herrjr

But at the end of the day I think it comes down to this: when one chooses to live as an American, one must accept that our country has changed and WILL CHANGE AGAIN over time...yet accept that the whole is still greater than the sum of the parts.
- I agree with this on the surface.

One cannot cherry-pick specific aspects of America that they like and toss the rest.
- No, but can work on changing certain aspects.

You're perfectly within your rights to bemoan what you perceive as a loss of your personal freedom (although...let's cut the crap and admit that you're talking about your money) but understand that welfare (for example) came as a necessary force to continue the greater good of our country.
- I would argue that it wasn't a "necessary force," and that it and the mentality that it fostered did not "continue the greater good of our country."

Ours is the oldest standing Constitution of any democratic republic in the world.
One reason for its continued survival is the malleability of the definition of what constitutes us as Americans -- people, law, and all.
- Again, I concur on the surface.

We change according to need.
- And that need, now, is to spend only what is necessary to maintain solvency, and to define what is actually a necessary operation of the Federal Government.

To claim that this "infringes on your freedom" in ludicrous.
- So you say. How is it ludicrous to say that an American should not have to pay federal income taxes? Were I alive before 1913 in America, it would have been the case. For the greater part of this country's history (137 years), Americans have not paid federal income taxes. And yet, we prospered as a nation. AND, only had wars of necessity.

The tax code offers you every opportunity to shirk financial obligations put upon you by your Government. Hell -- General Electric paid less in taxes than I did last year.
And I got a refund.
- I agree, and I do. There is a reason why my accountant earns thousands annually, and I correspondingly receive an equivalent refund annually. Yet, I cannot bring my payroll taxes down to 0%.
GE, Google, and the like all paid percentages much lower than you, or I, or any of the 50 or % of individual Americans that paid federal income taxes last year. This is outrageous to me. There is no reason to sustain a tax code that punishes greater production, and that encourages the sort of shenanigans such as having UBS accounts in Switzerland. A (greatly reduced) flat tax rate across the board, with no more deductions, would greatly reduce the cost and burden of compliance, while increasing the overall amount taken in.

I realize you react negatively to imposed charity -- and that's your right.
- Yes.
It's also your right to find loopholes that allow you to avoid paying into a system you find offensive.
- Done, but those loopholes only go so far, and I think it wrong that anyone should have to bear the costs of someone else's problems. Reminds me of the last Seinfeld episode. Think about how many times you've driven by someone on the freeway that was stopped on the shoulder. What if you were forced to stop every time you saw a vehicle? What if you were forced to reduce your disposable income, to help fund their new Nikes, and iPods, etc.?

Yet through it all you can define yourself as a "free" man.
- Free is, as free lives. My freedom is not as "free" as it seems. It is merely an illusion of freedom. I recognize that, perhaps more should do as well.

You can define yourself as an American.
- That is simple enough. What's harder is actually being American.

And our country can continue to grow. To change. And, with change, a "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
- Yes.

Ben22

^ "Americans have not paid federal income taxes. And yet, we prospered as a nation. AND, only had wars of necessity."

Can you please elaborate? tkx! (the third part mainly). Dominoes theory?

05TurboS2k

As for thriving without a federal income tax that'd be correct.

mrjulius

It is historically based, man.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch; Section 8 - Powers of Congress

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.

Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being.

The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."

The two primary authors of the The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:

* James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers, such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
* Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

So the constitution, since it's inception, has been interpreted in multiple ways. For you to argue that there is no historical precedent for the general welfare of the people is your own interpretation but not the final word.

To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law.

herrjr

Yes, a nation without tax surpluses will not enter into a war with just cause, such as repelling an invading force or aggression that threatens its existence.

