The Taxation Contradiction

I was reading through some different articles over the weekend, hoping to find something interesting to comment on, when I happened to stumble upon a series of several articles in a row dealing with taxation. The articles had nothing to do with one another. They just all happened to have taxation in some form or another as the main topic. Each taken on its own painted a picture in support of this plan or that. And all were, in general, the intentions or sales pitches from the Democrat point of view. But my random order of articles revealed to me a disturbing double standard in from the White House in their message. No, double standard isn’t correct. Contradiction fits better. Two articles that I read back to back in particular drew my attention to the contradiction, which I am ashamed to say that I never put together before. It seems that the White House, specifically the President, believes that we should reward the wealthy who conduct business in the US, while at the same time stating that those who are wealthy in America should be taxed higher than they are…

The first article was focused on the President’s renewed calls for Congress to act by passing a bill that will end tax breaks for companies that have overseas subsidiaries. The President talked about this in his weekly radio address last week. The bill in question stalled in the Senate earlier this year because there wasn’t enough support for it. While the DNC and White House of course simply blame Republicans, the reality was that there were many Democrats opposed to the bill as well. The President, despite his ability to walk on water and then turn that water into kool-aid, completely whiffed on this subject during the address. He acknowledged that companies that do business abroad make a significant contribution to the US economy, and then followed that up with stating that it doesn’t make sense to grant them tax breaks when companies at home are struggling to rebound from the economic crisis.

Come Again?

They make a significant contribution to the US economy so it doesn’t make sense to grant them tax breaks? Sometimes I just have to ask myself what the people in the White House are smoking. If they make a significant contribution to the US economy, what doesn’t make sense is eliminating their tax breaks so that they will make less of a contribution to the US economy when the economy is struggling to rebound. Our economy needs all the help it can get right now, Mr. President. You and your predecessor have combined for a one-two punch that has the economy on the floor trying to reach for the ropes to struggle to its feet. And you think the right thing to do is kick one of the legs out from under it? How exactly does that make sense?

The President then followed that up with talking about how the right move is to give tax breaks to companies that operate in the United States or that create jobs in the United States. Obama has stated that by eliminating the tax breaks he would create additional revenue that he he proposes should be used for other business tax breaks, creating permanent research and development credits and allowing companies to write off all new equipment costs in 2011. So to paraphrase, the President believes that we should give tax breaks to organizations that do business in the United States.

Unless of course the owners of those businesses make over $250,000.

Because the next article I read discussed the hotly debated Bush Tax Cuts and the Congressional path forward that should be taken according to the White House. As has been widely discussed, the GOP wants ALL of the Bush Tax Cuts extended while the Democrats are steadfastly proposing that only the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 should be extended. I will not discuss for the moment that such a vital issue was not settled already because the US Congress didn’t have the balls to settle it before heading out to handle their re-election campaigns. We shouldn’t be surprised. I have long told you that the welfare of the country has always been a secondary priority. Ensuring re-election is the primary priority for the garbage we call the US Congress. But I digress.


Both are Liars


The President’s senior advisor (who I genuinely dislike and consider one of the most damaging people to our country), David Axlerod, hit the Sunday talk show circuit today reemphasizing the White House stance that Congress must let the tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000. He continued to argue that, “extending the cuts for everybody, including the upper-income brackets, would not be worth the cost and would not stimulate the economy”.He made the statement that it makes no sense to have tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, stating that “this is how we got in trouble in the first place.”

Senator John Cornyn from Texas made a point that I think shows the flaw in the Axlerod / Obama stance. He stated, “by the end of this year, the American people are looking at the single largest tax increase in American history, including on a lot of small businesses that declare their business income on an individual tax return.” Stated another way, Cornyn has pointed out that the same people the President said we should be helping in the first article are the ones the President is saying we should be hurting in the second article.

So which is it Mr. President? We can assume that Mr. Axlerod speaks for you. After all, you are the one who dispatches him to the Sunday circuit and provides him with the message he will put forth. On one hand you tell us that we have to punish businesses that help our economy while also operating overseas and help those who are only doing good here in America. Then your minion goes out and reiterates your stance that we should NOT help those who are here in the United States making more than $250,000 (just a small note to make sure you understand Mr. President: The people making over $250k that you want to increase taxes on are the same people you are proposing that we help because they do business in America).

Is it any wonder that American people are confused about who to support, who to hate, who to protest, or who to rally around? We have the federal government talking out of both sides of their mouth consistently. Tax the rich. Give the rich tax cuts. The Chamber of Commerce is evil and shady when they support GOP candidates, but it isn’t a problem that they are supporting some Democrats as well. Organizations financing candidates is bad, unless those organizations are unions. Creating deficits is driving the car into a ditch. Tripling that deficit is somehow considered putting on your boots and pushing it out of the ditch.

They are all liars and thieves. Every single one of them. I sat here tonight and struggled to think of ten members of the US Congress that I think are generally honest. I failed. Republicans. Democrats. Doesn’t matter. They are all talking out of both sides of their mouth. What they both want is to grow the size of government, manipulate the economy and the American people, and continue to be a ruling class that is exempt from nearly every law they write. Manipulate, manipulate, manipulate. That is all that they do and all that they stand for.

What the President clearly stated in the first article was that we need to use the tax code to manipulate the behavior of business in America. The tax code is so convoluted and confusing that a team of a hundred of the best tax lawyers in America couldn’t decipher it without making a mistake. And it is all done to manipulate the people and the businesses that were once the driving force that made American the beacon of prosperity that she became.

And that should tell you everything that you need to know about why we should, every one of us, boycott the United States government until it shrivels up to a manageable size.


  1. Common Man says:


    Hey for the first time in a long time I am the first to post, how about that. Anyway, great article and spot on…yes boycott the federal and state government. Focus on local simply because that is an area we, as individuals, can positively effect.

    Liars, cheats, thieves and evil are correct discriptions, and what really baffles me is that there are people out there that actually believe some of them do care and are sound citizens only interested in serving their fellow citizens.


  2. What contradiction? Every statement he has made has had at least two meanings.

    Raise capital gains tax for fairness, not for revenue

    Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.” It’s now 15%. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.

    A: What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year–$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

    Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

    A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

    (he also said he would use the increased revenue to pay down the deficit):lol:

  3. Ray Hawkins says:

    Sorta like a guy that has spent 20 years in Congress, carps about term limits and yet refuses to self select.


    How to balance the budget in a decade without raising taxes
    Brian Garst
    The figures are in, and the federal deficit for fiscal year 2010 is $1,294,000,000,000. Although slightly lower than last year’s record shattering amount, the picture for America’s fiscal future still appears bleak. At least, it is if you count on politicians refusing to engage in any kind of fiscal discipline – an historically safe assumption. However, despite the claims of politicians, getting ourselves out of this hole is not overly complicated.

