Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!

Idiots have a hard time keeping to the subject of the thread which is "Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!"

JWK

Your effective (actual) federal tax is 6% to 8%, which is hardly an 'IRON FIST.'

What is iron fisted is Cruz's support of a socialist tax system which is used by folks in government to attack political foes and also used to silence free speech, not to mention how it is used to manipulate the economy and meddle in the private lives of the American People. Why Senator Cruz supports a tax upon profits, gains, salaries and other incomes contradicts his assertion that he wants to close down the IRS. If Cruz really wanted to close down the IRS he would support sending an amendment to the states as follows:

“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other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.


"SECTION 2. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.



JWK





“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

 
I wish someone in our big media would ask Senator Cruz the following questions:

How does he proposes to close down the IRS by promoting a flat tax on profits, gains and other incomes?

I also wonder if Senator Cruz considers the wages labor earns as a profit or gain.

JWK




“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
 
I'll start with Senator Howard's comments first, Bingham's second.

You are also confused about Senator Howard's comments. There is nothing in his comments that he intended by the 14th Amendment to make the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution enforceable upon the States.

Complete and utter horseshit.
And you know its horseshit. As part of the same speech, only a few paragraphs earlier in the Congressional Globe where the Howard quote I just offered you is this:

Senator Jacob Howard said:
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

...

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

For fuck's sake, Howard READS the rights of the first 8 amendments from the Bill of Rights when describing the meaning of 'privileges and immunities

And yet you insist Howard isn't talking about the Bill of Rights? Dear god, you suck at this.

Applying the bill of rights to the State isn't a 'misinterpretation', its the explicit intent of the 14th amendment, as articulated by those who introduced the bill.

And you already know all of this. You just really hope we don't.
 
Last edited:
Oh, and just to put yet another nail in the coffin of your ludicrous 'Howard was referring to protections in local constitutions' bullshit, Howard makes himself clear again.....from the exact same speech:

Senator Jacob Howard said:
Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some (not all) by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts.

Introduction of the 14th Amendment to the US Senate

Proving yet again that your claim that the 14th amendment was about the federal government securing rights listed in state constitutions is laughable bullshit.

Howard was ludicrously clear he was referring to the federal constitution, reading the federal Bill of Rights. And just as clear that rights he was describing was secured SOLEY as citizens of the United States and as a party to the courts of the United States.

But its the 'state' constitution he's referring to, huh?

Um, no. I'd tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. But the problem is.....you've already read everything I've posted. You know your claims are fallacious bullshit. And you're intentionally (and stupidly) misrepresenting Howard's position to match your argument.

Its not the entire judiciary that's wrong on what the 14th amendment means.

Its just you.
 
Last edited:
Now for Bingham. The man is ludicrously, laughably, incredibly clear that its the enforcement of the Bill of Rights that he's looking for. Here's Bingham's first pass for a 14th amendment to the constitution.

John Bingham said:
The proposition pending before the house is simple a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution today.

Congressional Globe, 39th Session, p 1088

And here's the proposition he wrote:

"Article: The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and all persons in in the several states equal protection in the rights of life, liberty and property."

Look familiar?

And in case there was even the slightest doubt in your mind that Bingham wasn't talking about the Bill of Rights when he referred to 'Privileges and Immunities', Bingham offers us this little gem when discussing the intent of the 14th amendment [bold added for emphasis:]


"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourtheeth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from the citizen of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows.

Article I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make."

-Senator Bingham, March 31th, 1871



LMAO....Bingham reads the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights and cites them being intended as an 'express prohibition upon every state of the Union'. And cites the 14th amendment as making them so.

But its a 'misinterpretation' to apply the Bill of Rights to the States? Nope. Bingham utterly and completely destroys your claims. As usual, John.......you're just awful at this. And your claims are pseudo-legal gibberish.
 
Last edited:
Now for Bingham. The man is ludicrously, laughably, incredibly clear that its the enforcement of the Bill of Rights that he's looking for. Here's Bingham's first pass for a 14th amendment to the constitution.

