The constitutionality of the Federal Reserve

[Dodeca]

Either way, granting certain individuals the right to steal and murder is absolutely stone evil.

I agree, this sort of thing would be the absolute basis for an immoral society. It is the government that is the problem, if I pay an income-tax those taxes have been taken illegaly. It used to be that only states had the consent to tax goods and services the federal government could only regulate trade between the states and coin money.

[Aronnax]

I agree, this sort of thing would be the absolute basis for an immoral society. It is the government that is the problem, if I pay an income-tax those taxes have been taken illegaly. It used to be that only states had the consent to tax goods and services the federal government could only regulate trade between the states and coin money.

You probably should read article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Congress has always had the power to collect taxes.

[Dodeca]

You probably should read article 1 section 8 of the constitution. The Fed has always had the power to collect taxes.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.

The FED began with approximately 300 people or banks that became owners (stockholders purchasing stock at $100 per share - the stock is not publicly traded) in the Federal Reserve Banking System. They make up an international banking cartel of wealth beyond comparison (Reference 1, 14). The FED banking system collects billions of dollars (Reference 8, 17) in interest annually and distributes the profits to its shareholders. The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money (through the Treasury) at no interest to the FED. The FED creates money from nothing, and loans it back to us through banks, and charges interest on our currency. The FED also buys Government debt with money printed on a printing press and charges U.S. taxpayers interest. Many Congressmen and Presidents say this is fraud (Reference 1,2,3,5,17).

Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed:

Rothschild Bank of London
Warburg Bank of Hamburg
Rothschild Bank of Berlin
Lehman Brothers of New York
Lazard Brothers of Paris
Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York
Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy
Goldman, Sachs of New York
Warburg Bank of Amsterdam
Chase Manhattan Bank of New York

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America (our forefathers were fighting their own government), they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt (Reference 4, 22).

The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed below have significant control over the New York FED District, which controls the other 11 FED Districts. These banks also are partly foreign owned and control the New York FED District Bank. (Reference 22)

First National Bank of New York
James Stillman National City Bank, New York
Mary W. Harnman
National Bank of Commerce, New York
A.D. Jiullard
Hanover National Bank, New York
Jacob Schiff
Chase National Bank, New York
Thomas F. Ryan
Paul Warburg
William Rockefeller
Levi P. Morton
M.T. Pyne
George F. Baker
Percy Pyne
Mrs. G.F. St. George
J.W. Sterling
Katherine St. George
H.P. Davidson
J.P. Morgan (Equitable Life/Mutual Life)
Edith Brevour T. Baker

[Aronnax]

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.

I meant the federal government when I wrote fed. I realized how that could be misinterpreted so I edited to reflect what's actually written in the constitution. It seems you clicked "quote" before my edit went in.

You missed the first line of Article 1 Section 8 so let me quote it for you:


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The federal government has always had the power to collect taxes, it's never been a power exclusive to the individual states.

[Warrior]

I agree, this sort of thing would be the absolute basis for an immoral society. It is the government that is the problem, if I pay an income-tax those taxes have been taken illegaly. It used to be that only states had the consent to tax goods and services the federal government could only regulate trade between the states and coin money.

While the federal government has not always actually collected an income tax, it has always had the power to do so since the Constitution was adopted. There is nothing illegal about the government collecting an income tax.

[INTJRyan]

You've been watching Zeitgeist haven't you? :(

The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year, thus the money borrowed from the Federal Reserve has no net interest obligation for the treasury. Mishkin, Frederic S. (2007). The Economics of Money, Banking, and Financial Markets (Alternate Edition). Boston: Addison Wesley, 386. ISBN 0-321-42177-9.

[hubcap]

While the federal government has not always actually collected an income tax, it has always had the power to do so since the Constitution was adopted. There is nothing illegal about the government collecting an income tax.
This is not correct. It was necessary to add the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in order for the "income tax" to be legalized.

[Warrior]

This is not correct. It was necessary to add the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in order for the "income tax" to be legalized.

