I really think the Left believes that their ideas have won and they can start talking more openly about things like this. Unless we see some anger over it we may have to say their right.

This was set in stone in 1913 with the enactment of the 16th Amendment. It set no limits on the government's right to seize our income. I'm surprised it has taken so long. I guess they had to wait until the link between work and survival was severed.

Think about it...the bills that you get in exchange for your labors say, "United States of America" or "Department of the Treasury" on them. No where does YOUR name appear. Therefor, the trick is to get rid of the bills as quickly as possible in exchange for something that actually is yours.

It reminds me of this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...

"So let’s say that Bernie Sanders became president and passed a single-payer health care system of some sort. And let’s say that it did indeed cost $15 trillion over 10 years. Would that be $15 trillion in new money we’d be spending? No, it would be money that we’re already spending on health care, but now it would go through government. "
"The conservatives who are acting appalled at the number the Journal came up with are also the same people who never seem to care what a tax cut costs."

I was amazed that they say gov't taking your money doesn't matter if it's things people already spend on. If you cut taxes, though, that "costs" money.

It's only debt, "federal reserve notes" (FRNs.)
We aren't paid in "money" unless you have contracted with your employer to only be paid in gold US coins, and that would likely be an illegal contract because the "FRNs" are, by law, legal tender.