Yes -20C is too warm for them....

-22% is too rich for them as well.

And America not having a vote equal to its financial contribution to the U.N., which allows the anti-American scum to carry on as they do. What has happened to the pride and spirit Americans once had?

Oh, I just remembered, America’s younger generation has been indoctrinated in our government controlled schools, schools which have now been handily taken over by the No Child Left Behind Act, an Act to carry out Goals 2000. See Exposing the despotic education reform bill

Regards,

JWK

We still have the veto. Though why we gave France one too is beyond me.

Who cares? Screw the UN. Start looking after Number 1 for a change.

People are looking out for #1. That's why they vote for government programs for themselves and taxes for others.

I see from your link that you advocate home schooling. If the family situation makes that possible, that's what I would advise. Although I am not quite so, shall we say, "passionate" as you are in articulating your displeasure with congressional efforts to provide the means to better education for our children, I am just as passionate in berating the school system and its incompetency. We could go on for a few pages about that.

Hi John,

I'm going to cross-post your comment on the Education Thread because Education is the pivotal point and crux of the matter in the propagation of an ideology that furthers the agenda of operatives. Just as Islamic schools teach a culture of hate, US government schools are furthering the cause of secular humanism and socialism with their curriculum of social engineering. (and I didn't even mention "dumbing-down", did I?)


Your essay so wisely states:

I would rather that we get a divorce!

I simply can't argue with that.

toooooooooo clevar~~~

"FOR THE CHILDREN!"

You folks are completely cracked.

To which are you referring?

The whom is all of you who think the "U.N" is dominating the United States.

That's just rich. The liar has so far deceived the world that he now believes his own deceptions.

Their proble is that the UN was supposed to be our tool, blessing whatever the US wanted to do, and now that we want to declare war on half the world, it's not obeying us.

It's busy standing around being united about doing nothing. Far from doing what we want, we're lucky to be able to veto the FAR FAR FAR FAR left agenda of the "non-aligned" nations. (while paying 22% of the budget)

Foolishly funding feckless bureaucrats...

Nomarchy baaahs:


You say that because you are one of the sheeple.

Nom is hardly a sheep.

Clearly he's a Penguin...

Wow, that's really insightful. Thanks for noticing.

I do wonder if those of you who keep 'venting at' the U.N. are actually just 'distracted' or literally 'confused'. I mean, seriously, how could you possibly think that the U.S. population is gettting a 'bum deal' from the U.N., and STILL not consider yourselves part of the proletarian, oppressed and exploited, class. The notion that the U.N. actually works against the 'sovereignty' of the American people would be comic relief to the rest of the world's population. Wake up, if you think that the U.N is working against you, ask the fokls whose country does not have veto power.

Bottom line, Americans who complain about the U.N. are the worst kind of spoiled brats. You have no idea how good a deal you have.

Sorry, can't resist. That "Veto Power" worked out real well for the Republic of China now didn't it? Or the DPRK when the old USSR decided to take a tantrum break, and they lost their UN "top cover?"

I guess it really isn't the sinecure for all that ails a country in re the UN.

(Minor trip to the "Dark Side" there, sorry)

What is your actual point, Russ Logan? Spell it out!!!!

Whom does the U.N. among the U.S citizenry benefit, in its current set up?


I would like an answer to that.

Forgive me, but I have had enough of you hiding behind OPSEC cowdoody.

Either you're a full participant in this disucssion, or you have superior obligations that prevent you from being 100% truthfull.

Don't think that I am not wise to your little gambits. I admire you for your patience, but I really don't buy your poopy. You can't have it both ways. Either OPSEC is paramount, or you're up for real debate.

I am honestly telling you how some of the rest of the world thinks of Americans complaining that the U.N. has 'too much power'. Most folks around the world would gladly 'pie' whoever enunciates that sort of poopy.

The notion of the U.S. being 'short-changed' by the U.N. is quite a flight of fancy for most non-U.S. Americans. Take it as that.

