Posted by
Toddy Littman on Sunday, January 18, 2009 6:00:00 AM
Apparently history is riddled with a troubling problem as to who said this famous phrase.
This article is rather interesting http://ask.yahoo.com/20021122.html.
Of course they quoted the following account as well, and to some extent followed the same story for a few paragraphs The Straight "Dope's" take on it.
(There is a side of me wondering if the "dope" here is referring to the
writer of that article or the content addiction of his following, true
though it may be that he may not be "straight" in any sense of the
term. 
)
In
any event, you may wonder why this phrase, "Let them eat cake," is even
being brought up here, and I promise you I'll use and relate the phrase
in more ways than one. But let's start (and likely return to) Tim
Geithner and his apparent "Tax Amnesty."
In a way it's as though
Obama wanted to nominate Marc Rich, a certain income tax evader,
considered a controversial pardon by Bill Clinton. This is the
particular Presidential Pardon that Eric Holder claimed was a mistake
in his confirmation hearings -- but we can't take back a Presidential
Pardon now can we. No harm, no foul in claiming it was a mistake then
either. Gotta love the appearances of "taking responsibility."
This
is troubling. 2 people whose actions show either incompetence, elitist
arrogance, or disdain for tax policy. The last of which which would be
a good thing for conservatives -- go figure -- I mean to have a
Secretary of the Treasury who believes it's okay not to pay income
taxes and an U.S. Attorney General who believes those who haven't
should be pardoned....My God, this is truly the Founder's Wet Dream,
and thus, unbelievable, impossible, and a certain Obama wanting
republican support, apparently to blame them if what he does goes
wrong, as they have made sure to do in the past. I am sure it is a
combination of the former 2, arrogant elitest incompetence as they climb the "Peter Principle" ladder of success.
I
say this because I know from personal experience that millions of
Americans are troubled with tax issues, that the government has gone to
incredible lengths just to collect "their pound of flesh." And it is in
this pursuit of taxes, this issue that can lead to one losing their
home, their business, and whatever family they had built with another
-- essentially lose their life --all in the name of "compliance with
the tax laws." And while claiming that government spending, the endless
social programs, such as lending money to someone to buy a home, while
they have no job, without requiring a deposit, and at no interest, are
"necessary for social order," and are "in the public interest."
"Oddly"
taxation is entirely about taking the government's word for it. U.S.
Taxes are one of the few areas where there is no application in
criminal prosecution of "innocence until proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt" except as a sort of "formality." And the
"preponderance of the evidence" standard is hi-jacked by the plethora
of alphabet agencies, reports, and a complex tax code, all in a court
presided over by the same government wanting the money -- not that I am
suggesting the deck is stacked against anyone accused of a tax
liability. Heavens no, this is all for your benefit....Quite.
In
normal course, the whole situation is initiated by the IRS or other
taxing authority, that they present their assessment and you have a
duty to rebut or the entire assessment as claimed is presumed true.
Quite often it appears the "canvassing of an area" is a result of
statistical perspectives as well.
For example, the wife of a
friend of mine had a degree but never had used it, never worked in the
profession or ever used her credential as they had married while she
was still attending college, and, well, after 17 years of marriage she
was contacted to pay her arrears for 17 years of income taxes. She of
course asked the IRS to prove their claim, to prove these claimed tax
amounts.
The IRS provided a statistical composite of people
similarly educated, a composite compiled by the Bureau of the Census.
This was used for the next 10 years to persecute this poor woman every
single year. They could not buy a home because his credit report showed
a tax lien for these amounts.
Additionally the JK Harris Company
advertisements, regarding "The IRS had her on a treadmill," were proven
more than accurate here, his wages were regularly garnished and often
increasing amounts, yet, always below the amount to pay enough to have
effected the balance -- much like credit card "minimum payments" are
generally applied.
Thus, in Feudal Tyrannic fashion, government
tax accounting is applied consistent with banking loan payments. There
is no interest in paying off the loan, there is only an interest in the
perpetuity of payments, of cash flow on behalf of the one claiming the
debt. This feudal abuse is one of the very principles that led to the
spawning of a nation, The United States of American, on the notion of
"no taxation without representation," an idea that appears long lost in
today's society.
Note again this all started for my friend's
wife some 13 years ago (give or take a year or two) and it took him 10
years to be relieved of this, 10 years of letter writing and then out
of nowhere...Poof!...It's gone from his credit reports -- no
explanations, no letters, and of course he's not going to write and ask
them now and re-open "Pandora's box."
Yet, and this is the
kicker, up until the Federal "Taxpayer Bill of Rights," (1998), the law
and case precedent was "immunity" for the agents, that there was no
liability upon them for when they are wrong, or proven to be
overzealous which, is often the case as they wish to prove themselves
to the agency they work for. Of course this establishes a means of
placing liability on every agent and agency formed to "collect the
revenue" (income) for government, both State and Federal.
It is
interesting to note by inclusion, the use of "Taxpayer" in the name of
this Federal Act. This, to me, continues to assume liability for
whatever is claimed, a sort of "reinforcement by reversion" when the
defendant's lawyer says "....and according to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights...", "The Law" is referenced here in this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Bill_of_Rights_III,
and please do note this laundry list of activities that were suddenly
subject to oversight and approval, that hadn't been for 60 years
previously.
