Ron Paul (again) on Ed & Elaine Brown & the income t

[Famspear]

Here's an interview with Ron Paul (Fox News) regarding the income tax, with some references to Ed & Elaine Brown.

http://taxprof.typepad.com:80/taxprof_b ... isc-1.html

[Famspear]

Among Ron Paul's statements in the interview on Fox News:

We’re talking about an unconstitutional approach to collecting taxes. [ . . . ] I want to get rid of the income tax. I want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. [ . . . ] The system has worked unconstitutionally because uh everybody who challenges the law is considered uh guilty because uh -- and they have to prove themselves innocent. They start off with a guilty plea. That’s the way the tax code works.

[silversopp]

It looks like Ron Paul is trying to play both sides of the fence

We’re talking about an unconstitutional approach to collecting taxes

and

I want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment

If the income tax is unconstitutional right now, then why would he want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment?

In fairness, I think that when "original intent" folks say something is "unconstitutional," they mean the original document (plus bill of rights but no other amendments) or original intent of the document. So the 16th Amendment could be called "unconstitutional" in that sense, even though it is part of the constitution.

I think that he does have a point, although not presented in the best way, about those accused by the IRS having to prove their innocence. ElfNinosMom's post about her IRS situation is an example of what Ron Paul dislikes about the system.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Among Ron Paul's statements in the interview on Fox News:

We’re talking about an unconstitutional approach to collecting taxes. [ . . . ] I want to get rid of the income tax. I want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. [ . . . ] The system has worked unconstitutionally because uh everybody who challenges the law is considered uh guilty because uh -- and they have to prove themselves innocent. They start off with a guilty plea. That’s the way the tax code works.

Good luck with single handedly repealing the sixteenth amendment.

[ErsatzAnatchist]

It looks like Ron Paul is trying to play both sides of the fence

We’re talking about an unconstitutional approach to collecting taxes

and

I want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment

If the income tax is unconstitutional right now, then why would he want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment?

In fairness, I think that when "original intent" folks say something is "unconstitutional," they mean the original document (plus bill of rights but no other amendments) or original intent of the document. So the 16th Amendment could be called "unconstitutional" in that sense, even though it is part of the constitution.

By that logic, the 13th amendment was "unconstitutional".

[.]

Once again demonstrating why his nut-bag reputation is well-deserved.

I support his cut spending, cut taxes agenda, but he really doesn't have a clue, and worse, panders constantly to the TP morons.

Had he not managed to get elected to Congress, I suspect we might have ultimately read about his conviction for failure to file based on some goofy TP rationale.

[Famspear]

Ron Paul said:

The system has worked unconstitutionally because uh everybody who challenges the law is considered uh guilty because uh -- and they have to prove themselves innocent. They start off with a guilty plea. That’s the way the tax code works.

The problem I have with this kind of rhetoric is that it tends to leave a false impression. Yes, Ron Paul is possibly talking about civil tax administration -- dealing with the Internal Revenue Service itself -- and to some extent when talking of civil tax litigation (e.g., the IRS determination of the tax amount is "presumptively" correct, so the burden is on the taxpayer to show that the IRS is wrong, etc.). But the average American who hears words like "innocent" and "guilty" is not thinking merely in terms of determining the amount of the tax; the average person is thinking in terms of criminal law. Statements like these from Ron Paul tend to foster the false idea that the burden of proof in criminal tax law is somehow different from that in other U.S. criminal laws, and thus foster further misconception about our Federal income tax system.

Mr Paul, you may need to do your homework a little better, and think about what you're saying. People who merely "challenge" the tax law are not necessarily considered criminally "guilty." People who repeat arguments that have already been ruled frivolous should, however, be punished with monetary penalties (already provided by law) for wasting the time and resources of our legal system. The vast majority of honest and psychologically normal taxpayers should have our administrative and court systems burdened with tax protester activity that goes unpunished. Congress has wisely passed laws to deal with that.

And as far as Mr. Paul's comments, my personal opinion is that the Federal income tax laws are gnarly enough, complex enough, unfair enough, and frustrating enough -- without presidential candidates making things worse by shooting from the hip with this kind of rhetoric. Mr. Paul, I perceive you were a bit flustered in the Fox interview with Neil Cavuto. With all due respect, I would advise you to do your homework, be prepared, and parse your words more carefully.

[wserra]

Ron Paul said:

The system has worked unconstitutionally because uh everybody who challenges the law is considered uh guilty because uh -- and they have to prove themselves innocent. They start off with a guilty plea. That’s the way the tax code works.

The problem I have with this kind of rhetoric is that it tends to leave a false impression.

With all due respect, Famspear, the problem I have with this kind of rhetoric is that it's a goddam lie.

You don't "plead" to a civil case, let alone ever "plead guilty". Those words apply only to criminal cases. Ditto the reference to constitutionality. The burden of proof in a civil case carries few constitutional implications, while the criminal burden of proof is written in virtual constitutional stone.