Well, Excuuuuuuussssseeee me! (Channel Steve Martin when you do that)

What in the seven level's of the Inferno are you talking about? OPSEC?!!?

You seemed to indicate that having the Veto Power in the UN was something that rendered the UN a singular service to this country. I believe your exact words were "Wake up, if you think that the U.N is working against you, ask the fokls whose country does not have veto power."

Well, the old Republic of China had it. They no longer are even a member of the UN having been ousted and supplanted by the Peoples Republic of China. Having a veto on the Security Council sure aided them, didn't it?

And what odds would you give back in 1950, that the UN SC would have approved taking action against the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) to restore the status quo ante bellum on the Korean Peninsula when they invaded the Republic of Korea (aka South Korea), had not their sponsor, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, decided to throw a temper tantrum and boycott the Security Council at just that time over the issue of the PRC's lack of UN membership? Because they were absent when that decision came up, they couldn't exercise their veto. Thus the DPRK found itself facing a UN command and forces. Having a sponsor with a veto didn't do them any good either.

Is it now sufficiently "spelled out?"

What exactly do you think you have established Mr. OPSEC?

Seriously, what is it that you think the U.N. has taken away from the U.S. power to get its way via superior military force?

I submit that I am getting tired of your cowdoody. I do respect you for standing aside the fray.

Comrade Nomarchy is on overload. Do the board moderators let threats as these slide?

Not to speak to quickly on AV's behalf, but we really don't have those unless the specific thread is set up as a moderated thread. AV is pretty free and easy about posting styles - he'd rather have posters than disjoint a conversation/debate through rampant deletions. Makes argument trains too hard to ride when they get derailed.

Board moderators. He threatens to kick MY ASS on a regular basis. The offer is open to all to have a section of their own to moderate as they please. Friend Judy and cptrev (who was called up for the reserves) have their own sections, but it's hard to keep them busy unless you put the time in.

Got it. It's quite refreshing to debate people who are thick skinned.

It makes it fair. If you can take a lawn dart in the back you're ready to debate without Tinkerbell protecting you from Nazi references.

Been plenty of venting done at the UN. Recent venters Chavez and Ahmednejad come to mind.

FJ seems to have dropped that whole line of postin'... so no probation for you...


He knows that wasn't a threat...

Some questions for H.R. 25 [alleged fair tax] supporters.

Now why would you support H.R. 25 which would create a new tax in America, a 23 percent tax calculated from the value of property within each of the various states, real and personal, and maintain Congress` power to also calculate taxes from profits, gains, salaries and other ``income``?

In addition, H.R. 25 would create a massive and very dangerous voting constituency under its family consumption entitlement, an entitlement which would make Hilary Health Care look like chicken feed and is estimated to cost approximately $ 600 BILLION a year.

Why do you want to create another voting block, one which would not only be dependent upon a monthly government check___ but would dwarf our nation`s social security recipients already receiving a monthly government check? Bad idea! Very, very bad idea!

We don`t need another voting constituency dependent upon a monthly government check!

Why do you not support a return our Constitution`s original tax plan which can be reactivated by demanding our public servants add the following words to our Constitution?

``The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money``

Supporting a return to the founder`s original tax plan would in fact accomplish the fairy tale version of H.R. 25, and without its undesirable consequences or effects!

Why do you not support the founder`s original tax plan?

You do know that socialists worked very hard to establish an income tax in America and remove the constitutional requirement of apportioning such a tax [a tax calculated from wealth] among the states. Seems to me that same crowd is back and this time they want to establish another tax calculated from wealth [the value of property, real and personal] without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

You do know H.R. 25 proposes to subjugate the rule of apportionment for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury. Our founding fathers agreed that if Congress found it necessary to call upon the states to fill the national treasury in a general tax among the states, those states paying the largest share of the burden would likewise exercise a vote in Congress proportionate to their financial contribution.

I know socialists love the one man one vote idea when it comes to deciding how to spend money from the federal treasury, but when it comes to filling the national treasury, they run and hide from the constitutional rule requiring one vote one dollar.