John Bingham said:
The proposition pending before the house is simple a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution today.

Congressional Globe, 39th Session, p 1088

And here's the proposition he wrote:

"Article: The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and all persons in in the several states equal protection in the rights of life, liberty and property."

Exactly! Whatever was contained in a State's bill of rights, as per the wording of the 14th Amendment, no State may deny to any person the equal protection of those state laws.


You really need to learn how to read, or be honest about what you have read.



Bingham emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292


JWK
 

-Senator Bingham, March 31th, 1871

What Bingham said in 1871 is irrelevant to the intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.


And what were those specific intentions? One of the supporters of the 14 Amendment summarizes its meaning as follows:


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293


Now, for the second time, will you stop disrupting the thread with your 14th Amendment crap? The title of the thread is: Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!
 
Last edited:
Exactly! Whatever was contained in a State's bill of rights, as per the wording of the 14th Amendment, no State may deny to any person the equal protection of those state laws.

Nonsense. Bingham explicitly cites the purpose of the 14th amendment as being to arm Congress 'with the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution'.

There's no mention of 'state constitutions'. Every mention is about the Federal Congress armed with the power to enforce the Federal bill of rights as it stands in the Federal constitution.

Your 'state constitution' hallucination simply doesn't exist. There's not the slightest mention of it. And overwhelming contradictions. As I said, you just suck at this.

You really need to learn how to read, or be honest about what you have read.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you highlight for us any mention of 'state constitutions' in Bingham's proposed amendment:

"Article: The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and all persons in in the several states equal protection in the rights of life, liberty and property."

You'll find you imagined it all. Its not the entire federal judiciary that his misinterpreted the 14th amendment.

Its just you.
 
SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit

Sun Mar 15, 2015

”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.”

I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

The truth is, a flat tax does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. It is a discriminatory tax in that it is laid directly upon the individual and measures the amount of tax the individual is to pay based upon their annual earnings which in effect commands our nation’s most productive hard working wage earning citizens and businesses owners to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share to support government, or even any share at all! And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

A flat tax is also arbitrary and capricious in another way. The definition of what is and what is not taxable “income” cannot be set in stone, and must be left to never ending alterations and manipulations which are decided by a Washington Establishment political majority. On the other hand, taxing consumption as our founders intended is far less subject to abuse, and especially so because taxes paid are voluntarily paid by the manner in which one spends their money.

Senator Cruz’s tax reform also leaves the door wide open for government to use it as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government. Have we not recently seen how this corruptible system of taxation has been used by political hacks in our federal government to attack freedom loving Americans and interfere with free speech?

Finally, the costs involved with a tax calculated from incomes is in itself a reason to abandon it and move to a consumption based tax system.
My question to Senator Cruz is, now that “Republicans” control both Houses of Congress, let us not forget it is within their power to actually offer real tax reform, and by this I mean sending to the States an amendment to our Constitution to do away with federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other forms of lawfully realized “incomes” and move to a consumption based tax system to fill our national treasury. My preference is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with:

“SECTION 1. 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.

So, tell us Senator Cruz, have we not suffered enough under our nation’s experiment with federal taxes calculated from “incomes” to at least consider withdrawing this power and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? Would it not be a blessing to the American People if those we elected to Congress during last election would rise to the occasion and introduce a Bill to actually reform our federal tax system by doing away with taxes calculated from incomes and start this important discussion?

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?


Excellent -- our paid political blogger is back. Things go better with Koch when you're paid to write on message boards. Wonder what mine would be worth if I put it on the market to the highest bidder...

How many other sites did this go out to, JWK? Or do I have to look it up? I don't mind -- I do it for free.

(edit, after quick search) I see we've branched out to XM Radio forums. New addition to the flock is it? Maybe I just didn't notice it when I busted you the first time. It's a lot of sites to keep track of. You must have quite the filing system down there in Florida Demagogue Central...
 
