MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Federal Taxation Is Obsolete
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

PROLOGUE: given that Arthur Jones frequently discussed the subject of taxation within the very articles where he was detailing strength-training, I find my posting more than adequate to grace the halls of the DrDarden.com website!

About the concept of TAXATION and the impending ONE-TRILLION DOLLARS OF NEW TAXES set to be imposed in 2013, because the USA in 1971 was financially removed from "the gold standard", the government decided to print & engrave money as it saw fit, or was advised, which is called, "fiat money".

Therefore, TAXES ARE UNNECESSARY ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, because the U.S. Federal Government could simply print the annual amount of money to be released, and hold-back what it needs for the budget.

What has evolved from THE U.S. TAX CODE is really SOCIAL-ENGINEERING, which includes encouragement (for example) to produce agriculture-products that can be utilized for bio-fuels or discouragement to invest in tobacco that is also contradictorily encouraged by "farm subsidies", which also too many items to list that includes punishing the wealthy that certain politicians outright say is their goal or so-called incentives that pro-business politicians push for.

Sure, wealthy people in America are a bunch of self-indulgent narcissistic jerks, like Donald Trump and Silvio Berlusconi, or empty suited boorish pontificators, like Warren Buffet and George Soros, but what rich person, or corporation, has failed to passed along their expenses to "Joe Average", the consumer??

What do you think the TRILLION-DOLLARS increase in taxes will do to the economy that Obama has prepared for 2013, in the name of making the rich pay their "fair share"? Am I rich? No, and I might die poor, for all I know; but, what I do know is that any pressure put upon the wealthy to pay more taxes will result in EVERYONE paying the costs passed along to the consumer.

Of course, state and local governments cannot print money, which means they must ask for one cow out of every herd be set-aside for city-hall. At the same time, look at the "border wars" that are happening between cities in two different states, but in close proximity to a shared state-border?

Taxation and/or regulation becomes too burdensome, or simply rosier within the other border, which causes businesses to change their geography. Currently, these scenarios are playing out between Kansas City, Missouri, and Johnson County, Kansas; and, I believe this is what was happening between Cincinnati, Ohio and Kentucky that could've affected HammerStrength in the late 80s or 1990s.

The above is my editorial on TAXES, more like an analysis of where we are at with taxation in America. My editorial is not entirely new for me, as I was giving similar analysis in 1997, but the ideas behind the editorial are novel from my own mind, as I know of no one that has suggested what I have I have said in regard to the Federal Government dump taxation, in favor of simply printing the amount of money for the budget.

Of course, greedy politicians could simply release more cash, to gain more votes, like they did with pensions in California, which could result in the devaluation of our monetary-system; but, as has been repeated often from 2008-2012, ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Perhaps, then, we should remove the final vote for THE U.S. BUDGET from the Congress and the Presidency, and amend The Constitution to mandate that the Senate, the House and the Presidency present competing versions of the Budget, and we vote on them with a run-off election. Then, so-called "DIVIDED GOVERNMENT" could work to our advantage; instead of causing grid-lock.


What say you? :)
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

About what?

Repubs and Dems will make a deal sooner probably later and tax breaks will be reinstated for lower income levels and made retroactive.
Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

I resisted responding because I know it's going to open up a can of worms and it will get nowhere.

In a proper moral (i.e. laissez-faire capitalism) society, taxation would not be necessary. All the necessary functions of government could be paid for by voluntary contributions to the government because it would cost one-tenth of what it does now to run it.

This whole "fiscal cliff" debate means nothing...at least in the long run. Until spending is severely lowered we will not prevent the REAL financial fiscal cliff that is surely headed our way. Once that day comes, people will learn that they cannot have their cake and eat it too. A lot of folks will suffer as they should.

Also, taxes are a secondary issue. The #1 problem is spending. Period. That is not an opinion. It's a mathematical fact. I will not debate this so I hope no one bothers.

Long term we need to elect politicians who understand and fight for the principle of individual rights to the fullest, socially and economically.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Medicare, medicaid and Social Security are three of the biggest ares of spending. What in each of these would you propose be cut?

I am seriously interested in your answer.
Open User Options Menu

farhad

Massachusetts, USA

southbeach wrote:
Medicare, medicaid and Social Security are three of the biggest ares of spending. What in each of these would you propose be cut?

