Income tax is theft

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
“The revenue issue is now closed,” Mr. Boehner said Thursday, before the House left town for the weekend without acting on the cuts and a Senate attempt to avert them died. Mr. Boehner said the dispute with Democrats amounted to a question of “how much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government.”

“I’m for no more,” he said.


-- Boehner Halts Talks on Cuts, and House G.O.P. Cheers, Ashley Parker, New York Times, today

So Ronald Reagan was a thief. Who knew?
And so, it's now clear, was every president beginning with Abraham Lincoln. Until George W. Bush, that is. Teddy Roosevelt? Yup. Calvin Coolidge? Uh-huh. Harry Truman? I guess that's what they meant by "hell" that he was giving 'em. They each stole from the American people via income taxes to fund the federal government.
But since FDR was the one who initiated the stealing to pay for such specifics as Social Security, the Tennessee Valley Authority and other New Deal programs, we’ll start with him. He also stole--a lot--from American people to pay for WWII.


Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter perpetuated this theft. Big time. Of course, Nixon, who assured the country that he was not a crook, did turn out to be one after all, so in retrospect, his theft from the American people was just in character. And we knew all along that Dwight Eisenhower was the perpetrator of the theft from Americans that established a Soviet-style interstate highway system--or so Florida Rep. John Mica, the last Congress’s chairman of the House Transportation Committee, would describe the socialist ownership of the interstate highways.
That controversial statue of Eisenhower that’s planned for D.C. should be scratched, not because of its design, which his ancestors dislike, but because of his criminality.


LBJ, of course, stole a lot of money from American people in order to fund the Vietnam War, a theft that this country did pay a very high price for, although not in a lengthy prison sentence after indictment and conviction for grand larceny. But if that weren’t bad enough--from a criminal-law standpoint, that is--he also stole lots of money to fund the student-loan program that helped so many baby boomers go to college and graduate school. Some of them--the ones who became hedge fund managers, anyway--would now be in imminent danger of becoming crime victims themselves, rather than the beneficiaries of thefts past, but John Boehner has infiltrated the den of thieves and had has called the FBI, which, luckily, still has some agents working full-time schedules, despite the sequester.
And we won’t even get into George H.W. Bush, who, as we all know, lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton partly because he had firmly and repeatedly promised during his first campaign to not steal more from the American people than was already being stolen, only to turn around and rob the American people blind. Luckily, he son was available eight years later to provide restitution, although his Department of Justice never did indict his father.


And, speaking of Bill Clinton--well, they didn’t call him Slick Willie for nothing, did they?
But Reagan? Reagan? Et tu? Yup. I keep forgetting that tax rates were much higher during Reagan’s time as president then they are now, and that after lowering tax rates, he raised some. He’s dead now, so he can’t be indicted. And anyway, I think the statute of limitations has run. Which is too bad.
But Bill Clinton is very much alive, and active. And since Obama seems unwilling to rebut Boehner’s and other Republicans’ intended inferential misrepresentation that Obama’s and the congressional Democrats’ tax-increase proposals, now and the ones enacted as part of the “fiscal cliff” resolution in early January, would tax Americans other than Americans who are quite wealthy, or who have income from capital gains or dividends and who still pay taxes for that income at lower rates than during the Reagan or the Clinton era, or who are corporate Americans.


The Republicans expect that they will get a majority of Americans to believe falsely that the Dems are proposing to raise their taxes. If Obama remains mute instead of correcting this misrepresentation, Clinton should step in and do that. He should hang the taxes-as-stealing statement around John Boehner’s neck, and then tighten the noose by answering the question Boehner posed: How much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government? He then should answer the questions, from which American people, and for what? And he should be specific.
But he also should ask this: Since when is it theft of Americans to institute tax increases that a majority of Americans who voted in the recent election actually specifically voted for? And he should point out that what Boehner really thinks the crime is is that public prefers that the federal government continue to fund Medicare and other social safety-net programs, as well as myriad other services, agencies and perks of being an American; the National Institutes of Health, the National Parks Service, FEMA, and the EPA come quickly to mind, but of course there are many others.


As criminality goes, the aggressive attempts to undermine the very nature of democratic government, through an unremitting series of stunts and use of bizarre language and concerted campaigns of disinformation, strike me as more serious ones than the theft of wealthy Americans through tax increases that would remain substantially lower than they were during most of the 20th Century.
But, by all means, Speaker Boehner, bring on the theft language, again and again. Keep it up, all the way through the 2014 midterm elections. Please. But if you don't feel like it, hopefully the Dem congressional candidates will pick up the slack and help you out with that, in their TV and Internet commercials.
It should help them steal some elections.
http://www.investingchannel.com/article/183191/John-Boehner-Lists-Our-Presidential-Thieves--And-Ronald-Reagan-Is-Among-Them
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Reagan's great innovation/crime was to decouple expenditures from revenues. It'll take real work to unlearn that bad habit. cn
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
No. Just about all. But, it is legal theft. WE voted for it. I personally think if the entire govt was sequestrated 2 days a week it would still be fine. It is why do we pay for all these things and how we waste, not the revenues we collect, is the problem.
 

deprave

New Member
What is it when someone takes property from someone involuntarily in exchange for nothing?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.




The word is also used as an informal shorthand term for some crimes against property, such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting and fraud.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] In some jurisdictions, theft is considered to be synonymous with larceny;[SUP][2][/SUP]
Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear.


Theft is immoral, no matter what sort of costume the thief is wearing.
 

3 Pounds of Weeden

Active Member
there is no law that says we have to pay a federal income tax, furthermore, even if you found one remotely relating to it, we didn't vote for it.
 

