the Patriot Act removed already invalidates your earlier comments.

Well if every Republican thought the Patriot Act was a load of shit, it wouldn't still be in effect, eh?

[Plow]

I thought it was great when they were forcefully kicking people out that wouldn't sit down with their signs and then McCain talks about how Palin "stands up for what she believes in and won't sit down for anybody!"

[pohibaba]

The Patriot Act was passed by every single Senator except for Russ Feingold. Are you saying that every single one of the Democratic Senators except for him were fooled by President Bush?

[Beckwin]

I'd like to see a source on income tax only going to pay off Fed interest, but even so, paying off interest helps prevent higher degrees of debt accumulation, which keeps the dollar stronger and less of it in China, etc. correct?

[Krandor]

In 2006 the Senate voted 95-4 to renew the Patriot Act (most measures to be in place til 2010), so apparently a fair number of Democrats are awful human beings as well.