Last edited:

-Senator Bingham, March 31th, 1871

What Bingham said in 1871 is irrelevant to the intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.

Bingham said when he introduced the 14th amendment that the purpose arm Congress "'with the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution'. "

You ignored John Bingham.

Bingham said after the passage of the 14th amendment that the purpose of the amendment was to apply the bill of rights to the States. He even read the first 8 amendment of the Bill of Rights so there isn't the slightest confusion.

You ignore John Bingham again.

Which is what Senator Howard stated that the purpose of the amendment was the apply the bill of rights to the states. Even reading most of the rights affirmed by the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights explicitly.

You ignored Senator Howard.

Your entire narrative that what they 'really meant' was the application of State constitution is never mentioned. It literally doesn't appear once in the entire congressional record. You hallucinated the entire argument.

All while ignoring both Bingham and Howard when they state EXPLICITLY that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the bill of rights. This, right here, is why your 'constitutional interpretations' are so useless. You ignore anything you don't want to believe. And literally hallucinate what you want to believe.

But no one gives a shit what you make up. Or what you ignore. You're nobody.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

That's not John Bingham. Bingham stated, unambiguously, that the purpose of the 14th was the enforce the bill of rights. And you already know this. You just really hope we don't.

Now, for the second time, will you stop disrupting the thread with your 14th Amendment crap? The title of the thread is: Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!

And you lost on that one too. Contrary to your ignorant babble, a flat tax isn't in the communist manifesto. But instead, a heavily progressive income tax. A flat tax isn't heavily progressive.

Your babble about 'the founders original tax plan' was also useless idiocy. As Apportionment isn't a form of taxation. Its a distribution of funds. Money going TO the States. Not coming from them. And it has nothing to do with the percentage of the population that pays taxes. Making it irrelevant to all of your gibberish about the '45% who pay no income tax'.

Your 'solution' has nothing to do with your 'problem'. Which you already know.

And your proposed method of taxation -capitation- was never used by the founders to fund the federal government. Most of the founders hated capitation. And almost none ever advocated it. Absolutely killing capitation as the 'founders original tax plan'.

You just don't know what you're talking about, John. You've literally made up your entire argument.
 
SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit

Sun Mar 15, 2015

”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.”

I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

The truth is, a flat tax does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. It is a discriminatory tax in that it is laid directly upon the individual and measures the amount of tax the individual is to pay based upon their annual earnings which in effect commands our nation’s most productive hard working wage earning citizens and businesses owners to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share to support government, or even any share at all! And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

A flat tax is also arbitrary and capricious in another way. The definition of what is and what is not taxable “income” cannot be set in stone, and must be left to never ending alterations and manipulations which are decided by a Washington Establishment political majority. On the other hand, taxing consumption as our founders intended is far less subject to abuse, and especially so because taxes paid are voluntarily paid by the manner in which one spends their money.

Senator Cruz’s tax reform also leaves the door wide open for government to use it as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government. Have we not recently seen how this corruptible system of taxation has been used by political hacks in our federal government to attack freedom loving Americans and interfere with free speech?

Finally, the costs involved with a tax calculated from incomes is in itself a reason to abandon it and move to a consumption based tax system.
My question to Senator Cruz is, now that “Republicans” control both Houses of Congress, let us not forget it is within their power to actually offer real tax reform, and by this I mean sending to the States an amendment to our Constitution to do away with federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other forms of lawfully realized “incomes” and move to a consumption based tax system to fill our national treasury. My preference is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with:

“SECTION 1. 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.

So, tell us Senator Cruz, have we not suffered enough under our nation’s experiment with federal taxes calculated from “incomes” to at least consider withdrawing this power and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? Would it not be a blessing to the American People if those we elected to Congress during last election would rise to the occasion and introduce a Bill to actually reform our federal tax system by doing away with taxes calculated from incomes and start this important discussion?

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?


Excellent -- our paid political blogger is back. Things go better with Koch when you're paid to write on message boards. Wonder what mine would be worth if I put it on the market to the highest bidder...

