CAVUTO REPORTS THAT BUSH CONSIDERING SCRAPPING THE IRS CODE!!!

Neil Cavuto just interviewed Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., the director of the OMB, and Neil let it be known that he's hearing rumblings that Pres. Bush is considering a total re-write of the tax code and that SecTreas O'Neill is strongly pushing a national retail sales tax!

If the HHS declared the poverty level was anywhere near $150,000 is would be a completely obvious fraud.

Again, that is irrelevant, since there is no mechanism to prevent them from doing so.

Not true, such officers and government are subject to both civil action from private citizens harmed and criminal penalty for submitting false documents and reports:

To mention two statutes which touch upon the subject of malfeasance and fraud of officials:

Title 28 United States Code Sec. 1346. - United States as defendant (b)(1)

Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the district courts, together with the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.

Title 18 United States Code Section 2073

False entries and reports of moneys or securities


      Whoever, being an officer, clerk, agent, or other employee of the
    United States or any of its agencies, charged with the duty of
    keeping accounts or records of any kind, with intent to deceive,
    mislead, injure, or defraud, makes in any such account or record
    any false or fictitious entry or record of any matter relating to
    or connected with his duties; or
      Whoever, being an officer, clerk, agent, or other employee of the
    United States or any of its agencies, charged with the duty of
    receiving, holding, or paying over moneys or securities to, for, or
    on behalf of the United States, or of receiving or holding in trust
    for any person any moneys or securities, with like intent, makes a
    false report of such moneys or securities -
      Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
    years, or both.

Not true, such officers and government are subject to both civil action from private citizens harmed and criminal penalty for submitting false documents and reports:

But it would not be a "false" report. "Poverty" is an arbitrary value, the poorest among the citizens of the United States live better than the kings of a century ago (air conditioning, medical care, etc., that were unavailable to even the wealthy). Since the bureaucracy is itself responsible for the definition in law of "poverty level", whatever it claims is the poverty level IS the poverty level for the relevant legislation.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration deliberately kept the definition of the "poverty level" lower than historical trends in order to make the statistics for the Clinton administration look better. Get a conviction in a court under the laws you have cited for those "offenses" and I might consider that they have some relevance to the current flaw in the proposed legislation.

Zon: Yes I do based on your words of dishonesty in several of your posts, dishonesty knows no bounds; thus you have demonstrated a need to thwart dishonesties that may also crop up in HHS. 957

You are being moronic. Just because I point out a flaw in the system that would allow a leftist bureaucrat to pervert the socialist "prebate" government handout into outright communism (via manipulation of the arbitrary "poverty level" value) doesn't mean that I advocate such an abomination.

You assume wrong, again. I never thought you advocated such a dishonest abomination. Your accumulated degree of dishonesty over several posts caused me to realize that a person in power at HHS with equal degree of dishonesty could create such an abomination.

Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936

Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939

Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.

Your unfounded personal attacks are self-evidently erroneous.
The very fact that you now see the need for such a law shows that my objections to the proposed system, far from being "tin-foil-hat delusion", are quite accurate. If they were really "dishonest", then it is that same dishonesty with which you are now agreeing.

On that one item you have shown that dishonesty knows no bounds. That is but one of several statements you put forth that has been stricken from the record of your accumulated degree of dishonesty over several posts. So it came down a bit. The accumulation is much more than just that one need for a law that prohibits the HHS from putting out a dishonest poverty level number. Which it wasn't until I mentioned a the possibility that it entered your thinking that a law could thwart that possibility. If I'm wrong and you did think of it earlier but chose not to mention it probably because to mention it would thwart your agenda -- which I have no doubt you have not honestly stated.

Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936

Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939

Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments.

I never thought you advocated such a dishonest abomination.

Then you appear to be arguing (and using inaccurate and ad hominem attacks) for no other purpose that arguing. If you really cared about the subject (a national sales tax) you would be more interested in correcting its flaws than in attacking those who point out those flaws.

Your accumulated degree of dishonesty over several posts

I have not posted a single dishonest statement, other than when copying your comments. You claim that my showing the flaws in your preferred system is "dishonest", when ultimately you yourself are forced to agree that those flaws do indeed exist.

caused me to realize that a person in power at HHS with equal degree of dishonesty could create such an abomination.