I am seriously interested in your answer.



1) I think they should not have been created in the first place. I consider them immoral and un-American. The government does not or should not have the authority to force individuals to "save" for their own retirement or health-care, or anyone else's.

2) Having said that, because folks have already been forced to pay into these systems, especially Medicare and SS, you cannot just end them. I would prefer phasing them out gradually and completely done away with in 30 years.

3) If that's not politically possible, then for SS we can lower benefits, and increase the retirement age. Medicare, is much more complicated and difficult. I would start raising the age when people can get use from the system and put more financial responsibility on future beneficiaries.Today's Medicare beneficiaries get out much more than what they put in and that needs to end. No way I can provide details here, but we need more freedom and less government mandates. That is the goal we should be fighting for.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

farhad wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Medicare, medicaid and Social Security are three of the biggest ares of spending. What in each of these would you propose be cut?

I am seriously interested in your answer.


1) I think they should not have been created in the first place. I consider them immoral and un-American. The government does not or should not have the authority to force individuals to "save" for their own retirement or health-care, or anyone else's.




I know you have a couple of more points but i'll start here. Your opinion here is incredibly naive and silly. It's naive to assume that every single person on the planet can feed and support themselves. Would you let a dog starve because he just can't seem to find enough food despite his effort?

A govt is not a corp. The fed govt SHOULD collect taxes and spend (ie distribute) those proceeds to benefit its citizens.

You shouldn't "force" anyone to save for the day they can't support themselves thru active employment?? Are U freaking kidding me??!! LOL. Your suggestion is ABSURD!

What will YOU do with a LOT of those people that have worked their whole lives made just enough to "survive" the costs of a modern society but are nor 75, ill/disabled/hobbled and have no money to EAT??!! Just say oh tough luck for you?

Just like the NFL program that exposes folly on the field...C'Mon Man! lol

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

farhad wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Medicare, medicaid and Social Security are three of the biggest ares of spending. What in each of these would you propose be cut?

I am seriously interested in your answer.


1) I think they should not have been created in the first place. I consider them immoral and un-American. The government does not or should not have the authority to force individuals to "save" for their own retirement or health-care, or anyone else's.

2) Having said that, because folks have already been forced to pay into these systems, especially Medicare and SS, you cannot just end them. I would prefer phasing them out gradually and completely done away with in 30 years.

3) If that's not politically possible, then for SS we can lower benefits, and increase the retirement age. Medicare, is much more complicated and difficult. I would start raising the age when people can get use from the system and put more financial responsibility on future beneficiaries.Today's Medicare beneficiaries get out much more than what they put in and that needs to end. No way I can provide details here, but we need more freedom and less government mandates. That is the goal we should be fighting for.



How about "Defense" spending.. 711 BILLION on the next greatest war toys...for what purpose?

Spending more by far than any other country..is this the definition of obession?

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ry_expenditures
Open User Options Menu

Nautilus1975

southbeach wrote:

How about "Defense" spending.. 711 BILLION on the next greatest war toys...for what purpose?

Spending more by far than any other country..is this the definition of obession?

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ditures


Making it so you can sit there and not lift a finger instead of never being born because this country was conquered and your grand parents killed eliminating your very existence from time.
Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

Defense spending should be halved. The gun nuts aka the well regulated militia will keep us safe. Win/win.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Nautilus1975 wrote:
southbeach wrote:

How about "Defense" spending.. 711 BILLION on the next greatest war toys...for what purpose?

Spending more by far than any other country..is this the definition of obession?

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ry_expenditures

Making it so you can sit there and not lift a finger instead of never being born because this country was conquered and your grand parents killed eliminating your very existence from time.


What are you talking about your link is bad
Open User Options Menu

BennyAnthonyOfKC

Missouri, USA

In theory, none of these programs need to be cut, because The Federal Government only needs to print the money for it, especially because much of this money has been promised to our citizens in particular the ones that actually paid into the funds. Again, the only problem with politicians printing money is if it gets out-of-control, as in post-WWI Germany, except that is why I would have each of the branches propose their competing budgets. VOLUNTEERY, SCHOLUNTEERY CONTRIBUTIIONS, the old saw of libertarians is irrational, out of selfishness very little money would come into The Federal GOvernment, they've screwed too many people over, just print the damn money, they're doing already! :)
Open User Options Menu

frostyF

Arkansas, USA

I'll gladly contribute if the tax monies go for interstate hwys,a mighty military,and border security.I'm totally against the $$ going for anything else.
Leon
Open User Options Menu

Nautilus1975

southbeach wrote:
Nautilus1975 wrote:
southbeach wrote:

How about "Defense" spending.. 711 BILLION on the next greatest war toys...for what purpose?

