More Americans Sever U.S. Ties as IRS Gets Tougher

[Choripán]

None of us are conservatives, is that so hard for you to understand?

Orwellian, why don't you start by giving an example that shows that you are not a right wing nut - for example, that there is at least one sane policy position that you support? You say you are not a conservative, yet everything you argue in this forum suggests otherwise.

Do you really think Obama is a progressive politician?

I think Obama has some progressive positions, and some status quo positions. It would be excellent if we could discuss those differences in this forum, but instead we get vacuous bullshit and misrepresentation. Why don't you give a concrete example of why you think he's not progressive? Then we can discuss it. We will likely find a great deal of common ground.

Do you think that the increase in the amount of people renouncing their citizenship has nothing to do with taxes?

Several articles from credible sources have been posted to this forum that counter your assertion. These articles make two points:

1. Most people who renounce their citizenship each year are immigrants returning to their native countries. So no, I don't think the tax issue is a significant factor, but no doubt a handful of wealthy crackpots move overseas each year to keep a few more bucks.

2. The total number of people renouncing American citizenship each years is between 500 and 700. In other words, given a base of 300 million people, only 0.0000023% of the population, or slightly more than those that died from lightning strikes, renounce their citizenship. This number could increase ten-fold and it still wouldn't matter - it's nothing more than statistical noise and saying anything else about it is deeply dishonest. What this means is that YOUR UNDERLYING ASSERTION THAT DEPATRIATION IS SOME KIND OF GROWING TREND THAT INDICATES THE UNJUST SEVERITY OF AMERICAN TAX POLICY IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT MEANT TO MISLEAD AND DISTRACT OTHERWISE NORMAL HUMAN BEINGS.

Point #2 above is the one that really matters. You and your rightie cronies do this time and time again - post something false to make a larger political point that does not merit consideration. Do you now understand why people are frustrated trying to hand-hold your way into reality? Dude, it's like your skull is a foot and a half thick.

How do you expect me to debate you when you offer no ability to do so?

You're joking, right? Because seriously, man, witty repartee isn't exactly your strong suit. You're lucky that I've been taking it easy on you. As I've said before, I'm trying to help you save yourself from embarrassment. You look like a fool. After all the generous corrections to your nonsense have been put into the public space for you, you still act like you've never ever considered reality. It's quite disturbing and, I think most would agree, laughable at the same time.

 

[orwellian]

You also show no proof what so ever to what you declare. Stating "I've shown you proof" is not in fact proof.

To clarify, what I have proven is what a real birth certificate is. And I have already stated that it's not important and I was wrong about the main issue. I can admit I was wrong but you guys are incapable of admitting a single minor mistake. Anyone who had a baby knows that a birth certificate is provided to you by the hospital staff. And the proof that I gave you was that it is clearly stated in Wikipedia. Now if you disagree with that, can you please tell me why you think that Wikipedia is wrong?

Instead you choose to call me a parrot and say you don't want to debate me. So now you're doing exactly what Choripan accuses me of doing. Now Choripan, are you going to criticize her for it or are you going to be a hypocrite and just fail to comment on it?

 

[MikeMike]

oh and there's one other thing. technically, the income tax is illegal according to the constitution. that's right - it's illegal. nowhere in the constitution does is say that the federal govt. has a right to tax the wages of a private person, which means that citizens should not have to pay it.

You are aware that the constitution provides a framework for ammendments and that 16th ammendment was ratified in order to resolve any issues related to levying of an income tax, right? You're also aware that the gov't levied taxes on income prior to the ratification of this ammendment (e.g. civil war) and that the dispute that gave rise to the 16th ammendment was really only about apportionment of the tax (and not about whether the tax could be levied)?

If you research this topic in depth you'll find that the income tax is entirely legal and permitted w/ in the bounds of the constitution. Not that I'm a fan of it ....

Edit: Just an FYI, I agree w/ the remainder of your comments (big fed gov is coming, sucks and should be avoided!).

 

[orwellian]

Orwellian, why don't you start by giving an example that shows that you are not a right wing nut - for example, that there is at least one sane policy position that you support? You say you are not a conservative, yet everything you argue in this forum suggests otherwise.

I am a libertarian socialist, isn't that enough for you think I am not a conservative? How about you click on my username and check out the posts I have made before on this forum?