    As Dan Mitchell explains in the following video from Center for Freedom and Prosperity, all it really takes is a bit of fiscal discipline. If politicians simply stop increasing government spending excessively, and instead limit it sustainable levels, the budget can be balanced within a decade – and without a single tax hike.

    • LOI

      One little problem.

      Mitchell is ONLY addressing the “annual budget deficit”. It does not address the debt or the growing proportion of the budget allocated to interest on that debt.

      Thus it is grossly oversimplified and leads voters to believe there is a simple and painless solution.

      • Simple…yes. Painless…no!

      • Right….I do not think most people understand the difference bewteen a budget and debt.

      • Damnit JAC,

        Why can’t you let me believe in these “Easy Button” solutions? You could have at least waited til afternoon before quashing my delusions.

        I still think it’s an interesting video that show our complex issues can be simplified, if that is the intent. The reverse, simple things can be made overly complex, seems to be the tactic of both parties intent on retaining power.

        On the pain issue. Who would feel the pain? I think the brunt of it would fall on entitlements. Those who have or do work for a living would feel little. Just my thought with no information to back it up. Consider under Obama, cost of living increases to SS have been frozen for two years, this plan would have a one to two percent increase factored in.

  5. Bottom Line says:

    There is no real contradiction here.

    BHO is just looking out for foreigners instead of the good ol’ USA. (What else would you expect from a foreigner?)

    It’s either that, or he is promoting the global economy rather than our national economy.

    Or could it be a little of both perhaps?

    • Bottom Line says:

      “It seems that the White House, specifically the President, believes that we should reward the wealthy who conduct business in the US, while at the same time stating that those who are wealthy in America should be taxed higher than they are…”

      Those that conduct business here are not necessarily American businesses. In other words…give the tax breaks to foreigners, but tax the hell out of(redistribute the wealth) American based companies.

  6. Good morning all….fire stuff all settled…waiting for construction to be finished. Can devote some time back to SUFA. Hope that everyone has done well. Was only able to drop in from time to time but have kept up with most of it.

    USW…today is the first day for early voting in Texas and I am going to vote. When I read all of the bullshit that the dems say….then compare that to the Repubs….it just makes me want to go to the local BBQ place and sit down and eat a stuffed baked potato (wtih chicken and no sour cream or cheese), drink frosted IBC root beer, and watch the sports channel. Meaning that both of their rhetoric is, to say the least, exasperating (even makes me sometimes want to join Mathius in the Red Bull Chugging contest….which I would lose…hell, after one Red Bull I talked to Elvis). It was an interesting lunch, sitting back and listening to several conversations concerning the American League Baseball playoffs and the elections coming up. No one was excited about the elections except for getting rid of the establishment….repubs and dems. The general consesus was to elect and vote for who they thought the most fiscal conservative. What surprised me a little, at one table, was the conversation concerning taxes and how united this particular table was even though there was a politically moderate to liberal person at that table that made the statement that he “bought into the line of Hope and Change and that he is terribly disappointed” as he thought he was getting something better than was already in there. He made the statement that he would never vote liberal again. He said that even the most right wing conservative is far better than tax and spend liberals….especially for the future of this country. They were all in agreement that raising taxes is not the way to do it but also quit spending money overseas and on entitlement programs.

    It is easy to understand the mentality of the politicians…power. (Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely). It does not take an expert in economics nor a PHD in math nor a rocket science degree to understand that when you are out of money…you are out of luck. Even a one eyed, one horn, flying purple people eating simpleton knows that deficit spending is stupid, borrowing from our enemies is even more stupid, and priniting money to back our borrowing is even more stupid. We have a lot of smart and economically saavy people on here. No one has been able to convince me of any economic system that is any better out there than the one we have. STOP THE SPENDING. And that means that there are going to have to be some austere cuts. Economics is really simple. When you are out of money you are broke. Stop spending and make your cuts where it needs to be. Military spending is one area that can be trimmed but that is not the only place. Stop funding the United Nations….Stop funding Israel….Stop funding the international monetary system and the world banks….stop being the world’s policeman. As the greatest nation in the world, I do not believe that we have a moral obligation to anyone other than our selves. Stop the ponzi scheme on social security and the entitlement programs. Quit trying to emulate Europe….it is failing BIG TIME.

    Obama’s vision is out there for all to see. He is an elitist. Period. He is also the most socialistic minded leader since FDR’s New Democratic Coalition that started this country’s bankruptcy. We are reaping what started 75 years ago. However, a new breed of Democrat has metamorphasized (cool word, huh) out of the Democratic Coalition into this “share the wealth…take from the rich” mentality that is the destruction of this economy. Everyone from kindergarten knows that when you increase taxes, you lose revenues. You create unemployment and hardship. This new breed believes in all for one and one for all. Give the poor loans that they cannot repay,increase their entitlements and print money and make them a serf the rest of their lives, increase dependency upon the government so we can retain power, destroy the incentive to get people off their butts to get out and work.

    It is all power and it is obtained by killing the independent minded. So, Obama’s agenda is not for the good of the country…it is idealistic and dangerous. His taxing and spending policies are far worse than George Bush. FAR worse…and remember, I am not a Bush fan even being from Texas. HIs agenda is to use taxes to destroy our economic system and I firmly believe that.

    So, I will vote today and I will vote for what I feel to be the most fiscally conservative approach.

    • D13,

      “tax and spend liberals” I’ve had a few conversations where it was brought up that the Bush tax cuts didn’t work. And to be fair, that is correct. Had Newt not gone on a Pelosi like spending spree, I think they would have.

      “STOP THE SPENDING” Here, here. that says it all!

      Liberal economics is really simple. When you are out of money you print more.

  7. D13,

    As a Texan, I have a question for you.

    While traveling last week, I had the pleasure of sitting with a fellow from Texas while waiting for our flights.

    I don’t know how he was politically connected, but he seemed very astute about Texas politics. He wasn’t a politician – I’d guess he is an insider or financier of one though.

    He was suggesting that there was a large swell of Texas that just needed a small push for them to cede from the Union. He stated that the agreement of Statehood for Texas allows Texas to legally leave and become an independent Republic.

    What do you think of his comments?

    • some lawyer had the same thought a few years ago…

      A State of Disobedience, Tom Kratman

      In the long war against terrorism, the US Government had taken on extraordinary powers. And now that the war was won, powerful forces in the government had no intention of relinquishing those powers. As in 1860, the country was on the verge of civil war. And as in 1860, a leader arose to save the country-but it was not the President this time. Instead, the Governor of Texas was the woman of destiny. . . .

      What happens when the USA is almost evenly divided between the two political parties and then an election throws all of the power to one of them?

      What happens when the party in power decides to consolidate a permanent hold on power by criminalizing opposing political speech and does so with the full support of the media?