I'm open to hearing other thoughts, but my understanding is that the 16th Amendment only changed the way in which congress could collect an income tax. Before the 16th Amendment, income tax had to be apportioned and the source of the income was important in determining how that was handled. The 16th Amendment did away with those restrictions, which were how prior attempts to impose an income tax had been defeated in court (not because an income tax itself was unconstitutional).

[Aronnax]

This is not correct. It was necessary to add the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in order for the "income tax" to be legalized.

The constitution makes no specification on the types of tax Congress can or cannot collect. The constitution doesn't read "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, except for income tax, because income is sacrosanct."

Income tax had been levied before 1913, it goes all the way back to the civil war. The 16th amendment was only included to clarify congressional power because of the supreme court ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

[CycleBreaker]

Taxation is legalized extortion. I resent that I may be punished if I choose not to give the IRS my lifelihood (money) when they demand it. Same as I would resent the mob if they were to do the same. Just because taxes have the "legal" label slapped on them doesn't make them different. It just means this particular mob is bigger and/or has more power.

[Causa Mortis]

Taxation is legalized extortion. I resent that I may be punished if I choose not to give the IRS my lifelihood (money) when they demand it. Same as I would resent the mob if they were to do the same. Just because taxes have the "legal" label slapped on them doesn't make them different. It just means this particular mob is bigger and/or has more power.

Or that we live in a democracy and we've collectively decided that having a government is in our interests?

[nacht]

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK IS A PRIVATE COMPANY.


Sort of. More they are structured like private companies and are privately owned, but are actually government entities in structure. The federal reserve banks were originally established by congress based off an idea from Alexander Hamilton, who advocated the creation of a central bank. The federal reserve districts date back to that structure.

The federal reserve system, as it were was then created by the federal reserve act of 1913. There are shares of stock and all members must own that stock, but owning stock in the federal reserve is not like owning stock in a private company: it can't be traded or sold, and dividends are limited.

So it is a public company of sort, even if it is privately owned.


Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof. Today however, the FED, which is a privately owned company, controls and profits by printing money through the Treasury, and regulating its value.


The country has long had the power to delegate state's interests to private corporations, see also, railroads.


Who actually owns the Federal Reserve Central Banks? The ownership of the 12 Central banks, a very well kept secret, has been revealed:


Not a particularly well kept secret. Banks are required to own non-transferrable stock in the regional federal reserve banks. The stock of each regional bank is owned by the banks that operate in that area. Votes are limited to banks that own stock, rather than being tied to individual shares and no individuals hold stock (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). No one else gets to own shares. I am not sure where you are getting your information.

[BlackOp]

Taxation is legalized extortion. I resent that I may be punished if I choose not to give the IRS my lifelihood (money) when they demand it. Same as I would resent the mob if they were to do the same. Just because taxes have the "legal" label slapped on them doesn't make them different. It just means this particular mob is bigger and/or has more power.

Yes...this is the roll. It's a shake down. People spend 3 months a year working for nothing but paying the Fed. If you refuse...you go to prison. If you ask how your hard earned money was allocated, you will get so much lawyer double-speak and red tape...you just give up. (Personally, if I'm forced to invest 25% of my time/money into something...I deserve to know how that "investment" is being used. I earned it.)

This is what Congress knows and abuses. They have access to this giant, communal (by force) mountain of cash. They use it to perpetuate nepotism and self-preservation...otherwise known as "pork", kick downs and payoffs.. It really is..."I have everyone's money and what the fuck are you going to do about it". It is the mob on steroids...

[eagleseven]

I am far less concerned with the government's ability to tax, than I am with its monopoly on money-printing. I would argue that centralized money-printing is unnecessary, and the government abuses its monopoly on money-printing through fiat currency.

[hubcap]

I'm open to hearing other thoughts, but my understanding is that the 16th Amendment only changed the way in which congress could collect an income tax. Before the 16th Amendment, income tax had to be apportioned and the source of the income was important in determining how that was handled. The 16th Amendment did away with those restrictions, which were how prior attempts to impose an income tax had been defeated in court (not because an income tax itself was unconstitutional).
Technically the income tax was legal prior to adopting the 16th Amendment but in order for the income tax to be legal it required the tax be apportioned among the states according to their population. Several times prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment income taxes were levied but they were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court when challenged.

