A La Carte: The Constitution
Posted by Anthony Martin Wed, 10 Oct 2007 02:22:00 GMT
We had a bit of difficulty last week. We recorded late, and the recording went really long. Then the audio software kept messing up when I’d try to edit it. So here’s a compromise. I started an “A La Carte” version that contains only a single topic of discussion. This time, it’s roughly centered around The Constitution.
Taking this approach might allow me to edit the episode too. There was a lot of good stuff, and we didn’t want to lose any of it. But the episode would have been two hours, and that’s just too long for Garage Band, apparently. Actually, I’m still trying to figure out what went wrong there.
So here, Aaron and I discuss the relevance of The Constitution as it relates to practical problems in the globalized society.
Download
The Fair Tax would completely eliminate the IRS and current Federal tax code. Anthony, you have been misinformed. Read the book and go to FAIRTAX.ORG for the real details.
Anthony, your discussion about taxes makes no sense. Our current federal income taxes are way to high, but we have to pay taxes. What the Fair Tax does is get rid of the income tax and replaces with a 23% sales tax which would also include Social Security taxes. It's not a tax cut or a tax hike, just a better way for us to get our money and pay our taxes when we want too. I'm all for cutting spending, but I'm also for having more control over my own money. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the 16th Amendment IS in the Constitution, so it must be repealed in order for the Fair Tax to work properly. Just for the record, I also believe the income tax is unconstitutional but it's still there.
my conservative brothers let us not squabble over who will be the sacrificial lamb for the republicans. newt is not running and is unelectable. mccain is too old. thompson seems asleep most of the time. romney is the front runner but i dont really know why. rudy is a lib. all hail president clinton II.
the fairtax is a proposal to replace the federal income tax. who in their right mind would support a 22% sales tax on top of the already ridiculous tax burden? the fair tax allows you to control how much tax you pay to some extent. the fair tax would only be charged on new items. for instance if you bought a used car, no fair tax.
good political show. do the show more often.
p.s. dad and i are upright conservatives. the only time we watch cnn is to log onto their website, print the homepage and use it for tp.
I read the Fair Tax book covert to cover. I don't think I can make my case any more clear than I did in the show: "We Spend Too Much"
We are taxed at about one third of government spending. In other words, our government spends three times what the IRS can bring in.
An interesting question: Where do we get the rest of the money?
Answer: We print it.
Another interesting question: Why don't we just print the other third instead of collecting it from income?
Answer: Since Congress gave the authority to print money to the Federal Reserve (which is clearly unconstitutional, see Article I, Section 8), the Federal Reserve charges interest on the money it prints. The interest is about the amount of money the IRS collects from income taxes. All of the income taxes collected by the IRS is just paying down interest to the Federal Reserve.
The Fair Tax would only replace the IRS. So that means 22-23% is far too low. People behind the Fair Tax say that nobody would allow it to go up. I say BULLSCHMIDT! Are you kidding? Of course it will go up, just like the income tax did.
Spending is out of control. Not only that, but the IRS "Section 861" position calls into question the very legality of paying income taxes in the first place.
Congress is aware of the "Section 861" position. That's why they offer the Fair Tax; it is the only solution to maintain the current level of income legally.
What is the "Section 861" position you ask? Some people think there is no income tax law, that the 16th Amendment 1) doesn't apply to wages (according to a Supreme Court rulling), and 2) wasn't legally ratified. If either is true, the income tax is illegal.
For details on the entire “No Law No Tax” argument, watch this: Freedom to Fascism
i think weve been over this leaving iraq thing, havent we? short of the precious Lord Jesus (or ron paul) telling anthony to do so, i dont think his mind is going to change on this topic.
im not sure the fact that we cant know for sure what will happen is a better argument for leaving than it is for staying.
what i do know as fact is this.
1)isreal is our ally.