      What happens when the Constitution becomes a meaningless rag while the federal government moves to centralize everything?

      What happens when the governor of one state decides she just cannot take the abuses emanating from her own party any more?

      A plausible answer to these questions is the story of this book. It can sometimes be infuriating when recent events are recognized. It is almost always horrifying when plausibilities are realized. It is terrifying when the call to resistance is gratified. It is chilling throughout.

      This book may serve merely as a story to some. To others it will be a wakeup call. To the former, it does provide for interesting reading. To the latter, it provides for interesting nightmares.

    • Hi BF…..Even when Bush was Pres, there is a ground swell similar to what you heard. There has been much argu,emt about the right to secede but I cannot find any such document. I can find where Texas can divide into 4 states with a representative from one. I can also find that Texas retained all rights to land and that there be no Federal Land without the consent of the Texas Legislature. (One reason we do not have National Parks except military bases).

      In their first election after Texas won its independence, Texans voted overwhelmingly in favor of annexation to the United States. However, throughout the Republic period, no annexation treaty was approved by both countries. With nothing solid to indicate that Mexico accepted the defeat at San Jacinto (Treaties of Velasco were ignored by both the Republic of Texas and Mexico) and fearful of a second attack by the powerful Mexican army to the south perhaps joined by the Comanches and Apaches, Texas again petitioned to become a State of the U.S.

      When all attempts to arrive at a formal annexation treaty failed, the United States Congress passed, after much debate and only a simple majority, a Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States.

      Under the terms, Texas would keep both its public lands and its public debt. Texas would also have the power to divide into four additional states “of convenient size” in the future if it so desired, and it would deliver all military, postal, and customs facilities and authority to the United States government. Neither this joint resolution or the ordinance passed by the Republic of Texas’ Annexation Convention gave Texas the right to secede.

      A popularly-elected Constitutional Convention met in Austin in July of 1845 to consider the annexation proposal from the US congress as well as a proposed peace treaty with Mexico which would end the state of war between the two nations—if Texas remained an independent country. The delegates to the convention raised the American flag over their Convention Hall, and began to frame a Constitution under which the Republic of Texas should become a state in the American Union.

      Giving consent of the existing Texas Government to the Annexation of Texas to the United States.

      “Whereas the Government of the United States hath proposed the following terms, guarantees and conditions on which the people and Territory of the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new State to be called the State of Texas, and admitted as one of the States of the American Union, to wit: Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within and rightfully belonging to the Republic of Texas may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, with a Republican form of Government, to be adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in Convention assembled, with the consent of the existing Government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union. 2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guarantees, to wit: First, said State to be formed subject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise with other Governments, and the Constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption, by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and forty six. Second, said State when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports, and harbors, navy and navyyards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes and dues of every kind which may belong to or be due and owing said Republic, and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas, and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to be disposed of as said State may direct: but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become a charge upon the Government of the United States. Third, new States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provision of the Federal (constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without Slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.”

      Texas does not have the right to secede, any more than any other state does. Which is not to say that Texas, or any other state, can’t secede if it has a mind to; after all, 11 states did back in 1861. Many modern Texans have the vague idea – as did most secessionists – that because Texas entered as a former republic, it retained the right to leave the Union if it saw fit. However, no such clause appears in the congressional act authorizing Texas to join the Union. Because it was once independent, because it at one time did secede frmo the Union, and because its ideology is far different from that of the rest of the US, Texas has always clung to the idea of a guaranteed right of secession as a mark of its specialness and as a source of reassurance in case all else fails.

      One privelege Texas does reserve, and a condition that appears in the resolution approving its statehood, is the option to subdivide itself into as many as four states (a total of five). But Texas is more likely to leave the Union again than to fragment its identity and its land.

      On the Annexation of Texas:

      Texans are justly proud of living in a state that was once an independant republic and that entered the Union by treaty, not by act of Congress. Surprise! Texas did *not* enter the Union by treaty. Though at the time of its admission the two countries were negotiating a treaty of annexation, President John Tyler, as one of his last acts in office, offered statehood under the terms drawn up by the House of Representatives. As a result, Texas got a better deal than it would have under the treaty. For example, it became a state immediately, without having to pass through a probationary period as a mere territory.

      The terms of the congressional bill included a requirement that Texas cede to the US all forts, barracks, navy yards, and other property pertaining to the public defense, but it also allowed Texas to keep its public lands, a generous condition rarely found in annexation treaties. However, in exchange for that concession, Texas also had to maintain responsibility for its own public debt.

      Now, speaking as D13…I would secede tomorrow if asked. We were a country once and can be again.

      • Actually is is a division into 5 states with trwo representatives from each state in Senate and what ever the population allows for the House.

    • If they do, I will move there.

    • The US Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. There is no provision in the Texas Constitution (current or former) that reserves the right of secession, but it does state that “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States” … not to the President of the US or even the Congress of the US.

      Both original and current Texas Constitutions state that political power is inherent in the people and (just as the Declaration of Independence declares) “the people have the right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”

      Texas and Hawaii are two states that were once recognized as independent nations, before choosing to join the Union. Their voluntary decision to join the Union did not come with an explicit agreement that they could never leave.

      Even though some people claim that the Civil War proved that secession is illegal the Civil War was nothing more than a war over the federal governments right to tax and tariff the hell out of the southern states and redistrubute that money where where-ever they wanted.Sound familliar to any current events?
      Whether one was in favor of the North or the South, all that war actually “proved” is that a state or group of states can be militarily forced to continue being a part of a group. Superior strength does not prove morality or legality as any citizen of the former Soviet Union can attest.
      Some people are under the mistaken impression that the US Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White “proved” that secession is unconstitutional. Actually, that decision was not based on any precedent or anything in the Constitution and was in direct conflict with the actions of the then-President Grant who had to sign an act to “re-admit” Texas into the Union and allow them to send Representatives back to Congress. If Texas had never left, as the Court declared, it would not have been required to be “re-admitted” and Grant would not have needed to sign the declaration. This is a conflict that has never been fully cleared up.

      Bottom line: There is no law forbidding or allowing secession. If Texas or any other state decides to secede, the resulting peaceful separation or war will depend not on law, but on the will of whomever happens to be Commander-in-Chief at the time.

      One can also argue, and constitutional scholars certainly have, that the ‘readmission’ of Texas to the union did not violate the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas vs. White…it was is superfluous, and indeed, did not, in and of itself violate, and was not contrary, to the Texas vs. White ruling. Simply speaking, there was no precedent for handling this situation. The readmission of Texas in early 1870 came just a short few months after Texas vs. White, and Congress and the President did not forsee the long-term implications of the Supreme Court decision. Just like there is no explicit wording in the Constitution forbidding secession, there is no wording in the Constitution specifically outlining the statutory process for the readmission of states.
      Because of this, if state’s rights proponents continue to argue that a state’s right to secede is implied because they joined the union as ‘independent states’, a strong argument can also be made that an indissoulable union was also implied in the Constitution. Membership in a union does not dimish in importance or totality a state’s sovereignity. That’s the whole point of federalism. However, it does imply relinquishing some power to the national government. Indeed, federalism is ‘shared’ power, but it is not ‘equal’ power, at least in the example of the US. Clearly national dominance was designed into the structure of the Constitution.

