Truth or not?

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/15-t ... taxes-debt

Curious if anyone believes there is any truth in this article?

It would take a long time to verify but I think most if not all is true, I did think that Ike would have come out better but even I was too young then & republican.

#5 caught my attention.

"Tax cuts don't pay for themselves"

I wasn't aware they were supposed to. I thought tax cuts were to reduce the size of government and allow people to keep more of what they earn.

My mistake....

I've always wondered what it was like to live in another country...like Greece...or Zimbabwe.

The information in the article might or might not be true. It doesn't matter. The Premise of the Article is evil and it's intent is evil.
It's based on hatred of what somebody earns or possesses. It makes the claim that what is yours isn't yours and the Government can take it, because somebody else has less. It's more Communist tripe.
Now they are able to loot the Insurance and Medical Industries until they are dry. Your Retirement Accounts and Property are next.
You are only a serf on the King's Land. You must pay him the first part of your labor or they will take it by force. Your life is not yours, it belongs to the King.

Must be more than one article there, I'll have to look again when I have more time.

The, "facts," in this article are easily refuted with evidence. I'm not pointing out the literal content of the article. I'm pointing out the why behind the article and what it is really saying. People write things for a reason, Compile boring statistics for a reason. It is to make a point either spoken or unspoken. The belief system of the author is plain. He is a Communist. This stuff has so infected our society and mind set that a marxist point of view is almost unrecognizable to the average person.

Ronald Reagan Tripled the National Debt
George W. Bush Doubled the National Debt

Not even going to look it up, here is the numbers you need to know:

In constant 2005 dollars:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... st01z3.xls

-----outlays------deficit
2008 2,703.8 -415.7
2009 3,173.4 -1,274.4
2010 3,081.0 -1,153.0
2011 3,126.3 -1,127.6
2012 3,212.5 -1,123.1 (estimate)

Uuauslly the first year of presidency the budget is mostly set by the preceding presidency so they get credit for it. You have to carefuelly examine anything that suggests Obama spending less because they use the pokulus year of 2009 as a baseline.

They need to add government spending and entitlement programs to thier little chart to get a real view of why this countrys in the toilet. A country can not tax itself out of the red. I say fasten the seat belt and drive it off the cliff and see who survives.

Taxing is communist...which is why it was written into the Constitution to give the government the power to levy taxes.

Davian wrote:Taxing is communist...which is why it was written into the Constitution to give the government the power to levy taxes.

It is the taxing of wages on a progressive scale that is one of the main parts of the communist platform of objectives. The direct taxing of wages is not in the US Constitution, progressively or otherwise.

lsayre wrote:

Davian wrote:Taxing is communist...which is why it was written into the Constitution to give the government the power to levy taxes.

It is the taxing of wages on a progressive scale that is one of the main parts of the communist platform of objectives. The direct taxing of wages is not in the US Constitution, progressively or otherwise.

Its also something Adam Smith mentions in The Wealth of Nations...as a good thing.

Also, ratified Amendments count as part of the Constitution regardless of whether you agree with them or not...so direct taxation of income IS in the Constitution just like the direct election of Senators or the ban on slavery.

In 1916 the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment gave the United States "no new taxing powers". The implication of this decision by the highest court of the land is that if the US could not directly tax wages before the 16th Amendment, it could not do it post the ratification of the 16th amendment either. Of course we moved on and ignored our Supreme Court, but I am not aware of any subsequent SCOTUS ruling that overturned the 1916 SCOTUS decision.

lsayre wrote:In 1916 the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment gave the United States "no new taxing powers". The implication of this decision by the highest court of the land is that if the US could not directly tax wages before the 16th Amendment, it could not do it post the 16th amendment either. Of course we moved on and ignored our Supreme Court, but I am not aware of any subsequent SCOTUS ruling that overturns the 1916 SCOTUS decision.

You're misunderstanding the rule...SCOTUS was making a point that the fed gov't already had the power to tax income and had done so on numerous occasions to raise revenue. The 16th Amendment just confirmed an existing power of the government under Article 1, Section 8. Clause 1 to levy taxes and specified income taxes as part of that power. The Amendment was passeed in response to a previous SCOTUS case (Pollack v. Farmers) in 1895 having to do with apportionment of taxes by population.

Davian wrote:

lsayre wrote:

Davian wrote:Taxing is communist...which is why it was written into the Constitution to give the government the power to levy taxes.

It is the taxing of wages on a progressive scale that is one of the main parts of the communist platform of objectives. The direct taxing of wages is not in the US Constitution, progressively or otherwise.

Its also something Adam Smith mentions in The Wealth of Nations...as a good thing.

Also, ratified Amendments count as part of the Constitution regardless of whether you agree with them or not...so direct taxation of income IS in the Constitution just like the direct election of Senators or the ban on slavery.

So in your view, slavery was constitutional before it was specifically banned?

Here is some background on the decision: http://lewrockwell.com/schiff/schiff170.html

In 1918 the Supreme Court defined wages as corporate profits. I'm not sure if any previous or subsequent SCOTUS ever actually defined wages differently from this. Perhaps that would be a good place for them to start before they go ahead and tax us. To me it is obvious that by permitting the government to obscure the definition of wages (by permitting the government to see them differently than the very high court itself) the SCOTUS is merely stepping aside to let the government have free reign and run roughshod here.

Jpete is hitting the nail on the head. Bad law does not become good law merely because of an inept SCOTUS. Slavery being the prime example of this, and Obamacare being the example of this in our day.