I think Obama has some progressive positions, and some status quo positions. It would be excellent if we could discuss those differences in this forum, but instead we get vacuous bullshit and misrepresentation. Why don't you give a concrete example of why you think he's not progressive? Then we can discuss it. We will likely find a great deal of common ground.

Yes it would be excellent, which is what I have been trying to say all along. A concrete example? Let me see... Oh yeah the fact that he promised he would close Guantanamo, bring back the troops and there was the whole talk about 'change'. I mean for me change meant policies that actually changed the course of the country, but instead after taking office he has continued the very same policies of Bush.

Several articles from credible sources have been posted to this forum that counter your assertion.

....

You and your rightie cronies do this time and time again - post something false to make a larger political point that does not merit consideration. Do you now understand why people are frustrated trying to hand-hold your way into reality? Dude, it's like your skull is a foot and a half thick.

The only thing I know about the issue is from this article. And I don't really care. I was new to the whole thing and I was surprised you have to pay taxes even though you don't live in your country. For me, that would be a big reason to renounce my citizenship.

And are you capable of trying to debate someone without resorting to ridiculing the person your debating with? You don't even know my viewpoint yet but still you just keep on and on with the personal insults.

You're joking, right? Because seriously, man, witty repartee isn't exactly your strong suit.

No seriously, how do you expect me to debate you when I don't know what you are disagreeing with me on?

 

[Choripán]

No but seriously, how do you expect me to debate you when I don't know what you are disagreeing with me on?

Let's start with the notion of a "libertarian socialist." What on earth could that possibly mean?

Libertarian: the only just state is the minimal or even non-existent state.

Socialism: The only just state with one with public ownership of the means of production.

These two political philosophies are literally diametrically opposite. Indeed, they formed in opposition in 18th century. It sounds like something you made up because you want to cloth your conservatism in something other than what it is.

 

[orwellian]

JFGI: Libertarian socialism

Public ownership doesn't necessarily mean government ownership.

Now what happened to our debate? Are you doing what you just accused me of doing?

 

[mini]

To clarify, what I have proven is what a real birth certificate is. And I have already stated that it's not important and I was wrong about the main issue. I can admit I was wrong but you guys are incapable of admitting a single minor mistake. Anyone who had a baby knows that a birth certificate is provided to you by the hospital staff. And the proof that I gave you was that it is clearly stated in Wikipedia. Now if you disagree with that, can you please tell me why you think that Wikipedia is wrong?

Instead you choose to call me a parrot and say you don't want to debate me. So now you're doing exactly what Choripan accuses me of doing. Now Choripan, are you going to criticize her for it or are you going to be a hypocrite and just fail to comment on it?

BECAUSE YOU CONTINUE TO PROPAGATE A LIE. Stop it!!!!!!

He is under NO obligation to show a long form BC as they are no longer issued by the state of Hawaii. The BC he has shown is a REAL birth certificate and acceptable as proof of identity. Please STOP saying it is not real.

You are now doing what you accuse others of doing and that makes you one gigantic hypocrite. The fact that you can't see that is sad. You are being used as a pawn in the game of disinformation.

 

[ElQueso]

I object to the way that Obama is running his presidency, much the way I objected to the way Bush ran his presidency. The big difference is that while Bush weakened us with his preoccupation for controlling the Middle East, piggie-backing on hysteria over 9/11, Obama is now attempting to change fundamental aspects of our nation, and is being more secretive than Bush was.

Here is an example:

Obama promises during his campaign that his presidency will be very open, that certainly it will be more open than Bush's. He promised that the negotiations/sessions on health care reform would be broadcast on C-SPAN.

The reality?

"The Democratic administration of Barack Obama, who denounced his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the most secretive in history, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than the Republican did.

One of the exemptions allowed to deny Freedom of Information requests has been used by the Obama administration 70,779 times in its first year; the same exemption was used 47,395 times in Bush's final budget year.

An Associated Press examination of 17 major agencies' handling of FOIA requests found denials 466,872 times, an increase of nearly 50% from the 2008 fiscal year under Bush." - Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2010

"'The House and Senate plan to put together the final health care reform bill behind closed doors according to an agreement by top Democrats,' House Speaker Nanci Pelosi said today at the White House.

