America Freedom To Fascism Authorized Version

[Rufus_1611]

Interesting, as I said in the other thread. I also went on to post how Constitutional history supports a federal income tax and always has, or at least since one was first instituted in 1862.

Sorry I must have missed the other thread. There is a case for a federal income tax but income does not apply to the wages of individual citizens and there is no law that demonstrates that it does. Did the documentary not point that out effectively in your view?

 

[DeeJay]

Couple things...

1. I did not say welfare programs were biblical or not. They might not be biblical, but they are certainly not unbiblical.

I got the impression you were saying they were biblical.

FP
Guess what, the Bible said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s", not "begrudgingly render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, all the while moan and complain about how unfair or unconstitutional the taxes may be"

2. I agree the government should spend tax money more wisely. I do not agree that money is being wasted on social welfare programs. There are certainly more worthy "pork" projects that should be cut out first.

Agreed there is alot of pork that could be cut. There is also alot of wasted money going to welfair for people who do not need the money.

3. The government has reduced the amount of abuse in welfare programs. Look up PWORA. If you were to look at the average "welfare family" they are a part of the program for an average of 15 months. In order to get into any "welfare" program there is an enormous amount of red tape. It is not as easy as people think to scam the system. Many times the people who claim they know someone who "abuses" the system, there is a reason the person is still in the system. Said person has received an exemption from the stringent rules in place. Said exemptions are NOT easy to get. Many times there are myriads of doctor's notes, case workers have to fill out mountains of paperwork, employers are contacted, family members are contacted, and school counselors and/or teachers are contacted. It's not easy.

I see welfair abuse everyday. Inmates in prisons get married so their spouces can get a bigger check. The spouce then sends a % of the money back in to the inmate. Huge scam. Also look at all the poligamist families working the welfair system in this state. I think it is alot easier to work the system then you realize.

4. I agree that social welfare programs need a complete overhaul. They are inefficient and keep people poor by design. I do not agree they need eliminated or even reduced more than they already are. PWORA restrictions are detrimental to the "ghost towns" popping up across the US due to outsourcing, IMO.

We mostly agree then I think the restrictions on who can get it should be tightned. If my able bodied 40 year old brother-in-law can get it based on his ADHD then there is a problem. He is lazy and does not want to work that is his only disability, he has turned down several jobs based on "that jobs to much work". It is the welfair system that allowes him to be that way.

 

[Filmproducer]

Sorry I must have missed the other thread. There is a case for a federal income tax but income does not apply to the wages of individual citizens and there is no law that demonstrates that it does. Did the documentary not point that out effectively in your view?

Ummm, no.... The language in the 16th amendment is VERY clear. That should be demonstration enough I would think. Beyond that Constitutional history clearly favors the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

* 1881 Springer v. US income tax unanimously upheld by the court
* 1895 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust income tax considered a direct tax in a 5-4 decision
*July 1909 16th amendment proposed in an overwhelming 77-0 vote in the Senate and a 318-14 vote in the House
*1913 16th Amendment ratified it gave Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration"
*1913 congress enacted a 1% income tax on single incomes of $3,000 + and married incomes of $4,000 +
*1916 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad court upheld the 1% income tax and the 16th amendment, (income tax not a direct tax), in a 7-2 vote

The documentary was interesting, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but in my view the law is very clear. There was some confusion, at least in 1895, as to whether an income tax was a direct tax, but the 16th amendment cleared up that little loophole. The exercising of the Congressional taxing and spending power is a direct act on individual citizens and their property. I have no reason to think income should be excluded.

 

[Filmproducer]

[/font][/color][/color]

I got the impression you were saying they were biblical.

I was directly replying to "Covetousness is still unbecoming" argument. If social welfare is covetousness than shouldn't it be pointed out that Jesus directly said to pay your taxes? Social welfare programs are secular forms of governement and are neither biblical or unbiblical, IMO.

I see welfair abuse everyday. Inmates in prisons get married so their spouces can get a bigger check. The spouce then sends a % of the money back in to the inmate. Huge scam. Also look at all the poligamist families working the welfair system in this state. I think it is alot easier to work the system then you realize.

No it is not. States have to qualify for block grants under PRWORA and they are subjected to grueling audits. A family cannot get a "bigger check" for a spouse NOT living in the household. A family can receive more money for another child and/or any sudden loss of income in a household. (Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 section 408) As for the poligamist families working the welfare. They get the money because of the children and the women, other than the first wife, are technically single under the law, as states do not recognize poligamist marriage.

We mostly agree then I think the restrictions on who can get it should be tightned. If my able bodied 40 year old brother-in-law can get it based on his ADHD then there is a problem. He is lazy and does not want to work that is his only disability, he has turned down several jobs based on "that jobs to much work". It is the welfair system that allowes him to be that way.