How many other sites did this go out to, JWK? Or do I have to look it up? I don't mind -- I do it for free.

(edit, after quick search) I see we've branched out to XM Radio forums. New addition to the flock is it? Maybe I just didn't notice it when I busted you the first time. It's a lot of sites to keep track of. You must have quite the filing system down there in Florida Demagogue Central...

oh, John routinely spams shit from other message boards verbatim...some of it 8 and 10 years old.

And he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.
 
SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit

Sun Mar 15, 2015

”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.”

I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

The truth is, a flat tax does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. It is a discriminatory tax in that it is laid directly upon the individual and measures the amount of tax the individual is to pay based upon their annual earnings which in effect commands our nation’s most productive hard working wage earning citizens and businesses owners to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share to support government, or even any share at all! And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

A flat tax is also arbitrary and capricious in another way. The definition of what is and what is not taxable “income” cannot be set in stone, and must be left to never ending alterations and manipulations which are decided by a Washington Establishment political majority. On the other hand, taxing consumption as our founders intended is far less subject to abuse, and especially so because taxes paid are voluntarily paid by the manner in which one spends their money.

Senator Cruz’s tax reform also leaves the door wide open for government to use it as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government. Have we not recently seen how this corruptible system of taxation has been used by political hacks in our federal government to attack freedom loving Americans and interfere with free speech?

Finally, the costs involved with a tax calculated from incomes is in itself a reason to abandon it and move to a consumption based tax system.
My question to Senator Cruz is, now that “Republicans” control both Houses of Congress, let us not forget it is within their power to actually offer real tax reform, and by this I mean sending to the States an amendment to our Constitution to do away with federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other forms of lawfully realized “incomes” and move to a consumption based tax system to fill our national treasury. My preference is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with:

“SECTION 1. 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.

So, tell us Senator Cruz, have we not suffered enough under our nation’s experiment with federal taxes calculated from “incomes” to at least consider withdrawing this power and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? Would it not be a blessing to the American People if those we elected to Congress during last election would rise to the occasion and introduce a Bill to actually reform our federal tax system by doing away with taxes calculated from incomes and start this important discussion?

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?


Excellent -- our paid political blogger is back. Things go better with Koch when you're paid to write on message boards. Wonder what mine would be worth if I put it on the market to the highest bidder...

How many other sites did this go out to, JWK? Or do I have to look it up? I don't mind -- I do it for free.

(edit, after quick search) I see we've branched out to XM Radio forums. New addition to the flock is it? Maybe I just didn't notice it when I busted you the first time. It's a lot of sites to keep track of. You must have quite the filing system down there in Florida Demagogue Central...

oh, John routinely spams shit from other message boards verbatim...some of it 8 and 10 years old.

And he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

Yeah but they all have his name on 'em. For all that filing system he (should) have, one name fits 'em all.
Some people just aren't cut out for the clandestine giggage.
 
You are also confused about Senator Howard's comments. There is nothing in his comments that he intended by the 14th Amendment to make the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution enforceable upon the States.

Except when he cites the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights, reads those rights verbatim, and then says the purpose of the amendment is restrain state power and to compel them to respect the constitutional guarantees from the Bill of Rights he'd just read.

You know, most of his introduction of the 14th amendment to the Senate.

His remarks were a generalized expression that rights, e.g., those protected by “local constitutions” ought to be protected.

And by 'generalized', you mean he never actually said any of that? Because the only rights he mentions are those from the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights.

The 'protection of the rights of local constittuions' bullshit you completely made up. And Howard never so much as mentions.

He states: ” The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

With these 'great fundamental guarantees' being the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights.
He never once speaks of protecting local constitutions or enforcing them. But enforcing the Bill of Rights, most of the rights of which he reads:

Senator Jacob Howard said:
They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year.

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

Show us any mention by Howard of 'protecting' or 'enforcing' the local constitutions. There is none. You made that up. Your argument is literally to hallucinate passages that don't exist.

