(Editor’s Note: Please keep in mind while you read this post, that the Federal Reserve Mafia was in consultation today regarding a trillion dollar policy of another round of quantitative easing, and gold jumped to a new record after the Fed’s statement about interest rates.)
Let’s talk about the Bush tax cuts and the choices that this administration, congress, and media are giving the unhappy moos across the country. Do you remember how the whole circus started a few weeks ago with Obama stating that he was going to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, and the growing cyclone of debate that has ensued?
A current recap. Chairman Zero wants to keep the tax cuts in place for couples making less then $250k and individuals making less than $200k. Princess Pelosi believes that ‘they’ must extend the “Obama Middle Class Tax Cuts” for just the middle class, and 31 of her not-so-loyal soldiers have gone off the reservation when considering such a move. Just a few days ago, the Queen of the Swamp stated “But I see no justification for going into debt to a foreign country to underwrite and subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America.” Technically, Nancy has a point, BUT what about the $110 MILLION that went to create 55 California jobs…it’s okay to underwrite and subsidize corruption and all the rest of the silly spending these teenagers have approved? Also, according to National Review Online, a tax increase for the upper 2% of Americans would bring in a whopping $34 Billion next year; enough to cover 9 days of deficit spending. In addition, John Boehner had a ‘moment’ on a recent Sunday news show stating that he would vote for the partial tax extension if forced to, but has since backtracked. We also have had the media arguing very vocally for about two weeks about whether or not the super rich should be getting the tax extension like everybody else. Every single time you look at print or television, you hear about the Bush tax cuts expiring at the end of the year or see a countdown clock for the ‘greatest tax hike in history’ on television. Chairman Zero is even stating during speaking engagements that “giving” a tax cut extension to millionaires and above would create $700 Billion in more debt over ten years.
Let’s keep beating the ‘debt’ drum, shall we? We KNOW we are in trouble, but who exactly is responsible for the debt and the deficits?
Ready to bust out of the chute moos? Ready to understand on the most basic level why we have $13.4 TRILLION in national debt and $110.4 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities?
Question: What creates debt?
What does a person or organization pay on money that has been borrowed from someone else?
In the past when our government needed money, they took out loans from other governments to help them pay for wars, but there was a limit to the amounts they could borrow and spend.
Then along came The Federal Reserve Mafia System that created a National Credit Card for our wayward Congress. Would you like to see the INTEREST ON THE FEDERAL DEBT because of the linked banking cartel and congressional traitors who use the IRS as their mafia enforcers?
2010 by Month:
For previous years:
For fiscal year 2010, WE THE PEOPLE will pay almost $396 BILLION in INTEREST to the Federal Reserve. I actually tried to compute the historical data and my adding machine does not have enough digits.
I’m going to let you think about that for a moment, and then we’ll move onto the history.
On February 3, 1913 the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was (arguably) ratified which created a taxation system that was not in line with the tenets of the founding fathers which believed that a man’s labor could not be taxed; basic non-labor profits such as rents, dividends, and interest could, and would be taxed. The 16th Amendment is not the beginning of the story though; the first major income tax was in 1862 by Pres. Lincoln to fund the Civil War. This law stayed on the books until 1872 when it expired and was also found to be unconstitutional. In 1894, the congress passed another income tax law which was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court one year later. At this moment in time, the democrats went into overdrive and started pushing for an across the board income tax that was no longer tied to a state’s population (as mandated by the Constitution). At this same time, progressive Republican Theodore Roosevelt was pushing the same agenda.
The Income Tax Arrives
The first 30 years of the twentieth century witnessed the rise of the modern income tax. More energized than demoralized by the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the 1894 income tax, fiscal reformers mounted a powerful campaign to resuscitate the levy. By 1913, they had engineered ratification of a new constitutional amendment, clearly establishing the federal government’s authority to levy an income tax.
In its first two years, the tax was modest, providing only a small part of the government’s total revenue. But World War I transformed it, moving income taxes to the center of federal finance. Democrats and progressive Republicans remained the strongest advocates of income taxation, but even mainstream Republicans came to accept the levy. By the early 1920s, it was firmly established as a centerpiece of the federal tax system.
1901 President William McKinley was assassinated in September, and Theodore Roosevelt assumed the presidency. The change was unsettling for GOP stalwarts,
|Theodore Roosevelt. Photo courtesy of the National Archives. (larger image)|
who had tried to derail Roosevelt’s soaring political career by installing him as vice president. In 1897, he had been named Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President McKinley. He soon resigned, however, to lead his famous Rough Riders in the Spanish-American War. Upon his return to the United States, he won election as governor of New York. Widely considered a reformer within his own party, Roosevelt worried the GOP establishment. Republican power brokers, including McKinley confidant Mark Hanna, believed Roosevelt would pose less of a threat once occupied with the exalted but largely ceremonial duties of the vice presidency.