Those who support H.R. 25 seem to also love enforcing the following formula to exercise their vote in Congress when spending federal revenue:


State`s Population
_________________X size of Congress (435)=State`s No.of votes in Congress
population of U.S.

But when it comes time to paying the tab, those who support H.R. 25 want to subjugate our Constitution`s fair share formula for filling the national treasury, just like socialists run and hide from the formula:



State`s population

------------------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE`S SHARE

Total U.S. Population

HERE IS A LIST which includes Representatives and Senators who support subjugating our Constitution`s fair share formula for a general tax among the states to fill the national treasury..


Regards,

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" Justice Story

Can't be done John. It makes too much sense.

Neal Boortz fibs about H.R. 25 to Congressional Committee!

Well, not only does Neal Boortz make things up when talking to his listening audience about H.R 25, but now he has made something up while testifying before a Congressional Committee!

Neal Boortz testified:



This turns out to be an outright lie! The truth is, all consumers pay the 23 percent tax on the basic necessities of life under H.R.25. The authors of H.R.25 concocted what they call a “family consumption allowance”__ a monthly check which is doled out by folks in government to qualified households who must register with government to receive the allowance. The family consumption entitlement is intended to be earmarked by each consumer to offset taxes paid on the basic necessities of life.

In essence, the so called fair tax rations tax-free basic necessities of life, and rations them by the size of the family consumption allowance allotted to each household. Those who are sickly and have enormous doctor and medical bills, once exceeding the rationing allowance, will in fact pay federal taxes on the necessities of life and not with money from the family consumption entitlement check.

Hey Boortz, why did you give your fairy tale version of H.R. 25 to Congress? It's not nice to make things up Neal, especially to a Congressional Committee!

Want real tax reform? Then work to demand our political employees, our public servants, add the following words to our Constitution:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

Regards,

JWK

not Neal.

Bortz uses funny math when he talks about his tax plan. As far as I'm concerned he's full of crap.

Definitely a needless complication. Of course the current system is full of them.

He also makes things up, even in front of Congress!


Here is Another misrepresentation made by Boortz to Congress concerning H.R.25!

Seems that it wasn’t enough for Neal Boortz to falsely assert to a Congressional Committee that “Nobody pays federal taxes on the basic necessities of life” under H.R. 25, Mr. Boortz also misrepresented the “transparency” of taxation under H.R. 25.

Neal Boortz testified:




The misrepresentation involved here are embedded taxes [other federal taxes] which may be passed on in the selling price but do not appear on the sales receipt!

The question is, does H.R. 25 propose to replace ““the income tax and all other federal taxes with a national consumption tax” as Mary and Joe Six-pack are led to believe by H.R.25’s primary promoters? [e.g. see: Americans for Fair Taxation.]

If all federal taxes are not repealed and federal taxes which are not repealed are passed on in the selling price, Mary and Joe Six-Pack will not have “a clear understanding of how much they're paying in federal taxes.”, nor will it “be spelled out for them” every “time they are handed a sales receipt” as asserted by Mr. Boortz. So, are there any taxes which may be passed on which will not appear on the sales receipt?

As it turns out, under the language of H.R. 25, Sec. 302, a new federal agency is proposed to be created called the "Excise Tax Bureau"!

SEC. 302. ADMINISTRATION OF OTHER FEDERAL TAXES.

(d) Excise Tax Bureau- There shall be in the Department of the Treasury an Excise Tax Bureau to administer those excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

And, when one continues to study THE TEXT OF H.R.25] they soon find out that under SEC. 104, the excise tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Act are not repealed !

Under Section 104 (a) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by re-designating, i.e. certain sections are switched around like musical chairs, and:

subtitle D (relating to miscellaneous excise taxes) becomes subtitle B, and;

subtitle E (relating to alcohol, tobacco, and certain other excise taxes) becomes subtitle C.

The existing ``subtitle D`` is the authority for all excise taxes not administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The existing ``subtitle E`` is the authority for all excise taxes administered and collected by BATF.

