BREAKING-Perry Says He Hasn’t ‘Backed Off Anything’ In His Bk-Social Security Still Unconstitutional

[kpete]

BREAKING: Perry Says He Hasn’t ‘Backed Off Anything’ In His Book, Still Thinks Social Security Is Unconstitutional
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/27/306126/rick-perry-social-security-still-unconstitutional/


KEYES: But should states-rights supporters be worried that, as governor you said that Social Security is not something that falls in the purview of the federal government, but in your campaign, have backed off that?

PERRY: I haven’t backed off anything in my book. Read the book again, get it right. Next question.


Keyes explains

In Perry’s book, released just nine months ago, he writes on page 48 that Social Security is “by far the best example” of a program “violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles.” On page 50, he goes on to say that we have Social Security “at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government.”

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/08/did-scott-keyes-just-save-world.html

[RegieRocker]

1. If social security is unconstitutional so is income tax.

[sabbat hunter]

9. there is an income tax

amendment.

[RegieRocker]

10. Let him dig all the way to china.

[RegieRocker]

12. Not at all close to what you think. Initially it was for

Income
After Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends and rent income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be "direct" (and thus required to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, "indirect" (and thus required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity).<12>

Wages
the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'gross income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealth — whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actions — are all within the definition of income, unless the Congress makes a specific exemption, as it has for items such as life insurance proceeds received by reason of the death of the insured party,<28> gifts, bequests, devises and inheritances,<29> and certain scholarships.<3[br />
So before the f***king Supreme Court decided wages were included, a poor man didn't pay taxes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Ishoutandscream2]

2. Go ahead, Goodhair. Piss off the seniors

Let's see where that gets ya!

[AsahinaKimi]

3. What a Pompous...

Ass. Omee tada no baka-mono da! Damare! Ahondara ya de

[ashling]

13. What you said!

I agree... :shrug:

[Firebrand Gary]

4. "He's an attractive rascal"

[bluestateguy]

5. I'm glad to hear that

I'm not so sure seniors in Florida will agree, but that is why I am glad to hear him say that ;)

[CarmanK]

11. Therepugs count on seniors' support, but AARP is on top of this!

Perry's book is full of tidbits that tell of his interpretation of the constitution and the role of the federal govt in the US. He believes,very strongly, that federalism is a danger to states' rights. He is adamant that the state's are the havens of "like minded individuals" who have the right to set their own rules. He mocks states like MA and liberals generally. He blames the country's ills on the Liberals, progressives. And of course, he has no respect for FDR, the voting rights act, Medicare etc....He reiterates that if you don't like what the state's are doing, than you should move to be among "like minded". That includes, the right of states to act Morally according to their code of conduct. So, his christian understanding is tyrannical and one sided. this man is dangerous. He cannot be expected to serve and protect the constitution of the US, if he has no respect for the document. Of, course, his interpretation is LIMITED govt that is impotent.
He would support a return to the Articles of Confederation, if he could.

[eleny]

6. Say it loud, say it often

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. keep digging that hole, dumbass.

[spanone]

8. once an ass, always an ass