Should Corporate Profits be Banned?

[mhaze]

.....
I feel that the government's policy with regard to marijuana is outrageous and that it should be a legal drug, on the same footing as alcohol. Should I write a book arguing for the legalization of pot and urging people to challenge the law in the courts, that book would be covered by the First Amendment. Should I write a book telling people they can grow and smoke pot with impunity, knowing that the DEA will likely raid their pot fields and imprison them for growing pot, or should I write a book telling them how to grow it inside, clandestinely, to evade detection; such works would not be protected by the First Amendment.

Irwin Schiff was convicted of tax evasion, plain and simple.

Hold it.

You are arguing that Saul Alinsky tactics of overwhelming the system are NOT OKAY for people to use for marihuana, or for Schiff.

But they certainly were okay for all the followers up to the present day of Alinsky, including our Bamster in chief and his friends at Acorn.

Little problem there with your selective judgement and selective application of principles or lack of?

 

[Cleon]

hold it.

You are arguing that saul alinsky tactics

drink!

 

[Tricky]

I'm in Southern California. It sounds from your $4.25 cost per gallon that you are as well. Please support your argument that gas taxes are to blame, rather than speculation in the market, by providing some numbers rom a reputable source.

Look, it's all very simple.

 

[mikeyx]

This thread title should be renamed to "Should Strawmen Whackadoodle Conspiracy Theories be Banned?"

I'm game.

 

[TimCallahan]

Hold it.

You are arguing that Saul Alinsky tactics of overwhelming the system are NOT OKAY for people to use for marihuana, or for Schiff.

But they certainly were okay for all the followers up to the present day of Alinsky, including our Bamster in chief and his friends at Acorn.

Little problem there with your selective judgement and selective application of principles or lack of?

It's very simple. If, in pursuit of civil rights, you violate the law, you will have to bear the legal consequences. You really can't claim that your First Amendment rights are being violated. This is not a judgment on the nobility or lack thereof in your position. It's a statement on whether prosecution for your actions is or is not constitutional.

Those civil rights protesters who blocked access to buildings etc. knew what they were doing was illegal and were willing to pay the price of being prosecuted and jailed for taking action based on what they believed to be right. If they were true to their ideals they didn't whine about it. Irwin Schiff and his supporters don't seem to be made of the same stuff.

 

[BazBear]

So you're from what no-profit paradise? North Korea? Or Cuba????

Robert, me thinks your sarcasm meter is broken again.

 

[TimCallahan]

Going back to the OP. Yes, Peter Schiff made an effective "gotcha" video, and it's embarrassing. It puts me in mind of other social movements. For example, consider opposition in the 1960s to the war in Viet Nam. I can recall newsmen interviewing some of the student protestors and getting responses of this sort:

"Well, we shouldn't be fighting this war because, like, war's a bummer, y'know; and what we should do is just, like, get rid of all weapons and not have an army."

Such responses were stupid, of course. However, this didn't change the fact that the war was never declared by Congress, was based on a lie (the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident), was being fought in support of an incompetent government that couldn't stand on its own (sound familiar?) and was a quagmire.

So, there are a bunch of people Schiff interviewed with leading questions who made stupid remarks, saying that for-profit companies shouldn't make profits. This doesn't mean that there should not be regulations limiting corporations involving certain stock market actions, such as pushing substandard loans.

 

[Rich_C]

In my area , it's $4.25 a gallon and soaring. And you want even higher gas prices.

I paid $3.59 a gallon this weekend. Obviously you should just move to somewhere with cheaper gas.

Or maybe it's because I am in a toss up state, Virginia. That dastardly Obama has lowered gas prices here while allowing prices to stay high in safe states (only Chicago, Hawaii, and California have gas prices as high as $4.25 according to gas buddy.com).

 

[thaiboxerken]

No. The buck stops with the consumer. Econ. 101.

What if the consumer is another business?

 

[Robert Prey]

Going back to the OP. Yes, Peter Schiff made an effective "gotcha" video, and it's embarrassing. It puts me in mind of other social movements. For example, consider opposition in the 1960s to the war in Viet Nam. I can recall newsmen interviewing some of the student protestors and getting responses of this sort:

"Well, we shouldn't be fighting this war because, like, war's a bummer, y'know; and what we should do is just, like, get rid of all weapons and not have an army."

