

a-train
Members-
Posts
2474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by a-train
-
Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor
a-train replied to bytor2112's topic in Current Events
This is only true for those that haven't stopped watching television. The internet crowd doesn't watch television. I don't. The internet has totally replaced it for me.-a-train -
Great. So YOU buy it and enjoy it. Why should millions who don't want to buy it be forced to do so? We can have all the welfare programs we want, just not the kind that involve robbery. Poverty would not skyrocket if the federal welfare system was abolished, it would actually GO DOWN. Destroying wealth does not create wealth. Its really simple. Forcibly taking wealth from productive entities in the economy and diverting it to wealth destruction does no one any favors. Why are there so many poor in the U.S.? The Welfare State. If we really want to afford the most amount of people the best standard of living, the best way to do so is freedom. So just because YOU like certain things, you think you should be allowed to force everyone else to pay for them?-a-train
-
But why tax a person's income at all? We could run government without taxing income. We did for decades. Why tax income at all?-a-train
-
Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor
a-train replied to bytor2112's topic in Current Events
So true, so true. But many of them ARE starting to see through the Republican lip-service. Faced with the reality that the Republican Party has been a leading malifactor for decades, they are starting to understand that the problem is not simply a matter of party. It is definitely true that the Republican Party is trying to put this wind into their sails and many will fall for it, but they are only trying to hijack an already growing grass-roots non-partisan movement, one that sees them for what they really are.The movement back toward individual liberty is largely supported by the free-flow of information made possible by the internet. Like I've said before:The ignorant are googling their way into the know. That is the real revolution. Americans ARE waking up. -a-train -
National Media Dismiss, Disparage and Attack Tax Day Tea Parties
a-train replied to bytor2112's topic in Current Events
It is looking likely that the Federal Reserve will be audited. This has never happened. That is change.-a-train -
Now that the outcry has grown strong enough, lip-service to cutting expenditures is being paid. -a-train
-
The IRS was created for the purpose of collecting an income tax in 1862. Before its creation, all other federal taxes were collected without it. Now, I suppose it is true that we could keep all federal tax collection under the roof of the IRS and abolish particular taxes including the individual income tax. That said, I think we should abolish not just the individual income tax, but also the estate tax, corporate income taxes, gift taxes, and employment taxes. More importantly, we need to end the massive spending which gives the impetus to collect these outrageous tax revenues. In a nutshell, we need to abolish the Welfare/Warfare State and embrace individual freedom.-a-train
-
Another danger of socialized medicine -- loss of choice.
a-train replied to Fiannan's topic in General Discussion
Loss of choice is the primary danger. It is sad that so many see the loss of responsibility and freedom as only a minor problem. -a-train -
Cable Anchors, Guests Use Tea Parties as Platform for Frat House Humor
a-train replied to bytor2112's topic in Current Events
The "Tea Party movement" started with the Ron Paul Tea Party in 2007. I'm so glad to see so many Americans finally waking up to the fact that the Republican Party is no different from the Democrat Party. God Bless America! -a-train -
National Media Dismiss, Disparage and Attack Tax Day Tea Parties
a-train replied to bytor2112's topic in Current Events
When the haters finally realize what is going on and we get the revolution we are working for, they will pretend they were with us all along and look to cash in. I thank God this country is waking up and resisting the growth of this government and the death of liberty. The powers that be are afraid and they want desperately to keep public favor, but that is all dying despite their best efforts. The ignorant masses are googling themselves into the know. I hope Mormons can get over morons like Mitt Romney and see Ron Paul for what he really was and is. They seem to be doing so all around me. Its a shame it didn't happen back in 2007. Regardless, the fools that think this ended with the election are far from understanding what is in the air. -a-train -
Oil WILL run out. In our lifetime? Not likely. As it does, other energy sources will become cost effective in the marketplace. It is possible that an alternative energy source will bury oil before it runs out anyway. -a-train
-