2)hezbolah is funded by iran (and so is hamas)
3) to restate #2, iran is a state sponsor of terror
4) iran is involved in iraq
5)president of iran has publically called for the elimination of isreal (our ally) and america (me and you)
6)leaving and hoping for the best maybe be certifiable as mad. i dont understand why leaving terrorists behind to regroup and repopulate is a reasonable propostion to anyone. if someone came into you home with intent to harm you and you knocked him out, would you just consider the issue closed? what if he regains consciousness?
6)we are still in japan
7)we are still in korea
8)we are still in germany
9)we will be in iraq for a long time
10)the sitterdowners would crush the loofers in armwrestling.
p.s. america fighting for the defenseless seems consistant with Christianity to me. we should have intervened in africa.... cough...wesleyclark
Israel is our ally. True, but Israel is also perfectly capable of defending herself, with beautiful restraint, I might add. Hezbollah is funded by Iran (and so is Hamas). True. To restate #2, Iran is a state sponsor of terror. Absolutely true. Iran is involved in Iraq. Just as likely. The president of Iran has publically called for the elimination of Israel (our ally) and America (me and you). Again, all true.
So looking at these facts, we don't really disagree along these points. I just don't understand why third-world-countries that are oceans away are allowed to wield such fear.
I know. September 11th. But that's a circular argument. Just admit it.
It's circular because we were in the region before September 11th. That was one of the three reasons cited for the attack.
I know Iran sees us as a decadent country. But since when has terrorists ever cited that alone as a reason for past attacks?
If you can show me a quote, that would be something. Otherwise, we're looking at pure unadulterated propaganda.
Okay, so let's try again. We need to spend less money...agreed. The income tax is unconstitutional...agreed. Iraq is a mess...agreed. We print too much money...agreed (by the way, we borrow too much as well) The Sitter Downers would win an armwrestling contest over the Loafers like Stalone in Over The Top...agreed. Hillary is the devil, there's no JC in sight to defeat her and she is going to win...agreed. Why are we arguing again???
One last thing...Adam and I are going to play Halo 3 all weekend!!!!!
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none.
4rd world countries that are oceans away wield fear because, they are nuts, they are working towards weapons, they are near our ally, and they are full of oil. are you kidding? the oceans mean nothing with the right weapons. its 2007, man! newsflash....isreal's restraint comes from america.
i dont know if a valid link between spet 11 and the iraq invasion was ever made. i dont recall hearing one.
that fact that we are decadent is a symptom of the disease that they diagnose us with, namely that of being the great satan. yes, anthony, they want us dead because we are decadent. and because we are america, and because we are what stands between them and the advancing islamic state.
ignoring this, or treating it as we did in the 90's, will get us killed in the future. maybe not me, maybe not you, maybe not ron paul, but someone.
we do spend too much. we tax too much. we are too corrupt. term limits need to be imposed. law breaking should be an automatic ticket our of office. earmarks should go away. more things should be put to a popular vote, at least at the state level. i dont know if income tax is illegal or not. maybe wesley snipes will post here. i have to go, im too excited about hillary winning the election.
So, Adam, you say we spend too much, but we're also taxed too much? We need to mandate less corruption? Term limits? (I don't know what term limits would do to address any of this.) Yet, we need to stay the course?
Would you say, in your opinion, assuming we can spend less and tax less as you suggest, keeping that in mind, are we are going down the right path with our foreign policy? We just need to do more of the same with our foreign policy? We need to bring democracy to these backwards, godless nations against their using less money?
I'm guessing that you are against the non-interventionist view and approach. So does that means you are an interventionist? Is your motto "Commerce with most nations, alliance with more."? Even if you won't classify yourself as an interventionist, how do we crack down on these people who don't agree with us and "conquer" them (or whatever the P. C. word is) for their own good while we spend less?
I guess we should just keep printing our magic money and hope for the best. But have you ever heard of a nation that printed money to finance its empire, that flourished and conquered its way into prosperity? Is this behavior sustainable?