Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Nov 29th 2012 new

(Quote) John-221057 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Hi John et alia,John, you sou...
(Quote) John-221057 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:




Hi John et alia,

John, you sound like a pretty no-too-bad guy to me. The only thing I would quibble about is your homophobia. Now, I'm not getting into any arguments with you or anybody else about homosexuality. I know and have known some gays on a professional level, and we've always gotten along fine, even though I'm straight. In the real world, not everybody is straight, and that is something we all have to accept.

Other than that, I agree with you. And keep in mind that others do to, although I know for a fact that a lot of them are afraid to come in this room.

I'm not afraid, and most experienced wizards know better than to pull any mishegas with me ;-)

James ☺





Hi James, I think you misunderstand me there. Sorry if I didn't make it entirely clear in the original post. I'm not homophobic and hold no hatred towards gay people or anyone else. I'm just saying in some circles that's what people would say because of the fact that I believe marriage is only between a man and a woman. While homosexual acts (not people) are sinful, I also understand that it's a terrible cross to carry for many reasons so we can hardly expect them to be perfect, just as we can't expect any human being (Jesus being the exception) to be perfect and without sin.

--hide--

Hi John et alia,

John, please accept my sincere apology. It was not my intention to scandalize either you or anyone else here. No, this is not a joke, it is something I've been thinking about since yesterday evening.

James :-)

Nov 29th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: No, it isn't a non-sequitur. Besides,...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:



No, it isn't a non-sequitur. Besides, nobody asked me if I wanted to pay the bill. I wasn't even given the chance to opt-out of sending soldiers to Iraq. Talk about your loss of freedom!



Jim ☺


How does any of that address the fact that veteran's health benefits are the result of an employment agreement, not an inherent right?

--hide--

No, John, no. What you should have said is "Surely, you can't be serious!"

Jim :-)

Nov 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Fredrick-483665 said: Heath care mayor may not be a right but we who have the means have a duty to provide it to tho...
(Quote) Fredrick-483665 said:

Heath care mayor may not be a right but we who have the means have a duty to provide it to those who can't do for themselves. The question is how to provide everyone with healthcare not if. Every person is created in the image of God and they should be treated that way. Even dicounting our Christian duty as Americans we owe our service men and women health care with or without an employment agreement.

Who determines what are rights and duties are anyway?

--hide--

I actually agree with pretty much everything you've said here.

The issue I have with James is that he consistently ignores the fact that the government is also an employer. Whenever somebody disagrees with the government handing out goodies to the entire population, he then tries to equate that with the government meeting its obligations to its employees. They are two entirely separate issues.

Nov 29th 2012 new

(Quote) James-17080 said: Before I address any of your issues, perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell me what mak...
(Quote) James-17080 said:

Before I address any of your issues, perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell me what makes me a "lib"?

And while you're thinking about that, please tell me what gives you the right to call me or anybody else what even you must know is a derogatory name, at least by CM standards?

James [quote]

--hide--

Read your own posts and you should have your answer. And if the shortened version of liberal - "lib" is a derogatory name; me thinks the sensitivity meters are turned up a bit too high.

Nov 29th 2012 new

I stand corrected. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, but there was an income tax in 1862. Now I remember Michael Reagan mentioning the "Yankee, Republican and unconstitutional" tax.

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Sorry Jim, you are wrong. Our first income tax was enacted in 1862 and it was progressive.
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Sorry Jim, you are wrong. Our first income tax was enacted in 1862 and it was progressive.

--hide--

Nov 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Jim-826315 said: I stand corrected. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, but there was an income tax in 186...
(Quote) Jim-826315 said:

I stand corrected. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, but there was an income tax in 1862. Now I remember Michael Reagan mentioning the "Yankee, Republican and unconstitutional" tax.

--hide--


There is debate if that amendment was ever properly ratified.

Nov 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Jim-826315 said: I stand corrected. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, but there was an income tax in 186...
(Quote) Jim-826315 said:

I stand corrected. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, but there was an income tax in 1862. Now I remember Michael Reagan mentioning the "Yankee, Republican and unconstitutional" tax.

--hide--

The XVI Amendment gave Congress no new taxing power. It always had the power to tax incomes under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

The income tax had an off and on existence after the Civil War.

In 1894 the Wilson - Gorman Tariff Act levied a 2% tax on income in excess of $4,000. This act was challenged in Court in the Pollock case (Pollock vs Farmers Loan and Trust) on the basis that it was a direct tax that under the Constitution had to be an apportioned per the requirements of Article I Sec. 8 dealing with direct taxes.