After McKinley’s assassination, those same leaders confronted the unsettling results of their handiwork. Roosevelt, however, moved quickly to reassure party leaders and the nation that he would continue the careful, conservative policies of his predecessor.
Roosevelt was slow to move on tax issues, at least early in his presidency. Congress, however, had other plans. In March, lawmakers passed the War Revenue Reduction Act, repealing or reducing most of the taxes enacted to pay for Spanish-American War. Several levies, however, remained largely intact, including the inheritance tax and numerous excises. Democrats criticized the law for failing to reduce consumption taxes adequately, especially in light of the Republican preference for steep tariffs. Democrats also argued for a new income tax on individuals and corporations, but GOP leaders easily defeated such ideas.
|Sereno Payne (R-N.Y.) served as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee from 1899-1911. Illustration courtesy of the House Ways and Means Committee.|
1902 House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sereno Payne (R-N.Y.) introduced a bill to repeal all remaining taxes levied for the Spanish-American war. Reassured by predictions of a large surplus in the federal Treasury, lawmakers agreed. While most Democrats urged retention of the federal inheritance tax and various corporation taxes, they ultimately acquiesced in the GOP plan. Both the House and Senate passed the tax cut overwhelmingly.
1904 Theodore Roosevelt won an easy re-election campaign, despite the misgivings of conservative Republicans.
The Supreme Court found the oleomargarine tax to be constitutional. Originally enacted in 1886 at the behest of dairy interests, the tax was designed to prevent margarine — which was relatively cheap to manufacture — from competing with butter in the marketplace. The tax was almost purely regulatory, although it did raise significant revenue as margarine became increasingly popular.
1906 In a speech on April 14, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt endorsed a progressive estate tax:
It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well-won and fortunes ill-won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole, and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law-honesty.
Of course no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them. As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual — a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax, of course, to be imposed by the National and not the State Government.
Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.
1907 Roosevelt stepped up his campaign for several progressive additions to the nation’s tax system. In his December 7 message to Congress, he urged lawmakers to consider an income tax.
When our tax laws are revised the question of an income tax and an inheritance tax should receive the careful attention of our legislators. In my judgment both of these taxes should be part of our system of Federal taxation. I speak diffidently about the income tax because one scheme for an income tax was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; while in addition it is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man. Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation, and it is to be hoped that one may be devised which the Supreme Court will declare constitutional.
The inheritance tax was even more desirable, Roosevelt continued. Not only did it serve the cause of social justice, but it also enjoyed the Supreme Court’s constitutional impramatur:
The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of taxation, and far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the country bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding increase and burden of taxation. The Government has the absolute right to decide as to the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from another, and this point in the devolution of property is especially appropriate for the imposition of a tax. Laws imposing such taxes have repeatedly been placed upon the National statute books and as repeatedly declared constitutional by the courts; and these laws contained the progressive principle, that is, after a certain amount is reached the bequest or gift, in life or death, is increasingly burdened and the rate of taxation is increased in proportion to the remoteness of blood of the man receiving the bequest.
Roosevelt rejected arguments that an estate tax would penalize thrift.
A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood. We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country–a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves. But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories. Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to hisfellows.
1908 William Howard Taft won the presidential election to succeed Roosevelt. Handpicked by his predecessor, Taft was considered fairly liberal within his party, but he presented a less threatening image to party regulars. While supporting certain reformist ideas, including the possibility of limited taxes on income and estates, he moved cautiously in advancing such ideas.
1909 An uneasy coalition of Democrats and western Republicans joined to support passage of an individual income tax. The specter of a hostile Supreme Court haunted the debate. Some observers believed the justices would invalidate an income tax, just as they had in 1895. Others, however, thought the Court had changed to reflect growing bipartisan — and popular — support for the levy. A few income tax supporters wanted to press the issue regardless of the Court’s likely response, eager to make the case for progressive taxation. In any case, the income tax coalition developed a moderate proposal and sought to attach it to tariff legislation in the Senate.