Spending more by far than any other country..is this the definition of obession?

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ry_expenditures

Making it so you can sit there and not lift a finger instead of never being born because this country was conquered and your grand parents killed eliminating your very existence from time.


What are you talking about your link is bad


That is your link - I just quoted it - I think it is pretty obvious what I am saying

Open User Options Menu

Nautilus1975

BennyAnthonyOfKC wrote:
In theory, none of these programs need to be cut, because The Federal Government only needs to print the money for it, especially because much of this money has been promised to our citizens in particular the ones that actually paid into the funds. Again, the only problem with politicians printing money is if it gets out-of-control, as in post-WWI Germany, except that is why I would have each of the branches propose their competing budgets. VOLUNTEERY, SCHOLUNTEERY CONTRIBUTIIONS, the old saw of libertarians is irrational, out of selfishness very little money would come into The Federal GOvernment, they've screwed too many people over, just print the damn money, they're doing already! :)



Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't SS, Medicare and such be easily self funding? More people pay in and then die off before the age of qualifying for the benefit than ever cash in on it.

Didn't the US Government dig into the SS coffers many times in the past to fund other things? Because it was so flush with cash, because it was basically just a scam for most people and a benefit for a few?

I have been taught this many times in the past with figures from the CBO that seemed to validate the theory.

I think reform on spending on the fraud end of things in these programs as well as the elimination of reckless spending in other areas of the debt would more than just stave off a 100% of GDP to debt situation and STILL allow for a strong military without being a blank check for the military-industrial complex.

Although it may be a hardship on the bottom feeding bums that rely on the government for handouts like the baby birds who wait for the momma bird to puke regurge in their mouths to sustain their very existence.

You're not a baby bird
are ya now south beach?

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

frostyF wrote:
I'll gladly contribute if the tax monies go for interstate hwys,a mighty military,and border security.I'm totally against the $$ going for anything else.
Leon


well, you live in a DEMOCRACY ..and i am sure you rather live here, right? so pony up to the COLLECTIVE majority ..i am


http://www.startrek.com/...se_article/borg lol
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Nautilus1975 wrote:
BennyAnthonyOfKC wrote:
In theory, none of these programs need to be cut, because The Federal Government only needs to print the money for it, especially because much of this money has been promised to our citizens in particular the ones that actually paid into the funds. Again, the only problem with politicians printing money is if it gets out-of-control, as in post-WWI Germany, except that is why I would have each of the branches propose their competing budgets. VOLUNTEERY, SCHOLUNTEERY CONTRIBUTIIONS, the old saw of libertarians is irrational, out of selfishness very little money would come into The Federal GOvernment, they've screwed too many people over, just print the damn money, they're doing already! :)


Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't SS, Medicare and such be easily self funding? More people pay in and die than ever cash in on it.

Didn't the US Government dig into the SS coffers many times in the past to fund other things? Because it was so flush with cash, because it was basically just a scam for most people and a benefit for a few?

I have been taught this many times in the past with figures from the CBO that seemed to validate the theory



stop watching Fox news is the 1st advice i'd level on you
Open User Options Menu

Nautilus1975

southbeach wrote:
frostyF wrote:
I'll gladly contribute if the tax monies go for interstate hwys,a mighty military,and border security.I'm totally against the $$ going for anything else.
Leon

well, you live in a DEMOCRACY ..and i am sure you rather live here, right? so pony up to the COLLECTIVE majority ..i am


http://www.startrek.com/...se_article/borg lol


"i am"

I'll just bet....love to see those figures....