before 1913:
- 1775-1783 American Revolution - goes without saying why this war was necessary
- 1798-1800 French-American (naval wars) - [abridged reason, we didn't pay back a supposed debt]
The Kingdom of France had been a critical ally of the United States in the American Revolutionary War, and had signed in 1778 a Treaty of Alliance with the United States. But in 1794, after the French Revolution toppled that country's monarchy, the American government came to an agreement with the Kingdom of Great Britain, the Jay Treaty, that resolved several points of contention between the United States and Great Britain that had lingered since the end of the Revolutionary War. It also contained economic clauses.
The fact that US had already declared neutrality in the conflict between Great Britain and (now revolutionary) France, and that American legislation was being passed for a trade deal with their British enemy, led to French outrage. The French government was also furious over the U.S. refusal to continue repaying its debt to France on the grounds that the debt had been owed to the French Crown, not to Republican France.
The French navy began seizing American ships trading with Britain and refused to receive the new United States minister Charles Cotesworth Pinckney when he arrived in Paris in December 1796. In his annual message to Congress at the close of 1797, President John Adams reported on France’s refusal to negotiate and spoke of the need "to place our country in a suitable posture of defense."[2] In April 1798, President Adams informed Congress of the "XYZ Affair", in which French agents demanded a large bribe for the restoration of diplomatic relations with the United States.
The French navy inflicted substantial losses on American shipping. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering reported to Congress on June 21, 1797 that the French had seized 316 American merchant ships in the previous eleven months. The hostilities caused insurance rates on American shipping to increase at least 500 percent,[citation needed] since French marauders cruised the length of the U.S. Atlantic seaboard virtually unopposed. The administration had no warships to combat them; the last had been sold in 1785. The United States possessed only a flotilla of small revenue cutters and some neglected coastal forts.[3]
Increased depredations by privateers from Revolutionary France required the rebirth of the United States Navy to protect the expanding American merchant shipping. Congress authorized the president to acquire, arm, and man not more than 12 vessels, of up to 22 guns each. Several vessels were immediately purchased and converted into ships of war.[citation needed]
July 7, 1798, the date that Congress rescinded treaties with France, is considered the beginning of the Quasi-War. This was followed two days later with the passage of the Congressional authorization to attack French warships.

- 1801-1805 Barbary Wars - conflict against N. African pirates and paying tributes to them
- 1812-1815 War of 1812 - Revolutionary war round 2 against GB
- 1813-1814 Creek War - occupational war against indigenous peoples
- 1836 War of Texas Independence - regional war to continue American emigration to the Texas region
- 1846-1848 - Mexican-American War - Mexico whining about losing Texas resulted in:
The war ended on February 2, 1848, with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This treaty ceded to the United States the land that now comprises the states of California, Utah, and Nevada, as well as parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Colorado. Mexico also renounced all rights to Texas.

- 1861-1865 U.S. Civil War - (aka the war of Northern aggression)
- 1898 Spanish-American War - questionable reasoning here, though it resulted in the U.S. garnering the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines - since it only lasted 6 months, it seems we made out on this one


p.s. I happened to glance at my replies above - since these were done at work, forgive me my occasional mistakes due to lack of editing

05TurboS2k

I really want some chilli cheese fries.

Does anyone else want some chilli cheese fries by chance?

herrjr

Yes, you declared the denotative definition of the word 'welfare,' yet I was under the impression we were speaking about the connotative meaning of the word, which is commonly used to refer to government handouts.

As far as the historical roots that I was referring it, I meant federal income taxes. Welfare (connotation), the New Deal, and the like, did not exist prior to 1913. My point is that welfare is a direct result (at least one of) of federal taxation, and I would bet money that most people 3 generations removed from the XVI Amendment are unaware of the fact that it used to be the case that there was no such thing as federal income taxes.

You stated that there could be no such thing as no taxation, and you are wrong in the federal sense, BECAUSE there was no such thing as federal taxes. I didn't say that we can't have state income taxes (although I believe 12 currently still don't have them), so I would argue that since we do have 50 states, that perhaps we can have each state a little more particular in its ways. There's plenty of space for the 300+ millions living here to live as they see fit, provided that we don't have an overly domineering federal government getting in the way of it. So if there is enough people within a state to want certain things like redistribution of their income for government spending desires, then so be it, and the residents that disagree can move to another state or stay and bitch, while still remaining American.

05TurboS2k

So nobody else wants the chilli cheese fries then?

05TurboS2k

OK you know what, f@#k you guys! I'm gonna get some for myself and you guys won't have any! Assholes!

herrjr

Only if it was paid by money that I earned that wasn't redistributed to someone else. Or I could marry a destitute girl, file separately, and use her welfare check to buy it for me, and have her get some "free" Obamacare to take care of her future cardiovascular issues from such a diet.