GOP leaders were alarmed by rebellion in their own ranks, with numerous Republican progressives indicating their support for a new income tax. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Nelson Aldrich (R-R.I.) tried to fend off the income tax proposal, but pro-tax forces enjoyed considerable momentum. Worried that Aldrich would lose the battle, President Taft convinced the senator that a modest tax on corporate income would siphon off support for general income taxation. In doing so, it would deny victory to the congressional income tax coalition, preserving GOP unity.
|Sen. Nelson Aldrich. Illustration courtesy of the United States Senate.|
Taft — who had earlier indicated some openness to income taxation anyway — orchestrated passage of a 1 percent tax on net corporate income. Framed as an excise tax on the privilege of doing business as a corporation, the levy was carefully designed to sidestep constitutional issues surrounding the income tax.
As Taft had predicted, the corporation tax successfully deflated the larer income tax movement — at least for the time being.
The corporation tax included a publicity requirement that all returns be open to public inspection. As with publicity provisions during the Civil War, this requirement proved unpopular, especially among small business owners unaccustomed to releasing information. Taft argued, however, that publicity would enhance federal oversight of corporations, aiding lawmakers, administration officials, and investors. In fact, the publicity feature was key to Progressive support for the law, helping convince many lawmakers to accept the corporate excise tax in lieu of a broader income tax that included individuals.
1910 In response to taxpayer conplaints, the Appropriations Act of 1910 tightened disclosure regulations for Taft’s corporation excise tax. Henceforth, tax returns would be open to inspection “only upon the order of the President.” It was a blow to progressives in both parties, who had hoped the tax would serve as a means to regulate private corporations by fostering the availability of accurate financial information..
1913 As part of his 1909 tax compromise, Taft had agreed to support a constitutional amendment authorizing federal income taxes. Not only would an amendment settle constitutional questions once and for all, it would also delay substantive action on the income tax, at least until ratification was complete. And since ratification was far from certain anyway, the amendment might defuse the income tax issue indefinitely, allowing it to simply fade away in the state legislatures.
In making his case for the amendment to wary Republican legislators, Taft stressed the importance of avoiding a confrontation with the Supreme Court. Such a fight , he warned, would diminish public confidence in the Court and threaten one of the pillars of American government. Congress agreed, and lawmakers soon approved the amendment and sent it to the states.
While opponents couldn’t stop the 16th amendment, they argued long and hard against it. Richard E. Byrd, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates made a particularly impassioned plea to reject the amendment, offering a potent rhetorical blend of state rights, limited government, and anti-tax convictions. Ratification, he warned, would open a new and dangerous chapter in American government:
A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man’s business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man’s counting house . . . The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hailed into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state . . . Who of us who have had knowledge of the doings of the Federal officials in the Internal Revenue service can be blind to what will follow? I do not hesitate to say that the adoption of this amendment will be such a surrender to imperialism that has not been since the Northern states in their blindness forced the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments upon the entire sisterhood of the Commonwealth.
Opposition from Byrd and like-minded conservatives couldn’t stop the amendment. To the suprise of many, the states ratified the amendment in relatively short order, and in February 1913 it became the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Richard Byrd’s words are frightening in our 2010 reality. Now do you understand that there appears to be a direct correlation between the American KGB (the IRS whose choke-hold on Americans started in 1913) and The Fed which was established that same year? Take away the latter charging us interest on our own money and creating an opportunity for massive debt, and you no longer need the former to make sure The Fed’s revenue streams are constantly flowing.
Obama, the Congress, the Media are giving the American ‘herd’ a few choices and trying to sell only those choices. I have another.
- Bush tax cuts expire – everybody’s taxes go up.
- Bush tax cuts expire for super rich – Obama “Change You Can Believe In” or wealth redistribution to the Federal Reserve.
- Bush tax cuts extended – STATUS QUO.
- Abolish The Federal Reserve System and the Internal Revenue System and replace both of these mafia entities with properly backed currency and a fair/flat tax that covers everybody upon consumption (including the underground economy).
Instead of being brainwashed to yearn for the status quo, why don’t we kick these knuckleheads to the curb and tell them we want what is rightfully ours returned to us post haste; no ifs, ands, or buts. Do not tell me that abolishing the Fed is too complicated and would create financial armageddon, the 1776 Revolution happened, and that financial armageddon that everyone is so worried about is being caused by the Federal Reserve and their banking partners throughout the world as they finalize the marriage of the world’s economies and currencies. Then again, we could just keep mooing along and turn our paychecks over to the queen like is being suggested in the UK.
It’s up to you folks to recognize blatant brainwashing when you see it, and start thinking outside the box for more choices. There is plenty of cash in the world; its all tied up by the world central bank system.
(P.S. Please keep in mind that approximately $2 Trillion in Narco dollars passes through banks each year to be freshly laundered, and today this report came out in the UKGuardian: Vatican Bank Chief Investigated Over Money Laundering Claims.)