The White House is on board with that, too, reports CBS News political correspondent Chip Reid. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed today that 'the president wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.'
" - CBS, January 6, 2010

What do you think about that? Do you think that Obama's ideas are good enough that they should be handled behind closed doors and passed the way the health care bill was passed? I didn't even mention the whole reconciliation thing in the quotes above, but what about that too? The author of the reconciliation procedure, a Democrat himself, said Obama was completely wrong to use that to pass sweeping legislation.

Is it OK for Obama to renege on such promises, when most of the country was pissed at many things the Bush presidency did, including his secrecy, and in fact that was one of the key components that got Obama elected?

What do you HONESTLY think the Democrats would do if they found themselves in the same position? Do you think they would link arms and sing "Cumbaya" and shrug their shoulders, saying "well, it's their right?"

I'm a Libertarian, not a Republican. Many ignorant people say that Libertarians are just tighter wound "right wing nuts." I think most Republicans are as bad as most Democrats. They are not there to do what their constituents want, they are there to follow whatever their money backers says theya re there for.

I believe in personal responsibilty and free markets. I believe that the government should be there to provide a framework of laws and punishments when those laws are violated, but should not meddle. I believe that a woman has a right to chose the fate of her unborn fetus (within a limit of time). I believe that marijuana (at least, if not more drugs) should be legal. I believe that we should do away with personal income tax and institute either a flat tax (could be progressive based on income, but get rid of the loopholes) or a national sales tax in lieu of personal income tax at the most - really, I believe we shouldn't even have a tax, and that would limit government quite a bit, but I'm realistic as well as Libertarian.

Many (most?) Libertarians are socially progressive and economically conservative.

I believe that every presidency, at least in the last 145 years, for one reason or another (right or wrong), has been interested in gathering more federal power and decreasing States rights and personal rights. I think that's wrong.

I believe that Obama is taking things to a new level. I think he and the politicians that support him are very dangerous, almost unopposed by anyone except the Republicans. I believe that he and those self-same politicians are leading the US down a road that will make the US seem very similar to Argentina (economically - culturally it will still be tight-assed, which will make it overall worse than Argentina) in a relatively short time.

I'm not a racist. Not even close. Don't try mix that crap into this - it's not an argument, it's obfuscation.

The fact is, there are a lot of people who are concerned about Obama's large amount of power and the ideas that he is pushing through, with a Democratic congress with large majorities, against a good percentage of popular approval, amidst backroom deals. I think it is quite appropriate that the more power a single person has, the more people come out of the wood-work to oppose him.

The founding fathers had an idea about this. It's one main reason we don't have a King.

 

[orwellian]

BECAUSE YOU CONTINUE TO PROPAGATE A LIE. Stop it!!!!!!

He is under NO obligation to show a long form BC as they are no longer issued by the state of Hawaii. The BC he has shown is a REAL birth certificate and acceptable as proof of identity. Please STOP saying it is not real.

You are now doing what you accuse others of doing and that makes you one gigantic hypocrite. The fact that you can't see that is sad. You are being used as a pawn in the game of disinformation.

No you misunderstood me. I never claimed that his "Certificate of Live Birth" is fake. All I said that he never showed us his real (as in original birth certificate). The one that is provided to you at the hospital when your baby is born. It was you who said that hospitals do not issue birth certificates. This is clearly wrong.
Do you understand me now?

 

[Ries]

I have two kids.
Neither was "provided a birth certificate by the hospital" when they were born.
some localities do this, others dont.
One of my kids was born at home.
NO hospital.
The county, in that particular case, sent me a birth certificate, that looks JUST LIKE OBAMA's, about a month later.

Hawaii does what it does, quite legally, and this whole birth certificate thing is complete BS. It does not issue the same type of paperwork that some other places do. What has been shown, on this thread, and nationally on TV and in the papers, is legal, proof of citizenship and birth, and exactly what you or I would get if we had a kid in Hawaii tomorrow.

And Choripan is absolutely right that, statistically, and numerically, the number of US citizens renouncing their citizenship is miniscule, and meaningless in terms of overall US citizen opinions towards taxes OR Obama.
And, incidentally, whether you, or I, or anyone else agrees with Obama, he is still more popular in the USA, right now, than virtually any other politician in office. His poll numbers are not high, but they are higher than virtually any other national politician right now.

There is a huge waiting list of people from around the world who would LOVE to become american citizens and pay taxes there. If you dont want to remain a US citizen, by all means, renounce, and make room for someone who wants the benefits, and responsibilities that are attached to them.