Such responses were stupid, of course. However, this didn't change the fact that the war was never declared by Congress, was based on a lie (the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident), was being fought in support of an incompetent government that couldn't stand on its own (sound familiar?) and was a quagmire.

So, there are a bunch of people Schiff interviewed with leading questions who made stupid remarks, saying that for-profit companies shouldn't make profits. This doesn't mean that there should not be regulations limiting corporations involving certain stock market actions, such as pushing substandard loans.

Sub standard loans (The Commnity Reinvestment Act) were pushed by intimidation of banks by the Feds, a policy authored by Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the rest of the dim-witted Dems.

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a Jimmy Carter-era law that was given new life by the Clinton administration, has received a great deal of attention and criticism since the housing bust began. That law opened banks up to crushing discrimination suits if they did not lend to minorities in numbers high enough to satisfy the authorities. "

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/who_caused_the_2008_housing_bubble_to_burst_in_the_u.s

If it were up to the banks, they would lend only to those who were credit worthy. Obviously.

 

[Robert Prey]

It's very simple. If, in pursuit of civil rights, you violate the law, you will have to bear the legal consequences. You really can't claim that your First Amendment rights are being violated. This is not a judgment on the nobility or lack thereof in your position. It's a statement on whether prosecution for your actions is or is not constitutional.

Those civil rights protesters who blocked access to buildings etc. knew what they were doing was illegal and were willing to pay the price of being prosecuted and jailed for taking action based on what they believed to be right. If they were true to their ideals they didn't whine about it. Irwin Schiff and his supporters don't seem to be made of the same stuff.

A ridiculous statement -- the cheapest of all cheap shots ever posted on this board. Anyone who knows Irwin knows Irwin doesn't whine. He fights, and fights like hell, even when it means long prison terms. And then he gets out and fights again and ends up in prison again. Irwin is one of the great patriots of American History right along Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, and the rest of the Patriots of 1776, many who shed their blood to fight unlawful taxation. An apology and a retraction is in order.

 

[Robert Prey]

I'm in Southern California. It sounds from your $4.25 cost per gallon that you are as well. Please support your argument that gas taxes are to blame, rather than speculation in the market, by providing some numbers rom a reputable source.

"The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon (cpg) and 24.4 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel fuel. On average, as of April 2012, state and local taxes add 31.1 cents to gasoline and 30.2 cents to diesel for a total US average fuel tax of 49.5 cents (cpg) per gallon for gas and 54.6 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel. "

"What are the specific taxes for each state?
Some states charge an excise tax while other states have a flat tax. The below table displays state taxes plus fees, plus the 18.4 cents-per-gallon (cpg) federal excise tax. Additionally, some local counties may additionally charge an excise tax on gas, which is not reflected in this table. Please consult your specific local government for more information."

Tax percentage of a gallon of gas varies from 26.4 % in Alaska to 69% in California. And that doesn't even begin to count the hidden taxes. Speculation only causes short term spikes, both up and down. The rest is supply and demand-- demand ever increasing, supplies increasing in the US but severely limited by our Marxist President and his EPA Czars beholden to a wacko envionmentalist lobby..

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/web_gas_taxes.php

 

[Robert Prey]

Here is the New York Times article on the ruling by Judge Lloyd George. As one can see from this quote from the article, it's not such a violation of the First Amendment as Schiff's defenders claim it to be (emphasis added):

Mr. Schiff and his associates, the judge wrote, knew that they ''are offering fraudulent tax advice'' and that the book is false commercial speech which ''is not protected by the First Amendment.''


''The First Amendment does not shield criminal conduct in tax schemes,'' the judge wrote in his 35-page opinion.

He ruled that the record in the two criminal tax prosecutions of Mr. Schiff, which resulted in prison sentences, established that he knew that his tax advice was inaccurate.


