Reduce your debt!! ... I'm curious.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

But I need to apologize for being too belligerent.

Stuff like claiming the income tax is illegal, or similar schemes in which some people have been manipulated by others into passing on bogus stuff (stuff that the manipulators know is bogus, but try to deceive others into believing), on the Internet or elsewhere, are hot-buttons with me. I hate it when I see manipulative people persuade others to believe bogus claims, and thus lead them to join in spreading the deception. (joblack is not on the manipulative side of this. I'm not so much angry at joblack -- other than the relatively minor matter of do-as-I-say checking out of references -- as I am at the tactics of the tax-protesting movement leaders who by now know very well what the law is and means in regard to legality of the income tax.)

I'll try (once again) to remember that as soon as I realize that I'm reacting to a hot-button issue, I need to take a break to settle down.

- - -

Footnote about a similar case: Some leaders of the creationist (creation science, intelligent design, teach-the-controversy, ...) movement are manipulative rather than sincere, since by now they've been informed many times over many years about their misquotations and out-of-context quotations of statements by scientists about evolution, and misuse of scientific principles, but keep publishing their distortions over and over. I'm thinking of Michael Behe in particular -- I've seen the correspondence some leading (evolutionary) scientists have sent him about this.

Well, I also know a lot of people who are claiming things they have never rechecked for themselves. In conspiracies and other topics a lot of people are half-informed.

I´ve studied the monetary system and the central banks (fed, ecb, ...) behind for a long time and the creation of the FED could be seen as a conspiracy (more background information is in the book I´ve noted before).

In the documentation 'From freedom to fascism' they have shown at least one trial where the 'tax protester' has won the trial.

The world 'legal' is also a little bit flaud. If you check the court decisions in the Third Reich they were all legal but were they right? Twenty years later the court decided completely different.

That means Supreme Court decisions are dependend on the time they were made. We will see that the FED and the Income tax will be abolished in the future.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by joblack

In the documentation 'From freedom to fascism' they have shown at least one trial where the 'tax protester' has won the trial.

So what? That win wasn't based on some court concession that the income tax was illegal. There are lots of technical legal points on which any sort of trial can be won by a defender who obviously committed the act with which he is charged, and this doesn't mean that the defender's act (or, in this case, a claim that the income tax is illegal, and a refusal to obey tax law on that basis) is now acceptable, or unpunishable in any other case.

There was a famous trial in the US several years ago in which the defendant charged with murder was acquitted by the jury because his defense lawyers succeeded in showing that there had been errors in police handling of evidence, not that he didn't commit the murder. Did that win mean that murder was legal? No. Did it even mean that the defendant had not committed the murder? No. (Indeed, a few years later, he lost a case in which the family of the murder victim sued him for civil damages -- he could have lost only if he actually did commit the murder, as determined at that civil trial, which had different standards for evidence and conviction than the criminal trial.)

The world 'legal' is also a little bit flaud. If you check the court decisions in the Third Reich they were all legal but were they right? Twenty years later the court decided completely different.

Cases in which there are controversial social issues can change course over generations, but that doesn't apply to tax protests.

(Furthermore, treating the past or present legal environment in the United States as though it were comparable to the legal environment of Third Reich Germany is not going to convince anyone!!! The US is not, and never has been, a fascist dictatorship.)

When I traced the tax-protesters arguments, I kept coming to places where they had misinterpreted, misapplied, or just plain made false statements about the law. _Nowhere_ have I seen any of their basic arguments (such as whichever-amendment-it-was not having been ratified correctly) hold up under scrutiny.

The false "coins" argument that you presented is an illustration of the lack of legal basis for their income-tax-is-illegal arguments -- one finds that the "coins" argument is invalid after making only a simple examination of the U.S. constitution's actual wording (contrasted with the protesters' rewording and out-of-context wording). The fact that this false argument keeps getting trotted out over and over and over on tax-protesting sites is characteristic of the lack of basic legal foundation for the whole movement. If it actually had a sound legal basis, it would promulgate sound arguments, not unsound ones like the "coins" argument! Furthermore, the court cases' history shows that the same invalid arguments keep getting used (and failing) over and over despite the fact that their legal invalidity has been well-established!!! This is _not_ a sign of a movement that has a sound legal basis for its protests.

That means Supreme Court decisions are dependend on the time they were made.