The case made its way to the Supreme Court. The Court Held, contrary to all other court ruling preceding it and contrary to all prior legal understanding of direct taxes that in so far as the 1894 Act levied a tax an property and income derived from property it was unconstitutional because it did not properly apportion the tax as required. It further held that the tax was Constitutional on income derived from all other sources; i.e. wages and salary. and finally it held that since it was Congresses intent to tax all income in essence it would be unfair to hold only part of the Act Unconstitutional and allowing the full burden of the tax to fall solely on that income that it found to be Constitutional, it thereforef declared the entire law to be unconstitutional.

Prior to that decision all forms of income taxes were considered to be indirect taxes. Direct taxes were understood to mean taxes directly levied on property, ad valorum taxes, Capitation taxes and their ilk.

After that decision, agitation continued to enact an income tax. That presuure came mainly from the far left in those days, specifically from the Socialists of the day.

Legal scholars then and now believe the Court's decision in the Pollock case was incorrect and poorly conceived and supported. Nevertheless, it stood and something had to be done about it. As it stood, any tax on income such as rents, any investment income, interest, dividends had to be apportioned. While taxes on wages and salary could be levied with no restrictions except the political repercussions at the ballot box.

The answer was the XVI Amendment which did nothing more than render, by definition of the Amendment, a tax on income from whatever source derived to be an indirect tax.

As later cases decided by the Supreme Court state, that the XVI gave Congress no new powers of taxation and merely placed all taxes on income from whatever source derived in their proper category of ing direct taxes not requiring apportionment.

That is why factions calling for a Constitutional amendment to repeal the XVI would have no effect on Congress' powers to levy an income tax. And if it did go ahead and was challenged based on the Pollock case, it would survive the challenge since the Courts today would not follow the Pollock precedence.

Nov 29th 2012 new

(Quote) Joe-787295 said:There is debate if that amendment was ever properly ratified.
(Quote) Joe-787295 said:
There is debate if that amendment was ever properly ratified.

--hide--

The debate exists but has no foundation in fact and is merely the fantasies of a small minority of people opposed to the income tax. As I point out in my previous note, even assuming that by some impossible occurrence taking place that this silliness were upheld, it would have absolutely no effect on Congress's ability to tax income from whatever source derived.

Only an Amendment to the Constitution that specifically prohibited an income tax could do that. And the chances of that Amendment ever seeing the light of day to be even debated much less approved are nil.

Nov 30th 2012 new

(Quote) Joe-787295 said: (Quote) James-17080 said: Before I address any of your issues, perh...
(Quote) Joe-787295 said:

Quote:
James-17080 said:

Before I address any of your issues, perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell me what makes me a "lib"?

And while you're thinking about that, please tell me what gives you the right to call me or anybody else what even you must know is a derogatory name, at least by CM standards?

James [quote]


Read your own posts and you should have your answer. And if the shortened version of liberal - "lib" is a derogatory name; me thinks the sensitivity meters are turned up a bit too high.

--hide--

Thanks, I've read my own posts, and I know the contents therein.

I know how words and euphemisms are used here by others. You're not the first wizard to use the words "lib" and "liberal" to denigrate someone.

There are two more things I'll address, and then I'm signing off this part of the thread, unless you wish to address what it is that makes me a "lib".

First, you're the one who is threatening to leave CM because of the "liberal muck". During my tenure here, I've never heard anyone say that. Perhaps addressing sensitivity issues is not unwarranted, but you can do that yourself.

Secondly, upon checking your profile, why is the university you graduated from, Temple University, struck out with what looks like a marker? I've never seen that either. I didn't even know it was possible.

Take care,

James

Nov 30th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: (Quote) Fredrick-483665 said: Heath care mayor may not be a right but we wh...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

Quote:
Fredrick-483665 said:

Heath care mayor may not be a right but we who have the means have a duty to provide it to those who can't do for themselves. The question is how to provide everyone with healthcare not if. Every person is created in the image of God and they should be treated that way. Even dicounting our Christian duty as Americans we owe our service men and women health care with or without an employment agreement.

Who determines what are rights and duties are anyway?


I actually agree with pretty much everything you've said here.

The issue I have with James is that he consistently ignores the fact that the government is also an employer. Whenever somebody disagrees with the government handing out goodies to the entire population, he then tries to equate that with the government meeting its obligations to its employees. They are two entirely separate issues.

--hide--

Oh come on, John, you know me better than that. I agree with everything Fredrick said too.

John, humor me. We need to laugh here. Answer my question below.

wink

Jim :-)

Posts 61 - 70 of 79