Just as a book telling how to make explosives and urging people to plant them at police stations wouldn't be protected by the First Amendment, and just as child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment, so a book urging criminal tax evasion is not protected by the First Amendment. A book arguing that the income tax is unconstitutional, even urging people to challenge the imposition of the income tax in court, would be protected under the First Amendment. Telling people that they can refuse to pay it and urging them not to pay it, when the author knows from experience that such activity will result in criminal prosecution, is not covered by the First Amendment.

I feel that the government's policy with regard to marijuana is outrageous and that it should be a legal drug, on the same footing as alcohol. Should I write a book arguing for the legalization of pot and urging people to challenge the law in the courts, that book would be covered by the First Amendment. Should I write a book telling people they can grow and smoke pot with impunity, knowing that the DEA will likely raid their pot fields and imprison them for growing pot, or should I write a book telling them how to grow it inside, clandestinely, to evade detection; such works would not be protected by the First Amendment.

Irwin Schiff was convicted of tax evasion, plain and simple.

24 carat Baloney. The whole purpose of the First Amendment was to protect speech from government censorship. Imagine the Founders having just gone though the very same politically "incorrect" speech objecting to the unlawful taxes of King George to have intended censorship of such speech in the nation they created. Read some history.

 

[Tricky]

A ridiculous statement -- the cheapest of all cheap shots ever posted on this board. Anyone who knows Irwin knows Irwin doesn't whine. He fights, and fights like hell, even when it means long prison terms. And then he gets out and fights again and ends up in prison again. Irwin is one of the great patriots of American History right along Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, and the rest of the Patriots of 1776, many who shed their blood to fight unlawful taxation. An apology and a retraction is in order.

Just a little historical reference for you: Neither Samuel Adams nor Patrick Henry fought in the Revolutionary War, or shed a drop of blood for their cause.

 

[Dancing David]

Sub standard loans (The Commnity Reinvestment Act) were pushed by intimidation of banks by the Feds, a policy authored by Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and the rest of the dim-witted Dems.

Except for the fact that the vast majority, wait that's ALMOST ALL of the sub prime loans were generated by institutions not covered by the CRA, so dream on.

 

[Dancing David]

24 carat Baloney. The whole purpose of the First Amendment was to protect speech from government censorship. Imagine the Founders having just gone though the very same politically "incorrect" speech objecting to the unlawful taxes of King George to have intended censorship of such speech in the nation they created. Read some history.

Yup, so go make some claims about a false cure for cancer and see what happens when you sell it.

 

[Cleon]

24 carat Baloney. The whole purpose of the First Amendment was to protect speech from government censorship. Imagine the Founders having just gone though the very same politically "incorrect" speech objecting to the unlawful taxes of King George to have intended censorship of such speech in the nation they created. Read some history.

Clearly, when you read history, you skipped over the bits about the Alien and Sedition Acts.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (megasnip) . . .

Tax percentage of a gallon of gas varies from 26.4 % in Alaska to 69% in California. And that doesn't even begin to count the hidden taxes. Speculation only causes short term spikes, both up and down. The rest is supply and demand-- demand ever increasing, supplies increasing in the US but severely limited by our Marxist President and his EPA Czars beholden to a wacko envionmentalist lobby..

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/web_gas_taxes.php

I went to the site above but only found the total revenues collected by each state. Thus, I'm not sure how you came up with the assertion that 69% of the $4.25 we pay for gas is taxes. This would mean that the price of a gallon of gas in California, were there no taxes, would be $1.32. I find that rather hard to believe. Do you have information a bit more precise than the tables on the site?

 

[Robert Prey]

I went to the site above but only found the total revenues collected by each state. Thus, I'm not sure how you came up with the assertion that 69% of the $4.25 we pay for gas is taxes. This would mean that the price of a gallon of gas in California, were there no taxes, would be $1.32. I find that rather hard to believe. Do you have information a bit more precise than the tables on the site?

Correction. Those numbers reflect cpg or cents per gallon. But they do not reflect the hidden taxes.

 

[Robert Prey]

Clearly, when you read history, you skipped over the bits about the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Clearly,when you read history you skipped over the fact that that those acts were seen as unconstitutional and repealed in 1802 with only the Alien Enemies Act left in tact, but only applying to war time.