3 Pounds of Weeden

Active Member
Well, there are now. But that's only because people kept being acquitted of tax evasion. And we all know that won't happen. But still, we didn't vote for it.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
No, it's not theft. You see if you or I take something with the threat or use of violence, it IS theft. However if "they" do it, it's not...because they are magic and the meanings of words don't apply to them. La la la .
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
All very true for theft. But, it is that "without consent" that screws it. We do and we did, consent and you do have an alternative.

Your first line is accurate. The rest not so much. A persons consent cannot be given by another or group of others. There is no "social contract". That's a fallacy.

Stefan Molyneux called and said watch this video....

The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins


The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins ...


 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Huh? Another video. Shit. I won't watch it.

We have self rule and you can leave if you don't consent. We consent to be governed by the System. Just becuase you don't agree means nothing. But, there is a way to withdraw consent.

No one is forcing you to stay in the USA. That is how great we are. We even let you leave....unlike some countries.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Huh? Another video. Shit. I won't watch it.

We have self rule and you can leave if you don't consent. We consent to be governed by the System. Just becuase you don't agree means nothing. But, there is a way to withdraw consent.

No one is forcing you to stay in the USA. That is how great we are. We even let you leave....unlike some countries.
Your first line is a contradiction. If there is "self rule", why must a person be forced to consent? I think it's a very good video, but I can understand your not wanting to ring your own cognitive dissonance bell.

Can you show me an agreement where all the people agreed to be ruled ? Too bad Lysander Spooner never did any video....I'd post that for you. You might want to read his essay, Constitution of no authority.


Oh, that "leave the country" thing...how do you explain the incarceration of Americans of Japanese ethnicity during WW II ? Or how about the fugitive slave act for people that tried like HELL to leave the country so they could be free? BTW - Lysander Spooner was an abolitionist, which makes him a good guy!
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
It's because long ago, some big brains risked their necks in the noose, for you. They consented and kicked ass on the ones that didn't. They set up this system of self consented, self rule. You just don't get it. There is choice. It's consent, leave, or get your ass kicked.

We don't force you to consent. And you don't have to crawl under barbwire and through mine fields to leave.

Let's keep it simple. It is self rule and not one single entity is forcing you to consent. They will punish you, but you don't have to consent to that.

Just leave. Check out the back, Jack, make a new plan, Stan. Set yourself free.

Should is a meaningless word.
 

prebop

Active Member
If our politicians/lawmakers were spending their own $$$ most of our revenue/spending problems would be solved. If a company in the private sector spends more that it takes in bankruptcy is inevitable. If our government spends more that the revenue it collects they think that they can simply raise taxes. The country is broke and it seems as if we don't care and therefore deficit spending is out of control. Wondering who is going to pay for this mess.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
It's because long ago, some big brain risked their neck in the noose, for you.

We don't force you to consent. And you don't have to crawl under barbwire and through mine fields to leave.

Let's keep it simple. It is self rule and not on is forcing you to consent. Just leave. Check out the back, Jack, you need a new plan, Stan.
No need to be cord-a-(rob) Roy! Fixed it for you.

I like self rule. I think I'll travel freely, because I rule myself, but I don't rule others.

Now I respect private property, so if you asked me to leave you or your property alone, I'd honor that. See how that works?
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Yes, Rob Roy kicked ass, but had his ass kicked also. The story is an important root of Freedom.

My point is you don't even have to leave or personally consent. It's there on your birth certificate. No one likes self rule. It's hard. No one person will get all that they want but we are accomdating 300 million and counting And there is no one to blame but us. No one to rebel against, but WE.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Yes, Rob Roy kicked ass, but had his ass kicked also. The story is an important root of Freedom.

My point is you don't even have to leave or personally consent. It's there on your birth certificate. No one likes self rule. It's hard. No one person will get all that they want but we are accomdating 300 million and counting And there is no one to blame but us. No one to rebel against, but WE.

So a piece of paper (birth certificate) provides "consent". Where can I get some of this magic paper ?

I like self rule, it's easy. It goes like this - do not initiate aggression against another person or their justly acquired property - see ? Easy.

What is hard is keeping others from trying to rule others or thinking they and their friends "own" a geopolitical area bounded by imaginary lines.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
You don't have your US birth certificate? It is indeed magic paper.

I will tell you this in all seriousness. When I travel, I have 2 sheets paper. One in each shoe, under the pad.

One is a copy of my birth certificate and the other is a copy of my passport. I won't leave without it.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
So a piece of paper (birth certificate) provides "consent". Where can I get some of this magic paper ?

I like self rule, it's easy. It goes like this - do not initiate aggression against another person or their justly acquired property - see ? Easy.

What is hard is keeping others from trying to rule others or thinking they and their friends "own" a geopolitical area bounded by imaginary lines.
So, you are saying we stole America. Right you are. But, it is very difficult to pull that off, so we had to fight and got lucky.

Don't you know that this so called imaginary boundary was never imaginary. It is only sanctioned by the UN. The boundaries are actually geo-physical...rivers, oceans, islands, deserts, mountains and what not. And still be contested in parts of the world.

So, you want to go back to nomadic notions? No property ownership? But even that is false. You know the Bedouins, but you can take any group of nomadic roamers, say, the cattle tribes in Africa.

To say they don't own their wander lands is false. The Sioux certainly thought they owned the Black Hills.

So, we can't mix up deeds and ownership. And that's why there never was un-owned land, when people got there. If there is someone there to successfully defend it, it's theirs.

If you take it, it's yours.

In this world, as in the Under-verse. We keep what we kill, Riddick.
 
Top