Howard listed the rights of the first 8 amendments of the bill of rights, says that the congress lacks the authority to give the full effect of the Bill of Rights upon the States which are bound only by their local constitutions. And then says, quite clearly, that the purpose of section 1 of the 14th amendment is to restrain the power of the States and compel them to respect the guarantees he had just mentioned.

Which guarantees?

The guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Which he's listed only a few moments earlier in the SAME SPEECH:

Senator Jacob Howard said:
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution.

To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

For fuck's sake, Howard reads most of the rights of the Bill of Rights....and you STILL insist he wasn't talking about the Bill of Rights.

And then straight up imagine some absurd nonsense about 'protecting and enforcing the State constitutions', which Howard never so much as mentions. All while ignoring his every reference to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the restraining of state power. Its not the entire federal judiciary that is 'confused' about the meaning and purpose of the 14th.

Its just you.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but they all have his name on 'em. For all that filing system he (should) have, one name fits 'em all.
Some people just aren't cut out for the clandestine giggage.

Yeah, but I don't think he wrote that shit, even those they use the same handle. As when pressed on the specifics, he folds. I mean, look at his claims about the purpose of the 14th amendment being to protect and enforce state constitutions. There's literally no mention of any of that in the entire congressional record. Yet he clings to it like a script.

He seems to have been passed the password to the handle without the training to understand the issues he's expected to discuss. Or any of the ignorant nonsense he's expected to spam.
 
Yeah but they all have his name on 'em. For all that filing system he (should) have, one name fits 'em all.
Some people just aren't cut out for the clandestine giggage.

Yeah, but I don't think he wrote that shit, even those they use the same handle. As when pressed on the specifics, he folds. I mean, look at his claims about the purpose of the 14th amendment being to protect and enforce state constitutions. There's literally no mention of any of that in the entire congressional record. Yet he clings to it like a script.

He seems to have been passed the password to the handle without the training to understand the issues he's expected to discuss. Or any of the ignorant nonsense he's expected to spam.

Clearly he doesn't have a grasp of what he's posting (I didn't even read this one, I know it from prior posts) but when you take a snippet of his text and Google it they all come up with his name on 'em -- which is only to say if he's parroting from another source, that source is either not on the internet, or else he does a single rewrite and then spamcasts that one verbatim. Neither of which would be my plan if I were a prostitute whore hack-for-hire propagandist lackey sycophant um, concerned citizen fighting the good fight on multiple fronts like a rhetorical oh-so-sincere assembly line. :)
 

-Senator Bingham, March 31th, 1871

What Bingham said in 1871 is irrelevant to the intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.

Bingham said when he introduced the 14th amendment that the purpose arm Congress "'with the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution'. "

You ignored John Bingham.

Bingham said after the passage of the 14th amendment that the purpose of the amendment was to apply the bill of rights to the States. He even read the first 8 amendment of the Bill of Rights so there isn't the slightest confusion.

You ignore John Bingham again.

Which is what Senator Howard stated that the purpose of the amendment was the apply the bill of rights to the states. Even reading most of the rights affirmed by the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights explicitly.

You ignored Senator Howard.

Your entire narrative that what they 'really meant' was the application of State constitution is never mentioned. It literally doesn't appear once in the entire congressional record. You hallucinated the entire argument.

All while ignoring both Bingham and Howard when they state EXPLICITLY that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the bill of rights. This, right here, is why your 'constitutional interpretations' are so useless. You ignore anything you don't want to believe. And literally hallucinate what you want to believe.

But no one gives a shit what you make up. Or what you ignore. You're nobody.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

That's not John Bingham. Bingham stated, unambiguously, that the purpose of the 14th was the enforce the bill of rights. And you already know this. You just really hope we don't.

Now, for the second time, will you stop disrupting the thread with your 14th Amendment crap? The title of the thread is: Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!

And you lost on that one too. Contrary to your ignorant babble, a flat tax isn't in the communist manifesto. But instead, a heavily progressive income tax. A flat tax isn't heavily progressive.