Do you think that Paul is such a dumbass that he doesn't know this?

[webhick]

Remember almost any f*cktard can get elected to Congress

So, what you're saying is that I should run for congress before setting my sights on the Hexagonal Orifice?

[wserra]

Do you think that Paul is such a dumbass that he doesn't know this?

Yes.

Remember almost any f*cktard can get elected to Congress - Tailgunner Joe, B-1 Bob, etc. - including complete jacka**es.

Awright, Cap'n, I see your point. Let's not forget about Helen "The only endangered species is the White Christian landowning male" Chenoweth, Tom "Let's bomb Mecca" Tancredo, and James "Inmate 31213-060" Traficant.

However, from hearing Paul speak on a number of occasions, I wouldn't put him with the obvious cretins.

[Dezcad]

James "Inmate 31213-060" Traficant.

He could be entertaining at times:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVUrYCcmRy4

even if inappropriate.

[Famspear]

wserra wrote:

With all due respect, Famspear, the problem I have with this kind of rhetoric is that it's a goddam lie.

You don't "plead" to a civil case, let alone ever "plead guilty". Those words apply only to criminal cases. Ditto the reference to constitutionality. The burden of proof in a civil case carries few constitutional implications, while the criminal burden of proof is written in virtual constitutional stone.

Do you think that Paul is such a dumbass that he doesn't know this?

Do I have to answer that question? I'm hoping Ron Paul hires me as his "handler" on Federal tax issues, and I don't want to screw up my chances.

[ElfNinosMom]

Do I have to answer that question? I'm hoping Ron Paul hires me as his "handler" on Federal tax issues, and I don't want to screw up my chances.

A couple of people who previously served as Ron Paul "handlers" include Lew Rockwell, and Eric Dondero. So you'd be in, um, interesting company there, Famspear.

Back in the '90s, there was some pretty nasty racial stuff in the Ron Paul newsletter. By "pretty nasty", I mean that whoever wrote it is obviously a racist. While it took a while, Ron Paul eventually denied writing it, and says he didn't see it before it was printed. He did not, however, ever print a retraction, nor would he ever say who had written it.

Suspicion immediately fell to Rockwell and Dondero. Dondero and Rockwell, naturally, point the finger of blame at each other, and Dondero (who claims to be challenging Paul for his Congressional seat, but has yet to file with the FEC last time I checked) occasionally points the finger of blame back at Ron Paul himself as the source of those statements.

While I would hardly consider Eric Dondero a source worth quoting for, well, anything, his claim that Paul wrote it does seem to have some veracity, based upon Ron Paul's own statement regarding the source of the statements.

See, Ron Paul claimed the statements were made based on "current events and statistical reports of the time." Then, only after all hell broke loose, did he blame his unknown and to this day unnamed aide.

Lest you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill insofar as the racist nature of the statements made, here are a few:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."

Now, far be it from me to say Ron Paul did see these things before they were published, or that he ever said them. I wasn't there, so I don't know. That being said, I think we've all seen enough of his foot-in-mouth disease insofar as taxation to realize that he is perfectly capable of saying such incredibly stupid things, without ever realizing just how stupid they really are, so I won't discount him as the source, either.

[Famspear]

ElfNinosMom wrote:

A couple of people who previously served as Ron Paul "handlers" include Lew Rockwell, and Eric Dondero. So you'd be in, um, interesting company there, Famspear.

Eewwwww. Uh, hey Ron Paul, if you're reading this, uh, never mind. I found another gig that promises to be more lucrative, with more of a possibility for a future than your presidential bid: I'm going for an exciting career in tulip eradication and control.

[Demosthenes]

tulip eradication and control.

Rodents with antlers do it for me for free every spring.

[wserra]

I found another gig that promises ... more of a possibility for a future than your presidential bid:

Rehab therapy for patients of Dr. Kevorkian?

[Weathervane]

I found another gig that promises ... more of a possibility for a future than your presidential bid:

Rehab therapy for patients of Dr. Kevorkian?

I've already treated some of those patients. Adjustments have done them wonders, btw. Several have even rejoined the workforce and gotten jobs as store manequins.

[No_Name1]

I've already treated some of those patients. Adjustments have done them wonders, btw. Several have even rejoined the workforce and gotten jobs as store manequins.

Kind of a "stiff" adjustment huh?

[Bud Dickman]

I support his cut spending, cut taxes agenda, but he really doesn't have a clue, and worse, panders constantly to the TP morons.

Cutting Taxes???

Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

[Weathervane]

I've already treated some of those patients. Adjustments have done them wonders, btw. Several have even rejoined the workforce and gotten jobs as store manequins.

Kind of a "stiff" adjustment huh?

They are a bit tight...and curiously foul-smelling. Must be a B-12 deficiency or something. I think I'll get them on some right away, as well as a few magnets to wear in their shoes.