... WHEN the issues involved are sufficiently controversial in society at large. This is simply not the case in tax protests -- society knows taxes are necessary for governmental operation, even if it quarrels about details. There is no fundamental split between large portions of the populations as there is for issues like abortion (or, in the past, slavery). The fundamental basis of the income tax is NOT the sort of volatile social issue that might lead to court reversals!

There is recurring U.S. public discussion about making changes in the income tax law. There are proposals to replace part or all of it with some other type of tax. But none of those widespread public discussions takes as a basis the idea that the current income tax is illegal!

We will see that the FED and the Income tax will be abolished in the future.

Bull. You don't know what you're talking about. You have presented no evidence whatsoever that either of those is controversial in society or that their legal bases are unstable except in the imaginations of a few people.

In fact, it looks to me like you've formed your opinions after viewing only one video made by an extremist fringe group. Have you bothered investigating any other opinions about the issues of income tax or the Federal Reserve? Can you give us a basic description of what the Federal Reserve System is or does? (Admittedly, the vast majority of U.S. citizens couldn't pass that last test -- but anyone who has no understanding of what the Federal Reserve System is has no business, or credibility, insisting that it is illegal.)

Neither you nor the tax protesters have yet shown me any valid legal basis for proving that the income tax is illegal! (I regret that it is not practical for me to view directly the video which apparently impressed you. Can you find either a transcript, or some other site on which the protesters' legal arguments are stated?)

Show me a fundamental constitutional (U.S.) principle that could invalidate the Federal Reserve (why do you use the all-caps "FED"? "Fed" is the customary nickname here) or the income tax.

That's a challenge.

Show us WHY either the Federal Reserve or the income tax necessarily will be abolished, rather than just asserting a prediction with no logical basis.

[cheesehead]

joblack,

I temporarily overlooked part of your last posting, and that led me to mistakenly charge:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

In fact, it looks to me like you've formed your opinions after viewing only one video made by an extremist fringe group. Have you bothered investigating any other opinions about the issues of income tax or the Federal Reserve? Can you give us a basic description of what the Federal Reserve System is or does? (Admittedly, the vast majority of U.S. citizens couldn't pass that last test -- but anyone who has no understanding of what the Federal Reserve System is has no business, or credibility, insisting that it is illegal.)

Now, I see that you wrote:

Originally Posted by joblack

I´ve studied the monetary system and the central banks (fed, ecb, ...) behind for a long time and the creation of the FED could be seen as a conspiracy (more background information is in the book I´ve noted before).

So, I correct myself -- you do know something about the Federal Reserve System.

Okay, but have you read any history of the Federal Reserve System that was written by an author who was NOT presenting a conspiracy theory?

- - -

Earlier, you wrote, "you ... demanding instant answers for your hudge link material."

No, I have never demanded any instant answers. At no time have I ever demanded, requested or implied that I required your answers to be posted within any (short or long) period of time.

As for the length of the link material, I requested only that when you made further posts, you demonstrate that you had read and comprehended at least some of the linked material that was relevant to our discussion. (And that was because you had previously admonished me to "check out the documentation", so I was asking only that you apply the same standard to yourself.) I never mentioned or implied any time interval associated with that.

- - -

I note that you posted a link

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...flaherty1.html

to a site linked from the evans-legal.com site I referred you to.

However, you seem not to have noticed that that page said:

G. Edward Griffin lays out this conspiratorial version of history in his book The Creature from Jekyll Island. His amateurish take on history is highly suspect, however. Gerry Rough, in a series of well- researched essays on U.S. banking history, reveals many historical inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and even contradictions in Griffin's book and others of its genre. Instead of reproducing Rough's work here, I offer the reader a substantially more accurate view of the events leading up to the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913.

... or that it lays out a description of events that contradicts your conspiracy theory,

(my boldfaced emphasis in the following quote)

Also in 1910, Senator Nelson Aldrich, Frank Vanderlip of National City (today know as Citibank), Henry Davison of Morgan Bank, and Paul Warburg of the Kuhn, Loeb Investment House met secretly at Jeckyll Island, a resort island off the coast of Georgia, to discuss and formulate banking reform, including plans for a form of central banking. The meeting was held in secret because the participants knew that any plan they generated would be rejected automatically in the House of Representatives if it were associated with Wall Street. Because it was secret and because it involved Wall Street, the Jekyll Island affair has always been a favorite source of conspiracy theories. However, the movement toward significant banking and monetary reform was well-known. It is hardly surprising that given the real possibility of substantial reform, the banking industry would want some sort of input into the nature of the reforms. The Aldrich Plan which the secret meeting produced was even defeated in the House, so even if the Jekyll Island affair was a genuine conspiracy, it clearly failed.