  8. The only way the US federal finances can ever be regained in is by full default of the current debt.

    Those that lent the government money deserve to hold the bag.

    For a short time, government would have to survive on the tax revenues only.

    Eventually, the world will start lending to government again. They always do.

    The Kings of Europe regularly defaulted on their debts, and the next day, were able to get new loans.

    Latin America has been doing this game for more than a century.

    The idiocy of large lenders is absolute – they will continue to lend to government and get stiffed.

    • BF

      Like all bubbles, it is not the first to loan that get the shaft, but the last in the line.

      That is why they are always eager to loan to Govt. The payoff is great. If you are not the last in line.

      By the way. I had a similar conversation with a Texan in Wash. D.C. two years ago. He maintained that Texas is not just a state but also is STILL a Republic. I did a little research and the legal arguments on both sides are quite fascinating.

    • Why loansharks should’ve handled the bailouts. 1) new money unless stipulations to a) lend at least 50% back out and b) at a low enough percent go guarantee profit and payment; 2) you want our money, give us back out jobs (outsourcing over); 3) you want our money, bring executive payment back down to earth (in line with the same EXACT percentage the guys in the mailroom got in their bonus package. What’s that you say, the mailroom guys didn’t get a bonus? Ooops, there goes yours.

      Don’t pay it back and see what happens …

      Hey, I should run for office!

  9. Great piece! I liked it.

    That being said, I’m afraid the parade is going to get rained on some.

    “And that should tell you everything that you need to know about why we should, every one of us, boycott the United States government until it shrivels up to a manageable size.”

    Unfortunately the ONLY way this will work is to get everyone on board with the boycott (which we know in our hearts won’t happen). To shrink the government you’ll have to strangle off the money supply, which will be pretty much impossible. There is just too much of of our daily life that supports the government. Items you buy are taxed – money to the feds. Every gallon of gas is taxed – money to the feds. Each job dollar you earn is taxed – money to the feds. The phone bill, the home heating bill, your electricity bill, all taxed – money to the feds. On and on it goes. If we found ways to avoid the feds getting these different funds then they’d just start taking it by a different route. For instance, if companies don’t send in the appropriate payroll taxes – seize their bank assets.

    It’s not that I don’t like the idea of a boycott to shrink the government, it’s just not a realistic avenue to undo or reshape the government. Plus, one must consider how long a boycott would take to be effective, if it was effective at all? One year? Five? Ten? A generation or more? No, sadly I see any boycott just making life less free and more restrictive as the government (with the help of those who stayed on the side of government) took tighter control over our lives – likely using the excuse of needing to control rebellious citizens (boycotters) trying to interfere with the government!

    If such a movement took hold the government would try “benign” ways to stop it at first. Should it continue then maybe we’d find that all those secret internment camps the conspiracy theorists keep telling us about would materialize and start holding boycotters until they “came in out of the cold” so to speak.

    I’m afraid there’s only one way – and I doubt that’ll ever happen.

    • just a boycott of the income tax would go a long way tho…

      • I’m sure it would Jon, but how are you going to implement that particular boycott?

        The only monies you can prevent the government from getting, albeit only temporarily, is what you would owe at the time you filed your tax returns (though in a boycott I realize you aren’t filing. I’m just pointing out that those owed taxes are the only income taxes you control). Though the government has enough of your money already as your employer withholds your income taxes and turns it over to Uncle Sam. Prior to any boycott by this method you would need to insure you were able to control assets/monies of yours to keep them from government hands.

        Now, if you’re a business owner you could refuse to pay in any withheld taxes, but you’d need each employee to decide first that they wanted to participate in the boycott. If they didn’t you would be obligated to send in their withheld taxes so they wouldn’t face trouble with the government.

        In the end though if you did boycott it won’t take long for the IRS, the most powerful of government agencies IMHO, to be all over you worse than ants on a sugar mound.

        • Bottom Line says:

          You make good points, PS.

          However, there are so many examples that come to mind that describe what you say can’t be done. It starts with the testicular fortitude to actually do it.

          Being in the construction/remodeling business, I see it quite frequently. There are so many ways to bypass the gov/IRS it’s almost funny.

          It’s all about what they can/cannot prove.

          Any business can do it. It just has to be a collaborative effort of all parties involved. People can get away with literally tens of millions of unreported income…IF they work together and know how to cook the books.

          • I’ll agree that’s true BL, however let me through the “but.”

            First, if I may – tens of millions is chump change to the government. The opening amount that would have to be “withheld” from the government would have to be tens or hundreds times that to rock the government some.

            Second, as I said, if you are the business owner you could withhold the taxes since you control the cash flow of your business. Yet, are you willing to take all your workers with you without their willing participation? I doubt you’d be so cruel to your employees. Plus what about the millions of people who work for companies and corporations that won’t join the boycott? The employees either continue working to support themselves and their families or quit/get fired. How are we in the boycott movement going to aid them? Dare we leave them out in the cold to fend for themselves?

            Third, How much business are you going to lose? What percentage of your customers (and potential customers) who aren’t going to go along with a boycott (either because they don’t have the cajones or they are good little statists)?

            Fourth, is coordination (a point you made). The initial group starting the boycott would need to coordinate the beginning. A lot would need to be “educated” in the ways of preventing the government from getting anything, Plus that initial group would have to be large and widespread to a] get others to see it as a viable way to change government and join the boycott movement, b] make if as difficult as possible for the government to immediately isolate the boycotters and shut them down, and c] be large enough that the media doesn’t (either by choice or government orders) ignore the boycott or come out in a concerted effort (with or without government assistance) to demonize the boycott with negative press. I easily see the terms “terrorists,” “treason,” and “sedition” coming up in use against the boycotters.

            Fifth, in order to coordinate the start of such a large scale you’d need to hide it from vioew until it was too late to stop the start of it. Now, go around preaching to others how to avoid Uncle getting “his fair share” and planning the boycott. I have a feeling those federal alphabet agencies would have their people knocking at your door fairly quickly. You know the old saying about three people keeping a secret I would bet?

            And lastly (“finally, he’s almost done…..whew”) how long it would take to achieve the goals is a problem. The longer it takes the higher degree of potential failure. People can only hold out so long before the detriment to their lives outweighs the benefits. They’ll cave, and the government pressure on them will help them cave sooner. The impact, IMHO, would have to overwhelming to the government in a short period of time. The government would need to cave in fairly quickly (I’d wager anything longer than one year of boycott would fail).

            Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see this type of idea work. I’d jump in and hold out as long as I could do it. But, I don’t see it as a viable answer. The government needs to implode and I don’t believe any boycott would be large enough to create that outcome. Uncle could hold out too long I think.

            • Bottom Line says:

              PS – “First, if I may – tens of millions is chump change to the government. The opening amount that would have to be “withheld” from the government would have to be tens or hundreds times that to rock the government some.”

              BL – If enough people did it, it would add up to quite a bit. It couldn’t happen across the board with 100% of everyone’s income taxes, but it could happen enough to effectively put government in a huge pinch…enough to tip the scales of their current predicament. It would just take enough people that are willing. An unreported extra income is a good motivator.

              PS – “Second, as I said, if you are the business owner you could withhold the taxes since you control the cash flow of your business…”

              BL – It’s not about withholding taxes, it’s about hiding taxable income and exchanges of $.

              PS – “Third, How much business are you going to lose? What percentage of your customers (and potential customers) who aren’t going to go along with a boycott (either because they don’t have the cajones or they are good little statists)?”

              BL – Cash discounts. You pay cash, I give you a 10% discount. (Win/win) Of course, that wouldn’t work with large purchases, but it could work for many.

              PS – “Fourth, is coordination…a] get others to see it as a viable way to change government”

              BL – Nah, they just need to see the benefit of their extra unreported income. In hard times like these(and what’s coming) $ is a great motivator.

              PS – “b] make if as difficult as possible for the government to immediately isolate the boycotters and shut them down, and c] be large enough that the media doesn’t (either by choice or government orders) ignore the boycott or come out in a concerted effort (with or without government assistance) to demonize the boycott with negative press. I easily see the terms “terrorists,” “treason,” and “sedition” coming up in use against the boycotters.”

              BL – They won’t know how it’s happening exactly. On the surface it will appear to be a slumping economy due to stagnation in commerce. Like I said, it’s about hiding income …and monetary exchange.

              PS – “Fifth, in order to coordinate the start of such a large scale you’d need to hide it from vioew until it was too late to stop the start of it. Now, go around preaching to others how to avoid Uncle getting “his fair share” and planning the boycott. I have a feeling those federal alphabet agencies would have their people knocking at your door fairly quickly. You know the old saying about three people keeping a secret I would bet?”

              BL – So don’t organize. Just educate as to how it is done via word of mouth to friends, family, etc. If they do it they do it, if they don’t they don’t. It’s not like such a thing could be controlled or organized anyway.

              PS – “And lastly (“finally, he’s almost done…..whew”) how long it would take to achieve the goals is a problem. The longer it takes the higher degree of potential failure. People can only hold out so long before the detriment to their lives outweighs the benefits. They’ll cave, and the government pressure on them will help them cave sooner. The impact, IMHO, would have to overwhelming to the government in a short period of time. The government would need to cave in fairly quickly (I’d wager anything longer than one year of boycott would fail).”

              BL – Come to think of it…All this is unnecessary and a moot point as our way of life is going to shit anyway. There is no fixing it. Default and economic collapse is gonna happen sooner or later. We should just prepare and wait for it.

              The answer is to teach future generations how and what to rebuild.

              • Bottom Line says:

                PS, the simple explanation on how it could work is for as many individuals and small business owners as possible to conduct as much of their finances as possible, …”black market” style.

                They can’t control what they don’t know about.

                Think about the drug trade and how many billions of $’s are exchanged beyond government control.

                The same concept can work for almost any goods and services.

                But like I said, Its all going to shit anyway…Whats the point?

                • Agreed, it is all going to hell anyway – but wouldn’t it be nice if we could just tip it over sooner?

                  You’ve hit a key point to – teaching our kids/grandkids how and what to rebuild.

              • Bottom Line says:

                PS – “…but wouldn’t it be nice if we could just tip it over sooner?”

                BL – Indeed. This waiting in limbo crap sucks. Let’s just get it over with already.

                I have often advocated a massive tax revolt and corporate boycott of fascist corporations as a means to hold our economy hostage as to blackmail/strong-arm our gov. into being responsible…but I think that it would only accomplish what is already coming(collapse)and with a bit more headache than is necessary.

                I think Cyndi’s idea is much better. That is to milk the system dry via entitlement programs. It would expedite things without the same level of trauma. What would happen if everyone quit their job and went on welfare and food stamps? Who would pay for everything?

                The answer is that our government would have to rely solely on the world banks as they would have no/little tax revenue. This would bring about default in a hurry, and without a bunch of people getting arrested for tax evasion. Of course, it could bring about war…which may happen anyway…

                Not that we could coordinate 300 million people to do anything, but it is an interesting idea.

                Either way, whether we do this or that, other things, or nothing, etc… The result is the same…collapse.

                The difference is time.

                And no matter what, how, or when it happens, (or what it is for that matter), it ultimately ends up in the hands of future generations…because one day we’ll all be dead.

                This is why I have, on many occasions, made the point here that the answer is to teach future generations how and what to rebuild.

                Youth is King.

                Learning is Fun.

                Teaching is a Reward.

                Knowledge is Power.

                Truth is Freedom.

                Order out of Chaos.

          • Oops, wish there were ways to edit our own comments. :sigh:

            In the first line “through” should be “throw.”

  10. WEEKLY ADDRESS: President Obama: Washington Republicans “Rewarding Corporations That Create Jobs and Profits Overseas”

    WASHINGTON – In this week’s address, President Obama laid out a policy agenda that would strengthen our economy and create jobs right here in America by offering tax incentives to businesses that hire new employees, making the research and experimentation tax credit permanent and providing a tax cut for clean energy manufacturing. The President also wants to close tax loopholes worth billions of dollars that encourage companies to invest in overseas, while Republicans in the House have voted 11 times in just the last four years to keep those loopholes open.

    Remarks of President Barack Obama
    As prepared for delivery
    Saturday, October 16, 2010
    Washington, DC

    After a decade of hardship for middle class families, and a recession that wiped away millions of jobs, we are in the middle of a tough fight to rebuild this economy and put folks back to work.

    Winning this fight will not depend on government alone. It will depend on the innovation of American entrepreneurs; on the drive of American small business owners; on the skills and talents of American workers. These are the people who will help us grow our economy and create jobs.

    But government still has an important responsibility. And that’s to create an environment in which someone can raise capital to start a new company; where a business can get a loan to expand; where ingenuity is prized and folks are rewarded for their hard work.

    That’s why I fought so hard to pass a jobs bill to cut taxes and make more loans available for entrepreneurs. It eliminated the capital gains taxes for key investments in small businesses. It increased the deduction to defray the costs of starting a company. And it’s freeing up credit for folks who need it. In fact, in just the first two weeks since I signed the bill, thousands of business owners have been able to get new loans through the SBA.