Again he has a qualified exemption if he does not have to work. He may tell you "that job is too much work", but the state will not pay benefits out of the goodness of their hearts for no reason. Also welfare, itself, is ONLY for minors, disabled with mentality of a minor, and families with children or a child on the way. They have to closely monitor the "welfare to work programs". Again that is why there is mountains of red tape and paperwork to be filed. The state has to leave a paper trail for the auditors to examine. Besides sec 408 clearly defines the limitation a state has on making exemptions. It clearly states that exemptions "shall not exceed 20% of the average monthly number of families to which assistance is provided".

We probably do agree to some extent, however, I do not think tightening restrictions is the answer. The entire program needs revamped. It is program designed to fail.

 

[LadyEagle]

In this country we are in a unique situation where we are Caesar. Right, a goverment of the people for the people. So in our case Caesar gives us permision to debate about the fairness of taxes and how they are spent.

We can debate all we want to, but the fact remains that Congress will spend our taxes on whatever they want to spend it on, including throwing our money away and there is nothing the taxpayers can do about it. When we elect people, they may start out having lofty ideals, but once they reach the Beltway, they become just as corrupt and self-serving as their colleagues.

http://www.cagw.org

 

[DeeJay]

No it is not. States have to qualify for block grants under PRWORA and they are subjected to grueling audits. A family cannot get a "bigger check" for a spouse NOT living in the household. A family can receive more money for another child and/or any sudden loss of income in a household. (Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 section 408) As for the poligamist families working the welfare. They get the money because of the children and the women, other than the first wife, are technically single under the law, as states do not recognize poligamist marriage.



Again he has a qualified exemption if he does not have to work. He may tell you "that job is too much work", but the state will not pay benefits out of the goodness of their hearts for no reason. Also welfare, itself, is ONLY for minors, disabled with mentality of a minor, and families with children or a child on the way. They have to closely monitor the "welfare to work programs". Again that is why there is mountains of red tape and paperwork to be filed. The state has to leave a paper trail for the auditors to examine. Besides sec 408 clearly defines the limitation a state has on making exemptions. It clearly states that exemptions "shall not exceed 20% of the average monthly number of families to which assistance is provided".

Well I guess I am not seeing what I am seeing every day. And somebody should tell this state to stop prosecuting Warren Jeffs and hundereds of other poligimests for welfair abuse because aparently the system can not be abused (even though my bro-in-law) gets a check.

 

[Filmproducer]

Well I guess I am not seeing what I am seeing every day. And somebody should tell this state to stop prosecuting Warren Jeffs and hundereds of other poligimests for welfair abuse because aparently the system can not be abused (even though my bro-in-law) gets a check.

How absurd! No one is claiming that the system cannot be abused, or that abuse should not be prosecuted. Any government program has the potential for abuse, especially given the nature of man. However, if people are being prosecuted for abuse of the system then it is evident the reforms are working. That is the point of reform. It is very hard to abuse the system and get away with it for very long.

There is a reason your BIL receives a check, possibly because he is the head of the household, who knows? Maybe its wrong, maybe it's right? Again I don't know, but the state is not going to risk losing funding in order to keep people on the system when there is no reason too.

 

[rsr]

Funny stuff in the video.

Imagine those poor industrialists and bankers who were so utterly powerless before 1913. Not until the income tax was enacted did they finally get their hands on the levers of power.

What a joke.

The Supreme Court long recognized the legality of income taxes, the 16th Amendment was required after the Pollock case because the court had ruled that income from investments and property were not subject to a federal income tax - but income from labor was.

The only folks benefiting from this stuff are the parasites who make money off of being tax protest experts.

 

[DeeJay]

There is a reason your BIL receives a check, possibly because he is the head of the household, who knows? .

He lives with his mom and dad.

 

[carpro]

My point is the "Covetousness is still unbecoming" argument is pretty ridiculous, not to mention unbiblical when it is applied to taxes.

Only I was not applying it to taxes at all, except indirectly.

It is the constant haranguing against the "rich" (whoever they are?) that is the reason for my comment.

It sounds more to me like too many Christians are jealous and envious of the "rich" (whoever they are?).

Who decides what "rich" is and who decides what a "fair" tax burden for them (whoever they are) is?

We already have a progressive tax system and all the whining from Christians concerning who pays enough and who doesn't is unbecoming and sounds covetous to me.

Maybe, as Christians, we should require the "rich" (whoever they are) to pay a 20 or 30 percent tithe to their church. But that would be unbiblical, wouldn't it?

Covetousness in Christians is still unbecoming.