I don't know that a "hidden tax" becomes less repressive as one discovers it, thus I don't think it is more repressive so long as it is hidden.Defining "hidden tax" can be difficult. For example: Suppose a local retail outlet pays a tax in connection with its business license issued by the city (such is the case in my area). The tax, paid annually, is part of the broader cost structure of the business and is not levied strictly on goods sold. Thus, while we could devide the tax payment by the total sales of the business for the year and arrive at a percentage-of-dollar-sales figure for it, we would find that this might be so negligible that the amount would be less than a penny per dollar or so volatile that we could only figure the amount in retrospect. In which cases, the customer would either not take into consideration the tiny fractional taxation or could not be notified of what portion of the sale price covers the tax in advance. The additional argument here is that the taxation was not on the product at all, but on the business entity selling it. Therefore, while it should be taken into consideration by the business as it prices items, it does not actually effect the market for those items. So is it a "repressive hidden tax"? A great deal of Americans do not know that employers must match their social security withholdings. That IS a hidden direct tax. For those of us who know how it works, it unfortunately doesn't become less repressive. Of course, business owners who can afford to incorporate will take earnings in the form of draws which do not incur social security taxation. And those with enough capital to live on dividends on investments in public equities will pay no social security at all. I personally like transparent taxation. For example, I like toll-roads. I travel from Kansas City to Dallas from time to time and take the Kansas Turnpike. That is the nicest part of the trip. Smooth open roads with great stripes and nice clean rest stops are the boon of the Turnpike. But there is a literal line in the concrete at the end of it over which one passes into Oklahoma where the concrete turns rough and which marks the annoying construction that irks the traveler for a whole state. With a toll road, the revenue required to upkeep it is easily adjusted to an appropriate level and the users of the roadway are the funders thereof. Those who live in the area but do not use the roadway are not forced to fund it. The argument is made that they do fund it when they buy goods shipped to their area on trucks which traveled the toll-road. This is true, but it at least lowers that expense proportionally to the extent that the road is traveled by foreigners paying their tolls. I also like the idea of taxing business entities at least better than taxing individuals for the sheer fact that the volume of taxpayers to track would be dramatically reduced. That said, transparent excise taxes collected and paid by providers of goods and services are far more efficient than any direct income taxes. We could implement such a tax and utilize the respective state sales tax structures for collection while cutting the costs of the IRS completely from the budget. If we follow the Keynesian model, it would suggest that consumers would largely spend their newfound income (from the abolition of the SSA and the IRS) at the same marginal propensity as before. Thus, savings would go up, but I don't know that this is bad. Imagine how such a change would play into business considerations when American operations no longer involved any corporate tax or withholdings for employees. I would expect new capital flows into the country. The reality is that we already have enough excise taxes to fund the federal government without adding any new ones. We simply need to reduce the cost of government. -a-train
-
If the income tax were the only tax, then I could see how that would follow, but less than 1/3 of government revenue is appropriated through income tax.This is a typical argument raised against opponents of the IRS. They are misrepresented as opponents to ALL taxes and ALL government spending. Those who misrepresent us either do so willfully, or are simply living in some state of total misinformation wherein they assume that the only taxation in America is the income tax. Either way, they are quite incorrect. They always talk about things like bridges crumbling either without knowing or by simply denying that the vast majority of them are built with funds not raised by the IRS. My history teacher went on a tangent yesterday about how stupid IRS opponents are. He smuggly said: "I like having people, you know, sort of WATCH OVER THE AIRPORTS!" I simply said: "The FAA is funded by excise taxes on the airline industry, not the income tax." He promptly changed the subject. -a-train
-
I think it could very possibly save capitalism in America. Not because it will bring prosperity, but because it will create such a public distaste for expansionary fiscal and monetary policy that a new rush back toward laissez-faire capitalism will be brought about and prosperity restored.-a-train
-