ending with:

Conspiracy theorists have long viewed the Federal Reserve Act as a means of giving control of the banking system to the money trusts, when in reality the intent and effect was to wrestle control away from them. History clearly demonstrates that in the decades prior to the Federal Reserve Act the decisions of a few large New York banks had, at times, enormous repercussions for banks throughout the country and the economy in general. Following the return to central banking, at least some measure of control was removed from them and placed with the Federal Reserve.

Where, in all that, is there any basis for claiming that either (a) the Federal Reserve System is illegal, (b) the Federal Reserve System will be abolished, or (c) there is some good reason to abolish the Federal Reserve System?

Why do you want the Federal Reserve System to go out of existence? (Or do I misunderstand you on that?) What good would that do?

[cheesehead]

joblack,

I'm sorry I griped about the "instant answers" comment. That's not relevant to the topic.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Okay, but have you read any history of the Federal Reserve System that was written by an author who was NOT presenting a conspiracy theory?

Just to label an author as conspiracy theorist isn´t very scientific - in my experience that is used to fight people on a an emotional level without going deeper in the material.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

- - -

I note that you posted a link

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...flaherty1.html

to a site linked from the evans-legal.com site I referred you to.

However, you seem not to have noticed that that page said:

... or that it lays out a description of events that contradicts your conspiracy theory,

(my boldfaced emphasis in the following quote)
ending with:

Where, in all that, is there any basis for claiming that either (a) the Federal Reserve System is illegal, (b) the Federal Reserve System will be abolished, or (c) there is some good reason to abolish the Federal Reserve System?

Why do you want the Federal Reserve System to go out of existence? (Or do I misunderstand you on that?) What good would that do?

...

" The Aldrich Plan which the secret meeting produced was even defeated in the House, so even if the Jekyll Island affair was a genuine conspiracy, it clearly failed."

The Aldrich Plan was the prequel of the Federal Reserve Act and it failed because of the Name Aldrich. Of course both acts have to go to the house for approval.

The creation of the Federal Reserve Act was conspiratorial - not the approval in the House.

a) I´m not sure if it is legal or not. It depends on the interpretation of the Constitution (I´m not going into this even further).

b) Is a 'prophecy' on my part - the economy will decline further up to a depression. No proof - it's a mathematical truth (the symptoms of the exponental debt growth ...)

c) Yes, the creation of money shouldn´t be in the hand of (semi-) private organizations. The idea is that the government is allowed to create new money (under the control of the public and laws to prevent a possible hyperinflation).

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Where, in all that, is there any basis for claiming that either (a) the Federal Reserve System is illegal, (b) the Federal Reserve System will be abolished, or (c) there is some good reason to abolish the Federal Reserve System?

Mike Shedlock has written extensively on at least the (c) option - here is just a sampler plate:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...principle.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...-stake-in.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogsp...spreading.html

[masser]

Originally Posted by petrw1

I am from Canada and have had a satellite radio for almost a year now. In the last few months there have been a lot of ads from more and more companies telling consumers they have a "legal right to reduce their debt" and if you call their number they may be able to reduce your debt by more than half.

I am assuming this is primarily in the U.S.A. Can someone give me a brief explanation in layman's terms what this is all about? I understand that Credit companies would rather get "some" money than lose it all to the person going bankrupt but is there more to it than this?

I just read an article on Yahoo Finance a few days ago (but can't seem to find it now) that indicated that some of these radio ads that "sound too good to be true" consolidate debts AND raid retirement accounts to reduce the principle on the the consolidated loans. They may also reduce future contributions to retirement accounts to zero, so their customer has more liquidity to pay off the loan. Some of the more unscrupulous companies don't inform the customers for these products about the tax penalties they will accrue by raiding their 401k/403b.