Mostly I'd just like all the whining about the "rich" this and the "rich" that to be a little less prevalent.

If one is that jealous of the "rich", I freely invite them to go make some more money, and maybe become "rich", so they can pay some more taxes and whine about that, too.

I promise you, if one whines about the one , they will whine about the other.

 

[Daisy]

He lives with his mom and dad.

Is he disabled in some way?

Also, how does being married to a prisoner get a woman a bigger check? I thought only children did that.

 

[DeeJay]

Is he disabled in some way?

Also, how does being married to a prisoner get a woman a bigger check? I thought only children did that.

His only claim of disability is attention deficit disorder.

Because they are now a family of four instead of three (or whatever). There is something in state law that allowes the welfair to increase because the husband is in prison. They are getting married in prison then spliting the money.

 

[Eric B]

Covetousness is still unbecoming.

It amazes me that so many Christians feel they have a right to money that is not theirs, and complain about it so often.

It is the constant haranguing against the "rich" (whoever they are?) that is the reason for my comment.

It sounds more to me like too many Christians are jealous and envious of the "rich" (whoever they are?).

Who decides what "rich" is and who decides what a "fair" tax burden for them (whoever they are) is?

We already have a progressive tax system and all the whining from Christians concerning who pays enough and who doesn't is unbecoming and sounds covetous to me.

Maybe, as Christians, we should require the "rich" (whoever they are) to pay a 20 or 30 percent tithe to their church. But that would be unbiblical, wouldn't it?

Covetousness in Christians is still unbecoming.

Mostly I'd just like all the whining about the "rich" this and the "rich" that to be a little less prevalent.

That's funny, because for the past 25 years, it seems most conservative Christians in America have been the biggest defenders of the rights of the rich, and blaming taxes for programs for the poor for all our the problems. I was shocked to see from the film that now some are finally becoming aware that it is not all Leftist policies that are at play in the New World Order.
And when someone complains, the little guy is the one who gets called "covetous" or "materialistic", after all, the rich earned and deserve everything they got, and the average and poor people don't even have any "rights" to the money, (that "the market" demands through higher prices, etc); or its "not even theirs", to begin with! We complain about Caeser (govt.), whom Jesus told us to render our taxes to; while yielding away the "rights" to our money to these 'private' "Caesars". And we seem to think they are so "fair" and "good" compared to big bad government.
Again, that is why this system is called Fascism. One point in the film even mentioned how people are being enslaved, basically, but it is made to look like they are "free" "because I got this nice new red Corvette". So yes, the average people are materialistic and covetous, but this is being played to the advantage of those holding the seats of power, and I do not see how that gets those pulling these strings off the hook, where people always have to throw back "covetousness" at the person complaining; like the powerful are above God's commandment against "covetousness" because they pulled their bootstraps and "earned" the rights to all the money, or something.

If one is that jealous of the "rich", I freely invite them to go make some more money, and maybe become "rich", so they can pay some more taxes and whine about that, too.

I promise you, if one whines about the one , they will whine about the other.

Like those who are already there don't whine about all the taxes and other govt. policies? No, they just conservative commentators (and dittoheads) to do it for them and tell everyone else to stop complaining about them. (and blame only Welfare instead)

 

[carpro]

That's funny, because for the past 25 years, it seems most conservative Christians in America have been the biggest defenders of the rights of the rich, and blaming taxes for programs for the poor for all our the problems. I was shocked to see from the film that now some are finally becoming aware that it is not all Leftist policies that are at play in the New World Order.
And when someone complains, the little guy is the one who gets called "covetous" or "materialistic", after all, the rich earned and deserve everything they got, and the average and poor people don't even have any "rights" to the money, (that "the market" demands through higher prices, etc); or its "not even theirs", to begin with! We complain about Caeser (govt.), whom Jesus told us to render our taxes to; while yielding away the "rights" to our money to these 'private' "Caesars". And we seem to think they are so "fair" and "good" compared to big bad government.
Again, that is why this system is called Fascism. One point in the film even mentioned how people are being enslaved, basically, but it is made to look like they are "free" "because I got this nice new red Corvette". So yes, the average people are materialistic and covetous, but this is being played to the advantage of those holding the seats of power, and I do not see how that gets those pulling these strings off the hook, where people always have to throw back "covetousness" at the person complaining; like the powerful are above God's commandment against "covetousness" because they pulled their bootstraps and "earned" the rights to all the money, or something.
Like those who are already there don't whine about all the taxes and other govt. policies? No, they just conservative commentators (and dittoheads) to do it for them and tell everyone else to stop complaining about them. (and blame only Welfare instead)

Covetousness is an attitude unworthy of Christians.

Nothing you have said changes that , but you do exemplify the typical attitude of those who are resentful of the "rich", whoever they are.