Call it what you want, when government injures the rights of an individual to benefit the politically favored, its bad no matter the circumstances of the individuals being injured or benefitted. Whether it takes the form of a privileged monopoly status for a fat cat, a subsidy for a favored industry, or an outright transfer payment, it matters not if you must appropriate the funds by force. The technical definition of socialism includes government ownership and control of the means of production. Does the U.S. have such a system? Not exactly. What we are actually moving into is fascism. Fascist economic systems allow private ownership of the means of production, but economic decisions of the owning private entities are dictated by the state. The state dictates what is produced, how much is produced, how it is produced, where it is produced, how product is distributed, at what prices products can be exchanged, and so forth. The main commodity under strict control, is the one that is involved in all transactions in all industries: money. Beyond that, the means of production are regulated almost arbitrarily. The reason for creeping regulation is the constant appeal to government by various groups for regulation they see as beneficial to their own or to all. Legislators mainly look to improve the lives of the people, but often overlook government encroachment into private affairs and contempt for individual rights in these endeavors. "If everyone would just give $1 to the cause, we could......." "If everyone would just make this one social change we could....." What these endeavors forget is individual freedom. -a-train
-
My bike has a 750cc motor on it. -a-train
-
Great site! Notice, that in 1913, the only people legally bound to file were those making over $3000 (over $100,000 today)! Then, they paid ONE PERCENT! Buy 1917, complications had multiplied dramatically. People making over $2 Million (Over $67 Million today), in 1917 would pay SIXTY THREE PERCENT! -a-train
-
Abolish the IRS, the SSA, Medicare, Medicaid, and replace them all with NOTHING. Let the individual have the fruits of his/her own labor and invest for their own retirement and pay for their own medical services as they see fit. -a-train
-
YES. It is immoral, unethical, and destructive of wealth to take assets from productive entities and give them to entities that destroy value. Such a process is bad for the economy as a whole and is rooted only in cronyism.If there were a house fire, would the rational man seek to prevent its spread, or would he forcibly take the furniture from other houses in the neighborhood and cast it into the blaze? Burning financial institutions should be put out. Those who stand to lose deposits have insurance to protect them. It is reasonable and ethical to simply award the insured their claims and allow what assets remaining under the control of the failed bank to be sold at market value. The stock holders in the bank should get no guarantee from the uninvested taxpayers. The same goes for auto companies, insurance companies, lenders of every sort, all businesses. The so-called "to big to fail" bit is completely ridiculous. AIG HAS failed, GM HAS failed. Government's proper role is not to transfer losses on business investments from the investors to productive entities not invested in the failed institution. Rather, government's proper role is to PROTECT property rights and PREVENT those who stand to lose on investments from casting their losses on innocent third parties. What is most tragic about all of this is that, like the house fire wherein the neighbor's furniture is cast into the blaze, the overall effect is a greater destruction of wealth in the economy as a whole than what would otherwise be realized. By giving more wealth to the wealth destroyers, we simply take more wealth out of the overall stock of wealth in the economy. Everyone suffers as a result. The appropriate action of government is to protect private property rights and allow the free-market to divert assets from wealth destroyers and towards wealth producers. -a-train
-
The bill gives government explicit authority to regulate ISPs. How does that prevent government regulation? It IS government regulation.If government steps in and regulates things, how will they regulate them? Will they give penniless, no-name, mom-and-pop sites an edge over corporate interests paying the big-bucks to lobbyists and contributing to campaigns? The basis of the bill is that ISPs will supposedly cause competitive sites to be unavailable or to load very slowly. An example would be Time Warner's ISP not allowing their customers to access AT&T's ISP site. The reality is that government intervention is not necessary to curtail such activity. The additional expense and the loss of business precipitated by it is itself enough to prevent ISPs from engaging the practice. I don't believe the fear-mongering liars telling me the evil corporations are trying to limit internet activity and build fast-lanes to paying sister corporations while blocking mom-and-pop sites. That is all complete balogna. If you experience limitations from your ISP, call them and tell them. If they don't fix the situtation to your liking, go to one of their competitors. The fact is, the ISP business is extremely competitive and the ISPs are looking to provide the best service they can in order to keep market share. The whole lie about them working on a "Tony Soprano" business model is simply ridiculous. ISPs are trying to sell whatever paying customers want. Have you ever heard an add that said: "We slow down your internet experience", or "We give you only the best of the internet and keep you from going to websites we don't like". There IS a regulator that every business fears far worse than government: the MARKET. -a-train