Other than changing the subtitles (due to a moratorium on personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, estate and gift taxes, etc.) nothing changes! And so, the assertion that H.R. 25 ``replaces the income tax and all other federal taxes with a national consumption tax.`` is at best misleading, at worst an outright lie, and so, the hidden tax game of Congress remains very much alive under the proposed H.R. 25 !

Fact is, the proposed 23 percent tax which Mr. Boortz mentions will be in addition to any and all hidden excise taxes which Congress may decide to lay upon businesses, corporations, occupations and individuals, some of which may even be calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “income” derived under a subject matter an excise tax may be laid upon, and, this is in addition to existing excise taxes which are now collected by the BATF, and other excise taxes now being collected.

Aside from the illusion of “transparency” under H.R. 25, the fact that H.R. 25 does not replace the income tax and all other federal taxes with a national consumption tax is very, very important to know and have a clear understanding of.

Why is this important? Because it exposes another fairy tale told to the American People by Mr. Boortz.

The tale spun by Mr. Boortz goes something like this: because embedded taxes [federal taxes now imposed such as the “income tax” “pay role taxes” and other taxes which businesses and corporations pay] will be repealed under H.R. 25, thereby lowering the tax burden for business owners across America, business owners will be more than encouraged, because of “competition“, to use their reduction in income taxes and other taxes to neutralize the 23 percent tax created by H.R. 25, and so, there wont be an increase in consumer prices and poor working people or our elderly living on fixed incomes do not have to worry about any dramatic price increase in goods and services.

Well, isn’t that peachy Mr. Boortz? Only problem is there are only a few specific taxes H.R. 25 proposes to put a moratorium on which businesses now pay to the federal government and are later embedded in the selling price of goods and services so businesses owners may regain these taxes paid to the federal government.

Since there is not even a whisper in H.R. 25 to restrain Congress’ power to impose countless new excise taxes on corporations, businesses, individuals and certain occupation under H.R. 25, and, H.R. 25 is specifically worded so existing excise taxes are not repealed, maybe our nation’s working people and elderly on fixed incomes really do have to worry about dramatic price increases, contrary to the tale spun by Neal Boortz about embedded taxes being eliminated which turns out to be nothing more than a fairy tale, created to mislead the people and gain their support for H.R. 25.

Be cautious of the Fairy Tale version of H.R. 25 which Neal Boortz and others are feeding you.

Regards,

JWK

I prefer the Federal revenue requirement be passed down to the States for a whole variety of reasons however once it gets their all the old choices are still what's left on the table. Income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, economic activity taxes, sin taxes, combinations thereof... In the end would like to see the broadest possible base with the lowest possible rates and the least intrusive collection mechanism that requires few gubment bureaucrats and does not turn private entities into the state tax collector.

Perhaps like the restaurants that have no prices on the menu and just allows customers to pay what they wish and end up getting higher payments, perhaps some state will just run revenues like a GBS fund raiser...

Ideally again would like to see each citizen recieve a tax bill from the state each month that would have to be paid just like the rest of the monthly bills. No withholding by employers or businesses... That's the easy part, the harder part comes with the state determininb the dollar amount for each bill. Perhaps a smallish base rate paid by all and then a sliding rate based on various factors including utility usage, real property size/value, miles driven, age, wealth, income, number of children, etc...

Starts out easy enough, then gets bogged down in the details, and then you have to refigure them constantly, not to mention fraud. How many people are going to have to go around counting kids and checking spending?

Yes, that's where it all gets bogged down doesn't it. Head tax would be easier....

No repressive direct taxes.

How's about this. Starts off with a really high head tax and then you have to go before a board of local citizens to negotiate yourself a lower bill. You don't want the gubment to know anything about you, pay the higher bill. You want the lower bill, bring in the proof...

JKW, Boortz said today on his radio show that nobody with any knowledge of taxes has challenged him yet on his "Fair Tax".

Well, as I documented, he makes a lot of things up that simply are not true!

But see THIS THREAD and then view POST No. 5


Regards,

JWK