    But we need to do more. So I’ve proposed additional steps to grow the economy and spur hiring by businesses across America. Now, one of the keys to job creation is to encourage companies to invest more in the United States. But for years, our tax code has actually given billions of dollars in tax breaks that encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other countries.

    I want to close these tax loopholes. Instead, I want to give every business in America a tax break so they can write off the cost of all new equipment they buy next year. That’s going to make it easier for folks to expand and hire new people. I want to make the research and experimentation tax credit permanent. Because promoting new ideas and technologies is how we’ll create jobs and retain our edge as the world’s engine of discovery and innovation. And I want to provide a tax cut for clean energy manufacturing right here in America. Because that’s how we’ll lead the world in this growing industry.

    These are commonsense ideas. When more things are made in America, more families make it in America; more jobs are created in America; more businesses thrive in America. But Republicans in Washington have consistently fought to keep these corporate loopholes open. Over the last four years alone, Republicans in the House voted 11 times to continue rewarding corporations that create jobs and profits overseas – a policy that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

    That doesn’t make a lot sense. It doesn’t make sense for American workers, American businesses, or America’s economy. A lot of companies that do business internationally make an important contribution to our economy here at home. That’s a good thing. But there is no reason why our tax code should actively reward them for creating jobs overseas. Instead, we should be using our tax dollars to reward companies that create jobs and businesses within our borders.

    We should give tax breaks to American small businesses and manufacturers. We should reward the people who are helping us lead in the industries of the future, like clean energy. That’s how we’ll ensure that American innovation and ingenuity are what drive the next century. That’s how we’ll put our people back to work and lead the global economy. And that’s what I’ll be fighting for in the coming months.

    Thank you.

    • you can already write off the cost of new equipment. Smoke and mirrors.

      • When I said, “I want to give every business in America a tax break so they can write off the cost of all new equipment they buy next year.”

        What I meant was this was not, uh, uh, that is, uh, ahm, this is not one of those tax loopholes that we are going to close this year. We’ll ensure that American innovation and ingenuity are used to address the tax code, and the fat cats on wall street (that don’t contribute to my agenda) will be made to pay their fair share. All loopholes for the Koch brothers and their anti-progress cohorts will be made to pay.

        I will also be addressing diversive terms such as “smoke and mirrors”, which when used in any context criticizing any of the comments I have made are clearly inaccurate, and possibly un-patriotic. Now I know what you are going to say, 1st amendment and freedom of speech, and I couldn’t agree more. We will not be limiting such hateful speech, just considering the cost of refuting such statements, we will be applying a progressive tax on people who use such language whenever they talk about me or my agenda.

        Thank you.

    • Interesting. I did a search for Bush weekly radio addresses, and the first several came back Obama. The first Bush address was a negative hit piece.,_2009

    • Contrast, May 3, 2008

      THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week, the Commerce Department reported that GDP grew at an annual rate of six-tenths of a percent in the first quarter. This rate of growth is not nearly as high as we would like. And after a record 52 months of uninterrupted job growth, April was the fourth month in a row in which our economy lost jobs, although the unemployment rate dropped to five percent.

      My Administration has been clear and candid on the state of the economy. We saw the economic slowdown coming, we were up front about these concerns with the American people, and we’ve been taking decisive action.

      In February, I signed an economic growth package to put more than $150 billion back into the hands of millions of American families, workers, and businesses. This week, the main piece of that package began being implemented, as nearly 7.7 million Americans received their tax rebates electronically. Next week, the Treasury Department will begin mailing checks to millions more across the country. And by this summer, it expects to have sent rebates to more than 130 million American households. These rebates will deliver up to $600 per person, $1,200 per couple, and $300 per child.

      This package will help American families increase their purchasing power and help offset the high prices that we’re seeing at the gas pump and the grocery store. It will also provide tax incentives for American businesses to invest in their companies, which will help create jobs. Most economic experts predict that the stimulus will have a positive effect on the economy in this quarter and even a greater impact in the next. And Americans should have confidence in the long-term outlook for our economy.

      While getting more money back in the hands of Americans is a good start, there are several additional steps that Congress needs to take to ease the burdens of an uncertain economy. Americans are concerned about energy prices. To increase our domestic energy supply, Congress needs to allow environmentally safe energy exploration in northern Alaska, expand America’s refining capacity, and clear away obstacles to the use of clean, safe nuclear power.

      Americans are concerned about rising food prices. Yet, despite this growing pressure on Americans’ pocketbooks, Congress is considering a massive farm bill. Instead, they should pass a fiscally responsible bill.

      Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow state housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans.

      Americans are concerned about their tax bills. With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about the Federal government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. So Congress should eliminate this uncertainty and make the tax relief we passed permanent.

      America is now facing a tough economic period, but our long-term outlook remains strong. This week we saw evidence that our economy is continuing to grow in the face of challenges. This should come as no surprise. No temporary setbacks can hold back the most powerful force in our economy — the ingenuity of the American people. Because of your hard work and dedication, I am confident that we will weather this rough period and emerge stronger than ever.

      Thank you for listening.

  11. Hi Ya’ll 🙂

    Short break from the woods to reload. One deer already canned, with more to come.

    For those who will vote with expectations that things will change, I offer this article:

    The Politician
    October 18, 2010 by Bob Livingston

    “You have a choice between the natural stability of gold and the honesty and intelligence of the members of government. And with all due respect for those gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, vote for gold.” –George Bernard Shaw.

    I have written to you in the past that we must know the mind of government or pay a huge price and perhaps pay with our lives. Ask the people of World War II Germany.

    They didn’t think that the National Socialists would be too bad. Then they thought that things would get better. Then they lost everything, and many lost their lives.

    The U.S. today is a fascist state no different from Nazi Germany. The only thing missing is the swastika and the jackboots. American fascism is far advanced from the German National Socialists.

    The State has had many years to build on the Nazi state. The machinery is fine tuned and the propaganda is far, far advanced over Herr Goebbels. This means that American fascism can advance its agenda much further without detection.

    But our subject today is the politician. Moreover it is about the mentality of the politician/bureaucrat and the fringe big business and the investment bankers. The point is, if we know the mind of the politician, we know all the above. They are all in “the club.”

    Right off purge the thought that “your elected representatives” are yours. They belong to the government. The government owns them and the government pays them. They don’t vote for you. They vote for the government.

    One thing here, we are talking about politicians, not statesmen. Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the only statesman in Washington as far as I know.

    What we’re about to do is describe and define the mentality of the American politician. We will profile them so that in the future we can read, decipher and know their minds.

    Of course, it really is simple. If we believe the opposite of what they say (as I have taught my children) we will be on terra firma and we can know their Ponzi mentality and their despicable demeanor.

