BASS BARN banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
.

CLICK HERE for the list of Republicans who voted for Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House and gave the Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth exactly who they want. And what they want is someone who supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal which benefits international corporate giants who have no allegiance to the United States or any nation; someone who will work to give legal status and work permits to the tens of millions of foreigners who have invaded our borders; and someone who will work to adopt tax reform which will keep the socialist and failed experiment of taxing “incomes” alive which in turn keeps the heel of the Washington Establishment on the necks of the American people and the Establishment in the position of picking winners and losers when it comes to filling the national treasury.

One again the American People have been played by the Washington Establishment, in addition to being conned by a number of subversives who infiltrated the Freedom Caucus.

The only Republicans who had the nerve to stand up against the Establishment were the following:

Brat, Clawson (FL), Gohmert, Gosar, Jones, Massie, Posey, Weber (TX), Yoho

JWK




Those who supported Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House was to support our Global Governance Crowd and their FAST TRACK, WTO, NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,319 Posts
John, I feel your pain but he is only there as long as Jimmy jr. then up for relection. I think it's a crafty move by the freedom caucas to let him settle the base down so as there is no rumblings going into the General. If we stick to our principals and keep the likes of jebbers and the other progressive Huckabee out of the mix we will be OK. Cruz is really hitting his stride now raising another million off of last nights debate alone:thumbsup:.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
John, I feel your pain but he is only there as long as Jimmy jr. then up for relection. I think it's a crafty move by the freedom caucas to let him settle the base down so as there is no rumblings going into the General. If we stick to our principals and keep the likes of jebbers and the other progressive Huckabee out of the mix we will be OK. Cruz is really hitting his stride now raising another million off of last nights debate alone:thumbsup:.
What I don't like about Cruz is his desire to keep alive the socialist failed experiment with taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other "incomes" which is a tax used to enslave the American people and steal their property!

JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,879 Posts
What I don't like about Cruz is his desire to keep alive the socialist failed experiment with taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other "incomes" which is a tax used to enslave the American people and steal their property!

JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
What the hell does taxes have to do with socialism?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,221 Posts
John who DO YOU LIKE. We are tired of you pointing out EVERY pundits flaws. Please tell us !!!!!!

WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,319 Posts
What I don't like about Cruz is his desire to keep alive the socialist failed experiment with taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other "incomes" which is a tax used to enslave the American people and steal their property!

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
I'm with jHudds on this one John you or I are not going to get the perfect candidate TC is the closest thing to perfection that you or I will ever see in our lifetime that will follow the constitution.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,528 Posts
socialism is collective ownership over the means of production. it has little to do with tax policy
so·cial·ism
noun noun: socialism


  • 1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole



How does this get accomplished? Is there equal ownership by the community? Does everyone have an equal ownership no matter their contribution or, as used, the rich give to the less fortuned through taxes or contributions. Where do the funds come from that the government doles out through welfare etc.

It's meaning may have little to do with tax policy, but it's implementation sure does.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,511 Posts
John who DO YOU LIKE. We are tired of you pointing out EVERY pundits flaws. Please tell us !!!!!!

WHO WILL YOU VOTE FOR?
Good luck. johnwk's message should resonate yet it doesn't. I suspect it's largely because he simply refuses to identify who he actually will support. :thumbsdown: Too bad he's so seemingly afraid. :thumbsdown:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,025 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Ted Cruz ignores apportionment as applied to tax reform

I'm with jHudds on this one John you or I are not going to get the perfect candidate TC is the closest thing to perfection that you or I will ever see in our lifetime that will follow the constitution.
I'm not looking for "perfection" whatever that may mean. I'm looking for someone who will support our Constitution and especially those provisions which declares that:



"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

and . . .



"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States"


Part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787 was that if and when the federal government decided to lay a direct tax, the federal government was to determine a total sum needed and then send a bill to each State for a share of that total proportionately equal to its number of Representatives in the House. And further, if the federal government decided to enter the state and tax individuals directly, it would turn out to be an equal per capita tax!

Keep in mind that "direct taxes" are still required to be apportioned and those provision of our Constitution requiring direct taxes to be apportioned are still in effect but are being ignored as would be the case under the Cruz tax plan!

The rule of apportioning direct taxes, as opposed to uniformity of indirect taxes, was specifically intended to prevent the very miseries which Ted Cruz complains of but would remain under his tax reform plan which keeps the socialist tax on incomes alive and ignores the rule of apportionment which made our Constitution agreeable to our Founders, and the law of the land.

As long as our federal government is allowed to lay and collect taxes on "incomes" in a manner which violates the command that direct taxes are to be apportioned [for the distinction see Flint vs. Stone Tracy], the door is left wide open for every imaginable abuse, including those complained of by Ted Cruz!

At the very least, Ted Cruz ought to explain why the founders adopted the rule of apportionment with regard to direct taxation and how enforcing this rule would end the countless miseries which we now suffer because the rule is being ignored and circumvented by our federal government.


Let us review some of our founder’s thinking regarding the rule of apportionment:

Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :



“With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6



And see:

“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.



Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255



And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are to be taxed proportionately equal to their representation in Congress, Mr. PENDLETON says:



“The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion”3 Elliot’s 41



JWK




Are you 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”?











 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top