Remember the words of Jesus and let Him be the great equalizer. Store up your treasures in heaven and curb your earthly resentment.

 

[James_Newman]

Do we not have a duty as the light of the world to expose darkness?

 

[Eric B]

Covetousness is an attitude unworthy of Christians.

Nothing you have said changes that , but you do exemplify the typical attitude of those who are resentful of the "rich", whoever they are.

Remember the words of Jesus and let Him be the great equalizer. Store up your treasures in heaven and curb your earthly resentment.

Nobody here is saying Christians should be covetous, or it's OK for us.

Resentment is not covetousness; anymore than those who resent the government (and especially liberals), along with socialism or any other regime that wields power. These people are sinners who like everyone else, are never satisfied with however much they have, and use sinful means to get more. This affects all of us, and makes living harder; and people have just as much right to complain against them, as they do a bad government. (And which did Jesus and Paul say have legitmate God-given authority over us?) A lot of my resentment comes more from the fact that blame has been shifted totally to the less powerful in the rhetoric for the last 25 years, than in how much the rich have. (If living weasn't so tough, many of us wouldn't even think about what someone else has). But We do it to ourselves, then we have no rights to money or a decent place to live, etc. as people have been saying here.

But you exemplify the typical attitude of those who think the rich can do no wrong, or at least should never be questioned; and use the name of Jesus to try to pacify everyone else. (a very common tactic "religion" was infamous for in the past, with the same preachers fighting for the rights of the power structure at the same time). If Jesus is the great equalizer, and our treasures should be in Heaven, then, it also should not matter, for instance, if the goverment taxes the rich and gives it to the poor, even if they don't deserve it; or if everyone complains about the rich. That works both ways.
Sure, we cannot expect this world to be perfectly fair; and Jesus and Heaven are the only hope. But don't use this to try to silence somene else's complaining, while you go on complaining about people's "resentment" of the rich and powerful. These are fellow people, who are ultimately no better or than anyone else, and we all have to live on or share this earth together. We all get on each other's nerves, and have the right to inform each other of that. Nobody is above criticism.

 

[carpro]

Nobody here is saying Christians should be covetous, or it's OK for us.

Resentment is not covetousness;

But you exemplify the typical attitude of those who think the rich can do no wrong, or at least should never be questioned; and use the name of Jesus to try to pacify everyone else. .

Covetousness is the father of resentment.

My attitude about the "rich"(if someone will just tell me who they are), is that I don't care where they got their money or what they do with it.

I won't spend one millisecond worrying about it either way.

God will sort it all out at judgement day. He has provided me with all I have today and will provide me with all I need in the future.

 

[Filmproducer]

He lives with his mom and dad.

welfare payments specifically come under TANF (Temp Assistance for Needy Families). I am guessing your BIL is receiving disability and not welfare. I was directly addressing welfare (TANF) recipients, not disability.

 

[DeeJay]

welfare payments specifically come under TANF (Temp Assistance for Needy Families). I am guessing your BIL is receiving disability and not welfare. I was directly addressing welfare (TANF) recipients, not disability.

All I know is my tax money pays for him to watch Dr. Phill every afternoon. What ever they call the check is not in my expertice.

 

[Eric B]

Covetousness is the father of resentment.

My attitude about the "rich"(if someone will just tell me who they are), is that I don't care where they got their money or what they do with it.

I won't spend one millisecond worrying about it either way.

God will sort it all out at judgement day. He has provided me with all I have today and will provide me with all I need in the future.

Well, I don't know much about you, but most people who share your sentiment care an awful lot about where the govt. gets its money from (i.e. taxes). And it's the government that Christ says is the one who the money belongs to, not merchants, bankers, or some nebulous entity called "the market".

Again, this "resentment—covetousness" association invalidates any emotion, like we are supposed to be robots with no needs, because God will fix it all in Heaven, or since He provides, then if I'm struggling, it's because He must want it this way. (Another common pacifying tactic that usually excludes the ones preaching it).
If you really consistently practice that application of "God will sort it out at judgment day", then you should not even be correcting our "resentment". Why bother? Otherwise, we don't want people to just go to the judgment, without trying to warn them of their sin/offenses now, before it's too late, and also have God's will (including justice) be done on this earth as much as possible. This fatalistic attitude actually diminishes faith in the judgment; as if the material you defend people for having in this life is more important than their standing in the next life. "God will take care of that". (Again, that's a handy tool for people who don't even believe in the Judgment to have Christians use in their favor to justify or condone their excess while pacifying the masses). Again, we are all equal before God, and nobody is above questioning. If someone came and TOOK your money from you, then would you care or not worry where they got the money, and what they did with it?