Real ID act and guns

[General Geoff]

Now that I would love to see. Tell all the companies doing business there not to withhold their employees taxes at all!

I'm half expecting Montana to do this.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

I would very much like to see a State, when threatened by withholding of Federal funds, tell their citizenry to withhold their Federal taxes. It would seem that two can play that game.

AntiqueCollector, revenue has to come from the people to the feds before the feds can 'give' it back. If the state can collect the revenue themselves, they won't need the feds.

*coughpost22cough*

 

[AntiqueCollector]

AntiqueCollector, revenue has to come from the people to the feds before the feds can 'give' it back. If the state can collect the revenue themselves, they won't need the feds.

Correct, a large proportion does, but keep in mind also the feds also print it out of thin air when they need more...

 

[Liko81]

I didn't see Texas in the states that are against this.

I may have to move if my state supports this crap.

Texas is listed as having a pending resolution opposing Real ID.

I would very much like to see a State, when threatened by withholding of Federal funds, tell their citizenry to withhold their Federal taxes. It would seem that two can play that game.

careful; them's fightin' words, and I will bet you anything if it comes to that you will see U.S. Army tanks rolling down the streets of every major city in every state that dares defy Our Great Government and Our Fearless Leader.

Seriously, we've fought one Civil War already. Neither the Federal government nor the States want it to come to that; if the States stick to their guns the U.S. government will probably fold and repeal Real ID. You're right; the states hold all the power because they control their citizens' money; attempting to force the issue will bring de facto cessation of the non-compliant states.

 

[Liko81]

Correct, a large proportion does, but keep in mind also the feds also print it out of thin air when they need more...

Not quite correct. The Fed (meaning the Federal Reserve, which is NOT under the direct control of the government) prints money, which they give to the Federal government in exchange for Treasury debt. The contents of your wallet are backed by the equivalent value of T-bills and T-bonds currently in the Fed's hands, therefore your dollar has the value of the bond backing it, which is subject to market demand. The Fed buys bonds and prints money as part of its monetary policy to increase the number of dollars in the economy to jump-start spending. Government spending puts dollars in the hands of government contractors who pay people who then buy things, and the money flows into the economy from there.

If the Fed refuses to buy the bonds because inflation is high or money is being loosely spent in the economy, or actually decrease it which would be an emergency measure to combat rampant inflation, then SOMEBODY's got to buy those bonds, using existing funds to cover the U.S.'s debt. The dollar is strong based solely on the fast that the U.S. ALWAYS pays its bills; the U.S. has the worlds highest credit rating, and its debt is a sure thing. However, the Fed's refusal to buy bonds causes a surplus; there's more debt out there than people are willing to cover at current prices. A surplus of anything in a free market is corrected by lowering price, which increases yields (the "interest" on the bond; the issuer always pays the face value of the bond no matter how much less the bond holder paid to obtain it). That reduces economic activity since the money costs more to obtain and therefore to lend. An increase in bond yields coupled with inflation is stagflation, as money's getting more expensive reducing spending, while at the same time losing value which reduces saved wealth.

The Treasury, which IS controlled by the President, cannot however force the Reserve to buy the bonds. The result if they tried would be that investors would lose even more confidence in T-debt and yields would skyrocket, requiring the Treasury to force the Fed to buy MORE bonds the next year. This vicious cycle floods the market with currency causing unchecked inflation. It's happened many times; Argentina tried it with the result that an Argentine dollar dropped to 20% of its previous value EVERY YEAR. Our current economic crisis is based on a 6% drop in the value of a U.S. dollar due to all the defaulted debt shaking investors' confidence in debt-backed securities (like T-debt and the dollars it buys); imagine an 80% drop based on a government that "prints money out of thin air".

If the U.S. were to go to war with itself, the U.S. economy would collapse; the debt would be worthless as the government would be in jeopardy, and with it the dollar would be worth more as fuel then the firewood it would buy. Not a single rational person in this country wants that to happen, even if they cannot fathom the full consequences, and those who want the U.S. to implode upon itself have not thought far enough ahead. Other governments peg their currency to our dollar by buying our T-debt and issuing equivalent currency. Their currency becomes worthless too. Governments with whom we have a huge trade deficit all of a sudden have nobody to sell their goods. This includes OPEC, whose "petrodollar" supply would quickly dry up. A collapse of the U.S. dollar would bring the next Great Depression.

 

[mad hungarian]

I agree with ArmedBear - see post #23
When I moved to TX I had to have my thumb scanned when I went to get a TX license. Seems like Real ID Act is a way to keep tabs on U.S. citizens especially since the borders are wide open, 9-11 threat or not.

 

[Autolycus]

The Republicans seem to love the RealID act. I suspect that the current administration will try to get more states to fall in line. I think that we need to stop paying federal taxes if they do try to withhold funds from the states.

 

[K3]

The Republicans seem to love the RealID act. I suspect that the current administration will try to get more states to fall in line. I think that we need to stop paying federal taxes if they do try to withhold funds from the states.

You first.

Lemme know how that works for you.

I'll pick a different battle.

 

[GunTech]

Both parties like READ ID, but for different reasons. Both want to extend the government into our lives, either for regulatory and security reasons, or for revenue.

Don't kid yourself.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

You first.

Lemme know how that works for you.

I'll pick a different battle.

If a state govt. in retaliation for witholding of funds decides no money is to be sent out of its borders to the federal govt., it would not be the same as an individual not paying taxes, which is much riskier to the individual.

 

[K3]

If a state govt. in retaliation for witholding of funds decides no money is to be sent out of its borders to the federal govt., it would not be the same as an individual not paying taxes, which is much riskier to the individual.

One of the more unlikely scenarios I've seen on these forums in a while.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Not quite correct. The Fed (meaning the Federal Reserve, which is NOT under the direct control of the government) prints money, which they give to the Federal government in exchange for Treasury debt.

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing prints the money, charges the federal reserve (a private bank in reality) for it and they in turn charge the govt. However, the govt. can with an executive order print US Notes instead of FR notes. However, the last president (JFK) who challenged the federal reserve(which would have taken out the federal reserve eventually when they had no more control over the money) was shot not long after issuing an executive order to print US Notes instead of FR notes (and also, silver certificates were being printed too).

Actually, if the issue of RealID compliance/funding/etc. were pressed, the states should as stated by the Constitution make only gold and silver coins legal tender in them (only gold and silver coins can be made legal tender by the states, the Constitution says), and this would in effect cripple/destroy the federal government if enough states did it, destroying the worthless fiat toilet paper the feds foists upon us as money and the power it gives them.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

One of the more unlikely scenarios I've seen on these forums in a while.

If all the people in a state like MT who are so fed up with the federal govt. were to pressure/force their state to do so, it could be done. Maybe unlikely, but entirely possible if the feds persist in annoying the people enough, and the people do not simply sit around a moan and groan about it and accept it while doing nothing to solve the problems.

 

[GunTech]

Montana has about 900,000 residents. That means we have exactly one congressman. Guess how much weight that pulls. Western Cities like Porltand have a larger population than our whole state.

Mostly, we try to ignore the Federal government.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Montana has about 900,000 residents. That means we have exactly one congressman. Guess how much weight that pulls. Western Cities like Porltand have a larger population than our whole state.

Which simply means there is less incentive to stick with the feds since you have little influence over them (similar to my own state, VT) compared to the big states that want all of these restrictions and things.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Guntech: Montana has about 900,000 residents. That means we have exactly one congressman. Guess how much weight that pulls. Western Cities like Porltand have a larger population than our whole state.

You do realize that the reason we have two Congressional branches is so that states are getting an equal representation in the Senate and representation by population in the House of Represenatives. The Founding Fathers made sure that no state could bully another by population as well as no minority could oppress the majority.

So contact your senators and have them start complaining for you, it is their job.

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

well, if this is to protect us from terrorists, I dont see how. I really dont like the idea and it seems alot of other people dont but it doesnt seem to matter. What ever happened to our elected officials representing the people?

We're constantly told that the terrorists are trying to destroy the American way of life. If the threat of them possibly attacking us is enough for our own govt to take away many of our freedoms, isnt that helping further the terrorists goal anyways? What are we trying to preserve and keep the terrorists from destroying? If the threat of their attack dimishes freedoms and liberties, that is a victory for them without blowing up any buildings, or hijacking any planes. It seems similar to burning down your house because someone else might try to destroy it.

 

[ServiceSoon]

I agree with you Eric. I really don't think the people want a Real ID. Who supports it? All I have heard is people who disaprove of it.

 

[alan]

The composer of post # 5 mentions "daydreaming by congress". How about WET DREAMING, which I believe would be a more appropriate description. In any case, seems like one hell of a price to pay for the soothing of Congressman Sensenbrenner's ruffled feathers.