As Aronnax has correctly pointed out:
Income tax had been levied before 1913, it goes all the way back to the civil war. The 16th amendment was only included to clarify congressional power because of the supreme court ruling in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
The 16th Amendment opened the door to progressive and regressive taxation. So while technically legal prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment it was never legally implemented in a way that was Constitutional.

[Causa Mortis]

I am far less concerned with the government's ability to tax, than I am with its monopoly on money-printing. I would argue that centralized money-printing is unnecessary, and the government abuses its monopoly on money-printing through fiat currency.

Right, there is a reasonably case to be made that banks should be allowed to print their own notes. That said, forgive me if I will maintain more faith in Alan Greenspan and Bailout Ben than I will Bank of America or Wellsfargo.

[INTJRyan]

Yes...this is the roll. It's a shake down. People spend 3 months a year working for nothing but paying the Fed. If you refuse...you go to prison. If you ask how your hard earned money was allocated, you will get so much lawyer double-speak and red tape...you just give up. (Personally, if I'm forced to invest 25% of my time/money into something...I deserve to know how that "investment" is being used. I earned it.)

This is what Congress knows and abuses. They have access to this giant, communal (by force) mountain of cash. They use it to perpetuate nepotism and self-preservation...otherwise known as "pork", kick downs and payoffs.. It really is..."I have everyone's money and what the fuck are you going to do about it". It is the mob on steroids...

A. It was never "your money."
B. Government expenditures are easily accessed. I can even show you where if you are truly interested.
C. The mob does not operate as democratic republic. In other words, you can leave the country to find places that more accurately reflect your tax desires (I suggest Liberia or Somalia), you can vote in somebody who agrees with your views or you can run for election yourself. You don't have any of those options in the mob.

The thing that anti-government/tax types don't grasp is that while it's easy to point the finger at the government, the government IS us, we staff it, we vote for it, we make it up, it is a reflection of us, and we get the government we deserve. Imagine tea baggers (or people like yourself who gripe about a 25% "forced investment") living during the Eisenhower admin where top tax rates were over 90% instead of the all time low levels they are at now.

[CycleBreaker]

Taxation is legalized extortion. I resent that I may be punished if I choose not to give the IRS my lifelihood (money) when they demand it. Same as I would resent the mob if they were to do the same. Just because taxes have the "legal" label slapped on them doesn't make them different. It just means this particular mob is bigger and/or has more power.

Or that we live in a democracy and we've collectively decided that having a government is in our interests?

Which is why I don't like democracy. The biggest mob has the "legal right" to impose their will upon others. The USA started out as a constitutional republic. Pure democracy was seen as a bad thing to the founding fathers, hence certain "unalienable rights".

[Warrior]

Technically the income tax was legal prior to adopting the 16th Amendment but in order for the income tax to be legal it required the tax be apportioned among the states according to their population. Several times prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment income taxes were levied but they were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court when challenged.

As Aronnax has correctly pointed out:

The 16th Amendment opened the door to progressive and regressive taxation. So while technically legal prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment it was never legally implemented in a way that was Constitutional.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. It was legal if done a certain way, but was struck down at least once because of the implementation.

[hubcap]

Or that we live in a democracy and we've collectively decided that having a government is in our interests?
We don't live in a democracy.

[Causa Mortis]

Which is why I don't like democracy. The biggest mob has the "legal right" to impose their will upon others. The USA started out as a constitutional republic. Pure democracy was seen as a bad thing to the founding fathers, hence certain "unalienable rights".

And the constitution gives the government the power to collect taxes in a variety of ways.

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 08:33 PM ----------

We don't live in a democracy.

Plutocratic republic then. Same deal.

[hubcap]

Plutocratic republic then. Same deal.
I beg to differ. In a plutocracy the wealthy rule. In a democracy the majority rules.

[Aronnax]

I beg to differ. In a plutocracy the wealthy rule. In a democracy the majority rules.

You know that nearly every person in high government is a millionaire, right?

Plutocratic Republic is an apt description.

[Four]

We don't live in a democracy.