I have heard one such radio ad where someone claims to have payed off their 30 year mortgage in 2.5 years. I suppose if he worked for 10 years and had no clue about his retirement account's worth (all too common, I am finding), he might have enough of a nest egg to significantly speed up the paying off of his mortgage. At the same time, I wonder if he knew what he was giving up in his future retirement income to achieve this reduction in debt.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by joblack

Just to label an author as conspiracy theorist isn´t very scientific

What I had in mind, but did not convey, was that an author who was not a conspiracy theorist would accept and describe the current existence and operation of the Federal Reserve System in a reasonably objective manner without contending that there is an ongoing conspiracy of some sort, aside from giving an account of pre-creation conspiracies, theoretical or not. Griffin does not seem to meet that definition, nor do the folks who created the video you've referenced.

in my experience that is used to fight people on a an emotional level without going deeper in the material.

The comments on G. Edward Griffin's historical accuracy at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...flaherty1.html lead me to consider "conspiracy theorist" an accurate label.

Furthermore, from what you've written so far, it seems to me that you consider the Fed to be an ongoing invalidity ("The FED as a semi-private organization had gone around it by releasing dollar bills (not coins). That was never intended by The Founders.") and you endorse Griffin without qualification ("The author G. Edward Griffin from the book The Creature from Jekyll Island proofed the secret meetings."). I see no acknowledgment by you that legislation can be legitimate even if discussions preceding its public creation are conducted in a private and/or conspiratorial manner. Lots of legislation is conceived in private discussions all the time, but any conspiratorial aspect of such discussion does not taint the resulting legislation (passed in legitimate manner by the legislature) unless the resulting legislation itself has a conspiratorial aspect. I don't see any proof of the latter in the Fed case; your "coins" complaint is adequately countered in a quote I posted.

a) I´m not sure if it is legal or not. It depends on the interpretation of the Constitution

... and there has been plenty of time to challenge the constitutionality of the Fed in courts, but the courts continue to find it constitutional. The "coins" argument, as I said, is (and has been) easily revealed to be a misunderstanding (or deliberate distortion) of what the constitution says -- so it, at least, is not a matter of interpretation; it's a matter of understanding or comprehension or knowledge (or honesty, depending on the proponent's intention).

b) Is a 'prophecy' on my part - the economy will decline further up to a depression.

You have plenty of company there. We'll see.

The idea is that the government is allowed to create new money (under the control of the public and laws to prevent a possible hyperinflation).

... and the Federal Reserve System is a legitimate part of the government's means of doing so, regardless of the nature of any discussions leading up to its introduction and passage. It has its flaws, and it may well be that there is a better idea out there that could lead to replacing the Fed with something else, but the argument that the Fed is actually illegal is not supportable and is not a sound basis for proposing abolishment or replacement.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

You have plenty of company there. We'll see.

... and the Federal Reserve System is a legitimate part of the government's means of doing so, regardless of the nature of any discussions leading up to its introduction and passage. It has its flaws, and it may well be that there is a better idea out there that could lead to replacing the Fed with something else, but the argument that the Fed is actually illegal is not supportable and is not a sound basis for proposing abolishment or replacement.

I didn't say the FED is illegal. I said the FED is a flawed and exploitative system and supports inflation.

Check out the national debt graph of the USA

http://eh.net/graphics/encyclopedia/...l_21e5b9fc.gif

and

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

and you can see that the inflation and national debt exploded since 1913.

Coincidence or the exploitation from a (semi-) private central bank (=FED)???

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by joblack

the inflation and national debt exploded since 1913.

Actually, there was a sharp upturn about 1917, not 1913. Neither graph shows any change in the debt line at 1913.

Coincidence or the exploitation from a (semi-) private central bank (=FED)???

Does the year 1917 ring a bell? World War I?

The onsets of preparation for war have always been accompanied by sharply increased government expenditures, and, thus, sharply increased deficits and debt.

The 1917 upturn timing is clearly more coincident with the onset of World War I than with the 1913 founding of the Federal Reserve. Similar upturns occurred at the onsets of the American Civil War and World War II, even though those dates had nothing to do with the Federal Reserve.

So, the answer is (a) not coincidence, (b) not Fed "exploitation", either, but (c) causal relationship to the onset of war spending.

It looks to me like your desire to blame the Fed was so strong that it overrode what your eyes actually saw on the graphs. I don't have particularly good vision, but it is very clear to me that there was no upturn at 1913 (the 1915 mark at the bottom clearly occurs prior to the upturn, not after it), but there was at 1917 and the other two war onset years.

[cheesehead]

P.S. By "onset of World War I", I was referring to the onset of U.S. participation in World War I, which is what would affect U.S. federal debt. U.S. expenditures didn't immediately rise just because a war started in Europe.