Your babble about 'the founders original tax plan' was also useless idiocy. As Apportionment isn't a form of taxation. Its a distribution of funds. Money going TO the States. Not coming from them. And it has nothing to do with the percentage of the population that pays taxes. Making it irrelevant to all of your gibberish about the '45% who pay no income tax'.

Your 'solution' has nothing to do with your 'problem'. Which you already know.

And your proposed method of taxation -capitation- was never used by the founders to fund the federal government. Most of the founders hated capitation. And almost none ever advocated it. Absolutely killing capitation as the 'founders original tax plan'.

You just don't know what you're talking about, John. You've literally made up your entire argument.

I'm glad you finally have admitted you are wrong. Now, let us stick to the topic of the thread which is Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!"

JWK
 
SEE: Sen. Ted Cruz attacks Obama during New Hampshire visit

Sun Mar 15, 2015

”Instead Cruz sketched the outlines of a fledgling platform, calling for a flat tax so that every American can “fill out his or her taxes on a postcard.”

I cannot imagine why Senator Cruz, a “conservative” is still promoting as tax reform a direct flat tax on incomes which is an immoral tax that finds its roots in the Communist Manifesto

Keep in mind our founders were fully aware of the destructive and oppressive nature of direct taxation. In fact, this issue was touched upon by Representative Williams during a debate on Direct Taxes on January 18th, 1797:

"History, Mr. Williams said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue; but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not."

The truth is, a flat tax does absolutely nothing to remove the iron fist of our federal government from the necks of America’s hard working productive citizens and business owners. It is a discriminatory tax in that it is laid directly upon the individual and measures the amount of tax the individual is to pay based upon their annual earnings which in effect commands our nation’s most productive hard working wage earning citizens and businesses owners to finance the functions of government while the least productive citizen is not required to pay an equal share to support government, or even any share at all! And yet, those who do not contribute to financing the functions of government are allowed to exercise a vote equal to those who do finance the functions of government. Under our Constitution’s original tax plan, and with regard to direct taxes, the rule of apportionment was intended to provide a protection against such an abuse in that each state was required to pay a share of any direct tax proportionally equal to its representation.

A flat tax is also arbitrary and capricious in another way. The definition of what is and what is not taxable “income” cannot be set in stone, and must be left to never ending alterations and manipulations which are decided by a Washington Establishment political majority. On the other hand, taxing consumption as our founders intended is far less subject to abuse, and especially so because taxes paid are voluntarily paid by the manner in which one spends their money.

Senator Cruz’s tax reform also leaves the door wide open for government to use it as a political weapon to silence, threaten and punish political foes while rewarding the friends of a tyrannical bloated federal government. Have we not recently seen how this corruptible system of taxation has been used by political hacks in our federal government to attack freedom loving Americans and interfere with free speech?

Finally, the costs involved with a tax calculated from incomes is in itself a reason to abandon it and move to a consumption based tax system.
My question to Senator Cruz is, now that “Republicans” control both Houses of Congress, let us not forget it is within their power to actually offer real tax reform, and by this I mean sending to the States an amendment to our Constitution to do away with federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and all other forms of lawfully realized “incomes” and move to a consumption based tax system to fill our national treasury. My preference is the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with:

“SECTION 1. 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.

So, tell us Senator Cruz, have we not suffered enough under our nation’s experiment with federal taxes calculated from “incomes” to at least consider withdrawing this power and returning to our Constitution’s original tax plan? Would it not be a blessing to the American People if those we elected to Congress during last election would rise to the occasion and introduce a Bill to actually reform our federal tax system by doing away with taxes calculated from incomes and start this important discussion?

JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?


Excellent -- our paid political blogger is back. Things go better with Koch when you're paid to write on message boards....


I doubt Koch believes as I do, that a federal tax imposed upon a person's earned wages is an abuse of Congress' taxing powers. I know Forbes and Senator Cruz love taxing the wages of labor just as socialist and Marxist do.

JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
 
SS and Medicare are in the crosshairs of conservatives. They must be protected. In the end messing with them is political suicide. Good thing.
 
SS and Medicare are in the crosshairs of conservatives. They must be protected. In the end messing with them is political suicide. Good thing.

I'm not sure what that has to do with tax reform.

JWK
 

-Senator Bingham, March 31th, 1871

What Bingham said in 1871 is irrelevant to the intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.

Bingham said when he introduced the 14th amendment that the purpose arm Congress "'with the power to enforce the bill of rights as its stands in the constitution'. "

You ignored John Bingham.

Bingham said after the passage of the 14th amendment that the purpose of the amendment was to apply the bill of rights to the States. He even read the first 8 amendment of the Bill of Rights so there isn't the slightest confusion.

You ignore John Bingham again.

Which is what Senator Howard stated that the purpose of the amendment was the apply the bill of rights to the states. Even reading most of the rights affirmed by the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights explicitly.

You ignored Senator Howard.

Your entire narrative that what they 'really meant' was the application of State constitution is never mentioned. It literally doesn't appear once in the entire congressional record. You hallucinated the entire argument.

All while ignoring both Bingham and Howard when they state EXPLICITLY that the purpose of the 14th amendment was to apply the bill of rights. This, right here, is why your 'constitutional interpretations' are so useless. You ignore anything you don't want to believe. And literally hallucinate what you want to believe.

But no one gives a shit what you make up. Or what you ignore. You're nobody.


“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

That's not John Bingham. Bingham stated, unambiguously, that the purpose of the 14th was the enforce the bill of rights. And you already know this. You just really hope we don't.

Now, for the second time, will you stop disrupting the thread with your 14th Amendment crap? The title of the thread is: Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!

And you lost on that one too. Contrary to your ignorant babble, a flat tax isn't in the communist manifesto. But instead, a heavily progressive income tax. A flat tax isn't heavily progressive.

Your babble about 'the founders original tax plan' was also useless idiocy. As Apportionment isn't a form of taxation. Its a distribution of funds. Money going TO the States. Not coming from them. And it has nothing to do with the percentage of the population that pays taxes. Making it irrelevant to all of your gibberish about the '45% who pay no income tax'.

Your 'solution' has nothing to do with your 'problem'. Which you already know.

And your proposed method of taxation -capitation- was never used by the founders to fund the federal government. Most of the founders hated capitation. And almost none ever advocated it. Absolutely killing capitation as the 'founders original tax plan'.

You just don't know what you're talking about, John. You've literally made up your entire argument.

I'm glad you finally have admitted you are wrong. Now, let us stick to the topic of the thread which is Senator Ted Cruz doubles down on keeping the socialist income tax!"

JWK

Laughing....dear god, you suck at paraphrasing. As explicitly contradicting isn't agreeing with you. You're simply hallucinating, John..

Your absurd claim that a flat tax is in the communist manifesto is blithering idiocy. The communist manifesto calls for a heavily progressive income tax. Not a 'flat tax'. Killing your first piece of ignorance.

Both John Bingham and Senator Jacob Howard made it ludicriously clear that the puprose of the 14th amendment was to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. They even read the first 8 amendments of the Bill of Rights while describing the rights they wished to limit state action. Obliteratring yet another piece of your hapless ignorance.

They never once so much as mention 'protecting state constitutions'. You quite literally hallucinated that. Its not the entire judiciary that has 'misinterpreted' the 14th amendment.

Its just you.

Now to your apportionment idiocy. Apportionment is a method of distribution. It is NOT a system of taxation. Thus, returning to apportionment isn't a 'return to the founder's original tax plan'. As apportionment isn't a method of taxation. The method of taxation you insisted we 'return to' was capitation. And the founders NEVER used capitation to fund the federal government.

Ever. In fact most of the founders despised capitation. Killing yet another one of your silly misconceptions.

But tell us again how I agree with you. I need another laugh.
 

Forum List

Back
Top