-
The letter of the law is the explicit law itself, its spirit is its purpose. Running a stop sign is against the law for the purpose of order and safety in driving through an intersection. However, if running a stop sign became necessary to avoid an accident, obedience to the explicit directions of the law would precipitate the very circumstances which it was intended to prevent. Thus, a strict adherence to the letter of the law in this case would violate the spirit of the law. The three examples given by Vort: breaking the Sabbath, avoiding tithing, and breaking the Word of Wisdom, were all improper actions based on the spirit of the law. The intent of the Sabbath is not to build relationships with our spouse, the intent of tithing is not to create financial stability, and the intent of the word of wisdom is not to prevent headaches by whatever means necessary. In all three cases, the rationale is actually quite irrational and the action actually violates the spirit of the law. The Word of Wisdom is a law of health. Most of the drugs administered to a patient during a surgery would constitute a grave violation of the Word of Wisdom if taken outside of such circumstances. But, in the case of surgery, they are used with "judgment and skill" in promoting the health of the patient. Additionally, if the patient were to refuse these drugs, knowing doing so would endanger his/her health, such recklessness would itself constitute a violation of the spirit of the Word of Wisdom. -a-train
-
LOLIf anything our government is doing is aimed in the direction of taking over the internet, the net neutrality bill is it. I find it laughable how everything is given an antonymic name on the basis that law makers know that the public will not read the bills or the new laws. They are so emphatic in this belief that they themselves do not read them. The net neutrality bill will make the ISP business UNEQUAL. -a-train
-
If truth is subjectively based only on what is believed, then PCP can really make people fly. Reality is absolute. Most of man's problems are based on the fear of and attempts to evade the absolutism of reality. -a-train
-
The only thing central planners fear is their own irrelevancy. The internet is quite capable of delivering that status to them. -a-train
-
Perhaps you are right. We are also losing the war on obesity, we should implement federal restrictions on food consumption. In fact, each American should see a doctor every month and be given a "goodie ration" based on their weight and health grade. Those in better health will be able to get more rations for cake and ice cream. Energy drinks should be banned, as well as twinkies and a whole assortment of evil things. Maybe then we can finally get rid of these trashy fatsos that make America look so bad. After all, we are going to do all this out of love for them.It was not wrong to enact the Prohibition because it was ultimately unenforceable, rather it was morally wrong because it was a violation of individual natural rights. It was not the reluctant legalizers of the alcohol business in 1933 who gave in to crime, but the fascists who trampled individual rights in 1920. It is not those seeking the legalization of marijuana that are giving in to crime, but those who seek to prevent the individual's right to possess and use it as they see fit. Government has no right whatsoever to tell a man what he can and cannot take into his body. I do not have that right, you and I do not have that right, the whole of us do not have that right. The federal government does not have that power granted it by the Constitution. At least the prohibitionists had enough respect for the law to amend the Constitution to put in motion their fascist efforts. These modern statists simply ignore the Constitution. ALL drugs should be legal to possess and use. The drug war itself is a greater harm to mankind than drugs ever were. Murder and rape are violations of individual rights and we are morally responsible to protect the innocent. Why then don't those same individual rights that a man possesses with respect to his body apply constantly? It would be nothing but a whimsical and arbitrary government that would protect a man's rights over his body in only certain cases, but take them from him in others. Such is the modern American fascism. -a-train