    Politicians, bureaucrats, et al are wordsmiths. They twist words that sound good to us but lead to opposite conclusions. This semantic trickery is used in everything and in every proposed legislation.

    Many are lawyers, and doublethink legalese is their forte. Their political life is all about deception. This is their cover so that they hide the fact that they work for the government.

    I should now go back to explain the source of this evil stealth empire with moral rot that has become endemic. The source of this crescendo of total moral breakdown is the paper money syndrome.

    Paper money fiat is directly the foundation of Machiavellian mentality. Politicians, et al have a defective gene which draws them toward politics and they feed on fiat no different from a cow feeding on grass. The politicians’ fiat mentality can be described as a parasite that attracts other parasites of like mind.

    The fiat (paper money) mentality is rot and decay that attracts likes because they can’t survive independently as creators of wealth. They are destroyers and consumers of wealth. They love the politics of envy, they are the epitome of greed, selfishness, laziness and physical dependence on authoritarianism. They are vipers who eat their young. A police state is their ultimate dream.

    They protect the power elite and they want power over the people at the people’s expense. They want the world in a concentration camp. They harbor a perfect hate for humanity and they would love the Gestapo. You remember, of course, that they almost unanimously passed (rubber stamped) the Homeland Security Act and the USA PATRIOT Act which police the American people.

    They have not objected to turning America into a national concentration camp.

    Politicians don’t know the truth from a lie and they live it. They live and breathe deception. The rule of law is for the peasants. Force should be used along with the mass murder of war if necessary. Tyranny is a prerogative of power.

    Politicians want the political state in which they have the status of untouchables. Yes, politicians have the same psyche and privilege the world over, but at this point in history greed is more contained outside the U.S.

    Politicians want to regulate everybody who is not in “the club.” They act as if they despise the people and reserve for themselves privilege. They are perpetually embittered at the producers and creators of wealth. They want to pile on horrendous taxes as perfectly wished by the bureaucracy.

    They justify everything in their behalf. They are the frontline of a vindictive power elite culture, the worst in world history. Not a politician alive can understand that their orgy of oppression of the public and prestige and privilege for themselves is a house of cards built upon the quicksand of fiat money. They couldn’t possibly care about the generations yet unborn.

    The truth is anathema!

    Double jeopardy is a cruel joke. Incarceration without charge and trial is unannounced and the system drunk on the blood of the unsuspecting public will not admit it.

    U.S. courts and Federal judges (U.S. prosecuting attorneys) have become Star Chambers. U.S. citizens cannot file criminal charges in the Federal system. The only judges to ever get prosecuted are the few who rule for the people and the Constitution.

    More people are arrested and in jail in the U.S. than in the rest of the world which doesn’t have habeas corpus. Bush negated habeas corpus and it was reinstated for public consumption.

    Everything in the U.S. is for sale. When will Americans ever discover that the foxes are in charge of the henhouse and that politicians are in secret league with the system like a wolf pack devouring the population?

    The public has been trained to think in terms of what is legal and what is illegal. The politicians and their elite bosses operate above the law and outside the law. They place themselves outside the law, just as in Obamacare they placed themselves outside their health legislation. This is contempt for the people.

    Their Achilles heel is that they all have a paper money mentality, the paper money syndrome. They are infected with rot which makes them believe that this inflated myth will go on forever with perfect bliss for themselves with privilege.

    Politicians hate gold because their whole purpose is to stay in office, and fiat paper money is perfect for them. Have you ever heard any politician or bureaucrat mention gold in a positive way… other than Paul?

    But thank God some Americans are waking up. They can see that higher and higher prices translate into cheaper paper money. No problem to see who loses in the paper money game.

    At least some Americans are beginning to see that the Emperor has no clothes and that they see a culture within a culture. Obama a Muslim? The five pointed red star is an esoteric Muslim Order. Obama is not alone. Follow the trail of the serpent!

    Politicians, bureaucrats, judges and their friends are untouchables. They are a parasite culture which produces nothing but organized crime at the highest levels.

    Parasites in time consume their host. This is an organic phenomena that applies to criminal politics.

    The saturation point is coming and it can’t be stopped. Sociopathic political behavior self destructs over time. Satan rends himself. Ethics and decency in politics are anathema. A politician is not a statesman and a statesman is not a politician.

    Politics is power and politics creates predators. Money has surpassed self worth and dignity. Politics in America is incest with the government. “Just show me the money.”

    Do we hear politicians warning Americans that the money creators (quantitative easing) are destroying their savings, their retirement and their purchasing power, as well as that of future generations?

    The system is now beyond resolution. We are in the final stages of economic, social and moral collapse.

    Investment banks have made billions while destroying America. They create financial products that are designed to fail, market them to the unsuspecting and then take short positions against them. They are a show-me-the-money culture and the system protects them in their financial crimes. The giant real estate collapse is their work.

    The word “conspiracy” is an establishment word to imprison multitudes of non-violent people (who are not in favor of the power structure) and confiscate their property outright without due process and under a feigned color of law. The politicians know this.

    This is no different from the old Star Chamber motivated by the word “treason” (today it is “conspiracy.”) Then came the thumb screw and the rack to extract confession and an excuse to hang the victim. So what’s the difference today?

    There are clearly privileged classes in America; those in political power backed by illegal police power. They act against the people outside the law and the Constitution. My friends, it has become so obvious.

    While we slept the political regime has shifted the “burden of proof” to the defendant. One is entrapped, charged and prosecuted under Merchant Law without his knowledge. This is the new democracy. Democracy is rule of the rabble by the elite.

    The possibility of reform has passed. The point of saturation of the full measure of disgust is near. Sparks can trigger revolution.

    Morality has collapsed. Politicians, Federal judges and prosecutors will eat their young for fiat money, power and aggrandizement. They all have a lawyer Ponzi mentality.

    Scripture condemns scribes, lawyers and hypocrites: “Woe unto you scribes, Pharisees, and hypocrites…”Mat. 23.13, 27; Luke11.42,44.

    Shakespeare in King Henry VI, pt ii, Act IV Scene 2, line 72: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

    Corporations have no rights, therefore corporate officers have no rights. A corporate person can be imprisoned with no limit, even without charge or habeas corpus, denied the right to appeal, denied counsel, denied the use of one’s own funds for defense or other purposes. The corporate officer can then be left in jail to die because he worked for a corporation. Next will be torture and denial of medical care.

    John Stuart Mills wrote in his On Liberty in 1859, “let us not flatter ourselves that we are yet free from the stain of legal persecution.” Oxford World Classics pp 34, 1998 edition.

    The soul of America has been penetrated with toxic greed. Political rigor mortis is everywhere. The State is collapsing of its own corruption.

    Politicians beware, you “elected” vipers!