The proposed system is so flawed that no "dishonesty" would be needed. A leftist bureaucrat could pervert the system into communism merely by redefining the value of the poverty level. It is not "dishonest" for him to do so, merely tyrannical, and my pointing out that obvious flaw is no more "dishonest" than a structual engineer pointing out the flaws in a proposed bridge design that would result in catastrophe if not corrected.

When I challenge you to come up with an example of my dishonesty, you can only regurgitate a comment I made about the ability of a bureaucrat to impose communism by fiat merely by changing the definition of the poverty level. But since the bureaucracy really does have that power under the proposed legislation (using its pre-existing power to define the poverty level), it is not dishonest, it is merely a statement of fact. In reality, the only "dishonest" statements in this thread has been your unjustified attacks on me and your lies insisting that the HHS is an "honest" bureaucracy that can be trusted with such drastic power.

Not true, such officers and government are subject to both civil action from private citizens harmed and criminal penalty for submitting false documents and reports:

Technogeeb: But it would not be a "false" report. "Poverty" is an arbitrary value, the poorest among the citizens of the United States live better than the kings of a century ago (air conditioning, medical care, etc., that were unavailable to even the wealthy). 963

LMAO!!! That's a keeper.

I can hear it now from the HHS commissioner (having read Technogeeb's above quote): "But your honor, our official HHS poverty level number for 2002 is calculated relative to how kings of a century ago lived. Even the poorest American citizens live better than kings of a century ago -- thus the poverty level is $150,000."

Since the bureaucracy is itself responsible for the definition in law of "poverty level",

The definition of poverty level is one formally defined since 1967 and a matter of law since that time through formal declaration and acceptance by congress. To attempt to change that statistical criteria by which the poverty line is established would be challenged all up and down the political spectrum as well as by individals organazations and businesses throughout the nation.

whatever it claims is the poverty level IS the poverty level for the relevant legislation.

There is only one mandated poverty level for all legislation, not independant measures for each and every piece. To raise that level on any basis other than the historical criteria in place since 1967 and codified into Census Bureau regulations as well as the Department of labor would be a clear act of provable fraud. Your claim that a single bureaucrat can simply raise the number to some arbitrary $150k dollars or drop it by any outlandish figure by fiat of the bureaucracy is simply foolish. If that could be done and made to stick, by now some liberal duderhead in office over the last 35 years of official use would have done so just to garner more constituents eligible for means tested payments from all levels of govenment as well as business benefits which are tied to multiples of that figure, a new poverty classification would create.

To establish an arbitrary or frivoulous, as opposed to a formal statisically measured, amount for poverty would impact legislation and mandates laid on states, organizations, businesses, and individuals creating harms to whole classes of citizens and organizations in its wake. To claim that such would not be pressed vigorously for civil suit and prosecution by many groups both inside and outside of government is hubris in the extreme.

In the 1990s, the Clinton administration deliberately kept the definition of the "poverty level" lower than historical trends in order to make the statistics for the Clinton administration look better.

The "definition" of poverty level has not change since 1967. Inputs into the methodology establishing the dollar amount of poverty level have changed in response to predominately inflation/deflation of the economy through measures of income and consumption.

Manipulation of the input, is possible at the margin through biased selections on the part of lowlevel functionaries. The statistical definition of poverty level is a constant and has become part of the body of evidence that is embodied within the perview civil law. It is not a thing to be changed at mere fiat of individuals or a few persons in the bureaucracy.

Violation of that methodology to the damage of any person, individual or organization, would constitute an actionable tort under U. S. law which would be very rapidly pressed should such a scenario be established to the standard of preponderance of the evidence that tort law is subject to. That is a very easy standard to meet when shennanigans are going on.

Get a conviction in a court under the laws you have cited for those "offenses" and I might consider that they have some relevance to the current flaw in the proposed legislation.

Just go to Google and search for - malfeasance United States Code - you will find many such tort cases against several departments of the United States and officials within those departments successfully prosecuted. Or go to any law library, look up the history malfeasance cases. There are very plentiful and most are successful.

When I challenge you to come up with an example of my dishonesty,

As I've already told you: "Your comments are on record; I'm glad to let the reader juxtaposition our comments."

Zon: You demonstrated your intent to deceive the reader. Thus rendering yourself not to be trusted or respected because you disrespect the reader. You probably think you can mislead and try to deceive the reader and that they should just comply with you and answer your questions or take you seriously. You deserve no person's attention in a discussion. Scorn. That's what you deserve. 936

Technogeeb: Your lies and personal attacks do nothing to refute the clear flaws in the system you are advocating. Government handouts to every household in the United States (the "prebate" mechanism) is socialism. To claim that it is otherwise is a lie. And since that system allows an unelected bureaucrat to determine the value of those handouts (with no additional action by Congress once the system is enacted), the only thing preventing it from becoming pure communism is the goodwill of the bureaucrats. 939

On that one item you have shown that dishonesty knows no bounds. That is but one of several statements you put forth that has been stricken from the record of your accumulated degree of dishonesty over several posts

If I had really made any false statements, you would have been gleefully reposting them as you are my (accurate, but which you still pretend is false) statement about the ability of the bureaucracy to use the proposed legislation as an instrument to implement communism. But since you fail to post such supposedly "false" statement (and now admit that the flaw you so long insisted didn't exist is indeed a flaw), you are left with nothing but personal attacks. Unlike my honesty, you really have posted lies. Even ignoring the lies you have posted about me, you have posted lies where you insist that the HHS is an "honest" department. And when those lies are disproven, you insist that they were merely "errors" while continuing to use them and other invalid personal attacks.

The accumulation is much more than just that one need for a law that prohibits the HHS from putting out a dishonest poverty level number. Which it wasn't until I mentioned a the possibility that it entered your thinking that a law could thwart that possibility

I already proposed a solution to that issue (elimination of the "prebate" in favor of making some items tax exempt). There are dozens of other potential solutions. But before I could propose a solution, I had to make you realize that the problem really did exist, something that you refused to do because of your stupid blind faith in government (i.e., that the HHS would be "honest" when it is well kwown that they have been anything but honest in determining the value of the poverty level).

If I'm wrong and you did think of it earlier but chose not to mention it probably because to mention it would thwart your agenda

Proposing a solution to the flaw would have been futile until you realized that the flaw existed. My "agenda" is simply to resist the implementation of a tax code that is even more socialistic than the current abomination.

which I have no doubt you have not honestly stated

That's because you are being foolish. By believing that anyone who simply points out flaws in your system is intent on destroying the underlying principles of that system, you will alienate much of the support which would otherwise flock to your cause. When someone points out flaws in your system, rather than simply correcting them to create an even superior system you instead assume that the person pointing out the flaws is an "enemy". Your simplistic, one-dimensional thinking is a greater threat to the cause of a NRST replacement to the income tax than the chimera of enemies you perceive.

If I had really made any false statements, you would have been gleefully reposting them

No. You're wrong again. I have confidence in the reader that they can read our posts, comprehend, think and decide for themselves via juxtaposition whose being honest and who's not.

(and now admit that the flaw you so long insisted didn't exist is indeed a flaw),

BTW, In light of information recently posted to this thread at post 962 and 969 showing that it is not a flaw I have moved your $150,000 HHS poverty level assertion back to where it belongs in the tinfoil-hat section and also placed that back with your accumulated dishonesties. This little ditty of yours has come full circle and is subsumed in the honesty versus dishonesty matrix which our back-and-forth created.

The definition of poverty level is one formally defined since 1967 and a matter of law since that time through formal declaration and acceptance by congress

If that were really true, then you could find a law that defines the poverty rate in the US each time it changes each year. You cannot, because no such laws exist. The power to define the "poverty level" has been granted to federal administrations, and they can modify that value without any interaction with Congress whatsoever.

There is only one mandated poverty level for all legislation, not independant measures for each and every piece. To raise that level on any basis other than the historical criteria in place since 1967 and codified into Census Bureau regulations as well as the Department of labor would be a clear act of provable fraud

They would not have to raise that level on any other basis. The mechanism as it exists now is more than adequate to allow them to adjust the poverty level as they see fit.

Your claim that a single bureaucrat can simply raise the number to some arbitrary $150k dollars or drop it by any outlandish figure by fiat of the bureaucracy is simply foolish. If that could be done and made to stick, by now some liberal duderhead in office over the last 35 years of official use would have done so

Not true. Many similar flaws, such as the transfer of power to the secretary of the treasury to determine what shotguns are suitable for "sporting purposes", took decades to abuse. There are political consequences for pushing the poverty numbers too high under the current system, such as making the current administration look bad because of the high "poverty" figures (the reason the Clinton administration manipulated the numbers to keep them lower than historical trends).

The "definition" of poverty level has not change since 1967

This is not really true. It potentially (and invariably) changes every year, when the census burea releases its annual figures. If by definition you mean the method of calculation, then it too is not fixed in any real manner, since the values of the variables used in calculating it (such as "inflation" and "cost of living") are subject to the manipulations of bureaucrats.

Just go to Google and search for - malfeasance United States Code - you will find many such tort cases against several departments of the United States and officials within those departments successfully prosecuted

I gave a specific example (a case relating to the conviction of the self-confessed manipulation of poverty level numbers by the Clinton administration), since it is the specific example relevant to this flaw. If "falsifying poverty level" numbers were really a crime capable of being prosecuted, then show me a conviction. There is more than enough evidence (and even a "confession" by Robert Reich in the New York Times that the Clinton administration did that specifically) for a trial if the government really did consider it a crime; but the fact that no such trial is likely to ever arise shows just how little of a "safeguard" those laws are. In real terms, the government bureaucracy determines the value of the poverty level, and they can set that value to whatever they desire. Certainly, there are consequences for doing so (including the lawsuits by the affected parties which you mention, assuming Congress gives them permission to sue), but that in no way reduces the fact that the bureaucracy does indeed have that power.

No. You're wrong again

No, you've just decided to start lying again.

BTW, In light of information recently posted to this thread at post 962 and 969 showing that it is not a flaw I have moved your $150,000 HHS poverty level assertion back to where it belongs in the tinfoil-hat section and also placed that back with your accumulated dishonesties

The facts remain that it is indeed a flaw in the system, and the arguments to the contrary (as well stated as they have been by ancient_geezer) are still invalid. Geezer insists that existing laws would prevent such manipulation of the poverty levels. But a defacto examination of recent history (the past decade) shows that the bureaucracies do indeed have the ability to manipulate those numbers (because even they admitted that they have done so) and that there is no real legal consequences in doing so. Until you can show me a picture of Robert Reich in prison (or indeed, suffering any punishment whatsoever) for committing the "crime" to which he confessed (May 26, 2001, New York Times), then the argument that the existing legal constraints are adequate is nonsense.

That "½ of 1% tax" is compounded by the number of accounts & instuments the money must pass through to consumate the trade becoming a 365% tax on the basic value of the commerce being financed. That is not only socialist it is down right usurous and confiscative.

Our dialogue is getting stale again, as it did on a previous thread. Putting aside hyperbole, there is, say, $100T per year in stock and bond trades. A ½ of 1% tax on those transactions (assuming 20% lower volume and 20% avoidance) will raise, say, $200B per year. You’re okay with raising substantially more from taxing retail sales. You’re willing to collect $50 billion per year from the small class of new home purchasers. Yet you deem this financial transaction tax as socialistic, usurious, and confiscatory. You have given no basis for this opinion.

The federal government decides to stop taxing necessities and you say that's "redistribution"?

No, I said the exact opposite; you just have a comprehension problem. If the federal government doesn't want to tax "necessities", then it should simply not tax them. But the system that you are advocating DOES tax necessities, and also sends a government "prebate" handout to every household in the US, whether they actually paid any taxes or not. And since that "prebate" check has nothing to do with taxes paid but is instead simply a government check of arbitrary value (as determined by the "poverty rate", which itself is determined by a federal bureaucracy), it most certainly is "redistribution".

That you can twist words to suggest that making food tax exempt is somehow "marxist" while at the same time insisting that a government handout to every household in the U.S. is not is the height of either stupidity or dishonesty. I am uncertain as to which camp you occupy, but it is clear that limited government is certainly not your objective. For some reason, you insist on creating an unnecessary bureaucracy to provide government handouts as a solution to a problem that could be solved simply by not taxing food and other "necessities".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.