Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,069 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 129,326
Pageviews Today: 267,370Threads Today: 91Posts Today: 1,923
05:24 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Some words on taxation without representation, i.e. America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2010

 
Publius
User ID: 631597
Netherlands
03/22/2010 11:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Some words on taxation without representation, i.e. America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2010
The American revolution, which gave us the freedoms that we once enjoyed in this nation, was a major turning point in world history. But one of the major purposes for the revolution was to get the colonists out from under the thumb of tyranny. The rallying cry, "No taxation without representation", was one of the most profound and hard hitting sentiments to ever come out of our forefathers mouths. But what exactly did it mean?

taxation without representation

[link to dictionary.reference.com]

–noun

American History.

a phrase, generally attributed to James Otis about 1761, that reflected the resentment of American colonists at being taxed by a British Parliament to which they elected no representatives and became an anti-British slogan before the American Revolution; in full, “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”


In other words, British parliament was levying taxes against the colonies without their approval or consent. One of the most famous of which was the tax imposed on tea, from which we get the famous Tea Party, and it's counterpart today, which I might add, falls short of the courageous and immortal actions of the ones that raided the docks and rebelliously threw the shipment of tea into the Boston harbor.

This taxation without representation happens to also be the reason for the creation of congress, and the elections of representatives.

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8

[link to www.usconstitution.net]

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

So, the power to levy taxes was put into the hands of congress, but the checks and balances included in the constitutional provisions were to create such a restraint on that power as to only allow them to levy such taxes as the people would approve. Representation in the context of politics means that your elected representative is in effect your voice in congress. And they are bound to voice the opinion and follow the will of the majority in their district. If the public does not approve of the tax they wish to levy, then they must vote down the tax, whether they want to or not.

Taxation without representation happens not only when a tax is levied against the public by those not voted in to office by that public, as happened with Britain, but also when Congress votes for a tax without the approval of the public. If the great majority of the public stands against any such tax, yet the congress approves and passes that tax into law, this is what is known as taxation without representation.

Yesterday, our congress voted in historic legislation that, among many other things, levies a tax against the people of America. In the bill, they attempt to bypass the age old decree of no taxation without representation, by simply adding this statement found on Page 203 Line 14-15 of HR 3200:

"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax."

HR 3200 "Americas Affordable Health Care Act Of 2010"

Click the link below for a copy of the bill in pdf format:

[link to www.google.com]

While this is only dealing with one section of the entire bill, it says volumes about the arrogance ruling our current congress. In the wider scope of things however, this statement is irrelevant, since the entire bill is an unprecedented tax on the American people, of which the majority steadfastly opposed to the end. If democracy is majority rule, and the majority opposed this bill, then it should never have been passed. But since it was, this means that we were not represented at all, and this tax is exactly what the British crown was doing to the thirteen colonies, which they finally got fed up with and rebelled against.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends... It seems as though we have come to that point again in history where we find ourselves faced with a momentous decision.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Where do we draw the line to end this long train of abuses? Where does it start? Can it be said that this transgression is a light or transient cause? Or can it be safely said that this latest injury to our inalienable rights as human beings does indeed evince a design to reduce us under absolute despotism? If so, does prudence dictate to us that it is time to exercise the one right that no man, no government can take away from us? The right to abolish a tyrannical government and provide new safeguards for our future security?

TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION IS TYRANNY!
Publius (OP)
User ID: 631597
Netherlands
03/22/2010 11:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Some words on taxation without representation, i.e. America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2010
Do any of you understand the ramifications of this?

Do you even care?

Examining the topics of most of the conversations on this forum, I can probably answer that last question myself...
bobnightman

User ID: 922906
United States
03/22/2010 11:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Some words on taxation without representation, i.e. America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2010
What districts in America are not represented?
12/21/12
Anonymous Coward (OP)
User ID: 631597
Netherlands
03/23/2010 12:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Some words on taxation without representation, i.e. America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2010
What districts in America are not represented?
 Quoting: bobnightman

Hmmm, the majority of the American people DID NOT want this bill passed. at least 40 states are filing lawsuits against the federal government over this bill.

40 out of 52 states sound like a majority to me, how about you?

Again, the majority DO NOT want this bill forced upon them.

The bill was passed anyway.

Where is the representation in that?
GraftedPromise
User ID: 922220
United States
03/23/2010 12:36 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Some words on taxation without representation, i.e. America's Affordable Health Care Act of 2010
.
... it's frightening for our son and daughter ...
.
... neither has any income so they wonder what the IRS is going to do to them ...
.





GLP