The point being that it took Newt Gingrich and a
group of other conservatives, democrat and republican alike, to reign
in an agency that has been given, and abused, "carte blanche" in so far
as how government tax claims are to be used to establish criminal
responsibility -- and while subject to absolute legal immunity for
their actions! This is much akin to how a sales force in a business
(the "revenue" generator) is given more liberty than those deficit
administrative processes that, in and of themselves, bring no money
into the business. Note that "revenue" is the term used by the receiver
of income, and when it is income that derives purely from payment to
government (and not in exchange for goods or services) this is referred
to as a "tax" by the one paying the amount -- but until such occurs,
they are not a payor, nor even a suspect, or, at least that is how it
would appear.
This oppressiveness, these tactics and policy of
using taxes "in a legal manner" have proven historically to oppress the
population, to brow beat them and blackmail them into paying whatever
is claimed, and serving time if they refuse (or sometimes they serve
time anyway, merely "for the hassle" and "we must teach them a lesson"
perspectives of those who didn't just get a check when they made their
tax claim -- it wasn't easy money, and the people suggested they have
rights, much to the dismay of those who wanted the reply to just be a
check, to begin a "negotiated settlement" of "the account."
Of
course this peaked during a socially liberal President, Bill Clinton's
term, because social liberals know that to spend your money they must
first have it available, that they must have the revenue for the
"business of government" (and you in "compliance," in response pose
at-the-ready, subject to government whim). And liberals cannot see how
this is a repeat of the feudal era, the feudal view of the peasants, to
"Let them eat cake?"
Which by the way, in those first two linked
articles on the subject, I find it fascinating that so many assumed
that this "brioche," being something considered an expensive pastry --
and their commentary, in more proper translation, would be "Let them
eat brioche," -- would imply inaccuracy of the phrase. Now correct me
if I am wrong but, it appears to me this would imply an even more
callous use of this phrase, should their historical claims of this
"cake" being this valuable pastry, "brioche" be accurate.
For then, in regard to the poor, it is to say "Let them eat nothing."
And,
in regard to the baker, on the notion the French Law at the time
required this "brioche" be made available to the poor at the same price
as lesser breads, it is to say "Let the baker go broke and join the
poor in the name of the Sovereign."
Irrespective of the source
of the comment, the meaning and callousness of it remains only to
increase by such explanations, irrespective of the phrase likely having
been used to achieve the French Revolution. Rhetoric? Perhaps. Accurate
to convey the Feudal Tyrannies, the Aristocracy, and "blood rule" of
Europe before the existence of the United States of America? Absolutely!
So
why didn't the U.S. Government prosecute Tim Geithner as they would any
other Citizen of the United States pursuant to the 14th Amendment? --
Especially in light of his signing a statement to the government, a
commitment of Tim Geithner in formal agreement with the taxing
authority, to pay these taxes! Privilege of Mr. Geithner's current
position in the financial community perhaps? More than likely.
(Pursuant to Federal Reserve Operating Circulars, tax amounts can also
be invested and are a rather powerful part of banking. See Operating
Circular 9, read the first paragraph of section 6, which refers to
investment of paper tax deposits by the banking institution who
"collects" them, as prescribed in section 5, the Operating Circulars
are located here http://frbservices.org/regulations/operating_circulars.html.
Understand
that if Tim Geithner is willing to extend his perspective on taxation
as Treasury Policy, I for one, am entirely for his nomination. However,
if he is merely playing the privileged, elitist role, the perfect
characterization and class warfare engendered in "Let them eat cake,"
then he not only should not be confirmed, but, should be prosecuted to
the fullest extent of the law as many have been pursuant, not to their
acts and deeds but what the Bureau of the Census says they should have
made -- irrespective of being married and raising children, of never
having used their credential or degree. And, I submit, that pursuant to
Federal Reserve Operating Circular 9 and Mr. Geithner's apparent
attitude toward income taxes, to pay them if they show to be
politically inconvenient, every institution Mr. Geitner has had
dealings with should be investigated as well, at least insofar as how
they handled tax collections deposited with them. This "prosecution" of
their case is what they do to the rest of us, who haven't "friends in
high places" and aren't about to join a Presidential Cabinet, what
government has done to many people who are poor now but at one time had
a business and may have made an honest mistake, or worse, have a degree
in some other profession unrelated to their business -- an apparent tax
consequential crime.
Note that my friend's wife, has received no
letter admonishing her, no admittance of error by the IRS and related
State taxing authorities operating who operated on the same
information, nothing to end the issue, to achieve "closure." He still
will not buy a home, scared to re-open the situation -- and they say
the tax system in the United States "is not oppressive." Oh and he's a
truck driver too, and, of course, he's received none of the money back
that he was garnished.
If you are noticing a sort of direct path
to The Dark Ages you are correct in those observations, and such as is
described above appears to have certainly been the way of things before
the manifest result of The Enlightenment arrived on the scene: The
United States of America. And its financial system that recognizes and
rewards individual responsibility by redistribution of Sovereignty
through redistribution of equity, we affectionately call "capitalism."
Thank you for reading.
Toddy Littman