I was thinking the same, more like an oligarchy.

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 01:42 AM ----------

You know that nearly every person in high government is a millionaire, right?

Plutocratic Republic is an apt description.

I agree. Aren't 230 of the people in Congress in the top one percent of wealth? There is some statistic out there that is true and definitely confirms this plutocratic republic theory you have.

[hubcap]

You know that nearly every person in high government is a millionaire, right?

Plutocratic Republic is an apt description.
Yes, I know that. I was disagreeing with the assertion that a plutocratic republic was the same deal as a democracy.

[Hamburglar]

It personally disgusts me that threads like this exist. I think one of the most disingenuous statements in the past several hundred years is that, "All men were created equal". This is not true, some people are plain stupid. It seems to me the people who are conservative have a penchant for ignoring/covering up the historical evolution of this country. Every person is entitled to their opinion, but let's not kid ourselves and say those opinions are equal. America will never live in the 1700's again, we will not be a Jeffersonian-egalitarian-agrarian society, it is not happening. Even Jefferson recognized this when he took the office of the President. The so called "constitutionalists" fail to recognize that Hamilton-the chief architect-wanted a strong central regulatory government-as mentioned before, see article one section eight last line.

[aku chi]

Technically the income tax was legal prior to adopting the 16th Amendment but in order for the income tax to be legal it required the tax be apportioned among the states according to their population. Several times prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment income taxes were levied but they were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court when challenged.

The 16th Amendment opened the door to progressive and regressive taxation. So while technically legal prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment it was never legally implemented in a way that was Constitutional.

This isn't strictly correct. Section 9 of The Constitution of the United States of America states that:

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

A direct tax (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), according to U.S. constitutional law, does not include income taxes from wages. The issue that the 16th ammendment addressed was that income taxes on stocks (property) were considered direct taxes, and, therefore, unconstitutional unless apportioned. It is probable that later courts would have reversed "Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company" and deemed all income taxes constitutional. It was a rather minor amendment in the grand scheme of things.

America will never live in the 1700's again, we will not be a Jeffersonian-egalitarian-agrarian society, it is not happening. Even Jefferson recognized this when he took the office of the President. The so called "constitutionalists" fail to recognize that Hamilton-the chief architect-wanted a strong central regulatory government-as mentioned before, see article one section eight last line.

Hamilton was not the chief author of The Constitution, James Madison was. James Madison was a strong believer in a federal government with limited powers. He was appalled by the increased scope of the federal government in his own lifetime. One can only imagine what he'd think of the current scope of the US Government.

[freeeekyyy]

You probably should read article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Congress has always had the power to collect taxes.

I agree, this sort of thing would be the absolute basis for an immoral society. It is the government that is the problem, if I pay an income-tax those taxes have been taken illegaly. It used to be that only states had the consent to tax goods and services the federal government could only regulate trade between the states and coin money.

I wouldn't say the federal reserve is unconstitutional. But it is inefficient and destructive to personal freedom and national economy.

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 07:14 PM ----------

It personally disgusts me that threads like this exist. I think one of the most disingenuous statements in the past several hundred years is that, "All men were created equal". This is not true, some people are plain stupid. It seems to me the people who are conservative have a penchant for ignoring/covering up the historical evolution of this country. Every person is entitled to their opinion, but let's not kid ourselves and say those opinions are equal. America will never live in the 1700's again, we will not be a Jeffersonian-egalitarian-agrarian society, it is not happening. Even Jefferson recognized this when he took the office of the President. The so called "constitutionalists" fail to recognize that Hamilton-the chief architect-wanted a strong central regulatory government-as mentioned before, see article one section eight last line.

Straw man. I don't think most people want america to be that again. But even for what america is today, is a central bank really a good idea? All it really does is give banks the money they need to keep them from facing the market the same as every other business has to. Also, it allows the government to fund things it would otherwise need to tax people for. Is that desirable?

[Aronnax]

Straw man. I don't think most people want america to be that again. But even for what america is today, is a central bank really a good idea? All it really does is give banks the money they need to keep them from facing the market the same as every other business has to. Also, it allows the government to fund things it would otherwise need to tax people for. Is that desirable?

It's more desirable than a gold standard or letting BoA and Goldman Sachs print their own money.

[freeeekyyy]

It's more desirable than a gold standard or letting BoA and Goldman Sachs print their own money.

Not having a central bank doesn't require a gold standard. If a currency is unstable and worthless, switch to something else. Gold is just a natural choice because it is stable and isn't worthless. And what's bad about banks printing their own currency? We had it before.

[Hamburglar]

This goes back to the elastic clause, which I alluded to before. Hamilton wanted a strong central authority which would regulate the way America does business. This was in order for it to develop into a manufacturing superpower capable of settling and defending this nation. It did...w/o that structure America would be something else.

[hubcap]

It personally disgusts me that threads like this exist. I think one of the most disingenuous statements in the past several hundred years is that, "All men were created equal". This is not true, some people are plain stupid.
You seem to have an incorrect understanding of the use of the term "All men are created equal" as used in the Declaration of Independence. The statement does not mean "all men are born with equal faculties". It means "royalty are no better than non-royalty". It was pointing out that the "divine right of kings" was a bunch of crap and they used it to slap King George across the face.

The Enlightenment produced a number of brilliant minds who eloquently articulated the logical argument that all men have basic and equal "rights" and that governments nor kings could legitimately usurp those rights.

It seems to me the people who are conservative have a penchant for ignoring/covering up the historical evolution of this country. Every person is entitled to their opinion, but let's not kid ourselves and say those opinions are equal. America will never live in the 1700's again, we will not be a Jeffersonian-egalitarian-agrarian society, it is not happening. Even Jefferson recognized this when he took the office of the President. The so called "constitutionalists" fail to recognize that Hamilton-the chief architect-wanted a strong central regulatory government-as mentioned before, see article one section eight last line.
It seems you hold your opinion in much higher regard than those who disagree with you. Why is that? I'm not aware of anyone who desires to return to an agrarian society, nor anyone who advocates such a thing. Regardless of what Hamilton may or may not have wanted, the Constitution that was adopted by the states was intended to limit the power of the federal government.

---------- Post added 02-24-2010 at 11:07 PM ----------

This goes back to the elastic clause, which I alluded to before. Hamilton wanted a strong central authority which would regulate the way America does business. This was in order for it to develop into a manufacturing superpower capable of settling and defending this nation. It did...w/o that structure America would be something else.
With the current encumbrances that government places on business America would never have developed into the manufacturing superpower that it once was. Government has been largely responsible for the destruction of the manufacturing base in this country with excessive taxation and regulation.

[BlackOp]

A. It was never "your money."
B. Government expenditures are easily accessed. I can even show you where if you are truly interested.
C. The mob does not operate as democratic republic. In other words, you can leave the country to find places that more accurately reflect your tax desires (I suggest Liberia or Somalia), you can vote in somebody who agrees with your views or you can run for election yourself. You don't have any of those options in the mob.

The thing that anti-government/tax types don't grasp is that while it's easy to point the finger at the government, the government IS us, we staff it, we vote for it, we make it up, it is a reflection of us, and we get the government we deserve. Imagine tea baggers (or people like yourself who gripe about a 25% "forced investment") living during the Eisenhower admin where top tax rates were over 90% instead of the all time low levels they are at now.

What do you mean it "was never my money"? Maybe they shouldn't take any money out of our checks...then send each citizen an individual bill at the end of the month. Never my money...my ass. We're just conditioned to this form of extortion....I'm paying for something I literally have no say in. If you think my single vote is some justification...or grand leveler for being born into "debt by force"...we'll just have to disagree.

As far as a "democratic republic"...that's just a title/window dressing. I can vote for whoever is connected and rich enough..but it doesn't matter once they are elected. People get angry when they realize they've been duped...then vote for the next political bot. It absolutely does not "reflect" us...the game is rigged. It just gives the impression that we are in control....and have choices.

