Say it ain't so, Joe.

doesn't seem like Obama is doing too well either by the nature of the people he hangs around with.He's not such a model citizen. if he were applying for a government job he wouldn't pass the security check. It'll be great having a president who sits in the pew and doesn't hear a thing about the horrific country we live in. what's he going to correct, or is he just going to distribute our money to people who think it's more important to go on vacation than have health insurance?

Amen to Karl.

Important, as well, to note that personal income tax is entirely unconstitutional anyway (See Russo's "Freedom to Fascism"). I don't know this "Joe Plumber", but it seems the election ought to be about who will serve the constitution better. My vote is neither!

Sockpuppet theater at its finest.

Fail.

karl @#1

doesn't seem like Obama is doing too well either by the nature of the people he hangs around with.

I know what you mean. I keep seeing him on TV hanging around with this creepy old guy called John McCain. Not cool.

I know

McCain palled around with Jeryy Fallwell an outspoken racist and pro segregation.

He further dallied with Pat Robertson who blamed not only 9/11 on Americans, but also Katrina.

And lets not bring up Keating, or Gordon Libby the last one a close friend of McCain, and a convicted criminal.

Oh and what about McCains support for domestic terrorist groups?

Marianne, where in the Constitution does it say "no taxes"? I believe that the issue was representation, hence the House of Representatives you pay your taxes to support.

But are you seriously proposing funding the United States of America by charitable donation or some such?

Taxes, at base, are levied for things we consider a social good, such as roads, armies, and suchlike fripperies of modern life (In many countries they also pay for the health system, but you'll have to wait a year or two to catch up there, I guess).

Do you regard roads as unconstitutional as well? How about zoning laws? Parking meters?

Metro: Marianne was whining about Income Taxes, specifically.

And are those unconstitutional? Where is that written?

They're not. Income taxes have been perfectly constitutional since the 16th Amendment was passed, but some wingnuts refuse to admit that.

Mike is right, I was speaking only of a tax on wages, which every Supreme Court ruling has explained was not AT ALL changed by the 16th amendment. Russo's documentary is worth watching if you are interested in hearing about it. Aaron Russo was a reputable film maker (he is now dead). Before you determine that the people who hold this different opinion are wingnuts, perhaps you should give heed to both sides of the issue. It's a compelling documentary, and you can watch it on line for free.

Roads, military, and all else are fully funded by perfectly constitutional taxes that I am quite happy to pay. The IRS is a private bank and is not a part of the government. The tax on American's wages is only paid to the IRS as payments on the money that the IRS lends to the government (creating the lovely inflation we know today). Pretty sketchy deal since the constitution gives the right to the government to print their own money. Unfortunately President Wilson was duped into signing an unconstitutional bill (which, as such, should be thrown out) turning this power over to three banking families and thus creating the IRS. He had this to say about it later:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." Woodrow Wilson - 1916

I did not mean to whine, so I apologize. I am a stay at home mom, thus I have no wages to tax anyway! But as a mother and citizen, I do not enjoy watching the foundations of fascism baby-step into what was intended to be a free republic.

Maybe I am wrong; I would love that. I can say that this is a fascinating time in history to be alive, and that it is with great interest that I will watch the political events of the next several years.

Marianne, you need to schedule an appointment with your librarian. You've got a lot of research to do. I'll respond to each of your paragraphs in turn.

Indeed, every Supreme Court ruling has explained that the Sixteenth Amendment did not change the constitutionality of an income tax on wages. That is because every ruling pointed out that prior to the 16th, Congress already had the power to impose an income tax on wages (and on any other form of income) - so long as the tax was levied as prescribed by the Constitution. But in 1895, the Court held that taxing certain types of income was effectively a direct tax, and thus had to be apportioned based on representation. But taxes on wages was held to be an indirect tax (specifically, an excise) which merely requires uniformity. The 16th Amendment removed the apportionment requirement, making all income taxes constitutional when applied with uniformity. The Court held later than a progressive income tax (our current system) is constitutional so long as it is geographically uniform.

Marianne is mixing up her conspiracy theories in the second paragraph. She's actually talking about the Federal Reserve, not the IRS. The IRS was created by Congress as a federal agency of the Department of Treasury in 1954, long after Woody became a stiff. That is an entirely different topic from the constitutionality of an income tax.

And of course, what denialist campaign is complete without a "Lady Hope" story? Marianne's quote (aside from the fact that it obviously intended to apply to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) is part concoction, part quote-mine. The first two sentences are unattributed - there is no source for the comment. The remainder of the quote is actually two quotes taken from Chapters 8 and 9 of his book "The New Freedom: A Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People" published in 1913. Note that the date given for the quote is 1916 - three years later. Also, the Act was signed on December 23, 1913. Unless Wilson was able to co-author and publish a several hundred page book in just one week, it is extremely doubtful that those quotes reflect his view of the Federal Reserve Act. (It is much more likely that they reflect his belief that something like the Federal Reserve Act was necessary!). In any case, it is ridiculous to assert that Woodrow Wilson was attacking the creation of an agency not formed until 30 years after he died.

To be fair, it is likely that Marianne is simply parroting arguments that she herself has not researched. I hope that she is willing to learn from her ignorance, as I have* (ignorance is not a crime, merely a natural state of being), and in the future makes sure to check on her sources veracity through independent research.

*I did not know any of what I posted 24 hours ago. The internet is such a useful tool...