  12. “Public Choice” doctrine rips at France.

    Imagine – merely increasing the retirement age by 2 years to 62 ….

    Imagine – what cutting such benefits would do.

  13. Charlie, this guy seems to me like he’d be related to you

    Italian President from New Jersey:

  14. The following is the opening paragraph of the charter of an organization I am currently researching.Without doing any research of your own and just basing your opinion upon reading this first paragraph I would love to hear some of your ideas as to this organizations purpose please.It seems to me like some think tank of altruistic nature is attempting to spread their doctrine worldwide to persuade others to conform to their ideals through manipulative thought coercion.


    “In every society, there is an invisible, ‘vital’ space.It lies between the individual and the state, between the immediate responsibilities facing each individual and the institutional responsibilities of the government.It is a place where people come together and act for the greater good.And it is open to everyone, from every sector of society.”

    • Texaschem,

      Between the individual and Government exists an invisible space where the individual may unknowingly become entangled in a web of half-lies and deceit, and cause the enslavement of himself and his children.

      There exists no intermediate place between government and the individual, no place between slavery and freedom, no place between civilization and savagery.

      To be in one place completely removes you from the other.

      The choice is yours to make.

      • At last!

        BF and I agree upon something!

        I had already come to the same conclusion as you, especially after I looked at the organizations book reading recommendations.

        Philosophy needs to be taught in our public schools else the upcoming generations of society are going to be more of a mindless sheep than what they already are.

  15. lurking

  16. Nine Reasons the Democrats will Retain Control of the House

    A well done article that reveals the thinking and efforts of political insiders. This will make your stomachs tighten.


    The ‘Move Your Corporate Headquarters Offshore’ Act
    By Howard Richman, Raymond Richman, and Jesse Richman
    In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Obama said, “There is no reason why our tax code should actively reward [American corporations] for creating jobs overseas. Instead, we should be using our tax dollars to reward companies that create jobs and businesses within our borders.”

    He was promoting a bill with a good title, the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. But a more accurate name would be the Move Your Corporate Headquarters Offshore Act, since its main effect would be to cause corporate headquarters to leave the United States.

    Fortunately, this bill was filibustered on September 28 by a unanimous vote of Senate Republicans joined by Senators Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Ben Nelson, and Mark Warner. Following is an official summary of the bill:

    Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act – Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) exempt from employment taxes for a 24-month period employers who hire a employee who replaces another employee who is not a citizen or permanent resident of the United States and who performs similar duties overseas; (2) deny any tax deduction, deduction for loss, or tax credit for the cost of an American jobs offshoring transaction (defined as any transaction in which a taxpayer reduces or eliminates the operation of a trade or business in connection with the start-up or expansion of such trade or business outside the United States); and (3) eliminate the deferral of tax on income of a controlled foreign corporation attributable to property imported into the United States by such corporation or a related person, except for property exported before substantial use in the United States and for agricultural commodities not grown in the United States in commercially marketable quantities.

    The first item violates the rules of the World Trade Organization as a wage subsidy directly related to foreign trade. The second is unlikely to have any economic effect since it is more or less the law currently. And the third would cause those corporations affected to consider moving their headquarters to an overseas location, as some have already done to escape paying the difference between American taxes and foreign taxes to the American government on income earned abroad. With American corporate income taxes the second-highest in the world, as shown in the chart below, that difference can be significant.

  18. This is just so corrupt, I want to tar and feather someone-someone should go to jail.

    Lawsuit: CPS pushing Democrats

    By Kimball Perry • • October 18, 2010

    Three van loads of Hughes High students were taken last week – during school hours – to vote and given sample ballots only for Democratic candidates and then taken for ice cream, a Monday lawsuit alleges.

    The complaint was made by Thomas Brinkman Jr., a Republican candidate for Hamilton County auditor, and the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes against Cincinnati Public Schools.

    “They plan to bring four more high schools (to vote) this week,” Christopher Finney, COAST attorney, said Monday after filing the suit.

    It seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent school officials from participating or helping students participate in partisan politics during school hours or with school property or employees involved.

    But the school district’s lawyer denies any school connection.

    “No CPS personnel engaged in the promotion of candidates or any political party,” CPS attorney Mark Stepaniak noted in a written release.

    CPS spokeswoman Janet Walsh said taking students on school time to vote has been done before. “It has to be scrupulously nonpartisan,” Walsh said.

    Stepaniak said church vans were volunteered to drive students to vote.

    The suit alleges three van loads of Hughes High students arrived at the Downtown Board of Elections offices at 1 p.m. Wednesday, supervised by a school employee. School lets out at 3:15 p.m.

    When they got out of the vans, the students, the suit alleges, also were accompanied by adults who appeared to be campaign workers or supporters for U.S. Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-West Price Hill, the congressman being challenged this fall by Steve Chabot. When the students got out of the vans, the suit alleges they were given sample ballots containing only Democratic candidates.

    “We want these kids to vote,” Finney said. “I’m not sure them being bussed during the school day is a good thing, but that’s not the thrust of the suit.

    “If they had fair sample ballots or no sample ballots it would be different.”

    The suit alleges those actions violated a 2002 agreement between CPS and COAST where the school agreed it wouldn’t allow school property or employees to be used for “advocating the election or defeat of candidates for public office.”

    On Monday, Finney asked Common Pleas Court Judge Beth Myers to hear his request for a temporary restraining order that was put on hold after the attorneys for the two sides met in court briefly, talked and then left.

    Finney said if the issue isn’t resolved, he’ll go back to court.

    • Damn, those SOBs aren’t even subtle about it anymore!

    • There will be more corruption this election than we’ve ever seen before. Lost military ballots, broken down machines, dead people voting, you name it. And that’s not even including the challenges, ala Franken, Secy of State/Soros debacle, that we’ll see repeated in many states.

      • At least some of those military ballots will arrive and can be tracked. The military post offices give out a receipt with the tracking number when you mail your ballot. What happens when the ballot is counted is another matter. Its not the votes that count, its who counts the votes that counts!

  19. USWeapon,
    The reason you’re having a hard time understanding this is because you still believe “Corporations”, “People who earn over $250,000”, and “Small Businesses” are all the same thing. They’re not.

    You won’t understand this until you understand the differences between the three.

  20. It’s sad that there’s so many articles on the same topic, yet none seem to correlate to each other. We know one thing, the cost of living in the US isn’t getting any cheaper, but no article seems to have any valid idea of resolving this issue. We can only hope that in November the incoming party will be able to fix some of the liberal’s spending mess.

  21. CandyStone66 says:

    a flat tax is needed for all, individuals & business’ alike, no forms to fill out, no tax code to decipher, no loop holes for ANYONE – keep it at (for example) 11% until the people vote to increase or decrease the % – then the government and the citizens can begin to live within their means

%d bloggers like this: