Randy - the answer is that there is no difference.

Government, by and large, is the most sophisticated "organized crime" family in the world. The 545 up in D.C. (not including the "boss" of the family in the White House) shake down citizens constantly - whether through confiscatory taxes (at the point of a gun if necessary) or through their inflationary monetary policies (which amounts to another tax).

And the lobbyist, Military-Industrial complex, Big Pharma, etc., all aid and abet the crimes so as to get their cut.

So, the answer is ... if there is a difference, it is a difference without much distinction in my opinion.

Keith

For everything you expect your government to provide, there is an equal and opposite suppression of liberty.

So, it really comes down to how much gov't do you want/need/or can stomach.

I'd humbly offer we have grown the Federal Govt well beyond the founders intent (even beyond the wildest dreams of Alexander Hamilton (the most infamous Federalist).

Unfortunately, this movie has but one ending...the balloon will have to burst as there is no one who can summon the will to let the air out slowly from the intake valve.

POP goes the guillotine

Well, there are at least 3 of us that get it, but I sure would like someone to try and argue the opposite.

Impossible. Especially given your last paragraph, beginning..."please don't give me a legal answer". That and its follow-up pretty much eliminate response. And, as long as the system grows constituents that it nurtures and promises to continue nurturing to the grave, based on the hard work of others, it is unsolvable. Those 'beneficiaries' will never vote themselves out of benefits. Hence the re-election some years ago of people like Mayor Marion Barry in D.C. Immediately after being caught, filmed and convicted of bribery, fraud and with crack in hand and nose - he was promptly re-elected by his beneficiaries because none of that was relevant to their needs - more free support.

Our 535 are not much better, one side especially, though both are guilty. They pander to the underclass with cradle to grave support in hopes of growing that class as their increasing base of supporters. That none of them seem to grasp that it is an untenable financial and social disaster about to implode, is frankly beyond my understanding. And now we have Mr. Obama wanting the US to promise to wipe out world poverty to the tune of another $845 Billion. I guess, while they don't want to be the world's peacemaker, they do want to be its mother - or cost free banker. It sickens me.

I'm as guilty of generalizations as anyone ... but these ad hominem attacks on Obama are tiresome. I think the point of the thread was the unfair (and inherently unconstitutional) nature of income tax in America. To follow your logic, Ray, that became an opportunity to suggest that every person that votes Democratic is a welfare-check drug addict.

Anyone interested in the original premise of the thread, should either rent or buy a copy of Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism". Below is an excerpt of one review of his film from theconservativevoice.com (bear in mind, Russo was a Democrat, but a patriot first):

"The film begins with a critical review of two monumental events that happened in 1913: the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which has been interpreted to authorize the forced taxation of individual income and the creation of the Federal Reserve, which turned the governance of America's financial system over to a centralized private banking interest. The film intelligently and convincingly makes a strong case for the opinion that both the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve System are flatly unconstitutional and may not even have been legally adopted.

Russo's film then factually demonstrates how modern presidents (especially Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) have led America out of the light of liberty and into a dark alley of fascism (hence the film's title). The film provides many examples to prove the reality of that statement.

Many very credible personalities are interviewed in the film including Texas Congressman Ron Paul, constitutional scholar Edwin Vieira, Jr. Esq., former IRS special agents and investigators, and several others. Russo also interviewed former IRS commissioners, and reviewed copious court cases, including Supreme Court cases. Predictably (for such a documentary), notable tax resistors such as Bob Schulz and Franklin Sanders were also interviewed. And, frankly, their arguments are compelling!"

mrwrite,

First, I will admit I strayed a bit from the main premise and probably should not have. However, there is nothing ad hominem about my statement (not "attack"). It was a criticism of a POLICY not a person and not an attack. You really need (IMO of course) to rein in all the lashing out and mischaracterization of other posters and their posts. Please show me the "attack" and its "ad hominem" nature against Obama. He has laid out the plan I suggest at an estimated cost I gave. Exact numbers can always be argued, but it's generally in the ballpark of all the things I read about it - and no, not from what you routinely list as the only sources of news Conservatives get. THAT grows tiresome. For someone so intolerant of the opposing view and who routinely lashes out with denigrating, personal attacks and name-calling, you might re-check the strength of the glass in that glass house you live in. Seems like a mere pebble could damage it.

Last, I don't know how you come to the conclusion that my comment on part of the underclass leads to the totalitarian effect of "every person who votes Democratic...". You are correct about one thing -- you are "as guilty of generalizations as anyone". More than most, I'd say.

It's a fine line you're traversing, Ray. You claim it's not an attack to "conflate" Marion Barry's problems with Obama's proposals (which, rather than an tax increase, would be paid for by redistributing the burden of the tax giveaways that disproportionately benefit the top 1%).

It's not unlike conflating the threat of Saddam with the attacks of 9-11. "Technically", the administration can say they 'never said' Saddam was responsible. 'Suggesting' such a thing is another matter entirely.

I think you're very, very bright. And I think you know exactly what you were doing when you posted your comments.

I have to admit, the construct is clever. The only argument would have me sounding as though I were defending Barry. It's close to a 'when did you stop beating your wife' conundrum. Touche!