[Hamburglar]

@Hubcap: I don't misunderstand what they meant. If people are equal to kings or kings are equal to people, that justifies the logical conclusion that all people have equal faculty to rule their lives. IMO, they were wrong to make that conclusion. Not all people have equal faculty to rule their lives (that is; to wield power over other people). The assertion that men naturally have rights is quite flawed-rights are fought for. Just because you weren't around for the fight doesn't make it natural. Encumbrances? What kind of business are you talking about? Actually don't answer that this is OT

[hubcap]

@Hubcap: I don't misunderstand what they meant. If people are equal to kings or kings are equal to people, that justifies the logical conclusion that all people have equal faculty to rule their lives. IMO, they were wrong to make that conclusion. Not all people have equal faculty to rule their lives (that is; to wield power over other people). The assertion that men naturally have rights is quite flawed-rights are fought for. Just because you weren't around for the fight doesn't make it natural. Encumbrances? What kind of business are you talking about? Actually don't answer that this is OT
The point being that in a natural state men are free, not the subjects of the king. Being free, men have naturally occurring rights, ie life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, among others.

I disagree that rights are not naturally occurring, although I do agree that from time to time it is necessary to "fight" in order to keep someone else from illegitimately usurping individual rights, whether it is fighting a mugger on a streetcorner or the king's army.

[INTJRyan]

What do you mean it "was never my money"? Maybe they shouldn't take any money out of our checks...then send each citizen an individual bill at the end of the month. Never my money...my ass. We're just conditioned to this form of extortion....I'm paying for something I literally have no say in. If you think my single vote is some justification...or grand leveler for being born into "debt by force"...we'll just have to disagree.

As far as a "democratic republic"...that's just a title/window dressing. I can vote for whoever is connected and rich enough..but it doesn't matter once they are elected. People get angry when they realize they've been duped...then vote for the next political bot. It absolutely does not "reflect" us...the game is rigged. It just gives the impression that we are in control....and have choices.

It was never your money. Go into a court of law and try to convince someone that the gubmint "took your money." Hurrr the courts are rigged too. Not really, it's just that everything you say has been raised, litigated and conclusively settled for years, as nothing you have said is original by any means.

Extortion, debt by force, duped, rigged...you sound like someone who wants to live in our society without paying your fair share and you want things provided to you without contributing. Your ideas are great though. 150 million individual tax bills every month and 150 million individual ideas on how that money should be spent seems real efficient, and will be much cheaper than our current system.

[BlackOp]

It was never your money. Go into a court of law and try to convince someone that the gubmint "took your money." Hurrr the courts are rigged too. Not really, it's just that everything you say has been raised, litigated and conclusively settled for years, as nothing you have said is original by any means.

Extortion, debt by force, duped, rigged...you sound like someone who wants to live in our society without paying your fair share and you want things provided to you without contributing. Your ideas are great though. 150 million individual tax bills every month and 150 million individual ideas on how that money should be spent seems real efficient, and will be much cheaper than our current system.

That wasnt the point...are you implying I was serious about sending everyone a check? The POINT is that people would have a different opinion if they physically had to withdraw money every month. There is a detachment to the process. You and I have a very different opinion about what MY "fair share" is...but thanks for informing me on what kind of citizen I am. I was lost, wandering the streets until now...

I assume you are misspelling gobmit and hurr as to insult me. ..*chuckles to self* The current system is rigged..and there are no words that can convince me otherwise. I trust my lying eyes. Sorry to disappoint you...*goes back to wandering the streets*

[INTJRyan]

That wasnt the point...are you implying I was serious about sending everyone a check? The POINT is that people would have a different opinion if they physically had to withdraw money every month. There is a detachment to the process. You and I have a very different opinion about what MY "fair share" is...but thanks for informing me on what kind of citizen I am. I was lost, wandering the streets until now...

I assume you are misspelling gobmit and hurr as to insult me. ..*chuckles to self* The current system is rigged..and there are no words that can convince me otherwise. I trust my lying eyes. Sorry to disappoint you...*goes back to wandering the streets*

No. I didn't mean to insult you and I certainly am not here to educate you. I actually like you and think most of your posts are spot on. I just think you are wrong on this particular issue mainly because the points you make have been soundly rejected long ago. And you sound like a teabagger. ;)