Open User Options Menu

frostyF

Arkansas, USA

No dumbass,I don't live in a democracy.I live in a representative constitutional republic.And so do you.
Leon
Open User Options Menu

Nautilus1975

southbeach wrote:
Nautilus1975 wrote:
BennyAnthonyOfKC wrote:
In theory, none of these programs need to be cut, because The Federal Government only needs to print the money for it, especially because much of this money has been promised to our citizens in particular the ones that actually paid into the funds. Again, the only problem with politicians printing money is if it gets out-of-control, as in post-WWI Germany, except that is why I would have each of the branches propose their competing budgets. VOLUNTEERY, SCHOLUNTEERY CONTRIBUTIIONS, the old saw of libertarians is irrational, out of selfishness very little money would come into The Federal GOvernment, they've screwed too many people over, just print the damn money, they're doing already! :)


Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't SS, Medicare and such be easily self funding? More people pay in and die than ever cash in on it.

Didn't the US Government dig into the SS coffers many times in the past to fund other things? Because it was so flush with cash, because it was basically just a scam for most people and a benefit for a few?

I have been taught this many times in the past with figures from the CBO that seemed to validate the theory



stop watching Fox news is the 1st advice i'd level on you


No that info was presented by PHDs in 500-600 level college courses, not Fox news there southbeach, - can you relate even in the slightest bit?

Again reaffirmed in conversations less that a decade ago...of course no one says beyond a shadow of a doubt they were experts....hell, they might have even been liberal

Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

The government can print all the paper money it likes but the government cannot create money which the paper represents in jut the same way numbers on a computer represent money. Instead it relies on the Federal reserve for this function and regardless of if you believe or know what the official controlling interests of the federal reserve are the federal reserves behavior clearly shows that it is not under the direct control of the elected government.
Open User Options Menu

Acerimmer1

southbeach wrote:
Nautilus1975 wrote:
BennyAnthonyOfKC wrote:
In theory, none of these programs need to be cut, because The Federal Government only needs to print the money for it, especially because much of this money has been promised to our citizens in particular the ones that actually paid into the funds. Again, the only problem with politicians printing money is if it gets out-of-control, as in post-WWI Germany, except that is why I would have each of the branches propose their competing budgets. VOLUNTEERY, SCHOLUNTEERY CONTRIBUTIIONS, the old saw of libertarians is irrational, out of selfishness very little money would come into The Federal GOvernment, they've screwed too many people over, just print the damn money, they're doing already! :)


Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't SS, Medicare and such be easily self funding? More people pay in and die than ever cash in on it.

Didn't the US Government dig into the SS coffers many times in the past to fund other things? Because it was so flush with cash, because it was basically just a scam for most people and a benefit for a few?

I have been taught this many times in the past with figures from the CBO that seemed to validate the theory



stop watching Fox news is the 1st advice i'd level on you


Unlikely because quite clearly He's the Mayor of Fox news!
Open User Options Menu

Nautilus1975

Acerimmer1 wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Nautilus1975 wrote:
BennyAnthonyOfKC wrote:
In theory, none of these programs need to be cut, because The Federal Government only needs to print the money for it, especially because much of this money has been promised to our citizens in particular the ones that actually paid into the funds. Again, the only problem with politicians printing money is if it gets out-of-control, as in post-WWI Germany, except that is why I would have each of the branches propose their competing budgets. VOLUNTEERY, SCHOLUNTEERY CONTRIBUTIIONS, the old saw of libertarians is irrational, out of selfishness very little money would come into The Federal GOvernment, they've screwed too many people over, just print the damn money, they're doing already! :)


Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't SS, Medicare and such be easily self funding? More people pay in and die than ever cash in on it.

Didn't the US Government dig into the SS coffers many times in the past to fund other things? Because it was so flush with cash, because it was basically just a scam for most people and a benefit for a few?

I have been taught this many times in the past with figures from the CBO that seemed to validate the theory



stop watching Fox news is the 1st advice i'd level on you

Unlikely because quite clearly He's the Mayor of Fox news!



You are welcome for my father and his peers (pilots, 8th Air Force) saving the very lives of your grandfathers and grandmothers - so "guys" like you could 'flourish' and speak your minds. Not quite sure that is what they had in mind at the time, and on a look back maybe they would have reconsidered, but you are seemingly enjoying the benefits of it.

Your welcome I guess
Open User Options Menu

Nautilus1975

Acerimmer1 wrote:
The government can print all the paper money it likes but the government cannot create money which the paper represents in jut the same way numbers on a computer represent money. Instead it relies on the Federal reserve for this function and regardless of if you believe or know what the official controlling interests of the federal reserve are the federal reserves behavior clearly shows that it is not under the direct control of the elected government.


Obviously you don't understand the luxury the US dollar enjoys of being the primary reserve currency of the world.

I am sure you will go look it up and try to return here with some kind of edgy response, but you previous post already exposes your total lack of understanding of the issue - good luck, and your welcome again.

Hey - were bricks still in ration when you were just a tiny boy over there or had they cleared all that up by then?
Open User Options Menu

sgb2112

Nautilus1975 wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Nautilus1975 wrote:
BennyAnthonyOfKC wrote:
In theory, none of these programs need to be cut, because The Federal Government only needs to print the money for it, especially because much of this money has been promised to our citizens in particular the ones that actually paid into the funds. Again, the only problem with politicians printing money is if it gets out-of-control, as in post-WWI Germany, except that is why I would have each of the branches propose their competing budgets. VOLUNTEERY, SCHOLUNTEERY CONTRIBUTIIONS, the old saw of libertarians is irrational, out of selfishness very little money would come into The Federal GOvernment, they've screwed too many people over, just print the damn money, they're doing already! :)


Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't SS, Medicare and such be easily self funding? More people pay in and die than ever cash in on it.

Didn't the US Government dig into the SS coffers many times in the past to fund other things? Because it was so flush with cash, because it was basically just a scam for most people and a benefit for a few?

I have been taught this many times in the past with figures from the CBO that seemed to validate the theory



stop watching Fox news is the 1st advice i'd level on you

Unlikely because quite clearly He's the Mayor of Fox news!


You are welcome for my father and his peers (pilots, 8th Air Force) saving the very lives of your grandfathers and grandmothers - so "guys" like you could 'flourish' and speak your minds. Not quite sure that is what they had in mind at the time, and on a look back maybe they would have reconsidered, but you are seemingly enjoying the benefits of it.

Your welcome I guess


If he is British, he should thank in order the RAF for winning the Battle of Britain in 1940, the Soviet Union, and least of all the USA.
Open User Options Menu

Nautilus1975

sgb2112 wrote:
Nautilus1975 wrote:
Acerimmer1 wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Nautilus1975 wrote:
BennyAnthonyOfKC wrote:
In theory, none of these programs need to be cut, because The Federal Government only needs to print the money for it, especially because much of this money has been promised to our citizens in particular the ones that actually paid into the funds. Again, the only problem with politicians printing money is if it gets out-of-control, as in post-WWI Germany, except that is why I would have each of the branches propose their competing budgets. VOLUNTEERY, SCHOLUNTEERY CONTRIBUTIIONS, the old saw of libertarians is irrational, out of selfishness very little money would come into The Federal GOvernment, they've screwed too many people over, just print the damn money, they're doing already! :)


Correct me if I am wrong, but shouldn't SS, Medicare and such be easily self funding? More people pay in and die than ever cash in on it.

Didn't the US Government dig into the SS coffers many times in the past to fund other things? Because it was so flush with cash, because it was basically just a scam for most people and a benefit for a few?

I have been taught this many times in the past with figures from the CBO that seemed to validate the theory



stop watching Fox news is the 1st advice i'd level on you

Unlikely because quite clearly He's the Mayor of Fox news!


You are welcome for my father and his peers (pilots, 8th Air Force) saving the very lives of your grandfathers and grandmothers - so "guys" like you could 'flourish' and speak your minds. Not quite sure that is what they had in mind at the time, and on a look back maybe they would have reconsidered, but you are seemingly enjoying the benefits of it.

Your welcome I guess


If he is British, he should thank in order the RAF for winning the Battle of Britain in 1940, the Soviet Union, and least of all the USA.


Again, your total disconnect from reality is clearly exposed -

Quote without going to look it up the tonnage of supplies shipped from the US to Britain daily during the years 1938-1945 not to mention all other aspects of logistics and support.

If for no other reason whatsoever the supply of high test av gas solely supplied by the USA turned the tide in the air battle during the summer of 1940

Later and throughout the war the US supplied up to, and probably exceeding 1/4 to 1/3 of ALL British munitions -

Keep it up - it will make you look worst from one post to the next

I guess you will continually discount the heavy battle that followed the summer of 1940 and make a blanket statement that the US contribution was minimal....

Where are people like you from? Seriously - is it paying off for you? You can't possibly be successful with an attitude like that

Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy